To The Editor Of The Time...
Sir,-T am rather surprised ata remark in youir leadihg article of to-day, wherein you seenm not to be aware that the Catholic church has never adamitted the validity of the Enelishl Protestant orders, but considers the highest ministeramnong them as a metc layman, and consequently always re-ordains any one of them whot may be c ni- verted to her fixith, and wLslh to aseumc thc clerical character. With- out wishing to offer you the least offence, (although I am sorry to say you are not so tenacious yourself in your care not to ofr'end others,} I will endeavour to give you the reason wvhy she does not admit their validity. It is an historical fact, that not one of the Cathollc Bishops who were deprived of their sees by Queen Elizabethl would oni any accouwt consecrate any of those persons who were appointed to fi?l thiem, although all mnanincr of threats and persuasions were used tor that purposc. The conse- quence w?as, that several of them met at the Nag's Head Tavern, in Gracechurch .street, and absolutely pretended to consecrate one an- other, bv laving the Bible on each other's head. When Horn, the Protestant Bishop of sWinchester (as he pretended to be), tendered the oath of supremacy to Bonner, the deposed Bishop ot' London, then a prisiner in the Marshalsea, the latter objected to its being tendered by the former, as he *ens no Bishop. On an attempt being iadc to enforce the penaltv attached to such refusal, Bonner ap- pealed to the Judges, who aecided that the penaltv sought could not be yecovered-Horn being in reality not a bishop; and therefore not capable of tendering the oath to one who was a bishop. Finding themselves placed in this awkward dilemma, the Protestant bishops applied to Parlianenit, and an act was absolutely passed to enable them to hold their sees, and to supply by legislative authority what- ever drficiency might have attentled their being not canonically con. secrated: they were alwavs afterwarls known by thje name of Parliamentary Bishops. No reply was ever attempted to be made to the nuincrous Catholic authors who wrote on the rub. ject till many years afterwards, wfhen it was pretended that the name of Matthew Parker. the first Protestant Arcll- bishop oif Canterbury, waa to be found in the Lambeth Register; but which was immediately pronounced a forgery bv all persons ex- ept those who were interested in the fabrication: for. besides the absurdity of the idea that such document would not have been pro. duced at the timre, if it had really existed, tbe register'did not even pretend to describe those persans to be Bislhops by'wltom Parker had been consecrated-a circurmstance. always particularly mentionee in suchi records I need not inform you, Sir, that if the first Protestant Bishops bad no apostolical orders, thosc who derive their. succession front them cannot possibly possess any, however regular the form of ordination rnay be at the present day. *Vere .1 dlsposed to indulge in ridicule or invective, what a field does the above statemnent lay open to my view; but Christian charity forbids anysuch weapons to be used by tboge who are only engaged in attempting to propagate thc truth amongotherx who a-e unftrtunately separated fromi the fountain head of unity and truth. Let nne entreat y u, then, to defend your religion by some more justifiable means than bv endeavouring to ridicule, sneer at, and insult the creed of your neighbour; and after having done so,to shut youraelf up in your impregnable fortre.s, and to take cae~-t?'t no answer whatever tb your calumny shall be saffered to I nm. Si v-r bedient servant. A CATHOLIC. Nov. 23. TO THE ?,OITOR OF T3HE TI.UES.