The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-10-11
RT. REV. eIsHoP-ELEcT A. RAvoux
VERSUS BISHoP-ELEcT BARLOW.
To the Editor of the Globe:

| CHAIN OF the successors of the Apostles
| In England by imposing hands on Matthew
! Parker, who on his turn as METROPOLITAN
| conSecrated and ordained the new clergy
! OF the Anglican church by law establish
/ ed, some religious journals and other
! parties asked whether this can be really
proved without any contradiction and if
| ADMITTED to be a reality, why the present
! occupants of the places of the clergy
| IN the Professionalism time of England
i and America do not and cannot see it.
| Notwithstanding all the literature, which
| exists on that subject of the invalidity of
| Anglican orders, there IS such a doubt
! about them even among churchmen of the
! Anglican establishment that even in our
| day, says Catholic priest of Westmin-
| Ster diocese, a large number of the Ang1i-
| can clergy holding benefices in England,
| alarmed by the evidence brought against
| their orders, have been not only re-
| ordained, but conditionally baptized re-
confirmed and have secured some five
| properly consecrated bishops who active
| ~ continue this work of reordination.
| This Roman Catholic domestic prelate OF
! his holiness, the pope, Mgr. Capel, D. D.,
| who Is at London and watches the doingS
| of the Anglican clergy, ought to know
! the truth of his statements and if taken
| in account will give the names of per-
| sons, mention facts and dates. Anyone
| acquainted with the literature of the
| Protestant Episcopal church knows that
| the greatest part OF its clergy IS In doubt
about the validity of Anglican orders. 1t
| is, therefore, a vital question worth the
i consideration of any reader of the sun
L Z
! for even. John Wesley, the founder of
| Methodism, who died in the Anglican
| communion, did not believe in Anglican
! orders.
| Barlow. a monk of St Osyth. was sent
| by Henry VIII. about the end of 1885 into
! Scotland to try and induce James v. TO
throw off the pope'S authority. Soon after
| his arrival there he was appointed bishop
| of St ASaph the mandate to Cranmer
being dated Feb. 2, 1886. On Feb. Is;
whilst in Scotland and before he had
! taken possession of his see or had been
conSecrated. he was appointed to the
| richer see of st. DaVid's. being transferred
by free eXchange-per ilperan traI lsidt
| tionem-see Rymer, xiv, 57O-wh1ch IS
! the phrase used in the case OF unconse-
| Grated bishops, whereas in that or conSe-
Grated bishops, the customary phrase was
| ''by free transla ton per liberam trans
| lationem. His election took place on April
| 10. On April 20 the writ was issued to
| Cranmer to confirm and consecrate MN;
| The confirmation is registered on April
81 but there is no mention or a conse-
Grafton. In taking possession OF the tenn
| poralities of a see, there We're TWO forms
| of grants, one granting the enjoyment OF
| the temperatures 10 pIstoP
! elect during a vacancy and before
| conservation, until the vacancy De
| filed the other granting these TO the new
| bishops Immediately after the conSecra-
| ton, he being described as elected, con
| firmed and conSecrated. On May /, Bar
| low was granted possession of the tenn
poralities of the see OF st. David 5; Ihe
! first form was used, in which ne is de-
| scribed as elected and confirmed only, and
! the words until the vacancy be hiled
/ were altered. to ''for the term Of his
| natural life This precaution was taken
| evidently with the intention of providing
| low from his see by reason OF MS not
| being consecrated. The day after ne
| was summoned to the house of lords as
complete bishop. In the documents ap
| low is described as bishop elect and the
cause of the vacancy is attributed to his
| exchange; but in the documents appoint
! ing him to st. David's, he is described as
! late bishop OF st. ASaph, as II he were
| consecrated, and he is hencetorth as
sumed to be complete bishop. On June
! H. two bishops We're. conSecrated, but
| Barlow was not one of them; and on the
1 day after (12). when Thomas Hawley pre-
scented himself before Cromwell for pay
| ment of Barlows expenses to Scotland,
| the latter is described on the order for
payment as bishop elect of st. DaV1ds,
| which was perfectly true. 1t is thus
quite evident that Barlow, who despised
| and derided the rite of conservation, was
| never consecrated; and as Henry Viii S
motive was to act independently of the
pope and get the appointment OF DlShopS
1 into his own hands; to replace the rellg-
ious rite by q civil act OF appointment
4 by the crown, there was no reason why
| Barlow should trouble himself about
| ceremony that neither he nor his mas
| ter. Henry attached any Importance to,
especially as he was already in full pcs
! session of the temperatures. On June 81,
| Barlow took his seat in the lords as
| full blown bishop, and was contented to
| take seat below the two bishops ccnse-
| Grated on June II, although the date of
| his summons to the house was May 2.
| There could have been one motive only
| for this apparent act of modesty on Bar
| lows part, viz, that, had he claimed prec-
edenee awkward questions might have
/ arisen which it might not be convenient
/ at that time to make public. Under Ed
! ward, Barlow was transferred by letters
patent to Bath and Wells, which see he
| resigned under Mary to avoid depriYa
ton, as he had a wife and other matters;
| but on his return with his fellow Calvin
! lists, Elizabeth appointed him to Chides-
| ter. 1t is perfectly clear that 1t was
the deliberate intention of all who
had to do with Parker's conservation.
| both from their repeatedly expressed
! opinions and the doctrines they taught,
that they note only did not be-
! they protested against them as being a
| corrupt following of the Apostles. and
| had orders removed from the list of sac
| propounded by King Henry VIII, an
| swered that bishops were made by the
/ Apostles not by authority CT Cod but Of
| necessity. because they lacked a Chris
| tan prince. And when Cranmer replied
that a bishop needeth no conservation.
! for election and appointment thereto is
sufficient Barlow went further, SAYING.
! only appointment IS necessary. (See
| Burnet. vol. ], page POD
! Again Barlow said IF the kings grace
| being supreme head Of the Church of
any laynnan, being learned, to be a bishop,
| he so chosen, without mention of any or
ders, should be as good a bishCF as he
was or the best in England. (See
Stripe, vol I, p. 184.) The consecra-
tor of Parker and his assistants. when
living in exile in Mary's reign communi-
Gated with Calvinists, being granted the
use of a church on signing the Calyinists'
confession of faith. So that we have
plenty of evidence that Barlow. who. we
have seen. had never himself been con-
secrated. had no intention of consecrat-
ing Parker according to the mind of the
church, supposing for the sake CT argyll
ment that he was able to do so; for such
an intention is required according to the
consent of all theologians.
No one eyer dreamed of considering
Parker and his bishops real bishops, but
on the contrary they were at every op-
pertunity tainted with being "paJlia-
mentary bishops" I.ingard says that
when Bonner, the deposed bishop OF Lon
don was summoned from his prison to
appear before Horne. one of ParkcT's
bishops, to take the oath. ne refused it
on the plea that the person by whom it
was offered was TO bishop. This was
soon followed by the Act Elizabeth
(15s5). by which the following was TO
supply all deficiencies and transform
Parker and his patent bishops into real
biskope The thorough E,raStianisn of