thers and other ways of conveyance might confess their faith in the same form. For if they were of the same opinion, why did they not express themselves in the same words? But he was answered, that because their sense was the same, it was not material if the expressions differed, and therefore it was fitter to confirm and strengthen the Articles of this Church passed in Convocation and confirmed by King James in 1615 by the authority of this present synod. To this the Bishop of Derry replyed, that the sense might be the same, yet that our adversaries clamoured much that they were dissonant confessions, and it was reasonable to take away the offence, when it might be done so easily but for the confirmation of the Articles of 1615, he knew not what they meant by it, and wished the propounder to consider, whether such an act would not instead of ratifying what was desired, rather tend to the diminution of that authority by which they were enacted, and seem to question the value of that synod and consequently of this: for that this had no more power than that, and therefore could add no moment, but by so doing might help to inervate both. By this prudent dressing of the objection he avoyded the blow he most feared, and therefore again earnestly pressed the receiving of the English articles, which were at last admitted: whereupon immediately drawing up a Canon and proposing it, it passed accordingly." : : It does not appear when the transactions here narrated could have taken place. It is evident, from the conference with the Lord Deputy, that the question had not been previously discussed in the Upper House; it is one of his subjects of complaint against the Lower House, that they had acted without consulting the Bishops and there was scarcely time for such discussions after the conference, as the canon passed in the same afternoon. It should also be remarked, that the Lord Deputy had positively prohibited the discussion of the reception of the Irish Articles, and had actually given the canon to the Primate to propose. The mode which Bishop Vesey describes of "dressing the objection" would not reflect much credit upon the talents or honesty of Bishop Bramhall. The objection was childish, and it would not have required the learning of the Primate to have answered it, by shewing that the acts of a council might be approved and confirmed by a succeeding one, without impairing the authority of either one or the other. It is most probable that Archbishop Price, in giving an account of the proceedings, had mixed up what occurred on the occasion of passing the first Canon, and the subsequent enactment of the others. The Canon, as drawn up by Lord Strafford, does great credit to his sagacity, and did not require the apology which he offered to Archbishop Laud for any mistakes he might have made, "in" regard he had been out of his sphere." It is as follows: "For the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Christian faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments; we do receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops and the whole clergy in the convocation holden in London in the year of our Lord 1562 for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and for the establishing of consent touching true religion. And therefore if any hereafter shall affirm that any of those Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, let him be excommunicated, and not absolved before he make a publick recantation of his error." It is quite evident, from the preceding narrative, that Lord Strafford considered he had not been fairly treated by Archbishop Ussher. However, even at the moment of his greatest indignation, his respect for the Primate's character appears very strongly. In the letter to Archbishop Laud, which contains his vehement invective upon the proceedings against his wishes, he says: "It is very true for all the Primate's silence it was not possible but he knew how near they were to have brought in those Articles of Ireland to the infinite disturbance and scandal of the Church, as I * Strafford's Letters, vol. i. pag. 344. eonceive; and certainly could have been content I had been surprized. But he is so learned a Prelate and so good a man, as I do beseech your Grace it may never be imputed unto him." Much controversy has arisen, whether or not the Irish Articles were repealed by this Canon. It seems a mere question of words. The Primate, in a letter to Dr. Ward, says: "The articles of religion agreed upon in our former synod anno 1615, we let stand as they did before. But for the manifesting of our agreement with the Church of England, we have received and approved your Articles also concluded in the year 1562, as you may see in the first of our Canons." The opinion of the Primate was, that the Irish Articles contained the doctrine of the English Articles more fully set forth, and that the English Articles were only received as expounded by the Irish; and, acting up to this view, he required the candidates for orders to sign both the Irish and English Articles, a practice in which he was followed by some other bishops. But it is quite evident that the last act of the Convocation superseded all preceding ones, and that the Canon enforcing the English Articles tacitly repealed all acts with respect to other Articles. This was the view taken of the subject by Bishop Taylor, in his sermon at the funeral of Archbishop Bramhall, to whom he attributed the adoption of the English Articles, and thus * It has been stated by many writers, that the Primate and several other Bishops petitioned the Lord Deputy, that he would suffer the Irish Articles to be ratified by the Parliament, and that he rejected the proposal with extreme indignation.-See Smith's Life of Ussher; Bp. Mant's History, pag. 494. But this account is not easily reconciled with the foregoing letter, or with the letters of Archbishop Laud. There is no mention of it by Dr. Parr or Dr. Bernard. I am inclined to think that its authority rests upon the following passage in the charge of the Scottish Commissioners against Lord Strafford: "When the Primate of Ireland did press a new ratification of the Articles of their Kirk in Parliament for barring such novations in religion; he boldly menaced him with the burning by the hand of the hangman, all of that Confession, altho confirmed in former Parliaments." The Scottish Commissioners having made the charge is certainly no proof of the fact. Their charge is absurd, for the Articles never were confirmed in former Parliaments, and if they had been, there would have been no occasion for the Primate to apply that they should again be confirmed. describes the advantages resulting from the enactment, "that they and we might be populus unius labii, of one heart and one lip, building up our hopes of Heaven on a most holy faith; and taking away that Shibboleth which made this Church lisp too undecently, or rather in some little degree to speak the speech of Ashdod, and not the language of Canaan." It is certain that, after the Restoration, no attempt was ever made to enforce subscription to the Irish Articles, and that for admission to holy orders the only subscription to Articles required has been signing the first Canon, which enforces the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. Dr. Parr states, that it has been entirely a mistake to suppose that any difference existed between the Primate and Bishop Bramhall on the subject of the Articles; that their only difference of opinion was about the Canons. No sooner had the agreement with the Church of England in doctrine been settled in the Convocation, than the Bishop of Derry moved that there should be a similar agreement in government, and that the English Canons of 1604 should be received as the Canons of the Church of Ireland. This Taylor's Works, vol. vi. pag 431. z It does not appear clearly what Canons were in force previously to this Convocation. No mention is made in the correspondence of any Canons in force; yet there is a passage in Dr. Bernard's work, which speaks of Canons being drawn up by Dr. Ussher in 1614. Probably, though drawn up, they never received the Royal sanction. The passage is as follows: "Anno 1614. He (Dr. Ussher) was a principal person appointed for the collecting and drawing up of such Canons as might best concern the discipline and government of the Church of Ireland, taken out of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions and the Canons of England, to be treated upon by the Archbishops and Bishops and Clergy of that Kingdom, some of which I have, which were written then with his own hand and presented by him; The two first of them were these, "1. That no other form of Liturgy or Divine Service shall be used in any church of this Realm, but that which is established by Law, and comprized in the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments &c. "2. That no other form of Ordination shall be used in this nation, but which is contained in the Book of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, allowed by authority, and hitherto practiced in the Churches of England and Ireland &c. "And in his subscription (in relation to the above mentioned) it is in VOL. I. N proposal was strenuously resisted by the Primate", on the ground that it would be a betrayal of the privileges of a national Church; that some discrepancy ought to appear, that the Church of Ireland might declare its independence of the Church of England, and also express her opinion, that rites and ceremonies need not be the same in all churches, which are independent of each other, but that different Canons might coexist with the same faith and communion. The Primate was successful in his opposition, and it was resolved, that such of the English Canons as were suitable to the state of Ireland should be retained, and that others should be added to them. The execution of this task was intrusted to the Bishop of Derry', and the Book of these words, viz. I do acknowledge the form of God's Service prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, is good and godly, and may lawfully be used, and do promise that I myself will use the form in the said Book prescribed in celebration of Divine Service and Administration of the Sacraments, and none other. I do also acknowledge, that such as are consecrated and ordered according to the form prescribed in the Book of Ordination set forth by Authority, have truly received Holy Orders and have power given them to exercise all things belonging to that sacred function, whereunto they are called &c.”—Bernard. Clavi Trabales, pag. 62, 63. a Lord Strafford, in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, says: "I am clear of your Lordship's opinion, it were fit the Canons of England were received here as well as the Articles: but the Primate is hugely against it; the business is merely point of honour (or as Sir Thomas Cognesby would have expressed it, matter of punctilio) lest Ireland might become subject to the Church of England, as the province of York is to that of Canterbury. Needs forsooth we must be a Church of ourselves, which is utterly lost unless the Canons here differ, albeit not in substance, yet in some form, from yours in England; and this crotchet put the good man into such an agony, as you cannot believe so learned a man should be troubled withal. But I quieted him by approving his writing to your Lordship, and assuring him I should repose myself in whatever was asserted by your Grace: to whose wisdom indeed I wholly submit myself, being very ready to do therein, as I shall receive directions from you. The truth is I conceive there are some Puritan correspondents of his, that infuse these necessities into his head, besides a popular disposition, which inclines him to a desire of pleasing all, the sure way I think never to please a man's self. You will among the rest find a rare canon against the sword salve, which I take to be a speculation far fetched and dear bought."-Strafford's Letters, vol. i. pag. 381. b This is the account of the matter usually given, but Dr. Bernard says: "For the more perfect canons of the Church of Ireland, constituted anno |