bishops, without an 'Ad minus'—or at least four of you ;' so as if any one of the six were sick, or absent, or refused, the rest could not proceed to confirm or consecrate. And that some did refuse, I am very apt to believe, because three of them, not long after, were deprived.”

This solution of the difficulty does not appear to be satisfactory. In the supposed commission of the 6th of December, seven prelates are named; four, or at most five, of whom are alone stated to have been present at the consecration. It is true that in this latter document the clause "Ad minus" is found; but the omission of such a formality cannot be supposed to have had any effect. Besides, it is absurd to imagine that in this transaction, the accomplishment of which the Queen had so much at heart,—the persons named in the commission, were afraid lest Her Majesty's law officers might be watching their every action, ready to pounce upon them, and bring them before the courts of law for the violation of a principle, which does not appear to have been admitted or established. This reason is, therefore, nugatory. Why, then, I ask, was not this commission executed?

66

Why the consecration was deferred so long," says Dr. Heylin, "may be made a question; some think it was, that the Queen might satisfy herself, by putting the church into a posture by her visitation, before she passed it over to the care of the bishops; others conceive, that she was so enamoured with the title and power of Supreme Governess, that she could not deny herself that contentment in the exercise of it which the present interval afforded."+

* Dr. Bramhall, p. 85, quoted by Ward,

† Heylin himself supposes the delay to have been caused by the desire to enjoy the revenues of the vacant sees. History of Queen

That the four Catholic bishops, named in this commission, refused to execute it, is admitted by all. But we find that Landaff, who is here put the fourth, stands first in the supposed commission of the 6th of December. Hence it may be asked: : why issue a new commission to him, when from his prior refusal, all parties concerned must have known that he would not execute it? If there were any legal difficulty in the way, could not that have been remedied by an Act of Parliament, between the months of September and December,--not to say any thing of the exercise of the royal prerogative? Surely there was sufficient time, between the 9th of September, and the 6th of the following December, for discovering and remedying any civil informality in the proceeding; especially as we are told by Mason that six lawyers were consulted, whose names are given, and who declared their opinion both that the Queen might lawfully authorize the persons to the effect specified; and the said persons also might lawfully exercise the right of confirming and consecrating in the same to them committed." This testimony, and the names of the six lawyers, I have already given in the third chapter.*

If it was not likely that Landaff would consecrate Parker, why name him in a commission, the authority of which, he was more or less likely to bring into contempt, by not executing it in such important circumstances? The only answer to these questions is, that the commission of the 6th of December,--which, moreover, has not either of the marks of authenticity established in the fourth chapter,†

Elizabeth, p. 120. Ed. 1661. Courayer, with unwonted candour, assigns the true cause-the difficulty of finding suitable consecrators.

p. 27.

* See

page

44.

† Page 63.

-is incompatible with the commission of the 9th of September, and therefore is to be rejected. This conclusion, however, I shall establish more at large, and on other grounds, in a subsequent chapter.

That the Queen was most anxious for Parker's consecration, is admitted by all. Indeed, as has been already shown, it appears almost certain, that were it not for her, the first English Reformers would have dispensed altogether with the rite. All likewise admit that the execution of the Queen's will in this respect was attended with no little difficulty. The consecrations of Edward's reign had been declared invalid in that of her immediate predecessor; and Elizabeth knew that the Catholic bishops would be very unlikely to yield to her wishes in this respect, as they were-with one unfortunate exception, Kitchin of Landaff, -unanimously opposed to the new doctrine; and were prepared to suffer all extremes, rather than acknowledge her spiritual supremacy.

It was stated by Catholic writers, even before the appearance of Mason's book,-who inserts the assertion without denying it," that the Most Rev. Dr. Creagh, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, who was then a prisoner in the tower of London, was applied to by Parker, with the hope of receiving from him episcopal consecration. This, however, the venerable prelate firmly refused."*

* Mason, p. 124.-Nullity of the Prelatic Clergy, p. 66.-Champney, 198.

77

CHAPTER VI.

General observations on the story of the Nag's-head consecration.

Be

THIS celebrated event is indignantly rejected as an odious slander by the defenders of Anglican orders, while by several distinguished Catholic divines, for, at least, upwards of two centuries, it has been regarded as a fact, the certainty of which is sustained by stubborn evidence.* fore entering into an examination of the respective merits of each opinion, I shall premise a few observations, for the better understanding of the object I have in view in this chapter.

1. I do not undertake to establish the truth of the Nag'shead consecration; but merely to examine whether it be so entirely destitute of probability or proof, as has been pretended; and whether the vindicators of Catholic faith who publicly avowed their belief in its reality, at a period when they had better opportunities of ascertaining the truth than we now can possibly be supposed to have,were imposed on by an absurd tale. Hence, if the Nag'shead consecration be disproved, the only consequence to be inferred is, that these latter were mistaken; it by no means follows that Parker was consecrated, which is a fact to be proved-like all other facts-by positive evidence; and is not established, by the confutation of the extraordinary event that forms the subject of this inquiry.

* Husenbeth, Faberism Exposed, p. 529.

2. In judging of this event, we must not form our opinion by the same rules that would guide us, were there a question of the narrative of a similar event asserted to have occurred in our own times. We might,-nay, should, -naturally say to ourselves: is it possible that Protestant clergymen, who set so high a value on orders, and many of whom are probably more to be pitied for their ignorance of the truth, than to be suspected of a disposition to trifle with sacred things;-is it possible that such men would have been guilty of so impious a profanation? But we must remember that we have not to judge of our contemporaries, but of Parker, and his compeers, who publicly avowed their disbelief in the efficacy of the imposition of hands;* and who, by the violation of their solemn vows to God, by their duplicity, and the total want of principle which appears in their whole conduct, have shown that they were capable of even still more serious profanations than that laid to their charge. It may not be out of place to remind the reader that Luther himself, although a simple priest, attempted to make Amsdorf a bishop; and that he has left on record, his opinion, that a sacrament administered in jest is equally valid with that conferred with the customary solemnities.

3. It must also be borne in mind, that the manners of people now-a-days are not precisely the same as they were two hundred and eighty years ago-the period of Parker's supposed consecration. Hence, although a "tavern" or hotel might appear to us an unsuitable place even for an ordinary meeting of such important characters, we must remember that even at the present day, meetings of the most distinguished personages, lay and clerical, are held in some

* See Chapter II.