202 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



L2»a S. VII. Mau. 5. '59. 



and of course as sucli continued all along to act 

 as a bishop. Moreover, in the Letters Patent by 

 which Henry VIII. granted Barlow the tempora- 

 lities of St. David's, he is described as absolutely 

 bishop, he having been in Scotland all the time : 

 " Ob sinceram dilectlonem quam penes przefatum 



nunc Episcopum gerimus eidem nunc 



Episcopo omnia et singula," etc. 



In support of my assertion that it was not ne- 

 cessary even to be a bishop to be summoned to 

 parliament, but that it sufficed to be a representa- 

 tive of a diocese, I refer to the well-known fact 

 that in cases of vacancy of a see, or of the bishop 

 being abroad, the summons was directed to the 

 person styled the Custos Spiritualitatin. Thus in the 

 very Summons to Parliament, April 27, after 

 Barlow's removal to St. David's, we find this 

 form used for the then vacant see of St. Asaph : 

 " Custodi spiritualitatis Episcopatus Assaven, ipsa 

 sede vacante." (Rymer, xiv. p. 563.) 



Both Latimer and Ridley sat in parliament ; 

 yet on their degradation under Mary, they were 

 degraded from the order of priesthood only, it 

 being known that they had never been conse- 

 crated bishops. It sufficed to have received his 

 temporalities for such a man to sit in parliament 

 as a baron, or peer of the realm. His sitting in 

 Convocation would follow of course: he passed 

 for a consecrated bishop, and having once slipped 

 into the see of St. David's as such, no one, espe- 

 cially In those times, would be likely to raise any 

 question about his consecration. 



Tliat Barlow cohabited with a woman, and had 

 six children, no one denies. Whether he went 

 through the ceremony of marriage, or not, is not 

 of the smallest consequence, since such marriage 

 would have been illegal, null, and void, and could 

 in no way have improved his condition or charac- 

 ter. The so-called ^^indisputable facts " given in 

 "N". & Q."(2'^'> S. vil. 134.) by J. Y. are all 

 unavailing ; and by no means convincing. Nor is 

 it true that Catholics have no other means of in- 

 validating the Anglican orders than by denying 

 Barlow's consecration. This is not even the main 

 objection. The Anglican orders are vulnerable 

 and break down on every side, and we have solid 

 and substantial reasons for believing them invalid 

 altogether. 



I do not believe that Barlow was confirmed in 

 person in Bow church, April 21. J. Y. asserts It, 

 but gives no proof. But If be was, there is still no 

 proof of consecration, which is the grand, all-im- 

 portant point ; and even J. Y. does not suppose 

 him to have been consecrated then, but alleges 

 certain facts, which, he says, " seem to fix his con- 

 secration to June." What if it can be proved that 

 he remained in Scotland till July ? Now this can 

 be proved from the words of Drummond (Hist, of 

 the Five Kings James of Scotland, p. 309.), who 

 says of the king's departure, July 26, 1536, 



" Amidst the Importunities and solicitations of 

 these ambassadors (Barlow, Holcroft, and Lord 

 Wra. Howard) the king set sail for France." 



Mr. W. Denton thinks there is strong pre- 

 sumption of Barlow's consecration, from Henry's 

 mandate to Cranmer, Feb. 22. But it is very re- 

 markable and significant that, though in all such 

 mandates the Archbishop was directed to conse- 

 crate, as in the very one immediately preceding, for 

 the consecration of Fox for Hereford, munus conse- 

 crationis eidem, etc., in this mandate for Barlow, the 

 Archbishop Is merely directed to do his duty : ut 

 quod vestrum est in hoc parte exequamini, and not 

 a word is said about consecration. This wording 

 looks very like leaving the matter to Cranmer's 

 discretion. Accordingly, when the king comes to 

 invest Barlow with the temporalities of St. Da- 

 vid's, April 26, he styles him absolutely bishop, 

 and says that Cranmer has confirmed his election, 

 but not a word about consecration : " electioncm 

 illam acceptaverit et confirmaverlt, ipsumque sic 

 electum Episcopum praedlctaj Eccleslaj Menevensis 

 prasfecit et Pastorem." So that neither for St. 

 Asaph nor St. David's did Barlow ever receive 

 episcopal consecration. 



Mr. Denton relies much upon Mary's desig- 

 nation of Barlow as the late Bishop, and not the 

 pretended Bishop of Bath and Wells. But there 

 is no farther meaning in the expression, than that 

 he joasserf for Bishop ; for the same is applied to 

 those Edwardian bishops who were superseded by 

 Mary, although their episcopal orders were not 

 recognised. The form was just the same for 

 these, ultimi Episcopi ibidem. Mr. Denton is 

 mistaken in supposing that Hardouin was the 

 first to deny Barlow's consecration. The Ca- 

 tholics always disbelieved it, even in the time of 

 Elizabeth. Thus Harding writes against Jewel : 



" But seeing your bishops were neither cousecrated by 

 those who lineally succeeded the Apostles .... you both 

 have false bishops without the true Church, and a false 

 Church without true bishops." 



Thus also writes Sanders : — 



" Perridicule accidit, ut cum isti superintendentes 

 creandi essent, wee a Catholicis episcopis impetrare potue- 

 rint ut ipsis manus admoverent : . . . . atque ita, cum 

 omni legitima ordinatione destituti vulgo dicerentur, et 

 ipsis legibus Anglicanis vere probarentur non esse epis- 

 copi, brachium steculare invocare coacti sunt. Idque 

 postquam episcopali officio et cathedra, absque uUa epis- 

 copali consecratione aliquot jam annis fundi fuissent." 



I omit equally strong testimonies of Stapleton 

 and Bristow, the latter of whom died In 1582, 

 was contemporary with Parker, and well knew all 

 particulars of his pretended consecration. 



Those who are so proud of Lingard's opinion, 

 must be reminded that, after all, he never ad- 

 mitted the validity of Anglican orders. He be- 

 lieved indeed that Barlow was consecrated, and 

 that the Lambeth consecration took place ; in 

 both of which he was mistaken; but he never 



