ANGLICAN ORDERS

New Zealand Tablet, 26 November 1908, Page 10

ANGLICAN ORDERS

THE QUESTION OF THEIR VALIDITY

To the Editor, N.Z. Tablet.

Rev. and Dear Sir, — I have to thank both you and the Rev. Father Goggan for the trouble you have taken to reply to my queries on the above subject. In seeking for light I did not intend to enter into controversy, but if it is not trespassing too much on your space I should like to discuss some of the • points raised by Father Goggan in his interesting, exhaustive, and impartial commentary in your issue- of the 22 nd ult. 1. With respect to the impotency of Barlow, one of Parker's" consecrators. It has been sought to prove that Barlow was no , true bishop, and that he was ' not consecrated either ' on his • appointment to Str Asaph's or St. David's in 1536, simply because he expressed contempt for his own orders. The consequences . such a supposition involve are peculiar, not to say, incomprehensible. It means that a man appointed bishop by the king could induce those who ought to have consecrated him to. omit the ceremony, and thus -subject themselves to the penalties contained in the Statute of Praemunire under Act 25, HenryVIIL, c. 20 ; it also means that he could sit among the bishops and vote both in the House of Lords and in Convocation without being challenged ; it further _ means that he could carry on a long lawsuit with his chapter at St. David's which he must have

lost had he never been consecrated, and although his chapter left no stone unturned to dispute his right to the privileges of the see,' his non-consecration was not even suggested ; and lastly it means that he could be recognised as bishop by Gardiner and other bishops who repudiated the Reformation, and be officially recognised as Bishop of Bath and^Wells on Mary's accession, when he either resigned or was ejected. Could he do all these things, I" ask, without its being uetecte^ that he had never been consecrated? Indeed, the question of his non-consecration was never* raised till 16x6 — eighty years after the event and forty-eight years after his death, and then only by men of the class who invented the ridiculous Nag's Head story. Does it not also seem strange that the denial that Barlow was a bishop is tacitly ignored in the Bull, Apostolicce Curce?. Finally, let me quote the opinion of the Roman Catholic nistonan, Lingard : ' When we find Barlow during ten years, the remainder of Henry's reign, constantly associated, as a brother, with the other consecrated bishops, discharging with them all the duties, both spiritual and secular, of a consecrated bishop, summoned equally with them to parliament and convocation, taking his seat among them 'according to seniority, and voting on all subjects as one of them, it seems most unreasonable to suppose, without direct proof, that he had never received that sacred rite, without which, according to the laws of both Church and State, he could not have become a member of the episcopal body.'

The record of the consecration of Parker states that ' all laid their hands on the archbishop and said in English, " Take the Holy Ghost, etc '' J ' So that if the consecration of Barlow is doubtful, that of the other bishops is certain, thus rendering the non-consecration of Barlow of less importance than appears at first glance — so far at least as relates to the cpnsecration of Parker.

2. With respect to the lack of essentials in the form of consecration, and the defect of matter used, in the Edwardine Ordinal. This, I take it, means (a) that there was no specification of the office to be conferred, and (b) that the porrection of the instruments was omitted. Notwithstanding that -there was no explicit mention of priesthood — or, in the words of the Bull Apostolicce Curec — ' the power of consecrating and offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord ' — in the Edwardine Ordinal, I should like to know what is meant by the sentence ' Be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments ' if it does not include the commission to celebrate the Holy Eucharist? I also understand that the specific mention of priesthood was equally absent from the Coptic rite, as well as the ancient Roman rite, till as late a period as the ninth century. You will know better than I do if I am correct in this assumption. Again, Canon Estcourt in his work on The Question of Anglican Ordinations gives an instance in the Church of Abyssinia at the beginning of the eighteenth, century, when an Archbishop had to ordain some four or five thousand misionaries in one day, which he did by passing rapidly in front of them, imposing his hands on the head of each, and saying, Accipn Spiritum Sanctum ; and in the case of deacons, imposing the patriarchal cross on the head of each. The question as to whether these persons were validly ordained was referred to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office who ruled on the 9th April, 1704 : — ' that the ordination of a priest with imposition of hands and the pronouncement of the form as stated in the case, was valid ; but that the ordination of a deacon simply with the imposition of the patriarchal cross was altogether invalid.' Commenting on this, Canon Estcourt says that this decision of the S. C. 'establishes the principle that the wor&sAccipe Spiritum Sanctum are sufficient as a form -of ordination to the priesthood ' ; and he further says ' the- decision indeed refers only to the priesthood.- But in the face of such an indication of the mind of the Church, it would be unbecoming to raise the question whether the same words Accipe Spiritum Sanctum are insufficient as a foim for the episcopate also.'

As to ihe porrectio instrumentorurn — there can be no two opinions that this handing over to the ordinand the insignia of office should constitute part "Of- the rites' -of ordfnation and consecration. But if. its omission is sufficient to invalidate orders, then all the orders for the. first thousand years_of the Christian Church would be invalidated. What essential -form and matter did the Apostles and their disciples use for those whom they ordained? As far as lam able to "gather, simply the laying on of hands. As an extension, however, or development of the essential matter, the porrection of the instruments should appeal to aIL Catholics — whether Roman, Anglican, or Eastern. •

3. With respect to the doctrine of Intention. I take it that for the valid administration of a sacrament the intentio generalis

jaciendi quod facit eccle'sia is all that is necessary on the part of the administrator... So that it would be quite immaterial what the private opinion is of the minister, .because in that capacity his actions are not his own, but the Church's, so long as he acts as the Church directs. St. Thomas Aquinas says : — ' The minister of a Sacrament acts as the representative "(in persona)of the whole Church of which he is the minister ; in the" words which he utters, the intention of the Church is expressed, which suffices to the perfection of a, Sacrament, unles the contrary be expressed outwardly on the part of the minister, or recipient of the Sacrament.' And the intention of the Church of England is given in the prefaces to the Services of Ordination where it is asserted that she intends to continue the orders — i.e., -Bishops, Priests, and Deacons — which ' have been in Christ's Church from the Apostles' time,' with the same character and powers as they had from the beginning. There are other points in Father Goggan's commentary that I should have liked to have touched upon, but I should probably only be recapitulating arguments that have been dealt with over and over again. I would merely say in conclusion, that not only Lingard, but other Roman Catholic authorities — such as the eminent ecclesiastical- historian, the Abbe* Duchesne ; and Monsignor Gasparri, Professor of Canon La\v. — have also arrived at the conclusion that the validity" of English Orders cannot be denied. In view of so many conflicting opinions on both sidas by learned men, it is hard to say which is right. lam rather inclined to think that- theologians of the Roman Church in Italy confuse English Churchmen with continental Protestants, with the result that they have attacked ■English Orders from the point of view of controversy rather than that of history, of theology, or of liturgiology. Again thanking you for your courtesy, I am, etc., JNO. W. WARREN. Hamilton, November 1. , -