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

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

f See Bossuet, and the other defenders of the Gallican liberties, who reduce the authority

of the Roman patriarch very nearly to its proper dimen

sions.

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

SECTION III.

ARCHBISHOP PARKER'S CONSECRATORS JUSTIFIED.

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

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

g Trevern, Champney, &c.

Canterbury, were all canonically possessed of those sees, though we shall see good reasons hereafter to deny this. Those bishops then had a right to ordain their metropolitan Parker1; but then they forfeited that right by schismatically and uncanonically refusing to exercise it.

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

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

h Concil. Aurelianus, ii. c. 7. Concil. Toletan. iv. c. 18. See Bingham's Antiquities, book ii.

c. 16. §. 15. De Marca, Concord. Sacerd. et Imp. lib. iv. cap. 4.

of neighbouring churches, would or could provide a pastor for the church of Canterbury, the right of ordination devolved on the next bishops of the catholic church; and such were Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, who actually consecrated Parker archbishop of Canterbury. The three first bishops were not canonically deposed for marriage, in the reign of Mary, as some persons pretend. Barlow voluntarily resigned his see of Bath and Wells, as appears by queen Mary's congé d'élire for the election of his successor; and although it is said that he was afterwards deposed, yet there is no sufficient evidence of the fact. Scory was not deposed, but was expelled by royal authority, from the see of Chichester; and Day, who had previously occupied that see, was restored. Both these prelates were canonically vacanti; the former having resigned his see, and the latter having been translated to his dubio jure, and afterwards expelled by queen Mary. Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, was uncanonically ejected, and his predecessor restored by royal authority, although that predecessor had, several years before, freely and spontaneously resigned that see, as appears by his own words still extant. Hodgkins was also canonically vacant, as no one pretends that he was deposed. These four prelates were therefore at least canonically vacant, if indeed two of them were not still legitimately bishops of English dioceses. Now vacant bishops have mission3 for all

i A vacant bishop, in the canonical sense, means one who has not obtained, or who has lost possession of, a diocese, without any fault of his own. He is differently circumstanced

from a bishop regularly deposed, who is forbidden by the laws of the church to exercise any part of his office.

Bishops, at their ordination, receive divine mission,

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

or right of performing all ministerial acts permitted by the law of God and the canons. A vacant bishop may have the chair, title, and exercise of the episcopal office, with the knowledge and consent of the bishop in whose diocese he lives. (Canon Apostol. xxxvi. Concil. Antioch. can. xviii. and the Commentaries of Balsamon, &c.) He may teach, preach, and ordain, with the same consent. (Balsamon and Zonaras on the 18th canon of the council of Antioch.) If several other bishops approve, he may take possession of a vacant see, when canonically elected. (Concil. Antioch. canon xvi. and Balsamon's Commentary.) He

VOL. II.

may go among the heathen, preach, baptize, and found churches. (Amandus resigned the see of Utrecht, and went to preach to the Gentiles. In those ages it was common to ordain bishops sine titulo, to preach to the Gentiles. See Du Cange's Glossary, voce Episcopus vacans.) There can be no doubt, therefore, that vacant bishops have divine mission for all acts permitted by the law of God and the ca

nons.

k The 25th canon of the council of Chalcedon commanded vacant sees to be filled by ordination in three months, unless in a case of inevitable necessity.

T