Copyright
William Palmer.

Origines liturgicæ : or, Antiquities of the English ritual : and a dissertation on primitive liturgies (Volume 2) online

. (page 21 of 26)
Online LibraryWilliam PalmerOrigines liturgicæ : or, Antiquities of the English ritual : and a dissertation on primitive liturgies (Volume 2) → online text (page 21 of 26)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


268 Ordinations. CHAP. xii.

per limitations, without a restoration of all the ca-
nons on which it had trampled, to their full force,
without a bridling which should effectually keep it
within its proper limits ; to surrender uncondition-
ally (as queen Mary's bishops did) the liberties of
the catholic church to a power which professed to
be unlimited and above all canons ; I say that this
was to immolate the canonical and divine rights of
the Christian church to a spirit of ignorance, of su-
perstition, and of error : and for such an act there
could be no power or right, canonical or divine.

It may be objected here, that if Roman jurisdic-
tion was uncanonical in Britain, then all the ordina-
tions of English metropolitans, from about the
twelfth or thirteenth century, were uncanonical, since
the Roman patriarch always confirmed and ordained
them. But this objection is of no weight, because this
usurpation was of far too recent a date to have any
binding force ; and although the custom was to-
lerated for a time, because the Roman pontiff was
too strong, and perhaps, too, for want of consider-
ing the canons, and partly from weakness and su-

tane churches," deems it ne- lib. ii. c. 26. And it is thence

cessary to remark, that they inferred, that he is not bound

are " imbued with exaggerated by any human precepts or ca-

principles" on this point ; and nons. Alphonsus a Castro de

exhorts them to remember, Just. Hseret.Punit. lib. ii. c. 23.

" that even the ocean in its The great primate Bramhall

plenitude has its bounds ;" a exposes the usurpations and

simile which he uses to illus- tyranny of the Roman patri-

trate the authority of the Ro- arch, and shews the many rea-

man pontiff. Discuss. Amicale, sons we had for abolishing his

p. 229, &c. Those divines jurisdiction, in his " Vindica-

amongst the Romanists who tion of the Church of England

are considered most orthodox, from the Charge of Schism,"

sustain that the bishop of Rome ch. 6, and " Schism Guarded,"

cannot be judged by any earth- sect. i. ch. 4, &c. See also

ly power, even a general coun- Barrow on the Pope's Supre-

cil ; Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. macy.



SECT. ii. Abolition of Roman Jurisdiction not Schism. 269

perstition ; yet this toleration, or temporary relax-
ation of the canons, is not to be taken as a proof
that the church relinquished her rights, or gave a
canonical permanent establishment to the Roman
jurisdiction.

Nor let it be said or thought for an instant, that
the abolition of Roman jurisdiction in England was
schismatical, or that it rent asunder the unity which
the Redeemer enjoined and established in his church.
Does unity consist in submission to the jurisdiction
of the Roman see, without considering whether that
jurisdiction is established by the canons, and the law
of God ? Does it infer the unconditional surrender
of all the rights and privileges of God's church to
the interpretation and dictation of the Roman see ?
Is it a breach of unity to enforce the decrees of ge-
neral synods, and the ancient indefeasible rights of
the catholic church, against the uncanonical usurpa-
tions of that see? When it has been proved that
the Roman patriarch is the fountain of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction ; that all bishops are only his vicars,
and have no divine right of their own ; that he is
above all canons, above a general synod, not subject
to any tribunal upon earth, infallible in all his de-
cisions ; then will the advocates of Rome have
proved that the church in these realms committed
schism ; and at the same moment have convicted,
along with her, the fathers, the councils, and the
catholic church from the beginning, of error on all
these points, and of perpetual opposition to all the
greatest principles of ecclesiastical disciplined

f See Bossuet, and the other of the Roman patriarch very
defenders of the Gallican liber- nearly to its proper dimen-
ties, who reduce the authority sions.



270 Ordinations. CHAP. xn.

But I return to the question before us. It is,
whether archbishop Parker, in order to his canoni-
cal consecration, needed the confirmation and ordi-
nation of the Roman patriarch, or his commission-
ers? I reply, without doubt or hesitation, that he
did not. For that patriarch had no canonical juris-
diction in Britain at the time when Parker was to
be consecrated ; his jurisdiction having been regu-
larly removed, and never created again. Hence it
was not merely unnecessary for Parker to receive
confirmation and ordination from the Roman pa-
triarch, but he would have been uncanonical and
schismatical if he had sought and obtained them.
Need I add, that there is no force whatsoever in the
objection against his mission, derived from the want
of that confirmation and ordination.

SECTION III.

ARCHBISHOP PARKER'S CONSECRATORS JUSTIFIED.

It is objected further by Romish divines, that Par-
ker was not consecrated by bishops who possessed
dioceses in England, but by others who had been
deposed, were without sees or jurisdiction, and were
heretical themselves, or had been ordained by
heretics .

It is true, that Parker was not ordained by bi-
shops in actual possession of dioceses in England ;
and it is also true, that the bishops of the province
were those that, according to the canons, had a full
right to ordain him : nevertheless his ordination was
canonical, as we shall presently see. I shall assume,
for the sake of meeting the objection more fully,
that the bishops possessed of sees in the province of
g Trevern, Champney, &c.



SECT. in. Archbishop Parleys Consecrators justified. 271

Canterbury, were all canonically possessed of those
sees, though we shall see good reasons hereafter to
deny this. Those bishops then had a right to or-
dain their metropolitan Parker h ; but then they^r-
feited that right by schismatically and uncanonically
refusing to exercise it.

The church must have a remedy, if bishops refuse
to provide pastors for vacant sees. If those who
are bound by the laws of God and of his church to
provide pastors for the flock of Christ, are led astray
by error and prejudice, their rights devolve on other
bishops, and they are themselves liable to punish-
ment. The bishops who occupied sees in England
refused to ordain archbishop Parker, and conse-
quently their rights devolved on the neighbouring
bishops. Those of Gaul, Spain, and most others in
the vicinity, were however too much under the do-
minion of Rome, to leave any expectation that they
would ordain him. Excommunication would have
been one of the least punishments of any prelate in
those churches, who had assisted in providing a me-
tropolitan for England. Ignorance, party spirit, and
we may add, error and heresy, were so powerful in
those countries, that it would have been in vain to
expect ordination from thence. The bishops of Ire-
land afforded their sanction to the ordination of
Parker, as they gave the right hand of fellowship
and communion to that orthodox primate, and to
all the bishops of England ordained by him.

It being manifest that neither the provincial bi-
shops of England, nor, in their default, the bishops

h Concil. Aurelianens. ii. c. 7. c. 16. . 15. De Marca, Con-
Concil. Toletan. iv. c. 18. See cord. Sacerd. et Imp. lib. iv.
Bingham's Antiquities, book ii. cap. 4.



272 Ordinations. CHAP. xn.

of neighbouring churches, would or could provide a
pastor for the church of Canterbury, the right of
ordination devolved on the next bishops of the
catholic church ; and such were Barlow, Scory,
Coverdale, and Hodgkins, who actually consecrated
Parker archbishop of Canterbury. The three first
bishops were not canonically deposed for marriage,
in the reign of Mary, as some persons pretend.
Barlow voluntarily resigned his see of Bath and
Wells, as appears by queen Mary's conge (Pelire
for the election of his successor ; and although it is
said that he was afterwards deposed, yet there is no
sufficient evidence of the fact. Scory was not de-
posed, but was expelled by royal authority, from the
see of Chichester ; and Day, who had previously
occupied that see, was restored. Both these prelates
were canonically vacant 1 ; the former having re-
sjgned his see, and the latter having been translated
to his dubiojure, and afterwards expelled by queen
Mary. Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, was uncanon-
ically ejected, and his predecessor restored by royal
authority, although that predecessor had, several
years before, freely and spontaneously resigned that
see, as appears by his own words still extant. Hodg-
kins was also canonically vacant, as no one pretends
that he was deposed. These four prelates were there-
fore dt least canonically vacant, if indeed two of
them were not still legitimately bishops of English
dioceses. Now vacant bishops have mission^ for all

* A vacant bishop, in the ca- from a bishop regularly de-
nonical sense, means one who posed, who is forbidden by
has not obtained, or who has the laws of the church to ex-
lost possession of, a diocese, ercise any part of his office,
without any fault of his own. J Bishops, at their ordina-
He is differently circumstanced tion, receive divine mission,



SECT. in. Archbishop Parker's Cmsecrators justified. 273

acts permitted by the canons ; and the canons, in
the present instance, permitted them to act ; for the
apostolical and ecclesiastical laws required that a
pastor should be provided without delay for the see
of Canterbury k ; but that pastor could not be or-
dained by the bishops occupying sees in England,
nor by the neighbouring bishops, because they were
too much under the power of the Roman see, and
laboured under various impediments of uncanonical
possession or ordination, schism, heresy, &c.; there-
fore the right devolved on the next catholic bishops.
Those bishops who did ordain were orthodox, and
cannot be proved to have been heretics ; and, as we
shall presently perceive, the bishops actually occu-
pying sees in England were not rightly and ca-
nonically in possession, and had not as good a right
to ordain a bishop for the vacant see of Canterbury,
as those who actually did so.

or right of performing all may go among the heathen,
ministerial acts permitted by preach, baptize, and found
the law of God and the ca- churches. (Amandus resigned
nons. A vacant bishop may the see of Utrecht, and went
have the chair, title, and ex- to preach to the Gentiles. In
ercise of the episcopal office, those ages it was common to
with the knowledge and con- ordain bishops sine tilulo, to
sent of the bishop in whose preach to the Gentiles. See
diocese he lives. (Canon Apo- Du Cange's Glossary, voce E-
stol. xxxvi. Concil. Antioch. piscopus vacans.) There can be
can. xviii. and the Commenta- no doubt, therefore, that va-
ries of Balsamon, &c.) He cant bishops have divine mis-
may teach, preach, and or- sion for all acts permitted by
dain, with the same consent. the law of God and the ca-
(Balsamon and Zonaras on the nons.

1 8th canon of the council of k The 25th canon of the
Antioch.) If several other bi- council of Chalcedon corn-
shops approve, he may take manded vacant sees to be
possession of a vacant see, filled by ordination in three
when canonically elected. (Con- months, unless in a case of
cil. Antioch. canon xvi. and inevitable necessity.
Balsamon's Commentary.) He

VOL. II. T



274 Ordinations. CHAP. XH.

Champney endeavours to shew that bishop Bar-
low had no mission, and could not ordain archbishop
Parker, as Cranmer, who consecrated him, was a
heretic : but this is more than any man can prove.
He thinks we must confess, at least, that they who
ordained Cranmer were heretics, because, he affirms,
they were of a different religion from that prelate 1 .
But what proof is there that those prelates had a
different religion from Cranmer ? When were they
condemned or excommunicated by him, or by the
church ? The communion which those prelates had
with Cranmer, is a strong presumption that they all
held the same religion.

SECTION IV.

THE OATH OF SUPREMACY CONSIDERED.

BEFORE I proceed to consider the remaining objec-
tions of Romanists against the mission of the ortho-
dox clergy, it will be necessary briefly to consider
the oath of supremacy, as it was in the time of
queen Elizabeth. In this oath it is professed, that
" the king is the only supreme governor of this
" realm of England, and of all other his majesty's
" dominions, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical
" things or causes as temporal : and that no foreign
" prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or
" ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
" preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spirit-
" ual, within this realm m ."



1 Champnseusde Vocat. Min- the declaration against the de-

istror. cap. ix. and x. posing power of the pope of

m The oath of supremacy Rome, inserted in place of the

was altered in the reign of first clause,
king William the Third, and



SECT. iv. Regal Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs. 275

It is unnecessary for us to consider the grounds
of the royal authority in ecclesiastical or spiritual
matters, because the oath does not allude to them,
but merely to the matter of fact that there is such
an authority. The church of England, and the
kings of England themselves, have not rested it so
much on the ground of divine institution, as of
divine and ecclesiastical permission, and custom n .

It is only necessary to remark the authority which
several of the kings of Israel and of Judah exercised
in ecclesiastical affairs, without any rebuke from the
prophets, to be convinced that such an authority is
not opposed to the divine will. There can be no
doubt also, that Christian emperors and kings from
the beginning, have been acknowledged to have the
power of keeping the clergy and laity to their reli-
gious duties ; of enforcing the ecclesiastical canons ;
and of making new laws and regulations for the ex-
ternal and internal benefit of the church, with the
consent and advice of their bishops . If this be not



n The judicious Hooker for the church, according to

makes the following remarks the tenor of the canons, and

on this subject : " As for su- the judgment of bishops ; in-

preme power in ecclesiastical deed this is their chief office,

affairs ; the word of God doth for which they are given the

no where appoint that all kings power of the sword by God."

should have it, neither that De Vocat. Ministr. c. 1 6. " It

any should not have it ; for is not denied that a prince,

which cause, it seemeth to magistrate, or community, has

stand altogether by human the power of making laws for

right, that unto Christian kings the peace of the church ; of

there is such dominion given." proclaiming, defending, and

Eccl. Polity, book viii. vindicating doctrines against

"No one denies," says violation." Stapleton, Princip.
Champney, " that kings, in Doctr. lib. v. c. 17. The im-
their own order and degree, perial edicts, novellae, and ca-
govern ecclesiastical affairs ; pitulars of Justinian and Char-
that is to say, in making laws leinagne, and a number of other



276 Ordinations. CHAP. xn.

properly to rule and govern the church, what else is
it ? An exciting, controlling, legislative power is
government. He who enforces laws, restrains dis-
obedience to laws, makes laws with the advice and
consent of others, what else is he but a governor ?
Now as it is impossible to deny that Christian kings
have always had such an authority, whatever may
be its foundation, it follows that they are governors
of the church ; and since there can be no other tem-
poral governors of the church above them, they are
also supreme governors of the church ; and there-
fore there could be no just reason for refusing this
title to the king of England. It is indifferent by
what name this dignity and authority is distin-
guished ; for the various appellations of " ruler,"
" judge," " magistrate," " head," might also be ap-
plied with equal propriety to the supreme temporal
governor of the church in this empire P.

And further, the oath does not affirm that the
king is a patriarch, primate, bishop, or spiritual
minister of God. It does not deny that the bishops



emperors and kings, which are " governor." " The most ce-

found amongst the canons, lebrated authors of the Roman

prove to demonstration the communion," says De Marca,

acknowledged power of Chris- " teach that the king alone

tian princes, to make laws for presided over the Gallican

the regulation of ecclesiastical church as head, and not Ihe

affairs, according to the canons, pope:" see above, p. 262,

and the exigency of the case. note z . The bishops of Spain,

P The title of " head of the A.D. 705, addressed their king

church of England," was given as " he who rules ecclesiasti-

to Henry the Eighth by the cal affairs." Concil. Emeritens.

clergy and parliament of Eng- Mason, de Minist. Anglic, lib.

land : but this title, though iii. c. 4. The Russian church

perfectly harmless in itself, acknowledges the emperor to

gave such offence to many be " supreme judge" in eccle-

persons, that queen Elizabeth siasti cal. affairs, as will be pre-

relinquished it for that of sently seen.



SECT. iv. Regal Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs. 277

and pastors, who succeed the apostles, have a divine
right to feed the flock of Christ, and exercise all the
ordinary powers, rights, arid privileges, which God
gave to his apostles and their successors.

All this oath of supremacy affirms is, that the
king of England, like his predecessors, and all other
Christian kings arid emperors, has the right, from
ancient custom, universal consent of the church, and
expediency, to direct, control, and support the affairs
of the church in this empire, for its own good, and
according to the law of God and the canons ; while
at the same time it permits us to add, that there are
pastors, who have a divine right to administer spi-
ritual affairs ; that the king himself cannot invade
their peculiar office ; that he can do nothing law-
fully against the Christian faith arid discipline, the
canons, or the benefit of the church.

If it be plain that this oath only ascribes to the
king such a power as a king ought to have, (and
the rnonarchs of England have repeatedly disclaimed
any authority, beyond that which the church has
always conceded to Christian rulers,) then there
could be no proper objection to the part of this
oath, which ascribes the supreme government of the
church of England to the king. And no one could
object to the rest, except those who vainly imagined
that the Roman patriarch has universal jurisdiction,
or that his patriarchate extends to these realms.

The church of England is justified for permitting
this oath of supremacy to be taken by her clergy,
not only by the ancient custom of the Christian
world, but by the actual practice of the eastern
church at the present day. All the bishops of
Russia swear to " yield true obedience to the holy

T 3



278 Ordinations. < UAP. xn.

" legislative synod of all the Russias, as instituted by
" the pious emperor Peter the Great i;" and every
member of that legislative synod, whether he be a
bishop, an abbot, or a dean, declares that " he ac-
" knowledges, upon oath, that the monarch of all
" Russia himself is the supreme judge of this spiritual
" college r ." The Russian bishops promise obedience
to those who swear that the emperor is supreme
judge in ecclesiastical affairs, and therefore justify
the English church for affirming, that the king is
supreme governor in such affairs. All the eastern
patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria,
and Jerusalem, hold communion with those bishops;
and therefore we have the testimony of the whole
eastern church at the present day, that there is no-
thing heretical or uncanonical in admitting the king
to have supreme authority in the church.

And if it should be objected to us, that the kings
of England have sometimes stretched their prero-
gative too far in ecclesiastical affairs, this does not
touch us in the least ; for we are riot bound to de-
fend abuses ; and if the church has submitted some-
times to them, it was to avoid greater evils. Patri-
archs also, as well as kings, are sometimes ambitious
and unjust ; but occasional acts of injustice do not
afford sufficient reasons for withholding obedience
to their lawful authority.

<i King's Rites of the Greek Theophanes, archbishop of No-
Church, p. 295. vogrod, and published by Peter

r See Consett's Present State the Great, is a most important
of the Church of Russia, A.D. document, and is well worthy
1729, p. 10. The "Spiritual of perusal. It occurs in Con-
Regulation" for the supreme sett's work. See also Voltaire's
Russian synod, composed by Peter the Great, ch. 10.



.SECT. A\ English Bishops not Intruders. 279

SECTION V.

THE ENGLISH BISHOPS NOT INTRUDERS.

WE are told by Romish divines, that all the
bishops of England appointed in the beginning of
Elizabeth's reign were intruders and schismatics,
because their predecessors had been uncarioriically
and impiously deprived by the civil power ; and
consequently that they had no divine mission or
right to exercise their offices, and could not confer
any on their successors s .

This certainly appears a very sweeping argu-
ment ; but let us reduce it to its just proportions
before we actually meet it. Twelve bishoprics were
vacant by the death of their incumbents before any
consecrations took place in Elizabeth's reign *. In-
trusion cannot be objected to the twelve bishops
elected and ordained for these sees. The remaining
sees were occupied by bishops, and fourteen of these
were expelled. Let us consider, whether we are to
view their successors in the light of schismatics and
intruders.

First, Without deciding whether the queen of
England acted rightly in removing these prelates
from the churches they occupied, there can be no
doubt that she had ample power to do so. The
state, whether justly or unjustly offended, had power

s This argument perpetually Rochester, Oxford, Glocester,

recurs in a work of M. Trevern Bristol, Bangor, Man, were va-

of Aire against the English cant before, or shortly after

church and the reformation, the accession of Elizabeth.

It is also dwelt on by Champ- Turistall of Durham died short-

ney, and most other Romish ly after he was expelled, and

controversialists. before his successor was or-

t Canterbury, Salisbury, Nor- dained.
wich, Hereford, Chichester,

T 4



280 Ordinations. CHAP. xii.

to expel them, and to prevent them from exercising
any episcopal functions, and it actually did so. The
church would then have been left desolate ; there
would have been no pastors to feed the flock of
Christ; the ministers of God would have become
extinct, or been replaced by men without ordination,
without the power or right of performing sacred
offices ; the sacraments and rites of the church
would not have been administered ; heresies and
schisms would have spread, unity would have be-
come impossible, and true religion ceased to exist.

With such perils before her mind, the catholic
church has provided a remedy against them, by per-
mitting orthodox pastors to be ordained in the place
of those that have been expelled by the imperial
authority, even when that expulsion has been un-
just. Methodius and Nicephorus Callistus u , amongst
the eastern catholics, and Dr. Hody and others, in
the western church v , have proved that the universal
practice has been, to ordain bishops to sees vacant
de facto by the deprivations of emperors and kings ;
and that it has always been reckoned schismatical

u The tract of Methodius as applying equally to the case

occurs in the third volume of of the bishops expelled in Eli-

the Ancient Remains, publish- zabeth's time : but he does not

edby AngeloMaio, p. 247, c. state that Dodwell, after the

That of Nicephorus was edited death of those expelled pre-

by Dr. Hody, at Oxford, A.D. lates, wrote a book, to prove

1691. that the bishops in possession

v Hody's "Case of Sees, va- ought to be obeyed and com-

cant by an unjust or uncanon- municated with. If his former

ical Deprivation, stated." Lond. arguments are brought to shew

1693. M. Trevern frequently the impropriety of depriving

alludes to the arguments of bishops in the reign of Eliza-

Dodwell against the depriva- beth; his latter prove, that

tion of those bishops, who re- after the death of those expell-

fused to take the oath of alle- ed prelates, the bishops in pos-


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 26

Online LibraryWilliam PalmerOrigines liturgicæ : or, Antiquities of the English ritual : and a dissertation on primitive liturgies (Volume 2) → online text (page 21 of 26)