my argument being entirely against the competency of Parliament alone to enact it. But one observation appears to be worth making, viz., that it is a mark of great inadvertence as to the office of a Christian bishop, if any one has talked of the fewness of the Irish churchmen, and has thence inferred that a few bishops will be sufficient for them. In the first place, it is not as if those few churchmen were by themselves in an island of their own. Surrounded as they are by temptations to apostacy, they need unusual vigilance on the part of their pastors. Besides, we are not to leave it out of sight, that bishops have duties to perform to the aliens and unconverted also, who come locally within their sphere; they are 'Arboroot as well as 'Emirkomou, and their missionary office is not extinct, though now, in general, less frequently called into exertion than that which is more strictly pastoral-of which change in the primitive ages the change of their title might, perhaps, be an indication. It is, therefore, very conceivable, that even with fewer Protestants in Ireland, more, rather than fewer, bishops might be wanted.

But to proceed. Thus much appears to be made out, that the church, either in whole or in part, has a right, granted or inherent, to be consulted concerning laws made for her in spirituals, and that the division and arrangement of her dioceses is a spiritual concern of great moment. Only one point remains: Has she been,-will she be,consulted in this instance?

If, according to the ancient customs of Ireland, as of other Christian realms, it is intended to call a Synod of the Church, and submit the desired arrangement to her, as our Act of Uniformity was submitted to our Convocation in the 14th of Charles the Second, then, whatever difficulties and embarrassments of other kinds may accompany such a proceeding (of which the writer pretends not to judge), at any rate there will be this advantage, that the rights of the church, in matter of legislation, will be uninvaded. But if no such step is taken, if not even the Prelacy of Ireland are to be allowed a distinct voice on a matter of such extreme consequence, it becomes a very grave question how far an ecclesiastical law, made partly by aliens, and entirely by the state, is binding on the consciences of churchmen, and what should be their course of proceeding, as they come, respectively, under the operation of that law.

But of this more will be said presently. There is another part of the scheme which seems no less strange and unaccountable, proceeding as it does from men of "liberal" principles, than the Parliamentary suppression of dioceses, proceeding from sound and sincere churchmen. I speak of the tax to be imposed, not on the tithe-holders generally(there would be more show of justice in that)—but on the bishops and pastors of Ireland; from the primate to the vicar who has just 2002. a year, they are all, it seems, to pay by a graduated scale (but the lowest, I believe, five per cent.) to augment the benefices of those who have less than 2007.

I say nothing of the precedent here established, of its applicability to lay property, of the invidious and arbitrary distinction drawn between two classes of clergymen, not really distinguished from each other, or

wishing to be so, nor of a thousand other topics which occur at once; but one observation I must make, in the hope that it may be gratifying to persons of "enlarged views," if any such honour these lines with a perusal. The argument just now produced concerning the rights of church synods was, it must be owned, rather obsolete; but there is another kind of right, which, in lay matters, is held to be a good one; indeed, there is hardly a reader of the newspapers who is not, by this time, perfect in it, I mean "the indefeasible right of freemen" not to be taxed but by their own representatives. There is no rule, however, without an exception, and it seems that the exception in this case is to be supplied by the Irish clergy, who are, at present, every one knows, so thoroughly overgorged with wealth, that they may be taxed, and not feel the difference.

And so ingeniously is the measure contrived as to present, bound up, as it were with this, an exception to another favourite principleviz., respect to vested rights. Of late, it has been the fashion to talk gently of them, at the expense of the poor corporate rights, which no one can ever abuse enough, but no such delicacy is felt here; though some people might have imagined that, considering the habits of clergymen in general, and, in particular, the condition of the Irish benefices just now, they ought to be rather sparingly touched.

All these things are a little amazing, and one can hardly prevent the thought from crossing one's mind, that vested rights appear, to lose their respectability just so far as their owners cease to have the power of interfering with effect to check the spoliation of corporate rights.

But this, by the way. The point now to be explained, if it can be, is, who are the representatives of the clergy of Ireland, to whom, according to the "Rights of Man," such a bill of taxation as this direct taxation upon definite individuals will, of course, be presented for ap proval? Who are they? where do they sit? what is their style and title? what their commission? and how are they to make any protest of theirs available, should they happen to dissent from what is demanded of them? I want plain answers to these, which I am sure are plain questions.

I want them the more, because, in this case, we are not only to be taxed by strangers to our body, but also by persons who, for aught we can tell, may be, a majority of them, conscientiously our enemies, and in point of fact we know too well that many of them are so in all bitterness. What would a Liverpool merchant think, if the Chamber of Commerce at Bristol were allowed to fix the rate of dues payable by Liverpool vessels on entering their own harbour? The case would be still stronger if the dues so levied were to be afterwards applied as a bounty to encourage the trade of the rival place. The application is obvious.

How would it be taken by the trustees of a dissenting college, if the fellows of Eton or Winchester interfered to appropriate their funds, and regulate their discipline? Would that be a violation of the rights of man, or no? If it would, how can the project of Church Reform in Ireland be exempted from the like charge, even upon the merest prinçiples of modern, worldly, republican politics?

We are not, I hope, so far gone yet that the mere profaneness of the intrusion will reconcile men's minds to its daring illegality, that the insult to the constitution will be pardoned because it is an insult to the church also. But when rumours are abroad of "deafening cheers" in the legislature of England, at the very first hint of extinguishing bishoprics, a sincere churchman may well be permitted to ask one calm and serious question. Waving all dispute about the necessity of episcopal government, and assuming only so much as this that the prelates of the Reformed Church in Ireland have but a fair and probable claim to be counted among pastors commissioned by our Saviour; what can be said or thought of an assembly (if indeed there be any such) of whose tone and temper that riotous exultation may be considered a fair specimen ? or, of the nation fairly represented (if such be the case) in that assembly? Many would have expected, I think not unreasonably, that if, in course of deliberation and inquiry mature deliberation, grave inquiry-such an enactment were found indispensable, even then it might have called forth some slight expression of regret, something to shew that rude intrusion, especially on interests owned to be sacred, was not acceptable for its own sake. To some it might have occurred here is one of the topics which high authority has recently told us ought to be "approached with awe.' "These would have been surely no unnatural expectations; how have they been answered (if we may believe report) son the part either of the admiring audience, or of those who, to be consistent, ought at least to have proposed such schemes with reluctance, and to have discouraged all clamourous unreflecting approbation of them.

These, which many pass off as trifles, are the unequivocal symptoms of our condition as a people, and make the hearts of true patriots sink within them more sadly than substantive measures even of the most dangerous import. For such, some plausible excuse may almost always be made out, enough to give room for hope that their supporters may not mean mischief; but these unpremeditated effusions of irreverence admit of one interpretation only.

The precedent of the Reformation will of course be pleaded, both for the Parliamentary arrangement of dioceses, and for the partial spoliation of church property.

But, first (since stale sophisms may be fairly met by truisms equally stale), if either of these things were essentially wrong, it is not changed into right, by having been, once in the history of the church, connected with a good and necessary work.

Secondly, the alterations in King Henry's time were made, at least formally, by assent of the clergy, either in detail, as each was adopted,† or in a general and prospective way, by the prerogative granted to him individually, in the well-known Submission of 1530-31. And, even

41 Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, Feb. 7th, in answer to Lord King. As the act against Annates (Str. 1 Mem. ii. 158); the Injunctions of 1536 Burnet, i, 409, 444. Oxf. 1816); the Necessary Doctrine, &c. (Str. 1 Mem, i. 583); the act act for the Six Articles (ibid. 542). For the six new bishopricks the King had obtained a bull from Rome before the separation (Burn. i. 222). Stral Mem. i. 199.

VOL. III.-March, 1833.

3 A

in the following reign, though it is not to be denied that many liberties were taken, yet the frequent appeals to Convocation on the part of the reforming governments* indicate an uneasy consciousness of somewhat defective in their ecclesiastical authority, as long as they wanted the sanction of that body.

The reign of Elizabeth abounded in injunctions and orders of council on matters of religion; but no encroachment took place, that I know of, in the shape of permanent legislation, except the passing of the Act of Uniformity, without any assent from convocation, or even from the lords spiritual in parliament. The Queen, on all subsequent occasions, expressed the most decided aversion to lay meddlers with ecclesiastical legislation; but permitted, and, through her archbishops, encouraged, the labours of convocations in framing articles and canons; thus giving unquestionable proof, that the omission of the church, in her first act, was no part of her voluntary policy, but was forced on her by the necessity of the case. It was an unintended wrong, amply redressed, when the same law was revived at the Restoration. Indeed I do not see how the warmest supporter of church authority could desire a better model or specimen of the legitimate union of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, than is to be found in the preamble of that second Act, as it stands at the beginning of the large prayer books. It forms a perfect practical commentary on a memorable passage of Hooker, which his "liberal" admirers would do well to bear in mind, now that they are engaged in church reform: "The parliament of England, together with the convocation annexed thereunto, is that whereupon the very essence of all government within this kingdom doth depend; it consisteth of the King, and of all that within the land are subject unto him."+ Hooker then considered, that for some instances of government, the convocation was an essential adjunct to the parliament, i. e. of course, in matters merely spiritual, and in mixed matters, so far as they are spiritual. Not that parliament might be excluded from either, as his adversaries in this argument, the Romanists, maintained; its assent was necessary, as the lay part of the church, to give her canons the force of law; just as the clergy, being part of the state, might fairly claim a voice in deliberations purely temporal, and have always been allowed it in the old constitutions of Europe.

The theory of what was our constitution in this respect, may perhaps be shortly summed up as follows:

Human affairs are, some spiritual, some temporal, some mixed. The

For the Reform of the Liturgy (Burnet, ii. 92); for the Lord's Supper in both kinds, and the Marriage of Priests (Id. ibid.); for Articles of Religion (362); for the adoption of Reform in the Irish Church (Phenix, i. 129); and, in general, Strype avers and confirms it by a quotation from Archbishop Abbot, that "the consideration and preparation of this Book of Common Prayer, together with other matters in religion, was committed first of all to divers learned divines; -- and what they had concluded upon was offered the Convocation. And after all this, the Parliament approved it, and gave it its ratification." (2 Mem. i. 137.) That this was the light in which the Reformers themselves wished their proceedings to be viewed, appears especially by a royal letter to Bishop Thirlby, July 1549 (Ap. Str. 2 Mem i. 329).

E. P. viii. b. iii. 342.

church alone should take cognizance of the first, the state alone of the second, both together of the third. Now, the whole church, consisting of clergy and laity, preponderating respectively in convocation and in parliament; it is clear, that whenever both these concurred in enactments wholly or partly spiritual, no conceivable human sanction could be wanting to that law. There was no need of nicely distinguishing how much of the mixed matter might be properly called temporal, how much spiritual. The whole had agreed to it, and "there was an end."

Our ancestors, in the days of Papal usurpation, had cause to regret that they had deviated from this straight and simple line, by excluding the laity from any voice in the church. We have had some experience, and are likely soon to have more, regarding the result of the opposite deviation. Our parliaments, as such, have ceased to belong to the church, yet claim the right of making laws ecclesiastical; and the clerical portion of the church, having trusted too much to her laity in parliament, has no longer a veto on those laws. This is sad confusion in theory, and the only chance of its turning out tolerable in practice, would have been for the legislators to be sincerely imbued with reverence and anxiety for men's spiritual interests; reverence strong enough to hinder them from laying rude hands on the church, while they were yet in deep ignorance of her real, inherent, indefeasible rights.

2. It cannot, of course, be any wonder, that they should be even more ignorant of her duties. It never seems to have occurred to them, that she is pledged to suffer, rather than compromise; to walk by faith, not by sight; by the ordinances of God, not by the calculations of men.

For instance, it is conceivable that the same authority which considers itself competent to these changes, may also pretend, some day, to impose a new and improved Liturgy on the pastors of England and Ireland; upon us, who are sworn to the Church of God, to use none but what she has prescribed. I wish to speak out my firm conviction, that it would be the duty of a clergyman, in such a case, not to suffer the book in his church, but, having sought out the most effectual way of protesting against the illegal intrusion, patiently to take what might follow.

Again, it seems a questionable point, what should be the conduct of those churchmen whose official duties connect them with sees, suppressed or enlarged in an uncanonical way. How, it may be asked, are suffragan bishops, under metropolitans, now to be degraded,-how are they to dispose of the pledges which they respectively gave, at consecration, "professing and promising due reverence and obedience," each to his archbishop and metropolitical church, and that not only for the time being, but expressly to their successors also? Will none of that holy order feel scruples in entering on another diocese, under authority which the church never sanctioned? Will every presbyter account himself absolved from his oath of obedience, taken at the institution, to the very see in which he is beneficed? Will not some say, the same authority which lawfully imposed this engagement on us at first, must be our warrant ere we can venture to transfer our canonical obedience elsewhere? One would not wish to speak too positively, or to entangle any man with scruples invidiously raised; but surely these are grave