give expression to a righteous indignation. It would argue but sorry Churchmanship, and a callous heart, to be altogether silent.

The foregoing communications have been selected by the Editor from many which he has received upon these questions; and he will only observe in conclusion, that the Church in Ireland should always bear in remembrance, that under the Acts for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church in England and the Church in Ireland are one and indivisible,-consequently no change in the "doctrine, worship, discipline," or "government" of the United Church of England and Ireland can be legally made by the Church in England without the express assent of the Church in Ireland.

61, Chancery Lane,

July 20, 1850.

APPENDIX.

Referred to by Archdeacon Stopford, ante, lxiii, lxiv, lxv, lavii, lxviii.)

I.

ENQUIRY INTO THE PROCEEDINGS OF CONVOCATION IN 1634.

"The Records of the Irish Convocation of 1634 have been lost long since. The Convocation of 1703 state that they have with the utmost care and diligence searched into all the remains of Convocations now left in this kingdom,' and they could find none earlier than 1639. Those of 1634 were very likely to be destroyed in the great Rebellion. Yet we have enough to correct the mistakes which have prevailed respecting it, chiefly from following one account only, and that the least worthy.

"We have accounts from four persons actually engaged in the transaction.

"1st. From Archbishop Usher himself, in two letters. He is very brief, and relates no facts.

"2nd. From Dean Bernard, who was a Member of the Lower House; giving a part of what was done in the Lower House, and suppressing the rest of the same transaction, as well as all that was done in the Upper House.

"3rd. A statement in answer from Bishop Bramhall, who acted a principal part in the Upper House.

"4th. A statement from Lord Deputy Strafford, giving that part of the transaction in the Lower House which Dean Bernard omits.

"We have also a statement from Bishop Vesey, in his Life of Bramhall, derived from Archbishop Price, who had been a Member of the Lower House in 1634.

"And another from Dr. Parr, derived from Bernard and from hearsay. This will be noticed in this Appendix, II.*

Post, cx.

"To begin with Bernard and Bramhall. Let us consider first the character of the witnesses.

"We meet Dr. Bernard first as the friend and follower of Usher. Next as the Dean and opponent of Bishop Bedell;the only man in that disordered diocese who, from corrupt and personal motives, and relying on his influence with Usher, had the face to resist the reforming of pluralities, of which the Bishop set so noble an example. Next, we meet the Dean as Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell; and again, after the Restoration, a beneficed Clergyman in the Church of England. As a historian, we find him guilty of gross suppression of truth and distortion of fact; yet flippant and confident in assertion; reminding us of the prayer put up for him by his apostolic Bishop, God make him an humble and modest man.'

66

Against his assertions we have the statement of the upright and consistent Bramhall; a statement expressed with forcible gravity and moderation, and confirmed by an appeal to authentic documents for every fact related; an appeal never answered by his opponent.

"Dr. Bernard's statement is contained in a little book published by him in 1657, after Usher's death, called The Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh,' in which Bernard is thought by Usher's friends to have shown but little judgment of his own.* It is in the form of a commentary or confirmation of a letter of Usher's, which he gives, and is as follows: But for the confirmation of what is here affirmed by the Primate, that the Articles of Ireland were not called in, though his above mentioned letter is sufficient to all uninterested persons, yet, for the reader's more full satisfaction, I shall give you a brief narrative of the whole matter, being then a Member of that Convocation.

"First, in the House of the Clergy, which was then in the Cathedral of St. Patrick, Dublin, there was a motion made

"Published (though, perhaps, not so prudently, with those private reflections) by Dr. Bernard.' 'A Vindication of Primate Usher,' by his grandson, James Tyrrell.

for the reception anew of the Articles of Ireland, and all unanimous were for the affirmative, except two, who went out. Another time, the whole House of the Clergy being called into the quire, where the Bishops sat, and the same thing again propounded to them, they all stuck to their former vote excepting seven. The intent of the whole Clergy being by this sufficiently understood, and it appearing that there was no need of any such confirmation, having been An. 1615 fully and formally established (viz., signed by Archbishop Jones, Chancellor of Ireland, by the Prolocutor of the House of the Clergy, in their names, and signed by the then Lord Deputy Chichester, by order from King James in his name), that motion was no more repeated, only the Primate was consulted with concerning the approving and receiving of the Articles of England also, to which he readily consented, there being no substantial difference between them, which he had subscribed himself voluntarily long before in England, and conceiving it to be without any prejudice to the other. Hereupon, the first Canon (being all that was done in relation to them*) was drawn up, the Primate approved it, and proposed it himself (as President of the Synod) in the House of the Bishops, commended it to the House of the Clergy, where, by his motion, many assented the more readily, they all gave their votes man by man, excepting one person, who suspended his, out of the suspicion that some person might make that construction which is the observator's (Dr. Heylin's) conclusion.'

"As soon as this came to Bishop Bramhall's knowledge, he immediately and professedly answered it as follows, in a postscript to his Discourse on the Sabbath.'

"It is true that in the first Convocation after the Earl of Strafford coming to the sword in Ireland, the question was calmly debated in the House of the Bishops, concerning the English and Irish Articles, whether of them were fitter in point of uncontroverted truth and unity and uniformity, and pruden

"Was the imposition of subscription to the English Articles by Canon 32, which had never been done for the Irish Articles, nothing?

tial compliance with tender consciences, to be imposed upon the Irish Clergy. This was done before it was once moved in the House of the Clerks. All which being acted in another assembly, might well be unknown to the Dean (Bernard). Neither it was first proposed by my Lord Primate, but in truth opposed by him, and with him joined Dr. Martin*, Bishop of Meath, not out of any disaffection in either of them to the English Articles, as I judge, but out of love to the Irish. The truth and untruth whereof were not so much as questioned then, but the authority, whether of them should be acknowledged for the future to be the Articles of the Church of Ireland, and the public standard and seal of our Irish doctrine.

"There were no thoughts of two distinct standards at that time. And if any Bishop had been known to have required any man to subscribe to the Irish Articles after the English. were received and authorized under the Great Seal of Ireland, he would have been called to an account for it.

As for Dr. Bedell, be so much of a

"I do not remember any more but two that spake in favour of the Irish Articles at that time. If there were any, they were very few, and did it very faintly. Bishop of Kilmore, I did not take him to friend to the Irish Articles, though he did use them, and must have used them at that time when the Dean saith he examined Mr. Price in the Irish Articles, for then they were in force and authority, then the English Articles were not yet introduced into Ireland. And after a full and free discussion, it was resolved by the very much greater part of the votes for the Articles of England.

"No man can imagine that this change could be made without some sort of reluctation on the part of some (very few) Bishops, who perhaps had had a hand in framing the Irish

"This Bishop Martin was Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, after the sequestration of the sees. An order being issued by the Parliamentary Commissioners in 1647 forbidding the use of the Liturgy in Dublin, Bishop Martin refused to obey it, and continued to use the Liturgy in the College Chapel till his death in 1650. He is said to have been the last man who publicly used that Liturgy in Ireland in the great Rebellion.