declares, that the worship of relics of the saints who live with Jesus Christ has always been approved by the Church, and authorized by the Lord. Therefore they are to be exposed, and new ones allowed after due examination by medical men and bishops. However, it is forbidden to make them sources of profit. There is, it is said, no divinity or actual virtue in images; but they are permitted, because they call Christ to memory, and the honour paid to the images belongs to Jesus and the saints. To sell relics, is simony; but pictures and cups may be sold. When the worship of a saint or relics is attended by miracles, people are allowed to assemble: this is called pilgrimage. We observe (en passant), that the badge of the pilgrim, the scallopshell, is the remains of the worhip of Venus Astarte, who rose from the sea in that shell! Heretics, being separated from the communion of the Church, according to Pope Innocent III., cannot be buried either in churches or cemeteries. But the National Convention (of the 12th Frimaire, an 2.) declares that no law authorizes burial to be refused to any person. A similar law and proviso extends to the excommunicated. Gregory allows prayers, the sacrifice of the mass, fastings, and alms for the dead who died in the communion of the Church. Vows are permitted; and one kind, vows of poverty, consist in the dedicated despoiling himself of every kind of property; in having nothing, acquiring nothing of his own; and in using all things which the community may furnish him with for food and clothing! See Eph. iv. 28; Rom. xii. 16, 17; 1 Tim. v. 8. So much for the mildest of all the Churches which have enlisted under the banners of the "Catholic" superstition. "Ex unâ disce omnes." We say nothing of Papacy after this: here we see what simple Romanism is, and that is sufficient not only to teach us how to believe, to trust, and to respect it; but also how to regard and reverence the memory of those good men who have delivered us and our fathers from the vanities and wickednesses of an intolerant priestcraft. Thanks be to God for such a deliverance; and never may an Englishman, who confesses to rest his hopes in the faith taught in the doctrines of our purified and apostolic Liturgy, ever think himself at liberty to despise, or to underrate, the blessings he enjoys in his emancipation from a thraldom such as that, which yet chains down the spirits of the freest of Romish communions! The notices which we have thus put together will, we hope, serve the purpose to which we alluded in our introductory observations. They will teach us how to credit the impudent assertions of those political charlatans, who boast of the changes and securities of a Church which is unchangeable in its object, and whose changes in conduct are only the Proteus-like variations of an anomalous monster. How can we trust them, whose principal doctrine is that no faith is to be held with heretics? Perhaps the preceding extracts may not justify quite so bold an assertion. We have before us, however, testimony from another quarter on this point, which cannot be denied; and although we have occupied almost too much room, we cannot dismiss the subject without admitting it in favour of our argument. With respect to refusal of burial to heretics and excommunicated persons, the Priests in France, and elsewhere, are instructed to demand from the friends of the deceased, satisfactory replies founded on the following articles, and commands of Tradition, and ecclesiastical law: 1. Those who are absent from mass two succeeding Sundays are nominally excommunicated. (Conc. Marc. 1337. 4. Trullo. 80.) 2. Those who do not communicate at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide, are excommunicated. (Agde. 506. 18.) 3. Ditto those who do not confess at Easter. (Con. Latran.) 4. Ditto those who eat meat in Lent. (Con. Valladolid. an 1322. 16.) 5. Ditto those who use art in curling their hair! (in Trullo. 692. 96.) 6. Fortune-tellers, consulters also, those who keep bears, and all kinds of such charlatans, are condemned to six years' penance. (Rome, 721.) 7. Those who paint the "Agnus Dei" of any other colours than those which they have by the whiteness of the wax of which they are made, are excommunicated. (Const. Greg. 13. 1572.) 8. He who says, that marriage is preferable to virginity or celibacy; and that it is not a better and more happy thing to remain in a state of virginity or celibacy than to marry; let him be anathematized! (Council of Trent, 24. Can. 10.) All these are denied Christian burial! There are other cases, such as duelling, less objectionable. The Council of Trent (25. Can. 19.) says, the detestable custom of duels, introduced by the artifice of the devil in order to profit by the loss of souls through the bloody death of their bodies, shall be entirely banished from all Christendom. Those who fight, and those who are called seconds (literally Godfathers, Gallicè Parrains), will suffer the penalty of excommunication, of confiscation of all their property, and of perpetual infamy. They will be punished as homicides, and if they die in the combat itself, they will always be deprived of ecclesiastical burial. The Gallican Church has, we know, very recently hurled its thunders against certain excommunicated persons, such as comedians; which the canons scarcely tolerate. Far be it from us to uphold what is wrong; but in a future day we will point out the inconsistencies in this respect of the conduct of the French Clergy, in examining a work which has been for some time lying unnoticed (i. e. critically) amongst a multitude of others, whose claims are more imperative. Having extended to such a length our present observations, we have now no inclination to trouble our readers with any memoranda on the financial affairs of the late Church of France, but this may be summed up in an early number in another way. We cannot, however, take our leave without noticing two curious passages in an authentic work,* published in 1827, at Brussels, which throw some light on the history of the Concordat of 1801, mentioned at page 579, and on the nature of the celibacy still imposed upon the French Clergy. Pius VI. died at Valentia, 29th August, 1799, during the govern * Mémoires Anecdotiques sur l'Intérieur du Palais et sur quelques Evènemens de l'Empire, depuis 1805 jusqu'au 1er Mai 1814, pour servir à l'Histoire de Napoleon, par L. F. I. Bausset, ancien Préfet du Palais Imperial: avec gravures et cent vingt facsimile. 2 tom. Bruxelles: H. Tarlier, Rue de la Montagne. 1827. ment of the Directory in France, which had hoped to have prevented a successor, by augmenting the army in Italy. In case of failure, the government had provided two or three candidates, with a view to upset the chance. But the revolution of 19th Brumaire, which took place on the 9th November, dissipated the ridiculous reveries of the theophilanthropy. Bausset says, he had heard Napoleon express himself distinctly on the point, saying, that his first care in attaining the consulate, should be to favour the election of Pius VII. who was accordingly elevated on the 9th March, 1806. A courier was shortly after sent to Rome, desiring M. de Cacault, the French ambassador, to demand his passports and quit Rome, because the Pope did not seem desirous of facilitating the views of France. The Romans took fright, and the Pope determined to agree in those views. M. de Cacault advised the Pope to send to Paris, Cardinal Gonsalvi, whose rank flattered Napoleon, and whose powers were unlimited. Thus the concordat was signed, and religion was re-established in France; and some years after, the Pope, from gratitude, was willing to consecrate and crown the Emperor. One day the Cardinal met M. de S as he was taking leave of Mde. de Brignolé. "Can you imagine," says Madame de Brignolé, "what the subject of my conversation with the Cardinal was? We were speaking of the marriage of the Priests." In fact, the Cardinal, overjoyed at the signature of the concordat, had said, if France demanded it, the Pope would concede the point, as it was only a point of discipline. M. de S hastened to tell the First Consul, who replied that he did not doubt that the proposition, if made, would be accepted, but that he abstained from giving the "faubourg St. Germain" opportunity of calling the Holy Father a heretic: he added, that he wished to have a Pope whose character was not weakened; a true, catholic, apostolic, Roman Pope. And this was not the first occasion the Emperor had of proving his respect for the wishes of good society (which he expressed, by the "faubourg Saint-Germain.") So much, for the present, of Gallican independence and inconsistency. an MONTHLY REGISTER. NEW-YORK. Bishop Hobart and Dr. Milnor. THE following speech of the Rev. Dr. Milnor, of this city, at the anniversary meeting of the "Prayer Book and Homily Society," in London, taken from an English paper, has appeared in several of the public prints: The Rev. Dr. Milnor, of New-York, who, after adverting to the benefit which would result from the present institution, observed, that in America it was proposed by one of the prelates of the American Episcopal Church, to make an alteration respecting the lessons which were used, by having a smaller portion read than at present; and this proposal was no less than three years before the Conference, and was discussed by those who had been sent to the Conference from the different states. Upon its coming on for a decision, he was gratified in saying that there was not a single person in favour of the proposed alteration of the venerable prelate who brought forward the measure; and he rejoiced in saying, that throughout America they now used the same Prayer-book and Homilies which were used by the Church of England, with the exception of some slight alterations that took place upon the declaration of independence in the United States. He certainly considered it was dangerous to touch and alter that which contained such sacred writings. Was not the Prayer-book deserving their most serious attention, especially as it had produced such an essential alteration in the opinions of the people, who formerly, and before they read the beautiful Homilies of the Episcopalian Church, looked upon it more like a Roman Catholic Missal? Since then mankind had become more candid in their inquiries, and they found that the Prayerbook contained what the Bible contains, all which was pure and sacred. He, moreover, felt proud in saying it was a work against the introduction of heresy; and in proof of his assertion he was prepared to say, that only one man had been able to introduce any thing like heresy into the United States, and that was in Boston, and he by some means did manage to convert his congregation from Christianity to Unitarianism; but it was a triumphant reply, when he stated that it was the only instance which had occurred in the United States. They, however, had learned that lesson from London. They had intercepted a correspondence from thence, in which the Unitarians here begged of those in America not to be too fast, lest by so doing they exposed themselves. The intercepted correspondence desired them to preach morality, and to keep the Redeemer out of their view; by so doing, the congregation would praise the beauty of their sermons; and not to let them appear practical, but to talk of the Saviour as a martyr, who came to teach a purer system of morality than the world before contained, and in defence of that system he had laid down his life. Thus they might go on until the congregation was prepared to reject the divinity of the Saviour, and strip Christianity of all that was spiritual and pure. This was the doctrine of those who rejected the Prayer-book and its Homilies; such their endeavours, though a more delightful service did not exist to carry their aspirations to the throne of mercy. In conclusion he would say, that if any circumstance existed to establish the Church of England upon an imperishable foundation, it was by preserving the Homilies and the Prayerbook. BISHOP HOBART'S LETTER TO DR. MILNOR. New-York, June 22, 1830. REV. AND DEAR SIR,-A Report of a speech which you delivered in the city of London, on the 5th of May last, at the meeting of the PrayerBook and Homily Society, has been published in several of our newspapers. In that speech, as reported, the following paragraph occurs : The Rev. Dr. Milnor, of New-York, who, after adverting to the benefit which would result from the present institution, observed, that in America it was proposed by one of the prelates of the American Episcopal Church to make an alteration respecting the lessons which were used, by having a smaller portion read than at present, and this proposal was no less than three years before the Conference, and was discussed by those who had been sent to the Conference from the different states. Upon its coming on for a decision, he was gratified in saying that there was not a single person in favour of the proposed alteration of the venerable prelate who brought forward the measure; and he rejoiced in saying, that throughout America they now used the same Prayer-book and Homilies which were used by the Church of England, with the exception of some slight alterations that took place upon the declaration of independence in the United States. He certainly considered it was dangerous to touch and alter that which contained such sacred writings. This paragraph, and indeed the entire speech, are calculated to produce the impression that "one of the prelates of the American Episcopal Church" (I am the individual meant) stood alone in a rash and presumptuous attempt to "touch and alter" the Liturgy; and that you, and the entire American bishops and clergy, actuated by a sincere and devoted reverence for this hallowed ritual, marshalled yourselves against this daring innovator, and saved this " delightful service" from the rude hand that would have marred its beauty. I am unwilling to believe that it was your deliberate design to produce these impressions; for they are not warranted by facts known to you. You and I, too, under all variety of circumstances, and under no very unimportant differences in matters of policy, and, I am afraid, of principle, have been friends from early life. recent departure for England, I took leave of you as a friend: and our mutual expressions of feeling on this occasion were, I am satisfied, perfectly sincere. I was not prepared, there On your fore, to find that, on one of your first public appearances in England, you held up your bishop and your friend in a light certainly not calculated to raise him in the good opinion of those whom you addressed. I have reason to thank God that I have never been much tempted to consider, in the determination of duty, what might or might not be popular; and the older I become, the more convinced am I that "it is a small matter to be judged of man's judgment." But I am not indifferent to that "good report" which, both from personal and official considerations, it is my duty to endeavour to preserve. My visit to England made me somewhat known there, and I am willing to think that I enjoy the good opinion of some distinguished individuals, whose friendship is as honourable as it is gratifying. A principal claim to that good opinion arises from the conviction of my consistent attachment to the Church, and especially its Liturgy. It is the tendency of your remarks to deprive me of this claim. I must be permitted to prove that they are not warranted by facts. In the Journal of the General Convention of our Church, of 1826, at page 76, is the following record on the proceedings of the House of Bishops: On motion of the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, resolved, that the House of Bishops propose the following preambles and resolutions to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies: The House of Bishops, deeply solicitous to preserve unimpaired the Liturgy of the Church, and yet desirous to remove the reasons alleged, from the supposed length of the service, for the omission of some of its parts, and particularly for the omission of that part of the communion office, which is commonly called the ante-communion, do UNANIMOUSLY propose to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, the following resolutions, to be submitted to the several state conventions, in order to be acted upon at the next General Convention, agreeably to the eighth article of the constitution. Then follow the resolutions. It appears from page 65 of the same journal, in the proceedings of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, that this house, thirty-nine ayes, nineteen noes, concurred in the resolutions of the House of Bishops. Thus then the propositions which I am represented by you as alone sustaining, were unanimously adopted by the House of Bishops, and by a very large majority of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the General Convention of 1826. It is true, the motion which introduced these propositions was made by me-but not until I had consulted all my brethren of the House of Bishops, several members of the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies, and others not members, and among them yourself, and received their and your appro bation of them. You observe that these "propositions were no less than three years before the Convention, and were discussed there; and on their coming to a decision, you are gratified in saying, that there was not a single person in favour of the proposed alteration of the venerable prelate" (meaning me). I am confident, that individuals not acquainted with the real state of the case, would suppose, from the above statement, that I was, after the lapse of three years, the advocate of the adoption of the proposed alterations, and in this sentiment stood alone. What is the fact? In the Journal of the General Convention of 1829, in the proceedings of the House of Bishops, page 79, is the following record :— On motion of the Right Rev. Bishop Hobart, seconded by the Right Rev. Bishop Brownell, resolved, that, under existing circumstances, it is not expedient to adopt the proposed resolutions relative to the Liturgy and Office of Confirmation, and they are therefore hereby dismissed from the consideration of the Convention. And the resolution was sent to the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies for concurrence. A message was afterwards received from that house, with information that they concurred in that resolution. Thus, then, there was, in fact, no "decision" on the abstract propriety of the proposed alterations. Under "existing circumstances," it was judged not expedient to adopt them, and they were dismissed from consideration, in consequence of a motion made by me to this effect. What circumstances led to this determination, and what reasons induced the measure of bringing forward these propositions, may be inferred from the following extract from |