tibus: and I presume by Leyburn only, as the consecration seems to have taken place in England. Ellis and Smith, who were consecrated in London in 1688, of course derived their orders from this prelate ". In the life of Dr. Challoner it is stated, that he was "consecrated on the feast of St. Francis de Sales, the 29th January, 1741, by the Right Rev. Benjamin Petre, bishop of Prusa in Bithynia ;" and that there was no other bishop present, may be fairly inferred from the silence of the biographer, coupled with his particular mention of an assisting bishop on a subsequent occasion, when the same Dr. Challoner is said, with the assistance of the "bishop of Amoria, V. A. of the northern district," to have consecrated Dr. Talbot (his coadjutor and successor) bishop of Birtha". Again we find, that Dr. Sharrock was recommended by the titular bishop Walmsley "to the holy see, for his own coadjutor in the episcopal labours. His wish was granted, and he performed the ceremony of Dr. Sharrock's consecration to the see of Telmessus, on the 12th August, 1780. The ceremony was performed at Wardour with solemnity unprecedented since the Revolution. There were twelve assistant priests, a master of ceremonies," &c. h No bishops are said to have assisted. The same Dr. Walmsley is said to have consecrated Dr. W. Gibson at Lullworth, December 17901; and what is worthy of remark, Dr. John Carroll, the first titular bishop of Baltimore in America, from whom the whole Romish hierarchy of the United States derive their orders, was consecrated by the same Dr. Walmsley at Lullworth, August 15th, 1790. We have indeed: no reason to think that Dr. Walmsley himself was consecrated by more than one bishop. It seems as if the Roman pontiffs had no difficulty in giving permission for such ordinations in foreign missions. Joseph à St. Maria, bishop of Hierapolis,' and 'vicar apostolic' in India, A. D. 1659, being obliged to leave the country by the Dutch, consecrated Alexander de Campo bishop, according to the powers given him by the papal bulls'. Even so lately as 1800, the Roman pontiff empowered the bishop of Cadadre vicar apostolic' in China, to select his own coadjutor and consecrate him bishop of Tabraca ". It would be easy to point out many other instances in which the schismatical ordinations in England, Scotland, Ireland, America, &c. are spoken of in such a way as leads us to the inference, that conse→ crations by one bishop were but too common in the last century. We do not know indeed the precise extent to which this irregular practice was carried, because the accounts of such matters are very few and obscure; but there is evidently enough to throw a very serious doubt on their ordinations generally. I admit certainly that of late years their episcopal consecrations have been attended by several bishops. apparently very much for the sake of pomp and ostentation; but if there be any reason to doubt whether their bishops were validly ordained in the last century, that doubt could not be cured by their now combining in numbers to remedy the defect. Ten or twenty bishops, themselves invalidly ordained, could not confer a more valid ordination than one similarly circumstanced. It is to be observed also, that even if we could admit that any dispensation or any necessity could remove all doubt from such ordinations, we could not concede it in the case of the dispensations contained in the bulls of the Irish titular bishops. For, to pass over the fact, that these bulls were altogether null, from a deficiency of jurisdiction on the part of the Roman pontiff in these churches, (that jurisdiction having long ago been canonically and validly withdrawn by the British churches, from which alone it had emanated;) it can never be allowed, that the reason assigned in that clause of the bulls, is sufficient to dispense with the canons of œcumenical synods, still in full force in the universal church. "Ad ea quæ in tua commoditatis augmentum cedere possunt, favorabiliter intendentes," is no sufficient reason. It does not contemplate any necessity, danger, or difficulty which could excuse such a dispensation. It would include any reason however trifling. On the question of the invalidity of these orders I would not wish to speak positively: but the general discipline of the church with regard to reordinations, would amply justify us in not admitting popish priests ordained in these countries to minister in our churches, without receiving ordination from our bishops. If the church of England should be aware of this difficulty affecting their orders, and yet should not adopt another practice with regard to them, it need not be supposed that she acknowledges them free from doubt, but that from a desire to promote the return of the lost sheep to catholic unity, she would sometimes tolerate even dubious ordinations, and supply their deficiencies by her own supreme power. This however I would remark in conclusion, that according to the doctrine of the best Roman divines at least, the ordinations of papists in these countries are of dubious validity: the utmost that can be said for them is, that they may be probably valid: but according to Champney, one of the chief leaders of their schism, such ordinations do not confer any real vocation to the ministry. "An ordination," he says, "which is merely probable, or only probably sufficient and valid, only makes a probable bishop, or one who is merely probably a bishop.. ... But he who is only probably a bishop, is not validly and sufficiently appointed to the episcopal degree and power; nor has he true episcopal vocation : for true and valid episcopal vocation is not merely probable, but certain and undoubted. . . for otherwise, whatever the pastors and bishops of the church should perform, as bishops, would be so uncertain as to be probably null and invalid "." ם Champnæus de Vocat. Ministr. p. 424, 425. |