92 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



L2'»a S. VII. Jan. 29. '59. 



and Succession of Protestant Bishops Justijied; the 

 Bishop of Duresme Vindicated; and that Infamous 

 Libel of the Ordination at the Nag's Head clearly 

 Confuted. The note occurs in vol. iii. p. 138. of 

 Bramhall's Worhs, published in The Anglo-Catho- 

 lic Library : — 



" The indisputable facts relating 16 Barlow's Bishoprics 

 are as follows : 1. That he was elected, being then Prior 

 of Bisham, to the see of St. Asaph, Jan. 16, 1535-6 (Reg. 

 Crannn.), according to a Conge' d'Eslire dated Jan. 7, 

 1535-6 (Rymer, torn. xiv. p. 558.), upon the death of Bp. 

 Standyshe ; restored to temporalties Feb. 2 (Wood, Athen. 

 Oxon.), and confirmed by proxy Feb. 22 or 23 (the Abp.'s 

 commission to confirm being dated Feb. 22, and his certif. 

 to the king of confirmation Feb. 23, date of confirm, itself 

 omitted — Reg. Cranm.), according to Roj'al Assent dated 

 Feb. 22 of the same year (Rymer, ibid. p. 559.); but 

 there is no record of his consecration. 2. That upon the 

 death of Dr. Rawlins, Bp. of St, David's, Feb. 18, 1535-6 

 (Certif. super elect. Barlow, ap. Cranm. Reg.), he was 

 (as "Episc. Assav." in his own documents, as "Episc. 

 Assav. eleetus " in those for his successor) elected to that 

 see April 10, 1536 (Reg. Cranm.), confirmed in person at 

 Bow Church April 21 (iftid.), according to Roj-al Assent 

 dated April 20 (ibid.), and had possession of his tempor- 

 alties April 26 (Writ, ap. Mason, bk. iii. c. 10. § 4., not 

 printed in Rymer), of the same year ; but again there is 

 no record of his consecration. 3. That Feb. 3, 1547-8, he 

 was collated (according to 1 Edw. VI. c. 2.) to the see of 

 Bath and Wells (Writ in Rymer, tom. xv. pp. 169, 170.), 

 for which he did homage (Mason, bk. iii. c. 10. § 3.). 4. 

 That in the beginning of Qu. Mary's reign he resigned 

 his see (probably through fear of deprivation), the spiri- 

 tualties being seized by the Chapter of Canterbury be- 

 tween Dec. 20, 1553, and March 25, 1553-4 (Reg. Capit. 

 Cant., ap. Wharton, Specimen, p. 135.), and the Conge 

 d'Eslire for his successor (Gilb. Bourne) issued March 13 

 of the same year (Rymer, tom. xv. p. 369., — in both, see 

 vacant " per liberam et spontaneam resignationem ul- 

 timi Episcopi," and the former adding Barlow's name at 

 length), the mandate for the consecration of his successor 

 March 28 of thersame year (Rymer, ibid. p. 376., — see 

 vacant "per deprivationem et amotionem ultimi Epis- 

 copi)," and his writ of restit. of temp. April 20, 1554 

 (Rymer, ibid. p. 384., — returning to the former expres- 

 sion). 5. That after a confinement in the Tower, and a 

 recantation of his opinions by the republication (in 1553, 

 as "late Bishop of Bathe") of a "Dialoge" he had pub- 

 lished in 1531 against the " Lutheran faccyons " (Title- 

 page, ed. 1531), he contrived to escape " beyonde seas in 

 the company of the Duchesse of SuflPolk and Master Ber- 

 tie her husband " (Bedell, Answ. to Wadsworth, p. 149.), 

 and remained abroad until the accession of Qu. Elizabeth 

 (see Strype, ilfemor., III. i. 241—243.; Tanner; Wharton, 

 De Episc. Assav.). 6. That upon his return to England 

 at that period, he was translated to the see of Chichester, 

 according to a mandate dated Dec. 18, 1559 (not direct- 

 ing consecration, as erroneously printed in the first edit. 

 of Rymer, tom. xv. p. 550. ; it is corrected in the second), 

 and Conge d'Eslire dated June 22, 1559 (Rymer, ibid, p, 

 532.) ; confirmation Dec. 20, 1559 (Parker's Reg.), tem- 

 poralties restored March 27, 1559-60 (Rymer, ibid. p. 

 576.), and installation April 9, 1560 (Reg. of Dean and 

 Chapter of Chich., ap. Courayer. ibid. § 4.) : and that he 

 retained this see until his death in 1568. [These facts 

 are further proved by the evidence supplied in the sub- 

 sequent notes, pp. 140—144., and also, p. 220.] The 

 questions remain, 1. whether, and 2. when, he was con- 

 secrated, whether to St. Asaph or St. David's? and 3. 

 why hia consecration to either see is not recorded in 



Cranmer's Register with the other documents relating to 

 his admission into it? 1, The presumptive evidence in 

 general for the first point is given by Bramhall, p. 138. &c. 

 An expression of Barlow's has been added in confirmation 

 of it, laid to his charge in articles exhibited against him 

 Jan. 11, 1536-7, as Bp. of St. David's (CoUier, Ch. Hist., vol. 

 ii. p. 135.), viz. that "any layman" chosen by the king 

 " to be a Bishop " should be " as good a Bishop as " him- 

 self " or the best in England ; " — an absurd truism, if he 

 were himself unconsecrated. On the other side, his own 

 and Cranmer's undeniable contempt for ordination (see 

 Collier, vol. ii. p. 188. and Records num. xlix.) cannot 

 prove him a single exception to a law otherwise un- 

 broken (see postea, p. 226.) ; and one rigidly enforced by 

 Cranmer himself in another case, viz. Hooper's (see his 

 Life in Wordsw., Eccl. Biogr,, vol. ii. pp. 361 — 369., and 

 notes). 2. With reference to the second point, it has been 

 observed, first, that Barlow is invariably styled " Bishop 

 elect" in the Conge' d'Eslire (May 29, 1536; Rymer, 

 torn. XV. p. 570.), and letters patents (June 24, 1536 ; 

 ibid.), and record of confirmation and consecration (latter 

 July 2, 1536, — Reg. Cranm.), for R. Wharton, his suc- 

 cessor in the see of St. Asaph ; and, secondly, that his 

 translation from that see to St. David's is as invariably 

 and in all the documents just mentioned styled by the 

 unusual term " transmutatio." To this is to be added, 

 that the record of his confirmation in both the sees of St. 

 Asaph and St. David's is closed with a certif. from the 

 Abp. to the King of his confirmation only (Reg. Cranm., 

 fol. 188. a, 211. a) ; the mandate also for consecration oc- 

 curring in neither case, either in Rolls or Register, but 

 merely the Royal Assent ( at that time frequently a dis- 

 tinct document), which simply commands the Abp., " ut 

 quod vestrum est, in hac parte exequamini " (Rym., tom. 

 xiv. p. 559. — Reg. Cranm.). Further, Barlow was in Scot- 

 land during March 1535-6, as " Will'm Barlo;" and al- 

 though in London April 21, yet in Scotland again by May 

 13, 1536 ; while the facts established in notes o, p, impost, p. 

 142.) seem to fix his consecration to June, 1536, and there- 

 fore to the see of St. David's. This is confirmed by the 

 direct testimony of Bale (that St. David's was his "first" 

 see) ; and of Barlow's own great nephew, as quoted by 

 Courayer (Dif. de la Diss., Pr. Just. art. xvii. § 6.). 3. 

 Lastly, all positive difficulties thus removed, little stress 

 can be laid upon the silence of the Register; — for, first, 

 Cranmer's Register is merely a collection of separate do- 

 cuments bound together long after their date ; secondly, 

 taking the facts above proved for granted. Barlow's con- 

 secration ought not to have been recorded with his con- 

 firmation ; as in the exactly parallel case of Bonner (see 

 p. 141. note 1), whose confirmation to both his sees (of 

 Hereford and London) is closed in the record with a 

 similar certif. of copfirmation 07dy from the Abp., and 

 whose consecration is recorded 12 folios after the latter of 

 his confirmations; thirdly, — omitting cases where no 

 documents at all are entered in the Register (three in 

 number, viz. Latimer, Ililsey — see a7ite, p. 137. note a, 

 and King, a suflfragan Bp.), and one (Bell, Worcester, 

 1539,) where the entry is broken off almost in the begin- 

 ning, and in the middle of a sentence, with blank pages 

 left to receive the remainder (the Register being thus 

 proved imperfect in other cases than Barlow's), — there 

 occur four cases, and no more, in Cranmer's Register, so 

 far parallel to Barlow's that confirmation is recorded in 

 them, but not consecration; viz. Fox, Hereford, 1535; 

 Sampson, Chichester, 1536 ; Skyp, Hereford, 1539 ; Day, 

 Chichester, 1543 ; and of these Fox's and Skyp's conse- 

 crations are known to be recorded in their own registers 

 (Richardson, notes to Godwin, — Br. Willis, Cathedr., — 

 Le Xeve), the former taking place at Winchester, the 

 latter at Latnbeth; while Barlow's Registers, both at 

 St. Asaph (if it ever existed) and St. David's, are lost. 



