G. The conduct of Bishop Bon-ing to Elizabeth, Cecil, and Parker, ner, in his suit against Horne, Bishop of Winchester, in which he based his objection to Horne's au

more than in theology, when they had every church in England open to them, an Ordinal at hand, and plenty of Bishops, English and Irish, able and ready to officiate.

There is, however, a second objection raised. Granting the fact of Parker's consecration, its validity is contested on two separate grounds. (a) That Barlow, who acted as chief consecrator, was himself never consecrated, and that this deficiency could not be made up by his co-consecrators, because as they merely coincided in what he was doing, they effected nothing if his act was an empty form. (b) That the Edwardine Ordinal is an invalid rite.

mons to the House of Lords, his sitting and voting there and in Convocation, and his share in consecrating other Bishops, in 1539 and 1542; most, if not all of which, by law, could not take place unless he had been consecrated. One link is absent, but the rest of the chain is complete, and the loss of one small parchment is of little weight, for Præmunire was too formidable a weapon under Henry VIII. for Cranmer to neglect Barlow's consecration, or for Barlow himself to act as Bishop without it, especially as the King was a great stickler for legal punctilio in all matters, particularly ecclesiastical ones, even when the spirit of justice was most absent from his proceedings. The inference is that Barlow was consecrated between April 21 and April 25, 1536, for he was confirmed in person at Bow Church on the former day, had the temporalities restored on the latter, and two days later received the writ of summons to the House of Lords. This was when Bishop of S. David's. He had been six months previously elected and confirmed to S. Asaph, but never obtained its temporalities, nor was called to the Lords and to Convocation in virtue of those events, whence it follows that some act in addition must have been added to The evidence as respects Barlow give him full episcopal rank when himself is as follows. The actual he was promoted to S. David's. record of his consecration is miss- Besides this plain inference, there is ing, as are those of eight other pre- some direct evidence. Bishop Garlates out of forty-five in Cranmer's diner, writing to Protector Somercarelessly-kept Register. But Bar- set, speaks of Barlow as "Bishop," low's confirmation is entered, as is and as his "brother of S. David's,' that of four of the other Bishops and Mary's congé d'élire naming whose consecrations are omitted. Gilbert Bourne to the see of Bath Two of these consecrations are found and Wells, specifies the resignation recorded in diocesan registers, but of William Barlow, last Bishop Barlow's registers at S. Asaph's and thereof, as the cause of the vacancy. S. David's are both lost. There If Barlow had never been really Biexist, however, the documents which shop, that reason would not appear prove his nomination, election, and in the deed. Several autograph letconfirmation, all of which, by Eng- ters of Barlow himself have been lish law, must precede consecra- lately (1869) discovered in the State tion, and his installation, his reco- Paper Office, which refer to his episvery of the temporalities, his sum-copal character, besides a State

As regards the office of co-consecrators, the fact is that the primeval and Nicene Canons requiring three Bishops to take part in every consecration, were intended expressly to guard against any chance of invalidity, so that B and C might supply any defect of A. And so Martene lays down. Further, in the special case of Parker, each of the four Bishops, as the Register expressly mentions, recited aloud the formula of consecration when laying hands on him, and thereby acted independently, though in concert, and thus any possible defect in Barlow was fully supplied.

paper which expressly mentions his installation at S. David's, a ceremony fixed by 26 Henry VIII. c. 14, to follow necessarily on consecration, which consecration is recited in all contemporary mandates to the Chapters. And against the conceivable plea that Cranmer and Barlow, both Erastians, might have agreed to omit the ceremony of consecration, (though to do so would have made every episcopal act of Barlow's null and void in civil matters) stands the fact that under Edward VI., when an act of the kind would have been far less perilous than under Henry VIII., Hooper was forced by Cranmer to submit to consecration, though openly protesting against the ritual and the form of the office.

The theory that Barlow was not consecrated was never broached till 1616, forty-seven years after his death, and eighty after his accession to the see of S. David's. It was utterly unknown to all his contemporaries under Henry VIII., Edward VI., Mary I., and Elizabeth, and even to the generation which succeeded him. And no argument has ever been adduced for it except the loss of a paper which may be found some day even now.

Further, even were it proved that neither Parker nor Barlow was ever consecrated, yet the succession would be unbroken. For Parker held a consecration of four new Bishops on Dec. 21, 1559, in which Scory and Hodgkins joined as well as Barlow; and the prelates then made transmitted their orders to the next series.

brated with wheaten bread and grape-wine. But no such rule exists for Holy Orders. Provided there be the imposition of hands by a competent officer, and a formula employed which in one place or another specifies the intention of the rite, all is done which is necessary or enjoined by the most ancient rites. In the Edwardine Ordinal there are three such specifications: (a) the words used by the Bishop who presents the elect to the Archbishop; (b) the oath taken by the Bishop-elect: (c) a prayer said in the Litany. The office of Bishop is not specified in the actual words of consecration, but neither was it in the Sarum Pontifical, nor is it in the Roman Pontifical either. And all the essential acts of consecration prescribed by the African Canons of the Fourth Council of Carthage, were precisely complied with by the Book of 1552. The various accretions on the rite, chiefly Western, were intended to add dignity and pomp, but not validity. They are merely analogous to the incense and music at a High Mass, which do not lift it in any sense above a low one. And if the Edwardine rite be rejected for its simplicity, the consecrations of the first thousand years of Christianity fall with it.

These considerations settle the validity of Anglican Orders, which indeed has been recognized by the authorities of the Roman Church in two ways. a. The Council of Trent was asked by Pius IV. to declare the Elizabethan Bishops unlawful, and it expressly refused to do so. b. Pope Julius III. addressed a Brief to Cardinal Pole in 1554 desiring him to absolve and reconcile Bishops and Priests made in Edward VI.'s time, but not di

The question as to the validity of the Edwardine Ordinal meets its answer in the admitted fact that only two Sacraments are tied to express forms of words and particular matter by Divine appoint-recting him to re-ordain them. ment. Baptism must be in the Name of the Holy Trinity, and with water. The Eucharist must be attended with recitation of the words of Institution and be cele

But a fresh question now arises, as to their regularity, whether full mission and jurisdiction belong to them. Here too proof is not deficient. Mission, starting from the

sending of the Apostles, means the office of preaching the Gospel and setting up the Church in a heathen land. Only two possible events can occur which make a fresh act of mission needful, the total disappearance of Christianity (as when the early teachers of Greenland and their disciples all died of plague), or the abandonment by Christians themselves of the Apostolic ministry, so as to lose the Sacraments of Order, Penance, and the Eucharist, as in Denmark and other Presbyterian countries. But so long as a Christian remnant, episcopally ruled, continues, fresh mission is impossible. Such is obviously the case in England. It has not ceased to be Christian, its Church has never ceased to be episcopally transmitted, and no other body can have true mission so long as this state of things continues.

pelled to refer all matters of the forum externum to Rome. There is thus, even since the setting up of the Anglo-Roman hierarchy in 1850, no rival jurisdiction to contest the claims of Lambeth. When Parker was canonically elected to the vacancy left by Pole's death, he entered, on consecration, into all the Metropolitical and Primatial rights of his predecessor, including that of giving jurisdiction to his suffragans. If Pole had lived, and been uncanonically deposed, this would not have been so, since Parker, if intruded in his place, would have been in an irregular position, but as matters actually were, his rights are unimpeachable. Only one thing could have impugned them, and that was not forthcoming, to wit, a protest against his authority by the suffragans of his province, with the putting forward another claimant Jurisdiction means the right of of the Primacy. His consecrators publicly discharging the spiritual were precisely the surviving refunctions acquired by consecration, presentatives of the Episcopate of and of exercising rule in a definite 1553, which had been illegally, place. By the most ancient code (even if deservedly) deprived by of the Church, the African Canons the State-not by Canon lawalready mentioned, this power is under Mary. And death was sinlodged in a Metropolitan by the gularly busy amongst the Marian assent of his comprovincials, and is Bishops. When Queen Mary died, communicated from the Metropoli- seven sees were vacant, six in the tan to all newly-made Bishops in south, and one in the north. Nine his province. This Metropolitan more Bishops were dead before the might be, as in some Churches, the middle of January, 1560, that is senior Bishop, in years or in date to say, within little more than a of consecration, or as in other twelvemonth after Parker's conseChurches, including England, the cration. Only eight Marian preholder of a particular See. The lates then survived. Three of these See of Canterbury had enjoyed this quitted England and never returnpre-eminence ever since the mission ed, the five who stayed made no of S. Augustine, and a Papal Brief sign, and did not interfere in any of Boniface V. is recorded by Wil-way. Thus, even the sees into liam of Malmesbury, anathematiz- which men had been intruded were ing any person who should ever in- canonically filled one by one, and terfere with or resist its primatial | when Cox, the intrusive Bishop of rights, no matter what changes Ely, who had supplanted Thirlby, time might bring about in human died in 1599, and was canonically affairs. This Brief, on Roman prin- succeeded by Heaton, the last trace ciples, disposes of the claims of of irregularity vanished. No schism, the titular See of Westminster, to such as that of the Nonjurors, no which, in fact, no jurisdiction is protest, like that of 36 of the 135 annexed, as its occupant is com- French Bishops deprived unlaw

CLASSIFIED TABLE OF PSALMS, COLLECTS, EPISTLES, AND
GOSPELS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.