sertion of those who maintain the Nag's Head story. The entries with respect to Salisbury are of the same nature. There are institutions to benefices given by the see of Canterbury up to the 17th of January 1559-60, which shew Salisbury to have been vacant until that time; and not being made by the authority of Parker until December the 21st, 1559, shew that he had not been in possession of his see in the preceding September; thus agreeing with the registered account of his consecration, and directly contradicting the Nag's Head story: these entries must, therefore, be maintained to have been forged also. Add to these the Queen's commission to confirm Jewell, which we find in Rymer, t. 15. p. 555, with the confirmation, consecration, and commission to instal, all of corresponding dates, from January 18, 1559-60, found in Parker's registry, and the installation itself, in the registry of Salisbury; and it will be difficult indeed to suppose the whole of these documents to be a collection of forgeries. The forgeries indeed must have been even more numerous; for, in the registry of Salisbury, there are many acts dated by the year of Jewell's consecration, and all agreeing with the commencement from January 21, 1559-60. Whereas the acts done in the months of October, November, December, and the first twenty-one days of January, would all have been differently dated, had Jewell commenced bishop at the Nag's Head. The registry of Worcester affords similar proofs of the time of Sandes's consecration, and must also have been forged, unless that of Lambeth be admitted to be genuine. consecrate Horne, dated the 12th of February following; the act of his consecration by Parker, assisted by Young bishop of St. David's, Grindal bishop of London, and Bentham of Lichfield, on the 16th of February 1560-1; the certificate of this consecration sent to the Archdeacon of Canterbury, and the commission for installing Horne and his delegation of a proxy. Many of his acts are also dated by the year of his consecration, which having taken place more than a year subsequent to the date given in the Nag's Head story, every one of them proves that story to be false; unless, indeed, we suppose the whole series, for seventeen years, to have been forged. The registry of Winchester is of the same nature. We have in it the act of Horne's election, bearing date the 11th of December 1560, fifteen months after the alleged consecration at the Nag's Head. We have from the same registry the Queen's commission to Parker to Nor indeed are these the whole of the forgeries necessary to support the Nag's Head hypothesis; for there are numerous other records, including various printed books, (such as Hollingshead's Chronicle, printed it 1586, and containing the date of Parker's consecration; Camden's Britannia, 1586; Parker's Life, by a Puritan, 1574; Humphrey's Life of Jewell, 1573, &c. &c.) which incidentally allude to circumstances which are inconsistent with the fabricated story. It only remains to examine the cause assigned by the Roman-Catholic writers for our bishops having resorted to the alleged profanation; for the story of the Nag's Head is always introduced by the assertion that there were not in all England three, nor two, nor one bishop that could and would consecrate the new bishops in the first year of Elizabeth. Now, to omit Kitchen of Llandaff, whom they will perhaps include among those who would not act, there were in England, at that time, Barlow, who had been bishop of Bath, and Scorye, who had been bishop of Chichester, and Coverdale, who had been bishop of Exeter, with the suffragans of Bedford and Thetford, who had been fugitives for their religion in the time of Mary. Bale, bishop of Ossory in Ireland, was also in England, and was a known Protestant. Thus there were six bishops who could consecrate, and beyond all doubt were willing to consecrate. But to extend the proof ex abundanti, there were in Ireland, within the power of the Queen to summon, Curwin, Archbishop of Dublin; Baron, of Cashel; and Bodekin, of Tuam; together with the Bishops of Ferns, Limerick, Cork, Waterford, and Killaloe, who all took the oaths and conformed to the new Liturgy: so that there were fourteen Protestant bishops, any of whom Elizabeth might have employed in consecrating Parker and his brethren. With regard to the four who actually officiated at the consecration of Parker, it might be sufficient to select one of them, and to establish his legitimate Episcopacy; because it is a known principle, which even Bishop Milner has acknowledged, that a consecration by one bishop, though irregular, is yet valid; but it can be proved that every one of the four was really consecrated a bishop, and a complete answer can be given to all the objections that have been made to each of them. Where then is the alleged necessity which the Papists urge as the cause of the Nag's Head transaction; and if there was no necessity for such an absurd, impolitic, profane, and unprecedented act, is it likely that it would have been wantonly committed, for the disgrace of Protestantism, and the triumph of Popery? There is then no reason to discredit the validity of our orders, even on the ground of a regular apostolic succession; for if there be any chasm, which I do not think probable, it must have been in times far antecedent to the age of Parker, and as much affecting the Roman Catholic as the Protestant Episcopal Church. We have nothing to fear from such external attacks as the Nag's Head controversy; only let us look well to see that all is safe within the citadel: let those who are regularly appointed ministers in. our communion, take heed that they are truly themselves disciples and servants of Jesus Christ in heart and life, as well as by profession; and let all ranks of our communion, our bishops, our clergy, our laity, strive together for the faith of the Gospel; that all men may come to the knowledge of the truth, and that God may be glorified, the Saviour exalted, and the Divine Spirit magnified in his sacred operations, by the regeneration, conversion, justification, and sanctification, of all who profess to worship within our consecrated pale. CLERICUS. Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer. SIR, Exeter, 4th Dec. 1824. I do not address you, either as a friend, or as one inimical to the circulation of your labours. I know very little (perhaps it is my misfortune) of the monthly fare you serve up for the entertainment and in struction of your readers; but being on a visit to a friend in this city, who speaks very highly of your endeavours, I took the liberty to send you a copy of a letter signed "Orthodox." "As Christian Observers, it struck me this letter would at once have been deemed worthy of the notice of yourself or friends. Orthodox has indeed told his tale in so artless a manner, that I really thought I could not increase the disgust which you must experience on hearing of so sad a degradation of the ministry of your communion as that of reverend mayors, beneficed aldermen, or capital burgesses, and common-councilmen in holy orders. I therefore felt it not necessary to trouble you with a single observation of my own, fully expecting in your Number for November to have met with some severe expression of disapprobation of ambassadors of Christ clothing themselves with the civic vest, and marching to the temple preceded by the mace, &c. You, it would appear, assume the high calling of a Christian Observer; permit me to ask you, are your observations to extend only to the inconsistences, as you deem them, of us poor degraded Catholics; to proceedings of Bible Societies, Missionary Meetings, &c.; to conversions, to sermons, to Biblical criticism? Your work, you inform us, is conducted by members of the Established Church. Look at home! Tell me, I pray you, if a more ludicrous and absurd abuse than that of which Orthodox complains, is to be found in any church in Christendom? Suffer me to correct myself; I will not call such an abuse ludicrous; is it not rather, an alarming and unjustifiable deviation from conduct which should mark the Christian priesthood? If, sir, you limit yourself to freedom of speech, as regards those only who differ with you, take to yourself some title which will indicate your object, but continue not that which leads the world to believe you are "open to all parties, and influenced by none." Much depends on the demeanour and holy conduct of the clergy of every communion, but really those who are but too apt to assail others with charges of bigotry, ignorance, intolerance, and especially of worldly views, if they be clergymen, let them first see how far these evils prevail among themselves, before they evince their hostility towards us oppressed Catholics; let them, at least, shew their readiness to remove the beam out of their own eye, in order that they may see the more clearly to pluck out the mote which obscures their brother's vision. Persons who pursue not such a line of conduct are, you well know, called "hypocrites." I trust, sir, you will not think my language too severe or unbecoming. I should regret it exceedingly to be an object of your unfavourable opinion, I feel it however to be my duty to remind you, that it is the first of all duties to attempt the correction of ourselves. Let me recommend the clergy of your com munion, once every year to read over the Ordination Service of their church: it is an excellent service. If this should prove, however, too great a task for some, let me remind such as those of the extract with which Orthodox has concluded his really useful letter. Perhaps, sir, you may not feel inclined to insert or even notice this my word of exhortation; but whether you will hear, or whether you will forbear, what I now suggest I feel to be the duty of your humble servant, A CATHOLIC PRIEST, Residing chiefly in the West. P. S. My friend, to whom I have read the above, desires me to assure you, he should feel obliged by your inserting Orthodox's letter in your next Number. Cornwall and Devon, for reasons well known, are the counties where reverend commoncouncilmen are more frequently to be met. My friend says, its ́immediate correction is demanded by the interests of his church. * Our correspondent will perceive that we have not shrunk from inserting his letter, as he seemed to think we might do. Had he been better acquainted with our pages, he would have known that we have not been sparing in our animadversions upon the abuses which may have arisen in our church, and particularly as respects the system of pluralities, translations, non-residence, &c. He will also find in our volumes various papers in which the propriety of uniting the clerical and magisterial offices is discussed; and assuredly if we allowed our correspondents to insert their reprehensions in this case, we should not have been so tender as the "Catholic priest" supposes us to be in the affair of "Reverend Mayors, beneficed Aldermen, and Common-Councilmen in Holy Orders." Our correspondent's animadversions on our supposed partiality, in not inserting the letter of "Orthodox" in our last Number, will cease when he is Sir, I live in a borough town and parish, in which I should think the population exceeds ten thousand souls. My wife, not having a family of her own at home, has, of course, much time at her disposal, a part of which she appropriates to visiting and relieving her poor and distressed' neighbours. In these delightful employments of true charity, she occasionally meets with characters the most wretched and depraved. My advice hitherto has been, when she has had to encounter with these children of Satan, "to call in the assistance of the clergyman." Bring your patients, I have often urged, if possible, to a due sense of religious principle; and then the relief which they will obtain, by a confession of the wickednesses of their past lives, will, in many instances, operate as a more sovereign remedy than the very best selected medicine. This conduct my wife has pursued with great success; and I trust she may be really said to have been humbly instrumental in turning many a sinner from the error of his way. We now, however, are put to a great strait. Our clergyman has become our mayor: and of course we find great hesitation as to calling in "This man of God devoted to the skies, Like ships at sea, while on, above the world;" as the very idea of his Reverence holding "the sword of justice" precludes every thing like the unburdening of the mind of the guilty sinner, by a full and unrestrained confession of his sins, which, by the rubric in our Service for the Visiting the Sick, the clergy are directed "to move him to do specially ;" and after which, his spiritual guide is to absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: "Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and be-' lieve in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; and by His authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." I must confess all this appears rather strange to come from the mouth of a mayor, who has told us at a public dinner, soon after his' election, that "he would be found always at his post." Here appear, at any rate, to be two posts—one spiritual, one temporal; and to be at both at one and the same time, seems, I must say, to me impossible! I have, sir, I assure you, thought a great deal as to the line of conduct I should recommend to be adopted under present circumstances. After reading over the Service for the Sick, I betook myself narrowly to inspect the Commission of the Justices of the Peace; and I find here that, without any exception, our Reverend Mayor is bound to keep, and cause to be kept, all the ordinances and statutes, &c.&c. &c. and to chastise and punish all persons that offend against these ordinances and statutes. I find also, on consulting "Burn's Justice," that a confession before a Justice of the told, in some "Cursory Observations on the Charters granted to the Inhabitants" of a borough, not one hundred miles from Exeter, where there are twenty-five CommonCouncilmen, self-elected, who elect the two Members to Parliament, that there are among them no less than five Reverend gentlemen; four of whom hold spiritual preferment, two in distant parishes, two in other dioceses, and one a curate in the diocese of Bristol, and that the above preferments were obtained through what is usually called corporation interests. I assure you, sir, I have heard it said, that such inconsisten-' cies do more mischief to our pure and reformed church," than all the wit of Hone, the blasphemy of Carlile, or the infidelity of Paine. I therefore shall feel obliged to any dignitary of our cathedral, or to any of the clergy of our metropolitan city (Exeter) or its neighbourhood: and if, with every respect, an anonymous writer may dare to make a personal allusion, I would more particularly appeal to the Reverend Peace may be given in evidence against the party confessing. Now, sir, it really does strike me, from these considerations, that a clergyman, officiating spiritually in a large borough town, and who at the same time acts as mayor of the said town, is, at any rate, holding offices which are incompatible, the result of which may, in some instances, be really too dreadful to contemplate. Are not our clergy separated and set apart from us worldly laymen, in order to attend the more closely to the service of Almighty God? Are they compelled to serve on a jury? Are they required to appear at a court leet, or view of frank pledge, which almost every other person may be obliged to do? Neither can they be chosen to any temporal office (says Blackstone), as bailiff, reeve, constable, or the like. And why not? Why, because it is in regard of their own continual attendance, on the sacred function., This is the pillar to which they, should ever cling the post they should never leave. The Bible is the charter they should ever be studying; and as to freedoms, their object should alone be, to bring into that glorious liberty by which Christ has made us free, as many as their zeal and piety (aided by Divine grace) can possibly effect. On this, account it is that they cannot sit in the House of Commons, cannot carry on trade, or commercial pursuits, &c. Then why be found amid the cabals and political interferences of a Court of Common Council? It cannot be because the elective, franchise in some boroughs is con; fined to a few self-elected corporate, officers It is a difficulty I cannot solve, and fearlessly will I designate it, in my opinion, an evil-a gross abuse an undisguised inconsistency, which calls aloud for the immediate attention of our diocesan, because in his lordship's diocese, this alarming junction of spiritual and secular employment is more, frequently to be met with than in any others. We have been lately * whose reading in ecclesiastical law, I have reason to believe, is both deep and soundfor I am told we have canons in dur church, which prohibit our clergy from using themselves, in the course of their lives, as laymen, and from exercising secular jurisdiction;tó render me their assistance towards obtaining a correction of the devil (for an evil I will venture to call it, having seen no less than four Epis copal Authorities for declaring it to be so), of Reverend Mayors, bened ficed Aldermen, and Common-Councilmen in Holy Orders! Did his Lordship, the good Bishop of London, ever hear of a beneficed Lord Mayor of London, a Reverend Alderman of Billingsgate, or a Gentleman in Holy Orders canvassing to be elected a Coffimon Councilman of Cripplegate ? Did his Lordship ever hear of a Deputy of Candlewick Ward being Rector of -, and Curate of 2235f at the same time? Then why should |