V.r.t j'i'-B :·ι;Μ Dàj&.'onrholok

Cons e oral.] on.
f.iee. page !04J

THE QUESTION
OF

ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
DISCUSSED.

BY

E. E. ESTCOURT, M.A. F.S.A.
CANON OF ST. CHAD’S CATHEDRAL, BIRMINGHAM.

WITH AN APPENDIX OF ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
AND FA CSIMILES.

London- Turns’ and

oates,

PORTMAN STREET AND PATERNOSTER ROW.

X873·

C< !

'Λ" Ο

PREFACE.
■-------- ♦—

The present Work was commenced more than ten years
ago, and is now published in deference to advice from
those whose opinions not only ought to weigh with the
Writer, but also promise safe guidance. The importance
of the subject, affecting deeply the position of so con­
siderable a body as that of the Anglican communion ;
the interest which for three centuries has been felt in
it on both sides, and which is rather increasing than di­
minishing ; the difficulties which confessedly surround it ;
the difference of opinion known to prevail among Catho­
lic writers and theologians on more than one of the points
at issue;—all lead to the belief that any attempt to con­
tribute towards a solution of the question, if made in a
spirit of fairness towards opponents and of submission to
the Church, would not be unwelcome.
Perhaps an apology is due from the Writer to Catholic
readers for having taken a course so different from that
pursued by nearly all those who have preceded him.
The difference, however, relates only to certain alleged
facts of history, and the evidence commonly adduced for
or against them, and does not affect any theological con­
clusions. And it would be generally agreed that the
events connected with the commencement of the Anglican

vi

Preface.

hierarchy form an episode in the controversy which, what­
ever judgment is formed of those circumstances, or how­
ever engrossing may be the topics respecting them, must
still leave several important questions to be dealt with
quite independently of any inferences drawn from them.
With regard to those events as alleged on the Anglican
side; in the earlier stages of the controversy, the evidence
produced in proof of their having taken place was all de­
rived from sources accessible only to Anglican partisans ;
and it was therefore natural for Catholics to regard docu­
ments so produced with great suspicion, and to criticise
them with extreme minuteness. In raising objections also,
Catholic writers were obliged to content themselves with
evidence at second-hand, not always trustworthy. And
sometimes they objected to a class of documents in globo,
on the ground of mere general assertions, without show­
ing any—even the most remote—connection between the
circumstances of suspicion and the documents in question.
But now that the Public Records and the great Libraries
are open to every one, it seems time to adopt a different
style of argument,—to give up objections that are shown
to be frivolous,—to admit evidence that would be received
as sufficient in the discussion of any other subject,—and
to avoid questioning the authenticity of documents with­
out reasonable grounds, and such as attach in some
special manner to the particular documents under review.
Catholics have more to gain than to lose by historical in­
vestigation, as shown by the experience of the last fifty
years, ever since Dr. Lingard led the way ; and it is
scarcely prudent to throw discredit on witnesses whom
we may have occasion at another time to produce on our
side. Whether the Writer has been successful in acting
on such a view is left to be judged by the result ; though

Preface.

vi i

it must be acknowledged that he would not have ventured
on taking so independent a course in public but for the
advice and assistance of the Rev. W. Waterworth, S.J.,
and the Rev. Joseph Stevenson, to both of whom he is
under the greatest obligations, for the patience with which
they have read the manuscript, and the important infor­
mation they supplied.
He has also to express his respectful acknowledg­
ments to His Grace the Archbishop of Westminster for
the use of two.volumes of the Douay Diary; to the
Right Rev. the Bishops of Newport and Shrewsbury for
the loan of books and valuable information on theological
points ; to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Birmingham for
constant encouragement and counsel throughout the work;
to the Very Rev. Provost Neve, D.D., for obtaining the
copy of the Abyssinian Decree and other important docu­
ments ; to the Very Rev. Canon Northcote, D.D., for the
use of several books and his assistance through the whole
progress of the undertaking ; to the Very Rev. Canon
Hedley, O.S.B., for his advice in several difficult questions
and extracts from theologians; to the Very Rev. H.
O’Callaghan, D.D., for extracts from the Archives of the
English College at Rome; to the Rev. J. Clare, S.J., for
the loan of a valuable work ; to the Very Rev. the Prior
and Community of St. Edmund’s College, Douai, for
their great kindness in furthering researches in the Biblio­
thèque Publique of that town, and especially to the Rev.
Austin O’Neill, O.S.B., for copying several documents
and correcting the press ; to the Rev. R. Palmer, Ord.
Præd., for his kind assistance in making searches at the
Public Record Office ; to J. R. Hope Scott, Esq., CXC.,
for his opinion on legal points ; to David Lewis, Esq., for
the loan of several works, and the use of his manuscript

j.
I

■

L

-

viii

*

1>

v 4lià Z'T

w

Preface.

notes ; to G. D. Ryder, Esq., for valuable information ;
to J. V. Harting, Esq., F.S.A., for kindly revising several
parts treating of legal questions ; to the Rev. G. Porter,
S.J., for a certified copy of the Decree of the S.C. of the
Inquisition in Gordon’s case ; and to A. L. Phillipps de
Lisle, Esq., for the Joan of Vivant’s work.
There are two other persons whose names ought to
be mentioned with grateful respect, though it is unhappily
too late to offer them any tribute of acknowledgment for
their kind assistance, as they are beyond the reach of con­
troversy. One is the late Monsignor Bel, V.A. of Abys­
sinia; and the other, Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, only lately
taken away from amongst us, to the great sorrow of all
his friends.
May their souls find in the Everlasting
Light the fruition of all they believed and longed for on
the earth !
During the time that the Work has been in prepara­
tion, publications on the subject have appeared from the
Rev. F. G. Lee, D.C.L., and the Rev. T. J. Bailey. And
as it was in great part written before their appearance, it
is possible that sometimes they are not referred to in
places where the points under discussion are treated of by
them.
It would be a grave omission not to acknowledge the
advantages derived from the London Library. In the
prosecution of a work such as the present, where books
of reference and of standard character are required, the
ample stores to be found there in every department of
literature, and the liberal terms on which the use of them
is granted, afford assistance of the utmost value and im­
portance.

APPROBATIO.
Ex commissione Ulmi, et Rmi. Dni. D. Gulielmi Bernardi
Episcopi Birminghamien. librum cui titulus The Question of Angli­
can Ordinations discussed, by E. E. Estcourt, diligenter perlegimus,
et nihil in eo deprehendimus, quod vel sanæ Theologiæ principiis
vel Ecclesiastic® disciplinæ regulis sit contrarium. Monumenta
quædam historica, diu abscondita, nunc primum eruit ; vulgata dis­
cutit, et vera a falsis decernit. Argumentis quoque theologicis,
sanis quidem et solidis, conclusionem defendit. Omnia tamen
summa modestia pertractat, ita ut charitatis jura omnino inviolata
consistant Quapropter librum istum dignum esse censemus, qui
prelo committatur. Datum, die 9 Aprilis 1873.

J. S. Canonicus Northcote.
Gulielmus Waterworth, S.J.
J. C. Canonicus Hedley, O.S.B.
imprimatur.

Gulielmus Bernardus,
Ef. Birminghamien.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTORY.

Statement of the Question—Anglican claim for a recognition of their
Orders by the Catholic Church — Present inquiry intended as an
examination of such a claim—to be conducted on Catholic principles
—the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament of Holy Order assumed
as the basis of the inquiry—Essentials of Ordination—Discussion in
the Council of Trent—General opinion of theologians—Principles
of evidence by which the inquiry will be guided, as far as concerned
with historical facts . ........
CHAPTER II.
ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Catholic doctrine of the priesthood—never questioned within the Church
—Opposition arose from without·—Manichees—Waldenses—Wick­
liffe and Lollards—John Huss—Luther and his followers—Sum­
mary of their teaching on the subject—Bucer and Zuinglius—Canons
of the Council of Trent—English Reformers—Tyndall—Lambert
—Questions on the Sacraments—Cranmcr and Barlow—Compila­
tion of Anglican rite—Queen Mary’s Articles—Secret history of
reconciliation of kingdom—Dispensations granted by Cardinal Pole
—Bonner’s testimonial in favour of Scory—Ordinations conferred
in schism recognised, but pronounced alias ntinzis rite—Cardinal
Pole’s Legatine faculties—two classes mentioned therein with regard
to Holy Orders—cases of Thomas Barlow, Roger Barlow, Matthew
Carewe, and John Gwynne—ditto in diocese of Bath and Wells—
ditto of George Aynsworthe, and George Marsh—Bonner’s Visita­
tion Articles—Parkhurst’s ditto — Hethe Archbishop of York—
objections by Burnet and Elrington—Cases of Latimer, Ridley,
Ferrar, Hooper, and Bradford—Testimony of Gardiner and Bon-

xii

Contents.
CHAPTER TIL
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.
TAG

Queen Elizabeth’s reign—the mere question of fact of comparatively
little importance—William Barlow—his history—his embassies to
Scotland—his election to St. Asaph—to St. David’s—confirmation
—assumed the episcopal style, though only 'elect’—Cromwell’s
warrant—Precedence in House of Lords—Premunire—opinions of
Cranmer and Barlow about consecration—whether favoured by the
King—Discovery of Grant of Temporalities·—published in a defec­
tive form by Mason and the important part suppressed—its form
and effect discussed—Objections—Summary of the case—Parker—
his opinions on consecration—nominated Archbishop—his election
—First Commission—state of embarrassment—Minute with Cecil’s
and Parker’s notes — Second Commission — Dispensing clause—
Kitchen, Hodgekyn, &c.—Consecration at Lambeth—Machyn’s
Diary—Reasons for believing the fact—Bill for ‘making of Bishops’
in Parliament of 1559—The Register—grounds of suspicion—differ­
ence of form—Paper among Foxe’s Mss.—Whether cause for sus­
picion that the present register is not the original — Theological
discussion of effect of Barlow’s non-consecration—Summary of facts
proved, and of alleged facts not proved—Dr. Pusey’s statement
about Chichele—Story of Earl of Nottingham at the Privy Council—
Catholic writers who refer to Parker’s consecration—Bonner’s case
—Harding—Sanders — Stapleton—Anglican writers —Jewell—
Fulke—Pilkington—Whitaker—Hooker—Inferences from them—
Numerous converging probabilities—Testimonies as to Anglican
Orders, how treated in Catholic Church—Process at Rome against
Queen Elizabeth—Allen—Bristow—Parsons—Supplication to King
James I.—List of Anglican clergy reconciled to the Church before
1704, and afterwards ordained—Cases alleged in opposition—Wil­
liam Rainolds—Cressy—Dr. Goffe—Sir H. Trelawney, &c.—Con­
clusion to be drawn from these facts ...... 60

CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.

Anglican position—;Ordination retainer! as a regulation, but not as
essential—Thirty-nine Articles—Cases of Whittingham, Morrison,
and Travers—Rise of High Church School—Opening of the contro­
versy—Nag’s Head story—The four Catholic priests inspecting the
Register at Lambeth—First stage of the controversy—Kellison and
Fitzsimons—Mason—Champneys—Cosin and Prior Robinson—
Gordon’s case—Second stage of controversy —Morinus—Talbot—
Bramhall—Lewgar—Burnet and Prideaux—Courayer—Condemna­
tion of his works at Paris and Rome—Le Quien and Constable—
Present stage of controversy—Archbishop Kenrick—Canon Raynal
—Rev. A. W. Haddan—Canon Williams—Dr. Lee—Review of
the whole.................................................................
147

Contents.

xiii

CHAPTER V.
ANCIENT RITES OF ORDINATION.
PAGE

How far parties agreed—Imposition of hands and prayer sole essentials
—Question at issue, What is to be the prayer ?—Ancient rites con­
sulted—Greek and Oriental rites—Traces of connection between
them in the similarity of prayers used in different rites—Evidence
of antiquity and a common tradition therefrom—Antiquity of Latin
rite—-Points wherein all agree—The grace of Holy Order—Catho­
lic doctrine of sacramental character — maintained also by Ang,
licans—Decree of S.C. of the Inquisition in the case of Abyssinian
ordinations in 1704 and i860—Effect of this Decree on the argu­
ment—Decision of S.C. of the Council as related by Pope Benedict
XIV........................................................................................................ 171
CHAPTER VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE ANGLICAN RITE IN REFERENCE TO THE
SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDER.

Theological principles involved—Courayer’s principle examined—Prin­
ciples stated by various theologians with regard to the forms of
sacraments—Doctrine of Book of Common Prayer on sacramental
grace—Confirmation—Anglican rite of ordination—its Lutheranism
—the preface—compared with the ancient rite, so as to show the
alterations, with their effect and intention—Exclude the idea of sa­
cramental grace—Catholic authorities—Gregory Martin—Broughton
—Franciscus a Sancta Clara—Leander a Sancto Martino—Arch­
bishop Kenrick—Objections answered—Anglican writers—Jewell
—Whitgift—Hooker—Andrews—Jeremy Taylor—Bramhall—Rev.
Mackenzie Walcott—Questions addressed to the Ordinandi and
Bishop-elect—Objections answered—Summary of argument . .194
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLICAN RITE IN REFERENCE TO THE HOLY SACRIFICE
OF THE EUCHARIST.

Importance of this question—Former modes of argument—Decisions
of the Church in reference to the delivery of the chalice with the
formula Accipe potestatem, &c.—Considered practically essential—
Whether would this rule involve Anglican rite or not ?—Lutheran
objections to this formula—The Bishop of Brandenburg—Arch­
bishop Herman of Cologne — Anglican rite—Alterations from the
ancient rite on this point—Thirty-first Article—Meaning of word
‘ priest’ in Book of Common Prayer—Examination of same Book
with regard to doctrine of Holy Eucharist—Canon of the Mass—
Luther’s tenets as to Holy Sacrifice and Real Presence—English
Reformers—their tenets derived from Wickliffe—Cranmer—Lati­
mer—Coverdale—Ridley—Order of Communion—Book of 1549—
Comparison of it with the Sarum Missal—Further changes—Bucer

XIV

Contents.

— Peter Martyr—Hooper — Grindall—Jewell—Catholic doctrines
denied in the Book of Common Prayer—Objections on Anglican
side—Mr. Haddan—Replies to them—Declaration of doctrine of
Holy Sacrifice drawn up for the Council of Trent
.
.
. 2go

CHAPTER VIII.
POPE PIUS IV. AND THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

Anglican story of the Pope’s offer to Queen Elizabeth—A parallel to
the Nag’s Head story—Evidence for it—Coke—Andrews—Abbot—
Caftiden—Letter of the Pope—Fuller·—Heylin—Twysden—Bartho­
lomew Clerke—Bull—Evidence on the other side—Parsons—Fulke
—Percivall Wybornc—The real facts as far as ascertained—Carne’s
despatches—John Shercs’information—Letter of the Abbate di San
Salute (Vincenzio Parpaglia) — The Nuncio not admitted into the
realm, and the Pope’s letter never delivered — Reasons for dis­
believing the alleged offer from the Pope—Catholics said to have
frequented Protestant churches—Statement in Parliament proving
the contrary
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'354

CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUSION.

Review of the argument—Conclusion arrived at—Summary of reasons
for it—Objections answered — Dr. Newman’s argument—The tu
quoque replies to it inapplicable—Do Anglicans in general appre­
ciate the real importance of the question ?—Involves the whole doc­
trine of sacramental grace . .
.
.
.
.
.
· 37t
Additional Notes
.........
Errata............................................................................................
.

3g0
18,

APPENDIX.
NO.

1. Decision of S.C. of the Council respecting the Ordination of
a priest, as related by Pope Benedict XIV.
11. Lutheran manifestoes on the subject of Ordination
,
.
hl Opinion of Zuinglius on the subject of Holy Order
.
.
iv. Letters Patent granting Barlow the temporalities of the see of
St. David’s, 26th April, 28 Henry VIII., 1536
.
.
v. Letter from Barlow to Cromwell, 23d May 1536 .
.
.
vi. Warrant from Sir Thomas Cromwell to Sir Bryan Tuke to
pay Clarenceux King-at-Arms his ‘ dietts, ’ for attending the
King’s Ambassadors to Scotland, 12th June 1536 .
.

j
jx
xviii
xjx
xxiii

xxjv

Contents.

xv

NO.

PAGE

*vi.
VII.
vni.
IX.

Extracts from the Journals of the House of Lords .
.
xxv
Register of Ridley’s consecration, 3d Sept. 1547 .
.
xxvi
Register of Ferrar’s consecration, 9th Sept. 1548 .
.
xxvii
Note of an Inquisition as to the vacancies of the bishopric
of St. David’s, and the disposal of the temporalities dur­
ing the same, xytli April 1550 .....
xxviii
Minutes of Privy Council committing Hethe Bishop of
Worcester to prison for refusing to subscribe the Book of
making of Bishops, &c., zzd Sept. 1551
.
.
.
xxjx
Letter from Henry Pyning to Cardinal Pole, London, 19th
Sept. 1553
.
.
.
·
.
.
.
.
xxxi
Letter from Cardinal Pole to Pope Julius III., 30th Sept.
*553
....................................................................... ..........
xxxiv
Dispensation from Cardinal Pole to Robert Wharton, called
Bishop of St. Asaph, White, Bourne, Brookes, Cotes,
Morgan, and Griffith, Bishops designate, 17th March
1554
.........
xxxvi
Letter from Goldwell to Thornden Bishop of Dover, i6th
June 1554
.
............................................................. xxxviii
Dispensations from Cardinal Pole to Thomas Thirlby, called
Bishop of Norwich, 19th Aug. 1554, and to Tunstall and
other Bishops ........
xl
Extract from Gardiner’s sermon, 2d Dec. 1554
.
,
xliii
Intelligence sent from England to Rome, 28th Jan. 1555 .
xliv
Faculties granted to the Bishops by Cardinal Pole, 29th
Jan. 1555..................................................................................xlvi
Dispensation from Cardinal Pole to John Hodgekyn, of the
Order of Preachers, 27th March 1555
...
li
Dispensation from Rome to Hethe Archbishop of York,
30th Oct. 1555
.
.
·
.
.
·
.
liii
Confession of George Aynsworthe, ad Oct. 1555
.
.
lv
Dispensations from Cardinal Pole to Thomas Barlow, Roger
Barlow, John Gwynne, and Matthewe. Carewe, 31st
May 1557, &c..............................................................
lv
Letter from Vincenzio Parpaglia, Abbate di San Salute, to
the Bishop of Vercelli, Nuncio at Venice, 8th Sept.
1560........................................................................................... Iviii
Extracts from the Process against Queen Elizabeth, and the
Sentence of Pope Pius V. thereon decreed, 6th Feb.
1570
................................................................................. lix
Extracts from the first and second volumes of the Diarium
of the English College at Douay, 1577-1601
.
.
Ixii
Examination of John Chapman, Seminary priest, 7th Aug.
1582
.
....................................................................... Ixvi
Confession of John Vyvyan, Seminary priest, 8th May 1585
Ixxi
Letter from Sir Francis Knollys to Sir Francis Walsingham,
20th March 1588............................................................
Ixxii
Extracts from the Archives of the English College at Rome,
1606-1704
........
Ixxiii

X.

xi.
XII.
XIII.

XIV.

xv.

xvi.
xvii.
xviii.
♦xvm.
xix.

xx.
XXI.

xxii.

xxiii.

xxiv.

xxv.
xxvi.
xxvii.
xxviii.

xvi

Contents.
NO.

XXIX.
XXX.

XXXI.
XXXII.
XXXIII.

XXXIV.

XXXV.
XXXVI.

PAGE

Mandate of the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris condemning
Courayer’s works, 21st August 1717
.... Ixxv
Extracts from Censure of French Bishops on propositions
extracted from Courayer’s works, aid Aug. 1727
Ixxvii
Extracts from Pastoral Instruction of the Cardinal Arch­
bishop of Paris on the same, 31st Oct. 1737 .
Ixxxv
Brief of Pope Benedict XIII. condemning Courayer’s works,
25th June 1728...................................................................
xcv
Comparison of parallel passages in the Greek and Oriental
forms of Ordination...............................................'
xcviii
Decree of the S.C. of the Inquisition on the Ordinations of
the Monophysites in Abyssinia, 9th May i860, reciting
a former Decree of 9th April 1704
cviii
Rite of conferring Sacred Orders among the Monophysites
in Abyssinia
........
exi
Decree of S. C. of the Inquisition in the case of John Clement
Gordon, j 7th April 1704 ......
cxv

FACSIMILES.
Minute of proceedings necessary for the Consecration of an Arch­
bishop or Bishop ; with Notes in Cecil’s and Parker’s handwriting,
1559
···...·. 7a face page
86
Part of the draft of the Letters Patent for Parker’s Consecration, with
the autograph signatures of the Civilians, 1559 . To face page
88
Memorandum in a contemporary handwriting of Parker’s Conse­
cration.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Frontispiece

ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS.

CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTORY.

The subject of Anglican Orders is one on which not
much can be said that has not been said before. The
present undertaking aims less at bringing forward what
is new, than at working up the materials already col­
lected. The facts of the question are notorious, and the
general principles have been laid down by former writers.
A more detailed application of those principles is all that
is aimed at or required. At the same time the present
age affords facilities for historical investigation that are
sure to bring to light matters of importance which have
not been noticed before.
Anglican writers, from Mason and Cosin downwards,
have for the most part taken up this question in a tone
of personal offence, as if Catholics had singled out the
Anglican Church for such an insult without reasonable
grounds, and in an exceptional and invidious manner,
contrary to the principles on which the Church deals in
general with such a question. They have not hesitated
to attribute the real causes of any objection having been
raised to motives of policy or rival jealousy, and they con­
sider themselves entitled to use a warmth of tone and in­
dignation such as ‘ a prince of this world might express at
B

'2

A nglican Ordinations.

a doubt thrown on his legitimacy.’1 Certainly they may
be excused for feeling strongly ; but it is unfortunate for
them that they should feel so secure in their position, like
‘a prince of this world’ whose rank and title have been
publicly admitted without question. For this feeling of
security leads them to rest on assumptions that ill not
bear examination, and blinds them to all that tells the
other way. Thus they never approach the question as
one bearing on the validity of a sacrament, in which the
maxim of the Church is, that the tutior pars must be fol­
lowed in preference to any other course.
But the Anglican advocates of the cause have lately
taken a step in advance. The ground now assumed in
defence of their ordinations is not merely a justification of
themselves in their own position, but a claim for a recog­
nition of their orders by the Catholic Church. It is boldly
asserted that ‘ there can be no reasonable doubt that An­
glican clergymen are validly ordained.’2 And Dr. Pusey
to the same effect has written: ‘There is absolutely no
doubt that our succession is valid, that our Bishops are
the successors of those through whom God planted the
gospel here ; and so our Church is the appointed channel
of God’s gifts, and the instrument of salvation for us.’
It is true that several Anglican writers, as Cosin,
Burnet, Prideaux, and Elrington, have based their argu­
ments on what they profess and suppose to be Catholic
principles. But Burnet, and Palmer following him, fall
back upon the Protestant position of the Thirty-nine Ar­
ticles, that ‘ Every particular or national Church hath
authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or
rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority.’
And the others, while they take up and use some one or
more Catholic principles, disregard or even deny others
of essential importance in the discussion.
1 Dr. Irons, in the Union Review, Nov. 1868, p. 487.
2 Union Review.

Introductory.

3

On the other hand. Catholic controversialists, as
Champneys, Lewgar, and Constable, have argued the
question partly on Protestant grounds, with the view of
being more convincing to their opponents. But this
method was scarcely fair either to their opponents or to
themselves. For they endeavoured to hold the opposite
side bound by the admissions made or arguments used by
preceding writers. It is not fair to consider anyone Pro­
testant, cither in the Anglican Church or out of it, as
responsible for, or obliged to follow or agree with, the
theological statements of any other. These writers there­
fore weaken their line of reasoning by leaving their own
Catholic principles, without finding any other basis to
take their stand on, and without ever coming to a ground
common to them and their opponents.
The claim now advanced is for a recognition of the
validity of Anglican Orders by the Catholic Church, Such
a claim must of course rest on Catholic grounds alone,
and must proceed on the principles by which the Church
is accustomed to judge, and which are laid down in her
Theologians. No other principles could be admitted.
It would be presumptuous in any one to say before­
hand what the judgment of the Holy See on such a
question might be. But it may be permitted to examine
and discuss the grounds on which such pretensions are
put forward. And thus the present work will be an at­
tempt to answer the question : Are there good reasons for
a petition to the Holy See to recognise the validity of
Anglican Ordinations ?
Although this question be discussed solely and en­
tirely on Catholic principles, it does not follow that those
principles are such as arc admitted only by those in com­
munion with the Church. The Holy See would be guided
in its judgment by ordinary rules of Theology, and would
apply to this question the same principles that would be
used in any case that arose within the communion of the

4

Anglican Ordinations.

Church itself. These principles are founded on Holy
Scripture, on Apostolic Tradition, on the Decrees of
Councils, on the Writings of ancient Fathers, on the
most ancient Rituals, and on the practice of the Church
through successive ages. The Church does not claim
any other Priesthood or Episcopate than that which came
down from the beginning. If the Priesthood and Episco­
pate asserted to exist among Anglicans can show a title
to be considered such on these same principles, the
Church would gladly recognise it. But if not, it is con­
demned, not merely as unlike the Catholic Priesthood of
the present day, but as neither like, nor derived from the
Priesthood which began with the Apostles, and which our
Lord founded in His Church.
It will not, then, be necessary to advance any proof of
the doctrine which the Church maintains defide respecting
the Sacrament of Holy Order, as the question is, what
the judgment of the Church herself may be, and therefore
the faith taught by the Church is taken for granted, so
far as this, that Holy Order is a Sacrament, requiring a
certain matter and form, and a right intention on the part
of the Bishop administering it.
Here we come to a difficulty, because the Church has
never defined what the matter and form of this Sacrament
are. It is indeed sometimes maintained that the Council
of Trent has decided this question by the Fourth Canon
De Sacramento Ordinis, declaring, ‘ If any one saith that
by sacred ordination the Holy Ghost is not given ; and
that vainly therefore do the Bishops say, Receive the Holy
Ghost ; let him be anathema.’ But the history of the
Council shows that this Canon was not intended for a
definition as to the sacramental form, for it merely repeats
one of the Articles which had been laid before the Theo­
logians for examination as to whether they were heretical
or not,3 And in the subsequent discussion of the Decrees
3 Le Plat. Mon. Concil. Trident, vol. v. p. 508.

Introductory.

$

proposed on the doctrine of Holy Order, the Cardinal of
Lorraine delivered his opinion to the effect, ‘that in treat­
ing of the essentials of this Sacrament, the matter and
form ought not to be named; not that they are not there,
but because the matter of this Sacrament cannot easily be
determined.’ And he desired to have introduced the men­
tion of the imposition of hands, so frequently spoken of
both in the Old and New Testament. In all these par­
ticulars his suggestions were followed; though, in order
not to define that imposition of hands is a part of the
Sacrament, terms of more general signification were se­
lected, namely, ‘ words and signs,’ as the component parts
necessary for sacred ordination ; yet not to pass over
the imposition of hands in silence, the words of Paul to
Timothy were introduced into the Decree: viz. I admonish
thee that thou stir up the grace of God, 'which is in thee by
the imposition of my hands £ The hesitation of the Council
was no doubt owing to the various and conflicting opinions
that have prevailed on the subject. But on examination
it will be found that the difference is in theory merely,
and has never affected the practice of the Church. With­
out going into a detailed history of the controversy, the
question will here be simply stated, together with the
conclusion which appears to be the general opinion of
Theologians.
First, as to the Diaconate. In the present Roman
Pontifical the rites of conferring the diaconate are as
follows : The Bishop imposes hands on the Ordinandi
while saying a long prayer, commencing Deus honorum
dator. In the middle of this prayer he stops and im­
poses his right hand on the head of each of the Ordi­
nandi separately, saying, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost for
strength, and to resist the devil and his temptations. In
the name of the Lord.’ He then continues the prayer with
the words, Emitte in eos Spiritum Sanctum. The prayer
* Le Plat. p. 583. Waterworth’s Council of Trent, p. ccx.

6

Anglican Ordinations.

ended, he puts on them the sacred vestments, and then
delivers to each the Book of the Gospels, saying the
words, ‘ Receive power of reading the Gospel in the
Church of God both for the living and the dead. In the
name of the Lord.’ The questions in debate are, whether
the imposition of hands or the delivery of the Book of the
Gospels, or both of these together, are to be considered
as the essential matter of the Sacrament; and whether
the prayer Deus bonorum dator, or the latter part of it
commencing Emitte in eos Spiritum Sanctum, or the words
Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, or those Accipe potestatem legendi,
or whether the whole of these taken together constitute
the' essential form of this Sacrament.
Secondly, as to the Priesthood. In ordaining a Priest
the Bishop first imposes both hands on the head of each
of the Ordinandi successively without saying anything, and
all the priests present do the same. This is the first im­
position of hands. He then says three prayers, during
the first of which he and all the priests present hold their
right hands extended over the Ordinandi. And this is
called by Theologians, the second imposition of hands
—being in fact a continuation of the first.
After this
he puts on each the sacred vestments, and says the
prayer Deus sanctificationum. Having then anointed the
hands of each with the holy oil, he delivers to each
the chalice containing wine and water, and the paten
upon it with a host thereon, saying the words, ‘Re­
ceive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate
Masses as well for the living as for the dead. In the
name of the Lord.’ After this the Mass is continued,
which, following a very ancient rite, the newly ordained
priests repeat with the Bishop, thus joining with him in
offering and consecrating. The priests receive communion
from the Bishop in one kind only. After the Communion
there is a third imposition of hands, when the Bishop
places both hands on the head of each separately, saying,

/ntroduciory.

‘ Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost remit,
they are remitted unto them, and whose sins thou re­
tainest, they are retained.’ With regard then to this rite,
Theologians have raised the following questions,—some
maintaining that the imposition of hands with the prayers
is the only essential matter of the sacrament,—others
making the whole essence of it, as to both matter and
form, consist in the delivery of the chalice and paten with
the accompanying words ; while a third opinion holds both
these rites to belong to the substance of the Sacrament,
although those who maintain it dilFer as to which imposi­
tion of hands is the essential one; some considering it to
be the second, which is, as said before, a continuation of
the first, and in this view the three prayers will be the
form; others making the third imposition with the words
Accipe Spiritum Sanctum as essential.
Thirdly, in the consecration of Bishops, after the Book
of the Gospels has been laid on the shoulders of the elect,
the consecrating Bishop, together with the two assistant
Bishops, as well as any others who are present, touch his
head with both hands, all saying together, ‘ Receive the
Holy Ghost.’ The Consecrator then says two prayers,
of which the latter is a long one, and is interrupted in the
middle by anointing the head of the elect with the sacred
chrism. Afterwards his hands are anointed also, the
pastoral staff and ring are given to him, and then the
Book of the Gospels is taken from his shoulders, and put
into his hands with the words, ‘ Receive the Gospel, and
go preach to the people committed unto thee ; for God is
mighty to increase His grace in thee, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever.’ Among Theologians, then, some
make the imposition of hands the only essential matter,
but differ as to whether the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum is
the sole form, or whether the prayers following, and parti­
cularly the long prayer, are not also essential. But others
consider the delivery of the Book of the Gospels with the

<4

8

Anglican Ordinations.

accompanying words to be the matter and form. And
according to a third opinion both these rites together
constitute the matter, and thus both the Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum and the Accipe Evangelium, together with the
prayers, would belong to the essence of the Sacrament.
But notwithstanding these differences, the general
opinion is, that although it is more probable that the im­
position of hands with the prayers is all that is really
essential, yet in practice in ordaining a Deacon or Priest
the delivery of the instruments is to be considered as
essential also, so that if it were omitted, the Ordinandus
ought to be ordained again sub conditione. But in the case
of Priests, the third imposition of hands, with the words
Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, is not considered essential, so
that if omitted, it might be supplied afterwards, without
repeating any other part of the rite. As to the Episcopate,
the general opinion is, that the imposition of hands given
with the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, which is continued by
the Consecrator during the long prayer, is all that is es­
sential, and that the delivery of the pastoral staflj the ring,
and the Book of the Gospels are not essential, but merely
show the effect of the Order conferred. Nor can the
presence of two assistant Bishops be considered as essen­
tial, because a single Bishop possesses all the necessary
power in himself
It is very important to keep in mind these various
opinions, because it will be seen that they had no little
bearing on the formation of the Anglican rite ; and also
because several writers in the controversy, both Catholic
and Anglican, have grounded their arguments on one or
other of these opinions, ignoring all the rest ; and thus
have never really touched the points at issue. An his­
torical sketch of these opinions will therefore be given in
the Appendix, taken from Pope Benedict XIV/ together
with some authorities for the general opinion above stated.
4 Synodus Diœcesana, lib. viii. cap. io.

7ntroductory.

Q

. Notwithstanding that the general opinion described
above is a sufficient guide with regard to ordinations
celebrated according to the Roman Pontifical, yet in con­
sequence of the decision in the case of the Abyssinian
Ordinations, it does not seem as if it could be strictly
and literally applied to those conducted after any other
rite. This question we shall have to examine farther on.
As the present subject is so much concerned with
questions of fact, and the facts alleged on either side have
given rise to such acrimonious debates, without leading to
any agreement as to the evidence to be accepted in proof
of such facts, or establishing any authority that might de­
cide between the parties, it xvill be well to state the prin­
ciples which have governed the writer in determining the
character of the evidence met with, and its claim to be
either admitted as proving facts alleged, or rejected as
worthless. In dealing with historical as with other ques­
tions, absolute proof is not always attainable; yet matter
and facts and circumstances may oftentimes be found,
which though not in themselves amounting to positive
proof, still deserve attention, and cannot be passed over
without due and careful examination.
Documents enrolled amongst the public records of
the kingdom, or issuing from any government office, or
from any government official in his official capacity, may
be received without question, as evidence of the matters
recorded, and also of other matters incidentally referred to
therein, provided the authority under which the document
is issued, either from official station or otherwise, is en­
titled to credit upon the point referred to.
Evidence is not to be rejected on account of mere
verbal error or misnomer, where the identity of the per­
son referred to is sufficiently made out, either from the
context or from other sources.
In cases where original documents cannot be found,
copies may be received in evidence, subject always to in-

4 S.'·;·-'' '.' 3 * K '» IM£ yaj^^

i o

U USa&tl

A nglican Ordinations.

quiry as to the custody from whence they come, and the
purposes for which they were made.
Records of any office of which the principals or other
officials have had any personal or party interest in the
matter recorded will be liable to inquiry into all the cir­
cumstances connected with them.
Contemporary writers, such as annalists, speaking of
public events or other matters, either of their own know­
ledge, or as of public notoriety, may be admitted as evi­
dence, subject to inquiry as to their personal or party
bias, and their means of information.
Historical writers relating or commenting upon events
at a later time, and deriving their information from others,
are not to be admitted.
Contemporary letters or other instruments may be
received in evidence, particularly where the statements
therein regard the writer himself or the person addressed;
but statements respecting other persons, as to matters
not within the writer’s knowledge or competency, are no
evidence whatever.
Statements made by partisan writers on either side,
even contemporary, are to be received with caution, and
cannot of themselves be used as proofs. But admissions
made in reply on either side, especially when against the
interest of the person making them, or of the party he
represents, are to be treated as of the utmost import­
ance.
Stories related on hearsay, without any authority being
given, or any means furnished of tracing their authority,
are to be considered as not worth notice.
If any person be referred to as authority, his means
of information, and his personal or party interest, are to
be inquired into, and credit given or withheld accordingly.
A story told on both sides, or related on one side
and admitted on the other, may be looked upon as an
undoubted truth.

Introductory.

I I

A story that has passed from person to person
merely by verbal tradition, even if names are quoted as
authority, but without written testimony, cannot be ac­
cepted as evidence, nor allowed to have weight as an
argument, even if considered probable as an historical
fact.
Presumptions arising a priori in favour of certain
things having been done or having taken place, because
they were matters of course, or because the law so re­
quired, or because of certain consequences that followed
or did not follow from them, are of very little weight ;
and if there are reasonable suspicions, arising from other
circumstances, that the things alleged did not take place,
all such presumptions are to be rejected.
Documents cited in Foxe, Strype, Burnet, Collier, and
other historical writers, are to be received so far as they
extend, subject to the foregoing conditions; but documents
referred to by controversial writers are to be received
with caution, and tested where practicable by comparison
with the originals, or, if these are wanting, with other
sufficient testimony.

■jK , U/lr* ;

W.

. E , Μ Si4 jUfê iiiê I

CHAPTER II.
ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY.

The belief in a sacred gift of power conferred on the
Priesthood of the Catholic Church has come down from
the time of its institution by our Blessed Lord. That
when He said to His Apostles, Hoc facite in meam com­
memorationem, He gave them a power to do what none
else could do ; that when He breathed upon them with
those words, ‘ Receive &c.’ He did communicate to them
a gift of the Holy Spirit ; that when He said to them,
Euntes ergo docete omnes gentes, He gave a divine mission
to them and their successors
this is the faith of the
Church now, only because it has ever been so from the
first. The authorities of all ages have borne witness to
this belief, and the greatness of the gift has been enlarged
upon by the chief Doctors of the Church, and especially
by St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine.
The Christians in the East, who have formed bodies
separated from the Church by schism or heresy, have re­
tained this belief as strongly as Catholics. Before the
twelfth century it had not been denied by any except the
Manichees, and the heresies which descended from them,
such as the Albigenses. These were bodies that had
grown up external to the Church, and had not separated
from her communion. Their denial therefore amounts to
no more than an attempt to ignore a gift which they had
never been partakers of, and could bring no claim to in­
herit.

Origin of the Controversy.

13

Whether the heresy that arose in the twelfth century
was originated by members of the Church, or was an
offshoot from those earlier heresies, is a question quite
beside our purpose. It is sufficient to mention that the
Waldenses maintained that since the Priests of the Church
did not practise apostolic poverty, they were not true
ministers of our Lord, and could not validly absolve, or
consecrate the Eucharist, or administer any Sacraments ;
and that laymen who followed voluntary poverty had a
power more real and more lawful of performing those
functions and of preaching the Gospel than the Priests
of the Church.1 These were the errors for which they
were condemned by Pope Lucius III. in the year 1185,
and the later followers of the sect seem to have carried
their errors to yet greater lengths.
Whether Wicliffe had had communication with fol­
lowers of this sect, it is not material to inquire. It is
certain that he adopted some of their opinions, and this
was pointed out in the first notice taken of him by the
Holy See, when Pope Gregory XL, in requiring the Arch­
bishop of Canterbury to institute proceedings against him,
speaks of his errors as a revival of those already con­
demned by Pope John XXII.2 in his Bull against the
Fraticelli.
He had, however, begun with assailing only the juris­
diction of the Church, as follows : ‘ Every Priest rightly
and duly ordered hath power to minister the Sacraments
and absolve any man confessing his faults.’3 And this
conclusion he defends in his Exposition of the Articles.4
But he afterwards went on to deny Transubstantiation and
the Real Presence; and he maintained that a Bishop or
Priest by mortal sin lost the power of his Order, and could
neither ordain, consecrate, or baptise.5 These were among
1 On this subject, see Dr. Newman’s Essays Critical and Historical, vol. ii.
p. 117-9.
2 Collier, vol. Hi. p. 138; Bullarium Rom. ann. 1318.
3 Foxe, vol. iii. p. 11.
4 Ibid. p. 17.
s Ibid. p. 21.

14

Anglican Ordinations.

the erroneous propositions extracted from his works,
which were condemned.
After his death, his followers, and the Lollards who
probably had an independent origin, made considerable
advances on his teaching. Walter Brute denied the
distinction between clergy and laity, or the difference of
orders of clergy ; and also denied the Sacrifice of the
.Mass.6 Among the articles held by the Lollards, and
abjured by many of them, were the following: ‘That any
layman may teach and preach the Gospel by his own
authority; that confession to a Priest is unnecessary;
that every good man, though unlearned, is a Priest ; that
laymen have a like authority with a Bishop or Priest.’7
Again, John Purvey, a Priest, maintained, among other
errors, which he afterwards recanted, ‘ that every lay­
man, being holy and predestinated unto everlasting life, is
a true Priest before God.’8 And in the year 1415, an
unfortunate disciple of this Lollard sect, putting in prac­
tice the teaching he had received, appointed his son a
Priest, and caused him to celebrate Mass in his own house.
Being convicted, he suffered the punishment of heresy.9
This Lollard heresy continued to bear fruit down to
the times of the Reformation, and was in fact the cause
of the ready acceptance given to the new doctrine among
the people in certain parts. Persons were from time to
time found professing Lollardism, and among their other
errors came that of denying the necessity and virtue of
the Sacrament of Floly Order. Thus one of the articles
on which John Browne and other heretics in Kent were
condemned in 1511 was, ‘ that no power is given of God
to Priests, of ministering Sacraments, saying Mass, or
other divine service more than to laymen.’10 Again, in 1528,
John Tyball, a Lollard, confessed before Tunstall Bishop
6 Foxe, vol. iii. p. 178.
1 Ibid. p. 448-9.
8 Ibid. p. 286.
8 Walsingham, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 307, ed. 1864·
10 Foxe, vol. v. p. 648; and Maitland’s Letters on Foxe, p. 57.

Origin· of the Controversy.

15

of London, ‘ that he hathe thowght that Pristhode was
not necessary. For he thowght that every Layman myght
mynister the Sacraments of the Churche as well as any
Priste.’11 And in 153° it was articled against James
Algar, Priest, ‘ that he had said, that every true Chris­
tian man, living after the laws of God, and observing his
commandments, is a Priest as well as he.’12 And in 1536
Sir John Gale, Clerk, Parson of Twaite, in Suffolk, was
indicted by the grand jury for saying, ‘ that a temporal
man may consecrate the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and hath as great power as any Priest, if he can speak the
words, which the Priest speaketh.’13 These are mentioned
among the errors protested against by the Convocation in
that year.14
All the preceding seem to have been the direct home­
growth of Lollardism or of Wicliffe’s teaching, who may,
indeed, be called the father of modern heresy. But his
opinions were destined to bear their harvest in another
country before they attained to such head as to subvert
the ancient religion of this land. It is matter of ordinary
history, that John Huss adopted Wicliffe’s opinions. And
it is equally well known that Luther studied the works of
Huss, and approved many of his tenets, though he said
they were not carried out to their legitimate issue. And
the teaching of Luther, Melancthon, and others who ad­
hered to the Augustan confession, embraced the following
points :
That all the faithful are Priests, and can offer spiritual sacrifices
to God, and there is no other Priesthood or sacrifice instituted
by Christ in the Church ■ and that the office of Ministers in the
Church is to preach and dispense Sacraments, not to offer sacri­
fice.
That Bishops and Presbyters are one and the same.
That it is matter of propriety, though not of necessity, that
certain persons should be appointed to teach the Word of God,
11 Strype, Mem. vol. i. app. p. 35.
13 Strype, Mem. vol. i. p. 286.

12 Foxe, vol. iv. p. 584.
14 Ibid. p. 246.

16

Anglican Ordinations.

and administer the Sacraments; but that, though not ordinarily
lawful, there is nothing to prevent any one of the faithful discharg­
ing those functions in case of necessity.
That there are two kinds of vocation to the Ministry—one
internal and immediately from God, such as that of Apostles and
Prophets ; the other external by means of men placed in author­
ity, as magistrates and communities of people. One or other
ought to be had by one who is to teach in the Church. And as a
matter of regulation, no one is to be suffered to preach without
being called and ordained.
That the calling of Ministers should come from the people, or
be made by princes or magistrates in the name of the people. And
that this calling or appointment is sufficient without ordination or
consecration.
That it is proper, though not of necessity, that one of the Pas­
tors should be elected as Superintendent, and that the Ministers,
when called and elected by the people or magistrates or patrons,
should be presented to this Superintendent for trial and examina­
tion, and if approved, should be admitted to the ministry by prayer
and imposition of hands.
That in such ordination, the charge given to those admitted to
the ministry, ought not to be to sacrifice for the living and dead,
but to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.
That ordination is not a Sacrament, nor is any sacramental
grace conferred in it, but is merely the public approval of persons
as truly called, and possessed of the proper qualifications for the
ministry, and admitting them to the lawful exercise of their func­
tions.15

Bucer and the Strasburg Divines did not differ on this
subject in any material point from the decided Luther­
ans. They admitted the imposition of hands in ordination,
but declared that they did not consider that rite to be a
true Sacrament.
Zuinglius also maintained that the sacramental cha­
racter alleged to be given in Holy Order is a figment
of men ; that the ministry of the word is a function, and
not a dignity; that the episcopate is the ministry of the
word, and whoever administers the word is a Bishop ;
15 In the Appendix No. II. extracts will be given from various works stat­
ing these opinions more at length.

Origin of the Controversy.

17

but without so doing he is as far from being a Bishop as
any one is from being a magistrate who does not discharge
the functions.16
In the Council of Trent the errors current among the
Reformers on the subject of Holy Order were condemned
by the following Canons :
‘ I. If any one saith, that there is not in the New Testament
a visible and external Priesthood; or that there is not any power
of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord,
and of forgiving and retaining sins; but only an office and bare
ministry of preaching the Gospel ; or that those who do not preach
are not priests at all ; let him be anathema.
II. If any one saith, that besides the Priesthood there are not
in the Catholic Church other orders, both greater and minor, by
which, as by certain steps, advance is made unto the Priesthood ;
let him be anathema.
III. If any one saith, that Order, or sacred ordination, is not
truly and properly a Sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord ; or
that it is a kind of human figment devised by men unskilled in
ecclesiastical matters; or that it is only a kind of rite for choosing
ministers of the Word of God and of the Sacraments ; let him be
anathema.
IV. If any one saith, that by sacred ordination the Holy Ghost
is not given ; and that vainly therefore do the Bishops say, Re­
ceive ye the Holy Ghost ; or that a character is not imprinted by
that ordination ; or that he who has once been a priest, can again
become a layman ; let him be anathema.
V. If any one saith, that the sacred unction which the Church
uses in holy ordination is not only not required, but is to be de­
spised and even pernicious, as likewise are the other ceremonies
of Order ; let him be anathema.
VI. If any one saith, that in the Catholic Church there is not
a hierarchy by divine ordination instituted, consisting of Bishops,
Priests, and Ministers ; let him be anathema.
VII. If any one saith, that Bishops are not superior to Priests;
or that they have not the power of confirming and ordaining ; or
that the power which they possess is common to them and to
Priests ; or that orders conferred by them, without the consent, or
vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid ; or
that those who have neither been rightly ordained, nor sent, by
1C Appendix, No. III.
C

'S

A nAican
Ordinations,
O

, ^clesiastical and canonical power, but come from elsewhere, are
lawfill ministers of the Word and of the Sacraments ; let him be
anathema.
VIII. If any one saith, that the Bishops, who are assumed by
authority of the Roman Pontiff, are not legitimate and true Bishops,
but are a human figment ; let him be anathema.’

The effect of the opinions promulgated on the Con­
tinent on the minds of the English people is easily traced,
for many of the leading Reformers, as Tyndall, Barnes,
Lambert, Frith, Coverdale, Cranmer, and Barlow travelled
in foreign parts, and had communication with those on
the Continent. And thus their opinions often present
a mixture of the Lutheranism or Zuinglianism learnt
abroad with the Wicliffite principles that had descended
to them at home.
On the subject of the ministry Tyndall taught as fol­
lows: ‘We choose temporal officers, and read their duty
to them, and they promise to be faithful ministers, and
then are admitted. Neither is there any other manner or
ceremony at all required in making of our spiritual offi­
cers than to choose an able person, and then to rehearse
him his duty, and give him his charge, and so to put him
in his room.’17
In the Articles against John Lambert he was asked :
‘ix. Whether thou dost believe Orders to be a Sacrament
of the Church ;.......... and whether the order of Priest­
hood were invented by man’s imagination, or ordained by
God? xxiii. Whether thou believest that it is lawful
for laymen of both kinds, that is to wit, both men and
women, to sacrifice and preach the Word of God ?’18
To these he replied : ‘ As touching Priesthood in the
primitive church, there were no more officers than Bishops
and deacons, and those whom we call Priests were all one
and none other but Bishops ; and they were chosen not
17 Obed. of a Christian. A'/an, vol. i. p. 2.59, ed. Park. Soc.
18 Foxc, vol. V. p. 182.

Origin of the Controversy.

19

only by the Bishop, but also with consent of the people,
and the people ought to have power to choose Priests.
It is meet for none to preach openly except they be
chosen and elected to the same, either by God, or so­
lemnly by men, or else by both. Notwithstanding, in
time of great necessity, lay people may preach, both
men and women. It is lawful for all men and wo­
men to do sacrifice, I mean not to say Mass as Priests
used to do, but to offer spiritual sacrifices of their bodies
and the sacrifice of praise/19
These are indications of the opinions introduced into
the country ; and we mast now compare them with the
documents drawn up by authority.
The earliest document on the subject is given by Bur­
net,20 and is entitled ‘ A Declaration of the Functions and
Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests.’ It commences :
‘As touching the Sacrament of Holy Orders, we will that
all Bishops and Preachers shall instruct and teach our
people, committed by us unto their spiritual charge.’ There
is nothing more to show that it was published by royal
authority ; but as a similar form is used in the Articles
about religion set out by the Convocation in the year
1536,21 it seems to be a supplement to that other for­
mulary, but has a different set of signatures. It bears no
date, but it must have been signed after the 2d of June
1536, because Sampson signs it as Bishop of Chichester,
who was elected on that day, and before Aug. 19, 1537,
because Aldridge signs it as a simple priest, who was con­
secrated on the latter date Bishop of Carlisle. It declares
that ‘ the Power of the Keys and whole authority of the
Church is purely spiritual and formally distinct from the
power of the sword. That this power is not absolute,
but to be limited by the rules in Scripture, and is ordained
only for the edification and good of the Church; and that
19 Foxe, vol. v. p. 190, 207, 208.
21 Ibid. p. 305.

20 Vol. i. Records, p. β2Ι.

2o

Anglican
Ordinations.
<23

it is essentially necessary to be preserved, being the only
means appointed by our Saviour for obtaining his grace
and reconciling sinners to God. That Orders are a Sa­
crament, since they consist of an outward action instituted
by Christ and his Apostles, and an inward grace con­
ferred therein. That although other inferior Orders have
been instituted in the Church, and other ceremonies de­
vised to beautify and ornate the Church, yet the truth is,
that in the New Testament there is no mention made of
any distinctions in Orders, but only of Deacons or Minis­
ters, and of Priests or Bishops : nor is there any word
spoken of any other ceremony used in the conferring of
this Sacrament but only of prayer, and the imposition of
the Bishop’s hands.’ The document is signed by Crom­
well, and also by Cranmer, Goodrich Bishop of Ely, Shaxton Bishop of Sarum, Fox Bishop of Hereford, Latimer
Bishop of Worcester, Hilsley Bishop of Rochester, Samp­
son Bishop of Chichester, Skip afterwards Bishop of
Hereford, William Maye, Rich. Cox afterwards Protestant
Bishop of Ely, and John Redman, all being favourers of
the new learning; and also by Lee Archbishop of York,
Stokesley Bishop of London, Tunstall Bishop of Durham,
Longlands Bishop of Lincoln, Clerk Bishop of Bath,
Salcot Bishop of Bangor, Aldridge afterwards Bishop of
Carlisle, and Hethe afterwards Archbishop of York, who
were more attached to the ancient faith. It is not signed
by Repps, Barlow, or Wharton, who had all signed the
Articles of Convocation.
The statement on the same subject in the ‘Institution
of a Christian Man,’ which was published soon afterwards,
is made nearly in the words of this Declaration; but the
limitation of the power of the Church to spiritual things
is there drawn out to conclusions against the authority of
the Pope, and all spiritual jurisdiction is derived from the
King.
In the year 1540 preparations were made for the pub­

Origin of the Controversy.

21

lication of the ‘Necessary Doctrine and Erudition,’ though
the work did not appear till two years later. On the
subject of the Sacraments, the several opinions delivered
by the Bishops and Divines appointed to examine the
question are printed in Burnet.19 A summary of them
touching on the question of Orders may be given. Lee
Archbishop of York is the only one who maintained the
Catholic doctrine throughout. Cranmer and Barlow were
the most extreme in the opposite direction. Bonner’s
theology was very misty, and he sometimes avoids giving
a direct answer. The others were much divided.
Cranmer held with regard to the seven Sacraments,
that of four of them the nature and effect was found in
Scripture; but of the other three—Confirmation, Order,
and Extreme Unction—nothing is read in Scripture as
taken for Sacraments. That Christian Princes have the
whole care of their subjects as well in things spiritual as
temporal, and that Ministers of God’s Word are only
officers appointed by them. Ceremonies used in the ad­
mission of ministers are not of necessity, but only for
good order. There is no more promise of God’s grace in
committing of the Ecclesiastical office than of the Civil
office. The Apostles appointed Ministers only because
there were then no Christian Princes, Princes may make
Priests as well as Bishops, and so may the people by
their election. No consecration is needed, for election or
appointing is sufficient.
Burnet20 wishes to make it believed that Cranmer
changed his opinion on these points because he subscribed
the Book which was the result of this discussion, and
which is directly contrary to these opinions. But as Lingard remarks,21 he was aware that it would be difficult to
reconcile them with the declaration he had signed pre­
viously, or with such as he might be required to sign
19 Hist. Ref. vol. i. App. p. 214-236.
21 Vol. vi. p. 319.

20 Vol. i. p. 289. ’

22

Anglican Ordinations.

afterwards, and therefore he very prudently added, ‘ this
is mine opinion and sentence at this present; which never­
theless I do not temerariously define, but refer the judg­
ment thereof to your Majesty/21
Barlow went full lengths with Cranmer on all the
points mentioned.
On the first point—as to the seven Sacraments—all
the rest maintained that the nature and virtue of all the
seven are contained in Scripture.
On other points the opinions may be divided gener­
ally into two classes as follows, omitting minor points of
difference.
First. Those showing less departure from Catholic
principles.
That the Apostles made Bishops and Priests by their
own power given them by God, and had no need of any
other authority. That Bishops are authorised by God to
make Priests, and there is no example of any other hav­
ing such power.
That consecration is required for a
Bishop or Priest as well as appointment. That in case of
failure of all priests in a country, some might be brought
from other countries, or else some extraordinary illumi­
nation or supernatural power would be supplied to the
Prince, but that necessity has no law. These were main­
tained by Bonner of London, Aldridge of Carlisle, Dr.
Edgeworth, Dr. Oglethorpe, and Dr. Coren;22 and by
Tunstall of Durham, Day of Chichester, Thirlby elect of
Westminster, and Drs. Tresham and Leighton as to the
three first points.
Secondly. Those more advanced in the way of inno­
vation.
That the Apostles ought to have asked license of
their Christian governors before making priests, if then
there had been any. That Bishops cannot use their
21 On the subject of the king’s own opinions, see next chapter, in treating
of Barlow’s history.
22 Curwen.

Origin of the Controversy.

23

authority to make priests without permission of the
Prince. That consecration has been received from the
Apostles’ time. And that in case of necessity laymen
may minister Sacraments and make priests. The adherents
of these opinions were Hethe of Rochester, Robertson,
Redmayne, Crayford, Cox, and Symmons ; and also Tun­
stall, Day, Thirlby, Leighton, and Tresham as to the last
point. Cox delivered an opinion similar to Luther’s, that
‘ by Scripture there is no consecration of Bishops and
Priests required, but only the appointing cum impositione
manuum.' The remarkable thing in this division is, that
Tunstall, Hethe, Day, Thirlby, and Tresham belonged to
the party of the ‘ old learning,’ and afterwards returned
to the unity of the Church. Redmayne and Cox are the
only noted followers of the new opinions, and both were
among the moderate of the Protestant party.
When the ‘ Necessary Doctrine and Erudition’ came to
be published, it declared that ‘ Order is a sacrament given
by consecration and imposition of the Bishop’s hands ;
that this form is to be observed in giving orders; and
that of these two orders only, viz. priests and deacons,
Scripture maketh express mention, and how they were
conferred of the Apostles by prayer and imposition of
their hands.’23 This, though declaring Order to be a
sacrament, avoids the questions, whether it can be given
by any other than a Bishop, and whether there is a dis­
tinction between Priests and Bishops. And even this
result was probably owing to Gardiner’s influence ; for it
seems that he had the upper hand in this Book, and
Cranmer could not get his own way with it.24
It is attempted to be shown that Cranmer afterwards
adopted more sound opinions, by referring to the Cate­
chism of Justus Jonas, published by his authority in
1548, where the doctrine is stated as follows:
23 Formularies of Faith, p. 277.
21 Strype’s Cranmer, bk. i. cap. 25.

24

Anglican Ordinations.

1 After Christ’s assention, the apostelles gave authorise to other
godly and holye men, to minyster Gods worde, and chiefely in
those places, wher ther wer Christen men alredy, which lacked
preachers, and the apostles theim selves could not longer abide
with them. For the apostles dyd walke abrod into diverse partes
of the worlde, and did studye to plant the gospel in many places.
Wherefore wher they found godly men, and mete to preache Gods
worde, they layed their handes upon them, and gave them the
Holy Gost, as they theimselves receaved of Christ the same Holy
Gost, to execute this office. And they that were so ordeyncd,
were in dede, and also were called, the ministers of God as the
apostles theimselves were, as Paule sayeth unto Tyrnothy. And so
the ministration of God’s worde, (which our Lorde J esus Christ
hymselfe dyd first institute) was dcryvcd from the apostles unto
other after theim, by imposition of handes, and gyvinge the Holy
Ghost, from the apostles tyme to our dayes. And this was the
consecration, ordres, and unction of the apostles, wherby they, at
the begynnynge, made byshopes and pryesfces, and this shall continewe in the churche, even to the worldes ende. And what so­
ever rite or ceremonye hath ben added more than this commcth
of mannes ordinauncc and policye, and is not commaunded by
Goddes worde.'25

This exposition was written by a Lutheran, and refers
to the Lutheran superintendents and pastors, and not to
the apostolic succession of Bishops and Priests. It does
not state Order to be a Sacrament, or the conferring of
a sacramental character, but only the giving of grace to
execute an office. It is perfectly consistent with the
Lutheran idea of ordination by imposition of hands and
prayer being a matter of propriety, though not of neces­
sity. And as Cranmer had stated his opinion, that ‘ cere­
monies used in the admission of ministers are not of
necessity, but only for good order,’26 the publication of
such doctrine as this Catechism contains does not imply
any change whatever in his opinions.
It was amidst such a medley of varied opinions that
Cranmer and his colleagues undertook to remodel the
» Catechism. of Justus Jonas, called ‘ Cranmer’s, ’ p. 196.
26 See page 21.

Origin of the Controversy.

25

ancient Forms of Ordination, and to substitute for them
compilations of their own.
In the Parliament at the
close of the year 1549, an Act was passed that ‘such
form of consecrating and ordaining Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons, as by six prelates and six other men of the
realm learned in God’s law to be appointed by the King
shall be devised and set forth under the Great Seal, be­
fore the first of April then following, should be lawfully
used and none other.’ When the Act passed the House
of Lords, five Bishops entered their protest against it, viz.
Tunstall Bishop of Durham, Aldridge Bishop of Carlisle,
Hethe Bishop of Worcester, Day Bishop of Chichester,
and Thirlby Bishop of Westminster.27
An Order was made in the Council on the 2d of
February 1549-50, for the appointment of twelve persons
to draw up the new forms;28 but their names are not
added, and Strype29 says he cannot find them. Heylin30
supposes that they were the same as those appointed to
revise the Liturgy, but this is mere conjecture: all that is
known is, that Hethe Bishop of Worcester was one of
them. There was little for them to do, as the forms had
been already prepared beforehand,81 and even used at an
ordination by Cranmer and Ridley.32 Within a week
after the appointment was made in the Council, the twelve
Bishops and clergy were required to give their assent to
the new form, and Hethe was ‘convented before the
lords’ for refusing. On the 28th of the same month he
was directed by the Council to ‘ set his hand to the book;’
and persisting in his refusal, he was on the 4th of March
committed to the Fleet. And having remained in prison
till September of the following year, he was again brought
before the Council,33 and persisting in his refusal, he was
27
29
31
33

Lords’ Journals.
Cranmer, p. 273.
Pococke’s Burnet, vol. iii. p. 339.
See Appendix, No. X.

28 Pococke’s Burnet, iii. 339.
30 Hist. Ref. p. 82.
32 Strype’s Cranmer, p. 273.

26

A nglican Ordinations.

returned to prison, and soon afterwards deprived of his
bishopric.
From this narrative the authorship of these new forms
may with almost certainty be attributed to Cranmer and
Ridley. At the time of their publication the former was
still under the influence of his Lutheran opinions, and the
forms derive some tincture from that source. In the
Ordination of a Priest the delivery of the chalice was pre­
served, but in the sense and with the words recommended
by the Lutheran divines.34 These forms were not sent
to Bucer for his revision when the Book of Common
Prayer was sent to him, of which omission he complained.
And he accordingly drew up a form of his own compos­
ing, which he sent to Cranmer; but the latter did not
receive it till after Bucer's death, and it seems to have
met with no attention.35 It was therefore owing not to
Bucer, but probably to the general progress of Zuinglian
opinions, in which Flooper’s objections had some influence,
that the farther change was made in the forms of Ordi­
nation ; when the delivery of the chalice was abolished al­
together, as well as giving the pastoral staff to the Bishop.
Burnet36 writes of the proceedings about the prepa­
ration of the new forms as if he had some contemporary
account of them before him, but he gives no reference.
He says, ‘As for the Forms of Ordination, they found
that the Scripture mentioned only imposition of hands
and prayer. There is no more in the Apostolic Consti­
tutions or the Fourth Council of Carthage. Therefore the
anointing and giving the vestments were later additions,
as well as the delivering the vessels to the Priest with
power to offer sacrifice.’
Collier37 in the same strain says, ‘ The committee
struck off the additions of later ages, and governed them­
selves by the forms of the ancient Church.’
3‘ See Appendix, No. II.
3e Vol. ii. p. i43.

33 Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana.
37 Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 28g.

S*
D :

Origin of the Controversy.

■27

It is therefore remarkable to find that, so far from
going back to the ancient forms of Ordination, all the
substantial parts of the new rite are drawn from the latest
additions of the Middle Ages.
In the Ordination of Deacons the words accompany­
ing the imposition of hands are quite new, but in the
imperative form, like the ‘Accipe’ of the Pontifical, which
was not used till the 14th century. Then the giving the
New Testament is taken from the delivery of the Book
of the Gospels, of -which there is no trace before the 9th
century.
In the Ordination of Priests the imposition of hands
with the words ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost’ is taken from
that imposing of hands for the third time in the ancient
rite, which is not to be found in any Pontifical earlier
than the 13th century. But more strange than this, the
giving the Bible with the words, Take thou authority to
preach the word of God, and to minister the holy Sacra­
ments, is come in direct descent from that rite of delivering
the chalice and paten which Burnet calls ‘a vain novelty,’
and Mason stigmatises as ‘blasphemy.’ For in the first
Book of King Edward the rubric stood as follows : The
Bishop shall deliver to every one of them the Bible in the one
hand, and the chalice or cup with the bread in the other
hand, saying as above. Then in the second Book in 1552
the words, and the chalice or cup with the bread in the
other hand, were left out, and the rite changed to the
state it remains in at present.
Lastly, in the Consecration of Bishops the words used
with the imposition of hands were to be only the ‘Accipe
Spiritum Sanctum,’ with words of exhortation added from
the Scripture. This formula was not brought into use
before the 13 th or 14th century. In the first Book the
Archbishop was next directed to ‘ lay the Bible on the
neck’ of the Consecrated, and then to put the pastoral
staff into his hand, accompanying each act with an ex-

'«F

28

Anglican Ordinations.

hortation. The first of these rites is evidently taken from
the primitive custom of laying the Book of the Gospels
on the head of the Elect ; and the second was in use
in the Anglo-Saxon Church. But in the Second Book
both are done away, and in substitution for them the
Archbishop is to deliver the Bible to the Consecrated ; a
rite taken from that of delivering the Book of the Gospels
into the hands of the newly Consecrated, which is shown
not to have been in use before the 13 th century.
So much for the pretensions of the Anglican rite to
be a return to more ancient forms of Ordination. Mr.
Palmer in his Origines Liturgies has shown his discretion
in avoiding any such pretension. It is indeed true there
are also prayers used in each Ordination, but they are not
connected with the imposition of hands.
It is difficult to account for the new forms having
taken this shape, after the general opinion expressed by
the Bishops and Divines both in 1537 and 1540, that
imposition of hands and prayer were the only ceremonies
of Ordination used in Scripture. But it must be remem­
bered that these men had been brought up in the theo­
logy of the Schoolmen, and probably could not divest
themselves of the ideas thence acquired. And the School­
men generally taught that the imperative forms of Ordi-.
nation and the delivery of the instruments were essential,
and of more importance than the prayers from the ancient
SacramentarieSi The Reformers therefore were misled,
however strange to say it, by a blind adherence to their
Popish Doctors. This seems like a retribution for their
unauthorised and sacrilegious meddling with the sacred
traditions of the Church.
We now enter on a period in which the question
first arose with regard to the validity of the Orders given
in the new form; but although a decision was then arrived
at on the question, it has been rather the subject of con­

Origin of the Controversy.

29

troversy than a settlement of it, owing to the scantiness
of information hitherto obtained. This period compre­
hends the various proceedings taken on the question
during the reign of Queen Mary. And the decision then
given is important, in order to show, for the sake of con­
sistency in the decisions of the Church, that the present
practice is identical with and derived from the course
adopted at the time when the question first came under
review.
The first notice taken of the Edwardine ordinations
was in the Articles issued by the Queen on the 4th of
March 155^. These seem to have been issued some­
what prematurely; for the Bull granting the full legatine
faculties to Cardinal Pole was not issued till the 8th of
that month. No one had come to England by that time
with power to reconcile even the Bishops to the Church,
or to absolve them from the schism into which they had
fallen. These articles therefore are not of authority,
being issued before the directions of the Holy See were
published.
The fifteenth, which relates to this subject, is as fol­
lows : i Touching such persons as were heretofore pro­
moted to any orders after the new sort and fashion of
orders; considering they were not ordered in very deed,
the Bishop of the diocese finding otherwise sufficiency and
ability in those men, may supply that thing which wanted
in them before ; and then according to his discretion, ad­
mit them to minister.’ This can only relate to ordina­
tions according to the Edwardine rite, and not to those
conferred according to the Pontifical though in schism;
for Bonner himself and most of the Bishops to whom
these Articles were addressed had incurred censures for
the latter offence. The words are ambiguous; because!
‘ they were not ordered in very deed’ would imply that
the ordination was invalid; but the direction to ‘ supply’
would in theological language mean to add something not

3o

Anglican Ordinations.

essential that had been omitted. It seems as if it was
supposed by the Queen’s advisers, that the Edwardine
form was not absolutely invalid, but that the unction and
the delivery of the chalice might be ‘ supplied’ at a later
time. This had been the teaching of various Theologians,
as related by Natalis Alexander;38 and perhaps Bonner
and his colleagues may have followed them at first, though
they were afterwards better informed.
The secret history of the proceedings by which the res­
toration of religion was accomplished has not as yet come
to light. It is known that Pole was made Legate ; that
his journey to England was delayed for political reasons;
that a new Brief, containing additional faculties, and em­
powering him to act as Legate while still out of the
realm, was issued on .March 8, 1554; that his journey was
still delayed on account of the laws yet in force against
the authority of the Holy See ; and that thus the public
reconciliation of the kingdom was not made till the 30th
of November.
Nevertheless certain steps must have been taken be­
fore that time to bring the Church again into commu­
nion with the Holy See. It must be recollected that the
Queen herself, and the whole of the Bishops and clergy,
were in a state of schism. Gardiner, Tonstall, and Voysey alone had been placed in canonical possession of their
bishoprics, but they had committed themselves to various
acts both of schism and heresy. And all the rest had
received their sees from the lay authority alone, and had
also made professions of heresy, or had even joined in
rites contrary to the order and teaching of the Church.
All of them were thus lying under censures of excom­
munication and suspension. But these censures must
have been removed long before Pole’s arrival, otherwise
Gardiner could not have officiated in June at the marriage
38 Theol. de Sac. Ord. cap. i. art. 7, § 2. quoted by Bened. xiv. Syn. Dicec.
lib. viii. cap. ii. See Append. No. I.

Origin of the Controversy,

31

of Philip and Mary ; nor could Bonner have consecrated
the new Bishops.
The difficulties in the way were immense, because
the party in favour of the changes that had been made
were vigorous, and how far their influence might prevail
was uncertain. The complications arising from the mar­
riages celebrated without the canonical dispensation, and
from the church-lands in possession of the nobility and
gentry, gave additional strength to this party; while at the
same time the laws against the authority of the Holy See
were still in force.
The Queen herself was fully aware of the difficulties
which beset her, but was resolved on bringing the king­
dom into the unity of the Church as soon as possible.
She was also anxious to obtain absolution for herself
before her coronation, although the laws enforcing the
schism were not repealed. She had made a request to
this effect through Commendone, the messenger from
Dandino, the Papal Legate at Brussels, and repeated it
by means of Henry Pyning, who carried the Cardinal
Legate’s first letter.39 In the audience she granted to
Pyning, the Queen told him, ‘ I hope my cousin will grant
me the dispensation ; as he may believe that my heart
and mind only intend the greater benefit of this kingdom.
And as for the oath to be taken on the day of corona­
tion, I will take it in the same form my father took it.
And the title (of Supreme Head of the Church) I will
not take ; not even if I could gain three other kingdoms
by taking it.’40 On the receipt of this news Pole wrote
at once to the Sovereign Pontiff for the dispensation,
adding that he would reply to the Queen, that she might
be quite secure in her conscience, but that he would pro­
cure the absolution in writing with all possible secrecy,
ss Canon Tierney seems to have supposed that Pyning accompanied Commendone, and to have been unacquainted with the letters here quoted.
« Marini transcripts. Letter in Appendix, No. XI.

32

Il
J

I
I
1
I
i
!

i
(

ί
i

i
:

i

1 f

Anglican Ordinations.

and retain it in his own possession, only writing to inform

her of it.41 It may be well to mention that the absolution here spoken of was not a sacramental absolution, but
only the absolution from excommunication in foro externe,
and a dispensation from irregularity incurred during the
schism.
Pyning returned from his mission, bringing with him
a letter from the Queen of the 10th of Oct., having been
detained in order to witness the coronation.42 The Queen
wrote to Pole again on the 28th of the same month, de­
scribing the difficulties that had arisen in the Parliament,
owing to the disfavour with which the lower house ιο­
garded the restoration of the Papal authority, and asking
his advice how to proceed in the face of such opposition.43
This and the former letter were written in Latin; but
Pole replied without delay in English, though unfortu­
nately his letter has not been preserved. It was sent by
Goldwell,44 who received full instructions to speak the
Card. Legate’s mind upon the subject. Goldwell carried
back with him a letter from the Queen of the 15th Nov.,
and also the two Acts of Parliament that had been passed
in the mean time.45 Neither of these satisfied the Car­
dinal, particularly the act for restoring the ancient wor­
ship; because, as he said, people were thereby admitted
to the full use of the sacraments without being reconciled
to the Church, or absolved from the schisms and heresies
in which they were involved. He therefore gave his in­
structions to Goldwell, and sent him over again with a
letter to the Queen of 1st Dec.46 The Queen’s reply is
not extant ; and an interval passes about which we have
very little information. The Cardinal had about this time
41 Letter in Appendix, No. XII.
** Quirhii, vol. iv. p. 429.
43 Ibid. p. X19.
·** Ibid. p. 121, ‘quæ scripto et nuncio per te concredita sunt,’ and p. 124.
4S Ibid. vol. v. p. .171, ‘Maria R. ad me duo Parlamenti sui decreta trans­
miserit, significaveritque et per te et per ejus literas.’
40 Ibid. vol. iv. p. 123.

Origin of the Controversy.

33

left Dilinghen near Augsburg, and was on his way to the
Emperor’s court at Brussels. On his journey he received
a letter from the Queen, requesting his advice how to
proceed with regard to the vacant bishoprics, and asking
whether he had authority to issue a decree of confirma­
tion;47 for neither the Queen herself, nor the persons she
had nominated for Bishops, were willing to proceed with­
out the Pope’s authority in a canonical manner.48 Not
receiving a reply, the Queen wrote again on the 28th of
January;49 but as no answer came even by the 20th of
the next month, the Queen became uneasy, and there were
not wanting persons who suggested sinister motives for
the Cardinal’s silence.50 But the reason of the delay was
that Pole had written to Rome for instructions, and as
the Pope was laid up with the gout, nothing could be
done.51 However, Pole seems to have written before he
got the answer from Rome, and dispatched Goldwell for
the third time ‘with a commission to expounde to her
highness his hole mynde and sentence’ on this subject;
but he does not explain it in writing.52 The instructions
are printed in Strype as if they were all given at one and
the same time ; and neither he, nor Collier, nor Phillips,
nor Canon Tierney, has noticed that they belong to these
three separate occasions. A copy of those given with the
second letter of Dec. 1st is printed separately by Quirini,53
but with some difference, being probably a Latin version
sent to Rome.
At last the answer came from Rome; and the effect
of Pole’s letters seems to have been that the second Brief
was issued. The Card. Legate had not made any use as
yet of the faculties granted to him by the Brief of 3d
47
48
49
50
52
53

Renard’s Despatch in Tytler’s Ed-a>. VI. and Mary, vol. ii. p. 303.
Quirini, vol. iv.p. 127.
Goldwell’s Instructions. Strype’s Ctanmer, App. No. Ixxv.
Renard in Tytier, ut supra.
51 Quirini, vol. iv. p. 130.
Goldwell’s Instructions. Strype’s Cranmer, Append. No. Ixxv.
Vol. v. p. 171.

D

Anglican Ordinations.
Aug. The second Brief gave him more extensive powers,
enabling him to dispense with the Bishops who had ob­
tained uncanonical possession of their sees, and also to
give the canonical confirmation to those nominated by the
Queen. It is dated on the 8th of March, and was des­
patched from Rome on the 9th.54 Pole was at that time
at Paris, and the despatches reached him there by the
17th. His letter to the Queen seems to have put. matters
into the proper track ; and Henry Pyning had arrived
with letters of procuration from the Bishops designate.
These were seven : Parfew alias Wharton translated
from St. Asaph to Hereford, Griffith nominated to Ro­
chester, Brookes to Gloucester, Cotes to Chester, Bourne
to Bath and AV ells, Morgan to St. David’s, and White to
Lincoln. He at once proceeded to give them absolution
and dispensation; and it is specially mentioned that they
are allowed ‘to minister in their orders, provided that if
not ordained before their lapse into schism, they had been
otherwise duly and lawfully promoted.’55 By another in­
strument he dispensed with Parfew alias Wharton for his
unlawful intrusion into the see of St. Asaph, and gave
him liberty to use the gift of consecration received in
schism.50 The next day he issued, the mandate of con­
finnation; but nothing is said of consecration, and it seems
as if this was left to take its course. They were conse­
crated on the i st April by Bonner, with Tonstall and
Gardiner assisting, acting by commission of the Dean and
Chapter of Canterbury.57 It seems doubtful whether
either of those three had been rehabilitated at that time.
On the 7th of April the Queen addressed a letter with
her own hand08 to the Sovereign Pontiff, asking for his
approbation of what his Legate had done ; and in the Con51 Quirini, vol. iv. p. r30, ‘Alli ix. ciel présente scrissi a V.S.R. per
via di Francia.’ Letter of Card. Morone.
“ Pole’s Eegislrum Expeditionum, p. i- See App. XIII.
« Raynaldus, Annals, vot xiv. p.
Stubbs’ Xegisi, Sac. Ansl,
» Quirini, vol. iv. p. j39.

Origin of the Controversy.

35

sistory, on the 6th July, his Holiness preconised these
seven Bishops, though it is expressed that ‘ the gift of
consecration had been otherwise duly and rightfully con­
ferred,’ as if there had been something amiss, and prob­
ably referring to the consecrating Bishops being still under
censure. Afterwards, on the 10th of the same month,
the Pope replied to the Queen’s letter, congratulating her
on the choice she had made of Bishops, and on her ‘ pro­
posing them for the confirmation of the Apostolic See,
according to the usual Catholic custom.’59
In like manner Thirlby received his rehabilitation on
being translated from Norwich to Ely, furnishing the only
instance in which the clause of the second Brief was
called into operation that relates to persons having re­
ceived cathedral churches at the hands of Edward.60
Afterwards three other priests — Hopton, Bayne, and
Holyman—on being nominated to Norwich, Lichfield, and
Bristol, received absolution and dispensation, followed by
the mandate for their confirmation and consecration, which
they are directed to receive from a Catholic Bishop.61 But
these and the former were the only instances in which
the absolution and dispensation were given in a public
and formal manner. And in each case the recipients had
to depute some one to appear as proctor on their be­
half before the Cardinal Legate, and in their name to
make on his knees a solemn renunciation of all errors and
heresies, with a promise on oath of fidelity and obedience
to the Holy See.
Yet it is certain that the others received a private
absolution, and were confirmed in their sees. And the
means taken seems to have been through Goldwell, on
the last occasion of his being dispatched on a mission to
the Queen. He then seems to have entered into com­
munication with the Bishops, and to have carried back
59 Raynaldus, ut supra.
60 Pole’s Regisi, Exp. fol. 5. See Append. No. XV.

« Ibid.

3^

Anglican Ordinations.

their letters of submission, on which the Cardinal sent
them their absolution from censures, and conferred on
them some of his legatine faculties. For Pole, writing on
the 25th of May, speaks of ‘ the letters of procuration of
the Bishops’ as among the facts passed.02 This cannot
refer merely to the seven Bishops first nominated, be­
cause he goes on to say that ‘ nothing is wanting to con­
clude the entire reduction of the kingdom to the obedience
of the Church, but the question of the church-property.’63
The reconciliation was not as yet to be made public; for
the Bishops were directed to use the faculties they re­
ceived with caution, and only to ‘ publish them to such as
would gladly receive them,’ as mentioned in a letter from
Goldwell to Thornden, suffragan Bishop of Dover, which
describes the course of procedure. Goldwell had carried
letters from him to the Cardinal, on which, after some
difficulty, his absolution was sent to him, and certain
faculties granted. And it is mentioned, that the other
Bishops had also received faculties, as well as the Arch­
deacon of Canterbury.64 But so great was the number
of English people resorting to the Cardinal at Brussels,
that he granted faculties to William Sparkman, an English
priest residing in Flanders, to absolve them from excom­
munication, and reconcile them to the Church.05
After Pole had arrived in England, and had pronounced
the public reconciliation of the kingdom, he summoned all
the Bishops to a meeting at Lambeth, on the 25 th January,
at which, after consulting with them on several questions,
he admonished all those who had not entered on their office
■per ostium, to supply what was wanting by the authority
of the Holy See.00 This, however, can only refer to a
public and formal absolution and dispensation; for Bonner
and Tonstall had already acted in the consecration of the
«2
64
ci
fi(i

Quirini, vol. iv. p. 139, ‘le procure dei vescovi.’
« Ibid.
Foxe, vol. vii. p. 397. See App. No. XIV.
The original grant is among the Charters in the Bodleian Library.
Marini Transcripts. See App. No. XVIII.

Origin of the Controversy.

37

new Bishops, whose mandate of consecration directed
them to receive it from a Catholic Bishop ; yet they, as
well as the others, all obtained at once a formal document
to this effect. The earliest of these documents is dated
on the 26th January, and the latest on the 10th February.
After this he gave them each a formal commission of
legatine faculties; which commission was also granted in
the same terms to the Official of the Chapter and the
Archdeacon of Canterbury ; to the Chapters of St. Asaph,
Bangor, Exeter, and York in the vacancy of those Sees ;
and to the Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors of the two
Universities.07
The dispensation to Gardiner is not entered in the
Register, but that to Tonstall recognises the fact of his
having been confirmed in his bishopric by authority of
the Holy See, and having in other respects duly received
consecration. But in all the other cases, that is of Bishops
consecrated during the reign of Henry VIII., the conse­
cration is treated as irregular, although valid, on account
of having been ‘ received from heretical and schismatical
Bishops, and in other respects unduly, provided that the
form and intention of the Church had been preserved’
(ab episcopis hæreticis et schismaticis ac alias minus rite
quorumcunque ordinum et muneris consecrationis sus­
ceptorum, dummodo in eorum collatione sit servata in­
tentio et forma ecclesiæ).08 In addition to the several
diocesan Bishops and certain suffragans, the dispensation
is also granted to ShaXton, Holgate, and Hodgekyn, but
with different limitations. Shaxton is permitted to act as
suffragan Bishop, and to exercise pontifical offices with
leave of the Bishop of the diocese ; Holgate is directed
to abstain from pontifical offices ; Hodgekyn is inter­
dicted and suspended from them. On the same authority
we are able to correct an error in Sanders,09 who says
07 Registrum Expeditionum, vol. i. fol. 32. See App. No. XVIII.
“ Ibid. See App. No. XV. 69 Hiet. Schism. Angl. p. 350. Rome, 1586.

38

Anglican Ordinations,

that Kitchen alone did not apply for the dispensation.
But it was granted to him in the same form as to the
others. Very probably he had not applied for it privately,
or before the restoration of religion had become law, as
the others had done, and the Card. Legate’s address seems
to imply that there were some not yet in a canonical
position.
The faculties granted to the Bishops extended only
to giving absolution and dispensation to the clergy and
laity in their dioceses, with power to grant these extra­
ordinary faculties to the parish-priests and other proper
persons, but did not include Bishops, even if residing
within their jurisdiction. And it is dear that the facult ies
previously granted were not more extensive than those of
which the copy is preserved; for Goldwell tells Thornden
that his faculties only extended to absolving priests, and
that no Bishop in England had more power. The Car­
dinal Legate thus reserved to himself the power of ab­
solving Bishops; and it is the fact, that in every instance
met with, it has come direct from him.
In view of these facts we are in a position to examine
the effect of the testimonial letter given to Scory by
Bonner,70 which recites Scory’s marriage, and suspension
thereupon from the public exercise of his pastoral func­
tions, with his subsequent penitence, and that Bonner had
rehabilitated him and restored him to the public exercise
of the ecclesiastical ministry within the diocese of Lon­
don. Scory is described as ‘ our confrere lately Bishop of
Chichester,’ and therefore his pastoral office would natur­
ally mean the office of a Bishop. But it is quite clear
that Bonner had no power to restore him as a Bishop,
and no jurisdiction over him, if he even claimed to be
recognised as a Bishop; so that Scory must himself have
acknowledged the nullity of his consecration, in order to
70 Burnet, Hist. Ref. Recards, book ii. No. 13.
and Dr. Lee.

Printed also by Ellington

Origin, of the Controversy.

39

enable Bonner to deal with him at all. In fact, the letter
does no more than enable him to celebrate mass in churches
within the diocese of London. Scory had been by law
in possession of the see of Chichester, as fully as Bonner
had been in possession of that of London ; and Bonner
may therefore have given him the honorary title. He
would be sure not to have given more than this, for Day
had a prior claim to be Bishop of Chichester. Scory
had been put in possession there, as Ridley had been at
London ; but for Bonner to admit Scory’s claim would
have been weakening his own title at London. But, be­
sides these objections, the form of the document gives
ground of suspicion as to its authenticity. It mentions
Scory’s marriage as if that act constituted his only offence,
and deprivation of the public exercise of his functions as
if there were no graver censures that he had incurred.
In does not mention his having been professed in a
Religious Order,71 and having wilfully abandoned it, or
having fallen into various heresies, and joined in heretical
rites. These circumstances are detailed in the cases of
Holgate and Hodgekyn, and Scory had taken a more
prominent part than they had, in the evil courses of the
day. He was therefore under suspension, excommunica­
tion, and interdict for these excesses, and ‘insordescens’
therein. But this is not stated, nor that he had been
absolved from these censures. If the grant of absolution
could be found, it might throw light on this document.
But as it stands, it is no proof whatever of Bonner’s hav­
ing admitted Scory’s episcopal character, and rather tells
the other way.
It is then urged that the ordinations under Edw. VI.
were allowed by the Cardinal Legate, and therefore the
presumption is in favour of Anglican Orders at this day.
‘ King Edward’s Form of Ordination,’ says Bramhall, ‘was
judged valid in Queen Mary’s days by all Catholics, and
71 He had been a Dominican friar at Cambridge (Athen. Cantab,).

40

Anglican Ordinations.

particularly by Cardinal Pole, then Apostolic Legate in
England ; and by the then Pope, Paul IV. ; and by all the
Clergy and Parliament of England.’72
When Cardinal Pole reconciled the kingdom to the
Holy See, it was in virtue of faculties granted to him for
that purpose.
His powers were therein carefully and
fully defined, and there is no suspicion or reason alleged,
that he did not observe his instructions. Neither is it
pretended that he had secret instructions, or that he pro­
ceeded in any way but that which the Sovereign Pontiff
had directed him to keep. The assertion of Bramhall
must be tested by the Papal Brief, and not by the ab­
stract of it, a portion of which he quotes, and on which
he relies as evidence of his statement. The acts of the
Cardinal must be judged by his commission; for if they
were not what he was commanded to do, they could be
nothing else than nullities. But in truth the Papal Brief
and the Cardinal’s acts furnish the clearest possible evid­
ence that the Holy See regarded the Edwardine ordina­
tions as utterly worthless.
Bramhall relies on the dispensation granted by the
Cardinal, and recited in the statute i & 2 P. & M. c. 8.
He there promises to receive in their orders and benefices
those persons who should return to the unity of the
Church. He admits that these orders and benefices may
have been obtained not validly and only in the way of
fact. From this Bramhall concludes that the Cardinal
recognised not only the ordinations celebrated in the
schism under Henry VIII., but those also under Edward
VI.; and will not allow that there is any difference between
them. But this is assuming what is not proved, and can­
not be granted. Before men can be received in their
orders, it must first be shown whether they have been
ordained or not. It was notorious that they held bene­
fices, but that could be done without holy orders; and
72 Consecr. of Prot. Bishops, c. iv. p. 60. ed. Oxon.

Origin of the Controversy,

41

he might allow those to hold benefices even after their
orders had been found null, provided they had at least
received the tonsure, or intended to receive it.
We must therefore examine the Brief containing the
legatine faculties granted to Pole. The first Brief had
given him power ‘to absolve Bishops and other ecclesi­
astics for heresy, schism, and other offences, and from
the censures incurred thereby, and to dispense with them,
so that, the premises notwithstanding, they might minister
in their orders even in the ministry of the altar, provided
that before their lapse into heresy they had been duly and
lawfully promoted and ordained; and might retain any
benefices even with cure of souls, provided that no other
claimed the right over them ; and that if not promoted,
they may be promoted by their ordinaries to all even
sacred orders and the priesthood, if they are found worthy
and fit, and may receive and retain ecclesiastical benefices,
if in other respects canonically conferred upon them.’
It is obvious that the powers here granted to the
Cardinal Legate do not extend to any questions relating
to orders conferred during the schism. The Brief only
contemplates two classes : those who had been duly or­
dained before the schism, and those who being merely
clerics or in minor orders, or subdeacons, or deacons,
might now be made priests.
The second Brief was therefore issued, which grants
him permission to use all his faculties while still out of
the kingdom, and confers on him the following additional
powers :
‘ On behalf of bishops, prelates, and other inferior clerics,
even with regard to orders which they have received either not at
all or in ill manner, and the gift of consecration which has been
conferred upon them by other bishops, even heretical and schismaticalj or in other respects unduly, and without keeping the ac­
customed form of the Church, even if they have rashly exercised
such orders and gift even about the ministry of the altar.

42

Anglican Ordinations.

‘ Also in the case of the persons of any bishops or archbishops
who have received metropolitan or other cathedral churches at the
hands of laymen even schismatics, especially of King Henry and
Edward his son, and intruded themselves into the government and
administration thereof, rashly and de facto usurping the fruits and
revenues thereof even for a length of time, as if true archbishops
or bishops, and even if they have fallen into heresy, as aforesaid,
or had been heretics beforehand ;
‘ /liter that they have been restored by you to the unity of Moly
Mother Church, and you deem it right to rehabilitate them, should
they appear to you in other respects worthy and suitable, to ap­
point them afresh to the same metropolitan and other cathedral
churches ;
‘Also by our authority to provide any other cathedral churches,
even metropolitan, being vacant for the time by death or depriva­
tion of the prelates thereof, or in any other way, with the lit and
proper persons for whom the Q. Mary herself has supplicated you
according to the customs of the realm, and to appoint such per­
sons over the same churches as bishops or archbishops :
‘And that you may freely and lawfully dispense with those who
have received cathedral and metropolitan churches at the hands
of laymen, even schismatics, as aforesaid, so that they may freely
and lawfully preside as bishops or archbishops over such cathedral
churches, even metropolitan, whether the same or other, to which
they may be in other respects duly translated, and may rule and
govern such churches in spirituals and temporals, and may use
the gift of consecration heretofore conferred upon them, or in case
it has not yet been conferred upon them, that they may receive it
from Catholic bishops or archbishops to be nominated by you.
‘ Likewise with any having been for the time absolved and re­
habilitated by you, as premised, that, their past errors and excesses
notwithstanding, they may freely and lawfully be appointed and
preside as bishops and archbishops over any cathedral churches,
even metropolitan, and rule and govern them in spirituals and
temporals, and be promoted to any even sacred orders and the
priesthood, and minister in them, or in orders already received by
them, although unduly, even in the ministry of the altar, and like­
wise receive the gift of consecration, and use the same ; we grant
you by these presents full ami free apostolic authority, faculty,
and power.’

It is, then, clear that these additional powers compre­
hend the ordinations celebrated during the whole time

Origin of the Controversy.

43

of the schism ; and that with reference to the questions
that might arise therefrom, both Clergy and Bishops are
divided into two classes : viz. of the Clergy, those who
have not received orders at all, and those who have re­
ceived them ill, that is to say, orders null and orders
irregular : 1 ordines quos nunquam aut male susceperunt.’
The Bishops in like manner who have received cathedral
churches from Henry or Edward, are divided into those
on whom ‘ the gift of consecration has been heretofore
conferred,’ and ‘those on whom it is not yet conferred:’
‘ munere consecrationis eis hactenus impenso, vel si illud
eis nondum impensum extiterit.’ The ca.ses in which the
ordination or consecration had been validly though irre­
gularly conferred are also described as ‘ received from
heretical or schismatic Bishops, or in other respects un­
duly :’ ‘ quod iis ab episcopis hereticis et schismaticis aut
alias minus rite et non servata forma ecclesiae consueta
impensum fuit,’ and ‘ minus rite susceptis ordinibus.’
And power is also given to the Legate by the words
‘ non servata forma Ecclesiæ consueta,’ to consider cases
in which the ancient form of the sacrament had not been
observed, and if the form used was sufficient for validity,
to admit it as such, and to permit a person ordained in
such a manner to exercise the orders so received.
We have now to inquire in what manner the Cardi­
nal Legate exercised the powers conferred upon him; how
he dealt with the cases that came before him ; and what
interpretation he put upon the terms quoted above.
Before the Cardinal arrived in England he had to
decide upon Thirlby’s case, who had been consecrated
Bishop of Westminster in the reign of Henry VIII., and
had so far complied with the changes in Edward’s reign
that he had been translated to Norwich. He thus came
under the terms in the Brief, of having received a cathe­
dral church from the hands of both Henry and Edward,
and usurped the administration and revenues of it. On

44

A nglican Ordinations.

Origin of the Controversy.

the death of Goodrich, he was nominated by Queen Mary
to Ely, and Pole was petitioned to confirm the nomina­
tion, and to grant him the necessary absolution and dis­
pensation, which he does, absolving him from all censures,
‘ even on account of his undue detention of the church of
Norwich and its revenues, and his receiving whatever
orders and the gift of consecration from heretical and
schismatic Bishops, and in other respects unduly’ (alias
minus rite); and he dispenses with him, that notwithstand­
ing the irregularity thereupon incurred, he ‘ may exercise
all the orders received as aforesaid even unduly, and may
be appointed to any cathedral church as Bishop, and may
use the gift of consecration so received as aforesaid.’73
The dispensation to Thirlby was granted before Pole’s
arrival in England, on his sending over a Proctor to ex­
press his penitence and promise obedience to the Holy
See. After his arrival, the Cardinal Legate granted a
formal dispensation to the other Bishops. That to Day
Bishop of Chichester is in the following terms : ‘ By rea­
son of the detention of the church of Chichester, and of
whatever orders and gift of consecration received from
heretical and schismatic Bishops and in other respects un­
duly, and because while entangled with such censures,
you have celebrated masses and other divine offices, even
possibly in opposition to the rites and ceremonies hitherto
approved and used by the Catholic Church, or in other
ways have mixed yourself up therein,’ with a dispensation
‘to exercise even the sacred orders and the priesthood
even received as aforesaid from heretical and schismatic
Bishops even unduly, provided that the form and intention
of the Church had been preserved.’74
The dispensation is granted in the same form to
Aldridge Bishop of Carlisle, Chamber of I’eterborough,
Salcot of Sarum, Hethe of Worcester, Kitchen of Landaff,
King of Oxford, and Bonner of London; all of whom had
71

Exped. vol. i. p. a.

See Append. No. XV.

™ Ibid. fol. 47.

45

been appointed and consecrated in the reign of Henry
VIII. And in all of these cases the orders and consecra­
tion are said to be ‘ received from heretical Bishops, and
in other respects unduly.’ We may therefore conclude
that the class of Bishops and clergy described under the
words ‘ alias minus rite’ comprehends all those who had
been ordained or consecrated after the schism had begun,
although according to the ancient rite. And thus Dr.
Elrington, Mr. Haddan, Dr. Lee, and other Anglican wri­
ters have been entirely mistaken in referring the words
‘ minus rite’ to ordinations after the Edwardine form.
Cardinal Pole, having absolved and dispensed with
the Bishops, proceeded then, as already stated, to grant
them certain of the extraordinary faculties which he held
as Legate. Lie grants powers of absolving persons of
either sex, and also those in holy orders, and of dispens­
ing with them on account of the irregularity they had in­
curred, so that they might be permitted to minister even
at the altar in their orders, though received from heretical
and schismatic Bishops even unduly, provided that the
form and intention of the Church had been preserved,
and to retain benefices they had received even from schis­
matic Bishops or lay authority, and in case of persons
holding benefices without being in any orders, that they
might be promoted to all, even the sacred orders and the
priesthood, if found to be worthy and fit, and might retain
their benefices, if in other respects canonically conferred.75
He thus points out the same two classes that have been
mentioned before, viz. one, those who had been ordained
during the schism in some respects unduly, but according
to the ancient Catholic rite; the other, persons who were
holding ecclesiastical benefices without being ordained at
all. The first class were to be allowed to. exercise the
orders they had received, and to retain their benefices;
and the others might be ordained, if worthy, and also re­
’s Regist. Exped. vol. i. fol. 32. Append. No. XVIII.

-? '

. V-wk : ·.

; T kJ 1 k -l· p;

■·

46

Anglican Ordinations,

tain their benefices, if otherwise canonically conferred. It
is also evident that though the Cardinal had power to
recognise ordinations in which some departure had been
made from the accustomed form of the Church, yet that
on examination he found no other form in use which
could be admitted by the Church as valid, and he there­
fore requires that only those ordinations should be recog­
nised in which ‘ the form and intention of the Church
had been preserved.’ By this proviso he expressly limited
the power given him from Rome ; for though the Brief
sait! 1 non servata forma Ecclesia' consueta,’ his words are
‘ dummodo in eorum collatione ecclesiae forma et intentio
sit servata.’ Thus the first class is limited to those who
had been ordained while the ancient Pontifical was still in
use. But we have still to inquire who are the persons
described in the second class as possessed of benefices,
but not ordained. Does it mean persons who had never
had any ordination, or those whose ordination was con­
sidered invalid ?
Now we do find instances recorded corresponding
with the class here described. The Cardinal Legate
empowered the Bishop of St. David’s to treat the case of
Thomas Barlow, who, without having received any clerical
character, had obtained possession of the prebend of
Nantgowlle, in the collegiate church of Llandewi Brery,
being only of the age of fifteen years. And as he had
renounced the schism, and had been made a cleric, the
Bishop may dispense with him, so that he may be or­
dained, and may then collate him afresh to the said pre­
bend.76 A dispensation of the same tenor was granted
to Roger Barlow for the prebend of Llanorthven in the
collegiate church of Brecon, obtained when he was
twelve years old;77 to Matthew Carewe for the archdeaconry of Norwich, obtained in his nineteenth year ;78
’* Regisl. Exped. vol. v. fol. 170.
r7 Ibid. fol. i7I.

yU.·.

See Append. No. XXL
λ Ibid. fol. 179.

Origin of the Controversy,

47

and to John Gwynne for the canonry of Llanvair in
Bangor Cathedral,79 in each case without receiving any
clerical character. In the three first cases it is clear that
ordination could not have been given in any way at the
time the preferment was conferred; but in the case of
John Gwynne it seems probable that he had received
orders by the new rite, as he was first collated to the
prebend of Llanvair in 1550,80 and having resigned it the
following year, was collated to it again in 1555, at which
time it is not likely that he would have obtained this
favour unless he was supposed to be an ecclesiastic.
Again, in the visitation of the diocese of Lincoln by
Bishop White, the late Rector of Wodhall in Bedfordshire was presented as guilty of habitual adultery. He
had never been ordained Priest, and yet had administered
the Sacraments during the schism.81 If this man had re­
ceived Protestant orders, here is evidence of their disallowance. If, on the other hand, he had not been ordained
at all, in this and the cases mentioned above there is evidence of the indifference and carelessness with which
Holy Orders were treated.
We come, however, to a case in which it is implied
that Anglican orders had been received.
In 1554 Bourne Bishop of Bath and Wells gave a
commission to John Cottrel, his Vicar-general, to ‘ remove,
deprive, reform, correct and punish those that were in­
truded into ecclesiastical benefices, and married clerics,
and also to deal with married laics, who in pretence and
under colour of priestly orders had rashly and unlawfully
mingled themselves in ecclesiastical rights, in juribus ecclesiasticis, and had obtained de facto parochial churches with
cure of souls and ecclesiastical dignities, against the sacred
sanctions of the canons and ecclesiastical rites, and to de79 Regist. Exped. vol. v. foL 169.
80 Athena Cantabrigienses, vol. i. p. 324.
81 Strype’s Mem. vol. iii. App. Ji. p. 165.

.

;

'■ .· K

. ' ! ■ v; ‘I I
.
|

,■

i

;
i
’
,

I
j
i

:
i

i·
?
\

j.
J

;

ί
*

j

iiiB

48

Anglican Ordinations.

prive and remove them from the said churches and digni­
ties.82 These ‘married laics,’ then, were persons who
professed to have received Holy Orders in some shape.
It could not be merely that they had been ordained in
schism, because in such case they were to be permitted to
retain their benefices, provided that they renounced their
pretended marriages, and that ‘ the form and intention of
the Church had been observed in their ordination.’ It
can, then, only be that they had been ordained according
to the Edwardine form, and therefore their orders are
not admitted, and they are treated as mere laymen.
Again, on the 2d October 1556, George Aynsworthe
was examined before John Hopton Bishop of Norwich,
and Sir Edward Waidegrave, and confessed on oath, that
* he had taken upon him ministration under constraint,
having been led unwarily to give bounds, his conscience
always grieving him that he was no minister, and desiring
to live as a layman, as his conscience bears him witness
that he is.’83 This appears to be the case of a person
ordained by the Protestant rite, and reduced to the state
of a layman. The ‘bounds,’ i.e. bonds, probably were
given to the effect that he should pay part of the income
of the benefice to the patron, as other contracts of this
nature are mentioned and prohibited in the Synodal Sta­
tutes proposed by Cardinal Pole in 1557.84
In the proceedings about George Marsh in the year
1555, as'related by himself, in Foxe,85 being brought
before the Earl of Derby, he was asked, i whether he
was a Priest ? I said, no. Then he asked me what had
been my living. I answered, I was a minister, served a
cure, and taught a school. Then said my lord to his
council, This is a wonderful thing. Afore he said he
was no Priest, and now he confessed! himself to be one.
82 Taken by Strypefrom Bourne’s Register. Memorials, vol. Hi. pt. j. p.
83 Harleian, 421, fol. 171. See Appendix, No. XX.
84 Wilkins, vol. iv. p. 5.
Vol. vii. p. 41.

_1

Origin of theControversy.

49

I answered, By the laws now used in this realm, as far
as I do know, I am none.
Then they asked me who
gave me orders, or whether I had taken any at all. I
answered, I received orders of the Bishops of London and
Lincoln. Then said they one to another, Those be of
these new heretics ; and asked me what acquaintance I
had with them. I answered, I never saw them but when
I received orders. I had been curate but one year, and
ministered with a good conscience ; and if the laws of the
realm would have suffered me, 1 would have ministered
still.'
A similar distinction of two classes is made in the
Articles of Bonner’s visitation, as follows:
‘Article 12.
‘ Item. Whether there be any dwelling within any your parishes,
or repairing thither any priest, or other, naming himself minister,
which doth not come diligently to church to hear the divine
service, &c. ?
‘Article 13.
‘ Item. Whether there be any married priests, or naming them­
selves ministers, that do keep any assemblies or conventicles, with
such-like as they are, in office or sect, &c. ?
‘Article 25.
‘ Hem. Whether there be any person that doth serve any cure,
or minister any sacraments, not being priest ; or if any do take
upon them to use the room and office of the parson, or vicar, or
curate, of any benefice or spiritual promotion, receiving the fruits
thereof, not being admittéd thereunto by the ordinary?

‘Article 29.
‘ Item. Whether any such as were ordered schismatical, and con­
trary to the old order and custom of the Catholic Church, or being
unlawfully and schismatically married, after the late innovation
and manner, being not yet reconciled nor admitted by the ordi­
nary, have celebrated or said either mass or other divine service,
within any cure or place of this city or diocese ?,!1C

In the two first of these Articles there is mention of
two classes of persons, one of ‘ priests,’ the other of
86 Pococke’s Burnet, vol. v. p. 396-9.
É

f I
j

Ci
·

;

.

;

50

Anglican Ordinations.

those 1 naming themselves ministers.’ The latter are
therefore not acknowledged to be priests. And the
third Article inquires as to the doings of any one ‘ not
being priest;’ which will include not only those ‘naming
themselves ministers,’ but also any one who had the pre­
sumption to act as priest without even that pretence.
And the fourth Article makes inquiry as to persons who
had been ordained in the time of schism, and who there­
fore required to be reconciled to the Church before they
could be ‘ admitted to say mass.’ Not all of these had
been ordained ‘ contrary to the old order and custom of
the Catholic Church ;’ but the inquiry is so framed as to
include the cases of both kinds. It was highly necessary
to make the inquiry; but it does not follow that those of
the latter class, even if ‘reconciled,’ would thereupon be
‘ admitted by the ordinary’ to say mass, without another .
ordination.
,
The inferences drawn from these various sources are
confirmed by Protestant testimony given in the next
reign; for in the Injunctions issued by Parkhurst, Bishop
of Norwich, at his Visitation in 1561, the following inter­
rogatory was made: ‘13. Whether ani that toke orders
in King Edward’s daies, not contented with that, were
ordered agayne in Queue Marie’s daies.’87
It is urged on the other side by Bramhall and Haddan, that there is no evidence of reordination, and that
the Registers of Canterbury and several other dioceses
have been searched, without producing a single instance
of reordination. This is only the result that might be
expected. The Church holds reordination to be a sacri­
lege, and forbids its perpetration. If any of the Edwardine
clergy were led by Divine grace to renounce their errors,
and were judged worthy of promotion to the priesthood,
they would have been ordained as laymen, not reordained.
There is no attempt to show that the Protestant orders
s: Second Report of Ritual Commission, p. 401.

Origin of the Controversy.

were ever allowed in a given case ; or that any one or­
dained by the Edwardine form was allowed to celebrate
mass, or to retain his benefice. On the other hand,
Anglican writers do not allude to the number of persons
who are stated to be in possession of benefices without
orders. The fact is, that the Anglican orders were com­
pletely ignored, and those who had received them were
looked upon to all intents and purposes as mere laymen.
But an argument is raised by Dr. Elrington, that the
objection extended to all orders conferred in schism, and
not merely to those according to the new form. This,
however, is contrary to the whole tenor of Cardinal Pole’s
proceedings. And we have a remarkable instance to the
point in the case of Hethe Bishop of Worcester, who,
after having received his absolution and dispensation for
that see, was translated to the archbishopric of York.
When the Bull of his confirmation came from Rome, it
was found to contain a license for his consecration, and
that he was treated as a simple cleric,88 instead of a
Bishop. He therefore scrupled acting on it, and repre­
sented the facts again to the Holy See. Another Brief
was issued, in which every step of his ordination is re­
cited, viz. that he had been ordained and consecrated by
one or more schismatic Bishops, but who had been them­
selves consecrated by the form of the Catholic Church,
and that he had received orders and consecration from
them according to the same form.89 Thus the orders con­
ferred in schism were fully recognised, and a dispensation
was granted, allowing him to exercise them, notwithstand­
ing the irregularity incurred by the mode of receiving
them.
But, says Dr. Elrington, ‘ we have a complete proof,
that even orders conferred during schism, which wanted
but the confirmation of the Pope, were deemed invalid,
88 See the Acta Consistorialia in Raynaldus, vol. χίν. ρ, τ,ρχ. ,
89 See Appendix, No. XIX.
;
; * ·\

/ ’■

ζΐ

A ngiican Ordinations.

for Latimer, Ridley; and Ferrar, though consecrated ac­
cording to the Romish ritual, and by Bishops who had
been confirmed by the Pope, were not degraded, pre­
viously to their martyrdom, from the order of Bishops,
but only from that of priests.'89
Burnet also says/90 ‘They went upon the old notion
that orders given in schism were not valid, so they did
not esteem Hooper nor Ridley Bishops, and therefore
degraded them only from priesthood, though they had
been ordained by their own forms, saving only the oath
to the Pope.’
He thus confines himself to Ridley', throwing in
Hooper quite gratuitously ; but Collier goes further
and adds Latimer also, referring to Foxe as his au­
thority.91 Later writers, as Dr. Pusey, Dr. Oldknow,
and others, have followed the lead, and have taken it for
granted that Latimer, Ridley, and Ferrar were all three
in the same position as regards their consecration, and
were all three treated in the same manner, viz. that they
had all been consecrated by the rite of the Pontifical, and
were all three degraded from priesthood only, and not
from the episcopate ; and Catholic writers have admitted
the facts without question.92 Each of the three cases
must, however, be considered separately.
First as to Latimer. There is no ground or pretence
whatever for saying that his degradation was from priest­
hood only, or that his episcopal character was not fully
acknowledged throughout the proceedings. It is simply
an error of Collier's. The sentence in Foxe directs his
degradation from the dignity of Bishop, but there is no
account of this part of it being carried into execution, as
the scene with Brooks relates to Ridley only.
Next as to Ridley. Ridley had been consecrated
on the 5th of September 1547. And in the Register of
19 Validity &ç. p. 83.
00 Vol. ii. p. 39c.
9:> Cnamp-.réy, Constable, and Dodd.

91 Vol. vi. p. m,

Origin of the Controversy.

53

his consecration it is expressly stated that 4 the gift of
consecration was conferred by the unction of the sacred
Chrism, and the imposition of hands;’33 so that there is
no doubt that the rite of the Pontifical was followed, and
that he was really a Bishop.
Now let us see how the circumstances stand with
regard to his degradation. It is true that we have an
account of it in Foxe, on the evidence of a person stated to
have been present, in which a dialogue is represented as
taking place between Brooks acting as the delegate and
Ridley; and Brooks is made to say,91 ‘We must proceed
according to our commission to degrading, taking from
you the dignity of priesthood. For we take you for no
Bishop, and therefore we will the sooner have done with
you.’ This hearsay report, of which no one can say how
much is original, and how much is Foxe’s own addition, is
the sole authority for any doubt having been raised as to
Ridley being a Bishop.
On the other hand, we have, first the commission of
the Cardinal Legate'5 to White Bishop of Lincoln,
Brooks Bishop of Gloucester, and Holyman Bishop of
Bristol, to cite, examine, and pidge M. Hugh Latimer
and M. Dr. Ridley, ‘pretensed Bishops of Worcester and
London, for divers erroneous opinions ; with power, in
case they would recant, to reconcile them to the Church ;
or otherwise, to proceed against them as heretics, degrad­
ing them from their promotion and’dignity of Bishops,
priests, and all other ecclesiastical orders.’ This commis­
sion therefore directs their degradation as Bishops, the
phrase ‘ pretensed Bishops’ referring to their uncanonical
and schismatical possession of their sees.
Next, the Bishop of Lincoln in his exhortation to
Ridley, used the following terms: ‘ You were once one of
s3 Courayer, Dépense de ia. Dissertation, tom. ii. pt. ii. App. p. xxxvi. See
Appendix, No. VII.
94 Vol. vii. p. 543.
95 Ibid. p. .'jtîl.·, ;
j

54

Anglican Ordinations.

us, you have taken degrees in the school ; you were made
a priest and became a preacher, setting forth the same
doctrine that we do now. You were made a Bishop
according to our laws.’96
Then comes the sentence, of which Foxe gives the
effect, referring it to Ridley only, in these terms: ‘They
therefore (the said John of Lincoln, James of Gloucester,
John of Bristol) did judge and condemn the said Nicholas
Ridley as a heretic, and so adjudged him presently, both
by word and deed, to be degraded from the degree of a
Bishop, from priesthood, and all ecclesiastical order.’97
Heylin has given the sentence in the same terms, with
some verbal diflerences, but evidently taken from an in­
dependent source ; and he makes it include Latimer as
well as Ridley. Then he adds, ‘ According to which
sentence they were both degraded on the 15 th October.’98
Therefore we have two formal documents, against which
Foxe’s hearsay narrative is of no weight whatever. And
there can be no doubt that the sentence was carried out
strictly according to its terms; for even in Foxe’s narrative
Brookes is made to say, ‘ We must proceed according to
our commission.’ Even supposing that Brookes’ proceed­
ings were such as described by Foxe, they would be of no
theological importance, being simply done in error, con­
trary to his commission, and the joint sentence of himself
and his colleagues.
Then as to Ferfar. There is no doubt that he was
sentenced and degraded simply as £ presbyter;’99 but the
question of his consecration stands on different ground
from that of Ridley’s. The Register of his consecration
states300 that 4 on Sunday the 9th September 1548, the
Archbishop in his pontificals, the Bishops of Lincoln and
os Vol. ii. p. £2O.
97 Ibid. p. 540·
9S Ilisl. Def. Q. Alary, p. 52-3.
’9 Foxe, vii. p. 25.
100 Courayer, Déf. de la Disseri, vol. ii. pt. 2. App. p. xxxvii. See Ap­
pendix, Np.‘VI1I/

i

Origin of the Controversy.

Rochester assisting, Robert Ferrar to the bishopric of
St. David’s;’—there is, then, some error either in the Regis­
ter itself, or in the printed copy, for there is no verb to
follow the nominative case.101 The Register then goes on
to state that, 'after common prayer had been read accord­
ing to the usage of the English Church, the same Menevensis was consecrated and blessed by the imposition of
the hands of the aforesaid Bishops.’ Idem Meneven.
lectis publiée communibus suffragiis de more Ecclesia Angli­
cane usitatis^ consecrabis et benedictus per impositionem
manuum Episcoporum predict. fuit. Then the Holy Eu­
charist was consecrated in the vernacular and communion
given in English words. There is no mention of the
sacred Chrism being used, or of the episcopal insignia
being put on. This is not a proof of the omission of
those ceremonies, for they are not always mentioned in
the Registers. But in a time of transition we might
expect to find the exact details recorded of what was
done. There is mention made of ‘ common prayer being
said,’ which term usually means the English Prayer Book;
but it may here refer to the Litany which was ordered
by the King’s Injunctions the year before. And not
merely was communion given in English, according to the
‘ Order’ then lately come into use, but the consecration
also of the Holy Eucharist was in the vernacular. Yet
King Edward’s First Book was then only in course of
preparation, and if the rite of that Book was followed, it
was altogether anticipating its public approval. If such
an innovation was made without authority of Parliament,
there may have been also some innovation in ' the making
of’ the new Bishop. Certainly the rubric of the Pontifical
was not strictly followed, for the Sarum rite required the
consecration to come just before the Gospel ; and it seems
to have been all done before the ‘ reading of the Psalms,
«i Probably in the printed copy; for in several other cases the verbal errors
of the Register are corrected in notes.

ζ6

Anglican Ordinations,

Hymns and Prayers/ which appear to mean the Introit,
Gloria, and Collects at the beginning of the Order of
Communion. Yet King Edward’s Ordinal also directed
the consecration to come after the Gospel and Credo,
The Pontifical was complied with, in having the Epistle
and Gospel for the Sunday, for ‘ the Gospel of Matthew'
was read, which was the Gospel for the 15th Sunday
after Trinity; whereas the new Ordinal appointed a
special Gospel for a Bishop’s consecration. While such
inconsistencies with any known order of things appear
on the face of the narrative, it is impossible to say with
certainty what was the course of procedure. But there
would have been such an incongruity between the ancient
rite of the Pontifical (if it were used), and ‘ the common
suffrages’ that preceded, with a rite in the vernacular
following, that it is far from improbable that some omis­
sions were made, which may have led the authorities who
condemned Ferrar to believe his consecration invalid. Per­
haps the omissions were considered to show a defective
and wrongful intention. Even if the parts of the rite
omitted would not be judged essential by theologians of
the present day, the decision arrived at was probably
owing to those omissions, and not to the mere fact of
the consecration being conferred in schism. At any
rate, without more precise information, we ought not
hastily to assume that the contemporary Bishops who
were acquainted with the facts were wrong in their de­
cision.
With regard to Hooper, the case is clear. He was
consecrated according to the Edwardine rite; and this
was not allowed as valid, for he was condemned and de­
graded simply as a presbyter.
Bradford also, who had been ordained deacon by
Ridley according to the new book, was sentenced simply
as a layman.
A great point is made by some Catholic writers of a

*

Origin of the Controversy.

57

statement in Brooke’s Law Reports,102 that certain leases
were pronounced void because the Bishop who granted
them was found not to be validly consecrated. But this
is altogether an error. The question of the leases had
nothing to do with the validity of the Bishop’s consecra­
tion. The case is related in Strype103 from Bulstrode’s
Reports. The sole question in dispute was, whether
Bonner’s deprivation under the Commission from the
Crown in Edward VI.’s reign held good in law. For by
ecclesiastical law, Bonner had no more canonical right to
the see than Ridley. The common-law judges were in­
clined to be of opinion that Bonner had not been legally
deprived; but the lessee who claimed under Ridley’s lease
obtained a decree in Chancery in his favour. No ques­
tion was raised about the validity of the consecration.
Leases and other legal acts depended on the restitution of
the temporalities, and not upon consecration.
It is important to notice the opinions of the Bishops
of Queen Mary’s reign upon this question, so far as they
were publicly declared.
Gardiner, while in prison in Edward’s reign, was re­
quired by the Duke of Somerset to state his opinion
upon the Book of Common Prayer and ‘ another book
of the making of Bishops and Priests.’ He replied, that
in his ‘judgment it touched the honour and dignity of
the King’s person and succession, who by this order should
never after be anointed, having no Samuel left to execute
it, and it is a terrible saying, Cessabit unctio -vestraC'^ This
may show that Gardiner had his objections to the new
form, though probably he would not state, them in full on
such an occasion, being unwilling to speak at all, for it
was ‘ no matter to be answered in prison but he men­
tioned probably what he thought would strike a person in
Somerset’s position.
102 Brooke’s Novell Cases, 463, ρ· 101.
104 Foxe, vol. vi. p. 114.

103 Λ/em. iii. 57.

5θ

Anglican Ordinations.

On another occasion he expressed himself more de­
cidedly, namely, in a sermon preached in St. Paul’s Ca­
thedral on the First Sunday in Advent 1554, in the pre­
sence of King Philip and the Cardinal Legate. This was
the first Sunday after the public reconciliation of the
kingdom. Machyn’s Diary records the solemn reception
ot the.1 King and the Cardinal by the Lord Mayor, the
Chancellor, and other Bishops and clergy, and the choirs
of the royal chapels uniting with St. Paid’s to sing the
Mass, but he says nothing of the sermon. Foxe men­
tions the sermon, and gives extracts from it, and it was
printed at Rome, hi it wc find the following passage:
' What sort of Dead of the Church was that, w hich lost
at once half the clergy?11’5 And after the priesthood was
abolished, laymen, and persons profane and married were
made ministers; so that in the course of a few years, of
the half remaining there would be no clergy left at all.’100
We may gather hence Gardiner’s idea of the nullity
of the Edwardine rite of making Priests, but are still in
the dark as to his reasons for this opinion. Bonner, how­
ever, has left us more light upon the subject. In his
Homilies we read as follows :
‘ Priestes beinge amongest other thynges called to the mynystration of the sacramentes and the chiefest and most pretiouse of
all sacramentes being the Sacramente of the Aultare, in mynystration whereof the prieste ought bothe to consecrate and to offer.
Therefore the late made mynysters in the tyme of the scysme, in
theyr newe devised ordination, havinge no authorise at all given
them to offer in the masse the body and bloude of our Saviour
Chryste, but bothe they so ordered [or rather disordered], and theyr
schysmaticall orderers also, utterlye dispising and impugninge not
onely the oblation or sacrifyce of the masse, but also the reall pre103 Perhaps referring to the suppression of the Religious Orders.
10G Concio Rcvcren. D· Stephani Episcopi Wintonien. Angliæ Cancellarii,
habita Dominica prima Adventus, præsentibus Sereniss. Rege et Reverendiss.
Legato Apost. in maxima populi frequentia. Romæ, apud Antonium Bladum,
Impressorem Cameralem, 1555· A copy is in the Grenville Library. See
Appendix, No. XVI.

Origin of the Controversy.

59

sénce of ye body and blonde of our Saviour Chryste in the Sacra­
ment of ye Aultare ; therefore I say that all sache bothe dampnably
and presumptuously dyd offende against Almyghtye God, and also
most pitefullye begyled the people of thys realme, who by thys
meanes were defrauded of the most blessed body and blonde of
our Saviour Chryste, and the most comfortable fruyte thereof,
and also of the sacrifyce of the masse, and of the inestimable
fruyte which commeth therby. And seing that every man (be he
never soo simple) maye sufficicntlye hereby pcrceyve howe these
late counterfetid mynysters have in so weightie a matter deceyved
the peple, concernynge eternal salvation, and greatly abused them
and brought them into a most lamentable state, you may thereby
consider bothe what thankes you owe to Almyghtye God who hath
restored unto you the right use of the sacramentes agayne, and
also howe much you ought to esteme the right priesthode, nowe
brought home agayne, by which, as an ordinary meanes, God
worketh hys graces amongest you.’107

Here, then, we learn not merely by the terms ‘ coun­
terfeited ministers,’ ‘ beguiled, deceived, and abused the
people,’ that Bonner denied the validity of the Edwardine
ordering of priests, but we may also see the ground of
this denial, namely, the omission of the delivery of the
Chalice and Host to the ordained, with the words, Accipe
potestatem 0ferre sacrificium 8cc. Not that he speaks of
this as an absolutely essential part of the rite, but be­
cause the omission of it was made with the purpose and
intention of denying the true priesthood and the true
sacrifice of the altar, or in Cardinal Pole’s words, be­
cause ‘ the form and intention of the Church’ was not
preserved; and this ground of objection we shall find
subsequently taken throughout the controversy in one
form or another.
,l’7 Bonner’s meltable and necessarye ifoclryiie.
‘ 555’ 4°·

Fol. Aa 4.

London,

CHAPTER III/
HLSl'ORî Ol·’ THE CONTROVERSY.

The beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign is the battle­
field of controversy on the subject of Anglican Orders ;
a controversy conducted perhaps with greater heat and
imputations more virulent than any controversy of modern
times ; the Nag’s-Head story having provoked charges of
inventing ‘a putid fable’ on one side, reciprocated by
charges of forgery of records on the other.
It is to be regretted that such a cloud has arisen
about the mere question of fact; because it has absorbed
most of the public attention, and withdrawn it from the
more important issues at stake, and at the same time has
thrown the controversy into a shape unnecessarily irritat­
ing to the Anglican side. Whatever may have been the
real facts with regard to Barlow or Parker, Catholics
have nothing to gain from the discussion. The principles
for which they contend will remain untouched, even granti ng that Barlow was duly consecrated, and that the Lam­
beth Register is to be fully depended on as an authentic
record.
The Catholic side have been at a disadvantage in the
controversy, because they have had to take the data of
evidence supplied by Anglican writers. Hence their ar­
guments can seldom reach beyond pointing out defects
of proofs ; and thus perhaps it has arisen, that they are
inclined to push them too far: for instance, when Le

History of the Controversy.

61

Quien and Constable question Scory's identity, and throw
doubts on Hodgskin’s consecration, and even on his ex­
istence. Canon Williams has contented himself with
examining Rymer and other works in print, and thus has
raised theories which, if he had carried his investigations
farther, he would have found untenable. Dr. Lingard and
Canon Tierney are the only two writers on that side who
have pursued their inquiries among original documents,
and both of them were in favour of believing the facts re­
lated of Parker’s consecration on the Anglican side.
The present undertaking will not take part with the
extreme view on either side. While disbelieving the
Nag’s-Head story, as utterly unsupported by contempor­
ary evidence, it is by no means necessary to suppose it ‘a
putid fable,’ deliberately invented ; because it is easy to
imagine the growth of such a legend, without any indi­
vidual being directly responsible. On the other hand, it
is difficult to see how the proceedings alleged to have
taken place on the 9th and 17th December 1559, can
be denied, without calling in question the authenticity of
our national records, which form the very foundations of
English history. Yet, even supposing that everything
took place as alleged on the 17th of December, an en­
tirely independent question will arise respecting the pre­
sent Register.
An endeavour will now be made to trace the history
from the materials that have come to hand. But before
entering on the course of events, it is necessary to touch
a little on the characters and opinions of those who figure
most prominently on the scene.
There is one person of more importance than Parker
himself, namely, Barlow. His history has lately been
told so well, that we may recount the leading facts on
the authority of an Anglican writer.1 ‘ Of all the Bishops
who were created from the date of 1533 to the end of
1 Saturday Review, Nov. 28, 1868, p. 713.

6'2

4 nglican Ordina fions.

Edward Sixth’s reign, Barlow is perhaps entitled to the
palm for abject servility. He seems to have been a mere
weathercock, changing sides perpetually, and always using
the most violent language against those who differed from
him. He had been professed as an Augustinian Canon
at St. Osith’s Priory in Essex. Whether his career com­
menced with the work in which he attacked the men
of the new learning in unsparing terms, or whether he
had been previously a favourer of those opinions, is not
very important. He was retained in the service of Anne
Boleyn as early as »530, and was soon employed as an
agent whom she, the King, and Cromwell might be quite
sure of to do their pleasure.’ Under Queen Anne’s
favour he obtained several preferments, as Prior, first of
Haverfordwest, and then of Bisham, which were houses
of his Order. The latter he held in coniniendani, after
his nomination to the see of St. David’s, and surrendered
it to the King on July 5, 1536.
In October 1534 he was sent as Ambassador into
Scotland in conjunction with Thomas Holcroft, in order to
persuade King James to renounce the Pope.2 A paper
printed in Strype,3 as the memorial presented to the King
on this occasion, bears marks of Barlow’s peculiar style ;
but the Diurnal tells us that ‘ the English Ambassador
who came to infest the realm with heresy, by the grace
of God came no speed, but departed with repulse.’1 He
made his ‘ repaire agayne’ on the same mission in the
early part of the next year, writing a letter at Berwick on
his road, dated 10th Feb. 1534-5/ being then in company
with Lord William Howard, who conveyed the garter to
King James. He seems to have returned from this em­
bassy, and to have started for a third time in January
2 State Papers, vol. v. p. 7.
s /JAv/z. vol. i. App. No. Ixiii.
4 Diurnal, p. 19. There is some confusion of dates here, as the passage
in the Diurnal is under the date of Nov. 1535, though the circumstances took
place the year before.
*
a State Papers, vol. v. p· 18·

History of the Controversy.

63

1535-6,° on a joint embassy again with Lord William
Howard. Previously to his starting on this embassy his
election to the bishopric of St. Asaph had taken place; and
we shall have to recur again to the circumstances con­
nected with it, and his subsequent transfer to another see.
He joined with Cranmer in arguing against the Act of
the Six Articles, which seems to be the only instance of
his opposing the King’s inclination. And as the Saturday
Review reminds us, he had a personal motive for taking
this course in the marriage which he had de facto con­
tracted in spite of his profession as a Religious. On
Queen Mary’s accession he sought to propitiate the ruling
powers by a timely resignation of his see ; but being ap­
prehended while escaping to the Continent in the disguise
of a merchant,7 and committed to the Fleet, and after­
wards brought into the Star Chamber,8 he made a sub­
mission, which is in fact a recantation, in order to save his
life.9 But on being released, he found means to escape
into Germany.10
0 See Appendix, No. VI.
7 Machyn’s Diary, p. 75.
8 Star-Chamber Papers, Harleian mss. '2143, fol. zb.
s Strypc’.s Mem. vol. ii. pt. 2, 168, iii. pt. 1, 241, &c.
10 Dr. Hook questions the fact of Barlow's recantation, but has unaccount­
ably omitted to refer to Strype on the subject. The character he gives of
Barlow {Lives of A bps. of Cant. vol. iv. p. 236-9) differs from that of the
writer in the Saturday Review, and it may be fair to compare them together.
Dr. Hook says, ‘In selecting Bp. Barlow, Parker made choice of a man who
held a high position in society. Barlow was a privy-councillor, and had been
eminent as a statesman and diplomatist........... He declared himself on the side
of the Reformation in the reign of Henry VIII. ; and when Cromwell had
determined on the dissolution of the monasteries, that minister found an able,
zealous, anil generous supporter in Barlow, who not only resigned his own
monastery, but procured several abbots and priors, his neighbours, to follow
his example. . . . Besides being eminent as a statesman, he was respected by
his brothers on the episcopal bench as a theologian and divine. Abp. Cranmer complained of him as being too jocose, and apt to bring serious matters to
the test of ridicule ; but he could not have been a light-minded man who was
consulted on the composition of one of the most important books of the age.
Barlow was concerned in the authorship of the Institution ofa Christian Man,
called the Bishops’ Book. In the translation of the Scriptures he was con­
sidered so good a scholar, that to him the Church was indebted for a revision

64

Anglican Ordinations.

The circumstances that interest us at present are
those concerning his election to and possession of the
two sees which he successively occupied during Henry
VIII.’s reign. There is rhe less difficulty now in recount­
ing them, because the facts have been nearly all carefully
collected and the date^ accurately given by Mr. Haddan.
On the death of Standish Bishop of St. Asaph, Barlow
was elected to that see on the 16th January 1535-6,11 in
pursuance of a congé d'élire dated January 7.12 But be­
fore his confirmation he departed, on the 22d of the
same month, on his third embassy to Scotland,13 arriving
at St. Andrew’s on the 13th of February.11 The Royal
Assent was issued on the 22d of February,15 and he
was confirmed by proxy either on that day or the follow­
ing, the Archbishop’s commission being dated February
2 2d, and his certificate to the King of confirmation Feb.
23d, the date of the confirmation itself being omitted.10
Barlowr remained in Scotland during February and March,
writing a letter from thence signed ‘ Willm Barlo,’ which
is assigned to the latter month in the State Papers on in­
ternal evidence.17 He seems to have left Scotland in the
beginning of April, and Lord William Howard, remaining
behind, speaks of him in his absence in a letter dated
25th April, as ‘my Lord of Saynt Davyd.’
of the Apocryphal Book of Wisdom. On the accession of Queen Mary he
ga\e proof of his sincerity by resigning his bishopric of Bath and Wells.’ If
the Saturday Reviewer is to be depended on for historical fidelity and for
original research among authentic documents, it will be difficult to characterise
Dr. Hook’s account ; but, in fact, the rest of the volume, for a scrupulous
adherence to authorities, for relevancy of the facts alleged, and for the cogency
and justice of the deductions from them, appears to be quite on a par with the
extracts quoted above.
11 Bramhall’s Works, cd. Haddan, vol. iii. p. 138, note.
12 Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 558.
13 See Appendix, No. Vf.
11 JDiurnal, p. 20.
15 Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 559; also in Ellington, App. No. xxx.
1S Haddan, as above, from Cranmer’s Register.
17 State Papers, vol. v. p. 36.

History of the Controversy.

65

Richard Rawlins, Bishop of St. David’s, died on the
18th of February 1535-6,18 and on the 10th of April
Barlow was elected Bishop.19 There is no mention of
the date of the congé d'élire. The royal assent was
given on the 20th of the same month, and the next day
he was confirmed in person in Bow Church. The Acts
of the confirmation are printed at full length by Courayer,20
Elrington,21 and Dr. Lee, and in them he is described as ‘ in
ordine sacerdotali constitutor But this description cannot be
depended on as an absolute proof of his not being conse­
crated at that time, for the words seem to have formed
part of the ordinary form used on occasion of the trans­
lation of a Bishop, even when certainly consecrated, of
which several instances are referred to by Courayer.22
The Archbishop’s certificate of the confirmation is dated
on the same day, but makes no mention of his consecra­
tion ; nor is the fact recited as usual in the grant of tem­
poralities, which was issued on the 26th,23 and obtained
probably by a special favour on account of his having to
return to Scotland on the King’s affairs. He seems to
have dispatched this instrument by a special messenger to
St. David’s, riding post at double speed, for he entered
on possession of the bishopric on the 1st of May,2'1
though ordinarily it was a seven days’ journey from Lon­
don to St. David’s.25 But after his arrival at St. David’s
he took care to be installed in person.26
If he remained in London long enough to see his
messenger off to St. David’s, he must then have started at
once on his return to Scotland, for he joins Lord William
18 Haddan, as above, from Cranmer’s Register.
19 Ibid.
2» Def de la Dissert, tom. ii. pt. ii. Praises Justif. p. cxxxvii.
-i FhZAZ/Zr, &c. Appendix, No. xxxi.
22 Supplement, cap. iii. p. 63-4.
2J Mason’s Vind. Eccl. Angl. bk. iii. cap. 10, § 4, p. 365.
21 See Appendix, No. IX.
25 Foxe, vol. vii. p. 7, in the articles against Ferrar.
2<i State Papers, Doni. Henry VIII. No. 49. p. 73. Printed by Rev. T. J.
Bailey. Defence of Holy Orders, &c. p. 41.

F

66

Anglican Ordinations.

History of the Controversy.

°7

Howard in two letters dated from Edinburgh, May 13 th.27
These letters, addressed to the King and Cromwell, are
signed by him as ‘ Wilhnus MeneC,' so that he certainly
assumed the style and title of a Bishop, though without
consecration. On or before the 23d following, Lord Wil­
liam Howard left Edinburgh on his return to England,
but Barlow writes to Cromwell on that same day, that he
‘ has protracted his taryaunce somewhat after my lord >
departure’—1 for a daye or twayne,’28 at the request of the
(^iieen of Scots. It seems to be on this letter that Mr.
Haddan has founded his argument, that Barlow would
have been in London or the neighbourhood before the
i i th of June, saying, 'he left Scotland immediately after
25th May for the English Court.’ Again, 'on June 11 th
Barlow was certainly in the neighbourhood of London,
and ‘ it has been shown, that at the time to which the ex­
isting evidence limits the period of his consecration, he
was actually on the spot, when one, if not two. other
Bishops were certainly consecrated.’29 Mr. Haddan has
not referred to any other authority for these statements
than the letter quoted above, and printed in the Appen­
dix,30 which seems but a slender thread to hang such
positive assertions on. Lie was not aware that if he had
crossed the Broad-street in Oxford to the Ashmolean he
might have found another document which goes far to
disprove his inferences with regard to Barlow’s being in
London on the nth of June. But there it was.31 Howard
and Barlow were attended in their embassy by Thomas
Hawley, Norroy King-at-Arms, who went in their com­
pany from Loudon, and did not return till the 12th of
June, on which day he presented himself to Cromwell,
and received a warrant from him for payment of his

‘ dyetts.’ He would have left Scotland in company with
Howard, because the embassy was then at an end, and
therefore it seems probable that Barlow, who remained
behind, could not have arrived so soon. But in addition
to this, the same document, dated 12th June, describes
Barlow as ' the Bishopp then elect ol St. Asaph, now
elect of St. ILavyes and therefore he could not have
been consecrated on the day before, as such a circum­
stance would certainly have been known to Cromwell,
the King’s Vicar-general.
Although Barlow was called only ‘elect’ on the 12th
of June, the style is changed on the 30th of that month,
when he took his scat in the House of Lords, for which,
purpose he had only to present the want ol summons that
had been issued on the 27th of April,32 in consequence of
the grant of temporalities. He is then desetibed in the
Journals as ' Episcopus Menevensis.’33 The place as­
signed to him was below Sampson and Reppis, who had
been consecrated on the i ith of June, but he was con­
tented to take the lowest place, as he thus avoided all
question of his consecration. Had he been consecrated
previously, he would have taken precedence of them, as
occurred in the instance of Fox, Bishop of Hereford, who,
having been consecrated in September of the year before,
and returning from his embassy abroad in the course of
next month, took his seat in the order of precedence
according to his consecration above five Bishops who
already had seats in the House.31 It must not be ovei*
looked, that if he had returned from Scotland in time,
he might easily have been consecrated on either of the
two Sundays that occurred in the interval between the
12th and 30th of June, viz. the 18th and 25th, as the

27 State Papers, vol. v. p. 46, 47.
28 Ibid. p. 52. See Appendix, No. V.
29 Haddan’s Preface to Bramhall.
30 tsro- V.
31 Ashmole’s MSS. No. 857, fol. 48, now in the Bodleian. See App.
No. VI.

32 Close Rolls, in dorso. The error of ‘T’ for ‘G’ is on the Roll.
33 Journals. Printed also by Elrington, Appendix, No. xl. from Courayer’s Déf de la Dissert, vol. ii. pt. ii. App. p. cxliii. see Appendix, No. VII.
74 Journals. See Appendix, No. VII.

68

I

Anglican Ordinations.

Convocation was then sitting, and there were a number of
Bishops in London. But there is no intimation of the
ceremony having taken place. Besides, he had already
obtained all he wanted—the temporalities—possession of
the see—his seat in the House of Lords. Why should
lie trouble himself about so useless a formality, as he
considered it, as consecration ?
Barlow was also present in the Convocation which was
opened on the 9th June 1536, and subscribed the Articles
about Religion,34 and the Protestation about General
Councils,35 signing his name to each of them as ‘ Wmus.
Mencven.;’ but no conclusion can be drawn from this cir­
cumstance, as these formularies were not subscribed till
the close of the proceedings ; the former on the 11 th of
July, and the latter on the 20th of the same month,31
*33
and they are also signed by Wharton, alias Parfew, who
was consecrated Bishop of St. Asaph on the 2d of July.
The opinion imputed to Barlow, as delivered by him
in a sermon at St. David’s on Nov. 12th, 1536, has been
claimed as an argument both for and against his consecra­
tion ; one side affirming that it shows his utter disregard
of the rite—the other, that the form in which the opinion
is stated is in itself an assertion of the fact of consecra­
tion. The charge made against him is found in Strype,3'
viz. that he had said, 'If the King’s gr., being supreme
head of the Church of England, did chuse, denominate,
and elect any lay man, being learned, to be a Bishop, that
•he so chosen, without mention made of any orders, should
be as good a Bishop as he is, or the best in England.’
Now of course he could not acknowledge that he only retained his position by a fraud; and therefore this declara­
tion may have been intended as a justification of his con­
duct to be understood by those who were in the secret.
31 Tierney’s Dodd, vol. i. Frontispiece.
33 Wilkins’ Cone. vol. iii. p. 803.
37 Adem. vol. i. p. 1S4. Records, No. 77.

«mH
Wfevil

SV i

33 Formularies of Faith.

History of the Controversy.

69

Besides, Barlow, at any rate, was a priest, and not a
layman.
A great deal has been made of the Act 25 Henry
VIII. cap. 20, by Bramhall, Elrington, and other writers,
who argue that the Archbishop and Bishop elect, who
neglected to proceed to consecration, would incur the
penalties of praemunire, and that neither Cranmer nor
Barlow would have run such a risk. But if we examine
the Act, we find that its object was to provide a mode of
election and consecration of Bishops without suing Bulls
from Rome or payment of the first fruits. And after
enacting the legal forms to be gone through for election
and consecration, the Act declares that 1 if any Archbishop
shall refuse or do not confirm, invest, and consecrate,' he
shall incur a præmunire, which seems to require some
overt act of refusal on the part of the Archbishop, or
some proof of contumacy, to constitute a legal offence, and
not merely pretermitting the consecration. Moreover,
there is no special mention of the Bishop elect among
the persons liable to penalties under the Act; for the
clause imposes the penalty only in general words, if ‘ anyperson admit or execute any censures &c. oi’ other pro­
cess or act to the contrary, or let of due execution of the
act.’ This, again, points to some overt act of interfering
with the proceedings on account of the want of the an­
cient canonical forms, or some actual contumacy, and
does not seem to touch the case of a person who omitted
the consecration because he considered the King’s nomi­
nation sufficient.
The discussion of Barlow’s case had been written
thus far, when a discovery was made which gives a dif­
ferent complexion to it. It seems therefore best to leave
the previous argument as it stands, and treat the case
afresh under the new light thrown upon it.
First, however, it may be well to recur again to the
opinions expressed by Cranmer and Barlow in their answers

7ο

Angiican Ordinaturis.

to the Questions on the Sacraments, in Henry VUI.’s
reign, where they stated that for making a Bishop ‘ elec­
tion or appointing thereto is sufficient.’ But even then
‘ supposing they both esteemed the ceremony of consecra­
tion a needless trouble, and were likely enough to have
omitted it, if the King were willing; the question will be,
What were his sentiments ? Now besides the papers con­
taining the answers referred to in the preceding’ chapter,3"
there is another set of answers from some or one of these
very men,30 at least so it would seem at first sight; but
as they appear to be of a wholly diilercnt doctrinal com­
plexion, the document must receive a closer examination.
This shows us that there is one additional name amongst
the answers, and that the name of ‘ Winchester.’ On
turning to Strype’s account of the matter/10 we find that
the commission as at first issued contained his name, but
that the King, finding after a time that his presence was
inconvenient, removed him. This paper therefore gives
us the answers to the royal questions agreed upon by
the commissioners, while Gardiner was with them ; and
that in Burnet, which is seven or eight times as long,
those of each individual, after Gardiner had been dis­
missed. This paper, then, being such as here described,
has remarks upon it in the King’s handwriting; and in
them we find him quarrelling with the Catholic answers
of his bishops and divines, and educating them as to
what they ought to have said. Thus, they having ans­
wered, ‘Making of Bishopes hath twoo partes, appoint­
ment and ordering,’ his remark is, ‘Where is this distinc­
tion fonde ?’ and they continuing, ‘ Appoyntament, whiche
the Appostels by necessyte made by common election,
and sometyme by their owne several assignment, could
not then be doon by Christen princes bicause at that
tyme they were not ; and nowe at these dayes apper38 p. 21-3.
39 Strype’s Cranmer, Appendix, Nos. xxvii. and xxviii,
<0 Ibid. book i. cap. 20.

History of the Controversy.

71

teyneth to Christen princes and rulers,’ the King’s note
is, ‘Now sins you confesse that the appostyllys did occu­
pate the Avon part, whych now vow confesse belongyth to
princes, how can you prove that orderyng is wonly com­
mitted to yow Bysshopes?’ Henry therefore agreed with
Cranmer and Barlow as to the all-sufficiency of the royal
power to make a Bishop ; and probably all three would
have been willing, and more than willing, to omit consecra­
tion in Barlow’s case, if only the general feeling of those
who could not but become aware of what was or was not
done in the case permitted the omission. Need we sup­
pose that any great scandal would have been the conse­
quence of such omission ? If the secret were but tolerably
well kept, and (jardiner and his friends not allowed to
know it, what ground is there for thinking that Henry’s
courtiers would have felt shocked at it?’41
The foregoing extract will serve as an introduction to
the consideration of a document which shows, at least
with some probability, how far the intervention of the
King had gone in making Barlow a Bishop ; and whether
there is not some reason to suppose that Henry with the
Archbishop and Barlow himself had really acted in the
spirit described above, and that his ministers, the Lord
Chancellor and Cromwell, in their official capacity, con­
curred in the transaction.
It struck the writer as worth while to examine the
original document which was printed by Mason42 as the
Restitution to Barlow of the Temporalities of St. David’s,
taken (as he states) ‘out of the Rolls Chapel in Chancery.’
It is printed from Mason under that title by Dr. Elrington43 and Dr. Lee,44 though Mr. Haddan has accurately
noticed that it is not in the usual form.45 Mason’s refer11
thor’s
42
43
45

From Thoughts on some Questions of the Day, p. 21-25 : with the Au­
kind permission.
Vindicia: Eccl. Angl. lib. iii. cap. 10, p. 365.
Validity, &c. App. No. xxxii.
« Validity, &c. p. 373.
Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 156, note.

yi

Anglican Ordinations.

ence designates the Patent Rolls ; but after a most careful
search no such document could be found enrolled upon
them. Its non-appearance on those Rolls of course stimu­
lated curiosity to find it, and after some further search,
it was found on the Memoranda Rolls of the Remem­
brancer of the Lord Treasurer of the Exchequer.40 As
these latter Rolls belonged to the Exchequer and not to
the Chancery, and were not kept in the Rolls Chapel,
Mason has given a wrong reference to the record.
An error in the reference would have been of little
consequence, if he had given a correct description of the
document, or if he had printed it so as to show its real
nature and operation, instead of passing it oft'as the resti­
tution usually made to a Bishop after consecration, and
printing only so much as would not betray the deception
he was practising.
So far from being the restitution in its usual form, it
is a grant of the custody of temporalities on account of
the vacancy of the see, but with the extraordinary addi­
tion of ‘ to hold to him and his assigns during his life.’
So far from giving any evidence of his consecration,
it rather implies the probability that he had not been
consecrated, and that he was made and entitled Bishop
without consecration. And the inrolment was made in
the office of the Exchequer, as if the matter were purely
secular, instead of on the Patent Rolls in Chancery. It
is therefore necessary to compare it with other instances
in which Bishops received a grant of custody of tempor­
alities during a vacancy.
Before the separation from Rome, it was usual in the
writ of restitution to recite only the appointment and
provision by the Papal Bulls, the renunciation by the
Bishop elect of all words in the Bulls considered prejudicial
to the rights of the Crown, and the making the homage
and fealty, whereupon the restitution was ordered. And
40 See Appendix, No, IV.

History of the Controversy.

7$

there was. never any mention of the consecration, whether
it had or had not been already performed. But ‘ from
1534—says Mr. Haddan,4' from whose notes the information in this paragraph is taken—‘ in consequence of
the Act 25 Henry VIII. cap. 20, a change took place,.
and thenceforward the writ recited all the acts required
by the statute, viz. the conge d’élire, election, royal as"sent, confirmation and consecration by the Archbishop,
and the homage and fealty made.’ Such was the regular
course of proceeding all through the rest of Henry VIII.’s
reign. The only exceptions were in the case of Bonner’s
two bishoprics of Hereford48 and London,49 of each of
which lie received the temporalities in the usual form,
though not consecrated till some months after his translation to London; but in each case the writs recite the
confirmation only, and the fealty having been taken by
commission. In four other cases the writs run in the
usual form, and recite the consecration as past, although
it did not actually take place till some days or even a
fortnight after the date of the writ.
But besides the usual restitution, a grant was some­
times made to a Bishop of the temporalities which had
accrued during the vacancy, as in the following instances.
To Leeo0 of Lichfield and Coventry, and to Goodricke of Ely,51 the custody of the temporalities was
granted during the vacancy ; in each case ‘ to them, their
executors, and assigns,’ without account to be rendered,
and followed by the restitution in the usual form after
consecration. In Lee’s the confirmation and investing
with episcopal insignia are recited, but not the consecra­
tion.
To Day of Chichester,52 Hethe of Worcester,53 and
Holbeche of Rochester,54 grants were made of the tem-47
47 Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 155, note.
«
» lb. p. 650.
>0 Ibid. p. 481, 5ag..
« Ibid. p. 785.
« Ibid. vol. xv; p. I7. l8.

vol. xiv. p. 6or.
M Ibi(J
54 Ibid..p. 32

{
ί
?
|<

;·
i
■
;
j
j
j
q
|
j
j

1

.

74

-4 nglican Ordinations.

poralities then accrued on the same or nearly th 2 same
day as the usual restitution, but by a separate patent.
On the former occasion of his consecration to Roches­
ter, Hethe had received a grant of the profits accrued up
to the time of the restitution previously granted to him
in the usual form.'''·'
Cranmer, however, had received a similar grant, and in
his case the patent is much fuller, and is made the form
from which Barlow’s is taken, but with very material
variations. It will, therefore, be well to compare them
together in detail.
Cranmer had been consecrated on the 30th of March
1533, arRl 011
April he received the restitu­
tion of temporalities in the usual form/’0 And on the 2d
of May following he obtained a grant of all the profits
that had accrued from the commencement of the vacancy
to the said 19th of April, the day of restitution.55
*57 This
grant having been made to him before the separation
from Rome, the recitals take the form usual at that time,
stating his election by the Chapter, and confirmation by
the Pope, and that the Pope had preferred him so elect to
be Archbishop and Pastor, as certified by the Papal Bulls.
Barlow’s grant follows Cranmer’s exactly in form, but
puts the Archbishop in place of the Pope, reciting his
election by the Chapter, and confirmation by the Arch­
bishop, and that the Archbishop had preferred him elect
to be Bishop and Pastor, as certified by his letters patent.
And he is thenceforward styled simply ‘ Episcopus,’ or
‘ ipsum hunc Episcopum,’ all through the writ.
Cranmer s recites his fealty having been made, and
the restitution of temporalities having been granted, in the
usual manner, on the previous 19th of April.
55 Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 656, 780.
M Ibid. p. 456. The date is printed 1 29th’ by error, for it not merely
contradicts the following patent, but would make the writ of the 25th instead
of the 24th year of the reign.
37 Ibid.

History of the Controversy.

75

Barlow’s omits all allusion to these acts, and proceeds
at once to the operating clauses. It seems, therefore,
that he never made his homage or fealty in respect of this
bishopric.
Cranmer’s grant is expressly limited to the profits
that had accrued during the vacancy up to the abovementioned 19th of April inclusive.
Barlow’s grant is made in the same words, but in­
stead of being limited to any date, includes all temporal
rights of the see arising during his life ; and instead of
being merely retrospective, its operation is made to run
on for his whole life.
To Cranmer the grant is then made ‘ to have and to
hold to him the same Archbishop personally and solely
up to the 19th of April, as aforesaid, inclusive.’ To Barlow it is granted ‘ to have and to hold to him the same
Bishop and his assigns during his life ;’ thus being simi­
lar to Lee’s and Goodricke’s m the addition of ‘ assigns,’
but extending beyond theirs to the whole term of his
life.
Cranmer’s contains a full pardon for all offences against
the statutes of provisors and præmunire. But there are
no such clauses in Barlow’s. And it does not seem as if
there could be any question involving praemunire after
such a grant.
A grant of this nature may be supposed to have saved
the necessity of obtaining either the Archbishop’s mam
date, or. the Archdeacon of Canterbury’s commission. If
therefore Barlow sent it off to St. David’s at once, he
may have obtained full possession of the see from the
i st of May.
No theory suggests itself which will fully account for
a grant having been made in this manner. Doubts may
have been entertained as to the power of the Crown under
the act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, to grant restitution before con­
secration. And the writ is inconsistent with consecration

n'aaAjk·*· «U »·-■; »

76

Anglicau Ordinations.

having taken place previously ; since, had it so done, the
grant might have been made in the usual form; nor does
the writ seem designed as a temporary measure or a
grant of intermediate profits ; for then it might have been
given in the form of the custody of the temporalities as
long as the vacancy continued, as in Lee’s case, without
extending it to his whole life ; or as in the instances of
Bonner’s two successive secs, the restitution might have
been given in the usual form ‘ to the said Elect and con­
firmed.’ But the suspicious circumstances in Barlow’s
case are, that the writ, after reciting that the Chapter had
elected him ‘ for Bishop and Pastor,’ as in Bonner’s, then
states that ‘ the Archbishop had not only confirmed him,’
but had also ‘preferred him to be Bishop and Pastor,’
and proceeds to grant, not merely ‘ for the time of
vacancy,’—not merely ‘to the said Elect and confirmed,’
but ‘ to the same now Bishop, for his life, all the profits
in the King’s hands by reason of the last vacancy of the
bishopric and the custody of the temporalities thus in
fact precluding the Crown from making restitution in the
proper form without a surrender of the grant so made.
And it does not appear that Barlow ever made such a
surrender, or ever obtained the temporalities in the accus­
tomed manner.
We may say at any rate that the form of this grant
is altogether exceptional, and must have been framed with
some special object. If Barlow were not consecrated, he
could not of right sue out a AVrit of Restitution, as the
Act required, although the King might ex gratia have
allowed it, but the form of instrument in such a case is
well known, and is very different from that now in ques­
tion. The latter course, however, was not taken, but a
grant was made irrespective of the statute, which would
hold good under all circumstances, and would secure
to him the enjoyment of the temporalities of the see,
whether his character of Bishop was perfected spiritually

History of the Controversy.

77

by consecration or not. The words subjoined to the
Letters Patent De data auctoritate parliamenti would
seem with great probability to have reference not only
to the Act 25 Hen. VIII. c. 20, but also to the various
Acts establishing the Royal Supremacy, and to the large
and novel powers thereby conferred upon the King. The
issuing and acceptance of such a grant, with the concur­
rence of high officials both in Church and State, vastlymagnified the King’s authority, while it served Barlow’s
own purpose effectually, and therefore, without charging
conspiracy on the King and others, it seems highly prob­
able that this special and novel form was deliberatelyadopted as suiting the views of all parties, and being
highly favourable to any ulterior designs which the King
might have upon the temporalities of the Church at large.
And if the proceeding was taken in virtue of the new
claim of Supremacy, it serves to give a pointed meaning
to Barlow’s own words before mentioned, namely, ‘ If
the King’s Grace, being supreme bead of the Church of
England, did choose any layman to be a bishop,’ &c.52
The effect of the grant both in Barlow’s own mind
and in official quarters may be seen from what follo\ved.
The next day a writ of summons to the House of Lords
was issued, and Barlow himself immediately assumed the
style and title of a Bishop. But either Cromwell himself
or one of his clerks seems to have been wanting in appre­
hension, and to have supposed that consecration was still
to follow, and therefore gave him still the title of ‘ Bishop
elect,’ even on the 12th of June.
On the other side the strongest proof alleged53 in
favour of Barlow’s consecration arises from the absence of
objections made to his taking his place and acting as
Bishop on the part of his contemporaries who still held
52 See p. 68. For the remarks in this and the preceding paragraph, the
writer is indebted to J. R. Hope Scott, Esq., Q.C., and J. V. Harting, Esq.
53 Courayer, Déf. de la Dissert, lib. iii. cap. 8.

?

H

1

'wmsewwi

78

Anglican Ordinations.

to the Catholic faith with regard to the Sacraments, such
as, Lee Archbishop of York, Stokesley, &c. Gardiner
was absent as ambassador in Paris during the whole of
the years 1536 and 1^3/A mid perhaps he may really
have been unaware of the circumstances. And tins may
be the explanation of his acknowledging Barlow as Bishop.
<1.1- he does in (he letter to the Protector Somerset of 28th
February 1546-7,·’”’ calling him ‘my lord of St. Davids,
and ‘my brother ot St. David’s;' for, as he wa> charging
Barlow with preaching unsound doctrine, he cannot have
been prevented by motives of policy from bringing a still
graver charge against him. It is also on record that
Barlow acted as assistant Bishop in the consecration
of Skyp as Bishop of Hereford in 1539, and Arthur
Bulkelcy as Bishop of Bangor in 1542; but as both
those Bishops belonged at that time to the reforming
party, the circumstance of their allowing Barlow to assist
in their consecration is not much to be depended on as
an argument in favour of his consecration. Besides one
of the witnesses at Barlow’s confirmation was ‘Arthur
Berkeley,’ which rouses a suspicion of identity with the
person who became Bishop, and of his being accessory
to Barlow’s proceedings.
ft is, indeed, argued that Barlow was officially recog­
nised as Bishop of Bath and Wells in Queen Mary’s
reign, by being so styled in the congé d’élire for his
successor, where it is said that the sec was vacant per
liberam et spontaneam resignationeni ultimi episcopi, and
again per deprivationem et amotionem, in the writ of signifcanitA And no adverse conclusion, it is said, can be
drawn from the statement of his deprivation, because the
vacancy is again referred to in the writ of restitution of
temporalities as by resignation.57 But the use of these
" Tierney's Dodd, vol. i. Appendix, p. 43o, 435, and 44O.
I Foxe’s Martyrs, vol. vi. p. 24.
se jymer, vol. xv. p
Firington, Appendix, p. Ixii.

History of the Controversy.

79

words in the writs does not tell either wav'. Barlow was
by the laws of the realm Bishop of Bath and Wells, as
much as Bonner was of London. He escaped being de­
prived by a timely resignation, and by so doing admitted
the case against him. But it would seem from the fol­
lowing quotation that his marriage was not his only crime.
* The xxviii. day of May Barlow, late Bishop of St.
David's, and soon after of Chichester, preached . . . .
bishojprycke of y11 by quen Mare [for that he had] a
wyff. and odur maters that he was fayn to . . . .’5S It seems
to have escaped the notice of the editor, Mr. Nichols,
that the extract from the Diary made by Strypc enables
us to fill up the blank, and shows the entry to refer to
Barlow. And in fact, whatever the ■ odur maters’ were,
his case seems to have come so near a deprivation, that
it might be described either way. Perhaps, as suggested
by Strype, a legal sentence of deprivation was actually
given.
To sum up the case respecting Barlow : all the a pri­
ori arguments used by Bramhall and Elrington, such as
the præmunire, the grant of temporalities, the seat in the
House of Lords, are shown to be either groundless, or
contrary to the fact ; all the dates assigned for his con­
secration, viz. the 22d of February by Godwin, the 23d
of April by Dr. Lee, and the 1 1 th of June by Mr. Haddan are contradicted by the testimony of records ;—and
the whole time left for him to be consecrated in is re­
duced to a period of seventeen days, viz. between the
i 2th and 30th of June exclusive.
It is remarkable that the question was first raised by
Champneys, simply on the ground, of Mason making no
reference to the Register, from which he inferred that it
was not to be found, as Mason afterwards admittted ;59
and this objection applies to other cases as well as Barss Mgchyn’s Diary, p. 199, compared with Strype’s Annals, vol. i. pt. i.
p. 198.
59 Vindicia Eccl. A ng. lib. iii. cap. x. p. ^6^.

So

Anglican Ordinations.

low’s ; but when his history came to be examined, the
doubt was considerably increased, and every additional
research, instead of bringing to light any evidence in his
favour, has only destroyed the presumptions raised in his
defence. For it is observable that Professor Stubbs in
every other case of a diocesan Bishop, where the Register
is wanting, is able to supply some collateral evidence of
consecration, either from the Diocesan Registers, from
Rymer, or elsewhere ; but in Barlow’s case he can only
refer to ‘ Haddan on Bramhall.’00 And although up to
the present time the evidence against Barlow has been
mostly of a negative character, yet the two documents
now produced, viz. the grant, of temporalities and Crom­
well’s warrant, supply facts on that side that require more
positive evidence to meet them; especially as one of them
was in Mason’s hands, yet he was not only afraid to pro­
duce it honestly, but gave a false description of it, and
did all in his power to prevent the knowledge of the
■original coming to anyone else.
It is also remarkable that all the records of his own
see should be wanting. This indeed is partly accounted
for. Whether it was that there were no regular registers
kept at St. David’s, or whether from any other cause; it
appears that the dates of the entrance and death of suc­
cessive Bishops were entered in the Calendars of the
church-books, and all the Missals, Breviaries, and Mar­
tyrologies of the Cathedral were burnt by Bishop Ferrar
by the King’s order, as superstitious.01 But this does not
account for the loss of all the chapter-books, and Bar­
low’s installation was entered among the Chapter acts.02
A ‘ Liber Computi’ is still extant, reaching back to an
early period, but this furnishes us with no light, for there
is a break in it for several years before I5J9·03
80 Stubbs’ Jxi’gstruui Anglicanum, p. 77.
01 See Appendix, No. IX.
02 State Papers, Dom. Hen. VIII., No. 49, p. 73. Printed by Rev. T. J.
Bailey.
03 Haddan on Bramhall, Preface.

History of the Controversy.
s
p

j
:

81

The case therefore remains a mystery. It is a mystery how he could have remained unconsecrated, or how
he could have carried on his assumed character unchallenged, especially as he was involved in disputes with his
Chapter.04 But with so many circumstances of suspicion,
arising from diderent quarters, yet pointing the same way,
it is impossible to admit the fact of his consecration with­
out more direct proof of it.
The personage next to be considered is Parker.
Having attached himself to the reforming party, he was
consistent in the course he adopted, and passed through
Queen Mary’s reign without submitting to any feigned
recantation such as Barlow and Scory had made. He did
not marry while the act of the Six Articles was in force,
although in July 1547, when his marriage took place, the
act legalising the marriage of the clergy had not passed.
If his opinions were Zuinglian, they were moderate, and
he was opposed to Calvinistic excesses, and inclined to
the government and Erastian side in ecclesiastical mat­
ters. Together with Meye and Coxe he may be said to
have occupied the most prominent and respectable position
among the reforming divines.
A light is thrown upon his opinions on the subject of
holy Orders by a letter written to him by Jewell, dated
26th April 1568, as follows: ‘ Whereas I wrote of late
unto your grace touching this bearer M. Lancaster, now
elect of Armagh, that it might please your grace to stay
him from further ordering of ministers ; it may now like
the same to understand that I have sithence communed
with the said M. Lancaster concerning the same, and find
by his own confession that he hath already ordered divers,
although not so many as it was reported; howbeit among
the same he hath admitted and ordered one whom by the
space of these eight years I for many good and just causes
me moving evermore have refused. Your grace may fur64 State Papers, as above.

G

82

Anglican Ordinations.

ther advertise him hereof, as unto your wisdom shall seem
good. Certainly in such cases his discretion is very small.’65
It thus appears that Thomas Lancaster, being then only
Archbishop elect, and not consecrated till the 13th of
June, after the date of this letter, had taken upon him to
ordain sundry persons, and Jewell instead of treating the
orders so conferred as altogether null and void, merely
requests Parker 1 to stay him from further ordering of
ministers;’ moreover, that he takes it for granted that
Parker will agree with him in considering these ordina­
tions valid; and lastly, that notwithstanding the irregular­
ity of this proceeding, Thomas Lancaster was still allowed
to be consecrated Archbishop of Armagh. Hence the
conclusion seems inevitable, that both Parker and Jewell
maintained the doctrine that election and appointment is
sufficient to confer the priesthood or episcopate without
ordination or consecration ; so that a Bishop elect can
exercise the functions of a Bishop validly, though not
lawfully, and thus that holy Order is not essential for
the validity of sacraments, but only a matter of ecclesi­
astical regulation and propriety. This was exactly the
Lutheran doctrine, and agrees with the opinion previously
expressed by Cranmer and Barlow, and not different from
that of Coxe.65
Parker was fixed on for the archbishopric almost
immediately on the Queen’s accession, for Bacon writes
to him on the 9th December 1558, ‘ to repair to London
for certain matters touching himself.’60 He would have
been acceptable to the Queen, as having been her mother’s
chaplain, and it was a stronger recommendation that he
was already on terms of intimacy with her two chief ad­
visers, Cecil and Bacon. He was very unwilling to accept
the post, both on account of the state of his health, and
as foreseeing the difficulties likely to arise, especially from
ίύ Jewell’s Wor/es, vol. iii. pt. ft. p. 1274, ed. Parker Society.
βύ See p. 23.
eo parker Correspondence, p. 49.

[

History of the Controversy.

83

the Calvinistic party.6' He appealed to Bacon to ob­
tain his release, and also to the Queen herself; but the
only answer he received was a peremptory command to
come to London, where he arrived in the beginning of
June. On the 18th of the next month the congé d'élire
was issued for his election. This delay was probably
caused by the absence of the Dean, Nicholas Wotton,
who was one of the embassy at Paris for concluding the
treaty signed on the 30th of May, and was detained
in France some time afterwards;68 but by the end of
July he had returned to England.69 He had complied
with every change in religion; and although he is said
to have declined the Queen’s oiler of the archbishopric
himself, he could be depended on to forward the elec­
tion of her nominee. The election took place on the
1st of August. One stall was vacant; citations had
been served on the other eleven Prebendaries, but only
the Dean and four Prebendaries appeared. Thomas
Wood and Nicholas Harpesfield were among the ab­
sentees, and were soon afterwards deprived, together with
four others. According to previous arrangement the elec­
tion was left by way of compromise to the Dean, who
named Parker, and the Prebendaries present accepted
his choice.70
It was perhaps owing to their entertaining the notion
before mentioned of the election being the most important
part of the process, that Parker and the others began to
use the episco*pal style and title at once, as Barlow had
done. Thus a letter to the Council dated 27th August
is signed ‘ Matth. C.’ And the same style is used in
other even official documents addressed to them. This
usage has given occasion to an argument of some Catholic
writers that the ceremony of consecration (whatever it
C7 Parker Correspondence, p. 60-1.
63 Calendar Stoic Papers (Foreign), 1559, No. 826, 15.
es Ibid. No. mi.
70 Haddan’s Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 190-7.

84

Anglican Ordinations.

was) had taken place at an earlier period than the 17th
December. Canon Williams has fallen into this error,
because he found in Rymer71 a Commission dated Oct.
20, and addressed to Parker, Grindal, and Coxe, by their
full titles as Bishops without the word ‘ elect.’ They
seem, however, to have found out their mistake, and after
this time the style of ‘Bishop elect’ is carefully used.
And it is evident that no inference can be drawn from the
omission; for on the 26th October the Queen issued an
order for completion of the exchanges of lands between
the Crown and the different sees, by reason of which
exchange not being finished, ‘ the Archbishop elect of
Canterbury, and the other elect Bishops of London, Ely,
Hereford, and Chichester remain unconsecrated.’72 It is
curious that Scory and Barlow are put on the same footing
as the new Bishops ; but Scory being included with Barlow, and the Register of his consecration being extant, it
cannot be taken for more than an error of the official
who drew up the letter.
After the election, steps were taken for the conse­
cration. The question then arose, who were to be the
consecrating Bishops. The act 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 20,
required that in case of the vacancy of the archbishopric,
the royal mandate should be addressed to any other
Archbishop and two Bishops, or else to ‘ four Bishops
within this realm, or within any other the Queen’s domi­
nions.’ At the present crisis, of the twenty-six sees within
the realm, one archbishopric and nine bishoprics were
vacant by death ; the other Archbishop and ten Bishops
had been already deprived. There were thus five still
remaining in possession of their sees: Tonstall of Dur­
ham, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Pole of Peterborough,
Turberville of Exeter, and Kitchen of Llandaffi73 There
71 Vol. xv. p. 546.
72 State Papers, Domestic, vol. vii. p. 19; printed in Parker's Correspondence,
P· ιοί.
7’ Haddan’s Brarihali, vol. iii. p. 232.

History of the Controversy.

85

were also the returned refugees Barlow and Scory, who
had been legally deprived under Queen Mary; and Bale,
who had been Bishop of Ossory, but also deprived ; be­
sides several suffragans ; but none of these answered to
the description of ‘Bishops within the realm.’ It may
have been hoped that some of the Catholic Bishops
might be willing to comply with the Queen’s command,
and the commission of September 9th was therefore
issued to Tonstall, Bourne, Pole, and Kitchen, but join­
ing with them Barlow and Scory. The Letters Patent
were sent to Parker by Bacon, with a letter of the
same date.74 It is difficult now to understand how
any one could expect that a commission would be exe­
cuted which bore so gross an insult on the face of
it. Not merely to require them to consecrate a married
priest, notoriously suspected of heresy, but to join with
them two suspended, excommunicated ecclesiastics, calling
themselves Bishops, relapsed heretics, and apostate Reli­
gious, was sufficient of itself to prevent the execution of
the mandate. There is no record whether they were ever
formally cited, nor in what manner their refusal was given.
But Tonstall was deprived on the 28 th of the same month
of September;75* Pole was deprived some time between
the end of September and the nth of November ;,G and
for Bourne a commission was issued on the 18th of Octo­
ber to tender him the oath of supremacy, and directing
the steps to be taken in case of his refusal.77
Parker then found his difficulties begin. What those
difficulties were, he and his two advisers, Cecil and Bacon,
were well aware. A paper still remains in the StatePaper Office, in which the steps to be taken for the con­
secration are detailed, with notes in both Cecil’s and
Parker’s handwriting upon it. In the following copy the
74 Parker’s Correspondence, p. 76.
7B Courayer, Dissert, cap. ii.
77 Rymer, vol. xv. p. 545.

75 Machyn’s Diary, p. 214.

86

A nglican Ordinations.

words contracted are printed at full length, but a fac­
simile is also appended.
The Copye
i. Suete is to be made for the Queues
of this τυοίιί be Letters Patents, called Significaverunt to
sent hither.
be apLressed t0 Tharchbushopp of the

Province, for the confirmacion of the
Electe, and for his consecracion.
There is ;w
2. when the See Archiepiscopall is tA° 25th
Archb. nor mj. vacan^ then after election, lyke Letters Ilenr· vrif
b^skoff noa> to patents for Lie confirmacion of the electe ca|’' ,20’ tllc
be had.
,
..
,
. .
order is set out
,,,, z.
arc to be directe
to anyJ other Arche- at, large,
,
.
IPheretore
.
so fha!
Querendum,
bushopp within the King’s dominions. U)C rt;btilulion
eu·,
Jfa.ll be vacant, to iiij. Bushops to be to the tempor
apoynted by the Queues Letters Patents allies is done
declaring her graces assent Royall with after the eon
request for his consecracion and Pall. secretion, as it
3. The fealtie for the Temporal ties of semeth to me
s
the See is to be made to her Maiestie.
act.]79
The othe also to be geven. And thordinary fees to be payde to her Maiesties
Officers.
4. The consecracion is to be on suche
a Sondaye as the Consecrators with th’
assent of the Consecrand. shall accorde.
And in such place as shalbe thought
most requisite.
This books is
5. Thorder of K. Edward’s booke is
not established to be observed, for that there is none
by parlementa other speciali made in this last session
of Parliament.78
17 The notes
78 State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth 1559,
79 The note
on this side in July, vol. v.
on this side in
Italics are in
brackets is in
Cecil’s handParker’s hand
writing.
writing.

In the Calendar this paper has been placed in the
month of July, on the supposition that all the Bishops
had been deprived in that month. This date is evidently
erroneous. The paper itself cannot have been drawn up
till the election had passed, as the course of proceedings

8J
........... -

»·■■>* *MMt «μ ;-t-λ. ·*>.■■ V

' an Archbishop^
vriUng.
ficf&ce pcujt Sb,.'

·

· · ■--·

·

_

History of the Controversy.

87

prescribed commences with the Significavit, and Cecil’s
note cannot have been written till at least two of the five
Bishops were deprived; that is to say, not till after the
30th of September.
In this paper the ordinary course to be taken has first
been set out, seemingly by an official hand; for none
but an official would have thought of the ‘ fees to be paid
to her Majesty’s officers ;’ then Parker has added a note
on one side, and Cecil has made his notes on the other.
Two difficulties are pointed out by Cecil : the first, ‘ that
there is no Archbishop nor four Bishops now to be had,’
because, of those that were supposed to be willing to
execute the commission, Kitchen was the only one who
answered to the description of a ‘ Bishop within this
realm or any other the Queen’s dominions,’ as required
by the act 25 th Hen. VIIL ; Barlow, Scory, and Bale
having been legally deprived of their sees, and the others
being merely suffragans. The other difficulty was, that
while the official minute proposes ‘ the . order of King
Edward’s book to be observed, for that there is none
other special made in this last session of Parliament,’
Cecil remarks on this, that 4 this book is not established
by Parliament.’
These are the very objections often made, that Par­
ker’s consecration was not in accordance with the laws of
the realm. Bramhall and Elrington have endeavoured to
show that these objections will not stand, and that there
was nothing contravening the law. Cecil’s remarks save
us from the necessity of any argument on the point. It
does not indeed affect the question with which we are
concerned, whether there were any legal flaws or not ;
but it is important to bear in mind that these objections
on the score of illegality were made at the time, and by
parties concerned, because it will throw light on the
meaning of various proceedings, and of expressions used
by contemporary writers.

tratt'**<*<?*' dmv»

θθ

Anglican Ordinations.

‘ Wherefore Querendum, &c.’
Such are Cecil’s
words in the above paper; and it is evident that he and
Parker found themselves in considerable embarrassment.
The most eminent canonists and civilians of their own
party were therefore consulted, four being clergymen and
two lawyers, viz. William May or Mey, who was then
Dean of St. Paul’s, and afterwards nominated as Arch­
bishop of York; Robert Weston, afterwards one of
the Lords Justices and Chancellor of Ireland ; Edward
Leedes, one of Parker’s Chaplains and Master of Clare
Hall, Cambridge; Henry Harvey, afterwards Master of
Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Thomas Yale, Parker’s Chan­
cellor ; and Nicholas Bullingham, then Archdeacon, after­
wards Bishop of Lincoln.80 These six drew up a com­
mission in the usual form for the confirmation and con­
secration, addressed to Kitchen, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale;
Hodgkins the Suffragan of Bedford ; Salisbury Suffragan
of Thetford; and Bale, who had been Bishop of Ossory,
but deprived under Queen Mary.81 To this commis­
sion they added a clause dispensing with any disabili­
ties in the persons to whom it was addressed, or any
illegalities in the acts done by them under it, as follows:
‘ Supplentes nihilominus suprema auctoritate nostra regia
ex mero motu et certa scientia nostris, si quid aut in his
quæ juxta mandatum nostrum prædictum per vos fient,
aut in vobis aut vestrum aliquo, conditione, statu, facul­
tate vestris, ad præmissa perficienda desit, aut deerit,
eorum quæ per statuta hujus nostri regni aut per leges
ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria
sunt, temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id postulante.’
The subjoined facsimile is taken from the original draft
extant in the Public-Record Office82 with the autograph
signatures of the civilians giving their opinion that the
80 Haddan’s Bramhall, vol. iii. p. iSo, notes.
81 Strype’s Parker, p. 61.
82 Slate Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth, vol. vii. Oct. Dec.

History of the Controversy.

Commission ‘ in this forme pennyd’ may be lawfully acted
on. The name of Bale’s see was left blank, but filled up
with ‘ Osseriensi’ in Cecil’s hand, showing that it was
submitted to his supervision. The mistake of ‘ Richard’
for ‘ John’ as Hodgkins’ Christian name is in this draft,
and so runs through all the copies, both that on the Roll,
and that in the Register. It was on this error that an
argument has been founded against the authenticity of
the commission; but it is of no weight, for his identity is
sufficiently indicated. It is remarkable that Bale is styled
Bishop of Ossory, as if he had not been deprived, though
the Queen would never restore him to his bishopric, and
he was obliged to ‘ content himself with a prebend of
Canterbury.’83
We have now to consider, first, the force and meaning
of the terms used in this dispensing clause, and then the
persons to whom the commission was addressed.
It may be taken for granted that in a matter about
which so much pains were taken, and so many legal
heads at work, every word was used in a strict legal
sense. Now with regard to the acts done in virtue of
the commission, the words ‘ in his quæ juxta mandatum
nostrum per vos fient’ appear to refer to their use of a
form that was without legal sanction, viz. King Edward’s
book, which was admitted by Cecil to be ‘ not established
by Parliament.’ And in the Register the mention of the
book is carefully avoided, and it is only said, ‘ published
by authority of Parliament.’
As regards the defects in persons, the important words
are ‘ conditione, statu, facultate.’
c Facultate may be understood to refer to jurisdiction,
because even Kitchen had no canonical right to consecrate
a Bishop, and none of the others had jurisdiction to per­
form any episcopal act whatever. The Queen therefore
83 Strype’s Parker, p. 65.
deprivation.

j

89

Courayer says there was no legal sentence of

ί
H
J

[(

!

:!

i*

‘
-h

9o

Anglican Ordinations.

undertakes to supply it from her supreme authority, as
all the jurisdiction formerly possessed by the Pope had
been vested in her by the Act of the session just passed,
‘ Conditione' appears to mean their legal position, as
not answering to the description of ‘ Bishops within this
realm or any other the Queen’s dominions,’ as required
by the Act 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 20.
‘ Statu.’ What, then, does this word mean ? Is it not
intended to include the episcopal character ? and to dis­
pense with them in case they or any of them had not
received episcopal consecration ?
Statu is the proper
term to describe the ecclesiastical state, and it is so used
at the present day; for when letters commendatory are
given to an ecclesiastic, they are said to be concerning
his state and moral character, ‘ litteræ commendatitiæ de
tuo statu et moribus,’ thus testifying in what order he is,
and whether free from canonical impediments. The word
is so used in the dispensation83 granted to Hethe Arch­
bishop of York from the Pope, where, having recited that
Hethe had been duly ordained and consecrated, though
by schismatical Bishops, and appointed to different cathe­
dral churches and sees, the Bull proceeds, ‘ nos statui tno
in præmissis paterna charitate consulere . . . volentes.’
And it is also used in this sense in the Act 8 Eliz. cap. 1:
as, ‘ the state of the clergy being one of the greatest
states of this realm;’ ‘ the state ecclesiastical;’ ‘ the high
state of prelacy.’
The writer having consulted a legal friend84 on this
point, received the following reply: £ I am not disposed to
seek for separate and distinct meanings in the words “ fa­
cultate, conditione, statu,” as they are used in the Queen’s
commission. The object of the civilians who advised
her evidently was to include in her dispensation, by the
largest possible words, all the difficulties that might arise.
Credit is claimed for this in the Act 8 Eliz. cap. 1, in
« See Appendix, No. XIX.

64 J. R.

Hope Scott, Esq., Q. C.

History of the Controversy.

91

which it is recited that her Majesty had used “in her said
Letters Patent divers other general words and sentences
whereby her Highness by her supreme power and autho­
rity had dispensed with all causes or doubts of any im­
perfection or disability;” and I think there can be no
question but that even the want of consecration in the
consecrators would, in those times, have been held to
have been cured by the language of the commission.’
It is certainly immaterial whether we judge by the
special meanings of the words, or by their general effect,
if the expressions are sufficiently large to give the Com­
missioners license to do something which by ecclesiastical
law they were not qualified to do. We have seen already
that both Barlow and Parker held the opinion that a
Bishop elect could exercise the functions of a Bishop
validly, though not lawfully. Is it, then, too much to
suppose that the words, ‘ si quid in vobis . . . aut statu
vestro . . . desit eorum quæ . . . per leges ecclesiasticas
in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt,’ were in­
tended to cover the defect of non - consecration ? The
description exactly fits Barlow’s state, in his own and
Parker’s opinion, supposing he had not been consecrated.
It is idle to pretend, as Mason,85 Bramhall,86 and Strype87
have done, that this clause was used only ad majorem cau­
telam, and without any actual occasion. A proceeding so
damaging to the character of the whole affair would never
have been taken, and still less have been put on record,
if it could possibly have been avoided. Equally idle is it
to compare this clause with the dispensation and absolu­
tion from all censures and impediments usually inserted
in Pontifical Bulls for the nomination of Bishops. The
Queen did not profess to absolve from any censures, or
to release from any mere canonical impediments. If she
was supposed to have the power, she did not exercise it
85 Vinci. Eccl. Angl. lib. iii. cap. 7.
su Works, vol. iii. p. 77-83.

sr Parker, p. 55.

92

Anglican Ordinations.

here. She undertakes to supply all defects, but not to
remove any existing burden. With what face could any
of the parties concerned have pretended to think the ne­
cessity lay in that direction, when every step they took
was in defiance of the censures of the Church ? Or how
could any one have ventured even to suggest the idea of
censures, ‘ to the contrary or lett of due execution of’88
the commission, when his so doing would lay him open to
a præmunire?
Bramhall also asserts,89 even with the approval of his
editor Mr. Haddan, that this dispensing clause was used
in the confirmation and installation, but not in the con­
secration itself; the two former being political acts, and
therefore requiring it. It is true that in the sentence of
confirmation, and in the mandate of installation, the dis­
pensing clause is specially referred to, or recited at full
length ; and even, by way of making it stronger, the word
‘ præsentium’ is added ;—the necessity of the present junc­
ture. But it is in vain to say that it was not used in the
consecration, when the mandate contains the order ‘ eun­
dem consecrare,’ followed by the clause dispensing ‘ for
the things done according to our mandate aforesaid and
when, as such, it was read as a part of the ceremony, and
described as ‘ mandatum pro consecratione Archiepiscopi,’
and the consecration was the religious act done in virtue
of it, and the mandate of installation was only the result
of that act, stating what the persons addressed had done
with the powers committed to them.
Lastly, Bramhall maintains90 1 that this dispensative
clause doth not extend at all to the institution of Christ,
or any essential of ordination, nor to the canons of the
universal Church ; but only to the statutes and ecclesias­
tical laws of England.’ But he did not take into account
that the parties to the dispensation did not consider con­
secration as ‘ any essential of ordination;’ and he unfairly
ss Act 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 20.

80 p. 83.

90 p. 83.

History of the Controversy.

93

confines the ecclesiastical laws intended to those of Eng­
land ; for the words are, ‘ by the statutes of this realm, or
by the ecclesiastical laws.’ Had the motive of this dis­
pensation arisen merely from the laws of this realm, whe­
ther statute law or ecclesiastical, it could have been set
right in the next session of Parliament ; but what other
defect than that of the want of consecration could make
the necessity for such a stretch of power, or could come
up to the words ‘ temporis ratione et rerum necessitate
id postulante’ ?
Besides, the dispensation was inserted only in this
commission, and not in any other.91 It therefore applied
to something that affected Parker’s consecration specially.
We must now pass on to the persons authorised to
act under this commission. And first Kitchen. It is im­
possible to say whether they expected Kitchen to act' or
not ; but it seems probable that he had some remains of
conscience left, and therefore avoided coming to London.
It is, indeed, currently stated that he took the oath of
supremacy; but from the following declaration, signed by
him, it would seem that this is not exactly in accordance
with the facts :
‘ Whereas the Queenes Ma‘ie of her bountiful grace tenderinge
the quyet of my conscience hath deferred the renderinge of thothe
of her supremacie to my further consideration within myself in
thexpending of Goddes learnynge, I do assure her Grace by these
présentes subscrybed by my hand, that as a true and faithful sub­
jecte to her authorise I shall for my power, connynge and habilitie set forthe in mine own person, and cause all other under my
jurisdiction to accept and obey the whole course of religion now
approved in the state of her Graces realme, and shall also require
the said othe of others receyving office ecclesiastical or temporal,
as in the statute thereof provyded. In witnes whereof I have
subscrybed with mine owne hande the xviii11’ day of Julye in the
first yere of the rayne of our sayde Soveraigne Lady Elizabeth
Queene of England, France and Irelande, defendor of the fayth
&c.
Anthony Landaff.’92
81 Haddan, p. 82, note.
92 Lamb’s Historical Account of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 11.

94

Anglican Ordinations.

As Kitchen died in October 1563,93 it seems very pro­
bable that he never took the oath himself.
Next we come to Barlow. It is difficult to conjecture
the reason why some one else was not chosen in his
stead, if he really was not a consecrated Bishop. Per­
haps because his name came next in the Commission,
and it would have been an unpopular act to pass him
over ; perhaps because it would have cast such a slur
on all the proceedings of the Reformation to acknowledge
that he had acted so long as Bishop without consecration.
Then, too, he gave the appearance of connection with the
old hierarchy; and probably the real reason was that none
of the parties concerned believed consecration to be abso­
lutely essential.
Scory, Coverdale, and Bale were all made Bishops
during King Edward’s reign, and their consecrations will
therefore depend on the validity of the rite used. Mr.
Haddan has, however, drawn attention94 to the registers
relating to the two first, by which it appears that they
were both consecrated the same day, Aug. 30, 1551, by
the same Consecrator with the same assistants, and be­
fore the same witnesses ; but one is said to have taken
place at Lambeth, and the other at Croydon, which is
highly improbable. But the error admits of explanation.
It seems to have been the practice, if more than one
Bishop was consecrated at the same time, to enter the
Register of each in the full form separately, without re­
ferring to any other. Thus, that of Bonner’s is entered
at length without any mention of Hethe having been con­
secrated with him. The occasion above mentioned was
the only one during King Edward’s reign on which two
were consecrated together, and the name of one of the
places, either Croydon or Lambeth, seems to be written
on an erasure;95 and if so, it is probable that some too
53 Haddan’s Bramhall, p. 56 note, p. 229 note.
05 From information ofMr. Serjeant Beilasis.

94 Preface.

History of the Controversy.

95

zealous official, struck with the apparent contradiction,
and without referring to precedents, took upon himself
to remedy the supposed blunder. If such an alteration
was made, it does not tell for the credit of the Register.
Hodgkins, the Suffragan of Bedford, had really been
consecrated on the 9th of December 1537 by Stokesley
Bishop of London ; Hilsey of Rochester and Wharton of
St. Asaph being the assistants. If there were anv doubt
of the Catholic rite having been used, Stokesley’s pre­
sence on the occasion would remove it. The consecra­
tion is regularly entered in Cranmer’s Register. We arc
tempted to ask, "Why Hodgkins was not employed as the
Consecrator instead of Barlow? and can supply no reason
but the prevailing idea of the sufficiency of election with­
out consecration, and the greater attention paid to secure
compliance with the law than the validity of the rite ; and
Barlow having been already elected to a see, might be
supposed to come nearer the requirements of the law.
But for the same reason, Salisbury, the Suffragan of
Thetford, who was consecrated in 1536, if willing, would
have been more eligible than Barlow, Scory, or Coverdale.
The Queen’s Commission having been issued on the
6th of December, and Kitchen not putting in an appear­
ance ; on the 9th following the four next named in the
Commission, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins,
proceeded to Bow Church between eight and nine o’clock
in the morning, and there went through the proceedings
of the confirmation in the usual form ; Parker not being
present himself’ but appearing by one of his proxies,
Nicholas Bullingham, who took the oath of the Queen’s
supremacy in his name.
On Sunday the ï 7th the consecration rvas celebrated
in the chapel of Lambeth Palace by the same parties in
the presence of the officials, various ecclesiastics who had
been elected to other bishoprics, and members of Par­
ker’s household. The ceremony commenced ‘ about five

96

A nglican Ordinations.

or six o clock in the morning? Notwithstanding all the
arguments that have been brought against the fact of
these occurrences, it is impossible to doubt that every­
thing did take place that is recorded in the Register. It
is impossible, as said before, to raise any question about
the authenticity of the Queen’s Commission of December
6th, being, as it is, enrolled on the Patent Rolls. What
reason, then, was there to prevent its execution, when we
know, under Cecil’s and Parker’s hands, that such was the
intention previously, and when it was supposed that both
legal and ecclesiastical validity had been provided for by
the Queen’s dispensation? Besides, corroborative evidence
has lately come to light. Henry Machyn was a merchant­
tailor in London, who kept a diary specially with regard
to matters connected with his own business, such as fu­
nerals, but also relating to other public events. There is
one entry relating probably to the confirmation which is
imperfect ; this is followed by a mention of the consecra­
tion on the 17th; and on the 20th of the confirmation of
five Bishops at Bow Church. There were really six con­
firmed at that time, though by error he calls them five.
The entries in the Diary are as follows :
. . . . upper part of the page burnt away ....
‘ Parkjer electyd bishope of Canterbere.’
‘ The xvii. day of Desember was the new byshope of
[Canterbury^] doctur Parker, was mad ther at Lambeth.’
‘ The xx. day of Desember afor non, was Sant Tho­
mas evyn, my lord of Canturbere whent to Bow chyrche,
and ther wher v. nuw byshopes mad.’94
Some remarks have been made raising suspicions
whether these entries have been entirely made by the
diarist himself. But the present writer having examined
the ms. in company with a friend,95 who has very exten­
sive acquaintance with ancient mss., they are both con­
vinced that no doubt exists with regard to the genuine­
94

p. zzo.

ni The Rev. Joseph Stevenson.

History of the Controversy.

97

ness of the whole of the above extracts. Machyn cer­
tainly had opportunities of knowing all that was going
on in the way of ceremonial ; and it is quite possible that
in his business of merchant-tailor, he may have had to
furnish some of the cloth and carpeting used for the
decoration of the chapel.
But it may be said, if it all took place as alleged in
the Register, how could the Nag’s-Head story ever have
gained such credence ? Now it should be remembered that
the main point of the legend consists in Scory putting
the Bible on the head of those who were to be conse­
crated. And the laying the book of the Gospels on the
head and shoulders of the Elect is part of the Catholic
rite, and the most conspicuous ceremony to a person at
a distance. If, then, there was any Catholic among the
spectators in Bow Church on the 9th December, he may
have been on the look-out for this ceremony, and seeing
the book of the Gospels produced for Parker’s proxy to
take the oath, he may have fancied this was all the con­
secration intended,—or when asked afterwards, he may
have said, that he saw no more than this. And if such
a story once got wind, on however slight a foundation, it
was too piquant and too welcome to lose anything by
repetition. There does seem also to have been some
secrecy about the ceremony; for such an early hour on
a December morning cannot have been chosen without
a motive. And the suspicions entertained by Catholics
about the Register inclined them to accept the account
most damaging to the other side. Sir Charles Eloward,
afterwards Earl of Nottingham, is said to have been pre­
sent on the occasion; but this statement depends on mere
verbal tradition, and cannot be accepted as certain.
A summary of the reasons for giving credit to the
facts of the Lambeth consecration will now be given, as
those facts were not long ago disputed by the late Canon
Williams, and the old charge of forgery revived.
H

ij
g3

Anglican Ordinations.

1. The official minute with Cecil’s and Parker’s notes..
This shows their intention of proceeding in the usual
course, as nearly as they could considering the difficulties
in the way. And this course comprised ‘ the order of
King Edward’s book to be observed.’ This paper cannot
be a forgery, because there is not only on it Cecil’s and
Parker’s handwriting, each so peculiar and so well known;
but no forgery would have been executed in so clumsy a
manner as to leave evidence on the face of it of the legal
flaws in the proceeding. This paper teas not used at all
in the controversy, till referred to by Dr. Lingard?"’’ and
afterwards by Mr. Haddan?'7 Though printed by Strype,
he was not aware of its importance.
2. The Letters Patent of the sixth of December
1559. This ’s charged
being a forgery, on account
of the non-appearance in the enrolment of the formula
‘ Per ipsam Reginam’ or ‘ By writ of Privy Seal.’ But
the absence of these words is merely the omission of the
clerk who engrossed the instrument, and does not in the
least affect its genuineness. The test of authenticity is
the enrolment in Chancery on the Patent Rolls. But not
to insist on this as the sole argument ; there is corrobor­
ative evidence in the original draft of the commission
preserved in the State-Paper Office with Cecil’s writing
on it, and the autograph signatures of the civilians who
were consulted. This cannot be a forgery, for no forger
would have taken such useless trouble. And the paper
has never been produced in the controversy, nor has
any one noticed that the opinion of the civilians with the
names is exactly copied, but with different spelling, in
the Register, though, as Mr. Haddan states, in a different
handwriting from the Register itself; and on the margin.
A facsimile of the conclusion of the document is ap­
pended.98
96 Cath. Mag. vol. v. p. 707-8.
98 Appendix, No. XXXVII.

97 Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 82, note.

History of the Controversy.

99

3. The entry in Machyn’s Diary. If this had been
written with a controversial purpose, it would have been
quoted as an authority by some one or other. But Strype,
who made extracts from the ms., passed this over; and
it remained unnoticed till sometime after the publication
of the Diary by the Camden Society.
4. A memorandum of Parker’s consecration in a con­
temporary handwriting preserved among Foxe’s mss. in
the British Museum, in part at least extracted from the
Register. Foxe died in 1587, so that the paper must be
at least of an earlier date than that year, and probably is
nearly of the same age as the Register itself, perhaps
even older. If this paper had been ever produced in the
controversy, either by Mason, or Bramhall, or Courayer,
it would be open to great suspicion. But having lain
unnoticed till the present time, it becomes important even
as evidence of the fact of the consecration. A facsimile
forms the frontispiece of this work, and a fuller description of it will be given presently.
5. Stapleton’s assertion that ‘the Bishoppes were
ordered, not according to the acte 28 (25) H. VIII., but
according to an acte of Edw. VI., repealed by Queen
Mary, and not revived in the first year of Q^ Eliz.’99
This is an assertion that there was a consecration accord­
ing to a certain act of Parliament, described in a manner
that will only apply to the Act 5 and 6 Edward VI. ; and
Stapleton’s admission certainly disposes of the supposition
that there was no consecration at all.
6. The Act 8 Eliz. cap. 1. If this Act were merely
declaratory without certain conditions, it could not be accepted as evidence of any value. We must therefore, in
considering the testimony it bears to facts, take into account its purpose and effect. And the enactment is to
the effect, that all acts done about a confirmation or con­
secration in virtue of the Queen’s Letters Patent were

f
?

1
'

f

·
\
ρ

x
7
f
f

’’

I’

1
'
<■

r

99 Counterblast, Preface.

■lb
*

loo

Anglican Ordinations.

declared good and perfect, and that all persons conse­
crated Bishops according to the order of 5 and 6 Edward
VI. were declared to be rightly made and consecrated.
Unless, then, there were certain Letters Patent to be
acted on, and certain consecrations actually done in virtue
thereof, and those consecrations conducted according to
the order of 5 and 6 Edward VI., the Act would be use­
less, and Parker and his colleagues would derive no bene­
fit from it. And the title of ‘ Parliament Bishops’ would
then have had no meaning. It is impossible to suppose
that they would have stultified themselves in this manner.
But it is important to observe, that while the Act imposes
limitations and conditions on the things done, and on the
manner of doing them, it makes no conditions whatever
as to the persons by whom they were done. The words
are. ‘ all acts heretofore done by any person or persons in
or about any consecration,’ and ‘ all persons consecrated
Bishops after the form and order,’ but without saying by
whom,—without any proviso, that the persons doing the
acts, or performing the consecrations, should have been
themselves Bishops. It may also be observed, that, not­
withstanding frequent assertions to the contrary, even by
Mr. Haddan,1 the Register is not referred to in the Act
in any way, but only the public records, such as Letters
Patent.
It seems strange, that nothing had been done in the
Parliament of 1559 to obviate these legal difficulties.
The attempt however was made, for a Bill was passed
through the Lower House ‘ for collating of Bishops by
the Queen’s Highness, and with what Rites and Cere­
monies.’1
2 In the House of Lords it was also read a
first time on the 2 2d of March,3 and described as a Bill
‘ for the admitting and consecrating of Archbishops and
1 Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 174, note.
2 Commons Journals, vol. i. p. 58. Printed in D’Ewes, ‘without Kites
and Ceremonies,’ p. 52. · '
2 Lords Journals, vol. i. p. 568.

History of the Controversy.

101

Bishops;’ but there is no other notice of it in the journals,
though D’Ewes states that it was read a second and third
time.4 Perhaps it was thought that sufficient violence had
been done to the Catholic feeling in the House, without
this further outrage. At any rate, we have here a plain
confirmation of the fact, that the mode and order, by
which Parker and the other Bishops were consecrated,
was without legal sanction. And the want of legal com­
petence in the consecrating Bishops, coupled with the
absence of a legal Ordinal, is sufficient to account for the
state of embarrassment among the party; while the ‘over­
much boldness of speech and talk’ referred to in the Act
8 Eliz. c. i shows how strong a hold these objections had
taken on the public mind.
We may indeed believe the alleged facts—viz. of the
ceremony having taken place at Lambeth on the 17th of
December ; of Parker and the other persons named hav­
ing taken their several parts in it ; and of the rite in the
Book of 1552 having been followed, except in one par­
ticular—to be as certain as any other facts in English
history. But this belief will not lead us to accept the
existing Register as an authentic and contemporaneous
record of the facts as they occurred. On the contrary,
there are circumstances of considerable suspicion attach­
ing to it : first, its extreme minuteness, entering into
details that have no bearing whatever on the real matter
of record, but rather tend to draw off the attention from
it. Next, the other copies, which are constantly referre^
to as evidence in support of the Register, so far from
adding to its credit, rather detract from it. They are
both spoken of as transcripts made from the Register at
Lambeth ; whereas the copy in the State-Paper Office5
appears rather to be a draft, for certain words are altered.
One place has been first written ‘ qui eius consecrationis
* D’Ewes’ Journals, p. 26, ed. 1682.
5 Domestic, Elizth. vol. iii. Oct. Dftc.', ; y

?,

ry \ /

ϋ
ft

Anglican Ordinations.

102

curam agerent,’ then the termination ‘ tionis’ is altered
to 4 tioni’ and 4 curam agerent’ to 4 inseruirent,’ which
agrees with the Register. Now no one transcribing the
Register as it stands would have written 1 curam agerent : ’
and in the passage 4 Cicestrien. quadam profatus atq. po­
pulum ad orationem hortatus,’ the words in Italics are not
given in the Register ; and those accompanying the im­
position of hands are stated to have been said in Latin
instead of in English. Finding thus a draft among the
Secretary’s papers suggests the idea that it was sent to
Cecil for his perusal and approval before being entered,
which would not have been done, if the Register had
been kept as a matter of course in the usual form and
by the usual official, or unless some purpose of policy
had to be answered. Of the copy in C. C. C. Cambridge
Mr. Haddan gives the following account : 4 This transcript
(of which the first three words are elaborately ornamented
on the original parchment, with Parker’s arms emblazoned
in the centre) is believed to have been given to the Col­
lege by Parker himself.’3 ‘It varies from the original Re­
gister only in a few insignificant points : e.g 4 olim’ for
4 quondam,’ and the like, and two words written above
the line by a later hand, and in giving the words of con­
secration in Latin instead of English.’4 4 On the same
parchment immediately follows, apparently in the same
hand, a commission from Parker to Walter Haddon to
be Commissary of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,
dated December 27, 1559.’5 The record here described
containing, among others, such a material variation as to
state that words were said in Latin which the so-called
4 original’ represents to have been said in English, cannot
be considered as a transcript. Besides, as it contains an
entry on an entirely different subject, it cannot have been
written solely with a view to preserve the record of the
consecration. This ms. agrees also with the S. P. O. copy
b

p·'ΛΙ0>’ηΌι·<'''·

4 Ibid.

s p. 213, note/.

Iff 3 /‘8

-i'

**·«■ ü 4

'-b.r.v&irt&V ^«T'w '- *■«

Hislory of the Controversy.

103

in inserting ‘ quædam præfatus atque ;’ and thus the two
agree with each other, but differ from the Register. And
it therefore seems probable that this S. P. O. copy was the
draft from which the Cambridge copy was made, and that
the latter was intended to form part of the Register, but
that after it had been written, it was considered that the
statement of the persons engaged having said ‘ Accipe
Spiritum Sanctum, foc.,’ when they had actually said
'Take the hollie gost, &c.,’ would make the whole thing
a fiction, and therefore this parchment was laid aside, and
another instrument made.
Thirdly. In the Register as it stands a remarkable
departure has been made from the usual form. In all
•other instances the Register records the name either of
the Archbishop or of some Bishop commissioned by him
as taking the principal part, and two other Bishops assist­
ing him. We have the Registers of Hodgkins, Salis­
bury, Holbeach, and Bonner during Henry VIII.’s reign ;
of Ridley, Farrar, Poynet, Hooper, Scory, and Coverdale
during Edward VL’s ;G and extracts from those of eighteen
Bishops consecrated by Parker himself in Queen Elizabeth’s reign.7 In all those of Henry’s time, and also in
Ridley’s, the words used are, ‘ munus consecrationis inipendebat, eumque benedixit.’ In Edward’s time the form
is, ‘ rite et recte consecratus et benedictus fuit.’ But in
Elizabeth’s reign the old form was resumed, for in Horne’s
Register we read ‘ munus consecrationis impendebat.’8
Now in Parker’s case there is no mention of a conse­
crating Bishop and assistants ; and though in the preliminary part the words ‘ consecratio’ and ' consecretur’
are introduced, yet in the act itself it is merely stated
that all four imposed hands and said the words of the
form ; but it is not stated that they, or that any one of
G Couraycr, Défense <le lit Disscrlnliou; Preuves justificatives. See Appen­
dix, Nos. VII. and VIII.
• Haddan on Bramhall, p. 218-31.
8 Courayer, ibid.

!

’

i

‘

i
,t
ρ
;
!

1*

1 ,
Mi

! 14 *
t

104

Anglican Ordinations.

them, did consecrate him, or that he was consecrated by
them.9 Yet afterwards it is said ‘qui eum consecrave­
rant and when they come to the mandate of installation
they use the form ‘ munus consecrationis impendimus.’
There must have been some motive for this departure
from the usual course.
Perhaps light may be thrown upon the question by
the document already mentioned, which is preserved
among Foxe’s mss. in the British Museum.10 This is a
paper written in a hand of the Elizabethan period, with­
out a title, except that Strype has written the heading:
‘The consecration of Bp. Boner, Abp. Parker, &c.’ It
contains first an abstract of the Register of Bonner’s
election and consecration, then notes of Parker’s confirma­
tion and consecration, followed by a note about Barlow,
and notes of Scory’s and Coverdale’s consecration. That
of Parker’s confirmation is taken from the Register, and
apparently those also relating to Scory and Coverdale.
Where that of Parker’s consecration comes from does
not immediately appear. The extract referring to Bonner
will be written first by itself, not having the Register to
compare it with ; but for Parker’s it will be best to place
the two in parallel columns ; Foxe’s ms. in one, and in the
other those parts of the Register which afford grounds of
comparison by touching on the same points, or by avoiding
in one the expressions used in the other. Thus it will be
seen that the ms. has ‘nuper,’ ‘dudum,’ and ‘quondam’
exactly in the places where the Register has them ; but
that, farther on, there are both additions and omissions in
the former as compared with the latter.
Die martis xvijm[> Decembris A0 Dni 1539 et R. R. H. viijTO
9 Mr. Haddan himself has remarked that in other cases a distinction is
made between the consecrating and assisting Bishops, which is not made here,
p. 205, note 0.
10 Harleian, 419, fol. 149. See the facsimile in the Frontispiece of this
work.

i

History of the Controversy.

105

trigesimo erat præsentatum Electionis etc. D”'; Edmundi Boner ad
Episcopatum Heref.11
Die dominica quarto, viz. die mensis Aprilis A0 Dni 1540 et
Regni Dni Regis H. viij0 anno xxxjmo in quodam sacello inferiori
juxta septemtrionalem partem navis ecclesiæ cathedralis Divi
Pauli London, infra palacium Episcopi London, notorie situatæ
etc. Rdi in Christo patris Dni Dnus Stephanus provid,ia divina
Winton. Episcopus Auctoritate etc. assistentibus sibi Rdis patri­
bus Dnis Ric. Cicestrien.11
12 et Johann. Hereforden.13 Episcopis
munus consecrationis et sacræ benedictionis more ecclesiæ Anglicanæ solito per sacræ Chrysmatis unctionem et manuum suarum
impositionem Rdo Pri et D"° D”“ Ed" Boner London. Episcopo
electo et confirmato etc. Benedixit eumque consecravit et insigniis Pontificalibus rite et Religiose insignivit.
Parker’s Register.

Foxe’s aïs.
In Consecratione Archiepiscopi
Cantuariensis.
{See below, nono die Decembris Confirmatus fuit nono die men­
tunc proxime sequentis confir­ sis Decembris tunc proxime se­
mati.)
quentis
per Reverendos Patres Dominos per Reverendos Patres Dominos
Willelmum Barlowe nuper Ba- Willelmum Barlow nuper Bathothonien. et Wellen. Episcopum nien. et Wellen. Episcopum nunc
nunc electum Cicestren.
electum Cicestren. Episcopum
Johannem Scory dudum Cices­ Johannem Scory dudum Cices­
tren. Episcopum nunc electum tren. Episcopum nunc electum
Hereforden. Milonem Coverdale Hereforden. Milonem Coverdale
quondam Exonien. Episcopum quondam Exonien. Episcopum
et Joannem Hodgeskyn Epis­ et Johannem Hodgeskyn Epis­
copum suffraganeum Bedforden. copum suffraganeum Bedforden.
vigore literarum commissiona- vigore literarum patentium
lium Regiarum Patentium eis
directarum nono die Decembris
tunc proxime sequentis confir­
{See above.)
mati
necnon per ipsos Reverendos
Patres auctoritate prædicta
11 The date should be 1538, being the day of Bonner’s confirmation to
Hereford. (See Godwin DePrœs.Angl.)
12 Sampson.
13 Skyp. These names agree with Stubbs [Regist. Sac. Angl.y, but God­
win says ‘ Assaven. ’ in place of ‘ Cicestrien. ’

£? ;

106

Anglican Ordinations.

decimo septimo die eiusdem
mensis Decembris consecrati.
Cicestren. electus capa serica

ad sacra peragenda paratus ute­
batur.
Hereforden. electus et Bedforden. suffraganeus linteis superpelliceis induebantur.
Milo vero Coverdallus non nisi
toga lanea talari utebatur.

decimo septimo die ejusdem
mensis Decembris consecratus.
Cicestren. electus capa serica
indutus vices supplebat conse­
cratoris.

Hereforden. electus et Bedfor­
den. suffraganeus linteis superpellitiis induti.
at Milo Coverdall toga lanea
talari solummodo ornatus.

Assistentes luere.
. . . post orationes et suffragia
qmedam iuxta formam libri auc­
toritate parliament! editi apud
deum habita
Cicestren. Hereforden. suffraga­
neus Bedforden. et Milo Cover­
dallus
manibus Archiepiscopo imposi­
tis dixerunt Anglice, viz. Take
the hollie gost &c.

Postquam hæc dixissent, ad
reliqua Communionis solemnia
pergit Cicestren.
nullum Archiepiscopo tradens
pastorale bacculum . . .

(3A’ below, libellum editum pro
consecratione episcoporum per
parliamentum anno v° et vi10
Edw. VI*j
Qui quidem Consecrator et as­
sistentes.

manibus Archiepiscopo imposi­
tis dixerunt Anglice Take the
Holy Ghost &c.
ceteraque omnia descripta per
quendam libellum editum pro
consecratione episcoporum auc­
toritate1* per1* parliamentum
anno v° et vitü Edwardi VIU exer­
cuerunt.

præterquam quod nullum trade­
bant illi baculum pastorale &c.

Willelmus Barlow consecratus
fuit tempore Henr. VIII.
Johannes Scory suffectus est
Episcopus Roffen. per litteras
patentes datas mandato regis ad
H One of these two words seems redundant.

History of the Controversy.

107

consecrandum eundem xxvii'r,°
Aprilis anno Regni Regis Ed­
wardi sexti quinto.
Consecravit Tho. Cant, assis­
tentibus Nicolao London, et
Johanne Bedforden. xxxm0 Au­
gusti etRegniRegis Edwardi VI"
quinto.
Consecratus Milo Coverdall in
Episcopum Exonien. xxx° die
mensis Augusti anno domini
ΐ55τ.η,° et Regni Regis prædicti
quinto eosdem consecratores.

Here, then, we find a ms. in the writing of a contem­
porary, and not an unfriendly hand, and preserved among
contemporary papers, of which a part is taken exactly
from the Register as it stands, and another part is widely
different. How is this to be accounted for ? There seem
to be three, and only three, suppositions that can be en­
tertained with regard to this paper.
One is, that it is the work of a person putting his
own construction on what occurred, and relating the facts
in his own language. This seems impossible, because it
is certain that the writer had access to the Register, and
carefully preserved the language of one part, and there­
fore would not have gone out of the track in another.
Besides, where did he get the facts ? There are two facts
stated that are not in the Register, viz. that Barlow was
Consecrator, and the others assistants ; and that the
Book of the 5th and 6th Edw. VI. was used. No one
with the Register open before him would have entered on
these topics of his own head.
Another hypothesis is, that these notes were made
from the drafts prepared for the Register, or from some
preliminary instrument, if there were any. This seems
improbable ; for how could any one have got hold of the
drafts or of such an instrument ? And the part taken

I
I!

i Ά Γ·Λί

i ο8

;Vh'4

A nglican Ordinations.

from the Register is only from the title, which, as we
learn from Mr. Haddan,15 occupies the second page, en­
grossed in large capitals. If any one had seen the drafts,
this title is not likely to have formed a part of them.
The third supposition is, that the whole of these
notes were taken from the Register as it originally stood ;
that after the objections made by Catholics, and particu­
larly after Bonner’s case arose, the Anglican party found
■out what a mistake they had made in allowing Barlow to
act as Consecrator, and that it would be dangerous to
admit that King Edward’s book had been used ; that the
Register was accordingly either wholly or partially re­
written, and the part in question altered so as to gloss
over Barlow’s being the principal in the function, and to
describe the form used without specifying the source from
which it was taken. And considering the notes about
Bonner written on the same paper, it seems not impro­
bable that the writer was some one who had been con­
sulted about Bonner’s case, and made his notes with that
view. And this probability is increased by the fact of
there being other papers about Bonner’s case among
Foxe’s mss. And it seems clear, from the use of the
word £ tunc,’ that the Register was not engrossed during
Anthony Huse’s lifetime.
Besides, there is a reason apparent for the reference
to Bonner’s consecration. Bonner’s plea against Horne
was, that the Act 25 Henry VIII. c. 20 required at a
consecration, either an Archbishop and two Bishops, or
else four Bishops, and that Horne had neither. But from
the time of the passing of the Act, the clause requiring
four Bishops in the absence of an Archbishop had re­
mained a dead letter till the question arose about Parker’s
consecration. No less than ten diocesan Bishops, and
six suffragans, had been consecrated by commission from
13 p. 173, note a. See the Facsimile published by the Rev. T. J. Bailey.

t, ; ^0 Vi * Vrt* $ -s

Λ

t.'i P^li^’’'· &

History of the Controversy.

109

Cranmer, in each case by three Bishops only,10 and among
them was Bonner himself. It seems therefore that an
answer was in preparation on Horne’s side, which would
have turned Bonner’s plea against himself. Of course it
would have been futile, for Bonner did not come into
court as Bishop ; and a defect proved against him would
not have given Horne a legal title. But it is sufficient to
show with great probability a connection between the
paper in question and Bonner’s case, that the facts would
have allowed of such an argument, and that the evidence
of them is here in process of being drawn out, and that
there is reason to believe that the extracts were made
with that view from the Register as it then stood.
Whichever of these three suppositions is correct, it
makes but little difference in the end. We have it, at any
rate, on the testimony of one of the party, sufficiently in
Parker’s confidence to have access to the Register, that
Barlow was the Consecrator, and that the rite used was
that of 1552 ; and that though these acts had been done
with full knowledge and deliberation of all the parties
concerned, yet that it was found to be too damaging and
too dangerous to admit the facts on the record.
We must not pass over the note about Barlow himself. Here is a writer in the confidence of the parties,
and collecting evidence in their favour, and writing probably in Barlow’s own lifetime, but yet unable to tell the
date of his consecration, or the names of the Bishops
who consecrated him.
It is, however, time to consider what would be the
effect, supposing that Barlow had not been consecrated,
but that on this occasion they preferred following the
rubric of the Pontifical instead of that they had before
them in the Book of 1552, and that all four imposed
their hands and said the words of the rite together.
Anglican writers, as Mason and Bramhall, have hence
16 Stubbs’ Regis. Sac. Angi.

it
h
yj.
||
-■·,
J

v

?r·

ιυ
:

v
! . ..

j
h,.,■

μ-j
g.
j

’

y

' ; ‘f'

no

Anglican Ordinations.

argued, that all four were really Consecrators, and
therefore it would be sufficient if only one of the
four had been truly a Bishop. Mr. Haddan adds a
note,17 that ‘ Barlow’ presided at Parker’s consecration,
but the position occupied by him does not answer to
that of the consecrating Bishop, for all joined through­
out and equally, both in the imposition of hands and the
words. It follows, then, upon every theory, that the ab­
sence of Barlow’s consecration, if it were so, would not
invalidate that of Parker.’ And he quotes'* Martcne,
de Anliq. Eccl. Rit. lib. i. pt. iii. c. viii. art. io, § 16,
to the effect that ‘ omnes qui adsunt Episcopi non tan­
tum testes sed etiam cooperatores esse citra omnem du­
bitationis aleam asserendum est.’ Dr. Lee1'·1 has argued
to the same effect. Now we are not to suppose that, in
acting as they did, Barlow and the others had devised
something new and unknown before, and which there­
fore requires exceptional treatment. On the contrary,
they were following the rubric of the Exeter Pontifical,-0
which in this point agrees with the present Roman
rite. The case therefore may be solved in the same
manner and on the same principles as if it had occurred
within the Catholic Church itself. Only it is necessary
to consider that one was Consecrator and the others as­
sistants, because the Church knows of no other kind of
consecration ; and because it is not clear whether the nar­
ration in the Register does really represent the facts as
they occurred, according to the intention of the parties at
the time, or whether it was not an after-thought to repre­
sent the four as all equally and individually Consecrators.
In the passage quoted by Mr. Haddan, Martcne sim­
ply asserts that the assisting Bishops cooperate with the
17 p.136, note j'.
15 p.145, note c19 cap. xx"'·
20 Bp. Lacy’s Lib. Pontifical, p. 96, Maskell’sMounm. A'iina/.vo].. iii. p. 258.
In Archbishop Egbert’s Pontifical, and some others of an early date, the
Rubric directs all three Bishops to say the three preliminary prayers together,
but the Consecrator alone is to say the long prayer called 1 Consecratio. ’

History of the Controversy.

11 i

Consecrator, but he does not thereby imply that they ac­
tually consecrate either separately from him or equally
with him. And the same principle is taught by other
writers, who make a distinction between the Consecrator
and assistants, in saying that the former effects and com­
pletes the whole consecration ; while they speak of the
latter only as ‘ aiding,' ' cooperating,’ 1 giving testimony
and approval.’ Thus Azor:21 ‘ verius est, quod Hostiensis
et Goffredus docuerunt, unum (episcopum) totam con­
secrationem efficere, alios vero adjutores esse.’ Henricus
de Segusia, Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, called furis Splen­
dor among the Canonists of his age, composed his Summa
Aurea by command of Pope Alexander I\L The follow­
ing is the passage referred to by Azor : ‘ Item, numerus
consecrantium, scilicet, quod (ad) minus sint tres, unus
principaliter consecrans, et duo coadjutores, et cæteri
consecrantes. Item, quod unus totam consecrationem perficiat, nam si unus partem unam faciat, et alius partem
alteram, nihil agitur; vel si unus episcopus manum imponat, et simplex presbyter, vel etiam alter episcopus
benedictionem infundat.’22 Fagnanus also to the same
effect says: ‘Unus tamen episcopus totam perficit, alii
vero duo sunt assistentes.’23 And Pope Benedict XIV.,21
in maintaining the validity of a consecration conferred
by a single Bishop, refers potissimum to Van Espen, from
whom we learn as follows : ‘ BvJ the canons of. the
Nicene and other Councils the discipline was established
as well in the Greek as in the Latin Church, that be­
sides the ordaining Bishop, two others ought to attend
at the consecration of a Bishop, and personally assist
him. The reason for this discipline was assigned by
Pope Innocent I., writing in his Epistle to Victricius,
21 Instil. Moral. vol. ii. p.
22 Summa A urea, De Sac. Unctione, No. 5. Boich, quoting the passage,
supplies the word ad (De Sacram, non iterand. cap. Presb. No. 2).
-3 Comment, in Decret, cap. Nec Episcopi, No. 7.
21 Synod. Diœcesan. lib. xiii. cap. 13, § 4.

>
!

■

|
p
ΐ
1
}

i.

1

Fl

y

ii'2

Anglican Ordinations.

that “ one Bishop singly should not presume to ordain
a Bishop, lest the benefice seem to be conferred by
stealth. For such was also the constitution defined in
the Nicene Council.” As if he would say, the Council
would not have a Bishop to ascend furtively or like a thief
into the fold of Christ, but publicly, that is to say, with
the universal Church, represented by the Bishops of the
province, approving and assenting. But neither by the
Pope, nor by other authorities, is a consecration rejected
as null and invalid if done without the right number of
Bishops, but only censured as clandestine and performed
without legitimate approval ; for the presence of those
Bishops is required not so much for the substance and
validity of the consecration, as for having it well con­
sidered and jointly approved. And therefore, in case of
necessity, the consecration can be given by a single Bi­
shop, since the presence of three, or even of two, appears
to belong to discipline, and not to the substance or
essence of the consecration.’17 Another argument in con­
stant use on this subject is derived from the distinction
made in the ancient Ordo Romanus, as well as in the
present Roman Pontifical, between the three Bishops,
describing one as the ‘ Consecrator,’ and the others as
1 assistentes ;’ and Billuart18 argues, that ‘ although the
Consecrator might be called an assistant and a witness,
yet, if all consecrate equally, there is no reason why one
only should be called the Consecrator, and the others only
assistants and witnesses.’ Filliucius19 also speaks to the
point in saying, ‘Although there are three who consecrate,
one of them alone completes the consecration, even though
the others pronounce the words ; for of one sacrament
there is but one minister.’ To these arguments replies
are found in Hallier,20 speaking not his own opinion, but
17
18
10
20

Jus Eccles. Univ. tit. xv. cap. x, § 5-xo.
Theol. Moral. De Sacr. Ord. dissert, iv. art. 3.
Vol. i. p. 278, De Sac. Ord. Tract. 9.
De Sac. Elect, et Ordin. pt. ii. sect. 5, art. 2, cap. 2, § 33·

History of the Controversy.

113

on the part of those who maintain that the presence ot
three Bishops is essential for validity, to the effect that
the name of Consecrator is given to one only, because the
right and authority rests with one, viz. the Metropolitan,
but that ail might be called consecrators ; and that the
rule of there being but one minister of one sacrament
does not apply in a case where all act together as if the)
were one, 'per modum unius.' Without, however, ventur­
ing to express an opinion on either side of these disputed
points—that is to say, whether the assistant Bishops are
only ‘ testes’ or also ‘cooperatores,’ and if cooperators, in
what sense they cooperate ; or whether the Consecrator
alone is the minister of the sacrament, and alone com­
pletes the consecration ; or whether the others are joint
consecrators with him ·, or whether it could be maintained
that all the Bishops present are equally and separately and
individually consecrators—it is obvious that in a point touch­
ing the administration of a sacrament, such a defect as the
absence of the episcopal character on the part of the prin­
cipal Consecrator would throw a very grave doubt on the
validity of the consecration. It is quite sufficient to cause
the doubt, that various authorities should have taught
that ‘ one Bishop alone effects the whole consecration.’
And in this view all the writers on the controversy of
the Catholic side—Champneys,31 Talbot,21
23* Le Quien,23
22
Constable,2A Bishop Milner,25 and Archbishop Kenrick26
—have maintained that the circumstance of Barlow not
being a Bishop would be a fatal defect in Parker’s
consecration. On the other hand, Mason27 and Bramhall,28 in trying to explain away this defect, have admitted
21
22
23
21
23
20
27

Treatise of Vocation &c. p. 191, ed. Douay, 1616.
Treatise of Cath. Faith and Heresie, p. 17.
Nullité des Ord. Angl. vol. i. cap. 9, p. 469.
Clcrofh. Alethes, p. 207.
Letter to Dr. Ellington in Kenrick’s Appendix, p. 209.
Validity âsc. p. 135.
Vind. Eccl. Angl. lib. iii. cap. 10, p. 370.
28 Vol. iii. p. 145.
I

114

Anglican Ordinations.

the weakness of their case, by resting their argument on
the ground that all four were principals on the occasion,
becau.se they all imposed hands and all said the words.
Butas in so acting they were only following the rubric of
the Pontifical, they could not thereby become ‘ principals
in anj' other sense or mode than the assistants in the
Catholic rite are principals. There is, in fact, in this cir­
cumstance nothing whatever that removes the case from
the ordinary rules of theology, which have been here un­
der discussion. Bramhall"9 indeed goes on to say, 'Who­
soever do impose hands are joint consecrators, with us as
well as with them.’ But this assertion is merely adopt­
ing one side of a disputed question, and following a mere
opinion of certain theologians, which has not sufficient
weight, even of probability, to remove the very serious
doubt that affects the consecration.
The doubts thus suggested would be rendered still
more grave, if it be the fact, as seems probable, that the
parties engaged felt themselves in such uncertainty on
the subject that they avoided, or perhaps even altered,
the usual form of Register, in order to make it appear
that the assisting Bishops had taken a more direct and
prominent part in the consecration than they had pur­
ported and intended to do at the time.
We may now sum up the points in question, so as
to say what may be considered as proved, and what facts
alleged on either side cannot be admitted as proved. We
may take it as proved, that the Queen’s Commission ot
December 6 is a genuine and authentic instrument; that
it was duly executed on the 9th of the same month as to
the confirmation, and on the iyth as to the consecration;
that Parker’s consecration did take place in the manner
described in the Register as far as it goes ; that Barlow
and Scory were not consecrated after Parker, but only
confirmed ; and that the other consecrations did take
29 Vol. iii. p. 145.

History of the Controversy.

115

place as alleged on the 21st of December and the 21st
of January. Further, it may be admitted as proved, that
the Nag s-Head story is a legend without foundation
in fact, and that the charge sometimes made of Parker
and the first Elizabethan Bishops assuming their place
and discharging their functions without consecration of
any kind is also unfounded. On the other hand, it is
not proved that Barlow ever received any episcopal con­
secration whatever; it is not proved that the Register
was drawn up at a time contemporaneous with the mat­
ters of record, or that it does faithfully record the facts
as they took place, or place on record all the facts that
did take place, and were usually recorded. At the same
time the negative is not proved against Barlow. Al­
though there are strong grounds of suspicion, they do
not amount to an absolute proof of his not having been
consecrated.
And here a statement of Dr. Pusey’s30 may be no­
ticed, as foliotvs : ‘ The form adopted at the consecration
of Archbishop Parker was carefully framed on the old
form used in the consecration of Archbishop Chichele, a
century before (as I found by collation of the Registers
in the Archiépiscopal Library at Lambeth, now many
years ago). The form used in Chichele’s time I could
not trace farther back. Its use was exceptional, having
been resorted to at a time when the English Church did
not acknowledge either of the claimants to the Papacy.
The tradition of that consecration was then only a cen­
tury old. It was of the Providence of God that they had
that precedent to fall back upon. But the selection of
this one precedent (amidst the number of Archbishops
consecrated in obedience to Papal Bulls, in which case
the form was wholly dilierent) shows how careful Parker
and his Consecrators were to follow the ancient prece­
dents.’ The statement is very vague, but it is quoted by
30 Eirenicon, p. 232.

n6

History of the Controversy.

Anglican Ordinations.

Mr. Bailey as ‘a very important fact.’17 Chichele, how­
ever, was not consecrated as Archbishop, but as Bishop
of St. David’s. And so far from the English Church not
acknowledging the Pope at the time, Chichele was con­
secrated by Pope Gregory XII. himself at Siena in 1408,
as recorded in the inscription on his monument, and hav­
ing been elected Archbishop by the Chapter, notice was
sent to the Pope by King Henry V.,18 and he was con­
firmed by a Bull of provision of Pope John XXIII. in 1414,
who also consecrated Chichele’s successor in. the see of
St. David’s,19 It is true that there was a schism at the
time, and that, although Gregory XII. and John XX111. are
recognised in the Bullarium Romanum, questions after­
wards arose affecting both those Popes; but it is also
clear that the English Church at both those periods did
acknowledge a rightful Pope. Godwin refers to the Bull
of provision as in Chichele’s Register. It is therefore
impossible to see in what manner any precedent can be
found at this time for the proceedings at Parker’s con­
secration; or even what meaning can be attached to
Dr. Pusey’s statement.
Another story is told in a letter printed by Mr. Pococke, which, according to Dr. Hook,20 fully establishes
the fact of the Earl of Nottingham’s presence at the
ceremony of December 17, 1559. ‘In King James’ reign
the Nag’s-Head story having caused some remarks at the
Privy Council, the Earl of Nottingham declared he was
present at Parker’s consecration, and saw it conducted
by the form in King Edward’s book, having the book in
his hand all the time, and there was an instrument drawn
up of it, which he saw and read, and believed it to be at
C. C. C. Cambridge. By the King’s order this instru17
18
18
Ang.
28

English Orders and Papal Supremacy, p. 28.
Rymer, vol. ix. p. 119.
Godwin de Prœs. Aug. Collier, vol. iii. p. 301.
Hook’s Lives of Abps. of Cant. vol. v. p. 27.
Lives of Abps. of Cant. vol. iv. p. 244·

Stubbs, Regisl. Sac..

117

ment was sent for, and when produced, the Earl declared
it to be the same.’21 This story proves too much, and
seems made to fit the circumstances, owing to its being
a mere tradition, that confessedly had passed through
several hands before it was committed to writing. If
evidence of this character is to be admitted as the basis
of an argument, the Catholic side would be equally en­
titled to draw a conclusion from the story that when the
four priests were brought up to Lambeth to inspect the
Register, Father Fairclough told the Archbishop that his
Either kept a shop in Cheapside, and had often assured
him of his having been present at the consecration of the
first Protestant Bishops at the Nag’s Head.22 But the
truth of the story about the Earl of Nottingham may be
tested; for if any such proceeding took place in the Privy
Council, it would appear in the Minutes, and there would
be an order for the attendance of some one from the
College to bring up the document. It is indeed a matter
of surprise, that the Editor of Burnet should have pub­
lished such a letter, without referring to some further
evidence for the authenticity of the story.

It is much to be regretted that none of the Catholic
writers of the time left a clear and plain statement of the
facts as they occurred about Parker’s consecration, and
also of the reasons which guided the authorities of the
Church in their dealings with those who received orders
according to the Anglican rite. The statements that we
meet with are not only rhetorical and strongly partisan,
but the question of a legitimate and canonical ordination
is so mixed up with that of the validity, that it is far
from easy to determine whether the writers mean to in­
clude a denial of the latter in their denunciations.
To begin with those who reflect on the consecrations
«
21 Pocockc’s edition of Burnet, vol. v. p. 553.
22 Cleroph. Aldkes, p. 106.

ii8

Anglican Ordinations.

of the first Elizabethan Bishops, and starting with Bon­
ner’s case, as the pleas may be supposed to be drawn
with legal precision, setting out the points that he was
prepared to prove in his defence on being indicted by
Horne Bishop of Winchester for refusing to take die
oath of supremacy. The judges allowed the plea of
Horne not being Bishop to be good; but the cause
never came to trial. Among the reasons alleged for this
plea are the following :
‘Item. That the said Mr. Robert Horne not being lawfull
bishop of Winchester, but an usurper, intruder, and unlawfull possessioner thereof, for that according to the lawes of the catholike
churche, and the statutes and ordinances of this realmc, the said
Mr. Robert Horne was not elected, consecrated, or provided, etc.
i Item. That D. Horne foresaid ys no lawful Byshoppe neither
concerninge the tendring of the said othe, nor exercise of other
ecclesiastical office, for many causes, and speciallye for that the
said D. Horne was not lawfully consecrated according to the lawes
and statutes of this realme, and especiallie the statute of xxv(tl of
Hen. VIII. cap. xx°, where in effect is requyred that he that is
to be consecrated must, amongst other thinges, have one archebyshope and two byshoppes, or ells iiij byshoppes, at the conse­
cration, which the said D. Horne had not.’23

The grounds here alleged do not necessarily go be­
yond legal objections; for although Bonner denies that
Horne had four Bishops to consecrate him, this need not
mean more than denying them to be Bishops legally.
And the not ‘ being consecrated according to the lawes
of the Catholic Church,’ would mean only so far as those
laws were in accordance with the ‘ statutes and ordinances
of the realm’ then in force, otherwise the plea would have
been of no avail in a Court of Law. But, at any rate,
Bonner’s plea seems to have caused considerable alarm and
excitement among the Anglican party; for Randolph writes
from Edinburgh to Cecil, March 30, 1565: ‘The tale
is; that Boner in his defence at his arraignment said that
23 Harleian 421, and Strype’s Annals, vol. i, pt. i. p. 5, 6.

History of the Controversy.

119

if

there was never a lawful Bishop in England ; which so as­
tonished a great number of the best learned that yet they
know not what answer to give him ; and where it was
determined he should have suflered, he is remitted to the
place from whence he came, and no more said unto him.’21
Harding comes next; and it will be most convenient,
after each quotation from Harding, to let Jewell’s reply
follow at once.
Hardiny ‘Ye say that the ministers ought lawfully to be
called, and duly and orderly preferred to that office of the Church
of God. Why do ye not so ? Why is not this observed among
you gospellers ? Whatsoever ye mean by your minister and by
that office, this are we assured of, that in this your new church,
bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, or any other inferior orders
ye have none. . . . For whereas ye have abandoned the external
sacrifice and priesthood of the New Testament, and have not in
your sect consecrated bishops, and therefore being without priests
made with lawful laying on of hands, .... how can ye say that
any among you can lawfully minister, or that ye have any lawful
ministers at all ?’25
‘You bear yourself as though you were Bishop of Salisbury.
But how can you prove your vocation ? By what authority usurp
you the administration of doctrine and sacraments ? What can
you allege for the right and proof of your ministry? Who hath
called yoti? Who hath laid hands on you? By what example
hath he done it ? How and by whom are you consecrated ? Who
hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take
upon you ? Be you a priest, or be you not ? If you be not, how
dare you usurp the name and office of a Bishop ? If you be, tell
us who gave you orders ? The institution of a priest was never
yet but in the power of a Bishop. Bishops have always, after
the apostles’ times, according to the ecclesiastical canons, been
consecrated by three other Bishops, with the consent of the Metro­
politan, and confirmation of the Bishop of Rome.’26
Jciaell. ‘ We deny not the consecration of three Bishops; we
deny not the confirmation of the Metropolitan. We ourselves are
so consecrated and so confirmed. The matter that lieth between
us is this : whether through the whole Church of Christ no man
21 State-Paper Office, Foreign, Scotland, x. 66.
25 Confutation of the Apology, in Jewell’s Works, vol. iii. p. 320; ed.
Parker Society.
se p. ^2I-

?■
'■

J
Jj*

,:<
j 1%
, .

x
p
ψΐ
’y

jf
.7

·'‘
i

[

L 7-'
<. r

L

izo

Anglican Ordinations.

may be allowed for a Bishop without the confirmation of the
Pope.’27
Harding. ‘ If there be no Church where is no priest, where is
your Church like to become, after that our apostates, that now be
tied from us to you, shall be departed this life ? . . . It remaineth,
ΔΙ. Jewel, you tell us whether your vocation be ordinary or extra­
ordinary. If it be ordinary, show us the letters of your orders; at
least show us that you have received power to do the office you
presume to exercise, by due order of laying on of hands and con­
secration. But order and consecration you have not. For who
could give that to you of all these new ministers, which he hath
not himself?’28
Jewell. ‘Whereas it plcaseth you to call for my letters of
orders, and to demand of me, as by some authority, whether I be
a priest or no? what hands were laid over me? and by what order
I was made? I answer you : I am a priest, made long si thence by
the same order and ordinance, and 1 think also by the same man
and the same hands, that you, M. Harding, were made priest by,
in the late time of K. Edw. the sixth.
‘Further, as if you were my metropolitan, ye demand of me,
whether I be a Bishop or no ? I answer you : I am a Bishop, and
that by the free and accustomed canonical election of the whole
chapter of Sarisbury, assembled solemnly together for that purpose.
‘ Our Bishops are made in form and order, as they have been
ever, by free election of the chapters, by consecration of the Arch­
bishop and other three Bishops ; and by the admission of the
prince.’ 20
Hardings rejoinder. ‘Neither by the same ordinance, M. Jewell,
nor by the same man, nor by the same hands, nor in the time of
the same late king. . . . I aske as well of your bishoply vocation,
and of your sending, as of your priesthood. You answere, neither
by what example hands were laid on you, nor who sent you, but
only you say, he made you priest that made me in King Edward’s
days. Verily I never had any name or title of priesthood given to
me during the raigne of K. .Edward. 1 only tookc the order of
deaconship, as it was then ministered, farther I went not. . . .
Truly I tooke myselfe neither for a priest, nor yet for a lawfull
deacon in all respects, by those orders, which were taken in King
Edward’s days. ... 1 esteemed not the title of any ministry, which
1 might seem to have received in King Edward’s time, so much as
I should have done, if I had received it of a Catholic Bishop, and
27 Defence of the Analogy, ibid. p. 330.
28 1’· 3«·

p. 334.

History of the Controversy.

1 21.

after the order of the Catholic Church, being well assured that
those who gave them were out of order themselves, and ministered
them not according to the rite and manner of the Catholic Church,
as who had forsaken the whole succession of Bishops in all Chris­
tendom, and had erected a new congregation of their own planting,
the form whereof was imagined only in their own brains, and had
not been seen nor practised in the world before.’30
‘ Ye were made, you say, by the consecration of the Archbishop
and other three Bishops. And how, I pray, was your Archbishop
himself consecrated? What three Bishops in the realme were
there to lay hands upon him? You have now uttered a worse case
for yourselves, than was by me before named. For your Metro­
politane himself had no lawful consecration.’31

To this Jewell makes no reply.
Harding. ‘ If ye allow not every man, yea and every woman,
to be a priest, why drive ye not some of your fellows to recant that
so have preached ? Why allow ye the books of your new evange­
lists that so have writtenJ’32
Jewell. i We neither have Bishops without Church, nor Church
without Bishops. Neither doth the Church of England this day
depend of them whom you call apostates, as if our Church were no
Church without them. They are no apostates, M. Harding, but for
a great part learned, grave, and godly men. Notwithstanding, if
there were not one of them nor of us left alive, yet would hot
therefore the whole Church of England flee to Lovaine.’33
‘ Ye tell us : “ There is a priesthood internal, and a priesthood
external, and there is a difference between laymen and priests.”
What needed this talk, M. Harding? There is not one of us that
ever taught otherwise. We know that the priest or minister of the
Church of God is divided from the rest of his brethren, as was the
tribe of Levi from the children of Israel, and hath a special office
over the people. Neither may any man force himself into that
office without lawful calling. But as touching the inward priest­
hood, and the exercise of the soul, we say in this sense every
faithful Christian man is a priest, and offereth unto God spiritual
sacrifices : in this only sense, I say, and none otherwise. Whoso­
ever is a member of Christ’s body, a child of the Church, is fully
invested with this priesthood, and therefore may justly be called a
priest. And wheresoever there be three such together, though
they be only laymen, yet have they a Church.’34
30 Harding’s Detedien, p. 229-31.
32 Jewell’s idwl-s, vol. iii, p. 322.

31 Ibid. fol. 234.
33 p. 335.
34 P· 335'6-

122

’

Anglican Ordinations.

It is difficult to understand Harding’s meaning. By
the words ' your Metropolitan had no lawful consecra­
tion/ he certainly admits the fact of Parker’s consecra­
tion, though he denies its being legitimate. And the
question ' What three Bishops in the realm were there
to lay hands upon him?’ raises no farther objection than
that Parker’s consecrators were not ‘Bishops of the realm,’
in which he is perfectly correct. Not all the reasoning
of Constable or other writers can extract more from his
words than denying them to be real or true or lawful
Bishops. And his strongest expressions admit ol explan­
ation, if he believed Barlow to be no Bishop, or if he
denied the validity of the form, without supposing him to
deny the fact of the Lambeth consecration.
*
Still it must be remarked, that whatever was Hard­
ing’s meaning, Jewell’s replies are far from satisfactory.
He first speaks in mere general terms; then he mentions
his election, as if that were the act that made him Bishop.
And according to his doctrine, which we have had before
us already, it was so. And this may account for his
referring to it so emphatically. Then when Harding
presses him again to say who consecrated him or his
Metropolitan, he makes no answer, though he published
another edition of his Defence, in which he replies to
Harding’s Detection. And he flies off from the subject
to make a reply to the charge of not interfering with
those who preached that every man was a priest, in which
having first called it ‘an odious untruth, we have not so
preached nor written,’35 he goes on to propound in effect
the very doctrine he disclaims; first asserting the interior
priesthood of al) Christians; then denying all sacrifice
but what is internal, thus involving the denial of any
other than that interior priesthood of which he had
spoken, and leaving his readers to draw the inference,
that in case of the failure of the priestly succession, the
35 In the margin, p. 322.

History of the Controversy.

s 23

people have it in their own power to constitute the minis­
try anew.
Next Sanders.

,·.
/

I

‘When Elizabeth restored the law for making Bishops, according
to which the Queen’s prelates were to be ordained, it was required
that, besides the Metropolitan, or with his consent, two or three
Bishops should assist and impose hands on them. But it fell out
ridiculously, that when these superintendents were to be created,
they could not prevail with the Catholic Bishops to impose hands
on them ; and among their own party they had not three nor even
two Bishops, nor any Metropolitan at all, previously ordained by
other Bishops, by whose hands or consent they might be ordained.
. . . They were very pressing with an Irish Archbishop, whom they
at the time were keeping in prison in London, to help them in
this necessity; and offered him his liberty and other rewards, if he
would be the principal in their ordination; but the good man
could not for any consideration be induced to impose consecrated
hands on heretics, or to be a partaker in other men’s sins. And
thus, as they were without any legitimate ordination, and were
commonly said and proved even by English law to be no Bishops,
they were obliged to call in the aid of the secular arm, and to obtain
the confirmation of the lay government in a subsequent parliament,
so that by that authority, whatever in the previous consecration
had been improperly done or omitted, or otherwise than the statute
prescribed, might be condoned them, although after they had filled
the episcopal chair and discharged the office of Bishops for some
years without any episcopal consecration. Hence the name was
given them of Parliamentary Bishops!"®

Mr. Haddan37 has remarked that ‘ there are a great
many untruths in Sanders’ account.’ It is certainly told
in vague and general terms, and the events of seven years
are put together in one paragraph, as if they followed
each other immediately. But let us examine it in detail.
It is literally true, that of the seven Bishops to whom the
Queen’s commission was addressed, only one was legally
qualified to act, and thus the words ‘aut très duosve
Episcopos’ are fully borne out, and the addition of ‘ ab3ti Sanders, De Schism. Angl.; ed. Colon. 1585, fol. 165-7; ed. L°,ne,
j 586, p. 392-401.
37 Bramhall, vol. iii. p. 230, note.

I

124

Anglican Ordinations.

aliis Episcopis prius ordinatum’ seems to indicate that
the other six had not all been actually consecrated. The
statement also of their having discharged the episcopal
functions without any episcopal consecration is perfectly
correct, if it is meant that Parker’s consecrator was not
a Bishop. And thus too there may be a foundation for
the alleged application to an Irish Archbishop, although
it cannot have occurred in the year 1559; for there was
no Irish Bishop prisoner in London in that year. Robert
Waucop, who, although blind, had been nominated by
the Pope Archbishop of Armagh, died at Paris in 1551.
The official returns of prisoners in London in the StatePaper Office contain no name answering the description,
although several are mentioned for religious causes.
Richard Creaghe was nominated by the Pope Archbishop
of Armagh, and consecrated at Rome. He arrived in Ire­
land in 1564, was arrested, sent to London, and placed
in the Tower, but made his escape after three years’ im­
prisonment. It is quite probable that some offer was
made to him such as Sanders describes; and as the ‘ ne­
cessity’ referred to extended to the year 1566, Sanders’
word ‘ then’ may come within the time. Thus, in the
whole passage quoted from Sanders there is nothing
whatever inconsistent with the known facts; while even
his strongest expressions remarkably fall in with the sus­
picions raised by and the inferences drawn from other
sources.
Lastly, Stapleton.
‘The pretended Bishops of Protestants ... by what authorite
do they governc the folde of Christes flocke? Who laicd hands
over them? Whither went they to be consecrated,—seeing that at
home there was no number of such as might and*would serve their
turne ?... I sale, by the verdit of holy Scripture and practise of
the primitive Church, these men are no Bishops. I speak nothing
of the lawes of the reahne. It hath ben of late sufficiently proved
they are no Bishops, if they should be tried thereby. But let
them be tried by Scripture. At the planting of our Christen faith,

History of the Controversy.

125..

Bishops of the realme were ordained by laying on of handes re­
quired in holy Scripture........ Your pretended Bishops have no
such ordination, no such laying on of handes of other Bishops, no
authorite to ordain true priestes or ministres; and therefore neyther
ye are true mynistres, neither they any Bishops at all.’38
Again, in another work: ‘ Is it not notorious, thatyee and your
colieages were not ordeined no not according to the prescripte,
I will not say of the Churche, but even of the verye statutes?
Howe then can yee challenge to yourselfe the name of the Lord
Bishop of Winchester ?’39
1 It is not the princes only pleasure that maketh a Bishop, but
there must be both free election . . and a due consecration, whichin you and al your fellows doe lacke ; and therefore are in deede
no true Bisshoppes, neither by the lawe of the Churche, neyther
yet by the lawes of the reahne, for wante of due consecration, ex­
pressly required by an act of Parliament, renewed in this Queenes
dayes in suffragane Bisshoppes, much more in you.’40
‘ If I should aske M. Horn again, how he can goe for a Bishop,
and write himself the B. of Winchester, being called to that func­
tion only by the letters patents of the prince, without due consecra­
tion or imposition of handes by any Bishop or Bishops living, . .
neither he nor al his fellowes, being all unordered prelates, shall
ever be able to make any sufficient or reasonable answer (answer­
ing as Christian Catholike men), whereby it may appeare that they
may goe for right Bishops of Christes Church ; but that thei must
remain as they were before, or mere laymen, or simple priestes.’41

Yet, notwithstanding these strong assertions, in the
very work last quoted we find the following:
‘ In the first yeare of our gratious Queene, the acte of Parlia­
ment for making and consecrating of Bisshoppes, made the 2 842 of
kinge Henrye, was revived. And yet the Bisshoppes were ordered
not according to the acte, but according to an acte made in kinge
Edwardehis dayes, and repelled by Queene Marye, and not revived
the sayde first yeare. And yf they will say, that that defecte is now
supplied, let them yet remember that they are but parliament and
no Churche Bisshoppes, and so no Catholike Bisshoppes, as being
ordered in such manner and fasshion as no Catholike Church ever
used.’43
38 Fortresse of the Faith; Antwerp, 1565, p. 141, 144.
39 A Counterblast to M. Horne's Vague Blaste against M. Fekenham ; Lou­
vain, 1567, fol. cf>. 4to.
40 Ibid. p. 301.
41 Ibid. p. 458.
42 Apparently an error for ‘ 25. ’
43 Ibid. Preface.

i 26

A iLglican Ordinations.

This is a clear assertion that the Elizabethan Bishops
were consecrated according to the Act 5 and 6 Edward VI.;
and it is thus a proof that Stapleton in other places does
not question the fact of the Lambeth consecration, but
only its being regular, canonical, and valid.
The meaning of the foregoing passages, as well as
others, has been hotly contested between the writers of
each party in the controversy; but it cannot be said that
the result is decisive on either side. The rhetorical style
made use of, and the personal feeling apparent, throw
doubts in the way of raising arguments upon particular
expressions ; for some of them if taken literally would
seem to imply that no consecration of any kind had taken
place ; and the defenders of the Nag’s-Head story have
taken advantage of these and pushed them to the utmost.
On the other hand, there are other expressions which
admit the fact of the consecration, and seem only to
question its being legitimate and canonical ; and writers
on the Anglican side have not been slow to turn these
against their opponents. But taking them altogether, it
may be granted that they admit the fact of the consecra­
tion having taken place as alleged ; but it is also evident
that they imply some serious difficulty respecting it, and
apparently touching the persons acting therein ; and fur­
ther, that this difficulty'- extended so far as not merely to
render the consecration uncanonical, unlawful, and irre­
gular, but also to affect its validity.
If, however, it is strange that the contemporary Catho­
lic writers have not left a more circumstantial narrative
of the facts as they occurred, it is still more strange that
the Anglican writers, who were themselves concerned in
the transactions, and had such a personal interest in them,
even when challenged by their Catholic opponents, never
give a downright or straightforward reply. Jewell’s eva­
sions of Harding’s questions have been already referred
to ; and Fulke replying to Stapleton writes as follows :

History of the Controversy.

127

‘Where he saith, that when all the popish Bishops
were deposed, there was none to lay hands on the Bi­
shops that should be newly consecrated, it is utterly
false : for there was one of the popish Bishops that con­
tinued in his place; there were also divers that were con­
secrated Bishops in King Edward’s time : ... I speak
not this, as though in planting of the Church where it
hath been long exiled, an extraordinary form of ordaining
were not sufficient.’40
Let us next refer to Pilkington, who was made Bishop
of Durham in 1561.41 On Wednesday the 4th of June
1561, St. Paul’s Cathedral was set on fire by lightning,
and the Sunday afterwards Pilkington preached a sermon
at Paul’s Cross, in which he enlarged upon certain abuses
that might be thought to be the causes that had brought
down such a judgment. On this a paper was printed and
scattered about secretly at Chester, entitled ‘ An Addi­
tion to the Causes &c.;’ of which Morwen, Bishop Bon­
ner’s chaplain, was said to be the author. Pilkington
thereupon published a ‘ Confutation.’ Morwen had said,
‘ they have invented a new way to make bishops and
priests.’ Pilkington replies; and after quoting Scripture
examples, proceeds : ‘ In these places of Scripture there
be these things to be noted in sending forth ministers.
First, an assembly of the clergy and people to bear testi­
mony of their honesty and aptness that be called. Se­
condly, I note they used exhortations, with fasting, prayer,
and laying on of hands. These ceremonies we be sure
are good and godly, because the apostles used them so
oft ; and these, except some great cause to the contrary,
are to be used of all in calling of the ministers. All these
things the order now appointed observes, and no more.’42
Then Whitaker : Durey had taken him up on the
40 Stapleton’s Fortress Overthrown, p. 117, ed. Parker Society.
41 Haddan on Bramhall, p. 226.
42 Pilkington’s Works, p. 578-81, ed. Parker Society.

12.8

Anglican Ordinations.

point that, ‘You say, !'we permit none to exercise this
ministry but those who are by due order called to that
office.” Tell us, if you can, who called Luther, Calvin,
Beza, and the other preachers of your gospel to that
office.5
Whitaker replies: ‘ Luther was a priest and doctor of
your own, and could exercise that office in your churches.
So too were Zuinglius, Bucer, and many others. And
as presbyters, if presbyters are by divine right the same
as Bishops, they could set other presbyters over the
churches. Thus there is an easy answer to you as con­
cerning' our preachers even out of your own laws. But I
would not have you think we make such account of your
orders, as to consider no calling lawful without them.
Therefore, keep your orders to yourselves. God is not
so tied to orders but that He can, without order, when
the good of the Church requires, constitute ministers in
the churches. And the churches have the lawful power
of choosing ministers ; so that there is no need to take
from you those who are to discharge the ministry among
us.’43
Lastly, Hooker: ‘ There may be sometimes very just
and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a
Bishop. The whole Church visible being the true ori­
ginal subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed
any other than Bishops alone to ordain. Howbeit, as the
ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed,
so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we de­
cline from the ordinary ways.
‘Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways
admitted into spiritual functions in the Church. One is,
when God Himself doth raise up any, ratifying their call­
ing by manifest signs and tokens Llimself from heaven....
Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exi43 Defence of the Answer to Canifion’s Ten Deasons in reply to Durey ;
London, 1583, p. 820.

History of the Controversy.

129

gence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways
of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep :
where the Church must needs have some ordained, and
neither hath nor can have possibly a Bishop to ordain ; in
case of such necessity the ordinary institution of God hath
given oftentimes, and may give, place.’44
These four writers all agree in one point, and that is,
as to a supposed case of necessity. Let us put their
words together. Fulke says, 1 where the Church hath
been long exiled ;’ Pilkington, ‘ except some great cause
to the contrary;’ Whitaker, ‘when the good of the Church
requires ;’ Hooker, ‘ when the exigence of necessity doth
constrain ;’ ‘ an extraordinary form of ordaining were suf­
ficient,’ proceeds Fulke ; it may prevent the use of ‘ laying
on of hands,’ by Pilkington’s admission ; 1 without order
ministers may be constituted,’ is Whitaker’s principle;
‘ the ordinary institution of God may give place,’ accord­
ing to the exception made by Hooker. Where and when
was the necessity? what was the great cause to the
contrary ? Let it be granted that Whitaker is speaking
specially of the Geneva platform ; this does but bring out
in stronger relief the fact, that the other three are ex­
pressly describing and defending the circumstances of the
Anglican Church. Whitaker, indeed, does but draw the
conclusion, of which Jewell had laid down the premises in
the passage : ‘ Laymen have a priesthood in themselves,
and can constitute a church.’ From this Whitaker’s
principle follows : ‘ The churches have the lawful power
of choosing ministers.’
Bramhall tries to defend Whitaker and Fulke, ‘ as
both contemplative men; cloistered up in St. John’s Col­
lege ; better acquainted with polemic writers than with
records.’45 How little this description applied is easily
shown. Whitaker being Regius Professor of Divinity,
14 Hooker’s Works, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 285.
45 Vol. iii. p. 134·

W

130

Anglican Ordinations.

was specially appointed by Aylmer, Bishop of London,46 to
answer Campion. And as for Fulke, he was the official
controversialist of the time, always kept in harness. If
any poor Popish prisoner was to be brow-beaten and
confounded, Fulke was the man sent on the mission. If
a Popish tract was picked up in the purlieus of the Court,
Fulke was pitched upon as a suitable person to reply.
He was the most prolific controversial writer of the day;
and although hard terms and foul language were the
fashion on both sides, Fulke is facile princeps on that
score. Perhaps he wrote a good deal at random, for he
could not recollect where he had called his opponent ‘a
provide hypocrite priest, of stinking, greasie, anti-christian,
and execrable orders, except he should read over the whole
booked47 He seems, too, to think it necessary to give a
flat contradiction to anything his adversary says, which
may account for the first part of his reply to Stapleton in
the passage quoted being so utterly irrelevant as it is.
But no reason appears from hence why, after he had, by
alluding to Kitchin and the Edwardine Bishops, excluded
Barlow from the calculation, he should then volunteer his
opinion as to ‘ an extraordinary form of ordaining being
sufficient,’ ‘ in planting of the Church where it hath been
long exiled.’ There is no country and no time to which
these words would apply but England in the first years of
Elizabeth.
Pilkington too is defending ‘the order now appointed;’
and it was quite unnecessary to guard himself as he has
done, unless there had been some occasion when ‘ exhor­
tations, fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands’ had not
been ‘ observed,’ owing to ‘ some great cause to the con­
trary.’
Hooker is still more remarkable than the others, bete Lansdowne Mss. no. 33.
47 A briefConfutation ofsundry Cavils and Quarrels uttered by diverse Pafists
against the Writings of 'Williani· Fulke. Load, 1583, p. 25.

History ofthe Controversy.

cause he wrote at a time when higher ideas had begun to
prevail, and he had himself laid down the Catholic principle of ordination by Bishops, and had taught the Catholie doctrine of the gift communicated in ordination ; and
because also he wrote under Lord Burghley’s special
inspection, having sent him the first four books of the
Ecclesiastical Polity^ in manuscript a year before they
were published. Hooker’s words seem even to be an
allusion to those used in the Queen’s dispensing clause
for Parker’s consecration—1 temporis ratione et rerum
necessitate id postulante’ in the one; ‘when the exigence
of necessity doth constrain’ in the other. It cannot have
been from any tenderness for foreign Protestants that he
made this exception ; for he was writing against the Puritans, who claimed to derive their orders from Geneva,
and who would have been too glad to avail themselves of
the exception, if it had been understood to include them.
The circumstances which forced him to admit such a departure from the general principle he has laid down, can
have occurred only in the history of those he is defending
—the Anglican Church itself, and the occasion is pointed
out by the words of the official record quoted above.
If we now look back to the history here given of
Parker’s consecration and the circumstances connected
with it, it may be said that we have been wading through
a great cloud of dust, but all thrown up by mere guesses
and probabilities ; that the objections made by former
writers have been nearly all withdrawn ; that the sub­
stantial truth of the facts alleged on the Anglican side
has been admitted ; and that, after all, there is no dis­
tinct proof of anything to be said against them. It is
true that the story, as told on the Anglican side, has
been taken for truth, as far as it goes ; that no question
has been raised touching the genuineness of any document produced on their side, except the surreptitious
18 Strype’s Whitgift, vol. ii. p. 14.8 ; Kcble’s Hooker, Preface, p. v.

?

131

.i
1 î|

.

<
γ
ή

>
> pί
’
·
,·
. r

:ΐ-

I
Î,
-p

1
. Λ

132

Anglican Ordinations.

alteration of the principal record, which, however, was
intended only to conceal, but not to invent, nor falsify, the
facts ; and that the suspicions here raised are founded on
inferences drawn from the documents, and do not in general
profess to be more than probable. But what a number
of probabilities here unite, and point to one and the same
conclusion ! We hear a good deal said in the present day
about the force of concentrated fire in a naval engagement.
Is there not something of a like effect in the present con­
troversy? The circumstances of Barlow’s own history,
and the reduction of the time left open for his consecra­
tion to the period between the 12th and 30th of June
1536 exclusive; the exceptional form of the grant of tem­
poralities, being a solitary instance, without precedent, and
without an imitator ; the opinions entertained at the time,
and by the parties concerned, as to the non-necessity of
consecration ; their evident state of embarrassment, and
the submission of the case to the six civilians ; the Queen’s
dispensation, worded sufficiently largely to cover the ab­
sence of consecration ; the departure from the usual form
of register, and the probability of a surreptitious altera­
tion having been made in the original record ; the finding
a draft of the altered form in the Secretary’s office ; the
Act 8 Eliz. c. 1. being drawn without condition or limi­
tation as to persons ; the strong assertions, the imputa­
tions, the challenges made on the part, of the Catholic
writers, all consistent with the same supposition ; the
shuffling and evasive replies of Jewell, and the plea of
necessity put in by three, if not four, Anglican writers,
as a saving clause, on behalf of ordinations within their
own Church ; — these circumstances, though if taken
singly, or even if only two or three were known to have
occurred, they might not tell for much, yet taken together,
coming as they do from different sources, some Catholic,
some Anglican ; some printed, others from mss. ; some
from public records, others from private repositories ;

*

History ofthe Controversy,

'i

ijj

some known and appealed to fi-om the first, others
brought to light during the course of the controversy,
others again now made use of for the first time ;—form
an accumulation of probabilities all aiming at the same
point, and have a force which nothing can resist ; unless,
indeed, some distinct and positive proof is found that
Barlow was really and duly consecrated according to the
rite of the Pontifiçal.

However ambiguous may be the statements of Catholic
divines referring to Parker’s consecration, there is no
doubt with regard to either their opinions or their practice when they come to deal with ordinations given and
received according to the form annexed to the Book of
Common Prayer in 1552, and confirmed by the Act 8
Eliz. cap. i. It is unfortunate that they do not give the
reasons for their decision.
The first document bearing on the subject is not only
the earliest in date, but also chief in importance. Before
the final promulgation of the Bull against Queen Elizabeth, Pope St. Pius V. appointed a Process to be taken, in
which several witnesses gave evidence as to the Queen’s
proceedings. Among the interrogatories administered to
the witnesses was the following: Whether, by her au­
thority any schismatics were constituted Bishops and rec­
tors, not being priests ? To this the reply is given only
in general terms by Goldwell Bishop of St. Asaph, Henry
Henshaw late Rector of Lincoln College, and Edmund
Daniel late Dean of Hereford, to the effect that the per­
sons appointed to succeed the deprived Catholic Bishops
were heretics, and some of them not priests. But Nicho­
las Morton declares, that he knows some Bishops to be
merely laymen, and among them Nicholas Bullingham
Bishop of Lincoln. William Allott deposes, that he is
well acquainted with Bullingham and on friendly terms
with him, and knows that he is not a priest. And Thomas

, j
,

'
' 4■
■ ■
(. ;
j {

·1
' !
>h

* e
■
«I;
>·,

(]

it ■ =
1

, j ,?
P ■

*

134

Anglican Ordinations.

Kirton also names Bullingham as not being a priest, and
seems in addition to imply that Jewell was not a priest, but
not clearly. In the Declaratory Sentence annexed to this
Process it is affirmed that the Queen, by her own autho­
rity, had conferred bishoprics, benefices, and other digni­
ties on schismatics and heretics, not being clerics.49 Now
in the Table of Consecrations in Parker's De Anliq.
Brit. Eccl.,^ while all the rest are described as priests,
either secular or regular, .Bullingham and Pilkington
alone are called ‘ secular ministers.’ Assuming this tabic
to be a proof of Bullingham having received only Angli­
can ordination, there is here a clear denial of its validity.
And the term i non clericis’ in the Papal sentence applied
to persons on whom bishoprics and benefices had been
conferred, coincides with that of ‘ sine ulla clericalis caracteris susceptione,’ used in similar cases in Cardinal Pole’s
dispensations.
We next come to writers; and may begin with Allen,
who states the practice pursued by him and his colleagues
at the English College at Rheims, in a letter to Dr. Vendeville, written at the request of the King of Spain’s
Council, and dated 16th September 1580:
‘ There have come also not a few openly heretics, and even
ministers of heretical offices and preachers ; all of whom, led to
penitence by our instruction and conversation, have not only been
reconciled to the Church in sincerity, but also after a year or two
passed in collegiate discipline have desired to become priests, and
have been so made, and have devoted themselves with great zeal
to the work of the harvest in England, where one of them has since
ended his life by a glorious martyrdom, and the rest are still pursu­
ing their labours with abundant fruit.’51
19 Laderchius, Contin. oj Baronins, vol. iii. p. 197-210.
Appendix, No. XXI11.

Forextracts, see

“ The original ms. of this Table is at C. C. C. C., datfdA.D. 1561. It is
printed also in Strype’s Annals, vol. i. pt. i. p. 230 ; and it is referred to by
Mr. Haddan as evidence for the several consecrations mentioned therein.
” Ms. in the Archives of the English College at Rome.

History of the Controversy.

*35

Again :
‘ Because one special reproch given us pertaineth not to our
persons, but to the whole order of priesthood, we may be bold
to adde a worde or two for our defense specially concerning that
terme, Massing Priests, whereby' the new pulpits (the very chairs
of the skorneful) merily or mockingly call us and our brethren.
Which name yet, given us also in publike writing of authorities, is
not doubtles of skornefulnes, which must needes be far from the
enditers of such : but as we take it, for distinction and difference
betwixt us Catholike and in deede onely priests, and the other of
the new creation, whom the people, for some resemblance of their
actions in the ministerie to the wonted celebration of divine things,
often call priests, though the Protestants list not so to be called,
as in deede the ministers cannot of right have any such calling,
having no more power, right, or authoritie to minister any Sacra­
ment (other then Baptisme, which in some cases women also may
do) then they have to make a new moone or another sunne. The
Church of God knoweth no other priests, neither hath Christ in­
stituted any other order of priests, but of these whom contemptu­
ously they call Masse Priests, ft is that sort, and none other, to
which our Saviour gave power to consecrate His body and blood,
and offer the same, which is, to say Masse.’52

In his Defence of English Catholics, in reply to Bur­
leigh’s Execution of Justice in 1584, he twice calls the
new clergy ‘ unordered apostates.’63
Next, Bristow, in his Motives, published in 1574:
‘ Consider what Church is that, whose priests and Bishops
come in by ordinary calling of other Bishops that were before
them, of whose right ordering and lawfull power of ministery the
Sectes themselves make so little doubt, that they esteeme one so
called and ordered very fit even for their own ministery, yea much
more requisite then one of their owne making. . . .
‘ Contrarily, what Church that is, whose ministers are but very
lay-men, unsent, uncalled, unconsecrated, and therefore executing
their pretended office without benefit or spiritual comfort of any
man, . . . holding therefore amongst us, when they repent and
come againe, none other place but the place of lay-men : in no
52 Au Apology and true Declaration of the Institution of the tioo English
Colleges, the one in Rome, the other in Rhemes. Mounts in Henault, i 581,
fol. 88^-89^·
53 p. 4.1, 171.

ij6

Anglican Ordinations.

case admitted, no, nor looking to minister in any office, unlesse
they take our orders, which before they had not.’54

Fulke, in his Retentive, makes no other answer to
Bristow than the following: ‘With all our heart we
abhorre, defie, detest, and spit at your stinking, greasie,
anti-christian orders.’55
Bristow again, in his Demands, published in 1575 :
‘ Twelfth: I demaunde of the learned Protestant to knowe
cause and reason, why their congregations do admit and receive
all Bishops, priests, deacons, and other officers spiritual, ordered
by our Catholike Churche, as men lawfull and sufficient to preache
the Worde of God, to minister the sacramentes, and to exercise al
spiritual jurisdiction in no less wise, but rather more, then if they
had bene ordered in their owne private congregations : whereas
the Catholike Churche of Christ doth not acknowledge any man
of their ordering and calling to be any whit the more fit for any
spirituali function in Christ his Church then other common lay
men. . .’5G

To this Fulke replies ;
‘ Although all godly men wish more severity of discipline to
be used in receiving them that come out of heresies to serve in
the Church than is commonly practised in England ; yet you are
highly deceived if you think that we esteem your offices of Bishops,
priests, deacons, any better than the state of laymen, but far worse;
for we judge them to be nothing else but anti-christianity, heresy,
and blasphemy. And therefore we receive none of them to minis­
ter in our Church, except they forswear your religion. And so their
admission is not an allowing of your ordering, but a new calling
unto the ministry.’57
Motives, p. 166-7.
33 A Retentive, to stay good Christians in the true Faith and Religion, against
the motives of Richard Bristow. London, 1580, p. 69·
33 A Offer made by a Catholike to a learned Protestant. Douay, 1575,
i6mo. From the copy in the Bodleian at the end of Master John de Albine’s Notable Discourse. This was published again next, year as Bristow’s
Demands. The work was first drawn up by Allen in MS. only, and afterwards
enlarged by Bristow. The copy printed in Fulke’s Reply was taken from
Alien’s MS., which differs from that quoted above.
57 Answere of the Christian Protestant to the proud Challenge of a Popish
Catholic. Lond. 1577. 8vo.

History of the Controversy.

r37

Bristow replies :
‘ Yourselves confesse our orders to be good ynough, in that
having been ordered by us, you seeke not to be reordered, as
Cranmer, Parker, Grindall, Sandes, Horne, &c. Whereas we (as
you know) account your orders for no orders. To this you say,
“ You are highly deceived, &c.” as above. How true it is you alike
receive none otherwise, I passe that over. But, sir, we also make
your ministers to abjure, and yet after that they be but laymen
still. And I would ask you, if two Catholics abjure with you, one
a layman, the other a priest, are they both priests ipso facto ? O
your divinitie ! O your scripture !’58

Parsons also says, ‘ ether all, or the moste parte, of
mynisters of Englande be meere laye men, and noe
preistes.’69 But he gives two quite insufficient reasons,
and in consequence Fulke,60 and even Percivall Wyborne,61 in their replies have the advantage of him.
To the same effect the Petition presented to King
James on his entering the kingdom, on behalf of the Ca­
tholics, has the following passage : ‘ A religion wherein
refuse and revolted priestes are deemed lawfull and suffi­
ciently ordered to preach the Word of God, to minister
sacraments, and to exercise all spiritual jurisdiction in the
Protestant and Puritane congregation. . . . Neither is the
Protestant minister or Bishop coming to our Catholike
fraternity (as many come of the first sort) reputed other
than for meere laymen without orders.’62
These extracts carry on the tradition of the invalidity
of the Edwardine Ordinal, which had come down, as we
have already seen, from the time of Cardinal Pole. And
it is evident that the practice which they indicate is quite
independent of the events connected with Parker’s conse58 Bristo’s Reply to Fulke in defense of M. D. Allen's Scroll ofArticles and
Booke of Purgatorie. Lovaine, 1580, 410, p. 319.
ω Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church. Douay, 1580, fol. 41.
60 Briefe Confutation of a Popish Discourse by John Howlet, or some other ■
Birde of the Night. London, 1581, 410, fol. 37-8.
81 Checke of M. Howletts untimely Skreeching. Lond. 1581, 4to, fol. 160-3.
« Supplication to the King's most excellent Majestie by true affected Subjects,
sect. 19. 1604.

:l:x....^... x.,..

138

ji.ji111111.11.hi. ji.. 1 jl............. J—

Anglican Ordinations.

cration ; for Allen expressly refers to the distinction be­
tween ‘ priests’ and the ‘ new ministers’ as connected
with the Moly Sacrifice of the Mass.
To illustrate the statements in the foregoing extracts,
some pains have been taken to make out a list of Anglican
ministers who were reconciled to the Catholic Church
before the year 1704, and afterwards were ordained, show­
ing the dates and places of ordination as far as they can
be ascertained, and giving the authorities for the history
in each instance.
BKFC > R E C< INVERSION.

Edmund Campian Ordained deacon by
Cheney Bishop of Glou­
cester. Arrived at Douay
1111570. Douay.Diary.

Cuthbert Mayne

Thomas Blewett

In priest’s orders of the
Anglican Church. Dodd,
Challoner.
A minister ofthe Church
of England. Arrived, at
Douay 19th March 1577.
Dodd, Douay Diary.

Wrote a letter to
Cheney reproaching
him for the ‘ spurious
orders’ given by him.
S. J. at Rome. Or­
dained Priest by the
Archbishop of Pra­
gue. Bombini in Vit.
Campiani, p. 61.
Ordained Priest 24th
April 1576. Douay
Diary.
Subdeacon, 19 th Sept.
1577. Deacon, 19 th
Dec. 1577. Priest,
24 th Feb. 1578.
Douay Diary.
Ordained Priest in
1577. Douay Diary.

Richard Sympson A minister of the Church
of England. Dodd, Challoner. Arrived at Douay
19th May 1577. Douay
Diary.
John Lowe
A Protestant minister. Subdeacon, 14th of
March 1579. Priest,
Chailoner.
18th of April 1579.
Douay Diary.
e2 For extracts from the Douay Diaries, see Appendix, No. XXIV.

History of the Controversy.
NAME.

IN THE CATHOLIC
BEFORE CONVERSION.

William Rainolds Took holy orders about
1566. Wood's Athena.
An earnest professor and
preacher of the Protes­
tant religion. Parsons.
Arrived at Rheims nth
April 1578: described as
a layman. Douay Diary.
John Vivian
A beneficed preacher.
Arrived at Rheims 16th
of Feb. 1579, Douay
Diary.

Thomas Huberley A beneficed minister of
the Calvinistic sect. Ar­
rived at Rheims 29th
Nov. 15 7 9, DouayDiary.

John Adams

John Chapman

Everard Hanse

T39

A minister beneficed at
Martinston63 in Dorset­
shire. Arrived at Rheims
7th Dec. 1579. Douay
Diary. S. P. 0. Exami­
nation of John Chap­
man. See Appendix,
No. XXV.
A minister made by the
Bishop of Wells; had a
benefice called Langton
Herring in Dorsetshire.
Arrived at Rheims 7th
Dec. 15 7 9. DouayDiary.
S.P.O. His own exami­
nation. Appendix, No.
XXV. Hutchins' Dorset­
shire.
Abeneficed minister and

« Winterbome St. Martin’s.
bents is imperfect.

CHURCH.

Minor orders and
Subdeacon at Laon,
20th Sep. 1579. Dea­
con at Chalons, 24th
Feb. 1580. Priest at
Chalons, 31st March
1580. Douay Diary.
Deacon, 18th April
1579. Priest at Laon,
15th June 1579. Dou­
ay Diary. S. P. 0.
See Appendix, No.
XXVI.
Subdeacon at Cha­
lons, 24th Feb. 1580.
Deacon at Rheims,
19th March 1580.
Priest at Chalons, 31
March 1580. Douay
Diary.
Subdeacon at Cha­
lons, 31st March
1580. Deacon at
Soissons, 25 th May
1580. Priest at Sois­
sons, 15th Dec. 1580.
Douay Diary.
Subdeacon at Sois­
sons, 15 th Dec. 1580.
Deacon, 21st Feb.
1581. Priest at Cha­
lons, 4th MarchijSl.
Douay Diary.

Ordained Priest by

Hutchins’ Dorsetshire.

The list of incum­

40

Anglican Ordinations.
NAME.

IN THE CATHOLIC

BEFORE CONVERSION.

CHURCH.

preacher. Arrived at the, Bishop of Chalons
Rheims 1 ith June 1580. at Rheims, 25th Mar.
Douay Diary. Concer­ 1581. Douay Diary.
tatio Eccl. Cath. Dodd.
Chailoner.
Stephen Rousham Ordained by heretics. Deacon at Soissons,
Minister of St. Mary’s 21st Sept. 1581.
at Oxford. Arrived at Priest at Soissons,
Rheims 23d April 1581. 27 th Sept. 1581.
Douay Diary, Chailoner. Douay Diary.
Minister at Cannock in Priest, 1601. Douay
John Sugar
Staffordshire. Chailoner. Catalogue.
Francis Walsing- Ordained Deacon by Subdeacon at Rome,
ham
Heton, Bishop of Ely, 30th March 1608.
in 1603. His own ac­ Deacon at Rome, 5th
count of his conversion April, 1608. Priest
in ‘Search made into at Rome, 12 th April
Matters of Religion,’ 1608. Archives of
p. xxiv. Received into English College at
Eng. Coll, at Rome 27th Rome. See Appendix,
Oct. 1606. Archives.
No. XXVIII.
Humphrey Leach Vicar of St. Alkmund’s, Subdeacon at Rome,
Shrewsbury, and after­ 17 th March 1612.
wards chaplain of Ch. Deacon at Rome, 6th
Ch. Oxford.
Wood’s April 1612. Priest at
Athena Oxon. Received Rome, 21 st April
into Eng. Coll. Rome in 1612. Archives of
English College at
1609. Archives.
Rome. See Appendix,
No. XXVIII.
John Goodman
A minister ofthe Church Tried and condemned
of England. Chailoner, as a seminary Priest
and so styled in the Re­ in 1640. Chailoner.
monstrance of Parlia­
ment, 29th Jan. 1639-40.
Prebendary of Windsor O. S. B. at Paris. A
Hugh Paulinus
Cressy
and dean of Leighlin in missionary Priest in
Ireland. Wood's Athena England, and chap­
lain to Queen Catha­
Oxon.
rine of Braganza.
Dodd.

History of the Controversy.
NAME.

Stephen Goffe

John Massey

John Placidus
Ad el ham

James Clifton

BEFORE CONVERSION.

An Anglican clergyman
and chaplain to Abp.
Laud. Prideaux, Dodd,
Le Quien.
In deacon’s orders of
the Anglican Church and
dean of Ch. Ch. Oxford.
Dodd. Wood's Athena?..
Constable, p. 369.
A Protestant minister.
Chailoner. Oliver’s Collections.

A minister of the Gospel
—had a parochial benefice. Received at the
English College at Rome
as a layman 16th Oct.
1702. Archives.

141

IN THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH.

Ordained at Paris.
Dodd. Le Quien.

Reordained by the
Bishop ofArras. Con­
stable.

O. S. B. at Paris.
Tried
and condemned as a semi­
nary Priest, 17 th Jan.
1678-9. Chailoner.
Died at Rome, 2d
Jan. 1704. Archives
ofEnglish College. See
Ap. No. XXVIII.

Dr. Lee64 has given an account of several Anglican
clergymen who, after being received into the Church, de­
clined being ordained, because they believed themselves
to be true priests. But among the twelve persons named,
the earliest is William Rainolds. Dr. Lee does not quote
any authority for attributing such an opinion to him, and
the facts are all the other way. He is called a layman
on arriving at Rheims; he is ordained ; and after spending
several years in the College, he ends his days as Chaplain
to the Beguines at Antwerp. The dates on which, and
the places where, he received minor orders, subdeacon­
ship, deaconship, and priesthood, are all known.65
The statement about Cressy not being ordained de­
pends on mere rumour. On the other hand, it is well
64 Validity, p. 246-52, 271 and 392-307.

« See page 139.

142

Anglican Ordinations.

known that, though the'time and place of his ordination
have not been ascertained, he was sent as a missionary
priest into England, and became Chaplain to the Queen
at Somerset House.63
*65 Dr. Lee does not specify the post
he occupied in the Royal household, nor does he venture
to hint that he acted as priest without re-ordination.
Besides, in the title-page of the second edition of his
Excmologesis he is described as ‘ Lately Deane of Laghlin
&c. in Ireland, and Prebend of Windsore in England.......
who now calls himself B. Serenus Cressy, Religious Priest
of the holy Order of S. Benedict, in the Convent of S.
Gregory in Doway.’66
The case of Dr. Stephen Goffe is related with more
details. It is said that on his objection to be re-ordained,
the Archbishop of Paris allowed him to minister at the
altar without re-ordination ; that the Doctors of the Sor­
bonne had his case under consideration, and delivered a
report in which they allowed the validity of the Anglican
rite of ordination, though they objected to the manner
in which it had been drawn up ; that a controversy arose
on the subject, and the case was referred to Rome, from
whence directions were received for his re-ordination.67
On the other hand, it does not appear why any question
should have arisen, as the French Bishops had often re­
ordained English subjects who had been Anglican minis­
ters; besides that Dodd states68 he never heard of such a
decision, though he studied at the Sorbonne; Le Quien69
relates the case without mention of any discussion on the
subject, or of any difficulty raised on the part of Goffe ;
and lastly, Courayer himself, in the Defence™ in which
he replied to Le Quien, relates the story simply as a ru­
mour quoted from an English writer, viz. Prideaux, and
does not refer to any French authority, although he was
63 Dodd; Wood’s Athena:.
68 Printed at Paris, 1653.
67 Lee’s Validity, p. 293.
es In the Life of Goffe.
6U Vol. ii. p. 316.
70 Défense de la Dissertation, vol. i. cap. 1.

History of the Controversy.

143

in communication with more than one of the Doctors of
the Sorbonne,71 and the feet, if true, would have been
of great importance for his cause. Whether there was
such a discussion or not, and whether a reference was
made to Rome or not, the fact stands, that Goffe · was
re-ordained, and the tradition on the subject remains un­
broken. It seems clear, however, on the testimony of
Franciscus a Sta Clara, that some discussion did take
place; for he tells us: ‘This business (of orders) hath
been always ventilated even from the beginning of the
schism, and of late renewed in the case of Dr. (Ioffe at
Paris, who was re-ordained, as all others have been.’72
The next case is that of Sir Harry Trelawney, who
for many years objected to being re-ordained, from a
conviction of his being really a priest by his Anglican
orders. Cardinal Odescalchi is said to have told him
that he ‘ was prepared to re-ordain him with a tacit con­
dition, the sacramental form, of course, remaining un­
touched.’73 But the fact was, that Cardinal Odescalchi
explained to Sir Harry, that he might consider the ordi­
nation conditional, if he chose to do so ; but, as Dr. Lee’s
account admits, there was no condition expressed or im­
plied on the part of the ordaining Bishop.
Dr. Lee’s list includes the names of nine other per­
sons, converts to the Church, having previously been
Anglican ministers, who are said to have objected to be
re-ordained on the ground of their believing the validity
of their Anglican orders. Now it is of very little im­
portance what opinions these persons may have enter­
tained on the subject. Having been bred up in heresy,
and not having studied a course of Catholic theology,
nor having even imbibed Catholic instincts, they were not
qualified to form a sound judgment on the question. Yet
71 Relation delà Conduite du P. le Courayer, vol. ii. p, 2, 115, 229.
■- Enchiridion of Eaith, 2d ed. Douay, 1655.
73 Lee’s Validity, p. 307.

.t?~

144

JipT.j.'ïWBW

Ad

Anglican Ordinations.

it is worth while to consider the history of each in detail,
so far as it is ascertained.
Dr. Benjamin Carrier had a considerable reputation
for learning, and appears by his letters to have been fully
conscious of it.74 As, however, he died within twelve
months of his being received into the Church, he had
unfortunately but little opportunity of learning how to
deal with such questions in a Catholic spirit.
Very little is known of the history of Dr. Thomas
Vane; but in the work he published he left a testimony
quite inconsistent, with the idea of his entertaining a belief
in Anglican orders, as follows : ‘ The succession of the
English Bishops and ministers was interrupted upon their
pretended Reformation. ... If they were at first conse­
crated by lawful Bishops of the Church of Rome, as for
their credit they pretend, yet they had not thereby com­
mission to preach their new doctrine. . . . But it is worth
the observation, that the Bishops and ministers of Eng­
land, to maintain the lawfulness of their succession, do
affirm that they were consecrated by Catholike Bishops,
their predecessors, which while they do not prove, it
shows the interruption of their succession, and while they
affirm, it shows that they believe their succession and
calling insufficient, unless they derive it from the Church
of Rome.’75 Again, ‘ Catholikes do not allow their’ (Pro­
testants) ‘ ordination and consecration of Bishops and
Priests for good, which appears in that if a Priest of the
Roman Church revolt to the Protestant party, he is al­
lowed by them to be a lawful Priest, but not so if a Pro­
testant minister returne to the Romane Church.’76
Of Abraham Woodhead, Dr. Lee states, on the au­
thority of Hearne and Dr. Bliss, that ‘ he ever looked
upon himself as a priest ; that he frequently declined reDodd, vol. ii. Records.
75 Λ dost Sheep returned Home, p. 245-6. Paris, 1649. 4th edition.
r6 Ibid. p. 25a.

History of the Controversy.

145

ordination ; and that he ministered in a private oratory or
chapel.’77 But it seems to be a more authentic account,
that ‘ we don’t find he ever took any orders in the Catho­
lic Church, though he had in the Church of England ;
but behaved as a layman, after his conversion.’78 As to
his opinions on the present question, it looks as if he
did entertain the belief in Anglican ministers being real
bishops and priests. The second part of his work on
Ancient Church Government, published anonymously at
Oxford in 1688, ten years after his death, appears to be
written in this spirit. A ms. note in the copy in the
British Museum, taken apparently from Dr. Hickes, says,
• brom various expressions the author appears to be a
Roman Catholic;’ but various other expressions, in which
he speaks of the Anglican Bishops and clergy, look as if
written by an Anglican. As this work was not published
by the author himself, nor in his lifetime, it is not clear
whether it contains his matured opinions as a Catholic.
James Wadsworth,79 Thomas Gawen,80 James Shir­
ley,81 and Timothy Nourse,82 were all married either be­
fore or after their conversion, so that their opinions about
their ordination, whatever they were, can have no bearing
on the controversy.
William Rowland83 seems to have been of a character
little suited to a vocation to the priesthood.
Of Ambrose Wilson no particulars can be met with.
On review of these several cases, it may be confi­
dently asserted that there is an unbroken tradition from
the year 1554 to the present time, confirmed by constant
practice in France and Rome, as well as in this country,
in accordance with which Anglican ordinations are looked
upon as absolutely null and void ; and Anglican ministers
Validity, p. 271-2.
78 Brief Account of the Writing^ and Life of the Author, p. 62, prefixed
to Woodhead’s Ancient Church Government, part iii.
70 Dodd.
80 Wood’s Athena.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
L

In!

146

Anglican Ordinations.

are treated simply as laymen, so that those who wish to
become priests have to be ordained unconditionally. Not
a single instance to the contrary can be alleged. The
only case in which any discussion appears to have arisen,
is referred to by a contemporary writer as an illustration
of the accustomed rule. And the statements made of ob­
jections having been raised by various converts to being
ordained in the Catholic Church are shown—either to be
contradicted by the facts, or to have no theological im­
portance, on account of the persons named being un­
known, or married, or of an unsuitable character, or only
recently converted, or from our possessing no clear and
certain testimony as to their opinions on the subject.

If

I

CHAPTER IV.
HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.

We have seen the new vessel of the Anglican Hierarchy
launched and put to sea, though loudly denounced from
the old bark of St. Peter as unsound in her build, and
manned by a crew who were not true seamen.
But Catholics and Anglicans throughout the greater
part of Elizabeth’s reign had too little in common to join
issue on such a subject as that of Ordination. The three
orders of the sacred ministry were retained, and were
given by imposition of hands and prayer. And in con­
troversy with Catholics this fact is put forward as if
all was in harmony with the ancient Church.1 But the
Orders themselves and the rite used in conferring them
were retained as matter of regulation only and not as
essential. ‘ No man shall execute any of them except he
be called, tried, examined, and admitted according to the
form following,’ says the Preface to the Ordination ser­
vices. And this rule seems to have been enforced, at
least in general ; for several of the Articles of Visitation
contain some such question as, ‘ Whether there be any
persons that intrude themselves and presume to exercise
any kynde of ministerie in the Churche of God, without
imposition of hands and ordinarie auctoritie.’2
The Elizabethan Reformers seem generally on the
subject of the ministry to have adopted the opinions cur1 By Jewell and Pilkington.
2 Ritual Commission, Second Report, p. 403, 407, 408, 415, 41g, 422.

148

Anglican Ordinations.

rent among both Lutherans and Zuinglians on the Con­
tinent, viz. that ministers should be called before they
enter on their functions, and that this calling may come
either from the people, or from patrons, or from the ma­
gistrate or prince. That after such a calling, it is requisite
for propriety that the person called should be admitted
to the exercise of his office by imposition of hands and
prayer. Hence the ‘ calling’ came to be considered as
the main thing, and the term came into general use, so
much so that even the Catholics use it.
This may seem an unfair representation of the early
Anglican doctrine; but no writer has been met with
during the first five-and-twenty years of Elizabeth’s reign
who gives a different idea. And the 39 Articles them­
selves bear out the statement; for the 23d, which was the
24th of those of 1552, runs as follows: ‘No man may
minister in the congregation except he be called. It is
not lawfull for any man to take upon hym the office of
publique preachyng or ministryng the sacramentes in the
congregation, before he be lawfully called and sent to
execute the same. And those we ought to judge law­
fully called and sent which be chosen and called to this
worke by men who have publike aucthoritie geven unto
them in the congregation to call and sende mynysters
into the Lordes vyneyarde.’3 This is so framed as not
to contradict the doctrine of any of the continental re­
forms. ‘ It is not lawful to minister without being called;’
but it does not say that ‘ if any man do take upon him
the office without calling,’ the sacraments he pretends to
minister will be void. Calling is treated as of propriety,
but not of necessity. And the mode of calling here de­
noted is consistent with the same views. The proper
persons to call and send ministers are those ‘ who have
public authority given them in the congregation.’ This
recognises the right of the Lutheran superintendents, of
* Lamb’s Historical Account oj the Thirty.nine Articles.

History of the Controversy.

149

the Zuinglian pastors, and of the Calvinist elders, as fully
as that of Anglican Bishops. Nothing whatever is said
or implied of the necessity of a Bishop as the minister of
holy orders, or of a true succession from other Bishops.
This is only ‘ the literal and grammatical sense’ of
the words ; but as to the mode in which it was generally
understood at the time, the Article received several prac­
tical illustrations, and particularly from the cases of Whit­
tingham, Morrison, and Travers.
Whittingham had been called to the ministry by the
congregation of English at Geneva during Queen Mary’s
reign.4 On his return to England he was made Dean of
Durham; and after filling that post for some years with­
out question, a complaint was made against him, that ‘ he
was neyther deacon nor minister according to the lawes
of this realme, but a mere lay man.’5 In the discussion
which ensued, the question of episcopal ordination was not
touched on at all. The sole point at issue was, whether
‘ he was orderly made minister at Geneva, according to the
order of Geneva, by public authority established there,’6
and by imposition of hands ;7 or whether he had been
merely elected ‘ by lote and election,’ and ‘ suffrages’ of
the English congregation.8 And the conclusion is, that
* unless Mr. Whittingham prove that he was made minister
at Geneva, according to the law ther, if hit were “ aut
contra aut praeter formam specificam jure Genevensi sta­
bilitam,” he was neyther minister ther, nor here now is.’9
But it is clear that imposition of hands by the Calvinist
elders would have been considered sufficient.
It was in accordance with the same principle that
Aubrey, Vicar-general to Archbishop Grindal, gave a
formal license in the year 1582 to John Morrison to
preach and administer sacraments throughout the province
1 Whittingham’s Life, Camden Society, p. 9 and 42.
5 Ibid. p. 41.
6 Ibid.
8 p. 42.
8 p. 46.

τ p.

150

Anglican Ordinations.

of Canterbury. The document states that Morrison had
been admitted and ordained to sacred orders and the holy
ministry by imposition of hands by the general Synod of
the county Lothian of the Reformed Church of Scot­
land ; that the orthodox faith and sincere religion of the
said Synod were conformable with that received and es­
tablished in England; and that he approving and rati­
fying the form of ordination so done gave the license.10
Thus the ordination among Calvinistic Presbyterians was
considered valid, because it was done ‘ by those who had
authority given them in the congregation.’ It makes the
case all the stronger that this was done during Grindal’s
sequestration by his Vicar-general ; for Aubrey, having
but delegated authority, would only have acted in ac­
cordance with the strict and ordinary acceptation of the
law.
The illustration from Travers’ case is still more strik­
ing. Travers had been called to the ministry after the
Calvinistic manner in Holland, and after being allowed
to preach at the Temple for some years had at last been
inhibited by Whitgift. He then alleged Whittingham's
example, and reasons as follows : ‘ Afore Mr. Whitting­
ham’s case there was never any question moved in this
Church to the contrary. The question being moved about
him, yet was neither the Word of God nor the law of the
land found to be against him. But notwithstanding that
exception, he continued in his place and ministry after,
to his death.’ On this Whitgift remarks : ‘ This is un­
true. For if Mr. Whittingham had lived, he had been
deprived, without special grace and dispensation. Altho’ his case and Mr. Travers’ are nothing like. For he
in time of persecution was ordained minister by those
which had authority in the Church persecuted. But Mr.
Travers in the time of peace, refusing to be made minister
at home, gaddeth into other countries to be ordained by
10 Strype’s Lifo of Grindal, App. p. 596.

History of the Controversy.

i$i

such as had no authority: condemning thereby the kind
of ordering ministers at home.’11
Yet before this time a change of tone had been intro­
duced, in which Whitgift himself had had a principal hand.
To this indeed the Anglican Bishops were forced by the
Puritans, who claimed a divine right for their ministers
and presbyteries. In opposition to this the counter-claim
was at last boldly asserted12 on behalf of the former by
Bancroft in a sermon preached at Paul’s Cross on Jan.
12, 1588-9, in which he maintained ‘ that the Bishops of
England had superiority over their inferior brethren jure
divino and directly from God.’13 Sir Francis Knollis at
once took the alarm, being the chief supporter of the
Puritan party at court. He addressed a letter to Sir F.
Walsingham, complaining that the Bishops were ‘taking
a dangerous course against her Majestie’s supreme go­
vernment’ by this claim of jure divino, and referring even
to Whitgift’s book against Cartwright in proof of his
charge.14 A statement from such a partisan on the other
side is no evidence of what was really taught, but the
letter is sufficient proof how great a change had come
about. Neither Keble in the Preface to Hooker, nor the
Catena Patrum in the Tracts for the Times, refers to any­
thing earlier than this sermon of Bancroft’s as teaching the
Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church. Soon after­
wards Bilson’s work appeared, and Hooker’s first four
books, followed by the fifth in 1597. In the latter he
delivered very much of the Catholic doctrine respecting
the grace of Holy Order, as follows: ‘To whom Christ
hath imparted power both over that mystical body which
is the society of souls, and over that natural which is
himself for the knitting of both in one (a work which
antiquity doth call the making of Christ’s body) ; the
11
12
13
14

Strype’s Whitgift, Appendix, book iii. no. xxx.
Maskell, Hist, of Marprelate Controversy, p. 162.
Strype’s Whitgift, vol. i. p. 53g.
S.P.O., Domestic, vol. ccxxiii. no. 23. See Appendix, No. XXVII.

152

Anglican Ordinations.

same power is in such not amiss both termed a kind of
mark or character and acknowledged to be indelible.’15
A claim so new—the asserted possession of a divine
gift, which had been relinquished as a human and popish
figment, and had been left for the inheritance of the
Catholic Church alone—could not fail to arouse the con­
troversialists on that side. Kellison10 began; and was
followed by the Jesuit Fathers Holy wood17 or Sacrobosco,
Fitzherbert,18 and Fitzsimons.19 These were the first to
publish the Nag’s-Head story, which was afterwards told
in a more detailed though somewhat different version by
Champneys. The story probably arose from gossiping
rumours among Catholics, exaggerating the statements of
Sanders and Harding about there being no Bishop to
consecrate Parker, coupled with a distorted account of
what took place in Bow Church at the confirmation, and
with suspicions of there being something to conceal in the
affair ; and aided too, no doubt, by the withdrawal of the
indictment against Bonner, the passing of the Act 8 Eliz­
abeth, and the indecisive replies of Protestant writers.
Champneys in his Latin edition refers to a ms. of Henry
Constable ; but as this ms. has never been produced, and
is not referred to by Dodd, and as there is no such person
mentioned either in Dodd’s biographies or in the Douay
Diaries, this reference does not carry the evidence any
farther.20
These various works, and particularly Fitzherbert’s,
18 Hooker’s Worts, vol. ii. p. 581, ed. Keble.
18 Survey of the New Religion, Douay, 1603 ; and Reply to Sutcliffe, Rhemes,
1608, fol. 31 b.
17 De Investiganda Vera et Visibili Christi Ecclesia, Antwerp, 1604 ; ed.
1619, p. 41.
18 Supplement to the Discussion of Barlow’s Answer, St. Omer, 1613,
p. 208 ; and Adjoinder to the Supplement.
18 Britannomachia, Douay, 1614, p. 303-24.
20 There was a person named Henry Constable living at Lie'ge, with whom
Champneys had communication. He appears to have been a layman. But
nothing of his writing on the present subject has been met with.

History of the Controversy.

153

induced Abbot Archbishop of Canterbury to take a re­
markable step. He sent for four Catholic priests, who
were at the time prisoners for their religion, and produced
the Register before them. It was the 12th of May 1614.20
The priests were John Colleton, who was afterwards
made Dean of the Chapter by Dr. Bishopp ; Leake,
also a secular priest; Fairclough and Laithwaite, Jesuits.
They were brought to Lambeth .Palace, and inspected the
Register in the presence of the Archbishop, King Bishop
of London, James Bishop of Durham, Andrews Bishop of
Ely, Montague Bishop of Bath and Wells, Neile Bishop
of Lincoln, and Buckeridge Bishop of Rochester. We
may receive this story as certain, because it is told by
contemporary writers, both Protestant21 and Catholic ;22
but as to the opinions expressed by the Reverend Fathers
the narratives differ considerably. And it is difficult to
see what their testimony would have been worth, even
supposing it was in favour of the authenticity of the Regis­
ter. Four poor prisoners brought up before my Lords
—seven of their bitterest enemies, who had a direct in­
terest in the documents produced for inspection—and
asked to examine the Register in their presence ; all their
motions and gestures keenly watched, and knowing that
whatever criticisms they made would be a confession of
faith, that perhaps might lead them to the scaffold ;—whe­
ther it was the fact that they spoke doubtfully, or whether
they expressed themselves satisfied, or whether on return­
ing to their prisons they retracted the opinions they had
given, it really seems unnecessary to inquire. But if Fa­
ther Fairclpugh did express his belief in the Nag’s-Head
story,pACjonour to him for his courage and constancy.
20 Cleroph. Alethes, p. 104, quoting Juvency. Lindsay’s Mason, p. 361.
21 Richardson’s Codwin de Prasulibns Anglia, in Vit. Parker. The first
edition was published in 1616.
22 A Demonstration by English Protestant pretended Bishops and Ministers
against these their o-wne pretended Bishops and Mynistery. Dedication. Douay,
1616.

J54

Anglican Ordinations.

It is, however, very unfortunate that the Nag’s-Head
story was ever seriously put forward ; for it is so absurd
on the face of it, that it has led to the suspicion of Catho­
lic theologians not being sincere in the objections they
make to Anglican orders. The irritation too caused to
the Anglican side has perhaps served to prevent the real
facts from becoming known ; while, on the other hand, it
has so occupied the attention on both sides, that the other
parts of the case have never been fully considered.
It is to these other points that we must now turn, as
they are treated on either side in the controversy. K elli­
son and Fitzsimons both take the delivery of the chalice
and host, with the words Accipe potestatem offerre sacrificium &c. as the sole essential matter and form of the
Sacrament, and therefore they say that in the Anglican
rite neither matter nor form are used. They do not refer
at all to the imposition of hands, or to the Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum. Fitzsimons indeed goes on to speak of the dis­
belief of the holy Sacrifice among Anglicans, as Bonner
and Harding had done before him, but he does not con­
nect this disbelief with the form of ordination ; so that
his argument misses its full force. Champneys, however,
speaks much more doubtingly on the subject of the form,
and does not insist on more than that the whole essential
matter and form do not consist in imposition of hands
and the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum.
The writings of Kellison, Holywood, and Fitzsimons,
drew out the first systematic defence of the Anglican
Church in regard to the ministry, its orders and jurisdic­
tion. This work was by Francis Mason, and was pub­
lished in the year 1613, under the special favour of
Archbishop Abbot, and printed by the King’s printer.
Champneys replied to it in the year 1616. An enlarged
but posthumous edition of Mason’s work was published
in 1625 in Latin, in which he replied to Champneys.
This was reprinted in 1638. As Champneys had spoken
I
i'

History of the Controversy.

155

so doubtfully about the matter and form, and as there
was a well-known difference of opinion between Catho­
lic theologians on the subject, Mason is able to make
a considerable show of authority for his defence of the
Anglican form. But, on the whole, his book is very dis­
appointing. Having written it in the form of a dialogue,
he puts into the mouth of the Catholic disputant the
weakest and most worthless arguments, often also grossly
misstated, and then, after easily overthrowing them, he
plumes himself in the consciousness of triumph.
His
suppressing a part of the grant of Barlow’s temporalities
is only an instance how little dependence is to be placed
on his statements and authorities.
A similar style of argument runs through the con­
troversial letters which passed in 1645 between Dean
Cosin, then in exile in France, and Father Robinson,
Prior of the English Benedictines in Paris.23 The Prior
stands by the delivery of the chalice and host as being
alone essential. Cosin takes up the third imposition of
hands with the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum as the real mat­
ter and form used in the Roman Pontifical. Thus they
never fairly meet each other’s arguments, and neither of
them is in the right.
The same opinion as applied to the Anglican rite of
ordination, together with the Nag’s-Head story, formed
the groundwork of the case laid before the Holy See in
the year 1704.
Why it was thought necessary to have
the case discussed remains a mystery, because the ques­
tion had arisen before, and the decision then given had
been acted on more than once. Nearly a century before
this time, Humphrey Leach a beneficed minister, and
Francis Walsingham in deacon’s orders of the Anglican
Church, had been received as laymen at the English Col­
lege, and afterwards promoted to all the orders in suc23 Cosin’s iVoris, vol. iv.

156

Anglican Ordinations.

cession and the priesthood.24 And that such was the
rule followed in their case was by no means forgotten ;
for on the 16th of October 1702, James Clifton, who had
been an Anglican minister in possession of a parochial
benefice, had been received at the English College as a
layman. It is mentioned in the official report, that ‘ he
has received confirmation, but no sacred Orders.’25
This, however, was at the English College, and John
Clement Gordon, being a Scotchman, would have gone
to the Scotch College, where perhaps the former cases
were not known, or perhaps the Superiors there might
wish to have an independent decision. Besides, Gor­
don had been a Bishop in the Scotch communion, and
there had been no previous instance of a. converted Bishop.
He seems also to have been himself a scrupulous person,
for he never advanced beyond minor orders. The ques­
tion therefore was referred to the Sacred Congregation
of the Inquisition. The case with the decision is printed
by Le Quien, and from him by Elrington. Gordon’s peti­
tion states first several circumstances on the authority of
Sanders and Harding, and then relates the Nag’s-Head
story. Afterwards it asserts that the only matter and
form in the A nglican rite of the priesthood is the delivery
of the Bible, with the words ‘ Accipe potestatem prædicandi verbum Dei, et administrandi sancta ejus Sacra­
menta.’ This whole relation, including the delivery of
the Bible, is taken from Fitzsimons’ BritannomachiaA
AH the quotations and all the peculiar phrases are found
there, with the same version of the Nag’s-Head story.
Whether any reference was made to the Book of Com­
mon Prayer does not appear quite clearly ; and of course
if any weight was attached to the Nag’s-Head story, such
a reference was quite unnecessary. Whoever drew it
up did verify the quotations from Sanders, for the num34 Archives of the English College.
a Ibid.

See Appendix, No. XXVII!.
20 p. 301-22.

History oj the Controversy.

i57

bers of the pages show that he used the Roman edition
of 1586, while Fitzsimons quotes the first edition. But
he was unacquainted with Harding’s work, and calls it
1 Confutatio Apologetica/ Dr. Elrington27 uses some
severe terms about Gordon, as if he had been laying
statements he knew to be false before the Sacred Con­
gregation. But any one presenting a memorial to such a
tribunal as the Inquisition, particularly a convert and a
stranger to the official ways of Rome, would have been
completely in the hands of his advisers. There is no
reason to suppose that he was personally responsible for
a single statement in the petition. It would seem from
the official record, that though the petition was read loco
Casus before a general Congregation of the Holy Office,
yet other information was taken besides. For the record
commences with an account of Gordon’s consecration as
Bishop, 19th September 1688, in which the imposition
of hands by the pseudo-Archbishop and three pseudo­
Bishops with the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, &c., is
mentioned. This statement seems added by the Notary,
and as the instantia so for as extracted agrees word for
word with the Memorial in Le Quien, it is not clear
whether the Sacred Congregation had under their con­
sideration the question of the ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum’
as the Anglican form of the Priesthood.28
But it is a very remarkable circumstance, that on
Wednesday the 9th of April 1704, being therefore in the
very week before Gordon’s case, the same Sacred Congre­
gation had given their decision in the case of the Abyssin­
ian ordinations, resolving that the priesthood was validly
conferred by imposition of hands and the words i Accipe
Spiritum Sanctum’ alone. Further on we shall have to
bring the Anglican rite before the tribunal of this decision.
We have been following the course of certain sub­
jects, which hang together by some connection, although
27 P· 147·

28 See the Decree in Appendix, No. XXXVI.

*58

An Aiean Ordinations.

it leads us to break the chronological order of events.
We must now go back to the year 1655, at which time
Morinus published his work, De Sacris Ordinationibus.
This work began immediately to exercise an influence on
the controversy. For only two years afterwards, Peter
Talbot, then a Jesuit Father, afterwards Archbishop of
Dublin, published his Treatise of the Nature of Catbolick
Faith and Heresies8 In this work it is no longer main­
tained that the delivery of the chalice and host is essen­
tial, but that ‘ the forme whereby men are made priests
must express authority and power to consecrate or make
present Christ’s Body and Blood.’2
To this, however,
Anglican writers had an easy reply : that the rite of Or­
dination in the early Sacramentaries and the Ordo Ro­
manus contained no such expression, the only prayer in
the Roman Pontifical which does contain it, viz. ‘ Deus
sanctificationum,’ being of much later origin. Talbot’s
other argument is, that the form, ‘ Receive the Holy
Ghost,’ is used both for the priesthood and the episco­
pate, without any word to express either of them in par­
ticular.80 This seems a plausible argument ; but it cannot
be held good after the decision referred to above, as given
in the Abyssinian case.
Bramhall replied to Talbot in the following year; but
seems to have supposed that ‘ two Ignatian Fathers’ were
concerned in the work. He appears to admit the force of
Talbot’s argument, but denies its applicability ; for, he
says, ‘ if the words, Receive the Holy Ghost,’ in the An­
glican rite, ‘ be considered conjointly in a compounded
sense’31 with the prayers and other parts of the rite, the
difference between the priesthood and the episcopate is
sufficiently expressed. Bramhall’s treatise has been fre­
quently referred to in the course of the present work, and
it is due to Mr. Haddan, who edited it for the Library of
Anglo-Catholic Theology, to bear testimony to the very
*· By N. N. : Rouen, 1657.

h'

28 p. 23.

. 30 p, 22.

S1 p. 163.

History of the Controversy.

159

careful and accurate manner in which he accomplished his
task. He has withdrawn or explained away several of
the slipshod arguments of his author, and has brought to
light with perfect honesty all that bore upon the question,
whether it told for or against him, though it may be he
has not seen the full force of all the facts he relates.
Only four documents have come to hand touching on the
points treated of in his notes, which seem to have escaped
his notice, as he has not referred to them.32
Lewgar33 replied to Bramhall, but only repeated Tal­
bot’s arguments. And the same were used by the dis­
putants to whom Burnet and Prideaux replied, whose
pamphlets arc the most considerable among many that
appeared upon the subject during the reigns of Charles
and James the Second.
In the early part of the next century the controversy
assumed a new phase from an unexpected quarter. The
Abbé Renaudot, author of the celebrated work La Per­

pétuité de la Foi de P Eglise Catholique sur les Sacramens,
wrote a Mémoire^ on the subject of Anglican Ordinations
for a work of the Abbé Gould’s, entitled La véritable
Croyance de PEglise Catholique, which was published at
Paris in the year 1720. Besides relating the Nag’sHead story, the only arguments in it are that the form
for consecrating Bishops, viz. ‘ Take the Holy Ghost, and
remember &c.,’ does not express any difference between
Bishops and priests, thus repeating Talbot’s and Lewgar’s
argument ; and besides, that ‘ a form unknown to the
whole Latin Church, ancient as well as modern, and of
which there is no vestige in the Pontifical of any Chris­
tian nation, cannot be regarded as legitimate.’
The Père Le Courayer, a Canon Regular of St. Gene-35
35 These are Barlow’s Grant of Temporalities, p. 72 ; Cromwell’s Warrant
for Clarencieux, 12 June 1536, p. 66 ; Memorandum of Parker’s Consecration
from Harleian mss. 419, p. 104 ; Jewell’s Letter to Parker, p. 81.
3Î Erastus senior, 1662.
34 Printed in Courayer’s Dissertation.

ιόο

Anglican Ordinations.

viève at Paris, and also Librarian, who had already dis­
tinguished himself by his opposition to the Bull Unigenitus,
seems to have promised himself an easy task in refuting a
Mémoire, which, although attributed to the pen of so ce­
lebrated an author, did not appear to rest on very strong
grounds either of history or theology.
He therefore
published his Dissertation, which was soon followed by
the Defence of the Dissertation. As these works could
not obtain the royal license to be published in Paris, they
were printed at Nancy, though made to appear as if printed
at Brussels—one in 1723, the other in 1726; and both
were very soon translated into English by Williams.
The historical part of these books has been already
referred to frequently, and we need only notice the argu­
ment about the form. Courayer maintains that the words
‘ Receive the Holy Ghost, &c.,’ cannot be the form of
giving ordination, for reasons which he takes from Morinus. Then he states what he considers to be the essen­
tial parts of the Sacrament in the following words : 1 Im­
position of hands and prayer in general .· that is to say,
the invocation of the Holy Ghost to obtain for the Bishop­
elect all the graces of which he has need for the worthy
discharge of the functions of his ministry.’35 By this rule
he proceeds to examine the Anglican rite of ordination,
and pronounces in favour of its validity.
It is surprising that all parties in the Anglican Church
should have accepted this defence without seeing that
it cuts away from under their feet the only ground on
which the validity of their ordinations could be maintained.
Not only did Archbishop Wake correspond with Courayer and assist him in his work, but when, in consequence
of the heretical tenets he had advanced, the author thought
proper to leave France, he was received in England with
every demonstration of gratitude, as one who had rendered
a public service to the Anglican Church. The University
35 Dissertation, p.

History ofthe Controversy.

161

of Oxford conferred on him the degree of D.D. by di­
ploma ; the King granted him a pension ; and all Angli­
can writers who have touched on the subject speak of
the great boon conferred on their Church by Courayer’s
books. Dr. Elrington says: ‘Conrayer wrote ably in sup­
port of our ordinations.’36 Sir Win. Palmer also: ‘It
would be difficult to overrate the value of Courayer’s
three works on the question of English ordinations 37
and: ‘The storm of persecution fell on a candid and learned
priest of the Roman communion, who had ventured to
defend, and irresistibly establish, the validity of our or­
dinations.’38 Yet it would seem as if it was only the
name of a Roman Catholic Divine advocating their cause
that they value ; for though Dr. Elrington has taken the
historical part of his work entirely from Conrayer, he has
carefully avoided referring to his argument about the
form. Palmer has avoided it likewise. This silence is in
itself a condemnation ; although by their general accept­
ance and approval of Courayer’s defence, Anglican writers
have shown how little they really enter into the ques­
tions at issue, and how unaware they are, that never was
a heavier blow given to their cause than by Courayer’s
argument before quoted.39 And this is all they have
gained from the advocacy received from, or the patronage
given in return to one who, commencing with the support
of Jansenism, ended his days denying some of the articles
of the Creed.40
If his adopted friends were only tacit in their con­
demnation, there were not wanting among those, whom he
had left, some to speak loudly against the errors he had
promidgated in these two works. Vivant wrote a book
to point out numerous errors of doctrine respecting the
p. 9.
37 Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 4.58, note.
JS Episcopacy vindicated, p. 6·
39 The Rev. T. J. Bailey has adopted Courayer’s argument, apparently in
ignorance of its unsoundness,-—English Orders and Papal Supremacy, p. 25.
J(i Biograpkia Britannica.
Μ

Η
K;

16ί

Anglican Ordinations.

Sacraments, adding that the validity of Anglican ordi­
nations was still an open question ; that the Church had
not decided it further than by directing that Anglican
ministers when converted should be reordained uncon­
ditionally; and that therefore Courayer was at liberty' to
maintain their validity if he saw fit, but that he might
have found arguments for his purpose without running
into heresy on the subject of the Sacrament of Holy
Order.41
This, however, was not all. Various propositions were
extracted from Courayer s works and denounced as hereti­
cal,42 while the author did not want friends who defended
and sided with him. He himself published an explanation
of the propositions, which, so far from removing the sus­
picions excited by them, only reiterates the erroneous
language.43 At last the controversy thus excited reached
to a notoriety too great, the scandal became too grievous,
and the errors broached were too serious to escape any
longer the notice and censure of the Church. Cardinal
de Noailles, then Archbishop of Paris, endeavoured by
various means to induce Courayer to retract his errors,
but in vain. At last he issued a ‘ Mandement’ con­
demning the two works as ‘ containing doctrine or ex­
pressions contrary to what the Church teaches as to the
Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Priesthood,
the Form of the Sacraments, Ac.’ He goes on to say,
‘We do not pronounce upon the ground of the question
about the validity of the ordinations of the English, and
the succession of their Bishops.’44 This ‘ Mandement’ was
published on the 18th of August 1727; and it was fol­
lowed in a few months by a Pastoral Instruction,4y in
which several of Courayer’s errors arc pointed out.
” Vivant, Sur la l ’aliditc des Onlinatiaus An^lieanes, c. 51, 56.
Kclatian /-/islariqiic &e. du P. I: Ccurayer, vol. ii. art. 18. See Ap­
pendix. No. XXX.
« Ibid.
<* See Appendix, No. XXIX.
45 See Appendix, No. XXXI.

History of the Controversy.

1
I*

I

;
i

163

The two works having been afterwards denounced to
Rome, and there examined, on the 25th of June 1728
Pope Benedict XIII. issued a Brief in condemnation of
them both, as containing propositions false, rash, scan­
dalous, erroneous, heretical, &c. And in addition to these,
it is not surprising to find the terms, ‘subversive of Sacred
Orders, and other Sacraments of the Church.’40
Nothing, then, can be more groundless than the statement made by Sir William Palmer,47 and other English
writers, that Courayer was persecuted on account of his
taking up the defence of English Ordinations. Not one
of the erroneous statements of doctrine attributed to him
touches on that question. Nor does the condemnation of
his works in any way affect the controversy. On the
contrary, it leaves it precisely where it was before. The
condemnation only attaches to the errors in the nature of
the arguments which Courayer had adopted ; and which
Anglican writers themselves, whether or no they had de­
tected the errors, have thought proper to pass over in a
discreet silence.
The principal writer in reply to Courayer was Le
Quien, from whom Father John Constable, S.J., under
the name of Clerophilus Alethes, has taken the greater
part of his work. They both adopt the Nag’s-Head story,
and push it to an extreme, using several arguments that
cannot be called otherwise than frivolous.
As to the rite of ordination, Le Quien agrees so far
with Courayer, that the matter and form of the sacrament
are imposition of hands and prayer. Then he continues ;
‘ The prayer which is to determine the imposition of
hands ought to express the effect of the Sacrament of
Order. And the first and principal effect of that sacra­
ment is to make sacrificers, and ministers whose principal
function it is to serve at the sacrifice of the new law. It
is necessary, then, that the prayer which forms the sub40 See Appendix, No. XXXII.

17 See above, p. 161.

*64

Anglican Ordinations.

stance of the ordination should express what the Faith
teaches of the Order conferred, and make mention of the
priesthood in relation to the sacrifice which is its princi­
pal object.’47 This he illustrates from the Roman Ponti­
fical. But this is only Talbot’s and Lewgar’s argument
put into another form, and it cannot be maintained in the
face of the Abyssinian decision.
Since Courayer’s time there have been various writers
on the subject, and from Archbishop Kenrick’s work a
valuable extract will be taken in a future chapter. Canon
Raynal has treated the subject of the essential matter
and form with considerable force, entering into the theo­
logical questions more deeply than lies within the
scope of the present work. On the other side no new
argument has been advanced in favour of the Anglican
view of the question, except by Mr. Haddam
His
edition of Bramhall has been already noticed, and he
has lately published a work in which he has ‘ put into
an accessible form the information then (in part for the
first time) accumulated, adding what has seemed to
him expedient upon the doctrine under present circum­
stances.’48 Fie has spoken plainly and forcibly on the
great importance of the subject. And he has rendered
another service to the discussion of the question. It is
very difficult to learn from Anglican writers what they un­
derstand by Holy Orders. The controversialists do not
inform us ; and if we were to refer to others, it is by no
means certain that their views are shared by those who
treat of the points at issue. We cannot use Pearson and
Hickes to illustrate Burnet and Prideaux ; nor bind down
Bishop Elrington by what Bishop Tomline may have stated.
Hence it is that so many Catholic writers, such as the
author of Protestant Demonstrations, or Dr. Fletcher, fail
to carry conviction with them, because their ‘ Demonstra­
tions,’ piercing and vivid as they are, come to an end with
47 Part ii. p. 16, 17.

4· Haddan on Apostolical Succession, Pref.

History of the Controversy.

165

those they represent, like the figures of a magic lantern.
But Mr. Haddan has stated what he considers to be in­
volved in the belief in the Apostolical Succession. Liberty
is therefore taken to give a summary of this statement as
follows: ‘Belief in an apostolic ministry implies belief in
the grace of God as a supernatural dealing with the souls
of men and a gift of spiritual life; that these gifts of grace
are intrusted to a corporate body, divinely constituted
and visible, as the appointed channel of grace, viz. the
Church; that in the Church there is a divinely-constituted
ministry, an order of men to whom God has intrusted cer­
tain authority and powers, and who possess exclusively
the commission of Christ both to teach and administer
sacraments, deriving their appointment from God Himself,
through those who have received authority to transmit
such a supernatural gift, that is, the grace oforders ; which
office of ministering the outward call and appointment is
limited to Bishops, through whom the gift of orders so
transmitted has descended from the Apostles by an un­
broken line, that is to say, the Apostolical Succession.’49
Although this may fall short of the definitions of Catholic
theology, yet it is a great thing in the discussion of this
question to have a statement so carefully prepared, that
no one who believes in an apostolic ministry can take
exception to it, as far as it goes.
There are two other works which may require some
notice. One is that of Canon Williams. It is much to
be regretted that he should have undertaken to write on
the subject without better acquaintance with the nature
of historical evidence. He uses evidence at second-hand,
and even at third-hand, to establish a point he wishes to
prove, but rejects proofs of the same character when they
tell against him. The consequence is, that his book can­
not be relied on for a single statement. Even when he
has a good argument in his hands, he spoils it by pushing
48 Haddan on Apostolical Succession, p. 9-14

Anglican Ordinations.
it too far. It will be sufficient to give two instances of
gross mistakes he has made.
He says: ‘In the “Citation to Opposers” Barlow is
made to say that the Queen’s letter-patent is “ sealed
with the great seal of England.” This was not the fact;
it was not sealed at all. I of course contend that it was
altogether a forgery ; but even as printed by Rymer
there is no seal, nor mark of authenticity ; which, if it ex­
isted, Rymer would have given. The commission to Tun­
stall and others, Sept, 9, was cjuite different. Rymer tells
us it was sealed.’*50 The good Canon seems to suppose
that the instrument which was produced before the Com­
missioners, and that of which the copy is printed in
Rymer, are one and the same. He was not aware that
the instrument produced was the original Letters Patent,
which, as a matter of course, bore the Great Seal, and
would have been of no avail without it. But that printed
is only the copy as enrolled upon the Patent Roll, in
which the mere formal parts are omitted, and there is no
mention of the Great Seal, because all the documents on
the Roll must have passed under it, and could not be en­
rolled otherwise. The commission of Sept. 9 is stated in
Rymer to be ‘ per breve de privato sigillo ;’ that is, ‘ by
writ of Privy Seal.’ The Canon seems to suppose that
these words indicate that the instrument itself was sealed.
This is another mistake. Those words relate to a differ­
ent instrument from the Letters Patent, and to the Privy
Seal, not the Great Seal. The usual process was, that
the Queen put her Sign-manual to an instrument, which
was then called a ‘Signed Bill,’ on which the Lord Privy
Seal issued a writ with the Privy Seal attached to it ; and
this writ being delivered to the Lord Chancellor or the
Lord Keeper, was his authority for issuing the Letters
Patent and affixing the Great Seal to them. The Letters
Patent were then delivered to the person in whose favour
50 Letters on Anglican Orders, p. 212.

History ofthe Controversy.

t6y

they were granted, and were generally, but not always,
enrolled upon the Rolls in Chancery.
The other passage is as follows : ‘ I come now to an­
other most important and decisive proof of the spurious­
ness of the register. . . Nicholas Bullingham is repeatedly
mentioned in these documents : at the confirmation, as
simply Doctor of Laws and as Proctor for the Archbishop
elect; and in the “Rituum Ordo,” as Archdeacon of
Lincoln.51 ... I will prove on the clearest evidence that
at that date he was not archdeacon at all, and that no one
writing at that time could possibly give him that title,
l ie formerly had been Archdeacon of Lincoln, but at the
accession of Mary retired beyond sea, and was succeeded
by Thomas Marshall, to whom succeeded Owen Hodgson
Jan. 14, 1558; Bullingham not being restored. There­
fore five years had elapsed since his possession of the
archdeaconry. Now for a still more indubitable proof.
The Queen grants to the said N. Bullingham, Bishop elect
of Lincoln, the archdeacony of Lincoln in commendant, for
three years, Jan. 18, 1560. Now observe this extract:

“prœdictum archidiaconatum, nunc certo et legitimo modo va­
cantem !”—the aforesaid archdeaconry now certainly and
legitimately vacant. Is not this a demonstration ?’52
Is it not a pity to see a worthy man assuming this
peremptory tone, while unconscious of the blunders he
is perpetrating ? At the accession of Queen Elizabeth,
Owen Hodgson was deprived of the archdeaconry,53 and
Bullingham was restored without a fresh appointment.
By his acceptance of the bishopric, the post became va­
cant, and it is properly described in the grant as ‘ vacant
in a certain and legitimate manner.’ The grant in com­
mendam is made to take effect from the date of his ac­
cepting the bishopric ; that is to say, from the time of
the vacancy occurring.5'1
51 Letters on Anglican Orders, p. 216.
52 p. 218.
53 Concertatio Eccl. Calk.
34 See the grant, printed in Williams’App.

a:

IA S*

168

Anglican Ordinations.

Dr. Lee’s work has been already referred to, and it is
not necessary to notice it at greater length, as he does
not produce any fresh evidence with regard to Barlow or
Parker. He has quoted at length several examples of
ancient rites both of the East and West, and he considers
that the Anglican Reformed Ordinal is perfectly in har­
mony with them on all essential points ; but he fails to
observe a difference between the modern order he defends
and the ancient rites he refers to of no little importance.
The principal feature in his book is the reference to a
number of Catholic authorities, who are supposed to have
pronounced in favour of the validity of Anglican ordina­
tions.
But. the opinion attributed to Bossuet rests on
the merest rumour ; and some other references have no
better ground: the extract from Francisais a Sancta Clara
has been explained by himself in another work in a sense
quite opposed to the purpose for which Dr. Lee alleges
it ;55 and the passage quoted from Bishop Milner does not
bear on the question, while there is a letter from him on
the subject in reply to Dr. Elrington, in which he makes
quite evident his own disbelief in the Anglican HighChurch claims, though he declares his preference for
leaving those claims uncontroverted, and opposing rather
the Latitudinarian school.50
We may now take a review of the whole controversy.
When the public attention was roused and drawn to the
subject in James the First’s reign, Catholics found a cer­
tain tradition existing, and a certain practice in use, viz.
that Anglican Orders were null and void, and were to be
so regarded in practice. They also found certain rumours
current on the subject of the first beginnings of Anglican
Episcopacy, and out of these rumours, coupled with the
ideas of the scholastic theology, they have formed a theory
to account for this tradition, and have endeavoured to
strain the facts so as to square with their theory. Angli“ See chapter vi.

ss Printed in Kenrick’s Appendix, p. 207.

History of the Controversy.

169

cans, on the other hand, find themselves in a position
they conscientiously believe to be right, with a hierarchy
possessing the ancient names of Bishop and Priest, which
they have been taught to revere, and to see therein the
true successors of St. Augustine and St. Dunstan ; and
they are too willing to accept without question any de­
fence that offers itself. Putting it briefly : the Anglicans
draw their facts from a priori arguments, while the Ca­
tholics rest their arguments on a preconceived theory of
facts.
The result is not satisfactory on either side.
Each is able to point out the weakness of his adversary’s
case, but neither of them to establish his own. In one
way certainly the Catholics have the advantage—that
they know what they mean, and what they are contend­
ing for ; that it is the sacrament of Holy Order, the
Priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice, and the faith of the
Church on these points, that they are defending. But
it is difficult to learn what Anglican writers mean by the
terms they use. They use Catholic phrases and Catholic
arguments ; but when their words come to be examined,
it is doubtful whether they use them in a Catholic sense.
Sometimes they distinctly repudiate the doctrines which
Catholics believe to be involved in the terms employed.
Thus their arguments do not belong to them, and they
do not belong to the arguments. Their course of pro­
ceeding reminds us of boys in the street getting up be­
hind a gentleman’s carriage. Hence the importance of a
statement such as Mr. Haddan’s, by means of which we
may know the meaning of the terms when we come to
discuss the principles. Even Mr. Haddan seems afraid to
face the facts. He complains that Barlow’s consecration
should be questioned; when it would have been assumed as
a matter of course, had he not been Parker’s consecrator.
He tries to throw the burden of proof on those who
maintain that there is any doubt about it, wishing to for­
get the fact, that the more his case is investigated, the

i/o

Anglican Ordinations.

worse it looks for him, and that he himself has done more
to damage it than any preceding writer.
If the present work takes a different course from
those that have preceded it, it is not meant to depreciate
their labours. The researches of Champneys, Lewgar,
Le Çuien, and Constable have been most valuable, be­
cause they have laid down principles and made sugges­
tions that we can now work upon with better information
than they possessed. If their arguments are given up
as untenable, it is because that, at the time when they
wrote, the two decisions of the Holy See bearing on the
subject had not been made known; one of which has been
the guide of the theology of the Church ever since Pope
Benedict XIV. published it in his Synodus Diœcesana ;
and the other, though mentioned in one edition of An­
toine, has been very little known up to the present time.

CHAPTER V.
ANCIENT RITES OF ORDINATION.

From the preceding chapters we learn that on certain
points the parties to the controversy may come to a mutual
consent, so far as this: that imposition of hands and praycr
are essential in Ordination, and the only essentials, that is
to say, in theory, for the valid administration of the holy
Orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopate,
which are called the hierarchical Orders. This is taught
and maintained as the general opinion among Catholic
theologians.1 And it has also been maintained by all
writers on the Anglican side from the beginning of the
controversy.
There js also a general consent as to the minister
of the rite, namely, that it must be a Bishop. Some
Anglican writers have made an exception in the case
of necessity, and have said that an extraordinary means
might be allowed ; but all those who profess to believe
the Apostolical Succession consider that without a Bishop
duly consecrated by other Bishops there is no ordination
or consecration.
But there is no agreement as to the prayers which
are to accompany the imposition of hands. The question
has not been much discussed, and it is not determined
what should be the nature of the prayers, and what is to
be the end and object of the petitions in them. Courayer
stated the proposition, that it is to be ‘ prayer in general,
’

1 See Appendix, No. I.

172

Anglican Ordinations.

that is to say, to obtain for the person ordained all the
graces necessary for the worthy discharge of his func­
tions.’ But this seems to be an incomplete description,
and is not admitted as correct either by Catholics or
Anglicans.2 Le Quien, on the other hand, laid down a
principle which seems not to be borne out by the facts.
Thus we have no positive guidance on the subject.
In such a case we can only have recourse to the
practice of the Church; and in so doing we are not to
confine ourselves to the rite of the Roman Pontifical, but
to make inquiry as to what the Church approves in all
the rites used within her communion, and also what she
has required in the rites of separated bodies whose Orders
she has admitted as valid.
For the purposes of this inquiry, Morinus has given
us the rite from the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitu­
tions, which is considered to be as ancient as the fourth
century, though it cannot be traced to belong to any par­
ticular Church ;3 the Greek rite from a ms. of the ninth
century; the Latin rite from a ms. of the sixth century,
and also from the Sacramentaries of St. Gregory and St.
Gelasius, to which Muratori has added that of St. Leo ;
and likewise the rites of the Nestorian Syrians and Coptic
Jacobites. In addition to these, we may find in Assemani
and Benzinger the rites both of the Maronite and Jacobite
Syrians, as well as that of the Armenians ; and also the
Nestorian and Coptic rites more fully detailed than by
Morinus.'1 And a Latin version of all that is contained in
the Abyssinian sacred books on the subject of holy Orders
has been obtained through the kindness of the late Mon­
signor Bel, Vicar Apostolic of Abyssinia.
The Greek and Oriental rites vary considerably from
- See, however, the quotations from St. René, Juenin, and Catalan:, in
the next chapter.
* Palmer, Origines Litiirgicœ, vol. i. p. 37.
4 It does not appear whether the rites used by the United Syrians, or the
United Syrian Chaldeans, agree with any of those here referred to.

Ancient Kites of Ordination.

173

each other, and yet between them all there are certain
points of similarity, which seem to show that they are all
derived from a common origin, and embody in a frag­
mentary form the tradition of a more venerable antiquity.
The prayers for ordination in the Apostolic Constitutions
may be taken to represent one part of this tradition ; for
there are certain terms of petition used in them which are
repeated in nearly all the other rites. And the ancient
Greek rite will represent another part, because the wellknown form commencing ‘Divina gratia’ contained therein
is found with some variations in several other rites; which
also follow the Greek rite in the use of certain expressions
in the prayers, while differing in both respects from the
Apostolic Constitutions. Thus there are two channels of
tradition independent of each other, and betokening sources
more remote, because they are found so widely spread
among different bodies; and yet these sources would seem
to have been originally one and the same, since both
traditions are now sometimes to be found in union, min­
gled together not merely in the same rite, but even in the
very same prayer. The Nestorians and Jacobites sepa­
rated from the Church after the Councils of Ephesus and
Chalcedon. The Maronites and Armenians were reunited
to the Church only after a long separation. Hence if
their several rituals present any points of agreement
with that of the ancient Greek Catholic books, such a
fact testifies to an origin earlier than that of the time
of separation ; and even indicates a time of still higher
antiquity, when perhaps there was. but one rite of ordina­
tion common to all the Churches of the East. It is not
therefore too much to believe, that in whatever is common
to them all, comparing rite with rite, and the present
rituals with ancient mss., we behold a witness of the
primitive Catholic faith, and are imbibing the very spirit
of apostolic tradition.
To enter more into details. In the prayer said by the

i^4

Anglican Ordinations.

Bishop according to the Apostolic Constitutions for the
Ordination of a Deacon are the following words: ‘ O Lord,
show Thy countenance upon Thy servant elected for Thee
to the ministry, and fill him with the Holy Spirit and
power, as Thou didst fill Stephen the Martyr and imitator
of the Passion of Thy Christ.’ These words, or words
similar to them, at least in part, are found in the Greek
and all the Oriental rites, except the Abyssinian, in which
the prayer is entirely different. Again, in the ancient
Greek rite published by Morinus from a ms. of the ninth
century,5 the second prayer said by the Bishop in the Or­
dination of a Deacon contains the following words : ‘ For
not in imposition of our hands, but in the visitation of
Thine abundant mercies, is grace given to those worthy
of Thee.’ Words similar to these are found also in the
rites of the Coptic Jacobites, the Syrian Jacobites, and the
Syrian Maronites.
In the Ordination of Priests the various rites seem to
divide themselves into two families, two agreeing with the
Apostolic Constitutions, and the other five varying alto­
gether from that ancient form, but yet agreeing among
themselves. The former runs as follows : ‘ Look now up­
on this Thy servant, added to the presbytery by the suf­
frage and judgment of the whole clergy ; and fill him with
the spirit of grace and counsel to help and govern Thy
people with a pure heart, as Thou didst look upon Thy
chosen people, and didst command Moses to choose elders
whom Thou didst'fill with the Spirit.’ The Coptic and
Abyssinian rites both contain a prayer which is evidently
derived from the same original as this; but none of the
others.
The ancient Greek rite before quoted contains in the
second prayer said by the Bishop the following petitions:
‘Him whom Thou, O Lord, hast chosen to undertake the
degree of the presbyterate, fill with the gift of Thy Holy
ύ De Sacris Ordinationibus, pt. ii.

V

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

175

Spirit, that he may be worthy to stand before Thine al­
tar, to preach the Gospel of Thy salvation, to administer
in sacred rites the word of Thy truth, to offer to Thee
gifts and spiritual sacrifices, to renew Thy people through
the laver of regeneration.’ The Jacobite and Maronite
Syrians, the Nestorian Syrians, and the Armenians all have
expressions similar to these, seeming to indicate that their
rites were derived from a common tradition, yet not so
like as to point to any one of the number as the original
of the rest. And it is to be remembered, that except in the
case of the Greek, the similarity, such as it is, is trans­
mitted through a Latin version of the original language.
In the Consecration of Bishops there is a similar divi­
sion into two families, but the members of the separate
branches are not entirely the same. The Maronites and
Jacobites belong to the apostolic family instead of to the
Greek ; and the Coptic rite has two prayers, one similar
to the former, and the other to the latter ; while the
Nestorians mix up the two together in the same prayer.
The prayer in the Apostolic Constitutions is as follows :
‘ Pour forth through us the power of Thy guiding Spirit,*’
which by Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ was bestowed on
Thine Apostles: give in Thy name, O God that knowest
the heart, to this Thy servant, whom Thou hast elected
for Bishop, to feed Thy holy flock, and to be a high-priest
to Thee without blame, ministering night and day, and
propitiating Thy face, to gather together the number of
the saved, and to offer to Thee the gifts of Thy hoi}'
Church : give unto him, O Lord Almighty, through Th}'
Christ, the participation of Thy Holy Spirit, so as to have
power to remit sins according to Thy command, to give
clergy after Thine appointment, to loose every bond ac­
cording to the power Thou didst give to Thine Apostles,
0 This phrase, τ<>
σου ^(μονικ6ν, so frequently used in these prayers,
is derived from the Septuagint version of the Psalm’JÆwrrr, and in the Vul­
gate it is rendered spiritu principali.

ί

176

Anglican Ordinations.

to please Thee in meekness and a pure heart without
wavering, or blame, or reproach, offering to Thee the pure
and unbloody sacrifice which through Christ Thou hast
constituted the mystery of the New Testament for an
odour of sweetness.’ The Coptic rite, as in the former
cases, and the Abyssinian, as in the case of the priest­
hood, contain a prayer closely agreeing with this, being
the only prayer in the latter rite, and the first of the two
in the former. The Nestorian prayer is also in part
similar to this. According to Assemani the prayer in
the Jacobite rite agrees neither with this nor with the
Greek rite ; but in Renaudot’s version the prayer used
by the Syrian Jacobites is very similar to that here trans­
lated. And the same prayer is used by the Maronites ;
but it is only one among the six or seven prayers of that
rite, and does not come in the principal place, although it
is the single prayer of the former rite.
The Greek rite stands at the head of the other divi­
sion, and contains two prayers, the first of which runs
as follows : ‘ O Lord of all, do Thou confirm this elect
through my hand . . . and those of the present ministers
and fellow Bishops, to undertake the gospel yoke and the
high-priestly dignity, by the coming and power and grace
of Thy Holy Spirit.’ And the second: ‘Do Thou, O
Lord, make him who is declared steward of high-priestly
grace to be an imitator of Thee the true Shepherd, laying
down his life for Thy sheep, a guide of the blind, the
light of those in darkness, an instructor of the unwise,
a luminary in the world ; that having prepared the souls
intrusted to him during the present life, he may stand
before Thy tribunal without shame, and receive the great
reward which Thou hast prepared for those who contend
for the preaching of Thy gospel.’ The two prayers in
the Armenian rite appear to correspond to the two here
quoted; and the second prayer of the Coptic rite is similar
to the second of the Greek ; while the second prayer of

♦

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

1U

’

ΑΊ

the Nestorians contains some expressions agreeing with
the same, intermixed with others like the Apostolic Constitutions.7
There is also another point on which all the various
rites agree, except the Abyssinian, and which deserves
consideration. The Greek rite of conferring each of
the orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, commences
by the Bishop announcing the election in the following
terms: ‘The Divine Grace, which is ever healing the
weak things, and filling up the things that are wanting,
promotes N., this most religious presbyter, to be Bishop.
Let us pray for him, that the grace of the Holy Ghost
may come upon him;’ (or ‘this deacon tobe priest
or
‘ this subdeacon to be deacon,’ as the case may be.) A
form to the same effect as this, and commencing with the
same words, is found in the Coptic, all the Syrian, and
the Armenian rites. It is not expressly mentioned in the
Apostolic Constitutions, but there is prescribed in them a
very solemn mode of asking the judgment of the Bishops
and clergy, and the testimony of the people, to the worthiness of the Bishop-elect ; and therefore, when the Metropolitan had given his approbation, there must have been
some mode of announcing the election to the people.
Thus the consent of all these rites, used as they are
among nations differing in language and separated in faith,
naturally leads us to suppose an origin more ancient than
any documents with which we are now acquainted.
And the view here taken seems to be confirmed by
some other circumstances. It has been mentioned already
that the prayers in the Jacobite rite are used also in the
Maronite rite. And the Jacobites form a branch of the
Eutychian heresy, which separated from the Church after
the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451. But the Mar7 In the Appendix, No. XXXIII., the prayers referred to are arranged in
parallel columns, in order that the similarity between them may be more easilytraced.

N

■

('
1;

l

a
,u
d
iy
i j,

:

’ .1

w? '
f: .-·

d
In Γ

*

Anglican Ordinalions.
onites remained Catholic till the)' were led astra}' by
Maro, a follower of the Monothelite heresy, which, was
condemned by the third Council of Constantinople, in the
year 680 and they returned to the unity of the Church
after a separation of five hundred years. In the rites there­
fore that these two bodies have retained, so far as one is
identical with the other, we may probably look' for relics
of the ancient Catholic rite of the Syrian Church. For
the Jacobites would not have carried it away with them,
if it had not been earlier than a. n. 451; and the Maron­
ites would not have retained it, if it had not been Catholic.
The Nestorians, again, form a more ancient sect than
any others, having separated from the Church after the
Council of Ephesus in the year 431, in order to follow
the errors of Nestorius, the deposed Bishop of Con­
stantinople. Since that time they have held no com­
munion with Catholics, nor with the other bodies who
separated from the Church at a later time. And the
feelings of partisan enmity engendered at the time of
separation, which continue to the present day as deep
and intense as ever, would have prevented their adopting
either usages; or language from any other body. Yet we
find in the prayers of their ordination rites peculiar expres­
sions, some like the Apostolic Constitutions, and others
agreeing with the Greek rite. It is difficult to see how
such expressions could have found their way among the
Nestorians, unless the forms from which they were taken
were more ancient than the year 431.
Possibly some light may be thrown on this subject
from liturgical history. W0 learn from Sir W. Palmer,
that ‘the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions is gener­
ally considered to have been written in the 4th century,
but that it cannot be considered as an authentic copy of
the liturgy of any particular Church, for there is no evi­
dence of its use in any place. Yet it agrees more closely
8 Morinus, De Sac. Ord. pt. ii.

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

'79

with the liturgy of Antioch than with any other.’9 And
the origin of the present Greek Liturgy is traced to St.
Basil, though it may be believed that the liturgy which
he composed was founded upon that anciently in use in
the Church of Cæsarea, but corrected in diction, enriched,
and added to by him. And the ancient liturgy of Cæsarea
agreed at least in order and substance with that of An­
tioch.Ju The Armenians had received their liturgy from
Cæsarea at the first conversion of that country.11 And
the hturgy of St. Basil, in its revised form, soon came into
use not only throughout Greece and Asia Minor,12 but it
is also used in Egypt by the Copts,13 in addition to another
liturgy which is ascribed to St. Cyril, and which is sup­
posed to represent the ancient liturgy of Alexandria.11
The connexion so far traced serves to explain how the
Greek and Syriac rites of ordination should differ from
that in the Apostolic Constitutions and from each other,
and yet be in some respects similar ; and it also accounts
for the Armenian rite bearing a closer resemblance to the
Greek than is found in any other. But if the author of
the liturgy in the Apostolic Constitutions founded it upon
that of the Syrian Church, it is remarkable that the Coptic
liturgy should contain all the ordination prayers from
those Constitutions, almost word for word, while the other
rites have only certain of those prayers or sentences, or
expressions similar to them ; and the parts of the Coptic
rite which are similar to the Greek are all in the way of
addition, and not of substitution. If the Constitutions
have a Syrian connexion, whence comes their closer affinity
with the Coptic ? unless, indeed, we may be again led to
the idea that there was one original rite of ordination in
use both at Antioch and Alexandria, and that the author
of the Apostolic Constitutions may have copied this an­
cient rite.
9 Origines Liiurgiae, vol. i. p. 38.
p. 66.

13 p. 67-3.
13 p. 60-62.

11 p. 194.
11 P· 85.

i8o

Anglican Ordinations.

This sketch, however imperfect, has been drawn out
with the intention of showing that these rites, if viewed
together in the parts in which the}' agree, possess a claim
to our respect and attention quite above any to which
they may be entitled as independent witnesses to eccle­
siastical usage ; because in their consent they embody a
tradition derived from the earliest ages of the Church.
If, however, we were to attempt to discuss the ques­
tion, What in each of these rites is the essential form of
the sacrament? we should find ourselves at once involved
in difficulties. For instance, the Jacobites in conferring
the several orders of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, use in
each case one or two prayers, which are also retained and
used by the Maronites. There is nothing else in the
Jacobite rite that accompanies the imposition of hands,
or that takes the position of a sacramental form. The
Maronites, however, not only use these same prayers in
conjunction with the imposition of hands, but have added
to them five or six other prayers to be said by the Bishop,
with a fresh imposition of hands at each prayer. And the
ordination seems not to be complete till the last, because
in the last prayer but one the person ordained is spoken
of as still expecting the sacred gift. Thus the very same
form which is used by the Jacobites, as adequate and
sufficient, is used also by the Maronites, but treated as
inadequate and incomplete.
Again, the words Divina Gratia &c., which, as we
have seen, are used in all the Oriental rites, have been
taken by Anglican writers—for instance, Burnet15 and Mr.
Haddan10—as the form of the sacrament, following Arcudius and other theologians. Morinus has a chapter to show
that these words are not the form, but only the announce­
ment of the decree of election. And though used in all
the Oriental rites, they cannot be everywhere the essential
Ιύ Vindication of Ordinations Orc. p- 36.
18 Apostolical Succession in the Church oj England, p. :03·

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

'*oi

form, for in the Coptic and Jacobite rites they arc said by
the Archdeacon or one of the assisting Bishops ; in the
Nestorian and the ancient Greek rite they are said by the
Bishop, but without imposing his hand ; and only in the
modern Greek, the Maronite, and the Armenian are they
united with the imposition of hands. Notwithstanding
this, in the last-mentioned rite, the Armenian, they do
seem to be considered as the operative form. For up to
that time, the subdeacon, deacon, or priest, who is to be
made deacon, priest, or bishop, is described as ‘ ordinandus,’ * accepturus,’ or ‘ electus ;’ but after these words
have been pronounced by the Bishop, he is called in the
prayer following them ‘ ordinatus’ or ‘ episcopus.’
These are some of the difficulties which would meet
us in entering on such an inquiry ; and which would
require a professed theologian to attempt their solution.
But it is quite unnecessary to open such a question for
the purpose of the present work. All that we need look
for is the general effect of these rites, and the end and
the object of the prayers contained in them.
To turn now to the Latin rite. The authority constantly referred to as the earliest on this subject is the
Fourth Council of Carthage, held in the year 398. Yet
it does not seem quite certain that the Canons which bear
the name of that Council were really decreed by it; at
least Hardouin does not admit them without some quali­
fication.17 But they are quoted in Muratori’s Gelasian
Sacramentary ;18 in the ancient ms. which Morinus be­
lieves to have been written for the Church of Poitiers
between the years 511 and 560 ;19 and in the York
Pontifical of Archbishop Egbert.20 Pope Benedict XIV.
also cites them as genuine.21 The indications given in
those decrees of the ordination rites agree with the Latin
” Concil. vol. i. col. 975.
1S col. 619.
10 De Sac. Ord. p. 2i2.
20 Surtees Society, p. ro, &c,
21 Synod. Dicccesan. lib. viii. cap. 9, § 9 ; cap. ic, § 5.

i

;
· ;r

,■
:

*

i
|

i
! |i
1 i|
r
|

182

Anglican Ordinations,

rite, as we find it afterwards detailed. If therefore we
take the Sacramentary of St. Leo, together with the other
Sacramentaries of St. GeJasius and St. Gregory, and also
the Poitiers ms., and Archbishop Egbert’s Pontifical, we
may believe that in what they all alike contain we see the
ancient Latin rite of the early part of the fifth century,
that is to say, certainly of the time of St. Leo. and pro­
bably as early as that of St. Augustine. Now Ave do find
in all these books, with some verbal discrepancies, the
prayers which are still said according to the Roman Pon­
tifical in the ordination of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons;
and which are also prescribed in the other Pontificals of
this country, whether of Sariim, Winchester, Bangor, or
Exeter. There is no need to discuss the question, What
is now, or what may have been formerly, according to any
or each of these rites, the essential form of the Sacrament.
It will be sufficient if we confine our attention to these
prayers, and consider what is proposed in them as the
end and object of the petitions they contain.
We have already carried back the Eastern rites to
a common origin at least as early as the fourth century,
and those of the Western Church to a date not much
later. If, then, we find that both East and West bear
witness to one common principle running through all their
rites, we cannot but confess that such is the faith and tra­
dition of the Church with regard to Holy Orders. Now
what is the case? We find certainly that in all the prayers
there arc petitions for sanctifying graces, that the person
ordained or consecrated may lead a Christian and holy life;
and for other graces, that he may discharge the functions
of the Order he receives worthily, with wisdom and other
virtues; but there is something more than this. In every
one of these rites there are petitions to the effect, either
that Almighty God would elect the person on whom the
Bishop’s hands are imposed to be Bishop, Priest, or
Deacon; or that God would fill with the Eloly Ghost

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

183

him whom He has elected to such an Order ; or that He
would fill him with the Holy Spirit for the special func­
tion of the Order, as to feed the flock of Christ, or to
govern the people ; or to bestow on him the grace of the
Order: thus in each case expressing the belief that each
Order is a special gift of grace, and that the person or­
dained is consecrated to that Order by an interior sacra­
mental consecration.
Now to confirm this assertion by examples. The
prayers of the Greek rite and those of the Apostolic Con­
stitutions have been already referred to, with, the men­
tion of the other rites that contain the same petitions.
It is therefore unnecessary to quote these again, and we
may take other instances.
The Abyssinian rite is derived either from the Coptic
or from the Apostolic Constitutions, but is much abridged,
and in some parts altogether different.22 The prayer in
the ordination of Deacons does not correspond with any
other rite, but contains the following petition: ‘ Send forth
the Spirit of goodness and vigilance on this Thy servant,
whom Thou hast elected to be a Deacon in Thy Church.’
The prayer in the ordination of Priests is like the Coptic,
but omits the important words, ‘ who is promoted to the
Presbyterate by the suffrage and judgment of those who
present him.’23 The prayer, therefore, runs as follows :
‘ Look upon this Thy servant, and bestow on him the
spirit of grace (or spiritual grace) and counsel of sanctity,
that he may rule Thy people in a pure heart, as Thou
didst command Moses to choose leaders over Thy chosen
people, and fill him with the Holy Spirit, which Thou
didst give to Moses.’ Now even in this, the shortest and
most meagre form of ah, we find the prayer for a special
grace of the Holy Spirit to rule rhe people of God, and
-- See Appendix, No. XXXV·'.
-3 Benzinger, mtns Orient, vol. ii. p. I2.
from the Apoa. Const.

See page 174 for the prayer

I

Siam

184.

Anglican. Ordinations.

the gift of grace so sought is compared to the extraor­
dinary gift of the Spirit bestowed upon the seventy ciders
of Israel. The prayer in the Abyssinian book tor the con­
secration of Bishops differs little from that in the Coptic;
but as the Bishop is consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch,
it is probable that the Coptic rite itself is used. The
prayer is as follows: 'Send forth Thy Holy Spirit on
this Thy servant, whom Thou hast assumed to the Epis­
copate, that he may keep and govern Thy flock without
reproach.’
In the Jacobite and Maronite rites the prayer for Dea­
cons is very similar to that in the Creek riles already
quoted. For Priests it is as follows: ‘Elect, O Lord, this
Thy servant to the Presby terate, and grant him with man­
ners irreproachable and faith unwavering to receive the
gift of Thy Holy Spirit, to be worthy to exercise the
priesthood of the Gospel of Thy kingdom.’ And for
Bishops : ‘This Thy servant, whom Thou hast made wor­
thy to receive the high order of Bishops, adorn with all
virtues, and stability and peace ; sustain and fill him with
all properties of faith, charity, virtue, and sanctity, by the
illumination of Thy holy, living, and life-giving Spirit.’24
The above, however, is not used in the Jacobite rite ac­
cording to Renaudot, whose version contains a prayer
very similar to that of the Apostolic Constitutions.25 Both
one and the other are used by the Maronites.
The Nestorian rite has very little in it similar to the
others. In the case of each order the Bishop gives a
first imposition of hands while saying, ‘ Behold, we present
before Thee these Thy servants, that they may be elected
Deacons in Thy holy Church, that on them may come
the grace of the Holy Spirit, and may perfect and con­
summate them for the work of this ministry.’ The same
is said for Priests anef Bishops, altering the title of the
order. Then the Bishop, again imposing his right hand,
'u Dcnzinger, p. 75.

Ibid. p. 97.

Ancient Rites of Qndination.

;

i

y

1
1

i

185

says the following prayers : for Deacons, ‘ Give to these
Thy servants the grace of the Holy Spirit, that they may
be elected Deacons in Thy holy Church ;’ for Priests,
* Look now on these Thy servants, and elect them with
'holy election, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, . . . and
elect them to the priesthood;’ for Bishops, ‘Show the
light of Thy countenance upon liais Thy servant, and
elect him with holy election by the unction of the Holy
Spirit, that he may be a perfect priest to Thee.’
We must now turn to the Latin rite; and may con­
iine ourselves to those parts of the rite only which have
been in general use as well in the ancient books before
mentioned as in the old English and the present Roman
Pontificals.
In the Ordination of Deacons the Bishop
commends them to the prayers of the clergy and people,
‘that on these His servants, whom He has vouchsafed to
assume to the office of the Diaconate, He would pour out
the grace of His benediction, and preserve in them the
gifts of the consecration bestowed.’ Then, in the prayer
following, which is now divided into two parts by the
imposition of hands, ‘ Send forth on them, O Lord, the
Holy Spirit, by which, with the gift of Thy sevenfold
grace, they may be confirmed for the work of faithfully
executing their ministry.’ Then for Priests, at the time
of the imposition of hands, the Bishop says, ‘Let us pray
to God that on these His servants, whom Lie hath elected
to the function of the Presbyterate, Ide would multiply
heavenly gifts.’ And afterwards, ‘ on these Thy servants
pour the benediction of the Holy Spirit and the power
of sacerdotal grace ;’ and ‘ give them the dignity of the
Presbyterate.’ Lastly, for Bishops, the consecrating Bishop says, · Turning on this Thy servant the horn of
sacerdotal grace, pour forth on him the power of Thy
benediction ;’ and, ‘ this Thy servant, whom Thou hast
elected to the ministry of the high priesthood.’ ‘ Com­
plete in Thy Priest the sum of Thy ministry.’

I
t|

n

·

g.
-j

.
-,<

:
1 1

|
, -,

t

/
|
■. !,·^

- ,

■ -,

'

I

i

186

Anglican Ordinations.

Thus, then, these several rites, both East and West,
though varying in expression, yet all speak one and the
same language, all teach one and the same doctrine, and
are all framed with one and the same end in view in their
petitions; all imploring the grace of the Order to be con­
ferred as a peculiar grace, a Divine gift in the soul, a
special gift of the Holy Ghost, and an interior sacramental
consecration. The expressions quoted have been very
brief; but if any one will take the trouble to examine
the rites himself, he will see how the same idea of the
sacramental efficacy of the rite pervades the whole.
Similar to this is the teaching which may be found in
the Fathers. Thus St. Augustine, in passages which arc
often quoted: ‘Flow,’ says he, ‘is not He God who gives
the Holy Spirit? Yes, how great a God who gives God?
For none of His disciples gave the Holy Ghost. They
prayed that He might come on those on whom they im­
posed hands ; they did not themselves give Elim. Which
practice the Church even now observes in her Prelates.’
And again: 1 We indeed are capable of receiving this gift
according to our little measure, but by no means can we
pour it out upon others ; but, to obtain this end for them,
we invoke God, by whom the same is effected.’2'5
To find the same idea fully expressed, we have only
to look to the doctrine of the Church as to the effects of
the Sacrament of Holy Order. These, we are taught, are
• twofold. First, the spiritual power for the functions and
ministrations proper to each Order, which -power is also
called the spiritual character, as said in the Catechismus
Romanus,27 because it is impressed on the soul as an
indelible mark or character, and thereby the ordained are
distinguished from other faithful, and dedicated to the
divine ministry. And therefore the Sacrament cannot
be reiterated without sacrilege. Secondly, the grace of
the Holy Spirit, both habitual or sanctifying, which, unless
20 De Trinitate, lib. xv. cap. 26.

27 De Ordine, 34.

Ancient Rites of Ordination.

1S7

a bar is caused by sm, is conferred at the time of receiv­
ing the Sacrament in a greater or less abundance according
to the disposition of the ordained; and also actual graces,
which by virtue of the Sacrament are conferred for the
right and due execution of the proper functions, unless
the ordained should afterwards show himself unworthy of
them, or cause a bar to the receiving of them.’28
The same doctrine, in great measure, is maintained by
some divines in the Anglican communion. ‘ Ordination,'
says one of their latest writers, ' is a sanctification of the
person to do certain offices of religion, and also the im­
parting of grace to make the person meet to perform the
same. . . . The distinction between clergy and lay persons
rests upon the impression of the indelible ecclesiastical
mark or character, the “ charisma certum veritatis,” as
Irenæus terms it (cont. Har. 1. iv. c. xxvi. § 2), or as
St. Augustine, “ Sacramentum Ordinationis suæ” (de Bono
Conj. c. xxviii. ; contr. Donatist. I. 1. c. i. § 2 ; cont. Ep.
Parmen. 1. π. c. xiii.). The same doctrine is stated by
Bishop Jeremy Taylor (Episc. Assert, s. xii. xxxi. 3),
Archbishop Potter (Cb. Gov. ch. v.), Prideaux (Validity,
8cc. p. 25), Hooker (Eccl. Pol. b. v. c. Ixxvii. § 3),
Mason (de Min. Angl. 1. 11. c. xix. § 6), and Bingham
(Orf Eccl. b. xvii. c. ii. § 5)·’29
Although we miss here the fulness and distinctness
of the Catholic doctrine as stated in the preceding para­
graphs, yet it is much to be wished that all who approach
this question had the same belief in the sacredness of
holy orders, and in the Divine gift of grace communicated
therein. But there are other Anglican writers, such as
Burnet,30 who deny altogether that a character is conferred
in Ordination. And according to the principle laid down
-S Institutiones Ordinand. Romæ, 1769, p. 57.
Preface to the Ordinal, by Rev. Mackenzie Walcot, in Blunt’s Anno­
tated Book of Common Brayer, p. 539-4°· The references are Mr. Walcot’s.
30 On .Article xxv.

Anglican, Ordinations.
at first, no argument is intended to be founded on cither
of these opinions. But it might not have seemed fair to
pass by without some recognition the profession of a be­
lief so far Catholic within the Anglican Church.
Having now sought for all the light we could gain "
from the practice of the Church as declared in various
Liturgies, we must proceed to the decisions which the
Church herself has given on questions raised with regard
to the validity of Ordination in certain cases.
The first is the Abyssinian case. The Abyssinians
were originali}' converted by Frumenties, a missionary who
was sent among them by St. Athanasius. After the great
schism which followed on the Council of Chalcedon, and
which carried nearly the whole of the Oriental Church into
the Monophysite heresy, the Abyssinians too were led
away to adhere to the Jacobites. Their ancient liturgy
appears to have become corrupted, and what they now
use is said to be derived partly from the Coptic and partly
from the Greek.31 As far as the Ordination rites are con­
cerned, that for Bishops and Priests seems to be an ab­
breviated form of that in the Apostolic Constitutions, while
that for Deacons is unlike any other rite that has been met
with. There is an account of the rite for Ordination of
Priests in Ludolf’s History of Ethiopia ;32 but as the circum­
stances there related seemed rather doubtful, application
was made to Monsignor Bel, then the Vicar-apostolic, who
very kindly furnished the writer with a copy of the direc­
tions for Ordination in the canonical books, together with
a Latin version, which will be found in the Appendix.33
This confirms the account in Ludolf; but as there is some
difference between the two, it will be well to put them
in parallel columns, as follows :
31 From Mgr. Bel, in Appendix, No. XXXV.
33 No. XXXV.
3« p. 327.

Ancient Rites of Qrdiuation.

iSg

Monsignor Bee.

Ludolf.

Mandatum. Episcopus super
ordinandi caput manum suam
imponat . . . sacerdotes omnes
illum tangant, et stantes super
illum orent, sicut dictum est. . .
Episcopus oret super illum, di­
cens : Deus meus et pater Do­
mini ac Salvatoris nostri, respice
super hunc famulum tuum, fac ut
spiritualem gratiam et consilium
sanctitatis recipiat, ut in corde
puro populum tuum dirigat, si­
cut Moysi jussisti super elec­
tum populum tuum duces elig­
ere, et reple illum Spiritu Sancto
quem Moysi dedisti: et nunc,
Domine, concede huic famulo
tuo spiritus gratiæ plenitudinem,
nobiscum ponserva, tribue illi
de largitate manus tuæ in vita,
ut te glorificet per Filium tuum
Jesum Christum, qui tecum &c.

Cum voluerit Episcopus or­
dinare Presbyterum, imponat
manum suam super caput ejus,
Presbyteri vero universi atting­
ant illum. Ille autem orat super
illuni quemadmodum diximus,
dicens : Deus mi et Pater Sal­
vatoris nostri J. C. respice hunc
servum tuum, et largire illi spiri­
tum gratiæ et consilium sancti­
tatis, ut possit regere populum
tuum in integritate cordis ; sicut
respexisti populum electum, et
mandasti Moysi ut eligeret se­
niores, quos replevisti eodem
spiritu, quo donaveras servum
tuum et famulum tuum Moisen.
Nunc autem, Domine mi, da isti
servo tuo gratiam quæ nunquam
deficit : conservans nobis grati­
am Spiritus tui, et competentem
portionem nostram, supplens in
nobis cultum tuum in corde, ut
celebremus te sincere. Per Fi­
lium tuum &c.

The authority referred to by Monsignor Bel is the
Fettha-Nagast, and probably Ludolf’s statement was
taken from the same. There is a copy of this work in
the Bodleian Library, which is described in the Catalogue
as a compilation made by Abu Isaac Benassal, a native of
Egypt, and of the sect of Jacobites, who flourished in the
earl)r part of the thirteenth century.·34 It is stated to be a
collection of Canons ; and among the sources from which
it was compiled are mentioned the Apostolic Canons and
Constitutions. This seems to explain the origin of this
form of Ordination, viz. that it was taken by the compiler
34 Calai. Cod. Mss. Æthiop. No. xvi. p. 2.5, note.

-ΗΙί’ό

190

Anglican Ordinations.

direct from the Apostolic Constitutions, and not from the
Coptic rite ; although, being an Egyptian Jacobite, he
must have been acquainted with the latter rite.
Such seems to be nominally the liturgical authority
of the Abyssinian schismatic Church for the Ordination
of Priests. In practice, however, even this rite, meagre as
it is, has been laid aside ; and, at least since the begin­
ning of the last century, the priests in Abyssinia appear
to have been ordained without any other form than an
imposition of the Bishop’s hands, with the words Accipe
Spiritum Sanctum, although those words arc not to be
found in their books, and it is not known how they came
into use. In consequence of this practice, the case was
laid before the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition in
the year 1704. And as the Vicar-apostolic of the Copts
lately found himself involved in the same difficulties, the
case was sent again to Rome in the year i860 ; when the
decision in the former case was appended to the reso­
lution of the Sacred Congregation as a reply to the new
statement of the case by the Vicar-apostolic. From the
earlier case the following extract is made ; but the whole
will be printed in the Appendix:35
‘Resolution of the S.C. of the Holy Office, given on Fer. iv.,
being the 9th of April 1704.—In Ethiopia, as it is necessary that the
persons to be ordained should assemble for their ordination from
distant parts at the city where the schismatic Archbishop resides,
and as he will only hold an ordination when persons to receive
orders are collected together to the number of eight or ten thou­
sand in the said city, he has therefore at such a time to ordain
three or four thousand, or even more, in one day. In short, when
those that are to receive the priesthood are arranged in ranks in
the church, the Archbishop passing hastily in front of them, im­
poses his hands on the head of each, saying Accipe Spiritum
Sanctum. And for those to be ordained deacons he simply imposes
the patriarchal cross on the head of each. And in consequence of
the great multitude and the confusion and the haste with which
he proceeds, it follows that the Archbishop on some does not im« No. XXXIV.

A ncicnt Rites of Ordination.
pose his hands at all ; and in other cases does not pronounce the
words of the form ; and not a few even are passed over without
either one or the other. Hence the question is asked, whether
priests and deacons in such a mode and form are validly ordained;
and consequenti}' whether such a priest on becoming a Catholic
ought to be admitted to the exercise of his orders; and by what
rule in such circumstances ought a missionary to be guided?
‘Resolution of the S.C. The ordination of a priest with impo­
sition of hands and pronouncement of the form as stated in the
case is valid ; but the ordination of a deacon simply with im­
position of the patriarchal cross is altogether invalid. Hence in
admitting presbyters and deacons to the exercise of their orders
after they have received the Catholic faith, the following rules
are to be observed :
‘ If a priest should say absolutely, that he was ordained with
imposition of hands and pronouncement of the form, and if there
should be no other impediment, the missionary, after giving him
a dispensation from irregularity, and absolution from excommuni­
cation, may admit him to the exercise of his orders according to
the rite, approved and expurgated, in which he was ordained.
‘ But if such a priest should ingenuously acknowledge that he
has not a clear remembrance about the matter and form of his ordination, or if he has a doubt concerning either one or the other,
he cannot be admitted to the exercise of his orders till he has been
ordained conditionally. And if he should absolutely assert that
the imposition of hands and pronouncement of the form had been
omitted, or either of them, he must be reordained absolutely, before he can be admitted to the exercise of his orders.
‘ But since it may happen that a person may have been validly
ordained priest, though his ordination as deacon was invalid; in
such a case, before he can exercise his orders, he ought, if it please
the Sovereign Pontiff to grant faculties to the missionaries for that
purpose, to receive a dispensation from irregularity, not only as
having been ordained per saltum, but also as under suspension
on account of the subsequent exercise of sacred orders,—at least
for the time, until he can be validly promoted to the diaconate by
a Catholic Bishop.’

i

,
«
·-*'

,

I
.

>

Such is this most important decision. And it will be
seen at once that nothing could be more favourable to
the Anglican side of the question. For it establishes the
principle that the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum are suf­
ficient as a form of ordination to the priesthood; it ren-

Anglican Ordinations.

Ancicnt Rites Ojf Ordination.

ders nugatory the argument raised by Talbot and Lewgar,
that the distinctive order must be named in the form; it
makes it clear that, even if the Anglican form of tire diaconate is invalid, this need not prevent the priesthood
being validly conferred; it removes any doubt whether
the uncanonical mode of altering the Anglican form would
of itself have made it invalid; and it puts aside, as irre­
levant, any questions whether the alteration was made by
the Church or by the secular power ; for no one can trace
the origin of the use of this form among the Abyssinians,
or find any authority for it beyond a mere custom that
has crept in without any record of its introduction.
The decision, indeed, refers only to the priesthood.
But in the face of such an indication of the mind of the
Church, it would be unbecoming to raise the question
whether those same words, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, are
insufficient as a form for the Episcopate also.
Here, however, we must call to remembrance that
the Abyssinian decision was given in reference to a case
of the Oriental Church ; and that another decision has
been given with regard to a case that arose within the
Western Church. This decision has been related by
Pope Benedict XIV. himself, as follows : ‘ A certain dea­
con, while being ordained priest, although he had re­
ceived all the customary impositions of hands from the
Bishop, yet, through some mistake, did not go up to
the Bishop for the chalice and paten, with the host on
one and the wine in the other, to be delivered into his
hands Avith the customary words. The question was
therefore referred to Rome, and directions asked as to
what was to be done. It came before the Sacred Con­
gregation of the Council, of which the Pope, being then
Card. Lambertini, was at the time a member. The sub­
ject having been fully discussed, although the S.C. seemed
to be inclined to the opinion that the ordination had been
fully completed by the imposition of hands, yet, consider­

ing that the contrary opinion ought to have some weight
in a question of such importance, they decided that the
ordination should be reiterated sub conditioned36
It would be presumptuous in an individual writer to
undertake to say for certain whether the Abyssinian deci­
sion does or does not apply to the case of Anglican ordi­
nations. And it will therefore be most proper to consider
the question in the light of each of these two decisions
separately : first, supposing that the Abyssinian decision
does apply to it in its full force ; and secondly, taking
into consideration that the Anglican rite was derived from
the ancient Latin rite; and then inquiring what bearing
the case related by Benedict XIV. may have upon the
question.

192

28 Synodus Diœcesana, lib. viii. cap. io.

1 93

Translated in App. No. I.

O

« l·

.Σ... ff

CHAPTER VI.
EXAMINATION OF THE ANGLICAN RITE IN REFERENCE
TO THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDER.

The decision in this Abyssinian case may lead a reader
to exclaim, What more need be said ? There is no further
room to doubt of the validity of the Anglican form of
Holy Orders. But in giving this decision, the Sacred
Congregation did not mean to settle the long-disputed
question concerning the full and complete form of the
Sacrament of Holy Order. We may be sure that they
did not undertake to decide this question, when the Conncil of Trent had expressly declined to define it.1 Had
the decree been considered as decisive on this point, it
would have been unnecessary for another Sacred Congre­
gation, namely that of the Council, to open the question
again, and debate it afresh, within a few years afterwards,
as just mentioned from Bened. KIW" The effect of the
decision is, that in a particular case, and under certain
circumstances, the conferring of the priesthood with only
the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum is to be considered
valid. But the meaning of it does not extend so far as
to say, that in any case, and under all conceivable circum­
stances, the use of these words would constitute a full
and adequate form of the sacrament. Thus the contest
is not yet over, although the first shot does not come
from this side of the field of battle. It is the bursting of
a gun among the allied forces on the other side that has
1 See in Chap. I. p. 5.

2 Syn. Diac. lib. viii. c. 10.

1

t
|
!
#

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

195

laid open the position, towards which the attack and de­
fence are now to be directed.
It has been already mentioned, that when Courayer
undertook the defence of English ordinations, he explained
what he considered to be the essentials of ordination,
supporting his proposition by various arguments. His
principle was as follows: ‘The imposition of hands, and
prayer in general, that is to say, the invocation of the
Holy Spirit, to obtain for the Bishop-elect the graces of
which he has need to acquit himself worthily of the func­
tions of his ministry, alone make the matter and the
essential form of the Sacrament of Order. ... Now the
English, in their new Formula of Ordination, have pre­
served the imposition of hands and prayer. Nothing, then,
essential, either on the side of the matter or on the side
of the form, was wanting in the ordination of Parker.’3
And in the next page : ‘ In that ritual, such as it was pub­
lished under Edward VL, or with the changes made under
Charles II., we find both the imposition of hands, and
prayer or the invocation of the Floly Spirit, to obtain for
the Bishop-elect all the graces of which he has need.’1
Again: ‘By the comparison which we may make between
the prayers and formulas of the Roman Pontifical and
those of the ritual of Edward VI., it is easy to convince
oneself that the formula of the Anglican Church has al­
tered in no respect the substance of the true form of or­
dination. The essence of that prayer, as we have already
remarked, consists in an invocation of the Holy Spirit, to
obtain for the Bishop-elect the graces of which he has
need to acquit himself worthily of his ministry. Now they
have preserved in the Anglican ritual all the sense of this
prayer. ° Then he proceeds to illustrate his assertion by
quotations from the Anglican Form of Ordination, and
comparing it with the Pontifical.6
3 Dissertation, vol. i. c. vi. p. m,
° P· 1181

4 p. 112.
8 p. 118-21.

196

Anglican Ordinations.

On reading these statements of Courayer’s, we are
prompted at once to ask, Is there no more than this in
Episcopal Consecration ? Is there no power conferred,
nor a sacramental character? And is it true that the
Anglican form of ordination contains no mention of the
power conferred in the Order, or at least is there nothing
to imply it ? Of course we cannot take what Courayer
has said for granted. As he was in error on the subject
of Holy Order, he may have carried his error into the
examination of the Anglican form. If he failed to see the.
belief in such sacramental grace expressed in the Pontifi­
cal, he may also have overlooked the indications of it in
the Book of Common Prayer. But then the Anglican
writers have accepted his defence without raising any pro­
test against the mode of argument referred to, and have
even asserted that Courayer was persecuted and con­
demned, not on account of the unsound doctrines he ad­
vanced, but merely for taking up the defence of English
ordinations.
Indeed, St. René in his reply to Courayer, and Cata­
lan! in his work on the Pontifical, as well as juenin, have
stated the principle almost in the same words as Courayer;
but yet between their way of putting it and his, there is
all the difference between truth and error. The former
says: 'The prayers which the Church makes in the ordi­
nation of a Bishop are made to invoke the Holy Spirit,
and to demand of Him the graces necessary for the new
Bishop, in order to fulfil the essential duties of the epis­
copate.’7 But in these words he does imply the power
of the Order. And the two latter : ‘ Effectum Ordinis
Episcopalis esse collationem Spiritus Sancti seu gratiæ
necessariae Episcopo, ut digne imposito sibi onere perfun­
gatur.’8 But here these writers do indicate the conferring
7 St. René sur la Riordination des Anglais Episcopaux, vol. ii. p. 2,0.
» In Pontificale Romanum, vol. i. p. 198. Juenin, De Sacram. Dissert. ix.
cap. 3.

IU
11

Examination of the A nglican Rite.

197

of a sacramental grace. Courayer, on the other hand,
by the use of such a phrase as ‘ to acquit himself worthily
of his functions/ raises no further idea than the sanctify­
ing and cooperating graces; and in the illustrations he
takes from the English form he brings forward nothing
more than petitions for those graces ; thus ignoring the
sacramental character.
How serious this omission is, may easily be seen by
comparison with other rites of the Church. In the bene­
diction of an abbot or an abbess, the Bishop gives the
imposition of hands with prayers to invoke the Holy Spirit
for the graces of which the new abbot has need to acquit
himself worthily of the dignity he receives. But there is
no sacrament conferred. The words of the prayer, as
used both in the Roman and the ancient English Pontifi­
cal,9 are as follows : ‘Graciously pour forth, at our prayer,
upon this Thy servant the overflowing spirit of Thy bene­
diction, that he who is to-day constituted abbot by impo­
sition of our hands, being worthy of Thy sanctification,
may remain constant to Thy election, and never hereafter
by unworthiness be separated from Thy grace.’ Thus
the imposition of hands is given to constitute the abbot
in his office, not to confer an Order ; and the prayers are
made for his sanctification and perseverance in grace, not
for a sacramental consecration. Yet Courayer’s principle
would apply to this as fully as to the consecration of a
Bishop.
It is therefore necessary to inquire whether he has
been correct in his description of the Anglican rite of
Ordination; and whether there really is nothing more
in it than he has mentioned, that is to say, ‘ an invocation
of the Holy Spirit to obtain for the Bishop-elect the
graces of which he has need to acquit himself worthily
of the functions of his ministry.’ With this view we
must examine the Anglican forms of ordination and con»'Bp. Lacy’s Exeter Pontifical, p. ro6.
«t

198

Anglican Ordinations.

secration, comparing them with the rites of the ancient
Pontificals in use in this country, so as to see what lias
been retained and what has been omitted, and what has
been the reason and effect of such omissions, and what­
ever novel additions there may be, to endeavour to trace
the origin, sense, and meaning of them, and their effect
upon the whole rite.
There is no need, as has been already remarked, to
opén the question, by what authority such changes were
made, or whether they were brought about in a regular
and canonical manner. All we have to look to is the
effect of the changes on the substantial parts of the rite.
And to judge of this, we are guided by the usual prin­
ciples of theology, of which a clear statement is quoted by
Courayer,10 and admitted as of authority by St. René.11
‘ The addition of words which corrupt the due sense of
the sacramental form destroys the truth of the sacrament;
. . . but if such an addition be made as not to take away
the due sense, the truth of the sacrament is not de­
stroyed.’12 The like principle of course applies to altera­
tions made in the way of omission, namely, that if words
pertaining to the substance of the sacramental form were
omitted, the sacrament would be rendered null and void ;
and such would be the effect, if the alterations went to
deprive the words of their due sense and meaning. This
is the common principle of Theologians, as taught bjr
St. Thomas. Collet gives a further illustration of it, by
adding, that the form must be so expressed as not to
exclude a due and proper intention on the part of the
minister of the sacrament.13
It will, however, be requisite to carry this principle
somewhat further, in order to ascertain what in the way
of addition or omission would exclude a due and proper
10 Dissertation, pt. i. p. 229.
11 Vol. ii. p. 4.
12 Natal. Alexander, Theol. Doginal. Moral, lib. ii. c. 3, reg. 5, 6.
13 De Ordine, cap. vi. dissert, ii. art. 2, § 191.

r

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

199

intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament.
The intention requisite for the valid administration of a
sacrament is the intentio generalis faciendi quod facit
Ecclesia. I fence a sacrament conferred with the correct
matter and form by a heretic, or even an atheist, is valid,
it he intends to do that rite which the Church does,—
and not specially the Roman Church, but the Church in
confuso ; even though he might not believe in the reality
of the sacrament. And supposing the form be clear and
genuine, and the sense of the words is preserved in its
integrity, even if the form were changed with an errone­
ous or heretical intent, the sacrament would still be valid.
For no amount of heretical intention would invalidate it,
provided that he intended in a general way to do what
the Church does, and that he does not overthrow or de­
stroy the legitimate sense of the words.14
But supposing the form used is ambiguous, and that
the words spoken are not by common use appropriated to
the administration of a sacrament, or do not clearly express
that the minister is conferring a sacrament, or do not in­
dicate the particular sacrament which he is then purport­
ing to administer ; in such a case, alterations, either by
way of addition or omission, which express the sense and
intention of the minister, become of great importance.
Berti says: ‘Jam statutum a nobis est, in formis sacra­
mentorum, quæ sensum patiuntur ambiguum, et quæ ver­
borum vi neque sacramenti effectum neque communem
Ecclesiæ intelligentiam significant, attendendum esse pro­
positum animumque proferentium.’15 Franzelin also speaks
to the same effect : ‘ Si verba adhibita in forma non sint
ambiguæ significationis, sed ex usu communi sensum tan­
tum unum habere possunt, eumque genuinum ab insti­
tutore sacramenti præscriptum, nullus error ministri potest
efficere ut forma illa non sit sufficiens. Sed si verba cor14 Knoll, pt. iv. § 2, Tract, i. art. 4.
15 Tom. vii. lib. xxxvi. cap. 15, no. 5.

200

I

Anglican Ordinations.

rumpantur ita ut sensum habere possint vel genuinum
formæ sacramentalis, vel alium diversum, tum sane forma
legitima non erit, si a ministro adhibeantur ad hunc di­
versum a significatione formæ sacramentalis et erroneum
sensum exprimendum.’16
We have now to apply these principles to the exami­
nation of the Anglican forms of Ordination; but it will be
necessary first to go some steps further back, in order to
ascertain what is understood in the Anglican Church re­
specting the sacraments and sacramental grace. However
doubtful may be the language of the Thirty-nine Articles,
yet the Common Prayer Book in the two sacraments of
Baptism and the Holy Eucharist does certainly recognise
an interior gift of grace communicated by virtue of the
sacrament. In Baptism not only is the true form pre­
served, but in the accompanying prayers the following
petitions are used : ‘ Look upon this child, wash him and
sanctify him with the Holy Ghost.’ Again, ‘ that this
infant may enjoy the everlasting benediction of Thy
heavenly washing.’ And again, ‘ Give Thy Holy Spirit
to this infant, that he may be born again ;’ and ‘ sanctify
this water to the mystical washing away of sin.’ So too
in the administration of Holy Communion, in one prayer
are the words, ‘ beseeching Thee, that all we, who are
partakers of this Holy Communion, may be fulfilled with
Thy grace and heavenly benediction ;’ words taken partly
from the Canon of the Mass. But then in the prayer next
following we find : ‘ and dost assure us thereby of Thy
favour and goodness towards us,’ words which imply the
Lutheran and Calvini Stic heresies, both that grace is only
an external change in the favour of God, instead of an
internal gift and power planted in the soul ; and that the
sacraments are only pledges and assurances of persons
being in an acceptable state, instead of instrumental means
of infusing grace into the soul.
’· De Sacram, in genere, cap. ii. p. 48.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

201

jN

In Penance also there is preserved a valid form of
absolution in the office for Visitation of the Sick; though
it is very doubtful how it is intended to be understood,
as we shall see hereafter. And in Matrimony the nuptial
blessing is taken from the old Catholic rite, and does
imply an interior ‘benediction and grace’ received in the
sacrament.
It is remarkable that these four—Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Penance, and Matrimony—are those with regard
to which Cranmer and Barlow maintained, in 1541, that
‘ the nature and effect thereof was found in Scripture,
while of the other three nothing is read in Scripture as
taken for sacraments.’17 The twenty-fifth of the Thirtynine Articles declares that ‘ 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, being such as have grown
partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly
are states of life allowed in the Scriptures ; but yet have
not like nature of sacraments with baptism and the Lord’s
supper, for that they have not any visible sign or cere­
mony ordained of God.’
As all these five, except Extreme Unction, are retained
in some form or other in the Anglican Church, we must
charitably suppose that they are so far altered and reformed as to be no longer open to the censure of ‘having
grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles.’ Yet it is
difficult to divide the five into the two classes described
in the article, viz. those grown of such ‘corrupt following,’
and ‘ the states of life allowed in Scripture.’ Extreme
Unction, having been disused, doubtless belonged to the
former class ; and Matrimony is certainly a state of life ;
but something more is wanted to answer to the plural
number used in the article. Penance perhaps belonged
to the former class only under the Popish form of auricular
17 Burnet, Hist. Ref. vol. i. p. 214-8.

See page 21.

J
C'
'<h
! i;’
‘
Ï
L

f '

/
' ’
- >
.
( 11

;

AL
i ’.r

*'
.

! . fl

r-.r
—____ _Ji

'202

Anglican Ordinations.

confession, and may be taken to be no longer ‘ corrupt’ as
found in the Book of Common Prayer. But we are still
in the dark as to Confirmation and Order. The words
did not occur in the Forty-two Articles of 1552, but made
their first appearance in those of 1562. We must there­
fore go to contemporary writers to throw light on this
ambiguous point. And in the Catechism published in
1560 by Thomas Becon, a member of the Convocation
of 1562, Ave find the following account of the five sacra­
ments: ‘Matrimony and the ministry concerning the preach­
ing of God’s Word and the administration of the sacra­
ments, are holy orders of life, instituted and ordained of
God to be used in His Church. Confirmation and ex­
treme unction are ceremonies brought into the Church by
man, and not worthy to be numbered among sacraments;
and penance, more justly termed repentance, is a con­
tinual exercise of a true Christian, and may more justly
be reckoned among the fruits of the Holy Ghost than
among sacraments.’18 And in another work, entitled De­
mands of Holy Scripture, there is the following question
and answer: ‘What is order? Order hath been wrong­
fully taken both for a sacrament and for the anointed
order of priesthood, which Christ took away. But
indeed a godly, holy, and reverend state of ministers,
preachers, pastors, or apostles, is of Christ allowed in
the New Testament to be lovingly and reverently received
of us as shepherds of the flock.’19 These passages so
completely fall in with the language of the Article be­
fore quoted, that it seems clear that the compilers of the
Thirty-nine Articles really intended to include Holy Order
among ‘ the states of life allowed in Scripture.’
In these two rites, Confirmation and Order, as used in
the Anglican Church, three points seem to be aimed at,
viz. a public profession on the part of the candidate ; a
1S Becotvs Wor&s, vol. ii. p. 199, ed. Parker Society.
19 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 618.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

203

recognition and admission on the part of the Church
through the Bishop as its chief minister ; and prayers
that the candidate may conduct himself in a manner wor­
thy of the profession he has made, and the calling and
office to which he is admitted. But the language of each
seems to be carefully framed with the view of avoiding
the idea of any special grace being conferred through the
»ite.
To speak first of Confirmation. The rite begins with
a renewal of baptismal vows, and this renewal is spoken
of in the Preface as the chief end of the rite. Such a re­
newal might be made at any time, cither alone, or before
any person whatever, and has nothing sacramental in it.
The rite then proceeds with a prayer taken from the
ancient Pontificals, but with the omission of the words
‘ consigna eos signo eruscis Christi in vitam propitiatus
æternam.’ These words are in use in all the ancient
Pontificals and in the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. Sir Wm. Palmer20 omits them in comparing the
Anglican with the ancient rite, and refers to the Gelasian
Sacramentary, but without remarking that the prayer
occurs there twice, once with, and once without, these
words.21 In the Annotated Book of Common Prayer
they are properly given.
When we come to the form used with the imposition
of hands, we find an entire change. The form in use ac­
cording to the Exeter and Sarum Pontificals, as well as
in the present Roman, is as follows : ‘ I sign thee with
the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of
salvation.’ In Archbishop Egbert’s Pontifical the form is:
' By the Chrism of salvation, receive the sign of the holy
Cross in Christ Jesus to eternal life.’22 In the Greek
Church the form is : ‘ The seal of the gift of the Holy
=° Orig- Lilurg. vol. ii. p. 204.
-1 Muratori, Liturg. Rotn. Vet. vol. i. p.
Surtees Society, p. 7.

anj

2 04

Anglican Ordinations.

Spirit.’ All these bear reference to an outward sign, and
to actions done by the Bishop. Nor was such a reference
entirely removed when the change was first made in the
Prayer Book of 1549 ; for then the rite stood as follows :
4 The Bishop shall cross them in the forehead, and lay his
hand upon their heads, saying, “N., I sign thee with the
sign of the Cross, and lay my hand upon thee : in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen.” And thus shall he do to every child, one
after another.’23 Now even if the opinion of those divines
could be followed, who have maintained that the impo­
sition of hands is the sole essential matter of this sacra­
ment, yet with such a form as this the validity of it would
be rendered doubtful. For the words 11 confirm thee’
are omitted, and there is nothing to express necessarily
the conferring of a sacrament: for a Bishop might sign
with the sign of the cross, and lay his hand upon a per­
son’s head, and say that he is so doing without any idea
of administering a sacrament. It might be a simple bless­
ing. If, therefore, these words constituted a sacramental
form, the efficacy of them would depend on their being
used in a sacramental sense—on the sign of the Cross be­
ing made, and professed to be made, and the imposition of
hands being given, and professed to be given, in the sense
and with the intention of conferring the sacrament of con­
firmation. The sacramental sense of the words, and their
sacramental efficacy along with it, would depend on the
understanding, the faith, the mere opinion of the minister­
ing Bishop at the time. Perilous to faith, indeed, and to
the salvation of souls, would it be, if the sacraments of
the Church were left under such conditions. In this case,
however, of confirmation, according to the Prayer Book
of 1549, the meaning of the words was not left to the
Bishop’s individual judgment or inward intention. He
was to make a public profession of the sense in which
24 Liturgies of King Edward VI. p. 125, ed. Parker Society.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

205

they were used, and to declare the effect that might be
attributed to the rite he had ministered. For in the
prayer following the imposition of hands, he says, ‘ these
children, upon whom ... we have laid our hands, to cer­
tify them (by this sign) of Thy favour and gracious good­
ness towards them.’ This is taken from Archbishop
Herman’s reformed Prayer Book,24 and expresses the
Lutheran doctrine of grace being only the favour of
God, and not an interior inherent gift. Tf the old Catho­
lic form had been retained, such a profession of heresy
preceding or following might not have interfered with
its validity. But when the form is changed in such a
manner as to leave its sacramental meaning dependent
on the use of it by the minister, the profession of such
a sense attached to the rite renders a sacramental sense
impossible, and converts the doubt of its efficacy into a
denial. If the Bishop, by making the sign of the cross,
and imposing his hand on a person’s head, merely cer­
tifies such a one of God’s favour and goodness towards
him, he does not confer a sacrament. Thus, as in other
cases in the Prayer Book of 1549, the shadow of a
Catholic rite -was left, but the spirit and substance were
departed.
Even the shadow was not allowed long to rest upon
the English Prayer Book. The form quoted above was
soon done away with, and the following inserted in its
place: ‘The Bishop shall lay his hand upon every child
severally, saying: Defend, O Lord, this child with Thy hea­
venly grace, that he may continue Thine for ever, and daily
increase in Thy Lloly Spirit more and more, until he come
unto Thy everlasting kingdom. Amen.’25 Though this is
a prayer for the divine grace, yet it has no sacramental
meaning, for it does not refer to any outward sign, nor to
any action done by the Bishop, nor does it invoke the
24 Simple and Religions Consultaiion.
25 Liturg JC. Edio. VI. p. 300.

206

Anglican Ordinations.

grace asr given through the rite. And the sense in which
it is said is afterwards explained by the use of the same
prayer as quoted from the earlier book, namely, that the
imposition of hands is given merely as a sign of the Divine
favour and goodness.
With the view of showing that this explanation of
‘ the Order of Confirmation’ is not overdrawn, some
Anglican writers may be quoted, specially those contem­
porary with the final change of religion.
Becon, in the work, last quoted, has the following­
question and answer: ‘What is confirmation? A godly
allowance by the Bishop or preacher of the children when
they come to age into the congregation of Christ, after a
due examination or trial of their continuance in the same
faith which their godfathers or sureties in their name
professed and promised for them at their baptism to
keep.'2G
Calfhill, who was also a member of the Convocation
of 1562, says : ‘ Then, after baptism, if ye will have them
confirmed, I allow it well ; retaining that order, which in
the primitive Church was, and in the English Church is,
used ; that children, after certain years, be presented to
the Bishop, and rendering an accompt of that faith of
theirs (which by their sureties in baptism they professed),
have hands laid on them, which is nothing else but prayer
made for them, ^uid enim est aliud (saith St. Augustine)
mianuum impositio, quam oratio super hominem I’27 Then
he proceeds to deny that the Holy Ghost is given in con­
firmation, but in terms too impious to be quoted.
Also Rogers : ‘ The ancient confirmation was nothing
else than an examination of such as in their infancy had
received the sacrament of baptism, and were then, being
of good discretion, able to yield an account of their belief
and to testify with their own mouths what their sureties
«e Vol. in. p- 618.
27 Answer to Treatise of the Cross, p. 215, ed. Parker Society.

Examination of the Anglican Rite,

20/

in their names had promised at their baptism; which con­
fession being made, and a promise of perseverance in the
faith by them given, the Bishop, by sound doctrine, grave
advice, and godly exhortations, confirmed them in that
good profession, and laying his hands upon them, prayed
for the increase of God his gifts and graces in their
minds.’28

Hooker evidently had a higher and more Catholic
idea of confirmation, but he does not explain it definitely.
We may now turn to the Anglican rite of Ordination;
before entering on the examination of it, it would be
well to refer again to the principles taught by Luther and
other reformers on the subject of the ministry. Among
them were the following :
That there are two kinds of vocation to the ministry ;
one internal and immediately from God, such as that of
Apostles and Prophets; the other external, by election of
the people, or by means of men placed in authority and
representing the people, as magistrates. One or the other
calling ought to be had by one who is to teach in the
Church. And, as a matter of regulation, none is to be
suffered to preach without being called and ordained.
That it is proper, though not of necessity, that one
of the pastors should be elected as superintendent ; and
that the ministers, when called and elected by the people,
or the magistrates, or patrons, should be presented to
this superintendent for trial and examination, and if ap­
proved, should be admitted to the ministry by prayer and
imposition of hands.
That the notion of a sacramental character conferred
in ordination is a figment; for it is not a sacrament, nor is
any sacramental grace conferred therein ; but it is merely
the public approval of persons as truly called, and posbut

28 On xxxix. Articles, p. 154.

2°S

Anglican Ordinations,

sessed of the proper qualifications for the ministry, and
admitting them to the lawful exercise of their functions.28
The Zuinglian partisans did not differ from the Lu­
therans on the subject of the ministry. Zuinglius himself
had taught that the sacramental character given in ordina­
tion is a figment, and that the episcopate and priesthood
are each of them merely an office and function.29 Bullin­
ger also says: ‘Calling is no other thing than the lawful
appointing of a meet minister. The same may also be
called both election and ordination, though one word be
more large in signification than the other.’
The Lutheran doctrine was recognised and expressed
in the Articles of 1552 in the following terms: ‘Those
we ought to judge lawfully called and sent, which be
chosen and called to this work by men who have public
authority given unto them in the congregation to call and
send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard.’ This is still re­
tained in the twenty-third of the Thirty-nine Articles.
And we have already seen how this was officially inter­
preted by Archbishops Grindall and Whitgift. The for­
mer, or rather his vicar-general for him, gave a license to
Morrison, a Scotch Presbyterian minister, to preach and
administer sacraments, because he had been duly called
by those who had authority in that country. The latter
excused Whittingham for his Genevan ordination, because
being resident in that country in time of persecution, he
was called by those who had authority there; but he
objected to Travers for having gone abroad to seek for
calling without necessity, forsaking the order at home.

We have now to examine the three ‘ Forms of mak­
ing, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons,’ by comparing them as well with the ancient
Pontificals in use in this country, as with these newlyinvented doctrines of the Continental reformers, having in
See Appendix, No. II.

® See Appendix, No. III.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

209

view to ascertain, whether the spirit and sacramental idea
of the ancient rite have been preserved ; or whether the
alterations, omissions, and novel additions have been made
in order to introduce the Lutheran doctrines ; whether
they contain anything further than Courayer has attri­
buted to them ; whether, in fact, they recognise a divine
gift of grace and power as communicated through the
rite, or have been purposely framed with the view of ex­
cluding the idea of sacramental efficacy, or of a conse­
crated character impressed upon the soul.
To begin with the Preface as it stood down to 1662.
It does not assert the necessity of ordination in order for
a person to become a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon ; it does
not say that without the rite validly administered the
Order is not given or received ; it merely says that these
offices had been so esteemed, that ‘no man might execute
them without being called, tried, and found qualified;
and also by public prayer, with imposition of hands, ap­
proved, and admitted thereunto. And therefore in the
Church of England it is requisite that no man shall execute
them except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted
according to the form following.’ This is exactly the
Lutheran doctrine. It is only a matter of regulation and
propriety that a person should be ordained ; and ordina­
tion is only the public testimony of approval, and not the
conferring of a sacrament. In 1662 the following words
were added : ‘No man shall be accounted or taken to be
a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or suffered to execute
them, except,’ &c. as before. But here the word ‘ lawful’
does not mean ‘ real,’ and it leaves as much room for
1 necessity, or extraordinary occasion,’ as before.
Four words are used to describe the steps which are
requisite before a person shall execute the office of the
ministry. He is to be ‘ called, tried, examined, and ad­
mitted.’ Each of these words must be examined sepa­
rately.
p

Anglican Ordinations.

Examination of the Anglican. Rite.

‘ Called.’ This does not mean ‘ vocation’ in the Ca
tholic sense, which is the interior attraction by which a
person, moved by Divine grace and the signs of God’s
will, is led to embrace the ecclesiastical state for the
motives of promoting the glory of God and his own and
others’ sanctification. The Lutherans taught that there
were two callings; one immediately from God, as that of
Apostles and Prophets ; the other from the people or
magistrates in the name of the people. And they denied
that the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church were
truly called, because they did not preach, and had not been
called by the people. In the Anglican rite the interior
vocation is alluded to in the first question put to the
candidate for deaconship, whether ‘he is moved by the
Holy Ghost.’ Then comes a question about the external
call, which is to be ‘ according to the will of our Lord,
and the due order of this realm.’ Thus the call is not to
come directly from the people, but in the mode provided
by the order of the realm. And for the purpose of mak­
ing it appear that the people give their consent, the call
is announced to them by the Bishop saying : ‘ Good
people, these be they whom we purpose . . to receive
unto the holy office of priesthood. For after due exami­
nation we find not the contrary, but that they be lawfully
called to their function and ministry, and be persons meet
for the same.’
‘ Tried.’ This word so applied is not known to the
Church. There is a probation and examination required
by the Canons, but the Reformers considered them as
insufficient, and, in fact, denounced them as a mere sham.
And they maintained, that as in ancient times the right
of electing ministers had belonged to the people, so now
they were driven to resume that right, as well by the
laxity of the Bishops in admitting unworthy persons, as
by their tyranny in refusing ordination to the professors
of the Gospel. And when persons had been elected to

the ministry, either by the people or by certain of the
congregation in the name of the people, there was then
to be a strict inquiry into, and a trial of, the life, doctrine
and learning of the persons so elected, which was called
‘ exploratio.’ This trial was to be conducted by the neigh­
bouring ministers, and according to the Lutheran mode
before the magistrates or other electors, but in the Zuinglian and Calvinist reforms in the presence of the
people. Thus all the Continental reformers were agreed
about the necessity of this trial of ministers. The Lu­
therans, Bucer and the Strasburg divines, Bullinger and
the Zuinglians, all insisted on it quite as strongly as the
Calvinists. In the Anglican reform, the name of Episcopal
Ordination was retained, and it was not convenient to have
a real popular election. Hence the ‘ call’ is simply an­
nounced to the people, and certain questions are put to
those who are to be ordered, which are to serve for the
trial. Thus, by the Rubric the Bishop is directed to
examine those to be ordered deacons ‘ in the presence of
the people.’ And in the ordering of Priests, the Bishop
tells the candidates, that ‘ in order that this present con­
gregation of Christ, here assembled, may understand your
minds and wills in these things,’ they are to answer the
questions which he, ‘ in the name of the congregation,’
demands of them. In 1662 this was altered to ‘in the
name of God and of His Church.’ So too the Bishop-elect
is to be examined i in certain articles, to the end the con­
gregation present may have a trial and bear witness.’
Here the Lutheran word is used, but without its full
effect being given to it. And even this bare use of the
word became a source of embarrassment to the Elizabethan
Bishops, for the Puritans insisted on the necessity of a
real ‘ trial of ministers.’ Whitgift replies to Cartwright :
‘ I think it necessary that such as be admitted into the
ministry (unless they be very well known) should be tried

2ΐσ

21τ

2,12

Anglican Ordinations,

both in learning and life.’ And, ‘ such as be well known
need no farther trial.’29
‘ Examined.’ This word is used in the same sense in
the Catholic Church.
‘ Admitted.’ This is a perfectly novel word, that came
in with the Lutheran doctrines. Tt made its first appear­
ance in this country in the Declaration concerning Bishops
and Priests, published in 1537.30 And throughout the
ordination of Priests and Deacons it is made use of to
express the administration of the rite, as follows: The
Bishop knowing a fit person, ' may admit him a deacon.’
The Archdeacon presents ‘ these persons to be admitted
Deacons,’ or ‘ to the order of priesthood.’ The Litany
prays for ‘ Thy servants now to be admitted to the order
of Deacons or Priests.’ And in the consecration of a
Bishop, the Archbishop moves the congregation to pray
1 before we admit and send forth this person.’ Once the
phrase occurs, ‘ receiving unto the order of priesthood
and in the Rubric, at the end, we find, ‘ If the order of
deacons be given to some, and the order of priesthood to
others.’ But this is the only expression intimating that
anything whatever is given in the rite. There is no such
phrase as conferring the deaconship or priesthood on
any one.
It may be said, that the Church constantly uses the
phrase, ‘promoting to sacred Orders.’ This is true; but
there is a great difference between the two expressions.
A person is admitted to an office, or privilege, or degree,
to the practice of a profession, as of law or medicine, or
to the tenancy of an estate : all matters either tempo­
rary or external in their nature, or attained by a person
of his own will. Promotion involves the idea of a person
being raised to a rank, which is a personal thing, and at­
taches to him for life, and is conferred by a superior
29 Whitgift, vol. i. p. 297-9.
30 Burnet, vol. i. App. p. 323.

Examination, of the Anglican Rite.

2 13

power. The use of the word ‘ admitted' was so common
that Catholics in the sixteenth century sometimes use it.31
Now to enter on the rite itself, which commences with
the presentation of the candidates to the Bishop by the
Archdeacon, the form of which is derived from that in
use in the ancient English Pontifical, but with some dif­
ference, as will be seen by comparing them.
Sarum Pontifical.
A}·chid, a-lloq. Postulat hæc
sancta Ecclesia, Reverende
Pater, hos viros ordinibus aptos
consecrari a vestra paternitate.
Bcsp. JEpisc. Vide ut natura,
scientia, et moribus, tales per te
introducantur, immo tales per
nos in domo Domini ordinentur
personæ, per quos diabolus pro­
cul pellatur, et clerus Deo nostro
multiplicetur.
Besp. Archid. Quantum ad
humanum spectat examen, na­
tura, scientia, et moribus digni
habentur, ut probi cooperatores
effici in his, Deo volente, pos­
sint.

Prayer Book of 1549.
The Archdeacon. Reverend
Father in God, I present unto
you these persons present, to be
admitted Deacons (or, to the
order of Priesthood).
The Bishop. Take heed that
the persons whom ye present
unto us be apt and meet, for
their learning and godly con­
versation, to exercise their min­
istry duly, to the honour of God,
and edifying of His Church.
The Archdeacon. I have in­
quired of them, and also ex­
amined them, and think them
so to be.

The change is defended32 on the ground that to say
' Postulat Ecclesia’ was too bold a presumption, and that
the reference to human frailty was too vague, and offered
a shelter for prevarication. But it indicates the loss of
the sacramental idea, and brings down the rite to the level
of an appointment to an office on mere human responsi­
bility. It is no longer Almighty God who makes the
election in the person of the Bishop ; it is no longer the
Church who postulates the ordination. The Archdeacon
•does not profess his testimony to rest on mere human
31 In the Douay Diary, as in Appendix, No. XXIII.
32 Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 547.

Anglican Ordinations.

2 14

examination ; nor does he refer to his human frailty, as in
the Roman Pontifical, as well as in the Sacramentary of St.
Gregory ; whereby he showed that he believed himself to
be speaking in the presence of his Judge. And further
on, the Bishop, when charging the people to speak, if any
one knows of anything to be alleged against the candi­
dates, does not bid them be mindful of their own condi­
tion,33 nor does he commend those to be ordained to the
prayers of the people, that God would ‘ vouchsafe to elect
them each in his order, and consecrate them through our
hands.’
Then we come to the Litany, and find that the words
‘ sanctify and consecrate’ are left out, and the prayer is
only that they may duly execute their office.
The Common Prayer Book.
The Pontifical.
The Bishop rises, and stand­
ing turned towards the Ordinandi
with his mitre on, and his pas­
toral staff in his hand, says :
That these elect Thou wouldThat it may please thee to
est vouchsafe to bless.
bless these Thy servants now
Rcsp. We beseech Thee, hear to be admitted to the order of
us.
Deacons (or Priests), and to
The second time.
pour Thy grace upon them ; that
That these elect Thou would- they may duly execute their
est vouchsafe to * bless and office, to the edifying of Thy
sanctèpfy.
Church, and the glory of Thy
Resp. We beseech Thee, hear holy name.
us.
We beseech Thee to hear us,
The third time.
good Lord.
That these elect Thou wonki­
est vouchsafe to
bless, sanc­
tify, and con setrate.
Rcsp. We beseech Thee, hear
us.

In the ‘ Form and manner of making of Deacons,’ the
Collect prays that they may be ‘replenished with the
33

Or ‘communion,’ as in the Sarum.

. Examinatιοίi- of the Anglican Rite.

i
ί!

215

truth of doctrine and adorned with innocency of life,
that they may faithfully serve in this office.’ As an in­
troductory prayer, there is nothing to be said against it
as far as it goes. But then this is all. It mentions St.
Stephen, and prays ' Mercifully behold these Thy servants
now called to the like office and administration ;’ so far
going with the Apostolic Constitutions, but then it does
not pray, like them, ‘ that they may be filled with the
Holy Ghost and power.’
The examination will be considered later on.
The imposition of hands is given with the words,
‘ Take thou authority to execute the office of a Deacon in
the Church of God committed unto thee.’ This form is
entirely novel. Sir W. Palmer has not even ventured
to bring it into comparison with any ancient form. Mr.
Blunt3A puts it as parallel with ‘ Accipe stolam immortali­
tatis, imple ministerium tuum,’ which is very different.
This is followed by the delivery of the New Testa­
ment, with the words, ‘ Take thou authority to read the
Gospel, &c.’ taken from the ‘ Accipe potestatem,’ &c. of
the Pontifical.
After the Communion another prayer is to be said, in
which several expressions are taken from the Pontifical,
as will be seen by comparison.
Sarum Pontifical.

super hos famulos tuos, quos
ad officium diaconatus assumere
dignatus es.35
Abundet in eis ... . auctoritas
modesta, pudor constans . . . .
(ministerii fideliter exequendi)

Prayer Book of 1549.
Almighty God, Giver of all
good things, which of Thy great
goodness hast vouchsafed to ac­
cept and take these Thy servants
unto the office of Deacons in
Thy Church :
make them, we beseech thee,
O Lord, to be modest, humble,
and constant in their ministra­
tions,

34 Annotated Prayer Book, p. 551.
35 Maskell’s Mon. Ritual, vol. iii. p. 195.

lit

216

Anglican Ordinations.

et spiritualis observantia disci­
plinée.........
et bonum conscientiæ testimo­
nium præferentes,
n Christo firmi et stabiles per­
severent,
dignisque successibus de infe­
riori gradu per gratiam tuam
capere potiora mereantur.
Per eundem &ο.30

and to have a ready will to ob­
serve all spiritual discipline ;
that they, having always the tes­
timony of a good conscience,
and continuing ever stable and
strong in Thy Son Christ,
may so well use themselves in
this inferior office, that they may
be found worthy to be called
unto the higher ministries in Thy
Church.
Through the same &c.

This prayer, while it clearly points to the ancient form
as the original from which it is derived, also shows with
what spirit the alterations and omissions were made.
The words ‘ to accept and take these Thy servants unto
the office of Deacons’ form the only expression through­
out the rite which imply any Divine intervention in the
action, and these seem, from the frequent use of the word
‘ office,’ to be retained because the deaconship is described
by that term. The ancient rite treats the order as a
special grace to which persons are chosen by Divine elec­
tion, as a sacramental gift, and an interior consecration ;
but every expression implying this belief is omitted; such
as, in addition to those already mentioned, ‘ that He would
pour forth the grace of His benediction, and preserve the
gifts of the consecration bestowed,’—‘ on these Thy ser­
vants send forth the spirit of Thy benediction,’—‘ send
forth on them the Holy Ghost, by whom they may be
strengthened for the work of faithfully executing their
ministry with the gift of Thy sevenfold grace.’ Thus
only the sanctifying graces are mentioned,—that they may
faithfully execute their office, and live a becoming life.
The Order is treated as an office to which persons are
chosen by human appointment, and not by Divine elec­
tion ; and the rite seems to be framed with the view of
3e Maskell’s Mon. Ritual, vol. iii. p. 197.

[

I

t

,

purposely excluding the idea of a sacramental character.
It does not therefore appear how the Church could recognise a form which excludes both the sense that she attaches
to the conferring of the sacrament, and the intention of
doing what she does.
We now come to the ‘ Form of ordering of Priests.’
This rite is much the same with that for Deacons to the
end of the Litany. Then there is an exhortation and an
examination, which, except in the promise to obey the
Ordinary, are entirely novel. Even Sir W. Palmer says,
‘ The questions which follow the address in our ordinal
seem to be in some degree peculiar to it.’;:~ After the
questions the Bishop prays that God, who hath given them
the will, may grant also power and strength to perform,
‘ that He may accomplish His work which He hath begun
in them.’
Then the people are recommended to pray ‘for all
these things
and a pause is to be made for that pur­
pose. But ‘all these things’ mean only strength and
power to act up to their profession, and that the Divine
work begun in them may be accomplished. Here is no
idea of the gift of sacramental grace.
The Veni Creator is then said according to the present
book, though in the first book it came at the beginning
of the ceremony ; and the imposition of hands is not given
altogether without a preparatory prayer, as in the case of
Deacons. A prayer is said by the Bishop, after the
following sort: First, mention is made of the mission of
‘ Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors, and Pastors,
by whose ministry our Lord’s flock throughout the world
was gathered together.’ So far the example of ancient
forms, including the Roman Pontifical, is followed in some
measure. Then, apparently because the Consecration
Prayer in the Pontifical, running in the mode of a Pre­
face, begins with giving thanks, this prayer has more of
37 Orig. Liiurg. vol. ii. p. 303.

21 °

A nglican Ordinations.

thanks than of petition. It proceeds : ‘For these so
great benefits, and for that Thou hast vouchsafed to call
these Thy servants to the same office and ministry, we
render thanks.’ And there is no more petition than that
‘ we may continue to show ourselves thankful, and daily
increase in knowledge and faith. So that as well by these
Thy ministers as by them over whom they are appointed
ministers, Thy name may be glorified and Thy kingdom
enlarged.’ This is all. Almighty God is thanked for
having called them to the ministry, but He is not suppli­
cated to accept them, or to make them priests or minis­
ters, or to bestow upon them any grace whatever. This
prayer therefore has nothing sacramental in it. The sole
end of it is, that the persons ordained may be worthy of
and fruitful in their ministry. It is taken as a matter of
course, that being ‘ admitted priests,’ they become priests
without any Divine gift of grace or power.
So far is preparatory; then comes the imposition of
hands with the words accompanying it. These are the
only mystical words used throughout the rite, and if there
be any sacramental form in the rite, it would seem to be
found in these words.
We know by the decision of the Church, that as fat­
as words go, this form is adequate and sufficient. But
there arises a farther question, on the principles previously
referred to, whether they are used in the sense in which
the Church intends the sacrament to be given, or whether
such a sense is excluded from them. They must, then,
be considered in two ways ; first, as they stood formerly
down to the revision of 1662 ; and secondly, with the
words then added.
The words in the Prayer Book of 1549, and down to
1662, were as follows : ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost ; whose
sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins
thou dost retain, they are retained : and be thou a faith­
ful dispenser of the Word of God and of His holy sacra-

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

1

z 19

ments. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’ This form is ambiguous ;
for there is no mention of the order to be conferred, nor
of the special end for which the words are used.
We know that the same is the case with the words
‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum,’ as used in the Pontifical for
the consecration of Bishops. And Catholic theologians
teach that the end for which the words are said is de­
fined by their use in connection with the rest of the rite.
Bramhall and other Anglican writers argue in the same
way, that the sense of the words in the ordination of
Priests is sufficiently defined by the previous rite, with
which they are to be taken in conjunction. What, then,
is the sense which the rest of the rite leads us to attach
to them?
There is a Collect similar to that in the Ordination of
Deacons, praying, ‘ replenish them so with truth of doc­
trine and innocency of life, that by word and example
they may faithfully serve Thee in this office;’ there is an
exhortation reminding them ‘ to how high a dignity, and
how chargeable an office they be called, to be messengers,
watchmen, pastors, and stewards of the Lord, to teach,
premonish, feed, and provide for the Lord’s family;’ there
is a prayer, that ‘ by these Thy ministers, Thy name may
be glorified and Thy kingdom enlarged ;’ and there is a
prayer at the end of all, ‘ to send upon these Thy servants
Thy heavenly blessing, that they may be clad with justice,
and that Thy word spoken by them may have success.’
Thus the priesthood is represented solely as an office,
and that office is only for teaching, preaching, and dis­
pensing sacraments ; and the graces asked for are no more
than those of fidelity in discharging the duties of this
office, and goodness of life. This is all that can be
gathered from the rite itself as to tvhat the priesthood
is ; and as the compilers of the rite have deliberately
omitted all such expressions as ‘ quos ad presbyterii

220

Anglican Ordinations.

munus elegit ;’ ‘ benedictionem Sancti Spiritus, et gratia?
sacerdotalis (or spiritualis)36 effunde virtutem ;’ ‘ quos tua'
pietatis aspectibus offerimus consecrandos ‘ da in hos
famulos tuos presbyterii dignitatem ;’ every idea is ex­
cluded of the Divine election to the function of the presbyterate ; of the dignity of the presbyterate being a gift
of God ; of the power of sacerdotal or spiritual grace be­
ing bestowed with the benediction of the Holy Ghost ;
of the ordaining Bishop offering the candidates to be con­
secrated in the sight of God. Thus all the meaning that
can be attached to the words in question is as follows :
‘ Receive the Holy Ghost for the faithful discharge of
your duties, and for making your lives conformable to
the same.’ All other meaning was, from the first, excluded
from the words.
Butthen other words were added in 1662, as follows:
‘ for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God,
now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.’
This, then, is the interpretation of the words given and
accepted by the Anglican Church itself. The additional
words have fixed and limited the meaning of the formula,
and have confirmed that which attaches to it from the
rest of the rite. The Holy Ghost is to be received ‘ for
the office and work of a Priest committed unto thee.’
The words require consideration separately. It is ‘ for
the office and work ;’ that is, to enable thee to fulfil the
office and work ; it is ‘ an office and work,’ but no more,
—that is the highest idea ; it is ‘ committed unto thee,’
but no more than committed. The words do not convey
such a meaning as that the Holy Ghost is received as the
spiritual power or sacramental character of the priesthood.
It is all external—an office and work committed unto thee ;
but there is nothing internal ; nothing of a power and
grace conferred upon thee ; nothing of a dedication of
3e sacerdotalis in Winton, Exon, and Roman Pontificals ; spiritualis in
the Sarum.

.Examination of the Anglican Rite.

221

thyself to God, or receiving a consecration from Him.
The words do not and cannot mean nor include such a
sense as ‘ the character conferred.’ No such sense as
this was intended to be given to the words by the divines
of 1662 ; no such idea entered their minds. The word
‘committed’ is not a sacramental word, and excludes the
idea of sacramental grace. The Church gives or confers
her sacraments, but does not commit them. ‘ To commit’
implies that something is to be rendered back again in
the shape of a trust, or deposit, or function, but not that
anything is given to the receiver as his own possession.
It is true that there are other words following these,
viz. ‘ whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ;
and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.’ These
words, it maybe said, imply the exercise of priestly power,
and taken with the preceding, they must be intended to
confer the power they express, and must be sufficient to
express the gift of sacerdotal grace. If indeed such an
idea as this had not been so carefully excluded from the
rest of the rite, these words would naturally appear to be
used in the Catholic sense. But as the Reformers dis­
torted the words of Scripture to their own purposes, it is
necessary to inquire in what sense these words are used.
The Lutherans maintained that the power of absolution
in the Church is only that of declaring that God does for­
give the penitent and receive him into favour, but not that
of conveying the grace of the Divine pardon to the souk
And while the Anglican Prayer Book has retained two
ancient forms of absolution, it has introduced another
which simply expresses the Lutheran doctrine above men­
tioned ; so that it is left quite an open question in which
of the two senses these words are to be understood. The
use of these words cannot therefore clear up the ambiguity
of the form.
It may also be said, that the grace and power of the
priesthood are sufficiently expressed in the words next

222

Anglican Ordinations.

following those last mentioned, namely, ‘ be thou a faith­
ful dispenser of the word of God, and of His holy sacra­
ments.’ But these words were not part of the ancient
rite; they are the very form of expression which the
Lutherans used, to deny that there was any other func­
tion, or power, or action of the priesthood than to preach
the word of God and to dispense the sacraments. The
words come from Luther, invented by him to deny that
the priests of the Church can consecrate, or offer, or
bless, or absolve. And as to the sacraments, Luther
taught that they are not instrumental means of grace, but
only assurances of God’s promises, and of the receiver’s
being in His favour. This is the doctrine taught, not only
in the twenty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles, but also
twice expressed in the Book of Common Prayer.37 Thus,
then, these words by no means serve to express the power
of the priesthood; and so far from helping to give a
Catholic sense to the formula to which they are attached,
they do but confirm the meaning which has been attri­
buted to it, namely, that it is only grace for the faithful
discharge of the duties of an office which is there indicated,
and not a gift of power implanted in the soul. They,
therefore, appear to exclude the idea of such a priesthood
as the Church understands.
Thus, then, we have come back to Courayer’s descrip­
tion of the rite, namely, that the prayers contain ‘ an invo­
cation of the Holy Spirit to obtain all the graces necessary
for the worthy discharge of the functions.’ And we find
that it does contain prayers to the end that he describes,
but no more. There is no indication of looking for a
gift of grace special to the order, nor for any interior
sacramental consecration, nor for any special power of the
priesthood ; such a gift of grace as communicated through
the imposition of hands is unasked for, unrecognised, un­
known ; it is completely ignored. Those parts of the
37 See in this Chapter before, p. 2,00, 205.

Examination of the A nglican Rite.

223

ancient Catholic rite which expressly indicated such a
grace are omitted, and the portions of the ceremony stiJI.
retained are so changed as to exclude any such idea. The
forms and phrases used are either new, or else applied
in a sense quite different from that understood by the
Catholic Church.
There is, therefore, very grave doubt thrown upon
the validity of an ordination conferred by such a rite.
We are then brought to ‘ the Form of consecrating
of an Archbishop or Bishop,’ which commences with the
presentation of the elect to the Archbishop by two other
Bishops. The rubric in the ancient English Pontificals
directs that the elect should be led by the hand before
the Archbishop for examination by two comprovincial
Bishops, but no form of words to be used in the presen­
tation is mentioned. In the Anglican rite a form similar
to that for Priests and Deacons is prescribed, but no
inquiry as to worthiness is made, because the Royal man­
date for the consecration is taken as sufficient guarantee
of the merits of the elect, in the same manner as the
Apostolic mandate is received according to the Roman
Pontifical.
The Archbishop then, before commencing the Litany,
commends the elect to the prayers of the congregation,
saying, ‘ Let us . . . first fall to prayer before we admit
and send forth this person presented to us, to the work
whereunto we trust the Floly Ghost hath called him.’
But he does not tell them what they are to pray for,
although in the Sarum Pontifical the recommendation was
to pray ‘ that the goodness of God would bestow the
abundance of His grace.’ There is a reference here to a
Divine call, ‘ the work whereunto we trust the Holy Ghost
hath called him;’ as there is in the exhortation to the can­
didates for priesthood, — ‘this office whereunto it hath
pleased God to call you.’ But there is nothing to show
that this call means more than the answer in the Catechism,.

WBMW BdA g

224

Anglican Ordinations.

namely, ‘ the state of life unto which it shall please God
to call me,’—that is to say, it means either the interior
vocation, or the exterior calling, ‘ according to the order
of the realm but it does not mean the Divine election
conveyed through the sacrament.
In the Litany the ‘ sanctificare’ and the ‘ consecrare’
are omitted, and the suffrage is similar to that for Dea­
cons and Priests, namely, ‘ that it may please Thee to
bless this our brother elected, and to send Thy grace
upon him, that he may duly execute the office whereunto
he is called.’ Thus the grace asked for is only for the
due execution of an office, and not for any interior sancti­
fication, or sacramental consecration. At the end of the
Litany a prayer is said similar to the collect in the ‘ or­
dering of Deacons and Priests,’ namely, ‘ for truth of doc­
trine and innocency of life, that he may faithfully serve
Thee in this office.’ Thus the sole idea still runs upon
goodness of life, and the faithful discharge of the duties
of an office.
The introduction to the examination is partly taken
from the Sarum Pontifical,38 as will appear by comparing
the two.
SARUM PONTIFICAL.
PRAYER BOOK OF 1549.
Antiqua* sanctorum patrum in­ Brother, forasmuch as holy Scrip­
stitutio docet et præcipit, ut is ture and the old Canons comqui ad ordinem episcopatus eli­ mandeth
gitur, antea diligentissime exa­
minetur cum omni caritate, de
fide Sanctæ Trinitatis, et interro­
getur de diversis causis vel mori­
bus, quæ huic regimini congru­
unt, et necessaria sunt retineri,

38 Maskell. Mon. Rit. vol. iii. p. 244. It is added in a note that ‘the whole
of this part of the office is now inserted into the Roman Pontifical, but accord­
ing to Martène it was anciently peculiar to France and England, and not earlier
than the eleventh century.’ But it is also found in the ancient Roman Pon­
tifical published by Muratori (col. 434) which seems to be not much later
than that century.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

225

secundum Apostoli dictum, ma­
nus cito nemini imposueris ;

that we should not be hasty in
laying on hands,
and admitting of any person to
the government of the congre­
gation of Christ, which he hath
purchased with no less price
than the effusion of his own
blood ;
et ut etiam is qui ordinandus afore that I admit you to this
est, antea erudiatur, qualiter sub administration whereunto ye are
hoc regimine constitutum op­ called, I will examine you in
orteat
certain articles, to the end the
congregation present may have
a trial and bear witness how ye
be minded
to behave yourself in the Church
conversari in ecclesia Dei,
of God.
et ut irreprehensibiles sint etiam
qui ei manus ordinationis im­
ponunt.

Thus there is an appearance of preserving the ancient
form, but it has been so contrived as to give it an entirely
Lutheran turn. In the Pontifical the Elect is described
as one ‘ who is elected to the order of the Episcopate,’
or ‘who is to be ordained;’ while the Prayer Book has
no such phrases, but speaks of ‘ admitting to the govern­
ment of the congregation of Christ’ (in the present book,
‘ to government in the Church of Christ’), or ‘ I admit
you to this administration, whereunto ye are called,’ the
last four words being omitted in the present book. Again,
in the Pontifical the purpose with which the profession
of faith and of right intentions is to be made is stated
to be partly for the instruction of the Elect, and partly to
free the consciences of the consecrating Bishops. But in
the Prayer Book all this is omitted, and there is brought
in instead, ‘ to the end the congregation present may have
a trial and bear witness.’ Thus the few slight phrases that
are preserved show that the compilers had the ancient
form before them, and that, while keeping up a pretence
Q

226

Anglican Ordinations.

of the same thing, they deliberately altered it, in order
to reduce it to the Lutheran and Zuinglian notions of a
mere admission to an office, and a trial before the con­
gregation.
The examination itself will be considered later on,
together with that for Deacons and Priests.
After the examination, a prayer is said similar to that
in the Ordering of Priests, though it seems partly taken
from this place of the Pontifical. It is, however, only a
prayer that the Elect may have grace to act up to the
professions he has made.
There is no such mention of the functions of a Bishop
as in the Pontifical: ‘Episcopum oportet judicare, inter­
pretari, consecrare, confirmare, ordinare, offerre, et bap­
tizare/ The functions alluded to in the examination are,
‘ to govern, to instruct, to teach and exhort, to convince
gainsayers, to drive away erroneous doctrine, to correct
and punish;’ and to these was added in 1662, ‘to ordain.’
But as it stood at first there was no allusion to adminis­
tering any sacrament, or to anything requiring the power
of Order.
The Vent Creator is then said, after which comes a
prayer. The new form has passed over entirely those
two prayers of the Pontifical which contain the petitions
for the grace of the Order, namely, ‘ turning over on this
Thy servant the horn of sacerdotal grace, pour forth on
him the power of Thy benediction ‘ this Thy servant,
whom Thou hast elected to the ministry of High Priest­
hood ‘ complete, O Lord, in Thy priest the sum of Thy
ministry.’ But certain expressions are retained and taken
from the latter part of the long prayer anciently called
‘ Consecratio,’ which is now divided into two by the rite
of unction, both according to the Sarum and the present
Roman Pontifical. The Anglican prayer begins in a man­
ner similar to that in the ‘ Ordering of Priests,’ mention­
ing the making of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors,

ΟΒΗΜΜΜ

Examination of the Anglican Rite.
and doctors ; and when it comes to the petition, it may­
be compared with the Pontifical, as follows :
SARUM PONTIFICAL.

Sint speciosi, munere tuo, pedes
ejus
ad evangelizandum pacem

PRAYER BOOK OF 1549.
Grant, we beseech thee, to this
thy servant such grace,
that he may be evermore ready
to spread abroad thy gospel,
and glad tidings

ad evangelizandum bona tua.
Da ei, Domine, ministerium
of reconcilement to God,
reconciliationis
in verbis et in factis, in virtute
signorum et prodigiorum. Sit
sermo ejus, et prædicatio, non
in persuasibilibus liumanæ sapientiæ verbis, sed in ostensione
spiritus et virtutis. Da ei, Domi­
ne, claves regni coelorum,
ut utatur, non glorietur, potestate and to use the authority
given unto him,
quam tribuis,
in ædificationem, non in destruc­ not to destroy, but to save, not
to hurt, but to help,
tionem.
Quodcumque ligaverit super
terram, sit ligatum et in ccelis,
et quodcumque solverit super
terram, sit solutum et in cœlis.
Quorum detinuerit peccata, de­
tenta sint, et quorum dimiserit,
tu dimittas. Qui maledixerit ei,
sit ille maledictus; qui benedix­
erit ei, benedictionibus replea­
tur.
so that he as a faithful and wise
Sit fidelis servus et prudens,
servant,
quem constituas tu, Domine,
super familiam tuam,
ut det illis cibum in tempore op­ giving to thy family meat in due
portuno,
season,
may at the last day be received
into joy.
et exhibeat omnem hominem
perfectum. Sit solicitudine im­
piger, sit spiritu fervens. Oderit

22 8

Anglican Ordinations.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

superbiam, humilitatem diligat,
nec eam unquam deserat, aut
laudibus aut timore superatus.
Non ponat lucem tenebras, nec
tenebras lucem : non dicat ma­
lum bonum, nec bonum malum.
Sit sapientibus et insipientibus
debitor, ut fructum de profectu
omnium consequatur. Tribuas
ei, Domine, cathedram episco­
palem, ad regendam ecclesiam
tuam et plebem sibi commissam.
Sit ei auctoritas, sit ei potestas,
sit ei firmitas. Multiplices super
eum benedictionem et gratiam
tuam ; ut ad exorandam semper
misericordiam tuam tuo munere
idoneus, et tua gratia possit esse
devotus.
Per Dominum &c.

Amen.

Through &c.

Amen.

From this prayer then there has been selected just so
much as to ask for the Elect the grace of zeal in preach­
ing, and of fidelity and discretion in the use of his au­
thority ; but every phrase that expresses a Divine power,
an authority coming from God, a sacramental efficacy, is
studiously omitted. There is no prayer for the gift of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor of the power of
binding and loosing, nor of the episcopal chair to rule the
Church and people committed to him. Almighty God is
not asked to be his authority, his power, his firmness.
He is to be ready to preach the Gospel and glad tidings
of reconcilement; but the ministry of reconciliation is not
given to him. He is to be the faithful and wise servant,
giving the Lord’s family meat in due season, but not one
whom God himself sets over His family. Even ‘the power
which Thou dost bestow’ is changed into ‘ the authority
given unto him,’ leaving the source of the authority un­
told. And when we look back, in order to know what
the authority is, we find only ‘ such authority as ye have

229

by God’s word, and as to you shall be committed by the
ordinance of this realm.’ Thus the prayer is only for
grace to fulfil certain duties, and it does not ask for, nor
recognise any sacramental gift whatever.
This prayer is followed by the imposition of hands,
with the form, Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, &c. These are
the only words in the rite capable of being used in a
mystical or sacramental sense. In King Edward’s First
Book, and down to the revision in 1662, the words stood
as follows : ‘ Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that
thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by impo­
sition of hands ; for God hath not given us the spirit of
fear, but of power and love and soberness.’ These words,
as it has been observed by former controversialists, do
not contain any mention of the special end for which they
are used, or of the particular grace they are intended to
convey ; and therefore, just as in the Roman Pontifical,
they must be taken in connection with the rest of the
rite preceding and following. We know that the Pon­
tifical does express the Divine election, and the grace of
the episcopal Order. But on going through the Angli­
can rite, we have seen that there is no intimation of any­
thing more than the Divine grace and blessing in the per­
formance of the duties of a certain office. What is there,
then, to give any further sense to this form ? The words
taken from St. Paul cannot do so, for they are only an
exhortation referring to grace already in possession, and
do not indicate the communication of the episcopal cha­
racter.
But in the revision of 1662 the words received a simi­
lar alteration with the form for priests, and they now
stand as follows : ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost 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.
Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of

230

Anglican Ordinations.

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.’ The remarks which were made
with regal'd to the form for priests are equally applicable
here. The additional words do not express in any way
the power and character of the episcopal order, but only
grace for an office and work committed. They thus fix
upon the original words the sense which is implied through
all the rest of the rite, and they exclude any sacramental
sense from being attached to them. The grace that is
asked and looked for is such as is invoked with the im­
position of hands in the benediction of an Abbot, and no
more.
The rite is not concluded with the imposition of hands.
In the book of 1549 some further relics of the ancient
rite were preserved. The Archbishop was ‘ to lay the
Bible upon his neck, with an exhortation,’ and then to
‘ put into his hand the pastoral staff,’ with another exhor­
tation. By the change in 1552 the two exhortations were
thrown into one, the pastoral staff was disused, and the
Bible was to be given into the hand of the newly-con­
secrated instead of being laid on his neck.
Certain
expressions in the exhortation seem to be taken from
the ancient rite; but with an occasional diversion of the
sense from the original meaning, such as we have met
with before: for instance, the increase of grace in the
Bishop himself is turned to the increase of fruit of his
preaching among the people.
SARUM PONTIFICAL.

Accipe evangelium, et vade,
prædica populo tibi commisso :
potens est enim Deus augere tibi
gratiam suam, qui vivit &c.

PRAYER BOOK OF I 549.
Give heed unto reading, ex­
hortation, and doctrine; think
upon those things contained in
this book, be diligent in them,
that the increase coming there­
by may be manifest unto all
men. . .

Examination of the Anglican Aile.

23 i

Præcipe, Domine, huic pas­
Be to the dock of Christ a
cere oves tuas, ac tribue ut in shepherd, not a wolf ; feed them,
commissa gregis custodia solici- devour them not.
tus pastor vigilet. {From- the
frayer, Pater sancte.}
Sustentator humanæ imbecil­
Hold up the weak, heal the
litatis Deus, benedic baculum sick, bind together the broken,
istum, et quod in eo exterius de­ bring again the outcasts, seek
signatur, interius in moribus fa­ the lost.
muli tui propitiationis clementia
operetur.
Accipe baculum pastoralis of­
Be so merciful, that you be
ficii : et sit in corrigendis vitiis not too remiss ; so minister dis­
pie sæviens, judicium sine ira cipline, that ye forget notmercy ;
tenens,·30 in fovendis virtutibus that when the Chief Shepherd
auditorum animos demulcens, shall come, ye may receive the
in tranquillitate severitatis cen­ immarcescible crown of glory,
through, &c.
suram non deserens.

The rite ends with a prayer which seems to be partly
taken from the Pater sancte ; a prayer probably peculiar
to the English Church, and as ancient as the tenth cen­
tury. It presents features more closely agreeing with
this prayer than with the Benediction referred to by Mr.
Blunt.36
37
SARUM PONTIFICAL.

Pater sancte, omnipotens Deus,
præsta ut hie famulus tuus sit
tuis ministeriis cunctisque fideli­
ter gerendis officiis dignus, ut an­
tiquitus instituta sacramentorum
possit mysteria celebrare, et per
te in summum ad quod assumi­
tur sacerdotium consecretur.
Sit super eum benedictio tua,

PRAYER BOOK ΟΙ1' 1549-

Most merciful Father, we be­
seech thee,

to send down upon this thy
servant thy heavenly blessing,

36 In the Winchester Pontifical, 1 cum iratus fueris, misericordiæ reminiscens.’ Maskell’s Man. Rit. vol. iii. p. 266.
37 Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 577.

232

Anglican Ordinations.

licet manu nostra sit porrecta.
Præcipe, Domine, huic pascere
oves tuas, ac tribue ut in com­
missa gregis custodia solicitus
pastor vigilet.
Spiritus huic sanctus tuus cœles- and so endue him with thy Holy
tium charismatum divisor assis­ Spirit,
tat, ut sicut electus gentium doc­
tor instituit, sit justitia non in­
digens, benignitate pollens, hos­
pitalitate diffusus ;
servet in exhortationibus alacri­ that he, preaching thy word,
tatem, in persecutionibus fidem, may not only be earnest to re­
in caritate patientiam, in veritate prove, beseech, and rebuke, with
constantiam, in hæresibus ac all patience and doctrine,
vitiis omnibus odium sciat, in æmulationibus nesciat, in judiciis
gratiosum esse sinas, et gratum
esse concedas.
Postremo, omnia a te largiter but also may be to such as be­
discat, quæ salubriter tuos do­ lieve an wholesome example in
ceat.
word, in conversation, in love,
in faith, in chastity, and purity,
Sacerdotium ipsum opus esse
existimet, non dignitatem.
Proficiant ei honoris augmenta,
etiam ad incrementa meritorum :
ut per hæc, sicut apud nos nunc that faithfully fulfilling his course
asciscitur in sacerdotium, ita at the latter day he may receive
apud te postea asciscatur in reg­ the crown of righteousness, laid
num.
up by the Lord, the righteous
Judge, who, &c.

Here, as usual, the petition that the new Bishop may
obtain the Divine consecration to the high priesthood for
which he is chosen, is omitted ; and the meagre adapta­
tion, such as it is, retains only petition for grace to be
zealous in preaching, and an example of virtue ‘ to such
as believe.’
After this full examination of the Anglican rite, we
are driven to the conclusion, that it contains and is founded
upon the Lutheran doctrine, namely, that Ordination is

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

233

only the public recognition and admission of a person to
an office, with prayers that he may have grace to be faith­
ful to the duty imposed upon him, and to live in a man­
ner consistent with the same ; and thus that it excludes
the idea of a sacrament, or of any sacramental grace being
conferred therein. Hence arises the very grave doubt,
whether the sacrament of Holy Order can be validly ad­
ministered with such a form?
The view here taken of the Anglican rite is not new
among Catholic writers. It has before this time been
pointed out that in the imposition of hands in making
ministers no Protestant writers ' acknowledge any grace
given withal,’ but ‘ make it a bare ceremony that in
the Anglican form of admitting deacons ‘ there is no true
consecration of a deacon ;’ and in that of Bishops there is
nothing ‘ that may by probable or possible means give
episcopal order.’
*
Thus in an early con trover sali st :
‘Now concerning imposition or laying on of hands in making
their ministers . . . none of them all make more of it than of the
like Judaical ceremony in the old law; not acknowledging that
there is any grace given withal, though the Apostle says there is,
in express terms. But they will answer this text (as they are wont)
with a favourable translation, turning grace into gift. As when the
Apostle saith thus : “ Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which
is given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of priest­
hood
they translate, “Neglect not the gift;” and Beza, most
impudently, for “by prophecy” translateth “to prophecy;” mak­
ing that only to be this gift, and withal adding this goodly expo­
sition, that he had the gift of prophecy before, and now by impo­
sition of hands was chosen only to execute that function. But
because it might be objected that the Apostle saith, “ which was
given thee” with the imposition of hands ; or, as he speaketh in
another place, “ by imposition of hands,” making this imposition
of hands an instrumental cause of giving this grace, he saith that
it did only confirm the grace or gift before given.
Thus it is evident, that though the Apostle speak never so
plain for the dignity of holy orders, that it giveth grace, and
consequently is a sacrament; they pervert all to the contrary,

234

Anglican Ordinations.

making it a bare ceremony, suppressing the word “ grace,” which
is much more significant to express the Greek word than “gift”
is, because it is not every gift, but a gracious gift, or a gift pro­
ceeding of marvellous and mere grace.’38

Fulke replies, admitting in fact the justice of Martin’s
criticism :
‘ Though we find that by or with imposition of hands many
rare and extraordinary gifts, of prophecy, of tongues, and such­
like, were given in the Apostles’ time, yet we find nowhere that
grace is ordinarily given by that ceremony, used always in the
Church for ordination of the ministers thereof. . .
1 Here is no evidence at all that the order of priesthood is a
sacrament, or giveth grace ; but that God, by the ceremony of
laying on of hands, did give wonderful and extraordinary gifts of
tongues and prophesying in the beginning and first planting of the
Church. But that grace should always follow that ceremony, there
is no proof to be made out of the Holy Scriptures. And experi­
ence showeth that he which was void of gifts before he was or­
dered priest, is as very an ass and d°gbolt as he was before, for
any increase of grace or gracious gifts, although he have authority
committed unto him.'39

A Catholic writer upon the Thirty-nine Articles speaks
as follows :
‘ Howsoever we expound this pretended Protestant making or
admitting deacons . . . here is no true consecration of a deacon.
For giving the New Testament and power to read the Gospel
cannot be the full and lawful manner to make deacons. . . Nor
can the taking authority to execute the office of a deacon be the
manner ; for no man can truly and lawfully execute that wherein
he hath no power, and here is no power of a deacon given in all
this their form and order.’40
‘ And these Protestants’ form of making their pretended Bi­
shops is also utterly overthrown. . . For there is not any one sin­
gular or privileged thing, sign, ceremony, word, or act, that may
38 Discoverie ofthe manifold Corruptions of the Scriptures by the Hiretikes of
our dates, specially the English Sectaries. By Gregory Martin. Rhemes, 1582,
8vo, p. 227.
39 Fulke’s Defence of the sincere and true Translations ofthe holy Scriptures.
Ed. Parker Society, p. 468-9.
40 Judgment of the Apostles &:c. in points of Doctrine set dovine in the
XXXIX. Articles. By Richard Broughton. Douay, 1632, 8vo, p. 358.

MB

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

'!ii

by probable or possible means give episcopal order ... for here
is no more done or said than was in their making of pretended
priests or ministers before ; for these the same were their ceremony
and words : Receive the Holy Ghost.’41
‘ Here is no material difference ; a Bishop is pretended conse­
crator in both alike; the ceremony of laying on of hands is the
same; the words spoken do not differ ; in both there is the same
sentence and sense. . . In the pretended ordination of Bishops
there is no power at all given, but the party only put in mind or
admonished to stir up that grace which was in him before,— the
very same words which St. Paul, absent, wrote to St. Timothy
long after he had consecrated him priest.’12

’f
p
ί-

,

A third authority is the celebrated Franciscus a Sancta
Clara, who has drawn out an elaborate argument on the
subject ;43 and the fact is the more remarkable from his
having been by Dr. Lee and others alleged as an authority
in favour of the validity of Anglican orders, on account
of his remarks on the 36th Article. And in the work
now referred to he is at some pains to show that his
later argument is not inconsistent with that in his earlier
publication. It will be worth while to quote the whole
passage, although it runs to’ considerable length. For
brevity’s sake the spelling is modernised; some evident
errors of the press are also corrected ; and some passages
are omitted, including one from Bishop Bonner’s Homilies,
already quoted in this work.
‘ Whether ordination and jurisdiction are extinct in- Protestants,
according to faith ?
Disciple. A main point remains, namely, concerning the ordination and jurisdiction of the Protestant clergy, whether it is matter
of faith with you, that they are not really Bishops and Priests.
You know, they strongly, and of late with more heat than ordinary,
urge their succession from you, as appears in Mr. Mason, my Lord
of Canterbury, my Lord of Londonderry, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Feme,
Dr. Hammond, and other present writers.
41 Jtidgmcnt of the Apostles Ore. p. 370-2.
42 Ibid. p. 372-3.
43 Ah Enchiridion of Faith. By Francis Coventry. 2d edition, Douay,
1655. The above was one of the author’s assumed names, and the book is
placed in the list of his works by Ant. a Wood and Dodd.

!

,

!

>

; 1
t

H

'

jJ

l· }

236

Anglican Ordinations.

Master. This business hath been always ventilated even from
the beginning of the schism, and of late renewed in the case of
D. Goffe at Paris, who was reordained, as all others have been ;
and therefore it is worthy our searching the common sense of Ca­
tholic Doctors in it.
First, as to what concerns the forms which I find in their
Articles : it is not anywhere declared heresy in our Councils to
hold them valid, as never having been declared invalid ; insomuch
that, according to the principles of Innocent IV. and other Doctors,
we can only condemn them as unlawful, being different from the
forms prescribed by holy Church ; all which S. Clement44 shows
largely.
Secondly, as to their succession; it being matter of fact, and
depending upon records, I do not see grounds for matter of faith ;
so that for what concerns their forms used in ordination, and their
succession of valid ordinators, being both simply looked into with­
out any further relations, I shall not have occasion to intermeddle
with as to faith.
Neither is it necessary to examine, much less to deny, St.
Clement’s Paraphrase upon the 36th Article—the title is, De Epis­
coporum et Ministrorum consecratione—where he concludes that, si
nihil aliud obstet, their ordination, forasmuch as concerns their form
and matter, will be valid, ifthere is nothing else to hinder it. Not­
withstanding all which, after a serious and sincere examination,
I must put this final resolution as a most indubitable conclusion
of your question :
Conclusion. According io the clear sense of the ancient and pre­
sent Universal Church, their ordinations arc ipso jure invalid; which
I shall with modesty and truth endeavour to declare.
The holy Council indeed of Nice, in Canon 19, defineth the
Baptism of the Paulianists and Cataphrygians to be invalid, and
consequently all their ordinations, as is there also declared, which
doth appear in these words : Si quis confugit ad ecclesiam Catholi­
cam de Paulianistis et Cataphrygis, statutum est rebaptizari eos esse
debere; si qui vero clerici erunt apud eos, siquidem inculpati fuerint
et irreprehensibiles, rursus etiam ordinentur ab Episcopo Ecclesne
Catholicae, &c.
And in like manner touching the Photinians is decreed in two
Synods of Arles, Can. 16. I know some bring the 7th Canon of
Laodicæa for the contrary; but it was adjectitious as to the Pho-41
*
41 Here, and in two other places, £ S. Clement’ is printed, meaning S{‘l
Clara whether by error, or (to use the author’s own phrase) de industria, in
order to conceal himself more closely, it is not easy to say.

Exantination of the Anglican RUe.

237

tinians, as it appears, being not found in many copies, and evi­
dently was against the sense of holy Church declared at Arles out
of Nice.
It is true, these come not home to our case, by reason, as
Zonaras and our other histories witness, they wholly changed the
forms in substantiate ; but the Arians did either not change the
form of Baptism at all, as to the order of words, which is intimated
in the Council of Arles, Can. 17 (where, you know, the passages of
Nice are recorded), which I think evident as to the generality of
them, or at the most, some Arians changed it thus : In the name,
of the Father, by the Son, and in the Holy Ghost ; as Baronins holds
out of Sozomen, wdiich I also think ; because, as appears in the
History of the Council of Nice by Sozomen (1. iii. c. 19 in fine},
in the end of the Psalms they did change the Doxology, Gloria
Patri, per Filium, in. Spiritu Sancto &c., which the Council re­
formed to the form before and since in the Universal Church of
Gloria. Patri et Filio &c., which change of theirs seems not so
important as to annul Baptism, except depraved by some impiousinterpretation of introducing a minority or nonconsubstantiality in
the Son with the Father ; as in the like manner touching the pro­
cession of the Holy Ghost a Patrc per Filium, as some orthodox
Fathers speak ; as is also recorded in the Council of Florence, and
rightly understood was not rejected.
Yet the judgment of the whole Catholic Church was and is,
that Baptism administered by an Arian intending to oppose the
Church’s sense, that is, not to do what the Church doth, by that
their imperfect form, would be invalid, and by consequence his
ordination, though not differing essentially from the Catholic form,
provided that he should hereby sufficiently manifest his depraved
sense to be against the truth of Christ’s institution as always
admitted and understood by holy Church, as in their case this
very change of the form being done upon design and pursuit of
their heresy, was esteemed by holy Church to have declared them
enough ; and therefore St. Athanasius, Serin, cont. Arianos, shows
they destroyed Baptism, because they gave it not In Patre et Filio,
but Creatore et creatura: his words arc these, Ipsum quoque bap­
tismum de Ecclesia tollebant, cum negantes Filii cum Patre consubstan­
tialitatem, non in Patre et Filio illum tribuerent, sed in Creatore et
creatura.
That these words are to be understood of those second sort of
Arians we mentioned is clear. First, because he saith they did
not baptise in Patrc et Filio ; which is true only of them.
Secondly, because, as I said before, the Baptism of the Arians,

fi
238

Anglican Ordinations.

as to the general, was declared valid in the 2d Council of Arles,
universally received, by reason that they baptised in nomine Tri­
nitatis; so that he cannot be thought to condemn their Baptism,
which holy Church approved, especially considering that he him­
self was approved by all.
Thirdly, the first Synod of Arles, Can. 8, intimates that there
were two sorts of Arians, whereof some baptised in Patre et Filio
et Spiritu Sancto, who were not to be rebaptised, others were to be
baptised again by our priests, as is there decreed : the words are
these : De Arianis, qui propria lege sua utuntur, ut rebaptizentur,
placuit, si ad Ecclesiam aliqui de hac hceresi venerint, interrogent eos
nostreefidei sacerdotes symbolum. Et si perviderint, in Patre et Filio
et Spiritu Sancto cos baptizatos, manus iis tantum imponantur, ut
accipiant Spiritum Sanctum. Quod si interrogati non respondeant
hanc Trinitatem, baptizentur. Which twofold sort of Arians, whereof
one were baptised in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
and the other were not so, confirms clearly what we have asserted.
Hence you see also the reason why the Baptism of our old
Protestants is adjudged valid by us and all Catholics who know
truly the grounds of religion, and also both Baptism and Ordina­
tion of old in the Donatists, and now in the Greeks, though they
somewhat differ from us in the forms, but not substantially, nor in
a depraved sense.
I told you before, that if the ministers of sacraments should
betray a want of due intention by their exterior manner of adminis­
tration of them, that then in the judgment of the whole Church
declared in the general Councils of Florence and Trent, the sacra­
ments would undoubtedly be invalid. I touch not inferior inten­
tions nor ways by outward acts expressed, of which holy Church
taketh no cognisance.
It may be objected, that those Arians who baptised in Patre,
Filio, et Spiritu Sancto clearly indicated their depraved intentions
by their public writings and actions to be contrary to holy Church,
and yet their Baptism was valid. And by the same reason the
ordination of Protestant clergy, differing not substantially in the
form, though in their Articles they demonstrate their depraved
intentions.
I answer, that those Arians did indeed declare by their other
actions an habitual intention of baptising contrary to holy Church,
which was not sufficient to invalidate the sacraments ; and there­
fore the holy Church never used in matters of such heavy conse­
quence to proceed upon such remote principles : but if they had
sufficiently manifested an actual or even virtual intention opposite

Exanünation of the Anglican Rite.

239

to holy Church, it was also adjudged sufficient, as in the case of
the second sort of Arians, who therefore are presumed to have
changed the form, as the Protestants have done ; it must in
consequence to the sense of the universal Church declared in
her Councils, irrefragably be concluded, all sacramental attempts
grounded upon such forms to be invalid, being they clearly speak
an actual contrary intention, at least in the first contrivers, being
that the forms were therefore changed, which,.as you know, sufficiently destroys all these successionary attempts; and truly the
continuance of the same forms speaketh at least a virtual depraved
intention in their followers, which of itself is sufficient to the end
we treat ; as, on the contrary, a virtual intention to proceed according to the sense of the holy Church is by all judged sufficient for
the force of any or all the sacraments ; it being sufficient even according to philosophy, for the guidance of all human actions.
The application of this, or this explication given, is easy to the
question of Ordination ministered by our Protestant Bishops ; for
though we should suppose, with St. Clement,45 these forms not to
be substantially changed, or their derivation of Episcopacy to have
been originally and indeed from ours, as they seriously pretend ;
yet since they have changed the Church forms de industria, as the
second sort of Arians did, to declare that they do not what the
Church intends, and in pursuit thereof have solemnly decreed
against the power of sacrificing and consecrating, that is, in the
sense of the old and present Catholic Church, of changing the
elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ our
Lord, as appears in the 28th and 31st Articles, it evidently con­
cludes that they never did or could validly ordain priests, and con­
sequently Bishops, having, as I say, expressed clearly the depravation of their intentions in order to the first and principal part of
Ordination, which consisteth in the power super corpus Christi
verum of sacrificing and consecrating his true body, by them professedly denied, and the sacrifice declared a pernicious imposture
(a strange expression) in their Articles, never repealed or mitigated
in any synod.
I said it is against the sense of the Catholic Church to deny
the power of sacrificing, that is, by way of propitiation offering our
blessed Lord’s true Body and Blood ; which I therefore said, be­
cause all general Councils inclusively from the first of Nice to tip*
last of Trent, either occasionally or of set purpose, have declared
the constant sense of the universal Church herein, as also all an­
cient Greek, Arabic, and Latin Liturgies fully speak it.
« i.e. Sta Clara.

j

s
■<’

s ;
i
p

■

'p
‘ >i'
ΐ
'I'

·1
'
!

(
'" j

i !

‘ 1
nJ
'
η'·*,

240

Anglican Ordinations.

I deny not but that eminent persons and Protestant prelates
have in later years endeavoured to induce a more easy sense of the
Articles touching the point of sacrifice ; but that doth not at all
change the state of the question touching the invalidity of their
Ordination. For if once their Ordination was invalid by reason of
their noncompliance with the Church’s sense, which according to
faith is required, and the first composers of the Articles had not ;
it is now too late to revalidate what from the beginning was null,
according to the known rule of the law, the posterior ordainers, as
you know, herein wholly depending on the first; so that there is no
way now’ of invalidation, except by being anew ordained by holy
Church, which would imply, if generally admitted, a happy busi­
ness of reunion of all breaches : otherwise, if we should put the
case, that they were now to be ordained according to the more
temperate sense given of the later Doctors, yet neither would that
serve the turn ; first, because it is too late, as I have said, their
former Ordinations being invalid, upon which their validity now
depends, except they could derive a succession per saltum as from
a greatgrandfather without a father. Secondly, because even they
who are most temperate, unanimously deny, with the contrivers of
the Articles, according to the 31 st Article, sacerdotem offerre Christum,
that the priest doth offer Christ, which destroys the very life of
our Christian sacrifice. All which ingenuously considered, I do
not find any real or possible title (which I would gladly do, as
being indeed a great enemy to multiplication of unnecessary dif­
ferences, as true Christian charity instructeth me) for their Ordina­
tion in the sense of the universal Church. Neither have any of
their Doctors hitherto observed, much less infringed these grounds
which I have laid out of Church monuments.
Though the Councils conclude not in formal terms the point
here discussed of their Ordination, yet learned and temperate per­
sons will judge how nearly it is concerned in their Acts, whereunto
this syllogism will conduce :
All Ordinations celebrated in a form different from the Church,
■with an intention sufficiently expressed of opposition to her sense, are
invalid, according to the definitions of the general Councils cited.
But their Ordinations are such as are already declared. Ergo :
Where you see my sense, or rather the sense of the whole
Church, in what concerns your question touching faith as to this
point of Ordination.’

From this long extract it appears that the author,
Franciscus a Sta Clara, was of opinion that, although the

what the Church intends, the Ordinations cannot be valid.
The same has been the exact argument of this chapter ;
but St,v Clara has spoken of the depraved intention as
directed only against the power of sacrificing and cousecrating, and has not drawn it out also as against the
sacramental character of Holy Order.
This subject had, however, previously been touched
on by a contemporary of Sta Clara, who, like him, had
been inclined to favour the idea of the return of the An­
glican Church as a body to the Catholic faith. Fr.
Leander a St0 Martino, O.S.B., was in frequent commitnication with King Charles’s ministers, and was asked by
Sir Francis Windebank to state what was absolutely ne­
cessary for making a Bishop. The following are extracts
from the question and reply :
‘ Question.. What is absolutely necessary to Bishopdom or the
ordination of a Bishop ■ without which the Ordination were frustrate, and with which it were substantially and essentially valid?
I. First, that the party to be consecrated be a Christian man,
for women are incapable of holy Orders, and baptismus est janua
sacramentorum ; so that whosoever is not baptised truly is incapable of any other sacrament, much more of this excellent Order.
II. The Consecrator must also be a true Bishop, and have
intention to perform what holy Church intendeth by this rite, and
use the matter and form which is received in the Church ; other­
wise he conferreth nothing valid. This intention is to be conform­
able to the acception or signification of the name of Bishop,
received among Catholics : that is, he must intend to confer that
power which the Catholic Church always understood to belong
to the name and office of a Bishop.
III. Both Consecrator and he that is to be consecrated must
first have received the power of Priesthood ; that is, of sacrificing
the sacrifice of the altar and of absolving penitents from their sins.
IV. These above-mentioned things are required necessarily to
the substance of this sacrament, because without them the essence

1\

, 1

j ,
j

" f
, <

y
j

242

Anglican Ordinations.

of the sacrament cannot be validly introduced into the subject.
Now the essence consisteth in the imposition of the hands of one
or more Bishops ,· . . . which imposition of hands or
is
the material sign or ceremony, accompanied for more expression
with other signs, traditio baculi pastoralis, mitra' &c., and in the
words wherewith the Consecrator expresseth that he giveth power
of Bishopdom to the party consecrated ; and these words are called
the form of the sacrament, which in the Greek Church are simply,
That God’s grace, by the Consecrator’s ministry and consent of his
fellow Bishops, promoteth such a venerable Priest N. to the dignity
of Bishop : in which is sufficiently expressed the power of Bishop­
dom ; which, according to the signification received in all the
Greek Church, and understood so by all, containeth power of
sacrificing, absolving from sins, confirming, ordering, jurisdiction
over his church and flock, &c. But the form of the Latin Church
is more expressive, setting down particularly in the form itself, or
in the precedent instruction or following prayers, all the powers
and functions of a Bishop.’45

F1’ Leander had said that he answered Windebank’s questions 1 not without fear and trembling, since
the first of them [viz. the question answered abovej is a
point that may give distaste, and I am wonderful loathe
to give any.’ It is evident that his reluctance arose
from the conviction that his answer must be a con­
demnation of the Anglican Church. And in fact the
principles he has laid down are quite opposed to the
pretensions of Anglicans with regard to an episcopal suc­
cession. For he says that ‘ the essence of the sacrament
consists as to the form in the words wherewith the Con­
secrator expresses his giving power of Bishopdom,’ and
that ‘he must intend to confer that power which the
Catholic Church always understood to belong to the
name and office of a Bishop.’ Now at the time he wrote,
the words used in the Anglican rite did not express any­
thing of ‘ Bishopdom,’ and it has been shown from the
rest of the rite that the Consecrator who uses it does not
<5 Clarendon State Papers, vol. i. p. 252, fol. Oxford, 1767. Printed also
411 Lee's Validity of Orders of Chttrch of England, p. 84-7.

Examiliaiiou of the Anglican Rite.

245

intend to confer the power which the Church understands
to belong to a Bishop. Dr. Lee Hass quoted the docu­
ment apparently without perceiving how far it tells against
his argument.
To these earlier authorities may be added that of
Archbishop Kenrick, who speaks as follows, though, like
Franciscus a >Sta Clara, he has not carried out his prin­
ciple beyond the doctrine of the holy Sacrifice : ‘ It is a
settled principle with Catholics that no error about the
nature or efficacy of a sacrament, no positive disbelief of
its divine institution, or any other personal unworthiness
on the part of him who administers it, can deprive such a
sacrament of its effect, provided sufficient matter, valid
form, and the due intention, concur in its administration.
But if the matter be omitted, or curtailed of any essential
part; if the form be vitiated, or if ambiguity be intro­
duced, for the purpose of introducing error, it is no
longer a valid means of producing sacramental effects.’46
But, in reply to the previous line of argument, it may
be urged that no difficulties of this sort have been raised
with regard to the Abyssinian Ordinations ; that in the
case laid before the Sacred Congregation it is not stated
that any prayers whatever are said, or any other words
than the mere Accipe Spiritum Sanctum; that if these
words are sufficient in the Abyssinian case, they are also
sufficient in the Anglican ; and that it is unnecessary to
make any further inquiries, when the Sacred Congregation
was satisfied with the mere pronouncement of these words.
The facts so stated are correct; but then it is per­
fectly well known that even if the prayers prescribed by
the Abyssinian sacred books are not said, yet that the
faith and doctrine of the Abyssinian Church is expressed
by those prayers, and that it is the same with the faith
and doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Holy Order
and the Priesthood. There is no addition made to the
48 Validity of A ng. Ord. p. 175.

'

'2.44

Anglican Ordinations.

words which excludes the due and proper sense from
them, and therefore no doubt can exist about the sense in
which the words are used in an Abyssinian ordination,
though the practice is so far short of the theory.
There is also a certain faith and doctrine expressed
in the Anglican forms of Ordination; and it is not the
faith and doctrine of the Catholic Church, but that of
Luther and other reformers. It is impossible to take the
words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum separately from the con­
text in which they are found. And the context does
exclude a due and proper sense, and fixes and determines
the sense to be contrary to that of the Church Catholic.
Thus the Abyssinian Abuna, though he repeats no
more than those three words, yet, following the traditions
of his Church, expresses his faith with respect to the
sacramental grace and power of the Order conferred in a
manner agreeable with that of the Catholic Church.
On the other hand, the Bishop who uses the An­
glican form in ordaining is not only prevented from at­
taching a right sense to those words, but openly declares
and professes that he does not repeat them according to
the sense in which the Catholic Church receives and uses
them.
In the examination of the Anglican form the language
throughout has been taken in its simple and natural
meaning. But in order to show that the interpretation
here given is not forced, it may be well to quote some
writers contemporary with the formation of the rite.
First Jewell :
‘ Now are we to speak of the ministry of the Church, which
some have called Holy Orders. Shall we account it a sacrament ?
there is no reason so to do. It is a heavenly office, a holy min­
istry or service. By such as have this office God lighten eth our
darkness, He deçlareth His mind to us, He gathereth together His
scattered sheep, and publisheth unto the world the glad tidings
of salvation. The patriarchs did bear this office. This was the
office of the prophets. . . .

Examination of the Anglican Rite,
‘No doubt the ministry of the Gospel is highly to be es­
teemed, seeing our Saviour was not ashamed to publish the will
of His Father in His own person ; yet it appeareth not wherever
He did ordain it to be a sacrament.’4'’'

Then kVhitgift :
‘ To use these words : “ Receive the Holy Ghost,” in ordering
of ministers, which Christ Himself used in appointing His Apostles,
is no more ridiculous and blasphemous than it is to use the words
that He used in the supper ; but it is blasphemy thus outrageously
to speak of the words of Christ. The Bishop by speaking these
words doth not take upon him to give the Holy Ghost, no more
than he doth to remit sins when he pronounceth the remission ol
sins ; but by speaking these words of Christ, “ Receive the Holy
Ghost ·, whose sins soever ye remit, they are remitted &c.” he
doth show the principal duty of a minister, and assureth him
of the assistance of God’s Holy Spirit, if he labour in the same
accordingly.’48
‘ Christ used these words : “ This is my body,” in the celebra­
tion of His supper ; but there is no special commandment that the
minister should use the same, and yet must he use them because
Christ used them ; even so, when Christ did ordain His Apostles
ministers of the Gospel, He said unto them, “ Receive the Holy
Ghost &c. which words, because they contain the principal duty
of a minister, and do signify that God doth pour His Spirit upon
those whom He calleth to that function, are most aptly also used
of the Bishop (who is God’s instrument in that business) in the
ordaining of ministers. St. Paul, speaking to Timothy, saith :
“ Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given unto thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.” In
which words the Apostle signifieth that God doth bestow His gifts
and Spirit upon such as be called to the ministry of the word ;
whereof imposition of hands is a token, or rather a confirmation :
and therefore saith M. Calvin that “ it was not a vain ceremony,
because God did fulfil with His Spirit that consecration which
men did signify by imposition of hands.” And surely, as that is
no vain ceremony, though it be done by men, so these be no
vain words, though they be spoken by men.’49

Of course it is to be remembered, and has been
17 A Treatise of the Sacraments, Works, vol. ii. p. 1129.
18 Answer to the Admonition, Works, vol. i. p. 489.
49 Defence of the Answer, p. 490.

246

Anglican Ordinations.

already described, how great a change came over the
theology of the Anglican Church after the books just
quoted had been published, especially with regard to the
doctrine of the sacred ministry. Hooker has propounded
a doctrine very nearly Catholic in that solemn and beauti­
ful language of which he is so great a master. He teaches
that ‘ministerial power is a kind of mark or character,
and acknowledged to be indelible, making them that have
it a special order consecrated unto the service of the Most
High;’50 and that ‘the power and authority delivered
with the words is itself
a gracious donation which
the Spirit of God doth bestow.’ 01
But though there
is an elevation in his language above that of a dry theo­
logical treatise, yet we miss the definiteness which is
to be looked for in a guide to our faith. You may read
him through, and be fascinated with his style, yet in the
end not be able to tell what he means you to believe.
Thus, he avoids calling Holy Order a sacrament ; and it
is impossible to say whether he means that sacramental
grace is conferred therein, or that the indelible character
he speaks of is really a spiritual power impressed upon
the soul.
And then, after laying down the Catholic
principles so far, and after saying that Bishops alone
have the power of ordination, he makes the exception
mentioned in a former chapter,52 to provide for the case,
‘when the exigence of necessity doth constrain,’ and
allowing in such a case ‘ Ordination made without a
Bishop;’ thus striking at the root of the doctrine of
sacramental grace, and pulling down with one hand what
he has built up with the other.53
Again Andrews :
‘By these words are holy orders given, “Receive the Holy
Ghost &c.”... For these are the very operative words for the con­
ferring this power, for the performing this act. Which act is here
» Keble’s Hooker, vol. ii. p. 581.
51 Ibid. p. 588.
« p. 128.
53 Vol. iii. pt. i. p. 285.'

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

247

performed somewhat after the manner of a sacrament. For here is
an outward ceremony, of breathing instar dementi; and here is a
word coming to it, “ Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” That some
have therefore yielded to give that name or title to holy orders,
as indeed the word sacrament hath been sometime drawn outwider, and so orders taken in. . . And if the grace here given had
been
faciens, as in a sacrament it should, and not, as it is,
gratis data, but in office or function : and again, if the outward
ceremony of breathing had not been changed, as it hath plainly,
it had been somewhat. But being changed after into laying on of
hands, it may well be questioned.’54

Then Jeremy Taylor :
‘ In all orders there is the impress of a distinct character; that
is, the person is qualified with a new capacity to do certain offices,
which before his ordination he had no power to do... For “ordo”
is defined by the schools to be “ traditio potestatis spiritualis, et
collatio gratiæ, ad obeunda ministeria ecclesiastica;” a giving a
spiritual power, and a conferring grace for the performance of
ecclesiastical minstrations.’53

And lastly : Bramhall has explained the words of the
Form of Ordination in the very sense which has been
here attributed to them, as follows : ‘ The words of our
Ordinal are clear enough : “ Receive the Holy Ghost
that is, the grace of the Holy Ghost to exercise and dis­
charge the office of Priesthood, to which thou hast been
now presented, to which thou hast been now accepted,
and for which we have prayed to God, that in it thou
mayest discharge thy duty faithfully and acceptably.’5(5
There is nothing here that teaches the conferring of a
sacramental grace in Holy Order, or anything more than
that prayers are said for grace duly to discharge an office,
which description applies as fully to the blessing of an
Abbot, or the coronation of a King.
Mr. Mackenzie Walcott has summed up the general
54 Semi. ix. On the Sending of the Holy Ghost, p. 263, ed. Ang. Cath.
Lib.
44 Hpiscopacy Asserted, Works, vol. vii. p. 122.
45 Brainhall’s Works, vol. iii. p. 167.

2 4-8

Anglican Ordinations.

teaching of Anglican Divines on this subject in the fol­
lowing section on—‘ The effect of Ordination. The laying on of hands and prayer,
with the delegation of ministerial order, constituting the essential
and necessary form and matter of ordination, it remains to con­
sider the Divine vocation, and the results of ordination. It is a
sanctification of the person to do certain offices of religion, as in
the case of Jeremiah (Jer. i. 5) and St. John Baptist (Luke i. 15),
and also the imparting of grace to make the person meet to per­
form the same. The change of name adopted by St. Paul and
St. Peter after their ordination expresses significantly the change
of condition, the new honour sanctified by God. But as St. Jerome
says, “ Let every one prove himself, and so come ; ecclesiastical
order does not make a Christian” (ad Heliod. Ep. v. al. i.). The
candidate is to be called to a high dignity and a weight)'· office
and charge, to be a messenger, watchman, and steward of the
Lord. He is to be a worker together with God (2 Cor. vi. 11),
and giving no offence in anything, that the ministry be not blamed ;
approving himself in all things as the minister of God. He is to
be one of that order of whom it is said that “ he that heareth
them heareth Christ” (Luke x. 16) ; he is to be God’s witness
(Luke xxiv. 47-8), to have power over all the power of the enemy
(Luke x. 19), and to exercise a most solemn delegation (John
XX· 23)...................
‘ The distinction between clergy and lay persons is asserted
by several of the Fathers. . . . This distinction rests on the impres­
sion of the indelible ecclesiastical mark or character, the charisma
certum veritatis, as Irenæus terms it (contr. Hær. 1. iv. c. xxvi.
§ 2), or as St. Augustine’s ‘Sacramentum Ordinationis suæ’ (de Bono
Conf c. xxviii. and elsewhere). The same doctrine is stated by
Bp. Jer. Taylor (Efisc. Assert, s. xii. xxxi. 3), Abp- Potter (Ch.
Govr. ch. v.), Prideaux (Validity &c. p. 25), Hooker (Eccl. Pol.
v. 77. § 3)? Mason (de Min. Angl. 1. ii. c. xi. § 6), and Bingham
(Orig. Eccles, b. xvii. c. ii. § 5). It is that of the Canon Law, ‘Si
quis clericus relicto officii sui ordine laïcam voluerit agere vitam
vel se militiæ tradiderit, excommunicationis pccna feriatur’ (Cone.
Turon, a.d. 461. c. v.). ‘Sanctorum decus honorum qualibet fuerit
occasione perceptum manebit omnibus inconvulsum’ (viii. Cone.
Tolet. a.d. 653. c. vii.). ‘Ordo characterem, i.e. spirituale quod­
dam signum a. cæteris distincturum imprimit in anima indelibile’
(Decretum Eugen, ad Armen. Cone. Flor. a.d. 1439. Compare
Cone. Trid. Sess. xxiii. c. iv.). The Canonists use similar exprès-

Examination of the Anglican Rite,

249

sions, . . . and our own Canons, ‘Semel receptus in sacrum min­
isterium ab eo imposterum non discedet, nec se aut vestitu aut
habitu aut in ulla vitæ parte geret pro laico’ (Articuli, a.d. 1571) ;
with which Canon 76 of 1604 concurs. This principle is grounded
on the analogy of the perpetuity of the priesthood, both of Mel­
chisedec and the Jews, and the Apostles and the clergy of the
Primitive Church; on the enduring grace of holy baptism; on
the self-dedication for life to God; on the fact that God has no­
where signified that the character will expire before death ; on the
actual unbroken tradition that re-ordination was a sacrilegious and
heretical act, and that in cases even of deposition the exercise of
sacred functions was only suspended.
‘ Holy orders are not denied, in a large sense of the word and
in another nature, the name of a sacrament by the 9th Homily of
the English Church, but, as being restricted to a class in the com­
munity, as lacking the promise of remission of sins, and not having
any visible sign or ceremony ordained of Christ (Art. xxv.), and
not being generally necessary to salvation, they are so called in an
inferior sense to the two Sacraments of the Gospel. With this
reservation, the Church of England regards Orders as a Sacrament,
or rather as sacramental. . . . The Homilies say, “ Neither Orders
nor any other Sacrament else be such Sacraments as Baptism and
the Communion are” (p. 316). Melanchthon included ordi­
nation among sacraments {Loci Theol. t. i. p. 233-4). The great­
est English Theologians, however, cautiously guard against any
misapprehension of the term Sacrament, on the safe ground that
the outward ceremony of breathing has been changed into lay­
ing-on of hands ; that the form of words is given “as in the per­
son of Christ,” and not from ourselves ; and that the grace given
is “ gratis data,” not “ gratum faciens ;” but they still do not with­
hold the designation of Sacrament, provided that it be not under­
stood as a true or necessary sacrament.’ With references to Bp.
Andrews, Bp. Jewell, Archbp. Wake; Calfhill, Ans. to Martiali;
Bp. Burnet, Vind. of Ord. ; Archbp. Bramhall, Crakanthorp,
Bp. Beveridge?7

The language of these writers, as well as of those
referred to, is far from expressing the Catholic belief.
Some of the expressions are Catholic, and so are the
quotations from the Fathers and Councils ; but these are
accompanied with reservations that throw an ambiguity
57 Blunt’s Annotated Book of Common Prayer, p. 539-40.

250

Anglican Ordinations

ever the whole. Hence it is impossible to conclude
whether any of them mean that Holy Order is a real
Sacrament, conferring grace on the soul of the receiver
as well as a spiritual power for the benefit of others ;
whether the grace of Ordination is conferred instru­
mentally through the imposition of hands with the form ;
or whether there is only a promise of grace, of which
the imposition of hands is an effectual sign and an assur­
ance ; or whether the character is a real spiritual gift
impressed upon the soul for all eternity, or only an
external distinction, expressing the permanency of the
gift of power, and the canonical regulation that a person
once ordained cannot put oft' his character and become a
layman again.
These references have been made in order that it
should not be thought that the fact is overlooked of
there being a school in the Anglican Church who ap­
proach nearer than others to Catholic doctrine. But,
after giving all possible weight to this fact, the truth will
remain the same, as Cressy stated it : ‘ Being assured
that the main thing, and to me the most considerable
advantage, which the English Church had above al!
others pretending to a Reformation, namely, a succession
and authority of Bishops and other ecclesiastical Orders
received from the Roman Church, was never confidently
and generally taught in England to be of Divine right,
and by consequence took no firm rooting in the con­
sciences of English subjects.’ 58 And indeed his state­
ment may be extended so as to comprehend the whole
dignity and sacramental efficacy of Eloly Order ; and thus
it is the fact that there was no claim made to any power
or authority conferred through the means of an Eccle­
siastical Hierarchy, jure divino, for the first five-andtwenty years after the establishment of the Anglican
Church, nor any profession of belief in such a power ;
59 Cressy’s -Exo/tioiogesiS) or Motives of Conversion, p. 37.

Examination of the Anglican Rite,

251

that there is no indication of such a belief in the Formu­
laries of the Anglican Church ; that the claim and belief,
when made and professed, were only maintained by a
particular school or party, and were as vigorously denied
and repudiated by another school or party ; that those
who have professed this belief have only declared it in
vague, indistinct, and general terms ; and that their strong­
est assertions are accompanied with such limitations and
exceptions as destroy the effect of their previous pro­
fessions, and are subversive of the nature of a Sacrament,
and entirely opposed to the faith, the teaching, and the
practice of the Catholic Church.
But, for the purpose of this inquiry, we have nothing
to do with any opinions held or maintained within the
Anglican Church. Our concern is only with the lan­
guage of the Book of Common Prayer in its plain and
obvious meaning, and the reasons that led its framers to
adopt it. Those who came after them, whether of the
school of Hooker and Laud or not, adopted the same
language, and whatever their opinions were, they could
not alter the original meaning of the words. But so far
from wishing to alter it, the revisers of 1662 confirmed
the first meaning by their additions.
Looking back now to these three Forms as a whole,
we may see that they bear the outward resemblance of a
Catholic rite, but with the thorough spirit that animated
both the Lutheran and Calvinistic Reforms. The names
of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon ; the Ember-days as the
times of Ordination ; the giving Orders during the cele­
bration purporting to be the Holy Eucharist, and coining
therein before the Gospel ; the presentation to the Bishop
by the Archdeacon, or to the Archbishop by the assistant
Bishops; the notice and admonition to the people; the
Litany ; the giving an exhortation ; the imposition of
hands by the Bishop ; the Priests joining in it for the
Priesthood, and the assistant Bishops for the Episcopate;

252

Examination of the A nglican Rite.

Anglican Ordinations.

the words used, ‘ Receive the Holy Ghost, &c.,’ are all
Catholic. Giving the Bible or New Testament is derived
from the Catholic rite. But these things are Catholic
only in appearance. Each of them has undergone a
change, and the ancient signification is lost or perverted.
Not only is the sacramental efficacy destroyed, but a
prominence is apparently given to the presence and action
of the people, though practically not more than in the
Pontifical ; and a public profession is required from the
ordained, even as to their interior motives, that savours
strongly of the ideas propagated by Luther, and adopted
by all the Continental Reformers.
The various schemes of Reformation among the Lu­
therans generally preserved the rights of patrons where
they existed; but in other places the calling and elec­
tion of ministers was to come from the people, or was
to be made by the magistrates, or principal persons,
in the name of the people. The Zuinglian Reform also
allowed of nomination by the magistrates. Among the
Calvinists, the ministers were to be elected by the
people. But they all agreed in requiring a strict trial
either before the congregation, or before some principal
persons as representing it, of the life, doctrine, and learn­
ing of the candidates. And it was pretended that this
discipline was in accordance with the usage of Scripture
and of the primitive Church.59
59 The Reformers grounded their practice on the ancient discipline, which
gave the people a voice at the time of ordination. ‘ Quoad inferiores Epis­
copatu ordines, certum est illos multo magis in arbitrio et potestate Episco­
porum fuisse ; quanquam ne ipsi quidem inconsulto Clero populoque, aut sine
•eorum suffragatione et testificatione cuiquam conferrentur’ (Thomassinus,
ct JXova Bed. Discif>l. oars ii. lib. ii. cap. i, § 8).
Such a reference to the
people is still made in the Pontifical; but the Reformers maintained, that, as the
old discipline was practically disused, the people were robbed of their right, and
that the clergy of the Church were not rightly or truly called. Propositions
extracted from Luther de Captivitate Babylonica and Calvin’s Institutes to the
effect that ‘ there is no ecclesiastical hierarchy, but all Christians are equally
priests, and for use or execution the calling of the magistrates, and consent of
the people are required,’ were laid before the Theologians at the Council of

: *

255

. I

In the English Reformation the usages of the ancient
Canon Law were retained with regard to benefices, and
the nomination and institution of ministers ; and there is
no open popular election. But an endeavour is made to
engraft the Lutheran spirit upon the adaptation made of
the ancient Catholic rite. The day of ordination was
changed from Saturday in Ember-week to the Sunday,
in order that the congregation might be present. So we
learn from Bishop Pilkington, who says : ‘ The time of
giving Orders now is the holy day, when the people be
assembled, that they may see who be called: and if they
know any notable fault in any of them that are to be
appointed ministers or bishops, they may declare it, that
they may be rejected as unworthy. The Popish prelates
give their Orders on the Saturday, when the people is not
present, and commonly at home in their chapels, where
few resort to see?60
Then an examination is to be made, not only of Bishops, as in the ancient Church, but also of Priests and
Deacons. This examination is not derived from the an­
cient Catholic Pontificals, but is intended to correspond
to the Lutheran ‘trial of ministers,’ and to fulfil the
direction of the Preface, as to being ‘ called and tried.’
For in the ‘Ordering’ of Deacons, the Rubric directs the
Bishop to ‘ examine every one of them in the presence of
the people ;’ and in that of Priests, the Bishop says to
them, ‘ And now, that this present congregation of Christ
here assembled may understand your minds and wills in
these things;’ and to the Bishop-elect the Archbishop
says, ‘ I will examine you in certain articles, to the end
that the congregation present may have a trial, and bear

I
Î ; |'’l

I rent (Le Plat, Mon. Concil. 'Jrid. vol. iv. p. 336), and condemned in the
following Canon: ‘ If any one saith that orders conferred by bishops without
the consent or vocation of the people, or of the secular power, are invalid ;
anathema. ’

I
I
'I
I
I

:
'
Ί J
! :
(’
■

, h

l·
P/
!|

j 1
i
I
.

1

254

Anglican Ordinations.

witness how you be minded to behave yourself in the
Church of God.’ Thus in each case the examination is
expressly said to be for the people ; and in that of the
Bishop, the word ‘ trial ’ carries us back at once to the
Preface, in which one of the qualifications for a lawful
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, is that ‘ he be tried.’
Then we come to the questions proposed. The Dea­
con is first required to make a public profession before
the people as to his interior motives, in reply to the ques­
tion, ‘ Do you trust that you are inwardly moved by the
Holy Ghost ?’ Here is a trial indeed. No such burden
is laid on the conscience of a Catholic before receiving
the sacrament of Holy Order. If it were, no one would
be ordained at all. It is true that in the Catholic Church
in certain cases, such as that of a profession in a Religious
Order, questions are asked as to interior motives, because
in such a case making the profession constitutes the whole
act. Luther, and the Reformers who followed him, wished
to reduce Ordination to the level of a profession and public
reception, and to show that it is only the public approval
of persons as truly called and possessed of the proper
qualifications for the ministry. And the Anglican rite
seems to be framed with the same view. But the Church
does not ask questions as to interior dispositions of a per­
son receiving a Sacrament, except in confession ; and only
requires in public a profession of faith and obedience. A
Catholic opens the state of his interior dispositions to his
director under the sacramental seal, and is guided by his
advice. Then he submits to the decision of the Bishop
and other ecclesiastical superiors as to his ordination.
But although acceptance at their hands comes to him as
the Divine election, he might easily feel a scruple in pro­
fessing publicly that he was ‘ moved by the Holy Ghost.’
The next question is common to Deacons, Priests,
and Bishops. ‘ Do ye think that ye truly be called ac­
cording to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the due

iSeeBeHWeeeeB*W^BWBBHB3BIHB»SSeSSS®3SSW3i
J

t
Examination of the Anglican Rite.

255

|

order of this realm, to the ministry of the Church ?’ (for
Priests, 1 the order of this Church of England to the
ministry of Priesthood ?’ and for Bishops, ‘ to this minis­
tration’).01 The explanation of this question has been a
difficulty to Anglican writers, who say that it is an inquiry
whether the candidate is conscious of any defect or other
impediment that would be a bar to his ordination.62 But
this explanation evidently does not account for the use of
such a phrase, nor does it give the meaning of it as originally intended.
Luther taught that the Catholic priests had no true
vocation, because they were ordained as sacrificers (sacri­
ficuli), and not to preach the Gospel, and had not been
called by the people. Zuinglius taught the same ; and
the idea was further developed by Bullinger,63 the disciple
and successor of Zuinglius; and also adopted by Calvin.6’1
in their view, like that of Luther, there is an outward
call and an inward call. The outward call may be lawful
or unlawful—unlawful when made through favour, ambi­
tion, or covetousness ; the lawful call may be extraor­
dinary or ordinary ; and the latter is that ‘ wherein indeed
God calleth, bestowing necessary gifts upon His minis­
ters, and appointing laws to those that do elect ; and they
following those laws, do ordinarily elect him whom they
by signs conjecture to be first called of God.65 But not
‘ without the consent and approbation of the people ;
wherefore they sin not, that shaking off the yoke and
tyranny of the Bishops of Rome, do recover that ancient
right granted by Christ to the Churches.’66
hi the question, as it is put in the Anglican rite, we
see, first, the inward call—truly called according to the
C1 King Edward’s Liturgies.
1:2 Bp. Wilson’s Parochialia ; Seeker’s Address to Candidates for Ordina­
tion, WarAs, vol. iv.
63 Decades, vol. iv. p. 128-34, c(1· Parker Society.
c‘ histit. lib. iv. c. 19.
45 Bullinger, vol. iv. p. 129.
46 Ibid. p. 133.

(
J

ί (,
*

.Ί

n i

Anglican Ordinations.
will of our Lord then the outward call, ‘ and the due
order of this realm.’ But the outward call has already
been given, for the Bishop has accepted the candidates,
and in the case of priests has pronounced ‘ that they be
lawfully called to their function and ministry, and be per­
sons meet for the same.’ The question seems, therefore,
to be intended only as a trial before the people ; thus
bringing in the spirit of the Lutheran discipline.
Another question, which is used in the case of Bishops
only, points out the kind of office which they were ex­
pected to fill. The Archbishop asks, ‘ Will you ....
such as be unquiet, disobedient, and criminous within
your diocese, correct and punish, according to such au­
thority as you have by God’s Word, and as to you shall
be committed by the ordinance of the realm ?’
The practical response to this question is abundantly
supplied by Strype and the correspondence of Archbishop
Parker07 and Bishop Chaderton.68 There it may be seen
that the Anglican Bishops evidently filled the post of
spiritual Lords-Lieutenant of the Crown. A certain class
of offences were placed under their cognisance. The old
Canon Law was not sufficient for the purpose for various
reasons, and because the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which
administered it was not derived from the Crown. A new
style of authority was required immediately dependent on
the Sovereign. The High Commission was therefore
issued, and became an engine of terror to Papist and
Puritan alike. The Privy Council took it in hand to
direct Bishops in the administration of their dioceses. If
any Bishop appeared less energetic in hunting out priests
and recusants, or suppressing conventicles, the Council
were down upon him with a letter of admonition. In
most cases the Bishops were willing instruments of the
government persecution. They made their regular re­
ports of the state of their dioceses, and often applied for
87 Parker Society.

88 Peck’s Desiderata- Curiosa.

Examination of the Anglican Rite.

157

additional powers to put the laws in force, when they
found it necessary. The parochial clergy represented the
same system in their own lesser sphere.
Such were the Anglican Bishops and clergy of the
Elizabethan period—officers of the Crown, and nothing
more. And as such, the Anglican rite of ordination fitly
corresponds with this ideal, being a rite of admission to
an office, and nothing more.
It may, however, be argued in reply, that the words
munus, officium, and opus, are frequently used in the Pon­
tifical with regard to all the sacred Orders. No doubt
they are so used. But the objection to the Anglican
form is not the use of such words in themselves, but their
being used in such a manner and in such a sense as to
exclude every other. In the Pontifical, the Diaconate,
the Priesthood, and the Episcopate are certainly each an
office, a function, and a work; but they are something
more : a Divine gift of spiritual power, and a sacramental
character imprinted on the soul. In the Anglican form
the words are so used as to limit the sense to the co­
operation of Divine grace for the due discharge of func­
tions and duties, and to exclude the idea of the special
grace and power of the Order.
It will have been seen, that the questions involved in
the argument of the present and preceding chapters are of
the highest importance. It is not merely a question whe­
ther words may have been used constituting a sufficient
form of the Sacrament, because the Anglican rite does
contain words which under certain circumstances have
been accepted as sufficient by the Church. But the ques­
tions at issue regard the truth of the doctrine of the
Church on the Sacrament of Holy Order ; the reality of
the grace conveyed therein ; the very existence <of that
grace in the Church; and the power of transmitting it
as an inheritance from her Divine Founder ;—all this is

s

258

Anglican Ordinations.

involved in the present discussion. It will therefore be
well to give the result in a summary.
From the very beginning, the Church has believed a
special gift of grace to be given in sacred Ordination.
The Holy Scriptures, and the writings of the Fathers,
attest the truth of this belief. All the ancient rites of
Ordination, including those which have been continued
in use to the present day, contain petitions for such a
grace. And the belief has been drawn out by theolo­
gians into the doctrine of the spiritual character im­
pressed upon the soul for all eternity. This belief had
never been questioned within the Church before the
heresies of Luther and Zuinglius came to a head in the
sixteenth century. And in condemnation of those errors,
the doctrine was declared to be of faith by the Council
of Trent. Such errors, however, were adopted by the
Reformers in England, and under the influence of those
opinions they proceeded to remodel the rites and forms
of Ordination. Though they retained the old names of
Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, they were careful to frame
their statements of doctrine in a sense perfectly con­
sistent with their Lutheran ideas, and also so to frame
the language of their new forms as to avoid any expres­
sion that might imply any special gift of sacramental
grace to be looked for or communicated through the rite.
Some scanty portions of the ancient rite still appear ; but
in adaptations, mutilated and broken, robbed of their very
spirit and life ; for every word expressive of an interior
sanctification, of a sacramental consecration, or of a gift
of spiritual power, is studiously omitted ; or else the
sense is perverted, and no higher idea left than that of
grace for the faithful discharge of the duties of an office.
The imposition of hands is retained, and is given with
words taken from the ancient rite, viz. ‘ Receive the
Holy Ghost, &c./ both for the Priesthood and the Epis­
copate : but these words in themselves are ambiguous

Examination- of t/ic Anglican. Rite.

259

and do not clearly show that they are used in the sense
of conferring a sacrament, and if judged by the con­
text, such a sense is excluded from them. And to these
words is added a formula invented by Luther to deny
the grace of Holy Order and the power of the Priest­
hood. Then to this ambiguous form, so clogged and
fettered already with mutilations and additions made in a
depraved sense, and for the purpose of introducing error,
the revision of 1662 made another addition, which tied
and limited the meaning to that of receiving the grace ot
the Holy Ghost solely for the discharge of the office and
work of a priest or bishop, but not as a sacramental cha­
racter, or a spiritual power. Thus the due sense and
right intention are absolutely excluded from the rite,
and no one can be the minister or recipient thereof with
the intention of conferring or receiving the Sacrament ot
Holy Order such as the Catholic Church believes and
understands.

The A nglican Rite and the Eucharist.

CHAPTER VII.
THE ANGLICAN RITE IN REFERENCE TO THE HOLY
SACRIFICE OF THE EUCHARIST.

The argument in the preceding chapter was confined

to the point of the Sacrament of Holy Order, and the
grace and character conferred therein, being denied in the
Anglican rite of Ordination. But there is another argu­
ment, which from the first has had great weight with
Catholics; namely, that the Holy Sacrifice and the real
external Priesthood of the Church are ignored in the
Anglican rite.
This argument has taken two shapes. The early con­
troversialists maintained that the delivery of the chalice
containing wine, and the paten with a host upon it, was
the sole essential matter of the Sacrament in ordaining a
priest, and that the essential form consisted in the words
which accompany this rite, namely, ‘Receive power to
offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Masses as well
for the living as the dead. In the name of the Lord.’
This doctrine as to the matter and form of the Sacrament
was conclusively disproved by Morinus, who showed that
no such rite and no such words had been used or known
in the Church before the eleventh century; that the Greek
and Oriental Churches have never adopted it, except the
Armenians ; and that, in fact, in the early Sacramentaries
of the Western Church there are no other matter and
form than the imposition of hands, and the prayers which
accompany it.

2 61

When it was thus shown that this argument would
not stand, succeeding writers took up a new position.
Lewgar1 and Le Quien maintained that it was necessary
that the prayers used in the ordination of a priest should
mention the principal function of the priesthood, namely,
the power of consecrating the most precious Body and
Blood of our Lord ; and in proof of this assertion they
referred to the prayer for ordination of priests in the Ro­
man Pontifical, beginning, ‘ Deus sanctificationum,’ quot­
ing from it the words, ‘that they may, by immaculate
benediction, transform bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of Thy Son.’ But it was shown, in reply, that this
prayer is not to be found in many early Latin Pontificals,
or in the Ordo Romanus; and that in fact the ancient
Latin rite does not express the power of consecrating or
offering. And in face of these facts this argument must
also fall to the ground.
But there is another way of looking at this part of
the subject. Although in theological teaching it is gener­
ally considered that the imposition of hands is the sole
essential matter, and the prayers which accompany it are
the sole essential form of the priesthood, yet in the Latin
Church, in practice, the delivery of the chalice is to be con­
sidered as essential also, as well as the words, ‘Accipe po­
testatem offerre sacrificium &c.’ which accompany it. And
being thus essential, if this rite should from any cause be
omitted, the ordination is to be given over again sub con­
ditione, according to various decisions emanating from the
Holy See—one in 1697 a decree of the S. Congregation
of the Holy Office,2 and another of the S. Congregation of
the Council, in a case related by Pope Benedict XIV. as
having occurred whilst he was himself one of the Car­
dinals of the S. Congregation.8 A third case occurred
1 Erastus Senior, cap. vi. and vii.
2 Le Quien, vol. ii. p, 393, and Pièces Jnstif. No. vi.
3 Synod. Diascesan, lib. viii. cap. 10. See Appendix No. I.

l/i

ijii

f

1

262

Anglican Ordinations,

'i

lately at Paris. Cardinal Morlot, the Archbishop, while
ordaining upwards of a hundred priests, was suddenly
taken ill and unable to proceed, being at the time engaged
in this very rite. Some of the ordinandi had receh ed the
unction, and had been presented with the chalice, as usual;
others were waiting their turn for the same ceremony.
What was to be done ? A message was sent to Rome ;
and an answer came, that those to whom the chalice had
been presented should have the remainder of the rite
supplied in addition ; but those who had not had it de­
livered to them should be ordained again sub conditione.
Such is the rule and practice of the Church in the
case of an accidental omission of this rite. But it may be
said that this does not affect the question in the case of
Anglicans, because this formula is not, and never was,
in their rite ; and the Greeks and other Orientals have
never used it, yet their Ordinations are admitted as valid ;
and the Armenians only adopted it at the suggestion of
Pope Eugenius IV. at the Council of Florence, their
previous ordinations, which were celebrated without it,
having been fully admitted.
It is not for a work such as the present to attempt to
resolve the abstract question, whether the use of this for­
mula is absolutely indispensable in the case of Anglicans.4
But it is impossible to take up the consideration of this
question in the abstract, or without looking to all the
circumstances of the case, and the history of the formation
of the Anglican rite, and inquiring how it comes to pass
that this formula is not to be found there. And havingascertained these points, we may be able to say whether
Anglicans would be entitled to make a claim in respect
of their rite similar to that which was admitted in the
case of the Armenians.
We must, then, commence with an inquiry : What
would be the effect, supposing that the omission of the
4 On this subject see Canon Raynal’s Ordinal of Edw, VI.

i

J

.11]
j il·

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

263

delivery of the chalice was not an accidental error, but
arose from a deliberate intention on the part of the Bishop,
moved by some heterodox objection to the rite, or any
c.ther reason ? And, not to deal merely with a hypotheti­
cal case, let us instance the course of procedure attributed
io the Bishop of Brandenburg at the time of the Reform­
ation.
Matthias à J agon, Bishop of Brandenburg, adhered to
the Lutheran party, and adopted some at least of their
principles and practices, of which he made a public pro­
fession on 1st Nov. 1539, at the celebration of Mass in
the Collegiate Church at Koln-on-the-Spree (now one of
the divisions of Berlin), when he gave communion in both
kinds to the Elector and several of the nobility.6 In the
course of the next year Joachim II., Elector of Branden­
burg, published his Ecclesiastical Constitution/’’ in which,
having announced the appointment of Jacob Stadner as
Superintendent, he goes on to say: ‘As our singular
friend the Bishop of Brandenburg agrees in every respect
with the Evangelical doctrine, we wish all those who are
called to office in the Church to receive ordination at his
hands. And our said friend will not impose improper
burdens on those to be ordained, such as the restriction
of marriage. Likewise, for the future, abuses are to be
suppressed, especially the saying “Accipe potestatem le­
gendi Evangelium pro vivis et defunctis,”7 as the Gospel
was written for the instruction of the living; and also
the saying “ Accipe potestatem offerendi sacrificium pro
vivis et defunctis,” which is contrary to the main article
of our Christian faith.’8 It is added in a note in Daniel’s
work,9 that, according to the Agenda of Brandenburg, the
use of the Roman Pontifical is retained for ordination,
5 Seckendorf, Hist. Luth. lib. iii. § 75·
n Kirchenordnung in KuiTiirstenthum dcr Marken ztt Brandenburg 1540,
quoted by Seckendorf and Daniel.
· In the Ordination of Deacons.
8 Seckendorf, lib. iii. § 75, Add. ii.
and Daniel’s 6W. Littery. LCccl.
Lutheran, p. 524.
3 P· 52^·

"J
g
’’1

J
j

j
-,
*

, j

; > >

’l·/,

;·
\

,

.

‘<ii

! J /.

264

Anglican Ordinations.

cutting off everything repugnant to the Lutheran doc­
trine.
Now, we are not concerned to ascertain whether these
statements are certainly correct, or whether the Bishop
did actually follow the extraordinary course here assigned
to him. It is quite sufficient for our present purpose to
suppose that, in ordaining priests according to the rite of
the Roman Pontifical, he omitted the delivery of the
chalice, as well as the words ‘Receive power to offer sacri­
fice &c.;’ or even that he continued to use the rite without
saying the words; and that he made this omission on the
ground that these words assert the propitiatory sacrifice of
the Mass, which the Lutherans denied. Let it be taken
into account that he would thus have used a form which
for a thousand years was considered perfectly valid ; that
the words omitted were introduced solely on the authority
of individual Bishops ; that Bishops had been accustomed
to make ritual changes on their own authority; that no
General Council had then directed the revision of the Pon­
tifical, and no regulation on the subject^had been issued
from the Holy See. Giving full weight to these circum­
stances, what judgment are we to pass on Ordinations
conferred in this manner ?
The right answer to this question would seem to be
as follows : Considering that these words had been in­
troduced into the rite with the view of impressing on the
mind of the ordained that he did receive a power of offer­
ing propitiatory sacrifice;10 considering that the practice
had been in use nearly five hundred years, and had been
generally adopted throughout the Western Church ; con­
sidering that the delivery of the chalice with these words
had thus become an integral part of the rite of Ordina­
tion ; considering that the Lutherans denied the Catholic
doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice and of the external Priest10 Bened. XIV. De Syn. Dicee. lib. viii. cap. 10, § 6, quoting Hugo a S.
Victore and Peter Lombard. See Appendix No. I.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

265

hood ; considering that the omission was made on the ex­
press ground of objecting to the faith and doctrine signified
by these words ; it would seem that neither the Bishop
nor the persons ordained could have an intention of con­
ferring or receiving such a priesthood as the Catholic
Church understands and believes, and that therefore they
would neither of them intend to do what the Church
does. In this view the validity of the Ordination would
be extremely doubtful. Hence we come to the following
principle : that the omission of the delivery of the chalice,
or of the accustomed formula which accompanies it, if
done purposely with the motive of denying the doctrine
of the Church regarding the Holy Sacrifice, even if a rite
otherwise Catholic and valid be used, renders the Ordi­
nation at least of doubtful validity.
We shall have to consider, further on, the doctrines
taught by Luther with regard to the Holy Sacrifice ; but
we must now inquire into those points which specially
touched on Ordination in connection with that subject.
In the year 1533 Luther published his work De
Missa angulari et Consecratione Sacerdotum, the scope of
which is to show, that, as the Bishops had refused their
offers of reconciliation, it was necessary that ministers
should be ordained in places that adhered to the Au­
gustan Confession, not for sacrificatory Masses, but for
preaching the Word and dispensing Sacraments.11
‘For the Mass-sayers and Bishops too arrogantly extol their
power and the dignity of their Chrism. For they arrogate to them­
selves the power of consecrating, ex opere operato, and boast that
by the efficacy of their Chrism and ordination, an anointed priest
by pronouncing the words, yet through the Divine operation, forth­
with makes the Body and blood of Christ to be present.’12 . . .
‘This is the doctrine of abomination, that an anointed priest,
by force of his unction, should ex. opere operato and by pronoun­
cing the words consecrate and make the Body of Christ. . . . The
11 Seckendorf, lib. iii. § xxii. p. 60.
12 Luther’s Works, ed. Wittemburg, vol. vii. fol. 242^.

266

z/ nglica n Ordina lions.

wholesome and pious doctrine in the true Church of Christ sounds
thus : that no priest, and no Christian, makes any Sacrament, nor
even the whole Church. We in the Church in these sacred things
neither effect nor make anything of ourselves, but are stewards of
the mysteries of God, and it is not ours to make, to efiect, &c.,
nut to administer and dispense to the Church.’1··

In the year 1544, by command of the Elector of
Saxony, a plan of Reformation was drawn up and sub­
scribed by Luther, Pomeranus, Cruciger, Major, and
Melancthon. It is called the Wittenberg Reformation,
and the Latin version was made by Melancthon.1'1 In this
manifesto, the subject of Ordination is treated as follows:
‘ Tire whole Church, and specially its chief members, ought to
give their pains to this end, that many may be prepared for the
functions of teaching, and that when instructed, and tried by
learned examiners, they may be admitted to the ministry or re­
jected. This duty, formerly, was committed to Bishops. But
they, for the most part, exercise severity over those who teach
rightly, and neglect their Dioceses. ... If, then, Bishops are to
have authority to ordain, they must declare their minds as to doctiine. For if they remain enemies of the Gospel, and will admit
no one to ordination without the obligation of impious doctrine
and denying the truth, ordination cannot be sought from them.
. . . But there are known to be manifest abuses, with which ordina­
tion has been for many ages polluted. There is a persuasion pre­
vailing, that priests are ordained for sacrifice, not for teaching the
Gospel. . . . Now, if concord is to be established, and the authority
of ordination is to be committed to Bishops, it is necessary that
there should first be a consent as to doctrine, as said before. And
then the charge given in ordination should be to teach the Gospel,
and administer the Sacraments, not of other works, as to sacrifice
for the living and dead.’15

The same ideas prevail in the scheme of Reformation
published by Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, which
was drawn up by Bucer. It is well known that this work
exercised a direct influence on the formation of the Angli­
can Liturgical Offices.10 It speaks of the Holy Sacrifice
13
14
16
Hist.

Fol. 243. Some words arc omitted as too offensive to be quoted.
Seckendorf, lib. iii. § cxix. p. 531-2·
ls See Appendix, No. II.
Liturgical Services of Q. A.7A., Pref. p. xxix. Parker Society ; Proctor’s
of hook of Com. Prayer, p. 337-9·

Γ/ic Λnglican Rite and the Eucharist.

267

in terms reminding us of the Thirty-nine Articles, as
follows :
i Before al thinges the pastours must labour to take out of
mennes myndes that false and wicked opinion, wherebi men thincke
commonly, that the prieste in masses offreth up Christe our Lorde
to God the Father, after that sorte, that wyth hys intention and
prayer he causeth Christe to become a newe and acceptable sacryfice to the Father for the salvation of men, applyeth and communicateth the merite of the passion of Christe and of the savinge
sacryfice, wherebi the Lord hymselfe offred hymselfe to the father
a sacrifice (on) the crosse to them that receive not the same with
theyr owne fayth. For to make men partakers in the supper of
the Lorde, of the sacrifice and merite of oure Lord Jesu Christo,
the minister canne helpe no more, than that firste he exhibit and
ministre the holye supper as the Lord instituted, and than faythfully declare, and celebrate religiously the ministerie of it, the
redemption and communion of oure Lord Jesus Christe, and
furthermore dispense the sacramentes, whereby he may stirre up,
and confirme in them that be present, tru fayth in Christe, by
which faith everye man maie himselfe apprehend and receyve
the merite and sacrifice of Christe as gyven unto hym.’17

Afterwards the following directions are given for the
trial and ordination of ministers :
‘We command that no+man be admitted to the cure of any
congregation, whiche is not diligently tried and allowed by those
examiners, whom we shall appoynte to this office, and bryngeth
from the examiners a testimony of his probation, to those to whom
it shal perteine to invest, and to our suffragane. . . . Which suffragane shall use nothinge in the ceremonies of ordination, nor
enjoyne anie thynge in ordeynynge, that agreeth not wyth thys
same doctrine of Christe, sette forth in thys boke.’18

It is evident that the suffragan Bishop is here directed,
in conferring orders, to omit from the Pontifical whatever
contravenes the protest against the Sacrifice of the Mass
quoted above, and that among the things to be omitted
the most prominent would be the ‘ Accipe potestatem
offerre sacrificium thus following the example of the
Bishop of Brandenburg.
17 A simple and religious Consultaiion ofus, Merman Archebishop of Colone,
1547, fol. Cc 7-8.
13 Jbicl. fol. Hh 5-6.

d

! ii
268

Anglican Ordinations.

Thus, then, we find two remarkable principles laid
down by Luther and his partisans :
First, that there is no power given in ordination to
consecrate or to offer ; and that the sole function of the
ministry is to teach, and to administer and dispense the
Sacraments.
Secondly, that as there is no real and proper Sacri­
fice, the formula used in ordination to express the power,
of sacrifice conferred on priests ought to be done away
with ; and that there should be substituted for it a charge
to teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments.
Now let us turn to our own country, and see how
things stood there with regard to the Priesthood and the
Holy Sacrifice before the unhappy schism. In the Ordina­
tion of Priests, the custom of delivering the chalice, with
the appropriate formula, was in general use. It is found
in the Sarum, Winchester, Bangor, and Exeter Pontifi­
cals,19 and the faith professed in the country was in
accordance with the same.
It is the fact, as Melancthon said, that ‘the persuasion
did prevail, that priests are ordained for sacrifice.’ In
every church and on every altar (to use the well-known
words) were celebrated ‘ the sacrifices of masses, wherein
it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for
the quick and dead, to have remission of pain or guilt.’20
But the change came. ‘ The continual sacrifice was
taken away ;’21 and thenceforward a change was made in
the rite of Ordination of Priests, by removing everything
that expressed the power of sacrifice, and substituting
instead thereof simply the duty of teaching and adminis­
tering Sacraments.
To see the mode in which this change was carried
out, we will compare the ancient Pontificals in use in this
country with the Ordination rite of 1549, as follows :
19 Maskell’s Monumenta Ritualia, vol. iii. and Liber Pontificalis of Lacy,·
Bp. of Exeter.
20 xxxix. Articles.
21 Daniel xi. 3I. *

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
SARUM AND EXETER

269

FORM OF ORDERING PRI ESTS,

1549·
The Bishop shall say unto
them,
Sacerdotem oportet offerre, be­
We exhort you to have in re­
nedicere, præesse,22 prædicare, membrance ... to how charge­
conficere, et baptizare.
able an office ye be called, that
is to say, to be the messengers,
the watchmen, the pastors, and
the stewards of the Lord, to
teach, to premonish, to feed, and
provide for the Lord’s family;
to seek for Christ’s sheep that
be dispersed abroad, &c.
PONTIFICALS.

Episcopus dicit eis,

SARUM, EXETER, AND BANGOR

PONTIFICALS.

The Bishop with the Priests
Episcopus ponat manum dex­
tram super caput cujuslibet sacer­ present shall lay their hands sever­
dotis dicens,
ally upon the head of every one
that receiveth orders, saying:
Accipe Spiritum Sanctum :
Receive the Holy Ghost :
quorum remiseris peccata re­ whose sins thou dost forgive,
mittuntur eis, et quorum retinu­ they are forgiven ; and whose
eris retenta erunt.
sins thou dost retain, they are
retained :
and be thou a faithful dispenser
of the word of God and of his
holy sacraments. In the name
of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.
SARUM, EXETER, BANGOR, AND
WINCHESTER PONTIFICALS.

Episcopus tradet cuilibet cali­
cem cum vino et aqua, et pate­
nam superpositam cum hostia,
dicens cuilibet,

Accipe potestatem offerre sa­
crificium Deo, missasque cele-

The Bishop shall deliver to
every one of them the Bible in the
one hand, and the chalice or cup
with the bread in the other hand,
and say,
Take thou authority to preach
the word of God and to minis-

22 precare, Exon.

Φ
if
270

Anglican Ordinations.
Ο

brare, tam pro vivis quam pro
defunctis. In nomine Domini,
Amen.

ter the holy sacraments in this
congregation.

SARU2I, EXETER, BANGOR, ANO

WINCHESTER PONTIFICALS.

Immediately before the benedic­
Super ordinatos sacerdotes di­
tion shall be said this Collect :
cat benedictionem.
Most merciful Father, we be­
Benedictio Dei omnipotentis,
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti seech thee so to send upon
descendat super vos ; ut sitis these thy servants thy heavenly
benedicti in ordine sacerdotali, blessing, that they may be clad
et offeratis placabiles hostias about with all justice, and that
pro peccatis, atque offension­ thy word spoken by their mouths
ibus populi, omnipotenti Deo, may have such success, that it
cui est honor et gloria in secula may never be spoken in vain.
Grant also that we may have
seculorum. Amen.
grace to hear and receive the
same as thy most holy word and
the mean of our salvation, that
in all our words and deeds we
may seek thy glory and the in­
crease of thy kingdom, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

In 1552 the delivery of the chalice was omitted, and
the Bible only was to be given, with the same words as
before ; and so the rite remains to the present day, with
only a verbal alteration of the words, viz. ‘ in the con­
gregation where thou shalt be lawfully appointed there­
unto.’
Thus, then, there is no mention of ‘ offering and con­
secrating ’ among the functions of a priest; but his duty
is described under a variety of terms, which go no further
than the idea of teaching in one form or another.
Then the compilers of the English form took the
formula, ‘ Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, &c./ exactly as
they found it in use, but they added to it the words
‘ dispenser of the Word and Sacraments/ which just
express the Lutheran idea that the priest does nothing

The Anglican Rile and the Elieharist.

/],·

ayi

more than dispense, and does not offer, nor consecrate,
nor bless.
The Bishop is still to deliver the chalice, but instead
of saying, ‘ Receive power to offer sacrifice/ he is to say,
‘ Take authority to preach and minister the Sacraments.’
This is the very alteration recommended by the Lutheran
divines, and specially intended and directed against the
Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist.
Lastly, in the Pontifical the Bishop blesses the newlyordained priests with the prayer that they may be blessed
in the sacerdotal order, and may offer acceptable sacrifices
to Almighty God for the sins and offences of the people;
but in the new rite a prayer is said, in the place corre­
sponding with this blessing, to the effect that they may be
clad with justice, and may preach with success.
In this manner everything that expresses sacrifice or
sacerdotal functions is expunged, and the Priesthood is
reduced to the state described in the heretical propositions
condemned by the Council of Trent, viz. ‘ That in the New
Testament there is not a visible and external priesthood,
nor any spiritual power, either to consecrate or offer the
Body and Blood of our Lord, or to absolve from sins in
the sight of God, but only an office and ministry of preaching the Gospel/ extracted from Bucer on St. John, cap. 6,
Luther de Captiv. Babylon., and Calvin’s Institutes.23
It is not meant that the parts of the rite here quoted
from the Pontifical are absolutely essential (and this has
'
been explained before),24 nor that they formed part of the
earliest rite ; on the contrary, they are among the latest
mediæval additions. The argument here intended is this :
that such expressions and ceremonies were introduced
into the rite with the view of signifying the powers con­
ferred upon a priest at his ordination, as believed in the
Le Plat, Mon. Condi, Trid. vol. iv. p. 336, Concil. Tiki. Sess. xxiii.
Can. i.
24 See the beginning of this chapter.

|‘

'|

1 '·

(
ί i

272

Anglican Ordinations.

Catholic Church ; that they were in use in the English
Church up to the time of the Reformation, and were
generally received and understood in that sense ; that the
Reformers took these very parts of the ancient rite as the
groundwork or model from which they adapted and modi­
fied a form made to suit their own novel conceptions;
that thus they deliberately and intentionally altered the
approved and accustomed usages in a manner contrary to
the sense of the Church ; that the form thus drawn up
by them (whether as it stood originally, or as it stands
at present) does necessarily exclude a right and proper
intention on the part of any one using it ; and therefore
that any one undertaking to confer Orders by this form,
or any one submitting to receive them by it, does wilfully
and purposely declare that he does not intend to confer
or receive such a Priesthood as the Catholic Church
understands and acknowledges. Historically the present
Anglican rite of Ordination of Priests is derived from the
ancient Catholic rite, but mutilated and perverted with an
heretical intention. And the later change has only been
a further departure from the way of truth than the earlier.
The change of 1549 preserved the outward sign, but al­
tered the words which gave it expression ; the progress
of reform in 1552 swept away the sign also.
Nor will it avail for Anglicans to say that they are
not bound by the intentions of the framers of the rite ;
that they do not follow their errors, nor adopt their
opinions ; that they believe and profess the Catholic
faith of the Priesthood and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and
have been ordained with the right intention. Whatever
be their belief and intention, they have followed the
course of the opponents of the faith, and have adopted
the symbol of error. They received and adopted the
perverted rite in direct descent from Cranmer, as Cranmer received the spirit of it from Luther. Nothing has
ever been done, or attempted to be done, on the part of

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

273

the Anglican Church, even were it possible, to do away
with the effect of the alteration of the rite.
Even supposing that some of the Anglican Bishops
and clergy at present entertain more Catholic ideas, and
have adopted certain Catholic practices, how could this
make up for the notorious wrongs of the intermediate
time ? ‘ Esau sold his birthright, and found no dais'
pœnitentiœ, though he sought it with tears.’25 But it is
by their own acts that they may be judged. What may
be the practice of Anglican Bishops at this precise time,
it is not perhaps safe to say, but certainly, till within the
last few years, it was the custom for Bishops at the time
of ordination to require subscription to the Thirty-nine
Articles. There is thus a solemn declaration of the in­
tention with which the ordaining Bishop and the persons
ordained engage in this rite. And in the 31st Article
are the words: ‘ The Sacrifices of Masses, in the which
it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for
the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or
guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.’
It is in this spirit, with these impious words in their
mouths, and this profession in their hearts, that the
Anglican Bishops, and those that they purport to ordain
Priests, undertake the ceremony which stands in substi­
tution for the Catholic rite. The Catholic Bishop puts
the chalice into the hands of the Priest, and says, ‘ Re­
ceive power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate
Masses for the living and dead.’ The Anglican Bishop
and his Priests profess that ‘ the sacrifices of Masses for
the quick and dead are blasphemous fables and dan­
gerous deceits ;’ and then the Bishop delivers the Bible
instead of the chalice, and instead of ‘ Offer sacrifice and
celebrate Masses,’ says, ‘ Take authority to preach and
administer Sacraments.’ If it were this heretical profes­
sion that was alone in question, it would be a different
25 Hebrews xii. 17.

T

'!} ■

274

Anglican Ordinations.

thing ; if it were a real Bishop who, notwithstanding such
a profession, went on and dared to celebrate an ordination
in the accustomed manner of the Pontifical, the heretical
opinions entertained might not invalidate the Sacrament,
because a general intention is sufficient. But what ren­
ders the circumstances so grave, and the consequences
so serious, in the case of the Anglican Ordination is
this : that the profession of misbelief is coupled with the
mutilation and omission of an integral part of the rite
anciently in use. Those who use the Anglican rite do
not merely give their tacit consent to the alteration, but
also openly declare that they agree with the spirit, and
entertain the opinions, of those who made the change,
and are animated with the same intentions as they were.
If they did not make this declaration, the effect would be
the same—the mutilation would be a fatal defect. But
by their making it they deprive themselves of excuse ; they
cannot plead after such an act that their intentions are now
so right—that their sentiments and belief are so truly
Catholic. If the Bishop of Brandenburg, ordaining his
Lutheran pastors according to the Roman Pontifical, in­
validated or rendered doubtful the Sacrament, because he
omitted the words ‘ Accipe potestatem, &c.’ with an here­
tical intention, how much more Cranmer and Ridley, who,
guided by the same pernicious influences, devised a new
rite of their own, altering and omitting the same and
other parts ? And what is to save their successors who
adopted their work, one after another, from falling into
the same ruin, and causing the destruction of that edifice
of an Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which St. Augustine and
his followers had built up at the cost of so much toil and
so «many prayers and mortifications ?
To this it may be replied, that the Thirty-first Article
does not deny the true Eucharistic Sacrifice. By the use
of the plural number, ‘ Sacrifices of Masses,’ the doctrine
there condemned is represented as quite distinguished

The A nglican Rite and the Eucharist.

275

from the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
It is assorted that the Article was intended to reject a
heresy that * prevailed amongst Roman Catholics in the
sixteenth century, teaching that every Mass was a new
and independent immolation, instead of being, as it is said
in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, one and the
same Sacrifice with that offered on the Cross.’20 But
where is the evidence for the existence of this heresy r
Who were the people that professed it, or the writers
that maintained it ? Gardiner and Harding both argue
that the Sacrifice of the Mass is one and the same as the
Sacrifice of the Cross. The same truth is taught us by
the Council of Trent: ‘ In this Divine Sacrifice, which is
celebrated in the Mass, that same Christ is contained and
immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Him­
self in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross. . . .
For the Victim is one and the same, the same now
offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Him­
self on the Cross, the manner alone of offering being
different.’2' The fact is, that there was no such heresy.
The Reformers chose to represent the Catholic doctrine
as if it were taught that the Mass is a new and separate
sacrifice from that of our Lord on the Cross ; or as if
such were necessarily the conclusion that followed from
the Catholic belief. An instance of this misrepresenta­
tion may be found in the passage quoted from Abp.
Herman’s book.28 The Reformers maintained that our
Lord’s oblation on the Cross was the only Sacrifice, and
that He Himself is the only Priest in the Church ; and
that to say that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, and
can be offered for sins, or for the relief of pains pr other
necessities, either of the living or the dead, is derogatory
to the virtue of our Lord’s all-sufficient Sacrifice, and blas2G Unity and the Rescript : a Reply to Bp. Ullathorne’s Pastoral against the
A. P. U. C, by F. Littledale, L. S. D. p. 11.
27 Sess. xxii. c. 2.
« In p. 267.

.t

ii «fi

iy6

Anglican Ordinations.

phemy. This is the doctrine set forth in the Thirty-first
Article ; and it is expressly condemned by the Council
of Trent.
The use of the plural number in the Article raises no
distinction whatever. There is no difference between
1 the Sacrifice of the Mass ’ and ‘ the Sacrifices of Masses.’
Each is a correct and legitimate term. It is not merely
‘ commonly said;’ it is a theological truth; it is a matter
of faith,' that ‘ in the Sacrifices of Masses the Priest does
offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission
of pain and guilt.’ ‘ These are the very words that the
Church has used at various times to profess the Catholic
faith upon the subject of the Holy Sacrifice. In the Con­
fession of Faith proposed to the Emperor Michael Palæologus by Pope Clement IV. in the year 1267, and again
by Gregory X. in 1272, and accepted and presented by
the Emperor to the Pope at the Council of Lyons, there
are these very words. The Greek terms for “the Sa­
crifices of Masses ” are 'Κζιτουξγιων ΙζξοτζΚίΰτΕι. After­
wards, in the Council of Florence in 1439, the terms of
the Confession of Faith just mentioned were embodied
in the Definition of Faith then decreed. The original
words of the Council may therefore be compared with
those of Article xxxi., as the Latin version of the Arti­
cles possesses equal authority with the English.’20
DECREE OF THE GENERAL
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

‘Si vere pœnitentes in Dei
caritate decesserint, antequam
dignis pœnitentiæ fructibus de
commissis satisfecerint et omis­
sis, eorum animas poenis purga­
toriis post mortem purgari; et ut
a pœnis hujusmodi releventur,
prodesse eis fidelium vivorum

‘Art. xxxi. . . . Unde miss­
arum sacrificia, quibus, vulgo
dicebatur, sacerdotem offerre
Christum in remissionem pcenae
aut culpae, pro vivis et defunc­
tis, blasphema figmenta sunt, et
perniciosae imposturae.’so
Theory of Union, p. 50-2.

The Anglican Rite and· the Eucharist.

igf

suffragia ; missarum scilicet sa­
crificia, orationes et eleemosy­
nas, ac alia pietatis officia quae a
fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus fieri
con sueverunt secundum ecclesiae
instituta.’31

Hence it is clear that it is not any mere popular
superstition, nor any special heresy, that is opposed by
this condemnation, but the Profession of Faith expressly
defined by a General Council ; and thus that any one
taking upon him to subscribe the declaration of the
Article does absolutely deny the Catholic Faith as re­
gards the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Another circumstance illustrates the feeling against
there being any real sacrifice in the Christian Church,
with which the Reformers were animated, and that is,
their dislike to the title of Priest. Those on the Conti­
nent chose to drop the name altogether, and to adopt
that of ‘ minister’ or ‘ pastor.’ The English Reformers
attempted to follow their usual course by retaining the
name, and doing away with the signification. Thus in
King Edward’s First Book the name is used in places
where it was afterwards changed to ‘ minister,’ and the
word ‘priest’ was in certain cases restored in 1662. It
always remained in the ‘ Ordering of Priests.’ But the
Reformers endeavoured to show that ‘ priest’ being ety­
mologically derived from ‘ presbyter,’ the word does not
mean a sacrificing priest.32 Under this view in the Neve
Testament ‘ presbyter’ is translated ‘ elder,’ as often ob­
jected by Catholics,33 and the translation so remains in
the present Authorised Version. In Aless’ translation of
the Book of Common Prayer the words ‘ sacerdos’ and
31 Hardouin, Concil. ix. 957, 9S5.
32 Latimer’s Remains, p. 264; Hutchinson’s llorhs, p. 49; Whitgift, vol.
111. 350.
33 Martin’s Discoverie of manifold Corruptions of the Holy Scriptures,
chap. vi.

27S

Zr

A nglican Ordination's.

< minister’ are used indifferently,34 and from thence ‘ sacer­
dos’ is adopted into the translation published at the be­
ginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.3·3 But it is very doubt­
ful whether this translation has been recognised as an
authorised version of the Anglican Prayer Book. The
word ‘ sacerdos’ is also used in the title of one of the
Thirty-nine Articles—the thirty-second, ‘De Conjugio Sa­
cerdotum but in this place it does not refer to Anglican
ministers. The word was not used in the Forty-two Arti­
cles of 1552, but appeared first in those of 1562. Now,
Parker and his associates, who had been ordained priests
by the Catholic rite, were perfectly conscious that they
were priests in the Catholic sense, and that with many
persons there still remained a strong feeling against their
marrying, and particularly on the part of the Queen her­
self. Parker had already written or edited a work on this
subject, and there are treatises among his mss.3c with this
exact title, ‘ De Conjugio Sacerdotum and it was neces­
sary for them to publish some justification of themselves,
and to declare that, whether as ministers or as really
priests, they were not debarred from lawful matrimony.
With these two exceptions, there is no formulary of the
Anglican Church in which the word ‘ sacerdos’ is used. A
cloud of ambiguity is thus thrown over the meaning of the
word ‘priest’ as used in the Book of Common Prayer,
including the Forms of Ordination. And the sense in
which it is used in the latter will depend on the intention
and theological tenets and personal opinion of each or­
daining Bishop. Now, considering that the Holy Sacri­
fice has been ignored and even denied in the rite in the
manner already described ; considering that the rite has
been drawn up in contravention of the very idea of a true
and proper sacrifice; considering that there is nothing
else to give its proper force to the word, and that what
31 Bucer’s Scripta. Anglicana.
ss Liturg. Eliz.
Nasmyth’s Catalogue, cix. 8 and cxiii. 21.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

279

indications there are rather look the other way,—there does
seem to be reason to fear that in the Anglican rite the
word ‘ priest’ does not mean, and cannot even be used
so as to mean, a priest in the Catholic sense.
However, something may depend on the rest of the
Prayer Book. If in that book the true Sacrifice is pre­
served, and there are words which express it, and direc­
tions for its being offered, it would seem to be intended
to have true priests to offer it. It will therefore be ne­
cessary to examine the Book of Common Prayer, and to
inquire what is the teaching it contains on these points,
and with regard to the Holy Eucharist in general.37
There is no question here about the validity of the
Sacrament. As the common and received opinion among
divines is, that the reciting our Lord’s words from the
Gospel is sufficient for validity, it is clear that Anglican
clergymen, if they are truly priests, and have a right in­
tention, do really say Mass. There is no question, then,
but that if they have the priesthood, they have the Sacra­
ment and the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. The ques­
tion is, whether the dogmatic phrases and statements in
the Common Prayer Book with regard to the Holy
Eucharist, considered either as a sacrament or as a
sacrifice, are such as the Catholic Church approves or
condemns ?
We must therefore go back to the original position
of things in this country. The Catholic faith had been
planted here, and the Church was in communion with the
Apostolic See, and with the Catholic Church throughout
the world. A ritual order peculiar to the country was in
use ; but, whatever varieties there might be in the Ordin­
ary or Proper of the Mass, the Canon was the same as
that of Rome and of the whole Western Church.
What, then, is the Canon of the Mass? and what
37 The following examination of the Prayer Book for the most part was
published in the form of a pamphlet some years ago.

28ο

Anglican Ordinations.

claims has it on our respect ? Let us hear Sir William
Palmer, as a writer whose testimony is beyond suspicion.
After stating various facts and arguments on the subject,
he says : ‘ Combining these circumstances together, there
seems nothing unreasonable in thinking that the Roman
liturgy, as used in the time of Gregory the Great, may
have e.'dsted from a period of the most remote antiquity;
and perhaps there are nearly as good reasons for refer­
ring its original composition to the Apostolic age, as there
are in the case of the great Oriental liturgy.’311
The care taken to preserve the Canon in its original
authentic form we learn from other writers. ' In ancient
times,’ says Muratori, ‘ although the liturgy of the Roman
Mass was observed generally in the churches of Italy,
France, Germany, Britain, and other countries, yet there
was no small variety in their Missals ; but this did not
affect the substance of the mystery, or the chief and es­
sential rites of the Mass. The difference ran in adding
collects, sequences, and special feasts, which each Bishop
might insert in his own missal. But to change the sacred
words of the Canon was a crime.’39 By the laws of Charle­
magne it was ordered that only men of full age should be
employed to transcribe it; and the Councils of York and
Oxford in the twelfth century decreed that the Archdea­
con should examine in every church whether there were
errors or defects in the Canon, either by the faults of tran­
scribers or the books being old. Always too the Canon
was written in different and larger characters than the
rest, and sometimes in gold letters throughout, as an
offering of reverence.40
It was against this treasure of the Church—so sacred,
so venerable, so ancient, so religiously preserved, ‘ so pure
from every error, so elevating the mind to piety and de­
votion,’41—that the Reformers of the sixteenth century

.

38 Orig. Liturg. vol. i. p. izi
40 Pelliccia, vol. i. p. 158.

39 Liturg. Rom Vet. vol. i, col. 85.
41 Decree of Council of Trent, sess.

22.

The Anglican Rite and the Ettcharist.

-281

dared to raise their destroying hands, and to pour out
their impious ribaldry.
Luther led the attack. He denied the Catholic doc­
trine of the Sacrifice of the Mass in any other sense than
as the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, the sacrifice of
justice, and the sacrifice of soul and body as a ‘reason­
able service.’ He denied the priesthood in any other
sense than as all Christians are priests to offer spiritual
sacrifices ; and he denied the real presence in the sense of
the Church, and invented a sense of his own. It will be
necessary to quote passages from his works in which he
has stated his doctrine on these points.
In the treatise ‘De abroganda Missa Privata’ we read
as follows :
‘ In the New Testament there is no visible and external priest­
hood except that which is erected by Satan through lies of men.
Our one and only priesthood is that of Christ, by the which He
offered Himself for us, and all of us with Him. This priesthood
is spiritual, and common to all Christians. For with the same
priesthood that Christ hath are we all priests, that is, sons of Christ
the High Priest. Nor have we need of any other Priest and
Mediator than Christ.42
‘We will adduce testimonies concerning the priesthood of the
New Testament, and its office :
‘Thus from Rom. xii. : 1 beseech you, by the mercy of God, that
you present your bodies a holy sacrifice, living, pleasing to God, your
reasonable service. Here no one can deny that he describes the
priestly office, which is, to offer or present a sacrifice and reason­
able worship, not unreasoning beasts, as the Priests of the Law
did, but to offer themselves. Wherefore this place makes priests,
and is said to all Christians in common, for all ought to offer their
bodies to God for a holy victim and reasonable sacrifice.
‘Again, from i Peter ii. : Be you also as living stones built up,
a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God,
through Jesus Christ. Is not this too said to all Christians in
common? Are not all as living stones built upon Christ? And
so built upon Him as to be priests, offering not cattle and sheep
corporally, but themselves, by the,example of Christ, as spiritual
sacrifices, while they in spirit mortify the deeds of the flesh.43
« Op. vol. ii. p. 259, ed. Wittemberg, 1546.

« p. 261.

282

Angiican Ordinations.

ί There is another kind of sacrifice, equally common to all,
treated of in the Psalms, viz. the sacrifice ofpraise and of justice.
These are the testimonies concerning the sacrifice or worship of
the new priesthood under Christ. Nor has the whole of Scripture
another sacrifice of this priesthood.
i Wherefore this we triumphantly urge upon the Papists, that
they also should bring forward for the sacrifice of their priesthood
one point or one iota out of the Scriptures. Christ offered Himself
once, but willed not to be offered over again by any one, but
willed a memorial of His sacrifice to be made.’44

In the same work he condemns the Canon of the
Mass,1’ and denies the priesthood again, asserting the
spiritual priesthood of the people as the only one.'11’
In the treatise ‘De Abominatione Misso? Privatæ
quam Canonem vocant’ there is an attack on the Canon,
specifying as blasphemy every expression implying the
real sacrifice.47
In the Formula of Mass or Communion for Wittemberg he speaks of 1 the abomination called the Offertory,
after which almost everything sounds and smells of obla­
tion.’ . . . ‘ Wherefore,’ he continues, ‘ repudiating every­
thing that sounds of oblation, with the whole Canon, let
us retain what is pure and holy, and so let us order our
Mass.’48 And in this form there is not only no oblation,
but no prayer or benediction before the consecration, and
only the bare narrative of the institution from the Gospel
is recited. Yet, in the Communion the words, ‘ Corpus
Domini &c. custodiat animam meam vel tuam,’ are re­
tained.49
From the work ‘De Usu Sacram. Euch. salutari:’
• The Mass may be called a sacrifice, if it be understood
as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, not of a work,
nor propitiatory, but common to the priest who ministers
and receives, and to those to whom he distributes. . .
The fruit of the sacrament *is to be a remembrance of the
44 p. 261.
47 p. 419-24.

43 P· 272-3·
48 p· 414·

4‘ P- 277.
49 Ibid.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

283

death and merits of Christ, a strengthening of faith, an
exciting of charity and good works and prayers, and thus
a sacrifice of praise and prayer.’50
When the Council of Trent came to consider the
subject of the Holy Eucharist, various propositions were
laid before the theologians to be examined, in order to
determine whether they were heretical or not. They had
been extracted with great care from the works of Luther
and other Reformers.51 The result was, that the errors
of Luther were condemned in the following Canons on
the subject of the Sacrifice of the Mass :
‘ i. If any one saith, that in the Mass a true and proper sacri­
fice is not offered to God ; or that to be offered is nothing else
but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.
2. If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests ;
or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own
body and blood ; let him be anathema.
3. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a bare com­
memoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not a
propitiatory sacrifice ; or that it profits him only who receives ; and
that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins,
pains, satisfactions, and other necessities ; let him be anathema.
4. If any one saith, that by the sacrifice of the Mass a blas­
phemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated
on the Cross ; or that it is thereby derogated from ; let him be
anathema.
5. If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors,
and is therefore to be abrogated ; let him be anathema.
6. If any one saith, that Masses wherein the priest alone com­
municates sacramentally are unlawful, and are therefore to be
abrogated ; let him be anathema.’52

In England the soil had been prepared for the seeds
of heresy before the time of Luther; and the fruits
produced at last were not wholly Lutheran nor wholly
Seckcnclorf, lib. ii. p. 217.
51 Those de Eucharistia are in Le Plat, Mon. Cone. Trid. vol. iv. p. 258;
those de Sacrificio Missæ and de Sacram. Ordinis, p. 334.
s2 Session 22.

284

Anglican Ordinations.

Zuinglian. Many other influences were at work. There
was a party even on the reforming side who retained
considerable Catholic leanings. The general Erastianism was also a drag upon the downhill course. But with
regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass, Lutheran opinions
made their way into the country, and were generally
followed. Thus Cranmer :
‘Christ did not ordain His sacraments to this use, that one
should receive them for another, or the priest for all the lay people;
but He ordained them for this intent, that every man should re­
ceive them for himself, to ratify, confirm, and stablish his own
faith and everlasting salvation . Therefore, as one man may not
be baptised for another, and if he be, it availeth nothing, so ought
not one to receive the holy communion for another. ·’·"
‘ The adversaries of Christ gather together a great heap of
authors, which, as they say, call the Mass or holy communion a
sacrifice. But all those authors be answered unto in this one
sentence, that they call it not a sacrifice for sin, because that it
taketh away our sin, which is taken away only by the death of
Christ, but because the holy communion was ordained of Christ
to put us in remembrance of the sacrifice made by Him upon the
Cross : for that cause it beareth the name of that sacrifice.54
‘ Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should
make a sacrifice of Him, nor did not ordain the sacrament of His
holy supper to the intent that either the priest or the people
should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a
sacrifice of Him for the people : but His holy supper was ordained
for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof,
should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise
his faith, and comfort himself by the remembrance of Christ’s bene­
fits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself
also clearly unto Him.55
‘When the old fathers called the mass or supper of the Lord
a sacrifice, they meant that it was a sacrifice of lauds and thanks­
giving (and so as well the people as the priest do sacrifice), or else
that it was a remembrance of the very true sacrifice propitiatory of
Christ ; but they meant in no wise that it is a very true sacrifice
for sin, and applicable by the priest to the quick and dead.’515
«s On the Lord's Stiffer, p. 350, ed. Parker Society.
« P- 351·
P· 352·
Λδ p. 353-

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

285

And Ridley in the same strain.- In the disputation
at Oxford, after quoting sentences of Scripture :
‘ I know that all these places of the Scripture are avoided by
two manner of subtle shifts : the one is by the distinction of the
bloody and unbloody sacrifice, as though our unbloody sacrifice of
the Church were any other than the sacrifice of praise and thanks­
giving, than a commemoration, a showing forth, and a sacramental
representation of that one only bloody sacrifice offered up once
for all. The other is by depraving and wresting the sayings of
the ancient fathers unto such a strange kind of sense as the fathers
themselves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the
fathers was, it is evident . . . that the whole substance of our
sacrifice, which is frequented of the Church in the Lord’s Supper,
consisteth in prayers, praise, and giving of thanks, and in remem­
bering and showing forth of that sacrifice once sacrificed upon the
altar of the Cross ; that the same sacrifice may continually be had
in reverence by mystery, which once only, and no more, was of­
fered for the price of our redemption.’57

While the English Reformers went along with Luther
as regards the Holy Sacrifice, they did not follow him as
to the Real Presence. ‘ There was already, at the time,
a mass of heresy fermenting throughout the country, and
it was too strong for the mere Lutherans, who seemed
for a moment to be masters of it in the reign of Ed­
ward VI. Wicliffe’s doctrines were widely prevalent in
the land, and had in great measure ruined the people
already. The Anglican notions of the Eucharist are his ;
for he said, among other things, that the “ consecrated
Ilost is not the Body of Christ, but an effectual sign
thereof”—efficax ejus signum. Even the extreme lan­
guage of the present day is wholly Wicliffe’s, not except­
ing the gross and shameless buffoonery with which the
most Lloly Sacrament is sometimes assailed. He objected
to and denounced the elevation and adoration of the Host,
though he practised both externally. It was he who
applied the term idolatry to the worship of God, and
57 Works, p. 210, ed. Parker Society.

286

Anglican Ordinations.

who maintained that “ This is my Body ” is a figurative
expression. It was from him that the Anglicans learnt
to make their communion a mere commemoration. “ All
the Sacraments that He left here on earth,” :: ùd Wiclifle,
"be but minds [memorials] of the Body of Christ ; for
a Sacrament is no more to say, but a sign or mind [me­
morial] of a thing past or a thing to come.”—Wicliffe’s
Wicket, § 15·’58
‘ This heresiarch also anticipated another doctrine of
the Anglicans : that of the “ spiritual eating,” and of the
consecrating power being the faith of the recipient, which
is laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles in these words:
“ The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the
Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And
the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and
eaten in the Supper is faith.” These are Wicliffe’s
words : “ Panis sacramentalis a fidelibus sparsim recipitui1, consequenter irroratus fide evangelica in corde pinsatur,
et igne charitatis induratus spiritualiter manducatur.” Dial.
iv. c. vii. fol. no. This “spiritual eating” is the doc­
trine of Zuinglians and Calvinists also, but they learnt it
out of Wicliffe’s books ; for it was those books, carried
to Bohemia, that supplied John Huss and Jerome of Prague
with the principles they held, and which their disciples
transmitted to Zuinglius.’59
The English Reformers, while forsaking Luther, did
not go the lengths of Zuinglius the other way, but en­
deavoured to steer the middle course that they had learnt
from Wicliffe. They would not say that the bread and
wine are mere signs ; but that, though signs, they are
effectual signs ; that though there be no real or local or
corporal or substantial presence of our Lord’s Body and
Blood in the consecrated species, yet that the species are
signs that effect their presence to the receiver ; and thus
58 Dublin Review, new series, vol. x. p. 535, with some verbal alterations
and omissions.
“ Ibid.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

τ8γ

that the Body and Blood are received and eaten spiritually
and sacramentally by the worthy receiver ; and they seem
to wish to add, really, but so as by faith.
The Fathers of the Council of Trent do not seem to
have had the question laid before them exactly in this
form, but only in the statements of Zuinglius and the
Sacramentaries, as follows :
‘i. That in the Eucharist there is not really the Body and
Blood nor the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but only as in a
sign. This is the error of Zuinglius, (Ecolampadius, and the Sacra­
mentaries.
‘ 2. That in the Eucharist Christ is given (exhiberi), but to
be eaten spiritually only by faith, and not sacramentally. This
article is of the above-named heretics, especially (Ecolampadius,
in his book on the Sacrament of the Eucharist, cap. xiii. and otherplaces ; for when they deny that Christ is really in the Eucharist,
they assert that Christ cannot be eaten except by faith, and that
sacramentally a piece of bread is received/00

The Canon in which this error was condemned is
therefore put in the following terms : ‘ If any one saith,
that Christ given in the Eucharist is eaten spiritually
only, and not also sacramentally and really, let him be
anathema.’ This Canon does not expressly notice the
idea of eating spiritually only as well as sacramentally,
because it seems to treat it as impossible. And whether
the English Reformers could keep their Wicliffite dogma
from coming under the anathema, will be seen by taking
the statements of it from their works.
Thus Cranmer :
‘Although Christ be not corporally in the bread and wine, yet
Christ used not so many words, in the mystery of His holy Supper,
without effectual signification. For He is effectually present, and
effectually worketh, not in the bread and wine, but in the godly
receivers of them, to whom He giveth His own flesh spiritually
to feed upon, and His own blood to quench their great inward
thirst.’01
80 Le Plat, Mon. Cone. 7rid. vol. iv. p. Z58.
•1 On the Lord's Supper, p. 34.

Anglican Ordinations.

288

‘When the true believing man cometh to the Lord’s Supper
... to him the words of our Saviour Christ be effectuons and
operatory. . . .For the effect of his godly eating is the communi­
cation of Christ’s body and blood, but to the faithful receiver, and
not to the dumb creatures of bread and wine, under whose forms
the Catholic faith teacheth not the body and blood of Christ
invisibly to be hidden.’62

And Latimer :
‘So likewise go to the Lord’s Supper: when the bread is con­
secrated, when the words are spoken over it, then it is such an
office that it beareth the name of the body and blood of Christ.
Like as the magistrates because of their office arc called 7λ7,
“ gods so the bread presenteth His body, so that we go unto it
worthily, and receive it with a good faith. Then we be assured
that we feed upon Him spiritually. And like as the bread nour­
ished! the body, so the soul feedeth upon the very body and blood
of Christ by faith, by believing Him to be a Saviour which de­
livered man from his sin.’03

Coverdale also, after stating wherein Luther erred,
and also wherein Zuinglius and CEcolampadius did err,
proceeds :
‘ This do I understand, that whilst they (the latter) gave them­
selves studiously and diligently to affirm that the bread and wine
were called the body and blood of Christ, because they be the
signs thereof, they thought not that they ought in the mean time
to do this thing also—to add to that, that they are the signs after
such sort that the verity is nevertheless joined unto them. Neither
did they declare that they went not about to deface the true com­
munion which the Lord giveth us in His body and blood.
‘ With one voice we all confess that when we do, according to
the institution of the Lord, receive the Sacrament with faith, we
are undoubtedly made partakers of the substance of the body and
blood of Christ. How this thing should be done, some men can
better define and more plainly expound than some. But this
thing is chiefly to be remembered, that we exclude all carnal im­
agination, and that the mind ought to be erected up into Heaven,
and that we think not our Lord Jesus Christ to be so vile that He
may be contained in corruptible elements. Again, lest the force
c2 P· 36·

63 Remains, p. 127.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

289

of this most sacred mystery should be diminished, we must think
that it is wrought by the secret and wonderful power of God, and
that His Spirit is the bond of this partaking, which is for that
cause called spiritual.’04

So too Ridley, in the disputation at Oxford, in reply
to Smith:
‘ I grant that Christ did both ; that is, both took up His flesh
with Him ascending up, and also did leave the same behind Him
with us, but after a diverse manner and respect. For He took His
flesh with Him, after the true and corporal substance of His body
and flesh ; again, He left the same in mystery to the faithful in the
Supper, to be received after a spiritual communication, and by
grace. Neither is the same received in the Supper only, but also
at other times, by hearing the Gospel, and by faith. For the
bread which we break is the communication of the body of Christ;
and generally, “ unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you.’”

Smith having objected Chrysostom’s words, ‘ He that
sitteth above with the Father is handled with the hands
of men,’ Ridley replies :
‘ He that sitteth there is here present in mystery and by grace ;
and is holden of the godly, such as communicate Him, not only
sacramentally with the hand of the body, but much more whole­
somely with the hand of the heart, and by inward drinking is
received ; but by the sacramental signification He is holden of all
men.’05

It must, however, be remembered that Cranmer and
Latimer had previously entertained tenets more nearly
Lutheran, and the works from which these extracts are
made were written after their opinions had become more
advanced ; and the first change made in religion with re­
ference to the Mass was carried into effect while their
opinions were still doubtful, or, at least, before their giv­
ing up Lutheranism had become publicly known. These
innovations began with the ‘ Order of Communion,’ in the
year 1548. By this ‘ Order’ there was to be no ‘ vary64 Treatise on the Sacraments, Works, p. 464-6.
« Works, p.

U

290

Anglican Ordinations.

ing in any other ceremony in the Mass,’ but only to pre­
pare for giving Communion to the people in both kinds.
In the Exhortations the following passages are met with:
‘For us He hath not only given His body to death and shed
His blood, but also doth vouchsafe in a sacrament and mystery to
give us His said body and blood spiritually, to feed and drink
upon.*36
‘As the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively
faith we receive this holy sacrament (for then we spiritually eat
the flesh of Christ and drink His blood, then we dwell in Christ
and Christ in us).07
‘ To the end we should alway remember . . . the innumerable
benefits which by His precious blood-shedding He hath obtained
to us, He hath left in these holy mysteries as a pledge of His Jove,
and a continual remembrance of the same, His own blessed body
and precious blood, for us spiritually to feed upon, to our endless
comfort and consolation.’68

These are quite the Lutheran forms of expression,
were it not for the word ‘ spiritually,’ by which it seems
that the Wicliffite doctrine is here introduced.
At the end of the ‘ Order’ came the following rubric:
‘ If it doth so chance that the wine, hallowed and consecrated,
doth not suffice, or be enough for them that do take the com­
munion, the Priest, after the first cup or chalice be emptied, may
go again to the altar, and reverently and devoutly prepare and
consecrate another, and so the third, or more, likewise beginning
at these words, “Simili modo” &c., and without any levation or
lifting up.’69

By this the Priest who has already celebrated is di­
rected to consecrate again in one kind only, and without
communicating himself. It is impossible not to sec in this
rubric a denial both of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Real
Presence. The strange thing is, that the very authors
of it were fond of alleging70 as an authority for the ne56 Liturg. K. Edw. VI. p. 3.
67 p. 5.
<s Ibid.
6U Ibid. p. 8.
70 Strype’s Cranmcr.· Answer to Devon Rebels, Records.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

291

cessity of communion in both kinds, the Decree of Pope
St. Gelasius against those who, out of superstition, re­
fused to receive the chalice, ‘ for there cannot be a
division of one and the same mystery without great
sacrilege f and did not see that they were pronouncing
their own condemnation.
During the next year, 1549, the Book of Common
Prayer first appeared, and contained ' The Supper of the
Lord and the Holy Communion, commonly called the
Mass.’ This incorporated the ‘ Order of the Communion’
promulgated the year before with very little alteration.
It did not by any means satisfy the Zuinglian party, who
looked on it as too Lutheran. Thus Hilles writes to
Bullinger in June 1549, that ‘ Traheron had endeavoured
(being one of the burgesses in the last Parliament) that
there should be no ambiguity in the reformation of the
Lord’s Supper, but could not bring over his old fellow­
citizens to his views. Therefore we have a uniform cele­
bration of the Eucharist throughout the whole kingdom,
but after the manner of the Nuremberg churches, and
some of those in Saxony ; for they do not yet feel indined to adopt your rites respecting the administration of
the sacraments.’71
The book, indeed, preserved in a great degree the
order and semblance of the Mass. With the view, there­
fore, to show what the changes were, it will be best to
arrange the two in parallel columns, putting in one
column the whole Ordinary, Proper, and Canon of the
Mass from the Sarum Missal for a single day, and the
Communion, with the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for the
same day from the Prayer Book of 1549 in the other,
and selecting one of the Sundays after Trinity as a day
on which they most nearly agree ; and for brevity’s sake
the rubrics of the Missal are generally omitted.
71 Orig. Letters, p. 266.

;
1

:

!
;

’

-,
h
ρ
J

!

;
·

7 he Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

Anglican Ordinations.

THE SARUM MISSAL.
THE SARUM MISSAL.72

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,
J549·"3

Ordinarium Missæ.

The Supper of the Lord, and
the Holy Communion, com­
monly called the Mass.

Preparation.
While putting on the vestments,
the Priest is to say the hymn
Veni Creator Spiritus, -with
the versicle and response.
V. Send forth thy spirit, and
they shall be created.
P, And thou shalt renew the
face of the earth.

The Priest shall put on him the
vesture appointed. Then shall
the Clerks sing in English for
the Office or Introit (as they
call it) a Psalm appointed for
that day. The Priest, stand­
ing humbly afore the midst of
the altar, shall say the Lord's
Prayer, with this Collect :

Prayer.
O God, to whom every heart
is open, and every will speaketh;
and from whom no secret is hid ;
purify by the infusion of the
Holy Spirit the thoughts of our
heart ; that we may attain per­
fectly to love and worthily to
praise thee. Through Christ our
Lord. Amen.

Antiph. I will go in to the
altar of God.
Psalm xlii. Judge me, O God,
&c. ; with Gloria Patri.
Antiph. I will go in to the

Almighty God, unto whom all
hearts be open, and all desires
known, and from whom no
secrets are hid : cleanse the
thoughts of our hearts by the
inspiration of thy Holy Spirit ;
that we may perfectly love thee,
and worthily magnify thy holy
name : through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

72 Ed. Byrckman, Paris, 1515, and Paris, 1516 ; and Maskell’s Ancient
Liturgy of the Church of England.
n Ed. Parker Society.

293

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,
1549·

Altar of God, to God who giveth
joy to my youth.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Our Father, &c. Hail, Mary,
&c.
When these are ended, the Office
ofthe Mass is sung by the choir,
and when, the Gloria Patri is
begun, the Priest approaches
the altar-step and says the Con­
fession.
Confess ye to the Lord that
he is good, for his mercy is for
ever.
I confess to God, the Blessed
Mary, all Saints, and you -, that
I have sinned grievously in
thought, word, and deed, by my
fault : I pray holy Mary, all the
Saints of God, and you, to pray
for me.
The Ministers respond. Al­
mighty God have mercy upon
you, and forgive you all your
sins, deliver you from all evil,
preserve and strengthen you in
good, and bring you to life ever­
lasting. R. Amen.

[\77z<? Clerks sing in English for
the Office or Introit (as they
call it) a Psalm appointed for
the day.\74

The Confiteor is then repeated
by the Ministers, and the Misere­
atur by the Priest.
Then the Priest says: May
the Almighty and merciful Lord
74 When there is anything to be said or done according to the Prayef
Book which corresponds with the Missal, but not in the same order, it seems
proper to repeat it in the Prayer Book column in brackets opposite the place
of the Missal.
.......

2Q4

7/zf Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

Anglican Ordinations,
THE SARUM MISSAL.

THE BOOK OE COMMON PRAYER

>549,

grant you absolution and remis­
sion of all your sins, time for
true penance, and amendment
of life, grace and consolation of
the Holy Ghost. R. Amen.
Thai the Priest says : Our help
is in the name of the Lord, who
hath made heaven and earth.
Blessed be the name of the
Lord. Let us pray.
Then the Priest goes up to the
attar,and says : 'lake away from
us, O Lord, we beseech thee,
all our iniquities, that we may
attain to enter into the Holy
of Holies with pure minds.
Through Christ our Lord.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

The Kyrie follows.

Which Psalm ended, the Priest
shall say, or else the Clerks
shall sing :
iii. Lord, have mercy upon us.
iii. Christ, have mercy upon us.
iii. Lord, have mercy upon us.
Thin the Priest, standing at
God’s board, shall begin : Glory
be to God on high.
The Clerks. And in earth
peace, Kc.

1549·

Kyrie eleyson—three times.
Christe eleyson—three times.
Kyrie eleyson—three times.
7'he Priest intones : Glory be
to God on high, &c,, and then
continues saying the rest, while
the choir arc singing it.
Priest. The Lord be with you.

Resf. And with thy spirit.
f

Priest. Let us pray.
The Collect.

The Priest, making the sign of
the Cross, says: In the name of
the Father, and of.the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

The Priest then says the Office or
Introit.
Eighth Sunday after TrinityP
' Office,

THE SARUM MISSAL.

Then shall he say a Psalm ap­
pointedfor the Introit.
The eighth Sunday after Trinity.
Portio mea Domine. Ps. cxix.
[v. 57-64·]

We have received thy mercy,
O God, in the midst of thy Tem­
ple; according to thy name, O
God, so also is thy praise unto
the ends of the earth : thy right
hand is full of justice. Ps. Great
is the Lord and exceedingly to
be praised, in the city of our
God, in his holy mountain.
Glory be, &c.
75 In the Sarum rite, the Sundays are not reckoned from Pentecost, as in
the Roman Calendar, but from the Feast of the Holy Trinity.

O God, whose providence in
the disposal of itself is not de­
ceived, we humbly beseech thee
that thou wilt put away from us
all hurtful things, and give us all
things that be profitable for us.
Through, &c.
Second Collect of the Blessed
Virgin Alary.
Grant to us thy servants, we
beseech thee, O Lord God, to
enjoy perpetual health of mind
and body, and by the glorious
intercession of Blessed Mary
ever Virgin, to be delivered from
present sorrow, and to enjoy
eternal gladness.
Third Collect of All Saints.
Grant we beseech thee, Al­
mighty God, that by the inter-

1 hen the Priest shall turn him
to the people, and say : The Lord
be with you.
The Answer. And with thy
spirit.
The Priest. Let us pray.
Ihen shall follow the Collect of
the Day.
O God, whose providence is
never deceived, we humbly be­
seech thee that thou wilt put
away from us all hurtful things,
and give those things that be
profitable for us. Through, &c.

2g6

'Vhe Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARHM MISSAL.

cession of holy Mary, Mother of
God, and of all the holy Powers
of heaven, and the blessed Pa­
triarchs, Prophets, Apostles,
Evangelists, Martyrs, Confes­
sors, and Virgins, and all thine
elect, we may everywhere have
cause to rejoice ; and while re­
calling their merits, may be sen ­
sible of their protection.
Fourth Collect for the Universal
Church,
We beseech thee, O Lord, in
thy clemency admit the prayers
of thy Church ; that all errors
and adversities being destroyed,
she may serve thee with secure
liberty.
Fifth Collectfor Peace.
O God, from whom* are holy

desires, right counsels, and just
works; give unto thy servants
that peace which the world can­
not give ; that both our hearts
may be set to obey thy com­
mandments; and also that by
thee we, being defended from
the fear of our enemies, may
pass our time in rest and quiet­
ness. Through our Lord, &c.
The Sub-deacon reads the Epistle
in the pulpit.

The Lesson of the Epistle of
blessed Paul the Apostle to the
Romans.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

I549·

With one of these two Collects
following for the King.

Priest. Let us pray.
Almighty God, whose king­
dom is everlasting, and power
infinite, have mercy upon the
whole congregation, and so rule
the heart of thy chosen servant
Edward the Sixth, our king and
governor, that he (knowing
whose minister he is) may above
all things seek thy honour and
glory, and that we his subjects
(duly considering whose autho­
rity he hath) may faithfully serve,
honour, and humbly obey him,
in thee and for thee, according
to thy blessed word and ordin­
ance. Through Jesus Christ our
Lord, &c.

297

THE SARL’M MISSAL.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

Brethren, we are debtors not
to the flesh, &c.

1549·
Brethren, we are debtors not
to the fleshy &c.

The Gradual is sung by the choir.
Grad. Be thou to me, O God,
a protector and a place of re­
fuge to save me.
Vers. In thee, O God, have
I hoped, let me never be con­
founded. Alleluia.
Vers. Hearken, my people, to
my law.

Before singing the Gospel, the
Deacon asks the blessing of the
Priest.

Immediately after the Epistle
ended, the Priest, or one ap­
pointed to read the Gospel,
shall say ;

Deacon. Give me thy bless­
ing.
Priest. The Lord be in thy
heart and in thy mouth to an­
nounce the holy gospel of God.
In the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen.
Deacon. The Lord be with
you.
Resp. And with thy spirit.

The Gospel according to
Matthew.

The holy Gospel, written in
the seventh chapter of the Gos­
pel according to Matthew^
The Clerks and people shall ans­
wer :

The Collects ended, the Priest, or
he that is appointed, shall read
the Epistle in a place assigned
for the purpose, saying :
The Epistle of Saint Paul
written in the eighth chapter of
the Epistle to the Romans.

Glory be to thee, O Lord?®

At that time Jesus said to his
disciples, Beware of false pro­
phets, &c.

Beware of false prophets, &c.

74 There is no direction to this effect in the Saruih Missal, but it was the
custom from the ninth century for the people to make this answer. Pelliccia,
vol. i. p. aoi.

IJ
J
1

A nglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

The Gospel ended, the Priest in­
tones the beginning oftheCsvbw>,
and recites the remainder while
the choir are singing it.
Priest. I believe in one God,
&c.

THE BOOK OK COMMON PRAYER,

1549·
After the Gospel ended, the Priest
shall begin :

I believe in one God.

[The Clerks shall sing the rest.]

Then follows: The Lord be
with you.
Ans. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.
Offertory. Thou wilt save a
lowly people, O Lord, and wilt
humble the eyes of the proud ;
for who is God beside thee, O
Lord.
After the Offertory the Deacon
presents the chalice with the
paten and the host to the Priest,
hissing his hand each time;
and the Priest, taking the chal­
ice, places it in the middle of
the altar, and, elevating it with
both hands, offers the sacrifice
to the Lord, saying this prayer :
Receive, O Holy Trinity, this
oblation, which I, unworthy sin­
ner, offer in honour of thee and
of blessed Mary and all thy
Saints, for my sins and offences,
and for the salvation of the liv-

After the Creed ended, shallfol­
low the Sermon or Homily, or
F,xhortation.
Dearly beloved in the Lord,
&c.
Then shall follow for the Offer­
tory one or more of these sen­
tences of Holy Scripture, to be
sung whiles the people do offer,
or else one of them to be said by
the Minister immediately afore
the offering:
Let your light so shine before
men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your
Father which is in heaven, &c.
&c.
Then shall the Minister take so
much -bread and wine as shall
sufficefor the persons appointed
to receive the Holy Communion.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAB.

ing, and rest of all the faithful
departed. Tn the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost be this new
sacrifice accepted of Almighty
God.77
This said, he replaces the chalice,
and covers it with thecorporals,
and places the bread decently
upon the corporals, in front of
the chalice ruith the 7uine and
water therein, and kisses the
paten and replaces it on the
altar on his right hand under
the corporals, partly covering
it.

299

the book of common prayer,

T549-

Laying the bread upon the cor­
porals, or else in the paten, or
in sonie other comely thing pre­
pared for that purpose; and
putting the wine into the chal­
ice, or else in some fair or con­
venient cup prepared for that
use (if the chalice will not
serve}, putting thereto a little
pure and clean water ; and
setting both the bread and wine
upon the altar.

Then the Priest goes to the right­
hand corner of the altar, and
•washes his hands, saying :
Cleanse me, O Lord, from all
defilement of body and soul, that
I may be able in cleanness to
fulfil the holy work of the Lord.
After washing the hands the
Priest returns, and standing be­
fore the altar, with his head and
body inclined and his handsjoined,
says the prayer :
In the spirit of humility and
in a contrite heart, may we be
accepted of thee, O Lord, and
so be our sacrifice in thy sight,
that it may be accepted of thee
to-day, and please thee, O Lord
God.
■1 The words ‘ acceptum sit omnipotenti Deo hoc sacrificium novum* are
not in Maskell ; but they are found in both the editions of 1515 and
anc[
in the Sarum Mass in Martene.

. miOKHWIMW.

300

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,
ISI?·

Then standing erect he kisses the
altar on the right-hand side of
the host, and blesses first the
host and then himself with the
sign of the cross, saying :
In the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.

Then he turns to the people, and
says with a low voice :
Pray ye for me, brethren and
sisters, that my sacrifice and
yours likewise may be accepted
of the Lord our God.

Answer of the Clerks privately :
May the grace of the Holy
Ghost illuminate thy heart and
thy lips, and may the Lord deign
to accept this sacrifice of praise
at thy hands, for our sins and
offences.
And the Priest, turning again to­
wards the altar, says the secret
prayers, which are to be the
same in number as the Collects.
Let us pray.
O God, who by the perfection
of one sacrifice hast fulfilled the
variety of sacrifices of the law :
accept the sacrifice offered to
thee by thy devoted servants,
and sanctify it with thy bene­
diction like the offerings of just
Abel ·, that what they severally
have offered in honour of thy
Majesty, may profit them all to­
gether to salvation. Through
our Lord, &c.

The. Anglican Rite and the Ettcharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

301

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549·

By thy propitiation, O Lord,
and the intercession of Blessed
Mary ever Virgin, may this obla­
tion profit us to our perpetual
and present prosperity and
peace.
Be graciously pleased, O Lord,
with the gifts offered unto thee ;
the blessed and glorious Mary,
ever Virgin and Mother of God,
interceding with all thy Saints.
Protect us, O Lord, we be­
seech thee, in the service of thy
mysteries j that by cleaving to
divine things we may serve thee
in body and soul.
O God, who wilt permit no
terrors to overwhelm the people
that believe in thee, vouchsafe
to accept the prayers and sacri­
fices of the people dedicated
unto thee, that in the peace
which in thy pity thou dost
grant, Christian lands may be
made secure from all enemies.
Through our Lord, &c.
Then the Priest says aloud:
For ever and ever.
Ans. Amen.
The Lord be with you.
Ans. And with thy spirit.
Raise up your hearts.
Ans. We have them raised up
to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the
Lord our God.
Ans. It is meet and just.
Preface. It is truly meet and
just, right and salutary, that we

Then the Priest shall say :
q c

The Lord be with you.
Ans. And with thy spirit
Priest. Lift up your hearts.
Ans. We lift them up unto
the Lord.
Priest. Let us give thanks to
our Lord God.
Ans. It is meet and right so
to do.
Priest. It is very meet, right,
and our bounden duty, that we

■1

,

μ
i(
K

302

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

should at all times, and in all
places, give thanks to thee, 0
Lord, holy Father, Almighty,
Everlasting God.
Through
Christ our Lord.
Through
whom the Angels praise thy Ma­
jesty, the Dominations adore,
the Powers tremble. The hea­
vens and the heavenly Virtues,
and the blessed Seraphim join
together with exultation to cele­
brate the same. With whom we
pray thee to grant admittance
to our voices, with suppliant­
confession saying,—
[And78 therefore with Angels
and Archangels, with Thrones
and Dominations, and with all
the array of the heavenly host,
we sing a hymn to thy glory,
repeating without end :]
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
of Hosts. The heavens and the
earth are full of thy glory. Ho­
sanna in the highest. Blessed
is he that cometh in the name
of the Lord. Hosanna in the
highest.

THE BOOK OF COMMON TRAVER,

*549·
should at all times, and in all
places, give thanks to thee, O
Lord, Holy Father, Almighty,
Everlasting God.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

joined, his eyes raised, and his
body inclined.

303

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

Ï549plainly and distinctly, this
prayer following :
Almighty' and ever-living God,
which by thy holy Apostle hast
taught us to make prayers and
supplications, and to give thanks
for all men :

2>Ije ©anon.

Therefore with Angels and
Archangels, and with all the
holy company of heaven, we
laud and magnify thy glorious
name ; evermore praising thee,
and saying :
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God
of hosts ; heaven and earth are
full of thy glory : Osannah in
the highest. Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord.
Glory to thee, O Lord, in the
highest.

[The Sanctus was also sung by
the Choir.\

This the Clerks shall also sing.
When the Clerks have done
singing, then shall the Priest or
Deacon turn him to the people,
and say :
Let us pray for the whole
state of Christ’s Church.

Then at once the Priest is io begin
the Canon, with his hands

Then the Priest, turning him to
the altar, shall say or sing,

78 This, conclusion, is not used in the common Preface, either in the Sarum or Roman Missals, but only in some of the proper Prefaces.

We humbly beseech thee most
Therefore, we humbly beg and
beseech thee, O most merciful mercifully to receive
Father, through Jesus Christ thy
Son our Lord, to accept
and bless
these gifts, these offerings, these these our prayers, which we offer
holy undefiled sacrifices, which unto thy divine Majesty, be­
seeching thee
we offer to thee especially
for thy holy Catholic Church to inspire continually the uni­
which vouchsafe to keep in versal Church with the spirit of
peace, to guard, unite, and go­ truth, unity, and concord. And
grant that all they that do con­
vern throughout the world,
fess thy holy name may agree
in the truth of thy holy word
and live in unity and godly love.
together with thy servant our [All Bishops, Pastors, and Cu­
Pope N., and our Bishop N.,
rates.]
and our King N.
Specially we beseech thee to
save and defend thy servant
Edward our King, that under
him we may be godly and quiet­
ly governed. And grant unto
his whole council, and to all
that be put in authority under
him, that they may truly and
indifferently minister justice, to
the punishment of wickedness
and vice, and to the mainten­
ance of thy true religion and
virtue. Give grace, O heavenly
Father, to all Bishops, Pastors,
and Curates, that they may both

3°4

Anglican Qrdinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549·
by their life and doctrine set
forth thy true and lively word,
and rightly and duly administer
thy holy Sacraments ;
and all who are orthodox and and to all thy people give thy
profess the Catholic and Apos­ heavenly grace, that with meek
tolic faith.
heart and due reverence they
may hear and receive thy holy
word, truly serving thee in holi­
ness and righteousness all the
days of their life.
Remember, O Lord, thy serv­
And we most humbly beseech
ants men and women, N. and N. thee of thy goodness, O Lord,
A pause for a moment is here to comfort and succour all them,
made to pray for those whom which in this transitory life be
he wishes specially to recom­ in trouble, sorrow, need, sick­
mend to God.
ness, or any other adversity.
And especially we commend
And all here present, whose
faith and devotion are known to unto thy merciful goodness this
thee, for whom we offer to thee, congregation which is here as­
or who offer unto thee this sa­ sembled in thy name, to cele­
crifice of praise, for themselves, brate the commemoration of the
and all that belong to them : for most glorious death of thy Son.
the redemption of their souls,
for the hope of their salvation
and safety : and render their
vows to thee, the everlasting,
true, and living God.
And here we do give unto
Communicating, and venerat­
thee most high praise, and
ing the memory
hearty thanks, for the wonderful
grace and virtue, declared in all
thy Saints, from the beginning
of the world :
in the first place of the glorious and chiefly in the glorious and
Mary ever Virgin, Mother of most blessed Virgin Mary, Mo­
our Gqyd and Lord Jesus Christ : ther of thy Son Jesu Christ our
Lord and God, and in the holy
as also of thy blessed Apostles Patriarchs, Prophets,
and Martyrs Peter and Paul, Apostles and Martyrs,

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

30 <j

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549·

Andrew, &c. &c., and all thy
Saints ; by whose merits and
prayers mayest thou grant, that
in all things we may be defended
by the help of thy protection.
Through ‘the same Christ our
Lord. Amen.

whose examples, O Lord, and
steadfastness in thy faith, and
keeping thy holy command­
ments, grant us to follow.
[ The commemoration of the dead1'·'
follows here, but for the sake of
brevity is transferred to the
place corresponding with the
Canon of the
O God, heavenly Father,
which of thy tender mercy didst
give thine only Son Jesus Christ
to suffer death upon the cross
for our redemption, who made
This oblation therefore of our there (by his one oblation, once
service, as also of all thy family, offered) a full, perfect, apd suf­
we beseech thee, O Lord, fa­ ficient sacrifice, oblation, and
vourably to accept, and to dis­ satisfaction for the sins of the
pose our days in thy peace, and whole world ; and did institute,
to order us to be rescued from and in his holy Gospel command
eternal damnation, and to be us to celebrate, a perpetual me­
numbered in the flock of thine mory of that his precious death
elect. Through Christ, our until his coming again :
Lord. Amen.
Which oblation do thou, O
Hear us, O merciful Father,
God, we beseech thee, in all we beseech thee, and with thy
things vouchsafe to make bless­ Holy Spirit and word vouchsafe
ed, admitted, rati^fied, rea­ to bhpess
sonable, and acceptable,
and sanejdify these thy gifts
79 The revisers of our Liturgy transposed this prayer, placing it before the
oblation, perhaps for fear" that it should give any countenance to the Romish
error, ‘that Christ was offered for the quick and dead.’ ( Tracts for the Times>
No. 81, p.

ii.)

X

3ob

A nglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

that it may be
made
to us the Bo^dy and Blo^od
of thy most beloved Son, our
Lord Jesus Christ,
who the day before he suffered,
took bread

into his holy and venerable
hands, and with eyes lifted up
to thee, O God, his Father Al­
mighty [here he inclines himself
a little], giving thanks to thee,
he ble>Jissed, brake [here he
touches the host], and gave to his
disciples, saying, Take, and eat
ye all of this ;
For this is my Body

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

T549and creatures of bread and
wine
that they may be
unto us the body and blood of
thy most dearly-beloved Son
Jesus Christ,
who, in the same night that he
was betrayed, took bread [here
the Priest must take the bread
into his hands],

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

which shall be shed for you, and
for many, unto the remission of
sins.
As often as you shall do these
things, you shall do them
in remembrance of me
[here he elevates the chalice].

Wherefore, O Lord,
and when he had blessed, and
given thanks, he brake it, and
gave it to his disciples, saying,
Take, eat,

this is my Body,
which is given for you : do this
in remembrance of me.

[here he inclines himself to the
Host and elevates it, so that it
may be seen by the people].
Likewise after supper, taking
Likewise after supper, he took
also this excellent chalice
the cup [here the Priest shall take
the cuf into his hands],
into his holy and venerable
hands,
also giving thanks to thee, he and when he had given thanks,
blessed it, and gave it to his he gave it to them, saying,
disciples, saying,
Take, and
drink ye all of it ; for this is
Drink ye all of this ; for this is
the Chalice of
MyBlood of the New and eternal
My Blood of the New
Testament,
Testament,
the Mystery of Faith ;

307

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549·
which is shed for you, and for
many, for remission of sins :
Do this, as oft as you shall
drink it,
in remembrance of me.

7'he words before rehearsed are
to be said, turning still to the
altar without any elevation·, or
showing the Sacrament to the
fcople.
Wherefore, O Lord
and heavenly Father, according
to the Institution of thy dearlybeloved Son, our Saviour, Jesu
Christ,
we thy humble servants,

we thy servants
and likewise thy holy people,
do celebrate and make here
do offer to
before thy divine Majesty,
thy excellent Majesty
of thy gifts and bounties, a pure with these thy holy gifts, the
victim, a holy victim, an imma­ memorial which thy Son hath
culate victim, the holy bread of willed us to make :
eternal life, and the chalice of
everlasting salvation ;
having in remembrance as well having in remembrance his
the blessed passion of Christ thy blessed passion, mighty resur­
Son our Lord, as also his resur­ rection, and glorious ascension,
rection from the dead, and like­
wise his glorious ascension into
heaven.
Upon which vouchsafe to look
with a propitious and serene
countenance ·,
rendering unto thee most hearty
thanks, for the innumerable
benefits procured unto us by

A nglican, Ordinations,

THE SABUM MISSAE.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

1549’
the same, entirely desiring thy
fatherly goodness, mercifully
to accept this

and accept them
as thou didst vouchsafe to ac­
cept the offerings of thy justservant Abel, and the sacrifice
of our patriarch Abraham, and
that which thy high priest Mel­
chisedec offered to thee,
a holy sacrifice, an immaculate our sacrifice of prayer and
victim,
thanksgiving : most humbly be­
seeching thee to grant, that by
the merits and death of thy Son
Jesus Christ, and through faith
in his blood, we and all thy
whole Church may obtain re­
mission of our sins, and all
other benefits of his passion.
And here we offer and present
unto thee, O Lord, ourself, our
souls and bodies, to be a reason­
able, holy, and lively sacrifice
unto thee :
We humbly beseech thee, O Al­
Humbly beseeching thee,
mighty God,
command these to be carried by [command these our prayers
the hands of thy holy Angel to and supplications, by the minis­
thine altar on high in sight of try of thy holy Angels, to be
brought up into thy holy Taber­
thy Divine Majesty,
nacle before the sight of thy
Divine Majesty] ;
that whosoever of us shall by that whosoever shall be par­
this partaking of the altar,
takers of this holy Communion,
may worthily
receive
receive
the most holy Body and Blood the most precious body and
blood
of thy Son,
of thy Son Jesus Christ,
may be fulfilled with all hea­ and be fulfilled with thy grace
venly benediction and grace, and heavenly benediction,

7 he Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

through the same Christ our
Lord, Am eu.

Remember also, O Lord, thy
servants, men and women, N.
and N., who are gone before
us,
with the sign of faith, and do
rest in the sleep of peace :
We beseech thee to grant un­
to them, O Lord,
and to all who rest in Christ, a
place of refreshment, light, and
peace.
Through the same Christ our
Lord. Amen.

To us sinners also thy servants,
hoping in the multitude of thy
mercies,
vouchsafe to grant some part
and fellowship with thy holy
Apostles and Martyrs
with
John, Stephen, &c., and with
all thy Saints, into whose com-

309

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

C549-

and made one body with thy
Son Jesus Christ, that he may
dwell in them, and they in him.
[We commend unto thy mer­
cy, O Lord, all other thy serv­
ants which are departed hence
from us,
with the sign of faith, and now
do rest in the sleep of peace ;
Grant unto them, we beseech
thee,
thy mercy and everlasting
peace,
and that, at the day of the gene­
ral resurrection, we and all they
which be of the mystical body
of thy Son, may altogether be
set on his right hand, and hear
that his most joyful voice : Come
unto me, O ye that be blessed
of my Father, and possess the
kingdom, which is prepared for
you from the beginning of the
world ; grant this, O Father, for
Jesus Christ’s sake, our only
Mediator and Advocate.] 80
And although we be unworthy
through our manifold sins

80 Transposed from the place previously noted in th 305.

310

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

LS49·
pany do thou, we beseech thee,
admit us,

not as in consideration of merit,
but in the bestowal of pardon,
through Christ our Lord.
Through whom, O Lord, thou
dost always create, sanctify, give
life to, bless, and bestow on us
all these good things.
By him, and with him, and in
him, in the unity of the Holy
Ghost, all honour and glory is
unto thee, O God the Father
Almighty, world without end.
Amen.
Let us pray. Admonished by
salutary precepts, and formed by
divine instruction,we are bold to
say,
Our Father, &c.
Ans. But deliver us from evil.

The Priest says privately, Amen.
Deliver us, we beseech thee, O
Lord, from all evils, past, pre­
sent, and to come; and the
blessed and glorious Mary, ever
Virgin and Mother of God in­
terceding,with the blessed Apos­
tles Peter and Paul, and An­
drew and all the Saints ; graci-

to offer up to thee any Sacri­
fice ; yet we beseech thee to ac­
cept this our bounden duty and
service, and command these
our prayers and supplications,
by the ministry of thy holy
Angels, to be brought up into
thy holy Tabernacle before the
sight of thy divine Majesty ;
not weighing our merits, but
pardoning our offences, through
Christ our Lord :

by whom, and with whom,
in the unity of the Holy Ghost,
all honour and glory be unto
thee, O Father Almighty, world
without end. Amen.

Let us pray. As our Saviour
Christ hath commanded and
taught us, we are bold to say,
Our Father, &c.
The Answer. But deliver us
from evil. Amen.

T7ic Anglican Rite and the Ettcharist.
Tire SARUM MISSAI,.

3IT

THE BOOK ΟΓ COMMON PRAYER,

1549·

ously bestow peace in our days ;
that, aided by the support of
thy mercy, we may be both ever
free from sin, and secure from
all disturbance. Through the
same our Lord, &rc.
Then he says aloud ; World
without end. Ans. Amen.
The Priest. The peace of
Then shall the Priest say :
the Lord be Cfc always with »F The peace of the Lord be alyou.
way with you.
Ans. And with thy spirit.
The Clerks. And with thy
spirit.
The Priest with the Deacon
The Priest. Christ our Pas­
and Sub-deacon says : Lamb of chal Lamb is offered up for us
God, that takest away the sins once for all, when he bare our
of the world, have mercy upon sins on his body upon the cross;
for he is the very Lamb of God,
us.
Lamb of God, that takest that taketh away the sins of the
away the sins of the world, have world : wherefore let us keep a
joyful and holy feast with the
mercy upon us.
Lamb of God, that takest Lord.
away the sins of the world,
grant us peace.
The Priest says: May this
sacred 4* commixtion of the
Body and Blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ be to me and all
who receive it salvation of soul
and body ; and a wholesome
preparation for deserving and
obtaining life eternal. Through,
&c. Amen.
O Lord, Holy Father, Al­
mighty, Everlasting God, grant
me so worthily to receive this
sacred Body and Blood of thy
Son our Lord Jesus Christ; that
I may deserve thereby to receive
remission of all my sins ; and to
be filled with thy Holy Spirit

312

A nglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL,.

THE BOOK OE COMMON PRAYER,

J‘549·

and to have thy peace ; for thou
art God alone, and besides thee
there is none other ; whose
glorious kingdom and dominion
abides for ever without end,
Amen.
Ί/ien the Priest gives the pax
to the Deacon, saying: Peace to
thee and the Church of God.
Answer, And with thy spirit.
Then the Priest, holding the
.Host in. both hands, says pri­
vately before the Communion :
O God the Father, fountain
and origin of all goodness; who
moved with mercy didst will
thine Only-begotten to descend
for us to the lower world and
to take flesh; the which I un­
worthy here hold in my hands :
Here he inclûtes himself to the
Host, saying:
\ I adore thee ; I glorify thee ;
I praise thee with all the inten­
tion of my heart and mind ; and
pray that thou desert not us thy
servants ; but pardon our sins ;
that with a pure heart and a
chaste body, we may serve thee
the only true and living God.
Through the same Christ our
Lord. Amen.
O Lord J esus Christ, Son of
the living God, who, by the will
of the Father and the coopera­
tion of the Holy Ghost, didst by
thy death give life to the world ;
deliver me, I beseech thee, by
this thy most holy Body and this
thy Blood, from all my iniquities
and from all evils: and make

flic Anglican 11ile and the Eucharisl.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

me ever to obey thy command­
ments, and never permit me to
be separated from thee, O Sa­
viour of the world, who with God
the Father and the same Holy
Ghost livest and reignest God,
world without end. Amen.
May the sacrament of thy
Body and Blood, O Lord Je­
sus Christ, which I, though un­
worthy, receive, be not to me
for judgment and condemna­
tion ; but in thy pity may it
avail to the health of my body
and soul. Amen.
Before receiving, he says, in­
clining himself; Hail for ever.
Most Holy Flesh ofChrist; to me
before all and above all things
sovereign sweetness. The Body
of our Lord Jesns Christ be to
me a sinner the way and the
life. In the name Φ of the Fa­
ther, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Amen.
Here he receives the Host, and
then says ; Hail for ever, Hea­
venly Drink, to me before all
and above all things sovereign
sweetness. The Body and Blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ avail
to me a sinner for an everlasting
remedy to life eternal. Amen.
In the name
of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen.
Here he receives the chalice, and
then says: I give thee thanks,
O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty,
Everlasting God ; who hast re­
freshed me with the most holy

313

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

*549·

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

THE LOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

f-549·

Body and Blood of thy Son our
Lord Jesus Christ, and pray that
this sacrament of our salvation
which I an unworthy sinner have
received may not come to me
to judgment and condemnation
for my deserts ; but to the ad­
vancement of the salvation81 of
my body and soul to eternal
life. Amen.
Here the Priest shall Iurn him
towardthose that come to the Holy
Communion, and shall say :
You that do truly and ear­
nestly repent you of your sins
to Almighty God, and be in love
and charity with your neigh­
bours, and intend to lead a
new life, following the command­
ments of God, and walking from
henceforth in his holy ways ·,
draw near and take this holy Sa­
crament to your comfort, make
your humble confession to Al­
mighty God, and to his holy
Church here gathered together
in his name, meekly kneeling
upon your knees.
When any are io be cotnmuni- Then shall this general confession
cated, a vohite cloth is to be held
be made in the name ofall those
before them by the Acolytes, and
that are minded to receive the
the communicants are to repeat
holy Communion, either by one
the Confiteor.
of them, or else by one of the
•Ministers, or by the Priest him­
self, ail kneeling humbly upon
their knees.
I confess to God, to the Bles­
Almighty God, Father of our
sed Mary, to all Saints, and to Lord Jesus Christ, maker of all
you, father, that I have sinned things, judge of all men, we acel The word salutis is given here in the old editions, but is not in Maskell.

The Anglican Rile and the Eucharist.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

3*5

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549·
knowledge and bewail our mani­
fold sins and wickedness, which
we from time to time most
grievously have committed, by
thought, word, and deed, against
thy divine Majesty, provoking
most justly thy wrath and indig­
nation against us ; we do ear­
nestly repent and be heartily
sorry for these our misdoings ;
the remembrance of them is
grievous unto us, the burden of
them is intolerable : have mercy
upon us, have mercy upon us,
most merciful Father, for thy
Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s
sake, forgive us all that is past,
and grant that we may ever here­
after serve and please thee in
newness of life, to the honour
and glory of thy name : through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Then the Priest says :
Then shall the Priest stand up,
and turning himself to the peo­
ple, say thus :
Almighty God
Almighty God,
our heavenly Father, who of his
great mercy hath promised for­
giveness of sins to all them that
with hearty repentance and true
faith turn unto him ;
have mercy upon you, and par­ have mercy upon you, pardon
don you all your sins, deliver and deliver you from all your
you from all evil, preserve and sins, confirm and strengthen you
confirm you in good, and bring in all goodness, and bring you
you to everlasting life.
to everlasting life : through Je­
Ans. Amen.
sus Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Priest. The Almighty and
merciful Lord grant you abso­
lution and remission of all your
sins, time for true penance and

grievously, in thought, word, and
deed, by my own fault ; I be­
seech Holy Mary, all the Saints
of God, and you, father, to pray
for me.

3 16

The A ngtican Rile and Ike Eucharist.

Anglican Ordinations.
THE LOOK OF COALMON PRAYER.

THE SARUM MISSAL,

THE SARUM MISSAL,

’549·
amendment of life, the grace and
consolation of the Holy Ghost.
Ans. Amen.

Then the Priest giving· Commu­
nion, says :

then- shall the Priest also say :
Hear what comfortable words
our Saviour Christ saith to all
that truly turn to him. [Three
passages of Scripture recited·]
Then shall the Priest, turning
htm ta (laps board, kneeldown,
and say in the name of all them
that shall receive the Coninnt■nian, this prayer following :
We do not presume to come
to this thy table (O merciful
Lord) trusting in our own right­
eousness, but in thy manifold
and great mercies : we be not
worthy to gather up the crumbs
under thy table : but thou art
the same Lord whose property
is always to have mercy. Grant
us therefore (gracious Lord) so
to eat the flesh of thy dear Son
Jesus Christ, and to drink his
blood in these holy Mysteries,
that we may continually dwell
in him, and he in us, that our
sinful bodies may be made clean
by his body, and our souls wash­
ed through his most precious
blood. Amen.
Then shall the Priestfirst receive
the Communion in both kinds
himself, and next deliver it to
other Ministers, ifany be there
present (that they may be ready
to help the chief Minister}, and
after to the people. And when
he delivereth the Sacrament of

The Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ
preserve thy body and thy soul
unto everlasting life. A.n>en.82

317

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

I549·
the body of Christ, he shall say
io every one these words :
The Body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life.
And the Minister deli",'ering the
Sacrament of the Blood, and
giving every one to drink once
and no more, shall say :
The Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which was shed for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life.

At receiving the ablutions the
62 There is no form of giving Communion in the Sarum Missal, nor in the
Manuale, or in any other of the liturgical books.
The form used seems to have depended on tradition, like several other
usages regarding the Mass. But there is no doubt of its being correctly de­
scribed in the text. For the ceremony of the King’s offering and receiving
communion at his coronation is described as follows: ‘ The King shalbe ladd
to the high aulter, the Queue following, and the King shall offre an obley of
bred laid vppon the patent of Saynt Edward his chalice, with the which obley
after consecrate the King shalbe houselled; also he shall offre, in a cruet of
gold, wyne, which he shall vse in the said chalice after he is housilled.’ r When
the King and Queue have kissed the pax, they shall goo to the high aulter,
and after the Cardinali hath commoned hisselfe, he having betwene his hands
the same chalice wheruppon the holy sacrement shalbe laied, shall turne hymself to the King and to the Queue, and thei, lying prostrate before hym, shall
saye their Confiteor, all the prelates answering Misereatur and the Cardinali
saying absolucioun ; that doon, the King and the Queue shall somewhat arise
kneling, and with great humylite and deuocion receyue the sacrament by
thands of the said Cardinali, ij of the grettest astate then present holding befor
the King and the Queue a long towell of sylke. This so done, the King and
the Quene shall .stand vpp and take wyne of the boue rehersed chalice by
thandes of thabbot of Westmynster.’ (Rutland Papers, Camden Society,
p. 21, 22.]
The words of giving Communion are taken from the Visitation of the Sick,
in the Manuale, as it is probable that the same form would be used. Two
illuminations in a ms in the British Museum of the fourteenth century (Royal 2,
B. vii.) exhibit the rite of giving Communion during Mass, in one case by
a Bishop attended by his Deacon, in the other by a priest. The latter is
engraved in Dr. Rock’s Hierurgia, p. 456.

,

3 18

Anglican Ordinations.
THE SARUM MISSAL.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

THE BOOK or COMMON PRAYER,

1549.

Priest says: May we receive
with a pure minci, O Lord, what
we have consumed with the
mouth ; and of a temporal gift
may it become to us an eternal
remedy.
May this communion, O Lord,
purify us from crime, and make
us to be partakers of a heavenly
remedy.
Let us adore the sign of the
cross, through which we have
received the Sacrament of Salva­
tion.
Then the Priest :uith the Minis­
ter says the Communion, which:
is sung also by the Choir.

Taste and see that the Lord
is sweet: blessed is the man that
hopeth in him.

Then the Priest says the Post-com­
munion,first turning to the fco­
pie and saying:
The Lord be with you. Ans.
And with thy spirit. Priest. Let
us pray.
May thy healing power, O
Lord, mercifully free us from our
evil inclinations, and lead us
to those things that are right.
Through, &c.
Having received, O Lord, these
helps to our salvation, grant, we
beseech thee, that we may be
ever protected by the patronage

I

Then shall the Clerk sing the
Post-communion. Sentences of
Holy Scripture, to be said or
sung, every day one, after the
Holy Communion, called the
Post-communion.
If any man will follow me,
let him forsake himself, and take
up his cross, and follow me.

Then the Priest shall give thanks
to God, in the name of all them
that have communicated, turn­
ing him first to thepeople, and
saying:
The Lord be with you. Ans.
And with thy spirit. Priest. Let
us pray.
Almightyand ever-livingGod,
we most heartily thank thee, for
that thou hast vouchsafed to
feed us in these holy Mysteries,
with the spiritual food of the
most precious body and blood
of thy Son our Saviour Jesus
Christ, and hast assured us (duly
receiving the same) of thy fa-

THE SARUM MISSAL.

319

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549.
of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, in vour and goodness toward us,
veneration of whom we have and that we be very mem­
made these offerings to thy Ma­ bers incorporate in thy mystical
jesty,
body, which is the blessed com­
Heavenly Sacraments have we pany of all faithful-people, and
received, O Lord, while cele­ heirs through hope of thy ever­
brating the memory of Blessed lasting kingdom, by the merits
Mary, ever Virgin and Mother of of the death and passion of thy
God, and of all thy Saints; grant, dear Son. We therefore most
we beseech thee, that what en­ humbly beseech thee, O hea­
gages us in time, we may, by the venly Father, so to assist us
aid of their prayers, obtain in the with thy grace, that we may con­
joys of eternity.
tinue in that holy fellowship,
Wc beseech thee, O Lord our and do all such good works as
God, that thou wouldst not per­ thou hast prepared for us to
mit us to be subject to human walk in : through, &c.
perils, to whom thou givest to
rejoice in the partaking ofDivine
Mysteries.
O God, Author and Lover of
peace, to know whom is to live, to
serve whom is to reign ; protect
thy suppliants from all assaults,
that we who confide in thy de­
fence may fear no hostile wea­
pons. Through, &c.
Priest. The Lord be with you.
Ans. And with thy spirit. Dea­
con. Go, you are dismissed. Ans.
Thanks be to God. Priest. Let
the homage of my service be
pleasing to thee, O holy Trinity5
and grant that the sacrifice which
I, unworthy as I am, have offerred to the eyes of thy Majesty,
may be acceptable to thee, and
by thy mercy, be a propitiation
for me, and for all for whom I
have offered it. Who livest, &c.
Amen.
The Priest. In the name of

ΜΙΙΙΟΜΙΒΒΕΒΙ
320

Anglican Ordinations,
THE SARUM MISSAL.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

THE LOOK OF COMMON PRAYER,

1549.
the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Then the Priest, turning him to
the people, shall let them de­
part with this blessing:
The peace of God (which
passeth all understanding) keep
your hearts and minds in the
knowledgeand love of God, and
ofhis Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
And the blessing of God Al­
mighty, the l ather, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, be amongst
you and remain with you alway.
Then the people shall answer:
Amen.

Confining our attention to points bearing on the doc­
trine of the Holy Eucharist, we find, from the preceding
comparison, that what may be called the framework of
the Mass remained nearly as before, for the new book
retained the Sign of the Cross, the Introit, Kyrie Eleison,
the Gloria and Credo, both of them to be commenced by
the Priest and continued by the Choir; the Collect, Epistle,
and Gospel (the two latter to be sung by assistants) ; the
Preface and Sanctus ; a long prayer in the form and place
of the Canon, containing prayers for the Church, the King,
and the congregation, and a commemoration of Saints and
of the faithful departed; the Pater noster, and Agnus
Dei ; a Confiteor before Communion, with the prayer
Misereatur, and the words Corpus Domini, &c. in giving
communion.
But, then, every expression which implies a real and
proper sacrifice had been carefully weeded out. The
Offertory Prayers are omitted altogether, with the Secret
Prayers, which generally contain a petition in reference

i

321

to the sacrifice. The Canon is so mutilated that only here
and there do the words in the two books agree.
Thus, at the beginning, in place of the words, ‘ to
accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy,
undefiled sacrifices which we offer to thee,’ we find, ‘ to
receive these our prayers which we offer unto thy Divine
Majesty.’
In place of ‘ for whom we oiler to thee, or who offer
unto thee this sacrifice of praise . . . for the redemption
of their souls, for the hope of their salvation and safety,’
there is substituted, ‘ this congregation which is here as­
sembled in thy name, to celebrate the commemoration of
the most glorious death of thy Son.’ Thus, though ‘ sacri­
fice of praise’ is the favourite term with the Reformers,
they will not admit it when coupled with other words
making it propitiatory and impetratory.
Again, where the Canon has, ‘ This oblation of our
sen ice we beseech thee favourably to accept,’ the Prayer
Book of 1549 enters on the following dogmatic declara­
tion : ‘ who made there (by his one oblation, once offered)
a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satis­
faction for the sins of the whole world, and did institute,
and in his holy Gospel command us to celebrate, a per­
petual memory of that his precious death, until his coming
again.’ Here, then, by such an alteration of the ancient
words it is maintained that the Holy Eucharist is a bare
commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross,
but not a propitiatory sacrifice ; and that by the sacrifice
of the Mass the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated
on the Cross is derogated from.
But further on, when we come in the Canon to the
words, 1 We do offer to thy excellent Majesty, of thy gifts
and bounties, a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate
victim, the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice ot
everlasting salvation;’ instead of these, we read, ‘ We do
celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with

322

Anglican Ordinations.

these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath
willed us to make,’—being a repetition of the dogma of
the bare commemoration.
Just afterwards, 1 and accept them as . . . a holy sacri­
fice, an immaculate victim,'83 we find instead, ‘ to accept
this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving : most humbly
beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of
thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we
and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our
sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we
offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our self, our souls,
and bodies, to be a reasonable, hoi); and lively sacrifice
unto thee thus adding to the condemned doctrine of the
Mass being only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,
the other idea of the Christian sacrifice consisting in the
offering of ourselves as a reasonable service. Now these
ideas, be it observed, were advocated by Luther, for the
very purpose of denying that there is any priesthood under
the Gospel besides that common to all Christians.
The words ‘ command these,’ i.e. the sacrifice of the
host and chalice, ‘ to be carried by the hands of thy holy
angels to thine altar on high, in sight of thy Divine Ma­
jesty,’ have nothing immediately corresponding to them
in King Edward’s book; but some way further on we
read, ‘ Command these our prayers and supplications by
the ministry of thy holy angels to be brought up into thy
holy Tabernacle, before the sight of thy Divine Majesty;’
prayer being again put in the place of sacrifice.
The foregoing passages have all had reference to the
holy Sacrifice, and the following relate to the Real Pre­
sence :
83 The words ‘sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam’ are referred by
some commentators to the sacrifice of Melchisedec, and by others to the
sacrifice of Christ; and, says Pope Benedict XIV., ‘ either sense may be con­
sidered good.’ But it is obvious that if applied to Melchisedec, it is in a
typical sense, and that they are to be referred also to the ‘super quæ,’ as the
reality which fulfils the type.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

323

Corresponding with the prayer preceding the Con­
secration, in which the priest prays God ‘ to make the
oblation blessed, admitted, ratified, reasonable, and ac­
ceptable, that it may be made for us the body and blood’
of our Lord, the Book of 1549 has also a prayer that God
would vouchsafe, ‘ with his Holy Spirit and Word, to bless
and sanctify these his creatures of bread and wine, that
they may be unto us the Body and Blood’ of our Lord.
The difference here appears but slight, viz. between ‘may
be made’ and ‘ may be,’ and the latter is sometimes a fair
translation offiat', but fiat does express a change in what­
ever it refers to, and this sense the compilers managed to
evade by not adding the word ‘ made.’
It is, however, remarkable that in Aless’s translation
the word fiat is used.84 Yet the intention with which the
words were introduced is clearly shown by Cranmer’s own
explanation. Gardiner having argued that ‘ the body of
Christ is made present to us, as the Church prays, which
prayer is ordered to be made in the Book of Common
Prayer now set forth,’ Cranmer replies, ‘The bread and
wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as
it is in the Book of Common Prayer), but not by chang­
ing the substance, &c. . . . but that in the godly using
of them they be unto the receivers Christ’s body and
blood.. . . Therefore, in the book of the Holy Communion,
we do not pray absolutely that the bread and wine may
be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us
in that holy Mystery they may be so ; that is to say, that
we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be
partakers of Christ’s body and blood, and that therewith
in spirit and in truth we may be spiritually nourished.’85
Coupling, then, this passage with those quoted before
from the ‘ Order of Communion,’ which were retained in
154g, and in which the Wickliflfite expressions are intro­
duced along with Lutheran, there does seem some founda61 Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana.

85 On the Lords Supper, p. 79.

324

Anglican Ordinations.

tion for the complaint of Bullinger’s correspondent ‘ as to
the ambiguity in the reformation of the Lord’s Supper.’
It is also remarkable that while the book seemed some­
times to lean on one side to the Zuinglian doctrine, it
appeared in other points to be nearer the Catholic Church
than the Lutheran formularies, retaining the Sign of the
Cross, the prayer answering to the Canon, a prayer before
the Consecration, and the Commemoration of the Saints
and of the faithful departed.
Whatever ambiguity there may have been in this book
with regard to the Real Presence, it was not suflcrcd to
continue very long. The advocates of a further reforma­
tion received an accession of strength in Bucer and Fagins,
who arrived in England in April 1549. Peter Martyr
had been at Oxford for some months previously.
Martin Bucer had been a Dominican friar, and having
adopted the reformed doctrines, distinguished himself by
endeavouring to bring about a reconciliation between the
Lutheran and Zuinglian parties. To effect this he studied
to use ambiguous terms regarding ‘ the Lord’s Supper,’
which, without satisfying the Lutheran divines, gave great
offence to those of Zurich. In the course of his pro­
ceedings he showed such vacillation from one side to the
other that he was trusted by neither.80 His arrival in
England gave anything but pleasure to the advanced Re­
formers, who expected him to oppose further changes in
religion.87 He had been employed some years before by
Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, in drawing up a scheme
of Reformation, which comes nearer to the Anglican Prayer
Book than any other of the ‘ Church Orders’ of the Con­
tinental Reformers ; and this was one of the motives that
led to his being invited to England.
Peter Martyr had been a Prior of Augustinian Canons
at Lucca, and had for some years embraced opinions favour­
able to Zuinglianism. At last, being obliged to make his
K Melchior Adam in lita Buceri.

Orig. Letters.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

325

escape, he came to Zurich ; but there being no place open
for him in the College, he went on to Strasburg, where
he was kindly received by Bucer, and by his means made
a lecturer in the college.88 Hence there arose a friend­
ship between these two, which does not seem to have
been interrupted by their partisans being in such opposi­
tion.
King Edward’s first book had not actually appeared
when Bucer arrived in London, but the Archbishop had
ordered it to be translated into Latin, by Aless, for his
perusal.89 Bucer drew up a ‘ Censure’ upon it, which was
not finished till the beginning of the year 1551, scarcely
a month before his death. In this ‘ Censure’ he objects
to the use of vestments, as tending to superstition, and
causing dissension. He recommends the omission of pray­
ing for the dead, as encouraging superstition. He then
enters on an elaborate argument about the prayer before
the Consecration, objecting to the words, 'With thy Holy
Spirit and Word vouchsafe to blessé and sanc^tify these
thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may
be unto us the body and blood of our Lord.’ These words,
he says, favour the abomination of transubstantiation, and
there is no authority in the example of Christ or the Apos­
tles for ‘ bless and sanctify.’ Moreover, some priests con­
tinue to make an inclination in saying our Lord’s words
from the Gospel, and whisper them, as if addressing the
bread and wifte instead of the people. Though we receive
really and substantially the body and blood of Christ with
his Divinity, and his whole self, that presence is merely
in the receiving, and not in the bread and wine, which are
in no way changed in their nature, being but symbols, and
having no virtue in them either before or after the receiv­
ing. Therefore he suggests an alteration of the prayer,
and hopes that the 6 little black crosses’ will be omitted,
*8 Melchior Adam in Vita Martyns.
60 Orig. Letters, vol. ii. p. 535 ; Strype’s Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 300.

326

Anglican Ordinations.

as well as the rubrics directing the priest to ‘ take the
bread and the cup into his hands.’
He also objected to the words ‘ by the ministry of thy
holy angels,’ and hoped they would be omitted.
He then commends highly all the terms used imply­
ing the Real Presence in the receiving communion, which
he earnestly hopes will be retained just as they are.90
There is another objection which we will notice further
on. If, indeed, Bucer’s recommendations had been strictly
adhered to, the rite would have been made simply Lutheran;
but the ambiguity that there was already in the book
would have been largely increased.
According to Strype, Peter Martyr wrote to Bucer
that he agreed with all his objections ; but he appears to
express himself somewhat cautiously, and does not say
that he approves all that Bucer commended.91
Bucer’s ‘ Censure’ having been received, the revision
of the book was proceeded with. The new book appeared
in 1552, and was received as favourable to the Zuinglian
views; for Cox writes to Bullinger, Oct. 5, 1552, ‘We
have now for the second time altered the administration
of the public prayers, and even of the Sacraments them­
selves, and have framed them according to the rule of
God’s Word.’92
In the ‘ Order for the Administration of the Lord’s
Supper,’ the omissions recommended by Bucer were
carried into effect ; but the alteration he proposed in the
prayer was not adopted, and the parts that he hoped
would be left as they stood were considerably altered.
The Sign of the Cross, the Introit, and Kyrie Eleison
were omitted ; the Gloria in Excelsis was transposed to
the end instead of the beginning ; of the prayer answer­
ing to the Canon, great part was omitted, and the re­
mainder was divided into three portions and placed in
M Bucer’s Scrota Anglicatia, p. 456-76.
S2 Orig. Letters, p. 1Z3.

si Cranmer, vol. i. p. 304.

Tkc Anglican Rile and the Eucharist.

327

different parts of the rite ; the Commemoration of Saints
and the faithful departed omitted entirely ; the Prayer
before Consecration altered ; in place of the ancient words
of giving communion a Zuinglian form was substituted ;
and the whole arrangement so changed as no longer to
present any resemblance to the Mass. After Queen
Mary's reign, when the book was revived again in 1559,
the ancient words of giving communion were restored,
but united to the Zuinglian form; otherwise the rite re­
mained very nearly the same up to 1662, when a sort of
commemoration of the departed was added, but without
praying for them, and the rubrics directing the priest to
take the 1 bread and cup’ into his hand were restored.
But substantially the present Book of Common Prayer is
the same with that of 1552.
The differences between the two books on the subject
of the Real Presence we must now proceed to notice.
Having already shown what was the doctrine maintained
by the earlier Reformers, we will now take those who
succeeded them ; and having ascertained their views, we
will try to see whether there is ground to suppose that
the same doctrine is expressed in the Book of Common
Prayer, and then whether it is such as to come under the
condemnation of the Council of Trem.
The same idea that prevailed among the earlier divines
seems to be carried on by those who succeeded them,
namely, that the bread and wine in the Communion are
signs of the body and blood of Christ, and that the faith­
ful, i» corporally receiving the former, receive also the
latter spiritually, but really; but that the unfaithful re­
ceive only the signs. Beyond this, it is not easy to tell
what their precise belief was. Some writers seem to
attribute more efficacy to the sacramental receiving.
Others appear to go greater lengths in placing the hear­
ing of the word read or preached, or the mere faith of
the receiver, on a level with the Sacrament itself.

3 2·8

Anglican Ordinations.

Hooper’s influence in England did not commence till
after the publication of the first Prayer Book ; hence we
place him with the later divines, and find, in a letter to
Bucer, dated June 19, 1548, the following passage:
‘ You write word that you cannot believe the Sacraments to be
bare signs. Far be such a belief from the most unlearned Chris­
tian ! The Holy Supper is not a bare sign ; neither in it is the
true and natural body of Christ exhibited to me in any super­
natural or heavenly manner; nevertheless, I religiously, and with
all honour, venerate and reverence the institution of Christ upon
other grounds, because it is a sign of the goodwill of God towards
me, and an outward testimony added to the promise of grace. Not
that this promise is applied to me by means of any sacrament, but
because the promise previously applied to me by faith is thereby
confirmed........... Thus the Holy Supper is a testimony of grace,
and a mystery of our redemption in which God bears witness to
the benefits bestowed upon us by Christ : not that the remission
of sins, which in believers ought, to precede all use of sacraments,
is there applied; nor that the true body of Christ, which is in
heaven and not on earth, is exhibited together with the bread, but
that it may confirm that faith which I have in the death and pas­
sion of that body which was alive, died, and rose again. And the
minister gives what is in his power, namely, the bread and wine,
and not the body of Christ ; nor is it exhibited by the minister, and
eaten by the communicant, otherwise than in the word preached,
read, or meditated upon. And to eat the body of Christ is nothing
else than to believe, as he himself teaches in the sixth of John.’33

Then Grindall, in the Dialogue between Custom and

Verity:
‘Christ, speaking of the eating of his body, nameth himself the
bread, not for the body, but of life for the soul ; and saith, “ He
that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believetfi in me
shall never thirst.” Wherefore, whoso will be relieved by the body
of Christ must receive him as he will be received, with the instru­
ment of faith appointed thereunto, not with his teeth or mouth.
And, whereas I say that Christ’s body must be received and taken
with faith, I mean not that you shall pluck down Christ from
heaven, and put him in your faith, as in a visible place ; but that
you must with your faith rise and spring up to him, and, leaving
83 Orig. Letters, p. 47.

■

The A Hglicau Rite and the Eucharist.

329

this world, dwell above in heaven ; putting all your trust, comfort,
and consolation in him, which suffered grievous bondage to set
you at liberty and to make you free ; creeping into his wounds,
which were so cruelly pierced and dented for your sake. So shall
you feed on the body of Christ ; so shall you suck the blood that
was poured out and shed for you. This is the spiritual, the very
true, the only eating of Christ’s body.’94

>
>
f

And Jewell :
‘ M. Harding unjustly reporteth of us, that we maintain a naked
figure and a bare sign and token only, and nothing else. . . . He
knoweth well we feed not the people of Cod with bare signs and
figures, but teach them that the Sacraments of Christ be holy
mysteries, and that in the ministration thereof Christ is set before
us, even as he was crucified upon the cross, and that therein we
may behold the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation unto
God. . . . Herein we teach the people, not that a naked sign or
token, but that Christ’s body and blood indeed and verily is given
unto us ; that we verily eat it ; that we verily drink it ; that we
verily be relieved and live by it ; that we are bone of his bones,
and flesh of his flesh ; that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him.
Yet we say not either that the substance of the bread or wine is
done away; or that Christ’s body is let down from heaven, or
made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament. We are taught,
according to the doctrine of the old fathers, to lift up our hearts
to heaven, and there to feed upon the Lamb of God. . . . Thus,
spiritually, and with the mouth of our faith, we eat the body of
Christ and drink his blood, even as verily as his body was verily
broken, and his blood verily shed upon the cross. . . . The bread
that we receive with our bodily mouths is an earthly thing, and
therefore a figure, as the water in baptism is likewise a figure ; but
the body of Christ that thereby is represented and there is offered
unto our faith, is the thing itself, and no figure. ...
‘ Three things herein we must consider : first that we put a difference between the sign and the thing itself that is signified.
‘ Secondly, that we seek Christ above in heaven, and imagine
not him to be present bodily upon the earth.
‘ Thirdly, that the body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only,
and none otherwise.
‘ And in this last point appeareth a notable difference between
us and M. Harding. For we place Christ in the heart, according
S1 Remains, p. 46.

■ .

*

<
1 J

s
J
" ;
1

■

Anglican Ordinations.

330

to the doctrine of St. Paul; M. Harding placeth him in the mouth.
We say, Christ is eaten only by faith; M. Harding saith, He is
eaten with the mouth and teeth.’95

Beacon also:
‘ Christ is eaten or received two manner of ways; that is to say.
sacramentally and spiritually. He is received or eaten sacrament­
ally when we eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, ac­
cording to the institution of Christ, which thing is done not only
of the faithful, but also of the unfaithful. He is also eaten or re­
ceived spiritually when we believe in Christ, embrace him as our
alone Saviour, put our whole hope, trust, and confidence of our
redemption and salvation in that one and alone sacrifice, which
Christ offered upon the altar of the cross, having his body there
broken, and his blood there shed, for the remission of our sins. . .
And after this manner the godly and faithful only eat and receive
Christ. Other eating or receiving of Christ there is none.
‘ Father. Why? Js not the very natural body of Christ eaten of
by the communicants, both faithful and unfaithful, at the Lord’s
Supper.
‘ Son. Christ is only received and eaten of the faithful com­
municants : the unfaithful receive not the body and blood of
Christ, but the sacraments of the same only, and that unto their
damnation.’9'’

It is not meant that members of the Anglican Church
are bound by the opinions of the writers we have quoted,
or that such writers are to be taken as representatives of
Anglican theology. They are referred to merely as writers
contemporary with the formation of the Common Prayer
Book, in order to judge of the meaning, effect, and in­
tention of phrases used in that book.
We must, then, now compare the passages in the
Book of 1549, relating to the doctrine of the Real Pre­
sence, with the same places as altered in the Book of
1552, but quoting from the Common Prayer Book as it
stands at present, there being only verbal differences
between these latter, except in two places.
Harding, p. 448.

SG Catechism, p. 294.

I

■The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.
£549·
I intend to offer, to all such as
shall be godly disposed, the most
comfortable Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of Christ :
he hath not only given his body
to death, and shed his blood,
but also doth vouchsafe in a
Sacrament and mystery to give
us his said body and blood to
feed upon them spiritually ;

331

1552, i559, ϊό°4, and 1662.
[This was omitted in the three
first ; but restored in 1662.]

he hath given his Son our Sa­
viour Jesus Christ not only to
die for us, but also to be our
spiritual food and sustenance [in
that holy Sacrament. 1662.]
[As it is declared unto us, as well
by God’s word, as by the holy
Sacraments of his blessed body
and blood, j552, 1559, and
1604.] [In the Scotch Prayer
Book, ‘ Sacrament.’]

then we spiritually eat the flesh
of Christ and drink his blood ;
then we dwell with Christ, and
Christ with us ; we are one with
Christ, and Christ with us :
he hath left in those holy mys­
teries, as a pledge of his love,
and a continual remembrance of
the same, his own blessed body
and precious blood, for us to
feed upon spiritually to our great
and endless comfort.
Grant us therefore, gracious
Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy
dear Son Jesus Christ, and to
drink his blood in these holy mys­
teries, that we may continually
dwell in him and he in us, that
our sinful bodies may be made
clean by his body, and our souls
washed through his most pre­
cious blood ;
with thy holy Spirit and AVord
vouchsafe to bless and sanctify
these thy gifts and creatures of
bread and wine, that they may

[This is the same in all editions.]
he hath instituted and ordained
holy mysteries, as pledges of his
love, and for a continual remem­
brance of his death, to our great
and endless comfort.

Grant us therefore, gracious
Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy
dear Son Jesus Christ, and to
drink his blood, that our sinful
bodies may be made clean by
his body, and our souls washed
through his most precious blood,
and that we may evermore dwell
in him and he in us;
grant that we receiving these
thy creatures of bread and wine
according to thy Son our Sa­
viour Jesus Christ’s holy insti-

332

Anglican Ordinations.

τ549·
be unto us the body and blood
of thy most dearly-beloved Son
Jesus Christ.

The body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life.

Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us
in these holy mysteries with the
spiritual food of the most pre­
cious body and blood of thy
Son.

τ552, ]559, i6o4, and 1662.
tution, in remembrance of his
death and passion, may be par­
takers ofhis most blessed body
and blood.
The body of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto
everlasting life. [Take and cat
this in remembrance that Christ
died for thee, and feed on him
in thy heart by faith with thanks­
giving. 1552.]
Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us,
who have duly received these
holy mysteries, with the spiritual
food of the most precious body
and blood of thy Son.

Hence it appears that the divines of 1552 declare that
conditionally on faith and penitence the receivers do spiritu­
ally eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood ; but they
decline to add ‘ in those holy mysteries that God vouch­
safes to feed those who duly receive these holy mysteries
■—but not in them—with the spiritual food of the most
precious body and blood of Christ. And those of 1662
consent both to the declaration and the omission.
Those of 1662 were willing to say that God has
given his Son our Saviour to be our spiritual food and
sustenance in that holy Sacrament ; and they objected to
putting the declaration of this gift by the Word of God
on a level with the Holy Eucharist ; but they declined to
say that our Lord has left us in those holy mysteries, or
that he gives us in a Sacrament or mystery, his blessed
body and blood to feed upon spiritually.
Those of 1552, followed by their successors in 1662,
were willing to pray that ‘ we, receiving the creatures of
bread and wine, according to Christ’s institution, may be
partakers ofhis body and blood;’ but not that ‘God

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

333

would bless and sanctify the creatures of bread and wine
that they may be to us the body and blood of Christ ;’
thus declaring, by their admission of the former and re­
fusal of the latter, that what is received is only bread and
wine ; and that the presence of Christ’s body and blood
is only in the partaking.
The Reformers of 1552 had struck out the ancient
form of giving communion, and inserted words of their
own, implying that the ‘ bread and wine’ are to be re­
ceived only in remembrance of our Lord’s death, and that
his presence is only in the receiver’s own soul by faith.
The ancient words were restored in 1559, but with the
Zuinglian form added to them. And as the ancient words
are not so distinct but that they may be explained away,
the revisers of 1559, followed by those of 1662, have
allowed without repudiation the Zuinglian sense to be
put upon thé Catholic form.
Let us, then, see what is the present position. It is
this : the Book of Common Prayer teaches and professes
by implication that the body and blood of Christ are given
and received in the Communion only in a spiritual manner,
and by faith ; that our Lord is not present in the conse­
crated species, but only in the soul of the receiver ; that
he is received only by the faithful, and not by the un­
faithful and impenitent ; and thus that he is not given, or
received, or eaten in the Holy Eucharist sacramentally and
really in the sense which the Catholic Church believes
and teaches.
This is the doctrine which was condemned as Zuin­
glian in the Council of Trent. The deductions are
made solely and entirely from the Prayer Book ; but, if
we compare them with the extracts given before, we shall
find the doctrine is just the same. Jewell especially uses
the very words of the Prayer Book, and says, ‘ We teach
that Christ’s body and blood indeed and verily is given
unto us ; that we verily eat it and drink it ; that Christ

234

Anglican Ordinations.

dwellcth in us, and we in him. Yet we say not that his
body is made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament.
Spirituali)’ and by faith we eat the body of Christ and
drink his blood. The bread we receive is an earthly
thing and a figure, and the body of Christ is represented
thereby. We imagine not Christ to be present bodily
upon the earth. The body of Christ is to be eaten by
faith only, and none otherwise. We place Christ in the
heart ; M. Harding placeth him in the mouth.’
We must also notice the changes in the ‘ Order of
Administration’ as directed by the Rubrics. It was men­
tioned97 that, in the ‘Order of Communion’ in 1548, a
direction is given that, in case the wine consecrated was
not sufficient, the priest might consecrate more. In the
First Book of King Edward care was taken to avoid the
necessity for this sacrilege by directing that ‘ so many as
intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion shall
signify their names to the Curate over night, or else in
the morning;’ and also that ‘ then shall the Minister take
so much bread and wine as shall suffice for the persons
appointed to receive the Holy Communion.’ In Bucer’s
‘ Censure’ he remarked upon this, that ‘ hence some con­
ceive the superstition, that they think it wrong if any of
the bread or wine of the Communion remains over, to
suffer it to come into common use ; as if there were any­
thing divine or sacred inherent in this bread and wine,
even out of the use of them in Communion. Wherefore
some think that, however much remains from Communion,
they are to consume the whole. Men are therefore to
be taught that Christ the Lord is offered to the mind of
pious receivers by the Lord’s words and these symbols,
and not to the bread and wine.98 And thus, beyond the
S7 p· 5·
08 Nou pant ct vino sed/iis mentibus offerri. Compare Jewell’s phrase ‘ the
body of Christ offered unto our faith;’ and Cranmer’s, ‘the communication of
Christ’s body and blood to the faithful receiver, and not to the dumb creatures
of bread and wine. ’

The Anglican, Rite and the Eucharist.

335

use of the communion which the Lord instituted, the
bread and wine, even if they have been placed on the
Lord’s table, have in themselves no more sanctity than
other bread and wine. . . . Whatever appears to favour
the bread-worship, or to be used by anti-Christ to retain
the same in the hearts of simple men, we ought to abolish
as far and as purely as possible from the churches.’99
He also objected to the Rubrics directing the priest
to take the bread and the cup into his hands in the Con­
secration, because the words from the Gospel are to be
addressed to the people present as an exhortation to
them, and not to the bread and wine, as if a change was
to be wrought in them by pronouncing those words.1
His recommendations in these respects were entirely
carried out. In the Book of 1552 there is no direction
whatever about preparing the bread and wine before Com­
munion; the table is no longer to be left altarwise, but
to be placed in the middle ; the words from the Gospel
are to be said without taking notice of the bread and wine,
and merely in the way of a lesson—‘ the bread is no longer
to be unleavened,’ but ‘such as is usual to be eaten;’
and ‘ if any of the bread or Avine remains, the Curate
shall have it to his own use.’ It must be remembered
that at the time these Rubrics were first put in force, the
persons acting on them were in* general priests truly or­
dained by the Catholic rite. Hence, if the words from
the Gospel recited in such a manner were really a con­
secration, the profanation that ensued is beyond concep­
tion. But it is very doubtful whether the words of the
Gospel recited in such a manner by persons who had re­
nounced the faith, and made no sacramental intention,
could be a valid consecration, as was remarked at the
time by Scot, Bishop of Chester, in his speech in the
House of Lords against the Bill for the Prayer Book,
saying, ‘ Christ’s bodye is not there in very dede to be
09 Scripta Anglicana, p. 464.

1 p. 472.

Anglican Ordinations.
received. For th’only waye wherby it is present is by
consecration, which this booke hathe not at all. . . Nowe
by the order of this booke, neyther dothe the preste take
the bread in his handes, blesse it, nor breake it, ney­
ther yet hathe any regard or respect to the bread, when
he rehearsithe the wordes of Christe, but dothe passe
them over as the}' were tellinge a tale, or rehearsing a
storye.’2
This state of things continued till the last revision in
1662. Archbishop Laud had had the table restored to
its place at the east end, and such a restoration seems to
have been generally carried into effect throughout the
kingdom; but the Rubric has remained unaltered.3 In
1662 the Rubric was restored, directing ‘the Priest be­
forehand to place upon the table so much bread and
wine as he shall think sufficient.’ And, by way of pre­
venting the profanation described above, it is directed
that, ‘ if any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated,
the Curate shall have it to his own use ; but if any re­
main of that which was consecrated, it shall not be car­
ried out of the church, but the Priest and such other of
the communicants as he shall then call unto him shall
reverently eat and drink the same.’ With this we find
revived the sacrilegious Rubric of 1548, directing a se­
cond consecration in one kind, if required. Both Rubrics
had, indeed, found their way into the Scotch Prayer
Book previously.
The practice of consuming the remains did not origi­
nate in this country, but was ordered in the Book of
Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, drawn up by Bucer.
And it is remarkable that he should have approved there
2 Strype’s Annals, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 445.
3 The present writer has seen a parish church in a country village where
the table retained its position according to the Rubric of 1552, being placed in
the middle of the chancel east and west, with seats all round it. Possibly, as
he is speaking of thirty years ago, church restoration may have altered the
arrangement.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

337

what he condemned in his ‘Censure’ of the English Book.
The words are: ‘The pastours shall endeavour that they
compte the numbre of them whiche shall communicate,
that according to the same, thei may receive pieces of
bread and measure of wyne. As for the remnauntes,
after the Communion, let the pastours themselves receive
them forthwith, and not keep nor lay them up, nor cary
them away, or set them forth to be beholded.’4
This practice was brought before the Fathers of the
Council of Trent among the ‘Articles concerning the Eu­
charist proposed to the Theologians,’ as follows : ‘ That
the Eucharist is not to be reserved in the sacrarium,
but is to be at once given to those present and eaten,
and that those who do otherwise abuse this sacrament.
This is contained in the Book of Reformation addressed
to the people of Cologne.’5 And the following sen­
tence was decreed upon it : ‘ If any one saith that it is
not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the
sacrarium ; but that, immediately after consecration, it
must necessarily be distributed amongst those present;
or that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour
to the sick; let him be anathema.’6
What may have been the view with which the di­
vines of 1662 directed this practice, whether believing
the consecrated species to be really the Body and Blood
of our Lord, they still considered it right that persons
who have already communicated should receive again;
or whether, merely looking upon them as sacred things,
they wished to prevent their being put to common use,
we will not undertake to say. Nor will we inquire whe­
ther even this measure of reverence is constantly main­
tained in Anglican churches. But it is remarkable that
those divines, in endeavouring to escape from the profa­
nation of the previous usage, should have fallen into the
4 Simple and Religious Consultation.
s Le Plat, ATon. Com. Trid. vol. iv. p. 259·

• Sess. xiii. can. 7.

33s

A nglican Ordinations.

sacrilege of consecration in one kind. It only shows that
they had no idea whatever of the true Eucharistic Sacri­
fice. And it may be now respectfully put to any An­
glican clergyman professing Catholic tendencies, whether
he has ever acted on that Rubric. If he has, and if he
should hereafter obtain the grace to be reconciled to the
Church, he will see cause to thank God that at least,
when he did such things, he was not a priest.
What, then, is the actual position? The present Book
of Common Prayer is less in direct opposition to the Ca­
non of the Mass than the Book of 1549, because it is
further removed away. Of the six passages in which
Lutheran expressions were substituted for the words of
the Canon relating to the Holy Sacrifice, three have been
omitted altogether, two are retained as they were, and
the other has been altered. For the Book of 1549 hav­
ing altered the words 1 to accept and bless these gifts,
these offerings, these holy undefiled sacrifices, which we
offer to thee,’ to ‘receive these our prayers which we
offer;’ the Book of 1552 inserted other words, and made
it, ‘ to accept our alms and to receive these our prayers.’
Then in 1662 was added, after ‘alms,’ ‘and oblations,’
bearing reference, it may be supposed, to the bread and
wine which the minister is then directed to place upon
the table. On this we may remark that ‘ oblations’ very
feebly represents ‘bœc munera, bœc sacrificia; and by
joining it with ‘ alms,’ it is made to look as if the two
were offered in the same sense. Besides the other pass­
ages remain ; one, that ‘ our Lord, by his one oblation
on the Cross, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacri­
fice and oblation for the sins of the world, and instituted
in the Gospel a perpetual memory of his death;’ which
is all perfectly true in itself, but having been substituted
in place of the ‘ Hanc oblationem servitutis nostræ placa­
tus accipias,’ it can only mean that the Sacrifice of the
Mass is derogatory to Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross

The Anglican Rite and the Eticharist.

339

and that the Eucharistie Sacrifice is a bare commemora­
tion of his death, but not a propitiatory sacrifice. The
other passage is, ‘ we entirely desire thy Fatherly good­
ness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving/ which, though now transposed from its
original place, was brought in instead of ‘ supra quæ pro­
pitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere
.... sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam;’ and
therefore it must be held to mean that the sacrifice of
the Eucharist is only a sacrifice of praise and thanks­
giving. And as to this passage is joined, ‘ we offer
and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and
bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto
thee / which, in conjunction with the former, is the phrase
that Luther employed to signify that there is no priest­
hood under the Gospel other than that which is common
to all Christians ; there does seem to be in these words
an assertion of the Lutheran tenet of there being no
visible and external priesthood, which was condemned by
the Council of Trent. And thus according to this Book,
there is no sacrifice and no priest, for all the offering
there is, is made equally by the people as by the minis­
ter, in Luther’s sense of all Christians having an interior
spiritual priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices. And
a sacrifice without a priest is no real sacrifice.
Having thus traced the origin and history of various
dogmatic statements and phrases in the Book of Common
Prayer and of practices involving doctrine; having shown
the sentences and phrases of the ancient Catholic rite for
which they have been substituted; having compared
them with the dogmatic teaching of the Reformers, both
of foreign countries and our own ; we come to a conclu­
sion, not without pain, because it will appear to be severe
on persons who are honestly acting according to the
lights of their own conscience. This conclusion is, that
those who receive and use the Book of Common Prayer,

340

Anglican Ordinations.

whether as ministering or as communicating, do by that
their formal act make a denial of the Catholic faith in
several points, and a profession of various opinions con­
demned as heresy.
They deny the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
They deny the Priesthood of the Church.
They deny the Real Presence of our Lord in the
Eucharist.
They profess and assert that the Eucharistic Sacrifice
is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; that it is a
bare commemoration of the Sacrifice consummated on the
Cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice, nor impetratory
that the Sacrifice of the Mass is derogatory to the most
holy Sacrifice of Christ consummated on the Cross ; that
the Canon of the Mass does contain errors, and therefore
it was right and necessary to abrogate it ; and that Christ
our Lord in the Eucharist is given, received, and eaten
spiritually only, and not sacramentally or really.
On all this the Catholic Church has pronounced her
anathema.
To return now to the question with which this ex­
amination was commenced—Are there any such indica­
tions in the Prayer Book of a real sacrifice, as to show
that a real priest is required to offer it ? And the answer
is found to be—None, but the contrary.
It now remains to consider what answer has been
given to this objection on the Anglican side. And Mr.
Haddan’s statement of the argument may be taken, because
he has summed up the arguments of those preceding him,
and put them even in a more forcible way than they have
done; and because also, wide as the interval is that un­
happily separates us, a Catholic can still sympathise with
his mode of treating the subject more than with that
adopted by Dr. Elrington,7 or Sir William Palmer.8
7 Validity of English Ordinations, p. 135.
• Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 462.

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

341

‘The change in our form of priestly Ordination,’ says Mr.
Haddan, ‘ undoubtedly gives room for the question, whether in
such change of words is involved also any essential, and if essen­
tial, whether any fatally erroneous, change in the conception of the
priestly office ; and this, whether by the alteration of the words in
itself or as ruled authoritatively elsewhere. The Church of Eng­
land confers the office of prieshood by name. She specifies, in
conferring it, the function of absolving from sin, that of preaching
the Word of God, and that of dispensing or ministering the Sacra­
ments : all these in the plainest of words, so that they who deny
any one of them contradict express and solemn declarations, 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 desists 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 39 Articles. Al­
though, none the less, the power of “ministering Sacraments,” and
inclusively 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. . . . Here,
as in most points of controversy between Rome and herself, the
Church of England claims to have abolished a mediæval 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 reality was nothing more than a cor­
rupt 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 itself. And, in order to this,
words were dropped from the ordination service which had grown
into use in mediæval times, and which enshrined this purely me­
diæval doctrine ; words which, without explanation, by their
natural force and by their historical origin, expressed that doc­
trine ; while the Thirty-first Article specifies the ground upon
which, and therefore the purpose with which, the change (with
other corresponding changes elsewhere) was made.... 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

342

/tj

Anglican Ordinations.

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 unqualified 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 Thirty-first Article :
i.e. we find it, not in a denial of the Eucharistic 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 Transubstantiation, combined with the asser­
tion of a “true and proper” sacrifice of the transubstantiated ele­
ments (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.’9

It is painful in a work professing to maintain the
‘Apostolical Succession’ to read a description of the doc­
trine defined by the Council of Trent as a ‘ corrupt de­
velopment of a truth, encroaching on and contradicting
the faith itself;’ and a defence of the change made in
the Ordination rite as the omission of ‘ words dangerously
unqualified and actually mischievous and still more pain­
ful to find the words of the Thirty-first Article accepted
and justified by the alleged fact of there being a belief
and a practice in vogue at the time to which they were
justly applied. To this no reply would be needed, be­
cause the present work set out with professing to rest on
Catholic grounds alone, and simply to answer the claim
for recognition of Anglican Orders by the Catholic
Church;10 and Mr. Haddan’s argument is an admission,
as much as Dr. Elrington’s or Sir William Palmer’s has

iji

9 Haddan’s Apostolical Succession, p. 269-74.
While these sheets were
passing through the press, an announcement appeared of the death of the
Rev. A. W. Haddan, B. D. Though opposed in principle and faith, we may
all feel regret at the loss of one who has written in a spirit of reverence and
with general fairness and capdour as to facts.
K See cap. i. p. 3.

The Anglican Rite and ike Eucharist.

343

been before, that the sacrifice as understood by him is
not that which the Catholic Church believes.
But it is not usual among Catholics to stand simply
upon the decision of the Church, without giving some
consideration to the reasons alleged against it by oppo­
nents. And there is the more cause for such a concession
in that the admissions made, or the view taken, or the
arguments advanced by one writer among Anglicans, are
not necessarily concurred in by others. And in the pre­
sent case, although Mr. Haddan himself and others11
profess to see a distinction between the medimval doctrine
of the Holy Sacrifice, and that taught in the Scriptures
and the Fathers, and maintain that the Anglican Church
has only cut off additions erroneously made to the faith
and practice of the Church in earlier ages ; yet there are
others who now approach much nearer, perhaps even the
writer in the Tracts for the Times himself, to the belief
and usages of the Church on these points.12
Now Mr. Haddan’s argument resolves itself into three
points; namely: 1. That the special office of sacrificing
is included under the general terms of ministering Sacra­
ments. 2. That the omission in the Ordination rite is
limited by the terms of the Thirty-first Article. 3. That
the Article is opposed only to such a doctrine of the
Holy Sacrifice as encroaches on and contradicts the One­
ness of the Sacrifice of the Cross.
In considering these points, as we have for the mo­
ment descended from the heights of the practice of the
Church, so it may be conceded that we waive the ques­
tion how far the formula omitted is essential, and rest the
argument solely on other grounds. And first, to con­
sider whether sacrificing is included in ministering Sacra­
ments. If the latter were a term that had descended
from ancient times, and had been generally understood to
11 7rads for the Times, No. 81, Introduction.
12 Directorium Anglicanutii, and First Report ofRitual Commission,-ç. 72.

344

A nglican Ordinations.

mean all the functions of the priesthood, there would be
something in favour of such a view. Thus there is no
doubt that the phrases, ‘ power of sacerdotal grace’ and
i dignity of the presbyterate,’ which have come down from
the early Sacramentaries, do include the power of sacrifice.
But the term ‘ministering Sacraments’ is a new term in
the ordination of a priest, and had not been used in any
of the old Pontificals. It is necessary therefore to ask,
With what object was it introduced ? Who suggested
it ? What reasons were given ? Did its first proposers
mean to include sacrificing in it? We have already heard
this history. It has been shown that this term was
suggested by Luther in order to exclude the idea of
offering or consecrating; and that not many years after
he made the suggestion, it was adopted in the Anglican
Ordination rite of 1549. If it be said that the Anglican
Church is not bound by Luther’s acts or opinions, it is
quite true; but when the compilers of the rite adopted
his proposals, did they take any step to show that they
received it in a different sense from his ? Did any one
ever profess that these words included sacrifice, until it
was forced upon Anglican writers as an afterthought in
reply to Catholic objections, and so maintained by Bur­
net13 perhaps the first, and this being more than a cen­
tury after the words came into use ?
2. With regard to the omission of the power to sacri­
fice, Catholics would willingly admit that it is limited by
the Thirty-first Article, if it were of any avail to do so,
or if such a limitation were possible. But as the ‘ Forms
of Ordering’ were published in 1549, and the Articles
did not appear till 1552, it is difficult to see how such a
limitation could take effect. The practice was in vogue,
and therefore must stand on its own grounds, indepen­
dently of a statement of doctrine made afterwards; even
if the acceptance of the doctrine by those who come
1» Vindication of Orders of CE ofEngl, p.

The Anglican Rile and the Eucharist.

345

afterwards shows in what sense they adopt and under­
stand the practice. And this practice—viz, the substi­
tution of the present formula for that anciently in use—
is the very change described above, and originated by the
Lutherans with the intention of denying that priests are
ordained to sacrifice in any sense of a visible external
priesthood.
3. But the fact is, the Thirty-first Article does not
limit the meaning of the omission. The Article falsely
accuses the Catholic doctrine of being derogatory to the
One Sacrifice of Our Lord upon the Cross, as shown
before. But not to insist now on the definitions of the
Councils of Florence and Trent, let us take the defen­
ders of the Article on their own grounds. Mr. Haddan
says : ‘ The Church of England abolished a mediaeval
error;’ ‘a doctrine of the school;’ ‘a corrupt develop­
ment ;’ ‘ a purely mediaeval doctrine ;’ ‘ while retaining
the primitive truth.’14 It has not condemned the doc­
trine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but simply one particu­
lar view thereof.15 Dr. Littledale says: ‘The Article
was intended to reject a heresy that prevailed in the six­
teenth century.’ But if this were the case, if the error
and corruption and heresy were of such recent growth,
why did the compilers of the Prayer Book cast out from
their work the Canon of the Mass ? Why did they at
first alter its language into the expression of their own
views, and then afterwards, contemporaneously with the
publication of this Article, sweep it away altogether?
Did the Canon contain the mediæval error, or did it
encourage a heresy of the sixteenth century? We know
very well that when Anglicans began to return to more
Catholic principles, they took shelter under this very
Canon of the Mass ; they undertook to assert that the
Canon does not express nor authorise the Romish doc­
trine of the Holy Sacrifice. This is not the place to
p. 17a.

34*5

Anglican Ordinations.

argue on such a question ; only if this assertion were in
any degree true, why was the Canon abolished in the
Anglican Church? Was it not that the whole doctrine
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice was rejected in the Anglican
formularies, as much as by Luther, or Zuinglius, or Cal­
vin? Even supposing it were true, as alleged, that some
private doctors had broached extravagant opinions about
the Mass ; is that any excuse for destroying or tamper­
ing with that inestimable gift, that sacred deposit, that
had come down from the Apostolic age ?
There are three essential points in the Catholic doc­
trine of the Holy Sacrifice, namely, that the priest docs
offer Christ Himself ; that the Sacrifice is propitiatory ;
and that it is offered for the living and dead. All these
three points the Thirty-first Article expressly denies and
condemns. The two latter—perhaps even the first—
are now admitted by some Anglicans. How they are to
reconcile their belief with the Article is for them to con­
sider.
As so much has been said of the Catholic doctrine
of the Holy Sacrifice, this chapter may be suitably closed
with a declaration on the subject, drawn up for the de­
finition of the Council of Trent, and more full than the
Decree afterwards adopted by the Council. Of course it
does not possess the same authority, and it is here much
abridged :
* Since in the Church of God it was ever believed
that abrogating the old Jaw did not leave Christians al­
together without law, but rather brought them to live
under a new and more excellent law, such as the New Tes­
tament in its far greater excellence required ; so was it
never doubted in the Church that Christians have with
the new law a new priesthood succeeding to the old; and
that the abolishing of the old sacrifices did not take away
from them all manner of sacrifice, but rather that a new
and divine sacrifice was left for Christian priests to offer

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

347

daily, not only in thanksgiving, but also for sins. The
Mass, then, has the nature of a true and proper sacrifice,
as shown by the solemn oath of God the Eternal Father,
“ Thou art a Priest for ever, according to the order of
Melchisedech.” The functions of this priesthood were
discharged by Christ our Lord, when He offered Himself
to His Father in the Last Supper under the sensible
signs of bread and wine, and they are likewise discharged
by Him while, by priests who fulfil His ministry, Fie
ceases not to offer Himself even till the time of judgment,
as Melchisedech himself offered bread and wine in sacri­
fice to God.’ This is confirmed by Malachias, in the
prophecy of the clean oblation, which, after the rejection
of the former people and their function, the Lord fore­
told should be sacrificed and offered to His Name in every
place, for His Name would be great among the gentiles.
And certainly it is a clean oblationy and so clean, that it
cannot be defiled by malice or impiety on the part of
those who ofler it ; for He is offered thereby Who is able
to cleanse the minds of men from every pollution of sins.
In every -place likewise, as far as the true faith of Christ
our Redeemer is spread, it is constantly offered by Chris­
tian priests, so that it is well called by Daniel the con­

tinual sacrifice.
Since under the name of sacrifice is properly under­
stood an external thing consecrated and offered to God
by the mystical operation of a priest, no reason can be
shown to the contrary but that the Eucharist, which the
priests of Christ by sacred benediction, pronounced in
words appointed by the Catholic Church for the sacra­
mental form, make and consecrate and offer to God,
ought to be called a true and proper sacrifice.
The institution of this admirable sacrifice was made
by Christ our Lord in His divine wisdom, at the time
when He Himself at the Last Sapper, as the true Priest
according to the order of Melchisedech, changing bread

348

Anglican Ordinations.

and wine into His own Body and Blood, offered Himself
to His Eternal Father under the appearances of bread
and wine, and under the same symbols communicated
Himself to His disciples, giving them the command, ffô/j·
do ye for the commemoration of Me : by which words the
Holy Church of God hath understood that a command
is laid upon priests to offer sacrifice for the commemo­
ration of Christ. Whence in the sacred Canon of the
Mass she has appointed for them to say: Wherefore^ 0

Lord, we Thy servants having in remembrance etc. do offer
to Thine excellent Majesty a pure Victim etc.
At the same time when our Lord Himself conferred
the new priesthood on His Apostles, He also instituted
those three parts of the Sacrifice of the Mass which
make it up in its perfection and completion ; that is to
say, the consecration, the oblation, and the communion,
as the old Fathers of the Church have handed down with
a wide consent of tradition. For though this argument
is sometimes raised, that the Eucharist is a gift of God,
and as such is received and consumed, and likewise that
it is appointed as the commemoration and sign of that
salutary sacrifice which once for all was offered by Christ
our Lord upon the Cross, yet it is not thereby deprived
of the true nature of a sacrifice. For in like manner it is
true of the Paschal Lamb immolated by the Jews, that
it was a gift of God, eaten and consumed, and that by
the custom of the Jews it was offered and immolated in
memory of their passage out of Egypt.
Although it never was doubted in the Church of
Christ, that the power of eternal purgation was placed in
that one bloody sacrifice of the Cross, by which alone
access to salvation and. reconciliation is open to us; yet
since there is a twofold means, shown to men by the
divine law, of seeking through external worship the fruit
and application of that sacrifice,—one, namely, in Sacra­
ments, which profit only those who receive them,—and

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

349

another in sacrifices, which are of avail not only to those
who offer them, but to others also, and likewise to the
whole Church; therefore it has always been believed in
the Church that it was appropriate and necessary for this
clean and salutary sacrifice of the Eucharist in Christ
our Lord to be left to us, that thereby the merit of His
Passion might be applied not only to individual persons,
but even to the Church at large. Nor would it have been
beseeming for the new law, absolute as it is in all the
numbers of perfection, to have been left without all and
any external and visible sacrifice, whereby Christians might
implore the help and grace of God in all their affairs
and circumstances, and by their prayers might obtain for
themselves and others the application of that chief and
greatest remedy of our reconciliation which is open and
ready for all in the death of Christ. As, then, before the
coming of Christ there were sacrifices among the Patri­
archs of old, by which they raised in their minds the
hope of that great Sacrifice to come, which was to be
offered by the Saviour of the world Himself, and fixing
their confidence in Him by faith, looked forward with
longing aspirations, and drew down on themselves the
fruit thereof, even before it was offered ; so too was this
the faith of all the holy Fathers, that Christians have in
the Mass a sacrifice far more efficacious and sublime than
any of those victims of old—a sacrifice that is not con­
fined to raising the expectation of a sacrifice of Christ to
come, but renews the memory of it as now past and com­
plete, and not in figure merely, as they did, but that com­
prehends the very reality in itself. For it is one and the
same victim of the Body and Blood of Christ that is
offered in the Mass, and that was immolated on the
Cross ; it is one and the same Lamb, and not another,
and one and the same Christ, that is everywhere sacri­
ficed ; and it is one and the same High Priest in every
place, Who is at the same time both Priest and Victim.

j5o

Anglican Ordinations.

For Christian priests are only the ministers of Christ ;
and it is His person that they assume and represent
when they consecrate and offer the Eucharist ; and it is
only in the difference of the manner of offering that there
is a distinction made. For on the Cross, without the
ministry of man, Christ immolated Himself once for all,
according to the mode of corporal existence, and with
death intervening; but in the Mass, by the ministry of
priests, Fie offers Himself daily according to sacramental
existence for the commemoration of His death. Where­
fore, although it is most true, as the Apostle said, that
Christ our Lord by one oblation—that is to say, one bloody
oblation·—made perfect for ever those that are sanctified ;
it was necessary, notwithstanding, that the same oblation
should be continually offered in the Church in an un­
bloody manner, that we, recalling daily, in this the un­
bloody, the memory of that the bloody, oblation, and ren­
dering thanks for the benefits which thereby our Redeemer
merited and obtained for all men and conferred upon
them, might have those benefits applied to and conferred
on ourselves and others also; for those greatest gifts
which God daily bestows on us through this most holy
sacrifice are nothing else than the fruits and reward
which our Redeemer now obtains from that sovereign
obedience which He rendered to the Father in under­
going death for us. For so saith Paul, that He, though
He were the Son of God, learnt obedience, and beingmade perfect, became to all who obey Him the cause of
eternal salvation, being called by God a High Priest
according to the Order of Melchisedech. Hence follows
a reason that strongly commends the necessity and ad­
vantage of the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, in that
our Redeemer thereby makes Himself known to all to be
Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech, since Fie
daily exercises the function of this priesthood through
the priests of the Church, who, although many in num-

nwrrmwrr““

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

351

ber and encompassed with infirmity, yet far surpass the
priests of the old law, in that, constituted under One im­
mortal High Priest, they offer ever the same victim, and
all make the same propitiation. And so far are their
oblations from detracting from the excellence and dignity
of the death of Christ, that there is no other way by
which they could more exalt and commend it. For as our
prayers do not detract from the intercession of Christ,
through which they are sanctified and made available;
and as the sufferings of martyrs derogate nothing from
His Passion, through which their holocaust receives its
dignity and merit ; so without doubt the oblation of the
Mass does not tend to obscure the force and excellence of
the Passion of Christ, but to display its lustre more and
more : wherefore it is a most grievous sin on the part of
those who falsely allege that the Mass is derogatory
to the Sacrifice of His Passion, and even blasphemy
against It.
‘ Great and varied as were the advantages of those
sacrifices which the people of God used in old time, in
uniting men with their only good and Supreme Lord, in
confirming the covenants of God, in imploring His help,
and obtaining the remission of sins, and many others, yet
all these benefits, in a most plentiful and excellent man­
ner, are now bestowed on Christians through the single
sacrifice of the Mass, wherein the same sacrifice is offered
that our Lord offered in the Last Supper.
‘No greater commerce with God can there be for
man, than that He should be ever present with us even
to the end of the world through this most Divine Victim,
which we offei- to the Father as our own, so that we can
now say, with a better right than the Jews of old: “Is
there another nation so great that hath their gods so
near to them as our God is present with us ?” It is not
the covenants of the Old but of the New Testament,

352

Anglican Ordinations.

not of a temporal but of an eternal inheritance, that are
confirmed as with an earnest by this sacred oblation.
‘ As there are no better means to be found of render­
ing thanks to God for the highest mystery of our redemp­
tion than by offering to the Father His only-begotten
Son, in Whom He is well-pleased, and His Blood shed
for us, saying with the Prophet: “What shall I render
to the Lord for all that He hath rendered unto me ? I will
receive the chalice of salvation, and call upon the name of
the Lord”—so there is no way more direct that we can
use, to ask for and obtain all gifts from Him, than this
through which our forefathers were wont to ask not only
for grace and eternal life, but whatever besides might be
of utility to body or soul ; for there are no gifts descend­
ing from the Father of lights on the faithful of Christ,
either through the Sacraments, or in any other way, that
cannot also be sought and obtained from Him through
the Victim of this salutary sacrifice; and its constant cele­
bration affords so holy an exercise to all the faithful, and
not to priests only, withdrawing them from the world and
its ways, while it occupies them with prayers, praises and
hymns, pious meditations, or other useful acts of Chris­
tian life, with so much spiritual fruit, that were it taken
away from Christendom, the consequence of necessity
would be, that faith would totter, hope would halt, charity
would grow cold, and the mouths of those who praise the
Lord would be closed or rendered dumb.
‘ But of all the fruits of this sacred oblation, by far
the greatest consists in this,—since it verily contains our
Lord Jesus Christ, who is Himself the Propitiator, the
Propitiation, the propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice, that
therefore by it the anger of the Lord is appeased, not only
so as to pardon venial sins and remit temporal punish­
ments; but that He is also sometimes moved to so great
mercy, as to have pity even on those burdened with
grievous crimes, bestowing on them through this holy

The Anglican Rite and the Eucharist.

353

sacrifice preventing grace and other aids, whereby they
are drawn to approach the Sacraments of the Church,
in which the immediate remedies of salvation are to be
found. For the Catholic Church has never taught that
this sacrifice would avail for the expiation of mortal sins
in such a way, as to lose sight of the necessity of move­
ments of the mind for good, and of the Sacrament of
Penance, without which, either actually received, or de­
sired, no mortal sin is remitted.
‘ But while this holy Sacrifice is called expiatory, this
propitiatory virtue is attributed to it, not only for the
living, but is also extended to all the dead in Christ, who
are bound by any penalty of guilt ; as the Church, by
perpetual and constant tradition learnt from the Apostles,
has been accustomed to offer this sacrifice also for the
dead. For since all the faithful living and dead constitute
one body in Christ, and have a communion in other spiri­
tual goods, so have they also in this sacrifice, by the bene­
fit whereof they may the sooner obtain the rewards of
eternal glory. And this participation of fruits is pro­
moted by the particular application, which is made by the
priest, the legitimate minister of Christ and the Church, in
offering the sacrifice, according to the rules of justice and
charity known to God Himself. For if there is no doubt
of the special application of prayer being of benefit to him
for whom it is offered ; and if the sacrifices of old were
applied for certain causes, there is no reason for denying
the same of this most excellent sacrifice, which, as it has
taken the place of all those of old, so it contains the vir­
tue of them all in an eminent degree.’16
15 Le Flat, Mon. Coiicil. Trideni. vol. iv. p. 386.

CHAPTER VUE
POPE PIUS IV. AND THE BOOK OE COMMON PRAYER.

Ip the argument on the Catholic side has gained a certain
advantage by the currency given to so telling a story as
that of the Nag’s Head, Anglicans on the other side
have availed themselves of a similar opportunity in start­
ing the legend of the Pope having made an offer to
Queen Elizabeth of confirming the Book of Common
Prayer. It is strange that after the indignation excited in
them by the former tale, they should put forward, as a
matter of importance, a story resting on no better founda­
tion than the other, and with no authority quoted for it
but mere verbal tradition. The evidence in each case is
precisely of the same character : if the names of certain
persons are quoted in one case as the authorities from
whom the story was derived, names are given with equal
confidence in the other. The current of tradition in each
case runs equally clearly. If the Nag’s Head story was
not heard of for upwards of forty years after the date of
the alleged transaction, no more was that of the Pope’s
offer. If the one was not published during the lifetime
of those said to be actors in it, neither was the other.
If the difference in the three or four versions of the Nag’s
Head is fatal to its credibility, there are at least three
versions of the Pope and Queen. Notwithstanding all
this, Bishop Bull, after calling the Nag’s Head story ‘ ά
putid fable,’ within three pages coolly and unblushingly
relates two versions of the other story both as undoubted

Puis IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. 255
facts,1 although no one else has even ventured to take
credit for more than one.
Let, then, no man be a judge in his own cause. Surely
we may hence gather the need of adopting some such
principles or rules of evidence, as were laid down at the
beginning of this work, in order to have a common test
or tribunal by which we may know what facts and cir­
cumstances are worth being alleged as arguments. Even
supposing that it was the fact that an offer such as des­
cribed was made to Queen Elizabeth, there is no argu­
ment to be drawn from it in the present question; for
there is nothing said, or pretended, which can show how
far the offer was to extend,—and whether it was meant
to include the Forms of Ordination under the name of
Book of Common Prayer.
Let us now turn to the evidence alleged for the story.
There are four authorities for it which may be called
original, because they are the first to publish the tradi­
tion, viz. Sir Edward Coke, Bishop Andrews, Bishop
Abbot, and Camden, who are here placed in chronological
order.
The earliest is Coke, Lord Chief Justice, who in a
Charge at the Norwich Assizes. 4th August 1606, de­
livered himself as follows :
‘ That Pius Quintus whome those of their side doe account to
have beene a good Pope (though by false perswasions too much
misled) before the time of his excommunication against Queene
Elizabeth denounced, sent his letter unto her Maiestie, in which
hee did allow the Bible, and Booke of divine service, as it is now
used amongst us, to bee authenticke, and not repugnant to truth.
But that therein was contayned enough necessary to salvation
(though there was not in it so much as might conveniently bee),
and that hee would also allow it unto us without changing any
parte ; so as her Maiestie would acknowledge to receive it from
him the Pope (and by his allowance), which her'Maiestie denying
to do, she was then presently excommunicated. And this is the
truth concerning Pope Pius Quintus, as I have faith to God and
1 Vindication, JVar/a, vol. ii. p. 204-8.

356

Anglican Ordinations.

men, as I have oftentimes heard it avowed by the late Queene
her owne wordes; and I have conferred with some Lordes that
were of greatest reckoning in the state, who had scene and read
the letter, which the Pope sent to that effect, as have bene by me
specified. And this upon my credit, as I am an honest man, is
most true.’2

Whether Coke knew anything of the subject he was
speaking of, or whether he made a wilful misstatement, it
is impossible to say ; but he has certainly shaken all credit
out of his story, not only by his error in the name of the
Pope, but also by asserting that the offer was made in a
letter. Twysden and Courayer pretend that the name
Pius V. was an accidental slip or a misprint for Pius IV.,
but neither of them mentions the reference to the excom­
munication, which precludes the idea of accident. And
even if he had heard it ‘avowed’ by the Queen herself, it
may be left to any one who considers the character of the
two parties to "say whether the Queen’s assertions or
Coke’s own asseverations, ‘ as an honest man,’ add the
smallest credit to the story.
The next in order is Andrews, then Bishop of Chi­
chester, who, in replying to Bellarmine, in 1609, made
the following assertion :
‘Was she (Q. Eliz.) to establish religion, as it is at present,
and yet acknowledge the Pope’s supremacy ? That such an at­
tempt was made is a certain fact; and that the proposal was made
by Paul the Fourth, and even brought to the Queen herself, that
on condition of her consenting to his supremacy, he would give
grace for the rest, if she petitioned for it from him, and acknow­
ledged it as done by his authority, so that all things sacred here
should be arranged in the manner in which we have them at the
present time. So that the supremacy is the assuaging of wrath,
and the Pope had no thought nor care what became of the rest,
if only this one point could be obtained.’3

Like Coke, the author shows by mentioning the wrong
Pope that he had no certain information on the subject,
* The Lord Coke’s Charge, London, 1607, 4to, fol. F -zb.
* Tortura Torti, p. 165, ed. Angi. Cath. Lib. The Editor has inserted the
name ‘[Pio]’ in brackets after ‘Paulo.’

J.

.

- J .

.5 .- ><■> .........-r

.. ..... ,· .

Pius IV. and the Book of Common Prayer,

■

although he founds on his statement a gratuitous insinuation against the Pope.
After him comes Robert Abbot, at the time Regius
Professor of Divinity at Oxford, but afterwards Bishop
of Salisbury, who, in his reply to the Defence of Garnet,
refers to the present subject in the following manner :

κ
g

‘ I come to the letter from Pius V. to Q. Eliz. mentioned by
Coke in his Charge at Norwich, in which the Pope promised to
approve with his authority our English Liturgy and the Formula
of the Reformed religion, provided that she would receive them
as from him, and submit herself to the Roman See. . . As to that
letter, Coke was mistaken in saying Pius V. when he ought to
have said Paul IV., who was Pope at the time of Q. Eliz. commencing her reign. But the letter itself is well known among us
as a subject often brought forward in Parliament, and mentioned
by the Queen herself, and even acknowledged by some of your
party, who, having no other pretence for finding fault with our
Liturgy, have alleged, as the reason of their recusancy, that it had
not been approved by the Church of Rome. A name well known
is that of Sir Thomas Tresham, being father of Francis Tresham
the traitor, who at the time of the Spanish Armada, being questioned for his recusancy, openly acknowledged that letter, but remained refractory for no other cause than that I have mentioned.
It was mentioned also in sermons in the Queen’s presence, with
an appeal to her as vouching for it, and yet no one on your side,
either privately or publicly, has ventured to mutter a word in
contradiction.’

;B
«
b

κ
B

‘

;

, §
r,

m
|h

, 1H
R
!H

W
, *

.>!'

This author also shows that he was writing from mere
rumour without any certain knowledge ; for, while under- .
taking to correct Coke> he falls into the opposite error of
naming Paul IV., and also that of asserting a letter to
have been written on the subject. This mistake disposes
of Sir Thomas Tresham’s evidence, because there being
no letter he could not have acknowledged any. And as
for references to the subject in Parliament, in Queen’s
Speeches, and sermons, if there ever were any, we may
wait till they are produced to discuss them.

The latest of the four is Camden, who has given the
following account of the affair :

,
, 'i
i
i. V'

35«

A nglican Ordinations.

‘Pius Quartus, Bishop of Rome new elect . . . (upon what
hope I know not), sent unto Q. Eliz. Vincentio Parpalia, Abbot
of St. Saviour’s, with secret instructions and letters full of flattery,
which I will here set down wholly as they are.4 “ To our most
dear daughter in Christ, Elizabeth, Queen of England. Dear
daughter in Christ, greeting and Apostolic benediction. How
greatly we desire (our pastoral charge requiring it) to procure the
salvation of your soul, and to provide likewise for your honour,
and the establishment of your kingdom withal, God, the searcher
of all hearts, knoweth; and you may understand by what we have
given in charge to this our beloved son Vincentius Parpalia, Abbot
of St. Saviour’s, a man well known to you and well approved by
us. Wherefore we do again and again exhort your highness, most
dear daughter, that rejecting evil councillors, which love not you,
but themselves, and serve their own lusts, you would take the
fear of God in counsel with you, and acknowledging the time of
your visitation, show yourself obedient to our fatherly persuasions
and wholesome counsels, and promise to yourself from us all
things that may make not only to the salvation of your soul, but
also whatsoever you shall desire from us for the establishing and
confirming of your princely dignity, according to the authority,
place, and office committed unto us by God. And if so be, as we
desire and hope, you shall return into the bosom of the Church,
we shall be ready to receive you with the same love, honour, and
rejoicing, that the father in the Gospel did his son returning to
him j although our joy is like to be the greater, in that he was
joyful for the salvation of one son, but you, drawing along with
you all the people of England, shall not only by your own salva­
tion, but also by that of the whole nation, replenish us and all
our brethren, who will be shortly (as you shall hear) assembled
in a General Council for abolishing of heresies, and the whole
Church with joy and gladness; yea, you shall make glad heaven
itself with such a memorable fact, and achieve admirable renown
to your name, much more glorious than the crown you wear.
But, concerning this matter, the same Vincentius shall deal with
you more largely, and shall declare our fatherly affection toward
you; and we entreat your Majesty to receive him graciously, to
hear him diligently, and to give the same credit to his speeches
as to ourselves. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, &c. the fifth day
of May 1560, in our first year.”5
‘ What matters Parpalia propounded I find not, for I do not
4 Camden’s Annals of Q. Eliz. p. 33, ed. 1635.
s Partly from Fuller’s Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 308, and partly from Camden.

Pius IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. 359
think his instructions were put in writing p and to rove at them
with the common sort of historians I list not. That Q. Elizabeth
still persisted like herself, semfer eadem, always the same, and
that the matter succeeded not to the Pope’s desire, all men know.
The report goeth, that the Pope gave his faith that he would dis­
annull the sentence against her mother’s marriage as unjust, con­
firm the English Liturgy by his authority, and grant tire use of
the sacrament to the English under both kinds, so as she would
join herself to the Romish Church, and acknowledge the Primacy
of the Chair of Rome ; yea, and that certain thousand crowns
were promised to those that should procure the same.’7

Here Camden, contrary to those quoted before, shows
that the story has no better foundation than mere rumour ;
that the letter from the Pope contained nothing of the
sort asserted by them ; and that the offer, if made at all,
was not made in writing.
Fuller gives the same account as Camden, but adds
that the rumour proceeds from ‘ some (not more knowing
of councils, but more daring in conjectures than others)
who Jove to feign what they cannot find, that they may
never appear to be at a loss/8
Heylin professess to follow Camden, but speaks posi­
tively that Parpaglia was instructed to make the offer, but
that he came no nearer than Brussels, not being suffered
to set foot on English ground.9
Upon no better foundation than the statements above
quoted, Sir Roger Twysden has raised the following fa­
bric :
‘ Upon this (the Pope’s letter to Q. Eliz.) and their relations
who then lived, and had part in the action, the English affirm Pius
IV. would have confirmed the Liturgy of the Church of England.
And, indeed, how can any imagine other? For doubtless nothing
could have been more to her dishonour than so suddenly to have
♦ This is evidently a mistranslation: the meaning is, that Parpaglia’s pro­
posals were not put in writing, instead of his instructions, as will appear by the
Latin original: ‘ Quæ Parpaglia proposuit non comperi, nec enim Scriptis man­
data credo ; comminisci vero cum vulgo Historicorum minime lubet. ’ Cam­
deni Annales, p. 48, ed. 8vo, Lugd. Bat. 1625.
’ Camden’s Annals, p. 34.
8 Fuller’s Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 309.
0 Hist, of Reform, vol. ii. p. 333.

360

Anp'lican Ordinations.

changed what she had with so great consideration established;
and the Pope assuring her she might promise herself from him all
he could do, I know not what less or other he could expect she
would ask. But where Sir Edw. Coke, in his Charge at Norwich,
as it is now printed, says this offer came from Pius V., I conceive
it a mistake, and should have been Pius IV. . . . And in this I
take Dr. Heylin to be likewise out, who says this Parpaglia set
not his foot on English ground, not permitted to come nearer
than Brussels. Which is altogether improbable; for how could
he propound anything to the Queen (which Camden says he did;
if he saw her not? Would he be so negligent of the papal honour
as to send a letter he was to deliver himself? If we arc to credit
tradition, he not only spake with her Majesty, but passed from
her not without a gratitude. . . They that make a difficulty in be­
lieving this relation, object it to have been first divulged 1606,
forty-six years after the proffer of it; that Sir Edw. Coke averred
to have received it from the Queen herself, not then alive to con­
tradict him. But, for my part, I confess I find no scruple in it,
. . . for that is not so long a time but many might remember; and
I myself have received it from such as I cannot doubt of it, they
having had it from persons of nigh relation unto them who
were actors in the managing of the business. . . And assuredly
some who have conveniency and leisure may find more of it than
hath been yet divulged ; for I no way believe the Bishop of Win­
chester (Andrews) would have been induced to write, it did cons/arc of Paulas IV.; nor the Queen herself, and divers others of
those times, persons of honour and worth — with some of which I
myself have spoken — have confirmed it for an undoubted truth,
did not somewhat more remain—or at least, had formerly been —
than a single letter of Pius IV., which apparently had reference to
matters then of greater privacy.’10

Twysden also asserts ‘ that the thing itself was in ef­
fect printed many years before, for he that made the an­
swer to Sanders his seventh book De Visibili Monarchia,
relates it thus
‘I beg you to take into account along with me what passed
seven years ago between Pius IV. late Pope, and an English
nobleman who happened to be at the Court of Rome; and then
acknowledge yourself either to have made a slip through want of
knowledge of the facts, or else to have told a shameless falsehood.
With this nobleman the Pope fell into a long discourse, asking
10 Historical Vindication, p. 199-202.

11 p. 200.

Pius IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. 361
for what reason. Q. Eliz. had thrown off his authority, and even
cast the title of Supremacy out of the realm. The nobleman,
being a person of wisdom and learning, replied that the Queen
was persuaded that, as well by Scripture as by the laws of the
realm, he had no jurisdiction in a foreign country. 1 can scarcely
come to believe that, said the Pope, of a wise and learned person
such as your Queen, and I rather suspect that she keeps up a
hostile feeling against the Apostolic See for the sentence pro­
nounced against her mother’s marriage. And if that be the rea­
son, I would give my faith that I would not only rescind that
sentence as unjust, but would further do whatever lay in my
power in her favour, provided she would return to our Church,
and render me the due title of supremacy. If you think that I
am putting forward a mere invention, as you are wont to do, there
are still extant the Articles under the Abbot de San Salute’s own
hand ; there is the letter from Card. Morone to that nobleman,
urging him earnestly to use all his influence in pressing forward
that negotiation with our Queen. There are now living several of
our nobility to whom the Pope promised many thousand gold
crowns if they would be the means of bringing about a reconcilia­
tion between the See of Rome and her Majesty. These being
certain facts, how would it be derogatory to her honour to ac­
knowledge the primacy of the Roman See? .Would it not rather
be a loss of dignity to that See for the decree of one Pope to be
rescinded by another ? What was there for the Queen to fear,
either for her own or her mother’s honour, when there was no
more that the Pope could do than he had done already; and
even if there were, yet would there be any greater danger in dis­
senting than consenting ? But she neither considered the passing
of the sentence of any weight, nor its being rescinded of any value.
For there is nothing in it but the empty sound of words, which
we have long learnt to disregard.’12

Twysden gravely quotes this story as if it gave con­
firmation to the rumour of the Pope’s offer. If such a
conversation did take place, which is not impossible, for
the date assigned would be 1566, and in that year the
Earl of Arundel was in Italy,13 and may have been the
12 Fidelis servi, subdido infideli Responsio, una cum errorum et calumni­
arum quarundani examine quæ continentur in 71110 libro De Visibili Ecclesia:
Monarchia a Nidi. Sandero conscripto. Lond. Ap. Joh. Day, Typog. 1573»
410, fol. K. i b.
11 S.P.O. Foreign: Spain, Man to Cecil, 22 Jan. 1566-7.

362

Anglican Ordinations.

nobleman referred to; there is nothing more in it than in
the authentic letter of the Pope. The author of the work
quoted was Bartholomew Clerke,14 specially deputed to
answer Sanders by Archbishop Parker and Cecil, and the
work was revised by Cecil himself. Now if there were
any ‘ articles in writing’ from the Abbate di San Salute,
why were they never produced? and how came Camden
never to have heard of them, when he derived his informa­
tion from Sir Robert Cecil? Twysden himself discredits
his own witnesses—he corrects Coke, contradicts lleylin,
and disputes Camden ; and then ventures to mention two
circumstances, viz. that ‘ Parpaglia not only spake with
her Majesty, but passed from her not without a gratitude,’
for which he has no authority whatever.
We cannot pass over Bishop Bull, because he has
raised an additional superstructure on Twysden’s unsub­
stantial basis ;
‘It is transmitted to us by the testimony of persons greater
than all exception, ’ that Paulus Quartus, Pope of Rome, in his
private intercourses and letters to Queen Elizabeth, did offer to
confirm and establish the Common Prayer Book if she would ac­
knowledge the primacy and authority of the Pope, and the refor­
mation derivative from him. And this method was pursued by
his successor, Pius Quartus, who assured her she should have
anything from him, not only pertaining to her soul, but what
might conduce to the establishment and confirmation of her royal
dignity; amongst which, that the Liturgy, newly established by her
authority, should not be rescinded by the Pope’s power, was not
the least considerable. I beseech your ladyship to make a little
pause here. Our Liturgy contains the whole religion of the Church
of England. This the Popes and Bishops of Rome themselves
offer to confirm and establish. Then &c.’15

Thus he not only goes beyond any authority he can
find in making the offer come from two Popes instead of
one, but without troubling himself to ascertain the truth
34 Strype’s Parker, ii. 177-81.
34 Bp. Bull, Vindication of Ck. af Engl., Works, vol. ii. p. 207.

è* ff ri .'f '<·'£

J’:if

1 & Έ"?.-^

Pius IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. 363
of his story, he draws a dilemma highly satisfactory to
himself, and to the discredit of the Pope.
It comes naturally to ask, if the story is correct, how
is it that it was never brought forward and made use of
by any controversial writer during Elizabeth’s reign ? If
Bartholomew Clerke thought proper to pass it over, why
did it not appear in Burleigh’s Execution of fusticef or in
Bilson’s Reply to Allen,17 when it would have been so ap­
posite to their purpose, and when they had been provoked
to publish it? How is it that neither Sutcliffe nor Brydges,
nor any other authority, is referred to for it till forty-six
years after the event ? If it had been often mentioned in
Parliament, how comes it that it has escaped the notice of
the compilers of the Parliamentary History ?
But is it really the case that no writer whatever
during that period has alluded to the story ? On the con­
trary, it is mentioned by at least one writer, and that
writer no other than
Father Parsons

Let us hear what he says.

the

Jesuit.

After arguing that

‘ going to the Protestantes churches is forbidden jure divino,
and that no power on earth can dispence with the same,’

he proceeds :
‘ Wherfore that which hath bene geven out (as is sayde by
some great men) that the Pope, by his letters to her Maiestie, did
offer to confirme the service of England, uppon condition that
the title of Supremacie might be restored him againe, is impos10 The Execution of Justice in England for maintenaunce ofpublique and
Christian peace, against certcine stirrers of sedition and adherents to the trayiors
and enemies of the Rcalme, without any persecution of them for questions of Re­
ligion, as is falsely reported and published by the fautors and fosterers of their
treasons ; xvii. Decemb. 1583. Imprinted at London 1513, 4to; and, Secondly,
imprinted at London mense Jan. 1583. An. Reg. Eliz. 26. With some small
alterations of things mistaken or omitted in the transcript of the first Originali.
Reprinted in the Harleian Miscellany (vol. ii. p. 137), with an Introduction
in which the Pope’s offer is mentioned ; but this Introduction is not in either
impression of the original work.
17 The True Difference betweene Christian Subjection and Unchristian Re­
bellion, by Thomas Bilson. London, 1586.

364

Anglican Ordinations.

sible to be soe : soe that, if anye such letters came to hir Maiesties handes, they must needes be fayned and false.’18

A

And against this statement he adds in the margin, ‘A
notable devise? This was in 1580, and he repeats it
in the edition of 1601.
What becomes, then, of Abbot’s boast that ‘ no one on
your (the Catholic) side either privately or publicly has
ventured to mutter a word in contradiction’ ? Here was
a positive contradiction, published on two separate occa­
sions, long before Abbot’s work was written. And yet
Andrewes was not ashamed, though he had read Parsons’
book, and refers to it in the same work, Tortura Torti, to
say Constat, it is a certain fact that the proposal was
made.
However, it may be said that Parsons was a partisan
writer ; and by the principles of evidence laid down at the
beginning of this work, statements from such a quarter are
to be received with caution, and cannot of themselves be
used as evidence. But Parsons’ book was not left with­
out reply, for both Fulke and Wyborne took it in hand.
Let us, then, turn to them, and see what they have to say
on the subject. And first Fulke :
‘ What the Pope did offer by his letters to her Majesty, I never
heard it reported whiche he saith is geven out by some greate
men. But I have heard of them which affirmed that they have
seene the Popish dispensation, that for time of schisme a priest
might go to church, and more then that.’19

Then Wyborne:
‘For the rest whether it bee impossible to bee so, that your
Pope shoulde offer too her Majestye to confirme the Englishe
service uppon condition to recover his Supremacie heere in
Fnglande, whiche hee is farre from, and God so keepe him still :
i

18 A Brief Discours contayning certayue Reasons why Catholiques refuse to
goe to Church, by J. H. (John Howlet). Doway, 1580, p. 59, and 1601
fol. F. ιχλ
19 A Briefe Confutation of a Popish. Discourse lately set forth, by John
Howlet, or some other Birde of the Night, by D. Fulke, London, 1581, fol. $§b.

« S. * & ‘j " ’ * x

%

'
i
'

J
I
I
ί;

S ' àA ?;,’ If >4. ·' -i k

IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. ff

H

and whether his authorise be above the Scriptures, so as hee may
dispense with thinges agaynst God his Lawe or no, I leave to the
authoures that first invented such brabbles to occupie mens
heades with all.’

|fi
K
f
ί

They both admit Parsons’ contradiction — one directly, the other by implication. Fulke declares he never
heard of the report ; Wyborne, if he had heard of it and
knew any good grounds for it, would have been only too
glad to contradict Parsons, not to have asserted it. It is
clear how the matter stood, by the rumour having reached
Parsons, while they were both in complete ignorance. It
was ‘ a notable device,’ as Parsons said, invented and used
by Cecil and Walsingham, to persuade and entrap the unwary and timorous Catholics ; but they would have ridiculed or utterly disavowed it in presence of a thoroughpaced Protestant like Fulke, or a Puritan such as Wyborne.
On now reviewing the evidence for the story of the
Pope having made an offer to confirm the Book of Common Prayer, we find it stands thus : three witnesses,
Coke, Andrewes, and Abbot, assert it as an undoubted
fact, but they are all partisans, do not agree with each
other, and are all in error as to the Pope who addressed
a letter to the Queen ; while the fourth, Camden, writing
as an historian, treats the story as a mere rumour. Clerke,
writing in 1573, giyes no support to the story, though he
speaks of certain ‘ Articles’ in writing having béen delivered by the Nuncio.
We may now endeavour to get to the real facts of
the case, as told in contemporary documents. And per­
haps the reader will be surprised to hear that, as Parpaglia did not land in England, the letter from the Pope, of
which there is a translation in Camden and Fuller, was
never delivered to the Queen ; and therefore the Nuncio,

j
')
i,

Plus

;

të* 'i 4.

20 A Checks or reproofe of M. Hoveletc untimely shreeching in her Majesties
eares, London, 1581. By P. W. (Percivall Wyborne). Append, fol. Y, y. 2.

,
;
,

:B
K
h
K
P
κ
i

‘‘fe
g

‘

' t,
i.

366

,k

Anglicau Ordinations.

not having presented his credentials, it is impossible that he
could have made any proposals or delivered any ‘Articles.’
In February 1560, Sir Edw. Carne wrote from Rome,
that the Pope was thinking of dispatching a Nuncio to
the Queen, and that probably the Abbate di San Salute
would be the person selected.21 But nothing came of it
at that time, and Carne wrote again on the 6th of May.
His dispatch has not been found; but a month later Sir
Thomas Parry wrote to Cecil as follows : ‘ I have no
newes hens to write to yow but that her Majeste hath
receaved lettres from Mr. Carne of the vi. of May that
ymportes that Abbate de Salute bathe his dispache. And
comes by france into the low parts to the Regent, to pray
her to send hither for a licence for him to com to do his
message. As ye have hard partly before this Mr. Engleheld bathe also wreten to my lord keper of the great Seal
therof.’22 This letter of Carne’s seems to be the only
official communication that reached the Queen and her
Council on the subject. And if the Abbate was em­
powered to offer any terms, that despatch would have
been the channel by which an intimation would have been
given to that effect. Or Sir Francis Englefield might
have been able, in his private letter to Bacon, to convey
the like information. But nothing of the sort is hinted at.
Before the Abbate could leave Rome, his mission was
known to, and his movements tracked by, one of Cecil’s
spies, named John Shores, quartered at Venice, who was
even able by a bribe to read and take copies of the Abbate’s private correspondence, under a promise of secrecy,
u hich he kept by immediately transmitting the copies to
Cecil.23 According to Sheres’ information, the mission of
the Nuncio was undertaken because ‘ the Pope is per­
suaded that England may yet be won again to the obedi­
ence of the Church;’24 and the same motive is alleged in
Haynes’ Burghley Papers.
44 S.P. O. Dom. 6 June 1560.
43 S.P.Q. Foreign, 1560, Nos. 74 and 893.
44 Ibid. No. 74.

?ί

Λ!^9α..£^^*άρτ..» ■* ■>«.-

- · - -■——---- ·"-■>·'+ ~-·^- .«s^. ^

>j?r --.y~. -....■ ..·**■

α_^-·»^*-η- -■· — ■

— --rwi^fY-ih-^"· ^τ»--^-»-~-«^~·»-·^^·--~--’··-τ'»·->-^-~··

Pius Z P and. the Book of Common Prayer. ff
His Holiness’s letters to the Kings of Spain and Hun­
gary. And it was also from him that the Queen and her
ministers gained the idea of the chief object of the Nuncio’s
mission being to communicate with the Catholic party in
England, which seems to have influenced them in pro­
hibiting his entering the country. But there is not a hint
in Shores’ letters of the Abbate having any offer to make
of a compromise.
The Abbate’s journey seems to have been delayed for
some time;25 and our next intelligence about him is derived
from one of his own letters, dated Sept. 8th, of which
Sheres obtained the copy.20 The Abbate had arrived in
Brussels by the middle of June, and was cordially re­
ceived by the Duchess of Parma and the Bishop of Arras.
But he had received commands from the Pope not to pro­
ceed in his legation till further instructions, for which
he had been waiting three months. And he had then little
hope that any success would attend his negotiation, even
if he went to England; for the Queen had imprisoned all
the Catholic Bishops, and seemed to have some suspicion
of his embassy, that it might encourage the Catholics,
perhaps even to attempt an insurrection. ‘Notwithstand­
ing, the Queen says that she has a very good opinion of
the disposition of the present Pope, and would not refuse
to listen to what he might propose to her, hoping that he
would not wish anything but what was just, and for the
good of herself and her kingdom. He is therefore wait­
ing for further orders.’ It is evident from this letter that
the Abbate had had some communication with England;
but whether it was that he had written himself, or whether
the Duchess of Parma had written and received an ans25 S.P.O. foreign, 1560, Nos. 108 and ia8.
-e Ibid. No. 507. See Appendix No. XXII. There are two errors in the
Calendar of State Papers. This letter is described as addressed to the Queen
instead of to the Nuncio at Venice. And in the Preface it is said that the
copies of the two letters obtained by Sheres are lost. They are Nos. 507
and 879. Compare No. 893.

·ι ·ι
ο,

·.. _ ι.

______ _

3 68

Anglican Ordinations.

wer, or whether the English refugees in Flanders had had
letters from their friends in the English court, there is no
document to show. In the case of the Abbate Martinengo in the next year, the Spanish ambassador applied
and received the refusal.27
It is even quite uncertain whether the Nuncio ever
applied for permission to enter the kingdom. All that
can be ascertained is, that he could not be admitted, and
was recalled without having delivered the Pope’s letters.
And he left Flanders on his return, about a month after
the date of the letter quoted above. The authority for
these facts is, first, a letter from Guido Giannetti to the
Queen, dated at Venice, 21st Dec., stating, ‘ the Abbot
of San Salute, when recalled, set out from Flanders in
October, having distributed amongst the English 500
ducats of papal alms, which was perhaps thought a small
sum amongst so many.’28 And next, Throckmorton, writ­
ing from Orleans, 31st Dec., says: ‘The Spanish ambas­
sador has of late visited him, who said, that though the
Abbot of San Salute could not be admitted to come into
England, yet the Emperor and the King of Spain have
persuaded the Pope to send thither again to solicit her to
send to the Council.’29
But it may be asked, how could it be that the Pope’s
letter was not delivered, when it still remains among the
Public Records of this country,30 and Camden found and
published it before it had been published by Raynaldus ?
But the copy in the British Museum is only a transcript
of much later- date ; and it is known that Chamberlain
obtained and sent home a copy while ambassador in
Spaing1 which would have been an unnecessary pro­
ceeding, if the letter itself had been delivered.
It is difficult to prove a negative; and, indeed, history
2‘
**
33
31

S.P.O. 1561, Nos. 170 and 17a.
S.p.o. Foreign, 1560, No. 815. 7.
In the British M., Titus, c. vii. fol. ir.
S.P.O. Foreign, 1560, No. 762.

ta ibid. No. 833.6.

W' M h - t

1 ; 4v(· Vi, S

i-&é & IdltâMfà<>V. * <H '· ‘ ?
I'

Piles IV. and the Book of Common Prayer. 369
ought to be written under an impression that, unless facts
are clearly proved, some discovery maybe made which will
upset a view founded on present knowledge. Twysden
supplies an example of the danger of writing history on
theory. And in the present case there still remains some
mystery. Although it is clear that Parpaglia had no
audience of the Queen, and never set foot on English
ground, and therefore could not have made any proposals ;
yet it is not proved for certain that the Queen received
no intimation of what proposals he was instructed to make.
This cannot be proved, unless Carne’s despatch can be
found, or Englefield’s letter ; or unless we come to know
what communications passed between Brussels and Lon­
don on the subject. It is possible that these documents
may all be preserved among the Cecil mss. at Hatfield
House ; and that the labours of the Historical mss. Com­
mission may bring them to light. But still we are in a
position to say, that it is extremely improbable that any
intimation of a proposal from the Pope went to the extent
of approving the Book of Common Prayer ; and this for
the following reasons:
Because, had there been any such matter afloat, John
Sheres would have come to know it, and would have in­
formed Cecil.
Because Bartholomew Clerke would not have made
so much of a mere report of a conversation with the Pope,
if he had had any better ground to work upon ; nor con­
fined himself to a mere general assertion about ‘ Articles,’
if there had really been any document that bore upon the
subject.
Because Parsons would not have hazarded so positive
a contradiction, unless he knew that there was no proof
existing of ‘ what some great men gave out.’
Because Burleigh, Bilson, and others would have used
an argument so much to their purpose, if they had had
any proof to support the statement.

BB

370

Anglicau Ordinations.

Because Coke, Andrewes, and Abbot would not have
gone so wide of the mark, nor fallen into such inconsist­
encies with each other, if there was a real historical foun­
dation for their random and reckless assertions.
It will here be opportune to notice another statement
often made, and commonly believed, that for the first
eleven years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign the Catholics
generally frequented the Protestant churches without
scruple. This is so stated by Burleigh and Coke ; but
by both of them on occasions when it served their purpose
to make such a representation. But at an earlier time the
interest of the party lay the other way ; and then they suf­
fered the truth to escape, ‘ that there were those which
from the beginning have refused to obey.’ For Sir
Walter Mildmay, Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a
speech in Parliament, upon a motion for securing the
kingdom against the Pope, in 1581, said: ‘ How these
practices of the Pope have wrought in the disobedient
subjects of this land is both evident and lamentable to
consider. For such impression hath the estimation of the
Pope’s authority made in them, as not only those which
from the beginning have refused to obey, but many, yea,
very many of those which divers years together did yield
and conform themselves in their open actions, sithence the
decrees of that unholy Council of Trent, and sithence the
publishing and denouncing of that blasphemous Bull
against her Majesty, and sithence those secret absolutions
and reconciliations, and the swarming hither of a number
of popish priests and monkish Jesuits, have and do utterly
refuse to be of our Church, or to resort unto our preach­
ing and prayers.’32
32 Pari. Hist. vol. i. col. $16.

CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUSION.

The discussion of the difficult question proposed in this
work is now come to an end ; and we may take a review
of the position that has been attained.
With regard to the historical questions involved, we
have found that ordinations conducted according to the
Anglican rite have from the first been treated as abso­
lutely void, and the persons receiving them have been
considered as mere laymen ; that this was the practice
both of the authorities in Queen Mary’s reign, under Car­
dinal Pole’s direction, and of those who succeeded them
in later times; that no instance—not even Dr. Goffe’s —
has been proved to the contrary ; and that Gordon’s case
was by no means the first, even in Rome, since the tra­
dition has been constant and unvaried for three centuries.
With regard to Parker’s consecration, we have found,
that as an historical fact, it is most certain that it took
place on the 17 th of December 1559, according to the
description in the Register; but that there are grave doubts
with regard to the authenticity of the Register itself as
an original and contemporaneous document, specially on
account of the omission of material circumstances usually
made matter of record.
We have found also, with regard to Barlow, that there
are strong probabilities against the fact of his having ever
received episcopal consecration; that fresh evidence has
been brought forward on the subject, specially from the

37 o.

Anglican Ordinations.

grant of his temporalities ; and that previous suspicions
have been very much strengthened by the fact of Mason’s
having professed to publish this instrument, but having
suppressed the most material and operative part of it.
On reviewing the general course of the controversy,
it appeared that both parties were agreed in theory on
imposition of hands and prayer being the sole essentials of
Ordination for Deacons, Priests, and Bishops ; and there­
fore that the theological question might start from this
point, with inquiring, What ought to be the nature of
the prayer that accompanies the imposition of hands ? To
answer this we went back to the ancient rites of Ordina­
tion, and found that they all agree in treating Ordination
as a supernatural gift or grace, and as the communication
of a certain spiritual power; that they look upon the
person ordained as elected by God Himself to do certain
functions, which otherwise he would have no power to
do ; and that the prayers are offered with the view of
asking for this gift and for the Divine election. This idea
is in harmony with Catholic belief, and is expressed in the
doctrine of the sacramental character as a gift of spiritual
power impressed on the soul of the receiver.
We had then to inquire whether the Anglican forms
had followed in this track, specially with reference to the
theological principle that the forms of Sacraments would
be rendered invalid if they underwent such changes as
to prevent their being used in the sense of the Church,
or to exclude a due intention of doing what the Church
does on the part of persons administering or receiving
them.
And the result of the examination was this—that the
idea of apy Divine gift being conveyed in Ordination is
utterly ignored in the Anglican rite; that the changes
are so made as to exclude the notion of the grace of
sacerdotal or episcopal power being conferred ; and that
no person using them can have the intention of doing what

Pi^t-.Auk\*?n-’f;i ‘- :■*

‘.,4

Conclusion.
<

I
Ï
?

1
i
j

;
|·
f

I

I
■

373

the Church does in conferring the Sacrament of Holy
Order.
Besides this the Anglican forms have been altered
from those anciently in use, with the express purpose of
excluding all idea of the power of sacrifice being conferred
on a priest, or of there being any real and distinct sacrifice offered by priests in the Christian Church.
In view of all these circumstances, the inevitable conelusion follows, that Anglican Ordinations must be con­
sidered as altogether invalid, and that there is neither
Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon in the Anglican communion.
And the reasons for this conclusion may be stated in a
summary way as follows :
i. Because from the year 1554 it has been the unvarying practice of the Catholic Church so to consider
and treat them.
2. Because there are grave doubts whether Barlow,
the consecrator of Parker, had ever himself received
episcopal consecration ; and, in fact, the probabilities of
the case incline more strongly against than in favour
of it.
3. Because the Anglican forms of Ordination have
been altered from the ancient forms, both by way of
mutilation and addition, in such a manner as to exclude,
on the part of those participating in the acts enjoined, any
intention of conferring or receiving a Sacrament, or sacramental grace, or a spiritual character, or any sacerdotal or
episcopal power.
4. Because the same forms have been also altered
purposely with the view of excluding the idea of the
priest at his Ordination receiving power to offer sacrifice.
5. Because Anglican Bishops and Priests at the time
of Ordination join in a profession contrary to the Catholic
faith in the Holy Sacrifice ; thus assuming on themselves,
by their own act, the spirit and erroneous intentions with
which the alterations were made.

374

Anglican Ordinations.

6. Because the meaning here attributed to the Angli­
can forms receives confirmation from the fact of its being
doubtful whether the word ‘ priest’ in the Anglican forms
of Ordination means a priest in the sense of the Catholic
Church, that is to say, sacerdos, ‘ a sacrificing priest.’
7. Because the meaning of the same forms is further
illustrated from the ‘ Order of Administration of Holy
Communion’ in the Book of Common Prayer, which is
found to be contrary to the Catholic faith in the doctrines
of the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist and the Real Pre­
sence.
This conclusion, however, may be considered as open
to an answer. It may be said, in reply, that the reasons
now given are entirely different from those that have been
given before for the same conclusion ; and that a decision
which has shifted its ground so often is not entitled to
respect. For it may be urged that the old argument
upon the fact has been repudiated ; that the defects al­
leged against the form by the first controversialists were
not insisted on by those who succeeded; and that the
points maintained by Lewgar and Le Quien are now in
their turn withdrawn, and that the reasons now given are
quite new, and different from any that have been alleged
before. And thus, that there will be ground for the
complaint, that in spite of argument and reason there is
a determination on this—i.e. the Catholic—side to find a
verdict against the validity of Anglican Ordinations.
If indeed the case were now actually on its trial, or
if the verdict had depended on the arguments used and
the defence made, say between Champneys and Mason,
or between Talbot and Bramhall, or between Cotirayer
and Le Quien, there would be a more specious appear­
ance in the complaint that the case had been tried so
many separate times, and that a new line of accusation
had been adopted on each occasion by the prosecution.
But, in fact, the decision is not in our hands at all, nor has

Conclusion.

375
it ever rested with any of the parties who have argued
the case. The case was tried and the verdict was given
long before the controversy began. When the contro­
versy opened in 1604, the Catholic side had only to ac­
count for and explain an existing tradition and an accus­
tomed practice, which they had learnt and received from
those before them. If there has been a difference in the
mode of explaining this practice,-—-even if some of the
facts alleged have been of a legendary character, which
would not bear examination,—this does not affect the ques­
tion ; the main fact still remains the same, that there was
at the time a long-standing custom of treating Anglican
orders as null and void. Even the Nag’s Head story
bears witness to this tradition, for it never could have
gained currency if the fact had been otherwise.
But the arguments now brought forward are not new,
although they may be put in a new form. The absence
of the sacramental character is a defect which was pointed
out from an early period. The defect of excluding the
power of sacrifice is the principal ground taken from the
first. The first writers maintained the antecedent necessity
of the delivery of the chalice, and of the formula Accipe
potestatem offerre} 8cc. Talbot, Lewgar, and Le Quien
insisted on an antecedent necessity for words expressive
of the power to consecrate the Eucharist. It is shown that
both points are an error in fact. ‘ Therefore,’ exclaim the
Anglicans, from Mason to Elrington, with Dr. Lee and Mr.
Haddan reechoing the cry, ‘therefore our orders are clearly
valid.’ ‘Not so fast,’ replies the Catholic; ‘it may be true
that there is no antecedent necessity for the use of such
words ; but you cannot deny the doctrine, nor exclude the
gift, nor ignore the power expressed in those words,without
overthrowing the validity you are so anxious to establish.
And this exclusion is the effect of the mode in which
your Anglican form was changed from the ancient rite.’
Here it is that Dr. Newman’s argument comes in with

376

Anglican Ordinations.

so much force, namely, that the Apostolic Succession, the
sacramental gift of Holy Order, the Holy Sacrifice, are
not traditions among Anglicans : ‘ There is surely a strong
presumption that the Anglican body has not what it does
not profess to have.’1
It is in vain to reply with the tu quoque argument that
at a certain time or times in mediceval ages, and through­
out whole countries, the clergy are said to have forgotten
their Divine mission, to have fallen into a lamentable state
of corruption and unbelief, to have neglected the Sacra­
ments, and to have been ignorant of the proper mode of
administering them.2 Even admitting the worst of such
statements to be not overdrawn, the whole Church was a
witness against ecclesiastics so lost to a sense of what
they were ; the faith,which they were bound to profess, the
books of divine offices, the Sacraments themselves, though
neglected, the sacramental forms, and the solemn rites
with which the priestly character had been conferred upon
them,—all would rise up in judgment against such a gene­
ration and condemn it.
But the Anglican clergyman who disbelieves the
Apostolical Succession has no such witness against him.
The view that he takes is only the legitimate inference
and the practical effect of the forms with which he was
‘admitted to priest’s orders.’ If he considers himself to
have been merely admitted to an office without any special
grace connected with it, those same forms of Ordination
bear him out. If he treats even with scorn the idea of
any peculiar power belonging to a Bishop or a Priest,
there is no condemnation for him in the Book of Common
Prayer, or the Forms of Ordination, or the Thirty-nine
Articles. And if he calls the Sacrifice of the Altar a de­
lusion and blasphemy, he may there find authority to
justify him.
* Dr. Newman’s £ssays, vol. ii. p. no.
’ Letter from the Rev. T. W. Mossman in The Month, vol. ix. p. 418.

ir.

Conclusion*

377

Thus the Anglican tradition, ‘ the urgency of visible
facts,’ to which Dr. Newman has appealed, and the view
taken in this work of the Anglican forms, mutually con­
firm each other. Each has been arrived at by a separate
and independent process. The absence of a living general
traditional belief shows that the view here worked out in
detail is not overdrawn. The inferences here deduced
from the forms themselves are in harmony with the views
of a large body of Anglicans, adopted by them on convic­
tions and reasonings of their own.
The doubt about the administration of baptism is a
very serious point, though not mentioned in this work
because Dr. Newman has already stated it. An allusion
to it is now made in order to notice the nature of replies
that have been given. They take again the form of
tu quoqzie ; it is suggested that there may be uncertainties
about baptisms among Catholics ; and an anecdote is told
of a Catholic priest who inquired of an old nurse how
she baptised him, and finding that she had made a griev­
ous error in the form, he was baptised and ordained again.
What does this show, but that in the true Church such an
error was corrected ? By Divine providence, and the light
of his own conscience and prudence such a priest was led
to have the defects repaired. An exception proves the
rule. But who ever heard of an Anglican clergyman
having any misgiving on the subject, or ever making in­
quiry of the minister who baptised him how he did it ?
Or if he did inquire, would he be likely to get any reli­
able information ? Is it not taken as a matter of course ?
Catholics would have more confidence in Anglican bap­
tisms if Anglicans themselves had less.
And this indeed goes further, for Anglicans seem to
take all matters involved in their ordinations as a matter
of course. Nor can the feeling be altogether blamed, for
it arises from loyalty towards the institution in which they
were brought up, and which they have learnt from infancy
cc

I
f
§

fW’

378

Anglican Ordinations.

to revere; if only it were directed towards her who
holds the Divine promises, instead of merely regarding a

creation of state policy, it would deserve admiration.
Thus they feel so secure in their position, that to
question it is like harbouring a suspicion of a mother’s
honour. Hence they believe, without proof, that every­
thing on their side must be right; that their forms
must somehow be sufficient; that Barlow must have
been consecrated at some time or other ; and they cling
to shadows—to the opinions of certain Catholic theo­
logians, however wide of the mark, or however little
in repute, and to the name of a Roman Catholic
writer, as they call Courayer, heretic as he was ; and
these appeals are thrown forward by them as if a sound
and adequate defence; while the legend of Pope Pius’
letter is to them an anchor of hope.
How few comparatively out of the large body of
Anglicans see the real importance of the question! Some
indeed say, ‘ that the question of holy orders is the eccle­
siastical question of the day.’3 But even of those who
take up the defence of their orders, how few see the real
bearing of the points, perhaps scarcely enough to admit
the premises on which the whole argument turns ! Not
those who, like Burnet and Palmer, shelter themselves in
the position of the Thirty-nine Articles—that ‘ each na­
tional Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish
ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s
authority ;’ a principle that strikes at the root of sacra­
mental grace. Not those either who suppress evidence
that tells against their side, like Mason ; nor who collect
their facts and reason on them in the style of Andrewes,
Twysden, and Bull : writers whom it is impossible to con­
sider as honest either to themselves or their cause ; and
it is to be feared that there are some who shut their eyes
to the evidence forced upon them, and are afraid to follow
3 Union .Review, vol. vi. p. 500.

i;

i

1
:l

Conclusion.

379

the leading of principles they profess. Still it may be
hoped that there are not wanting those who really believe
in sacramental grace, and in the Church and Priesthood
as the channels of it, and who would be inclined to give
the arguments on the Catholic side a fair consideration.
The controversy has been sometimes conducted with
too much rancour, and imputations have been freely made
which might well have been spared.4 Imputations of
sinister motives are quite out of place. If Anglicans
claim credit for a single-minded reverence towards the
episcopal succession and the priesthood which they claim
to possess, and allege this as their motive for defending it ;
surely Catholics are equally entitled to respect for their
desire to preserve the safety of sacraments, and to adhere
to the theological principles which they have received as a
sacred tradition.
The present work commenced with an allusion to the
claim made by Anglicans for a recognition of their Orders
by the Catholic Church ; and of course, as it was then said,
such a claim implies an admission on the part of those
who make it of the principles by which the Church would
be guided in her judgment. What, then, Anglicans have
to consider—the questions they have to ask themselves—
are these: What do they really believe about the grace
of Holy Order ? and even about the grace of the Sacra­
ments in general ? and next, What are the conditions on
which that grace is ordinarily given ?—and then to look
whether those conditions are fulfilled within the Anglican
communion. If they would seriously, as in the sight of
God, consider these points ; we might hope to attain to
Truth, which is before all things, and after Truth to see
Peace following in her train, and union, not based on
vague terms and unharmonious professions, but in ‘ one

Body and one Spirit, as called in one Hope of our •vocation,
one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.’
4 Palmer’s Episcopacy Vindicated, p. 5-6-

Additional Notes.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

381

gested in a Table in the British Antiquities, with their countries,
&c. And in the column of their Orders, as some of them are said
to be Priests Regular, as having belonged to some Religious Order,
some Secular, as not, so Pilkington (with one more) is set down
Minister Secular, meaning no doubt the same Order of Priesthood.
But the using of that term was to distinguish him from the Popish
Massing Priests ; and probably, to imply his receiving his Holy
Orders from some Protestant Bishop or Bishops in King Edward’s
days. Which word Minister became usual in these times for dis­
tinction from the idolatrous Priests of the Romish Church.’

p. 96. ‘An English Catholic.,’ writing in the Ίablet of March
15, questions the value of Machyn’s testimony, because he uses the
term ‘ made’ with regard to the confirmation of several Bishops at
Bow Church, on the 20th of December, as well as to Parker’s con­
secration at Lambeth on the 17 th, while he always speaks of‘con­
secration’ in the case of Cardinal Pole, and other Catholic Bishops.
Machyn’s testimony goes to show that a certain ceremony of
‘making of an Archbishop’ took place at Lambeth, on the 17th
of December ; and no suggestion has ever been offered of any­
thing else having been done at that place on that day than ac­
cording to the Ordinal of Edward VI. If Machyn means, that in
his belief the ceremony at Bow Church on the 20th was as good a
consecration as that at Lambeth on the 17th, he was not very far
wrong.
p. 115. A possible explanation of Dr. Pusey’s statement may
be suggested. As Chichele was consecrated by the Pope in the
year 1408, the words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum may have been in­
troduced into the Roman Pontifical, and have been said by the
Pope. And such a fact may be recorded in the Register on ac­
count of the difference from the Sarum rite in the use of those
words. If this be the case, it is merely stating that the rite of
the Roman Pontifical was used instead of the Sarum, and it does
not in any way affect the argument.
p. 116. Dr. Lee states that the Earl of Nottingham, in his place
in Parliament, asserted that he had been present at Parker’s conse­
cration {Validity, p. 180, note). He has given no authority, and
it is not so stated by Mason or Bramhall. Is there any authority
that can be produced ?
p. 134. The same inference with that in the text with regard
to Bullingham’s and Pilkington’s ordination is drawn by Strype
from the ‘Table of Consecrations’ in the following passage (Parker,
book ii. cap. 2, p. 64) : ‘ All these Bishops are conveniently di-

i

4

ERRATA.
5, line 6, transpose (’) to line 17, after hands.
28, „ 11, for Mr. Palmer, read Sir IV. Palmer.
34, „ 18, omit not.
36, in note 66,/or xviii. read xvii.
37, line 5, io 10th February, add note, See Appendix No. XV.
„ „ 28, to Hodgekyn, add note, See Appendix No. XVII I.*
39, „ 21, to Hodgekyn, add same reference.
64, in note 96, for II. read VII.
67, notes 33, 34, for App. No. VII. read No. VI.*
98, line 1, to The Ofiicial Minute, add note, See p. 86.
„ in note 98, for See Appendix No. XXXVII read. See page 88.
363,
„
16, line 6, for 1513, read 1583.

APPENDIX.

i

APPENDIX.

I. Decision of the S. Congregation of the Council.
From Boned. XIV. Do Syn. Diœcesan. lib. viii. cap. 10.

A certain deacon, who was to he ordained priest, received the
imposition of hands from the .’Bishop at all the usual times, but
through some distraction, did not go up to the Bishop for the cus­
tomary delivery of the instruments of the chalice and paten with,
the Host and wine. And a question arising, What ought to be
done ? the decision of the S. Cong, was sought. The solution of
the difficulty depends on the grave controversy among Theologians,
respecting the matter and form of the order of the presbyterate.
The older Schoolmen, followed by Sotus (in 4 Hist. 24, qnæst. 1,
art. 3) and, according to Gonetus (in Clyp. disp. 2, art. 3), most
other Thomists, recognised no other matter of ordination than the
delivery of the instruments, and no other form than the words
which accompany it. Their chief ground rests on the Decree of
Eugenius IV. published in the Council of Florence for the instruc­
tion of the Armenians, where, in describing the matter and form of
the several Orders, he mentions only the delivery of the instru­
ments, and the words which accompany it ; as follows (Hardouin,
vol. ix. col. 440) : ‘ The sixth Sacrament is Order, whereof the
matter is that, by delivery of which the Order is conferred ; as the
priesthood is conferred by the delivery of the chalice with wine,
and of the paten with bread ; and the diaconate by giving the
Book of the Gospels ; and the subdiaconate likewise by delivery
of an empty chalice with an empty paten upon it ; and in like
manner with regard to the others by presenting the things pertain­
ing to their ministry. The form of the priesthood is this : Receive
power of offering sacrifice in the Church for the living and dead.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
And so of the form of the other Orders, as fully contained in the
Roman Pontifical.’

a

ii

Appendix /,

Others, while they have regard on one side to the above-men­
tioned Decree of Eugenius, on the other hand look to the Sacred
Scriptures, in which, wherever Ordination is mentioned, it is not
explained in any other way than by imposition of hands ; as for
instance in Acts vi.} when the Apostles had deliberated on appoint­
ing deacons, and committed the election to the multitude of dis­
ciples, on the seven nominated by them, they praying imposed,
hands ; and in cap. xiii. it is said of the ordination of Pau] and
Barnabas : then fasting and praying and imposing hands on them,
they sent them away. St. Paul also in 1 Tim. iv. writes, neglect

not the, grace, which was given unto thee., with imposition if the,
hands of the. presbytery ; and 2 Tim. i., I admonish thee., to arouse
the grace of God, which is in thee by imposition of my hands. In
order, then, to reconcile these testimonies with the Decree, these
authors have taught that the delivery of the instruments, as well,
as the imposition of hands, is the adequate matter of the episco­
pate, priesthood, and diaconate ; and that the form consists in the
words pronounced by the ordaining Bishop at the time of each se­
parate action. But out of the three impositions of hands presently
to be described, which are used in the Ordination of a Priest, these
authors assert that the third only, which is given with the formula,
Receive the Holy Ghost : whose sins thou dost remit, $c. belongs
to the essence of the Sacrament. So Bellarmine (de Sacram. Ord.
cap. ix.) ; Maldonatus (de Sacram. Ord. quæst. iii. part. 2, prop. 1
and 4), where he says that this doctrine, as to the imposition of
iiands is of faith., and as to the delivery of the instruments is very
nearly of faith; Vasquez (iii. part of disputat. 239, cap. 2, 3, and 4) ;
Hallier (de Sacris Elect, et Ord. part. ii. § 2, cap. 2, art. 1 and 10,
&c.); Estius (iv. dist. 24, § 24) ; Isambert (de Sac. Ord. disp. 3,
art. 6); Piette (de Sac. Ord. quæst. 9); Vanroy (de Sac. Ord.
cap. iii. quæst. 1); Simonet (tract. 17 de Ord. disp. 3, art. 1) ; and
numerous others.
Lastly, there are others who consider that the three hierarchical
Orders, namely, the episcopate, the priesthood, and the diaconate,
have their adequate matter and form consisting only in the impo­
sition of hands, with the words corresponding thereto; and they
further consider that the delivery of the instruments is a rite
merely accessory and integral, added by the Church only for tiro
fuller signification and expression of the power conferred. But
since in the Ordination of a Priest there are three times when the
Bishop imposes hands on the ordained ; for the first time, after

Decision of the S. Congregation.

iii

the litanies are finished, when lie imposes hands together with the
Priests present, without saying any words ; the second time, imme­
diately after the first, while he invocates the grace and gifts of the
Holy Ghost upon the elect ; and for the third time, after the com­
munion, while he pronounces the words, Receive the Holy Ghost,
<yc. ; the advocates of this opinion contend that neither the first
nor the third, hut the second alone, with the accompanying
prayers, complete the whole essence of the Sacrament. Martène,
however, well observes that the second imposition of hands is not
distinct from the first, but only a continuation of it ; as indeed is
plain on inspection. "Wherefore these authors willingly concede
that the other Orders, below the diaconate, are conferred by deli­
very of the instruments alone ; since, in their opinion, they were
not instituted by Christ our Lord, but added by the Church ; and
t herefore, as they d<> not partake of the true nature of a Sacrament,
and do not confer grace e.c opere, operato, they might be instituted
and conferred in any other manner, at the pleasure of the Church.
This opinion is defended by Hugo Menard (in notes to Sacram, of
St. Gregory): Joan. Morinus (de Sac. Ord. pt. iii. exerc. 7, cap. 1);
Martin Becan (de Sac. Ord. cap. 26, quæst. 4, conci. 3) ; Goar (in
notes to the Euchol. Græc. p. 256, no. 11) ; Arcudius (Concord,
lib. vi. cap. 7), in which places the two last-named Doctors speak
expressly of the Latin Church, as well as of the Greek ; Juenin (de
Sacr. diss. 9, quæst. 3, cap. 2, &c.) ; Van Espen (Jut. Eccl. univ.
pt. 2, tit. 9, cap. 1, no. 9, &c.) ; Martène (de Antiq. Eccl. Bit. lib. i.
cap. 8, art. 9, no. 11, &c.) ; Tournely (de Sac. Ord. quæst. 3, conch
1 and 2), and other more recent writers ; St. Bonaventura and Peter
Soto having led the way for them, the first of whom expressly
taught this opinion (in 4 dist. 24, pt. 2, art. 1, quæst. 4), and the
latter is very much inclined to it, as acknowledged by Vasquez.
There are two arguments by which Morinus considers that this
assertion is clearly proved, even to demonstration. The first is de­
rived from the fact, that for at least nine hundred years throughout
the Church at large the Hierarchical orders were conferred by im­
position of hands alone, without the delivery of any instrument ;
as indeed the Doctors of the contrary opinion, for instance, Bellar­
minc and Hallier, are obliged to admit ; for there is no mention of
delivery of instruments in the ancient Bituals and Sacramentaries,
which have been produced by Menard, Morinus, and Martène, after
diligent researches ; besides that in the Fourth Council of Carth­
age, a.d. 398, at which 214 Bishops, including St. Augustine, were

v

Appendix 1.

Decision of the S. Congregation.

present, the subdiaconate is distinguished from the Hierarchical
orders by that very fact, that it is conferred by delivery of the
instruments, while they are given by imposition of hands : and we
find the same distinction made in the ancient Homan Sacramentary
published by Card. Thomasius (p. 229). Nor is there any mention
of delivery of instruments by Amalarius Fortunatus, or Rabanus
Maurus, or Walafrid Strabo, although they treat professedly and at
length of the rites of conferring Sacred Orders. In like manner
there is an entire silence among the same writers, and in the most
ancient Ritual books concerning the third imposition of hands,
which it is now customary to give in the Ordination of a Priest,
with the words, Receive, the, Holy Ghost, $c. ; since there is no
monument t hereof to be found more ancient than the fact related,
in the Life of Lietbert, Fishop of Cambray, who lived in the tenth
century, according to Martcne, who infers from thence that this
rite, through the whole Latin Church, is still more recent than the
other of delivering the instruments, since it is clearly evident from
the same Ritual books that the latter has not been introduced into
the Latin Church more than 700 or at the most 800 years. Where­
fore, these Doctors proceed to argue, in order to avoid the infer­
ence, either that the substance of Sacraments has undergone a
change, which would be erroneous, or else that the ancient Church
was without a true priesthood or legitimate ministers, which would
be glaringly heretical ; it is necessary to say, that even at present
the Hierarchical Orders arc conferred by imposition of hands alone,
and that distinct from the third imposition just mentioned, which
is of a more recent age.
It follows from hence (as the same Doctors proceed to argue)
that we must believe that the Church, in directing the use in
Ordination of the additions described above, meant only to express
more clearly the power conferred on a Priest at his ordination,
which power is conveyed in all its fulness by the second impo­
sition of hands. And this meaning was acknowledged, before the
opinion of the Schoolmen had fixed itself so deeply in general
acceptation, by Hugo à S. Victor (lib. 2, de Sac. Fid. pt. 3, cap. 12),
who says : ‘ They receive the Chalice with wine and the Paten
with the Host from the Bishop’s hand, in order that by these in­
struments they may be made conscious of their having received
the power of offering propitiatory sacrifices to God and in almost
the same words by Peter Lombard (lib. iv. dist. 24) : 4 They re­
ceive also the Chalice with the Host, that by this they may know

that they have received the power of offering propitiatory sacrifice
io God and therewith agrees the ancient Roman Pontifical, a
jis. in the Colbertine Library, where we read, ‘ Let him take the
Paten with the oblations, and the Chalice with wine, and place
them together in the hands of each ordained by himself for by
saying ordained, (ordinati), and not to be ordained (ordinandi), he
plainly denotes that the Ordination is already finished and com­
plete before the delivery of the instruments.
Another argument not less strong for the support of this opi­
nion is supplied by the Greek Church, which in giving sacred
Ordination has never used, nor does at present use, any other
matter than imposition of hands, as we may read in the Greek
Euchologium, and may learn by the testimony of Arcadius. Yet
the Roman Church has never held such ordinations of the Greeks
invalid, or made any objection to them ; moreover not only was
there no question raised in the Councils of Lyons and Florence, at
which Greeks were present with the Latins, but Clement VIII. had
no hesitation, when he admitted the Russian Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons to Catholic unity with the Orders they had received in
their schism, according to the Greek rite ; as treated at length by
Natalis Alexander (Theol. Dogm. et Moral, lib. ii. de Sac. Ord.
art. vii. § 2) ; Morinus (de Sac. Ord. pt. iii. exerc. 7, cap. i.
no. 8); Cabassut. (Notit. Eccles. Sæc. iv. Append. Cone. iv.
Carthag. no. 4 and 5) ; Tournely (Prælect. Theol. de Sac. Ord.) ;
Card, de Lugo (de Sacram, disp. ii. § 5, no. 85) ; Card. Albitius
(de Inconst, in Fide, cap. 30, no. 374) ; Verricell. (de Apostol.
Mission. Tit. xi. quæst. 168, § 3, no. 22).
By this same argument, derived from the Greek usage, the
authors whose opinion we are now explaining overturn the con­
trary opinion in its very foundation, resting as it does on the
decree of Eugenius j for how, they ask, could Eugenius IV. de­
fine that the essence of sacred Ordination consists in the delivery
of instruments, and the words corresponding thereto, after he had
in the same Council admitted to communion the Greek Bishops,
priests, and deacons, who had been ordained with imposition of
hands alone ? It is necessary therefore to acknowledge that Eu­
genius spoke of an integral and accessory matter and form, which
he wished the Armenians to add to the imposition of hands, al­
ready in use among them, in order that they might fully accom­
modate themselves to the usages of the Latin Church, and by an
uniformity of rites adhere to it more firmly : which explanation is

iv

vi

Appendix I,

well considered by Menard, Becan, and Morinus. Nor can the
authors of the contrary side reject it ; since the Decree makes no
mention of the third imposition of hands, which notwithstanding
they affirm to belong to the essence of Ordination of a priest; and
hence they are obliged to acknowledge that it was not the mind of
the Pontiff on that occasion to explain what completes the sub­
stance of Ordination.
The aforesaid Doctors have attempted various modes of escaping
the inference from these arguments. And they say, that though it
be true that the Latins at one time conferred the .hierarchical or­
ders by imposition of hands, as the Greeks do at present ; yet not­
withstanding that the delivery of instruments is necessary at this
day in the .Latin Church, because Christ our Lord did not institute;
nor determine the matter and form of Ordination in every minute
particular, as they say, but permitted the Church at her pleasure
to determine and for just causes to change them, so long as she
ever makes use of both things and words, which are apt to signify
the effect of sacred Ordination.
Then they consider that the
Church, having in former times designated imposition of hands
alone, with the words accompanying it ; yet afterwards, under a
change of circumstances, left it to the Greeks, and appointed a dif­
ferent matter to be used by the Latins. But this doctrine stumbles
on two most grave difficulties. First, it is not sufficiently proved
that Christ our Lord did give such a power to the Church ; and
the opposite seems even to be shown for certain from the Council
of Trent (Sees. xxi. cap. 2), where it declares that the Church has
power left to her by Christ of changing things respecting the dis­
pensation of Sacraments, if their substance be preserved untouched ;
but the change of matter and form belongs not to the rite and dis­
pensation, but to the substance. And then, if the power described
has been granted to the Church, it is altogether a gratuitous and
arbitrary supposition, that the Church has marie use of it. For at
least let them say where, and when, in what age, and in what
Council, or by what Pope, such a change was ever made. Indeed,
if the Church had removed from the rite of Ordination what had
been done in ancient times, we should then be obliged to affirm,
that the matter and form of Ordination, had been changed by the
authority of the Church, and a new matter and form, substituted
for the ancient. But since all things which are contained in the
ancient Rituals still remain intact, and are even now performed in
their integrity and sacredness, no one will readily believe that

r

'*

vu

I·

those very things, which, once were sufficient to complete the Sacrament of Order, now no longer suffice.
It seemed well to explain all this on the present occasion; not
to give our adhesion to this last opinion, but only with the view of
making it clear, that though it may have nearly the whole host of
schoolmen opposed to it, yet it has nothing to fear from their
attacks, but is even provided with weapons of its own to retort
upon them.
Wherefore, to return to the proposition, since it is very uncer­
tain whether the person in question would have been duly ordained
by the second imposition of hands, the course to he taken was
that prescribed by Gregory IX. (cap. Presbyter, de Sacram, non
iterand.'), where, in a case not very dissimilar, he decreed ‘that
nothing should be reiterated, but that what had been omitted by
error should be cautiously supplied and this is especially to be
observed in a state of things where the Sacrament, being consi­
dered, according to the opinion of many theologians, to be already
complete, would be subject to the peril of reiteration, as indeed
it is well and appositely remarked by Natalis Alexander (Theol.
JJoym. et Mor. de Sac. Ord. cap. i. arb. 7, § 2), saying, ‘ Whence,
if any of the rites which belong to the matter or form according
to various opinions of theologians, should be omitted in Ordina­
tion,—for instance, the first imposition of hands, or the accompany­
ing prayer, or the delivery of the chalice with wine and water, and of
the paten with the host, or the formula of words adjoined thereto, or
the unction, or the last imposition of hands, or the words which ac­
company it, namely, Receive the Holy Ghost, fyc.,—the Bishop ought
to supply what had been unintentionally omitted in the Ordination,
as may be collected from the Canon law (cap. Pastoralis, <D·)·
But since some theologians of no mean repute have said that
the imposition of hands, which precedes the delivery of the instru­
ments, coalesces therewith so as to form one matter, by which, with
the words pronounced by the Bishop in delivering the instruments,
the first part of sacerdotal power is conferred, namely, that of con­
secrating the Body of Christ ; therefore the Sacred Congregation,
wisely considering that the previous imposition of hands, already
given so long before, could have no moral conjunction with a deli­
very of instruments to be made on a later occasion, in order to
allow some weight to this opinion in a matter of so much import­
ance, wrote for answer that the whole Ordination should be re­
peated conditionally.

·
;.
>=

Decision of the S. Congregation.

,j
:!
,i
t

j;

c

v

i

' <

viii

Appendix 1.
Extracts from Theologians.

St. Alphonsus Liguori (lib. vi. tract. 5. de Ordine), relating the
above-mentioned three opinions, continues : ‘ Sententia vero pro­
babilior dicit tradi utramque potestatem sacerdoti sacrificandi et
absolvendi per solam secundam manuum impositionem. . . . Juxta
autem hanc sententiam, quæ ex extrinsecis fundamentis (specula­
tive tamen loquendo) probabilior mihi videtur. . . . Morinus et
Tournely forte probabilius dicunt formam esse orationem, quæ in
ipsa impositione dicitur ab Episcopo ; verba autem, Accipe Spiri­
tum Sanctum fyc. quæ dicuntur in tertia impositione, inquiunt esse
tantum declarativa et confirmativa rei peractae, nempe Spiritus
Sancti jam collati in secunda impositione. Dixi, autem speculative
loquendo, hanc sententiam esse probabiliorem ; nam cum secunda
sententia sit etiam probabilis, hæc in praxi omnino sequenda sit.
Quapropter bene advertit Croix, n. 1245, quod ordinatio facta sine
secunda manuum impositione tota repetenda sit.
Perrone (Tract.de Ordine, cap. iv.). Magna lis viget circa ma­
teriam et formam .essentialem ordinum hierarchicorum, veteres
enim scholastici fere omnes non ambigunt eam in instrumentorum
pariter porrectione, et comitantibus eam verbis constituendam esse ;
at postquam sanior critica rimas omnes antiquitatis perscrutata
est; communior jam evasit sententia quæ in sola manuum im­
positione et oratione, sitam esse materiam et formam horum ordi­
num tuetur.
. . . Hæc quidem disseruimus, spectantes quæstionem hanc in
abstracto, ut dicitur, seu speculative ; cæterum, cum in praxi tutior
pars in administratione Sacramentorum teneri debeat, ac optimæ
notæ theologi diversas sententias tueantur, hinc absque piaculo
alterutra non posset omitti, scilicet, aut manuum impositio, aut in­
strumentorum porrectio, ex quibus juxta plures theologos in Ecclesia
Latina materia totalis et adæquata sacræ ordinationis coalescit.
Quod si traditio instrumentorum omissa esset, deberet omnino sup­
pleri; imo, tota esset sub conditione ordinatio iteranda, prout a S.
Cong. sancitum est apud Bened. XIV.

Lutheran Manifestoes on Ordination.

ix

II. Lutheran Manifestoes on the subject of Ordination.
Part of the Declaration annexed to the Confession of Smalcald (from Melancthon'e Works, vol. iii. col. 282). This Declaration was written by Melancthon, but was subscribed with a special approbation by all the
Lutheran Divines assembled at Smalcald in 1537 (Seckendorf, Hist.
Lutheran, lib. iii. § 56).

De Potestate et Jurisdictione Episcoporum.
In confessione et apologia recitavimus ea, quæ in genere de
potestate ecclesiastica dici proderat. Evangelium enim tribuit
his, qui præsunt Ecclesiis, mandatum docendi Evangelium, remit­
tendi peccata, administrandi Sacramenta ; præterea jurisdictionem,
videlicet mandatum excommunicandi cos, quorum nota sunt crimina,
et resipiscentes rursum absolvendi. Ac omnium confessione, etiam
adversariorum, liquet, hanc potestatem jure divino communem esse
omnibus, qui præsunt Ecclesiis, sive vocentur Pastores sive presby­
teri sive Episcopi. Ideoque Hieronymus aperte docet : In literis

Apostolicis omnes, qui præsunt Ecclesiis, et Episcopos et presbyteros
esse, et citat ex Tito : Proyterea te reliqui in Creta, ut constituas
presbyteros per civitates. Et deinde addit : Oportet Episcopum esse
unius uxoris virum. Item Petrus et Johannes vocant se presbyteros.
Et deinde addit : Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cceteris
praeponeretur, in remedium schismatis factum est, ne unusquisque
ad se trahens Ecclesiam Christi unitatem rumperet. Nam et Alex­
andria?· a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium
Episcopos, presbyteri semper ex se unum eligebant, et in excelsiore
loco collocabant, quem Episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exer­
citus Imperatorem sibi faciat. Diaconi autem eligant ex se, quem
industrium noverint, et Archidiacouum nuncupent. Quid enim facit
Episcopus, excepta ordinatione, quod presbyter non facit? Docet
igitur Hieronymus, humana autoritate distinctos gradus esse Epis­
copi et presbyteri seu Pastoris. Idque res ipsa loquitur, quia
potestas est eadem, quam supra dixi.
Sed una res postea fecit discrimen Episcoporum et Pastorum,
videlicet ordinatio, quia institutum est, ut unus Episcopus ordinaret
ministros in pluribus Ecclesiis. Sed cum jure divino non sint
diversi gradus Episcopi et Pastoris , manifestum est, ordinationem
a Pastore, in sua Ecclesia factam, jure divino ratam esse. Itaque
cum Episcopi ordinarii fiunt hostes Ecclesiæ aut nolunt impertire
ordinationem, Ecclesiæ retinent jus suum.
Nam ubicunque est

Appendix II.
Ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandi Evangelii ; quare necesse est Ec­
clesiam retinere jus vocandi, eligendi, et ordinandi ministros. Et
hoc jus est donum proprie datum Ecclesiæ, quod nulla humana
autoritas Ecclesiæ eripere potest, sicut et Paulus testatur ad Ephe­
sios, cum ait: Ascendit, dedit dona hominibus ; et numerat inter
dona propria Ecclesiæ Pastores et Doctores. Et addit: duri tales ad
ministerium, ad œdijicationem corporis Christi. Vhi est igitur vera
Ecclesia, ibi necesse est esse jus eligendi et ordinandi ministros,
sicut in casu necessitatis absolvit etiam laicus, et fit minister ac
Pastor alterius, sicut narrat Augustinus historiam de duobus Christianis in navi, quorum alter baptizaverit
et is baptizatns deinde absolverit alterum. Huc pertinent sententia: Christi,
quæ testantur claves Ecclesia? datas osso non tantum certis personis :

Ubicunque erunt duo vel tres congregati in uamiue meo, <p··.
Postremo, etiam hoc confirmat sententia Petri : pus estis regale
sacerdotium, quæ verba ad veram Ecclesiam pertinent, quæ cum
sola habeat sacerdotium, certe habet jus eligendi et ordinandi mi­
nistros. Idque etiam communissima Ecclesiæ consuetudo testatur.
Nam olim populus eligebat Pastores et Episcopos. Deinde acce­
debat Episcopus, seu ejus Ecclesiæ, seu vicinus, qui confirmabat
electum impositione manuum, nec aliud fuit ordinatio, nisi talis
comprobatio. Postea accesserunt novæ ceremoniæ, quales multas
describit Dionysius : sed est autor novus et ficticius, quisquis est,
sicut et Clementis Romani scripta sunt suppositicia. Deinde recentiores addiderunt : Do tibi potestatem sacrificandi pro vivis et
mortuis. Sed ne illud quidem apud Dionysium est.
Ex his omnibus liquet, Ecclesiam retinere jus eligendi et ordi­
nandi ministros. Quare cum Episcopi aut fiunt hæretici, aut nolunt
impertire ordinationem, jure divino coguntur Ecclesiæ adhibitis
suis Pastoribus ordinare Pastores et ministros et caussam schis­
mati et discordias praebent impietas et tyrannis Episcoporum,
quia Paulus praecipit, ut Episcopi docentes ei defendentes impiam

doctrinam et impios cultus habeantur tanquam anathemata.
Diximus de ordinatione, quai una, ut Hieronymus ait, discer­
nebat Episcopos a reliquis presbyteris. Itaque nulla disputatione
opus est de caderis Episcoporum officiis. Nec vero opus est dicere
de confirmatione, item de Campanarum consecratione, quæ propemodum sola retinuerunt.

& ,. ,-M' yH .& MtÆ ·*1

Lutheran Manifestoes on Ordination.

-

xi

Judicium de Impositione Manuum.
Fi-oin ATelaucthoii’s Works, vol. v. col. 209.

Scriptum Philippi de impositione manuum.
anno 1540.

t

Ad Vitum Theodorum,

In Historia Ecclesiastica Eusebii lib. vi. pag. 144 recitatur epistola Episcopi Hierosolymorum, in qua multis exemplis defenditur
Origenes, qui concionabatur, cum non esset consecratus more sacer­
dotum, ut sic loquar. Et in libro juris canonici, cui titulus est
Liber Decretorum, dist. 24, scribitur, Laicos rogatos posse prublice
docere. Verba canonis sumta sunt ex Synodo Carthaginensi.
Sed de administranda cama Domini major est quæstio. Irrepsit
enim opinio do mutatione panis. Hanc potestatem dicunt certo
ordini commendatam esse. Sed opponi potest manifestum testimonium, et satis grave Synodi Nicænæ, quæ constituit, ut diaconi,
absentibus presbyteris, cœnam Domini administrent. Nondum
igitur erat persuasio, de potestate mutandi panem tradita certo
gradui.
Hæc historica mihi quidem grata sunt, et me interdum confir­
mant disputantem in tanta temporum confusione de veteri ordinatione, sive electione ministrorum.
Nunc persuasio receptissima est Pontificiæ partis : Ecclesiam

talem politiam esse, in qua nemo potestatem habeat docendi publice,
aut administrandi, cœnam Domini, nisi consecratus sit ab Episcopo
tenente titulum, et quidem, a Pontifice Romano acceptum. Hunc
ordinem vocant successionem ordinariam et pene Levitici sacerdotii
κακοζτιλ/α est.
Quid velit tuus collega, nescio : sed tamen non opinor, eum
defendere illas opiniones pontificias, quas si tuebitur, nova erunt et
majora certamina.
Dicam autem ordine, quæ in ministris constituendis necessaria
sint : Vocatio seu electio necessaria est. Hanc Paulus mandat Tito:
Constitue presbyteros. Postea vides in probatissimis historiis fuisse
universalem morem prima.· Ecclesia.· eligi, id est, vocari Episcopos
per populum, id est, honestissimos homines in singulis ordinibus.
Et adhuc vestigium moris manet, quod Episcopi a collegiis eli­
guntur.
Sic nunc vocantur ministri in nostris Ecclesiis, vel per Principes,
vel per Senatum in Rebuspub : Et est pia et justa vocatio. Prin­
ceps et Senatores dupliciter habent jus vocandi ; primum, quia pne-

1
"
j

]
j
j
b
1
j
j
i

|

>>

i

J
j'

L
>v

xii

Appendix II.

sunt, et vult Deus gubernatores curare ministerium Evangelii :
deinde quia sunt præcipua membra Eeclesiæ.
Ut igitur Athanasium Ecclesia Alexandrina vocavit : sic te, sic
collegas tuos, vestri Senatores, qui sunt præcipua Eeclesiæ membra,
vocarunt : nec refert, quam multis in Senatu placeat, satis est ali­
quos esse, qui præcipuam autoritatem habent, et ejus Eeclesiæ
membra sunt, ad quam docendam vocati estis.
Hæc verissima et simplicissima sunt : nec dubium est, vos juste
vocatos, et legitimos ministros esse, et non esse
Post vocationem seu electionem olim accedebat comprobatio,
quæ fiebat per vicinos Episcopos, duos, aut tres, ut recitant multæ
historiæ. Hi manus imponebant electo. Hunc morem et nos ser­
vamus, ut scis, ac delector ritu. Nam impositio manus celebratur
in Genesi, in historia Jacob, cum benedicitur filiis Joseph, et dein­
ceps Aaroni et filiis. Item hostiis manus imponebantur, et Christus
manus imponebat infantibus : snidiîi αυτοΐς τάζ ·χίΐρας, inquit Matthæus.
Præterea magna ministerii vis est, magna dignitas. Ideo hones­
tissimum est, electum ministrum sisti coram Ecclesia, commendari
Deo publica precatione, confirmari collegii testimonio. Hæc olim
summa cum gravitate fiebant, ut adhuc fieri optarim.
Sed vides, quæ sit disciplinæ dissipatio. Vix ab illo collega
tuo impetrari posset, ut ad talem ritum in templum veniret. Si
hunc morem amat, ut amare eum decet, cur non renovat Ί Et in­
staurari in Ecclesiis frequentioribus certe utile esset.
Sed tamen et hoc dico : Vocatum seu electum voce eorum, penes
quos est jus vocationis fungentem ministerio Evangelii, etiam sine
altero ritu impositionis manuum, vere ministrum Evangelii esse,
posse docere, ac administrare Sacramenta.
Nihil enim addit juris aut potestatis impositio manuum : sed
est declaratio et comprobatio vocationis, de qua constare necesse est.
Et valent, etiam Sacramenta propter ordinationem divinam, sicut
vox Evangelii : Evangelium est potentia Dei ad salutem. Nec dif­
ferunt veri pastores et mercenarii hoc ritu, sed differunt genere doc­
trinae et voluntate.
Quod autem ne quidem liceat nobis petere ritum ordinationis ab
Episcopis, qui nunc titulum tenent, et profitentur se improbare doc­
trinam Ecclesiarum nostrarum, manifesta ratio est : quia neminem
sine impiis vinculis ordinant. Et Paulus inquit: Si quis aliud

Evangelium docuerit, anathema sit.
Nec propterea extinguitur universa Ecclesia, sed manet Ecclesia

Lutheran Manifestoes on Ordination.

xiii

apud nos ; ubi sonat vox Evangelii, ibi est ministerium, et jus
electionis, et comprobationis manet, juxta illud : Ascendit, dedit

dona hominibus, alios prophetas, alios pastores, alios d,octores.
Certum est enim hac sententa affirmari, quod in Ecclesia, in qua
recte sonat Evangelium, sint hæc dona, .sit ministerium verum.
Hac me consolatione sustento.
Scio oportere perpetuam esse Ecclesiam, et eam non pendere ex
titulis Episcoporum, sed vere eum esse coetum, qui sonat vocem
Evangelii. Ergo et ministerium in eo cœtu est.
Doleo quidem divelli nos ab illis, qui tenent ordinariam potes­
tatem : sed ipsi nos sine nostra culpa abjiciunt. Eoveo igitur
quantum possum, et omnibus sum hortator fovendi hoc nostrum
corpus, quod Ecclesiam Dei sentio, et dissipari nollem : et ne dis­
sipationes exorirentur, multas injurias perferendas esse semper
censui.
Habes quæ de impositione manuum ego sæpe cogitare soleo : et
a te expecto, quid tibi videatur.

Part of the. Reformatio Wittebergensis.
From Melancthon’s Works, vol. v. col. 612. This scheme of Church govern­
ment was drawn up by the Lutheran divines at Wittenberg, by order of
the Elector of Saxony in 1545 ; and subscribed by Luther, Bugenhagen
alias Pomeranus, Cruciger, Major, and Melancthon. The Latin version
was made by Melancthon (Seckendorf, Hist. Luther, lib. iii. § 119).

Confirmatio.
Valde necesse est in omnibus Ecclesiis tradi certis diebus Catechismum, ut pueri assuefiant ad verum et nativum intellectum
omnium articulorum et partium doctrinæ Christianæ. Ad hanc
consuetudiilfem sanciendam prodesset ritus confirmationis, cum vide­
licet exacta pueritia jam firmior ætas seu adolescentia accederet,
palam in Ecclesia audienda esset integra doctrinæ confessio, et
cum interrogatus promitteret constantiam in hac ipsa sententia
recitata et in hujus Eeclesiæ suæ confessione, manus Pastoris ei
imponendæ essent, et publica precatione petenda mentis et cordis
in hoc confitente confirmatio et gubernatio. Hæc ceremonia non
esset inane spectaculum, ut nunc Episcoporum ritus, sed profutura
esset ad retinendam doctrinæ puritatem et propagationem sententiæ
ecclesiasticæ ad concordiam et disciplinam.

Appendix ZZ.

Ordinatio.
Etsi postea de ordinatione rursus dicendum est in ea parte, in
qua de servando ministerio Evangelii dicetur : tamen hic necessa­
riam admonitionem breviter inserendam esse duximus. Magna res
est et necessaria Ecclesiæ, cura recte exercendæ ordinationis. Etsi
enim .Deus propria sua potentia et gubernatione ministerium Evangelicum servat, et excitat ipse pastores et ductores, et facit ido­
neos, ut Ephes, iv. scriptum est : tamen et tota Ecclesia, et maxime
præcipua membra Ecclesiæ etiam suum studium et operam ad hanc
rem conferre debent, ut praeparentur multi ad. munus docendi, et ut
instituti ac certis locis a doctis examinatoribus explorati admittan­
tur ad ministerium, aut rejiciantur.
Hic labor mandatus fuit olim Episcopis. Sed plurimi diu jam
magnam saevitiam exercent in recte docentes, et non solum dioe­
ceses suas non curant, sed ne suarum quidem ditionum Ecclesiis
pastores præficiunt, et pene ethnicas vastitates efficiunt. Ideo necesse est deliberari, quomodo universae Ecclesiæ consulendum sit.
Etsi Episcopis autoritas ordinationis tribuenda est, necesse est
ut suam mentem de doctrina declarent. Eam si erunt et mane­
bunt Evangelii hostes, nec volent ullos ad ordinationem admittere,
sine obligatione ad impiam, doctrinam, et ad delendam veritatem,
non poterit ab eis ordinatio peti. Sed si veram doctrinam am­
plecti et tueri vellent, et idoneis hominibus examen commendare,
præclare de Ecclesia mereri possent. Plurimum enim refert ordina­
tionem recte instaurari.
Et si gubernatores vere considerarent ingentia beneficia Dei,
quæ per ministerium Evangelicum dantur : quod videlicet Deus
hac voce et non aliter sibi colligit æternam Ecclesiam, et nobis
miseris hominibus mandavit vocare homines, qui didifterunt doc­
trinam Christi, per quorum functionem in docendo et administratione Sacramentorum vere est efficax, et facit nos haeredes vitæ
æternæ, majore diligentia curarent, ut ordinatio rectius administra­
retur, et non pateret hic gradus sanctissimus hominibus prorsus
ignaris Evangelii, aut hostibus, aut Epicuræis. Populus etiam de
.ministerii Evangelici dignitate, et de ordinatione docendus est,
ut hoc ingens beneficium Dei intelligere discat (quod Deus
certo per hos vocatos, et hanc functionem efficax est) et ipsum
ministerium magis amet, et majore cura servare studeat : sicut
singuli suo loco debent ornare, et tueri hoc ministerium recte do-

Lutheran Manifestoes on Ordination.

xv

centium, sicut, sæpe scriptum est et Christus inquit : Qui ims
spernit, me spernit.
Noti sunt autem manifesti abusus, quibus ordinatio multis jam
seculis polluitur. Valet persuasio, sacerdotes ordinari propter sa­
crificium, non docendi Evangelii caussa. Et hæc opinio auxit
numerum sacrificulorum : quia putant homines, cumulare hæc sa­
crificia, præcipuum cultum Dei esse. Quare ii, qui ordinationi
præfuerunt, admiserunt indoctos sine discrimine, cum soli illi fuis­
sent admittendi, qui mediocriter docere populum de vera doctrina
possent.
Jam si concordia constituenda est, et Episcopis comipendanda
ordinationis autoritas, necesse est prius doctrinæ consensum esse,
ut dictum est. Deinde et mandata ordinationis dentur de docendo
Evangelio, et ad ministration e Sacramentorum, non de aliis operi­
bus, ut sacrificent pro vivis et mortuis. Nec onerandæ erunt con­
scientias impia lege coelibatus, quæ omnibus temporibus caussa fuit
multorum tristissimorum scelerum, et perpetui exitii multis homini­
bus. Et in universo sacerdotum ordine lex illa peperit ethnicam
obscœnitatem et profanitatem. Quorum peccatorum contagio se
polluunt omnes, qui hanc legem de cœlibatu defendunt et stabi­
liunt.

Sententia de Ordinatione Ecclesue Ministrorum subscriptione
Bugenhagii approbata et recepta.
From Mclancthon’s Works, vol. vii. col. 740.

Nihil in alterutra parte exaggerabo. Nihil ullius factionis stu­
dio aut odio dicam, sed simpliciter recitabo meam sententiam, et
judicium permitto omnibus viris doctis et piis in Academiis Rostochiana et Gripswaldensi, et in Ecclesiis Hamburgensi, Lubecensi,
Luneburgensi et Brunsvicensi. Filius Dei, sedens ad dextram
æterni Patris, dat dona hominibus, alios quidem prophetas, alios
apostolos, alios evangelistas, alios pastores, alios doctores, &c. Hunc
agnoscamus servare Ecclesiam, et ei gratias agamus, et ejus benefi­
ciis reverenter fruamur. Hic protulit ex sinu æterni Patris Evan­
gelium, hic ministerium Evangelicum instituit, et doctores misit et
mittit. Rom. x. : Quomodo prædicabunt nisi missi fuerint ? Mittit
autem vel vocatos sua voce immediate, vel vocatos per Ecclesiam
aut personas certas nomine Ecclesiæ. De illa missione seu voca­
tione, qua immediate mittit doctores, sicut prophetæ et apostoli