w

¦;fl

; ..1 - hj!

m

-1^;

.'•KH

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

A LETTER, TO THE
LORD BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR,
ON HIS LORDSHIP'S CHARGE
•; AGAINST THE
ESTABLISHED CHURCH HOME MISSION.
I
BY THE REV. R. J. M«GHEE, A.B.

3s. 6d.

LETTER

LORD BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR.

DUBLIN.
Printed by John S. Folds, 5, Bachelor's- Walk,

EPISCOPAL AND CLERICAL DUTY AND
RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERED,
IN REFERENCE TO IRELAND,

A LETTER

RESPECTFULLY ADDRESSED TO THE RIGHT REV, THE

LORD BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR,

ON HIS LORDSHIP'S

CHARGE

AGAINST THE

ESTABLISHED CHURCH HOME MISSION.

BY THE
REV. R. J. M'GHEE, A.B.

DUBLIN.
WILLIAM CURRY, JUN. AND COMPANY.
SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. LONDON.

MDCCCXXXV.

HOW THEN SHALL THEY CALL ON HIM IN WHOM
THEY HAVE NOT BELIEVED? AND HOW SHALL THEY
BELIEVE IN HIM OF WHOM THEY HAVE NOT HEARD ?
AND HOW SHALL THEY HEAR WITHOUT A PREACHER ?
AND HOW SHALL THEY PREACH EXCEPT THEY BE
SENT? AS IT IS WRITTEN, HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE
FEET OF THEM THAT PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE
AND BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS !
RoM. X. 14j 15.

CONTENTS.

FAGEt
Reflections on mutual relation of Bishops and Clergy as to authority
and subjection ; True mode of acting if they conscientiously differ, 5^-8
Writer's apology for answering his Lordship's Charge ; Importance of
discussing the subject to Church and Country ; Riglit spirit in
which it ought to be entered on ; Division of subject . . 8 — 12
First head ; State op Codntry, in Religious, Moral, and Poli
tical point of VIEW; Division of its inhabitants ; Socinians and
Arians, Roman Catholics ; Spiritual state of these men ; Charges of
illiberality and want of charity in speaiing truth of them ; Wretched
state of Ireland morally ; Politically .... 12 — 19
Second head ; State op Church ; former state ; present state ; Dif
ficulty and danger of it ; Valuable extract from Bishop's Charge on
the subject; Necessity of exertion on part of Clergy . . 19 — 24
Third head; Duties and Responsibilities of Bishops and
Clergy ; Inquiry into nature of these ; Important omission in his
Lordship's Charge ; Duty of Church as to those not in her com
munion ; Criminal neglect on this head ; Duty of this enforced on
three grounds specified by his Lordship . . . 24 — 30
First, WiU of our Lord Jesus Christ ; Totally disregarded in this ;
Delusion of Church as to Popery ; Melancholy example, extracted
from Correspondence of Bishop Jebb and Mr. Knox ; False prin
ciple as to Charity ...... 30—36
Second ground, Order of our Church and Realm, and Ordination
Vows ; Criminal neglect on this head ; Solemn vow of Priests and
Bishops; Total disregard of this; Prostration of law of public
opinion ; Ignorance as to popery ; Progress and power of popery ;
Melancholy instance of corruption in high Ecclesiastical authority;
Fatal error, contending for ceremonials and discipliiie> to neglect of
; principles of religion ; Canon as to duty of Bishops and Clergy ;
Awful neglect of it ; Consequences of this ; Solemn warning from
God to Shepherds ; Present persecution of Church ; Weakness in
surrender of her spiritual oflices ; Just visitation for our neglect of
duty ; Effect it ought to have .... 36—44

VI CONTENTS. PAGE.
Thirdground, State of Country ; Popular opinion as to maintenance
of an Established Church ; Guilt of this ; Standard of the late
Government ; Whence originated ; Folly of Church in leaning on
State ; Proved in the unprincipled administration of Lord Grey ;
No statesman able to defend the Church on the only true ground ;
Cause of this, Bishops and Clergy do not do so ; Incapacity of Sir
R. Peel to defend the Church, if she will not defend herself; True
question at issue, not about discipline but existence of Church ; must
awaken to do her duty or perish ; only hope for Ireland, labour of
Ministers of Christ . . . . . _ • 44 — 49
Progress of Popery through all the Empire ; Query, What is to be
done ? Answer to this; Whether Home Mission what it ought to be ?
Proper Home Mission for Ireland, all her Prelates and Clergy;
Result to be looked for ; Prospects if we continue in present sloth
and indolence ...... 49 — 54
4th Head  How far his Lordship's view of Ordination Service con
sistent with faithful discharge of other duties ; and with Canons ;
How far just, and binding on conscience ; His Lordship's quotations
from Ignatius and Hooker; Apostolic exercise of Episcopal au
thority; Discipline cannot interfere with propagation of Gospel;
Quotations from Hooker on the duty of Bishops ; Object of the
Lord Bishop of Down's Charge ; Summary of his Lordship's Ar
guments 34 — 60
Fourfold Objection to his Lordship's view of Ordination Service ;
Prefatory Remarks as to true meaning of it ; Two Functions of
Episcopacy, Ordination and Jurisdiction ; Difference between
them; Former unchangeable, latter varied; Authority conferred
by Episcopal Jurisdiction ; Extent of it ; Difference between Au
thority and Liberty ; How far one restricted and other conferred,
true point at issue . . . . . . 60 — 65
His Lordship's view of Ordination Service contrary to nature of Sa
cred Office ; Office how Undertaken and how Conferred ; Dea
cons, Priests, Authority of Office, whence Derived ; Distinction
between Authority of Office and Authority over Congregation ;
His Lordship's Limitation of Execution of Office not borne out
by Words of Ordination Service ; Such construction make a man
a Minister in one place alone, a{id virtually a Layman in all others ;
therefore contrary to nature of office, and inadmissible . 65.^71
Arguments of his Lordship not borne out by Canons to which he
refers ; Confounds authority and liberty of Minister ; True mode
of considering Canons; License to a Cure, and License of
Preaching totsUy distinct ; The Canons illustrated by Church
History; Three facts proved — 1st. Ordination empowers man tO'
preach without any ulterior Episcopal Act; 2d, Bishops did not
confer License to Preach, spoken of in Canons, by giving. Licence
to Cures, or induction ; Often could not License to Preach; Nor
Preach themselves, without License ; 3d. License to Preach,
spoken of in Canons, was license to do what his Lordship forbids,
viz. to Preach not in one place, but in every place . . 71---75
Importance of History of Licenses; First used by Popish Bishops
against the Missionary preaching of Wickliffe's followers ; Act
against Heresy, 5 Rich: II. c. 5; No Law then known ' against
Preaching without License ; First Statute on this subject, 2d Hen.
IV. c. ) 3, quoted to prove Bishops had no Spiritual Power on this

CONTENTS.

head ; Importance of testimony ; Act procured by full Convo
cation ; Cfibson ; Wake ; Lyndwood ; Rapin ; Fox ; Arundel's
Constitutions ; Singular Commentary on Rev. 6, and Command
eigainst translating the Scriptures ; Consiit. Prov. Lyndwood ;
Gil)son,  75—83
Licenses to preach the Gospel, to Ministers of Christ, unknown in
ancient Canon Law ; To Fathers ; To Apostolic Churches ; Only
invented by Popery, to put down the preaching of the Gospel ;
Statute of additional persecution, 2d Hen. V. c. 7, quoted ; List
of pereecuting Statutes, and Repeals of same from A.D. 1381, to
A.D. 1538; Under Rich. II., Hen. IV., Hen. V., Hen. VIIL,
Edw. VI., Mary, Elizabeth; Writ de Heret. Comburendo, when
repealed ; Gibson ; Blackstone .... 83 — 87
Licenses to Preach in time of Reformation ; Acts of Royal Prero
gative ; All Ordained Ministers capable of holding them ; Licenses
granted in reign of Edw. V I. ; List of do, from Strype ; Bishops
could not grant same ; Letter Hen. VIII. ; Burnet's Testimony as
to reason why Homilies written ; None permitted to license to
preach but King or Archbishop of Canterbury ; Bishops not per
mitted to preach without License ; Only four Bishops licensed
in England ; Burnet ,¦ Strype .... 87 — 95
Results from these documents ; Questions added to Ordination Service,
1550; Practice of those who composed it, when they added these
Questions, totally opposite to his Lordship's construction of them ;
Therefore such construction inadmissible by us ; Contemporaneous
usage in construction of Statutes; Various modes of granting
Licenses ; All derived from Royal Prerogative ; Bishops, when gave
License, it was not a spiritual act ; Such Licenses now unknown ;
Object of Sovereigns in granting them ; Royal Prerogative ; Rapin,
Hume ... . . . . 95—99
Elizabeth, enmity of Popish Bishops ; Refusal to crown her ; Uni
versity of Cambridge licenses to preach ; Whitgift's License ; Uni
versal power of Licenses ; MiUayn's Sermon at Cambridge ; James
the First's Speech to Parliament; Hampton Court Conference;
James's judgment of liberty of conscience ; Remarkable Letter
from him to Archbishop of Canterbury aud Bishops, with commands
on Preachers and Preaching ; Withdraws power of Licensing
Lecturers; Stripe's Life of Whitgift; Wilson; Rapin; Fuller, 99 — 106
Letter of King James, proof of law and usage at that time ; Proves
regulation of abuses as to preaching, not in hands of Bishops; James's
date of Licenses from Star- Chamber ; Proved not to be acts of
Episcopal authority ; License to Lecturers in this Letter ; Re
markable under Great Seal of England ; This letter dated within
ten years of Canons ; Whole chain of proof conclusive as to na
ture of Licenses in Canons ; Licenses extinct in Church ; License
from one Bishop in his Diocese, gives License in every Diocese ;
Difference as to law between administering the Lord's Supper and
Preaching; Lyndwood ; Ayliffe, Par. Jur. Can. . . 106 — 110
Letter of Canons themselves cleariy subverts his Lordship's argument ;
Proofs of this deduced from the very Canons quoted by his Lord
ship . . .... . 110—117
His Lordship's argument from 23d Article considered ; Apparent
force of it ; Error of it proved from the Preface to Ordination

VUl CONTENTS. PAGE.
Service, compared with Article ; Proved from Burnet on the Article ;
Conclusion of argument from Ordination Service; Histories of
Church, Canons, and Articles, show that imputations on the Home
Mission originate in misconception on his Lordship's part . 117 — 122
Impropriety of standing to cavil on points of Law with Bishops;
Writer's unwillingness to do so ; Therefore painful to be forced
to it ; Universal practice of Church proves the error of supposing
men bound by Ordination vows only to preach in their Cures ;
No such thing known or heard of as any such Obligation ; Wrong
when Ministers at liberty on all other occasions, to attempt to en -
force such an obligation on this occasion ; Such construction of
Rule of Duty at war with the faithful exercise of Ordination Vows ;
Facts as to Blessings on Missionary Preaching ; Wickliffe and his
followers shook Popery by it in reigns of Richard II,, Henry IV.,
and Henry V. ; Great Engine of Reformation, Henry VIII.
Edward VI. and Elizabeth ; Folly and Infatuation of our ne
glecting the same Means, with all our increased powers and capa
city of effecting good ; Criminal Neglect of Ordination and Con
secration Vows ; No wonder Church trodden down, . . 122 — 131
Awfulness of supporting instead of driving away Error; Lord Bi
shop acts conscientiously in opposing Home Mission ; Conscience
not the Rule of Right and Wrong ; His Lordship would use power
for the very same purpose Popish Bishops used it in the 14th and
15th centuries; Claims Law of Licenses to prevent Protestant
Ministers from doing the very thing for which Licenses were given
them in the sixteenth ; His Lordship's intentions unimpeached, but
doing what Popish Bishops and Demagogues above all things
desire; Writer trusts his Lordship will throw his talents and au
thority into other scale, ..... 131 — 136
Value of venerable Examples to prove truth of Principles ; Cicero's
Sentiments on this ; Archbishop Grindal's adduced ; His faithful
and admirable Letter to Queen Elizabeth, with Defence of the
Value of Preaching ; Showing how he and nine of the English
Bishops and their Clergy acted, and great blessings resulting to
Government, to People, and to Clergy themselves ; Extracts from
his Letter, ...... 136—144
Great Importance of Grindal's principles and example insisted on ;
Objection anticipated ; English Clergy acted with their Bishops,
we act without ours ; Answer too painful to give to it ; If we had
done our duty, our Country and Church not present the miserable
picture they do ; Proof of degradation of Church, the duty of
Missionary Preaching being called in question, and that Politicians
can find in it such tools as they do ; Prayer for strength to set up
principle instead of expediency, .... 144  148
Bishop Bedell; Remarkable quotation from Burnet's Life of ditto;
State of Priests and Popery 200 years ago ; His admirable view of
the duty of Christian Bishops and Christian Church ; Equally
sound as a Statesman or Divine ; Suggestion is to what Bedell
would say if could see the present state of things ; Worse than in
his day in some particulars ; Absurd talk of march of intellect ;
Government endowing Popish College; Popery overspreading
England and Scotland ; Protestant Churches shut up. Popish Ca
thedrals erecting ; Ten Bishops cut off at beck of Popery; Dr.
M'Hale's Letter to Lord Grey ; Infamous system of Education ;

CONTENTS.

Protestants, Papists, Infidels hand in hand cutting up the Bible to
their respective tastes ; Popish perjury trampling the Church, in
the midst of the British senate, with impunity; Is it time for
Church to exert herself? If not, seems abandoned by God to de
struction ...... 148 — 133
The poor cry out for and value Missionary labours; Remarkable petition
of Protestants in 1641 against Bishops for suppressing preaching
the Gospel ; Important to the Protestants as well as Arians, So
cinians, Roman Catholics ; His Lordship adduces it as an evil to
found Home Missions on Allegation that Ministers are-slothful men
and do not preach the Gospel, also on a charge against Bishops as
deficient in love for souls, &c. ; Writer denies such a principle as
coming from Home Missions ; No right to cast any reflections on a
brother as to his life or doctrine in Missionary preaching ; Query —
Do Bishops and Clergy preach the Gospel to the immortal souls
in their Dioceses and Parishes ; Answer — They do not ; Dreadful
evil and sin of this ; Loss of one soul, through our neglect, more
than all the evils his Lordship enumerates ; VaJue of soul . 1 33 — 158
Common routine of preaching in Parish Churches totally fails ;
Church losing its ground ; If discipline prevents propagation of
truth, we must cry for Reform ; If knaves have power of oppres
sing Church, honest men ought to have it of defending her;
Do not preach Gospel to five-sixths of Population ; Suppose
Roman Catholics Hindoos ; Our Conduct tried by that test ;
Bishop of Calcutta ; Folly of advocating Foreign Missions ; Home
neglected ; More Guilty more we know the Gospel ; Wretched
confusion of Ideas as fo Popery; Eighteenth Article; Priests
cannot, possibly, preach the Gospel ; Cause of this ; Vital Point
of Controversy between us and Church of Rome ; Justification ;
All Idolatry and Superstitions of Popery traced to this ; Popery
worst of all superstitions .... 158 — 164
Shutting up Scriptures ; Iniquitous principle of Education Board ;
Idolatry, Virgin Mary and Saints ; Real cause of this ; Education
Board encourage this; Penance, falsehood of; Guilty compro
mise of Protestant and Popish Commissioners of Education ;
Masses and Extreme Unction ; Corruption of Popish Morals ;
Floodgates of Iniquity opened by Popery ; Peijury ; Blood ; Only
means of opposing Popery ; By Gospel of Christ ; Only relief for
sinner's conscience ; Young Roman Catholic ; Story told by Bur-
der ; Sir Henry Wotton ..... 164—176
Opposition of Popish Priests to Gospel; Gardiner; Homily on
Salvation ; Cranmer ; Hooker on Justification ; Luther on Gala-
tians ; Hume's testimony on Justification ; Detail of evils enumerated
by Lord Bishop ; First and Second answered in previous arguments;
Third Charge, as to Bishops, answered ; Duty of Bishops ; Fourth
allegation against our Brethren, already answered ; Fifth Evil, as to
Government of Parish committed to Minister; Query — How far
committed ; Bishops and Ministers do not profess care of Roman
Catholics, Socinians, &c. ; Not to exclude Gospel from them on
that account ; Minister who did so would be Minister of darkness to
his Parish ; Sir Robert Peel's Speech on Emancipation Bill; Pro
portion of Roman Catholics to Protestants ; Guilt of Bishops and
Ministers were they to shut out Preaching of Gospel from them ;

CONTENTS. PAGE.

Report of Commissioners; What result from, if Bishops and
Clergy say no need to enlighten Roman Catholics; Difficulty of
Parochial Ministers in this respect ; Much removed by Missionary
Preaching . . . . . ¦ 176—184
Sixth Evil ; Character of paid Clergymen brought into invidious
comparison with that of Missionary Preacher ; Answered; Seventh
Evil, hold on affections of his people diminished; Answered; Eighth
Evil ; Sobriety of Pastoral instruction, superseded by Missionary
Preaching ; Answered ; Salvation of five-sixths of the population
overlooked in all the argument . . ' . • 184 — 187
Ninth Evil contains many charges ; Examined and Answered ; Tenth
Evil, Ministers leaving their Parishes to Preach ; Alleged illegality
of conduct; Neglect of duty; Sowing dissensions ; All answered;
Eleventh Evil, Schisms occasioned by Home AJission; Answered;
Twelfth Evil, Preaching on unconsecrated ground ; Answered ;
Because some places justly consecrated, Satan not to have rest of
world to himself; Conduct of Apostle Paul; Judgment seat of
Felix; Agrippa; Athens; School of Tyrannus; Ministers cannot
bring Churches to people, must try and bring people to Churches 187 — 196
Thirteenth Evil; Violation of Act of Uniformity; His Lordship's
severe charge of acting in " defiance of law ;" History of Acts of
Uniformity; 2nd and 3rd Edward VI ; 5th and 6th Edward VI;
Repealed 1st Mary ; This repealed 1st EUzabeth ; Two Acts of
Uniformity now existing, 2nd Elizabeth, and 17th and 18th Char.
II; 1st Elizabeth; English Statute; 2nd Ditto; Irish Statute;
Almost verbatim the same ; English Statute quoted ; Why ? Intent
and object of it, viz. to supersede Popish service and establish
Reformed Service, in appointed times of open Prayer, for Church
Service ; Not to restrict Ministers at other times ; Case ruled 3rd
' Elizabeth showing violation of Statute and true intent of same ;
Non-violation of Statute proved in case of Archbishop Grindal and
nine English Bishops, with their Clergy ; Mode of Preaching ,
without Liturgy set up by them, shovra by additional extracts from
Grindal's Letter; Preaching more irregularthan that of Home Mission ;
Never accused of violating Act of Uniformity ; Fuller enumerates
the objections ; This not among them ; Queen displeased, never
accused them of violating this Act ; Nor did Grindal hint it in his
Letter ; English Statute not violated in England; Same Statute
in Ireland by same rule, not violated in Ireland . . 196 — 206
Act of Uniformity, 17th and 18th Char. II. ; His Lordship's quotation
taken from this; Clause seems to give a colour to his Charge]; True
mode of interpreting Statutes ; Writer shows object of Statute ;
How far same as that of Elizabeth, and wherein it differs ; Noncon
formists guarded against; Remarkable fact quoted from Burnet's
History of his own Times as to this Act; Throvre light on the, Statute;
Act itself considered; Identity of 13th and 14th Char. II. and 17th
and 18th Char. II. ; English and Irish Statutes Mutatis Mutandis ; Pre
amble of English Act ; Preamble of Irish Act ; Intent of ditto ;
Twofold enactments of ditto ; Ministers bound to use Liturgy in all
Churches, Chapels, and Places of Public Worship ; These places
defined in Act ; Not bound by Act to use it in other places ; Im
portance of this in Ireland ; Not bound to use Liturgy in all Churches,
Chapels, or Places of Public Worship ; This place twice defined in

CONTENTS XI
PAGE.

Act; Not bound in any other places; Importance of this in Ireland;
Not bound in Churches to use Liturgy except in time appointed
for public service ; Not on any extraordinary occasions ; Several
supposed cases of violation and non-violation . . 206 — 216
Section quoted by Lord Bishop only applies to Lecturers ; Lecturers,
what class of Ministers they were; Jealousy of, and why; Five Sec
tions applied only to them, proved by letter of the Statute and Bums'
Eccles. Law : Sections examined ; No other Ministers included in
them; Lecturers only bound in Church by utmost constraint of
Law ; Doubt if even bound then, provided he complies with object
of Act ; Two ruled cases perfectly conclusive on subject ; Home
Mission acquitted by Statute Law and Canon Law . . 216  227
Reason of Case ; How to be sustained on his Lordship's argument ;
ReUgion stUl less; Act of Uniformity, a reproach to Church if it pre
vented the preaching of Gospel to those who would not join in the
Liturgy ; Rest of his Lordship's objection in this answer . 227 — 231
Fourteenth and fifteenth evils answered ; Pulpit and Reading-desk,
latter a good test of Orthodoxy ; Sixteenth and last evil answered ;
Questions that gender strifes ; Promiscuous assemblies ; Last point
to answer his Lordship's Inhibition to Missionary Preachers and to
his own Clergy ; Painful to answer ; Moral duty of obedience to
Bishops ; Feelings of Writer on this ; Cannot consider admonition
godly; Nor judgment; No imputation on his Lordship's motives ;
Writer not presume to judge his Lordship's conscience nor his view
of Ordination Vows ; Writer's view of his own . . 231  240
Solemn accountability of Minister at the tribunal of God who had
lived in the midst of men, whose salvation he totally neglected ;
Still more of Bishop ; Man who views his responsibihty aright feels
the weighty obligation to discharge his duty in this respect ; Cannot
admit it right to be forbidden to do so ; Painful necessity of refusing
obedience ; Moral sense of right cannot excuse from yielding
Canonical obedience to Bishop ; Therefore must examine if this is
Canonical ; A Bishop no authority by Canon or Statute law to
hinder a Clergyman already licensed from preaching in his Diocese ;
Nor to forbid his Clergy to admit them to preach ; Ought not to
possess such authority ; Derogatory to University ; To Ordination
Service ; To Ministry of Church ; To Episcopacy ; Destructive of
unity ; Might be of religion itself ; Legal reasons against it on five
grounds ; Query as to jurisdiction of Bishops, how preserved ?
Answered ; Bishop possesses full jurisdiction ; What it is ; Has no
right to set up anomalous rule for Church . . . 241—248
Licenses to Ministers of Christ to preach ; Unnatural excrescence on
Church ; Origin ; Use and decay of them ; Necessity for them
could only accrue from apostacy of Clergy and neglect of duty in
Bishops ; Evil working of such a system ; Six evils — 1st, Deroga
tory to theological education of Candidates for Orders ; Make
them no better than in times of gross ignorance of Clergy — 2nd,
Derogatory to Ordination Service ; Awful idea of a Bishop ordain
ing with such a solemn service, for one Diocese, a man who is not fit
to preach in another — 3rd, Derogatory to Ministry of Church;
Bishop no right to set up his own Diocese as pattern, and pro
nounce a sentence on all others; not charged as intentional on Bishop
of Down ; Nor to have power to do so on individuals ; Could not

XU CONTENTS. PAGE.
be done in other professions, ought not in ours ; Clergy ought to
be supposed right till proved wrong ; Not to be presumed wrong
except those whom Bishops may say they consider right . 248 — 233
Fourth Evil of such a system highly derogatory to Episcopacy;
Bishops all presumed to ordain fit men ; Bishop who sets up this
rule casts a slur on the whole Bench, implies he cannot depend on
their judgment or fidelity, in having in their Dioceses, men fit to
preach in his ; People cannot depend on Bishops if they cannot on
each other ; His Lordship not accused of this intention in remotest
degree ; Case applied to his Grace the Lord Primate ; No principle
admissible in abstract which cannot be applied in detail ; 5th Evil
Destruction of unity of Church ; Every Diocese a separate Church ;
With separate doctrines permitted as Bishops pleased . . 233 — 236
Sixth and last Evil might destroy all true religion ; Importance of pro
moting free discussion and communication among the Clergy ;
Best remedy for worst cases of Clerical error or ignorance ; Evil
that an ungodly Prelate might inflict on Church ; Various cases of
supposed heresy in one ; Frightful prospects of Church if such a
man could possess the power spoken of; Fearful prostitution of
authority, what; Three reasons for refusing obedience to his
Lordship's inhibition ..... 256  260
Apology for length of letter ; An honest inquiry into truth ; And quo
tation of authorities ; Apology and expression of regret if any
appearance of disrespect to his Lordship; Apology to Brethren
necessary, if any disrespect to Episcopal authority appears ; Home
Mission commenced under sanction of late lamented Archbishop of
Dublin ; Necessity for its continuance ; Would rejoice if patronised
by Bishops ; Blessing if it were so ; British Constitution must
perish if efforts not made to reform people ; Baseness of principle
only regarding our own interests without looking to posterity ;
Hooker's opinion on this ; Duty of Church clear ; Conclusion.

A LETTER

LORD BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR.

My Lord Bishop,
If ecclesiastical obedience were to be regulated
according to the principles of military discipline — if the
inferior Ministers of the Church were to obey, without
hesitation or inquiry, all the commands which their supe
riors might think fit to issue — it were a presumptuous
violation of duty that a Minister should venture to submit
a remonstrance, however respectful, against any principles
which a Bishop might lay down, or call in question any
judgment which he might pronounce in the discharge of
his episcopal office. Placed under authority such as this,
our only duty were submission — our only responsibility
that of implicit mechanical obedience.
But I am persuaded, your Lordship takes a very diiferent
view of that subjection which you would require as a
Bishop, or which you think that, as Ministers, we owe to
episcopal authority. Having voluntarily entered into our

6
holy office under certain defined limitations — placed under
a power, which we venerate as of divine appointment —
Ministers of a Church, which we believe to be " built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ him
self being the chief corner-stone" — we consider the word of
God the standard of her principles, the support of her
authorities, the regulator of their power, and the rule ot
our duty. If this be so, it will follow, that our office,
having a higher source than that of a mere human institu
tion, our conscience ought to refer to a higher standard of
accountability in the discharge of its duties, than the mere
will of a superior. Hence the authority of Bishops, and
the obedience of the Clergy, are to be mutually regulated
by the established principles of their Church, conscien
tiously interpreted to the best of their judgment, according
to the word and will of that God to whom they shall all
give an account of their stewardship. This sanctifies the
exercise of episcopal authority, and hallows the motives of
clerical obedience — it provides for the scriptural adminis
tration of ecclesiastical discipline, and the sincere and
willing response of canonical subjection ; and when it binds
the Clergy to follow " with a glad mind and will the Godly
admonitions, and to submit themselves to the Godly judg
ment of their Bishops," it presumes that that judgment will
be regulated by a Godly standard, and those admonitions
enforced on Godly principles.
These reflections are humbly submitted, not because I
question their full accordance with your Lordship's senti
ments, but because I know there are many who consider
that the very act of a Clergyman presuming to ofi'er any
remonstrance against the charge of a Bishop, Is in itself an
act of contumacious disregard of episcopal authority, and
setting up that judgment against the will of a superior,

7
which ought to be instantly submitted to him. It therefore
seems important to premise, that, in the mutual relation of
the Bishops and Clergy, their respective duties are to be
performed on conscientious principles, always in reference
not merely to each other, but to God, and to their indivi
dual responsibility to Him. Some distressing case might
occur In which a total departure from his duty, on the part
of a Bishop, might make a direct refusal to submit, and a deter
minate resistance, a duty on the part of the Clergy. If he
were to join, for example, in suppressing or corrupting the
Sacred Volume, submission to such a scheme of a Bishop
would be a palpable apostacy from God ; and veneration
for the sanctity and dignity of the episcopal office were in
such a case best evinced by a firm resistance to the Indivi
dual who would thus abuse It.
But various supposable cases might occur, in which a
Bishop, taking a most conscientious view of a part of his
official duty, might consider It right either to enforce the
. submission, or to restrict the liberty of the Clergy, farther
than they conscientiously considered themselves bound,
either by the laws of the Church, or th^ law of God, to
admit. The Bishop, without intending any harshness to
the Clergy, might act under a conscientious persuasion that
he was lawfully, and perhaps wisely and judiciously, en
forcing canonical obedience ; the Clergy, with every vene
ration for episcopal authority, and every desire conscien
tiously to submit themselves to the godly admonitions of
their Bishop, might consider that he was not only placing
too strait a limit to their ecclesiastical liberty, but inter
fering, however unintentionally, with what they conscien
tiously considered an important duty to their fellow-
creatures and their God. Men, with the best intentions,
on both sides, might take very different views of their

duty: the consciences of both might be persuaded they
were right^they might sincerely desire to observe their
relative duties — the judgment of neither Is infallible; and
if it should come to an open expression of difference of
opinion, the path of Christian duty on both sides, seems to
be neither a severe expression of authoritative command
on the part of a Bishop, nor a presumptuous expression of
disobedience on that of the Clergy ; but a full and patient
examination of the truth — a faithful and dutiful exposition
of the motives and principles which actuate those who are
considered transgressing the rule of duty — a candid state
ment of their view of that rule, evincing that if they are so
unfortunate as to differ in judgment in any respect from
their superior, it is not from any disregard to his authority
or Iris opinion, nor from any criminal forgetfulness of their
own ecclesiastical duties and engagements ; but that they
feel conscientiously compelled to put such a construction
on their duty to their Bishop as Is not incompatible with
that which they consider to be their duty as faithful
Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the mysteries of
God. It is, I trust, under these impressions, that I humbly
venture to consider the principal points of your Lord
ship's charge to your Clergy, in reference to the Established
Church Home Mission ; and, as an apology may be con
sidered necessary for an humble individual, who is not
officially connected with your Lordship's diocese, and who
has not the honor of being known to you, for venturing
on this task, I hope the following considerations may plead
my excuse : —
When I first received your Lordship's Charge, which
was lent to me by a Clergyman of your own diocese, I took
it up -with a feeling of curiosity to know what arguments

9
a Christian Bishop could use against the missionary labours
of the Clergy of the Established Church in Ireland. At
the time I was only able to give it a cursory perusal ;
but, on procuring it afterwards, and reading it with the at
tention which such a document deserves, I thought your
Lordship's arguments so well directed, under your pe
culiar view of the subject, to the judgment and conscience
of the Clergy, that I laid it down under this impression,
that if I could not conscientiously answer your Lordship's
objections, I ought not conscientiously to remain a member
of the committee of the Established Church Home Mis
sion. I thought, and do still consider, that . on the view
your Lordship takes of the case, your Lordship was dis
charging what you conscientiously considered your duty to
the Church, and opposing what you conscientiously consi
dered a great evil ; and, under this impression, it is not
necessary for me to say, that I desire to address your
Lordship with the most dutiful and respectful considera
tion, not only of your arguments, but your motives ; and
I venture on this ground to bespeak, not only your Lord
ship's kind and patient consideration, but that of all my
superiors, or my reverend brethren, who may see this,
humbly requesting, that if any expression, seeming to imply
a want of that duty and respect which your Lordship would
consider becoming on such an occasion, should meet your
eye, you will do me the justice to believe it wholly unin
tentional, and therefore kindly forgive It.
I venerate from the bottom of my heart the episcopal
office; I desire from the bottom of my heart to uphold
episcopal jurisdiction. I think that at all times, and most
especially in these times. It is the duty of all men, and
above all, of the Clergy, to maintain constituted authority,
and that not with a cold and formal obedience, but with

10
cordial and genuine sincerity ; and I can see but one limit
to that obedience, either In temporal or spiritual subjec
tion, and that is, where it appears to the conscience
clearly to Interfere with our duty to our God.
Believe me, my Lord, I speak the genuine sentiments,
not only of myself, but of all my brethren engaged In
the Established Church Home Mission, when I say, we
feel with grief constrained to differ from your Lordship's
judgment, or that of any of our superiors. If we are
not actuated by a sense of duty to God, and to our
Church and country, I humbly trust we shall be better
instructed, and led to repent of our error ; but If I shall
be enabled to prove to your Lordship that we are thus
actuated, and that we do not intentionally violate any
known rule of duty ; If I shall be so favoured as to pre
sent to your Lordship's judgment and conscience a view
of the case, which I must believe has not before sug
gested itself to you, then I humbly trust, not only that
we shall stand acquitted in your Lordship's opinion,
but that, in the discussion of this subject, the sad con
dition of our country — the spiritual destitution of our
countrymen — the imminent danger — the past neglect —
and the present solemn responsibilities and imperative
duty of our Church shall be so plainly brought forth, that
your Lordship will not only no longer oppose, but throw
the whole weight of your talents, office, and authoritative
cooperation into an effort, on the success of which I
firmly believe the very existence of our Church In this
country, and the salvation of the country itself, must ulti
mately depend.
I confess, my Lord, that with all the feeling of pain with
which I am compelled to differ from you on the subject, I
rejoice that it is brought forward, so as that all men of sound

11
judgment and true piety, shall be led to consider its import
ance in all its bearings. I enter on it, however, unworthy
and Incompetent to do it justice with the more satisfaction,
because I enter on it solely on principle. Though my name
is on the committee, I have been unable to take almost any
part in the proceedings of the Established Church Home
Mission. Unable to go out to preach, and unable from per
sonal circumstances to attend the meetings of the committee,
I am at this moment unacquainted with any accurate
detail of its proceedings — and I state this to your Lord
ship, not to shrink from any responsibility connected with
it — but merely to convey, that I am not writing from
the pride of consistency to vindicate my own acts, but
merely with a view to discuss the great principles involved
in the question — and I humbly desire to pray, that the God
who trieth the reins and the heart of him who writes, and of
all who read on the subject, may give to us all a right un
derstanding of His holy will, and enable us to enter on the
consideration of it as in His sight, with such a deep sense
of the value of man's immortal soul — such a sense of our
guilt and apostacy from God — such a sense of the riches
of that salvation which is provided for, and proclaimed to
sinners in His everlasting Gospel — such a sense of the
solemn duty of those who profess to be teachers of that
Gospel to endeavour to enlighten those who are ignorant of
it — and finally, such a sense of the duties and responsibilities
of our own Church, and of all her Bishops and Ministers in
this country, as we shall know we ought to have had, when
we come to give an account of our stewardship at the judg
ment seat of Christ.
With these feelings, which I trust may not appear un
becoming a dutiful supporter of episcopal authority, I pro
ceed to consider the subject against which your Lordship's

12
charge is directed, and for this purpose I must enter some
what more extensively Into the question than that of a mere
adherence to the letter of your Lordship's objections. The
sense of duty under which our missionary exertions ought to
be undertaken, enters into a very wide field of ecclesiastical
responsibility, in a brief survey of which I must humbly
entreat your Lordship to accompany me, not only with your
kind attention, but with your most deep, conscientious, and
devoted consideration.
That It may be more clearly elucidated I shall divide the
subject into the following heads of consideration : —
First, The state of our country considered In a religious,
a moral, and a political point of view.
Secondly, The state of our own Church In this country.
Thirdly, The responsibilities and duties of its Bishops
and Clergy, and our past and present discharge of them.
Fourthly, How far your Lordship's view of our Ordina
tion service is consistent with the faithful discharge of these
duties and responsibilities, and with our vows as Presbyters,
and Bishops, at our Ordination and Consecration, and with
our Canons ; how far we are to consider that view just In
the letter or spirit, or binding on our consciences.
Lastly, How far the evils which your Lordship enume
rates and apprehends, are more to be charged on those who
would promote missionary exertions, or on those who op
pose them, and whether they are not all to be corrected and
avoided by a faithful apostolical discharge of episcopal and
clerical duty.

13

First then, my Lord,

THE STATE OF OUR COUNTRY IS TO BE CONSIDERED
IN A RELIGIOUS, MORAL, AND POLITICAL POINT
OF VIEW.
I am sure a more melancholy picture was never pre
sented to the eye of the Christian, the moralist, or the
statesman. I enter upon this with grief, when I look
at the facts, but with a solemn satisfaction when I con
sider that, at length, some prospect is opened to our Church,
of having them fully and faithfully brought out before the
country, for when objections are made to the missionary
labours of the Clergy in Ireland, the question must be asked.
Is there not a cause ? and the answers to that question
must bring into clear and prominent discussion, what Is the
religious condition of the people.
I place the religious condition of the country first upon
the list. For on that, its moral and political condition must
depend in the Christian's estimation. The Christian ac
knowledges no standard, no principle, no existence of
morality, but that which is derived from the religion of his
Redeemer. He expects, he dreams of no political pros
perity or blessing for his country, but in direct proportion
as that religion is diffused in its genuine truth and influence,
both among those who are In authority and those who are
in subjection. It must be true of nations collectively as it
is of the individuals of whom the aggregate is composed.
" As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide
in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me. If a
man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
withered ; and men gather them, and cast them into the
fire, and they are burned." John xv. 4, 6.

14
Misery, guilt, condemnation without Christ — peace,
morality, and salvation In Him— must be the condition of
man as an individual, and consequently in any collective
aggregate, of social or relative existence from a family to a
nation In which he can be considered.
Therefore, my Lord, the first question to be determined
is, what is the state of Ireland In a religious point of view ?
I mean as to the principles of religion professed by its
inhabitants. Let us say one-sixth of its Inhabitants are Protestants,
and five-sixths Roman Catholics. I believe this is not cor
rect, but it is not very material if it Is near the truth.
I know not exactly the division of numbers under which
Protestants may respectively be classed. When we speak
of the principles of our own Church It is unnecessary to
dwell on them : we hold them, and justly hold them, and I
trust we are able to prove them identical with the princi
ples of the Gospel of our Lord, both in the doctrines which
they teach and the morals they inculcate. How far they
are really embraced and acted on by all who profess them,^
is another question, which we must consider again. With
respect to our Presbyterian brethren — however we differ
from them on the question of Church government, we know
that In common with ourselves, the Church of Scotland
maintains the great foundations of the Christain faith, and
inculcates the purity of Christian morals.
As to other denominations of those who dissent from our
Church, the number In Ireland is so small, in comparison of
the population, that it is not necessary to consider their
respective tenets. We will admit that they all (as is un
questionably true in many cases) maintain in the abstract,
the true principles of the Christian faith, whatever errors in
government or other points, we may consider to be connected

15
with them. But I shall take two classes, one of which, I
lament to think is very numerous in some parts of Ireland,
and in no part of it, perhaps, more than in your Lordship's
own diocese, who are nominally Protestants, and who set
themselves up for peculiarly enlightened men too, I mean
that of Arians and Socinians. I class these together, for the
distinctions in their infidelity make no difference between
them : they coincide into unity when viewed in their im
measurable distance from the truth, as any two points on
the diameter of the earth coincide, when viewed by a spec
tator in the sun.
The other class of men are they, who people the greater
part of three provinces, and are very numerous in the fourth,
who amount to nearly five-sixths of the population, the
Roman Catholics. And now, my Lord, we come to this
great and solemn question, as to these two classes of our
countrymen — a question, which (as I trust we soon shall see)
the Bishops and Clergy of the Established Church are bound,
from the station in which God has placed them in this
country, to consider and to answer, as they shall give an
account of their stewardship, and of the great talents which
have been committed to their trust — a question on the an
swer to which, the great responsibility, which I humbly con
ceive rests on your Lordship's charge, depends.
That question Is this —
Can men deny the essential Godhead of the
Lord Jesus Christ — can they deny the atoning sa
crifice MADE BY " God manifest in the flesh" upon
the cross for man's transgressions, as the only
foundation of hope for his immortal soul, and be
saved ?
I answer to this question, my Lord, in a single word,
impossible ! As surely as the Bible is the revelation of

16
the living God — as surely as He whose name is called
" Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father, the Prince of Peace," "was wounded for' our trans
gressions, and bruised for our iniquities" — as Surely as " the
chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes
we are healed" — as surely as that " In the beginninf was the
Word, and the Word teas with God, and the Word was God,"
and that " the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" and
that " He bare our sins in his own body on the tree"-:— as surely
as " there is no salvation in any other, neither is there any
other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved" — so surely the man who does not believe " the record
that God hath given of his Son" — and that either deniesj or
philosophises Into lying sophistries and quibbling deceits, as
Arians and Socinians do, the plain and faithful testimony of
God's salvation for guilty sinners — except he repent and
believe the Gospel, shall perish In bis iniquities. " He that
believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God
ahideth upon him."
Again, my Lord, this question is to be asked concerning
another class, concerning five-sixths of the population of
Ireland. "Can a sinner depend upon the refuges
AND GROUNDS OF HOPE THAT THE CHURCH OF RoME PRO
POSES FOR THE SALVATION OF MAN's IMMORTAL SOUL AND
BE SAVED ?"
To this, my Lord, I answer, if superstition, if idolatry,
if one of the darkest developments of Antichrist that the
earth has ever seen, if these can bring salvation to the sin
ner's soul, then Is It to be found in the refuges of lies which
the Church of Rome, the " Mother of Harlots, and Abomi
nations of the Earth," proposes for the salvation of the soul
of man. I presume not, my Lord, to speak of individuals ;
I speak of principles. I cannot tell how many may be

17
saved by truths which they may have learned and embraced
in spite of the idolatry and anti-Christian superstitions of
their Church. I know not how many God may " have re
served to himself who have not bowed the knee to the image
of Baal." But this I know, that as surely as the salvation
of the Lord Jesus Christ Is the only refuge for the soul, the
means of salvation propounded by Popery, are refuges of
lies, of sin and death, and the sinner that lives and dies in
dependance on them, shall perish in his iniquity from the
presence of his God.
I am aware, my Lord, of the charges of illiberality, want
oi charity, controversial bitterness, odium theologicum, &c. &c.,
which this assertion will entail on me. I trust I can bear
such imputations with the feelings that I ought. I trust
I can say andTeel, that it is from a deep sorrow of heart, and
love for my poor Roman Catholic countrymen that I write,
and not from a feeling of bitterness or dislike ; but I do not
write of the persons, my Lord, but of a system of corruption
as compared with the Gospel of Christ and with the relative
bearings of which. It Is our duty to be acquainted ; and I
affirm, without the fear that human talent or human so
phistry can refute the affirmation, that the man who does not
admit the an tl- Christian soul-destroying system of Popish
superstition, is either ignorant of the real principles of the
Church of Rome, or still more lamentably ignorant of the
salvation revealed to man In the Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ for his own soul, or perhaps ignorant of both. We
are called on to treat of facts, of truth, as it refers to the
eternal Interests, not only of those who are our feUow-crea-
tures, but our countrymen, and we must not trifle with truth
on the mighty subject of the salvation of immortal souls.
The state of Ireland, with respect to the religious prin
ciples professed by Its population, then, is this, my Lord ;
B

18
thatfive-sixths of the population are sunk in an anti-Christian
idolatry, which brings not salvation, but perdition to the
soul of man ; and there are vast multitudes of the remaining
sixth, whose profession of religion is as far sunk in infidelity,
as that of Popery is in superstition.
To establish this by proofs from the doctrines of Popery
and Socinlanism, would be out of place in atldresslng your
Lordship. I have beforegone through the subject of Popery,
as being at war with the Gospel, in a little volume, entitled
" Truth and Error Contrasted." But our blessed Lord gives
us another test, which brings us farther In the development
of the state of Ireland. He saith, "By their fruits yon
shall know them." What then, my Lord, is the moral con
dition of this country ? It is a state of the most de
graded and abandoned turpitude that ever disgraced, I
will not say a nominally Christian, but a civilized country.
Where on the surface of the civilized globe is there such
another ? Where are the basest crimes and passions that
deform the human character, that brutalize our species^
more hideously developed ? Where are dishonesty, drunk
enness, depravity, treachery, perjury, murder, more rife
in the world than In the Popish provinces of Ireland?
What habitations of the wicked are more the abodes of
cruelty ? What dens of the earth more full of the dark
ness of guilt? What field from which the "voice of a
brother's blood" does not cry to heaven for vengeance?
What path that has not been marked with the steps of the
midnight assassin? Where is the country in which the
owners of property fly in disgust from their possessions ?
Where are the inhabitants forced to barricade their dwel
lings, not against foreign enemies, but their neighbours?
to tremble at the apprehension of the musket placed at
their window, or the torch at their roof in the dead of the

19
night, by the very men that had been saluting them with an
obsequious smile, supported by their wages, or relieved by
their charity in the day ? Where do Bishops and Senators
triumph In perjuries inculcated by their religion ? Where
does a religion riot In crimes, from the very name of which
even heathen civilization would recoil ? Where are laws
inadequate to maintain the rights of justice ? Where are
they impotent to protect property, and liberty, and life ?
Where is sedition a virtue — where is crime an honorable
achievement? Where is the violation of every duty to a
man's neighbour accounted the best discharge of duty to
his God ? Where is social existence a burthen so into
lerable to thousands and tens of thousands, that exile is a
refuge from it ? Where is evil systematically called good,
and good systematically denominated evil? Where, in
§liort, is devotion to the father of lies — a dedication of
talents and powers to the prince of darkness, considered an
acceptable service to the God of truth, and light, and glory ?
Where is all this, my Lord ? Jt Is all inculcated in the
doctrine, all exhibited in the morals of the Church of Rome
in Ireland. Our country presents a picture of Idolatry, of
superstition, and of moral turpitude and degradation, from
which religion and humanity revolt.
There is not a question I have asked, my Lord, that I
could not take the history of Ireland for ten years past,
and stamp the deep impression of fact upon every answer.
It Is unnecessary to dwell on the political state of Ireland.
It Is a state of scarcely half-smothered revolution — a state
of insurrection, smouldering like a fire, which wants but
vent to burst into a flame — sedition upon tiptoe, with its
hand upon its sword, ready to spring at a moment Into
rebellion. I need not enter into details — every newspaper
is a volume on the subject.

20
Let us then pass on, my Lord, to the second head pro
posed for consideration — namely,
WHAT IS THE STATE OF OUR OWN CHURCH IN THIS
COUNTRY?
I do not profess here to inquire Into the religious and
moral condition of the members of the Established Church.
Perhaps it may be necessary hereafter to advert to this ;
but I wish, for my present purpose, respectfully to submit
a few reflections to your Lordship on another view of the
case. Let us then consider, my Lord, the station which our
Church has hitherto held in Ireland. If we look at its spi
ritual privileges, as being the religion which is established
by law, the whole country is parcelled out into dioceses,
over which our Church possesses a supreme spiritual autho
rity. Episcopal jurisdiction, the power of which, your
Lordship has so strongly asserted in your charge, extends
over every spot of the country. There is not a spot over
which a Bishop of our venerable Church does not possess
the full exercise of what we conscientiously consider a
genuine apostolical authority. Again, every diocese is
subdivided into parishes, over which one or two ministers
are placed by this authority, invested with the powers
which, as your Lordship has stated, are Episcopally con
ferred upon them. These powers are ratified by the laws
of the land ; and while those laws were executed, both
Bishops and Clergy were protected, in the fullest exercise
of every means which the Christian religion authorises and
enjoins, to maintain her sacred truth among their own
flocks, and to diffuse it among others. Such are some of
the spiritual privileges of our Church. If we look to her

21
temporal provision, before the recent confiscations, it was
at least an independent maintenance for a Christian mi
nistry ; in many Instances, especially In those of her
Bishops, it was a provision of affluence and dignity. She
" reared her mitred head in senates," that she might shed a
sacred influence upon the laws, and contribute to support
the venerable fabric of that constitution, under whose
shelter all her spiritual and temporal privileges received a
return of reciprocated protection — ^considered, and justly
too, as inculcating and maintaining all the principles of
sound government and social order, the Church of England
has been held in honor and veneration as the bulwark of
the British throne. To injure her privileges, was to sap
the pillars of the monarchy — to attempt her subversion, was
to compass a revolution — if any effort was made to weaken
or disturb her — If temporal power was given to her enemies,
it was gilded with the specious pretext of zeal for her de
fence ; and even the recent plunder of so large a portion
of the support for her Bishops and Clergy, was proposed un
der colour of precaution for the protection of the remainder :
her enemies, so long without the power to inflict an Injury
upon her — her friends, so mighty to defend her — she
seemed almost to enjoy the privileges of that Church to
which the prophetic promise has been given : " No weapon
that Is formed against thee shall prosper, and every tongue
that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt con
demn." Isa. liv. 17.
Such, my Lord, has been the state, such the privileges
of our venerable Church ; but what is her condition now ?
Her enemies, invested with authority, clamorous for her
downfall ; her friends weakened and discouraged — the best
of them unable to offer any security that they can possess any
permanent power to defend her, and many who profess to be

22
members of her communion, without even the inclination
to do so — half of her sees confiscated ; the remainder, and
all the rest of her Clergy, heavily taxed; so that to borrow
your Lordship's own language on the case, " What may
" be eventually the condition of the united Church of Eng-
" land and Ireland, as a national establishment, and whether
" the §tate may have the wisdom to hold her still in alli-
" ance, and to seek from her a continuance of benefit fully
" commensurate in value with the protection which it
" bestows, is a question which the signs of the times appear
" to render more difficult of solution." True, my Lord,
the danger is aggravated daily : but a short time since, the
safety of the state was said to consist in the support of the
Church— now the voice of popular clamour declares that
the tranquillity of the country is to depend upon her
downfall. It gives me most unfeigned gratification to transcribe
the reflections which your Lordship makes on this crisis of
difficulty and danger ; and I trust I desire as unfeignedly
to adopt them, and to have them impressed on my own
heart; as your Lordship could have wished to impress them
on the Clergy of your diocese. "Under any circum-
" stances, however, which may arise around us ; whatever
" fears may alarm, whatever dangers may threaten us, and
" whatever, in the good pleasure of the All-wise Ruler of
" the Church, may be the ultimate result, one thing is
" plain and certain, so far as these questions should operate
" upon us the ministers of the Church, namely, that it be-
" hoves us to be, if possible, more than ever faithful to the
" ministry to which, at our several ordinations, we pro-
" fessed ourselves, to ' think in our heart that we Were truly
" ' called according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
" ' the due order of this realm and Church f to give, if

23
possible, more than ever, ' our faithful diligence, always so
' to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline
'of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this
' Church and realm hath received the same according to
' the commandments of God, so that we may teach the people '
' committed to our care and charge with all diligence to
' keep and observe the same ;' to be, if possible, more than
ever ' ready with all faithful diligence to banish and'drive
' away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's
' word, within our cures ;' to be, if possible, more than
ever united in our sentiments and conduct, and in ' reve-
'rent obedience to the chief ministers of the Church, to whom
' is committed the charge and government over us.' In a
word, to be, if possible, more than ever solicitous to
' exercise our ministry duly to the honor of God, and the
' edifying of his Church f that so if it please God, in his
inscrutable wisdom, to permit any injury to happen to his
Church in general, or in particular to our national member
of it, we may be comforted by the reflection, that if we
have not been successful in our endeavours to bear up
the pillars of it, we have at least not been instrumental
to its downfall or decay."
I trust, my Lord, there is no Clergyman in Ireland, I
am sure there is not one who has the interest of his profes
sion, his church, or his country at heart, who will not go
along with your Lordship most cordially in all this truly
excellent course of admonition. If ever there was a time ,
which called for an increase of union, diligence, fidelity,
devotedness, bold defence of truth, and uncompromising
exposure of error, the due maintenance of authority and
of subjection — if ever, In short, there was a time when all
our duties and all our responsibilities to our God, to our
fellow-creatures, to our Church, and to our country, were

^4
to be laid upon our understandings, our consciences, and
our hearts, that time is this In which we live ; which may
well be called indeed " a day of rebuke and of blasphemy ;"
" a day of clouds and of darkness."
I humbly trust, therefore, though I cannot come to the
same conclusion on some points to which your Lordship
has arrived, that at least I may set out in the full spirit of
those principles which your Lordship has so ably incul
cated; and that to this point of your Lordship's charge I
shall come, not only In accordance with those principles,
but under the full sanction of your Lordship's authority, to
the investigation of that Important point, which I had pro
posed to inquire into in the third place ; namely,
WHAT ARE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF
THE BISHOPS AND CLERGY OF THE ESTABLISHED
CHURCH OF IRELAND, AND WHAT HAS BEEN OUR
PAST AND PRESENT DISCHARGE OF THEM?
I am sure your Lordship feels that this inquiry is Indis-
pensible to the due consideration of the important admoni
tions which have just been quoted.
We must Inquire what Is the will of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and the due order of this Church and realm to
which we are called ? What the importance of the doc
trine and sacraments which we are bound to minister?
What the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath com
manded, and as this Church and realm hath received
according to the commandments of God, which we are to
teach the people ? What the awful nature, tendency, and
extent of those erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to
God's word, which we have so solemnly undertaken to be
ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away?

25
What should be the great bond of our union ; the great
principle both of episcopal jurisdiction and clerical obe
dience ; and what the mode in which our ministry can best
be exercised to the honour of God, and the edifying of His
Church ? How we may but discharge it so that if we are
not Instrumental in our endeavours to maintain, under
divine Providence, the establishment of our Church in the
land, we shall at least, not have been instrumental to its
downfall or decay.
If we do not clearly understand the nature of our duties
and responsibilities — your Lordship knows we may commit
fearful mistakes, even in our conscientious and zealous
efforts to discharge them.
The duties and responsibilities of ministers of Christ,
may be classed under two great general heads.
The first is, that of labouring with all zeal and fidelity in
the word and doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ, so as to
bring His salvation to the souls of perishing sinners, and
to edify and build up the spiritual members of His
Church. The second Is, so to labour in that word and doctrine,
that the cause of their Master be honoured in their life and
conversation, their order, discipline, and faithful adherence
to the principles and government of the Church in which
they are called to minister.
Wishing, I trust, to write not only In your Lordship's
sight, and that of my brethren In the Church, but in the
sight of God conscientiously, I humbly desire to give to the
differentpartsof the subject their due place and consideration.
I wish to give in my address, as I trust I do in my principles,
all just weight to that part which your Lordship has, I am
assured, most conscientiously maintained in your charge ;
but I must give due weight also, to another part of the

26
subject, which, I feel assured, does not hold the place which
it ought to hold, I say not in your Lordship's conscience
alone, but In the consciences, generally speaking, of the
whole Ministry of our Church ; and which, I trust, your
Lordship will bear with me, and believe me, I mean not to
write In a presumptuous manner, when I say, I do not see
brought forward In your charge. I know, my Lord, you
could not advert to all topics, however important — and
when you felt it necessary to insist particularly on
one, it may not be attributable to any intentional omis
sion, that you should neglect another. But your charge,
my Lord, is directed especially against Ministers of the
Established Church going out into the country to preach
the Gospel In a missionary way,; and I trust your Lordship
will excuse me If I venture to say, that In writing, I must
confess, with some degree of severity, as you apply to
them the appellations of being " unquiet, disobedient, and
criminous within your diocese," &c. &c. it might have been
expected that your Lordship would have given its full
weight and value to the importance of preaching the Gospel
to men ; but shown at the same time, that the error in this
mode of doing so, was such, as even the vast importance of
the subject did not justify. But, my Lord, permit me re
spectfully to submit, that when you lay in one scale, the
'weight of a breach of discipline, and of our vows of clerical
obedience, there Is another weight to be laid in the opposite
scale, which must be fairly balanced, before we can come
to a decision on the case : there are other vows which are
to be weighed along with these ; other duties to be dis
charged ; other responsibilities incurred at ordination, with
which our consciences ought to be Impressed ; and the ques
tion Is not, I humbly think, how the breach of one duty is
to be exercised at the expense of another, but how all our

27
duties ahd obligations may be made to harmonize in the
practice, as I am assured they do, in the well-poised theory
of our venerable Church.
As to the duties and responsibilities of Bishops and Pres
byters, in reference to the members of our own Church, it
is unnecessary at present, to enter into them ; there is no
devotedness to our sacred vocation, in this respect, which
your Lordship could inculcate, from which any conscien
tious Clergyman would dissent.
But here the question arises, my Lord — Are there no
duties, no responsibilities, resting on the Bishops and Clergy
of the Established Church, In reference to those around
them, who are not members of their own communion, but
who are living and dying in ignorance, apostacy, and guilt,
and not only so, but in bitter enmity to the continuance or
existence of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ in this
country ?
Here, my Lord, is the question, on which the whole
weight of the subject rests. Your Lordship has most
faithfully impressed upon us, the discharge of our duty
according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ and the com
mandments of our God; according to the order of our
Church and realm ; according to the solemn vows of our
ordination, and according to the dangers and difficulties in
which our Church Is at present placed; and I will humbly,
yet faithfully, take leave to say, my Lord, that every mo
tive, every principle, every authority, which you have
urged — the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, the command
ments of our God, the order of this Church and realm,
and the present dangers and difficulties of our establish
ment — all cry aloud, with the voice of a trumpet, with a
tongue of fire, to the whole orders of our Ministry, from the
highest to the lowest, that the most solemn weight of duty.

28
the most awful responsibility, rests on them before their
God, to stand forth amidst the millions of their country
men, among whom they ought " to shine as lights -in the
world," and to bring salvation to their ears and souls, or at
least to use the means to do so, which God has ordained,
and of which they have undertaken to be the Ministers.
And now, my Lord, I do most sincerely trust, and most
fervently pray, that God in His mprcy will raise up some
individual more competent in every sense, than such an
unworthy worm as I am, to bring this matter forward Into
the great prominence which It deserves, till there shall not
be a Bishop or a Clergyman fouad, in Ireland, who will not
feel himself bound before God and his country to lay It to
heart and to act on it.
I say, my Lord, with deep humiliation, that it Is my
solemn conviction that to our universal, awful, and criminal
neglect of our most imperative duty on this subject, the
whole miseries of our country and Church, both those
which we suffer, and those which we apprehend, are to be
ascribed ; and further, my Lord, I am as fully persuaded,
that if we do not at this eleventh hour, awake from our
lethargy to a sense of our duty, the retributive visitation
of our God, will humble us still farther, and bow down
our necks to the yoke, and make us feel, and justly feel,
that it Is an evil and a bitter thing to have departed from
our duty to the souls of our fellow-men, and the glory of
our God.
I trust I need not say, though I venture to address those
remarks to your Lordship, that I do not Intend to cast any
peculiar imputation on your Lordship, or on my superiors
of this day ; the evil has existed In the Church, before this
generation, or their fathers, were born. I mean no more to

29
offend your Lordship, or them, than Daniel meant to offend
the rulers of his Church and country when he said :
"We have sinned and have committed iniquity, and
have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing
from thy precepts and from thy judgments :
"Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants, the
prophets, which spake In thy name to our kings, princes,
and our fathers, and to all the people of this land. O Lord,
to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our
princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against
thee."* I speak, my Lord, of a sin in which I have as deep re
sponsibility on my own head as any other individual can
have, and perhaps more, from the convictions of my judg
ment and conscience on the subject, with which my efforts
have kept no proportionate pace.
But, my Lord, the question demands a calm, a scriptural,
a faithful investigation.
It has been laid down, my Lord, that the first general
head under which the duties and responsibilities of the
ministers of Christ are to be classed is that of labouring with
all zeal and fidelity, in the word and doctrine of the Lord
Jesus Christ, so 'as to bring His salvation to the souls of
perishing sinners, and to edify and build up the spiritual
members of His Church ; and I add, my Lord, that these
duties and responsibilities, are laid on the Bishops, and Clergy
of the Church of Ireland, in reference to our poor Roman
Catholic countrymen, and all, who like them, are perishing
in Idolatry or Infidelity around us, they are laid on us by
the very obligations on which your Lordship has enforced
our duty. * Daniel, ix. 5, 6, 8.

30
L The will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. The order of this Church and realm, and our ordina
tion vows, and canons.
And 3dly. The state of our Church and country.
Now, let me respectfully submit some considerations to
your Lordship on all these heads.
Do you think, my Lord, it can be according to the will
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Bishops and Clergy of the
Church of Ireland should live In the station which we hold,
with all the immunities and privileges that we have enjoyed,
and leave our fellow-creatures in the state of ignorance and
guilt. In which they are living and dying around us ? Let
me suppose that our blessed Lord were to come again on
earth, and to go, as he walked in the days of his sojourn
here below, through our dioceses and parishes, would he
find us in this respect discharging the duties of our high
vocation, labouring for the souls of men, trying to follow
the steps of him who " came to seek and to save those that
were lost," " doing the work of an evangelist ?" If it is
said he would find us faithfully engaged with our own flocks
in our own Church, labouring among our own people — even
suppose, that this were all true, and that we were all
blameless in this respect, let me ask, what excuse is
this for neglecting the souls of so many millions of our
fellow-creatures? Can we possibly imagine Paul or
Timothy going to a heathen land to preach the Gospel, and
then, when they had collected a body of believers into a
Church, sitting down perfectly satisfied that they had done
their duty, and leaving all the rest of the heathen to perish
in Ignorance and idolatry around them? If this were
Apostolic conduct, if this were fidelity either to Christ or
to his Church, how, my Lord, had Christianity ever been
propagated throughout the world ? or are we to labour to

31
a certain extent, till we can get together a certain number
of men, or to enter as we have done upon the labours of
others who have gone before us, to have a certain comfortable
establishment set up for our own Church ; have houses and
lands, and revenues for ourselves, and places of worship for
our congregations, and then sit quietly down, contented to
let the rest, not only of our fellow-creatures, but our
countrymen, live and die in guilt, in superstition, and Ig
norance, and that, when they amount to five-sixths of the
population of the land we inhabit. I know, my Lord, full
well how false is the assertion as to tithes, that they are a
tax on Roman Catholics. I know it Is the property of
the Church, for which those who pay it have an ample
value in kind; but still they earn the money that pays us: the
produce of their toil goes to us, instead of to their landlords ;
they live around us; they are our neighbours, our associates,
our friends, our servants, our labourers ; the sweat of their
brow supplies us with the necessaries, and in some instances
with the comforts, with the luxuries of life ; we derive the
very name of our Church from protesting against their
errors ; we swear their religion Is Idolatrous and supersti
tious, and we leave them, without a struggle, to perish in
their iniquities ! If this be apostolical ; if this be to do the
will of the Lord Jesus Christ ; If this be the duty of faithful
shepherds ; if this be to " watch for souls as those that must
give account ;" then, my Lord, the Bible is a "cunningly de
vised fable," and the religion which it teaches is unworthy to
supplant the kindred delusions of atheism and superstition.
How does it befit us to talk of the Christian religion as a
blessing to mankind? if it is, are we not its Ministers ? are
we not its Bishops? and if It be such a blessing why not labour
like the servants of God to diffuse it among our miserable
countrymen ? O, my Lord, if this be the testimony of our

32
Lord in His eternal word to his ministers—-" So thou, 0 Son
" of man, I have set thee a watchmanunto the House of Israel;
" therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, andwarnthem
"from me. Wlien I say unto the wicked, 0 wicked man thou
^' shalt surely die, if thou dost not speak to warn the wickedfrom
" his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his
" blood will I require at thine hand."*
If this be His testimony, and that He were to hold a mighty
visitation on the dioceses and parishes of Ireland, let me
humbly, but faithfully, ask your Lordship, as in His sight,
would he find the watchmen of our Church awake or asleep
upon their posts ? Let every man lay his hand upon his
heart before his God, and^ask himself the question — is he
clear of the blood of the Roman Catholics of his parish, his
diocese, his country?
I know not, my Lord, what infatuation seems to have
possessed us ; but there are two points on which our whole
Church appears to have been lulled Into a delusion from
which, if the gracious mercy of God does not dispel it from
our conscience and understanding, it must inevitably issue
in that result to which it is rapidly hurrying us, the utter
destruction of our Church, and I firmly believe. In it, of the
British empire.
The first is, our apparent ignorance or disregard of the anti-
Christian idolatry and superstition of the Church of Rome.
The second is, our duty in reference to our countrymen
who are sunk under its delasions.
I have never seen the delusion of the Church on these two
points so clearly and so lamentably set forth as in the letters
of a very distinguished Prelate, now no more, a Prelate of
whose personal religion it Is not our duty to judge. I trust
he was resting for his own soul where all poor sinners alone
* Ezek. xxxiii. 7, 8.

33
can rest with hope, on the merits and atonement of a cru
cified Redeemer — his personal amiability, those who knew
him, I believe, highly appreciated, and his name stands
deservedly high in the department of theological litera
ture. Having been removed from the Church, and his
memory being, I doubt not, very dear to many who are
now alive, I should not quote a passage from his work,
either Intentionally to wound the feelings of any Individual, or
to cast a personal reflection on himself. It will be considered
alas ! by many, as his highest praise. I quote it, as ex
hibiting, not merely his own opinion, but as showing forth
if not the very precise opinion, at least, the awful practice
of the whole Church of Ireland ; and It is rather to challenge
attention, to try and stir up my brethren, and O ! that I
might add, my Lord, humbly, yet I trust faithfully, to
awaken the attention of my superiors to the evil, that I bring
it forward under the sanction of authority which only serves
to show its magnitude, and its tremendous ruin to the
Church. In a letter dated twenty years ago, 1815, from the late
Bishop of Limerick, then the Rev. John Jebb, to Mr.
Knox, we meet the following account of a conversation
between himself and a gentleman In Cambridge, whom
those who know that University are at no loss to recognise: —
" You are in a country very much swarming with
Papists." " Yes," replied I, " there are a great number of Romaii
Catholics In my parish ; it is extensive, and I have but fifteen
or sixteen Protestant families." This, 1 believe, was fur
ther drawn out by a question relative to the comparative
numbers. " Then," said Mr.  , " have you made any exertions
among the Papists to bring them over ?"

34
" No," I replied, " the attempt would be altogether in vain,,
and indeed, / do not feel myself called on to use exertions of
that nature."
" But you have consulted with other ministers as to the
line of conduct which you should adopt ?"
" I have thought much upon the subject, and my mind is
fully made up that I ought not to interfere ; particularly as I
know the people to be under the care of a very pious and atten
tive parish priest."
" But do you not feel it your duty to attempt the con-
verf 'on of those poor people from the damnable errors of
Popery ?"
" I cannot think they labour under damnable errors : they.
have erred, and do err grossly and absurdly, but not, as Icon-.
ceive, damnably ; else how could their Church produce so
many pious and excellent individuals ?"
" That is owing to the goodness of God, who has per
mitted some individuals to be better than their system.
But, surely, their doctrine of justification, and their
abominable doctrine of human merit are damnable."
" I cannot think so : some crude things they do say on the
point of merit ; but they firmly believe that we can do no
good thing but by the grace of Christ."
" Yes, but they give their works a share in their justifi
cation, and they should be opposed."
" To all this I said, in order to cut short useless discussion,
' that from birth, education, and providential circumstances,
and of deliberate choice, I dissentedfrom the errors of Popery;
that Dixnne Providence had made me the superintendent of
a Church of England flock ; to that little flock I endeavoured to
pay attention ; that the same Providence saw fit to leave the pa-*
pulation of my parish under the care of another pastor ; that
with him I did not think it in any degree my duty to

35
interefere, ^c." — Correspondence of Jebb and Knox, vol. 2,
pp. 238, 239.
Now, my Lord, of this I can only say, that a more me
lancholy exhibition of the principles of a Minister of the
Church of England, and a more melancholy picture of the
system on which our whole Church has acted in reference
to the Church of Rome, I cannot conceive.
To talk " of some crude things, that they say on the point of
merit," while their canons and catechisms are extant ! to talk
of " a very pious and attentive parish priest!" a poor man
who in direct proportion to the zeal with which he promoted
the principles of his Church, was labouring In the work
of Antichrist and pillowing up the souls of his blinded
fellow-sinners with the props of idolatry and superstition.
To talk of Divine Providence placing the, souls of men
under the care of such a pastor! in any other sense than that
in which Providence may be said to have placed men under
any system of Heathenism or Paganism, in which he might
be said to have placed the worshippers of Diana under the
care of those who made silver shrines for the goddess ! or
the inhabitants of Lystra under the priests of Jupiter !
What, my Lord ! is the bloodless offering of a piece of
flour and water a " true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of
the living and the dead ?" Is that idol actually to receive
the homage due to Him at whose name " every knee shall
bow, of things in heaven, and things In earth, and things
under the earth?" Is the " whole fulness of the Godhead"
actually summoned by the cabalistic incantation of a worm
of the dust to be embodied in a bit of dough ? And Is this
to be called and adored as Jehovah the Saviour of the
world ? Is this to be held out as the hope for man to fly to ?
and is the offerer of this Idol sacrifice a " pious pastor ?" If
not, if it is idolatry, If it is a system of falsehood and ruin.

36
dishonourable to God, and destructive to the soul of man,
whence springs that criminal blindness, that ignorance or
what is worse, that disregard of God's eternal truth which
leads us systematically to act upon the principles of non
interference with such a system ?
If this is to be faithful to our ministry according to the
will of our Lord Jesus — if this Is to be faithful to the
souls of men — then we can only say, the Sacred Volume is
no longer, my Lord, to be the standard, either of Gospel
truth or ministerial duty. That infidel excuse for apathy,.
denominated in our modern vocabulary, charity. Is to sa
crifice the truth of God to the errors and the sins from
which It was sent to redeem the world. If you press our
duties and responsibilities on us, according to the will of
our Lord Jesus Christ, we must come to a result as far from
that to which your Lordship's charge would bring us, as
pole from pole or east from west.
But there Is another ground on which your Lordship forci-
blyurgesthedlschargeof our clerical duties — namely, "f/te due
order of this Cliurch and realm, and our own Ordination vows."
I gladly enter on this part of the subject. O ! that we
might all lay them to heart as we ought to do ! I shalj
consider those which refer to matters of discipline in thel r
place, but I first advert to that which your Lordship quotes.
You say " we should be, if possible, more than ever
" ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away
"all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's
" word, within our cures."
This is an obligation, my Lord, entered Into both by the
Presbyter and the Bishop — the question to the Bishop at
his consecration is —
" Are you ready ivith all faithful diligence to banish and
drive away all erro neous and strange doctrines contrary to

37
God's Word, and both privately and openly to call upon and
encourage others to the same ?"
The answer Is, " / am ready, the Lord being my
helper." Here, my Lord, our Church recognises no compromise
between her Master's truth and the error, whatever it
be, that denies It. She never contemplates that her Bishops
and Clergy are to cover with the cloak of charity (falsely so
called) that criminal neglect of superstition and Idolatry
which permits it to grow and strengthen in our dioceses
and cures, without as much as an effort to counteract it,
which is. In fact, a total want of genuine charity for the
souls of men. Little did the compilers of our ordinatloii
service dream, that the days should come when these
most solemn vows were to remain as though they had never
been made ; though they involve not a matter of discipline,
but the salvation of men's immortal souls — the mainte
nance of Christianity Itself — the deliverance of others from
false religion, and the support and propagation of our own.
Little did they dream that we were to allow the very prin
ciples from which our own Church was reformed — the
principles denounced and pointed out by the finger of
divine prophecy, as an exhibition of anti- Christian apostacy,
marked for the curse and condemnation of the living God —
Little did they dream that we were to allow this satanic
system to grow up — to strengthen — to fructify — to prey on
our poor fellow-creatures and our country in every spot
around us. Little did they imagine that we were to be so
thoroughly and criminally negligent as Christian Bishops
and Ministers, of our duty — of the souls of men — of the
glory of God — of our solemn vows repeated before God in
every step of our advancement to the highest ecclesiastical
authority, that not only the victims of this system were to

38
be left in ignorance of their tremendous guilt and respon
sibility, and of the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ, but
that we were actually to grow into such a state of igno
rance ourselves, and to allow our whole Church to grow into
such a state of ignorance, that the fidelity of truth was to be
almost lost among us ; that the law of public opinion was to
be degraded to such a standard, as to pronounce It actually
illiberal and uncharitable, to utter one syllable of truth upon
the subject. Little did they anticipate that it should ever
come to such a pass, that, from the highest to the lowest
estate In the whole realm, there should seem to be one
universal mist overhanging the understandings of men, so
it^i they could not see to distinguish between truth and
¦error — to know what system of religion holds forth salvation
according to the Gospel for men's souls, and what holds forth
anti-Christian falsehood and superstition.
Let this question be asked. Is popery Christianity?
and where is the man to be found who will give the true
answer — No ; but an awful system of anti-Christian apos
tacy, that subverts the foundations of Christianity ? What
will be the answer of nine-tenths of the members of our
Church upon the subject? It will be something in the
strain of the quotation I have made from the letter of
Bishop Jebb ; or like that which a certain noble Earl, lately
at the head of his Majesty's councils, made to a Nobleman who
spoke as to the difference between the truth of our Church
and the errors of the Church of Rome. " O," replied his
Lordship, " that is a matter not decided yet ;" or some
thing like a sentiment from an authority whom I am
ashamed to quote, that Indeed the Church of Rome only
" believes a little more than loe do ;" that Is, the religion
of the Church of Rome is just the same as ours, only they
have made a little addition to the faith ! — a few more media-

39
tors than Christ ! — a little more sacrifice for sin than the
blood of Christ ! — a little more of good works in addition
to the merits of Christ ! just as if these guilty refuges of
lies, were not a total extinction of the whole salvation of the
Gospel. What would the compilers of our ordination service
think, my Lord, if they could see, that, through the neglect
of those who were to take the vows which it imposes, in
stead of the gospel of Christ gaining ground upon falsehood
and superstition, falsehood and superstition were to have
gained upon the gospel of Christ; till, through the very
power of that superstition — a power gained upon the reli
gion — a power gained upon the laws — a power gained upon
the opinion of the nation, the Protestant religion was
almost subverted in the land, so that ten of her bishoprics
were confiscated; and It was a question whether her eccle
siastical jurisdiction should not be withdrawn, as not only
utterly useless, but worse than useless, over a vast portion
of the country ? Yea, that the very contamination of cor
ruption should have so invaded her own members, that a
blow was to be struck at the very foundation of her faith,
from within her own pale — that the very integrity of the
Word of God was to be impeached as suited to the instruc
tion of her children — that the very head and fountain of
ecclesiastical authority itself was to be so corrupted, that
that very authority was to preside over and administer the
very principles of error, which it had just sworn, with the
vow hot upon its. lips, to be "ready with all faithful dili
gence to banish and drive away." Our ordination vows !
O ! my Lord, would to God, they were remembered among
us as they ought to be ! Would to God they were not
seemingly forgotten where they ought most to be remem
bered ! Would to God the great principles which they

40
contain, the great foundations of Christianity on which they
rest, that Involve the salvation of men, and the very exist
ence of true religion in our land, were maintained and
enforced with half the anxiety that matters, which, what
ever be their weight, are all comparatively Insignificant, are
insisted on ! Would to God we were half as anxious for
" the judgment, the justice, and the mercy," as for the
" mint, and anise, and cummin," for the vital principles, as
for the discipline and ceremonials of our religion ! I give
to discipline and form, and ceremony and order, all the
weight that they can demand ; but zeal for mere discipline,
while the great maintenance, and defence, and propagation
of the religion of Christ are neglected, is expending our
energy to struggle for the casket, while we allow the
robber to plunder the gem, which alone gave it the value
for which it was committed to our trust.
But j^our Lordship refers not only to our ordination
vows, but to the canons of our Church. I enter on this
part of the subject with solemn, but melancholy satisfac
tion ; solemn — because the canons corroborate the ordina
tion vows, so as to add, if it were needful, the autho
rity of human law to the great principles of truth ;
melancholy — because they afford a painful and bitter de
monstration, of the awful neglect of duty on the part of
those, by whom that truth ought to have been vindi
cated and maintained ; and I derive some gleam of hope
that, from the plain force of truth, and the power of
the Divine blessing, we may be at length, in some degree,
awakened to a sense of our great responsibilities and duties
on this subject.
What, my Lord. Is the language of the fortieth Irish
canon ?
"Every minister, being a preacher, and liaving any popish

41
" recusant or recusants in his parish, (and thought fit by the
" bishop of the diocess,) shall labour diligently with them
"from time to time, thereby to reclaim them from their er-
¦" rors ; and if he be no preacher, or not such a preaclier,
*' then he shall procure (if he can possible) some that are
"preachers, so qualified, to take pains with tliem for that
"purpose. If he can procure none, then he shall inform the
" bishop of the diocess thereof, who shall not only appoint some
" neighbour preacher, or preachers adjoining, to take that la-
" bour upon them, but himself also (as his important affairs
" will permit him) shall use his best endeavour, by ministra-
" tion, persuasion, and all good means he can devise, to reclaim
" both them and all other within his diocess so affected."
Now, my Lord, if the archbishops and bishops who com
posed those canons can be considered as judges in any
respect of episcopal and clerical duty — If the canons
are to have any weight on our consciences as churchmen —
if they can be considered as having any meaning In defin
ing the vows of ordination — if they can add the sanction
of law to the force of moral obligation, let me entreat
your Lordship to consider, as a Minister of our Lord
Jesus Christ — as a Bishop in that Church which we
believe to be the " pillar and ground of truth," what is
the position of duty in which our ordination vows and
this CEUion places every minister In his parish, and every
bishop In his diocese, with reference to the Roman Ca
tholics of Ireland ? Where Is a popish priest recognized
as a pastor placed by Providence over a people here ?
Let us look at our prayer-books — at our practice — at our
parishes — at our dioceses — at our Church — at our country,
and where were ever vows more violated, canons more dis
regarded, duties more neglected, or a more melancholy
exhibition of the sad result, than Ireland presents to the

42
contemplation of a Christian ? If ever cause and effect
were to be traced in moral truth— if ever Divine Provic
dence permitted a criminal neglect of duty to draw down
its own destructive consequences upon the head of the
offenders, then are the miseries of this country, the dis
asters, the dangers, the impending ruin of the Established
Church, to be traced to our criminal neglect of the salva
tion of our Roman Catholic countrymen. I care not, my
Lord, if there never was a canon on the subject — I care
not if such a vow had never been embodied in the ordina
tion of our Presbyters, or the consecration of our Bishops-^
there Is an authority and truth antecedent to every canon —
there is a duty paramount to every form that man could
frame, and every law or vow he could impose, that comes
with a mighty demand upon the conscience of every one
who devotes himself to the service of his God, and the
ministry of his Eternal Word. It comes from that Power
under whom he derives all the authority, and to whom he
must render the account of his stewardship.
" Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds. Woe
"be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves:
" should not the shepherds feed the flocks ?
" Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool ; ye
" kill them that are fed, but ye feed not the flock.
" The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have
" ye healed that which was sick ; neither have ye bound
" up that which was broken ; neither have ye brought agaiij
" that which was driven away ; neither have ye sought that
" which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye
" ruled them.
" And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd;
" and they became meat to all the beasts of the field when
" they were scattered.

43
" My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and
" upon every high hill : yea, my flock was scattered upon
" all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek
" after them.
" Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;
" As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock
" became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast
" of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did
" my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed
" themselves, and fed not my flock :
" Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the
" Lord; " Thus saith the Lord God, behold I am against the
" shepherds, and I will require my flock at their hand, and
" cause them to cease from feeding the flock ; neither shall
" the shepherds feed themselves any more, for I will de-
" liver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be
" meat for them."*
Let the ten confiscated Bishoprics of our Cliurch — let
her taxed, insulted, persecuted, exiled, murdered Clergy —
let the Insolent proposals of infidelity and superstition, to
spare their vested Interests, and then to annihilate the
ministrations of their religion over half the surface of the
land — let the weak and trembling policy of all the Church
itself, that, instead of " taking joyfully the spoiling of Its
goods," but vindicating Its spiritual authority, could bow its
neck to the yoke of the secular power, and allow the ex
tinction of spiritual offices, and the arbitrary imposition of
spiritual duties, at the beck of unprincipled politicians who
quailed before superstition and infidelity, and this against
all Scripture, all law, all precedent, all settled principles,
all ecclesiastical history — let these rise up, and if the vital
* Ezek. «xxiv. 2-10.

44
spark of spiritual life is not extinct In us — If we have
ears to hear, as a Church, let them all peal In our ears a
comment on our neglected duties, our violated vows, our
broken canons, the awful guilt and misery of our blind Ill-
fated countrymen, and on this solemn denunciation of the
Word of God.
Whiggery — Radicalism — Popery — Infidelity — are. In
deed, the immediate agents of the disasters we suffer and
apprehend ; but the Christian learns to look beyond the
earthly Instruments of his affliction, and whatever be the
means by which his sins or follies are chastised, he remem
bers that it Is alike his privilege and his duty to pray
that the rod may be sanctified to his correction, and to
trace the judgments of his offences, with the eye of
faith, to the hand of his Father and his God. O ! that our
God, in the riches of his mercy, may be pleased to sanctify
the chastisement with which He has been visiting us ! O !
that while He seems. In this present moment, to have
granted us a little Interval of respite. He may give us grace
to be humbled for our iniquities, to profit by his mercies,
" to return to our first love, and to do our first works,"
and awaken us to a sense of our high and holy calling,
as his witnesses and his servants, in this guilty and apos
tate land.
Your Lordship having adverted to the state of our Church
and country, I shall be excused If I venture to call your
attention to the real facts of the case ; and permit me to
ask your Lordship, what is that iniquitous principle which
is now laid down as the popular standard on which a go
vernment that calls itself Christian, ought to maintain an
Established Religion In a country ? It is this, my
Lord — not that that religion is true — not that It is
maintained by the Eternal Word of God — not that it is
therefore the duty of a Christian government to maintain

45
it on God's authority : no, but that it is pleasing to
the majority of the people ! Therefore, on this prin
ciple. If Mohammed, or Juggernaut, or the Sun, or the
Devil, or the Pope, be the Idol of Ireland, no Clergy are
to be maintained who do not teach the religion of the
people. There Is hardly a newspaper In which this abstract
principle Is not laid down, and there is not a man of com
mon observation who does not see, and know, that it is the
growing standard of public opinion, and that, according to
which, his Majesty's late Government w^ere modelling their
legislation for the Church of Ireland.
Whence has this principle originated ? How has a prin
ciple so at war with the very essence of the Christian faith —
with the very vitality of truth — how has it been suffered to
arise and grow up in the Church, so that the Senate of
Britain can be brought to entertain and act upon it ? It
is through the criminal neglect of the Bishops and Clergy,
my Lord, In this, that we have not held up the standard,
the purity, the inestimable value of the principles of our
religion — and proved that they were worthy to be established,
by proving that they were worthy to be diffused throughout
the land.
We have been leaning, for generations, on our alliance
with the State, instead of leaning on the Rock of our Sal
vation. Instead of standing on the high and holy ground,
that the Church ought to be the guide of the Legislature —
that the great and glorious principles of our own holy faith — .
that Is, the truth and Word of our God — were to be the
guardians of the State, we have been trusting In the
visionary stability of the British Constitution, and depend
ing on the State as the guardian of the Church ; we have
been putting " our trust in the shadow of a bramble," and
we are made to feel the value of the shade under which we

46
have been reclining; we are learniag the lesson which we
well deserve to be taught — the curse of him that " maketb
the arm of flesh his trust ;" and having been degraded and
dishonoured, by the unprincipled and infidel administration
of Earl Grey, we are now hanging with meek and trem
bling expectation on the friendly protection of Sir Robert
Peel ! and what is the situation of that Statesman, my
Lord ? What the situation of any man that could hold the
situation which he holds In his Majesty's councils ? It is
this — that he could not stand up in the British House of
Commons to assert the true and genuine ground on which
the Established Church ought to be maintained in its full
integrity In Ireland. Whatever be his moral courage, his
principle, or his desire to do his duty — whatever may be
the conviction of his own mind, I say he could not do so.
What is that ground, my Lord ? It is this — that the
Established Church Is true, and that Popery Is false ; that
the Protestant Church maintains the truth of the livlng'-
God, and that Popery propagates the falsehoods of Satan ;
that the one Is a lying, idolatrous, antl-christian supersti
tion, shutting up the Word of eternal life from sinners,
accumulating crime, misery, curse, and ruin on them
in time, and entailing perdition on the souls of those
who trust in its refuges of lies, for eternity ; that the other
is a sound and faithful code of truth, embodying within it,
the pure and faithful principles of God's eternal Word,
throwing open that Word as the " lantern to the feet, and
the light unto the paths" of men — Instructing them, if they
are guided by its genuine principles, to walk in the ways
of God In time, and leading them to that adorable Refuge
of the sinner's soul, who hath purchased for them, by his
precious blood, salvation for eternity. This is the ground,
my Lord, on which the Protestant Religion ought to be

47
maintained in Ireland, by a government that deserved the
name of a Christian government; and I repeat, that no
Prime Minister could stand up this moment in the British
House of Commons, and assert it, and act with bold and
resolute fidelity upon it. Why, my Lord ? Is it because
it is not true ? Is it because we do not know, and know
by a bitter experience, the guilt, the treachery, the perjury
6f Popish superstition ? No, my Lord, but it is this —
because we have allowed the standard of truth to fall so
low, that what is called " the spirit of the age" would not
tolerate such sentiments in that assembly. How is a states
man to stand up and vindicate the principles and truth of
the Established Religion, when the Bishops, the Ministers,
the guardians of that Religion, have been so long either
ashamed or afraid to stand up and vindicate it themselves ?
Is a Prime Minister to be expected to maintain the value
of the principles of our Church in opposition to Popery,
in England, when there are none to be found among those
who ought to be her firmest supporters, who will assert the
truth and value of those principles in opposition to that
anti-christian superstition in Ireland ? Is he to maintain
the preservation of the temporalities of our Church, in
defiance of Popish power, in the British Senate, when
there is no authority found to maintain. In Ireland, the
great spiritual principles for which those temporalities
alone are worthy of preservation ? My Lord, it is absurd
to speak of it. Principle, Divine Providence, eternal
truth, are against it ; the very arguments of our enemies
themselves are unanswerable, when there are none to
stand upon the Rock of Truth to answer them. I care
not, my Lord, for any relief to be derived from the
administration of Sir Robert Peel- — I care not what
wisdom, what energy, what talent, or what support

48
of any party he may bring to the question of the Irish
Church — I care not on what apparently firm footing
he may settle the question of her temporal concerns. If
we continue to act as we do. It will be but a momentary
suspension of the evil — the principle that has brought us
from a situation of what we thought immutable security,
into our present peril, will never relax for an hour Its exer
tions — " nil actum reputans dum quid superesset agendum."
Every day gives It an accession of power ; every day in
creases our insecurity and weakness ; and, my Lord, It Is
utterly impossible the Established Church of Ireland can
continue as she is ; she must move; she must advance or
she must retreat ; and if she will not arise and shake herself
from her sloth, her indolence, her apathy, as to her true
position and her duties in the country ; if she will not arise
to vindicate her Master's truth, and to maintain his glory
and his salvation in the land, her Establishment and her
authority, and, perhaps, her very existence, will be banished
from the shores of Ireland. Yes, my Lord, and she will
richly deserve that it be so.
Questions of discipline and order, are useful and impor
tant in their place, but they are not the questions that
concern the Church of Ireland at this time. It is not, my
Lord, whether we shall maintain the regularity of discipline,
but whether we shall have any discipline to maintain? — not
how far Bishops may or may not assert their jurisdiction, but
whether there will be any jurisdiction to assert, or any
Bishops to assert It? — not how far Ministers are- to preserve
discipline, real or alleged, in preaching or not preaching
in one another's parishes, but whether they shall have any
parishes to preach In, or whether there shall be any Minis
ters to preach? These are the questions, my Lord, to.
occupy the Bishops and the Clergy of Ireland. And to give

49
our time and energy to mere matters of Church discipline,
yea, to weaken the hands and quench the zeal of those who
would exert themselves, when the very existence of the
Church is at stake — when true religion is trampled on —
when the powers of superstition, of Idolatry, of infidelity,
are preying upon the immortal souls of millions of our
fellow-creatures — is, as If a. man should busy himself in
adjusting the ornaments upon the chimney-piece of his
drawing-room, or In finding fault with his servant^ for dis
arranging them, while his house itself was on fire, and ready
to fall upon his head. Two months more of the late sys- •
tem of iniquitous misrule, and all parishes in Ireland with
out a certain number of Protestants, had been deprived of
their Minister and their Bishop — they had been extra-
parochial and extra-diocesan, as far as concerns the Pro
testant Establishment, and thousands, perhaps tens of
thousands, of our beloved Protestant countrymen, had been
left without any instruction or ordinances of religion, if,
indeed, they had been permitted to exist, but that which they
might receive from the labours of a Missionary Minister.
My Lord, we must awaken ; we must do our duty ; we
must expend for our Master's glory, the talents He has
entrusted to our charge, or we must expect, as we deserve,
the dismissal of the steward that had wasted his master's
goods, or the fate of the unprofitable servant that buried
his talent in the earth. It is not in statesmen, my Lord ;
It is not In the power of legislative wisdom, or executive
authority ; it Is not in British sympathy or British protec
tion — No ; I assert with all confidence, with all the full
power of conviction that the conscious energy of everlast
ing truth Inspires, It is in the labours of the Ministers.
of the Gospel of Christ, that the temporal and eternal sal
vation of Ireland alone is to be found. The leprosy of
D

50
Popery is creeping over the frame of Britain, from North
to South, and from East to West. What is to be done ?
Bear with me, my Lord, when I give the answer to the
question — Bear with me, when I give the answer, which,
if it be true, is more than a reply to all your Lordship's
arguments — Bear with me, when I give the answer
which my judgment, my conscience, the Bible, and the
history of Christianity itself both dictate and confirm.
That very thing which your Lordship's Charge forbids, is
the very first step to be taken for the regeneration, the
salvation, of the country — the Missionary preaching of the
everlasting Gospel to its guilty, blind, degraded, and be
nighted population. The preaching of the Gospel, is God's
appointed means for the instruction and conversion of sin
ners. To prove this from the authoritative source, were
unnecessary and impertinent in addressing your Lordship,
or even any man who had read his Bible, or the history of
the Christian Church.
If you ask, my Lord, Is the Established Church Home
Mission the fittest instrument for this purpose ? I can
didly answer — No, my Lord. It is neither suited to the
dignity of the Church, the honour of her Ministers,
the character of her Episcopacy, nor the necessities of the
Country. If these were consulted, my Lord, every Diocese
in Ireland would have all Its Clergy a Missionary Society,
and every Bishop in Ireland would place himself at Its
head. The Home Mission Committee would not consist
of a poor, Insignificant set of Clergymen like us, striving to
collect a few pounds to enable our Brethren who love their
Master and the souls of men, to go and preach His great
salvation through the wretched inhabitants of their country.
No, my Lord, the Home Mission Committee would consist
of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland,

51
assembled statedly in the metropolis to consult for the ex
tension of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ — for the
enlargement of the Church — for the salvation of the idola
trous, superstitious population of their country : assembled
to maintain — not by a construction that would extinguish
the zeal of the Clergy, the canons that regard the mere
internal discipline of their Church, but to carry those clear,
explicit canons into full legitimate effect, which bind both
themselves and their Clergy to labour for the salvation of
the victims of guilt and anti-christian idolatry In their land —
assembled to redeem, and to encourage and constrain their
Clergy to redeem, those solemn pledges which we all alike
have given, to our Church, to our Country, and to our
God — assembled to consider how they best could marshal
their forces in their respective dioceses, and in all the
Church; how they best could arrange the labours of those,
who would give their labours and their lives in zealous and
effective obedience to their high and holy authority — to
consider how they best could bring to bear upon the miser
able condition of their country, the zeal, the talents, the
fidelity, the energjr, the holy devotedness of those Ministers
who, I firmly believe, in every diocese In Ireland are,
beyond all precedent, In numbers and in every requisite
qualification, at this moment at their command. While
they would take care that enough of men be faithfully and
zealously employed in their parochial ministrations, over
their own immediate flocks, they would provide others
where those flocks are too numerous for the Churches to
contain, to supply their lack of service ; others, as Mission
aries, whose course they would direct and appoint, accord
ing to their zeal, talents and discretion, to go and preach
in every quarter of the land, where the Lord would open a
door for their labours ; they would train up numbers in the

52
Irish language, whereby they could reach the understandings
and hearts, of millions among a warm and affectionate
poor people ; to proclaim to them the rich salvation of the.
Lord Jesus Christ, instead of the refuges of lies which
their blind guides set before them : others, in controversy,
to expose and to confound the usurped, audacious preten
sions of popish priests, and to prove to the people their
utter Incapacity to expound to them the Bible, which they
shut up from them and their children ; others, in writing
tracts ; others, in forwarding the best systems of education,
while they would encourage all to the study of the word of
their God — all to united and earnest prayer for the divine
blessing on their labours — and as " the harvest truly is
plenteous, but the labourers are few," they would " pray the
Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into His har
vest ;" in a word, they would be " ready with all faithful
diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and
strange doctrines, contrary to God's word, and both pri
vately and openly to call upon and encourage others to
the same."
Such, my Lord, Is the Home Missionary Society that
would befit the necessities of our country, the character of
our Church, the dignity of her Episcopal authority, and
the ministry and service of our God. I know, my Lord, that
the enlightening of sinners Is the work of divine, and not
of human power — and therefore none can presume to pro
nounce with certainty upon results which are alone reserved
In the hands of the Father of Spirits. But where Divine
Providence directs the use of scriptural means. He blesses
those means to the results of His own glory, and though
we cannot calculate with certainty 'upon the reception of
divine truth by any man, we may, in some degree, venture
to predict the power of the light of truth in banishing, to

53
a certain extent, the blackness of darkness that overspreads
this country. It Is my most firm conviction, my Lord, that
if efforts such as these were made in Ireland, or efforts
which wisdom and judgment and piety far superior to mine
might appoint : if the Bishops and Clergy were, with faith
ful and well-directed energy, to do their solemn duty with
respect to the Roman Catholics, the power and blessing of
God would so rest upon their labours, that the population
would be taken out of the hands of demagogues and priests.
I firmly believe the calamities that overwhelm us would be
totally removed — that the struggles of statesmen and war
riors would be superseded by the achievements of the
Ministers of Christ — that the agitation of demagogues, or
their efforts to agitate, would prove utterly abortive In the
land. And without any weapons but those that are drawn
from the armoury of God — as " the sword of the Spirit,"
which is His mighty word — without any means but those
inculcated by apostolic principle, and illustrated by apostolic
example — I firmly believe, that within five years there
would not be found a Priest who would be called on to
celebrate the idolatrous service of the Popish Mass within
the shores of Ireland.
If we will take advantage of the present respite from
temporal persecution, of which, under Providence, we have
some little dawn of hope — If we will " hear the rod and
who hath appointed it" — our God may grant us yet his
grace to be instruments of good to our country, and to
deliver our Church in this eleventh hour ; but If we con
tinue in the same state of apathy and indolence In which
both we and our fathers, or predecessors, have been living ;
If we neglect our most solemn duties as Ministers of Christ,
to stand forth as His witnesses to those that are perishing
around us, and to bring His tidings of salvation, with

54
Christian fidelity and Christian love, to our blind and mi
serable countrymen, Britain may change her statesmen,
and statesmen may change our little ephemeral prospects —
some may trample on us, some may Insult us, some may
protect us — Papists and Infidels, Whigs and Tories,
Conservatives and Destructives, in place and out of
place, in power and out of power, may " strut and fret
their hour upon the stage" — we may depend upon some,
and we may contend against others, but while we " forsake
the Fountain of living waters, and hew out to ourselves
cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" — while we
" stay not upon the Lord," but " go down to Egypt for
help" — while we "make the arm of flesh our trust," Instead
of " trusting in the living God," and while we expect the
preservation of our Establishment, neglecting all the prin
ciples on which alone we could expect the divine protection
and blessing, we may read our fate In our sin and folly, and
anticipate our deserved destruction In. the delusions that
shall have drawn It down on our heads. The voice of
common sense will determine, that that religion Is not
worthy of being established and protected through any
difficulties by a government, which is not worthy of being
laboriously diffused by its Bishops and Clergy among the
people. These, my Lord, are some of our duties and responsi
bilities in reference to our Church and Country, and I
resolve them Into the principle which I have already laid
down — namely, that the very first duty of Ministers of
Christ, as such. Is that of labouring with all fidelity and
zeal in the word and doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ, so
as to bring his salvation to the souls of perishing sinners,
and to edify and build up the spiritual members of his
Church.

55
I most willingly admit, and, I trust, conscientiously
maintain, the second principle — namely, that they ought
so to labour, that the cause of their Master be honoured in
their life, their conversation, their order, their discipline,
and faithful adherence to the principles and government of
the Church in which they are called to minister.
This brings me directly to consider the fourth head of
my address — namely,
HOW FAR YOUR LORDSHIP'S VIEW OF OUR ORDINA
TION SERVICE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FAITH
FUL DISCHARGE OF OUR OTHER DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES, WITH OUR VOWS AS PRESBY
TERS AND BISHOPS AT OUR ORDINATION AND
CONSECRATION, AND WITH OUR CANONS: HOW
FAR WE ARE TO CONSIDER THAT VIEW JUST, IN
THE LETTER AND SPIRIT, AND IN OUR JUDGMENT
BINDING ON OUR CONSCIENCES.
The quotations which your Lordship makes from Hooker,
citing Ignatius as to the double authority ascribed to Bishops,
of ordination and jurisdiction, must meet the approbation of
all churchmen. The question is not as to the existence,
but the nature, extent, and exercise of that jurisdiction.
When we are reminded, " first, how the Apostles them
selves, and secondly, how Titus and Timothy had rule and
jurisdiction over Presbyters," we not only acknowledge the
apostolic authority of Episcopacy, but our full persuasion
that that authority, established by them. Is to be maintained
and honoured in our Bishops. But we must never forget
that the just and apostolic exercise of episcopal authority
and ecclesiastical discipline, must be to propagate most
effectually the Gospel among the ignorant and unconverted.

56
as well as to regulate the internal affairs of the Church.
If Episcopal jurisdiction and discipline be ever set forth
against the propagation of the Gospel, there must be some
great defect, some unapostolical error, either in the consti
tution of the discipline or in its administration. Discipline
ought to give energy and Impulse to the propagation of the
Gospel^never to retard It. If they seem inconsistent, it
Is the office of Episcopal wisdom and authority to reconcile
them. If they really are inconsistent, the discipline must
be wrong, and it Is the office of the Bishop to amend and
improve it. The salvation of men's souls ought never to
give way to discipline — if either must give place, the lesser
must give way to the greater. And it is here the Clergy
have always to look for support and encouragement from
their Bishops — there is nothing in which episcopal help and
countenance is more needed by the humbler labourers in
the vineyard. I gladly avail myself of the same venerable
authority, "the judicious Hooker," whom your Lordship has
so appositely quoted, to establish this. He says,
" At the hands of a Bishop the first thing looked for is
" the care of the Clergy under him — a care that in doing
" good they may have whatever comforts and encourage-
" ments his countenance, authority, and place, may yield —
" otherwise what heart will they have to proceed in their
" painful course, all sorts of men being so ready to malign,
" despise, and every way oppress them ? Let them find.
" nothing but disdain In Bishops ; but in the enemies of
" present government. If this way they list to betake them-
" selves, all kind of favorable and friendly help ; unto which
" part think we it likely that men having wit, courage,
" and stomach, will incline ?"
And this most wise and faithful defender of our ecclesi
astical polity shows, in a few lines further, that the danger

57
of the Church and Church government, consists in the ne
glect of the value of men's souls, when he says,
" A Bishop in whom there did plainly appear the marks
" and tokens of a fatherly affection towards them that are
" under his charge, what good might he do ten thousand
" ways more than any man knows how to set down ? But
" the souls of men are not loved — that which Christ shed
" his blood for is not esteemed- precious: this Is the very
" root, the fountain of all negligence in Church govern-
"ment."* We must, therefore, always bear In our recollection, the
great object, as well as the nature of Episcopal jurisdiction.
Bishops are watchmen — that Is, " they watch for souls as
they that must give account' — and this Is the great apos
tolical ground on which the Scripture enjoins reverential
obedience and submission to them.f
The chief aim of your Lordship's charge, in the asser
tion of Episcopal jurisdiction. Is this — to prove that the
nature of that jurisdiction is expressed In the ordination
service ; and that the Bishop, In that service, not only con
fers ordination on men, as either Deacons or Priests, but
that by the express wording of the service they are consci
entiously bound to consider the exercise of their sacred
office as limited to the precise place where the Bishop shall
fix them In his diocese ; that as the Bishop's ordination
gives them their ecclesiastical office, the Bishop's j urisdiction
alone confers on them the power to use, and fixes the precise
limits of that office ; so that every man must conscientiously
consider himself, not only wholly under the Bishop's autho
rity in the exercise of his sacred functions in his parish, but,
that in fact, he is bound to consider himself as incapable of
* Hooker, Eccles. Pol. B. 7, f Heb. xiii. 17.

58
discharging any sacred function beyond that spot. In the
precincts of his parish he is to consider himself authorised
as an ecclesiastic, but out of those precincts he is not to
presume to exercise any office of his ministry — this is the
great principle which your Lordship lays down, and which
you press upon the consciences of the Clergy, as the solemn
obligation of their ordination vows, and the great argu
ment against the labours of any of them as Missionaries ;
you lay it down as a violation of those solemn vows — a
direct breach of their canonical obedience — and we are
called on, as well in justice to ourselves as from respect to
your Lordship's office and person, to give your arguments
all due consideration.
It is but due to you, my Lord, to quote your own sum
mary of the argument, in which you place it In the clearest
and strongest point of view. You say,
" Reverting now to the particular phrases which have
" been noticed In this review," (viz., of the ordination ser
vice,) " when we find In the ordaining of Deacons, special
" mention made of his reading the Scriptures ' unto the
" people assembled in the Church where he shall be appointed
" to serve,' of what appertaineth to his office * in the Church
" where he shall be appointed to serve,' of his duty to 'preach,
" if he be admitted thereto by the Bishop,' of his office to
" search for the sick, poor, and impotent people of the
" parish; of the reverent obedience promised to his ordi-
" nary, of the authority given him ' to read the Gospel in
" the Church of God, and to preach the same, if he be
" thereto licensed by the Bishop himself When, in the
" ordaining of Priests, we find special mention made of
" their duty to ' such as are or shall be committed to their
" charge, out of the Holy Scriptures,' of ' teaching the people
" committed to their cure and charge to keep and observe the

59
" doctrines and sacraments, and the discipline of the Church,
" as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and realm
" hath received the same ;' of using monitions and exhorta-
" tlons to the sick and to the whole within their cures ; of
" maintaining and setting forward quietness, ' especially
" among them that are or shall be committed to their charge ;'
" of reverent obedience to their ordinary, and other chief
" ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and go-
" vernment over them; of the prayer for the benefit of them
" ' over whom they shall be appointed God's ministers' — finally
*' and especially, and most of all, of the authority given them
'" to 'preach the Word of God, and to minister the Holy Sa-
" craments in the congregation, where they shall be lawfully
" appointed thereunto.' When, I say, we find these phrases
" of limitation laid down, repeated, reiterated in the ordi-
" nation services, accompanied with declarations of attach-
" ment and fidelity to the due order of this realm, to the
" ministration of the doctrine and sacraments, and the dls-
" cipllne of Christ, as this Church and realm hath received
" the same — are we to understand that all these express
" limitations mean nothing, and that the persons who have
" been thus ordained to the ministry, may lawfully exe-
" cute their ministry whenever and wherever they choose,
" without condition or restriction. Independently of an ap-
" pointment by their lawful superior, unfettered by re-
" sponsibility to a lawful governor ? or are we to understand
" that In order to a lawful exercise of their ministry, an
" authorised appointment to a place where they may
" duly exercise It is moreover necessary — that their func-
" tions are to be performed only in the Church where they
" shall be appointed to serve — that the people whom they
" are to instruct are they who are or shall be committed
" to their cure and charge ; the persons within their own

60
" prescribed cures — that they are to practise reverence,
" obedience, and submission, to the episcopal authority —
" that the Deacon is to read and preach the Gospel in
" the Church of God only, ' if he be thereto licensed by
" the Bishop himself;' and that the Priest Is to preach
" the word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments,
" ' only in the congregation where he shall be lawfully ap-
" pointed thereto ?' "
This Is your Lordship's condensed statement of your
own argument — wherein you set forth what you suppose
to be the view of the ordination service taken by the
members of the Home Mission Committee, and by all the
Clergy who preach on the mission — namely, " that the
"persons who have been thus ordained to the ministry, may
" lawfully execute their ministry whenever and wherever
" they choose, without condition ' or restriction, indepen-
" dently of any appointment by their lawful superior, unfet-
" tered by responsibility to a lawful governor."
And you give your Lordship's own view of that service —
namely, that it authorises a Minister to discharge any one
of the duties of his sacred office only within the sphere of
his own parish, and binds him In law and in conscience ex
clusively to that spot.
Now, to both these points I beg leave respectfully to
answer — first, that no such view of our ordination service
ever was taken by any member of our committee, nor by
any Clergyman that ever had any proper sense of his sacred
duty as that which is here imputed to them.
To the secorid I reply, with all dutiful respect for your
Lordship's opinion — which I doubt not you have most con
scientiously formed — but still, with that fidelity which is
due to my own conscience and sense of duty, when I am
invfolved in an accusation of violating ordination vows, that

61
I am most reluctantly compelled totally to dissent from
your Lordship's judgment on the case, and to state that I
cannot acknowledge any such obligation on my conscience —
that I cannot admit any such construction of our ordina
tion vows — that, to the best of my judgment, such a view
is. First, contrary to the very nature of our sacred office, and
consequently not implied In the letter or spirit of the ser
vice — Secondly, Inconsistent with the meaning of certain ca
nons that bear on the case — Thirdly, disproved by the whole
admitted practice of all our Bishops and Clergy themselves
for time immemorial — and, finally, at war with the exercise
of our ministry, as it Is imperatively called for bj^ the ne
cessities of our Church and our Country at this moment.
Before I enter on the consideration of the error which
your Lordship imputes to us, or of that which I must venture
to call the error you lay down yourself, as to the ordina
tion service, it is necessary to state what I humbly consider
to be its meaning.
The very nature and essence of episcopal authority
establishes the two functions of Episcopacy of which your
Lordship speaks — namely, ordination and jurisdiction. The
nature of ordination is unchangeable under any circum
stances. When the Bishop ordains the Deacon or the
Priest, he endows him, and Invests him with the cha
racter, office, and authority of a teacher in the Church of
Christ. It is true, the mode in which the Deacon or Priest
is to exercise his office, may be much varied, according to
the Church In which he Is placed, or the varied circum
stances of that Church — so may episcopal jurisdiction vary
exceedingly. That the Bishop possesses jurisdiction Is
certain, but the nature of that jurisdiction is quite acci
dental — his jurisdiction may be altered, enlarged, or abridged
by circumstances, without the least difference in the scrip-

62
tural character of his sacred authority and office. Episcopal
jurisdiction In this country, for example, very much depends
on the temporal laws of the realm— it might be doubled, or
half annihilated, by an act of Parliament ; as, for example,
we hear that Lord Melbourne projected the very extinction
of the Protestant religion in a great multitude of parishes
in Ireland : over these the jurisdiction at present exercised
by our Bishops must have totally ceased. On the contrary.
Lord Grey most iniquitously doubled the extent of the
jurisdiction of our Bishops, and our Prelates have admitted
the imposition, and we shall see from history hereafter that
it has been superseded altogether at some time. If Popery
were set up as the established religion in Ireland, the Pro
testant Clergy would still acknowledge the jurisdiction of
their Bishops, but what that might be, none of us can tell.
I state this, merely to show that the nature, extent, and
exercise of episcopal jurisdiction Is accidental, not defined
by Scripture, and necessarily varying in different circum
stances — how different, for example, the jurisdiction of a
Moravian Bishop, from that of one of our Bishops In Ire
land or England.
Now, the jurisdiction of which your Lordship speaks. Is,
for the most part, derived from the fact of our religion being
established by law ; and that certain limited spheres of mi
nistration, which we call parishes, are placed In each diocese,
under the Bishop's spiritual authority. He possesses, by
law, a power of placing one or more Ministers in these : it
is his duty to take care that the Word of God is preached,
and the ordinances administered in them; for these he or
dains, and to these he collates, inducts, or licenses Mi
nisters, Rectors or Curates, as it may be ; and he has a
power of investing them, besides their sacred oEBce to
which they are ordained, with authority, both of a spi-

63

ritual and temporal nature, in those spheres. The Clergy
man Is, for example, when Inducted by the Bishop, entitled
to demand and sue for the temporal provision annexed by
law to his preferment, &c. He Is also invested with spi
ritual authority, both as to preaching of the word, dis
cipline, sacraments, &c. ; for the due administration of
which he is accountable to his Bishop. He possesses no
authority recognized by the Church, or by the law of the
land, over the parish or flock, but that which he derives
under the jurisdiction of his Bishop; this authority, I take
it to be, is that, to which the Bishop, as intended by the or
dination service, both In the letter and spirit, alludes, when
he says to the Deacon, " Take thou authority to read the
" Gospel in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if
" thou he thereto licensed by the Bishop himself;" — and to the
Priest — " Take thou authority to preach the Word of God,
" and to minister the holy Sacraments in the congregation
" where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto." The
Bishop not only ordains him to his sacred office, but, as your
Lordship justly remarks, speaks of another and a future act,
namely, that of Episcopal jurisdiction, In licensing or ap
pointing him to a parochial charge ; and all the questions as
to his professions of diligence, attention, devotedness, and
obedience in the discharge of his duty towards that par
ticular flock over which the Bishop places him, and for
which he is accountable to the Bishop, clearly refer both
to his recognition of the Bishop's jurisdiction over him In
his parish, and his accountability to his Bishop ; — of this
accountability, I humbly trust, my Lord, I have as high
an opinion as your Lordship or any Bishop could desire.
To suppose, therefore, my Lord, or to assert, as your Lord
ship does, that the members of the Home Mission Com
mittee think " they may lawfully execute their ministry,

64
" whenever and wherever they choose, without condition
" or restriction, Independently of any appointment by their
" lawful superiors, unfettered by responsibility to a lawful
" governor," is to suppose a monstrous principle, that, as a
member of that committee, and a Minister of our venerable
Church, I totally and expressly deny. To confound the
" execution of the ministry," Implying, in Its proper sense,
the whole exercise and responsibility of the sacred office, as
committed by episcopal authority to a parochial Minister,
which he has, thereby, a legal right and authority to exe
cute — to confound this with the single act of preaching a
sermon gratuitously, without the assumption of authority
or legal power, over men or parishes, is, in my judgment,
to confound two things totally distinct from each other ; it
is an argument, no doubt unintentional, of a dicta secundum.
quid, ad dictum simpliciter. To go among a Minister's flock to
administer the sacraments among them — to assume any right,
power, or authority over them — to assume any right or
power over the Church or pulpit, without the leave or per
mission of the Rector — or, in short, to usurp any legal au
thority which the law of the Church or realm commits, by
Episcopal jurisdiction, lothe Incumbent alone, would be a
gross infringement of ecclesiastical order ; but whether to
preach In the Rector's pulpit, if he chooses to give leave
to do so, not as a matter of authority, but of liberty —
or whether to preach In any other place in a parish,
where hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of men are pe
rishing in ignorance or idolatry; and where, perhaps, the
Rector does not feel himself responsible to his Bishop,
and where neither he nor his Bishop feel responsible to
God for labouring for their salvation, as few. If any, seem to
feel In reference to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or
where, perhaps with all sense of both faithful and anxious

65
responsibility, the Incumbent feels himself totally unable
to do that which a Missionary Preacher can accomplish,
namely, to get men to hear the Gospel^whether to go and
preach thus, as a Missionary, in the Church, or out of the
Church, gratuitously, without any assumption of authority,
but simply to spread the Gospel of Christ — whether this be
to violate order and invade episcopal jurisdiction — this Is
the point at Issue. I shall go through the objections made
to your Lordship's view of the case, to try it.
First, then, my Lord, your Lordship's statement of the
ordination service appears to be CONTRARY TO THE
VERY NATURE OF OUR SACRED OFFICE. Our
office. If duly entered on, is undertaken in reference to a
great principle, and not to a particular place.
It is true we generally undertake, according to the order
of this realm, a local station for the authoritative exercise
of our ministry ; but we do not necessarily enter on our
sacred office, with a view either to a particular spot or a par
ticular flock; the service in an assigned place, is the accident
of our office ; we change our stations continually — but the
ministration of that sacred office Itself, is the principle. The
first question in our ordination service is — " Do you trust
" that you are inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take
" upon you this office and ministration to serve God for the
"promoting of His glory, andthe edifying of hispeople ?"
Answer — " / trust so."
The office is undertaken, not from an inward desire to serve
God in this or that particular spot, but on the great principle
of devotedness to His service and glory, and the edifying of
his people. So In the questions and answers which your
Lordship quotes, the principle and not the place. Is the thing
intended. On the express declaration of willingness and .
devoted desire to take on us the ministry, on the express
E

66
declaration of our determination to serve the Lord and
our congregation, in whatever sphere we are placed, or in
whatever Church we are appointed to — " to read the Holy
" Scriptures to the people" — to search for the sick, poor,
and impotent people of the parish — to " obey our Bishops*
following with a glad mind their godly admonitions," &c,
The Bishop says, " Take thou authority to execute the
" of^ce of a Deacon In the Church of God, committed unto
" thee, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
« the Holy Ghost."
This is that sentence which conveys to him his orders ge-
nerally, as " a Deacon in the Church of God," no matter
where he is placed, he is here, by episcopal authority and
power, invested with the office and authority of a Deacon.
So in the ordaining of Priests — the Bishop explains the
nature of the office of the Priest generally, as well as in
reference to his particular charge, whatever It may be, as
thus — " We exhort you. In the name of our Lord Jesus
" Christ, that you have in remembrance into how high a
" dignity, and to how weighty an office and charge, you are
" called ; that is to say, to be Messengers, Watchmen, and
" Stewards of the Lord — to teach and to premonlsh, to feed
" and provide for the Lord's family — to seek for Christ's
" sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his children who
" are in this naughty world, that they may be saved,
" through Christ, for ever."
The nature and duties of this sacred office are to be ex
hibited and performed in reference to any charge to which
the Priest is appointed ; and, accordingly, the Bishop exa
mines him as to his view of all these, and his determination
to discharge the same, as well as reverent obedience to his
Bishop, In all those questions, some of which your Lord
ship has quoted. Then, after the examination, hymn, and

67
prayer, the Bishop says, — "Receive the Holy Ghost, for tlie
" office and work of a Priest in the Church of God;" and he
adds again, " And be thou a faithful dispenser of the Word of
God, and of his Holy Sacraments, in the name of the Father,
and of tlie Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
Now, my Lord, I most humbly submit that. In this sen
tence, the ordaining authority of the Bishop confers upon the
candidate the full office of the Presbyter or " Priest In the
Church of God," invests him with all the sacred functions
with wliich episcopal authority can invest him, as a dispenser
or preacher of the Word of God, and a Minister of his
Holy Sacraments. He Is, to all intents and purposes, em-
poweredand authorized, as an ordained "Priest in theChurch
of God," to discharge the functions of his office ; he is em
powered to preach and to administer the Holy Sacraments,
as far as human authority can give him power.
But, my Lord, though he is thus ordained a " Priest of the
Church of God," he has not yet received that special charge
with which episcopal jurisdiction invests him over the con
gregation, episcopal authority does not reach to the Deacon
or Presbyter alone, but also to the congregation over which
he is placed ; he is placed over them invested with a spiri
tual and a temporal authority; temporal, to recover that pro
vision to which the law entitles him, as the Minister of the
Established Religion ; spiritual, to preach the Word to
them, to be instant In season and out of season ; to reprove,
rebuke, exhort, with all authority; to administer the Sa
craments, and to "do the work of an Evangelist ;" and if the
discipline of our Church were administered according to
the strict laws of the Church, the authority of episcopal ad
ministration and jurisdiction would be felt in every parish.
This spiritual authority over the congregation to which he
may be appointed or licensed, is that which I understand to

68

be conveyed to the Deacon in the next sentence of the ordi
nation service — " Take thou authority to read the Gospel
" in the Church of God, and to preach the same, if thou
" be thereto licensed by the Bishop himself;" and to the
Priest — " Take thou authority to preach the Word of
" God, and to minister the Holy Sacraments, in the
" congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed
" thereunto." When the Bishop, by the imposition of his hands, com
mits to him the sacred trust of " dispensing the Word of
" God and the Holy Sacraments," it seems to me, that as
to the individual- himself, the authority of his office is fully
committed to him; but he can have no authoritative or
episcopal mission to any Individual congregation to which
he may be appointed, till that is committed to him by the
second sentence, " Take thou authority," &c. The first
commits to him his sacred office In the Church of God; the
second, his episcopal authority over any congregation to
which he may be licensed or Instituted. Institution episco
pally commits that actual charge, for undertaking which, he
had at ordination received episcopal authority. Induction
is not a spiritual, but an ecclesiastical act, arranging or ap
pointing the administration of spiritual authority already
conferred at ordination.*
I state this, my Lord, as my opinion. I presume not
to pronounce dogmatically on the subject ; but I write as
* " The Clerk, by institution or collation, hath the cure of souls
committed unto him, and is answerable for any neglect in this point. —
Johns. 74. Burn's Eccles. Law, V. i. 159.
" Induction is an act of a temporal nature — so the books of common
law every where declare, (notwithstanding it is an act of spiritual per
sons about a spiritual matter,) because it instates the incumbent in full
possession of the temporalities, as these are opposed to the spiritual
office or functions ; upon which account it is cognizable only in the tem
poral courts." — Gibs. 815. Burn's Eccles. Law, Vol. i. p- 159.

69
my judgment and conscience dictate ; and, as I am fully
persuaded, is the truth.
Your Lordship admits that the first sentence, which I
quote, immediately before the delivery of the Bible, con
fers the order of Priesthood; and you will observe,
that in this, it confers the power of dispensing both the
word and sacraments. Your Lordship then argues that the
next sentence is an express limitation of the authority of
the Priest. Here I am constrained to differ : I think it is
the conferring of an additional and express authority over
any particular district to which the Priest may be subse
quently appointed : but I can by no means subscribe to the
principle that It is a limitation of his ministry to that dis
trict. Indeed your Lordship, in your reasoning on the
subject, makes use of a term which is absolutely necessary
to warrant your conclusion, but which is not found in the
service — that is the word " only." You say, " Are we to
understand that their functions are to be performed only
in the Church where they shall .be appointed to serve ?" —
" that the Deacon is to read and preach the Gospel in the
Church of God only. If he be thereto licensed by the Bishop
himself." Had this been the meaning or intention of the
service, the Insertion of the term " only" would seem ne
cessary to define it ; it would have been as necessary to the
service as it is to your Lordship's argument : Then there
would appear a necessity for a disjunctive particle between
the sentence that confers the order of Priesthood and that
which gives the power to discharge the office. Then it
would seem to run thus — " And be thou a faithful dispenser
" of the Word of God, and of his Holy Sacraments." But
thou shalt have " authority to preach tlie word of God, and
" to administer the sacraments only in the congregation
" where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto." This

70
wording of the service would have justified your Lordship's
argument ; but I must respectfully say, I cannot see its
validity as the service stands.
I know not how a man can say that he " trusts he is in-
" wardly moved by the Holy Ghost, to take upon him this
" office and ministration to serve God for the promoting of
^'. His glory, and the edifying of his people." I know not
how a man can truly consider himself " a messenger, a
" watchman, a steward of the Lord ; to teach and to pre-
" monish; to feed and provide for the Lord's family; toseekfor
" Christ's sheep that are dispersed abroad, and for his chll-
" dren who are in the midst of this naughty world, that
" they may be saved, through Christ, for ever" — if, at the
same time he is conscientiously to bind himself by the most
solemn obligation to renounce all exercise of this office and
ministry — all duties as a watchman and a shepherd — ex
cept in the one spot in which he may be specially ap-^
pointed to labour ; so that if he be not appointed to this spot,
or if by any circumstance he be absent from it, or detained
from it, or banished from it, much less go voluntarily from
it, for any time, he shall hold himself solemnly bounclj as he
must do if your Lordship's argument be valid, to renounce
all exercise of his ministry, in all the world beside. Your
Lordship argues, and most justly, that his ordination vows
are binding on his conscience; but if your Lordship inter
prets those vows aright, he undertakes the ministry in
foro conscientice, on the great abstract principle of devotion to
the service of his God as a Minister, while he binds him
self, at the same moment, in foro conscientice, to renounce
all the duties which he so undertakes, except in a single
spot. Far be it from me, my Lord, to make light of all the
duties and obligations of our ordination vows — far from me.

71
to make light of the responsibility so solemnly undertaken,
and so solemnly imposed, of devoted attention to the flock
committed to our trust, and of reverent obedience to all the
godly admonitions of our Bishops — but while I fully admit
the utmost extent of our ordination vows, to bind us to the
due discharge of parochial duty, I deny that they reach
either to limit our labours exclusively within that parish, or
to extinguish the exercise of our ministry beyond It. I
admit that the office is with all faithfulness to be exercised
in the sphere, but I deny that the office has ipso facto no
existence beyond it. The Bishop has every right to de
mand the conscientious discharge of the duty of a Minister,
but he has no right to sit as an arbiter on the conscience of
that Minister. It is the Bishop's right to know and see,
that he does his duty in his parish ; but if that duty be
faithfully discharged, it is a matter of his own conscience,
how far he is to exercise his office as a Minister, if he vio
lates no law, without it. In fact, a man who is truly a
faithful Minister of God, will be a Minister wherever he
is — he can never forget the value of the souls of his fellow-
creatures and the salvation of his Lord — and to be an un
concerned spectator of the millions who are perishing in
guilt and superstition in his country, were to suppose his
office a solemn mockery, or to be utterly insensible
to its nature and obligations. I really must say, that
your Lordship's argument appears to me to annihilate the
whole character of ordination, to make a man actually a
Minister only In one single spot, and to make him no better
than a layman in all other places. For these reasons, my
Lord, I consider your Lordship's view of the case contrary
to the very nature of our profession, and consequently not
implied either in the letter or spirit of the ordination ser
vice — I cannot admit it as sound in my judgment, and

72
therefore cannot acknowledge it to be binding on my con
science. But your Lordship's arguments do not seem to be borne
out by the canons which you quote, and I would humbly
ask your reconsideration of them. With respect to the act of
instltutioQ, It is, no doubt, as your Lordship states, an epis
copal function, lawfully " appointing the Minister to a con
gregation such as was spoken of in the form of the ordering
of Priests." " But," you say, " while the Institution to his
" benefice brings Into action this authority of the Minister
" within his cure, it gives him no additional power out of
" it — with respect to other places, it leaves him where it
*' found him. It lawfully appoints him to a particular con-
" gregation, but it appoints to no other. In others, there-
" fore, he still possesses no authority to exercise his mi-
" nistry." Here your Lordship takes for granted the soundness of
your own argument on the ordination service, as if the
restrictive term " only" were Inserted in it ; and you will
excuse me for saying that you confound two things which
are essentially different — that Is, your Lordship confounds
the authority of the Minister with the liberty of the Minis
ter. Authority he has not confessedly In any place, but that
into which he is episcopally instituted; liberty. If he does
not violate law, or neglect any duty for which he is respon
sible, I conceive he possesses every where. The same ar
gument applies to your Lordship's statement as to the
negative or prohibitory part of institution. But we must
now consider how far the canons impose a restriction on
this liberty, which I cannot conceive to be restricted in the
ordination service.
Your Lordship states that " the jurisdiction of the whole
diocese is in the Bishop." Most certainly it is, my Lord.

73
No Minister can possess any ecclesiastical authority, temporal
or spiritual, not derived from him. Your Lordship states —
" Accordingly, in the 38th Irish and 48tli English canon, enti-
" tied ' none to be Curates, but allowed by the Bishop,' the
" law enacts that 'no Curate or Minister shall be permitted
" ' to serve In any place, without examination,' and so forth ;
" ' and, being found worthy, he shall be admitted by
" ' the Bishop of the diocese, in writing, under his hand
" and seal :' — not admitted by the Incumbent you see, but
" admitted by the Bishop, of whom the Incumbent never
" becomes independent. The license of the Bishop is ac-
" cordingly given to the Curate, thus appointing his cure
" and charge and place of service, together with his liberty to
" discharge the functions of which he was made capable at
" his ordination, but the discharge of which was suspended
" on his subsequent appointment."
Now here your Lordship evinces that which I have be
fore stated, that you confound (pray excuse the term, I
know none milder that conveys the full Idea) two things
which are quite distinct ; you substitute, in your argument,
the term liberty for authority, which is that of the ordination
service. In that service, the Minister receives the power
of exercising an authoritative episcopal mission, when ap
pointed to it; here he receives the appointment to that mis
sion from episcopal authority ; authority, without this, he
cannot either exercise or possess; liberty, if he violates
no law, I must again say, I think he fully possesses ; but of
this we shall be more fully convinced, when we come to see
the established practice of the Church, and the meaning of
her canons. In order to examine what is the real nature of
the canon quoted by your Lordship, we must consider it in
connexion both with the one which precedes, and with
that which follows it : the titles of the three canons, the

74
37th, 3Bth, and 39th, are important in their consecutive
order. The first is,
37. Absence of beneficed men and livings appropriated,
to be supplied by Curates that are allowed Preachers.
38. None to be Curates^but allowed by the Bishop.
39. Strangers not admitted to preach without licence.
Now, my Lord, it appears to me that the very letter of
these Canons, and still more, the facts of the History of
the Church, which illustrate their meaning, place the whole
question in a point of view, very different indeed from that
which ybur Lordship takes of It ; and while these canons
establish wrjiat every Churchman who is conscientious will
firmly maintain, viz. — that all authority to serve the duties
of a parochial cure, in any diocese, must be derived from
episcopal jurisdiction, they prove that the license of preach
ing, spoken of by the canons, is not an episcopal license ;
that, so far from it, the Bishop had often no power of granting
such a license ; but, that though he might induct a Clerk
into a benefice, or license a Curate to serve in his diocese,
still neither that beneficed Minister or Curate might have
the licence to preach of which the canon speaks ; and, con
sequently, the reason which your Lordship deduces from
the ordination service, as to the Minister's license to preach
being suspended on the Bishop's institution or license to
serve In a cure. Is not conclusive either from that service it
self, from the canons, or from the History of the Church.
As to the ordination service, I have already stated what ap
pears to me to be Its meaning, and what shall be hereafter
fully proved to be generally held as such ; and I think
your Lordship will see, both from the canons and the His
tory of the Church, the following facts established —
First — That the full spiritual power and authority to

75
preach was held to be conferred by the Bishop at ordina--
tion ; so that the Minister had authority to officiate without
any ulterior episcopal act, and was fully enabled, by ordi
nation, to avail himself of the license spoken of in the ca
nons, which licence was no spiritual license from the Bi
shop, but a temporal license from the secular power.
Secondly, That the Bishop, giving him induction or license
to serve as a Curate, did not give him this license to preach,
either in his own living or his cure ; for the Bishop had often
not only no power to give this license to others, but could
not sometimes even preachhimself-withoiit this license.
Thirdly — That this license was a license given to do that
very thing which, I regret to say, your Lordship forbids,
viz., to preach the Gospel every where; that the license
was made necessary for the very purpose of restraining
Popish teachers, who have now every where license to
preach, and to give full liberty to Protestant Ministers for
the preaching of the Gospel, which your Lordship's charge
goes directly to restrain ; so that, so far from establishing,
the nature and very existence of this license totally dis
prove your Lordship's argument.
I shall first prove this from the History, and then con
sider it in reference to these canons.
It seems to me most important, not only to this question
as one of deep interest to the Church, but also as It relates
to the present state of our unhappy country, to enter into
the history of the origin of licenses to preach — and I
humbly trust, my Lord, that the result of this inquiry will
be such, as not only to prove the untenable ground which
a Protestant Bishop attempts to occupy, when he opposes
exertions, of Missionary Preaching, by Protestant Divines
in this guilty land ; but, that under the divine blessing, it
may lead to such a full and faithful consideration of the

76
subject, as will bring forward all the energies of our Bishops
and Clergy, as they ought to be brought forward to aid in
such a cause.
First, then, my Lord, it is to be observed, that this very
exercise of Missionary Preaching, was the very way by
which it pleased God to bring light and salvation to our
country, from the darkness of j)opery; and that this very
preaching was carried on in the very -way in which we desire
to labour, and that it was strenuously opposed by those
advocates of ignorance and superstition in those days, with
whom, I earnestly pray to God, that none of our Bishops
or Clergy, may be found classed In time or eternity. We
find It commenced and noticed in the Parliament of A.D.
1381, when the faithful followers of Wickliffe, under the
example of their honoured leader, were labouring to bring
the light of truth to popish England. The act 5 Rich. 2,
leap. 5, entitled —
" An Act against Preachers of Heresie," is so much to
the point, that I quote the words of the document —
" Item. Forasmuch as it Is openly known, that there
" be divers evil persons within the realm, going from county
" to county, and from town to town, in certain habits, under
" dissimulation of great holiness, and without the license of
" the Ordinaries of the places, or other sufficient authority ;
"preaching daily, not only in Churches and Churchyards,
"but also in markets, fairs, and other open places, where a
" great congregation of people Is, diverse sermons contain-
" ing heresies and notorious errors, to the great emblemish-
"ing of the Christian faith, and destruction of the laws,
"and of the estate of the Holy Church, to the great peril
" of the souls of the people, and of all the realm of Eng-
" land ; as more plainly Is found, and sufficiently proved
" before the Reverend Father in God, the Archbishop of

77
" Canterbury, and the Bishops, and other Prelates, Minis-
" ters of Divinity, and Doctors of Canon and of Civil
" Law, and a great part of the Clergy of the said realm,
" specially assembled for this cause ; which persons do also
" preach divers matters of sclaunder, to engender discord
" and dissention betwixt divers estates of the said realm,
" as well spiritual as temporal, in exciting of the people to
" the great peril of all the realm ; which preachers cited or
"summoned before the Ordinaries of the places, there to
" answer of that whereof they be impeached, will not obey
" to their summons and commandments, nor care for their
" monitions nor censures of the Holy Church, but expressly
" despise them : and moreover by their subtle and Ingenious
" words do draw the people to hear their sermons, and to
" maintain them In their errors by strong hand and by great
" routes : it Is ordained and assented in this present Par-
" liament that the King's Commissions be made and
" directed to the Sheriffes and other Ministers of our
" Sovereign Lord the King ; or other sufficient persons
" learned, and according to the certification of the Prelates
" thereof, to be made in the Chancery from time to time,
" to arrest all such' preachers, and also their fautors, main-
" tainers, and abettors, and to hold them In arrest, and
" strong prison, till they will justify them according to the
^' law and reason of the Holy Church : and the King will,
" and commandeth, that the Chancellor make such commls-
" sions at all times, that he by the Prelates or any of them,
" shall be certified and thereof required as is aforesaid." —
Gibson, Tit. xvi. c. 1.
Now, my Lord, this act clearly points out, that the
Clergy were the Preachers, and not laymen, as it specifies
that they preached in Churches, which no layman was ever
permitted to do.

78
Lord Coke, Rapin, and Hume, all declare, that this
act was surreptltionsly obtained by the Bishops and Clergy,
from the King, and had been enrolled among the statutes
without the consent of the Commons ; that the Commons
subsequently complained of this fraud, and procured the
suppression of the act, that the Bishops and Clergy had
notwithstanding the address to prevent the act from being
suppressed, and that therefore, it still remains on the
statute book; be this as it may, the effect of it was very
different from what the popish Bishops expected. Rapin
says : —
" Richard II. having permitted the Bishops to prosecute
"and imprison hereticksj as was related In the history of
" his reign, several Lollards were cited before their r6s-
"pective Bishops-; some recanted and others bravely stood
''the shock.. But among these last, there was not one
" delivered' over to the secular arm, there being as yet no
" law to that purpose. It was not till the next reign that
" those horrible executions commenced in England ; so,
"that in spite of the opposition of the Bishops, Wickliffe's
" tenets flew over the kingdom with a wonderful swiftness,
" because the Clergy were not at liberty to employ thd
*' only means they have all along thought proper to root
" out heresy. It seems that the Bishops dare not attack
" Wickliffe formally, for fear of having their ignorance
"displayed by his superior learning." — Rapin, Ed. 1728.
Vol. IV. p. 465.
It Is perfectly clear from this act and the history, that the
Canon law was not at that time known to have prevented
the Clergy from preaching without license out of their own
Churches ; that the Bishops knew not of any such law, or
of any power they possessed to restrain the Clergy from
doing so, and that therefore they were obliged to have re-

79
course to Parliamentary power, or royal authority to enable
them to do so ; had they possessed any such power under
the Canon law, they could not have been compelled to
have recourse to such artifices and authorities, as these to
which historians prove they had recourse.
We shall see this further established by the next act on
the subject; we shall see that the reformers laboured in
the same apostolic mode of preaching the gospel; and that
the powers of darkness laboured to prevent the diffusion of
the truth, this Act is 2 Hen. IV. cap. 15, entitled —
" An Act touching Heresies." A.D, 1400.
Having recited how the Catholic faith had been hitherto
preserved in England. It states —
" Yet nevertheless, divers false and perverse people of
" a certain new sect ; of the faith and the sacraments of the
" Church, and the authority of the same, damnably think-
"Ing, and against the law of God and of the Church,
"usurping the office of preaching, do perversely and
" maliciously, within divers places In the said realm, under
" the colour of dissembled holiness, preach and teach these
" days openly and privily, divers new docti'ines and wicked
" heretical, and erroneous opinions, contrary to the same
"faith and blessed determinations of the Holy Church ; and
" such sect with wicked doctrines and opinions, they make
" unlawful conventicles and confederacies, they hold and
" exercise schools, they make and write books, they do wickedly
" instruct and inform people, and as much as they may, ex-
" cite and stir them up to sedition and insurrection, and
" maketh great strife and division among the people, and
" other enormities, horrible to be heard, daily do perpetrate
" and commit, In subversion of the said Catholic Faith and
" doctrine of the Holy Church in diminution of God's
" honor and also in destruction of the estate, rights and

80
t* liberties of the said Church of England, by which sect
'' and wicked and false preaching, doctrines and opinions of
'' the said false and perverse people, not only most greatest
" peril of the souls, but also, many more other hurts,
'' slanders, and perils, (which God prohibit) might come to
" this realm, unless It be the more plentifully and speedily
'' holpen by the King's Majesty in this behalf; and,
" Whereas the Diocesans of the said realm, cannot by their
"jurisdiction spiritual, without the aid qf the said Royal
" Majesty, sufficiently correct the said false and perverse
"people, nor refrain their malice because the said false and
" perverse people do go from diocese to diocese and will not
" appear before the said Diocesans, but the same Diocesans
" and their jurisdiction spiritual, and the keys of the Church
" with the censures of the same do utterly contemji and despise-
" and so their wicked preachings and doctrines do from day to
" day continue and exercise to the hatred of right and
' reason, and the utter destruction of order and good
" rule," &c. &c.
Then It continues as to providing a remedy for this — »
" The same our Sovereign Lord the King, graciously
" considering the premises," &c. " and for the eschewing of
'' such dissentlons, hurts, slanders and perils In time to
" come, and that this wicked sect, preachings, doctrines
" and opinions, should from henceforth cease and be utterly
" destroyed, by the assent of the states, and other discreet
" men of the realm, being in the said Parliament, hath
" granted, stabllshed, and ordained, from henceforth
" firmly to be observed, that none within the said realm or
" any other dominions subject to his Royal Majesty,presume
" to preach openly or privily without license of the Diocesan
' of the same place, first required and obtained ; Curates in
" their own Churches, and persons hitherto privileged.

81
" and other of the Canon law granted, only excepted." —
Gibson, 400.
The act then proceeds, in the true spirit of popish perse
cution to ordain, that those convicted before the Diocesans
of preaching, or maintaining any doctrines contrary to the
faith of the Church, shall be delivered over to the secular
arm to be burnt.
It is of the greatest importance to mention here, my
Lord, that at the time of the passing of this act, the then
Archbishop of Canterbury, Arundel, (as Lindwood states,
" Thoma Arundello hand ita pridem, ab exillo reverso sedis
Cantuarlse Iterim potito") had assembled all the, Prelates,
and all the ecclesiastical authorities he could collect, in a
Provincial Synod, to meet the exigency of the times, and
to put down the doctrines of Wickliffe, to consider what
powers the Bishops possessed, and what they required for
this purpose, and it was in consequence of their inability
to meet It with all the thunders of the canon law, that they
applied to Parliament for aid, and having confessed the
incompetency of their spiritual jurisdiction, they got this
act passed to give them jurisdiction. Arundel says in his
mandate of summons :
" Quamvis Proelatorum et Cleri nostrse Provinciae con-
gregationes hactenus, ex arduls et urgentibus negotils fieri
dicebantur, propter tamen magis ardua, et urgentia, ac inso-
lita, et multorum auribus inaudita, quae ut speramus, bonum
universale contingent et prius non fuerunt retroactis tem-
poribus cum dlligenti efficacia pertractata, nostram jam in-
stantem convocationem, in qua nullius volumus absentiam ex-
cusatam habere impellente universalis Ecclesice utilitate speratd
decrevimus celebrare," &c. &c. — Reglst. Arundel, par. II.
fol. 178, a. Wake's State of the Church, p. 339.
So Wake says, that In this mandate which he studied,
F

82
and of which he gives but tins extract — " We find nothing
" of the affairs of the King and kingdom, but all turn
" upon the foot of Church business. At the opening of
*' the Synod, the Archbishop, expounding the causes and
" affairs for which he celebrated his Provincial Council,
" commonly called a Convocation of the Clergy, mentions
" these two, 'Pro reformation defectuum, ac prcecipite pro
" Inquisitiohe Hareticorum.' Accordingly, upon these two
" the chief business of the Council terminated." — Regisfc
Arundel, par. II. f. 179, a. Wake's State of Church, p.
339. Now, your Lordship sees on this authority, the
learning that was here collected, the dangers that were ap
prehended, the anxiety that was expressed, the objects of
the convocation, namely, "for the reformation of defects,
and the suppression of heresy ;" these defects were in the
want of Episcopal jurisdiction ; the appeal to the Par
liament was to grant this jurisdiction, for the remedy of
these defects, and the power to burn heretics for the sup
pression of heresy. Accordingly this statute originated in
an appeal from this very convocation to the King, as the
preamble states, " Cum Domino Regi et ex parte Prceta-
torum et Cleri Regni sui Anglice in prsesenti Parliamento
sit ostensum." &c. The statute gave, as we see, the ju
risdiction to Bishops, as to granting licenses, and the power
to punish heretics. — See Gibson, 401-402, and Wake's
State of the Church. 340. Lyndwood ad finem Constit*
Prov. Concil. Loud. p. 62.
So the very first use made of this act, was to burn
William Sayvtre, the Priest of St. Osith, London. Rapin,
speaking of this act, says, "This statute was no sooner
"passed but the Ecclesiastical Court immediately condemned
"one William Sawtre, a Lollard, who being delivered over
"to the secular power, was burned alive by the King's

83
'^ writ, directed to the maydr of London : this man was the
'f first who suffered death In England, foi; the sake of
" religion."— Rapin, Hen. IV. A. D. 1400, 1401. I would
only observe that this Ecclesiastical Court was no other
than this same convocation of Bishops and Clergy still
sitting : see the whole history of the act of Sawtre's degra
dation by them. — Fox's Acts and Monuments, A.D. 1400.
Thus originated these episcopal licenses to preach, as
being necessary ulterior to ordination.
The constitutions* of Arundel, founded on this statute,
to maintain the popish power of suppressing the Gospel,
will not be insisted on, I believe, as the Canon law of the
Church of England.
* There is one of them, the very first, A. D. 1408, which contains
such a commentary on the Apocalypse, VI, 5, that I cannot avoid
translating it. Speaking of these same preachers, he says, " Thus is
" verified that figure, Apocal. vi. ' sitting on a black horse, he carried a
''balance in his hand,' by which these heretics are to be understood, who
" first, like a balance, propose things equal or just, that they may allure
" to them the hearts of their hearers, but afterwards appears the black
"horse, namely, tfieir intention, in which their wickedness resides, for
" they themselves under the appearance and eflagy of a just balance,
"scattering around, their heresies and errors vAth the tail of the black horse,
" poisonous as they are, fling them around on all sides, and under the
" semblance of good, excite infinite scandals, maliciously publishing
" them among the people, by persons chosen for this wickedness, mingling
" as it were, the sweetness of honey with their poison, that it may be
" more willingly taken, by certain subtleties they cause that error, truth,
" wickedness, holiness, and the will of- Christ may be all made to appear
" like to each other." Consti. Arundel. Lynd. ad fin. p. 64.
There is also one, too important to the cause of Popery, to be omit
ted. " It is a perilous thing, as the blessed Jerome witnesseth, to trans-
" late the Holy Scriptures from one language into another, because in
" these translations the same sense is not easily retained, as the blessed
" Jerome himself, although he was inspired, confesses that he had often
" erred in this," (alas for the vulgate !) "we therefore decree and ordain
" that no one henceforward, shall translate any text of the sacred Scrip-
" tures by his own authority into the English language. Or any other ;
" either in the way of any book, great or small, or any tract, nor that
" any book great or small, or any tract be read, composed recently in
" the time of a man called John Wickliffe, or since his time, or to be
" composed hereafter, whether in whole, or in part, publicly or privately,
" under pain of excommunication," &c. Constit. Prov. Lyndw. ad fin.
p. 66. Gibson, Cod. p. 409.

84
Now your Lordship sees it expressly denied by all the
canonists of that day in convocation, that the canon law
gave to episcopal jurisdiction, the extent and authority
which you claim for it. The Bishops deny that they "could
by their jurisdiction spiritual, without the aid of the king,"
correct the evil of this very Missionary Preaching, and the
very first point which they procured to be enacted, in this
statute, was that which your Lordship asserts, that Bishops
possess virtute officii under the ancient canon law ; namely,
that no man should preach out of his parish, without an
episcopal license from the Bishop. Is it not clear as the light,
my Lord, that if such a power had been given to Bishops by
the canon law, they who were so jealous of their authority
must have known it? In that case, the only aid the king
could have given, was to enable them to punish those who
disobeyed It. But would they have disclaimed its existence
as they do in this statute, if it had existed? would they have
had recourse to the secular authority, to bestow upon them
an extent of jurisdiction with which they had been already
invested by the Church? Impossible. The fact is, my
Lord, that the Church in a pure and healthy state could
never have contemplated evil to result from preaching by
men who were faithful Ministers of that Church; we
see no injunctions to stop preaching in the Apostles* days;
and among the ancient authorities of the primitive Church
to which your Lordship refers, to maintain episcopal ju
risdiction, there is no instance of that jurisdiction being
exercised to suppress the preaching of the Gospel.
Ignatius never dreamt of such a thing. When the Church
was in its greatest purity, the preaching of the Gospel
was most promoted, " / charge thee therefore before God,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and
the dead at his appearing and his kingdom ; Preach the

85
WORD."* In fact, from the day when the disciples that were
scattered abroad on the death of Stephen, " went every
where preaching the word," till the present day, it is by
diffusive missionary preaching, that faithful pastors have
ever been able to enlarge the Church, by converting ido
laters. As It gradually declined into superstition, and
substituted the observance of ceremonies, for the profes
sion of truth, either the general declension of preaching
or the propagation of error by false teachers, precluded
the very idea of making the restraint of preaching an
exercise of episcopal jurisdiction; the Popes needed not
to restrain, what either favoured or did not disturb their
dark and horrid despotism. It was only when the sleep
of ecclesiastical darkness began to be interrupted by the
trumpet of the gospel, at the dawn of the Reformation,
when the sound of eternal truth began to thunder In
the ears of ignorance and superstition ; that then a guilty
hierarchy began to tremble, and to seek to put down by
the exercise of temporal authority, what they were unable
to silence or oppose by the Word of God, or the wea
pons of reason and of truth. Hence this act In the close
of the fourteenth century to arm the Popish Bishops with
the authority of making It necessary to take out a license
from them to preach, and here was the origin of licenses.
We shall now pursue the law of the case, having thus
clearly proved, that it was then unknown as Canon Law.
This cruel and abominable statute not being sufficient
to put down the truth of the Gospel, in fourteen yeais
after, viz. 2d Hen. V. cap. 7. another statute was pro
vided, entitled —
An Act for Reformation of Heresie and Lollardy.
In this we see the same charges made against Wickliffe
* 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2.

86
and his followers as against Paul, " fellows that have turned
the world upside down." It begins —
"Item. Forasmuch as great rumours, congregations,
*' and Insurrections here in the realm of England, by divers
"of the king's liege people, as well by them- which were of
" the sect of heresy, commonly called Lollards ; as by
^ others of their confederacy, excitation, and abetment,
" now of late were made to the intent to annul, destroy and
" subvert the Christian faith, and the law of God, and holy
" Church within the saidrealm of England, and alsotodestroy
" the same, our Sovereign Lord the King, and all other manner
" qf estates of the same realm of England, as well spiritual
"as temporal, and also all manner of policy, and finally the
" laws of the land," 8fc. 8fc. It then enacts, that, for the pre
vention of these evils, and the preservation of the faith, &c.
all officers under any civil authority shall at their admission,
be obliged to take an oath to destroy Lollardy, and to assist
the Ordinaries herein ; and that all hereticks being convict
ed, shall forfeit their lands, goods, and chattels, &c.
Now, to trace these acts from their commencement to
the present state of the law. They stand thus, from A.D,
1381, to A.D. 1558:--
No. A.D.
1. Statute to Imprison Preachers, 5 Rich. II. C. 5. 1381
2. Statute to forbid them to preach without license
of their Bishop, and to burn those convicted
of heresy, 2 Hen. IV. C. 15. - - 1400
3. Statute to oblige all Officers to take their oath to
destroy Lollardy, and that the goods of all
heretics be confiscated, 2 Hen. V. C. 7. - 1414
4. Statute confirming No. 1, and No. .3, 25 Hen.
VIIL C. 14. - - - - 1533

87
No. A.D.
^. Statute repealing No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4, 1
Edw. VL C. 12. - - - - 1550
6. Statute reviving No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3, 1 Mary
C. 6. - - - - - 1554
7. Statute repealing No. 6, and those it revived,
1 Eliz. C. 1. - - - - 1558
Comp. Gibson, Tit. 16, C. 1 ; Blackstone, B. IV, C. 4.
Which Statute, No. 7, is now the law of the land, but
the writ de heretico comburendo remained in force, and was
actually put into execution on two Anabaptists in the 17th
of Elizabeth, and on two Arians in the 9th James I, but
was totally abolished by the statute, 29 Car. II. C. 9. —
Blackstone, B. IV. C. 4.
Now, my Lord, having established that the necessity
for episcopal licenses to enable Ministers episcopally or
dained to preach, was unknown to the Canon Law ; and
having shown that it arose from the opposition of popery
to the Gospel, that it was introduced into the statute law
in 2 Hen. IV. C. 15 ; that it was repealed again when the
Protestant religion was sought to be established in 1 Edw.
VI, C. ]2; that It was revived again when that bloody
superstition was set up under Mary, in 1 Mary, C. G ;
and that it was again repealed under Elizabeth, 1 Eliz. C. 1.
and that it \vas, in fact, totally abolished both in the canon
law and in the statute law ^t that time. I might ask
your Lordship on what authority of law, or on what prin
ciple of religion, it could be now set up as the established
rule of the Protestant Church in Ireland? On what
legal authority can that be set up as episcopal jurisdiction
under the ancient canon law, which the Bishops of the
Church of Rome, when the very existence of their power

88
and their superstition depended on it, were not only unable
to find in the canon law, but expressly declared had no
existence in it, and were therefore obliged to have recourse
to an act of Parliament to bestow on them ? Or how can
that be asserted on the authority of statute law for the
Protestant Church, which though often enacted and revived
under popish princes, was as often repealed by those
honoured sovereigns who established the reformed faith,
and of which Elizabeth blotted every vestige from the
statute book, so that there was not even a trace of it to be
found there ? Or on what principle of true religion can
that exercise of episcopal jurisdiction be put forward to
stop the diffusive preaching of the gospel, which popery
enacted to suppress the truth, and which Protestantism
repealed as only suited to the cause of superstition? Shall
we seek to establish that principle in our Church in the
nineteenth century which popery set up in the fourteenth
and fifteenth, and which those who under the divine bless
ing established our religion, obliterated from the statute
book in the sixteenth ? I am sure it is but justice to your
Lordship to say, that the subject has not been presented to
¦your view In the light which law and history throw over it,
or you had not set it forth in your Charge as you have
done. But when we trace the history of licenses to preach a
little further, and bring them on from Wickliffe to Cranmer,
and from Henry IV to Elizabeth, we shall find that
the facts will bear with redoubled force upon the question ;
we shall find that those who promoted the Reformation,
attacked the Church of Rome and foiled her with her own
weapons ; for as the popish Bishops had got the distribu
tion of licenses to preach, into their own hands by an act
of Parliament, to suppress the preaching of the gospel.

89
and to maintain their superstitions; Edward VI, and
Elizabeth, by the repeal of this act, took that power out of
the hands of those Bishops, and took it into their own, in
order, not by act of Parliament, but by Proclamation, by an
exercise of Royal Prerogative, to suppress popish supersti-
tion,'and to diffuse the preaching of the gospel. Accordingly
we find the History of the Reformation, abounding with
allusions to licenses for preaching ; but these were licenses
not from Bishops, nor acts of Parliament, but from Pro
clamations on the royal authority ; and even Henry VIII,
though his fickle, arbitrary, and unprincipled proceedings,
afford few solid data on which to reason, yet under the
influence of Cranmer, is to be numbered with Edward
and Elizabeth, as having used royal licenses to promote the
preaching of the gospel, and reformation from popish su
perstitions towards the close of his reign. I shall therefore
in treating on this subject, as Illustrating the canons on the
point, revert to the principle already laid down, pp. 72, 73.
First, it appears, that the full spiritual power and autho
rity to preach was held to be conferred by the Bishop at
ordination, is established by the fact, that in the time both
of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, the Royal
license to preach was granted to numbers of Ministers, who,
without any further episcopal act, were, as ordained Mi
nisters, held fully competent to preach. I find, in Strype,
memorials of twenty-four licenses, granted under Edward
VI, to different Ministers, to preach, in 1550-1-2-3, for
example— Ed. 1816, Voh III. pp. 440 to 461.
" A license of preaching to Edmund Gest, B.D. the like
"to Henry Ayland, B.D. and Thomas Bernard, M.A.
" dated in March, 1550.
" A license for preaching, to James Haddon, M. A. of

90
" Cambridge, and to John Wilcock, M. A. of Cambridge,
" of the. same date.
" A license of preaching, to Miles Wilson, M. A. stu-
" dent in Divinity, in the University of Cambridge, dated
" May 7, 1551."
I take it for granted, that though called a student In
Divinity, he was in orders, but it is clear, that his license
did not arise from having a cure or benefice.
" A license to Richard Daverner to preach, dated May
"3rd, 1552."
"A license to John Parkhurst, clerk, dated April 1553."
" A like license to Guy Eton, clerk, dated April, 1553."
" A like license to Alexander Nowel, schoolmaster of
" Westminster, dated as before ;" with several others.
Now, it Is clear from these facts, that episcopal ordination
conferred full spiritual authority to preach, so that eccle
siastically speaking, ordination vows by no means bound
the preacher to hold his function of preaching suspended on
a future episcopal act of jurisdiction. The King's license
could permit him to use the spiritual power he possessed,
but the King can no more confer the spiritual authority
which a Bishop confers at ordination, than any lay subject
in the realm.
Similar licenses were conferred by Henry VIII, and
by Elizabeth, as we shall see, on the same ground that they
were by Edward VI. But to prove,
Secondly, that the Bishops could not then confer the
power of preaching, either by induction to the Rector, or
license to the Curate, but were Indebted to this license for
power to preach themselves. Is clear from the following
documents, by which we see, that the rules were varied
according to the circumstances of the case and the progress
of the Reformation.

91
In the year 1537, Henry VIII wrote a letter to the
Bishops, directing them how to instruct the people, in
which the Injunction he gives as to preaching, is — " And
" further, that you permit nor suffer any man of what de-
" gree soever in learning, strangers or others to preach, in
" any place within your said diocese, out of his own Church,
" by virtue of any license by us, or any other of our mi-
" nisters, granted before the fifteenth day of this month ;
" neither in your presence nor elsewhere, unless he be a
" man of such honesty, virtue, learning, and judgment, as
" you shall think able for that purpose, and one whom
" in a manner you dare answer for." Burnet, Ed. 1730,
vol. 1, col. p. 276.
Here it appears that preachers had held a royal license,
that Henry by this document revoked all licenses granted
before the date of this letter, and it appears from this inhi
bition, that preachers were previously in the habit of
preaching out of their own Churches — or why inhibit what
had not been done ?
We find from Burnet, In five years after, A.D. 1542,
that none were permitted to preach without a special license
from the King or their Bishop, and Henry well knew who
those Bishops were, to whom he granted this power, and
we also find, what the object of these licenses was — Burnet
says : —
" Now that the reformation mr.de a greater progress, much
"pains was taken to send eminent preachers over the nation,
" not confining them to particular charges, but sending
" them with the King's license up and down to many places.
" Many of these licenses are enrolled, and it is likely that
" many were granted, that were not so carefully preserved.
" But provision was also made for the people's daily instruc-
" tion ; and because in that ignorant time, there could not be

92
" found a sufficient number of good preachers, and in a
"time of so much juggling, they could not trust the
"instruction of the people to every one, therefore none
" was to preach except he had gotten a particular license
" for It from the king, or his diocesan. But to qualify this,
" a Book of Homilies was printed in which the Gospels and
"Epistles of all the Sundays and Holidays of the year,
" were set down with an homily to every one of them,
" which is a plain and practical paraphrase on those parts
" of Scripture." Burnet, Vol. 1, B. 3, p. 237.
In six years further, 1548, we find a proclamation of
Edward VI, bearing date the 6th of February in that year,
entitled :
" A Proclamation against those that do innovate, alter, or
" leave undone, any rite or ceremony in the Church, of their
'^private authority, and against them which preach without
" license." In ^vhich we meet the following passage :
"And to the intent that rash and seditious preachers
" should not abuse his Highness's people, it Is his Majesty's
" pleasure that, whosoever shall take upon him to preach
" openly In any parish Church, Chapel, or any other open
" place, other than those which be licensed by the King's
"majesty, or his highness's visitors, the Archbishop of
" Canterbury, or the Bishop of the Diocese where he doth
" preach, except it be Bishop, Parson, Vicar, Dean, War-
" den, or Provost, in his or their own cure, shall forthwith
" upon such attempt, and preaching contrary to this pro-
" clamatlon, be committed to prison," &c. &c. Burnet,
Vol. 2, coL22, p. 101.
We here see again, that the custom of preaching In the
way, to which your Lordship objects, is proved by the very
inhibition, and we see the reason of this inhibition, and

93
that it was in fact, intended but to be applied to Popish
teachers and to give fuller scope to the preaching of the
Gospel, as is still more clearly proved by the following pas
sage from the historian of the Reformation, referring to the
fourth of May in the same year : —
" And now the greatest care of the reformers was to find
" the best men they could, who should be licensed by the
'' King's authority to preach. To whom the Council sent
" a letter in the beginning of May, intimating that by the
" restraint put on preaching, they only Intended to put an
"end to the rash contentions of indiscreet men, not to
" extinguish the lively preaching of the pure word of God,
" made after such sort as the Holy Ghost should, for the
" time, put into the preacher's mind." Burnet, Vol. 2,
Hist. p. 47.
This letter refers to a proclamation made a little before
even in that very year, namely, on the 14th of April,
whereby " the power of granting licensee to preach was taken
"from the Bishops of each diocese, so that none might give
" them, but the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Fuller and Heylin assert that all preaching whatsoever,
was totally forbidden by proclamation In the month of
September in that year, but Burnet does not believe in the
existence of such a document. Burnet, Vol. 2, Hist. p. 62,
comp. with Vol. 3, Hist. p. 140.
But, whatever may be the truth on this point, (and It Is
most likely that Burnet is in the right) one thing Is certain,
that the power of granting licenses to preach, then taken
from the Bishops was not restored to them afterwards,
for they could neither preach themselves, nor license
or forbid others to preach, without a special license granted
to them from the King for this purpose, as clearly appears
by the following documents. I find memorials of four

94
licenses for themselves and their dioceses, granted to four
Bishops from May 1551, to June 1552.
I. " A license of preaching to the Bishop of Winchester,
"within this realm, and to appoint whom he shall judge
" meet to preach within his diocess, and to inhibit thera
" whom he shall not think meet within the same, dated in
« May, 1551.
II. " A license of preaching for Miles Coverdale, Bishop
" of Exeter, dated In September, 1550.
III. " A license to the Bishop of Lincoln to preach with
"authority to him to forbid any to preach within his
" diocese, being unable and not having the King's license,
" dated in June, 1552,
IV. "A license to the Bishop of Chichester, both to
"preach himself, and also at his discretion to license or
"forbid any other within his diocese, dated in June, 1551."
Strype's Memorials, Ed. 1816, Vol. 3, pp. 444, 449, 453.
Now, my Lord, these facts establish with irrefragable
proof, the principles which I have laid down; they prove,
first, that the full spiritual power and authority to preach,
was held by both the Church and the State, to be conferred
by the Bishop at ordination, and that the Minister had full
power thereby to officiate In the Church of God, and that
he was not bound to consider, as your Lordship says — " his
" authority to officiate in his order, kept in reserve to be
"conferred by a future act, and with respect to some
" special place, as circumstances shall require."
For these documents prove that ministers when ordained
were held perfectly competent to the discharge of their
office; not in places merely where the episcopal act of
induction gave them authority, but where they had no
episcopal authority; nay, where Bishops could not give
them authority, and had not at the time any authority

95
themselves, they were held competent to go, not with
episcopal, but with a secular license, Into the dioceses,
where Bishops themselves could neither authorise, nor
inhibit them, and to preach under the sanction of the
secular power, here were twenty-four licenses granted to
Ministers to preach through all England, In those very
years when licenses were granted but to four Bishops,
either to preach themselves, or to give authority to preach
in their own dioceses. I know, my Lord, that this was a
usurpation of the secular over the spiritual power — a
usurpation of the State against the Church ; but this is of
no importance to the point, it establishes the fact as to the
spiritual power of executing his office, not being ever held
by the Church, as suspended on any episcopal act subse
quent to ordination. No objection was ever made that these
preachers were violating their duty — and it is of no little
importance to remark, that the very questions on which your
Lordship lays such great stress, as binding our consciences
on this subject, were added just before this very time,
namely, in the year 1550, to the ordination service —
Burnet says :
" The most considerable addition that was made in the
" book of ordination, was, the putting questions to the
" persons to be ordained, who by answering these, made
" solemn declarations of sponsions and vows to God."
" The first question when one is presented to orders, is —
" Do you trust that you aix inwardly moved by the Holy
" Ghost to take upon you this office and ministration to serve
" God for the promoting of his glory and the edifying of his
" people f To which he is to answer, " He trusts he is."
Burnet makes on this a series of solemn and important re
flections. He then says :
" In the sponsions made by the Priests, they bind themselves

96
'< to teach the people committed to their charge, to banish away
" all erroneous doctrines, and to use both public and private
" monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the
" whole within their cures, as need shall require and as occa-
" sion shall be given. He then makes reflections equally
suitable on this. Burnet, Voh 2, pp. 110, 111.
Now, my Lord, here, these questions on which yoilr
Lordship rests with such confidence, as limiting the labours
of Ministers, by a solemn vow, to their cures — these ques
tions were at this very time superadded, as Burnet states
to the ordination service, and this is that very service
asserted to be so scriptural in our 36th Article.
I am sure, my Lord, it is unnecessary to propose to your
Lordship's candour the question, whether you think it pos
sible, that a service, so solemn, could have been intended
by those who composed It, to bear a meaning, and to
impose obligations on men's consciences, which the facts
of history prove not to have had an existence, I will not
say in the practice, but even in the contemplation of the
Church, during the very period when this very service was
composed ? I am sure your Lordship sees, that it is super
fluous to reason on such a subject. But It will be granted,
my Lord, by all reasonable men, thatwe are amply justified
in not allowing a construction to be put on the ordination
service, as applied to our conduct or our consciences, which'
it is clear as the light of day, the very men who composed
that service, never intended It should bear, and neither
received nor acted on themselves.
In order now, my Lord, to bring the argument as far as
the question of law is concerned, to a conclusive demon
stration, since the old canon law confessedly gave the
Bishops no such power of jurisdiction as your Lordship
claims ; and since the statute which they procured for that

97
purpose, 2d Henry IV, c. 15, is repealed by 1st Elizabeth,
c. 1 , it only remains to consider what light any succeeding
statutes may throw on the question, and also to try whether
that which all lawyers consider as a satisfactory commentary
on any statutes or canons, namely, contemporaneous usage
at the time of their enactment, will alter the conclusions to
which all the preceding facts have brought us, and carry us on
with them till the period when the canons are dated.
The Protestant Sovereigns, Edward VI. and Elizabeth,
as we have seen, successively repealed this statute of
Henry IV, which had been revived by their respective pre
decessors, Henry VIII, and Mary. The reason was, that the
two latter were as anxious to confer power on those popish
Bishops, as the former were to deprive them of It. Edward
and Elizabeth were well aware that those Bishops would
oppose the Reformation, and maintain the interests of their
own superstition against the royal authority, while this was
the highest recommendation to Henry in the first part of
his reign, and to Mary throughout her's. But the arbi
trary exercises of the royal prerogative in these days, gave
ample scope to monarchs to take into their own hands
whatever ecclesiastical authority they might consider neces
sary for either temporal or spiritual purposes ; accordingly,
as we have seen, the whole power of licensing preachers,
was held In the hands of the Sovereigns, or committed to
those whom they pleased; sometimes they reserved the
power exclusively to themselves^sometimes they com
mitted it to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Universities,
to some peculiar Bishops, as four had It in Edward's time,
or to all the Bishops, just as they thought them likely to
use it with advantage, for the promotion of their own ob
jects ; so that even when any Bishop possessed the power of
licensing ministers to preach, they did not grant licenses as

98
any act of spiritual or episcopal jurisdiction, performed
virtute officii ; but as an act of secular convenience or
utility, which they were empowered or commanded to do
at the king's pleasure. If I can prove this — If I can bring
It down by statute, usage, and document, to the time when
the canons were enacted — if I can show that such licenses
were neither inductions to benefices, nor episcopal licenses
to serve cures, and that the very letter of the canons them
selves proves this to demonstration — ^if I can show that
such licenses have fallen into total disuse, and tliat no such
license as the canons speak of, is possessed this moment by
any Bishop, Rector, Vicar, or Curate in the empire — and
if I show, moreover, on the highest authority on canon law,
that if such a license were given at this day, the man who
possessed it would be licensed to preach in every dioceS©
111 Ireland, which he can do now, and which all the clergy
have done for time immemorial without such license — I
think if I can prove all this, the legal part of the case
under the existing laws will be set at rest for ever.
With respect then, my Lord, to the arbitrary power of
Sovereigns In those days; on this point, as on all others, it is
scarcely necessary to dwell long on it. That Elizabeth
acted on the principle of mere prerogative, and acted so, to
put down this episcopal power granted under the statute of
Henry IV, and revived by Mary, which she repealed, is
perfectly clear from the history.
Rapin shows both the object and nature of these licenses,
that the object was to promote the Reformation, and that
they were merely the creatures of Royal Prerogative used
for that purpose — he says :
" While the Parliament was taken up with affairs of
" religion, some preachers having In divers places delivered
" doctrines from the pulpit which tended to the overthrow

99
" of the Reformation, the Queen, agreeable to the practice
" of Edward and Mary, forbad all preaching, without a
''particular license under the great seal." — Rapin's Hist.
Eliz. A.D. 1559.
Hume tells us : —
" Elizabeth also proceeded to exert in favour of the
" Reformers some acts of power lohich were authorised by
" the extent of royal prerogative during that age ; finding
" that the Protestant teachers. Irritated by persecution,
" broke out in a furious attack on the ancient superstition,
" and that the Romanists replied with no less zeal and acri-
"mony, she published a proclamation by which she inhi-
" bited all preaching without a special license ; and though
" she dispensed with these orders in favour of some Pro-
" testants, she took care that they should be the most calm
"and moderate of the party." — Hume : Reign of Elizabeth.
A. D. 1558.
And he tells us In another part, that it was done "fur the
"purpose of imposing a restraint upon the Catholic divines,
"while the Protestants, by the grant of particular licenses,
"should enjoy unbounded liberty." — Ibid.
The result of this, and of her commanding that the
liturgy should be read In English, and forbidding the Host
to be elevated in her presence, was, that "the Bishops
" refused to officiate at her coronation ; and it was with
" some difficulty that the Bishop of Carlisle was at last
" prevailed on to perform the ceremony." — Ibid. It Is
impossible to ascertain to what individuals Elizabeth chose
to delegate the power of licensing preachers — at this time
she took It into her own hands exclusively — subsequently
she permitted It to the universities, the Archbishop of Can
terbury, and at least to some of the Bishops ; but she exer
cised an authority over them to correct or reprove them as

100
she saw fit. How far she may have been justified by the
conflicting opposition of popery and non-conformity, it Is
not for me to examine. I am not to speak about the prin
ciple, I have only to treat of the fact.
I find that the University of Cambridge possessed the
power of granting licenses to preach, as we have the actual
license granted in the 13th year of Elizabeth, to no less a
person than Whitgift, and it is also evident that the Arch
bishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops, had then a prlvl-"
lege given to them of making regulations on the subject,'
and of granting licenses. In Strype's life of Whitgift,
FoL 1718, p. 22, we find an order was made and concluded
by the Archbishop and Bishops, that for the preventing of
false doctrine and schism, all those that had obtained
faculties to preach should surrender them before the 3d of
August, 1571, and that upon their subscription to the
Thirty-nine Articles of religion, and likewise other consti
tutions and ordinances, agreed upon by the said Archbishop
and Bishops, new licenses should be given them. This
they signified to the University of Cambridge, requiring
the heads to call in all the faculties they had before that
time granted; whereupon Dr. Whitgift, having given up
his former faculty, granted him, A.D. 1566, received ano
ther from the University, and moreover constituting him
one of the University Preachers, dated September 17th,
A.D. 1671.
In the body of this license we perceive, that this faculty
or lleense, was one enabling the person who held It to
preach over all England and Ireland, as all licensed men
were privileged to do. The document is so Important, that
I give the words : having recited the order of the Arch
bishop and Bishops to withdraw all previous licenses, and

101
issue them anew to those who subscribed the Thiity-nine
Articles — It proceeds :
" Cumque Johannes Whitgifte, S.F.P. antehac, vi?.
10 Jun. Ann. 1566, auctoritatem prcedicandi per totum
regnum Anglics et HibernicB, sigillo nostrm Universitatis,
communi communitam obtinuerit quam nunc manlbus
nostris tradidit cancellendam : nos eundem Johannem
Whitgifte qui jam supradictis articulis, cceterisque prse-
mlssis consenserit et subscripserit, ob modestiam, gravitatem
honestatem vltte et consentientem doctrinam ad munus
prcedicandi quod prius meruerat restituimus, atque harum
literarum nostrarum testlmonio, sigillo nostrse universitatis
consignato," etc. etc. This license is of vast iinportance,
proving, as It does, that the licenses given, were universal
licenses to preach through the empire, as it is not insi
nuated that any peculiar privilege was given to Whitgift
In this license more than that which was given In all other
instances. Indeed there Is a singular document which
proves this to have been the universal custom, and pecu
liarly obnoxious to the enemies of the Church of England.
It is preserved in the same book, Strype's Life of Whitgift,
among the records — vide Book I. No. 12 — entitled :
" The contents of a Sermon preached at St. Maries, In
" Cambridge, by one Millayn, Fellow of Christ's College,
" against the Ministrie of the Church of England."
In which he brings five weighty charges, such as they are,
against all the Ministers of the day ; chiefly to prove that
they were not lawfully called to the ministry. The fifth
charge is :
"Fifthly, that our calling of the Ministers was not
" lawful, because they were not called to any ordinary
" function, nor to any certain place of the ministry ; but
" were made (as he said some of them made this excuse)

102
" Pastors of England, which he said, was clean preposte-
" rously done, and that rather a Pastor of England might
" make a Bishop of Lincoln, than a Bishop of Lincoln
" might make a Minister of England,"
This proves to demonstration, what the universal prac
tice of the time was, and what both Queen, Universities,
Archbishops, and Bishops thought, that the necessities of
the Country and Church demanded, which were far less
beyond comparison, than those of Ireland and the Irish
Church at this day.
Having occasion hereafter to revert to the reign of Eliza
beth, we shall now proceed to that of James ; and we shall
find, that the arbitrary disposition of this monarch was not
less evinced in the affairs of the Church, than in those of
the state. It is well condensed as to both, in one significant
sentence of his own, in his speech to his Parliament,
A.D. 1610.
" -He knew," he said, " the power of kings, resembling
" it to the power divine, for as God can create and destroy,
" make and unmake, at his pleasure, so kings can give life
" and death, judge all, and be judged of none. They can
" exalt low things, and abase high things, making the subjects
" like men at chess, a pawn to take a Bishop." — Wilson,
p. 682. Rapin, Book XVIII. A.D. 1610.
Another specimen of James's arbitrary principles on the
subject of religion, may be taken from his assertion of
them at the Hampton Court conference, the minutes of
which are preserved In Fuller. One of the nonconforming
divines, speaking of the power of the Church to ordain
ceremonies, especially the ceremony of the sign of the
cross, of which he was treating — says :
" If the Church hath such a power, the greatest scruple

103
" Is, how far the ordinance of the Church bindeth, without
" impeaching Christian liberty."
King James — " I will not argue that point with you, but
" answer as Kings in Parliament, ' Le Roy s'avisera.
" This is like Mr. John Black, a beardless boy, who told
"me the last conference in Scotland, that he would hold
" conformity with his Majesty in matters of doctrine, but
"every man for ceremonies was to be left to his own
"liberty. But I will have none of that, I will have ane
" doctrine, one discipline, one religion, in substance and in
"ceremony; never speak more to that point, how far you are
" to 0%."— Fuller, Cent. XVII. B. X.
But there is one document In this reign, which precludes
the necessity of entering into any details of its history, and
it is so directly to the point, so perfectly clear, and brings
the whole case down so closely to the very date of the
Canons, that it at once conclusively fixes, both from statuj;e
and cotemporaneous usage, the nature of the licenses
spoken of in them.
This is no less than a letter from King James himself, to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, Abbott, " concerning
Preachers and Preaching," expressing his royal will and
pleasure thereon, with directions to be observed throughout
his kingdom. It is as follows :
" Most Reverend Father in God, right trusty and entirely
" beloved Councellor, we greet you well.
" Forasmuch as the abuses and extravagancies of preachers in
" the pulpit, have been at all times repressed in this realm, by
" some act of councill or state, with the advice and resolution of
"grave and learned Prelates; INSOMUCH THAT THE
" VERY LICENSING OF PREACHERS HAD BEGIN-
" NING BY AN ORDER OF THE STAR-CHAMBER,

104
« THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, IN THE 19TH YEAR
"OF KING HENRY THE EIGHTH, OUR NOBLE
" PREDECESSOR, and whereas, at this present, divers young
" students by reading of late writers and ungrounded divines, do
" broach many times, unprofitable, unsound seditious, and dan-
" gerous doctrines, to the scandall of the Church, and disquiet
" of the state and present government ; WE, UPON HUMBLE
" REPRESENTATION TO US, OF THESE INCONVE-
" NIENCES BY YOURSELFE, AND SUNDRY OTHER
"GRAVE AND LEARNED PRELATES QF THIS
" CHURCH, as also of our princely care and zeal, for the
" extirpation of schism and dissension growing from these seeds,
" and for the settling of a religious and peaceable government,
" both in Church and Commonwealth, doe by these our speciall
" letters, straightly charge and command you, that these limita-
" tions and cautions herewith sent unto you, concerning preachers,
" be duly and strictly, from henceforth, put in practice and oh-
" served, by the several Bishops within your jurisdiction. And
" to this end, our pleasure is, that you send them forthwith
" copies of these directions, to be by thera speedily sent and
" communicated unto every Parson, Vicar, Curate, Lecture r
" and Minister, in every Cathedrall, or parish Church within
" their severall dioceses, and that you earnestly require them to
" employ their utmost endeavours in the performance of this,
" so important a business, letting them knoiv, that we have a
" speciall eye unto their proceedings, and expect a strict account
" thereof, both cf you and every one of them, and tbese our letters
" shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge in that behalf.
" Given under our signet, at our Castle of Windsor, the 4th
" day of August, in the twentieth year of our reign."
Then follows the list of "Directions concerning
Preachers sent with this letter," these are six In number.
The substance of the first is, that none under the degree
of Bishop or Dean, In a Cathedral or Collegiate Church,

105
shall take occasion to preach on any text of Scripture in
any discourse, not " comprehended and warranted in
essence, substance, effect, or natural inference," within
some of the Articles or Homilies, which, he says, " are
set forth not only for the help of the non-preaching, but
withall for a pattern and boundary, as it were, for the
preaching ministers," and therefore they were to study the
Articles and Homilies.
Second, that no Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Lecturer,
shall preach in any place, but upon some part of the Cate
chism, or some text taken out of the Creed, the Lord's
Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.
Third, that no Preacher under the degree of Bishop, or
Dean at least, shall presume to preach on Predestination,
Election, Reprobation, or the universality, efficacy, resls-
tibility, or irresistibility of God's grace.
Fourth, that no Preacher, of what title or denomination
soever, shall presume to declare, limit, or bound out the
power, prerogative, jurisdiction, authority, or duty of
sovereign princes, &c.
Fifth, that no Preacher of what title or denomination
Soever,' shall presume to fall into bitter invectives against
the persons either of papists or puritans, but to defend the
doctrines of the Church against their objections.
Sixthly, (which is the one In point,) " That the Arch-
" bishops and Bishops of the kingdom, (whom his Majesty
" hath good cause to blame for their former remissness) be
" more wary and choice in their licensing of Preachers, and
" revoke all grants made to any Chancellor, Official, or
" Commissary, to pass licenses In this land; and that all the
" lecturers throughout the kingdom of England, (a new
" body severed from the ancient Clergy, as being neither
" Parsons, Vicars, nor Curates,) be licensed henceforward

106
" in the Court of Faculties, but only from a recommenda-
" tion of the party from the Bishop of the Diocese, under his
" hand and seal, with a fiat from the Lord Archbishop of
" Canterbury, and a confirmation under the Great Seal of
" England ; and that such as doe transgress any one of these
" directions be suspended by the Bishop of the Diocess, or,
" in his default, by the Archbishop of the Province ab officio
" et beneficio for a year and a day, until his Majesty, by the
" advice of the next Convocation, shall prescribe some
" further punishment." Fuller, Cent. XVII. B. IX. pp.
108, 9, 10. See also a Collection of Records in the College
Library. Now, my Lord, had it not been for the importance of the
question, and the necessity of fully tracing it out, to satisfy
the minds of so many whose consciences are exercised on
the subject, feeling as they do the importance of missionary
preaching, yet hesitating, lest In this they might be trans
gressing, unwittingly, some law or canon of the Church, I
might have been contented with the simple recital of this
one document. King James's Letter Is not law now — but
it was law at that time, and Is now conclusive evidence both
of the law and usage then in being In the Church. We
learn from It these unanswerable facts :
First, That even the regulation of the abuses and extra
vagancies of Preachers, or whatever the King chose to call
such, or whatever the Bishops might consider, and even
j ustly consider such, was not in the hands of the Bishops,
but was by usage and custom repressed " by some act of
council or state, with the advice and resolution" of the Bishops — <
unjustly, I grant, but such was the fact.
Secondly, That the license to preach was at that
time no more considered to be an act of Episcopal jurisdic
tion, either held by Bishops virtute officii, or Identical with

107
ordination, induction, or license, to serve a cure, than the
license to keep a shop. King James adduces this fact as a
proof of his own Royal prerogative over the Church. He
says, " Insomuch that the v^ry licensing of preachers had be-
" ginning by an order of the Star Chamber, the eighth day of
" July, in the 19th year of the reign of King Henry the 8th.''
This was in the year 1528. I have searched the annals of
that year in Burnet, Strype, and Fuller, and I am notable
to discover the order to which King James alludes. He
was wrong as to the fact of the origin of licenses in point of
law, as has been proved ; but he was perfectly right as to
the usage : and this document clearly substantiates every
statement that has been made respecting licenses, and
proves that they were secular faculties, or privileges, origi
nally introduced for the worst purposes — afterwards the
creatures of the Star Chamber, or, what is the same, of the
Royal prerogative, sometimes made necessary for Bishops
themselves — sometimes given to a few — sometimes to more.
The privilege of conferring them, first granted by law to
Bishops — then withdrawn from them by law— then given
by Royal authority to some of them — then to all of them,
just as they seemed fit to be entrusted with it, or as they
were likely to use it for the King's pleasure — sometimes
given to diffuse the preaching of the Gospel — sometimes to
restrain it. And while it is clear that Bishops, and even
Chancellors and Commissioners, could grant some licenses;
yet here, by this very letter, the power of granting license to
lecturers is taken from every Bishop in the kingdom — they ivere
only permitted fo recommend them for alicense — that recommen
dation was to be confirmed by a fiat from the Archbishop of
Canterbury, and could not be granted even by him, till it passed
under the Great Seal of England.
Now, my Lord, this document, bearing date the 4th of

108
August, 162-3, brings us down within ten years of the
enactment of the Canons themselves. There is no Inter
vening statute, no intervening document of civil or ecclesi
astical law, no ordinance of Royal prerogative, (and surely
Charles I abated none of the prerogative of James, to alter
the nature of the terms used,) in those Canons; and I con
fidently submit it to your Lordship's candour and judgment,
and to that of every Canonist in the Empire, whether a
clearer, fuller case deduced from the law, the history, or the
usage of the Church, was ever made out to determine and
fix the meaning of any legal documents than this, which
brings us to ascertain the meaning of the license to preach
mentioned in the Canons. The fact is simply this, that
being granted to enable certain men supposed capable, to
promote the Interests of the Church by preaching, and to
prevent any from preaching who were not competent to do
so, and also to guard against non-conformists or Papists,
who might get into the Church for the sake of lucre : when
the Church was supposed secure from all her enemies, the
necessity of such licenses ceased, and they fell into total
disuse ; and I confidently assert, that there is not existing at
this moment, nor has there been from time immemorial, one
man in the Church, from the lowest Curate to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury in England, or to the Primate in
Ireland, who either has, or ever had, the license to preach
spoken of in the Canons.
It is also clear, my Lord, on the highest authority, that
if he had such license, It would be a license not restricting
him to any place of exercising his ministry, but a license, or
positive authority to preach through all the Empire ; and if
he had it but from one Bishop it would give him this
authority, not only in that Bishop's diocese, but in every
diocese in Ireland. But such licenses have been totally

109
unknown in our Church, for every Minister in our com
munion is, and has been considered by immemorial usage
licensed to preach in any Diocese when ordained.
The Canon law makes a great and just distinction
between preaching, and administering the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper in another parish, the latter being considered,
and justly from the Rubric, a matter of parochial discipline,
on which the incumbent alone has a right to pronounce, and
with which no other can be supposed to be acquainted, or
can interfere, without his express authority.
" A Clerk In orders cannot administer the Sacrament of
" the Eucharist, unto the parishioners of another Church,
" without a license obtained from the Bishop of the diocese
"or the Parson of the parish where he administers the
" same ; nor shall any credit be given to a person averring
" himself to have such a license, nor to the parishioner
" averring the truth thereof ; but he ought to show his
" license in writing, or prove from the Parson of the parish,
" that he had leave so to do." — Lyndwood, Lib. 3, Tit. 15,
C. 2. Ayliffe, par. Jur. Canon, p. 354.
But preaching, if a man is Indeed considered fit to be a
Preacher of God's Word, and to hold a license for so doing,
when licenses were necessary, cannot be thought to inter
fere with any parochial discipline, for If he preaches the
Gospel of Christ, and enforces the duties of Christians,
no man in any place can be injured by the enforcement of
truth, while thousands who otherwise cannot, or will not,
hear from the parochial Minister, may hear from a stranger,
as Is proved through all Ireland.
Ayliffe says, speaking of licenses :
" Though a Priest by his ordination receives authority
" to preach the word of God, and to administer the holy
" sacraments in the congregation where he shall be law-

110
" fully appointed thereto, yet notwithstanding this, he may
"not preach, without the license either of the King, or
" his respective Archbishop, Bishop, or other lawful Ordi-
" nary. But a license by the Bishop of any diocese is
" sufficient, though it be only to preach within his diocese, the
" .statute not requiring any license by the Bishop of the
" diocese where the Church is." — 1 Keble, Rep. 503. Ayliffe
Parer. Jur. Canon, p. 354.
Now, my Lord, I submit, that the license to preach, to
be procured from the King, Archbishop, or University,
will be admitted by your Lordship, not to be a license to
serve a Cure, which by the 38th Canon, none but the
Bishop of the diocese could give, and that for the same
reason, the license from a Bishop necessary by that Canon
to serve a Cure in his diocese, cannot be Identical with the
license here spoken of, to preach, which gives authority, if
Ayliffe's opinion is correct, to preach through every diocese
in Ireland, and which is proved by the license given to
Whitgift, which I have copied.
But now, my Lord, I shall waive all historical and legal
authority, and come to the documents themselves ; and I
confidently submit to your Lordship's judgment, that the
very internal evidence of the Canons establishes all that
has been stated, and proves beyond all contradiction,
that so far from the power of preaching being sus
pended, as your Lordship argues, on Induction to a
benefice or license to serve a cure ; the Canons suppose,
that Bishops give Induction to Rectors and license to
Curates to serve In their Dioceses, without giving to
them this license to preach, spoken of in the Canons.
For the licenses to preach given often totally Independent
of the Bishops, and the frequent inhibition of Bishops
themselves to grant these licenses even in their own

Ill
dioceses, prove that they were not Episcopal licenses,
and that therefore, the act of Episcopal authority, on which
your Lordship insists, was not known to the Church as
necessary to enable men to preach; though it is fully
granted, that it was then, as now, necessary to confer either
the authoriy of Pastor, or power to serve as a Curate In a
benefice. I confidently anticipate'your Lordship's unqualified assent
to this, when you consider the Internal evidence of all the
Canons that bear on the subject — and first, my Lord, let us
look to the 9th Irish Canon — its title is :
" Beneficed Preachers being resident upon their livings to
"preach every Sunday."
The Canon itself begins :
" Every beneficed man, allowed to be a Preacher, and
" residing on his benefice, having no lawful impediment,
" shall in his own cure preach one sermon every Sunday of
" the year."
Now, mj'' Lord, I submit. If your argument be just,
the wording of this Canon is absurd — for your Lordship
contends, that the power to preach depends on, and Is
conferred, not by the act of ordination, but by the subse
quent act of episcopal jurisdiction, which inducts to a
benefice, or licenses to serve a cure ; therefore, if a man be
a " beneficed man," on your Lordship's reasoning, he must,
ipso facto, be "allowed to be a Preacher," but the Canon
clearly Implies that he may be a " beneficed man," and not
" allowed to be a Preacher," as it makes a distinction
between them, and consequently, It not only does not
recognize, but contradicts your Lordship's principle ; for it
supposes the act of episcopal jurisdiction which inducts to
a benefice completed, but proves that this act does not

112
confer that license, on its power to confer which, your
Lordship's whole argument depends.
This is still more clearly established by the very Canon
which your Lordship quotes, taken in connection with those
which immediately precede and follow it.
The titles of the 37th, 38th, and 39th Canons, are :
37th. Absence of beneficed men, and livings appropriated,
to be supplied by Curates, that are allowed Preachers.
38th. None to be Curates but allowed by the Bishop.
39th. Strangers not admitted to preach without license.
Nowby these three Canons, aresimplyprovided these three
things — First, by the 37th, that if any man have a bene
fice from which he is lawfully absent, his place must be
supplied by a Curate who Is a licensed Preacher. Secondly,
by the 38th, that this Curate, as well as being a licensed
Preacher, must be episcopally licensed to serve the cure.
Thirdly, that if a stranger come and offer to preach,
he must be known or proved to be a licensed preacher,
before he is allowed to preach.
The words of the 37th Canon are :
" Every beneficed man licensed by the laws of this realm,
(upon urgent occasions of other service) not to reside upon
his benefice, shall cause his cure to be supplied by a Curate
that is a sufficient and licensed Preacher, If the worth of the
benefice will bear it. But whosoever hath two benefices
shall maintain a Preacher, licensed in the benefice where
he doth not reside, unless he preach himself at both of
them usually. Also, every beneficed man not allowed to be a
Preacher, shall procure sermons to be preached in his cure
once every month at least, by Preachers lawfully licensed, if
his living, in the judgment of the Ordinary, will be able to
bear It," &c. &c.

113
Now, your Lordship will see from this Canon, that
a man might be a Curate, but not " a sufficient and licensed
Preacher ;" nay, that he might be " a beneficed man, and
not allowed to be a Preacher ;" consequently, that your
Lordship's argument, that his license to preach, is derived
from his Episcopal appointment to cure or benefice, is
totally disproved by the very letter of the Canon. Your
Lordship sees, moreover, not only that the beneficed man
himself, may not be allowed to be a Preacher, but that It
appears from this Canon, that he may have Preachers in his
parish, and a variety of Preachers too, and that he is to bear
their expenses, or pay them for their trouble, and that the
only restriction is, that those Preachers be licensed, not neces
sarily by the Bishop, who could not, as we have seen, on
many occasions, grant them a license to preach — but that the
Bishop should consider the living of sufficient value to
procure the supply. It were superfluous to argue further
on this Canon.
If the license or authority to preach mentioned In the
37th Canon, were identical with an Episcopal license or
authority to serve a Cure, the 38tli Canon would be super
fluous, at least It would be rendered unnecessary by the
addition of a few words in the 37th ; but the 38th is clearly
on a subject totally different, and on one, of which every
man who values Episcopal governmentand jurisdiction will
maintain the necessity ; that is, that no man shall be
allowed to be a Curate, or to serve in a parish without
Episcopal approbation and authority, but this Curate under
the Canons, may or may not be a licensed Preacher. If
he be appointed to a benefice of which the Rector is
absent, he must by the 37th Canon be a licensed Preacher;
but if the Rector be resident and himself a licensed
H

114
Preacher, his Curate may or may not be so ; but whether
the Curate be or be not a licensed Preacher, he cannot be
admitted to serve the cure, unless under Episcopal authority;
it is the service of a cure and not preaching, to which the
38th Canon refers. This Canon we shall soon see, to be of
great importance as to the privilege of preaching, and it is
therefore not at all irrelevant to the question, though allow
me to say, it does not bear upon your Lordship's argument;
it only proves, what no one calls in question, viz. that the
Curate of a parish must be licensed by the Bishop.
But your Lordship seems to rely on the next Canon, as
if it conclusively settled the point — you say :
" The intrusion of unauthorised Ministers is forbidden
*' by the next succeeding Canon, which enjoins, that neither
"the Minister, Churchwardens, or other officers, of any
*' parochial or collegiate Church, shall suffer any stranger
" to preach unto the people in their Churches, except they
" know him to be sufficiently authorized thereto as is afore-
*' said, and the appointment of substitutes for Deans and
" Prebendaries in Cathedral Churches, is restricted by the
"27th Canon, to such licensed Preachers, as by the
" Bishop of the diocese shall be thought meet."
" By the Canon which forbids strangers to preach wlth-
" out license, it is also enjoined, that if any in his sermon
" shall publish any doctrine, either strange or disagreeing
" from the Word of God, or from the Articles of Religion,
" notice thereof shall be given to the Bishop of the diocese
" that he may determine the matter, and take such order
" therein as he shall see convenient. Thus the Preacher
" is not only to exercise his Ministry under the Episcopal
" authority, if at all, but he is also responsible to the same
•' authority for his manner of exercising It, but they who

115
" reject the authority for permission are little likely to sub-
" mit to it for judgment.
Your Lordship will see, I trust, on examination, that
you quote these Canons under a misapprehension, not
only of the spirit, but the very letter of the documents.
Having assumed that the license to preach spoken of In
the Canons Is the same with the authority to discharge the
duty of a Pastor, given by the Bishop either by induction
to a benefice, or license to a cure, and that the 38th Canon
proves this, you then quote the 39tli Canon, entitled —
" Strangers not admitted to preach without license," as If this
were Episcopal license and a conclusive corroboration of
your argument ; whereas, my Lord, I humbly submit that
it totally subverts It. For if the license to preach were
the license given by^ the Bishop to the regular Pastor of
a benefice, whether Rector or Curate, how is It possible
the Preacher could be called " a stranger f Could a man be
" a stranger," in his own parish or his own cure ? Nay, the
word of the Canon supposes the Minister himself to be on
the spot ; for it says, that " neither the Minister, Church
wardens or other officers, of any parochial or collegiate
Church shall suffer any stranger to preach unto the people in
their Churches, except they know him to be sufficiently autho
rized thereto." Your Lordship's argument is, that none
can be licensed to preach, but the Minister of the parish,
appointed by the Bishop — here the Canon supposes this
Minister who has this authority on the spot, yet It supposes
another person to come, who, on your Lordship's reasoning,
cannot have the authority, for he is a stranger. Can he be
a stranger in the parish and Episcopally licensed in the
parish, when the actual minister, who is Episcopally licensed,
is supposed by the Canon to be present too ? Surely, my
Lord, though it be an Irish Canon, your Lordship would

U6
not impute such a Hibernlcism to our Canon Law. Yet
your Lordship sees, though It is impossible a stranger could
have the license you speak of, since the man who has that
license Is there; yet he may have a license, and the Minister
may know him to have a license, and allow him to preach
on that license, for the Canon excepts all strangers who
have license, who are to be permitted to preach, and there
fore the exception proves the rule ; surely, my Lord, the
case is as clear as the light Itself.
Your Lordship's next quotation of an English Canon,
I must say Is equally conclusive against your own argument,
you say :
" Upon the same principle of maintaining the Episcopal
"jurisdiction, and the responsibility of inferior Ministers
" to the Episcopal authority, the 52nd English Canon
" prescribes the noting of the names of strange Preachers
" in a book, ' that the Bishop may understand, if occasion
" so require, what sermons are made in every Church
" in his diocese, and who presume to preach without
" license.' "
Now, my Lord, I humbly submit, that this Canon, as
quoted by yourself, proves the following facts : — First, that
the preaching of strangers In the Churches, without the
Bishop's leave is provided for by the Canon law; for the
Canon conld not provide for the habitual performance of
an act which It did not recognise, much less for the regular
commission of a crime which it was Intended to forbid ; but
it does recognise the preaching of strangers, and commands
that a book be kept for noting their names, to show to the
Bishop; which proves the absence of his previous per
mission, or his knowledge.
Secondly, It is clear that the only restriction was, that
they should be licensed preachers, for it was for the purpose

117
of enabling the Bishop to ascertain whether they were
licensed or not, that their names were to be noted in a
book. Thirdly, It is equally evident that this license was not
that which your Lordship throughout contend.s, is the only
license a Minister can have to preach, namely. Episcopal
induction to a benefice, or Episcopal license to serve a cure,
which alone, you say, gives him liberty to preach in a .spot
and fixes him there ; for if this were the license, as before
proved, a stranger could not possibly possess it ; but this
Canon proves that he can possess it, so your Lordship, of
course admits the conclusion.
Lastly, It is also evident both from this, and the 39th
Irish Canon, above quoted, that, though Bishops have not
the jurisdiction wliich your Lordship assumes,^ yet they do
possess a jurisdiction, which it were to be wished your
Lordship had substituted and asserted, which gives the
Bishop the power of correcting the evil, if there be any,
in Missionary preaching ; and to which I doubt not, all
engaged in the Established Church Home Mission would
most joyfully submit ; namely, that of making all Ministers
responsible to the Bishop, in whose diocese they preach,
for whatever In their doctrine may be contrary to the
Scriptures, or the Articles of our Church ; for my part I
sincerely wish that this jurisdiction were faithfully and
apostolically exercised through every diocese in Ireland.
On the whole, my Lord, as far as the Canons relate to
the question, I have no doubt your Lordship will candidly
admit that they furnish direct evidence against the whole
tenor of your Charge.
Having, I must respectfully say, disproved your Lord
ship's premises, from the very Canons which you quote to

118
establish them, it were unnecessary repetition to show how
they must subvert the conclusions deduced from them.
There is but one more argument which your Lordship
derives from canonical authority, to be answered, and I
much regret to be obliged to differ from your Lordship's
reasoning on it, namely, our 23d Article. Your Lordship
brings a weighty charge against our Committee, which you
consider to be embodied in the meaning of that Article, you
say: —
" They are thereby resisting the law, and forming them-
" selves of their own election, into a Synod of Bishops,
" thus assuming to themselves the authority of the superior
" order of the Church, instead of peaceably and dutifully
" discharging, in their cures, the ministrations of that
" order to which they properly belong. Or to express
" myself in the language of our 23d Article, ' It is not lawful
" 'for any man to take upon himself the office of public
" 'preaching, or ministering the sacrament in the congregation,
" ' before he he lawfully called and sent to execute the same ;
" ' called' to his order In the ministry, ' sent' to execute
" its functions, and those we ought to judge lawfully
" ' called and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by
" ' men who have public authority given them in the congre-
" ' gation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard f
" that is by the Bishops who have authority to ordain and
" govern, to ' call,' and to ' send.' "
The apparent force of your Lordship's argument, in your
endeavour to identify the Article with it, consists in this —
your making a distinction between the calling and sending
of Ministers, which is supposed to correspond with, and
corroborate your construction of the Ordination service —
so that as Ordination, on your Lordship's principle Is unable

119
to authorise a man to preach the Gospel, till the subsequent
act of Inducting, or licensing him to a benefice, confers
that power on him ; so that the article confirms your posi
tion, that it is not lawful for any man to take on himself
the office of public preaching, till he is " called and sent ;"
that is, on your Lordship's principle, " called" by Ordina
tion, "sent" by Induction to a benefice, or license to a
cure. But in reply to this, permit me to say, that the
Church must be considered the best interpreter of her own
intentions, and that the preface to the Ordination service
itself, compared with the Article, settles the question. It
is as follows :
" It is evident unto all men, diligeiitly reading holy
" Scripture, and ancient authors, that from the Apostles'
" time there have been three orders of Ministers in Christ's
" Church — Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; which offices
" were evermore had In such reverend estimation, that no
" man might presume to execute any of them, except he were
"first called, tried, examined, and known to have such qua-
" lities as are requisite for the same, and also by public prayer
" with imposition of hands, were approved and admitted
" thereunto by lawful authority. And therefore to the in-
" tent that these orders may be continued, and reverently
" used and esteemed in the Church of Ireland, no man
" shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Priest,
" or Deacon, in the Church of Ireland, or suffered to execute
" any of the said functions, except he he called, tried, and
'' examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form
"following, or hath had formerly Episcopal consecration or
" ordination." Then having specified the ages at which
men are respectively to be ordained or consecrated, it pro
ceeds —
" And the Bishop knowing either by himself, or by suf-

120
"ficient testimony any person to be a man of virtuous coii-
" versation and without crime, and after examination and
" trial, finding him learned in the Latin tonguej and suffi-
"clently instructed In Holy Scripture, may at the times
" appointed in the canon, or else on urgent occasions on
" Sunday or holiday In the face of the Church, admit him
" a Deacon, in such manner and form as hereafter fol-
"loweth." Now this Preface, while it states, that no man unordalned
shall presume, or be suffered to execute any of the func
tions of a Minister, provides, "except he be called, tried,
" examined, and admitted thereunto, according to the form
" hereafter following ;" by which it very conclusively
specifies, that those who are admitted to that order, by that
form, are, to all intents and purposes qualified to execute
the functions of a Minister, without any ulterior act being
intended to be necessary for that purpose ; and the terms
" called and sent," in the article, are defined in the article
itself to refer, not to license to a cure, or Induction to a
benefice, but to the great vocation and mission to the work
of the Ministry of the Gospel, without any reference
whatever to the mode in which that Ministry might be
exercised ; it says, " those we ought to judge lawfully called
and sent, which be chosen and called to this work by men
who have public authority given unto them In the congre
gation to call and send Ministers into the Lordls vineyard."
If vour Lordship's construction of the article were the
correct one. It would be worded — " those we ought judge
" lawfully called and sent who be called by ordination into the
"capacity of being Ministers, and then sent by the same
" authority that ordained them, into a place where alone they
" may have power to execute their office."
There is nothing approaching to any such construction

I i

121
of the article in Burnet's treatise on it, and no man was
better qualified, from his knowledge of the history of our
Church and its ordinances, to fi.x the meaning of such a
point of discipline; on the contrary, he gives it a latitude of
construction, which is very wide indeed from that put upon
it by your Lordship — he says : ¦
" I come in the next place to consider the second part
" of this article, which is the definition here given of those
" that are lawfully called and sent ; this is put in very gene-
" ral words, far from that magisterial stiffness in wliich some
" have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. The
" Article does not render this into any particular constitu-
" tion, but leaves the matter open for such accidents as had
" happened, and such as might still happen. They who drew
"it had the state of the several Churches before their eyes,
" that had been differently reformed, and although their own
" had been less forced to go out of the beaten p'^th, than
" any other, yet they knew that all things among themselves
" had not gone according to those rules which ought to
" be sacred in regular times ; necessity has no law, and is
" a law to Itself." — Burnet on 23d Article.
He does not even limit the meaning of the Article to
Episcopal ordination, so as to exclude that of a Presbytery,
much less does he construe it, so as to tie up the hands and
feet of Episcopal Ministers, In a way in which, I believe,
they never have been bound up in a Christian Church, that
enjoyed any Christian liberty, since the days of the
Apostles till now.
On the whole, my Lord, I must respectfully, but cer
tainly conclude, that your Lordship's construction of the
Ordination service, the Canons, and the Article, is totallv
disproved, by the internal evidence of those very docu
ments, whether considered by themselves, or compared

122
with each other. If we look to the Ordination service, to
the very questions, on the answers to which, your Lordship
relies for the obligations you would impose on our con
sciences, we find from the history and practice of the
Church, at the very time those questions were framed, that
such a construction of them was utterly irreconcHeable
to the conduct of the very men themselves, who framed
them, and therefore could not have ever entered into their
contemplation to Impose on others.
If we look to the Canons, the v^ry letter of those docu
ments, the very plain unanswerable wording of them,
proves, that the license for a man to serve a cure, which is
necessarily and justly to be derived from Episcopal juris
diction. Is no more the same with the license to preach of
which you speak, than it is with a license to marry. I am
therefore constrained, with all respect for your Lordship's
motives, to conclude, that the principles laid down in your
Lordship's Charge upon this subject, are not borne out
either by our Ecclesiastical ordinances, by our Article, by
our Canon Law, or by the history of our Church and our
country. And since I cannot conscientiously admit, as I
trust has been fairly and respectfully proved, that your
Lordship's construction of our Ordination Service or our
Article, can either impose the obligation on our conscience,
or that your Lordship's construction of the Canon Law can
impose the restrictions on our conduct, which you infer from
them, I must respectfully, but candidly submit, that the
imputations cast in your Lordship's Charge, on the Clergy
who would promote and labour In missionary exertions in
Ireland, — Imputations which I do not desire to repeat, and
which we entirely disclaim, originate in a misconception,
however unintentional, of our duties and obligations on your
Lordship's part, and not in any violation of those duties and
obligations upon ours.

123
But, my Lord, I trust I am one of the last who would
stand upon a cold calculation of law, or history, or eccle
siastical definitions and distinctions, to contend with a supe
rior in the Church. It is well that our respective duties be
limited and defined ; but It seems to me a poor specimen
of that paternal government, or that filial subjection which
ought to subsist between the Bishops and Clergy in our
Church, when men take their stand upon a cold abstract
argument of law, either to command or to obey. It seems
to me the part of genuine principle for those in authority,
as well as for those in subjection, to interpret the rule of
duty according to the Christian spirit of the obligation, with
heartfelt sincerity as " unto God, and not unto men." My
judgment and affections would lead me into cordial un
bounded obedience to a Bishop. I would obey on a prin
ciple of obedience to a Higher Power ; and it is a painful
trial to principle, where duties that ought to coincide, are
made to clash with each other. Therefore I am the more
grieved, my Lord, when I see a rule of authority, never
thought of, never brought even Into consideration, much
less enforced in the universal practice of our Church, now
sought to be strained, beyond not only precedent and prin
ciple, but beyond all obligation of law, to restrain our ex
ertions, and to Impose a burthen on our consciences, not
In a cause that is wrong, or even in one that is indifferent or
doubtful, but In a cause which, I am bold to assert, is the
clear and imperative path of duty pointed out by our Bibles,
and Imposed by our most solemn obligations as Bishops and
Ministers of Christ In this country, and by the very vows and
canons that are made to tell against us. But of this again.
Let us look now, my Lord, at the universal practice of
the Church, and see how far it bears out your Lordship's
construction of our obligations ; and let me appeal to the

124
candour of every Bishop on the Bench, and of every Cler
gyman in the Empire, and let me ask, who ever heard of
such a thing before, as that a Clergyman was to consider
himself solemnly bound by his ordination vows, to execute
the office of a Minister only in the parish where he was
placed, so that he was consequently actually violating his
solemn obligations, and thereby bringing, if he had any
conscience, a sin upon his conscience, by preaching in ano
ther man's parish? What Bishop or what Clergyman
ever was absent from his Church on a Sunday, on a visit
with a brother Clergyman, or In his neighbourhood, where
it was not said to him — "/ hope you will preach for us f
or, " / hope you have brought a sermon in your pocket f"
And who ever dreamt that such a man was violating his
duty or his ordination vows, by consenting to preach in
any Church or in any Diocese in Ireland?
I will venture to assert, my Lord,that there is not a Bishop
or a Clergyman In the united kingdom who has not thus
preached in other Churches and Parishes than his own, and
who would not have revolted from the charge, that, in so
doing, he M'as guilty of a violation of his solemn vows at
ordiuiitlon. It is no matter, my Lord, what the object or
occasion of his preaching may be ; that is not the question —
whether It be to preach on a missionary tour, or to help a
brother Minister, or to please a friend, or to plead for a
charity. Your Lordship's argument is, that the Minister
Is limited, both by the authority of Episcopal jurisdiction,
to the spot ¦where he is to exercise his ministry, and that lie
is bound by his ordination vows to obey the authority that
gives him liberty to officiate only in that spot ; so that if
your Lordship's argument be valid. It is totally Irrelevant
to the question, on what pretence he disobeys this atitho'-
rity, and violates those vtiws. If those vows bear the con-

125
struction that your Lordship puts upon them — If they be
indeed bindingon the consciences of Clergymen, no pretence
can palliate the violation of them — no plea can invalidate
them — no Bishop can dispense with them — (for we have not
retained the power of Popish dispensations from oaths in
our Church ; ) and consequently, the Minister who preaches
under any pretext beyond the limits of that sphere which
Episcopal jurisdiction has assigned to him, and to which, on
your Lordship's argument, he Is restricted by his ordination
vows. Is a violater of his duty to his Bishop, and his solemn
obligations to his God.
But,myLord, If such an argument has been disproved by
the universal consent and the universal practice of the whole
united Church — if no man, in the ordinary vocation of his
ministry, ever heard of such a construction put upon his
duty or his obligations — if every man in the Church has
been in the habit, as circumstances might require, or oppor
tunity might offer of preaching in any Church in any
Diocese, wherever he might happen to be, without as much
as a thought that he was violating his duty, much less his
oath — how, my Lord, is it, or on what occasion is it, that
such a principle is now brought forward — such a rule of
duty now set up — such a construction now put upon our
ordination vows, which no one ever heard of before, not
only in our Church, but In any other Christian community ?
Is It that Ministers shall have been always at liberty to preach,
without such a charge being made against them, except on
such an occasion as this ? May a minister preach if he be
brought, by accident or by design. Into some neighbourhood
at a distance from his parish ? May he preach. If he be a popu
lar preacher, for charities ? May he preach in fashionable
churches ? May he preach, if he be staying at watering-
places ? May he preach, if he be eloquent, to gratify a friend

126
or a congregation ? May he preach if he be on a tour of busi
ness or on a tour of pleasure ? May this have been the allowed
practice of the Church for two centuries, and no thought
of restraint or reproach, much less of charges against her
Ministers, as if in so doing they had been guilty of a
crime ? but as soon as any among us begin to awaken
to a sense of that duty, to which we ought all to
have awakened long ago — as soon as we begin to go out to
preach among our guilty, blind and perishing countrymen —
as soon as we go out to try if, under the divine blessing,
we may bring the gospel to the ears of our poor fellow
sinners, that never hear the joyful sound of salvation from
their blind guides, but are perishing in the refuges of su
perstition, that are sold to them by those that " make mer
chandise of their souls" — as soon as we go out, not to make
preaching an occasional interlude to worldly business, or
worldly pleasure, but to make It, as It ought to be, both
our pleasure and our business — then we are to be charged
with violating our duty to our Bishop, and violating our
vows to our God ! Oh ! my Lord, I would appeal to your
Lordship's candour, when you look at the whole practice
of the Church, whether you think there can be sound and
just reasoning in the argument — if I did not feel it more
important, and more suited to the deep solemnity of the
subject, to appeal humbly, respectfully, and dutifully, but
falthfully[and solemnly to your conscience, whether there is
any true religion in the principle. I might dwell upon the
fact already laid down, that your Lordship's construction of
the rule of our duty, were disproved by the whole admitted
practice of all our Bishops, and all our Clergy for time
immemorial ; but It is more Important to dwell upon the
truth, that it is at war with the faithful exercise of our
ministry, in discharging the solemn obligations of our ordi-

127
nation vows, which bind us " to use every effort to banish all
erroneous doctrines that are contrary to God's word " — in
endeavouring to bring the salvation of the Gospel, to
the ears of fellow men, and In performing that duty as
Ministers of Christ, which is laid upon us, if we have any
regard, not only to the salvation of our fellow-sinners, but
to the maintenance of our Church, to the very existence
of the Christian religion In our country.
Let us give up the arguments on the construction of
Ordination Vows, Articles and Canons, that have been
deduced from Law and from History, and let us look at
the facts which they present to us, as to religion.
What was it, my Lord, that made popish superstition
tremble on her throne, when reigning in dark domination
over the British Empire ? The Missionary Preaching of
the followers of Wickliffe.
What drove her Bishops to seek, from persecuting and
sanguinary statutes, those powers which were given to
them In the reigns of Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry
V ? The terror produced among an ignorant and guilty
hierarchy, by the faithful preaching of those poor men, and
the influence which the Gospel, when brought before the
people, had against their guilty superstitions. This is acknow
ledged and proved by the very words of the statutes which
have been quoted.
Let us now go on to the reigns of Edward and Eliza
beth, and ask what was the great engine of Reformation
from Popery, used by those Sovereigns, and the faithful
Prelates who advised and aided their measures ? Was it
not faithful Missionary Preaching ? the faithful labours of
devoted Ministers of Christ, who were sent forth armed
with the authority of those very licenses of which we have
been speaking, to preach every where to the people and

128
with the voice of a trumpet to show to them the super
stitions of the Church of Rome, and the salvation of the
Gospel? How Is it then, my Lord, that we are so infatuated, as
not to know, that the means which made popery shake
to its foundations In the 14th and 15th centuries, are the
very same, which both the Word of our God, and the his
tory of our country and our Church, point out to us to use
in the 19th? Was it in the power of the feeble followers
of the humble Rector of Lutterworth, without Bibles, without
books, without the press, without means or energies, except
those which the Gospel and their God bestowed on them, to
shake the Popish superstition, in the plenitude of its power,
in England, bythe simple faithful testimony of eternal truth,
and this even under the fangs of persecution? And shall we,
with such means, such men, such multitudes of Bibles, such
books, such facilities, such a Church, such Innumerable
resources, such a press, such unbounded liberty, shall we
not only fail to shake the superstitions of the Church of
Rome, but be actually shaken to the very foundation of
our Church's Establishment, by that abominable idolatrous
apostacy ?
Was it in the power of Cranmer, and Latimer, and
Ridley, by the mercy of God, to advance the Reformation
in the days of Edward ? Was it in the power of Elizabeth,
under the divine protection, to forward It, till the Protestant
religion was established in all the blessings with which it
has been bequeathed to us by the faithful preaching of the
salvation of Christ, as opposed to Popish idolatry and super
stition ? And are we so blind to the power of the truth of
our God, so forgetful of the history not only of our own
Church, but of Christianity itself, and of the means of its
propagation, that our Established Church, Instead of ad-

129
vancing, is sinking under the power of the apostacy from
which the nation was then reformed ? that the Protestant
religion is so degraded, that the State has basely enacted;
^and the Church as basely consented, to barter with popish
superstition, one half of her Episcopacy, that it may cha
ritably allow her a quiet possession of the remainder ? Did
they under God's grace and power, rescue the nation from
this apostacy, and leave us such a Church, and are we unable
to retain these blessings ; surely we may say with Csesar :
" Profecto virtus atque sapientia major in illis fait, qui ex
" parvis opibus, tantum imperium fecire, quam in nobis qui
" ea bene parta vix retinemus."
Did the poor followers of Wickliffe go forth with apos
tolic fidelity. In the teeth of popish superstition, rage, and
persecution, to proclaim to their fellow-sinners, the salva
tion of their Redeemer, and is it only now, that a few
among us are beginning to do that, which ought to be the
business, as it Is the duty of all the BLshops and Clergy in
the Church of Ireland ?
Did the faithful compilers of our Ordination service and
our Liturgy — the men who under God established our
religion — of whom so many sealed their testimony with
their blood — did they lay upon the consciences, upon the
souls of all who should succeed them, to use all diligence
to banish these pernicious errors, (for let me remind your
Lordship it was in 1550, they added these questions to our
service, when they knew their importance, when they
themselves were engaged In the cause of banishing these
very errors ;) did they lay these vows at the threshold of
our Church, so that not a Minister might ever take upon
him the sacred office of her Priesthood who did not take
these vows upon his soul ? Did they reiterate them again
I

130
and again, so that no man might ever venture to assume
the high resp^onsibillty of her Episcopacy, without doubly
pledging himself in the sight of the Church, and of his
God, to use all the weighty power with which he was in
vested, to use all his diligence to drive away all those
tremendous errors, and both privately and openly to
encourage all others to do the same ? Did these faithful
servants of God, who under His grace and mercy delivered
these nations from the yoke of popery, did they lay those
obligations upon us, have we so solemnly undertaken those
obligations? are we pledged — solemnly, irrevocably pledged
to them ? Shall we have to answer for our discharge of
those solemn pledges, that involve our first duties as God's
Ministers at his bar ? and have they been among us, as if
they were all a mere mockery of words — a fiction of forms
— a shadow of a shade- — an echo of a hollow sound — ¦
and while our poor fellow creatures, our countrymen, have
been perishing around us — Is it only now at length, that a
few among us are only j ust beginning to awaken from our
guilty lethargy, and to ask ourselves, are we indeed
Ministers of Christ? Is our office anything beyond a mere
name ? Have our fellow sinners souls to be saved ? Is
there any difference between the idolatries of Satan and
the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is it any
matter to us whether we and our fellow men, are following
God or Baal ? Is the Bible a cunningly devised fable ? Or
if not, can vows and obligations bind us to be witnesses
and Ministers of God, and is it a fact that we are hasten
ing on before his bar, to give an account of our steward
ship? What, my Lord, are there only ten Bishoprics
confiscated ! Only about half our Parishes threatened to
be suppressed ! ! Our Church only trampled on ! ! !

131
What wonder, my Lord? the wonder is, that the long
suffering patience of that God whose service we have
so neglected, 'should have left a candlestick in our country ;
that he should have left a Bishoprick or a Parish, or a
vestige of a Protestant Church in Ireland.
But if even this were all — if It were only mere neglect
of duty — if it were only that we were left at a distance in
fidelity, not only by Apostolic example, but by the followers
of Wickliffe in the 14th and 15th, and by our own reformers
in the 16tli century — if It were only that we had been
merely neglecting our solemn obligations, bad as this were,
it were comparatively little — but what if instead of main
taining, we are found fighting against the cause of Christ !
what, if instead of taking our stand with the witnesses of
his truth, any of us should be found actually fighting In
the ranks of his enemies ! What, if instead of using
diligence to drive away error, we were using the power
and Influence with which we were invested as Ministers
or as Bishops, to support and to maintain it, what then, my
Lord, could we look for ? What then could we expect at
the hands of our God? Your Lordship, I doubt not,
revolts from the idea, you recoil from the thought and
justly, my Lord, for what can be more awful ? But I
beseech you, my Lord Bishop, I entreat you, as one that
holds that best and highest and holiest of all offices, that of
a Father in God — a Bishop in the Church of Christ — I
beseech you, as you recoil from the thought and the
intention of such an awful responsibility, I beseech you
look with candour, with sincerity, with fear — yea, with
solemn apprehension, and prayer to God, at the fact.
You sincerely think, that you are doing your duty to
the Church, in charging your Clergy against this Home

132
Mission ; I firmly believe, my Lord, as I have before said,
that you think yourself right — but conscience Is not the
standard of good and evil— ^a popish priest may possibly
be acting conscientiously when he is offering an abominable
idol sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead — there^
fore I beseech your Lordship look at the real state of the case ;
look, where all ought to look, at the Bible alone, for the
principle ; and look at the history of our country and
Church, yea of Christianity Itself, for the fact, and see
how the question stands.
The Lord Jesus Christ commanded his Apostles to "go
" Into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every crea-
" ture ;',' they did so, they went in the face of all pagan
philosophy, polytheism, idolatry, and superstition — they
proclaimed the salvation of a crucified Redeemer, and so
they established under God the profession of the Christian
faith. When this again was corrupted and degenerated into
anti-christian Popish apostacy, and when God raised up
any witnesses for the faith of Christ, .the same principles of
eternal truth, with which the Holy Spirit inspired, and
stirred up the Apostles to labour for their Master's glory,
actuated, by the same Spirit's teaching, their followers in
every age, to labour In the same way ; hence all faithful
Missionary labours in heathen climes — hence, as we have
seen in the history of our Reformation, Wickliffe and
his followers laboured to preach the Gospel — hence our
own immediate Reformers both laboured themselves to
preach, and to send forth men with licenses and authority,
to preach the Gospel in the dark regions of Popery through
the Empire — hence also, those Sovereigns, whom God
in his mercy, raised up as " nursing fathers, and nursing
mothers" for his Church, used their power, as we have seen.

133
to send forth faithful Bishops and Ministers to preach the
Gospel ; to whom, under the great blessing of our God,
we have been indebted for all, both the spiritual and tem
poral blessings we enjoy. Now against this preaching of
the Gospel, and exposure of ignorance, apostacy, idolatry,
and superstition, the enemies of Christ, have always most
especially and energetically ' set their face ; this we see
amply proved and exemplified in the very acts of Par
liament which have been quoted — where the crime>alleged
was, preaching and instructing the people, and the remedy
sought, a power to put this down ; and the very engine of
this power was, to confer upon Bishops, that which, they
confessed their jurisdiction spiritual did not give, namely,
the privilege of granting a special license to preach, and
making it penal to preach without such license.
And now, my Lord, what is the actual fact ? Your Lord
ship, a Protestant Bishop, claims in the nineteenth century,
an authority, which the Popish Bishops sought from Par
liament in the fourteenth, and that for the identical purpose
for which they sought it, namely, to put a stop to the
Missionary labours of men, who strove to pour the light of
Gospel truth, upon the guilt and darkness of popish super
stition ! Nay more, my Lord, you claim this very authority
under the supposed canonical force of those very licenses
to preach, which it has been proved, that even Henry VIII,
as well as Edward VI and Elizabeth, granted to Protestant
Ministers, to enable them to preach the Gospel, to pro
mote the Reformation from popery, and the establishment
of our religion. You, my Lord, an Ecclesiastical Power,
would claim the authority of those very licenses to prevent
Protestant Ministers from going about to preach the Gospel

134
in the nineteenth century, which the secular power granted^
to enable them to go about the Empire and preach the
Gospel in the sixteenth ! ! !
Now, my Lord, if it were asked on whose side do you
desire to be ranged, or do you Intend to be ranged ? on that
of the enemies of Christ, or that of the servants of Christ?
I trust, my Lord, I should be among the first to answer for
your Lordship's intentions — I am the last to impute, by the
slightest insinuation, any evil motive to your Lordship.
But when it is asked, as a matter of fact, on whose side are
you ranged ? whose authority do you support ? whose cause
do you maintain ? whose wishes, and aims, and objects do
you advance by such an effort to stop the preaching of the
Gospel ? — Let history, let fact, let the principles of our
religion, in your Lordship's own judgment, answer the
question. Let me put the matter In this point of view to you, my
Lord. Let me ask this question — What, does your Lord
ship consider, would be the desire of the powers of darkness?
What would the popish priests and demagogues, whose
interest it is to keep the poor Inhabitants of this country in
ignorance, In guilt, and vassalage — what would they desire
upon this subject ? Is it that the Gospel should be preached
to the people, or that It should not be preached? that we
should go on with the work, or not go on? Would not
the first desire of their heart be, that we should obey your
Lordship's Injunctions, and abstain from missionary preach
ing? Against what do all the ministers of the prince of
darkness warn the people ? Is it against crime, and vice,
and Idolatry, and sedition ? No. They stimulate them to
these things ; but it is against the Gospel of Jesus. There
fore they burn the Bible — therefore they hate Scriptural
Schools — therefore, a short time since, to please them, an

135
unprincipled set of politicians suppressed the Word of the
living God from the education of the nation, and employed
their agents to mutilate the Sacred Volume, who have not
only mutilated, but have corrupted the wretched mutilation
that they have given — therefore they especially abhor all
faithful public preaching of the Gospel to the people, and
punish them with heavy penances when they can detect
them in going to hear — and therefore the poor unhappy
people are In ignorance, in bondage, and misery — anxious
in many places to hear, most anxious to read the Word of
Life ; but, instead of having that Word faithfully set before
them, they are left, through our criminal neglect, without
instruction, without any effort to rescue them, proportioned
to our power and their necessities; so that, instead of our
helping to deliver them from their bondage. If God in his
mercy does deliver any among them, they have no counte
nance, no support, no rallying point, nor even protection
among us as they ought to have.
And now, my Lord, if these facts be so, (and who that
knows Ireland will venture to deny them ?) let me ask, if
we oppose what any set of men would oppose, and promote
what they would promote — if we silence the voice that they
would silence, and use our influence to preserve that tran
quillity of undisturbed darkness that they would preserve —
are we, or are we not ranged upon their side ? Are we,
or are we not fighting their battle ? Surely, " idem velle
atque idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est." I know, my
Lord, the irresistible force and point of the argument, and
therefore, I repeat, I would be the last to aim it at your
Lordship's motives. I would shield them as jealously as
my own, convinced that you are as far from the intention
as myself. But this is what I have stated before, my Lord,
that I trusted to be able to present a view of the case to

136
your Lordship's judgment and conscience, which I must
sincerely believe has not before suggested itself to you ;
and that I humbly trusted, when it was presented to your
consideration, you would no longer oppose, but throw all
the weight of your talents, your authority, your influence,
and your sacred office into an effort, in which, I believe,
the salvation of Ireland, temporally and eternally speaking,
is involved. Though I might be content to take my stand upon
abstract principle — though I might take the highest autho
rity to which man can appeal, the Word of God, and the
example of his Apostles, It is not, my Lord, that I would
descend from the dignity of that authority, and that example,
to others of comparatively little weight, that I turn to those
of men, however deservedly esteemed their character, and
honored their memory. But still there is something cheering
as well as venerable In the example of those who were a
blessing to their country, and an ornament to their Church.
Besides, when m'C have to defend such a cause, and such a
charge, as Cicero says — " Cum in causa, tanta cum in crl-
" mine maximo, did a defensore coeptum est factitatum esse
" aliquid ; expectant Ii qui audiunt, exempla ex vetere me-
" moria, et monumentis, ac Uteris, plena dignitatis, plena
" antiquitatis. Hsec plurimum solent et auctoritatis habere
" ab probandum, et jucunditatis ad audiendum." — Cic.in
Verrem. And surely I might say, with the same Orator,
on another occasion — " PlenI omnes sunt llbri, plense sapi-
" entiuin voces, plena exemplorum vetustas." — Id. pro
Archid. But I shall content myself with quoting the sen
timents of two men, whose names will not suffer In compe
tition even with Bishop Beveridge, and Jeremy Taylor;
while there is this advantage in their authority, that they
were speaking upon this same subject in times and circum-

137
stances, in which their principles really bear upon the present
disastrous condition of this country. The first of these is
Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury in the days of Elizabeth,
to whom, when she had committed the authority of licensing
Preachers through the Empire, (as she had then permitted
to all the Bishops,) he felt the importance of the power, and
carried it so far, that he not only licensed and encouraged
preaching, but a mode of preaching which offended his
Royal Mistress, so that she forbade him to attend the Con
vocation in the year 1580. This mode of preaching was,
that, not one, but many Preachers should preach in succes
sion at the same place, which they called prophesying, in
the sense of the Apostle, 1st Cor. xiv. 13 : of which, with
all the reasons In favour of It, and objections against it.
Fuller gives an account. But when the Queen (who was
much prejudiced against this bythe Earl of Leicester, because
that nobleman hated Grindal, and wanted to get his palace
at Lambeth for himself,) forbade the Archbishop from the
Convocation, because he would not suppress this mode
of preaching, which certainly lay open to some objections,
the Archbishop's remonstrance to his imperious Sovereign,
is worthy of being printed in letters of gold. The following
are extracts :
EXTRACTS FROM ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL'S LET
TER TO QUEEN ELIZABETH, A.D. 1580.
" With most humble reverence of bounden duty to your
" Majesty, it may please the same to be advertised, that the
" speeches which it pleased you to deliver unto me, when I last
" attended on your Highness, concerning the abridging the num-
" ber of Preachers, and the utter subversion of all learned
" exercises and conferences, amongst the Ministers of the Church,

138
" allowed by the Bishops and Ordinaries ; have exceedingly dis-
" mayed and discomforted me, not so much for that the said
" speeches sounded very hardly against my own person, being
" but one particular man, and not so much to be accounted of —
" but most of all, for that the same might tend to the public harm
" of God's Church, whereof your Majesty, by office, ought to
" be nutricia, and also the heavy burden of your conscience
" before God, if they should be put to strict execution. * * *
" Alas, Madam, is the Scripture more plain in anything, than
" that the Gospel of Christ should be plentifully preached, and
" that plenty of labourers should be sent into the Lord's harvest,
" which being great and large, standeth in need, not of a few but
" of many workmen. * * *
" Public and continual preaching of God's Word, is the ordi-
" nary means and instrument of the salvation of mankind ; St.
" Paul calls it 'the ministry of reconciliation of man unto God.'
" By the preaching of God's Word, the glory of God is increased
" and enlarged, faith nourished, and charity increased ; by it the
" ignorant are instructed, the negligent exhorted and incited,
" the stubborn rebuked, the weak conscience comforted, and to
" all those that sin of malicious wickedness, the wrath of God
" is threatened. By preaching also, due obedience to God, and
" Christian Princes, and Magistrates, is planted in the hearts of
" subjects ; for obedience proceedeth of conscience, conscience
" is grounded upon the Word of God, and the Word of God
" worketh his effect by preaching ; so as generally, where preach-
" ing wanteth, obedience faileth."
Having shown then how her Majesty's reception in
London, and the affection of her subjects there, was so
much promoted by the preaching of the Gospel — he adds :
" On the contrary, what bred the rebellion in the North? was
" it not Papistry, and ignorance of God's word; through toant
" °f of ten preaching in the time of that rebellion? Were not all
" men of all states that made profession of the Gospel, most

139
" ready to offer their hves for your defence; insomuch, that one
"- poor parish in Yorkshire, which, by continual preaching, hath
" been better instructed than the rest, Halifax I mean, was
" ready to bring three or four thousand able men into the field,
" to serve you against the said rebels. How can your Majesty
" have a more lively trial and experience of the effect of much
" preaching, or of little or no preaching' — the one worketh most
" faithful obedience, the other worketh most unnatural disobe-
" dience and rebellion. But it is thought that many are admitted
" to preach, and few able to do it well ; that unable preachers be
" removed is very requisite, if ability and sufficiency be rightly
" weighed and judged, and therein, I trust, as much is, and shall
" be done, as can be ; for both I, for my own part, let it be spo-
" ken without any ostentation, I am very careful in allowing of
" such preachers only, as be able, both for their knowledge in the
" Scripture, and also for testimony of their Godly life and con-
" versation, and besides that, I have given very great charge to
" the rest of my brethren, the Bishops of this province, to do
" the like ; we admitted no man to the office of preaching that
" either professeth papistry or puritanism ; the graduates of the
" University are only admitted to be Preachers, unless it be
" some few which have excellent gifts of knowledge in the
" Scriptures, joined with good utterance, and Godly persuasions.
" I myself procured above forty learned preachers, and graduates
" within less than these six years, to be placed within the diocese
" of York, besides those I found there, and there I left them,
" the fruits of whose travel in preaching, your Majesty is like
" to reap daily, by most assured dutiful obedience of your sub-
" jects in those parts.
" St. Paul doth command the preaching of Christ crucified to
" be absque eminentid sermonis, but in our time many have so
" delicate ears, that no preaching can satisfy them, unless it be
" sauced with much sweetness and exornation of speech, which
" the same Apostle utterly condemneth, and giveth this reason —
" ne evacuetur cnix Christi.
" Some there be also, that are mishkers of the godly refonna-

140
" tion in religion now established, wishing indeed that there
" were no Preachers at all, and so by depraving of Ministers,
" impugn religion — non aperto Martis sed in cuniculis ; much
" like to the Popish Bishops in your Father's time, who would
" have had the English translation of the Bible called in, as evil
" translated, and the new translation committed to them, which
" they never intended to perform."
Then he speaks of all profane and ¦wicked persons, and
proceeds :
" These also wish that there wel-e no preachers at all, but be-
" cause they dare not directly condemn the office of preaching,
" so expressly 'commanded by God's Word, for that same were
" open blasphemy, they turn themselves altogether, and with the
" same meaning as others do, to make exceptions against the
" persons of them that be admitted to preach. But God forbid
" Madam, that you should open your ears to any of these wicked
" persuasions, or any way to diminish the preaching of Christ's
" Gospel, for that you would ruinate," (Qu. would ruinate you?)
" altogether at length, cum, deficerit propheta dissipahitur populus
" saith Solomon. Prov. 27."
Then he speaks of the Homilies :
" The reading of the Homilies hath his commodities, but is
" nothing comparable to the office of preaching, the godly
" Preacher is learned in the Gos'pel—fideUt servus qui novit, who
" can apply his speech to the diversities of times, places, and
" hearers, which cannot be done in Homilies — besides Homilies
" were devised by godly Bishops in your brother's days, only to
" supply necessity by want of Preachers, and are not by the
" statute to be preferred, but to give place to Sermons, where-
" soever they may be had, and were never thought of themselves
" to contain alone sufficient instruction for the Church of
" England.

141
He then adverts to the exercises of this public preaching,
wherein it appears that nine or ten Ministers were engaged
in it at a time — this under the especial direction of their
Bishops, who patronised and promoted it as much as they
could. He says, speaking of the Bishops and their
opinion of it :
" Howsoever, report hath been made to your Majesty con-
" cerning these exercises ; yet I and others of York whose names
" are noted, as followeth : I. Cantuariensis, 2. London, 3. Wine,
" 4. Bathon, 5. Lichfield, 6. Gloucester, 7. Lincoln, 8. Chester,
" 9. Exon, 10. Meneven als. David's, hereof as they have testified
" unto me by their letters ; have found by experience that these
" profits and commodities following, have ensued of thera.
" First, the Ministers of the Church, are more skilful and more
" ready in the Scriptures, and more apt to teach their flocks.
" Second, it withdraweth them from idleness, wandering,
" gaming, &c. Third, some afore suspected in doctrine, are
" brought to the knowledge of the truth. Fourth, ignorant
" Ministers are driven to study, if not for conscience, yet for
" shame, and fear of discipline. Fifth, the opinion of laymen
" touching the ableness of the Clergy, is hereby removed.
" Sixth, Nothing by experience heateth down popery more than
'' that. Seventh, Ministers, as some of my brethren do confess,
" grow to such knowledge by means of these exercises, that
" where afore were not able Ministers not three, now are thirty
" able and meet to preach at Paul's Cross, and forty or fifty
" besides able to instruct their own cures; so as it is found by
" experience the best means to increase knowledge in the simple,
" and continue it in the learned \ only backward men in religion,
" and contemners of learning in the countries abroad, do fret
" against it, which, in truth, doth the more commend it ;
" the dissolution of it would breed triumph to the adversary, and
" great sorrow and grief to the favourers of religion, contrary f o

142
" the counsel of Ezekiel, (xiii. 18,) who saith, ' Cor jiisti non
" est contristandum.' "
Having stated many blessings to be derived, and denied
inconveniences to be apprehended from this, he then
expresses, like a faithful servant of his Master, his deter
mination not to give way to the Queen on this subject, as
far as he himself was concerned, but rather to lay down his
See — he says :
" I am enforced, with all humility, and yet plainly, to profess,
" that I cannot, with safe conscience, and without the offence
" of the Majesty of God, give mine assent to the suppressing of
" the said exercises, much less can I send out any injunction
" for the utter and universal subversion of the same. I say with
" St. Paul, ' I have no power to destroy, hut only to edifyf and
" with the same apostle, ' / can do nothing against the truth, but
"for the truth.' If it be your Majesty's pleasure, for this or any
" other cause, to remove me out of this place, 1 will, with all hu-
" mility, yield thereunto, and render again unto your Majesty
" that which I have received of the same. I consider with
" myself, ' Quod ierrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis'
" I consider also, ' Quod qui facit contra conscientiam (divinis
" in rebus) cedificat ad Gehennam — and what should I win, if I
" gained, I will not say a Bishoprick, but the whole world, and
" lose my own soul ? Bear with rae, I beseech you. Madam, if
" I chuse rather to offend your earthly majesty than to offend the
" Heavenly Majesty of God."
He then draws to a close with two petitions to the Queen,
as follows :
" The first, that you would refer all those Ecclesiastical mat-
" ters which touch religion, or the doctrines or discipline of the
" Church, unto the Bishops and Divines of the Church of your

143
" realm, according to the example of all Christian Emperors and
" Princes of all ages ; for indeed they are to be judged, as an
" ancient Father writeth in Ecclesia sen Synodo, non in
" Palatine." He then quotes several authorities for this, and
proceeds :
" The second petition I have to make to your Majesty is this,
" that when you deal in matters of faith and religion, or matters
" that touch the Church of Christ, which is the spouse bought
" with so dear a price, you would not use to pronounce so reso-
" lutely and peremptorily quasi ex authoritate as you may do in
" civil and exterior matters ; but always remember, that in God's
" cause the will of God, and not the will of any earthly creature,
" is to take place. It is the antichristian voice of the Pope, 'Sic
" volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas.' In God's matters, all
" princes ought to bow their sceptres to the Son of God, and to
" ask counsel at his mouth what they ought to do. David ex-
" horteth all Kings and Rulers to serve God with fear and
" trembling. Remember, Madam, that you are a mortal creature.
" Look not only (as was said to Theodosius,) upon the people
" and princely array wherewith you are apparelled, but consider
" withall what it is that is covered therewith. Is it not flesh and
" blood ? Is it not dust and ashes ? Is it not a corruptible body,
" which must return to her earth again, God knoweth how soon ?
" Must you not one day appear ante tremendum tribunal Crucfixi
" ut recipias ibi prout gesseris in corpore sive honum sive malum,,
" (2 Cor. 6.) And although you are a mighty Prince, yet re-
" member, that He that dwelleth in heaven is mightier; as the
" Psalmist saith, ' Terribilis est is qui aufert spiritum Principum :
" Terribilis super omnes reges.' Therefore, I beseech you, Madam,
" in visceribus Christi, when you deal in these religious causes,
" set the majesty of God before your eyes, laying all earthly ma-
" jesty aside, determine with yourself to obey his voice, and, with

144

" all humility, say unto hira, ' non mea sed tua voluntas fiat' God
" hath blessed you with great felicity in your reign, now many
" years ; beware you do not impute this same to your own deserts
" or policy, but give God the glory ; and, as to instruments and
" means, impute your said felicity ; first to the goodness of the
" cause which you set forth, I mean Christ's true religion ; and
" secondly, to the sighs and groans of the godly in fervent prayer
" to God for you, which have hitherto, as it were, tied and
" bound the hands of God, that he could not pour out his plagues
" on you and your people, most justly deserved. Take heed that
" you never think of declining from God, lest it be verified of
" you which is written of Joash, 2 Chron. xxiv., who continued
" a prince of good and godly governraent for many years together
" and afterwards : ' Cum corroboratus esset, elevatum est cor ejus
" in interilum suum, et neglexit Deum.' You have done many
" things well, but unless you persevere to the end you cannot be
" blessed ; for, if you turn from God, then will he turn his mer-
" ciful countenance from you, and what reraaineth then to be
" looked for, but only a horrible expectation of God's judgment,
" and an heaping up of God's wrath against the day of wrath.
" But I trust in God your Majesty will always humble yourself
" under his mighty hand, and go forward in the godly and zealous
" setting forth of God's true religion, always yielding true obedi-
" ence and reverence to the Word of God, the only rule of faith
" and religion ; and if you so do, although God hath just cause
" many ways to be angry with you and us for our unthankfulness,
" yet I dou'bt nothing, but for his own name's sake, He will still
" hold his merciful hand over us, shield and protect us under the
" shadow of his wings, as he hath hitherto done. 1 beseech God
" our heavenly Father, plentifully to pour his principal Spirit
" upon you, and always direct your heart in his holy fear. Amen,
" Amen." I am sure, my Lord, it vvere difficult in the whole com
pass of British Theology to find more of the "plurimum

145

" auctoritatis ad probandum, et jucunditatis at audiendum,"
than In this faithful testimony of this apostolic Prelate,
whom Fuller calls the " Eli of England." But, my Lord,
if that faithful Archbishop would rather have resigned the
Mitre of Canterbury, than have suppressed this exercise
of preaching — though carried on in a manner which cer
tainly the ordinary practice of the Established Church in
our days, has never recognized as useful, or orderly, though
It is practised, and with great popular effect, to the detri
ment of the Establishment, among bodies of Dissenters in
Wales at this day — if he laid such great, and such apostolic
stress upon the full diffusive preaching of the Gospel of
Christ — if he set forth in such a clear, unanswerable man
ner, not only on Scriptural grounds, but on matter-of-fact
evidence, well known to the Sovereign whom he addressed,
the practical results which followed from it, as to the
instruction of ignorance, the promotion of true religion,
of order, of obedience, of loyalty, of the putting down
the superstitions of popery — if he adduced, moreover, the
united opinions of all his Brethren the Prelates, whose
letters he quotes, as to the great blessings derived from it
to the Clergy themselves — if he wrote such a refusal, and
sent such a faithful, solemn warning to his Sovereign,
Imperious, and absolute as she was, and braved the utmost
of her displeasure, when she wished him to suppress this
preaching, setting so clearly before her, the duty which
she owed to her God, and the heavy responsibility that lay
upon her soul, for throwing any obstacle in the way of
preaching the Gospel — If he did this in England, at a time
when Elizabeth had been two and twenty years upon the
throne, and when the Protestant religion had been, com
paratively, so firmly established, and popery so put down —
what, let me humbly ask your Lordship, had his opinion

146
been of the long and criminal neglect of our Church, on
the subject of preaching the Gospel in Ireland ? what, of
the poor little efforts that we have been making, to send
out the Preachers now, through this guilty, ignorant,
seditious, popish country ? what had been his address to a
Bishop of his province, whom he saw using his influence
and authority to put a stop to it ?
Shall It be said, that I adduce an example unfavorable to the
very cause for which I plead, that I adduce an instance of faith
ful, laborious, diffusive Missionary preaching indeed, but that
there, the Clergy, who engaged in that work, were not only
authorized, but stimulated, excited, impelled, by Episcopal
authority; and shall It be objected to me, that I adduce
this to justify a practice, which has not only, not been
undertaken by the command of our Bishops, but is even
contrary to the avowed opinions of more than one ?
Alas ! my Lord, I must confess It-^and I should willingly
concede to a Bishop, all the force that the objection could
give to his argument, were I not precluded In addressing
him, from availing myself of the too painful advantage
which the answer must give to my own.
But this I will say, with all deference, my Lord, that if
similar exertions had been made In Ireland, by the united
efforts of those that are in. authority, and those that are in
subjection in the Church — (and oh, from my heart I say,
would to God, that they might always go together !) if the
same efforts had been used, to promote the same objects —
if that infidel liberalism, or that unchristian indifferentism,
(if I may coin an expression,) falsely called " charity," had
not totally paralyzed our exertions, if indeed it has not
Infected our principles — If we, whose duty and whose
office it was, to stand together like a wall of adamant, in
defence of truth— had all been standing, as we ought, upon

147
the Rock of Ages, instead of upOn the quicksand foun
dation of the State — if all they had stood, who ought to
have stood, between infidelity and superstition, and the
Church of their God, and between the abettors of that
infidelity and superstition, and the conscience of their
Sovereign — Ireland, and the Church of Ireland, had not
presented the melancholy picture they exhibit at this day—-
a poor, miserable, blind, benighted, lawless, superstitious,
seditious, semi-barbarous, population ; and, " as with the
people, so with their Priests." The Church, that is, " the
Pillar and Ground of the truth," and that ought to be the
" City set upon the hill," not only so weak as to be unable
ito extend her influence, but reeling to her very centre —
half her Episcopacy suppressed, and the other half not
worth five years' purchase — fallen so low, that while
it is a question, whether her Ministers are to go forth
to preach salvation to their perishing countrymen —
she can supply politicians with tools, not only to barter
her honor and her principles, but to sell the very founda
tion of her existence, to vote for the extinction of her
Hierarchy, and to suppress, to mutilate, and to corrupt the
very sacred oracles of her God ! ! !
Whither, O whither, is the mantle of the Prophet
fallen ! O thou, who alone canst pour thy Spirit of
grace, of wisdom, of fidelity, into the soul ! Thou God of
all our past and present mercies, is thy hand shortened
that it cannot save, or thine ear heavy that it cannot hear ?
When, O Lord, will thou pour out on us a Spirit of grace,
and of supplication, that we may come to thy feet ! When
wilt Thou cause the Ministers to " weep between the porch
and the altar, crying. Spare thy people !" When wilt Thou
send forth thy servants to stand between the living and
the dead, that thy plague, so justly deserved, may be

148
stayed ! Lord, it is the eleventh hour with us, but it is
never too late with thee ! O Lord, raise up thy power and
come among us, and with great might succour us; raise up
witnesses, 0_^Lord, and arm them with strength to proclaim,
to vindicate, to defend thy truth, and to glorify thy Holy
Name ! save us from the guilty, crooked policy, that thy
cause, and thy truth, are to bend to the criminal, con
temptible, devices of human folly, and human expediency!
O, teach the nation to know, teach all our Rulers, both
in the Church and in the State, to remember, and to feel,
that man in all such wisdom is a fool, that he can then be
only wise, and only safe, and only happy, when all other
considerations are made to vanish, like shadows at the rising
sun, before the truth, the cause, the word, the glory of his
God. Amen.
I shall now, my Lord, advert to the authority of another
Prelate, whose memory, I doubt not, your Lordship will
acknowledge to bejustly held in veneration bythe Church —
Bishop Bedell. Though It does not directly bear
upon the question of Missionary preaching, it bears on
that subject which proves Missionary preaching the duty
of the Church of Christ, and imperative on all who are true
members of that Church, in this country; it evinces the
criminal neglect of which we have so long been guilty, as
it proves that the state of Ireland with reference to popish
superstition, is just as it was two hundred years ago, or
rather indeed worse, in several melancholy particulars. The
following is extracted from an abridgment of Burnet's life
of Bedell :
" He observed, with much regret, that the English had
*' all along neglected the Irish as a nation not only con-
" quered, but undisciplinable ; and that the Clergy had
" scarcely considered them a part of their charge, but had

149
" left them wholly in the hands of their own Priests, without
" taking any other care of them, but making them pay their
" tithes ; and indeed their priests were an ignorant sort of
"people, that knew generally nothing but the reading of their
" offices, which were not so much as understood by many of
" them, and they taught the people nothing but the saying their
" Paters and Aves in Latin ; so that the state both of the
" Clergy and laity, was such, that it could not but raise great
" compassion in a man that had so tender a sense of the value
" of those souls that Christ had purchased with his blood ;
" therefore, he resolved to set about that apostolic work of
" converting the nations with the zeal and care that so
" great an undertaking required. He knew the gaining
" on some of the best informed of their priests was likely
" to be the quickest way, for by their means he hoped to
" spread the knowledge of the reformed religion among
'.' the natives, or rather of the Christian religion, to speak
" more strictly, for they had no sort <f notion of Clwistianity,
" but only knew that they were to depend upon their priests,
" and were to confess such of their actions as they call sins to
" them, and were to pay them their dues. The Bishop
*' prevailed on several of them to change, and he was so
" satisfied with the truth of their conversion, that he pre-
" ferred some priests to ecclesiastical benefices, which was
" thought a strange thing, and was censured by many as
" contrary to the interest of the English nation ; for it was
" believed that all those Irish converts were still papists at
" heart, and might be so much the more dangerous, than
" otherwise, by the disguise they had put on. But he on
" the other hand, considered chiefly the duty of a Christian
" Bishop, he also thought the true interest of England was
" to gain the Irish to the knowledge of true religion, and to
" bring them, by the means of that which only turns the heart.

150
" to love the English nation ; so he judged the wisdom of
" that course was apparent, as well as the piety of it,'*
&c. &c. The account then proceeds as to his translation of
the Scriptures Into Irish, and the pains he took to instruct
the poor people, &c. Now, my Lord, I am content, if I
be wrong, to err with Bishop Bedell. Such were his
sentiments two hundred years ago, as it was exactly at
this time two hundred years he filled the See of Kilmore,
and I assert, with confidence, that these principles are the
only true principles on the subject, which ought to actuate,
I will not say, merely a Christian Bishop, but a Christian
statesman ; yea, a man, who without even any sound
principles of Christianity, could take even a just view of
wise national policy on the subject. It is neither laws,
nor swords, that can ever govern this country — the refor
mation of the Roman Catholics is the only possible hope of
temporal or eternal salvation for Ireland ! yes, and for
England too.
But what. If Bedell could see, that now two hundred
years in advance, with all that which is so pompously, but
so falsely, called the " march of intellect .'" (for what
progress In intellect does man ever make, when he does
not advance In that, which alone is the true end and
object of his intellectual powers, the knowledge of his
God?) what, if he could see that true religion In this
country, so far from advancing, is actually retrogressive,
so far as It regards the multitude of the people; that
through — alas ! I must say with grief, my Lord, the guilty
neglect of his successors, the Bishops and Clergy of
Ireland, popery is actually worse than it was in his day !
What, if he could see that the English government having
merged all Christian principle in their weak, ill-judged,
criminal policy, had actually endowed a College for the

151
education of those very popish priests, to train them ! to
multiply them ! to facilitate their acquisition of those very
superstitions which they instil into the people ; so that not
only Ireland Is overrun with them In greater numbers than
ever — but that they are filling England and Scotland with
their places of worship, and perverting the population to
their superstitions !* What, if Bedell could see, that after
two hundred years of temporal power, authority, and
settled Establishment in the counti'y, the Protestant
Church was sinking before popery !, What, If he could
see, at this moment. Churches shut up, and Protestant
Ministers driven into exile, while popish Chapels and
Cathedrals are rearing their heads in the most splendid
structure of modern architecture through every quarter
of the laud ! What, if he could see Protestants so
degraded as to contribute large sums to ;their erection ;
while popery has deprived their parishes of the means
of keeping their humble parochial Churches in repair !
What if he could see the British Minister, at the public
appeal of a popish Bishop, and that, an appeal that
was a flagrant violation of that Bishop's oath —
confiscating ten Protestant Sees, and setting up their resi
dences to public auction, the most of which have weathered
every storm of revolution, of conquest, of despotism, and of
anarchy for thirteen centuries, and which the hand of sacri
lege Itself has never desolated of their Bishops through them
all ! What, if he could see the same power, at the same
* Let any man take the Map published by the British Reformation
Society, and look at the popish Seminaries and Chapels there presented
to view, in their respective localities through England, Wales, and
Scotland ; let him look at the progressive increase of thera for the last
twenty or thirty years, and he will see that popery is growing faster
than any two denominations of Christians in the Empire.

152
instigation,* daring to suppress the Word of the Holy God
from the National Education of the Protestant Children of
Ireland ; and not only a Protestant ******, but a Protes
tant **********, (I spare your Lordship the pain,) sitting
in divan with Popish and Socinian Doctors, to mutilate the
Bible to the taste of Superstition and Infidelity, and to
send forth their corrupted substitute for the Sacred Volume,
as an apology for a religious education for the nation !
What if he could see Popery, I will not say legislating for
the Protestant Church, but trampling on all the powers of
legislation, and on all laws, human and divine, to overturn
it ! What If he could see the worst exhibition of Popish
perjury, rioting with perfect impunity in the prosecution of
this object, not only In the midst of the land, but rearing its
audacious forehead, hardened in its guilty superstition, in
the midst of the British Senate, to violate the very oaths by
which It gained admittance to its walls, and that there is
neither moral courage nor moral power in Protetantism,
whether in Church or State, to denounce and to put down
the crime ! What if Bedell could arise from his grave, and
see all this, my Lord, what would he think of the principle,
the fidelity, the energy, the devotedness of the Protestant
Bishops and Clergy for the two hundred years that have
* It is a fact, that Dr. M'Hale, in a letter published in the daily
journals, addressed to Earl Grey, on that nobleman's accession to office,
demanded from him, as a proof of his determination to do justice to
Ireland, to suppress Scriptural Education ; and also demanded of him,
in no very doubtful language, to turn off half the Protestant Prelates.
The Jesuit made the demand, avowedly for the subversion of the Estab
lished Church — the Minister acceded to the demand, with loud protes
tations that he did so for its support. Happy coincidence! " Betray to
me one half the citadel," says the foe to the sentry, " and when I plun
der that, I'll soon demolish the remainder."  "I will," replies
the sentry, "but I will swear to my commanding officer, that I did so for
the security of (he garrison !.'.'''

153
intervened since he bore his faitliful testimony to the duty
of an Apostolic Church — of men who had a true knowledge
of their duty as Ministers or as Bishops ! Would he think
it a time for the Ministers of Christ to go forth, and preach
the Gospel — to tell the people not only that there was a Sa
viour, but, what they seem not to know, that there is a God ?
" Esse aliquod numen templis araeque rubenti."
Or would he think it a time for Ecclesiastical authority to
use Its power and influence to prevent it ? O, my Lord,
if precept cannot teach, If example cannot Instruct, if past
and present mercies cannot awaken, if present and impend
ing judgments cannot warn us to a sense of our duty to
our country, I can only say, I think that we are given up
to that hardness and impenitence which is the precursor of
destruction; that God has abandoned us to that judicial
dementation which is the immediat'e harbinger of ruin.
Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.
But, my Lord, it is not only the voice of history that
addresses us, and the examples and counsel of those to whom
we are indebted,'Under the Divine blessing, for having been
ourselves delivered from the yoke of Popish superstition —
It is not only the voice of religion that speaks to us, but the
very persons who are the objects of our instruction — the very
poor themselves cry out for Missionary labours. There are
none, my Lord, who would go to your Lordship's Palace,
and tell you, with fidelity, the sentiments of the poor, were
they to learn that you had endeavoured to obstruct the
Missionary labours of the Clergy, when millions have
no other means of hearing the Gospel of Christ. But
while it is, perhaps, always Invidious to advert to present
persons or circumstances, history has its use to convey in
struction to us here : and there is a document contempora-

154
neous with Bishop Bedell, which painfully corroborates the
observations of that venerable Prelate, as to the neglect of
the Church in his day ; and it bears too plainly on the ques
tion before us to be omitted. It is dated in that memorable
year, of which I can but say, I pray to God we may not live
to see a repetition of the scenes it presents in the history of
our country, 1641. It is styled —
" An humble Petition of the Protestant Inhabitants of
" the Counties of Antrim, Down, Tyrone, &c., part of the
" Province of Ulster, in the Kingdom of Ireland, concern-
" Ing Bishops, expressed in thirty articles, or heads of
" grievances, by reason of their overruling lordly power, as
" It was presented to the honourable assembly of Knights,
" Commons, and Burgesses of the House of Commons, in
" this present Parliament, and accepted of that Honourable
" House." Of these grievances, the following -was the 8th :
" 8. Whereas, the Bishops should give all good example
" by painful preaching and holy conversation. They preach
" very rarely themselves, and, like those in the Gospel, who
" will neither enter themselves nor suffer others to enter,
" they have suppressed divers others from preaching, both
" in the afternoon on the Lord's Day ; and in many
" places where weekly lectures were maintained, either by
" the free will of the Ministers or cost of the people, they
" have forbidden the same, and shown all manner of dis-
" countenance to those who were forward therein ; so that
" a Lecturing Minister appeared before them under more
" prejudice than a Popish Priest, or undermining Jesuit."
Collection of Records in the College Library.
This came In that day from a part of your Lordship's own
Diocese ; and though -we have reason to be thankful that
the supply of Protestant Ministers does not admit of similar

155
complaints of want of preaching among Protestants in these
days, yet, even among them, if every Minister did his duty,
to the utmost of his ability, there are districts where the
wants of the people cannot be supplied, and tens of thousands
who, unless by Missionary preaching, can never hear the
Gospel. By what other means can the Arians and Socinians
in your Lordship's Diocese, not to speak of the poor Roman
Catholics, ever hear the sound of truth, or learn the glad
tidings of salvation ?
This brings me, my Lord, to consider some objections in
your Lordship's Charge, which it is of the deepest impor
tance to examine. Your Lordship asks, among sixteen
evils, which you summarily enumerate, as resulting from
this Missionary preaching, " Is It not an evil that a public
" allegation should be made, as a ground for these proceed-
" ings ; that many parishes are unprovided with competent
" Ministers; that there are many whose Ministers are
" ignorant, slothful, worldly hirelings, that care not for the
" flock; that many Ministers preach not the Gospel of the
" Lord Jesus Christ?" You mark this, my Lord, with inverted
commas, as a quotation ; and as you put it, it appears as if
it proceeded from the Committee of the Home Mission.
Now, permit me to say, it had been but fair to state from
whence It was taken ; it certainly is what I have never seen
as "apublic allegation," and never could be sanctioned by our
Committee ; and if your Lordship has seen it somewhere,
as of course I must conclude you have, in print. It Is
scarcely fair to charge on a number of men the expressions
of any Individual, and to make it appear as if they came
from them. I do not Impute to your Lordship any unjust
intention, but I submit that your manner of stating It gives
it that appearance. And you also quote, as if from our
Committee, a charge against the Bishops who discounte-

156
nance these proceedings, as being " deficient not only in
' true wisdom,' but in ' love for souls, and in zeal for the
Redeemer' s glory .' " '^-^ ¦
Now, my Lord, as a member of the Committee, and as a
Minister of the Established Church, and as one who loves
and venerates our Episcopacy and who loves all the
Ministry of our Church, I meet these charges thus. I say,
that w'';h respect to the conduct of each Parochial Minister
towards their own peculiar flock, or with respect to their
competence to teach them, or their preaching the Gospel or
not preaching the Gospel, however their Bishops are called
on to consider these questions. It were, in my judgment,
gross presumption in us to interfere in this ; and I can only
say, that if I were to go on a Missionary tour, and to go into
the parish of a brother Minister, against whom I really be
lieved all the charges which your Lordship enumerates, I
should as soon cut off my right hand as presume to utter a
syllable either against his person, his conduct, or his doc
trine : such a proceeding I should consider totally unjusti
fiable on any principle of religion, of propriety, or good
feeling. And I say, moreover, my Lord, that such are the
sentiments of every member of our Committee ; and not
only so, but, I firmly believe, both the sentiments and the
practice of all the Clergy who have ever gone out to
preach ; nor should we knowingly suffer any man to help
in the work who should be guilty of such an offence. It is
not for us to "judge our brother, or to set at nought our
brother." If any one, from the lowest to the highest,
whether he be Minister or Bishop, knows that truth of
which his brother may be ignorant, he should ever remem
ber the Apostle's question — " Who maketh thee to differ
from another, and what hast thou that thou didst not
receive ?" If we go forth as Ministers of Christ, it is not

157
to cavil at others, but simply to preach the Gospel of Christ
to our fellow-sinners : and this, my Lord, it is which brings
us to the real pith and marrow of the whole question. Do
the Bishops take care that the Gospel Is faithfully preached
to the immortal souls in their Dioceses ? Do the Clergy
preach the Gospel of Christ to the Immortal souls in their
Parishes ?
I answer, my Lord, fearlessly, and confidently answer,
without adverting to the capabilities, or knowledge of
Bishops or Ministers, that they do not. I say, to the
reproach and disgrace of our Church be it spoken, that as
far as respects the fidelity of Bishops and Clergy, nearly
five sixths of the population of our country are totally
and universally neglected ; they are left without an
effort, to perish in ignorance of the Gospel. How far
this argues love for souls or zeal for the Redeemer's glory,
I will not take on me to determine; but this I will say, my
Lord, that it argues a very ppor sense of the value of the
Gospel, when we can sit down with such contented indif
ference, in the midst of those who are ignorant of it
without using, as we have so solemnly vowed, all " faithful
diligence" to bring them to the knowledge of it ; and I
trust your Lordship will not consider that I mean to adopt
a mere summary mode of disposing of the sixteen evils
which your Lordship enumerates, as if I did not think
them worthy of a more detailed consideration, when I say,
that If they were every one perfectly true, and all "weighed
in the balances of the sanctuary," against one immortal
soul, and that soul left, as far as we are concerned, to
perish without the Gospel of Christ, through our neglect,
they would appear before the Judge of heaven and earth,
like the small dust on the balance.
When the price of one immortal soul can be nothing

158
less than the precious blood of Him that died for sinners —
all the objections that man can bring against the procla
mation to that soul, of the salvation which that blood has
purchased for the guilty, are as a feather weighed against
the world.
What are all the objections that can be Invented about
the discipline or government of a Church, if they are made
to militate against the proclamation of the great salvation,
wrought by the God of that Church for guilty sinners ?
What are all the offences that man may take or give, if
the only offence Is, the preaching of " Jesus Christ and him
crucified," to them that are sunk in ignorance ?
If the preaching of the parochial Ministers of Ireland
in their respective parish Churches, and the strict preser
vation of that routine by the Bishops in their dioceses, if
this has diffused, or can diffuse the salvation of the Gospel,
among the millions that are perishing in ignorance and
guilt, and superstition, in the land — if this saves the souls of
those men — if It extends the Redeemer's kingdom and his
glory — then let us go on as we have been going, and let
us arrogate to ourselves whatever praise for zeal and fidelity,
that conscience and fact will warrant us to take.
But if every man of candour and conscience will admit,
nay, if no man can have the hardihood to deny, that this
preaching and this routine, no more can bring salvation to
the millions of our blind and guilty countrymen, than It
can bring salvation to the Hindoos, and that for the same
reason, that they can never hear it — If so far from bringmg
glory to our God, such apathy, and want of fidelity and
zeal for the salvation of men brings reproach upon his
cause and name — if so far from extending his kingdom In
the land, we are losing even the tenure of the positions we
had — so that the very prospect of maintaining the Estab-

159
lishment of our religion Is, as your Lordship confesses, grown
precarious, to say the least— what facts, or what experience,
or what principle, or what progress to destruction, or what
voice of religion will awaken us from our delusion to a
sense of our duty ?
If the discipline and government of our Church do not
admit of our making exertions proportioned to the
exigency of our circumstances, then they are defective,
miserably defective, my Lord, and we must catch up the
watchword of the day, and cry out for Reform. And,
surely, if every knave in the Empire vociferates for what
he calls reform ; that is, for a power either to corrupt or
to defy all law, so that he may trample with impunity upon
government and religion, it is the least that honest men
may demand the privilege and power of taking their stand
throughout the country, on open ground to meet him.
If every parish in Ireland contains an altar around which
a wretched population is congregated, to sacrifice to the
daemon of idolatry, of superstition, of sedition, and of
revolution, it is the least that Ministers of Christ might
be allowed to occupy, whatever position they can stand
on in every parish, to proclaim to that poor population, if
they can be able to do so, the Gospel of salvation for
their souls, and to inculcate on them the principles which
that Gospel alone can enforce.
Whether we know the Gospel, or preach the Gospel or
not, my Lord, I must again assert, (and O that the asser
tion might be reiterated and reechoed till it would ring in
the ears and in the consciences of every Bishop and every
Minister in the Empire,) we do not preach the Gospel to
five-sixths of the population of our miserable and benighted
countrymen ; and there is no talent, no sophistry, no power

160
of human intellect or human ingenuity that can excuse or
palliate this criminal neglect of our duty to our Church, to
our country, to our fellow-creatures, and to our God.
Let me just suppose, my Lord, that the Roman Catholic
population of Ireland were, by a sudden transformation,
to be changed into Hindoos, and that, instead of the victims
of the Papal apostacy, we were to find ourselves surrounded
in the exact localities in which we are placed with the vota
ries of Juggernaut,- — what would you think, my Lord, of a
Church whose Bishops and Clergy were to let that poor
people go on in their idolatry, without as much as an effort
to enlighten them ? If some men did set out upon a
mission, to preach the Gospel, and to try and bring the
knowledge of Christ to their ears, would your Lordship
consider it the part of a Christian Bishop to forbid them ?
What would you think of the Bishop of Calcutta, if he
were to forbid all the Clergy from going out to preach to
the natives of Hindoostan ? How does it consist with the
religion, with the principles, with the feelings, I will not
say of Christians, but of men, to praise the zeal, and the
energy, and the fidelity of those -who devote themselves to
Missionary labours in a heathen land, while we ourselves
are leaving men to perish in worse than heathen ignorance
in our own ? How can we pretend to stand forth" and
plead the cause of foreign Missions ? how can we plead
for Church Missionary Societies? how can Bishops and
Clergy stand up In their pulpits and tell us of the impor
tance of the " Society for the propagation of the Gospel in
foreign parts ?" Yea, how can we pretend to write eulogies
upon the zeal, fidelity, and labours of the Apostles them
selves, when we sit down in the midst, not of ordinary
idolatry and paganism, but of that very apostacy which the

161
inspired pen of those Apostles has drawn, as the very
exhibition of Antichrist, and denounced as the fore
doomed monument of eternal vengeance — when the men,
women, and children, that are the victims of this
apostacy, are our own poor unhappy countrymen —
our own immediate neighbours and associates — when
we derive our very name from protesting against
their awful errors and superstitions, but take no more
interest in their eternal welfare, and labour no more for
their salvation, than if they were brutes that perish — Oh,
my Lord, the question is not, whether this man preaches
the Gospel, or that man preaches the Gospel, but whether
any are to be found among us, that have such a knowledge
of the value of the Gospel, as we ought to have for our
own souls, since we seem to have so little an.xiety for the
diffusion of that Gospel among our fellow-sinners ? Surely,
the greater our knowledge, and the brighter our light, the
more criminal are we not to endeavour to convey to our
countrymen the blessings of that knowledge, the more
deeply responsible for putting that light under a bushel —
surely, if we profess to be followers of those whom our
Lord distinguished as " the salt of the earth," when we
look at our miserable country, it would seem as If the " salt
had lost its savour."
There seem.s, as I have stated before, to be prevalent in
the Church, a sort of lamentable confusion of ideas as to
Popery being a real form of Christianity, differing but a
little from our own, and only not quite so pure ; but that it
is after aU a religion, In which, bad as it may be, still, if its
members conscientiously adhere to their principles, it is but
charitable to hope they shall be saved.
If I chose to shelter myself under human authority, I
M

162
might adduce that of our eighteenth Article to show, how
those who hold such a principle are denounced by our
Church — but I prefer bringing the principle itself to the
test of truth.
It were presumptuous in me to dwell at length on this
subject In addressing one who must be considered so much
better informed on it than I can be — but as this may meet the
eye of some one, who has not given to it that attention
which its importance demands, your Lordship will, I trust,
excuse the following remarks.
While it is an awful charge to be made against a Minis
ter of our Church, that he does not preach the Gospel —
because If not. It Is not only to say, that he does not preach
the truth of God's Holy Word, but he does not preach
the vital and fundamental principles of the very religion he
professes — so on the other hand it is a charge which we
are called to make, a testimony which w^e are called to
bear to our Roman Catholic countrymen — that their
teachers do not, and cannot preach the Gospel to them,
because they do teach the principles, and minister the
services of their religion. It is utterly impossible that a
priest of the Church of Rome can officiate as such, and
preach the Gospel of Christ to his flock, and therefore,
utterly impossible that they can ever learn from him, the
means of their salvation.
The reason of this Is, that the whole structure of Popery,
and the very office of her priesthood, is built, not on the
truth of the Gospel, but on the assumption that It is false.
Your Lordship is aware, that the vital point of controversy
between us and the Church of Rome, is on the answer to
this question — " How is the sinner to be justified before
God ?" This is the very vital question of all true religion

163
and all true morality. The total apostacy of the Church
of Rome from the Christian faith, and the consequent total
corruption of her morals, arises from her false principles on
the justification of the sinner's soul — she denies the glad
tidings of salvation conveyed in the Gospel, that we are
"justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus ;"* she denies the inspired conclusion from
the inspired argument on the subject — " Therefore we con
clude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the
law f'f and while she nominally admits the creeds of the
Christian faith which we hold, and makes use of the terms,
grace, faith, atonement, justification, 8fc. 8fc. she uses them in
such an unscriptural sense, as totally to pervert their true
meaning. She treats the Gospel of Christ as she has treated
the NIcene Creed, to which she has added twelve articles by
which it is totally corrupted; and like a chemical compound,
in which the original properties of the elements are neu
tralized by amalgamation, she presents to us no longer the
NIcene Creed, but a code of idolatry and superstition,
under the title of the creed of Pope Pius IV. She denies
that the sinner is justified by the redemption of Christ
through faith, without works or merits on his part to entitle
him to it, or to help it out ; and to her denial of this fun
damental principle of all Christianity, which Luther has
justly called the " Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesia,"
every idolatry and superstition of the Church of Rome is
to be directly traced. The sinner who is taught that he
cannot rest his soul with peace upon the redemption
wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ, without some works
done by himself to entitle him to salvation, never can feel
* Romans iii. 24. f Romans iii. 28.

164
at ease that he has performed the sufficient quantum of
works to make up the deficiency, or to take away the sting
of death, and enable him to indulge a solid hope of ever
lasting life — conscience never can tell him that joyful sound
which he has refused to hear from his Redeemer's dying
lips —
" IT IS FINISHED !"
His view of eternity is never more clear, than that which
the poet puts into the lips of the heathen :
" Eternity ! thou pleasing, dreadful thought !
" Through what variety of untried being !
" Through what new scenes and changes must we pass !
" The wide, the unbounded prospect lies before me —
" But shadows, clouds, and darkness rest upon it !"
The services of religion, its forms, ordinances, and
observances, are fled to, to make up the conscious defect
of moral worth, which he blindly supposes needful, to
entitle him to profit by the thing that he calls the atone
ment of the Redeemer — the Church, therefore, that holds
forth to him the greatest assistance for this work, is that
which he considers the best. Foremost, therefore, on the
list of all human delusions — foremost of all the inven
tions of the enemy of souls — foremost In all the points of
opposition to the truth of God, because foremost In all the
deceitful promises of lying refuges for the troubled con
science of man, stands what Cecil justly called " the master
piece of SataK"— POPERY !
Inculcating that anti-christian principle, that the blood
of the Redeemer is not really sufficient to redeem the

165
sinner — that the atonement of Christ is not really sufficient
to atone for his guilt — that the salvation of Him who came
to save sinners, is not really complete for him to trust in,
the Church of Rome denies the perfection of the law as
well as of the Gospel, and places before the mind some
undefined sort of obedience, some works to be performed
to make the Saviour's salvation available ; and since, as has
been stated, the conscience of the poor sinner never can be
satisfied, that this indefinite obedience has been paid, then
she proposes her various superstitions and idolatries, as helps
and refuges to ease the conscience ; the sale of these Is the
support, and therefore the inculcation of them Is the interest
of her priesthood, as it is the destruction of the people.
Hence, first, she shuts up the Revelation of God from the
sinner ; she sets up herself as the interpreter of Scripture,
that Is, In fact, that she may conceal the Bible — she knows
that neither are her superstitions to be found there, nor is the
truth that is there, to be reconciled to her superstitions —
therefore she represents the Sacred Volume as unsuited to
the people, because it proclaims a salvation for the sinner
totally at war with her principles.*

* I cannot pass by the iniquity of a system which proceeds on the
principle, that the Sacred Word of God is unsuited to the instruction of
the human mind. No language is sufficiently strong to denounce such a
daring impeachment of the wisdom — the authority, and the revealed
will of the Divine Author of that book. We do not wonder at those
whose interest it is to conce-al the truths of that volume ; but that they
whose profession it is to proclaim those truths, and whose duty it is to
inculcate and enforce the study of the Scriptures, should, on any
principle of pretended expediency, countenance or cooperate in such a
system, is utterly inexcusable. As long as I can feel any reverence for
the authority of the Bible — any regard for the souls of my poor coun
trymen, or the principles of the religion I profess, I will bear my tes
timony, however feebly, against the iniquitous principles of the Board
of National Education.

166
Hence, too, proceeds her idolatry of the Virgin Mary
and the Saints. Denying the free and full salvation of the
Redeemer, as all-sufficient to justify the soul, she does
not place the Saviour before the sinner as a Refuge, but as
a Judge — a mild Judge indeed, and a compassionate one,
but still a Judge, who. Instead of perfect obedience, will
receive sincerity, or good endeavours, or a partial obedience
to ichat she calls Christian precepts. Still conscience hints
that even this Is not as It ought to be, and if the Lord Jesus
Christ scrutinizes even this sincerity and mitigated obe
dience, conscience fears it may be found defective. Christ
is the ultimate Mediator, Indeed, between the sinner and
God the Father ; but the sinner now wants some power to
propitiate Christ ; hence who can have such good interest
with him as his mother ? Who can be supposed to have
such access to him, as the saints that are continually'in his
presence ? Hence the Saints, and the Virgin, are to be
prayed to as intercessors with Christ;* and this Is the real
spiritual principle of their idolatry. The proximate
refuge to which the heart turns for help, must necessarily
be the supreme object of the heart's desire. Popery
teaches the poor sinner to fly, as his best refuge, to the
Virgin Mary ; and, therefore, she is placed upon the

* It is a mode of expression and illustration perfectly familiar to all
those who have ever spoken to the Roman Catholics, on this subject,
to be asked — " If you wanted to make interest with any man, could you
apply through a better channel than his mother f" It has been already
clearly proved how the Board of Education encourage this idolatry in
the note which they retain from the Douay Bible, in their Scripture
Lessons on the 3d Chapter of Genesis. The best comment on the
true character of that note, is the fact, that, in the cathedral at Lyons
is a statue of the Virgin Mary, with the serpent under her feet, bruis
ing his head ; which proves how the Church of Rome applies the text,
and how the Board teaches them it ought to be applied.

167
throne of the heart's affections — Christ is dethroned, and
she usurps his place— so in their idolatrous litany the
names that alone belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, are
given to her — " Refuge of Sinners, pray for us ! Comfort
" of the Affiicted, pray for us ! Advocate of all Christians,
" pray for us !" So, in all their books of devotion to her,
and to the Saints, the energy of that confidence and affec
tion, which alone are the right of Him who is the Saviour
of the guilty, is put forth in imploring the advocacy of
mediators with Him who is himself the " one Mediator
between God and man."* Hence it is not in the mere image,
or the picture, or the bowing before It, that the deep ido
latry consists ; but in this, that the heart of the sinner turns
to the idols represented by them, as the refuge and com
fort of his soul, because he is ignorant of the glad tidings,
that ¦" The Son of Man is come to seek and to save them
" that are lost" — ignorant that " to him that worketh not,
" but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
" counted for righteousness." ^
Hence, also, arises her sacrament of penance, by which,
she says, " sins committed after baptism are taken away ;"
here she makes works not only meritorious, but satisfactory
for sin. Repentance unto life — that change of mind pro
duced through the power of the Gospel, is turned into
penance, which is a total denial of the Gospel.J Here Is
* 1 Tim. ii. 5. f Rom. iv. 5.
J Here again, I must say, there never was exhibited a more dis-
graceftd compromise of principle, than in the note on the word Repen
tance, in the second part of the Scripture Lessons, by the Board of
Education. The Popish Commissioners, after all the rout about the
Protestant translation, have actually sold their sacrament of penance,
for the money granted by Parliament, and agreed to expunge it out of
the text of the Scripture, and adopt repentance in its place. The Pro
testant Commissioners, in return for this good deed, have consoled their

168
a sacrament to give the poor sinner's conscience credit
against his sins, for his contrition — deliverance from the
burthen of them, in his confession to his priest— and satis
faction In his future works, or penitential exercises, for all
his past transgressions. Here that access to his heart, and
that power over his mind, Is given to his confessor, which
alone belongs, of right, to his God; and his worthless
tears and works are made the means of delivering his soul,
instead of the precious blood and righteousness of the
Redeemer. Hence, since sacraments are efficacious for salvation,
the higher, the mystery the greater the efficacy of the
sacrament; therefore, superstition has added mystery to
mystery, till the Eucharist is actually transformed into
Christ himself — a piece of flour is deified — the " whole
" body, blood, soul and divinity," of the Lord Jesus Christ,
is tabernacled at the command of a priest, in a bit of
dough. This then becomes a true propitiatory offering for
sin — the wretched minister of this idolatry, who is at once
the maker and the sacrlficer of the Idol, becomes another
powerful refuge for the poor guilty sinner's conscience —
he is the absolver of his sins — the deliverer of his soul —
the arbiter of his destiny, in time and in eternity.
Hence the train of delusions is carried on to death.

Popish coadjutors by agreeing to adopt penance into the note ; and,
in defiance of all that truth which, at least, they ought to have known
upon the subject, as to this criminal superstition of Rome, which sub
verts the very foundations of Christianity, they have frittered it away
to nothing — huddled up a compromise between penauce and repent
ance, as if one was comprehended in the other, and left it as if it were
a matter of little moment which a man adopted, either in his creed or
his translation. When men once begin to compromise the principles
of truth, who can say where they will stop ? " Facilis descensus
Avcrni !"

169
Unction for the poor dying body, is made a " flattering
unction" to the poor guilty soul. Masses, unctions,
absolutions, are poured into the wounds of an accusing
conscience — the Bible* is dreaded lest It awaken a doubt
as to the truth of that which is all, alas ! but a delusion —
the terrors of the fire that never shall be quenched, are
mitigated by the prospect of a transitory punishment —
purgatory is set forth to cleanse the lingering stains that no
fictitious offerings can take away, wdth confidence, from
the trembling conscience ; and even to this the power of
false atonements, and the mockery of pretended delive
rances is extended. Masses for the dead are the last
expiring hope of salvation for the living. Delusion is
heaped upon delusion, to smother the trembling enquiries,
the aching anxieties of the sinner's heart, till he dies, as
he has lived, the victim of an awful superstition, perishing
under the curse pronounced on him " who maketh the arm
of flesh his trust," an alien and an enemy to the truth, and
the salvation of his God.
I speak of those who die really depending for salvation
on the refuges of idolatry and superstition set forth by the
Church of Rome, instead of the only salvation for man
proclaimed in the Gospel. I trust there are many, who,
though unhappily born and living in that communion with
not enough of light to see their way out of it, are really
resting, not on these refuges, but on the great salvation of
their Redeemer. But all these false refuges are the fictions
which the guilt, the folly, and the avarice of the human
* Who can reflect, without horror, on the blind and guilty infatua
tion of a popish priest dragging the Word of Life from the pillow of
a poor dying sinner, and committing it to the flames in the public road '?
The fact of the burning the Bible at Shinrone, is too recent and noto
rious to require republication.

170
heart, has invented and mixed up from Paganism and
Christianity, to supply the wants of the conscience holding
the false principle that man's righteousness can help to
save his soul— trying to patch up what the prophet calls the
"filthy rags" of that righteousness, and ignorant of the
full, free, gracious pardon and justification of the soul,
proclaimed in the righteousness and atoning blood of a cru
cified Redeemer.
It is important to the statement itself, to add to this,
though your Lordship is fully aware of It, that all the cor
ruption of morals in the Church of Rome, springs from
this apostacy from the fundamental principles of Christian
truth — her very best morality is all corrupted by the false
hood of the principle on which it is inculcated. It is not
enforced as the fruit of faith, not as the genuine and ne
cessary proof of love to " him who lias loved us, and washed
us from our sins in his own blood," and who "gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify
unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works ;"* but
on the antichristian principle that that blood is not sufficient
to save us without works, and that works must be added to
purchase out salvation. Hence not only the principle of
all moral obedience Is destroyed, but the standard of that
obedience, the moral law itself. Is nullified ; and since the
obedience of the sinner cannot confessedly be raised to
meet the perfect standard of the law, the law is brought
down to meet the Imperfect obedience of the sinner. Hence
her doctrine of venial sins, and mortal sins, and mitigating
excuses for them all, till conscience is hardened into a
casuistical apologist for crime — sin is stripped of its hideous
character, and turned into a venial offence — made a source
* Titus, ii. 14.

171
of profitable speculation for the priest — the priest is the mi
nister of the mercy of his Creator, and money Is the means to
conciliate the favor of the priest — there are masses and ab
solutions to be had for all sins, at all prices, through life and
death — through earth and purgatory, not only for time,
but after the sinner has passed into eternity.
Here then the flood-gates of all iniquity are thrown
open — what is there to apprehend from venial sins, which
the Church of Rome declares do not forfeit what she
calls the grace and favour of God? — What to apprehend
from mortal sins, when future penances and masses can
atone for them ? What fear of any sin that man can com
mit — what fear to steep the soul in the depths of perjury
and blood, if the object is to promote the interests, and
forward the cause of the very men who have it in their
power to cancel aU his offences ? Hence the infamous dogma
of their 3d Lateran Council, that " Oaths taken contrary
to the interests of the Church, are not to be accounted oaths,
but perjuries." Hence, as the faithful servants of Christ,
must ever bear their testimony against this antichristian
apostacy — this guilty Babylon, " the mother of harlots,
" and abominations of the earth," is " drunk with the
" blood of the saints and martyrs." Hence her course is
marked with guilt — with misery — with perjury and blood ;
whether you trace her footsteps through the page of history,
or behold her as the Daemon of discord and destruction,
brooding over the destinies of our own unfortunate
country. O ! my Lord, If we felt as we ought, as ministers of
Christ; the horrible nature of this superstition would
awaken in our hearts, feelings of intense interest and
anxiety for our poor countrymen, who are born under its
power. Their enmity to us and to our religion, instead of

172
stirring up in us enmity against their persons, should
awaken an intense anxiety to reform them from the evil of
their principles ; we should reflect that their enmity to us
Is, alas ! but the fatal result of their ignorance and enmity
against the word of God — we should remember the grace of
God, and the fidelity of those instruments, by whom we our
selves have been delivered from the yoke of death.
How then are the superstitions of the Church of
Rome to be driven from the minds of the people ?
The Bible — the history of the Christian faith — the pro
pagation of Christianity through the Pagan world by the
apostles — the deliverance of so large a portion of Europe
from the yoke of popery, by Luther and the Reformers,
and the establishment of our own pure faith in England,
by the same instrumentality, under the blessing and grace
of God, all conspire to assure us that it is by the faithful
preaching of the Gospel to the people.
No power of controversial talents — no exposition of the
evils, or absurdities of Popish superstitions, how learned or
how laboured soever it may be, can ever be solely effectual
to this end ; however useful this may be in its place, and
it has great and important use. But as the whole of Popish
falsehood, and all her superstitions are to be traced to this
one source — ignorance and denial of the Gospel; so it Is
the preaching of the Gospel faithfully and fully to the
people, that lays the axe at once to the root of all those
superstitions — for this plain reason.
The superstitions of the Church of Rome being all
invented to give peace to the sinner's conscience, under the
false principle that he is in some respect to be justified
before God by his works ; it is utterly vain to attack those
superstitions — to attempt to pluck the props from under
the poor sinner's soul, when you give him nothing

173
better to lean on. The drowning man will catch a straw
with a convulsive and unclenching grasp, though you were
to shout to him with a voice of thunder, that It will sink
along with him — if you can give him a grip of the life-boat,
then he will drop the straw, and rise in buoyant joy
to hail and bless the deliverance. The poor Roman
Catholic will cling to his penances, and his masses, and his
purgatories, and his priests, and all his superstitions, while
he sees no better means of saving his immortal soul, but
when the Gospel is preached in fulness and fidelity to him,
if God is pleased to accompany it with his grace ; when he
is led through mercy to see the radical falsehood of the
principle, that he can ever be justified, in whole or in part,
by his works, when he is led to see that his own miserable
efforts to obey God's pure and perfect law, can never give
him any righteousness with which to come before the bar
of God — but that " Christ is the end of the law, for righte
ousness to every one that believeth ;"* when he is led to see
through mercy that the redemption wrought for sinners by
the Redeemer, the salvation given to sinners by the Saviour
is Indeed a complete redemption — a full salvation — not a
half redemption, a half salvation, to be eked out by the
sinner for himself, or by his priests, or sacraments, or
penances, or alms ; but a free and full sal'/ation and for
giveness, on which he may rest his soul and conscience
with peace, and which he shall find ratified in the sacred
Scriptures by all the faithful promises of his faithful and
gracious God — when he is led to hear that through " Christ
" is preached unto him the forgiveness of sins, and that by
" him all that believe are justified from all things, from which
" they could not be justified by the law of Moses ;"f when
* Rom. X. 4. f Acts xiii. 38, 39.

174
instead of looking to refuges of superstition, he is led to
" behold the lamb of God who taheth away the sins of the
"world-"* when he is led to hear the voice of him who
says — "look unto me and be ye saved f'-f to understand the
blessed truth, that " the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us
from all sin,"^ that " this man after he had offered one sacri-
" flee for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God f'^
and that " where remission of sins is, there is no more offering
for sin," and that therefore, we may " have boldness to enter
" into the holiest by the blood of Jesus ;"^ yea, that we may
" have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay
" hold on the hope set before us, which hope we have as anchor
" of the soul, both sure and steadfast ;"** when he Is led
through mercy to know this truth, these "good tidings of
"great joy," then he knows the meaning of the Scripture
which says, " being justified by faith, we have peace with
" God, through our Lord Jesus Christ."-\\ He sees at once
the whole tissue of falsehood bound up in the superstitions
of the Church of Rome ; he sees, that if salvation by a
crucified Redeemer be true — the hope of salvation by the
superstitions of the Church of Rome must be utterly and
radically false ; therefore, my Lord, it is the preaching of
" Jesus Christ, and him crucifled," the preaching of the Gos
pel of justification for guilty man, through the sacrifice of
him that died for sinners, this is the great means of
enlightening any people, or of banishing any superstition ;
it Is, as the Apostle calls it, " the power of God unto salva-
" tion to every one that believeth."XX
I have seen the Gospel break into the mind of a Roman

* John i. 29. f Isaiah xiv. 22. % 1 John i. 7.
§ Heb. X. 12. II Heb. x. 18. IT Heb. x. 19.
•** Heb. vi. 18, 19. f-j- Rom. v. 1. XX R<"n- i- 16.

175
Catholic, a dear young friend of my own. It was said to
him — " the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin ;"
he considered for a little, then he asked — " Is that in the
Bible f " Yes." " Where f The passage was found and
shown to him. " Then," said he, " if that be true, all other
means of cleansing the soul must be false ;" an instant light
was poured upon all the chains of popish superstition in
his mind, with which his conscience had been bound,
like the sun bursting Into a vault In the inquisition, and
from that moment he cast them off for ever.
So it Is related by Burder, that a similar effect was pro
duced on the mind of a Hindoo, who was walking in shoes
of torture as a penance, and stopped where a Missionary
was preaching under a tree, on the very same words ; when
he heard the fulness of pardon that was proclaimed to
sinners in the blood of Christ, he flung off his shoes of
torture — " that," said he, " is the very thing I want."
The conscience of the poor sinner that turns to refuges
of lies, like the woman diseased with the issue of blood,
that spent all her living upon physicians, and did not grow
better, but rather worse, when like her it comes by faith
to touch the hem of the Redeemer's garment, like her it
recognizes the Almighty power of Him by whom it is made
perfectly whole ; as the Idea was beautifully expressed by
Sir Henry Wotton In a stanza of the lines he wrote when
on his bed of death :
" No hallowed oils — no guras I need, —
" No rags of saints — no purging fire —
" One rosy drop from David's seed,
" Was worlds of seas to quench thine ire !
" O precious ransora ! which, once paid,
" That < CONSUMMATUM EST,' was said."

176
Your Lordship recollects that the preaching of salvation
by the Lord Jesus Christ to the exclusion of all works as
forming a part of the sinner's hope, was the very point in
our Homilies that Gardiner most opposed. He knew that
popery was safe as long as works could be retained as a
part of man's justification. The testimony of Burnet on
this is interesting; he says, speaking of Gardiner's opposi
tion to the Homilies : " He excepted to one of the Homi-
" lies, that It did exclude charity from justifying men as
" well as faith ; this, he said, was contrary to the book
" sent out In the late King's time, which was afterwards
" confirmed in Parliament in the year 1542; he said fur-
" ther, that he could never see one place of Scripture, nor
" any ancient Doctor that favored it,"
He says again of Cranmer : — " He sent for Gardiner and
" entered into discourse with him about the passage in the
" Homily excluding charity out of our justification ; and
" urged those places of St. Paul, ' that we are justifled by
"faith without the ivorks of the law.' He said his design In
" that passage was only to draw men from trusting in any
" thing they did, and to teach them to trust only to Christ.
" But Gardiner had a very different notion of justification,
" for, as he said. Infants were justified by baptism, and
'* penitents by the sacrament of penance, and that the
" conditions of the justifying of those of age, were charity
" as well as faith, as the three estates make a law." Burnet
Vol 2, p. 28.
The best refutation of these errors will be found in our
invaluable Homily itself; and I doubt not your Lordship
will concur in the soundness and sobriety of the statement
when I say, that the best and clearest treatise, within so
short a compass, that ever was written on the subject, is
our " Homily on Salvation" — if we were to look for a more

177
lengthened discussion of the question, perhaps Hooker's
Sermon on Justification, is as clear and faithful as any to be
found. And the powerful exposition of the superstitions of
Rome, and all her falsehoods, traceable to her error on this,
as given by Luther In his Commentary on the Epistle to
the Galatians, is, with all Its faults, a masterpiece of
theology. But one of the most singular testimonies Is
to be found In the pages of David Hume, who having
quoted a part of the passage above cited from Burnet, adds,
" It is Indeed certain, that the reformers were right in their
" doctrine of justification, and might venture to foretell its
" success in opposition to all the ceremonies, shows, and
" superstitions of popery. By exalting Christ and his
" sufferings, and renouncing all claim to independent merit
" in ourselves. It was calculated to become popular and
" coincided with those principles inculcated in the Scrip-
" tures, of exalting God, and self-abasing the sinner." —
Hume, Hist. Ed. VI. Anno 1547.
Poor Hume ! had he derived from the Sacred Volume the
blessing that that truth conveys, as coming from the grace
and power of God through Christ to a sinner. It had not
been the cold testimony of a mere historian, that he had
borne to its value and importance.
Now, I trust, your Lordship will permit me to say, that
while the Committee of our Society is not called on to
defend themselves from the imputation of an offence, of
which they are Innocent, namely, grounding our proceed
ings on the allegation against any of our brethren, that
they do not preach the Gospel — we are called on to ground
them on this fact, that the Gospel of Christ is not, and
cannot be known to those, whose very religion shuts them
out from It, and that the Gospel ought to be preached, that
the salvation of our Redeemer ought to be proclaimed to

178
our guilty and benighted countrymen — and I know not one
spot on which a man can place his foot to oppose this,
unless he can satisfy his conscience as to one of these three
propositions — either that the Roman Catholics of Ireland
can learn the Gospel by means of those superstitions which
deny the Gospel — or that men can be saved without the
Gospel — or that though their superstitions cannot teach
them that which is necessary to their salvation, we are to
leave them to perish In their ignorance. I do not think
your Lordship will maintain either of the two former
propositions, and if not, I think the last Is the most unte
nable of all.
I would therefore, respectfully consider the evils which
your Lordship enumerates, to put In the scale against what
seems our imperative duty, on the point.
With respect to the two first of them, viz. first, " breaking
" the order, and abrogating the discipline of the Church by
" these unlawful ministrations;" second, "superseding Epis-
" copal authority, and annulling its power of jurisdiction."
You will perceive, my Lord, that if the principles before laid
down as to the Ordination Service and the Canons of the
Church and the licenses to preach, be correct, your Lord
ship assumes the existence of evils, which In point of law,
have really no existence ; If it is assumed, that acts are
unlawful, against which there is no law — that authority is
superseded, where really no authority extends, and where
authority has never been assumed, In any similar case in
the Church — that jurisdiction Is annulled, in a case where
na jurisdiction either exists, or, (as I trust to prove to your
Lordship's satisfaction,) ought to exist; lam sure your
Lordship will see that the error lies in making that the
assumption, which, when the argument is finished, proves
not to be the correct conclusion from the premises.

179
With respect to the third evil, that, by this means, we
"call those of our superiors who consider it their duty
" to discountenance such irregularities to account," and
" publish them before the world as deficient not only In
"true wisdom, but in love for souls and zeal for the
" Redeemer's glory," I must say, that no such charge ever
issued from us, directly or indirectly ; I am sure the whole
of the Committee sincerely concur with the statement
which I have made, that we believe, that the Bishops who
discountenance the Mission, think they are discharging
their duty. I am confident, that no member of the Com
mittee ever wrote or spoke on the subject, as I venture to
address your Lordship in this letter. Still, then, I must say,
with all the respect that Is due to the office and authority
of a Bishop, the question must recur — Is it an act of Epis
copal duty to suppress Missionary preaching In Ireland ?
I should acknowledge myself conscientiously bound to
accede to your Lordship's judgment that it was, if I did
not candidly and conscientiously consider myself bound in
the sight of God, to say that I think it is not.
As to the fourth evil, that of our making an allegation
against our brethren in the Ministry, it has been already
answered. In the fifth, your Lordship asks — " Is it not an evil that
" the parochial Minister, to whom Is lawfully committed
" the goverment of the Church, and the cure and charge
" of souls in his parish, should, without his permission,
" perhaps in defiance of his disapprobation, be molested in
" his ministrations, that he is to be seduced to give coun-
'' tenance to an unauthorized intruder into his fold, and
" become a witness, perhaps a partaker of the irregularity,
" or to be forced Into a situation of estrangement, perhaps

180
" of necessary opposition to a brother Minister of the
" Church ?"
A great number of questions are mixed up In the sen
tence — of which the first and most important appears to
be this — that "the lawful government of the Church and
" the cure and charge of souls is committed to the Minister
" of the parish."
I must pause on this — and while I admit with as dutiful
subjection to Episcopal authority, and as devoted attach
ment to the discipline and government of the Church, as I
trust is felt by any member of our communion, that the
Episcopal jurisdiction commits to the Pastor an authorita
tive charge over the flock, and that that Pastor is account
able to his Bishop for the faithful discharge of his duty —
I would humbly ask your Lordship, whether you mean
that all the souls, or a part of the souls In the parish are
committed to the Minister ? Does your Lordship consider
that you commit the Roman Catholics, the Arians, and the
Socinians, to the charge of the parochial Ministers in your
diocese ? I rather take it for granted that your Lordship
will answer, no ; and I am certain the universal practice
of the parochial Ministers of Ireland, proves that they do
not consider these Immortal souls, a part of their charge.
Now let me ask, my Lord, will any man lay it
down as a principle that the parochial Clergy are to be
put into the place, not of Ministers of light, but of the
tutelary guardians of the darkness of unhappy Ireland ?
Are they to be placed in a certain district. In which each
man is to say — I am to labour for the salvation of the half, or
the fourth, or the eighth, or the sixteenth, part of the Immortal
souls in this parish, and I have authority from my Bishop to
prevent any other man from labouring for the salvation of

181
the remainder ? Surely, my Lord, if this were so. Episco
pal jurisdiction must be a fatal authority for the salvation
of men — the Bishop might place a man in a parish who
might be "a burning and shining light," to some of its in
habitants, but a minister of darkness and death, to all the
rest. I am sure, my Lord, I speak the sentiments of all
my brethren without one exception, when I say we would
all revolt from such a position. I am sure that among the
foremost your Lordship will revolt from it, and that there
fore you will see that such a principle cannot stand, the
test of one moment's sound argument, as that a minister
of any parish In Ireland possesses authority to say to ano
ther, you have no right to preach within the precincts of
this parish, where there may be thousands perishing in
guilt and superstition, over whom neither his Bishop pro
fesses to commit to him, nor does he profess to exercise
a shadow of spiritual authority — nor even spiritual care.
Just let us consider the condition of Ireland in reference
to this point —
Sir Robert Peel, in his speech on the concession of
power to the Roman Catholics, In the year 1829, stated
among other facts — that "in the County of Clare, there
" were ten contiguous parishes without one Protestant, in
" three parishes in Mnnster, there was not either Protestant
" or Dissenter. In Leinster there were 134 parishes, with
" a population of 186,300 Roman Catholics, and 24,000
" Protestants, the Roman Catholics being in the proportion
" of seven and a half to one. In Munster there were
" 72 parishes. In which were 12,900 Protestants, 128 Dis-
" senters, and 167,500 Roman Catholics, the latter being
" in the proportion of thirteen to one. In 23 parishes in
" Connaught, these were 101,600 inhabitants of whom
" 96,800 were Roman Catholics, 4,800 were Protestants,

182
" and 12 Dissenters, the Roman Catholics being in the
" proportion of twenty to one. In nine parishes of Ros-
" common, there was a population of 26,600, of which
" 25,700 were Roman Catholics, and 831 Protestants. In
" Ulster there were 71 parishes, with a population of
" 267,000 inhabitants, of whom 140,000 were Protestants,
" and 126,000 Roman Catholics."
Now, my Lord, in what an attitude would it place the
Episcopacy and the Ministry of our country, to say that in
322 parishes, in thirteen of which the Roman Catholics
constituted the whole of the population, and In most of the
rest were in the proportion of seven and a half — thirteen,
and twenty to one ! the Protestant Ministers of those
parishes, were not only not to labour for the salvation of
these men themselves, but were to set up their parochial
authority as Pastors, to prevent any other man from
preaching the Gospel of Christ to them, and that the
Bishops of their Dioceses were to attempt to support such
an authority by the power of their Episcopal jurisdic
tion !
What language could describe a state of more tremen
dous responsibility and guilt than that In which such
Bishops and such Ministers would stand in the sight of
God ? We should stand in the fearful position in which
the apostle describes the Jews. " They please not God and
" are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the
" Gentiles, that they might be saved, to fill up their sins
" alway, for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost."*
I know not what report the Commission issued by his
Majesty's late government for numbering the people may
make ; but this I will say, my Lord, that if they corrobo-
1 Thess. ii. 15, 16.

183
rate this statement, then made by Sir Robert Peel, who
made it no doubt on the best authority to which he had
access, and if they could add to their report, a formal testi
mony from the Bishops and Clergy of Ireland, that either
they thought the Roman Catholic religion so good that
there was no necessity for their making any effort to
enlighten the members of that communion — or that though
they thought it very bad, they did not consider it their
duty to endeavour to enlighten them — nay, that the Bishops
and Clergy laid it down as a rule that they would neither
make any effort themselves, nor allow any others to make
any, in their respective Dioceses and parishes to do so — I
know not what result we could look for at the hands of our
God. It was because our Established Church, maintained
the truth of God, against the superstitions of popery, and it
was because Bishops and Clergy taught Statesmen and Kings
to know that it did so, that it was established under the
divine blessing as It is ; and if Bishops and Clergy can
make so little of the value of the principles of their religion,
they must expect that Statesmen and Kings will estimate in
proportion the Importance of its establishment.
But my Lord, I will venture to say for the Clergy of
our Church, that there is a universal conviction springing
up among us, that we are called on to make some efforts
for the salvation of our Roman Catholic countrymen, and
for the more effective diffusion of the principles of our
religion — and I will venture to add, without making a
charge of sloth or ignorance on any, that it is rather a con
sideration among the most devoted, and the best instructed,
and most faithful men In the Church to know what they
are to do, than to deny that they ought to do some
thing. The saying that " a prophet has no honour in his own

184
country," was never more verified than It Is in this, that a
Minister has little power among the Roman Catholics in
his own parish. This proceeds from different causes — the
political position of our Church — the enmity against the
payment of tithes — the jealousy of the parochial priest,
and the fears which the people have, both of their priest
and of each other — these causes render it extremely dif
ficult for the parochial Minister, even when most anxious
to do his duty, to get access to the people — these causes
are generally greatly removed in the case of Missionary
preaching. There are several instances where, though the
Missionary has preached In the parochial Church, or a
Cathedral, it has been crowded to excess with Roman
Catholic auditors, and if Irish preaching were set forward
as it ought to be, hundreds of thousands would fly to profit
by the instruction, who never hear the sound of the
Gospel. If these remarks be in any degree just, they will
more than meet this evil, which your Lordship has
adduced. The sixth Is, that " the character of the paid clergyman
" of the parish, is to be brought Into invidious comparison
" with the gratuitous and unbought zeal, and the conse-
" quently greater sincerity, and deeper conviction of the
" intruder." Really, my Lord, I must respectfully say, that the very
point which you object as an evil, appears to me one of
the greatest possible advantages to our Church ; while our
enemies represent us as hirelings, who will not move but
for gain, it seems that every Minister who goes forth to
preach the Gospel gratuitously, to the people, is a living
refutation of the calumny, and that every individual
Minister, whether he goes out to preach upon the Mission,
or not, rather derives a benefit from the honour reflected by

185
Missionary exertion on the character of the Church, than
suffers by any reflection that can possibly be cast upon his
own. If he can suffer In public estimation at all, it can only
be, by endeavouring to discountenance the exertions of his
brother, for then he runs the risque of being charged with
neither labouring without hire himself, nor suffering those
who were willing and anxious to do so ; besides, your
Lordship knows that the cry of the popish opponents of our
Church, Is, that though they pay us, we do nothing at all
for their souls. How is this to be met, but by Missionary
labours among them ?
The next evil your Lordship points out is, " that his hold
" upon the good will and affections of his people should
." thus be weakened, his influence among them diminished,
" and his ministrations depreciated ;" but, as the word
thus implies that this is merely a deduction from the pre
ceding. If the former be without foundation, this which is
built on it must be so too ; and we may ask what is the
spiritual influence, or what are the spiritual ministrations
of the parochial Clergy, among the Roman Catholics of
Ireland ? and how can that be weakened or diminished,
which has no existence at all ?
The eighth evil Is, " that his teaching should be gainsaid
" and vilified, and the sobriety of pastoral and systematic
" instruction superseded by the rhetorical excitement of
" an occasional and passing address."
I trust, my Lord, there is not a member of our com
mittee, nor a Minister who preaches on the Home Mission,
who is not deeply impressed with the importance of syste
matic pastoral instruction. I trust they know how to value
it ; and it is the value and importance of this, that precludes
the least Invidious comparison between him who may go
upon a Mission, and him who remains at home ; if your

186
Lordship speaks as you seem to do, of the effect of Mis
sionary preaching, upon Protestants who may hear it, I
confess I am at loss to see any force in the objection. If
the parochial pastor does his duty among his flock, can it
be justly supposed that a man whom a people may hear
occasionally preach a sermon, if he had the eloquence of
Paul, would supersede, in the affections of that people,
the patient faithful Instructor of their children — the visiter
of their cottages — the friend of their distresses — the at
tendant, perhaps the physician, of their bed of sickness —
their habitual guide and director to Him who is the refuge
and Redeemer of their souls ? I should say that both
theory and experience contradict such a supposition — I
should say that, even in the same parish, if there be two
Ministers, one who is perhaps eminently gifted as a
preacher, and the other not, but that the latter is more
faithfully devoted to the duties of the pastoral care of his
flock, the hold of the one on the affections of the people,
will be proportionably stronger than that of the other, in
the direct ratio of his greater devotedness to his pastoral
office ; and if it be so, even where Ministers are resident
and known, how much more where the preacher is a pas
sing stranger, heard perhaps but once, and never again ?
This I say, where the parochial pastor does his duty;
but if the parochial Minister should unfortunately happen
to be careless and regardless of his flock, surely your
Lordship does not Intend to call it an evil, that the Protes
tant members of a congregation should hear a Missionary
preacher, lest they might undervalue the care of a pastor
whom, on this hypothesis. It Is Impossible they could
regard ? Surely it ought rather to be called a good, not
only that the people should receive some benefit, but that,
under the Divine blessing, perhaps the pastor might be led

187
to a sense of the duty of exertion, and learn to " labour
both In the word and doctrine," himself.
This is with reference merely to the Protestants of a
parish, who might hear the Missionary Preacher, but it is
clear your Lordship has totally excluded, not only from
this, but from all the evils you have contemplated, any
thought of the salvation of five-sixths of the population of
the country.
The ninth evil which your Lordship specifies, may
more properly be called a whole tissue of evils.
" Is it not an evil that pulpit should be set up against
" pulpit — altar against altar ? that all notions of Church
" government and religious union, are to be kept out of
" sight of the people, and that they are to be taught by
" the example of their intrusive teacher to contravene the
"Apostle's injunctions, not 'to know them that are over
" them in the Lord ;' not to ' obey them that have rule over
" them, and submit themselves,' but to despise their spiritual
" rulers, to 'speak evil of dignities,' and to ' keep to them-
" selves teachers having itching ears.' "
Now, my Lord, when I just ask In calm sobriety, is all
this actually the fact ? assured as I feel that your Lordship
never for a moment, could have intentionally misrepre
sented the case, I am constrained to believe that your
Lorshlp's ears must have been most lamentably abused,
and that some malicious persons must have taken advan
tage of your Lordship's sensitive anxiety for the interests
of the Church, to excite In your breast fearful anticipations
of imaginary dangers, by the representation of a whole series
of Imaginary evils— so that in fact, Instead of sounding the
trumpet of the Gospel, one would think, the Home Mis
sion were sounding the woe trumpets through the land.
Really, my Lord, our Committee are totally at a loss to

188
conceive how such a tissue of charges could be strung
together, by any ingenuity against our brethren ; and since
they are anaccompanied by even one fact, we are utterly
unable to meet them, except by the most respectful assurance
to your Lordship, that you have been totally misinformed,
and that there is not one shadow of foundation for them
from first to last.
If It Is meant that faithful Missionary preaching Is cal
culated to produce these evils, every principle, every canon,
every page of history, and every fact of experience of our
Church, proves the total error of the supposition, take any
view of the case we please.
First. If Missionaries preach what is false, heretical,
contrary to the Scriptures, the ample remedy is in the
hands, where it ought to be lodged, those of the Bishops ;
if It is proved to the Bishop, that any Clergyman preaches
falsely in his diocese, he can inhibit, or even suspend that
individual, on proper evidence of the heretical doctrine,
and I trust there is not one engaged in the Home Mission
who Is not, at all times, ready to submit to such a just and
lawful exercise of Episcopal jurisdiction.
But if Missionaries really preach the Gospel of Christ,
then let us see how such a supposition is disproved — either
they must preach In the parishes of Ministers who, like
themselves, are preachers of the " truth as It Is in Jesus,"
or who are not. Now, If they preach in the parishes of those,
as we will joyfully assume to be the case, who preach like
themselves, the word of eternal life, how can there be
opposition between those who unite in the service of their
Heavenly Master ? and not rather " in the mouth of two or
three witnesses, shall every word be established" — how can
there be ground for such a series of charges as your Lord
ship enumerates in this objection ?

189
But now let us take the other and the worst view of the
question — let us suppose the Missionaries preaching the
Gospel, and that they preach in parishes where the Minis
ter does not preach the Gospel — let us, however reluc
tantly, assume the hypothesis, that the Clergy in any
diocese, for example, did not preach salvation through
Christ, but that they set forth the fundamental error of
salvation by man's works. Now what, my Lord, was the
practice of the Church when this was universally the case
at the Reformation ? Was it not to send out men with
licenses to preach the Gospel in every parish, and that for
the especial object of promoting unity throughout the
Church ? When popery and nonconformity retained the
emoluments, without setting forth the principles of the
Church, was not this the very mode taken by the Church
to establish the principles of Protestantism and unity
throughout the nation — the Church never proceeded on
such a principle, as that one preacher of the truth could be
considered an Intruder by another preacher of the truth —
nor did It ever proceed on the principle that truth was to
be kept back by the Minister of the Gospel from those
that were ready to perish in ignorance and guilt, because
any who did not preach the truth should be offended at its
publication — the testimony of Archbishop Grindal, and of
ail the Bishops whose authority he cites speaks a volume
on the subject, and evinces that that which your Lordship,
I regret to say, considers as Involving such a variety of
evils, was, in their opinion, the greatest blessing to the
Clergy, as well as to the people.
The tenth evil on the list Is, that " Instead of remaining
" content in their own lawful sphere of duty, and setting
" forth quietness, peace, and love, among all men, and
" especially among them that are committed to their charge.

190
" Ministers of the Gospel should be forsaking their own
" charge, and wandering abroad, sowing the seeds of
" necessary disquiet and dissension, among other Christian
" people in ever)r parish and in every diocese into which,
" without authority, the intrude."
Three evils are specified in this — first, the Illegality of
their conduct ; secondly, the neglect of their own duty ;
thirdly, the evils which they disseminate In their Mission.
I trust your Lordship will see that the preceding pages
have satisfactorily disproved the first of these charges, as
to the neglect of their own duty, by those who go out on
the Mission ; no individual, I believe. Is ever absent more
than one Sunday, or at the very utmost two, and that on
few occasions from his own parochial charge, at which
times he takes care that his own flock be not neglected —
and I must say, my Lord, that when a man goes out
without any remuneration, or any object, but to preach the
Gospel, often through fatigue, and cold, and wet, to those
wdth whom he cannot be supposed to have any personal tie,
and for whom he is not charged with personal accounta
bility ; it might afford a prima facie presumption to an un
prejudiced observer, that he would not willingly neglect
those to whom he Is bound by the strongest ties of
personal attachment and pastoral responsibility. But I
would ask, my Lord, when was such a charge made
against Ministers, who leave their parishes for a few days,
as they are often called to do, on occasions of business, or
on some matters of personal or family consideration, or
even of relaxation from the fatigues and exertions of their
professional duties ; or, even perhaps, on visits of amuse
ment ? If a Minister were absent on any such cause for a
Sunday from his parish when his place was fully supplied
by a brother Minister, would your Lordship consider it an

191
offence to be visited with a severe Episcopal rebuke ? And
if a Minister goes out for such a time, not on his own
business, but his Master's business — not from personal
considerations of his own temporal concerns, but from
anxiety for the everlasting Interests of his poor fellow-
creatures, who are sunk in darkness, and the shadow of
death — not for amusement or for relaxation, from the
labours of his profession, but to go through tenfold labour
and fatigue both of mind and body, I would humbly sub
mit to your Lordship, whether you can^ deliberately say
that this is an evil to be held forth and reprobated with the
severest censure of Episcopal denunciation — surely, we
may venture to ask — " Quis tandem me reprehendat aut
" quis me jure succenseat, si quantum caeterls ad suas res
" obeundas, quantum ad festos dies ludorum celebrandos,
" quantum ad alias voluptates et ad ipsam requiem animi et
" corporis conceditur temporis ; quantum alii tribuunt
" tempestivis convlviis, quantum denique alese^— quantum
" pilae — tantum mihi egomet ad hsec studia recolenda sump-
" sero?" — Cic. pro Arch.
With respect to the third charge, of " sowing the seeds
" of necessary disquiet and dissension among other Chris-
" tian people."
I must admit In the sense In which our blessed Lord says
that he " came not to give peace on earth, but rather division,"
that the preaching of his truth will often cause great offence
among those whose errors and superstitions are disturbed by
it, and for this very^ reason the popish Bishops, as before
quoted, accused the followers of Wickliffe of " going from
diocese to diocese," and " continuing and exercising their
" wicked preachings and doctrines from day to day to the
" hatred of right and reason, scattering around their
" heresies and errors with the tail of the black horse," &c.

192
This they attributed to the faithful preaching of the Gospel.
So that as far as some such Individuals may object to it, I
must admit that your Lordship is right. Still God will bless
His own Word In due time, and in His own way. Your
Lordship knows the Apostles themselves were called " pes
tilent fellows," and I am greatly afraid Paul would meet
with but a poor reception, if he were to come and preach
incog, in some parts of Ireland. As to the offence of the
Cross of Christ, God forbid we should shrink from it, but
as to any other evils or dissensions, resulting from Mis
sionary preaching, I must say, I feel satisfied your Lord
ship has been grievously misinformed, for I not only
cannot admit their necessity, but most strenuously deny
their existence.
I now come to the eleventh evil. It is as follows :
" Is it not an evil thus to cause the body of Christ to be
" even more and more divided — to propagate and multiply
" schism — and to assist in causing It to be regarded rather
" as a matter of indifference than as a prohibited and con-
" demned sin against God, and against the own souls of
" those who commit it?"
Now, since by this must be meant schism from the
Church of England, I would entreat your Lordship to
look through the pages of Ecclesiastical history, and to
look around at all the sects and denominations existing in
our own day, and consider when was it ever known that
the Ministers of any Church, by their zeal and their
labours caused schisms from their own body? On the
contrary, is it not an established fact, that the members of
every Church Increase in direct proportion to the labours
and zeal of Its Ministers — whence have arisen the vast
body of Wesleyan Methodists in England and Ireland ?
Whence the vast numbers of Calvinistic Methodists In

193
Wales? Has it not been from the very fact of their
preachers going on their Missionary circuits, and leading
by this means the people to unite with their body? I ven
ture to assert that it Is a rule without exception in the
history of every Church. And does your Lordship really
believe that that labour of Ministers which has encreased
the number of their flocks through all the history of Chris
tianity, Is now to be reversed, for the first time In the
world, by the Established Church Home Mission ; and
that the same cause, which, when operating in every other
instance, leads men to unite with every other body is, when
operating In the Established Church, to make them sepa
rate from ours ? I really must submit, my Lord, that the
very statement of the principle must carry conviction to
your Lordship's mind upon the subject.
The twelfth evil specified, is as follows :
" Is it not an evil that the outward decencies and so-
" lemnities of public worship are to be disregarded — that
" without any preference of consecrated over unholy
" ground, any place where it is possible to collect a congre-
" gation, is to be employed for their ministrations altogether
" independently of any lawful authority, to appropriate it
" and sanction its employment for the purpose ?"
I humbly trust, my Lord, that there Is not one engaged
in the work of the Home Mission who does not value the
public ordinances of our Church with sincere and faith
ful devotedness of heart. I trust there is not one who does
not prize and honor the principle, (however some refined
speculators in religion make light of it,) which consecrates
and sets apart a holy ground and holy place of worship for
the service of the Lord — for my part, I rejoice even to
think of it — a Church appears to me like an Oasis in the
wilderness — a spot reclaimed, as it were, from the dominion o

194
of the prince of darkness, and dedicated to its rightful
sovereign, the Lord of light and glory — here, at least, is a
sacred spot where the Word of life is statedly read aloud
in the earth — here is a sacred temple whose walls reeclio
the sound — " Thou art the King of glory, O Christ !" I
will go as far in this as ever your Lordship can desire.
But permit me to ask, my Lord, is it because our Church
has consecrated some few — alas ! too few, fair and hallowed
shrines, for the service of her God, that therefore all the
rest of the world is to be abandoned to the domination of
the devil ? Is Satan to rule Lord paramount in every other
spot on earth, and say to the Ministers of Christ, you shall
not dare to do jrour Master's service here? Now, God
forbid, my Lord, that we should ever give him such a tri
umph. Are we not Ministers of Him who "came to seek,"
as well as " to save those that are lost," — and when we live
in the midst of millions, who because those very spots are
dedicated to our God, will fly them as infected places;
"shall Satan wave his wand over the land, and tell us we
shall never quit those bounds, to proclaim salvation to their
souls ? Surely this were to make our Churches not tem
ples, but prisons, for the Word of our Lord, not beacons
set upon a hill, but dungeons In which we were to confine
and extinguish the light of truth.
If all would come to our Churches, and our Churches
would contain them all — then blessed were our Churches —
blessed our Ministry — blessed our religion — and blessed
our Country. But If we know that millions never will
come near the Church, are we to be like the old Bibles,
chained to the desk, that we cannot stir to go and proclaim
salvation to their souls ? Surely, my Lord, it is the most
dutiful and respectful consideration of your Lordship's ob
jection to suppose that you took a view but of one position

195
of the subject, and forgot the circumstances, the necessi
ties — the dangers — the desolation both of the Church
and country. How, my Lord, are ever men to be brought
to the Church If we do not labour to go and bring them
there ? Surely if the Apostles had proceeded on such a
plan, the world had been sunk in Pagan darkness to this
hour. Is a man to go to a heathen land to preach the
Gospel, and if he collects a Church and consecrates a place
of worship, is all the rest of the population to be consigned
to death if they will not come to that place of worship,
where they are not only ignorant of, but opposed to the
God that is worshipped there? Surely, my Lord, that
single passage Is one inspired climax of confutation of such
a principle, " How can they call on him whom ttiey have not
" believed ? and how can they believe on him of whom they have
" not heard ? how can they hear without a preacher — aiid
" how can they preach except they be sent f And O, alas !
alas !! alas !!! my Lord Bishop, what becomes of the case If
those that ought to send, should rather hinder men from
SToInar !!!!
We may feel it necessary to preach in Court-houses, or in
Market-houses, or in School-houses, or other public places.
It is true, my Lord, the court of justice is not consecra
ted — neither was the judgment-seat of Felix — nor the
tribunal of Agrippa? Yet there the Roman governor
was made to tremble as the Apostle " reasoned of righteous
ness, temperance, and judgment to come" — there the Jewish
Monarch was " almost persuaded to be a Christian." The
market place at Athens, was not consecrated — yet there
did that apostle hold forth the word of life, near the spot
where the folly of Grecian philosophy had erected its
Parthenon to the idol goddess of wisdom, and where its
ignorance had erected a temple " to the unknown God."

196
The school of Tyrannus was not consecrated^yet there
did that Apostle dispute and convince the galnsayers, and
preach for two whole years, till " all they which dwelt in
" Asia, heard the word of the Lord Jesus." What is the
conclusion, my Lord? It is this — that give all the
weight we please to Churches and to the consecration of
them, common sense must dictate that If the religion taught
in those Churches is worthy of propagation among men —
if it is essential even to their temporal happiness, much
less to their eternal salvation — since the ministers of Christ
cannot bring the Churches to the people, it iS their duty to
try to bring the people to the Churches. The voice of
true religion must proclaim that every spot on earth Is
hallowed where the Minister of Christ stands up to plead
with his fellow sinners, to turn them from their evil ways,
and to proclaim to them the justice, the mercy, the great
salvation of their God.
The next of those evils enumerated by your Lordship
requires a more detailed answer than any of the preceding ;
it Is as follows :
" Is It not an evil that prayer, the great business of
" religious assemblies, should be discountenanced, and that
" the formularies of public worship should be mutilated or
" abandoned, in defiance of the law which enacts and
" makes obligatory upon the conscience of every minister
" of the Church, ' That at all and every time and times,
" when any sermon or lecture is to be preached, the com-
" moil prayers and service in and by the book of Common
*' Prayer appointed to be read for that time of the day,
" shall be openly, publicly, and solemnly read, by some
" Priest qr Deacon in the Church, Chapel, or place of
" public worship, where the said sermon or lecture is to

197
" be preached, and the lecturer then to preach shall be
" present at the reading thereof?' "
This contains two specific and weighty charges against
all who are engaged In the home mission.
First, that they violate the law of the land, the act of
uniformity. Second, that In doing so, they violate that which is obli
gatory on their conscience.
I will not attempt to expostulate with your Lordship, on
the charge which you imply against the Clergy of doing an
act " in defiance of the laio," which even if the objection
be sound, it were but kind and charitable to presume they
did in ignorance of the law. I am sure It is only necessary
to mark it as one of those inadvertencies,
" Quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura,"
than to admit for a moment that It was an intentional impli
cation. I shall, therefore, pass from It to consider the ob
jection itself, which requires a full examination of the letter
and spirit of the lavi', and I must therefore trespass on your
Lordship to consider the acts of uniformity.
The first act of uniformity passed in reference to our
public worship was in the 2d and 3d Ed. VI. — The Liturgy
was revised after this, and was established in Its revised
form, by a second act of uniformity, in the 5th and 6th of
Edward VI. This act was repealed by 1st Queen Mary,
and her act again repealed by 1st and 2d Elizabeth.
Now the acts of uniformity 2d Elizabeth, and 17th
and 18th Char. II. are those which are now the law of
the land for Ireland. I might dwell exclusively on the
last, which is that from which your Lordship makes your
extract — but there is one important reason, for which I
revert to the former ; because it is confirmed by the latter,

198
and is still the law of the land ; and also to show the opinions
and practice of the highest authorities of the Church in
reference to it.
And here I would request your Lordship's attention
to the explicit wording of that act. The English statute,
Ist Eliz. and the Irish statute, 2d Eliz. are almost verbatim
the same, but I quote the English statute merely, as that
under which the Bishops and Clergy acted as I shall
specify. The preamble having stated the law as it stood In the
time of Edw. VI. and the repeal of that law by Mary,
it Is then enacted that that statute of repeal be annulled
in the second Section ; in the third and fourth Sections
it is enacted —
" III. That all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral or
" Parish Church or other place within this realm of England,
" Wales, and the marches of the same, or other the Queen's
" dominions, shall from and after the Feast of the Nativity
" of St. John the Baptist next coming, be bound to use the
" Mattins, Even Song, celebration of the Lord's Supper,
" and administration of each of the Sacraments, and
" all their common and open prayer, in such order and
"form as is mentioned in the said book, as authorized by Par-
" liament in the said fifth and sixth years of the reign of
" King Edward the Sixth."
" IV. And that if any manner of Parson, Vicar, or other
" Christian Minister, that ought or should sing or say Com-
" mon Prayer mentioned in the said book, or minister the
" sacraments from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St.
" John the Baptist, next coming, refuse to use the saidCom-
" mon Prayer, or to minister the Sacraments in such Cathe-
" dral or Parish Church, or other places, as he should use to
" minister the same in such order and form as thev be men-

199
" tioned and set forth in the said book ; or shall, wilfully or
" obstinately standing in the same, use any other rite, cere-
" mony, order, form, or manner of celebrating the Lord's
" Supper openly or privily, or Mattins, Even Song, adminis-
" tration of the sacraments, or other open prayers, than is
" mentioned and set forth in the said book, (open prayer, in
" and throughout this act, is meant that prayer which is for
" others to come unto, or hear, either in common Churches,
" or private Chapels or Oratories,commonly called the service
" of the Church,) or shall preach, declare, or speak any-
" thing in derogation, or depraving of the said book, or any-
" thing therein contained, or of any part thereof, and shall
" be thereof lawfully convicted," &c. &c. It then enacts the
penalty of loss of one year's profit of promotion, and si.K
months' imprisonment ; and, in the fifteenth section of this
act, the strict execution of it is laid upon the Prelates.
" XV. And for due execution hereof, the Queen's most
" excellent Majesty, the Lords Temporal, and all the
" Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, do, in
" God's name, earnestly require and charge all the Arcli-
" bishops. Bishops, and other Ordinaries, that they shall
" endeavour themselves, to the uttermost of their know-
" ledge, that the due and true execution hereof, may be
" had throughout their Dioceses and charges, as they will
" answer before God," &c. &c.
Now, let me call your Lordship's attention to these facts.
First, you perceive, that this act was passed by the Lords
Temporal, and the Commons, for all the Bishops, who at
this time were Popish, dissented from the bill, D'Eices p.
28, Gibson, Cod. 305 ; so that though the law laid the
execution of it on them, yet it was sore against their will,
and, we may suppose, as far as depended on them, rather
slightly regarded.

200
Now, as your Lordship has not quoted this act, I do not
presume to calculate what construction you would put on
it; but It appears quite as direct and explicit to the point,
as that which you have cited. Yet it is perfectly clear,
that It never was intended, nor ever considered as intended,
to lay any restriction on Protestant Ministers, as to the
use of the Liturgy, except this, which all must readily
allow, viz. that in all times of that which the act calls
"open prayer" which it defines, both as to its nature and
its place, to be — " that prayer which is open for others to
" come unto, in common churches, private chapels or oratories,
"COMMONLY CALLED THE SERVICE OF
" THE CHURCH"— that In all such times and places,
as the public service of the Church was to be used for public
worship, as on Sunday.s, holydays, or other fixed occasions,
that, then, if any Minister that " ought or should sing or
say, common prayer mentioned in said book" — should refuse
to use the said common prayer, or to minister the Sacraments,
in such Cathedral, or Parish Church, or other places, as lie
should use to minister the same, in such order and form as
they be mentioned, and set forth, in the said book, or shall,
wilfully and obstinately standing in the same, use any other
rite," &fc. 8fc. then, and so forth.
Now, my Lord, on the face of this act it clearly appears
that the object and intent of the legislature was this, to
banish the use of the Popish masses, ceremonies, and super
stitions, in the public worship of the Church, and that the
Liturgy of the Common Prayerbook should be used In its
place, and that. If In any appointed time or place of public
worship, where Ministers ought to use this Liturgy, they
refused to do so, or substituted any other rite or form for
it, in that time and place, there they violated the statute ;
as, for example, if a Minister, instead of using the Liturgy

201
when he ought to use It, celebrated the mass, there he
violated the statute. But, on the contrary, if any Protes
tant Bishop or Minister, who used the Liturgy on all
appointed times, chose to go into any place not a place of
public worship, at any time, or into a Church or place of
public worship, on any day not appointed to be kept holy,
nor where Divine Service was to be celebrated, nor where the
Liturgy was appointed to be used — If, I say, he went there
to preach or expound the Scriptures, on any extraordinary
occasion, where he did not attempt to substitute any other
form for that prescribed In the prayer-book, to the con
tempt or neglect of the prescribed form of public worship,
and that he there chose to use either any part or collects
from the Liturgy or other prayer, before his sermon or
lecture — there, I contend for it, my Lord, that Bishop or
Minister would not violate this act of uniformity, either in
the letter or the spirit, for the statute of uniformity was
enacted only for this, that the appointed stated public services
should all be uniform — but It never was Intended to ordain
that no Minister, at any time not appointed for public
service, might not use any other prayer to God when at all
appointed times, he used the Liturgy. I think I shall
establish the true construction and nature of the violation
of this statute, on high authority.
Gibson informs us that, " in an action upon this statute
" brought against a Popish priest, 3d Elizabeth, for saying
" of mass. It was held by the whole court, that he was
" within the purview of this statute, it appearing clearly by
" the Ath section, that the design of the Parliament was to
" abolish the superstitious service, and to establish the new
" service in its place." — Gibson, p. 306.
We have here, my Lord, a court of justice sitting at
the very day — the very year after the statute was enacted.

202
interpreting the act of parliament, and giving their judg
ment as to the Intention of the act, and what was to be
judged a violation of It. I shall now submit to your Lord
ship a proof no less demonstrative, as to what was not a
violation of it ; and that is — the opinion and practice of all
the pious Bishops and Clergy of England, at a time when
their vigilance and jealousy of Popery and Popish Innova
tion was at Its height, and the public observances of the
act most strictly enforced. And your Lordship will re
member that the act laid It especially on the Bishops to see
it observed in their Dioceses. These Bishops were now
Protestants, and, therefore. It Is not within the limits of
possibility that the pious Protestant Bishops who were
most bound to Its observance, and most Interested in main
taining it, could have openly and continually violated it;
yet, if your Lordship's opinion be correct, they were
guilty of much more flagrant violations of it, than the
Home Mission.
My proof is taken from the fact already adverted to, of
the mode of preaching set up by Archbishop Grindal, in
which he was joined, as we have seen, by the Bishops of
London, Winchester, Bath, Lichfleld, Gloucester, Lincoln,
Chester, Exeter, and St. David's, who, in the system of
occasional or Missionary preaching, which they set up In
all the Churches in their Dioceses, never once used the
Liturgy — but not only did their clergy exceed the Home
Mission, In that which Is complained of as so unlawful, by
preaching not one but several sermons at the Same
time and place, but they were guilty of that which is so
strongly charged against us as a breach of the act of uni
formity, that they never used more than a prayer at the
beginning of their sermons, which I know not if it were

203
taken from the Liturgy or not, and they closed with a prayer
which was taken from the Liturgy.
Archbishop Grindal does not state that they even com
menced with a prayer — he thus describes the mode of
preaching in his letter to the Queen — which, as it is more
Immediately apposite to this part of the subject, I have
omitted in my former extracts from his letter — he says :
" The authors of this exercise are the Bishops of the
" diocese where the same Is used, who by the law of God,
"and the Canons and constitutions of the Church, now
" in force, have authority to appoint exercises to their infe-
" rior Ministers, for their increase of learning and know-
" ledge in the Scriptures, as to them seemeth most
" expedient, for that pertaineth ad disciplinam clericalem —
" the time appointed for the exercise, is once in a month, or
" once in twenty or fifteen days, at the discretion of the
" Ordinary. The time of this exercise is two hours — the
"place, the Church of the  ¦ appointed for the
" assembly — the matter entreated of is as followeth. Some
"text of Scripture before appointed to be spoken is
"interpreted in this order. First, the occasion of the
" place is showed. Secondly, the end. Thirdly, the pro-
" per sense of the place. Fourthly, the property of the
" words, and those that be learned in the tongues showing
" the diversity of Interpretation. Fifthly, where the
"like phrases are used in Scripture. Sixthly, places of
" Scripture that seem to repugn are reconciled. Seventhly,
" the arguments of the text are opened. Eighthly, It is
" declared what virtues and vices are therein couched, and
" to which of the commandments they do appertain.
" Ninthly, how the like hath been wrested by the adversary,
" if occasion so require. Tenthly, and lastly, what doc-
" trine of faith and manners the said text doth contain. The

204
*' conclusion is with a prayer for your Majesty and all
"estates, as is appointed by the book of Common Prayer,
" and a Psalm." — Grindal's Letter to the Queen.
Fuller's description of it is this :
" 1. The Ministers of the same precinct by their own
" appointment, (not strictly standing on the old division of
" deaneries,) met at the principal place therein. 2. The ju-
" nlor divine went first into the pulpit, and for half an hour,
" more or less, (as he could with clearness contract his
"meditations,) treated upon a portion of Scripture, for-
" merly, by a joint agreement, assigned unto him; after
" him four or five more, observing their seniority, succes-
" sively dilated on the same text. 3. At last a grave
" divine, appointed on purpose, as father of the act made
" the closing sermon somewhat larger than the rest,
"praising the pains and performance of such who best
" deserved it, meekly and mildly reproving the mistakes
" and fallings of such of those, if any were found in their
" sermons. Then all was ended, as it was begun, with a
" solemn prayer, and at a public refection of those
" Ministers, together, (with many of the gentry repairing
"unto them,) the next time of their meeting was appoint-
" ed — text assigned — preachers deputed — a new mode-
" rator elected, or the old one continued — and so all were
« dissolved."— Fuller, B. 9, pp. 122, 123.
Now, my Lord, here at this public preaching in the
Churches through the province of Canterbury, with the
Archbishop and Bishops at its head — while it Is perfectly
plain, that not even morning or evening prayer were ever
used, no one ever accused, either Bishops or Clergy, of
violating the act of uniformity. Fuller enumerates all the
objections that were urged against it, but there was not a
hint that any one pretended to say it violated the act of

205
uniformity. The Queen was, as before stated, through
the intrigues of Leicester, greatly prejudiced and incensed
against the Archbishop on account of it, yet she never
attempted to accuse him of violating that statute — nor was
there one word In his letter of an intimation, that such a
crime had been imputed to him, or to any engaged In it,
nor an attempt to vindicate himself on that head. Why,
my Lord ? Because It was clear as the sun — clear to all
the Bishops and Clergy — clear, as we have seen, by the
decision of the courts of justice at the time — clear by
the very letter and spirit of the act itself; that the object
and end of the act of uniformity, was merely this, to pro
vide, that at all appointed times and places of public
worship the Liturgy was the only service to be used, and
that he who at such times, dared to refuse to use It, to alter
it, or to substitute any other, was a violater of the law,
and to be punished accordingly. But all voluntary or
extraordinary occasions in which public service was not
appointed to be used, were never contemplated within its
provisions, and the Clergy were at perfect liberty to use
their own discretion either In the Churches, or any other
place where they might choose to use religious exercises.
I therefore, my Lord, most respectfully, but confidently
assert — that not only on the face of that statute, but on the
decision of the courts of justice, as to what was a violation
of it, and the practice of the whole Church and its highest
authorities, and the admission of the Queen of England as
to what was not a violation of It, we stand perfectly clear
of a shadow of imputation, as far as the act of uniformity
of Elizabeth is concerned ; for be it specially remembered
that the English act and the Irish act, are in these provi
sions verbatim the same, and practices which did not violate

206
the English statute in England, cannot pai'i ratione, violate
the Irish statute in Ireland.
But your Lordship has not quoted this, but you have
cited the 17th and 18th Char. II. as that which we violate,
but I hope to establish our innocence on even higher
authority than that, by which we must be acquitted under
the statute of Elizabeth — though I confess, that to one who
has not closely examined it, the clause of the act which
your Lordship quotes seems to give a colour to the charge
you ground on it.
But as I feel confident that your Lordship would not
desire, on a forced construction of an act of Parliament, to
found such a charge as you have made against so many of
the Clergy ; but that your Lordship is fully convinced that
you are warranted to do so, by the fair meaning of the
statute ; I therefore request your Lordship's attention the
more closely to it, and I shall undertake to demonstrate,
that we neither violate the letter nor the spirit of the act;
and I shall prove that we stand perfectly acquitted from the
charge, on the highest authority we have In Statute and
Canon law.
There is no principle more clearly established by lawyers
in the interpretation of any act of -Parliament,, than this,
that the best guide to the interpretation of a statute, is the
discovery of the end and object of the legislature in its
enactment, and that hence the extent and limitation of its
provisions and terms are to be best discovered and defined.
This is generally expressed in the preamble of the act
itself, and on this head the preamble to this act is very
satisfactory. The statute in England Is the 13th and 14th Charles II,
c. 4. That in Ireland is the 17th and 18th Charles the
Second, c. 6.

207
Now to ascertain the object of the legislature in this act,
w-e must look not only to the preamble of the Irish act, but
to that of the English act, which is a sort of little epitome
of the history of the times. But before I quote either the
preamble or the provisions of the statute, it will be the
shortest mode of stating my argument, to lay down what
the principle and object of the act was.
I say then, flrst, it was precisely the same with that of
the act of Elizabeth, viz. to establish in the public service
of the Church a uniformity of worship, so that in all times
appointed by the Church for the public worship of God in the
congregation, this Liturgy prescribed by the book of Common
Prayer should be used, and none other ; and that therefore,
the individual who, in any Church, or at any such time, or
place so appointed, should refuse to use the Liturgy, or
alter It by additions or diminution ; or substitute, either in
contempt or neglect of it, any other form of prayer, either
in public worship, or the administration of the sacraments,
that man would be guilty of a violation of the letter and
spirit of those acts, which are to regulate the conduct of
Ministers In their respective Benefices and Churches as to
the public worship of God.
I say, secondly, that whereas in the time of the act of
Elizabeth, the object of the legislature was to banish the
service of the mass, and the superstitious ceremonies of
popery from the Churche-s, and to substitute for them the
Liturgy; there was another and additional evil to be
guarded against by the statute of Charles, namely, that of
the nonconforming Ministers, who had refused to use the
Liturgy, so that it had fallen not only into disuse, but into
disrepute, during the time of the commonwealth. Against
these, more than against popery, the provisions of this
act were directed, as indeed the result of it proved, which

208
was to eject, as was stated, nearly two thousand from their
benefices.* It Is most important to keep this in view, as
it affords the true key to the very clause which your Lord
ship cites. For many of these nonconformists would have
continued to hold their benefices, and to preach in the
Church, If they had been excused from using the Liturgy.
This would not be allowed, and therefore the very clause
your Lordship quotes, was enacted to prevent this — pray,
my Lord, mark this point, so fully stated by Burnet in his
history of his own times — he says :
" There was a great debate in council a little before St.
" Bartholomew's day," (which was the day the act was to
take effect,) "whether the act of uniformity should be
"punctually executed or not; some moved to have the
" execution of it delayed to the next seSsion of Parliament.
" Others were for executing it in the main, but to connive
" at some eminent men, and to put Curates into their Churches

* While every friend to sound principles of ecclesiastical order
and government, must acknowledge, not qnly the propriety, but
the necessity of maintaining the uniformity of public worship — no man
who truly loves either the principles or well-being of the Church of
England, can fail to regret the want of true Christian wisdom and mutual
forbearance, whioh precluded all accommodation between the Bishops
and Clergy, who adhered to the Church, and the Non-conformists,
who separated from it, of whom some then, and ever since, even as
Dissenters have been held in the highest honor by all men of true
religion — though I do not agree with all their sentiments in divine
truth, much less on Church government, I pity the man who can re
collect without a sigh, the loss of such men as Calamy and Baxter,
who even then were held in such estimation as to be offered the
Bishoprics of Lichfield and Hereford. The extent of that schism
is felt to this day in England ; and what then was conscientious dissent
of religious men, has, I fear, in most instances, degenerated into a mere
hostility to the Church ; derived not from principle, but from the
mere prejudices of education. The Dissenters, by their recent conduct,
give too much room for the remark.

209
" to read and officiate aecord'mg to the Common Prayer, but
" leave them to preach on till they should die out." — Burnet's
Hist, own Times, VoL II. p. 191.
This would not be complied with — no concession of the
kind would be permitted — they were never to be allowed to
hold a benefice without reading their assent and consent;
they were to be obliged to read the Liturgy publicly ; and
on all times of public worship, when sermons were to be
preached, the public form of prayer was to be used, and
none other.
Premising these facts, I now proceed to consider the
words of the Act Itself.
The preamble to the English Act recites, that a book of
Common Prayer was established, 1 Eliz. c. 2 ; that this
was to the great comfort and benefit of all good Christians,
but that a great number of people refuse to come to their
parish Churches — and it proceeds :
" And whereas by the- great and scandalous neglect of
" Ministers In using the said order or Liturgy, so set forth
" and enjoined as aforesaid, great mischiefs and Inconve-
" niences during the time of the late unhappy troubles,
" have arisen and grown, and many people have been led
" into factions and schisms, to the great decay and scandal
" of the reformed religion of the Church of England,
" and to the hazard of many souls ; for prevention whereof
" in time to come, for settling the peace of the Church, and
"'for allaying ihe present distempers, which the indisposition
" of the time hath contracted ; the King's Majesty," &c. then
it proceeds, that " His Majesty granted his commission, first
to the Bishops, and then to the Convocations, to review the
Common Prayer"- — " which has been accordingly thus
reviewed and presented to the King" — " and been by him
approved, and allowed to be used" — " under such
IP

210
penaltKS as the Parliament shall think fit." — 13th and 14th
Car. II. c. 4. See Gibson's Codex, p. 314, and Burn's
Eccles. Law, Vol. III. pp. 230, 231.
This is the 1st section and part of the preamble of the
English Act. The second section is the preamble of the
Irish Act; and I shall quote now from the Irish Statute,
17th and 18th Car. II, which continues throughout, mutatis
mutandis, a copy of the English Act.
This preamble of the Irish Act then commences with
stating* the " peace and advancement of religion, by the
universal agreement in the public worship of God" —
" Both houses of convocation to whom It was recommended
"to consider, whether the same form used In England,
"might not be profitably received in Ireland, approved
" thereof, and presented to the Lord Lieutenant and
" Council the book of Common Prayer." It then pro
ceeds —
" Therefore to the intent that the greatly desirable work of
" uniformity in divine worship may be obtained, and that
" every person loithin this, your Majesty's realm of Ireland,
" may certainly know the rule to which he is to conform in
"public worship and administration of the Sacraments, and
" other rites and ceremonies of the Church in Ireland," &c.
Here now the intent of the act is given to us — which is
two-fold. First, that divine worship may be uniform, so
that no two or more forms shall be observed In any different
places. Secondly, that all men may know the rule to which
they ought to conform.
The section then' proceeds to the enactment, which is :
" That all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral, Col-
* The abridgments of the statute which I mark with inverted
commas, I take throughout from the marginal abridgments in the act
itself

211
" legiate or Parish Church, or Chapel, or other place of
"public worship within this realm of Ireland, shall be bound
" to say and use the Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, celebra-
" tion and administration of both the Sacraments, and all
" other the public and common Prayer in such order and form
" as is mentioned in the said book ;" ****** " and
" that the Morning and Evening Prayers therein contained
" shall upon every Lord's day, and upon all other days
" and occasions, and at the times therein appointed, be
" openly and solemnly read, by all and every Minister or
" Curate, in every Church, Chapel, or other place of
" public worship within this, his Majesty's realm of
" Ireland." Now on this, my Lord, it Is clear that three things are
to be observed.
First, the persons to whom the Act relates.
Second, the thing the Act commands to be done.
Third, the time and place where this is to be performed.
First, as to the persons :
It relates to the Ministers in, or belonging to, every
Cathedral, Collegiate, or parish Church, or Chapel, or
other place of public worship ; such as Chapels of Ease,
endowed Chapels annexed to hospitals, penitentiaries, etc.
in short, all places of public worship connected with the
Established Church ; it relates to all Ministers whatsoever,
belonging to these, as officiating Ministers in them ; whe
ther Rectors, Vicars, Curates or Chaplains, and It extends
to them In their respective official capacities, In these their
respective stations.
Secondly, as to the thing commanded to be done that
Is, that they shall say and use the Morning and Evening
Prayer, celebration and administration of the Sacraments,
according to the form of the book of Common Prayer.

212
Thirdly, as to the time and place, when this Is to be
done. That Is, as to the place ; in " every Church, Chapel,
or other place of public worship ;" as to the time ; " on every
Lord's day, and upon all other days and occasions, and at
the times therein appointed."
Now as to the persons whom this Act affects, and the
thing commanded to be done, there can be no doubt; but it
is on the place where, and the time when. It Is commanded-
to be done, that the question rests — and I submit, my Lord,
that it Is as clear as words can make It, that in the first
place, it reaches only to " Churches, Chapels, or places of
public worship," which places of public worship are defined
in the next two sections, to be the " the place of public wor
ship annexed to the benefice or promotion," oi the Minister ;
so that this Act has no reference whatsoever, to any place
that is not a " Church, Chapel, or place of public worship."
The Minister is commanded what he is to do in that " Church,
Chapel, or place of public worship," but he is totally un
fettered by this Act in any other place — school-house, mar
ket-house, court-house, or the wide world. If he chooses
to preach upon the mountain top, or pray there, he may
do so, and this Act lays no fetter on his liberty, or his con
science ; nor If he goes to preach in a popish chapel, or a
meeting-house of any body of Dissenters, this Act does
not affect him, for it neither specifies or recognizes any
such place, as a place of public worship ; the worship In
such places is not recognized by the Act as worship, nor
Is the place recognized as a place of worship, for It Is not
annexed to any benefice. So that, by this Act, either the
parochial Ministers, to whom this part of the Act especially
pertains, or other Ministers, who may go out of their own
parish on a mission, are at perfect liberty, (provided
they faithfully adhere to this Act In their respective Churches,

213
or places of worship, annexed to their benefices,) to appoint
what religious exercises they may judge best for the edifi
cation of their own flocks, or the conversion, or instruction
of any other people, in whatever place they may consider
fittest, provided they violate no other law — but we are now
speaking of this Act alone.
This is a most important point in this country, for I have
often heard reflections cast on Ministers, as If they were
acting illegally and improperly, because when, either for
the convenience of their parishioners, who perhaps might
live at a distance from the Church, as they often live several
miles In Ireland — or, perhaps, when they could not light
or heat their Churches in the winter evenings — or when
they might judge it profitable to adopt the familiarity of
conversational or catechetical instruction-^or where they
might have many, perhaps, to come and attend their
ministry, whom prejudice might prevent from coming to
the Church ; they have gone to lecture, or read the Scrip
tures, or hold prayer meetings, in their school-houses or
other convenient places — now I can only say, that this Act
leaves them totally unfettered as to such religious exercises,
provided it does not interfere In any respect with the dis
charge of that duty which the Act enjoins — the Act is posi
tive as to its provisions for the uniformity of public service
In the Church, but further than that, it does not interfere
with the liberty or discretion of the Minister.
[' Now with respect to the places to which the Act does
refer, namely, "Churches, Chapels, or other places of
public worship" — the Act only goes to a certain point on this
head, for It specifies the time as well as the place ; and
It commands that the Morning and Evening Prayers con
tained in the Prayer-book shall be read in these places at
certain times ; namely, " on the Lord's day, and on all

214
other days and occasions, and at the times therein appointed ;"
that Is, on all Sundays and all holydays, and times
which the Prayer-book Itself specifies and commands ; then
on these times, the service of the Church Ls to be used, at
all times of public and "open prayer," as the Act of Elizabeth
calls it, which is by this Act confirmed and continued; that
is, at all times when the Church is opened for Church ser
vice — then, at all such times this service, and none other, is
to be used. But the Act having provided for this, does not
lay any restriction on the employment of the Church for
any other religious purpose; and provided that on all
Sundays, and days appointed in the Prayer-book to be
kept holy, this service, and only this is used, so as to the
full intent and meaning of the Act to provide for the uniform
observance of the appointed public worship at the appointed
times ; this Act does not interfere with the discretion either
of the Bishops or Ministers to open their Cathedrals or
Churches for any extraordinary purpose, which is not con
trary to, or inconsistent with, any command In the Prayer-
book ; and which therefore does not come within the intents
or provisions of this Act, so that If they choose to appoint
In their Church any such religious exercise, which Is not In
opposition to, or in contempt of, or neglect of the public
form of worship, at any time not appointed by the Prayer-
book or other canonical authority for the use of that form
of worship ; they are left by this Act at perfect liberty to do
so, as I shall establish hereafter, on most unquestionable
legal authority. It will perhaps help to shew the proper
construction of the Act, if I suppose, some cases of violation
and non-violation of It.
It is unnecessary to say, that on either the Lord's day or
any holyday appointed by the Prayerbook, the Minister is
bound by this Act, when public service is held in the

215
Church, to use the established form ; and that if he omits,
alters, substitutes any other form, or adds to the Li
turgy, he violates the letter and spirit of the Act.
Again, if any stated day is appointed, either by a Bi
shop in his Diocese, or by a Clergyman in his own parish^
for public worship ; as for instance, if he gives notice, that
divine service will be held on such a day In the week, du
ring Lent, though not appointed by the Prayer-book, he is
equally bound to use the Liturgy, for he appoints a day of
" open prayer," for the "service of the Church;" he invites
the congregation to assemble for tlie worship of God ; and
therefore. when he does so, he is bound by this Act to use
the Form set forth for that purpose.
Again, if the Parish Church were out of repair, and
could not be used ; and that a school-house or any other
place were used pro tempore for the public worship of God,
the Minister would there be bound to use the Liturgy;
for that place would be to all intents and purposes, the place
of worship for the time then being, annexed to his benefice ;
it would be the only place where his parishioners had to
assemble for public worship, without which they must be
deprived of it, and there by the spirit of this Act, I should
think him bound to use the Liturgy, as If he were to
officiate in the Church.
If, on the contrary, the service for the times appointed
In the Prayer-book, or by the Ordinarjr, for public wor
ship, being duly performed In the Church, the Minister
chooses to hold any religious meeting he pleases, for read
ing and expounding the Scriptures, or examining those
who have read, in the Scriptures, or for social prayer, or
catechetical instruction, he may hold such meeting in any
convenient place, and he Is not bound on such occasions to
use the Liturgy, if he does not please to do so ; because it

216
is neither the Lord's day, nor any of the " other days, occa
sions, or times," appointed In the Prayer-book, and therefore
not coming within the letter or spirit of the Act; it is nei
ther held as a substitute for, nor to the neglect, contempt, or
depravation of, the public form of prayer.
Again, if the Ordinary or the Clergyman chooses to have
a sermon preached in his Church, not to the neglect or dis
regard of, or as a substitute for, the ordinary public worship
of God — but as an extraordinary act, for — perhaps the
Popish controversy, or the Socinian controversy, or for the
preaching of the Gospel, to all persons who will come
and hear; as for example. Archbishop Grindal, and the
English Bishops and Clergy did, under the Act of Unifor
mity in Queen Elizabeth's time, which was fully as ex
plicit as this Act on this head, he is there at perfect liberty
to use the Church for this purpose — and he is not bound
by this Act to use the Liturgy in the Church ; he may
preach and use a Collect or Prayer at his discretion : for it
Is neither one of the "days, times, or occasions," appointed in
the Prayer-book, and therefore, not within the provisions
of this Act, nor is it set up as a substitute for the service of
the Church, nor for public worship ; but a religious exer
cise held by the Minister, which is not either forbidden
or contemplated, by this Act; and therefore, a matter of
pure discretionary power, with either the Ordinary, if he
ehooses to direct It, or with the Minister, If he chooses
voluntarily to perform It, or to permit another properly
authorized, to do so.
We now proceed with the Act — the 2d section then
enacts, that all Ministers enjoying ecclesiastical benefices
or promotions, shall themselves, before a certain given day,
which was two years from the date of the Act, openly,
publicly, and solemnly read, the Morning and Evening

217
Prayer, " in the Church, Chapel, or place of public worship,
" belonging to his benefice," — " according to the book of
" Common Prayer, and at the times thereby appointed,"
and that he should also declare, before the congregation,
his assent, and consent, to all things contained therein,
and this on pain of privation. The 3d section provides,
that all persons thereafter promoted, shall do the same.
The 4th that " Incumbent residing and keeping a
Curate, shall once at least every month, openly read the
service, and If necessary, administer the rites."
The 5th prescribes a declaration against the lawfulness of
taking arms on any pretence against the King, and also
a declaration against the solemn League and Covenant to
be subscribed by all Deans and Dignitaries, heads of Col
leges, and all persons in holy orders — all Schoolmasters,
Tutors, &c. &c. This Is only necessary to be quoted as
tending to show the object of the Parliament, and what
they were endeavouring to guard against. The intervening
sections do not in any wise relate to this subject, till we
come to the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th. The 16th is
that which your Lordship quotes as if it were decisive on
the subject of the Home Mission, and in defiance of which
you say they act ; it is — ¦
" That at all and every time and times, when any ser-
" mon or lecture Is to be preached, the common prayers
" and service in and by the said book appointed, to be read
" for that time of the day, shall be openly, publicly, and
" solemnly read, by some Priest, or Deacon, In the Church,
" Chapel, or place of public worship, where the said ser-
" mon or lecture is to be preached, before such lecture or
" sermon be preached, and that the lecturer then to preach,
" shall be present at the reading thereof."
Now there are two points to be answered on this. And

218
first, I would observe, my Lord, that if a Minister on the
Home Mission, does not preach in the Church, but in some
other public place, he Is clearly excluded from all appli
cation of this clause, for the section particularly specifies
" in the Church, Chapel, or place of public worship,"— r
which latter place, is defined in the preceding 2d and 3d
sections, to mean a "place of public worship belonging to a
" benefice or promotion ;" clearly excluding all those places
that are not so belonging, and that really are not, and can
not be called places of public worship ; as I know not by
what constraint of language, a school-house, or a market-
house, or such place, could be so called.
Secondly, I submit, that though a Minister on the Home
Mission, does preach in Church or Chapel, and does not
on such an occasion use the Liturgy, he does not come
within the contemplation or meaning of the Act, of which
a close examination of its principles will convince your
Lordship. If your Lordship considers the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th,
and 17tli sections, they are to be considered as in connexion
with each other, as all relating to the same thing ; you will
perceive the Intent and meaning of the clause in question.
The Act down to the end of the 12th section, relates entirely
to beneficed Clergy, Dignitaries, Rectors, Vicars, and Cu
rates of the Church; and all the provisions concerning
them, are made in those sections, nor are they mentioned
again from the 1 '2th section to the end of the Statute.
The 13th section commences enactments with respect to
another class of Ministers, about whom in reference to the
Liturgy, there is no enactment, in any part of the prece
ding sections, namely. Lecturers. These were a body of
the Clergy, looked on with a jealous eye by the govern
ment; your Lordship will recollect, how King James

219
mentions them in his directions concerning Preachers to
the Bishops, quoted already, p. 105 ; he calls them " a new
" body, severed from the ancient Clergy, as being neither
" Parsons, Vicars, nor Curates."
You recollect King James would not permit the Bishops
to license them, but only to recommend them for a license
in the court of Faculties, " with a flat from the Archbishop
" of Canterbury, and a conflrmation under the great seal of
" England." The reason of this jealousy appears to have been this ;
that they were not appointed by the Bishops or Govern
ment, " but generally chosen by the vestry, or chief Inlia-
" bitants of the parish, and were usually the afternoon
" preachers." " The Bishop's power was only to judge as
" to the qualification and fitness of the person, and not as
" to the right of the lectureship." Burn. Eccles. law, Vol.
'2, p. 357. Therefore, though they must be licensed by
the Bishop or higher authority, they were not appointed
by him. It seems, therefore, to have been their mode of
appointment that made them regarded in a suspicious light;
and especially, because, as we have seen, the Liturgy having
become so unpopular during the Commonwealth, and their
part, being not to read the service, but to preach or lecture ;
It was natural that those most disinclined to the Liturgy,
should be most anxious to get themselves chosen as lec
turers. Now, your Lordship will observe, that, as the
Clergy of any other class are not mentioned from the 12th
section to the end of this Statute ; so neither is there any
enactment as to lecturers, before this section, with reference
to the Liturgy ; and it Is to them, and only to them, that
these five sections exclusively appertain. Your Lordship
will perceive that I speak on high authority, when, on refer-
rinsT to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law under the head " Lee-

S20
turer," you will see these sections of this Act, viz. the
13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17tli, which are the 19th, 20th,
21st, 22d, 23d, of the English act, and these only, quoted as
being the law concerning Lecturers. I have only to mention
in addition, to make the matter perfectly clear, that these
Lecturers were generally chosen by the people, to lecture
or preach for them on some one or more days in the week ;
and so Burn mentions a case in M'hich " One Fishburne
" left £25 a-year, for the maintenance of a weekly lec-
" turer, and appointed that the, lecturer should be chosen
" by the parishioners, and to preach on any day In every
" week, as they should like the best ; the parishioners fixed
" on Thursday, and chose a lecturer every year." — Burn.
Eccles. Law, Vol. 2, p. 357.
Now, this gives us a clue to the true intent and mean
ing of the Act ; though the words are explicit enough of
themselves. The 13tli section enacts, that " No person shall
" be, or be received as a lecturer, or permitted, suffer-
" ed, or allowed, to preach as a lecturer, or to preach or
" read any sermon or lecture, in any church, chapel, or
" other place of public worship, within this realm of
" Ireland, unless he be first approved, and thereunto
" licensed by the Archbishop of the province, or Bishop of
" the diocese" — that he shall read and declare his assent
to the thirty-nine Articles—" that every person who is
" now, or shall hereafter be licensed, assigned, appointed
" or received, as a lecturer to preach upon any day of the
" week. In any church, chapel," &c. — " the first time he
" preacheth, before his sermon, shall openly, publicly, and
" solemnly, read the common prayers and service," &c. "and
" declare his assent unto, and approbation of the same, &c. —
" that he shall, on the first lecture day of every month, as

221
" long as he continues lecturer or preacher there, at the place
" appointed for his lecture or sermon, openly read the Com-
" mon Prayers and Service, and again openly declare his un-
" feigned assent and consent thereto" — that he shall do this,
on pain of being disabled from preaching this said lecture,
or any other lecture in any other church, till he openly
conforms to the Prayer-book, &c.
The 14th section specifies that, if his sermon or
lecture Is to be preached In a Cathedral or Collegiate
Church or Chapel, he need not read the service there, but
only declare his assent and consent at the time specified.
The 15th section declares, that if, during the time of
disability, he shall preach or lecture, he is thereby sub
jected to three months' Imprisonment — and the
16th section, which is the one quoted by your Lord
ship, then specifies, " That at all and every time and times,
" when any sermon or lecture is to be preached, the com-
" mon prayers and service, &c. shall be openly, publicly,
" and solemnly read, by some Priest or Deacon, in the
" church, chapel, or place of public worship, where the
" said sermon or lecture is to be preached, before such
" lecture or sermon be preached, and that the Lecturer then
" to preach, shall be present at the reading thereof."
Now, my Lord, I confidently submit to your Lordship's
judgment, that the clear intent and meaning of these sec
tions of the statute Is as follows : —
First, that they refer clearly neither to rules of preach
ing for the Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Rectors, Vicars,
Prebendaries or Curates, but exclusively to lecturers, who
were, as it appears, a class totally distinct from the other
Clergy, a body sui generis, else it was quite enough to
have added their name with that of the others. In the
other sections, I, II, and III, which the act has not

done, but devoted these sections exclusively to them ; and
observe, my Lord, the distinctions between the enactments
of these different sections of the statute — the flrst four sec
tions which apply to all other Clergymen in which lecturers
are not once mentioned in reference to the Liturgy, and these
flve sections which apply to them, and in which the other
Clergy are not mentioned.
In the former, it appears, that the rest of the Clergy
were bound to read the Liturgy In Cathedrals, Churches,
Chapels, and other places of public worship, on the Lord's
day, and on all other days and occasions appointed by the
Prayer-book. In the latter. It appears that this was not
the office of the lecturers, but that they were to read the
service, at most, only the first lecture day of the month,
and in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches not at all.
In the former, all the beneficed Clergy were bound to
declare their assent and consent only once in their life,
unless on advancement to some promotion. In the latter,
the lecturer was obliged to declare his assent and consent
every month of his life ; a circumstance which proves a
marked suspicion, of nonconformity on the part of the
whole body of those who were elected as lecturers.
In the former. It Is never hinted or assumed that the
regular Clergy could absent themselves from their Cathe
drals or Churches, where they were to preach In the public
service of God, and where they were obliged to read the
Liturgy on such occasions. While, in the latter, It is
enacted, that, as the lecturer was not obliged, except on
certain specified times, to read the Liturgy — that, on the
days when he was to lecture, some other minister should
read the service, and that the "Lecturer then to preach
should be present at the reading thereof;" which was evi
dently to preclude nonconformists from being elected as

223
lecturers. Burnet, as before stated, expressly tells us, that
this was the thing which many wanted to be done, to allow
some men who objected to use the Liturgy to have Curates
who would read it, and that they should only preach; a
principle, which these clauses seem enacted to preclude.
And, indeed, If the Act was not specific on this head, it
would have opened a door for a total departure from Its
own principles ; for If the people could elect lecturers to
preach for them, and that these lecturers were men who
rejected the Liturgy, and would not use the Liturgy, and
that they might lecture on their days of stated public
service, without the Liturgy, the Church would have had
two forms of public worship set up, or as many as different
lecturers might please; therefore it Is clear, the Act to
guard against this, must specify that whenever they were to
hold their lecture, or to preach, both that the Liturgy must
be read, and they must be present at it.
On the whole, my Lord, I most respectfully but confi
dently submit, that the Section of the Act of Uniformity
which your Lordship quotes, as violated by the Home
Mission, refers, as Is evident from the very letter of the
Section Itself, and all the context, as well as the whole
Statute, exclusively to lecturers ; and that unless a man is a
lecturer and only a lecturer, that clause of the Statute
cannot be applied to him, unless you can apply to one body
of men, the law which Is clearly enacted for another ; and
even with respect to lecturers In any given place, I very
much doubt whether a sound Judge who was called on to
pronounce upon the case, would consider that they violated
the letter or spirit of the Statute in preaching on the Home
Mission. For the Act throughout. Is clearly an Act for
uniformity In the stated Public Service of God, In the
Established Church ; and it is to regulate the stated services

224
of all her Ministers, and not to interfere with, or deprive
them of that liberty, which all other men, in the nation,
enjoy. If a lecturer, in his stated services as such, which
is clearly the thing the act provides for — " at all and
every time and times, when any sermon or lecture is to be
preached" — that is, for the public service of God, in the
congregation, which is the only thing the Act recognizes ;
if he at all such times, either read the Liturgy himself, or
had it read for him, which Is his plain duty as a Churchman;
I greatly doubt, if he so complied with the full letter and
spirit of the Act, that any Judge, in a court of law, could
give it as his opinion that he violated it, when he went out
on a gratuitous voluntary service that the act neither speci
fies, nor recognizes, nor alludes to, much less forbids;
most especially, if it could be proved from his character and
conduct that he was sincerely attached to the Church, as
by law established, and would fully and faithfully support,
instead of wishing to depreciate her Liturgy, or evade the
discharge of his duty as her Minister. I greatly doubt
whether any Judge who felt he had a right to decide, on
sound principles of law, would, or could, condemn him. I
know if I were a lecturer, to whom the law confessedly, in
this clause, applies, and performed, ex animo, my duty in
my station, at my stated lecture, which I should do as
heartily as any framer of the Act could wish, I should go
with a clear conscience through the length and breadth of
Ireland on the Home Mission, and should not fear to
plead my own cause, and vindicate myself before any tribu
nal In the land on this very clause In the Act, for I firmly
believe that the idea of that which is Imputed as an offence,
never occurred to the framers of the Act.
But, again, if the lecturer were even condemned on
that clause, for preaching on the Mission in a Church,

225
without using the Liturgy, which would be a most strained
construction of the law as applied to such a case; It is per
fectly clear that the law could not be strained to condemn
him, except for preaching in a Church, Chapel, or place
of public worship; the Act leaves the rest of the world
open to him — he may preach in every market-house in
Ireland, and no construction of the Act can bring him in
guilty, unless, indeed, the metamorphosing power of the
law can turn a market-house Into a Church — a place of
public traffic into a place of public worship ; in this sense
a lecturer must be as free as the rest of his brethren — and
I not only confidently submit, but will most authoritatively
prove to your Lordship, that if at the appointed times,
places, and occasions, the Ministers of the Established
Church, use her Liturgy In the public stated service of
God, in her Morning and Evening prayers, and in the
administration of the Sacraments, they violate neither the
Act of Uniformity, nor any other Statute, civil or ecclesias
tical, by going around the country to preach the Gospel,
whether in the Churches, or out of the Churches, without
using the Liturgy, if their judgment shall consider it bet
ter from circumstances not to do so. For these are not the
ordinary services of the Church, provided for by the statutes,
but extraordinary occasions. Yes, my Lord, and occasions
of solemn and imperative duty too, and on these occasions
the Ministers of the Church are at perfect liberty to use
their own discretion, and are proved, on the highest pos
sible canonical authority to be so.
Your Lordship will find that two cases of violation
and non-violation, of the Act of Uniformity, are given to
us as ruled In the Courts of law, which fully and conclusively
determine the question. They are cited both by Gibson
and Burn. 2

226
Gibson's note Is on the words in the act of Elizabeth,
" using any other rite, ceremony, order, form," &(c. "Any
" other rite," " In 26 and 27 Eliz. Flemming was indicted
" upon this statute, and punished according to it, because he
" had given the Sacrament of Baptism in other form than Is
" hereby prescribed. In 1st lac. 2d an Indictment for using
" alias preces in the Church and alio modo seems to have
" been judged Insufficient — because the prayers used may
" be upon some extraordinary occasion, and so no crime.
" And it was said, that the indictment ought to have alleged,
" that the Defendant used other forms and prayers, instead
" of those enjoined which were neglected by him, for other-
" wise every Parson may be indicted that us^h prayers
" before his sermon, other than such which are required by
" the book of Common Prayer." 1st Len. p. 295, Godbold,
p. 119, Mod. Rep. Vol. 3, p. 79, Gibson's Cod. p. 305,
Burn's Eccles. Law, vol. 2, p. 291.
On referring to the original report, I find it was in the
case, the King v. Sparks, and the indictment was not only
laid for " alias preces" and "alio modo," but as being "contra
"formam statuti." It is perfectly clear, that the prayers
were used in the Church, moreover the opinion pronounced
was by the Chief Justice, upon a writ of error, brought
from the decision of the Justices of the peace, at the
Quarter Sessions, in Devonshire, where the Defendant
had been at first found guilty ; so that the case and the law
were thoroughly sifted, by the highest authority in the
superior Courts. And such being the decision on this Sta
tute, at the very juncture, when times, circumstances, and all
the freshness of facts that could throw light on the law,
were calculated to ensure a true interpretation of the mean
ing and Intention of the legislature — then, I say, my
Lord, that if the letter of the Statute, the decision of the

227
highest legal authority of the day, and the adoption of this
decision as the standard of Canon law, by the highest
authority on Canon law in these days — If this can make
any impression on your Lordship's judgment, you must on
carefully considering the case, pronounce a verdict of tri
umphant acquittal on this count in your indictment against
the Home Mission.
This is merely the law of the case. But oh ! my Lord,
where is the reason of it ? Your Lordship's objection to
not using the Liturgy on such occasions, springs no doubt
from your devoted attachment to the Liturgy, there my
Lord, I trust I can say, I go all lengths which you could
possibly desire ; so I confidently answer for them, will all
my brethren engaged In the Home Mission.
, But If the question were asked, whether of those per
sons evince most value for the Liturgy, those who would
endeavour to bring men to agree to the principles it
teaches, and to use it ; or those who take no trouble to do
so? The answer is obvious.
Again, if we ask how are men to be brought to know
its principles and to value them, and to join us in Its use?
The answer, I suppose, will be admitted. " By our endea
vouring to instruct them in that religion which Is embodied
In our Liturgy."
How then Is this to be accomplished — by force, or by
reason ? Clearly, by reasoning — by the power of divine
teaching. Now, my Lord, the very act of joining In the Liturgy,
implies in all adult persons, an understanding, and an
approbation of the form in which we worship God.
In this country. Infidelity and superstition poison the
understandings of the people, so that they neither join In,
nor admit, nor understand, the principles of our Liturgy.

228 :
How then, my Lord, Is it consistent with any rational
plan of instruction that man could adopt — How with
any principles of reasoning that man could employ— to say
we would gladly instruct men in the truths contained in
our Liturgy— that Is In fact, in the truths of the Gospel, em
bodied in it. We would gladly bring them to join us in
the use of it; but we will not instruct them, unless they
join us in it without instruction ! — we will not try and lead
them to use it, unless they adopt it In the first instance ?
Surely this is as If a man should say, I wish to instruct this
person in grammar, but I will not, unless he first converses
with me In the language. I wish to instruct this person in
the principles of harmony, but will not, unless he first sits
down to play with me in concert.
But If this is the reason, as well as the law of the case,
what shall we say of the religion ? Can we inspire men
with truth ? Can we force men's consciences and under
standing to adopt our principles, or our forms of worship,
even if they were from the pen of inspiration? If not —
if common sense and fact revolt from such a supposition —
then how does the case stand ?
We know — or at least we ought to know, (for If we do
not know, we ourselves, mustbe lamentably ignorant,) that
millions of our countrymen, are sunk both in systems of
infidelity and superstition, which plunge the souls of those
that really live in them, and trust In them. In utter destruc
tion — of whom some, like the professors of that infidel heresy
that pervades your Lordship's own diocese, Arianism and
Socinlanism, absolutely shut out and despise the only hope
of salvation that God has given to man — others are sunk
in the idolatries and superstitions of Popery. Now is it*
the part of Ministers of Christ to say, Let these men perish
in their guilt and infidelity ? Shall we take any means to

229
instruct them, or shall we not ? If not — what becomes of
our ordination vows ? What of our consecration vows ?
what of our responsibility to our Heavenly Master ? What
of our office as " Ministers of Christ, and Stewards of the
mysteries of God ?" What a solemn mockery must it be to
talk of the Inestimable privileges and blessings of our own
established religion — yea, of Christianity Itself, If we can
be content without an effort for our poor fellow men, to
leave them, as far as our exertions are concerned, to perish
In that, which we know to be Idolatry or infidelity ?
But If we are to use any exertion for their salvation,
what is It to be ? Shall we say, I will not instruct this
man in the principles of eternal life, because through igno
rance of those principles he will not join in my form of
worship ? If he wiU not come and acknowledge in my
public worship the principles in which I know he has need
to be instructed — I will refuse to instruct him in those
principles, though I know they are necessary for his ever
lasting salvation? He does not believe the truths ex
pressed in our service — he does not embrace the doctrines
it contains, but if he will not come, and in the public con
gregation acknowledge that he believes the truths that he
does not believe, and that he embraces the doctrines which
he rejects — let him perish In his ignorance and guilt, I
will not preach to him, or try to save him from perdition !
Surely such religion as this, were like the humanity of one
who saw his fellow creature fallen into a deep pit, and
would stand upon the brink and say — I will not help you
unless you come to me before I assist you. Who would
say to a person whom he wished to convince of any truth,
1 will not reason with you unless you publicly confess my
principles to be true, before I begin to prove them to you ?
And if this were unreasonable to the last degree, on the

230
most trivial subject on which men differed from us, how
can we even speak of such a mode of treating our fellow
men on the vast concerns of their immortal souls? Was
this the way that our blessed Redeemer taught? Was
this the manner In which the Apostles preached ? Could
we imagine Paul going into a Pagan town or village,
and telling the inhabitants he would not preach to themy
unless they became Christians by anticipation, and came
and joined with him In the public confession and worship
of Christ as Jehovah ? I am totally at a loss to see any
difference in a Minister or a Bishop, saying, I will not
preach to Arians, or Socinians, unless they come and
repeat a confession of the divinity and atonement of the
Lord Jesus Christ. It is only necessary to add, that your
Lordship's objection goes as directly to affect and destroy
the public labours of every Minister in his own parish with
such individuals, as it goes to restrain the exertions of the
Clergy in the Home Mission.
If this were the law of the land, my Lord, if the Act of
Uniformity made a system so utterly repugnant to every
principle of sound reason, and of true religion, imperative
on the consciences and conduct of Ministers of Christ ; I
should hold the Act of Uniformity a disgrace to any country,
or to any Church, the laws of which professed to be founded
on the principles of common sense, or genuine Christianity.
And I know, my Lord, that your Lordship's judgment will
fully acquiesce in this, and that that, which I must continue
to call your mistake on this point, arose from your anxiety
as to some matters of Internal discipline and suspected
danger in the Church, which so fully engrossed your
solicitude and apprehensions, that other matters of infi
nitely greater moment escaped, for the time, your observa
tion. When the vessel is safe in the dock, we may talk

231
of calking and painting her, but officers and seamen have
something else to do, when she is In the middle of the
tempest, and some of her masts have gone by the board.
I trust that this, which as the 13th of those evils, enu
merated in your Lordship's Charge, may appear, at least,
mitigated in its nature, if not totally changed in its cha
racter. I have been constrained by its importance, to dwell
thus long upon It. I have only to add, on that part of it in
which your Lordship objects as an evil, " that prayer, the
" great business of religious assemblies, should be dis-
" countenanced;" that. In t^e flrst place, if it is stated that
an assembly Is to be held simply for preaching the Gospel ;
on the face of the matter, prayer is not " the great business"
of that assembly. Secondly, If that assembly Is avowedly
opened to a promiscuous multitude, of whom many are, by
their very profession. Ignorant of the only way In which a
sinner's prayers are to be accepted, who would rather stay
away than join in prayer, or who actually deny, the only
way of access in prayer to God ; prayer ought not to be the
" great business" of that assembly ; for sinners must learn
how they are to pray, and through whom they are to pray,
before they can pray " in spirit and truth ;" " Hoio can tliey
call on him whom they have not believed ?"*
Lastly, ii we really are trying to teach men the way of
eternal life, by preaching the Gospel of Christ to them,
we use the most effectual means we can, under the blessing
. of God, to teach them to pray ; and if so. It can hardly be
fair to say, that this "discountenances prayer."
The 14th evil which your Lordship urges is this :
" Is It not an evil that the order of the Church and
" Realm is. In this particular, again violated — and that
* Romans, x. 14.

232
" injury is at the same time done to the devotional spirit
" of the Church, by curtailing her worship of its fair
" proportions, and disfiguring the beauty of her holiness ?"
The first part of this, as to " the violation of the order
pf the Church and Realm," has been, I trust, disproved
satisfactorily to your Lordship — as to the latter part, I fear
lest I should not clearly understand your Lordship's
meaning. If by the " devotional spirit of. the Church," is
meant the spirit of devotion of those who might come to
hear the preaching of the Gospel, I am sure your Lord
ship will admit that the instruction which conveys the
knowledge of the truth, must rather cultivate than injure
the spirit of devotion In those who hear; for that " ignorance
" is the mother of devotion," is one of the characteristic
apothegms of popish darkness. If It is meant, that any
injury is done to the service of the Church, or any stigma
cast on it, by not reading it on occasions of Missionary
preaching, I cannot admit the principle. If no other service
is iised or substituted, to the neglect or contempt of our
Liturgy, as if we considered any superior to it, I know not
how it can be said, and certainly the law does not consider,
that we directly or indirectly impugn its excellence. As to
any injury arising to it from the mere fact of not using it
on occasions of Missionary preaching, because the people
are assembled for a religious purpose, I think the same
objection would lie against not using it at any other
meeting for any religious object. Because sermons are
always, or at least generally, preached in our own Churches.
when we use the Liturgy in our public service for our own
congregations ; I cannot understand how it Is injured
because we preach sermons without using it, to mixed
congregations, who could not, or would not join in It. If
it is injured because men do not hear It with the sermon —

233
surely. It would be equally injured by their not hearing it
without the sermon ; and It resolves itself into the principle
just considered, whether we are to leave men in ignorance
and guilt, because their conscience, or their prejudice, or
their superstition, or any other cause, prevents them from
joining in our public form of worship ; I feel that such a
principle is repugnant to the spirit of our Liturgy, for I am
sure it is repugnant to the very essence of Christianity.
The 1 5th evil in your Lordship's account is :
" Is It not an evil, that all restraint Is thus removed from
" the preacher, and that while he has first cast off all re-
" sponsibility to his superior, by intruding into his post
" without Episcopal authority, he has also relieved himself
" from the wholesome correction of the Liturgy, which
" might secure the congregation in sound doctrine, not-
" withstanding the deviations of their teacher ?"
Having already adverted to this subject, I shall here
only assure your Lordship that there is not one member of
our Committee, nor one of those who go out on the Mission,
who does not totally disclaim the imputation of casting off
either our duty, or our responsibility, to our Superiors. On
the contrary, w^e are ready always, most cheerfully and
cordially, to submit to them in all things right and lawful.
But as I must again return to this point, I shall merely
remark, on the concluding part of your Lordship's objec
tion, that, however inestimable our Liturgy may be, it is
not to be expected that it will be able to bring ignorant
and ungodly men into the knowledge of sound doctrine;
and I wonder that your Lordship should attribute to it that
effect upon the people, when, in the very same sentiment,
you more than imply, that it is not a sufficient guard upon
the preacher. I shall only say for myself, and I would
answer for all my brethren with whom I am acquainted,

234
who are engaged in this work, that we neither desire nor
hope, to be able ever to set forth any better or purer princi
ples of eternal truth, than those which are embodied in the
faithful standard formularies of our Church. I know no
better security for orthodoxy, than that the pulpit should
never contradict the reading-desk. But this I will say to
your Lordship, that I believe in my conscience, there is no
clearer accordance to be found between them. In all the
Church, than in the doctrines of those who go out on the
Home Mission. And allow me to add, my Lord, that if a
Minister has no higher instructor, no higher power, no
superior principle to regulate his doctrine, than the fear
of a Bishop, or merely reading the formularies of the
Church ; it is a poor pledge for his usefulness, or his ortho
doxy, whether he be preaching in a Cathedral or preach
ing on the Home Mission. But it is not very likely that
men will contradict in their doctrines the principles of the
Liturgy, who go out for the same purpose, labour in the
same cause, and use the same means for the conversion of
sinners, as those men did, to whom, under Divine Provi
dence, we are indebted for its composition.
The next and last evil, being the 16th which your Lord
ship has summed up, is as follows : —
" Is it not an evil that under the specious pretext of
" endeavouring to exhibit and enforce ' those great truths
" of the Word of God, the knowledge of which is essential
" to salvation,' these Ministers of the Church ' abstain from
" those questions which engender strifes rather than godly
" edifying,' If such questions of abstinence comprise the
" tenets which the Church receives concerning ' the doctrine
" and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as to
" which the Ministers of the Church are bound to ' teach
" the people committed to their cure and charge, with all

235
" diligence, to keep and observe the same, but wliich
" appear little likely to be put forward by those, who are
" ambitious of collecting around them large promiscuous
" assemblies, consisting of persons of all denominations of
" dissenters and separatists from the Church, as well as of
" members of her communion. Now, such an abstinence
" from teaching the characteristics of the Church, I take
" to be an evIL"
Now, my Lord, with respect to the " specious pretext
" of endeavouring to exhibit and enforce those great truths
" of the Word of God, the knowledge of which is essential
" to salvation ;" I might ask, is your Lordship prepared to
show, by any facts, that the preaching of men on the Home
Mission is indeed but a " specious pretext," for this mighty
purpose, and that they do not do, that which they pretend
to do ? If you are, I must confess the charge Is weighty
indeed. But if not, permit me to say, that it is scarcely
consistent with the importance of the subject, the dignity
of the accuser, or the sacred profession of the accused,
however unworthy they be, to imply — more than to imply
the charge of a heavy offence of which there does not
exist, or at least there is not produced the shadow of a
proof. If those who go to preach on the Home Mission
do not really " exhibit and enforce those great truths of
" the Word of God, the knowledge of which is essential
" to salvation," they totally depart from not only the pro
fessed object of their Mission, but from the only solid
ground on which it can be vindicated. But if they really do,
with honesty and fidelity, to the best of their skill, fulfil
this duty, then, I confess, I am surprised to see that your
Lordship should quote a passage from the Sacred Scripture,
to oppose that, which you will admit to be the first duty of
all Ministers of Christ, however the manner in which it is

236
discharged may seem objectionable in your Lordship's
eyes, and still more surprised that your Lordship should
quote that passage by way of enforcing as a duty, that
which the Apostle expressly forbids, in that Identical pas
sage, as an evil.
Men may be called on, and often It is their duty not to
abstain from, but to promote " questions that gender
strifes," If those questions contain truths essential to sal
vation, or even to edification, and which men, through
ignorance or weakness, oppose. They may tend to godly
edifying, though they do gender strifes ; but they never can
be called on to raise " questions that gender strifes rather
than godly edifying." If those questions comprising the
doctrine of the Church on Sacraments and discipline, come
to be opposed by our own flocks, we are called on then to
maintain them ; or, though they are not opposed, we are
called on to explain and enforce them, because they do
tend to godly edifying. But if we go to preach to men
who are not only ignorant of the nature and value of our
Sacraments or discipline, but Ignorant of the God of our
salvation — ignorant of the vital principles of eternal truth
which are embodied In our Sacraments — ignorant as poor
dying sinners, of how their souls are to be saved — to
preach on forms, or discipline, or even Sacraments, to such
men, would seem to me like standing up in a boat to preach
to a drowning man, how he ought to behave himself on
good dry land, when you let him sink, without assistance,
to the bottom. As to " collecting promiscuous assemblies," I
can only say. If we are faithful to the doctrines of our
Church, would to God that all Dissenters, Separatists,
Roman Catholics, Arians, Socinians, and all sorts of men,
would come to attend to the preaching of the Ministers of
the Church of England. Would not your Lordship wish

237
them to come, and consider It our duty to try and bring
them to our communion ? And I am sure I know not how
this Is to be effected. If It Is to be objected to us as an evil,
that we wish them to come to our preaching. I know not
how men are to be brought into the knowledge of true
religion, unless it be either by instruction or inspiration ;
If we are not prepared to assert the modern existence of
the one, I know not on what principle we are to neglect
or interdict the other.
I have at length concluded, I fear to the exhaustion of
your Lordship's patience — would that I might hope to the
conviction of your judgment, my arguments on the Impor
tant topics In the preceding pages. But one, which is as
important at least as any of them to Ecclesiastical discipline,
and the most painful to the feelings of a Clergyman to
answer, as yet remains.
Your Lordship may say — " Well, Sir, without entering
"upon the merits of the case abstractedly, since, on the
" whole, my judgment has been made up — since I have
" chosen to forbid Clergymen on the Home Mission from
" preaching in my diocese, and to inhibit my Clergy from
'* permitting any strangers to preach in their pulpits with-
" out my special authority ; how can you reconcile the
" conduct either of those who come to preach, or of those
" who would allow them to preach, with their vows of
" canonical obedience to their Bishops, ' of following, with
" ' a glad mind and will, their godly admonitions, and
" ' submitting themselves to their godly judgments ?' "
There are two points to be considered in answering this.
The flrst is the moral, or rather the Christian principle of
faithful and cheerful obedience and submission to the
" godly admonitions and judgments" of our Bishops.

238
The second is rendering that obedience canonically. or
according to the established law.
Now, my Lord, I place the first of these in that order,
because it is, and ought, in my mind, to be the first in the
feelings and heart of a Clergyman. I can truly say it Is
so in my own, I deeply value the principle of maintaining
the respect and reverence due to constituted authorities,
especially to that which I think the highest on earth. I
abhor the principle, either In the Church or in the State, of
encouraging resistance to them. Whatever a Bishop would
command, or even would wish — the only question I should
ask would be, whether or not I could conscientiously obey It?
I should never think of standing on questions of law. My
heart says — obey. And I beseech you, my Lord Bishop, do
not allow your mind to be abused with the supposition,
that because a man supports the principle, or enters on the
labours of the Home Mission, that he is, therefore opposed
to Episcopal authority, or makes light of Episcopal jurisdic
tion. I can answer, as In the sight of God, for myself,
and I believe I can as confidently answer for all ray brethren,
that it is not the case. I have not the misfortune to know
a Clergyman, and I never wish to know one, who does not
reverence and desire to maintain Episcopal authority. So
far would I be from opposing or lessening its influence,
that had the rights — the undoubted spiritual rights of the
Church been asserted as I would have wished them, and
as at this day they ought to be, there is not a power on
earth, though it might rob and spoil the Church, that'
should rend a single shred from the Integrity and authority
of the Protestant Episcopacy of Ireland. Why, then, do
I not accede to a Bishop's opposition to the Home Mission
ary labours of the Clergy ?

239
Bear with me, my Lord, when I answer the question
with fidelity, as I should do. If I were this day to appear
at the judgment-seat of Christ; and recollect, my Lord, I
do not mean in my answer to Impugn or cast a suspicion
upon your Lordship's motives. You evidently think it
unlawful, and that is one good motive, as far as it goes. I
therefore again and again deprecate the least reflection on
your Lordship's motives; but I state my conscientious
judgment of the abstract fact. I cannot accede to, nor
follow your Lordship's judgment nor admonitions; fori
most solemnly consider that, however conscientiously given,
they are as far from " godly admonitions" or " godly judg
ment," as It is possible for them to be on the subject.
I entreat again, bear with me, my Lord Bishop, and
believe , me, when I say, most sincerely, I mean not to
wound you when I thus speak : It is a subject on which
a man is painfully forced to speak the truth. When such
mandates are issued, we must obey, or we must give
reasons — and great and weighty reasons ought they to
be — for disobedience.
It is not for me to dare to sit In judgment on any man's
conscience, much less on that of a superior ; but when men
are called to act, they must judge of facts, and they must
judge against all the powers of earth for their own con
science. Now, I will not presume to judge what construc
tion your Lordship puts on those vows of ordination and
consecration, by which you stand so solemnly pledged to "be
" ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away
"all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's
" Word, and both privately and openly to call upon and
" encourage others to do the same" — laying, as your Lord
ship does in your Charge, their ordination vows with such
weight, and most justly, upon the consciences of others, I

240
cannot but be assured, that you feel, with all proper sensi
bility, the proportionably greater obligation of your own.
Your Lordship may suppose, according to the principle
laid down in the letter of Bishop Jebb, that Providence
has placed you over a certain flock in the Established
Church, and the Popish Bishop in your diocese over a
certain flock in his Church, and the Socinian elders over
another in their Church, and that it is no business of
your's to interfere with them — that your vows merely
bind you to have a regard to the congregations who
assemble In the Parochial Churches in your diocese — and
that you are merely to try to banish any errors that creep
in among them — and probably your Lordship imagines
that this very Charge to your Clergy, against what you
consider the " illegal and mischievous" proceedings of the
Home Mission, Is not only a just fulfilment of your Epis
copal duty, as I am sure you conscientiously do ; but that
you also believe It the true mode of discharging this very
solemn obligation of driving away all strange and erroneous
doctrines contrary to God's Word. Well, my Lord, If this
be your Lordship's sober conviction, I can but say with
the Apostle — " Let every man be fully persuaded In his
own mind." But I will, with all respect, but all honest
confidence, assure your Lordship, that It is not mine — that
while I do not feel the obligation of my ordination vows
as to the points which your Lordship presses on our con
sciences, I do feel and acknowledge (yet, alas ! O ! how
little as I ought to do,) that obligation which binds me to
use all faithful diligence to banish and drive away not only
any false principles that might enter into the flock over
which I might be placed in my own congregation, but
those which I know to be pregnant with utter destruction
to the souls of millions of my countrymen. I feel ashamed.

241
my Lord— I feel criminal in the sight of God, for my
neglect of this, as indeed of all other duties ; and a com
mand to leave immortal souls to perish without using any
efforts to save them, or to proclaim to them the Gospel of
salvation, I confess I think an admonition, which, however
unintentionally on your Lordship's part, tends to the direct
breach of our most solemn obligations to our fellow-
creatures and our God.
This world, and all its shadowy pageantry, shall
soon be passed away : we shall soon stand before
the bar of our Lord to give account of our steward
ship. Who can dare to anticipate the nature of that
scrutiny which the Judge of heaven and earth shall
hold upon the sinner ? But If all other sins, negligences,
and ignorances were laid aside, and this one alone were
brought forth into judgment — if he should be constrained
to acknowledge that he had been a minister in the Church
of Christ — a minister in that which was- called the
Protestant Established Church of Ireland^that he was
so called because he protested against the idolatries and
superstitions of the Churcli of Rome — that on entering his
sacred office, he had solemnly sworn " to endeavour, with
" all faithful diligence, to banish all erroneous doctrines
" contrary to God's word" — that he had been living in
the midst of the people against whose errors he had
protested — that God had made them the channels for
the supply of his necessities, perhaps his comforts — ¦
the sweat of their brows the means of his support,
and that, in the very character of a minister — but that,
though he had been a minister in the Church of Christ, he
had not gone in his Master's name to seek the sheep that were
lost — though he had protested against their errors, he had
done nothing to reform them — though he had sworn "to use
u

242
all faithful diligence to banish and drive away error," he had
never attempted to redeem his solemn vows — though he
had lived among the people, he had neglected all his
opportunities — though they had " ministered to him carnal
things," he had never "ministered unto them spiritual
things." If the poor sinner shall be constrained to confess
all this, what sort of a servant will he appear? But if
increased obligation, aggravated responsibility, shall have
been added to him — if enlarged authority, accumulated
talents, shall have been entrusted to him — and if not only
they have not been used for the discharge of the duty that
lay on him, but used to repress the efforts to discliargethat
duty on the part of others — if this be so. It were well to
think to what refuge we shall have to flee from such an
ordeal as this. There is, indeed, a Refuge, and but one — ^
that Refuge is the Judge himself: but can we say we have
fled to Him as our Refuge ? Can we appeal to his testimony
for the sincerity of our hearts that we have done so, when
the very thing that we say we have prized as the only
hope of our own souls, Is the very thing which, on our
own confession, we have neglected, if not worse than
neglected, to make known to the souls of our fellow-sinners ?
O ! my Lord, It Is a most solemn subject ; and I must
confess I think the man who looks at it thus, and I know
not in what other light a minister ought to view It, must
make light indeed pf the responsibility of his sacred office,
if he could allow the authority of any man on earth to
stand between his soul and the direct discharge of these
solemn obligations, for which he is to answer for himself
at the tribunal of his God.
These are some of the reasons, and what weight they
ought to liave, I leave to your Lordship's consideration,
which impose. In my judgment, the painful necessity upon

243
a Minister, of refusing to acquiesce in the mandate of any
superior, who would arrest the labours of the Clergy in
Missionary preaching in Ireland.
But I grant, my Lord, that even a sense of moral and
religious obligation, however high, is not of sufficient
weight to allow a Clergyman to refuse canonical obedience
to a Bishop. He has vowed that obedience, and though his
views of "godly judgment," and "godly admonitions," might
be even opposite to those of a Bishop, still, if that Bishop
issues a canonical command, I must admit, that he is bound
to obey ; and that if he pleads his conscience as an excuse
for disobedience, he ought conscientiously to leave the
Established Church ; for though I would not admit him to
be bound by an ex post facto law, I think he must be
bound by those which existed when he undertook the
obligation. This makes it necessary to examine the
canonical authority of your Lordship's inhibition to stran
gers to preach without your permission In your diocese, and
to your own Clergy to refuse them admission, without the
same. Into their pulpits.
However painful then, my Lord, it Is to write anything
in direct contradiction of your Lordship's high authority on
the subject; yet I must be faithful to the truth of that
cause which I have ventured to plead — and truth obliges
me to affirm, that your Lordship has not one iota of Statute
law, or Canon law, to maintain your Inhibition. You have
no more right to hinder a Clergyman who is licensed by
any Bishop In Ireland to preach, (as all Clergymen who
are officially employed in the Church, now are, by pre
scriptive usage,) from preaching in any Church in your
diocese, if the Rector, or Vicar, in whom the right of his
pulpit is vested, permits him to do so — than you have a
right to hinder him from driving through your diocese.

244
except under restrictions, as to individual delinquents,
which I shall specify.
Again, my Lord, you have no more a right to forbid
any Rector, or Vicar, in your diocese, nor, I believe, his
licensed Curate, If he chooses to authorize that Curate to
give permission, from permitting or inviting any Clergy
man, officially employed in any diocese In Ireland, to
preach In his pulpit, no more than you have a right to
forbid him from inviting him to his table.
Nay more, my Lord, I will add, you ought not to have
such a right — such a power neither does, nor ought to form
any part of legitimate Episcopal jurisdiction; and I trust I
shall convince your Lordship of this, for these reasons —
that it is derogatory to the whole of our theological prepa-
tioii for the sacred office — derogatory to our Ordination
Service — derogatory to our Ministry — still far more
derogatory to our Episcopacy itself — destructive of the
unity of our Church, and might be made instrumental for
the subversion of the principles of our religion.
But before I speak of the impropriety, I must advert to
the law of the case ; I presume not to impute anything
beyond a mistake, to your Lordship, I feel assured you
did not, in the least, assume an authority to which you
were not convinced you were legally entitled. But it is a
mistake into which your Lordship has been Inadvertently
led, by the error into which you have fallen throughout
your Charge, on the nature of licenses to preach; con
sidering the license of a Curate to serve a cure, the same
as the license to preach spoken of in the Canons ; and a
recurrence to the arguments already advanced upon that
point, will be quite sufficient to establish the following
principles. FI RST. That a special license to preach, if there were

245
any such instrument now existing in the Church, would
be, and always was, a license to preach in every Diocese in
the Established Church.
SECONDLY. That by the Canons themselves, every
man having such license is authorized to preach in every
Diocese. THIRDLY. That if such license were granted nowby
any Bishop, it would be a license not for his own Diocese
alone, but that though it were only for his own Diocese, It
would authorize to preach in every other, as the law only
required license from a Bishop.
FOURTHLY. That such licenses having fallen, and
justly fallen, Into total disuse, so as to have had no
existence from time immemorial in the Church ; and the
Clergy, having been held by prescriptive usage universally
licensed to preach in every Diocese, their being now
ordained, and either beneficed, or licensed as Curates in
any Diocese, or being able to produce their very letters of
orders where no reason to the contrary appears, gives them
perfect liberty to preach or officiate in every Church, and
no Bishop has a right to prevent them under any existing
law. FIFTHLY. That upon your Lordship's principle, there
could be no such thing in the Church as a license or liberty
for a Clergyman to preach in any spot except his own
Cure ; nay, his Bishop, on your Lordship's principle, could
not give him liberty to do so ; for if, as your Lordship
states, he Is bound by his Ordination vows, only to preach
the Gospel to the congregation where he is licensed by the
Bishop, as the Bishop confessedly, in your sense, licenses
him only to one congregation ; his Ordination vows, on
your Lordship's showing, actually limit him to that, and
if so, his Bishop has no dispensing power ; he violates his

246
vows as much If he preaches out of his own parish, in his
own Diocese, as in any other. So that in fact, your Lord
ship's own Clergy In helping one another in their Churches,
violate their vows just as much as those who preach on the
Home Mission ; so that your Lordship's rule would bring
us back to the very days of the Star-Chamber, when the
Clergy were, from ignorance and iiicompetence, forbidden
to exercise their ministry, or to preach, except In their
own Cures, and none, either Bishops or Clergy, dare preach
any where else, without a license.
I might go much further Into the law of the case ; but I
have been forced to enter into such lengthened legal details,
that it is both wearisome and useless ; what has been said,
being I trust, perfectly sufficient to establish the legal
question. The Rector's absolute right to his own pulpit —
the right of patronage being, in so many cases, not vested
in the Bishop, and several other legal principles might be
insisted on and established by legal authority — but I wish
to view the question as much on Church grounds as
possible. Your Lordship may ask, if this be so, what right of
jurisdiction has a Bishop over his own Diocese, or how can
he secure it from the Infection of any heresy that might
creep into the Church, if men are to come In to preach,
over whom he has no control ?
He has perfect jurisdiction, my Lord, under the law, and
as much as he ought to have, if properly '^exercised. He has
no power to hinder those from preaching who are licensed
by prescriptive usage, but he has a right to know from
every Clergyman, whether Rector or Curate, who they
are that preach In his Diocese, and under what authority
they preach ; I. e. to what Diocese they belong. He has a
right to inquire and to ascertain, if they preach heretical

247
doctrines. And If either their doctrines are contrary to the
Articles of the Church, or the Word of God ; or if their
lives are Inconsistent with their profession, he has a right
to issue a personal inhibition against any such individual
from preaching in his Diocese ; and he can either, I believe,
by his own authority, or at least In conjunction with the
Bishop to whose Diocese the delinquent belongs, punish
him according to the nature of his offence ; and if he
belongs to his own Diocese, he can withdraw license, if he
be a Curate ; or Inhibit or suspend, as the case may be, if
he be a Rector.
And this, my Lord, (speaking as a man devoted to
Episcopal authority,) is most abundant jurisdiction for a
Bishop. He Is presumed by the law, and by the Church, to
have no Clergyman in his Diocese who is not himself a
faithful Pastor, and does not take ample care of his flock ;
and it is but reasonable and just to suppose, that men will
not willingly permit error to be introduced into their pulpits
by others, if they endeavour faithfully to do their duty, and
set forth the truth in those pulpits themselves.
Now, my Lord, to revert to my former position ; I say,
that such a power as your Lordship has exercised, (I again
repeat through unintentional mistake,) ought not to be
vested In any Bishop.
Our Church most wisely places every barrier that one
could suppose human wisdom could devise against the
admission of improper men into her ministry ; she gives
her Bishops full and unlimited jurisdiction as to the admis
sion of men to Holy Orders ; she also justly places an
insurmountable barrier against the admission of any indi
vidual to serve in any Diocese, without Episcopal authority
in the first instance, or afterwards to move from one
Diocese to another without the same. He must be Episco-

248
pally licensed as a Curate — he mustbe Episcopally inducted
as a Rector, even though the patronage be not vested in
the Bishop — he must, read his assent and consent to the
book of Common Prayer ; and if at any time he set forth
doctrines heretical, or contrary to the Word of God, he is
open justly and legally to Episcopal jurisdiction to admo
nish, reprove, or punish. But that he should be admitted to
Holy Orders, approved, received, licensed to a cure of
souls, or collated to a benefice, and that he must then have
an extraordinary license to preach, or be presumed. In any
part of the Church, unfit to preach, is in itself a monstrous
anomaly, which no Bishop either has, or ought to have, a
right or power to set up as a rule of the Church.
Licenses to Ministers of Christ to preach the Gospel
are an unnatural excrescence on a Christian Church,
which are but the proof of some radical disease in her con
stitution — they were, as we have seen, invented by the
worst men, in the worst times, and for the worst purposes ;
they were afterwards, though used for better ends in the
times of the Reformation, used only from the state of ig
norance, incompetence and corruption of the Clergy, who
kept the benefices of the Church when reformed by law ;
but propagated not the Gospel, but the superstitions of
popery. Then those who were competent to preach the
truth, received as we have seen their licenses, but received
them as they ought, not for their own cures but for the
whole Church ; and it is because the race of those Clergy
who were either inclined to popery or non-conformity, have
been presumed to have become extinct in the Church,
that the necessity for such distinction between licensed
and unlicensed Ministers, as preachers, has fallen into total
disuse, so as to be now unknown. The apostacy or cor
ruption of the Clergy alone, could render the revival of

249
such a system necessary, though indeed in these days I
doubt if it could be revived at aU. These evils are sup
posed to be guarded against entirely by the Bishops in
ordination, and they can have no right to set up a rule un
founded on law ; the necessity for -which, could only origi
nate in a total neglect of the proper exercise of their own
Episcopal duty.
I fully calculate on your Lordship's concurrence in the
propriety of this, not only when you look at the law of the
case as It has been stated, but when you look at the evils that
must result from such a system, not more to the Clergy than
to the Episcopacy itself. Let me pray your Lordship, dismis
sing as far as you can, the bias of preconceived opinions, to
look calmly and dispassionately at the working of such a
system ; you will find it all that I have stated, and I repeat
that it is —
First, derogatory to the whole of our Theological pre
paration for the sacred office. On this system, my Lord,
our Clergy, after all their studies at the University — all
their Divinity lectures, all their Divinity examinations, and
all that the Professors in our University could teach them,
would be no better than in the times of the greatest igno
rance and incompetence of the Clergy ; they could be only
allowed to preach in their own cures, but were not to be
trusted beyond them. This, however. Is a point of minor
importance, because it is,
Secondly, derogatory to the sacred character of our Ordi
nation Service. Let me entreat your Lordship to consider this.
Let me suppose that a Bishop, say the BLshop of Dro-
more, y^our Lordship's next Episcopal brother, sends to you
a young man, with letters dimissory for Priest's orders, and
with the usual testimonials of his character. His Lordship
has proved this candidate as a Deacon, and intends to

250
place him with cure of souls, perhaps in a benefice in his
Diocese, and he has (as no doubt he would) the fullest
conviction of his capacity and fitness for his sacred office.
There Is no power to compel your Lordship to ordain this
person ; you are fully empowered by your Cliurch, to dis
charge your apostolic duty, and to " lay hands suddenly on
" no man, nor to be a partaker of other men's sins ;" you
examine him yourself thoroughly — you appoint others to
examine him, and you are fully satisfied in your judgment
and conscience, that you may safely perform that act, cer
tainly the most solemn and responsible of the holy office
of a Bishop, of sending him forth to the work of the
Ministry — you proceed to do so, on the appointed day,
you say to your Archdeacon before the Church and In the
sight of God,
" Take heed, that the persons whom ye present unto us,
" be apt and meet for their learning, and godly conversation,
" to exercise their Ministry duly to the honor of God, and
" the edifying of his Church."
He replies to your Lordship —
" I have enquired of them, and also examined them,
" and think them so to be." Your Lordship is satisfied
of the truth of this, not merely on his authority, but on
your own conviction — you proceed through that most
solemn service — you read the Sacred Word of God — you
give that solemn exhortation — you ask these solemn ques
tions — you Implore the Lord for strength for those who
have answered them to fulfil their duties Implied in their
answers — you invoke the power and blessing of the Eternal
Spirit — you then pronounce those words of ordination as
solemn words, whether we think of their meaning or their
effects, as ever fell from the lips of man — you deliver the
Word of God to him — you confer on him authority to

251
preach that Word — you seal it all with the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper — you close with prayer and pronounce
the benediction, and you send that man forth with a com
mission over a flock of immortal souls; the importance of
which is coeval with eternity. Now, the more faithfully,
and solemnly, and conscientiously, my Lord, you have dis
charged this sacred duty, as I doubt not you do, the more
clear, the more conclusive, the more unanswerable, are the
reflections which I would humbly submit to your con
sideration. On what principle of truth — on what principle of rea
son — on what principle of human law, or of divine autho
rity — on what ground of your apostolic office — on what
view of the sacred service you have performed — the solemn
office you have conferred — the principles of our established
Church, or the word of God, will your Lordship send
that man so solemnly empowered, so solemnly pronounced
fit, to teach as a permanent pastor, a flock of immortal souls
In the Diocese of Dromore, and say at the same time that
he is not fit to preach to immortal souls in the Diocese of
Down ? Surely, my Lord, your Lordship must admit, that
a man that is not fit to teach the Word of God in one
place, cannot be fit to teach It In another; and that it
is a solemn mockery of all sacred truth, to suppose that a
Bishop should faithfully and conscientiously, send a man to
preach the Gospel in one Diocese, whom he could not appeal
to God, that he thought fit to preach the Gospel in every
Diocese in Ireland. The thing does not bear a moment's
sober examination — the Ordination Service were a mere
satire on solemnity, on such a principle.
But 'Thirdly. If it is derogatory to the Ordination Service,
it Is not less so to the Ministry of the Church. I cannot
see what right a Bishop ought to have, to pronounce a

252
practical sentence of condemnation on every Diocese in
Ireland except his own. I know not how he is at liberty
to set up his Diocese as the Goshen of theChurch, in which
only light Is to be found, as if all the other Dioceses were
in Egyptian darkness, and that the Clergy of them were
not fit to come into this favored spot. Your Lordship, no
doubt, considers the Clergy of your own Diocese perfectly
fit to preach either there or in any other place. I know
not, then, on what principle it ought to be a part of your
jurisdiction to pass a universal censure on all the other
Clergy of Ireland, and to say that none others shall preach
within those precincts. But it will be answered, (and I
am sure with perfect truth,) that your Lordship does not
mean to do so, but that you only enforce a jurisdiction
which makes your permission necessary for the individuals
who are to preach.
I doubt it not, my Lord. I am sure your Lordship does
not mean to carry your principle to the extreme to which it
tends ; but you will observe, my Lord, that the Bishop who
sets up such a principle as this, if he does not pass a censure
on all the body of the Clergy, assumes to himself a preroga
tive that no man ought to possess, that of passing the sen
tence of a heavy censure on individuals, without the open
privilege of free subjects of the British government,
without either conviction, trial, or accusation.
Who would tolerate that any Judge upon the bench should
say, without any assignable cause, that such or such a bar
rister, or such a solicitor, should not practise in his court ?
Who would endure that any General should say, without
any cause, that such or such a man should not hold a com
mission In the army under his command ? Who would
bear that any British Admiral should say, from his ow^n
caprice, that such or such a man should not serve in his

253
fleet ? and this, though the naval or military officer, or the
lawyer or solicitor, were men not only unimpeached In
their character, but perhaps highly honored and esteemed.
And on what principle is it, my Lord, that the members of
that profession, which ought to stand upon the highest
ground, which is and ought to be the first and most honor
able and honored in the land, should be subjected to a
principle of despotism unknown in the annals even of
naval or military discipline ? I can see neither justice nor
reason, much less Christian charity, or the proper scriptural
government of a Church, in such a system. You possess,
my Lord, and you ought to possess, a full and unquestion
able right to inhibit in your Diocese any man from preach
ing there, against whose doctrines or conduct you can
substantiate any valid objection. The Church presumes,
and her Bishops ought to presume, for their own sake as
well as for that of the Clergy, that all her ministers are
right, and that if an exception is made. It is with reluctance
against an individual who Is in error. But the Church
does not presume, and her Bishops cannot presume, that
all but their own Dioceses are wrong, and that exceptions
are only to be made for individuals, whom they may conde
scend to consider in the right.
Fourthly. Bad and unjustifiable as such a principle is
with respect to the Ministry of our Church, it is even
worse with respect to her Episcopacy itself, and calculated
to bring it into utter contempt before the nation ; for I am
sure your Lordship will admit the Inconsistency of a Bishop
placed In the point of view just now considered, of sending
by the most solemn prerogative of his office, a man from
his ordaining hand to serve in another diocese, whom he
could not conscientiously admit to preach In his own. I
feel confident your Lordship would shrink from such a

254
position, and that you would not ordain any man on letters
dimissory from another Diocese, whom you could not feel
as in the sight of God a person qualified to be a Minister
in your own ; and again, that you would not license a man
In your own Diocese, whom you did not conscientiously
consider qualified to preach in another. This is the position
in which every conscientious Bishop must wish to stand,
and ought to stand, before the Church, and before the
nation, and above all, before his Heavenly Master.
Permit me then, my Lord, to suggest to your conside
ration, what right a Bishop ought to have, who naturally
wishes to present to view, such a conscientious discharge of
his own duty, to cast such a universal stigma on all his
Most Reverend and Right Reverend Brethren, as your
Lordship's principle implies? For when he says, no
Minister shall preach in his diocese without his special
permission, what is it but to say, that the men whom his
Most Reverend and Right Reverend Brethren ordain,
collate, induct, license, nay, perhaps, most especially
esteem, and promote In their Dioceses, are not fit, without
undergoing the ordeal of his especial cognizance and
approbation, to preach in his Diocese ? I really can con
ceive no greater imputation cast upon the whole Bench of
Bishops. It is their office, their duty, their honor, and it is
to be hoped, their earnest desire, to the utmost extent of
their judgment and knowledge, to place those whom they
think to be fit men in their Dioceses. But if each of them
is to say, that he can neither so far depend on the discre
tion, the principle, the judgment, or in short, the faithful
discharge of Episcopal duty, in his brother Bishops, as
to allow any of their Clergy to preach in his Diocese,
without his own especial cognizance and approbation, I
know not what greater slur can be cast upon the Bench ; I

255
know no more direct means of bringing the Episcopacy
and the Ministry of our Church Into contempt before the
nation. For I cannot conceive how the people could be
called on, to pay to their Bishops the respect of supposing,
they will place faithful pastors over them, if the Bishops
openly declare by such a principle, that they cannot place
such a confidence In each other.
I know full well, my Lord Bishop, that nothing could be
farther from your Lordship's intention. I am confident
that none, either of the Bishops or Clergy, could for a
moment impute such a thought to your Lordship ; and I
trust you will believe, I do not mean most remotely to
insinuate It. Your very dedication of your Charge to his
Grace the Lord Primate, and to all the Bishops, evinces
that you could not have ever anticipated such a result from
your principle ; and in proportion to the undoubted sin
cerity of the motives which dictated that dedication, your
Lordship will see the inconsistence of the principle contained
iu it, reflecting on the very personages to whom it Is
inscribed ; a principle wliich Implies, that the individuals,
for example, whom his Grace the Lord Primate sees fit to
license in the Diocese of Armagh, must not be eligible
without further scrutiny on your Lordship's part, to officiate
in the Diocese of Down. Your Lordship will, I am sure,
admit that his Grace's approbation is a sufficient sanction
in the abstract, and will therefore see the inadmissibility of
a principle which brings It Into practical question in the
detail. If any Clergyman from his Grace's diocese, should
propagate any error in your Lordship's, you have the full
powers of your lawful j urisdiction to repress It ; It were but
right to inform his Grace, who would know, that one unfit
to officiate In the diocese of Down, could not be fit to
preside over a flock In that of Armagh.

256
But, Fifthly, my Lord, such a principle is at war with all
idea of unity In the Church — it is utterly absurd to talk of
Articles, Homilies, Liturgy, Subscriptions, Acts of Uni
formity, or even the Word of God itself, as any standard
for an Established Church, If after all, every Diocese is to
be insulated and modelled according to the fancy, it might
be the caprice, yea, my Lord, It might be the heresy, of
any Bishop, who might be placed over it. It is very hard
to say, in these liberal times, how far a Prime Minister
might see fit to level the standard of the principles of our
Church, and to look out for some man to place upon the
Bench, who might lend himself as an Instrument for such a
base and criminal purpose. What varieties of errors without
one redeeming or corrective principle, might thus be
introduced and incorporated into a Diocese, or into several
Dioceses, till at last we should have as many different
Churches, with separate Bishops at their head, as an infidel
Prime Minister might choose to leave us Dioceses in
Ireland, and as we with all becoming Christian patience
and submission, might think fit to allow him.
But, lastly, my Lord, such an arbitrary principle of
Episcopal exclusion of the Clergy, from preaching in each
other's pulpits, might tend to the utter subversion of
all true religion in the Church.
I know of no means of diffusing and preserving truth
and correcting error, so effectual as that of promoting
free study of the Scriptures — free communication — free
interchange of opinions, and mutual help and cooperation,
in their earnest and zealous labours among the Clergy. I
can say for myself, that I am more Indebted to my dear
and reverend brethren — to their conversation — their ser
mons — their friendly and scriptural admonitions, reproofs,
exhortations, helps, and prayers, than to all the books I

257
ever read, with the exception of that one which Is the
Volume of Life itself; and I am more indebted to their
viva voce Interchange of opinions and information given to
me upon that book, than to all the commentaries I ever
read upon it. I know, indeed, but very little, but I have
a pleasure in recollecting, and in experiencing, how much
of that little has been, under Providence, derived from
them. Let us suppose the worst cases that can occur In the
Church, of any of the Clergy ignorant of the Gospel, and
setting forth error to their flock, or careless and neglecting
them. There could be no way so effectual of awakening them
to a sense of their duty, and of leading them to consider
and examine the truth of the Gospel, as by the preaching
of that Gospel by their brethren, in their Churches, or in
their parishes, and by promoting friendly and brotherly
interchange of sentiments and opinions with them. It
were but right, my Lord, to hope that the promotion and
propagation of truth, were the anxious object of every
man who fills the high and holy office of Bishop ; but, if it
were not so, and If a Bishop possessed the power which
your Lordship has supposed he does, what an engine of
evil would such a power be In his hands, and what incal
culable mischief might such a man do in the Church.
Let us now, my Lord, by way of illustration, suppose
for a moment a contrast between two Prelates, which will
not only prove the disunion, but the corruption that such a
system might entail upon the Church.
Suppose one Bishop, my Lord, should hold the sound
principle that the Commandments of God, comprehended
in the Moral Law, were the standard of Christian duty.
Another might take it into his head to expunge the
s

258
fourth commandment from the Decalogue, as Popery does
the second.
Suppose one should be old-fashioned enough to hold that
days of public fasting and humiliation, under national judg
ments, were suited to a Church and nation professing Chris
tianity, and to believe, as men used to believe long ago,
in the time of George HI., that such visitations come from
the hand of God, for our sins.
Another should have made such progress in " the
march of Intellect" as to consider this a sort of weak,
exploded prejudice, (it has been called, your Lordship
knows, in high places, "a humbug,") and prefer to revive
the doctrine of the Epicureans —
" Namque Deos didici securum agere sevum
" Nee siquid miri faciat natura, Deos id,
" Tristes ex alto coelo demittere tecto."
Suppose that one might retain the principle that the Bible
was the only foundation of true religion, and of the
Established Church, and that it was the duty of Ministers
to enforce on the consciences of all men, the commands of
God to read that Sacred Volume.
Let us suppose another thought it better to adapt the
Bible to " the spirit of the age" — by selecting from It
some passages suited to the taste of all parties In the
state, and should thus alike, impeach the wisdom of God,
by giving up the integrity of the Bible, and abandon the
authority of his moral government, by renouncing the
authoritative enforcement of his Sacred Word upon man
kind. Now let me venture to ask, my Lord, what sort of a
prospect would the Church of Ireland have, if a Prelate

259
were to be inflicted on her, who actually propagated such
principles, and who could lay his hand upon the pulpits in
his Diocese, and shut in error, while he shut out truth ? If
he could get men educated, and trained, and infected with
such sentiments, and fill the Churches with those whose
doctrines were worse than destitute of instruction — were
pregnant with error both to the young and old. Let me
suppose, in addition to all this, that he held the foundation
of all error, the doctrine of justification by works. In some
sense or another; instead of the foundation of all true
religion, the justification of the soul, by the righteousness
and blood of Christ, through faith — that he had the very
same objection to our Homily, that the Popish Bishops held
at the Reformation, and that all the Priests of Rome hold,
viz. that it excludes charity from any share in justifying
the soul. If such a man were placed upon the Episcopal
Bench, (and what will not Interested politicians do, to gain
their ends ?) and that he possessed such power as your
Lordship assumes that Bishops possess, he might sit as the
Gardiner, or the Bonner of a Diocese, the persecutor of
truth, the propagator of error — he might live to root out
the Gospel of Christ from every pulpit in the gloomy
range of his jurisdiction, and, instead of shepherds to feed
the flock, might turn in only wolves to devour them;
while now such a man would be left to sink in the folly of
his heresies, or perhaps mercifully rescued from their domi
nation ; but if not, at least corrected and kept in awe by
the power of truth around him. God forbid, my Lord,
that the Church should ever see the day that every faithful
Bishop should not possess, as" he does and ought, the
power to Inhibit and repress all error — and God forbid, my
Lord, that the Church should ever see the day when any

260
Bishop of a different character, should have power to shut
out, or to suppress the truth. Rulers ought " to be a terror
not to the good, but to the evil," as the apostle tells us, and
this is equally true In the Church, as in the State. But it
is a tremendous prostitution of authority, either in the one
or In the other, If Instead of being " a terror not to the
good, but to the evil," any man can have the power to be a
terror n6t to the evil, but to the good ; and in proportion
as your Lordship is conscious that you would desire to use
the power you claim for the good of the Church, you
should deprecate the very existence of that power which
you must know that others might use for Its destruction.
I say then, my Lord, on the whole, that in declining as
I am forced, however painfully, to do, to admit the autho
rity of your Lordship's general inhibition, or to allow that,
in so doing, I rebel against a legitimate exercise of Epis
copal jurisdiction, or break my vow of canonical obedi
ence to my Bishops, I can only say, that if I have unfortu
nately failed to bring any conviction to your Lordship's
mind, I have most fully satisfied my own judgment on the
case ; and, I trust, fully discharged my own conscience.
I had no idea, when I commenced this letter, to what a
length it was to be protracted, or I should either have
shrunk from the undertaking, or put it into some other
shape than such a lengthened intrusion on your Lordship.
I can truly say, my Lord, that I have not sat down to
write an Ingenious defence of the Home Mission, or to
make out an answer to your Lordship's Charge. I have
sat down honestly to Investigate the truth, and I should
wrong my sense of the value of truth. If I did not say
that I know I have done so. How far I have fairly
examined and quoted those authorities which Canonists

261
consider the highest on the points at issue, those who take
the trouble to examine, will best determine. I can truly say
I have not intentionally suppressed or perverted one truth,
or knowingly set down one error in authorities or in argu
ment — if I am proved to have done so, I trust I shall readily
confess and retract it.
I know my Lord, I have on many points, expressed
my opinions strongly ; there are some on which I am not
sufficiently master of the language to express them as
strongly as I think and feel. But if in any instance, I have
seemed to overstep the bounds of that respect that is due
to your Lordship as a Bishop — still more If I have set
down any expression, that can have inflicted a wound upon
your Lordship's feelings, permit me to express my un
feigned regret, and to assure your Lordship, that it was
totally unintentional. The consciousness of my own vene
ration for just Episcopal authority — of my devoted and I
think I may say disinterested attachment to our Church,
gives me a confidence in speaking on the subject that lifts
me above the fear of being counted as an enemy in any
sense to her cause, while I speak of evils with the
anxious fidelity of a friend.
Do not suppose, my Lord, that there is any party In
the Church to whom I should commend myself or my
opinions, by opposition to Episcopal authority. I can
sincerely say I know them not, nor do I desire to know
them ; a Minister who would degrade a Bishop's authority,
in my judgment degrades himself and his profession;
and If any construction unfavourable to legitimate Epis
copal jurisdiction can be put upon this letter, I feel that
an apology were due to my brethren as well as to your
Lordship and my Superiors, and I trust If any man shall

262
think so, he will believe that nothing can be further from
my intentions.
Again, my Lord, do not imagine that because I defend
this Home Mission, I feel any gratification that it is not
conducted under the authority of Episcopal superintendence;
God forbid ! believe me, I deeply, most deeply lament it.
It was commenced under the express Episcopal sanction,
approbation, and cordial cooperation, of that lamented Pre
late, the late Archbishop of Dublin. If it had not been
commenced under his sanction, it probably had not been
undertaken at all. We felt we were acting most strictly,
under our Superior In the Church in its commencement ; we
firmly believe we are acting under the providence and di
rection of God in its continuance — we know and see that
our poor fellow creatures who are famishing for the Bread
of Life, and are left to starve by their blind guides, crowd
and rejoice to hear the Gospel ; and we can see no other
possible means of deliverance from their errors. For myself,
I can appeal to facts, that I wished for such a work under
Episcopal sanction before the Society was established, or
even thought of. I wrote a small book, entitled " Truth
" and Error contrasted," in which I drew out a plan for
a Home Mission, under Episcopal superintendence ; it
is the right and natural way, and I truly wish it were so.
As to our Interfering with Episcopal authority, or usurping
It, I can only strongly deny It in fact or intention. But
my Lord, it Is not for us to dictate to our Bishops, we
are not to point out to them the necessities of our Church
and country, or their own path of duty — but if they were
to open their Dioceses, and to open their houses, and to
open their hearts, for the welcome of the Clergy In all
their jurisdiction, who would rejoice to go out under their

263
sanction and approbation, for the preaching of the Gospel
to the wretched population of this country ; I believe In
my soul, it would be a means of a divine blessing on them
selves — a blessing on their habitations— a blessing on their
dioceses— a blessing on the Church, a blessing on the
country — a blessing on the Empire. For if the true means,
the only true means — Christian means — God's means, are
not used — speedily, faithfully, firmly, undauntedly, un
ceasingly used for the salvation of Ireland, I believe no
human power can protect or deliver from utter destruction,
the once far-famed Protestant Constitution and Monarchy
of Britain. It must perish, and it will deserve to perish.
To what sober prospect, my Lord, does your Lordship
look forward, for the protection of the Protestant Church
in Ireland ? Do you deliberately think it possible It can
continue without exertion, not the exertions of political
associations — of Statesmen and Legislators, which are all
in vain ; but spiritual exertion to convert the people ? Are
our Bishops and Clergy so base as to say " We have so
" many hundreds, or thousands a year, we are comfortably
" off, let us eat, drink and be merry ; if our interests are
" taken care of, we dont care how things go when we
" are gone ; only dont let us be disturbed — let us go with
" the stream," — are we to say this, my Lord ? If not, what
Is to become of the Protestant religion, and what exertion
do we make, I will not say for Its extension, but even for
its preservation in our country ? Hooker says —
" Most wretched are the terms of men's estates when
" once they are at a period of wretchlessness so extreme
" that they bend not their wits any farther than only to
"shift out the present time, never regarding what shall
" become of their successors after them. Had our predeces-
" sors so loosely cast off from them all care and respect to

264
" posterity, a Church Christian there had not been, about
" the regiment whereof we should need at this day to
" strive. It was the barbarous affection of Nero, that the
" ruin of his own imperial seat he could have been well
" enough contented to see, In case he might also have seen
"it accompanied with the fall of the whole world; an
" affection not more intolerable than theirs, who care not to
" overthrow all posterity, so they may purchase a few days
" ignominious safety unto themselves and their present
" estates. It may be termed a safety, which tendeth so
" fast to their own overthrow, that are the purchasers of it
" in so vile and base a manner." Hooker's Eccles. Pol.
p. 430.
We have permitted (in my judgment criminally basely
permitted,) a British minister, at the beck of Popery and
Infidelity, to cut off half the Episcopacy from our Church.
How much more, another slave of Popery and Infidelity
may cut off I know not ; but this I know, that when we
permit a secular power to insult the Church of Christ, by
talking of taking care of our vested interests, and cutting
off the spiritual provision for the propagation and mainte
nance of God's truth in our country, we take the fairest
way to have those vested interests trampled under foot,
and to bring the judgments of God on our Church and
ourselves. If we take care of the religion of Christ,
Christ will take care of our vested interests. It is an
admonition equally suited to a Church as to an Individual,
" Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you." It was by the
faithful apostolic maintenance of God's truth our Church
was established ; it is for that, she has been raised up and
honored as she has been ; and If she expects the State to
protect her "vested interests," as they are called, let her

265
stand forth in the fidelity of her principles and truth, to
rally, to rescue, to redeem the miserable bondage of cor
ruption In which superstition and Infidelity have enthralled
the State ; if she does not, she shall look In vain to man
when she shall have forgotten her duty to her God. Let
her expect, when she complains of want of deliverance
from her dangers, to hear the State address her like the
weasel in the fable —
" Macra cavum repetes arctum quem macra subisti."
The Church's path of duty Is as clear as the Sun, if she
has only principle to follow It. I will say, my Lord, confi
dently, that she has not one prospect of protection for her
existence, nor ought she to have, but In the reformation of
the country. I will add, my Lord, on behalf of all my
brethren engaged in the Home Mission, that we are not
so wedded to our own views or plans as not to be most
ready to engage in any better that may be proposed to us.
If your Lordship, or any of our superiors, devise a faithful
plan of operation, and want labourers to help, here we are,
all ready and devoted to j'our service, In the service of our
God, of our Church, and country. But, as to the aban
doning what we believe and know to be our duty, God
forbid that any power should make us so shrink from our
Master's work. For myself, I will say my Lord, so clear
is my judgment, so convinced my understanding, so satis
fied my conscience on the subject, that, if I possessed the
vigour of mind and body that once I did, with my present
convictions, I hope I should sit down to learn the native
language of my country, and go forth to labour for the
salvation of my poor blind and guilty countrymen, through
the length and breadth of Ireland. I should do so as the

266
faithful arid devoted servant of the Established Church —
as spending myself in a cause the most for her interest
in which man could labour, and I would defend myself
in so doing against a thousand Charges before any
tribunal on the earth, with my Bible in one hand, and
the history and the law of our Church and of Chris
tianity itself in the other; and I can only say, that
if any human power should prevent me, with the sense of
duty which I have upon the subject — it could only be
because I was Influenced by the fear of man, more than by
the fear of God. I really think, my Lord, that such a
plain confession of a sense of duty, ought to have some
weight, as I trust it will, on the mind and conscience of a
Christian Bishop. I have only to add, that whatever
errors or evils may be found in this, I alone am responsible
for them all. I have been unable to profit by the advice or
assistance of any individual, not one of the Committee
of the Home Mission have ever seen these pages
but in print; so, if there is any good In them, I trust
that the cause of truth may derive the benefit, and
whatever be the evil, it is all my own. I now
commit these pages to the blessing of the Lord Jesus
Christ, I trust I write to maintain the cause of His truth
in this wretched country ; He alone knoweth the evil that
cleaves to anything that such a vile unworthy sinner can say
or write in his service — whatever evils your Lordship sees.
He sees ten thousand more ; but I cast them all, where
I trust all our sins, and all our best deeds may be
cast, into the all cleansing Fountain of His precious
atofiing blood.
With most earnest prayer for his Grace and Blessing on
your Lordship's head, and that He may graciously bestow

267
on you, all wisdom and fidelity, for the faithful discharge
of your holy office.
I have the honor to be,
My Lord Bishop,
Your Lordship's most unworthy,
But, faithful and dutiful.
Humble servant,
R. J. M" GHEK

Dublin : Printed by Johk S, Foids, 5, Bachelor's. Walk.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04077 3922

"itK&i''

sr, •