humed them: they are at least on many accounts suspected by us. For, first, when in the beginning of the new Church in England, as an English writer (Thomas Fitzharding) rightly observes, in his appendix to the "Supplement," and the Rev. F. Fitzsimmons, in his most learned "Britanomachia" it was objected that these ministers and bishops, although mitred, were neither truly nor lawfully ordained, they would have easily silenced them, and yet they dared not bring forward those acts, or refer to them (allegare). This much increases our suspicion, that they were so late produced, after having remained hid so long; although they had been so often called for by our Doctors."*

111

CHAPTER IX.

Positive evidence in support of Parker's consecration at Lambeth, examined.

THE fact of Parker's consecration at Lambeth was not only denied at the time of its being first publicly announced; but has been since constantly called in question, by Catholic divines, with the exception of, perhaps, four, two of whom, says Dr. Milner, were excommunicated by the Church for their errors; and the third of whom, Courayer, after long wearing the mask of Catholicism, eventually threw it off; and although he appeared occasionally to conform to the Anglican Religion, he was in secret an unitarian. The Rev. J. Lingard, D. D., so celebrated as an historian, and whose name is so deservedly dear to Catholics, on account of his "Antiquities of the AngloSaxon Church," and his inimitable controversial tracts, has given to this fact the sanction of his authority. In a note, to his history of Elizabeth, most Catholics were surprised to find him maintaining the fact of Parker's consecration, contrary to the opinion which Catholic writers, with the few exceptions above stated, from the year 1613, had hitherto expressed.

This opinion has afforded a very powerful weapon to the Protestant party, who have not only extended Dr. Lingard's assertion far beyond the limits which he had as

signed to it; but have taken occasion from it to hold up all the eminent Catholic divines, who had previously maintained the non-authenticity of the Lambeth-record, as persons who had dishonourably and dishonestly sought to defend their cause, by impeaching the certainty of the best authenticated facts.

This famous note is inserted here entire.

Note (H.) English edition, 4to. Vol. 5-(J.) American edition. Vol. 7, of History of England, by John Lingard, D. D.

"It may, perhaps, be expected that I should notice a story, which was once the subject of acrimonious controversy between the divines of the two communions. It was said that Kitchin and Scorey, with Parker and the other bishops elect, met in a tavern, called the Nag's head, in Cheapside; that Kitchin, on account of a prohibition from Bonner, refused to consecrate them, and that Scorey, therefore, ordering them to kneel down, placed the bible on the head of each, and told him to rise up bishop. The facts that are really known are the following. The Queen, from the beginning of her reign, had designed Parker for the Archbishopric. After a long resistance, he gave his consent; and a congé d'elire was issued to the dean and chapter, July 18th, 1559. He was chosen August 1. On Sept. 9th, the Queen sent her mandate to Tunstal, bishop of Durham, Bourne, of Bath and Wells, Pool, of Peterborough, Kitchin, of Landaff, Barlow, the deprived bishop of Bath, under Mary, and Scorey, of Chichester, also deprived under Mary, to confirm and consecrate the Archbishop elect. (Rym. xv. 541.) Kitchin had conformed; and it was hoped that the other three, who had not been present in Parliament, might be induced to imitate his

example. All three, however, refused to officiate; and in consequence, the oath of supremacy was tendered to them; (Rym. xv. 545,) and their refusal to take it was followed by deprivation. In these circumstances no consecration took place; but three months later, (Dec. 6,) the Queen sent a second mandate, directed to Kitchin, Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, the deprived bishop of Exeter, under Mary, John, Suffragan of Bedford, John, Suffragan of Thetford, and Bale, bishop of Ossory, ordering them, or any four of them, to confirm or consecrate the archbishop elect: but with an additional clause, by which she, of her supreme royal authority, supplied whatever deficiency there might be according to the statutes of the realm, or the laws of the church, either in the acts done by them, or in the person, state, or faculty of any of them, such being the necessity of the case, and the urgency of the time. (Rym. xv. 549.) Kitchin again appears to have declined the office. But Barlow, Scorey, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bedford, confirmed the election on the 9th; and consecrated Parker on the 17th. The ceremony was performed, though with a little variation, according to the ordinal of Edward VI. Two of the consecrators, Barlow and Hodgkins, had been ordained bishops, according to the Roman Pontifical: the other two according to the Reformed ordinal. (Wilk. Conc. iv. 198.) Of this consecration on the 17th of December, there can be no doubt; perhaps in the interval between the refusal of the Catholic prelates, and the performance of the ceremony, some meeting may have taken place at the Nag's head, which gave rise to the story."

A correspondent of the "Bermingham Catholic Magazine," having called on Dr. Lingard, through the pages of

that periodical, for his proofs, the learned writer addressed the following letter to the Editor, some time in 1834.

MR. EDITOR,-In your last number a correspondent, under the signature of T. H., has called on me to show why I have asserted, (Hist. v. 155, note H.) that the Archbishop Parker was consecrated on the 17th of December, 1559. Though I despair of satisfying the incredulity of one who can doubt after he has examined the documents to which I have referred, yet I owe it to myself to prove to your readers the truth of my statement, and the utter futility of any objection which can be brought against it.

I. The matter in dispute is, whether Parker received, or did not receive consecration on the 17th of December; but the following facts are, and must be admitted on both sides: 1st. That the Queen having given the royal assent to the election of Parker, by the Dean and chapter of Canterbury, sent on September 9, a mandate to six prelates to confirm and consecrate the archbishop-elect, and that they demurred; excusing, as would appear from what followed, their disobedience by formal exceptions on points of law. 2d. That on the 6th December, she issued a second commission to seven bishops, ordering them, or any four of them, to perform that office, with the addition of a sanatory clause, in which she supplied, by her supreme authority, all legal or ecclesiastical defects on account of the urgency of the time, and the necessity of the things; temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id postulante;" words which prove how much the Queen had this consecration at heart; and certainly not without reason, for at that time, with the exception of Landaff, there was not a diocese provided with a bishop, nor, as the law then stood, could any such provisio be made