The Sun. — 1829-11-07 (London, England)

THE LORD BISHOP OF FERNS. Moore Park, Oct. 30, 18'29. My 1.011D,—1 have purposely refrained from returning a more speedy answer, wishing to give time to the public to digest deliberately the contents of our former letters. A. your Lordship cannot deny " that imperfections do exist in certain matters connected with our Church Establishment," you have with some dexterity endeavoured to extract from the troublesome reign of King Charles the First matter wherewith to damp the ardour of those who in modern times venture to complain against acknowledged abuses. As you know the difficulty of convincing us of that being right which in itself is wrong, (a power, according to Bellarmine, belonging to his Holiness the Pope), it became expedient to appeal less to men's reason than to their fears. Accordingly you refer me to the overthrow of the Church Establishment—the murder of the King, and the placing of Cromwell on the Throne—" with all the evils, all the heresies, and all the schisms of that fatal period." Your Lordship would induce me to believe that petitions to Parliament against ecclesiastical abuses from persons who were united together in the doctrines of the Church of England, led principally to the evil consequences you have noticed. And, therefore, your Lordship would have the laity at the present time wink at what is wrong, and passively suffer that which is hurtful to their own and to their neighbour's eternal welfare. Without attempting to advocate those who, in King Charles's reign made religion, as men have too often in all ages done, a step-ladder to temporal power, I must beg leave to say, that there were some other causes which mainly contributed to bring about the unhappy events which your Lordship refers to. Allow me as briefly as possible to point out a few of these, which, together with the general suspicion that King Charles was a Papist, must have had considerable weight. First, his attempt to raise money by taxes unauthorised by Parliament, especially by tonnage and poundage. Secondly, his lending a portion of the British navy to the King of France, his brother-in-law, even when he knew these vessels were to be employed in the subjugation of the French Protestants at Rochelle. Thirdly, the protection and favour he conferred on the imperious Buckingham, whom Echart, Archdeacon of Stowe, in his history, informs us was considered by the Commons to be " the corrupter of the King, and the betrayer of the people." Add to this, his opposing the right of Parliament to inquire into the public conduct of his Ministers. Fourthly, the committal of his suljects to prison for no legal offence, whilst even the benefit of the Habeas Corpus Act was withheld from them. Fifthly, the mismanagement of foreign and home affairs, the vexations the people had reason to complain of, and the failure that accompanied almost all his enterprises. No wonder a general discontent prevailed. But it is a dangerous thing for a weak Prince to struggle with his people for arbitrary power. When King John opposed his Barons the Magna Charta was first obtained, and Charles's opposition to the Commons gave birth to the Bill of Rights. Does your Lordship think that petitions for Church reform called for this last measure? If not, the cause of the Revolution and those ♦arious evils you make so much noise about, may with more truth be traced to another source, and religion will be found only to have been one of the weapons used in ' the contest.  Your Lordship may contiuue to call the meeting in Cork a lay synod, and may attach to it the !slackest forebodings ; but as you admit that " no system administered by men will ever be flee from imperfection" (too true) I think it is good to allow the laity in several ee,clesiastical matters to act as a check on the clergy, who are men subject to like passions and failings as others. This is the only way of checking that gradual corruption which we know deformed the Jewish religion of old, and afterwards the Christian professed by the churches of Greece and Rome, That the laity took an active part in religious affairs in the primitive Chnrch no well-informed Protestant can deny. And by an Act passed in the reign of King Henry the Eighth (27 Hen.