censuring Toland's book, they observe, "that there had been several obstructions and stumbling blocks laid in the way" of their shewing their zeal; and we can readily understand how Queen Anne's Tory ministry might be more ready to co-operate with the heads of the church, than a monarch of foreign birth and prepossessions.

Passing over these subjects, we are here more especially concerned with the conduct of the lower house, in consequence of the first of the recommendations given by the queen to examine the state of religion. They first drew up a report, in which they attributed the growth of irreligion chiefly to the encouragement given in the former reign to men of latitudinarian principles; but, the upper house objecting to what seemed like personalities, especially in what had gone by, the matter dropped. Next, the lower house proceeded to censure Whiston, whose heretical opinions had made great talk at the time; and, upon this, the question of the judiciary power of convocation revived, which was stirred in the case of Toland's publication.

Whiston had been expelled the University of Cambridge for arianism, in October, 1710; and the lower house of convocation addressed the bishops, praying for their lordships' opinion how they might best proceed in relation to him. They received the request graciously, and referred it to the archbishop. Tenison, in consequence, addressed to them a circular, explanatory of the state of the case. He observed, that there were three ways in which a person could be proceeded against whose writings called for censure:-by means of convocation; by archbishop's court of audience, in which his suffragans were assessors with him; or, thirdly, by means of the bishop's court to whose diocese the accused party belonged, on report of convocation. He considered the first method to be attended by serious difficulties: first, because the convocation was a court of final resort, which would interfere with an act of Elizabeth, vesting all ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the crown; next, because there had been no such proceeding for the last one hundred years, during which time an act had passed abolishing the high commission and all like courts hereafter; thirdly, because, in the statute annulling the writ "de hæretico comburendo,” in Charles the Second's time, all established courts, and therefore that of convocation, were made to give way to episcopal jurisdiction; lastly, because the upper house, in 1689, had been advised by counsel to leave such matters to other courts. He ended by recommending an address to her majesty, praying her to refer the matter to the judges. This was done, and the judges were divided in opinion. Eight were in favour of the jurisdiction of the convocation in such matters as by the laws of the realm were declared to be heresy, on the ground that an appeal to the crown from all ecclesiastical courts was implied in the royal supremacy, whether expressly provided for in particular statute or not; so that the convocation might exercise its ancient and constitutional powers without incurring a breach of the act of Elizabeth. The other four judges considered that such judgments lay within the ordinary episcopal jurisdiction, and concurred in the apprehensions Tenison had expressed in his letter; however, they allowed that heretical tenets and opinions might be examined and condemned

in convocation, without convening the authors or maintainers of them. Such a public judgment was accordingly passed in convocation upon Whiston's work, and all Christian people were warned against it; it being thought prudent, in spite of the queen's encouragement to them to proceed judicially, to abstain from further measures.

In 1714, another lamentable occasion occurred for the lower house to exert itself in maintenance of the orthodox faith. Dr. Samuel Clarke having published his "Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity," a work especially adapted to harass and confuse sensitive minds, they presented an address to the bishops, praying them to take the matter into consideration; to which they added, at the bishops' request, a list of objectionable passages in the work, arranged under distinct heads. The upper house were unwilling to move in the matter, and professed themselves satisfied with a so-called submission, which Dr. Clarke was prevailed on (chiefly, it is said, by Smalridge,) to offer, in which, without retracting any position he had published, he shut up his sentiments in an ambiguous form of words, and proposed to keep silence for the future. The most natural submission would have been a subscription of the articles before the convocation; but Bishop Burnet had at that time great influence in the upper house, and I have been told by a very learned person (though he did not refer to his authority), that such was Burnet's relative regard for the church and his Whig friends, that he wrote to dissuade Archdeacon Welchman from answering Clarke, on the ground of the embarrassment which such a procedure would occasion to protestant politics. This agrees with what we know of the conduct of the Government in the matter, before the publication of the offensive work; when Godolphin and others of the queen's ministers sent Clarke a message, importing, "that the affairs of the public were with difficulty then kept in the hands of those who were at all for liberty; that it was, therefore, an unseasonable time for the publication of a book which would make a great noise and disturbance; and that, therefore, they desired him to forbear till a fitter opportunity should offer itself." Four years after the introduction of his name into the convocation, he ventured on altering the Doxologies in the Psalm Books used for singing in St. James's parish, which brought upon him the animadversion of the Bishop of London.

In 1714, George the First succeeded to the throne, and the final suspension of the convocation soon followed. George began his reign with an address to the archbishops and bishops on the subject of the "great differences" which had arisen "among some of the clergy of the realm, about their ways of expressing themselves in their sermons and writings concerning the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity," and of the "unusual liberties which had been taken by several of the said clergy in intermeddling with the affairs of state and government, and the constitution of the realm;" and, accordingly, forbad them preaching either heterodoxy or politics, except "in defence of the regal supremacy." The next year the convocation was opened with a license to debate, being the third assembly which had been so favoured. This license was the result of a more liberal and enlarged policy

towards the church than Burnet and his friends had advised previous to 1710. The subjects for consideration were (in addition to some of those already specified in former licenses) the preparing a form for consecrating churches and chapels, the better settling the qualifications of candidates for orders, the enforcing discipline on the clergy, the providing more effectually for curates whose incumbents were non-residents, and the improving the catechetical instruction given prior to confirmation. But the career of the convocation was close on its termination. It soon came into collision with the ruling powers, on the subject of Hoadley's doctrines, and though truth was on the side of the clergy, the interest of the government was against them, and it was easy to see which way the contest would terminate. As early as 1705, the lower house had ventured to attack a sermon of Hoadley's, as "containing positions contrary to the doctrine of the church, expressed in the first and second parts of the homily against disobedience or wilful rebellion;" but the upper house suffered the matter to drop. In 1715-16, Hoadley was made Bishop of Bangor; and, in the course of the following year, published his "Preservative" and Sermon, which gave rise to the famous Bangorian controversy. These writings were at once brought before the lower house of convocation, who made a representation of them to the bishops, on the grounds of their "tendency, first, to subvert all government and discipline in the church of Christ;" next, "to impugn and impeach the authority of the legislature to enforce obedience in matters of religion by civil sanctions." Before this representation could be taken into consideration by the upper house, a special order came from the king for the prorogation of the convocation; from which time to this, it has only existed as a formal appendage to the first meetings of parliament.

(To be continued.)

IRISH CLERGY.

SIR,-The extreme importance, at the present crisis, of diffusing accurate information respecting the circumstances and property of the protestant church established in Ireland, induces me to hope that you will allow me to call the attention of your readers to a few considerations with reference to that subject.

Every body knows how frequently the ministers of that church. have been assailed with the imputation, that they are supported and maintained by the Roman catholics; and it was but a few weeks ago that Mr. O'Connell, the man who has taken his oath that he would never use his influence, as a member of parliament, to weaken or disturb the protestant establishment-asserted, in a public letter, in words of no dubious import, "that every denomination of Christians ought to support their own spiritual instruction, or (taken negatively) that no one Christian should be compelled to maintain the spiritual guide of another." Now, sir, every one who is at all adequately informed VOL. VII.-Jan. 1835.

G

respecting the peculiar nature of the revenues of the established clergy, (and I should think no one can be better informed on such a topic than Mr. O'C. himself,) knows perfectly well, that what he has here advanced cannot, by possibility, apply to them. Tithes are not (as this astute person would have the people regard them) a tax or assessment which has been recently imposed by authority of the legislation, and which might possibly, therefore, involve some degree of hardship to those on whom the payment of it has unexpectedly fallen. They constitute, in their very nature, a distinct species of property-they have existed, both in England and Ireland, from the earliest times they rest upon an older title, a more ancient prescription, than a very large proportion of the landed property of the country -they are permanently and indefensibly attached to it, (so far at least as any species of property is indefensible,) as the inseparable condition of its tenure. I do not deny that the state might, in the exercise of its plenary powers-in the indulgence of extreme folly, and of a senseless passion for confiscation, lay violent hands upon tithes; but, as Lord Plunkett, and many other lawyers of still greater eminence and of still higher authority, have justly observed, "private property stands in the same predicament." If church property may be seized for the exigencies of the state, so also may that of individuals. True, indeed, it is, (and Mr. O'Connell makes the most of this fact,) that, although originally a burthen upon landed property, tithes are now actually paid by the occupants of land, whether proprietors or not, and that without regard being had to the religious sect or denomination to which they may happen to belong. But, without pausing to remark that the case is similar with respect to all other descriptions of property, let me inquire, how has the payment of tithes happened to devolve upon these occupants? Simply by virtue of an agreement or contract, to which they themselves have been parties. There is not a single individual in Ireland who brings his 2d., or 4d., or 9d., as tithecomposition, who has not virtually assented to do so. If he be cultivating his own land, he received it, whether by bequest, or inheritance, or purchase, subject to this burthen. If he be holding under a landlord, it was part of the contract which he made with that landlord, that he should discharge the claim of the tithe-owner. In either case, then, (and I am not aware that any other case can exist,) injustice and hardship are out of the question-there is, there can be none in compelling a man to fulfil his own engagement-to pay that which he voluntarily stipulated that he would pay.

It is quite obvious to every one who has paid any attention to this subject, that tithes are virtually a burthen attached, not to the occupation of land, but to the property in it. Now, it follows from this, that, if Mr. O'Connell's principle were a sound one (which I only suppose for the sake of argument), i. e., if it were right and imperative that the tithe-payers should be of the same religious persuasion with the tithereceivers, the state-provision should be assigned to the support and maintenance of the religion which is professed, not by the occupants, but by the proprietors of land, they being the party upon whom the payment virtually falls.

In order to satisfy your readers what is the religion professed by the vast majority of the proprietors of Ireland, and what is the amount contributed towards the support of the national church by the different religious denominations, I beg to subjoin the following table, which was presented by the Rev. Dr. Martin, at the meeting of the Protestant Conservative Society at Dublin, on Tuesday last, the 11th instant. It exhibits the returns made from 241 parishes, which are all that had then been received.

With what truth

I feel that this table needs no further comment. can it be asserted that the Roman catholics pay or maintain the established clergy? I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A. B. C.

THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY TRULY A PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK.

MY DEAR

I must trespass upon your pages to vindicate myself from the imputation of making a false reference, which I imagine to be intended by the last note to "E. B.'s" letter, in the December number, which is as follows-"I see, on referring to "A. P. P.'s" concluding passage, he quotes Bishop Patrick in his support. As regards Melchisedek's offering, he is pointedly against him." In reply, I would observe that my reference to Patrick was for the same purpose as that for which I referred to all the rest-namely, simply, to use my own words, "Confirmations of the doctrine of the Christian sacrifice in the Eucharist, and to shew how uniformly they designate it as the pure offering, or unbloody sacrifice, and not as a sacrament only. That I am warranted in this reference to Patrick, "E. B." will find, by consulting his work entitled, "The Christian Sacrifice," in which, while proving that the holy eucharist is not a feast only, but a feast upon a sacrifice, he cites (p. 50, of the edition 1687,) the passage in the Hebrews, "We have an altar (i. e., he says, a sacrifice,) whereof they had no right to eat that served the tabernacle;" and specifying more particularly the act of priesthood performed by the offering of the material elements upon God's altar-he speaks thus-" It is certain that it was not common bread and wine which the ancient Christians prayed might become the body and blood of Christ to them, but bread and wine first sanctified by being offered to God with thanksgiving, and presented to him with due acknowledgments that he was Lord and giver of all things. This, he says, "is to be understood (why is it not expressed?) when