50 



NOTES AND QUEKIES. 



[2«'d S. VII. Jan, 15. '59. 



(lity of whose consecration has never on that ac- 

 count been denied, yet in every other way the 

 proof of his having been lawfully consecrated is 

 full and complete, as I shall now proceed to 

 show. 



Henry VIII.'s sixth Parliament met on the 6th 

 of June, 1536, and in this Parliament Barlow sat 

 in the House of Peers as a Bishop. (Rymer, xiv. 

 563.) Now, in order to be summoned to that 

 Parliament, Barlow must have presented the king's 

 warrant, which was never given to bishops until 

 after consecration (Bramhall's Works, i. 482.). 

 He must, therefore, have been consecrated before 

 June, 1536, and this agrees with the date given by 

 Wharton and Le Neve. He again sat in the Par- 

 liament of 1541, as Bishop of St. David's. 



Again, in the Convocation of 1536 in a List of 

 Articles signed by eighteen bishops. Barlow's 

 name appears as Bishop of St. David's before that 

 of Robert, Bishop of St. Asaph (Collier, iv. 356., 

 ed. 1852), which tends to show that Barlow was 

 consecrated before, and took precedence in Con- 

 vocation of his successor at St. Asaph. 



Once more, on Feb. 19th, 154^, Bishop Barlow 

 assisted at the consecration of Arthur Bulkeley, 

 Bishop of Bangor, in conjunction with John (Sal- 

 cot), Bishop of Sarum, and John (Wakeman), 

 Bishop of Gloucester, and we may well conclude 

 til at he would not have been associated with other 

 bishops in the consecration of another prelate, had 

 he not himself been consecrated. 



Many other minor proofs might be added, but 

 those above given will convince any candid and 

 unprejudiced mind. That they did convince the 

 great Roman Catholic historian Lingard should 

 be sufficient to end the controversy. It will per- 

 haps be best to give his own words : — 



"It happened most vexatiously that no record of his 

 (Barlow's) consecration was known to exist. Though 

 searches were repeatedly made in every likely repository, 

 no traces of it could be found, nor, I believe, has any allu- 

 sion or reference to it been discovered to the present day 

 in any ancient writer or document. Still the absence of 

 proof ia no proof of non- consecration. No man has ever 

 disputed the consecration of Gardiner, Bishop of Winches- 

 ter, yet he was made bishop whilst on a mission abroad, 

 and his consecration is involved in as much darkness as 

 that of Barlow. When, therefore, we find Barlow during 

 ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, constantly as- 

 sociated as a brother with the other consecrated bishops, 

 discharging with them all the duties, both spiritual and 

 secular, of a consecrated bishop, summoned equally with 

 them to Parliament, taking his seat among them accord- 

 ing to his seniority, and voting on all subjects as one of 

 them, it seems most unreasonable to suppose, without 

 direct proof, that he had never received that sacred rite, 

 without which, according to the laws of Church and State, 

 he could not have become a member of the episcopal 

 body." (Vol. vi. p. 672.) 



It may perhaps be interesting to some of your 

 readers to give a few particulars respecting Bishop 

 Barlow's after life. In 1547, he was translated to 

 the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, which he resigned 



on the accession of Mary. On Elizabeth coming 

 to the throne he was made Bishop of Chichester in 

 1559. In the possession of this see he died in 

 August, 1568. He married Agatha Wellesbourn, 

 and by her had a numerous family, five of whom 

 were daughters, all of whom married bishops ; viz. 

 Anne, wife of Herbert (Westphaling), Bishop of 

 Hereford ; Elizabeth, of William (Day), Bishop 

 of Winchester ; Margaret, of William (Overton), 

 Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry ; Frances, of 

 Toby (Matthew), Archbishop of York ; and An- 

 tonina, of William (Wykeham), Bishop of Win- 

 chester. 



Mr. Massingberd will find many additional 

 particulars in Courayer's Validity of English Or- 

 dinations (in which the original documents referred 

 to above are given), in Collier's Church History 

 (vol. iv.), and in H. J. Rose's Biographical Dic- 

 tionary. Alfred T. Lee. 



Ahoghill Rectory, Ballymena. 



MST OF WORKS OF GREAT PAINTERS. 

 (2°^ S. vi. 177.) 



Stylites inquires if there has ever been com- 

 piled a catalogue of the paintings of celebrated 

 Masters ? After many pertinent observations on 

 the subject, founded on the presumption that 

 there is no such work, he suggests a specimen, on 

 the works of Correggio. 



In reply, I take leave to inform the inquirer, 

 that if he will refer to Elmes' General and Bib- 

 liographical Dictionary of the Fine Arts, 8vo. 

 London, 1826, under the articles " Artist," 

 " Arts," " Drawing," "Painting," " Painters," 

 " Portrait Painting," " Schools of Art," and other 

 similar articles interspersed in that work, he will 

 find much of what he seeks, from the ancient pic- 

 ture of The Battle of the Magnetes in Lydia, 

 painted by Bularchus in the nineteenth Olympiad, 

 to The Battle of the Boyne by West in the nine- 

 teenth century. There is, also, a Chronological 

 Catalogue of the names of the great Masters, — 

 whom they studied under, — their line of art, — 

 their death, age, and peculiar excellencies ; from 

 Giovanni CImabue in the latter part of the thir- 

 teenth century', whose crudities are being placed 

 above the mighty grandeur of Michelangiolo ; 

 the purity of design, conception, elegance, sym- 

 metry, and universality of the divine Raffaelle ; 

 the learning of the Caracci ; the truth and nature 

 of Titian ; the invention of Primaticcio ; the grace 

 of Parmigiano ; the exquisite design and expres- 

 sion of Da Vinci ; the " Correggiesclty of Cor- 

 reggio," and the subsequent great Masters, from 

 the great Michelangiolo Buonarotti to the little 

 Michelangiolo del Campidoglio : — and replace 

 these standard classics of Art for the ill drawing, 

 imitations of Mosaic, Buhl, and Chinese perspec- 



