It would seem to follow, that the business relating to his admission to his see was hurried over, in order that he might be consecrated with Reppis on the 11th of June; of whom, by seniority probably, he took precedence. Prior, then, to the 11th of June, no consecration appears to have taken place in the year 1536, unless on March 19; at which time, as it appears, Barlow was certainly in Scotland: and if it is asked, why, when Barlow did pay a visit to London in the month of April, his consecration, if he was still unconsecrated, was then left unperformed, it is a sufficient answer, that the Parliament, although summoned April 27, did not meet until June 8, 1536 (Journals), and therefore it is very probable, that there was not a sufficient number of Bishops near town to join in a consecration in the month of April. On June 11, however, there was a consecration, and at Lambeth, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Exeter and Bath and Wells, viz. of Reppis certainly and of Sampson probably; and on June 11, Barlow was certainly in the neighbourhood of London, and almost certainly (up to that time) unconsecrated, while on June 30 he takes his place as a consecrated Bishop in the House of Lords, next in order to the two Bishops just named, and prior to Bp. Wharton of St.

editions of his book; of course by a mere blunder. And Richardson gives June 11, as if on the authority of the Register; which is an error also; inasmuch as the Register breaks off with the Sententia Definitiva of Sampson's Confirmation, thus neither excluding consecration at that time (as do both the records of Barlow's confirmations), nor implying it. The writ of Restitution of Temporalties for Sampson, dated July 4, 1536, and reciting consecration, is in Rymer, xiv. 573.-It may be added, that Barlow was only 37 years old in 1536 (see below p. 227), and therefore in all probability junior to both Sampson and Reppis; which would account for his taking rank after them, on the supposition that the three were consecrated on the same day.

w This is the date, and place, &c., given by the certificate from the Archbishop to the King, and by the Archbishop's general certificate (both on the same day), of both confirmation

and consecration. There is no formal record of Reppis' consecration in the Register, but merely these certificates of it. Of other evidence for it, there are the Congé d'Eslire May 25, 1536 (Rymer, xiv. 569, agreeing with the Register), received May 27, and the election May 31, 1536 (Reg. Cranm.), the Royal Assent June 9, 1536 (Ibid.), the confirmation (Ibid.), not dated but necessarily June 10 (scil. with Sampson), as it must have followed the last mentioned writ and preceded consecration, and the Restit. of Temporalties, reciting consecration, July 19, 1536 (Rymer, xiv. 573). Wharton (Notes to Strype, Cranmer, vol. ii. p. 1545), and Le Neve from him, have apparently confounded Reppis with Wharton; as they have assigned June 26 and July 2 for Reppis' confirmation and consecration, June 28 and July 2 being the dates of those acts respectively in Wharton's case.

Asaph, who shortly followed him, and was consecrated July 2. Under these circumstances, the conclusion is scarcely to be avoided, that he actually was consecrated on the 11th of June. But it will be said, if so, why was not his consecration registered? An inspection of Cranmer's Register supplies the answer,-through the carelessness of the Registrar. The omission would be a conclusive objection during Parker's primacy, when the Register was kept with peculiar care; it is absolutely none at all during Cranmer's, when it was kept with equal carelessness. For how stand the facts? There are recorded in Cranmer's Register, during his primacy of twenty years or thereabouts (1533-1553), the confirmations and consecrations of thirty-six (including those of Reppis), and the confirmations upon translation (leaving Barlow out of the question) of eight, Bishops, and the mandate of the Archdeacon of Canterbury to enthrone in the case of two other translations in 1550 (subsequently to Edward the Sixth's statute abolishing election and confirmation); and there are omitted in the same Register and period the confirmations prior to the statute (just referred to) in 1547 of two, and the mandates subsequently to that date for three, and the consecrations of no less than eight, Bishops (exclusive of Barlow), being something more than a fourth of the whole number of actual entries; and in the cases of four a of the last-named eight the confirmations are recorded but nothing more, and of a fifth one page and a half at the com

* Viz., Bird, translated from Bangor to Chester in 1541;-which is mentioned in the record of his successor's consecration to Bangor (Bulkeley, Feb. 19, 1541-2); Bird's consecration, and his former translation from Penreth to Bangor, are in the Register:-and King, translated from Thevnen or Boven to Oxford in 1542; who is not mentioned in the Register at all.

y Viz. Barlow himself, translated from St. David's to Bath and Wells in 1548 (mentioned in the entry of consecration for Farrer his successor);Poynet, from Rochester to Winchester in 1551 (mentioned in the entry of the vacancy of the see-Reg. fol. 121. a, and in that of Scory's consecration, who succeeded him); and Scory, from Rochester to Chichester in 1552 (referred to in the entry of the vacancy of

the see-Reg. fol. 134. a).

Viz., Fox, Hereford, 1535-Latimer, Worcester, 1535-Hilsey, Rochester, 1535-Sampson, Chichester, 1536-King, Thevnen or Boven (a suffragan see), 1539-Bell, Worcester, 1539-Skyp, Hereford, 1539- Day, Chichester, 1543.

Fox, Sampson, Skyp, Day. The record ends in none of these cases, as it does in Barlow's in both his confirmations, with a certificate of confirmation only (thus excluding consecration prior to the date of the certificate, if it be confirmation to a first see), but merely breaks off with the definitive sentence of confirmation.

b Bell.-in Reg. Cranm. fol. 224. b, 225. a;-from 225. a to 228. b. being left blank.

mencement of the record of confirmation, breaking off in the middle of a page and of a sentence, and of three more no documents whatsoever; while the consecrations of three of the eight-two whose confirmations are recorded, and one who is not mentioned at all-are known to be recorded in the Diocesan Registers, which last in Barlow's case do not existd; and of those of the other five (of which four, for ought that has yet appeared, may be recorded also in the respective Diocesan Registers-the fifth was to a suffragan see) there can be, as will be seen below, no reasonable doubt. Further, at the very time when I have supposed Barlow to have been consecrated, the consecrations of three Bishops ought to be recorded (according to what has been said above), viz. Sampson, Reppis, and Barlow; of these, the confirmation only of the first is entered (fol. 189. a-192. b), and the record of consecration, which

Latimer, Hilsey, and King.

The three are Fox (consecrated Sept. 26, 1535, which was a Sunday, by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of Winchester and Sarum, i. e. Cranmer, Gardiner, and Shaxton, in Winchester Cathedral,-Reg. Fox. Hereford, ad fin. Reg. Booth, ap. Richardson, notes to Godwin), Skyp (consecrated Nov. 23, 1539, which was a Sunday, by "Thom. Cantuar., assistentibus Rich. Menev. et Rich. Dover. Episc. Suff.," i. e. Cranmer, (as it should seem) Barlow himself, and Ingworth ;--from Wharton's MSS. at Lambeth, who took it from Skyp's own Register at Hereford, but I have omitted to mark the reference to Wharton and cannot consult the Register, so as to determine whether the mistake of Rich. for Will'mus, is my own or Wharton's or the original Registrar's; Le Neve and Browne Willis quote the Register also for the date and place, but omit the consecrators' names), and Hilsey (consecrated at "Venchestre Winton. Dioc. Sept. 18, 1535,"-Reg. Hilsey Roffens., ap. Richardson, notes to Godwin; who has I conclude mistaken Sept. 18, which was a Saturday in 1535, for Sept. 19). Very possibly the same information may still exist for the other four diocesan Bishops named in note z, viz. Latimer and Bell of Worcester, and Sampson and Day of Chichester. But I have been unable to consult the Registers in either dio

cese. Of other evidence for the three above named, there are for Fox, the Royal Assent Sept. 2, 1535 (Rymer, xiv. 552, corresponding with the Register), the Restit. of Temporalties Oct. 4, 1535 (Rymer, ibid.), the Congé d'Eslire Aug. 20, Election Aug. 25, and Confirmation Sept. 15, 1535 (Reg. Cranm.), the last misdated by Percival Sept. 26-for Skyp, the Congé d'Eslire, Oct. 13, 1539 (Rymer xiv. 646, agreeing with the Register), Election Oct. 24, 1539 (Reg. Cranm.), Royal Assent Nov. 7, 1539 (R., ibid.), Significavit Nov. 8, 1539 (R., ibid. 647, agreeing with the Register), Confirmation Nov. 20, 1539 (Reg. Cranm.), Restit. of Temporalties, reciting consecration, Nov. 28, 1539 (R., ibid. 651), Licence to hold an Archdeaconry with his see Nov. 9, 1539 (ibid. 648), Inthronization Dec. 6, 1539 (Reg. ipsius, in Le Neve and Browne Willis);-for Hilsey, whose death is mentioned (i. e. as of John Bp. of Rochester) in the record of his successor Heath's consecration April 4, 1540 (Reg. Cranm. fol. 255. a), the writ of Restit. of Temporalties, reciting consecration, and dated Oct. 4, 1535, in Rymer, xiv. 553; he is mentioned also, as Joh. Roffens., in the similar writ for Abp. Brown of Dublin (R. xiv. 561), dated March 23, 15356; and in the entry of the same Archbishop's consecration in Reg. Cranm., March 19, 1535-6, and of nine others at different dates, at which he assisted.

in his case took place (almost certainly) the very next day after his confirmation, is omitted; the entry relating to the second is neither regular nor in its place, being postponed (as is also the record of Barlow's confirmation to St. David's, which it immediately follows) until after the consecrations of 1537, viz. to fol. 208. a-212. b, while the regular entry of consecration is entirely omitted, and the record closes with the Archbishop's certificates of both confirmation and consecration, in which (unusually) the particulars of the consecration are given at length. What argument can possibly be founded, under these circumstances, upon the omission to register the consecration of the third? An omission, it is to be remembered, not of a second part of a document of which the first part stands correctly in the Register (which would be the case, had he been consecrated and confirmed at the same time, and which is the case with others, undoubtedly consecrated), but of a short and distinct entry, relating to an act certainly differing in date from both his confirmations, and probably above seven weeks subsequent to the latter of them. It is plain, that from an omission of this kind, in a book kept so carelessly and so irregularly, and known to omit consecrations which are proved to have taken place, no negative conclusion whatever can be drawn. Such a Register is good evidence for what it contains; it is no evidence at all against that which it simply omits. the whole, then, as the case stands, the Register by recording Barlow's confirmations affords an undeniable presumption (not against but) for his consecration also: and the supposition that he really was consecrated on June 11, in itself

The entries in Cranmer's Register relating to Bonner (in 1539-1540) are (with one exception) an exact parallel to those relating to Barlow, the former as well as the latter having been confirmed in two sees successively, and consecrated only to the second, and that more than four months subsequently to his second confirmation, absence on a foreign embassy being in each case the cause both of the promotion and of the delay of consecration, and the entries of both confirmations in each case closing with a certificate of confirmation only. See below, p. 141. note 1. The important exception is, that Bonner's consecra

Upon

tion is entered in the Register (but is a distinct and short document, and 12 pages after the entry of his second confirmation); while Barlow's consecration is not entered at all. Now in an exceedingly accurate Register this might afford something of a presumption, that Barlow was not consecrated. In one exceedingly inaccurate, it affords a strong presumption the other way; because it increases the probability, both that the rite was performed, and that the Registrar should omit to enter it. The parallel of the facts renders the first more likely. The nature of the missing entry is equally favourable to the second.

(date apart) a fact to be taken for granted unless disproved, appears to be not only perfectly consistent with every existing document connected with the subject, so that no difficulty lies in the way of admitting its truth; but on the contrary to be required to explain the existing evidence, so that insuperable difficulties arise, should we suppose the case to have been otherwise. But the whole argument is not yet disposed of. It is added, supposing we allow all specific objections to the evidence to fail, what becomes of the antecedent presumptions against its probability above mentioned? So far, it will be said, the argument has proceeded upon the assumptions, first, that there is nothing known of Barlow individually to render his consecration in particular unlikely, and secondly, that the other Bishops whose consecrations are unregistered, were nevertheless actually consecrated; whereas both these points are themselves also disputed. For it is asserted, first, that both Cranmer and Barlow held consecration to be a useless ceremony. It is to be feared, that something like such a doctrine may be fixed more or less definitely upon both: not indeed, let it be observed, that they entertained the slightest positive objection to the rite, but that they did not hold a very strong opinion of its necessity. Now what is the inference sought to be drawn from this? That in order to avoid a thing indifferent, they ran the risk of a legal forfeiture, the one of his Archbishopric in esse, the other of his Bishopric in futuro, and this by defying the commands and breaking the laws of a king like Henry the Eighth. Surely no man ruins himself for nothing. Not to add, that neither Cranmer's opinions, nor Barlow's, could by possibility have had any influence of the kind upon their conduct; inasmuch as the former did at this very time certainly consecrate one Bishop, Reppis, and continued to do so throughout his primacy, and to the extent even of enforcing the rite in one case, viz. Hooper's in 1550, where (on account of the vestments but for no other reason) it was refused; while the latter assisted in consecrating one (if not two) Bishops, in 1539 and 1541. Unhappily, moreover, Barlow's history proves him to have been a very unlikely person to object upon religious scruples (even had he entertained them) to a step which was to