ciently strong for disturbing the general harmony.

Of the other danger, which might arise from the schemes of exclusive sectaries, we can also discover sufficient prognostics in the published report of this meeting of reformers. It is accordingly observable that, though the petitions, to be addressed to the King, and to both houses of Parliament, related only to a single object, that of a different distribution of the revenues of the church, yet seven resolutions were adopted by the meeting, and speeches were addressed to it, as explanatory of the views of the noble Earl and his friends, which had no direct reference to it, but plainly pointed to another and distinct purpose. In this view I might mention the general crimination of a large portion of the clergy, as distinguished from those, who are characterised as pious and zealous; but I will confine myself to the use of expressions which are known to be characteristic of a sect. The fifth resolution declares, that the purity of the church can never be restored, its permanence guaranteed by the esteem of an enlightened people, or the slanders of its adversaries put to silence, "until the great distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, which our reformers learned from the holy word of God, be faithfully preached in all our pulpits." In correspondence to the express language of this resolution, we find the noble Earl stating, in the beginning of his speech, that the meeting had, for its peculiar object, the interests of the Church of England, "as established at the Reformation." He adds, indeed, that they "could not find fault with the pure doctrines of the established church;" but we all know, that the exclusive party, to which I allude, contend that their peculiar opinions constitute that

pure doctrine." Now, I would beg leave to represent, through your miscellany, to the noble Earl and his friends, that the original and genuine doctrine of the Reformation is the denial of human merit, as effective of human salvation. In the various superstitions of the church of Rome, the atonement of Jesus Christ had been wholly, and his mediation almost wholly, forgotten. To the one object of restoring a Christian dependence on the merits and media

tion of Jesus Christ, were the exertions of the earlier reformers directed, and with this view they insisted on the utter insufficiency of our own efforts in the work of redemption. Calvin did, indeed, afterwards maintain the doctrine of arbitrary and irrespective predestination; but this was not the doctrine of the confession of Augsburg, from which our articles have been derived, nor was it inculcated by Archbishop Cranmer, by whom our articles were prepared. If the noble Earl could be persuaded to regard the denial of the efficiency of human merit, as constituting the pure doctrine of our church, settled at the Reformation, I trust that he would find that this doctrine is generally preached by the ministers of the establishment. In the meantime we have sufficient reason for concluding, that in his severe and general censures of the established clergy, he had specially in contemplation the peculiar opinions of a party, which he would, if any favourable occasion should present itself, force upon the general adoption of the church.

If the meeting convened in Cork by the noble Earl had confined itself strictly to the single object of petitioning the King and both Houses of Parliament, to take into consideration the expediency of making a change in the distribution of the revenues of the church, we might have apprehended danger from the interposition, but our apprehension would have been merely speculative. The speeches delivered, and the resolutions adopted, at the meeting, have, however, relieved us from any difficulty of this kind. We plainly perceive the principles of future spoliation and sectarianism in the very concoction of this notable scheme of reformation, so that no reasonable and reflecting mind can entertain a doubt of the consequences which must ensue, if it should be allowed to be carried into execution. turalists have doubted, whether the rattle of the rattle-snake should be considered as given to it, that other animals may be warned of the danger of its approach, or that it may, by sounding the alarm of danger, cause such consternation among them, as may ensure its success in seizing its victims. As it is sufficiently clear that the Bishop of Ferns, and others

Na

of the clergy, who have been brought forward in the discussion which the meeting has occasioned, have not been intimidated to the prostration of their faculties, we may conclude that, in this case at least, the rattle of an interfering vanity has been beneficially, however unintentionally, exercised, in admonishing us of our danger.

The publication of the report of this meeting naturally called forth that able and practised disputant, the Bishop of Ferns, to vindicate and protect the church, over a district of which he presides. His powers of controversy had been already tried, with distinguished and decisive success, on two distinguished Roman Catholics, Dr Milner of England, and Bishop Doyle of Ireland. He again buckled on his armour of proof, and the result has been the entire and melancholy discomfiture of a nobleman, whom the church had recently respected as one of its sincerest friends, and would still respect, if he would acknowledge himself convinced, and forego his schemes of innovation.

The Bishop of Ferns having addressed a letter of remonstrance to the Earl of Mountcashel, a correspondence ensued, which has already been extended to four long letters written by the Bishop, and three by the noble Earl. It was originally my intention to reduce the topics of these letters under their respective heads, in the briefest form of language, and, placing them in opposite columns, to afford an opportunity of a direct and distinct comparison. The correspondence has, however, been extended to so great a length, that I am forced to relinquish this plan; and the letters have been so generally read, that it may not be necessary to exhibit the topics of discussion with so much formality. I will, therefore, content myself with presenting a summary of each of the parts of the controversy. The letters are in the hands of every man, so that any mistatement may be easily corrected.

To the meeting convened at Cork, which the Bishop has denominated a lay-synod, he objected specifically, as he has himself stated in the beginning of his third letter, 1. That whatever abuses had crept into the church, were in a rapid progress of removal, the

most active exertions having been made, during a long series of years, to increase the effectiveness of the establishment, by all the means which the bishops have been able to employ; and 2. That, if the bishops had been negli gent, yet the means employed by the Earl of Mountcashel were not only not the best within his power, but such as experience had proved to be most dangerous, both to the church and to the state. These were accordingly the main subjects of the controversy; various minor topics, however, were incidentally introduced and agitated in the course of the discussion. To the acrimonious observations which have fallen from either party in the heat of argument, I do not think it necessary, in this adjudication of the general question, to make any specific allusion.

The Bishop began the controversy with the second of the two principal topics, representing the lay-synod of Cork as naturally leading to the formation of a Parliamentary committee of religion, and to the adoption of a petition of religion, like that in which the commons censured the bishops in the year 1628, and by direct consequence to a renewal of the calamitous results of that proceeding. To this observation the Earl replied, by asserting, that the circumstances of the year 1628 were so different from those of the present time, that no inference, fairly applicable to the latter, could be collected from the former. It was stated in particular, that no danger should be apprehended from the measures of the meeting convened at Cork, as the persons there assembled were unanimous in approving the doctrines of the established church: to which the Bishop replied, that the persons who composed the meeting, at which petitions to Parliament were prepared in the year 1628, were perfectly at unity among themselves as to doctrine, and perfectly confident that their doc trines were those of the Church of England, yet their proceedings led to the subversion of that church, to the murder of the king, and to the ruin of the constitution. To the Earl's statement, that there were other causes of the disturbances of that unhappy time, the Bishop replied that he admitted the truth of the position, but contended that the attack made

on the church was employed as the means of success. To an assertion of the Earl, that, in the year 1628, the state of the two countries was more revolutionary than at the present time, England then preparing to shed a monarch's blood, and Ireland looking forward to that awful rebellion which broke out only thirteen years afterwards, it was answered by the Bishop, that, in the year 1628, neither was Ireland looking forward to the rebellion of the year 1641, nor England to the murder of the king; that in England no apprehension of a civil war appears to have been entertained before the meeting of the Long Parliament; and the historians of Ireland represent the country, in the time immediately preceding the rebellion of the year 1641, as particularly prosperous and tranquil; and that, on the contrary, Great Britain, and still more Ireland, is now in a state infinitely more revolutionary than at that time, and that all Europe is equally unsettled. It was, under this head, further remarked by the Bishop, that censures thrown out generally against those of the clergy, who do not belong to a particular class, distinguished as "the really pious," are among the very strongest proofs, that a spirit now exists exactÎy similar to that which prevailed in the unhappy times preceding the great rebellion in England. The Earl finally alleged, that, in the year 1628, the danger to which the church was exposed was threatened not by puritanism, but by Popery, accusing Charles I. of being influenced by his queen to favour Popery, and Archbishop Laud of introducing much of the ceremonial of Rome into the worship of the Protestant Church. That Charles I. was at all disposed to favour Popery is, however, directly, and with good reason, denied by the Bishop; and of the Archbishop, though he has not undertaken to defend his prudence, he, with not less reason, asserts, that he was in principle and doctrine a "genuine member of the Church of England.

In regard to Archbishop Laud I may add, from a narrative of the life of that prelate recently published, that he had the extraordinary felicity of leading back to the Church of England two of the most distinguished men of his time, who had strayed

from it in contrary directions-Chillingworth, who had lapsed into Popery, and John Hale, who, disgusted by the extravagances of the synod of Dort, had sought a refuge in Socinianism. This eminent man, whom the Earl of Mountcashel has, on the authority of puritans, represented as favouring the Church of Rome, did thus, on the contrary, maintain with firmness that middle station between opposite error, which belonged to his own, refuting on the one hand the pretensions of papal dictation, and on the other, the not less unscriptural dogmatism of human reasoning.

Concerning this part of the discussion I may surely conclude, that, if history has been justly described as philosophy teaching by examples, the whole force of argument is unanswerably on the side of the Bishop.

The other part of the second topic of discussion the Bishop maintains, by urging that, if the Earl of Mountcashel conceived the Bishops to be negligent of their duty, he might, in the first instance, have remonstrated with themselves; he might then, if his representations had proved ineffectual, have addressed himself to the minister; and he might, finally, as a peer, have claimed an audience of his Sovereign. No, says the Earl, I could not for want of time have recourse to any of these expedients, it being believed that a royal commission had been issued for enquiring into the state of the church. This the Bishop has, in his fourth letter, stated to be "the most extraor dinary reason for resorting to an extraordinary measure, that ever was given; because," he adds," the legitimate authority had commenced a regular enquiry into the state of the establishment, therefore it was necessary to call upon the people to come forward, and remonstrate upon the necessity of such an enquiry!" In this observation, however, I confess that I think the Bishop weak, and must give him up to his adversary. The conduct on which he has thus animadverted is not the most extraordinary, for, as the Bishop had previously remarked, the Earl had urged upon him and his brethren the duty of correcting abuses, which he knew, or might have known, to have been already corrected.

That laymen should have so interpo

sed, the Earl has endeavoured to justify by the two acts of Parliament, passed in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. for authorising a commission for examining and reporting on the canons of the church, to be compo-sed in the one half of laymen. The Bishop has replied, that he does not question the abstract right of the laity to discuss the concerns of the church, but only the expediency of the mode in which that right had been exercised; and that, from a parliamentary appointment of commissioners, some of whom were laymen, for the specific purpose of examining the canons, it does not follow that any laymen may, at any time, voluntarily constitute themselves a committee of church grievances, and call upon all others to act in a similar manner. To this reply it may be added, that no other than a joint commission of clergymen and laymen could reasonably have been authorised for the purpose at that time contemplated, which was to modify the canons received from the church of Rome, so that they should not contain any thing prejudicial to the prerogative of the crown.

Having disposed of one of the two great topics of this controversy, I now proceed to review the other, in which the church is charged with many and gross abuses, imperatively demanding the interposition of the laity, for restoring it to its original purity, and rendering it at all sufficient for the discharge of its important functions. These charges, indeed, are such, and so various, that in perusing them, I have fancied that I was reading some of the denunciations published against the church of Rome in the period preceding the Reformation, as requiring to be visited for correction both in the head and in the members.

These charges may be reduced to the following classes:-1. That the bishops are generally appointed through the influence of political intrigue, and that confidence cannot be placed in them; 2. That the revenues of the church are not beneficially distributed; 3. That the parochial clergy are inattentive to their duty; 4. That the beneficed clergy are covetous and griping; 5. That the clergy of England and Ireland are generally immoral. If

such a list of charges could indeed be justified in argument, no doubt can be entertained that the whole establishment ought to undergo a most severe revision.

In reply to that part of the first of these charges, which relates to the appointment of bishops, and was simply asserted, the Bishop has argued, that unless elections of bishops by the clergy, or by committees of the laity, be adopted, both which modes of appointment are exposed to the most serious objections, the right of nominating must be left with the crown, and consequently must be intrusted to the minister, who will occasionally suffer it to be affected by political influence; but he maintains, that in the last twenty-two years, no bishop can be shewn to have been appointed in Ireland with a view to political support. The representation of the Earl, that no confidence can be placed in the bishops, since they supported the relief bill, was answered, by remarking, that the bill had been opposed by a great majority of the bishops of the two countries, and that of the twentytwo bishops of Ireland, in particular, sixteen were adverse to the measure. The argument derived from the words, "by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal," contained in the title of the statute, was easily refuted, by observing, that the same words would have been employed though not a single bishop had voted in favour of the measure, the two classes of peers being collectively taken as constituting one assembly..

The charge concerning the distribution of the revenues of the church involves two distinct considerations; First, That they are misapplied, in giving to the bishops excessive revenues, and in permitting the parochial clergy to hold unions and pluralities; and, Secondly, That sufficient provision has not been made for the comfortable maintenance of curates assistant, and for an increase of the parochial clergy proportioned to the entire population.

In answer to the former part of the charge, so far as it relates to the incomes of the bishops, it has been represented, that it appears from the testimony both of the Bishop of Limerick, and of Mr Foster, that the

average

of the incomes of the Irish bishops does not exceed L.5000 of the late, or about L.4600 of the present currency, which is not more than is necessary for their station. The misconception of this matter arises from the great extent of the lands belonging to the several sees; it not being considered that at least fourfifths of the interest in those lands belong to the tenantry, who could not be dispossessed at once with out a grievous seizure of private property, nor gradually by a general refusal of all renewals, without reducing the bishops to beggary during the existing leases, the rents being little more than nominal.

In regard to unions of parishes, the Bishop has remarked, that they are generally justified by the insufficiency of the incomes which they would severally afford, being in general vicarages entitled only to onethird part of the tithes, or curacies, the salaries of which are paid by the possessors of impropriate tithes, often less than L.10, never, in any instance known to the Bishop, so much as L.30, and nearly all destitute of churches, and unable to maintain them if they should be built. The power of forming temporary unions, he has further remarked, no longer remains with the bishops, a statute having been enacted in the year 1827, which renders the approbation of the Privy Council necessary to such an arrangement. It is also stated, in reply to a complaint of the noble Earl, that the livings attached to canonries, deaneries, and prebends, are either the rectorial tithes, with vicarages endowed, or, as is most generally the case in Ireland, parishes with cure of souls, on which the incumbents reside, their dignities being in general attended with no other emolument than the livings attached to them, and connected with no duty except that of preaching in the cathedral, which almost always is performed by deputy, paid by the individual for whom he officiates.

To this general account of unions, it is added, that for removing such unions as have been found to be inexpedient, the best measures have been already taken by the proper authorities. It is indeed very remarkable, that in the very meeting

over which the Earl of Mountcashel presided, and in which charges so grievous have been alleged against the established church, it was acknowledged even by Mr Sheriff Cummins, who had proposed the resolutions, that in the diocese in which the meeting had been convened, twenty-one combinations of livings, which he has named pluralities, had been within a few years reduced to three or four; and Mr Horace Townsend declared, that "he felt it but justice to the excellent and exemplary Bishop of Cloyne," the diocese in which both he and the noble Earl reside, "to say, that he was daily reforming the abuses that had crept into the diocese previous to his nomination to it; and that, in a very short time, he was confident he would render it free from any objection."

Of the improved management of the united dioceses of Cork and Ross, since the appointment of the present bishop, I am enabled to furnish an accurate, and a most satisfactory statement. Within that period, eleven unions have been broken up into twenty-four benefices, and the number of resident clergymen has been increased by thirty-five, the dissolution of the unions having added thirteen to the former number of benefices, and nineteen new congregations having been formed by building fifteen new churches, and licensing for divine worship four schoolhouses, in situations in which, through the want of money, churches could not be erected.

In regard to pluralities, I am enabled to state the most satisfactory amendment, which indeed has been progressive during more than the half of a century. These are enjoyed under a license granted by the Lord Primate; and Primate Robinson, who held the see of Armagh in the latter part of the last century, began the reformation, by limiting the indulgence to two benefices. The amendment was carried further by Primate Stuart, who refused to grant such a permission, if the benefices already enjoyed were a union, the yearly income of which exceeded a regulated, and very limited value. The present Primate has excluded every case of unions-has also confined the indulgence within the spe