There was small repentance, save in show, on the part of the guilty King; but when the Scots attacked him in the North, and his son and heir, with many of his chief barons, rose against him .in Normandy, barefooted and as a poor pilgrim he made a penitential visit to the Martyr's tomb, and there, baring his shoulders, allowed himself to be scourged by the prelates and monks, and spent the night in prayer at the shrine, not suffering a carpet to be spread for him, nor his mudstained and bleeding feet to be washed. Next morning he left, bearing with him a little leaden phial, the badge of the Canterbury pilgrim, containing water which had been mixed with the Saint's blood. The continuous stream of pilgrims which made a track across the Kentish downs never failed till the faith was eclipsed in this land of ours.

Four places in the Cathedral of Canterbury were the stations of the pious pilgrim. There was the altar “at the point of the sword," built on the spot where St. Thomas received his death wound. Then there was his tomb in the crypt, the scene of so many miracles and of the penance of the King, where for fifty years his remains had rested, and where precious relics of the Saint were preserved. The chapel, so well known as Becket's crown, where in a costly reliquary reposed the portion of the Saint's skull, severed at the martyrdom, was the third station. The shrine itself, behind the high altar, dazzling with the light of precious stones, was the fourth. Another Henry spoiled the shrine, and then condemned our Saint in a mock trial for contumacy, treason, and rebellion, and by the sentence of the court his bones were burnt and scattered to the wind. Exoriatur ex ossibus ultor? May God in His loving revenge give back to England the faith of St. Thomas!

Was Barlow a Bishop?

BY MR. SERJEANT BELLASIS:

Being

Letters from an Anglican, since become a
Catholic.

NOTE.

[The Dictionary of National Biography (vol. iv. p. 181), gives the following note as to the letters now here published for the first time in a separate form: "Mr. Serjeant Bellasis, while yet an Anglican, had, in 1847, written four letters on the question of Bishop Barlow's consecration, which, a few years afterwards, were published in a newspaper. A reprint of them, authorised by Bellasis, appeared in 1872 under the title 'Anglican Orders, by an Anglican, since become a Catholic,' 8vo, pp. 15." As a matter of fact there were only a few printer's sheets in existence during the Serjeant's lifetime, the reprint in question, for private circulation only, being undertaken some time after his death. The late Lord O'Hagan characterized the letters as being of "great historic interest," and they were known to the late Canon Estcourt, who alludes to their author in the preface to his work on Anglican Orders. Fr. Gallwey, S.J., had also access to them, but they were not very general, owing to the scarcity of the copies.-E. B.]

I.

My dear

LONDON, April 1, 1847.

-The objections made by Roman Catholics to the validity of English Ordinations are threefold:-1st. That Archbishop Parker, from whom they are all derived, was never consecrated at all. 2nd. That the person who consecrated him (if he was consecrated) was not himself a consecrated Bishop. 3rd. That the form used was not such as to convey episcopal authority.

But they admit that if he was consecrated by a person who had himself been duly consecrated, and if a valid form was used, he was by such consecration a true Bishop, notwithstanding what they conceive to be the schism of the Anglican Church-that is, they believe that we Anglicans have preserved the Apostolical Succession in that case, although our Orders are irregular and schismatical.

The first charge is, that the records of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, which are at Lambeth Palace, are not genuine documents, but forgeries. These documents I saw yesterday, and my opinion is that they are genuine documents, although there certainly were grounds for suspicion, especially this-that when, at the time, the Catholics objected to Archbishop Parker that he had not been duly consecrated, he did not reply by producing the register of his consecration, which would have put the fact beyond dispute, but applied for and obtained an Act of Parliament to remedy any defects there might have been therein; and the register itself was not produced or specifically alluded to for more than fifty years after, and not until every one named in it was dead. However, notwithstanding this, I take it for granted that the register which I saw is true, and that Archbishop Parker underwent a form of consecration: it only remains, therefore, to make out that the person who consecrated him was himself a Bishop, and that he used a valid form.

On the accession of Queen Elizabeth there were fourteen Bishops in England. These, of course, were Catholic Bishops, and not one of them could be found who would consecrate the intended Archbishop. They were all deprived of their sees but one, and he refused to do it. This made it necessary to look about for some of the Bishops who had resigned or been deprived at the beginning of the reign of Mary, and the register at Lambeth states that Parker was consecrated by Bishop Barlow (who was Bishop of Bath and Wells at the accession of Mary, and who had resigned his see), assisted by Coverdale, Scory, and Hodgkins, three other deprived Bishops; and the question is, whether Barlow

had ever himself been consecrated. I found, on reading both sides of the question, that what one stated as a fact the other denied, and so I determined to sift this question thoroughly, by reference to the actual documents, for myself; and I will now tell you honestly how the case stands.

I should tell you, imprimis, that at all consecrations one Bishop is called the consecrating Bishop, and the others are called the assistants. Now, the register at Lambeth states that Barlow was the consecrating Bishop, assisted by the others; and this it is which makes Barlow's own consecration so important, because all our present Bishops have been consecrated by persons who primarily trace back their succession through Parker, and consequently through Barlow.

Bishop Barlow's history is this, that he was consecrated Bishop of St. Asaph in 1536; that subsequently to his consecration he was translated in the same year to St. David's; that in 1548 he was again translated to Bath and Wells, which he resigned on the accession of Queen Mary; that he went abroad, and returned on the accession of Elizabeth, and then consecrated Parker. The question is, was he (Barlow) ever consecrated? as it is not doubted that he did occupy all the above sees in succession.

First, it appears from Rymer that he was elected Bishop of St. Asaph in January 1535-6, and the mandate for his consecration is dated February 2nd, 1536; but although Cranmer's Register at Lambeth is very minute and perfect in recording all the consecrations of Bishops in his province during his Archiepiscopate, there is no record of the consecration of Barlow, which of itself throws a doubt upon it. All the other documents are there his election, confirmation, &c., &c.; but where in other cases the account of the consecration follows, in his case it is omitted.

But this might have been an accidental omission : let us see, then, what the circumstances were as to his being made Bishop of St. Asaph.

The mandate to Cranmer to consecrate him Bishop

of St. Asaph is dated Feb. 2nd, 1536; on the 18th Feb. the Bishop of St. David's died, and to his Bishopric of St. David's Barlow was transferred, and the question is, Was he consecrated before he was transferred? I have seen the congé d'élire or licence to the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph to elect another Bishop in the room of Barlow. Now, these licences to elect always specify the cause of the vacancy; it is always, if the previous Bishop is dead,." vacante per mortem naturalem ultimi Episcopi ; " if he is translated to another see, it is "per translationem ultimi Episcopi;" if he has been deprived "per deprivationem ultimi Episcopi." Also a Bishop who has been elected and not consecrated is always, in all formal documents, called "Bishop elect" only. Now, in the congé d'élire to the Dean and Chapter of St. Asaph to elect a Bishop in the room of Barlow, he (Barlow) is called "Bishop elect," and the cause of the vacany is said to be his exchange. The words are "vacante per liberam Wilhelmi Barlow ultimi Episcopi electi," and he is so described throughout the whole of the formal documents relating to the election of his successor.

transmutationem

There is no other instance in which a translation is described by any other word than "translationem," nor in which a consecrated Bishop to any see is called a "Bishop elect." The conclusion is, therefore, I think, not an improbable one, that in consequence of the Bishopric of St. David's falling vacant when Barlow was about to be consecrated to St. Asaph, the consecration did not take place; but the "Bishop elect" of St. Asaph-viz., Barlow-was "exchanged to St. David's."

It is also important to remark that the documents contained in the same register of Cranmer relating to the election of Barlow's successor at St. Asaph's (Robert Wharton) conclude with the usual register of his consecration.

Another reason why it is likely that Barlow was not consecrated for St. Asaph is, that it appears by Strype's Memorials, vol. i., pt. 1, p. 347, that Thomas Holcroft and Wm. Barlow, Bishop elect of St. Asaph, were sent