Irish Church Quarterly

Anthony Dopping, Bishop of Meath Author(s): Joseph Irvine Peacocke Source: The Irish Church Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 6 (Apr., 1909), pp. 120-133 Published by: Irish Church Quarterly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30067059 . Accessed: 16/06/2014 05:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Church Quarterly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Irish Church Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 120 ANTHONY DOPPING.

ANTHONY DOPPING, BISHOP OF MEATH.

ANTHONY DOPPING, the subject of this paper, was son of a Gloucestershire gentleman of the same name, who had purchased an estate in the county Meath in 1636. The future bishop was born in in March, 1643, and his boyhood's lot was consequently cast upon the troubled times when the rebellion of 1641 was being crushed out by the iron hand of Cromwell. Anthony was educated at St. Patrick's School, and entered Trinity College in May, 1656. His earlier academic years were passed under the r6gime of the Cromwellian Fellows; and after the Restoration his name appears in the first list of Scholars elected. Next year (1662), at the age of 19, he obtained a Fellowship, " in which (the sweetness of his temper was such) he executed all the duties of his place to the satisfaction both of his superiors and inferiors."' Later on, in 1681-2, he was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University. In this capacity he was able to do the College some little service, when the evil days of James II. and Tyrconnell came: at least he succeeded in preventing the intended imprisonment of all the collegians, though even this, as Archbishop King tells us, "cost him all his cunning and interest to effect."'2 In the meantime he had vacated his Fellowship, on his appointment as vicar of St. Andrew's, Dublin, 1669, and was shortly afterwards married to Jane, daughter of " honest Sam Molyneux," chief engineer of Ireland, and sister of Sir Thomas Molyneux, first baronet. The ancient parish of St. Andrew had been reconstituted in 1665, and Dopping was the second vicar. Up to this time the parishioners had worshipped at St. Wer- burgh's, but during his incumbency a new church was built, "after an ovall model," on the bowling green

1 Walter Harris, Works of Sir J. Ware, 1764, vol. i., p. 394. State the Protestants iii. sec. I[W. King] of of Ireland, 1692, chap. 15. 4.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING. 121 given by Jones, Bishop of Meath, for the purpose.' Dr. Dopping was very regular in his attendance at the parochial vestry meetings-his signature as vicar is only once wanting to their minutes; and the index and marginal references in his hand, which may still be seen in the Parish Register, are evidences of the careful attention to detail, which was a marked feature of his life. In those days the city churches were largely attended by people of rank and fashion. Sir William Temple was one of the congregation of St. Andrew's when Dopping ministered there; and in a letter, written from Moor Park eighteen years afterwards, he tells his old vicar that he has " retained the opinion which I then conceived of that goodness and prudence, which are not so commonly met with in the clergy as learning and eloquence.''2 The year 1679 saw Dopping's advancement to the episcopal bench. Through the influence of the Duke of Ormonde, then Lord Lieutenant, whose chaplaincy he held, he was appointed Bishop of Kildare, and conse- crated shortly afterwards in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin. Three years later he was translated to Meath, and at the same time made a Privy Councillor.3 As Bishop of Meath he lent his influence and efforts to the project which was then on foot of publishing the Bible in Irish. The New Testament and the Book of Common Prayer had been printed in that language at the beginning of the century. Convocation had passed canons in 1634, in spite of the opposition of Bramhall and others, enjoining the conduct of divine service in the Irish tongue, wherever it was spoken. Bedell had translated the Old Testament, but the Rebellion of 1641 'J. T. Gilbert, History of Dublin, 1859, vol. iii. p. 306. The present church of St. Andrew occupies the same site, but the church of Dopping's day had fallen into such decay in the next century that it was rebuilt between 1793 and 1807. This building, commonly called the " Round Church," was burned to the ground on Christmas Day, x86o. = Dopping Correspondence, preserved in Armagh Library, no. 178. 'His name was omitted from the Privy Council on the accession of James II. See King, State of Protestants, Appendix ix. I

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 122 ANTHONY DOPPING. had prevented the completion of his work and had put an end for a time to any further efforts in this direction. The original Irish type had fallen into the possession of the Jesuits, and had been carried by them to Douai. But when the Restoration of Charles II. had improved the condition of affairs in Ireland, the Hon. conceived the design of reprinting the New Testament in Irish, and it was published in 1681. , then Bishop of Meath, was greatly interested in the undertaking. He had in his keeping the manuscript of Bedell's Old Testament, and he urged Boyle to get this printed also.' The sheets, "a con- fused heap, pitifully defaced and broken,"2 were put into the hands of Dr. Andrew Sail, a converted Roman Catholic with a competent knowledge of the Irish language, who had come over to Ireland to help in the business of translation and supervision. Jones's death at this juncture was very inopportune; but fortunately the sympathies of his successor had already been enlisted: indeed Jones had informed Dr. Sall that Dopping was the only man whom he had gained to join him in the work.3 The new bishop, however, was fully alive to the difficulties that were to be faced. In a letter to Lady Ranelagh, Boyle's sister, he says:- " I am of opinion that the prosecution of this worke will meet with two considerable impediments, the one from some politicians of our owne communion, who are of opinion that the Irish being a conquered nation and there being some statute laws made for conforming them to the English language and customs, their language ought rather to be discountenanced than incouraged, and that the carrying on of the present designe would be an arraignment of the wisdom of our ancestors. The other wch is more considerable, is the little or no hope of doing any good among them by this reason for want of good laws for the banishing of the priests and fryars from among them. For they have obtained so great an authority among the people and they are so much inslaved to the dictates of yr teachers that whatever T, Birch, Worksof the Hon. Robert Boyle, 1772, vol. i., ap., p. clii. 2 Ibid. vol. vi. p. 598. 'Ibid. p. 599.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING. 123 they condemneas unlawfullthe people are apt to believe so too, and we need not doubte that as soon as they smell out our designe they will pronounce an anathema on them that come to heare us."' But in spite of difficultiesthe projectwas not abandoned. On the death of Dr. Sail, the manuscripthaving come into Dopping's hands, he gave it to , Provost of Trinity College2; and the work was eventu- ally completedunder the supervisionof Dr. Hunting- ton, who succeeded Marsh as provost. Meanwhile Dopping had written a circular letter to the Irish bishops, soliciting subscriptions. An extract will show his views:- " How it may be a meansof convertingthe natives to the Protestantreligion, that somethingought to be done by or clergy to convert recusants, by whose labours they are maintained,that it was thought worthy of this nationall church to provide canons for reading the service in the native tongue, that the Reformaiqn obtained a prosperous successe among the Welsh and English by having the word of God translated and preached in those languages, that the insuccessfulness of it among us is to bee imputed to the want of it, and that since all former statutes (for converting the natives to the English language) have proved insuccessful, it will bee no harme to try whether .the word of God dressed up in yr owne tongue may not have that influence upon their reformaion wch our labour has hitherto beene unable to effect.""3 Six or seven of the bishops promised, in answer, to assist; others refused.4 Dopping also wrote a preface for this version of the Old Testament, but we learn from some correspondence between Boyle and Huntington' that it had apparently been lost, and the book was published without a preface in 1685-. 'Dopping Correspondence, no. I9. SBirch, Op. cit., vol. i., ap., p. clxxxiii. Marsh afterwards accused Dopping of lukewarmness in carrying out his share of the enterprise. Ibid. vol. vi. p. 60o9. SDboppingCorrespondence, no. 25, &c. Ibid. ' Ibid. " Canon Healy, History of Diocese of Meath, 19o8, vol. ii., p. 21, states, in error, that " when the work was published the preface6 wds from Dopping's pen." The greater part of the original MS., withpress corrections, is in Marsh's Library, and the remainder in the Crhbridge

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 124 ANTHONY DOPPING.

We have further evidence that the Bishop of Meath was a firm believer in the necessity of teaching the Irish people through the medium of their own language. In the letter to Lady Ranelagh, quoted above, he states his intention of appointing an itinerant missioner to preach through his diocese in Irish, and " sometimes to coun- tenance him with my presence and authority." More- over in his observations, appended to the report on the Diocese of Meath which he made to the Lord Lieutenant in 1693,' he strongly recommends a plan for the con- version of the natives by sending them missionaries who could address them in their own tongue. However, the succession of James II. to the throne gave a death-blow, at least for a time, to all such schemes. It was very soon evident that the Protestants in Ireland were under the disfavour of the Government. As early as 1685 there were secret meetings of priests and others in the county Meath which caused Dopping considerable uneasiness,2 and before long there was an exodus of Protestants, clergy and people, across the channel. During the troubled times which succeeded, the Bishop of Meath was the recognized head of the . Two of the four Archbishops had fled to England. The Archbishopric of Cashel was vacant, and Michael Boyle, the Primate, was disabled by age and infirmity. The Bishop of Meath ranked next in precedence, and Dopping's personal qualities made him the actual as well as the official leader. He was in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the country-Cork, Waterford, Ossory, Kilmore, and else- where-informing him of the way in which the churches were being desecrated, and asking his advice and help.3 In Dublin-where his house was in Bride Street4-he

University Library. Harris, Op. cit., vol. ii., p. 258, says that Dopping wrote the preface for Boyle's New Testament, but this is a mistake. It was the work of Dr. Andrew Sall.-Birch, Op. cit., vol. vi., p. 596 f. 'A is in Marsh's " copy preserved Library. Dopping Correspondence. 3 Ibid., no Io9, &c. ' Dopping's letters were also often addressed to his father-in-law's house in " The New Row."

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING. 125 was described, along with Dr. King, as " the bulwark of the Protestants in these sad times "'; and another writer states that " Dr. Dopping and several other persons of note signaliz'd themselves and behaved them- selves with so much Prudence, Industry, Resolution, and Tenderness to the afflicted, that they will always be look't on by those who staid in Dublin as peculiar in- struments of their preservation."2 The Journals of James's Irish Parliament record how the Bishop of Meath, again and again, spoke and voted, sometimes alone, against its iniquitous measures, and his famous speech in opposition to the repeal of the Act of Settlement was both judicious and courageous. It was he who persuaded Tyrconnell to amend his order for seizing the arms of all Protestants, a measure which would have left them at the mercy of the Irish soldiery. It was he who approached James with a remonstrance, when the news reached Dublin of Rosen's brutality at Derry.- The Bishop of Meath was administrator of the relief funds for the distressed Protestant prisoners, and he obtained permission to send clergymen to visit and minister to them. He was also intermediary with the Governor of Dublin for ill-used Protestants, and it was to Dopping the Governor communicated his commands for the Protestant community.4 During this time he was guardian of the spiritualities of the See of Dublin, having been appointed, at the suggestion of Dr. King, by the Chapters of St. Patrick's and Christ Church, after the attainder of Archbishop Marsh.5 King assisted him in this work, and when the troubles were over, Marsh wrote to Dopping thanking him heartily for his care of the diocese.6 After James's flight, while Dublin was in confusion, "A True and Perfect Journal of the Affairs in Ireland since His Majesty's Arrival in that Kingdom. By a Person of Quality. Quoted in Sir C. S. King's A Great , x9o6, p. 24, note. SW. King, Op. cit., chap v. sec. 2. 7. * and Ibid., chap. iii. secs. 8. x7, 13. 4. 'Dopping Correspondence, no. zo7, &c. William SH. J. Lawlor, Diary of King, Dublin, 190o3, pp. 9, io. 'Dopping Correspondence, no. x65.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 126 ANTHONY DOPPING. the of Meath Bishop was one of a number of gentlemer who formed a provisional committee and maintained order. When King William arrived, accompanied by the rest of the clergy, he met him as he entered the city and attended him to a service of thanksgiving in St. Patrick's, where Dean King preached; and next day he once more headed the clergy in a visit to King William's camp at Finglas and addressed him on their behalf with a speech of welcome. This suggests to us a question of Dopping's honesty- whether he was merely a time-server, supporting James as long as it was to his interest, and deserting him when he found that William's was the winning side. Leslie, in his Answer to the State of the Protestants, roundly accuses him, as well as Dr. King, of such mercenary conduct. The most pointed charge he brings against him is " that the Bishop of Meath did desire leave from King James to attend him to the Boyne."' But there exists a draft letter of Dopping's to King, written at the latter's request in reference to the mis-statements in Leslie's book, in which this accusation is called " a downright lye, first invented (as the Bishop was informed upon inquiry) by Theob. Butler at London, and then spread about by that party, and at last licked up by this smattering answerer and inserted in his book."2 The fact is that Dr. Dopping, like so many of the other clergy of his day, had originally held high views of the divine right of kings and the evils of rebel- lion. That James was a Roman Catholic he had regarded, he says, "as a judgment of our procuring, since we barbarously and inhumanely murdered his father and banished his sons out of their dominions."3 But he adhered to his allegiance under suffering and loss, and hoped and worked for better times. When James himself came to Dublin the Bishop of Meath was quite sincere in leading the clergy and the university to Quoted triumphantly in Kil!en, History, 1875, vol. ii. p. no. 169. 2 Dopping Correspondence, 225. SMS. Sermons, T.C.D. MS., 1688.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions AN 1t$u N Y vurrlrUNL. 127 present him with an address of welcome and assurance of loyalty. He was able, with equal sincerity, to support the address which was made to James in Parlia- ment two months later. But this was early in 1689. " Plundering and war, robbery and depredation, the loss of flocks and herds and all worldly goods," is his own description of the treatment meted out to the Protestants during the terrible year which succeeded: " We were under daily fears and expectations of a massacre."1 And it became more and more evident that there would be no improvement in their condition as long as James should be king. The hard and un- answerable logic of fact converted Dopping to an entire change of view, and at the end of this period he very naturally welcomed William as a deliverer. We have the reasons, in his own words, on which he grounded his later opinions. Writing to Thomas Otway, Bishop of Ossory, who had refused on grounds of conscience to pray for William and Mary in the Church Service, Dopping asks him to consider " Whether a King may not doe some acts that may forfit of his crowne . . . whether K. James has not done two of them, one in consenting to the destruction of the Protestants as to churches, liberties, religion, trade, and property. Another in deserting this King- dom and leaving no visible authority behind him. . . If K. William were no other than an invader of another's right, which he is not, whether subjection to him and praying for him are not our duty. For my part I believe that they are."2 Moreover in a sermon preached at St. Patrick's, in October, 169o, he says that " when a prince deserts his people, it is an argument that he has deserted his right to their allegiance, and if it be lawfull for him to consult his own safety by flying

' MS. Sermons. A from the aDopping Correspondence, no. 159. subsequent letter Bishop of Ossory to Dopping states that his scruples had been removed. in Conseqrently he was permitted to continue his bishopric, which Mant, who believed he remained unconvinced,' was unable to explajn. Hiritory, vol. ii., Introduction.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions x28 ANTHONY DOPPING.

away, it is as lawfull for them to consult theirs, if they stay behind "; in fact by his act " he gives them leave to make termes with their new master."1 Dopping's outspoken courage makes him the last man likely to be guilty of trimming or time-serving. We may illustrate this feature of his character from two of his sermons. Shortly after Clarendon arrived in Dublin as Lord Lieutenant, in January, 1686, Dopping preached before him in Christ Church Cafhedral. In the course of his sermon he condemned as erroneous several of the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. James was informed of what he had said, and wrote a strong letter of remonstrance to Clarendon for per- mitting such criticism of the King's religion in his presence. The Viceroy replied, " The Bishop of Meath is a very dull preacher, which may make me, as well as others, not to have minded him so much as we ought to do what is said in that place."2 However, he continued, he remembered enough to warn Dopping against meddling with such matters in future. But this warning was apparently unheeded ; there are notes in the margin of the sermon which show it was delivered several times during the next few years.3 Early in the Lent of 169I Dopping preached a sermon in St. Patrick's, urging the congregation to humble themselves before God for their sins. After enumerat- ing some of the most notorious, he went on to speak of " the general coldness in the externals of religion, especially in receiving the blessed Sacrament." He alluded to a recent occasion when the Governors had come forward to partake, but, he continued, " Not ten persons staid in the church to accompany them to the office. To see the state chaplains attend their masters to the sermon but forsake them at the communion, to see none of their sacred hands extended MS. Sermons. " Henry, Earl of Clarendon, State Letters, 1763, vol. i., p. 96. It is amusing to read a marginal note in a copy of Ware's Bishotps in the Library of T.C.D., which quotes Clarendon's defence of himself as a proof that Dopping was " a poor preacher." "M.S. Sermons.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING. 129 to receive the holy symbols, when if a fat prebend had been upon the holy table there would have been hands enough stretched out to receive it. To see the honour- able nobility attending the insignia of honour to the holy table and retiring from them when they are safely deposited on the cushion, and paying far less ceremony to the king's representative than Naaman the Syrian did unto his master in the house of Rimmon. For he would attend him in an idolatrous house till the heathen sacrifices finished, whereas ours have neither so much patience nor so much ceremony as to stay and partake of the Christian religion's sacrifice. To behold the chief magistrate of the city turning his back upon so holy an ordinance and all the freemen then present following his vertuous and good example, and briefly to behold the whole body of the people running out of the church as if some sudden damp had risen out of the vaults to frighten them away."' These are not the words of a time-server. In fact, Dopping's outspokenness soon cost him Wuilliam's favour. He was preacher in Christ Church Cathedral before the Justices when they returned to Dublin from concluding the Treaty of Limerick. After reviewing the past enmity of the Irish against the English, and accusing them of frequent violation of their oaths, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the terms given, and advised such careful watch to be kept for the future as would prevent a repetition of former experiences.2 William was very angry when he heard of this sermon, and had Dopping's name removed from the list of Privy Councillors.3 He was afterwards restored to this office, but never fully regained the favour of the Government. For this he was largely indebted to the presence of enemies in London, who took every Opportunity of =MS. Sermons. SIb. Dopping's statementsappear to have been exaggerated and mis- represented.He sent a copy of the sermonto the Bishop of London,who had written to him about the reportof it that was in circulation. The Bishop in his reply expressedapproval of the sermonitself, but thought it inopportune.-Dopping' Correspondence. He had been reinstatedafter William's arrival in Dublin. Hiehad also been appointed on a special commission to seize forfeitures accruing to the Crown by the rebellionof the Irish ; but finding the Commission was illegal and its proceedingsarbitrary, he refused to attend.--Harris, Life of WilliamIII., 1749, P. 279.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I30 ANTHONY DOPPING. traducing him. The Non-Jurors counted him a deserter, and he was also a special object of dislike to some of the clergy who had fled to England from the troubles, as leader of the party who had stayed behind to " bear the brunt," with whom their relations were not over cordial. Grounds of accusation against him were easily found in the fact that he had so long adhered to James, and in the somewhat stringent measures he at one time adopted to prevent the spread of dissent. Compton, Bishop of London, was Dopping's great friend and constant cor- respondent, and kept him well informed of the trend of opinion at the capital. He frequently deplored the activity of these enemies; and he assigns their influence as one reason why Dopping was not the successor of in the Archbishopric of Dublin.' Other reasons were his Irish birth, and the hostility of some in high places whom he had offended by his vigorous opposition to the promotion of an unworthy candidate to a bishopric. The Bishop of London was also in the habit of con- sulting Dopping about appointments in the Irish Church. In one letter he referred to certain evils he had heard of as prevailing-numerous pluralities, " the clergy living in great luxury, especially as to apparel and equipages, " and " we have had," he added, " some specimens come over now and then made it more sus- picious." Amongst the names which Dopping recom- mended for promotion we find those of King, Palliser, Foy, and Huntington; and it is interesting to hear his. opinion " that rough and active men might be put into Ulster bishoprics, and gentile, affable, courteous men into Munster."' The principal public affair in which Dopping was engaged during the closing years of his life was the trial of Hackeft, Bishop of Down and Connor, and his Arch- deacon, Lemuel Matthews, with others of his clergy, which took place at Lisburn in the spring of 1694. Dr. Dopping Correspondence, no. 233, &c. Ibid., no. 169, &c.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING. 13Y King sat with him as fellow commissioner, and by their sentence both bishop and archdeacon were suspended and deprived. For the remainder of his life Dopping was worried by the frequent appeals Matthews made against this decision,1 and he was in his grave long before the sentence was finally confirmed, after thirteen or fourteen ineffectual attempts to upset it, in as many courts. Anthony Dopping died in Dublin, "much lamented," we are told, " by all degrees of people,"2 on 24th April, 1697. Apparently his last illness was comparatively brief, as there exists a number of notes in his hand on the question of an archbishop's jurisdiction, which he made less than a month previously as material for an answer to a letter from the Archbishop of Cashel.3 On matters ecclesiastical he was regarded as an authority by his contemporaries: "a person much better skilled in the laws and constitutions of the Church than I was," writes King of him.' He published a treatise, De Visitationibus Episcopalibus; and his correspondence shows that he was engaged at the time of his death in investigating the extent to which rural deaneries existed in Ireland. The Index to the Liber Niger of Christ Church, was compiled by him, and is further evidence of his antiquarian tastes. To Dr. Dopping's intimate knowledge of his own diocese, the two visitation returns which he made in 1693 and 1694, with his observations thereon, bear witness.5 Meath had suffered sorely during the previous fifty years, and one of his last pro- jects was the rebuilding of some of its ruined churches, for which he had begun to seek assistance.6 His episcopal administration is somewhat severely criticized by King in a letter to a correspondent, but the criticism appears hardly fair. After alluding to the Bishop of Dopping Correspondence, no. 264, &c. * W. Harris, Works of Sir J. Ware, vol. i., p. I6s. Dopping Correspondence. * T.C.D. Transcribed King Correspondence, quoted by Sir C. S. King in A Great * Archbishop of Dublin, p. 213. Copies are preserved in Marsh's Library. ' Dopping Correspondence, no. 323.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 132 ANTHONY DOPPING. Meath as " one who had the good of the Church at heart as much as any man could have, of a meek and gentle spirit, who managed all things with mildness and persuasion," he continues, " yet in five or six years that I have been bishop there, Derry was put in a better posture by the methods I took than Meath was in fifteen by the Bishop's."1 But the same " five or six years " were really the whole period during which Dopping had a reasonable opportunity of improving the condition of his diocese, as the troubled days of James's reign im- mediately preceded them; and we know he was then suffering from ill-health and deafness, which must have interfered with his activity. Besides his time was largely occupied in public business, and King himself urged him not to retire from this, as he contemplated; " your diocese much needs you," he said, " but the kingdom more." Dopping and King, however, were always close friends; the latter " had entire confidence in Dopping's prudence and could not write so freely to anofher."2 A further friendship which is evidence of the Bishop of Meath's character was that of the pious James Bonnell, Accountant-General of Ireland, amongst whose intimates his name stands first.3 There are contained in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, three volumes of Dopping's sermons in manu- script. He was evidently in considerable request as a preacher-thus when he was in the north of Ireland at the time of Hackett's trial, he preached in Belfast, Lisburn, Antrim, and Carrickfergus.4 The style of his sermons was vigorous and his expression lucid. He gave utterance to his opinions, both in political and religious matters, courageously. He was extremely practical in his teaching, and his intimate knowledge of the Scriptures and of history is freely used to illustrate his topics. ST.C.D. Transcribed King Correspondence, quoted by Sir C. S. King, Op.* cit., p. 213- Dopping Correspondence, nos. 259, 289. " W. and Character Hamilton, Exemplary Life of James BonneU, x8o7, P. 237. "MS. Sermons.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ANTHONY DOPPING.133 Dopping was a strong Protestant, in the best sense of the word. He was strenuously opposed to the distinc- tive doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome, and warmly attached to his own Church-its organization, its rites, and its tenets. But though in his earlier years he occasionally acted somewhat harshly towards dis- senters, for a man of his day, when religious toleration was as yet very imperfectly understood, he was not narrow, and he quotes with approval Ussher's statement " that if the articles in which all Christians are agreed were taken as a summary of the fundamentalsof religion, they contain so much truth that a belief in them, joyned to a holy life and conversation, is sufficient to bring a man to eternal happiness." He was in favour of a " bill for givifig the dissenters full security in the free exercise of their religion," while he held, at the same time, that public offices should be secured to those who conformed with the State Church.1 And in estimating his views, we must remember that he had lived through the days of Cromwell and Tyrconnell. Anthony Dopping's name is only mentioned by some historians as a mark at which to shoot in passing a shaft of scorn or invective. The prejudice of these writers recalls an illustration which the Bishop used in one of his sermons:-" I remember the fable of the wolfe that was sent to schoole to read, and when he came to be so expert as to spell and put them together, he could make nothing of his syllables but the word Agnus-his fancy was so intent upon his game that every letter was a lamb, and every syllable was a sheepe." J. IRVINE PEACOCKE. SCase of Dissenters of Ireland considered in reference to the Sacra- mental Test, 1695.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.60 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 05:42:08 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions