Parliament at Dublin and so a Convocation of the Clergy:" and Dr. Smith, "ordinibus regni Hiberniæ in Parliamento Dublinii A. MDCXV. habito coactis, pro more indicta erat nationalis Archiepiscoporum episcoporum reliquique cleri Hiberniæ synodus:" but various circumstances throw a doubt upon their evidence. The first cause of doubt is to be found in the Convocation itself. The Parliament and Convocation certainly did not meet at the same time, as stated by Dr. Parr. The Parliament met on the 18th of May, 1613, and the Convocation did not assemble till the end of 1614, and most probably not till 1615. Then the proceedings of the Convocation argue novelty and imperfection: the clergy do not appear to have granted any subsidies, or even to have claimed the right of taxing themselves. There is no Act of the Irish Parliament to confirm the grant of a subsidy by the clergy, yet there is in existence the transmiss of an act for confirming the subsidies granted by Convocation. The existence of the transmiss proves the wish of the English Government to have all things done regularly after the model of the Convocation in England, and its not being made use of establishes the fact that the Irish Convocation did not understand the proper mode of proceeding. The only business that is recorded to have been transacted, the formation of the Articles, was not concluded in proper form. They were not signed as in England by all the members, but by Archbishop Jones, Speakery of the House of Bishops in Convocation, and the Prolocutor of the House of the Clergy in their names. But while the imperfections of the Convocation of 1615 only afford an indirect argument for its nonexistence at an earlier period, we can obtain more complete proof by examining the proceedings of former reigns. In the reign of Henry VIII. we cannot find any reference of ecclesiastical matters to

y This fact Dr. Ryves adduces as proof that Archbishop Hampton had relinquished his claim to precedence of the Archbishop of Dublin, Reg. Angl. Def. part. 3. pag. 44. but he is mistaken. Archbishop Jones took precedence as Lord Chancellor, and does not appear ever to have disputed the precedence of the Archbishop of Armagh. Primate Hampton afterwards resisted Archbishop Bulkeley when claiming it. See pag. 160. The Chancellor took precedence of the Primate till the year 1634.

the Convocation, nor can we find any claims of exemption on the part of the clergy. They were taxed in common with his Majesty's other subjects. In the same reign there is a passage in an Act of Parliament which seems to prove that no Convocation existed in Ireland. The preamble of the 28 Henry VIII. cap. 12, states: "At every Parliament begun and holden within this land, two Proctors of every diocese within the same land have been used and accustomed to be summoned and warned to be at the same Parliament, which were never by order of law, usage, custom, or otherwise, any member or parcel of the whole body of the Parliament, nor have had any right, any voice or suffrage in the same, but only be there as counsellors and assistants to the same; and upon such things of learning, as should happen in controversy, to declare their opinions much like as the Convocation within the realm of England is commonly at every Parliament begun and holden by the King's Highness special license." Now this reference to the Convocation of England appears to be decisive proof that there was no such body existing in Ireland at that time; for if there had, the comparison would undoubtedly have been made with their own Convocation. The Act was caused by an attempt of the Proctors to be members of Parliament, an attempt which it attributes" to their ambitious minds and presumption, inordinately desiring to have authority and to intermeddle with every cause or matter without any just ground." This attempt seems very similar to the demand made by the English Convocation of 1547, yet there is no appearance of any such body as that which acted in England; nor is there any reference made in the Act to the Præmunientes clause, it simply speaks of two Proctors out of every diocese.

In the year 1551 Edward VI. sent an order that the Liturgy of the Church of England should be read in Ireland. Upon this order Sir Anthony St. Leger is not reported to have summoned a Convocation, but says Cox, "Before he issued a proclamation for the observance of it, he called an assembly of the Archbishops and Bishops with others of the then clergy of Ireland to propose the matter to them."

In the second year of Elizabeth a Parliament was assembled and no mention is made of a Convocation, though Acts with respect to the Church were passed. And in the third year of Elizabeth there was not any Parliament, yet she signifies her pleasure to Lord Sussex the Lord Lieutenant for a general meeting of the clergy and the establishment of the Protestant religion. This of course was an order to summon not a Convocation, but the ancient Synod of the clergy, which had the power of settling all matters concerning religion. It would appear then that the dissimilarity of the proceedings in England and Ireland with respect to the Reformation arose from the different constitutions of the two Churches. In England the Convocation, originally instituted for the purpose of managing the temporal concerns of the clergy, had gradually usurped the powers of the Provincial Synod and become the instrument of framing Articles and Canons for the Church. In Ireland the Provincial Synod had not been superseded, and by their consent given at three different times, in the reign of Edward when summoned by Sir Anthony St. Leger, in the third of Elizabeth called together by Lord Sussex, and in the year 1665 by Sir Henry Sydney, the Clergy received the use of the English Liturgy and expressed their conformity to the doctrines of the English Church. There is indeed a passage in the manuscript collections of Dudley Loftus which has been adduced as proof of a Convocation having been held in 1560: "This yeare was held a Convocation of Bishops at the Queen's command for establishing the Protestant religion." But he must have used the word Convocation merely to express a meeting of the Bishops, and would have adopted a very different phraseology had he intended to describe the assembling of the Convocation.

Ware in his Annals of Ireland takes for granted that the clergy met according to the orders given to the Lord Deputy, and does not think it necessary to mention the fact. But he prefaces the account of the consecration of Alexander Craike to the bishopric of Kildare by saying, "soon after the assembly of the Irish clergy had dispersed themselves." The reformation then in Ireland was carried on by the regular assembly to which the affairs of the Church.

ought canonically to be intrusted, and the English Liturgy was accepted by a Synod of the clergy held in 1560.

In the year 1566 a book of Articles was put forth by the authority of the Lord Deputy, the Archbishops and Bishops, and other her Majesty's High Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical in the same realm, which were to be publicly read by the clergy "at their possession-taking, and twice every year afterwards." It would appear that the English Articles were not in force at this time in Ireland, because this book of Articles is copied from a similar production issued in Englande before the publication of the Thirtynine Articles, and designed, no doubt, to supply the want of an authorized formulary. Its publication in Ireland would therefore seem to warrant the supposition of a similar want there. It has indeed been argued from Ussher's sermon before the House of Commons that subscription to the English

a These Commissioners were appointed by Elizabeth in the year 1563, and are not taken notice of in any history of Ireland with which I am acquainted. Leland indeed, and he is followed by Bishop Mant, states that a High Commission Court was established in Dublin in 1593. Possibly this is an error of the press, and that he wrote 1563, alluding to these Commissioners. The commission is dated the sixth of October in the sixth year of her reign, and is addressed to Adam Archbishop of Armagh, Hugh Archbishop of Dublin, Thomas Earl of Ormonde, Gerald Earl of Desmond, Gerald Earl of Kildare, Hugh Bishop of Meath, Robert Bishop of Kildare, Thomas Bishop of Leighlin, Sir Henry Radcliffe, Knight; Sir William Fitzwilliam, Knight; Sir Robert Cusack, Knight; John Plunkett, Robert Dillon, James Bathe, Francis Agarde, Robert Cusacke, the Maiours of for the time being, Terence the Dean of Armagh, John Garvy and Henry Draycott. The Commission is very long, and extends over a large range of business including heresy and other subjects of spiritual jurisdiction.

*

b Of this publication the contemporary historians give no account, and it was utterly unknown till my learned friend Archdeacon Cotton discovered a copy of it in a collection of pamphlets in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. As it is believed there is not another copy in existence, I have given the Articles in the Appendix printed exactly from the original edition. See App. III. pag. 21.

Wilkin states that these Articles were put forth before the consecration of Archbishop Parker, but Burnet places their publication after the consecration, while the Bishops were waiting for a Convocation, in which a new body of Articles were to be composed. The title of the Articles supports Burnet's opinion, for it states "set out by order of both Archbishops Metropolitans and the rest of the Bishops."

A circumstance mentioned incidentally by Wood would seem to prove

Articles was required in Ireland. Ussher certainly says, "we all agree that the Scriptures of God are the perfect rule of our faith, we all consent in the main grounds of religion drawn from thence: we all subscribe to the articles of doctrine agreed upon in the Synod of the year 1562 for the avoiding of diversities of opinions and the establishing of consent concerning true religion :" but it does not appear to me that these words are decisive, he might have used them in a general sense as merely expressive of assent, and indeed must have done so, for many of the persons he addressed had never subscribed the Articles. But whether the Thirty-nine Articles of the English Church were in force or not, every dictate of prudence would have suggested the propriety of assimilating the two Churches, and we must seek for the cause of forming a new code in the circumstances to which I have before alluded. The spirit which had endeavoured but unsuccessfully to force the Lambeth Articles on the English Church, had acquired fresh strength in Ireland from the unjustifiable conduct of the Government in their selection of persons for the high offices of the Church, and was now enabled to carry through the Convocation, and obtain the assent of the Lord Deputy for a system more exclusive and more dogmatical than that which had been attempted by Whittaker and his associates. On the meeting of the Convocation Randolph Barlowo, B.D., Chaplain to the Lord Deputy Chichester, was elected Prolocutor of the Lower House. Jones Archbishop of Dublin and Chancellor of Ireland presided in the Upper House. It is said that Dr. Ussher was appointed to draw up the Articles, but whether or not such a formal appointment

subscription was not required. He says, "John Ball (about the year 1608) made shift to be ordained a minister in London, without subscription, by an Irish bishop."- Wood, Athen. Oxon. vol. ii. p. 671. Barlow was in 1629 consecrated Archbishop of Tuam. It appears that he was indebted for his promotion to the recommendations of the Lord Deputy Falkland and of Ussher then Archbishop of Armagh. On account of the poverty of the See from the lands and other possessions being withheld, he was permitted to hold in commendam the deanery of Christ Church and the Archdeaconry of Meath. Archbishop Barlow died at Tuam on the 16th of February, 1638, in the 66th year of his age.