19 mars, 1896.
MGR. GASPARRI est parti pour Rome, mandé par le Pape, pour assister aux séances ou seront traitées les affaires d'Angleterre.
Il me prie de vous demander s'il y a eu des évêques anglicans sacrés d'après l'ordinal de 1550 ou 1552 qui soient revenus à l'Eglise catholique. Ecrivez-lui le renseignement à Rome.
Il ajoute: "Si la discussion s'engage a fond, j'aurai probablement besoin de quelques renseignements historiques. Veuillez en prevenir M. Lacey. Je lui écrirai, et priez le de se tenir à ma disposition, pour me répondre tout de suite."
Mon avis est que vous devriez aller à Rome. Je viens de le télégraphier à Lord Halifax. En tout cas il y a urgence à agir de votre côté et à frapper un bon coup.
Vous avez une occasion unique.
The Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. 20 March, 1896.
It would be delightful to send you to Rome as envoy extraordinary! But I am inclined to think that you will be of more use at home; matters are not far advanced enough for personal questioning. I think written rather than spoken words are safer at present as regards the scientific aspect. Lord Halifax's interviews are most useful, but the theological and historical work is, I fancy, best done in writing. Let Gasparri know that he can telegraph if need be for information, or submit any points or questions that he may wish, or that he may be directed to submit, either by letter or by telegram; and if it be needful he could have the reply by wire.
Lord Halifax to T. A. L. March 21, 1896.
Please read these letters carefully and return to me. You see Moyes, Gasquet, and Fr. David are gone to Rome with a report from the Cardinal against our Orders. Also Gasparri has been sent for to Rome by the Pope. You see what the Abbé says. He proposes that you and Puller should write to the Pope and ask to give personal explications as to our Orders; and the last thing he does is to telegraph that he thinks this urgent.
I have seen Fr. Puller. He is ready to go if the Archbishop of York advises it--privately, of course. The Archbishop, to whom I have written most fully, is coming to London on Wednesday for two days, so I shall see him. He is quite ready to write the letter we want to be prefixed to "Puller's admirable article." [This letter was printed as preface to Fr. Puller's pamphlet, Les Ordinations Anglicanes et le Sacrifice de la Messe.]
T. A. L. to the Bishop of Ely. March 27, 1896.
Enclosed are some letters which I will ask you to look over. You will see from them that the Commission of Cardinals at Rome which is considering the question of Anglican Orders is busily at work, and Duchesne and Gasparri, who are appointed by the Pope as consultors, are insisting on having help and advice from us, asking especially for me and Fr. Puller. [So I wrote, whether from inadvertence or from ignorance I do not remember.]
I went up to London on Wednesday to see Lord Halifax, Fr. Puller, and M. Portal. The Archbishop of York was called away.
Fr. Puller and I have conditionally agreed to go, but we have declined to write the letter to the Pope suggested to us, asking in some sort of way for audience. We can go only as friends of Gasparri and Duchesne, to advise them and give them information. Anything more would look too much like a recognition of the right of the Roman Church to decide the question. For a like reason it was unanimously agreed that we should not ask for letters testimonial from our diocesans; though such letters would be strictly en règle, yet they might be misrepresented as commissioning us to represent the English Episcopate.
I am advised, however, to ask one favour from your Lordship. It is uncertain how long I may be detained, and I therefore ask for leave of absence from my parish. It has been suggested that I should ask you to give me a letter in Latin setting out briefly the facts, that some theologians in Rome (omitting all reference to the Commission), who are discussing grave matters affecting the relations of the Roman and English Churches, have asked me to go there and help them with information, and on that account granting me leave of absence. It has been suggested that if such a letter might be shown privately it would produce considerable effect as indicating approval of our proceedings broadly, without in the least compromising the English Episcopate by anything we may say or do, judiciously or injudiciously. Fr. Puller will, of course, take actual directions from his immediate Superior.
M. Portal has ventured to say that if we took formal credentials, that fact of itself would probably prevent any actual decision of the question in an adverse sense, but this does not seem to us a sufficient reason for so dangerously compromising the independence of our Church. On the other hand, such a letter as I ask for would certainly produce some effect in the same direction, and would be free from danger.
The object which Fr. Puller and I set before ourselves is not to obtain a favourable decision, but to hinder the giving of any decision at all.
The Rev. F. W. Puller to T. A. L. March 27, 1896.
No doubt Lord Halifax will have told you that the Archbishop of York has promised to write a letter to Portal, which he will be able to show "in the proper quarter." If the letter is a good one, this will have an excellent effect.
Will you let me know what books you will be able to take with you, so that I may not take needless duplicates?
The Archbishop of York was very strong on the duty of going to Rome, and he solemnly blessed me with a view to the enterprise.
The Rev. F. W. Puller to T. A. L. March 30, 1896.
Very probably you will think of a number of other books which we ought to take with us. I have not put down great Roman books, like Franzelin, Thomassinus, Bossuet, De Lugo, etc., because we shall, I suppose, be able to get at such books easily in Rome.
Probably it will not be desirable for us to be presented to the Pope. It may be well, however, to be provided with whatever is necessary, in case it should seem to be desirable. I have no idea what etiquette requires for such an occasion. In England I believe that a priest goes to Court in cassock and academical dress, i.e. I suppose, in cap, gown, and hood. Can you throw any light on these vestiary matters?
The Bishop of Ely to T. A. L. March 30, 1896.
I find it is as I thought. I cannot grant you license of non-residence (save for sickness and certain other specified causes) without the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I will ask his Grace for his approval. If he refuses it, you can at any rate go--unlicensed--for three months, and I will not summon you back into residence till you have finished your work.
Lord Halifax to T. A. L. Easter Eve, 1896.
The Archbishop of York has written quite a good letter as a preface to Father Puller's Articles. In it he absolutely endorses Father Puller's interpretation of Article XXXI. Altogether it is marvellous. Two English ecclesiastics, one a religious, sent to Rome with the approbation and consent of the Archbishop of York and others to confer with representatives of His Holiness. It is marvellous in our eyes: God's work, and no one else's; and therefore not to be talked about. Only to be thanking Him and praying Him for a good success every moment of the day.
The Bishop of Ely to T. A. L. April 10, 1896.
As I told you, I can only grant a license for non-residence (except in the cases of sickness, etc., specified in the Act) with the consent of the Archbishop, and he will not grant one until a clergyman has exhausted the three months he can be away from his benefice without license. So I fear you must make your journey with nothing to show for it, unless and until it exceeds three months, when you can write to me again. But I think, under the circumstances, you had better stay away as long as is necessary unlicensed.
The Rev. J. R. Lunn to T. A. L. April 11.
Mr. Wood telegraphed to me from Cambridge, asking me to send you the manuscript copy I have just made of Barlowe's Dialogue. I do so. I have made a few hurried notes, which I thought would be useful.
*****
I take Barlow's celebrated statement to mean that, so far as entering the episcopate is concerned, a Royal nomination is as good as a Papal Bull. And I take his Answer to mean that Unction is not part of the matter of the Sacrament of Order, is not to be found in N.T., and therefore is not necessary. But Appointment is; and what appointment consists in he does not specify, but supposes it well known.
The Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. April 11, 1896.
I have referred to Wilkins about Pole's Legatine Constitutions. The words are:--
"Et quia contra Capitis Ecclesiae et Sacramentorum doctrinam potissimum hic erratum est, placuit doctrinam de Primatu Ecclesiae Romanae et de Septem Sacramentis, quae in Concilio Generali Florentiae sub Eugenio quarto explicata est huic decreto subjicere."
Pole also orders Peckham's Constitution as to Tabernacles to be appended. But neither in the Corpus nor in the Cotton MS. is either decree or constitution set out in full. But it appears to me that he is as much committed to the doctrine as to the Instruments as if the decree were set out in full.
T. A. L. to the Rev. E. G. Wood. 14 April, 1896.
Your bibliography of Barlow's Dialogue has arrived, and is in a way disappointing; 1531 is rather too early a date for our purpose. I should like to know if there are any variations in the two editions. If so, the new matter or the omissions would be very significant.
We have been working pretty hard. Duchesne and Gasparri come to us for three hours at a time. Scannell also has called on us and invited us to the English College, and offered to place any books at our disposal. ***** Moyes has prepared a vast memoir, which is being treated as the basis of the discussion. They ask him whether he expects to stay in Rome till next spring; but it is hoped that Cardinal Mazzella will rule most of the matter out as irrelevant. * * * * De Augustinis was put on the Commission after presenting to the Pope a memoir in favour of validity. He is, I believe, the first Jesuit who has taken this line, and he is the leading professor at the Collegio Romano. * * * *
Duchesne is absolutely convinced that we have made out our case for the tacit reception of the Edwardine Orders by Pole, in spite of the second Legatine Constitution. That means of course that the Decretum ad Armenos was not taken to define what is essential for Orders, but merely what was customary--the view of d'Annibale. I have found Wilkins at the Biblioteca Nazionale--the old Jesuits' Library.
So far they have established only one thing at the Commission--that Ferrar was consecrated by the Pontifical. Of course that has an important bearing on the question of the Degradations; but the immediate object of the discussion was a trivial one. [See above, Diary, April 10, note; and de Hierarchia Anglicana, pp. 160-3.] They were settling the meaning of the Bull of Paul IV. Gasparri had raised his question about the words ordines non sacros. What Bishop consecrated by the Ordinal had ever conferred ordines non sacros? Moyes replied, Ferrar. So the question of his consecration came up; we gave Gasparri all the particulars, and while doing so we came across the important fact--unknown to either of us before--that according to the Sarum Pontifical the consecration of a Bishop took place before the beginning of Mass--precisely the arrangement which in Ferrar's case was challenged by Estcourt as an irregularity. We found this in Maskell, and of course it was conclusive. * * * *
We have found out exactly what the Commission is. It is a body of consultores to the Holy Office, Cardinal Mazzella presiding. They will report to the Holy Office, but it is said that the Pope is going to reserve the whole matter to himself. So we may tell our horror-stricken friends in England that we are in immediate touch with the familiars of the Inquisition. Nay more, we went down today with two of them--Duchesne and Scannell--into the catacomb of St. Priscilla, and emerged with life and limb! Morever, we had Canon Bright with us. Also a Jesuit, le père Lapôtre, who wears a pointed beard, and looks like a most respectable country parson. * * * * Le père Lapôtre is the author of a book on John VIII, and he is just doing Formosus, so he is an authority on reordination.
At the old Jesuits' Library they have singularly few English books of the seventeenth century. Of Beveridge only the Apostolic Canons; of Pearson only the Creed in a vile Latin translation and the little posthumous volume of chronologica; of Barrow nothing but the mathematical treatises; of Hammond and Field nothing. In the Vatican Library Fr. Puller has found a nice little surprise for our friends. The Bishop of Oxford had told him of another copy of the famous letter of June 12, 1536, which is printed in Gairdner's Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, vol. 10. He went to the Vatican Library to verify it, and finds that instead of describing Barlow as "Bishop then elect of St. Asaph, now elect of St. David's," as in Estcourt's copy, it runs "Bishop then elect of St. Asaph, now of St. David's." Now if this is the corrected copy, of which Estcourt's paper was a draft, the alteration is most significant; it almost establishes June 11, Haddan's conjecture, as the date of the consecration. The draft made before the consecration required correction. P. has written to the Bishop of Oxford to consult him on the subject. [See Diary, April 17th, and Letters of May 18th and 24th.]
We have not, so far, the slightest indication of the time that will be occupied, but they are beginning to talk ominously of the difficulties which the heat of June is likely to raise if it is not finished by then!
The Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. April 15, 1896.
A line of argument strikes me; viz. that the compilers of the Ordinal intended to make the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum and the accompanying imposition of hands the form and matter of ordination to the priesthood, or, as we might say, the actual and essential ceremony of Ordination; and that they did so because they really desired to come as closely as possible to what they read in Scripture as to Ordination. Bear in mind the prevailing idea of being Scriptural. If so, it is clear evidence of their intention to do what our LORD did, and to perpetuate the ministry He had instituted. They may more or less have misconceived the nature of that ministry, but that would not invalidate their intention. Given an honest desire (i) to follow our LORD'S institution, (2) to perpetuate the ministry He had instituted, (3) to follow as closely as possible in so doing the evidence of Scripture, surely we must grant that it would be impossible to do so more admirably than this is done in our Ordinal. The idea of ordination presented to us in Scripture is far more clearly actualized in our Ordinal than in any other Rite. To call such a Rite invalid seems to me on broad grounds a kind of wantonness, a thing akin to a cynical scepticism. The historical argument as to the Accipe does not affect the point.
The Rev. Edward Denny to T. A. L. 17 April, 1896.
Would it be possible for some one to look at the manuscript speech of O'Harte in the Vatican? [This Irish bishop is reported by Le Plat and Raynald, on the authority of Paleotto, to have said in the Council of Trent that the only valid argument against the English bishops was "quia non sunt a Pontifice Romano adsciti." Dom Gasquet found in the Archives a manuscript report of the speech that does not bear out this interpretation.] I wonder whether it is the sole speech he made on the subject. I think also the records relating to the committee appointed by the Council of Trent to consider the canons suggested by the Cardinal of Lorraine (vide Paleotto, Act. C. T., pp. 359-61, quoted De Hierarchia, n. 253) should be examined, if possible. I still find a difficulty in understanding how Paleotto could have based the statement he did about O'Harte's speech on the manuscript discovered by Dom Gasquet, considering the position which he occupied at the Council as Auditor, and also how the committee of nine (amongst whom was Paleotto) could have worded their fourth reason for rejecting the canon numbered vii. in the way they did, if O'Harte merely said what Dom Gasquet's manuscript contains. [It was found impossible to act on these suggestions, and I therefore withdrew, in my Supplementum, the arguments that we had based in De Hierarchia on Paleotto's report. Mr. Denny and I had previously made a similar withdrawal in a Monitum attached to copies of our book.]
Duchesne's opinion about the Marian praxis is interesting. I suppose he regards the Paul IV documents in the same light as Scannell. I am glad Scannell is on the Commission. I was struck with his first letter to the Tablet on those documents. He seems to have a clearer head than Moyes.
T. A. L. to the Rev. E. G. Wood. 25 April, 1896.
Last Monday we spent a very pleasant evening with the Sulpicians, who, it seems, are very conservative and rather distrustful of Portal, but they were most pleasant and friendly and full of inquiries about our ways and doings in England. We have had some long sittings, all about Barlow; but they are now getting on to the rite, and things will be more interesting. We have had the memoir of de Augustinis, and it proved exciting reading. * * * The general purport of the memoir has leaked out through an amazing indiscretion of Cardinal Vaughan's at St. Joseph's, Mill Hill, about which news speedily reached Rome; and it has made the greatest impression. * * *
The Gordon case, on examination, presents some unlocked for features. The Holy Office, so far from pronouncing on Gordon's Supplica, as the published accounts implied, seems to have brushed his flimsy reasons aside altogether, and with the rite fairly before them, to have concluded that Accipe Spiritum Sanctum was the sole form employed, and that it was insufficient, not being a prayer. The near conjunction of this decision with the votum of the Consultores in the Abyssinian case must stand as one of the puzzles of history. The result is that, as Duchesne was showing me last night, they cannot in the Commission argue on the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum at all, as they cannot go behind a decision of the Holy Office. Duchesne and de Augustinis accept the prayer in the priests' Ordination as oratio super ordinandos, on the ground of the words "as well by these thy ministers," but the others either deny or doubt this. We shall, I think, have a good tussle over the oneness of the rite. Moyes boldly attacks de Lugo, or rather I should say Fr. David does, for it seems he is the theologian.
The other great lion in the way is the reluctance to disturb the existing internal practice about Ordinations, and with this a reluctance to define what the Council of Trent deliberately left open. I have been arguing that the acceptance of Greek Orders has practically done the latter, but of course it does not affect the former question, since Greek uniat priests are not allowed to officiate with the Latin rite. * * * I have suggested a proprio motu, in which the Pope seems to be able to talk about any subject whatever, so that he might recognize the validity as a theological fact, while ordering for practical reasons either the supply of the porrection, or conditional reordination, for any who may seek permission to exercise their ministry in the Roman Church. There is also the practical question of the minor orders and the subdiaconate. One can easily see that it would be intolerable to treat us in these respects more favourably than Latins themselves.
The Pope seems to be wonderfully eager. Gasparri saw him yesterday and told him how useful we were being. He added some not very well chosen words about "Anglicans" being "all but Catholics," and "at the very door." "Je vais l'ouvrir à deux battants," cried the Pope with vivacity. Well, in that case, one leaf at all events must be the recognition of Orders. I am pressing everywhere the point that a definite ruling for conditional reordination, though it would not really close the door, would make it impossible for us to do much for reunion, since our people would all be persuaded that we were intending every one, from the Archbishops downwards, to be reordained.
T. A. L. to the Rev. W. H. Frere. April 29, 1896.
Will you undertake a certain search for us? Moyes has been building up an elaborate argument against Barlow by showing that all the documents relating to his appointment are extant, and all relating to consecration are wanting. We have pretty well riddled it by showing that his "document" for the enthronization, for instance, is a mere vague allusion in a private letter, and that in order to produce the Breve de restitutione he has to confuse it with the Concessio. I further challenged the existence of the Congé and the Assent, knowing they were not on the Patent Rolls. Moyes averred their existence. He was asked by Gasparri for a reference. He gave "Patent Rolls, 27 Henry 8, p. i, m. ii." Now this is the reference for the St. Asaph election, and he had already given it as such in his article in the Tablet. He was confronted with this, whereupon he said it was a mistake, and showed that elsewhere in the same article he spoke of the St. David's documents as extant. That was true, but he gave no reference.
We then telegraphed to Wood, who went to the Records and found that the Congé and Assent, though missing from the Patent Rolls, are extant in their preliminary form in the Privy Seals and Signed Bills.
*****
A special request from Gasparri. The Literae certificatoriae from the Archbishop to the King declaring the fact of the Consecration, are they preserved anywhere in the Records? And if so, is the collection complete? They are, you know, generally entered in the Register, and they are usually recited in the Writ for Restitution; but I do not know whether the originals are filed anywhere.
T. A. L. to the Rev. E. G. Wood. 29 Ap., 1896.
I wonder if you made out the drift of our telegram. Moyes has been building up an elaborate argument, etc. [Continues almost word for word as in the preceding letter.]
*****
When this was reported I telegraphed to you. What Gasquet had seen was of course what is in the Privy Seals. I am ashamed to say I did not know these were kept, though I was studying not long since the process of issuing Letters Patent under the Great Seal. * * *
We called with Duchesne on Cardinal Hohenlohe yesterday. The old gentleman was most kind and cordial. He is now Archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, and lives in a cramped appartement in the palace of the Basilica. If only he could replace Cardinal Mazzella, says N., our affairs would soon be settled satisfactorily.
Lord Halifax writes to Portal that he has seen the Bishop of Clifton, thinking it might be useful, and that the bishop said, among other things, "You cannot imagine what would be the effect on our people of requiring them to believe that persons who have no belief at all in the real presence can have the power of consecrating the Eucharist!" Well may our friends here say that they do not understand the theology of the "English Catholics." Apparently they teach that the orthodoxy of the priest is essential to the validity of the Sacrament. Now one can appreciate their ideas about intention in the collation of Orders.
The Rev. W. H. Frere to T. A. L. 4 May, 1896.
I am on my way back from the Record Office where I have been on your errand. I must write the result in the train to avoid delay.
I have been through the Privy Seals and Signed Bills of June and July: they are all calendared in Vols. X and XI of the Domestic Papers, and I find nothing much of interest. I went carefully through the records of Warton of St. Asaph as Barlow's successor: and Sampson and Repps. The Archbishop's certificate of consecration exists only for the latter, and is filed in this collection: others would be here were they forthcoming. It says nothing about Sampson nor Barlow.
But one point comes out from these documents: in the Royal Assent for Warton, i.e. the Privy Seal and Signed Bill (both) issued preliminary to the Letters Patent, the Vacancy is described as being "Per liberam transmutacionem Will. Barl. ultimi episcopi ibidem electi." This last word does not occur in the analogous document of Assent to Sampson, which has--"Roberti Shirburn ultimi epi ibidem" only. This, so far as it goes, is evidence that Barlow was not yet consecrated on June 16. [Hardly so. It only shows that Barlow was not consecrated before his avoidance of St. Asaph. See below, Letter of May 8th to W. H. F.]
I will look up in Rymer the Letters Patent which issued as the result of this Privy Seal document, and see if they throw any further light. This is all I have to report. It will answer Gasparri's question about Archbishop's certificates.
But here is a new point which has a double bearing. In the Register of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Sede Vacante after Cranmer's attainder, a valuable list is given of the Bishops deprived and the causes.
Defect of order is alleged against some, but not against Barlow: the cause there given is merely his resignation. In the other cases several reasons are given against the same person, e.g. marriage or defective title because of the quamdiu clause: it would have been easy to add defect of order in Barlow's case if it had been a reason felt to exist. But, on the other hand, it would have been easy also to allege marriage. Valeat quantum.
It confirms my conviction that in the first blush of Marian revulsion they were inclined to dispute the Orders of the English Ordinal (you have no doubt seen my letter to Fr. Puller); but I am coming to suspect more and more, and hope to prove, that this doubt was a steadily diminishing quantity; possibly even that the influence of Pole, or even of Rome, was exerted against it, and that the reordination which prevailed in the early months was afterwards discouraged. I cannot say this is proved: but I see increasing hopes that it may be proved when I have got and digested all the evidence.
***** From the Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. May 6, 1896.
I send you four documents, which I have marked A, B, C, D. The most important of these is A. I have transcribed it on a piece of paper the exact size of the parchment and line for line, and put the King's signature in the exact place. This is what is commonly called the Assent to Barlow's election to St. David's. Now observe this is the actual original with the King's autograph signature. It is the very document which the King himself had to do with. It is the Sign Manual, or Signed Bill. It is the foundation of all the other documents which followed, up to the actual letters patent with the Great Seal attached, which reached Cranmer. This Sign Manual unquestionably directs the Consecration of Barlow.
The Privy Seal is commonly called the Significavit. It is not a fresh act of the Royal authority; it is contained, as it were, in the one act of Royal authority, viz. the Sign Manual. That is to say, the Privy Seal followed necessarily and automatically on the Sign Manual. The whole routine is fixed. Two copies were made of the Privy Seal. One ends, "Per breve sub sigillo private." This was intended to be on record at the Privy Seal Office. The other ended, "Sub Sigillo Private," and had the Seal actually attached. Moreover, it contained a preface addressed to the Lord Chancellor, directing him to issue the Letters Patent under the Great Seal. All these documents differed slightly from one another, but they were all founded on the Sign Manual, which contained implicitly everything contained in the succeeding documents, which, as I have said, were only routine expansions according to common form.
***** I think it very important to insist on all this, so as to enable our friends to see that document A is verily and indeed the royal mandate to confirm and consecrate Barlow. Remember that in all grants (and these documents are technically grants) nothing but the Litterae Patentes, or in other cases the Litterae Clausae, went beyond the official precincts. But the whole series is one. The germ is the Signed Bill; then there is a process of evolution, the ultimate product which alone sees the light, being the Letters Patent or Letters Close. There is only one act, viz. the Royal signature to the Signed Bill. That is, so to say, the efficient cause, and it was given only once until we come to the Restitution of Temporalities, which starts a fresh series. *****
As to Gordon's case, I wish you could get copies of the records. The decree certainly says nothing about the validity of the rite. The document as reproduced by Lee, p. 301, from the Weekly Register, first recites Gordon's memorial, and then concludes:--
"Lecto supradicto memoriali SS.D. noster Papa praedictus, auditis votis eorundem Emm, decrevit quod praedictus Joannes Clemens Gordon orator ex integro ad omnes ordines etiam sacros et presbyteratus promoveatur, et quatenus non fuerit sacramento confirmationis munitus confirmetur."
Now of course the present Consultors cannot go behind a decree of H.O., but surely they are not bound by the vota. But would it not be possible to beg that these vota, or rather copies of them, might be produced, that we might have the benefit of studying them? The more one thinks of it, the more intensely difficult does it seem to me to conceive how any rite in Christendom can be valid if ours is not; it so clearly bears on its face the evidence of the purpose to confer by laying on of hands the gift of the Holy Ghost, to make the man a priest. As to the question of precatory or imperative, surely this is just on all fours with the same question in regard to the Sacrament of Penance, and indeed analogous to that of the Western and Eastern form in Baptism.
[Enclosures.] A. To the King our Sovereign Lord. Pleaseth it your highness of your most noble and abundant grace to grant your gracious letters patent under your great seal in due form, to be made according to the tenour ensuing.
Henry R.
Rex reverendissimo in Christo patri Thomae Cantuar. archiepiscopo totius Angliae primati salutem. Sciatis quod electioni nuper factae in ecclesia Cathedrali Meneven. per mortem bonae memoriae dom. Richardi Rawlyns ultimi episcopi ibidem vacante de reverendo in Christo patre dom. Willelmo Barlow sacrae theologiae professore tune episcopo Assaven. et Mon. de Bisham Sarum dioec. commendatorio perpetuo in episcopum loci illius et pastorem regium assensum adhibuimus et favorem, et hoc vobis tenore praesentium significamus ut quod vestrum est in hac parte exequamini. In cuius etc. Teste etc.
B. Henricus octauus dei gratia Anglic et ffrancie Rex fidei defensor et dominus Hibernie ac in terra supremum capud ecclesie anglicane Predilecto et fideli Consiliario nostro Thome Audeley militi Cancellario nostro salutem. Vobis mandamus quod sub magno sigillo nostro in custodia vestra existen literas nostras patentes fieri faciatis in forma sequen. Rex etc. dilectis nobis in Christo decano et capitulo ecclesie cathedralis Meneueñ salutem. Ex parte vestra nobis est humiliter supplicat' vt cum ecclesia vestra predicta per mortem bone memorie domini Richardi Rawlyns vltimi episcopi ibidem sit pastoris solacio destituta alium vobis eligend' in episcopum et pastorem licentiam nostram concedere dignaremur. Nos precibus vestris in hac parte fauorabiliter inclinati licentiam illam duximus concedend' Mandantes quod talem vobis eligatis in episcopum et pastorem qui deo devotus ecclesie vestre necessarius nobisque et Regno nostro vtilis et fidelis exist. In cuius rei etc. Dat' nostro sub Priuato sigillo apud Manerium nostrum de West' xxvij die Marcii Anno regni nostri vicesimo septimo.
Extracted at Record Office. E. G. Wood, Ap. 30, 1896.
This is the Congé d'élire for Barlow to St. David's.
It is in the Privy Seal bundle for March.
It is the copy sent to the Chancery.
C. Congé d'élire for Barlow to St. Asaph.
This is exactly the same as that to St. David's mutatis mutandis--so it is not worth copying. It is on the Patent Roll 27. Hen. VIII, 2 pt. m. 20. (Rymer, xiv. 570.) It is dated Jan. 7, 1536, but on the Roll it is placed after the assent; it immediately follows it.
A Privy Seal.
D. Assent to Barlow's election to St. Asaph. Rex reverendo in Christo patri Thome Cantuar' arch' totius Angliae primati Sciatis quod electioni nuper factae in Ecclesia Cathedrali Assaph. per mortem bonae memoriae dom' Henrici Standish ultimi episcopi ibidem vacante de venerabili Willelmo Barlowe priore domus sive prioratus de Bisham ordinis Sancti Augustini Sarum dicecesis in episcopum loci illius et pastorem regium assensum adhibemus et favorem. Et hoc vobis tenore presentium significamus ut quod vestrum est in hac parte exequamini. In cujus &c. Teste Rege apud Westm' vicesimo secundo die Februarii (27 Hy. VIII, 2pt. m.20. Rymer xiv. 559).
This document is a Privy Seal.
Sir Walter Phillimore to T. A. L. May 7, 1896.
How is Bishop Barlow? As to mandate for confirmation and consecration, you will have seen that in Gibson, ed. Oxford, 1761, p. 1327, the precedent given--a late one, I allow--temp. Will. 3, has Assent and the Mandate for both in one document.
Oughton, Ordo judiciorum, has in his second volume of Formularies no instrument as to consecration of Bishops. But in the last title of Vol. II, Tit. cccxxxvii. (ed. 1738, p. 482), he has the Forma confirmandi Episcopum, which begins: "Imprimis . . . praesententur literae commissionales et patentes regiae de assensu regio etc. sub Sigillo Magno Angliae, et coram eo publice leguntur." These literae commissionales et patentes are clearly those of Royal assent and confirmation: that they include mandate for consecration appears from p. 484, Observationes.
(2) "Post electionem celebratam et . . . significantur haec a Decano et Capitulo Regiae Maiestati et domino Archiepiscopo.
(3) Deinde rescribere solet Archiepiscopo per literas suas patentes Dominus Rex de assensu Regio eidem electioni adhibito; una cum Mandate pro Confirmatione et Consecratione dicti Domini Electi."
This is, of course, no earlier in date than the precedent in Gibson. But it shows that form to be then (and, if then, probably always) the usual form, I attach importance to the singular mandato.
T. A. L. to the Rev. W. H. Frere. May 8, 1896.
Thank you very much for your note about the literae certificatoriae, which is just what was wanted. The best thing for our argument would have been that they were not kept at all: the next best, that they were kept carelessly. The absence of Sampson's robs the absence of Barlow's of all significance.
Father Puller has told you that I have a telegram from Wood, announcing the discovery of the mandate to consecrate Barlow. We are impatiently awaiting a letter of particulars. This completes the demolition of Moyes' case, which consisted in showing that not only was Barlow's consecration not mentioned in Cranmer's Register, but that also all the documents in which it might have been recorded are missing, while all relating to his appointment, apart from consecration, are extant. It was a wonderful scheme of documents that he showed. The missing ones were five.
i. Mandate to consecrate.
ii. License of Chapter of Canterbury to consecrate away from Canterbury,
iii. Register.
iv. Literae certificatoriae.
v. Barlow's own Register;besides possibly commission to Bishop to consecrate, and writ of restitution if that was granted after consecration. Moyes graciously waived these, as there was not the ghost of a reason for supposing that either ever existed or could have existed.
We have now got i.; ii. and v. are known to have perished; iv. you have shown to afford no presumption; and so we come back to the Register as the only real lacuna. [We were at this time under the impression that Mr. Wood's telegram announced the discovery of a hitherto unknown document.]
The Canterbury Register giving the reasons for deposition of Bishops has been much used. N. transposed the entries, so as to make it appear that "ut supra" in each case included the "invaliditatem consecrationis." [The word used was nullitatem.] We exposed this, and so dealt our first severe blow at his credit.
Observe that the description of Barlow as ultimi episcopi ibidem electi--i.e. of St. Asaph--proves nothing. Since he certainly was not consecrated to St. Asaph, he remained always ultimus episcopus electus of that see.
I should very much like to know what are the variations between the Privy Seal for the Custodia of St. David's and the Concessio as finally given; but there is no hurry for this unless--which is hardly possible--it should afford positive evidence. Estcourt's argument from the terms of the Concessio is quite given up even by Moyes.
Your hypothesis about the intervention of the Legate to stop reordinations is most interesting. I will tell Duchesne of it, subject, of course, to reserves, and not for use. Our prompt production of your evidence seems to have made a very good impression.
T. A. L. to the Rev. E. G. Wood. 10 May, 1896.
Your letter with the documents is not yet come. The telegram about the mandate of consecration was just in time for the last sitting of the Commission, completing the demolition of Moyes' case. The last sitting, for the Commission has come to an abrupt conclusion, about which we experience a curiosity which is not gratified. All the members have their mouths shut, and are forbidden ever again to write or publish anything on the subject of Anglican Orders. This must be annoying for Moyes. Gasparri is very content; he is heartily sick of the whole matter, and has charged Portal never again to mention the Anglican Church to him. It is wonderful that, being so little interested in the question, he should have gone into it so thoroughly. Probably he will not lose his reward, for he is likely to have a nunciature before long, and the purple may not be so very far beyond that. [He was appointed Delegate Apostolic for Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia in 1898, and became Cardinal in 1907.]
Well, we thought of packing up our traps, but a message from Duchesne stayed us, and on Friday he went to see Cardinal Rampolla to talk about us. The Cardinal told him that a Commission of Cardinals was nominated to take over the question, and it was most important that we should stay to give our help. So now, if you please, we are here not by invitation of Gasparri and Duchesne, but by command of the Cardinal-Secretary. He added that he wanted to see us, but we must call on some other Cardinals first. Duchesne suggested some names--whether proprio motu or not I cannot say--and we began yesterday with Cardinal Vincenzo Vannutelli, whom Portal knew as Nuncio at Lisbon. He was most effusive, and let out at once that he was on the Commission. He is a young man, and talks with the most extraordinary gesticulation, his hands flourishing away all the time at the level of his eyes. [A curiously false impression; he was sixty years of age.] After this interview I telegraphed for copies of de Hierarchia, which we shall formally present to the Cardinals. I am also setting to work on a small supplement, which we shall print here, dealing with later developments of the question. I want to make use of de Augustinis' suggestion about the forma, and of course I must not let it seem that I have seen his paper, but most fortunately it happens that Chase has suggested the same idea to me, and I shall quote it as his. * * *
I think--but without any certainty--that Gasparri's thesis of the entire unity of the ordination rite, and the consequent sufficiency of one or other of the prayers contained therein with the Imposition of hands, has prevailed in the commission of inquiry, and is likely to prevail elsewhere. If so a real advance in theology will be made, and the whole conception of ordination will become much simpler. They were very anxious to know if the prayer at the end of the Litany in the rite for consecrating Bishops is invariably said by the consecrator himself, and we have obtained from the Archbishop of York an assurance that it is so.
The Rev. W. H. Frere to T. A. L. May 11, 1896.
I can only scribble a line: I copied out bits of the Simancas documents which I hope are right, but it is hard to excerpt from things one does not know.
I looked for the St. David's Concessio on purpose to compare it with the Privy Seal, but could not find it. Would such a thing go under Letters Patent at all, or merely under Privy Seal?
The case goes well about the re-ordinations. I find no later cases, though it is fairly clear that there were people in Edwardian Orders left in possession of benefices who therefore ought at least to have been pressed to present themselves if the re-ordination policy was a fixed one.
[Enclosure.] Extracts from the Calendar of Letters and State Papers relating to English Affairs, preserved principally in the Archives of Simancas. Vol. I, Elizabeth.
1561. 22 Jan. Bishop Quadra to the King.
Since writing the enclosed letter, Henry Sidney, who is the brother-in-law of Lord Robert, came to see me. . . . Although he is not at all well informed on religious questions, he did not fail to admit that the state of the country was very bad and a way must be found to mend it. He told me a number of things in this respect which grieved me, and endeavoured to persuade me with solemn oaths that the Queen and Lord Robert were determined to restore religion by means of a general Concilio. . . .
23 Feb. The same to the same.
. . . Robert came the next day. ... He again made me great promises and assured me that everything should be placed in your Majesty's hands, and even as regarded religion, if the sending of a representative to the Concilio did not suffice, he would go himself.
17 Mar. The King to Bishop Quadra.
. . . What she might now do is to liberate the prelates and other Catholics she has imprisoned, agree to send her Ambassadors and Catholic bishops to the Concilio and submit herself unconditionally to its decisions. Besides this she should, pending the resolutions of the Concilio, allow Catholics to live as they please without coercion or violence. . . .
His Holiness writes us that he has appointed the Abbé Martinengo to carry the bull of the Concilio to the Queen, and has given him orders, when he arrives in Flanders, to be governed by the directions of the Bishop of Arras. . . .
25 Mar. Bishop Quadra to the King.
On the 23rd ultimo I wrote to your Majesty that the going of the Earl of Bedford to France was not alone to condole for the King's death, and endeavour to obtain a ratification of the peace, but also to try for a close alliance between the heretics there and the Queen. Since the Earl came back I have learnt that what has been done is to propose to the Queen-mother and the King's Council that, as there is a diversity of opinion on religion in England, and various counsels have been given to the Queen, she begged the French Queen to send her opinion and advice as to how she should act. They answered that nobody's opinion on so clear a matter could be very needful to one so wise as the Queen, who knew perfectly well how Christian and Catholic the Kingdom of England had always been, and how obedient to the dictates of the Church. The Earl replied that the Queen's intention was to end these differences by sending her theologians to the general Concilio, but that she thought, in order that the Concilio should be held with all-fitting security and freedom, it was necessary that it should meet on this side of the mountains, and if the most Christian King would look to this and endeavour to have some such fitting place named, the Queen offered to unite with him and form a firm alliance in order that the business might be carried through with liberty and security and without coercion being resorted to. ...
Cecil is entirely pledged to these unhappy heresies. . . . He asked me whether it would be well to have some theologians sent here on the Pope's behalf to confer on the Christian doctrine. ... He afterwards asked me whether I would consent to meet the archbishop of Canterbury to open negotiations for conciliation. . . . He again asked me recently what we can do about religious affairs, as the archbishop of Canterbury did not care to come and speak with me for fear of being noted as suspicious by the other bishops. . . . He complained of the style of the bull of the Concilio and the insulting words which were constantly being said and written about them as if they were not Christians and did not believe in God. The end of it was to beg me as a bishop and minister of so pious a Prince as your Majesty to endeavour to open a way to some fair understanding. ... He asked me what were the articles I wished to be considered before all others, and I told him those concerning ecclesiastical government and policy, namely, the office of Pope and Bishops, the authority of Concilios and the distinction between spiritual and temporal powers. We discussed this at great length, and at last he said the following three things to me, I know not in what spirit. First, that the Queen would be willing to send her Ambassadors and theologians to the Concilio, even though it were convoked by the Pope, on condition that the meeting was at a place satisfactory to the other Princes, namely, your Majesty, the Emperor, and the King of France. He then said that she would be willing that the Pope or his legates should preside in the Concilio in such a way as did not infer that he was a ruler over it, but only as head or president of it. The third was that they would be in favour of judging questions of faith as well as others, according to the precepts of holy scripture, consensus of divines, and the declarations of ancient Concilios. He was very emphatic about these ancient Concilios, saying that he would only admit the first four. He then said that what I demanded was evidently to have a judge for matters of faith and to declare the separation of the temporal and spiritual powers, and he went on to say that as the English bishops are canonically ordained they must have seats in the Concilio amongst the others. I told him that in regard to that the justice of his claim could afterwards be considered, and then asked him whether in case the Concilio fell through, which it well might if the German Protestants were obstinate in their claims, he thought this reconciliation between this kingdom and the Catholics could be effected by means of a national Concilio with the same intervention and presidency of the Pope's legates. ... I hear he is going about publicly saying that the Queen wishes to send representatives to the Concilio, and that the Concilio cannot properly be judge of questions of faith, nor is the Pope able to preside over it by right, which was the subject of our discussion.
I also know that he is treating these bishops harshly, and that he used insulting words to the bishop of Winchester the other day because he preached against the authority of the Concilios. I hear that the bishops frequently meet in the archbishop of Canterbury's house and are drawing up a profession of their faith to send to the Concilio.
12 April. The same to the same.
... I think that the Abbé Martinengo's visit will enable us to settle the business very comfortably. . . .
I therefore think that the coming of the Nuncio should be accelerated so that we may see the answers they give him before the Queen settles her own affair, which she could now do, having time, and being popular in consequence of the news that she is to be represented in the Concilio. . . .
Robert tells me that Cecil will be firm about sending representatives to the Concilio, and there are some amongst the bishops who are already beginning to soften and bend to what the Queen desires, although others are very stubborn. . . .
27 April. Bishop Quadra to Lord Robert Dudley.
. . . On the 22nd of January I received a visit from Sir Henry Sidney, your brother-in-law. . . . [He] assured me that the intention of the Queen and opinion of your Lordship and all prudent men was that she should be represented in the Concilio. I had no difficulty in believing this, as it seemed just and probable; and I was confirmed in my belief shortly afterwards by the Queen personally, who told me with her own lips several times that she wished to send representatives to the Concilio. . . .
May 5. Bishop Quadra to the King.
The paper contained two principal points, namely, that the Queen did not consider it well to admit the Nuncio, inasmuch as it was against the law and good policy of the country, and that in this step she followed the precedent of Queen Mary, who had prohibited the entrance of the Nuncio who brought the Cardinal's hat to Peto from Pope Paul IV.
The second point was that as the Queen understood the object of the Nuncio's coming was to intimate to her the holding of the Concilio, she informed me that she had decided not to give her acquiescence to such Concilio, nor to consent to the continuance of that which had commenced at Trent, both on account of the lack of freedom which apparently would exist, and because she had not been consulted, as she ought to have been, as to the place of meeting and other circumstances in the same way that other princes had been consulted.
She did not say, nevertheless, that she would not assist when a free and pious Concilio was held, by sending her ambassadors and learned persons of the Anglican Church to endeavour to agree to a consensus of doctrines in the Universal Church, as all princes should do. ...
I am quite sure that these people, bad as they are, were not of the same opinion in the matter three months ago as they are now. . . .
May 6. Bishop Quadra to the Duchess of Parma and the Cardinal Bishop of Arras (De Granvelle).
These people, however, are so satisfied with themselves that it is useless to point out their errors. As regards their willingness to join in a Concilio if it is what they call free, Christian, and pious, and is arranged by the other great powers in union with England and in consultation with his Holiness, your Highness will bear this in mind so that, if there be any occasion to proceed with these negotiations, it must be understood that the Queen claims to be treated like the rest, and to attend on the same footing as the others. Although the liberty and piety which they demand in the Concilio may be nothing more than dislike to any Concilio at all, as they none of them want it, yet, if the other sovereigns agree, these people will be bound to attend by the answer they have given.
NOTE ON THE ABOVE. The above excerpts from the Simancas correspondence were sent in answer to a request contained in a letter from Father Puller, dated May 7th. The Bishop of Peterborough had recently referred to the subject in a lecture on Queen Elizabeth. The use we made of them, profiting by a hint from Duchesne (Diary, May 6th), may be seen in the following passage taken from the Supplementum, pp. 33-5:--
Restat quaestio de animo imponentis; Utrum intentione perversa ad verum ecclesiae ministerium obruendum ritus in usum reductus fuerit. Qui autem ritum imposuerunt? Anne auctores? Sed quinam illi? Paene ignoti sunt. Cranmer ex illis procul dubio erat. Ex aliis vix unus dignoscitur. R. P. Sydney Smith voluit ostendere Martinum Bucerum magnam in componendis ordinationibus partem habuisse. [Vide The Tablet, Jan. 18, 25; Feb. 8; 1896.] Id autem ratione temporum facile refutatur. Nam Bucer in Angliam venit mense lunio, 1549; et proximo mense lanuario scripsit ad amicum: "Quod me mones de puritate rituum, scito hie neminem extraneum de his rebus rogari." [Cit. apud Lawrence, Bampton Lectures, p. 245. R. P. Sydney Smith hanc epistolam anno 1551 scriptam esse ratione tenuissima affirmare voluit.] At novus ritus iam mense Octobri 1549 paratus est. Certe Bucer voluit ritum iam efformatum ex sententia sua reformare, distinctionem ordinum evertere, formam quae tune essentialis putabatur eiicere; in eumque finem ritunculum inter scripta sua adhuc asservatum conscripsisse videtur; sed frustra laborabat. [Cum de hac re in dissertatione De Hier. Angl. n. 206 disseruimus, Bucerum istam ritus adumbrationem antequam ritus Eduardini parati essent scripsisse putabamus; id quod vix possibile nunc videtur.]
Nec vero ab auctoribus ritum accepimus. Episcopi primo, potestati civili fortasse morem gerentes, sed tamen officio pastorali utentes, eum in usum receperunt, quorum non paucos nulla haereseos simulatione suspectos Cardinalis Legatus postea agnovit et cum Ecclesia Romana reconciliavit. Sed neque ab illis nos ritum accepimus.
Namque ritus, tempore Mariae reiectus, anno demum 1559 in usum reductus est. Si igitur de animo imponentis £ quaeratur, rogari debet quo sensu quave intentione id factum sit. Qui autem id fecerunt? Non exules qui postmodum ex conventibus Calvinistarum Helveticis et Germanicis reversi tantam rerum ecclesiasticarum in Anglia confusionem moliebantur. Isti enim adhuc aut non redierant, aut certe potestate non erant adepti. Qui igitur? Elizabetha, eiusque consiliarii; Cecil, Parker, eorumque similes, qui domi, usque dum Maria regnabat, morati aut eis quae tune fiebant tacite assenserant, aut saltem privati vitam tranquillam sine haeretico tumultu degerant. Ab his, cum plurium consensu, ritus Eduardinus;, in usum reductus est. Qua tandem intentione? Anne ut ministerium Ecclesiae everteretur; ut novum aliquod ad mentem haereticorum conderetur? Testentur ea quae deinde sequebantur. Testetur Calvinistarum reiectio, imo, si volueris, persecutio. Multum fuit illis cum nostris religionis commercium. Fateor: sed eo magis illustratur ex parte nostra Calviniani ministerii ac regiminis obstinata reiectio. Ac si in ea parte praxis et doctrina nostratum arctissime definiatur, non minus innotuit eorundem firmissima voluntas sese cum ceteris Catholicis coniungendi. Anno 1561 Pius IV consilium inibat de Synodo Tridentina instauranda. Litteras de ea re ad Elizabetham scripsit, urgitque ut oratores mitteret. Haec in dissertatione notavimus, sed deerat nobis certa de reginae Anglorumque voluntate notitia. Ea nunc suppeditat. In litteris oratoris Hispani ad curiam Anglicam invenitur. De Quadra ad regem Philippum indesinenter scribebat de Anglorum in futuro Concilio participatione. Die 25° Martii 1561 narrat se cum Cecilio collocutum esse, qui ex parte reginae dixisset Anglos Concilio hisce conditionibus libenter interfuturos esse: si locus ex sententia principum Christianorum designatus fbret; si Papa, aut ipse aut per Legates, ea lege praesideret ut non superior, sed caput tantum Concilii et praeses videretur; si defini-tiones de fide expraeceptis S. Scripturae, consensu doctorum, et regulis antiquorum Conciliorum fierent; si episcopi Anglicani, cum canonice ordinati essent, aequo iure cum aliis episcopis in Concilio sederent. [Ex Archiv. Simancas State Papers, Elizabeth; 1561; p. 189.]
Quorsum haec? Utrum sincere dicta sint nescio. Utrum regina consiliariique sui Concilio interesse revera voluerint, dubium est. Attamen haec certe non verba sunt hominis qui novam Ecclesiam condere, novum ministerium constituere voluerit. Quod autem Cecil dixit, idem omnes fere Anglicani senserunt. Ecclesiam Anglicanam, quae inde a populi incunabulis originem habuit, quae tot sanctorum meritis ornata per decem fere saecula una cum gente increverat, eisdem legibus, eadem fide, eisdem Sacramentis, nova libertate praeditam, in multos annos continuare voluerunt. Audax erat conatus, tempora periculosa; ab illo unitatis centro unde tot sublevamina, tot iniurias acceperant, discedentes, ab ipsa tamen unitate, ut sibi suadebant, non discessuri, propriis viribus cum divina gratia religionem ac veritatem sustentare statuerunt. Antiqua retinere, non nova condere moliebantur. Dicere licet id temere inceptum: sed eos nihil aliud voluisse res ipsae testantur.
The Rev. Canon Ross-Lewin to T. A. L. 15 May, 1896.
The recent letter of the Bishop of Stepney may lead some to suppose that re-ordination took place during Mary's reign, at any rate in the diocese of London. I think, however, the following passage (quoted on a fly-leaf of this letter) will show that some supposed deficiency, e.g. oil, was alone supplied, and that, I imagine, only in some dioceses. *****
I have sent the passage from Pilkington to the Bishop of Stepney, and he admits its force. The Bishops who supplied the lack of oil merely obeyed the injunction given to them.
*****
"They would make men believe that the oil hath such holiness in it, that whosoever wanteth it is no priest nor minister. Therefore in the late days of popery our holy bishops called before them all such as were made ministers without such greasing, and blessed them with the popes blessing, anointed them, and then all was perfect; they might sacrifice for quick and dead." (Pilkington, Exposition upon the Prophet Aggeus, A.D. 1562. Reprinted in Pilkington's Works, Parker Society Ed., p. 163.)
The Rev. Edward Denny to T. A. L. 16 May, 1896. *****
I examined last Friday the original at the Record Office of the Royal Assent to Barlow's election to St. David's, signed by the King, and compared it with (i) the like Assent to Sampson's election to Chichester on the Patent Rolls, and (2) the original Assent signed like the Barlow document by the King, to Repps' election to Norwich, and found the clause, "ut quod vestrum est in hac parte exequamini," in all three. So far as I understand the matter, the Royal Assent signed by the King is the sole document which emanated from the King himself in such a case; and this formed the foundation of the Letters Patent required by 25 Henry viii. c. 20, which could not without it be passed under the Great Seal. It seems to me a very important document, the weight of which cannot be destroyed by the non-discovery of the Letters Patent. *****
The Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. May 18, 1896.
I augur well from the reference to a Commission of Cardinals instead of the cause going in the usual course to the S.C. of the Holy Office itself for decree. I congratulate you both on your invitation from the Cardinal Secretary to remain in Rome. I wish that a Commission could be got to search for and Calendar all papers at the Vatican relating to English affairs from the time of the divorce down to the 3rd or 4th of Elizabeth. There must be papers there of importance, and perhaps some unexpected ones. The mere fact of that letter of Cromwell to Tuke (June 12, 1536) seems to me to indicate such a possibility. By the way, has Puller investigated that again? Would it be possible to get it photographed? I want to discover whether it is an original. If one could have a photograph, I could get an opinion as to the date of handwriting. If you cannot, then please see (i) whether it is on a separate sheet by itself, (2) whether there is any other writing on the sheet or any endorsement or address. Cut a piece of paper the exact size and shape. If possible, facsimile by tracing, if it would be allowed, Cromwell's signature.
I am also anxious that you should get a sight of the Abyssinian decrees.
(I) The document of April 9, 1704, given by Estcourt. He of course only actually reproduces the response of the Holy Office, May 1860, which quotes the "Risoluzione" of the S.C. S.O. of April 9, 1704. It will be desirable to inspect, if it could be managed (and I suppose Cardinal Rampolla could manage anything he chose in this way), the actual record, and ascertain whether it was the report of consultors or an actual decree. If not the latter, then whether there was a decree, probably a few days later. It seems so impossible to reconcile Cardinal Patrizzi's statement with the plain words of the Risoluzione.
(2) The decree of 1860.
(3) The Gordon Case. I cannot understand Duchesne's statement. The decree (April 17, 1704) says nothing about "Accipe, etc." Does he refer to any record of votes of Consultors? If so, when were such votes, or report founded thereon, presented to the Holy Office?
You observe the dates April 9 and April 17 in the same year. It seems to me absolutely impossible to suppose that in the space of a week the Holy Office could give two diametrically opposite determinations.
As regards "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" being a valid form for the Priesthood, what can be said to the following?
The Episcopate is the plenitude of the Priesthood. The Priesthood is included in the Episcopate. The Episcopate can be validly conferred per saltum. But "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" alone is, according to the Sententia Communis, a sufficient and valid form by itself for conferring the Episcopate. Therefore if a layman is consecrated by imposition of hands and the words "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum," only, with the intention to make him a Bishop, he is validly consecrated and becomes Bishop and Priest. Therefore the Priesthood was conferred by the form "Accipe, etc." Therefore "Accipe, etc." is a valid form for Priesthood.
T. A. L. to the Rev. E. G. Wood. 24 May, 1896.
Duchesne has a letter from the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge asking him to come and receive an honorary degree (D. Litt.) on June 18. Great excitement thereanent among all our friends. He would like full information.
***** The letter on the back of which I am writing was sent to Cardinal Mazzella with your copy of the Mandate, which is now probably reposing permanently in the archives of the Holy Office, since everything has been prepared there; but the question is not in the Holy Office. You may count on that, whatever the Tablet says. We know it because the two Vannutelli have told us that they are seised of it, and they are not in the Holy Office. So much the better. [This may serve to show how extremely imperfect our information was.]
It is quite impossible to get at the archives of the Holy Office. One might as well ask to see Rothschild's books. Nor should we gain anything if we did. We know what the result in Gordon's case was, and the archives could reveal nothing more, for the decrees are never motivés. Mazzella explained the process to Portal. The vota of Consultors are read. The Prefect asks each Cardinal his decision--affirmative, negative, dilatanda, or what not,--no reasons being assigned. Then either a decision is given by the majority, or the question is marked dilata. In the former case it may or not be submitted to the Pope for confirmation. In the Abyssinian case in 1704 no decision was given, so presumably the question was marked dilata. What the Holy Office supplied to the Propaganda in 1860 was an unanimous votum of the Consultors, and the proceeding is regarded as a highly irregular and improper one. In Gordon's case the dossier is complete. Duchesne gave us a general idea of its contents.
I am ashamed of having left you in the dark so long on one point. I seem to have conveyed to you somehow the idea that Puller had found in the Archives a copy of the Tuke letter. It was merely Gairdner that he consulted in the library: when you first wrote about it I was utterly mystified.
My Supplementum will be out to-morrow or Tuesday. Our next business is to place a memorandum by Mr. Gladstone in the hands of Cardinal Rampolla. This will delay us here a little longer yet.
The Rev. E. G. Wood to T. A. L. May 27, 1896.
I cannot say I am yet satisfied about the Abyssinian case. Cardinal Patrizzi at any rate called the pronouncement a "decree." Referring to what Bouix (Tractatus de Curia Romana, p. 154), says as to the procedure of the H.O., I cannot think that the Resolution was a document drawn up by the Consultors.
There are three kinds of meeting: (i) Consultors without Cardinals but with the Assessor; (2) the Cardinals without the Pope; (3) the Cardinals with the Pope. These are respectively termed Congressus Feriae II, Feriae IV, and Feriae V. In the second the Consultors are called in and "eorum sententia expetetur." Then the Cardinals "definitive pronuntiant ac decernunt," unless they consider the matter very grave, and so remit it ad Congressum Feriae V, in which the Pope (who, and none other, is himself Prefect of the S.C.S.O.) presides; otherwise they decide without the Pope. I cannot but think that the resolution was not a votum of the Consultors, Moreover, I cannot help thinking that the procedure you describe is that of the S. C. Concilii, especially as regards the causes "In Folio" and not that of the Holy Office.
But any way, it seems quite clear that in 1860 the Holy Office adopted as its own the resoluzione of 1704. Whatever its value in 1704, surely the H.O. validated it and used it as the expression of its answer to the question laid before it in 1860. I cannot see that all that has been said touches that.
*****
I do hope the Special Commission will not be in a hurry, but adjourn for some months. To judge by the tone of the Revue, I cannot say I think our friends even yet appreciate our position; and, if so, how much less our adversaries. The note on p. 367 to the Abbé Klein's paper is not satisfactory. Conditional reordination, they must understand, is a thing we cannot even consent to discuss. Some paper in reply to Klein's would seem to me advisable. We shall gain nothing by being too "mealy mouthed."
The Prior of Monte Cassino to T. A. L. 1 June, 1896.
Grates tibi refero ex toto cordis affectu pro libris quos dono misisti huic nostrae egerrimae bibliothecae, una cum epistola mihi gratissima.
Faxit Deus ut plures nostrae bibliothecae sint memores, tuumque bonum sequantur exemplum. Ipse vero centuplum tibi rependat, teque in multitudine pacis inhabitare faciat.
The Bishop of Ely to T. A. L. June 26, 1896.
I met Duchesne at Lord Halifax's on Tuesday, and had some interesting talk, but nothing more about the Commission than you know already. I shall be glad if the result tends or helps toward the reunion of Christendom, though I cannot agree with Lord Halifax that one "fragment of the episcopate" should accept the judgment of the rest. Minorities are often in the right, as the old "Athanasius contra mundum" shows. And what I we heard from Duchesne, which you also mention, of the position of Uniats--as you wisely call it, the present policy of Rome--does not incline one to that solution.
T. A. L. to Mr. Gladstone. June 30, 1896.
I am taking the liberty of sending you copies of two pamphlets, which I had printed while in Rome. I intended to ask Father Puller to present them to you, but I had not copies ready to my hand in time. The de Re Anglicana was not written for publication, but I think you may be interested in seeing it.
I have just seen the abstract of the new Encyclical in the Times, furnished, I suppose, by Cardinal Vaughan. An idea of what it would contain was given me some weeks ago by Mgr. Gasparri, whom the Pope consulted about it. He thought it would prove a turning point in the theology of the Church, and I think he was hardly exaggerating its importance. The main point which he led me to expect was the distinction drawn between the unicitas and the unitas of the Church. These phrases have been used for some time in the Roman schools, but the Pope gives them a new interest by showing that the Church which is unita is not necessarily identical in extent with the Ecclesia unica. It is no small gain to have a definition from Rome that the separated communions are really parts of the Ecclesia unica. It follows that the unitas which according to the Pope is to be found only in communion with the Holy See is necessary, to employ the familiar distinction, rather for the bene esse than for the esse of the Church. Separation will affect, not the efficacy, but only the legitimacy of the operations of the episcopate. Add to this the important definition of the magisterium as residing not in the papacy but in the episcopate, and the final assertion that bishops are in no sense mere vicars of the Pope, and it seems to me that the relations between the Churches are once more brought within the sphere of more or less friendly argument.
The daily papers--as one might expect--are widely astray as to the bearing of the Encyclical.
I hope that a few days' consideration will enable Englishmen to take a juster view of its importance and interest to themselves.
Mr. Gladstone to T. A. L. July 3, 1896.
I thank you for your tracts, and I think we are all indebted to you and Father Puller for undertaking so bravely an arduous work, which I do not suppose could have been better performed.
I have read the Encyclical, and have not enough I knowledge to see in it all that Mgr. Gasparri describes: but I see nothing at variance with his view, nor anything which ought to inspire dark I anticipations as to the Pope's eventual utterance on I the subject of Anglican Orders. I do not allow j myself to be very sanguine about that utterance: but I read the Encyclical, with its strong self-assertion of the Papacy, as intended to clear the ground for whatever he may have to say, and to let his flock know that, whatever it may be, they have nothing to do but obey it. The Pope has sent through Cardinal Rampolla to the Abate Tosti for transmission to me a very kind and gracious message.
We were much pleased with the Abbé Duchesne, whom Lord Acton conceives to be the most learned man in France.
The "Life of Manning" and the Duchesne movement are enough to make this a considerable year in the history of the Church. [Reproduced by permission from Correspondence on Church and Religion of William Ewart Gladstone, by D. C. Lathbury. Vol. II, p. 73.]
T. A. L. to the Rev. W. H. Frere. Sept. 26, 1896.
***** The document published by Le Quien is worthless. The Archives of the Holy Office are inaccessible. I was told that not even the Pope himself can give permission for any one to see them except a Consultor. But we did see at Rome what Moyes had extracted from them relative to the Gordon case, and Scannell--who was really friendly, though not at all in favour of the validity, unless indeed he was convinced by the course of the investigation--told me that they had before them the whole dossier of the case, and that there was unquestionably a thorough examination of the rite and all its history and its circumstances. A Consultor was sent to England expressly to examine things closely, and his report was most candid. Thus Scannell. On these inquiries, and not at all on Gordon's Supplica, the decision was based.
In the Commission, Cardinal Mazzella refused to let the consultors go behind the Gordon decision: they were consultors of the Holy Office and were bound by all its decisions. This Duchesne told us. It was almost certain that if the Pope sent the matter to the Holy Office they would practically refuse to re-open the points decided in the Gordon case. Only if it was sent to a special Commission of Cardinals was there any hope of this. It was sent to the Holy Office--and behold the result! [Written after the publication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae.] As Portal says, the only question for them was, whether there were grounds for revising the decision, and their answer was negative. I believe the only fresh investigation has been of the historical facts: about them the Bull observes a significant silence for the most part.
Project Canterbury