ANGLICAN 494 ANGLICAN beth " Register "; (3) the want of episcopal charac- ter in Barlow, Parker's chief consecrator; (4) the in- security of the rite used, in view of its many omis- sions; (o) the probability that it does not contain the essentials of a vahd Ordinal. These are the same arguments which the subsequent writers de- bated and developed, except for a somewhat differ- ent handling of the fifth, the necessity for which became apparent not long after Champney's time. For Champney, as we have seen, though without speaking too positively, contended for the necessity of other elements in the matter and form than the mere imposition of hands and the words attached to this. In 1G55, however, Morinus's epoch-making work, "De Sacris Ordinationibus", appeared, and proved by irresistible documentary evidence that not only, as was previously recognized, had imposition of hands been all through the sole matter of ordina- tion, episcopal and sacerdotal, in the Oriental rites, but that even in the Western rite it had been so for about 900 j'ears, the ceremonies of tradition of in- struments and of unction not being found in any text of more ancient date, still less that of the second imposition of hands in the ordination of priests. The discovery of this liturgical fact necessarily influenced the . glican controversy, and though the Holy See, in its rigid adherence to the practical rule indicated by Champney, still insists on the re- tention of the other ceremonies in all Western ordi- nations, the general tendency since the publication of Morinus's work has been to reject the Anglican rite mainly on the ground of the insufficiency of the "form" attached to the imposition of hands. On these lines the controversy was continued in the latter part of the seventeenth century by Talbot and I^ewgar on the Catholic side, and by Bramhall, Burnet, and Prideaux on the Anglican. At the commencement of the next century, in 1704, the case of John Clement Gordon, to which reference has already been made, was taken before the Holy See and examined. The result was to elicit from the Holy Office a formal re-affirmation of the necessity of re ordaining convert clergymen; nor was this decision motived, as an incorrect publication of the decree by Le Quien suggested, by any acceptance of the Nag's Head story, but, as is now known, by the nature of the Edwardine rite, a copy of which was procured and specially examined by the Sacred Congregation. A few years later the scene of the controversy sliifted to France. The Abb6 Renaudot wrote a " jlcmoire ", pubU.shed in 1720, in which he rejected Anglican orders on the grounds of the Nag's Head story, and of the novelty and insufficiency of the -Anglican rite. He was answered shortly after by the Pdre Courayer, whose works in defence of Anglican orders, as coming from the Catliolic side, caused a great sensation in England, where the author was held in high favour; and later, when he had to leave France on a charge of unsound doctrine, he was invited over to this countrj' and was given a pension by George H. The principal answer to Courayer was that of the Abb<! Le Quien, whose "Nullity des ordinations anglicanes" appeared (Paris) in 1730, but Father John Constable, S.J., embodied a great part of it in his " Cleropliilus Alethes", an English work published very shortly after. In the nineteenth century, with the rise of the Tractarian party, and of the more Catholic ideas of the priesthood which it caused to prevail, the question of Anglican orders w-as felt to be of vital importance for the High Church clergy, and the controversy became proportionately more acute. As, too, the principles of historical evidence had by then come to be better understootl, and the facilities for the study of documents were vastly improved, a series of works resulted which has considerably advanced our knowledge of the sub- ject. Of these the most valuable on the Anglican side were Mr. A. W. Haddan's edition of Bramhall, and his own "Apostolical Succession in the Church of England ", Dr. F. G. Lee's " Validity of the Holy Orders of the Church of England ", and more recently Mr. Denny's " .Anglican Orders and Jurisdiction ' , the last being perhaps the most complete work that has appeared in defence of these orders. On the Catholic side. Canon Estcourt's " Question of Anglican Orders Discussed" and Mr. W. A. Hutton's ".Vnglican Ministry" were the most noticeable. The former, though it errs in giving away an im- portant argument, through misconceiving the pur- port of a decision of the Holy Office, still bears the palm among CathoUc treatises for its scholarly in- vestigation of many historical points; the latter is chiefly valuable for its exposition of the broader aspect under which Newman preferred to regard the subject. Su.MlI.RY OF ArGUAIENTS ON ElTHER SiDE. To some extent the proofs and disproofs cast to and fro by the disputants have necessarily been indi- cated above, but it will be well to summarize them here as a preliminary to an account of the Bull " Apostolica; Curs " (which see also s. r.). 1. Of the Nag's Head story nothing more need be said, as no person of intelligence now believes in it. 2. Nor is there any doubt but that Parker really did undergo a ceremony of consecration on 17 De- cember, 1559, at Lambeth, in which the Edwardine rite was employed, and the consecrators were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins. Machyn's and Parker's diaries prove conclusively that a consecra- tion did then and there take place. A paper in the State Paper Office (in which the order of procedure to be followed at the consecration is drawn up by a clerk, and Cecil's and Parker's annotations are in the margin) proves that they intended to have a consecration by bishops according to the Edwardine rite, whilst there was nothing to prevent them from carrying their intention into effect. And the Com- mission of 6 December, 1559, issued to Kitchen, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, shows that these, or some of them, were the prelates who were to perform the ceremony. 3. In regartl to Barlow's episcopal character, the AngUcan case is that (1) although there is no record of his consecration in the " Archiepiscopal Register ", this only proves that the "Register " was very negli- gently kept; that (2) there is no record in this " Regis- ter " of the consecrations of several other bishops, Gardiner included, yet no one doubts that these were really consecrated; and that (3) it is not conceivable that Barlow could have gone on acting as bishop for over twenty years without attention having been called by some person or other to liis want of con- secration. The Catholic writers, on the other hand, point out that it is not merely the absence of just a single entry in Cranmer's " Register " which stands against him, but (1) the absence of an entire set of documents which should have borne reference to his consecration if it occurred; (2) the discovery of one document which is exceptionally wonled, and so worded as apparently to provide for the avoidance of consecration; (3) the views of the non-necessity of consecration which Barlow held and expressed; (4) the difficulty of assigning a date when the cere- mony coukl have taken place; (5) and the likelihood that, as the King and Cranmer are known to have shared his views, he might have been able to keep his secret to himself and pa.ss as a consecrateil bishop. Still the Catholic writers do not maintain on these grounds that it is certain he was not con.secrated, but only that it is not certain that he was, and hence, that orders derived from him, as are those of the Anglican clergy, must be considered doubtful, unless supplemented by a conditional ceremony. 4. For the sutiiciency of the Anglican Rite, as it
