^ PRINCETON. N. I. ■* 
 
 BX 5500 .D9 1868 
 Dyer, William Henry. 
 The 'question of the Irish' 
 church calmly considered: 
 
! 
 
j 
 
THE 
 
 QUESTION OF THE 
 
 IRISH CHURCH 
 
 CALMLY CONSIDERED : 
 
 A BOOK OF FACTS, 
 
 TESTIMONIES AND ARGUMENTS, 
 
 REV. WILLIAM H. DYER. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., PATERNOSTER ROW, 
 
 BATH : 
 
 WILLIAM LEWIS, 12, NORTHGATE STREET. 
 
WILLIAM LEWIS, " DIRECTORY " OFFICE, 12, NORTHGATE STREET, BATH. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 HERE are many ititelligent men who place truth and 
 righteousness above all party considerations, and 7vho 
 think that the Dis-establishment of the Irish Church 
 ■would be a most disastrous step. To such men, especially, this 
 book appeals. The writer asks of them a candid consideration of 
 the evidence here adduced upon the chief points of the controversy. 
 He has been careful to give ample authorities for his statements ; 
 and, wherever possible, to allott the words of men, whose position 
 or sentiments might give weight to their expressions, to appear 
 rather than his own. He has stated nothing as a fact which, 
 after enquiry, he does not honestly think will be foicnd to be so — 
 he has used no figures which cannot, as he beliei'cs, be verified — 
 nor any argument that he does not think to be sound. And he 
 is not without hope that the consideration of what he has ad- 
 vanced may convince many that the Dis-establishjnent of the Irish 
 Church would do more for the welfare of Ireland and for the 
 progress of Protestantism than any other measure that could be 
 adopted. 
 
 October, 1868. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Different views of Dis-establishment — the scope of the work — Propositions 
 
 PP- 1—3 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Proposition i. — The origin of tithes — the property tnist property — only upon 
 this ground can the Protestant Church justify its tenure 
 for 300 years — the Legislature has dealt with the pro- 
 perty as public property — six instances — opinions of 
 eminent men — counter arguments answered pp. 4 — 25 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ,, 2. — The oath — Assertions. I. The real meaning of the oath — 
 consequences of attaching to it any other — the nation 
 having exacted can abrogate the pledge. II. The Act 
 of Union — is 'a contract which can be annulled by the 
 contracting parties — if not, the effects — the action 
 already taken by the Legislature and judgments of 
 moralists and statesmen - - - pp. 26 — 30 
 
 CHAPTER III, 
 
 ,, 3. — The Estabhshed Church before the Reformation. 
 
 (ieneral statement of the effects of Establishment upon the 
 Church — sketch of history — disgust occasioned by 
 setting up the system of compulsory tithes — exclusion 
 of native pastors from preferment — harsh statutes against 
 Irish customs — spiritual powers prostituted to political 
 purposes — measures for the good of Ireland rejected 
 under the influence of political motives - pp. 31 — 38 
 
VI 
 
 CONTENTS, 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 rKorosniON 3. — The Establishment after the Reformation. 
 
 The great majority of the clergy and people opposed to the 
 Reformation — penalties imposed to compel conformity 
 — proofs of the mournful consequences from state docu- 
 ments, &c. pp. 39 — 50 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ,, 3. — The Established Church after the Reformation. 
 
 In consequence of political connection — the native ministry 
 discouraged and disgraced — the people left in helpless 
 ignorance of Scripture and Protestantism — many unfit 
 men appointed to office ... - pp.51 — 58 
 
 CHAPTER VI, 
 
 ,, 3. — The Established Church after the Reformation. 
 
 Obvious measures of usefulness neglected or rejected — 
 testimonies as to the mournful effects of political con- 
 nections — the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries — 
 the Irish Church in 1834 — since then - pp. 58 — 71 
 
 CHAPTER VII, 
 
 „ 4. — The sense of injustice associated with the Established 
 Church — compelled to support heresy — landlords and 
 tenants — tenants do pay tithes — provisions of the Act — 
 argument of Sir G. C. Lewis examined — compared with 
 that of Sir Roundcll Palmer — the ecclesiastical property 
 once belonged to their own Church — compelled to sup- 
 port the religion of a small and wealthy fraction of the 
 nation — the memories connected with the past history 
 of the Establishment— repressive statutes— penals laws 
 —tithe conflicts pp. 72—86 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Vll 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 PuovosiTloN 5. — Early life of St. Patrick— his doctrine— ecclesiastical system 
 of the Primitive Irish Churcli — great number of bishops 
 Rome would not acknowledge them — rich in great and 
 good men — not connected with Rome - pp. 87 — 93 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 0. — Progress of Free Churches. 
 
 Alleged results of disestablishment — the remarkable pro- 
 gress of Free Churches within a century — i. In Eng- 
 land and Wales. 2. In the United States. 3. In 
 heathen lands ..... pp. — 108 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 ,, 7. — The course of legislation — the proposals of the Conservative 
 Government and the sentiments of public men — the 
 strong feeling in England as well as in Ireland 
 
 pp. 109 — 118 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 ., 8. — National righteousness must be founded upon religion — 
 national religion the measure of national prosperity — 
 national religion not dependent upon State Establish- 
 ments — conclusion . . - . pp. ng — 125 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 64, last line but one, for " Irish Church," read — " State of 
 the Irish Church." 
 
 Page 109, loth line, for "parliamentary," read — "preliminary" 
 objection. 
 
 Page 109, last line but three, for " Governors-Generals," — read 
 " Governors-General." 
 
THE QUESTION OF THE 
 
 IRISH CHURCH 
 
 CALMLY CONSIDERED. 
 
 A BOOK OF FACTS, TESTIMONIES, AND ARGUMENTS. 
 
 The proposal by the acknowledged chief of a great party in the 
 State to dis-establish the Episcopal Church in Ireland, and the 
 sanction given to that proposal by large majorities in the House 
 of Commons, have occasioned deep anxiety to many thoughtful and 
 upright men. And, surely we cannot be surprised at this. It is 
 a shock both to their imaginations and their faith. To them the 
 institution is venerable — not less for its utility than for its age ; 
 they look back for three centuries and see it like a lofty mountain 
 rising in a barren land, covered with rich foliage and fruit, and 
 sending forth fresh springs of water to make green and glad the 
 surrounding wastes. In their view it is the standing and only 
 efficient witness for scriptural truth, the most effective protest 
 against errors, perilous to men's souls, and fatal to social and civic 
 prosperity , it is the centre round which gather the intelligence, 
 the education, and the scriptural religion of the country ; if you 
 destroy that you demolish the fortresses by which alone a few 
 faithful soldiers of the truth can hold their place in the midst of 
 many foes, you forsake these few valiant men, you drive from the 
 country many of her best friends, and give it up to idolatrous 
 errors and Papal usurpations. You unsettle the foundations of 
 property ; you violate solemn contracts ; you call upon the Queen 
 to break her coronation oath ; you yield to clamours that can 
 never be satisfied, and destroy what can never be restored ; you 
 introduce a system which has all the perils of an experiment upon 
 a gigantic scale, but which, once introduced, will have all the 
 stability of an irreversible deed. You might soon demolish West- 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 minster Abbey, but who could restore it— make it again what it is 
 to-day ? 
 
 Facilis decensus avemi 
 Sed revocare pedem — 
 That is, you may easily slide over the precipice, but to get back — 
 Would it not be far better, say the men who thus think, to examine 
 the old building thoroughly — remedy defects, clear out dirty 
 corners, repair and restore neglected and unused apartments, and 
 put them to some good use ; if necessary, take away a wing of the 
 building rather than demolish it altogether — at all events give this 
 a trial, if not satisfactory you will at least have time for considera- 
 tion and preparation for so great a change ; and if, after all the 
 thing must be done, you will do it none the worse for having a 
 deeper conviction of duty and a more just appreciation of all the 
 facts of the case. 
 
 All this is very natural, and to some good men resistless. 
 They look with wonder upon others whom they have been accus- 
 tomed to account both sane and honest, and find it impossible to 
 understand how they can concur in and actively promote measures 
 which appear so detrimental to the interests which they profess 
 most to love. That men of no fixed principles upon religious 
 subjects, men whose highest impulses come from no better source 
 than party politics, should be willing to surrender a venerable and 
 sacred institution to destruction they can understand, but how 
 Christian men of thoroughly Protestant principles can concur in 
 this is to them unaccountable. 
 
 My aim in this book is to meet if I can, the thoughts and 
 difificulties of such persons of intelligence and Christian integrity 
 as are here represented, by trying to show how a man may really 
 know something of the matter, may look calmly and fairly at both 
 sides of the question, and consistently with strong religious and 
 Protestant convictions, may earnestly desire that the Episcopal 
 Church in Ireland may cease to be an Establishment of the State. 
 
 And here let me at once say that the proposal to dis-establish 
 the Irish Church does not involve, in my judgment, the demolition 
 of an ancient institution, but its restoration to the purity, vigour, 
 and joy of the days of its youth. You do not by that measure 
 remove the witness for scriptural truth, but you enable it to speak 
 in clearer tones, and with the authority of a higher and more un- 
 questioned purity. If John the Baptist had been compelled by 
 Herod to assume a courtly dress and title he would have lost none 
 of his moral power as a man sent from God by laying these aside. 
 It is not taking away the bulwark against error, but widening its 
 basis and strengthening its foundations in the hearts and judgments 
 of men of all parties ; it is not dismantling the fortress and for- 
 
3 
 
 saking the faithful few in an enemy's country, but cutting off 
 dilapidated outworks which, while making for their defence 
 great demands upon the garrison, only afford advantage to the 
 enemy; it is not giving up the country to Papal errors and usu" 
 pations, but taking away the pleas, destroying the food, upon 
 which they have hitherto flourished ; it is not yielding to clamour 
 but doing justice and truth whatever winds may blow ; it is not 
 rushing into the perils of an untried experiment, but returning to 
 the ground upon which Christ first established His churches, and 
 upon which the most successful efforts to promote His kingdom 
 have been made both in ancient and modern times. It is not 
 stepping over the precipice, but casting aside weights that easily 
 beset us, and ascending to the hill-tops of truth that we may enjoy 
 fresher breezes and wider views. It is not the destruction of the 
 edifice but only doing for it what the taste and skill of modern 
 times have done for some of our grand old cathedrals, by taking 
 away the houses of marketing and merchandise which, though 
 built against their walls, formed no part of the structure, and re- 
 moving the plaster and the whitewash, the high pews, and the 
 hideous galleries, which both diminished their utility and concealed 
 their beauty. And, as relieved from incongruous accretions and 
 tasteless patch-work, they stand out now the clear and beautiful em- 
 bodiments of the architect's thought, so the Irish Church shall 
 stand forth when the nation shall have the taste and courage to 
 clear away from her the disfigurements which many have regarded 
 as buttresses of its strength or conditions of its usefulness. 
 
 An endeavour will be made to establish the following propo- 
 sitions 
 
 I. — That excepting benefactions made by private persons to the Protestant 
 
 Episcopal Church in Ireland tlie ecclesiastical property of the 
 country is the property of the public, and that the Legislature has 
 full right to employ it as may be deemed best for the national 
 welfare. 
 
 II. — That if the dis-establishment of the Irish Church would be for the 
 
 welfare of Ireland, there is nothing in the Coronation Oath or in the 
 compact of the union of 1800 that can fairly stand in the way. 
 
 III. — That the establishment of the Church in Ireland has been injurious 
 
 to her spiritual life, an obstacle to her success, and, therefore, 
 detrimental to religion. 
 
 IV. — That there is great reason to fear that the continuance of the Estab- 
 
 lishment would be detrimental to the Protestant religion. 
 
 V. — That for 700 years, when there was no Established Church, Evangeli- 
 
 cal religion flourished in Ireland more than it has done at any sub- 
 sequent period. 
 
 VI. — That the history of other churches justifies the expectation that dis- 
 
 established Protestantism would be aggressive and flourishing. 
 
 VII. — That practically our choice appears to lie between two or three 
 
 Establishments and none. 
 
 VIII. — That national religion is essential to national prosperity, but not 
 
 dependent upon national Establishments. 
 
4 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 I. — That excepting benefactions made by private persons to the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church in Ireland the ecclesiastical property of the country is the 
 property of the public, and that the Legislature has full right to employ it as 
 may be deemed best for the national welfare. 
 
 The first obstacle to dis-establishment is presented in the 
 alleged nature and tenure of ecclesiastical property. It is said by 
 many writers and speakers that the Church is the only rightful and 
 absolute owner of the property for ever — that it stands upon the 
 same ground as the private estate of a private person — that if by 
 legislative enactments you disturb it or appropriate its use to 
 other persons than those who now enjoy it, or to other purposes 
 than those for which it is now employed, you are guilty of robbery 
 and spoliation, and unsettle the foundations of all property. One 
 says, "it will sap the very rights of property ;" another that "the 
 tithe-rent charge is unquestionably the most ancient and indefea- 
 sible species of property in these realms," 
 
 Lord Derby said in the House of Lords, June 25th — " For 
 his own part he must tender his solemn protest against the doc- 
 trine that they were entitled to deal with the property of the 
 Church of Ireland any more than if it was personal property. 
 When the Church was reformed the property was transferred 
 not confiscated, with one exception, that of the monasteries, the 
 plunder of which formed the darkest page in an otherwise bright 
 page of our history. No doubt the monasteries at that time 
 required reform, but that was no justification for an act for which 
 there was no parallel in the history of plunder and confiscation — 
 namely, the distribution of the monastic lands among the rapacious 
 nobles of the time. It was impossible to look back without 
 acknowledging the infamy of the transaction ; but still no one now 
 attempted to doubt the validity of the title by which they were 
 held by their present possessors. Long prescription was held to 
 give in these cases an inviolable title, and why not apply to the 
 property of the Church the principle they had applied to the case 
 of the plunder of the monasteries ?"* 
 
 Now, in opposition to these and similar statements, I think it 
 will be found upon a fair examination of evidence, that the follow- 
 ing proposition is substantially correct ; — " That, excepting benefac- 
 tions made by private persons to the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
 Ireland the ecclesiastical property of the country is the property of the 
 public; and that the Legislature has full right to employ it as may 
 
 * Daily News, June 26th, 1868. 
 
5 
 
 be deemed best for the fiation's 7velfare. If this be true, then the 
 question of the rights of property offers no obstacle to the settle- 
 ment of this grave matter. In confirmation, let the candid reader 
 consider the following points. 
 
 I. Does not the origin of tithes, so far as legal right to them 
 is concerned, favour the idea that Church property is the property 
 of the nation ? Look at the following anthorities. Burn, the 
 standing authority upon ecclesiasiastical law, gives the following 
 account of the origin of tithes : — " What was paid to the Church 
 for several of the first ages after Christ, was all brought to them 
 by way of offerings ; and these were made either at the altar or at 
 the collections, or else occasionally. Afterwards, about the 
 year 794, Ofifa, king of Mercia (the most potent of all the 
 Saxon kings of his time in this island), made a law whereby 
 he gave unto the Church the tithes of all his kingdom 
 which the historians tell us was done to expiate for the death of 
 Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, whom, in the year preceding, 
 he had caused to be basely murdered. But that tithes were before 
 paid in England by way of offerings, according to the ancient 
 usage and decrees of the Church appears from the canons of Eg- 
 bert, Archbishop of York, about the year 750; and from an 
 epistle of Boniface, Archbishop of Mercia, which he wrote to 
 Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, about the same time ; and 
 from the seventeenth Canon of the General Council held for the 
 whole kingdom at Chalcuth, in the year 797. But this law of 
 Offa was that which first gave the Church a civil right in them in 
 this land by way of property aud inheritance, and enabled the 
 clergy to gather and recover them as their legal due by the 
 coercion of the civil power. Yet this establishment of Offa 
 reached no further than to the kingdom of Mercia, over which Offa 
 reigned, until Ethelwulph, about sixty years afterwards, enlarged 
 it for the whole realm of England."* 
 
 "Whatever private gifts of tithes or lands have been made to the 
 clergy of this country, their possession of tithes throughout England and 
 Wales must be traced to law. * » • Xhis right of the clergy to tithe 
 which was created by law, has been since confirmed by the same authority. 
 
 • • * Further, the right of the clergy to a gieat proportion of the 
 tithes paid in modern times, has been created by statute since the Reformation. 
 Thus, the tithe, which is the chief maintenance of the pastore within the 
 Establishment, has been given to them by the State, and a large part has been 
 given since the Reformation. " + 
 
 In Ireland also in the primitive, which were the more pure 
 and prosperous times, churches and missions were supported by 
 free-will offerings ; these offerings consisting sometimes of land, 
 
 * Bum's Ecclesiastical Law, 9th edition, vol. ill., p. 679-8; Prideaux on Tithes. 
 
 t Noel. 
 
6 
 
 sometimes of its produce, and sometimes of money, according 
 to the ability and hearts of the people. This continued up to the 
 time of Henry 11. It had long been the aim of the Roman 
 Pontiffs to bring under their power what they commonly denomi- 
 nated the heretical and disorderly Church of Ireland. Gillebert, 
 Bishop of Limerick, was appointed the first Papal legatee in Ire- 
 land, and in that capacity presided at the Synod of Rathbrazil, in 
 the year 1118, And at a National Synod held at Kells in T152, 
 and presided over by Cardinal Paparo, as legate from the Pope, 
 the sees of Dublin and Limerick were erected into Archbishoprics, 
 and their occupants, together with the Archbishops of Armagh and 
 Cashel, received the Pallium and took the oath which bound them 
 and the Church to Rome. 
 
 Following the same policy. Pope Adrian IV. assumed to 
 himself the right to dispose of the sovereignty of Ireland ; and by 
 bull issued in 1155 gave the kingdom to Henry II., of England. 
 Finding a favourable opportunity for pushing his pretensions, that 
 Prince landed in Ireland in October, 1171, and meeting scarcely 
 any opposition, summoned at Cashel, in 11 7 2, a council of 
 principal men, lay and ecclesiastic, for settling the affairs of his 
 new dominions ; a7id, in this assembly, tithes as a civil right, under 
 the law of the land, had their origin. Up to that period religion 
 was supported by voluntary offerings ; then the nation was 
 supposed, by its representatives and rulers, to set apart a tenth of 
 the produce of the soil for sacred purposes, and this tenth was de- 
 manded, and wherever possible, its payment enforced, by power 
 of law. The abolition of that enactment and similar ones founded 
 upon it, would be the abolition of tithes. The testimonies upon 
 this subject are plentiful and indisputable. We quote one or two 
 from writers in defence of the Irish Church. The Rev. Arthur 
 W. Edwards, M.A., Rector of Tanlaught Finnigan, and Exami- 
 ning Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Derry, in an historical sketch 
 of the Church of Ireland, writes — " Tithes, though scriptural in 
 their origin, and common in the Christian Church from the earliest 
 ages were scarcely known in Ireland till the twelfth century, 
 previous to that time the clergy were supported by voluntary 
 offerings, and by grants of land. At the Synod of Cashel, how- 
 ever, a decree was enacted, and subsequently confirmed by 
 Henry II., that the faithful should henceforth pay to their parish 
 church the tithe of animals, fruits, and other increase." — 
 The Rev. William Anderson, M.A., Rector of Ray- 
 munter, Diocese of Raphoe, writing upon the difficulties of the 
 Irish Church, says — " It was one of the first acts of the English 
 Crown to provide for the maintenance of the parochial system by 
 giving to the clergy the tithes of their respective parishes ; whatever 
 
7 
 
 good may have flowed from this payment in supporting the Irish 
 clergy, the imposition of a new tax by the foreign conqueror for 
 their benefit, made them unpopular. Tithes were hated as oppres- 
 sive and anti-Irish. They were regarded as a badge of conquest." 
 
 The Rev. Alfred S. Lee, M.A., LL.D., Rector of Ahogill, 
 Diocese of Connor and Rural Dean, says — Christianity has been 
 planted in Ireland for more than fourteen centuries. During the 
 latter half of this period an Established Church has existed in that 
 country under the protection of the Crown of England. In the 
 reign of Henry II. this Church, upon Submitting to the supremacy 
 of the Pope was confirmed in its original possessions, anel endowed 
 with tithes by that monarch."* 
 
 To the same effect is the testimony of Leland and other 
 historians. Thus it is evident that the claim of the clergy to tithes 
 is founded upon public enactments by which the nation has deter- 
 mined to set apart one tenth of the produce of the land for 
 religious purposes. It has been asserted that since the Reformation 
 111,000 acres have been added to the glebe lands in Ireland ; 
 if so, and I am not questioning the statement, that has been done 
 not by way of formal gift, but by the will of the nation, thus setting 
 apart an additional portion of its property. 
 
 2. Neither the Church as a body, nor individual members of 
 the Church, hold church property otherwise than as public servants 
 or as trustees for the public. 
 
 The Church as a body does not hold one shilling ; if it be a 
 body corporate it is not a corporation in the legal sense of the term, 
 for it cannot, like the Royal Society, or a city corporation, hold 
 property. 
 
 There are in the Church certain corporate bodies that do 
 hold property. 
 
 • " The dean and chapter of a cathedral is a body corporate, 
 consisting of many able persons in law — namely, the dean, who is 
 chief, and his prebendaries ; and they together make the corporation. 
 They were originally selected by the bishop from amongst his 
 clergy as council and assistants to him, but they derive their 
 corporate capacity from the Crown." "Their duties are first to 
 advise the bishop in spiritualities ; and, second to restrain him in 
 temporalities. "t — But they hold the property, not as their 
 own, but as trustees for the public, and out of it receive 
 compensation as is supposed, for services rendered, or expenses 
 incurred, just as a town clerk or the mayor of a city. 
 
 The bishop is what is termed in law a corporation sole — that 
 is, one individual person, regarded by a legal fiction, for the sake 
 
 • Essays, pp. 131, 159, 219. 
 
 t Burn II., 93, 95. 
 
8 
 
 of convenience as a corporate body— and in him, for the time 
 being, vests so much of the temporahties of the bishopric as con- 
 sists of houses and land. Clearly the bishop is a public servant, 
 holding for the time being, property as the trustee of the public. 
 
 " The temporalities of the bishops have been no less the State's gift. A 
 bishop's temporalities are all such things as bishops have by livery from the 
 King, as'castles, manors, lands, &c.* Of this there is a double proof ; first, 
 the bishop is obliged to do homage for them to the Crown ; and, secondly, 
 during the .vacancy of each see, the temporalities go to the Crown as the 
 existing possessor. When a bishop is invested and consecrated, the bishop 
 being introduced to the king's presence, shall do his homage for his tempo- 
 ralities or barony ;t and upon the falling of a void bishopric, not the new 
 bishop, but the King by his prerogative, hath the temporalities thereof, from the 
 lime that the same became void, to the time that the new bishop shall receive 
 them from the king. "J 
 
 The parson of the parish is also a corporation sole, and in him 
 vests the parsonage, glebe, and burial ground, but evidently as 
 servant and trustee of the public ; for the property is as much the 
 property of the parish and as much set apart for its advantage, as 
 the property which vests in the mayor and corporation of a 
 borough belongs to and is for the advantage of the citizens at large. 
 Hence the rights of the parishioners, and the control which in various 
 ways they can exercise over the property. 
 
 Speaking- upon this subject in the House of Lords, June 29, 
 1868, Lord Cairns said : — 
 
 ' ' No doubt a layover would tell you that you have no Church corpora- 
 tion, but a number of individual corporations in the persons of the bishops, 
 incumbents, and rectors of parishes. But for whom do they hold the property 
 they possess ? Is it their own for their own enjoyment and benefit ? Can 
 they do what they please with it ? Certainly not. Those individual corpora- 
 tions^hold the property as trustees for the whole Church— laity and clergy — and 
 in that larger and wider view the Church (or nation) and not the individual 
 corporations is entitled to the benefit of the property. I admit that very great 
 distinction is to be drawn between ecclesiastical and private property. What 
 is the distinction? It is that the owner of private property has a right to do 
 what he likes with it without any enquiry on the part of others, while in the 
 case of ecclesiastical property, which is held in trust, the State has a duty to 
 perform." 
 
 Remembering that the root idea of a national church is a 
 church which comprehends the whole nation, so that church and 
 nation are coincident — this is an exact statement of the case ; but 
 as that idea is not realized in existing fact, we must understand 
 the term church, in the middle of the extract, to signify — nation. 
 
 In accordance with the nature of the property are the con- 
 ditions upon which it is enjoyed. None but those holding certain 
 opinions upon which the legislature has determined and pledging 
 themselves to perform certain services for the benefit of the public 
 
 * Burn, vol. i., p. 226. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 211. 
 
 t Ibid., p. 326. 
 
9 
 
 can share in it If a nobleman were to set apart certain lands, 
 determining that the proceeds of these lands should pay his servants 
 wages, he might lay down rules as to the persons he would em- 
 ploy, and the services they should be required to render, still, of 
 course, retaining the ownership of the property and all rights 
 thereto belonging. In like manner, the nation, retaining all the 
 rights of ownership, has set apart certain property to pay for 
 certain services, and has determined that the persons who render 
 these services shall hold certain opinions, be free from certain 
 physical defects, pass certain examinations, sign certain documents, 
 and solemnly make certain declarations. And, if after years of 
 service, they can be proved to hold opinions which the law regards 
 as heretical, or to have acted in a manner imprudent or immoral, 
 they can be suspended or expelled from office as persons unfit to 
 render the services for which they receive public compensation ; 
 and the property they enjoyed, will vest in their successors. 
 
 Moreover, by far the greater number of appointments to the 
 offices supported by this property are made by State ofticials on 
 behalf of the pnblic. The Prime Minister appoints the bishops in 
 England, and either the Lord-Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary 
 appoints the bishops in Ireland. Public officers or corporate 
 bodies hold the patronage of by far the greater part of the bene- 
 fices in England ; and this is most probably the case in Ireland. 
 Over those livings in the hands of corporate bodies or private 
 persons, the public still asserts its power, for if, in case of vacancy, 
 they be not filled up in six months, the appointment lapses either 
 to the bishop or to the Crown.* Is it not plain that public officers 
 are invested with these powers, that they may see that the nation's 
 property is employed for the nation's welfare ? 
 
 In further confimiation, it should be observed that the Queen, 
 as the representative of the nation, is held to be the owner of the 
 temporalities of the Church. Not only is this recognized by the 
 bishops doing homage on appointment to office, but in the fact that 
 Parliament does not proceed to legislate in any manner affecting 
 the property of the Church without first asking the Sovereign's 
 permission. Prior to the introduction of Mr. Gladstone's Suspen- 
 sory Bill a message was sent to Her Majesty " praying her to 
 place at the disposal of Parliament her interest in the temporalities 
 of the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical digni- 
 ties and benefices of the Church of Ireland, and in the custody 
 thereof." 
 
 Just as the public roads are the Queen's highways, as the 
 public peace is the Queen's peace, as the public courts are the 
 
 * Burn, vol. ii., p. 355, et seq. 
 
 C 
 
lO 
 
 Queen's courts, and the public servants the Queen's servants, so 
 the public property is the property of the Queen. 
 
 3. Only iipon the ground that Church property is public pro- 
 perty, and that the Legislature may rightfully determine the co?iditions 
 upon which it may be held, can the Protestaiit Church justify its 
 tenure for the last ^00, years. 
 
 It is an indisputable fact that for more than 300 years the 
 ecclesiastical property of Ireland was held by a Church professing 
 the doctrines and submitting to the nde of the Church of Rome. 
 Concerning that Church as compared with the present Estab- 
 lished Church of Ireland, Dean Murray says — " Every con- 
 scientious and consistent Churchman must protest against 
 Romanism as idolatrous and superstitious ; and every honest and 
 sincere Romanist must denounce the Church of England as here- 
 tical and schismatical."* 
 
 Now, the Protestant Episcopal Church was established in 
 Ireland by statute, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and it has, 
 from that time to this, held the ecclesiastical property of Ireland, 
 on the ground of Act of Parliament. Nay, one may go further, 
 and affirm that by Act of Parliament that property was transferred 
 from one class of religionists to another, three times in the short 
 space of t\venty-five years. 
 
 The first transfer took place in the reign of Henry VIII. The 
 King, elated by the general and prompt compliance with his scheme 
 of reformation in England, resolved to extend it yet further, and to 
 gain a reception for the new doctrines in Ireland. George Brown, 
 who was a strong advocate for the Protestant doctrine, was advanced 
 to the see of Dublin ; and with other commissioners was appointed 
 to confer with the clergy and nobility, and procure a general 
 acknowledgment of the King's supremacy. Cromer, primate of 
 Armagh, and many others, offered stout opposition. The King's 
 commissioners, to their utter mortification, were treated with neglect 
 and ridicule. The Archbishop of Dublin informed Lord Cromwell 
 of this ; and " recommended as the most vigorous and effectual 
 method of procedure that an Irish Parliament should be assembled 
 tuithout delay ivJiich, like the English legislature, might by law enforce 
 a general ackno7ih:,lgiiicnt of the King's supremacy, so as to terrify the 
 refractory and silence their opposition." This was approved ; Lord 
 Leonard Gray received a commission to summon a parliament 
 which met in Dublin, May ist, 1536. " The transactions of a late 
 parliament at Westminster sufficiently informed the Irish subjects 
 what acts would be most acceptable to the King ; and were made 
 
 * Ireland and her Church, p. 241. 
 
II 
 
 the models of their present ordinances." The Protestant historian, 
 Leland, in his " History of Ireland," from which the quotations just 
 made are taken, states that by statutes passed in this Parliament, the 
 King was declared supreme head on earth of the Church of Ireland ; 
 appeals to Rome in spiritual causes were taken away ; the English 
 law against slandering the King in consequence of these innovations 
 was enacted and confirmed in Ireland ; together with the provisions 
 made in England for the payment of first fruits to the King ; but 
 not only of the first fruits of bishoprics and other secular promotions 
 in the Church of Ireland ; by another act he was vested with those 
 of abbeys, priories, colleges, and hospitals. By another, the 
 authority of the Bishop of Ro7ne was more solemnly renounced, and 
 the maintainers of it in Ireland made subject to premunire ; all Officers 
 of every kind and degree were directed to take the Oath of Sitprcmacy ; 
 and every person who should refuse it, declared, as in Englatid, to be 
 guilty of high treason.''* 
 
 But what is the nature of this oath of supremacy which all 
 officers of every kind and degree were compelled to take under pain 
 of high treason ? The answer is found in the statutes. By 
 26 Henry VIII., cap. i — "The King, his heirs, &c., shall be 
 taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head, on earth, of 
 the Church of England . . . and shall have power, from time 
 to time, to visit, repress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend 
 all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts, enormities 
 . . . which by any manner of spiritual authority or jurisdiction 
 may be lawfully reformed."^ 
 
 By 37 Henry VIII., cap. 17 — " Your majesty is, and hath 
 always justly been, the supreme head on earth of the Church of 
 England, and hath full power and authority to correct, punish, and 
 repress all manner of heresies, errors, vices, sins, abuses, idolatries, 
 hypocrisies and superstitions sprung and growing within the same ; 
 and to exercise all other ?nanner of jurisdiction, commonly called 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction; . . . Archbishops, bishops, arch- 
 deacons, and other ecclesiastical persons have tio manner of jurisdiction 
 ecclesiastical but by and from your royal majesty. 
 
 This you must swear, or surrender any office you may hold, 
 and be guilty of high treason ; that is, you must in the most positive 
 terms swear that you are not a Roman Catholic, and equally that 
 you are not a Presbyterian or Independent, or be prepared to 
 sacrifice everything, even life itself. The statements of Leland 
 are almost repeated by another learned Protestant historian : 
 John Brown, of Haddington, professor of divinity under the asso- 
 
 * Irish Stat. 28 Henry VIII., Leland, Hist, of Ireland, vol. ii., pp. 163-4. 
 t Bum's Ecclesiastical Law, 9th edition, vol. iii., p. 657. 
 J Burn, vol. ii., p. 43. 
 
12 
 
 ciate synod, in his " History of the British Churches," says of 
 Ireland at this period — "The parliament meeting in A.D. 1535 
 confirmed his majesty's ecclesiastical as well as civil supremacy ; 
 and asserted his power to reform heresies, errors, and other eccle- 
 siastical corruptions ; and enacted that none should appeal to Rome 
 under pain of premunire ; that the Pope had no authority in Ireland ; 
 and whoever dared to assert or defend his usurped jurisdiction 
 should incur a premunire ; that ail persons ifi civil or ecclesiastical 
 offices should swear the oath of supremacy appointed, or be liable to the 
 pains of treason^* 
 
 Now perhaps it will be said — True ; it must be admitted that 
 in this case Protestantism was established, and the offices and 
 emoluments of the Irish Church most effectually taken from 
 Roman Catholics, and made tenable only by a certain class of 
 Protestants ; and all this by Act of Parliament ; but then the nobles, 
 the priests, and the people, generally concurred in the change and 
 conformed. Well, if that were so, the fact would remain the same, 
 that Protestantism was established by Act of Parliament, and that, 
 in virtue of that Act, Protestants only could hold office and emolu- 
 ment. 
 
 But the state of things was not thus ; it was precisely the 
 contrary of this. The general feeling of all classes was against the 
 change. " Except Brown, Archbishop of Dublin, few of the 
 dignified clergy heartily complied. The Primate of Armagh not 
 only hindered most of his suffragans and inferior clergy from 
 submission, but laid a curse on all the people that should own 
 Henry's supremacy . . . And indeed such was the brutish 
 ignorance of both clergy and laity, and their zealous attachment to 
 the idolatries and superstitions of Rome that they needed no 
 instigation. "t 
 
 In the time of Edward VI. we find painful instances of legis- 
 lative action forcing religious creeds and observances upon a re- 
 luctant people. " As the Protector Somerset had successfully 
 proceeded in the English Reformation, and was resolved that the 
 liturgy of the Church of England, lately established by the Legisla- 
 ture with the other ordinances relating to religion, should be intro- 
 duced into Ireland, the abilities and experience of Sir Anthony 
 Saintleger were deemed necessary for the service. He was ap- 
 pointed Lord Deputy, and sent to Ireland with a commission to 
 convene a Parliament in that kingdom.";}: 
 
 What had been done in England which it was j)roposed to 
 repeat in Ireland, may be stated in a few words. The book of 
 Common Prayer of Edward VI. was never laid before Convoca- 
 
 • Bro\vn'> Hist., \ol. i., p. 363. f Brown, p. 363. % Lclaiid, p. 192. 
 
3 
 
 tion, but by Act of Parliament, passed January, 1549,11 was ap- 
 I)ointed to be used through the whole kingdom wider pain of 
 six tnonth's imprisonment and loss of a year's salary for the first 
 fault ; forfeiture of all prefer jnents avd a year's imprisonment for the 
 second; forfeiture of all goods and imprisonment for life for the 
 third* 
 
 Touching the king's supremacy, it was enacted by Edward 
 VI., cap. 12 — "If any person shall by open preaching, express 
 words, or sayings, affirm that the king is not, or ought not to be, 
 the supreme lord on earth of the Church of England, immediately 
 under God, he, his aiders, comforters, abettors and counsellors 
 shall for the first offence forfeit his goods and be imprisoned during 
 the King's pleasure; for the second offence shall forfeit his goods and 
 the profits of his land and spiritual promotions during his life, 
 and also be imprisoned during his life ; and for the third offence shall 
 be guilty of high treason." \ 
 
 Such were the laws of England which the Lord Deputy sought 
 to get enacted in Ireland. He called together the prelates and 
 clergy, and submitted to them the new liturgy. But John Dowdal, 
 Archbishop of Armagh, stood forth, at the head of his clergy, a 
 bold and determined opposer of the King's proclamation, and 
 treated the new liturgy with the utmost scorn. He then left the 
 assembly followed by almost all his suffragans. Brown of Dublin, 
 Stapels of Meath, Lancaster of Kildare, Travers of Lughlin, and 
 Coin of Limerick, accepted the liturgy, which was soon after read 
 in the cathedral of Christ Church, Dublin, in the presence of the 
 Deputy, magistrates, and clergy. The true picture of Ireland at 
 this time is one in which legislative power is seen forcing an un- 
 welcome religion upon the nation, and thereby producing only 
 feelings of disgust, bitterness, and hate. 
 
 The death of Edward at once confounded all the weak 
 efforts that had been made to introduce the Reformation into Ire- 
 land. Mary came to the throne and found much less difficulty 
 than she expected, in restoring the ancient religion among a people 
 who, as the Protestant historian says — "had scarcely known any 
 other." The really Protestant Bishops fled ; the really Papal 
 Bishops who had fled before, returned. The Irish Parliament 
 assembled ist of June, 1556. The Chancellor entered, bearing a 
 bull from the Pope ; the whole assembly fell upon their knees \ 
 the Chancellor also reverently kneeling, read the bull, which 
 recited the fatal separation of Ireland from the see of Rome — -the 
 effect of fear rather than of free-will — and the readiness with which 
 the whole island had returned to its obedience to the sovereign 
 
 » Brown, p. 122. 
 
 t Buin, vol. iii,, p. 658. 
 
T4 
 
 Pontiff on the accession of Mary, " that immaculate princess it 
 pronounced absolution, and enjoined Parliament to abrogate all 
 laws enacted against the supremacy of Rome. After the reading 
 of the bull. Parliament adjourned to the Cathedral, where a Te 
 Dcum was solemnly chanted for the change that had taken 
 place. The Parliament on meeting for business, ratified and estab- 
 lished the provisions of the Pope's bull, revived all statutes made 
 in Ireland for the suppression of heresy, and also repealed all 
 Acts made against the Holy See since the 20th year of Henry VIH. 
 
 Here is another transfer of the ecclesiastical property of 
 Ireland by Act of Parliament ; this time it is from Protestants to 
 Roman Catholics.* 
 
 In the year 1558 Queen Mary died, and her sister Elizabeth 
 came to the throne. We come now to the m.easures of that great 
 monarch, so far as they regard the establishment of religion in 
 Ireland. Animated gentlemen in public meetings, and anony- 
 mous ^Titers in public papers, assert that there is no statute upon 
 the books, by which Protestantism was established, and by virtue 
 of which, Protestants hold ecclesiastical property to-day. We have 
 seen what was done in the times of Heniy VIII. and Edward VI. , 
 now let us see how much foundation there is for this assertion as 
 regards the reign of Elizabeth. Listen to the statements of men 
 whose principles and preferences were all on the Protestant side. 
 Leland \vTites — "And now the Earl of Sussex returned to the 
 government of Ireland with special instaictions for establishing the 
 Reformed Worship." How? By gentle and kindly influence? 
 By preaching the truth ? No. The historian continues — " For 
 this purpose he was commissioned to assemble a Parliament for 
 enacting statutes similar to those already made in England. The 
 Queen's sentiments with regard to religion were already known ; 
 and Lords and Commons met on the nth day of January, 1560, 
 fully apprised of the purpose of the convention, but not universally 
 well disposed towards the intended regulations." And what was 
 done in this Parliament ? The words of the historian are — " In 
 despite of clamour and opposition the whole ecclesiastical system of 
 Queen Mary was entirely reversed by a series of statutes conformable 
 to those already enacted by the English Legislature. The ecclesias- 
 tical supremacy was restored to the crown, and z.iieui oath of supre- 
 macy appointed — la7vs against heresy repealed— the use of the Common 
 Prayer enforced, with such alterations as had been already made 
 in England, and all subjects obliged to attend the public services 
 of the Church." It was also enacted that such as tnaintain the 
 Pope's or any foreign authority, for the first offence lose all his goods, 
 
 * Irish statutes, 3 and 4 Philip and Mary, chap. 1,2. 
 
' J 
 
 or be impriso?icd for one year, if he had not ^£20 worth of goods, and 
 also lose his benefice, if a clergy/nan ; and should for the second 
 offence incur a pretnunire; and for the third incur the pains of high 
 treason^* 
 
 The kind of supremacy enforced, which some have spoken of 
 as a very moderate demand, may be noticed. By i EHz., c. i, 
 s. 17, "All such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, pre-emi- 
 nences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or eccle- 
 siastical power or authority have heretofore been or may lawfully 
 be exercised and used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state 
 and persons and for the reformation, order, and correction of sin, 
 and of all manner of heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, con- 
 tempts and enonnities, shall for ever be united and annexed to the 
 imperial crown of this realm, "t 
 
 Here then it is plain that Roman Catholics were compelled to 
 take an oath which belied their deepest convictions ; to use ser- 
 vices involving and expressing what they believed to be false and 
 offensive to God ; and to keep silence as to principles which they 
 regarded as vital to their own and other men's Avelfare; or to 
 surrender their offices, be spoiled of their goods and put outside 
 the pale of the law, and finally, suffer the penalties which fall upon 
 the greatest criminals known to human society. And yet anony- 
 mous writers can tell us that there is no statute upon the books 
 in virtue of which Protestants hold the ecclesiastical property of 
 Ireland ! The public may, from this, judge of the worth of their 
 statements upon other points. 
 
 And under what circumstances were these laws passed in the 
 Irish Parliament? Was it by the general concurrence of the 
 people ? Were they really represented ? Nothing of the sort. 
 Dean Murray, in his book on " Ireland and the Irish Church," 
 states that the first national parliament for all Ireland was summoned 
 by James I., 1613. But not only was this parliament of Ehzabeth 
 not national ; it was so defective as to be nothing better than a 
 pretence — a burlesque of parliamentary representation and legis- 
 lation. In the House of Commons, representatives were summoned 
 for 10 counties only ; from 10 other counties none were summoned, 
 and none were present. The other representatives, making up 
 the number to 76, were citizens and burgesses of those towns in 
 which the royal authority was predominent. And yet " so much 
 had Sussex been alanned, by the opposition he had encountered 
 in this parliament, that he dissolved it in a few weeks." 
 
 * Irish statutes, 2 Eliz., cc. I, 2, 3 ; Leland, vol. ii., pp, 224-5 ! Brown, 
 British Cliurches, vol. i., 364-6; Essays on the Irish Church, p. 95-7. 
 
 t Burn, vol. ii. , p. 304. 
 
6 
 
 Either the Legislature had a right to do what was done in 
 the times of Henry, Edward, and Elizabeth, or it had not : if it 
 had not, then what was done, was gigantic spoliation ; if it had 
 a right, then it has a right to-day to dispose of the Irish eccle- 
 siastical revenues in such manner as it may deem most for the 
 welfare of Ireland. 
 
 Now, let me beg the reader to look again at these statutes 
 and then answer to his own heart this question — Is it not a 
 plain fact that sincere Roman Catholics were by these statutes 
 deprived of all benefices and other offices in the Irish Church, tof^ether 
 with all their emoluments I Can any man say No? In the ancient 
 heathen persecutions it was said to the Christians, — "Worship the 
 gods or die ; " it was said to the Roman Catholics, by these 
 statutes, abjure your faith, swear to adopt and use in the worship 
 of God, what you believe to be mortal heresy, or turn out of 
 house and home, and become a beggar and a felon. 
 
 Before hand, Roman Catholics held all the ecclesiastical 
 property of Ireland ; from that day forward it has been tenable only 
 by one class of Protestants, and to this day no honest Roman 
 Catholic has ever legally held one benefice or received one 
 shilling. It was as completely transfen-ed by these statutes as the 
 power of England was transferred by the battle of Hastings from 
 the Saxons to their Norman conquerors, as effectually transferred 
 as the regalities of England were, by the revolution of 1688, 
 transferred from a Popish tyrant to a Protestant monarch. 
 Whatever phraseology men may adopt, this was, as none can deny, 
 the effect — the intended effect — of those statutes. And this is not 
 at all affected by the fact, which Leland states, that, " Far the 
 greater part of the prelates were such as quietly enjoyed their sees 
 by confonning occasionally to different modes of religion." They 
 were easy kind of men who, under Henry, could swear to the Six 
 Articles ; under Edward, to a Puritan theology and Prayer Book ; 
 under Mary, to the supremacy of the Popes and the propriety of 
 burning Protestants ; and under Elizabeth, solemnly to repudiate 
 and drive away all such destestable doctrines and doings. A 
 thousand Acts of Parliament could not have more effectually 
 transferred the property than did these statutes. After they were 
 passed, a honest Roman Catholic could no more hold a benefice 
 than could a Brahmin priest. ^Vhat more could have been done 
 to transfer the property, than was in effect done by these acts ? Of 
 course, I speak not of words, other words might have been used ; 
 but could the thing have been more thoroughly effected ? If so, I 
 ask how ? 
 
 All this seems so plain as to render the production of testi- 
 mony well nigh ridiculous, like adducing testimony that there is a 
 
17 
 
 sun in the heavens. But as others may not feel thus I will here 
 quote the words of one to whom many will listen %vith respect. 
 The Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel, when preparing to leave the Es- 
 tablished Church, and stating the reasons which had led him to 
 resolve on that course, wrote as follows : — 
 
 " All this church property having been thus bestowed by the 
 state upon the bishops and clergy, the state has determined upon 
 what terms it shall be held, andby theactof unifonnityxRANSFERRED 
 the whole from the Roman Catholics to the Protestant clergy. By 
 that act, I Elizabeth, ' Every parson, vicar, or other minister, was 
 required to use the book of common prayer in the public services 
 of the church, and no other rite, ceremony, order, or form. Every 
 clergyman violating this law was, for the first offence, to forfeit a 
 year's stipend and be imprisoned six months ; for the second 
 offence, to be imprisoned a year and be deprived of all his spiritual 
 promotions, and the patron might present to his living as if he 
 were dead.' " 
 
 " This, of course, ejected the sincere catholics, placing pro- 
 testant ministers in their room ; and by this act the protestant 
 pastors of England hold the state ecclesiastical property at this 
 day, instead of the Roman Catholic priests who before possessed 
 it. Up to the Reformation it was a gift of the State to the Roman 
 Catholic Establishment. After the Reformation it was a gift of the 
 State to the Protestant Establishment, which holds it to this day on 
 the terms which the State has imposed."* 
 
 Lord Howick said in the House of Commons in February, 
 1844, "The Roman Catholic Church was the ancient Church of 
 Ireland. Some three centuries ago, or rather more, the large 
 endowments which that Church possessed were by Acts of the 
 Legislature transferred from them and given to the Protestants, 
 they being at the time a small minority of the population."t 
 
 The words of Dr. Nicolas Slevin, professor of Canon law at 
 Maynooth, are often quoted by those who assert the sacredness of 
 church property. But upon what grounds does he place the tenure 
 of the Irish Church in his examination before the Commissioners 
 of Education, in 1826 ? "I consider," he said, " that the present 
 possessors of church property in Ireland, of whatever description 
 they may be, have a just title to it on various grounds : — First, 
 on the ground of a lauful transfer made by the government of the 
 country. * * * Secondly, by lawful prescription ; and, thirdly, 
 by the consent of those who might lay any claim to it." Here the 
 first ground of title is lawful transfer made by Act of Parliatnent.X 
 
 * Church and State, p. 159. t Times, i6th February. 1844. 
 
 X Essays, p. 252. 
 
 D 
 
i8 
 
 In the House of Lords, on June 25th, 1868, Earl Granville 
 said : — " Henry VHI. took away the Church revenues of Ireland 
 from the Roman Catholics, who had possessed them for more than 
 three centuries, and gave them to the Established Church ; Queen 
 Mary gave them back to the Roman Catholics ; Queen Ehzabeth 
 gave them back to the Established Church ; Cromwell put them 
 into the possession of the Puritans ; and his successor gave them 
 back to the Church as it now existed." 
 
 On the same evening Lord Derby said : — "When the Church 
 was reformed the property was transferred not confiscated, with 
 one exception, that of the monasteries, the plunder of which formed 
 the darkest page, in an othenvise bright page of our history." 
 
 Evidently the tenure of the Protestant Church in Ireland rests 
 upon the right of the Legislature to determine the conditions upon 
 which Church property shall be held, the opinions that shall be main- 
 tained, and the services that shall be rendered by the persons 
 holding it. 
 
 If there be no such right then in all the fore-mentioned cases 
 the legislature was guilty of most flagrant wrong ; then moreover 
 the Protestant Church has for more than 300 years enjoyed the 
 tithes of Ireland, as well as much other property, without any title 
 to the same, and is bound at once to surrender, and, if possible, 
 make compensation. But if the legislature had the right to deter- 
 mine these conditions in the times of the Tudors and Stuarts, it 
 had it, and used it, as the representatives of the nation superintend- 
 ing the application of the nation's property. Has it not the same 
 right to-day? Either the Irish Established Church has for 300 
 years been living largely upon what was not righteously hers, or 
 the legislature has rightful and supreme control over the property 
 she holds. 
 
 A thoughtful man cannot but be astonished by the statements 
 which some advocates of the Irish Church make upon the subject. 
 They roundly assert that " there was no transfer of property" — 
 that " it is impossible to mention any act of parliament by which 
 property was taken from Romanists and handed over to Protes- 
 tants." You at once adduce Acts of Supremacy and of Uniformity, 
 by which every Roman Catholic is turned out of every benefice in 
 the Church, and also made liable to the penalties of felony and 
 high treason, and by which also the Episcopalian Protestant alone is 
 made capable of holding office. And then these advocates turn 
 round and say " that has tiothing to do with property — not a word is 
 said about property." It is little good that any cause can get from 
 such advocacy. Then of course if the legislature were to pass a 
 law making subscription to the Roman Catholic creed and ritual 
 the condition of holding any benefice, and rendering any who 
 
19 
 
 would not subscribe liable to imprisonment and death, there would 
 be no transfer of property ! Then if the same power should make 
 subscription to Mormonism the condition there would be no trans- 
 fer of property, especially if all the bishops but two signed. Then 
 if government should determine that all persons holding parsonages 
 and glebes should keep Day Schools, and all holding Episcopal 
 Temporalities should act as School Inspectors, there would be no 
 transfer of property ! 
 
 If any readers have been influenced by the astounding asser- 
 tions of these advocates, let them consider and try to answer the 
 following questions : — 
 
 Is not the Church spoken of in the Prayer Book, in Acts 
 of Parliament, and in public documents, as " the church established 
 by law " ? Will any man say by what law the Protestant Church 
 was established in Ireland but by the Statutes of Supremacy and 
 Uniformity ? And if these statutes established the Church did they 
 not transfer to it the property ? 
 
 Do not Protestant Episcopalians hold all the Church pro- 
 perty of Ireland to-day ? Can any man say upon what legal ground 
 they alone hold it, except the Statutes of Supremacy and Uni- 
 formity ? 
 
 Can any man say, in case of a vacancy in the Irish bench 
 of Bishops, what prevents the appointment of the Papal Arch- 
 bishop Manning? Is it not law? And is it not law in the shape 
 of these Statutes ? 
 
 If legal proceedings should be taken to eject an incumbent from 
 his living on a charge of heresy, would they not be based upon these 
 statutes ? 
 
 4. The Legislature has frequently dealt with Church property 
 in more recent times as the property of the nation. We briefly 
 mention a few instances of this in the history of Ireland. 
 
 1. Prior to the Reformation, the first fruits, consisting of the 
 entire income for the first year, and t^ventieth parts, being the 
 twentieth part of the sum for every succeeding year, were paid to 
 the Pope. After the Reformation, up to the reign of Queen Anne, 
 they were paid to the Crown. In the reign of Anne the twentieth 
 parts were remitted altogether, " and the first fruits made over to 
 trustees for the purchase of glebe lands, the building of glebe 
 houses, and the increase of small benefices. This trust continued 
 to be exercised for the benefit of the Church, till the passing of 
 the Temporalities Act in 1836, under which the payment of first 
 fruits was entirely abolished."* 
 
 2. A large portion of the tithes in Ireland has been abolished. 
 
 * Essays, 122. 
 
20 
 
 This took place in the year 1735. Before that time tithes were 
 payable on pasture lands as well as upon land under tillage. 
 There was no room to question the law of the case ; for when 
 the payment was refused legal proceedings were taken to enforce 
 it, " and in every instance judgment was given both in the Irish 
 and English courts in favour of the claim." The words of the 
 Rev. Dr. Lee upon this subject are — " By a resolution of the 
 House of Commons, passed in 1735, the clergy were at once 
 deprived of the tithe of agistment — the technical name for the 
 tithe of pasturage of dry and barren cattle — on which the incum- 
 bents of many parishes were wholly dependent for support. This 
 tithe was the least objectionable of any, as it fell chiefly upon 
 those who were best able to pay it — viz., the landed proprietors — • 
 but they, in their short-sighted selfishness, abolished it, and thus 
 deprived the clergy of their most profitable tithe, and themselves of 
 some of their most valuable tenants." He quotes also " Liber 
 Munerum Hibernise," to the effect that in the year 1734 the Irish 
 House of Commons passed the agistment vote against tithe of 
 pasture for dry cattle, voting in fact that one if not two-thirds of 
 the maintenance of the Established Church should not henceforth 
 be demandable. Is not this dealing with church property as the 
 property of the nation ? Is it not much like the remission by the 
 legislature of a public tax? Would Parliament ever think of 
 dealing thus with private estate ? 
 
 3. In the year 1823 the Legislature again interfered with the 
 property of the Irish Church. An Act was then passed by the 
 united Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland authorizing the 
 establishment of a money composition in lieu of tithes. Subse- 
 quently this act was made compulsory and permanent. This was 
 in most cases a decided gain to the payer, and so far a surrender 
 of the interests of the owner. 
 
 4. Again, in the year 1834, after long and determined oppo- 
 sition, the Legislature declared in the most decisive way its right 
 to deal not only with Church property, but also with Church insti- 
 tutions, as it might deem most for the public welfare. It passed a 
 most comprehensive and sweeping measure, entitled the " Church 
 Temporalities Act." Heretofore, as in England, the Churches had 
 been kept in repair, the church officers paid, and the requisites 
 provided, by a parochial rate, levied on all householders, of what- 
 ever denomination. This rate, amounting to about ;,^6o,ooo a- 
 year, was altogether abolished, and the parishioners were no longer 
 required to meet the charges for which it had been levied. More- 
 over, two Archbishoprics were reduced to Bishoprics and ten 
 Bishoprics abolished altogether, and arrangements made by which 
 the cost of Episcopal Supervision was reduced from ^151,127 
 
21 
 
 per annum to the present amount of ;!^55,iio. By the same act 
 a tax, varying from 2i to 15 per cent., was made payable out of 
 every Bishopric or Benefice exceeding in net income ;^30o a-year. 
 Many sinecures in pubhc patronage were abohshed, and a stand- 
 ing body of Commissioners appointed to receive the surplus funds 
 and to appropriate them to the building and maintenance of 
 churches, to providing requisites for public worship, and, if I 
 mistake not, to the improvement of poor livings. 
 
 5. In the year 1838 Parliament made another great change, 
 by which it took away one quarter of the remaining tithes of the 
 Irish Church. The Examining Chaplain of the Lord Bishop of 
 Derry thus speaks of it. Having stated that tithes had been so 
 generally refused as to reduce many of the Clergy to great straits, 
 he writes : — " After this it was of course impossible that payment 
 could be enforced on the former footing, and, accordingly, in the 
 year 1838 a fresh enactment was made by which the tithe compo- 
 sition heretofore chargeable on the occupiers was converted into a 
 rent charge payable by the owner, who was henceforth to receive 
 the amount from his tenant in the shape of an addition to the rent ; 
 while the tithe owner was obliged to compound by the sacrifice of 
 one-fourth of his mcome for the peaceable and regular receipt of 
 the remaining three-fourths. Heavy, however, as was the price 
 exacted, the measure was on the whole received by the clergy as 
 a boon. Whatever their income might now be they were likely to 
 receive it, and they would no longer be brought into direct colli- 
 sion with the small occupiers grudgingly and tardily handing forth 
 the half-cro\vn or shilling at which they were assessed."* 
 
 6. Yet again in the year 1854 an additional revenue of more 
 than ^12,000 a year, payable, under the name of Ministers money, 
 by the householders of certain of the principal towns, was by Act 
 of Parliament abolished. 
 
 The summary of these various acts affecting the property of 
 the Irish Church cannot perhaps be better given than in the lan- 
 guage of two very able writers in defence of the Establishment. 
 The Rev. A. W. Edwards says :— " The general result of these 
 various measures affecting tithe, church-rates, and Ministers money, 
 was to diminish the revenue of the Church by nearly ^250,000 
 a year, or about one-third of the whole." The words of the Rev. 
 Dr. Lee, Rector of Ahogill, are : — " One half of the tithes at the 
 Reformation passed into the hands of the laity, with 1480 of her 
 glebes; in 1725, nearly two-thirds of her remaining tithes followed 
 in the same direction; in 1833-38, a fourth of the tithes yet left 
 to her were assigned to the landlords of Ireland, whilst vestry cess, 
 
 * Essays, p. 134. 
 
22 
 
 amounting to ;^6o,ooo a year and hitherto paid by the laity, was 
 abolished, and the church requisites, formerly furnished by it, were 
 ordered in future to be paid by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 
 out of a tax, then for the first time imposed, upon the Bishops and 
 Clergy. Since then the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners 
 have been further decreased by ^12,500 a-year, with the senseless 
 hope of appeasing, at least for a time, the enemies of the Church, 
 who seek for her destruction."* 
 
 If Parliament has done all this it surely has asserted its right 
 to deal with the property of the Irish Church in any way it may 
 deem best for the Irish people. 
 
 5. A few expressions of opinion upon the right of Parliament 
 to deal with this question may be given. 
 
 The late Dr. Arnold said : — " Whether Ireland remain in its 
 present barbarism or grow in wealth and civilization, the downfall 
 of the present Establishment is certain. A savage people will not 
 endure the insult of a hostile religion, — a civilized one will reason- 
 ably insist upon having their own." Clearly Dr. Arnold could not 
 think it wrong to appropriate Ecclesiastical property otherwise than 
 it is appropriated to-day. 
 
 Archbishop Wliately says : — " I freely acknowledge that the 
 State has a right to take away the property of all or any of those 
 corporations (indemnifying, of course, those individuals actually 
 enjoying the revenues) whenever the manifest inutility or hurtful- 
 ness of the institutions renders their abolition important to the 
 public welfare, "t 
 
 Lord Brougham also says : — " I do not remember one argu- 
 ment in support of these establishments which would sanction any- 
 thing so monstrous as a Church amply endowed, richly provided 
 for at the expense of the whole community, which only ministers 
 to the spiritual wants of a very small fraction of the people. I well 
 remember a phrase used by one, not a foe of Church Establish- 
 ments — I mean Mr. Burke — ' Don't talk of its being a Church ! — 
 It is a wholesale Robbery ! ' . . . I have, my Lords, heard it 
 called an anomaly, and I say that it is an anomaly of so gross a 
 kind that it outrages every principle of common sense : and every 
 one endowed with common reason must feel that it is the most 
 gross outrage to that common sense, as it is also of justice. Such 
 an Establishment, kept up for such a purpose, kept up by such 
 
 * Essays, p. 237. 
 Letters on the Church, p. 137. London : Longmans, 1826. 
 
23 
 
 means, and upheld by such a system, is a thing wholly peculiar to 
 Ireland, and could be tolerated nowhere else."* 
 
 6. Counter arguments upon the subject of property, with 
 answers : — 
 
 1. That the present Established Church is the same Church 
 as that which anciently existed in Ireland before the introduction of 
 Popery, about the time of Henry II., and therefore has a right to 
 the church property. 
 
 (a.) It is not the same Church, but it is very much nearer to 
 it than the Roman Catholic church is. That ancient Church was 
 not a State Establishment ; had neither diocesan episcopacy, nor 
 the parochial system ; was supported by the free-will offerings and 
 benefactions of the people ; it never made or had any legal claim 
 to tithes ; they were set up, together with Popery, in the time of 
 Henry II. Might have held some lands, as some Nonconformist 
 Churches now do, but what definitely they were nobody can tell. 
 (See proofs of this under proposition V.) 
 
 2. That the present Established Church is the same as before 
 the Reformation, the bishops, clergy, and people having conformed, 
 and therefore has a perfect right to the Church property. 
 
 (a.) It is true that all the Bishops but two conformed, but it 
 is not true that either the clergy or the people, beyond a very 
 small number, went with the Reformation — on the contrary, they 
 were stoutly opposed to it. (See proofs of this under proposition 
 III.) So that if conformity was necessary to give right then the 
 Protestant Church has none. 
 
 (6.) How far is this doctrine to go? If the Government should 
 some day pass an Act of Uniformity, admitting to Benefices only 
 men holding the opinions of Dr. Colenso, or, on the other hand, 
 only Roman Catholics, would the conformists have a right to the 
 property ? If not how will you limit the operation of this doctrine 
 of conformity? 
 
 (c.) This argument is directly contradictory of the foregoing 
 one. That argument was the property belongs to us and not to 
 Roman Catholics, because in virtue of our opinions we are the 
 same Church as that which existed in primitive times in Ireland ; 
 this says the property is ours because we are the same Church as 
 before the Reformation, notwithstanding difference in opinion ; that 
 says church property should go with opinions ; this says No, it 
 should go with persons, however much they may change their 
 opinions ; that says the property is ours, because we are the tme 
 representatives of the pure and ancient Church, and Roman Catho- 
 
 • Hansard, vol. 44, pp. 932-9. 
 
24 
 
 lies sacrificed their rights by becoming heretics ; this says these 
 heretics had good right to the property, and our right is founded 
 upon their right, as we and they form one Church. 
 
 (d.) It is amusing to observe the difference in tone certain 
 writers show at different times. Where tithes, glebes, deaneries, 
 and episcopal palaces are in question " we are the same Church, 
 the same living corporate body as before the Reformation." But 
 when the Maynooth endowment is in question, or giving any por- 
 tion of Church property to those with whom 300 years ago we 
 formed one Church, the same corporate body, then " What ! 
 endow Popery ! The mother of abominations ! The scarlet woman ! 
 The house of priestcraft ! The enemy of all progress ! The blight 
 of Ireland ! Antichrist ! " What strange relations men will some- 
 times own for the sake of money ! Dean Murray, in his book on 
 the Church in Ireland, says : — " Every conscientious and consis- 
 tent Churchman must protest against Romanism, as idolatrous and 
 superstitious ; and every honest and sincere Romanist must de- 
 nounce the Church of England, as heretical and schismatical."* 
 
 (e.) But the brief, true, and sufficient answer to all this vain 
 talk about the same church as the primitive one, or the same church 
 as before the Reformation, is this — The property is not the pro- 
 perty of ecclesiastics, or of persons of this opinion or of that. At 
 the time of the Refomiation the legislature deemed that it would 
 be for the good of Ireland that the proceeds of the property should 
 be taken from men holding one set of opinions and given to men 
 holding very different ones. Either Parliament had a right to do 
 this, or it had not; if it had, the same right remains now, which 
 involves the recognition of the fact that the property is the pro- 
 perty of the nation, to be administered by the Legislature for the 
 nation's good. 
 
 3rd Argument or assertion. — The property is ours by prescrip- 
 tion of 300 years. If 300 years do not give a sound title how 
 many will ? 
 
 (a.) Was this held valid at the time of the Reformation ? The 
 Roman Catholics of that time could plead a prescription of just 
 upon 400 years. 
 
 (b.) As to the entire property it was never really theirs or yours ; 
 it was a fund appropriated to pay certain public officers for certain 
 services, but the lapse of time could give them no prescriptive 
 right to the fund, however long these payments might have been 
 continued. 
 
 4th Argument or assertion. — Tithes are the most ancient rents 
 in Ireland, and the most indefeasible in their title, since there is 
 
 * Page 241, Note. 
 
25 
 
 not a single existing tenure in Ireland that does not date long 
 subsequently to the period when they became the law of the land. 
 
 This may give to the Legislature a valid ground to de- 
 mand tithes if it shall deem it for the good of the nation to do so, 
 but does not prove that they belong of right, for ever, to men 
 holding any class of views, or that the Legislature is bound to de- 
 mand or dispose of them otherwise than may be considered most 
 for the general welfare. 
 
 5 th Argument or assertion. — Nine-tenths of those who pay 
 tithes in Ireland are Protestants, for the land-owners pay the tithes, 
 and nine-tenths of the landlords are Protestants ; as for the rest, 
 they have purchased the property subject to the law of tithes. 
 
 The question is not so much who pays the tithes, as to 
 whom do they ultimately belong ? With whom rests the right of 
 appropriation ? If they are paid for tlie national good, according 
 to the national will, the question of who pays them will not make 
 them the actual property of one class or of another. 
 
 A full discussion of the question Who pays tithes? will be found 
 in the chapter on the fourth proposition, in which an attempt is 
 made to expose the fallacies of various statements advanced upon 
 this subject, and to show that the payment is associated in the 
 minds of the Irish people with an insuperable sense of injustice, 
 which must render efforts to win them to Protestantism hopeless, 
 so long as the payment is enforced. 
 
 We here close the chapter upon the Ecclesiastical Property in 
 Ireland, not without hope that candid readers will see in its facts, 
 testimonies, and arguments, sufficient warrant for the proposition ; 
 
 THAT, EXCEPTING BENEFACTIONS MADE BY PRIVATE PERSONS 
 
 TO THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN IRELAND, THE 
 ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTY OF THE COUNTRY IS THE PROPERTY 
 OF THE PUBLIC, AND THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS FULL RIGHT 
 TO EMPLOY IT AS MAY EE DEEMED BEST FOR THE NATIONAL 
 WELFARE. 
 
 E 
 
26 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 II. — That if the dis-establishment of the Irish Church would be for the 
 welfare of Ireland, there is nothing in the Coronation Oath, or in the Compact 
 of the Union of 1800, that can fairly stand in the way. 
 
 I. It is often said that by proposing to dis-establish the 
 Church you call upon her Majesty to violate her solemn oath. 
 Here, then, is the oath ] let us carefully look at it. By i Wm. 
 and M., ch. 6, and 5 Anne, ch. 8th, the Sovereign, on the day of 
 coronation, swears thus :- — 
 
 " Archbishop. — Will you solemnly promise and swear to 
 govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the 
 statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and 
 customs of the same? 
 
 " Queen. — I solemnly promise so to do. 
 
 " Archbishop. — Will you, to the utmost of your power, cause 
 law and justice in mercy to be executed in all your judgments ? 
 
 " Queen. — I will. 
 
 " Archbishop. — Will you to the utmost of your power main- 
 tain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the 
 Protestant Refonned Religion established by law ? and will you 
 maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the united 
 Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, worship, dis- 
 cipline, and government thereof, as by law established within Eng- 
 land and Ireland, and the territories thereunto belonging ? And 
 will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of England and Ire- 
 land, and to the churches there committed to their charge, all such 
 rights and privileges, as by law do, or shall appertain to them, or 
 any of them ? 
 
 " Queen. — All this I promise to do." 
 
 This is the entire oath. 
 
 One says — " The resolutions of the right hon. gentleman 
 (Mr. Gladstone) called, in effect, upon her Majesty to violate her 
 oath." 
 
 Another writes : — " It [dis-establishment] will cause the Sove- 
 reign of this realm to perjure herself" 
 
 Without stopping to question the application of the word per- 
 jury, which is properly used to designate, not the breaking of an 
 oath honestly made, but false swearing, I may say that this state- 
 ment is a very strong one, and in my view wholly groundless. 
 
27 
 
 If the Sovereign sanctions only the measures passed by Par- 
 liament there is not the shadow of a reason for charging her with 
 perjury. Have you considered the entire oath? It can be under- 
 stood only by fairly regarding both parts ; then it will be seen that 
 it binds the Sovereign only in her executive capacity, and its 
 meaning, so far as the negative part is concerned, is that she shall 
 not employ the power of her position and prerogatives to destroy 
 the institutions of the country. 
 
 This is plain from the first part, the positive and foundation 
 part, of the oath, which is in these words — -" Will you solemnly 
 promise and swear to govern the people of this United Kingdom 
 of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging, 
 according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the customs of 
 the same." 
 
 Answer — " I solemnly promise to do so." 
 
 The oath has reference to her manner of governing ; and if 
 she does not do that " according to the statutes that have been, 
 and that may be agreed on, in Parliament, and the customs of the 
 same," then she violates her oath. 
 
 That the oath binds the Sovereign in • no such manner as to 
 call upon her to oppose the voice of Parliament is further evident 
 from this, that if it does, our Sovereigns are much to be pitied, for 
 they have been mostly perjured persons, and must of necessity be 
 so. They swear " to preserve unto the bishops and clergy of Eng- 
 land and Ireland and to the churches there committed to their 
 charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do, or shall apper- 
 tain to them, or any of them." If this is a solemn oath not to sanc- 
 tion any legislative acts affecting the rights and privileges of bishops 
 and clergy, which it must be, unless the oath be restricted to the 
 Sovereign's executive capacity, then when in 1735 ^^'^^ tithe of 
 agistment, or the tithe upon pasture land for dry and barren cattle, 
 their most profitable tithe, was abolished, the Sovereign was guilty 
 of perjury ; when, in 1823 and following years, the Legislature made 
 it obligatory upon the clergy to receive a money composition in 
 lieu of tithes, which was in many cases a decided surrender of a 
 portion of their rights, the Sovereign was guilty of perjury ; when, 
 in 1834, the Church Temporalities Act for Ireland was passed, by 
 which a rate of ;^6o,ooo a-year, for keeping churches in repair, 
 was abolished, two archbishoprics were reduced to bishoprics, ten 
 bishoprics abolished, nearly ^^100,000 per annum taken from the 
 bishop's sees, and many offices besides extinguished, the Sovereign 
 was guilty of perjury ; when in 1838 Parliament gave up one quarter 
 of the tithes of Ireland, and made them payable by the landlord 
 in place of the tenant, the Sovereign must have been guilty of per- 
 jury; and when, in 1854, Ministers' money amounting to ;^i2,ooo 
 
28 
 
 a year was given up, once more the Sovereign was called upon to 
 perjure herself. And now the Queen, in giving her sanction to the 
 Church Rate Abolition Bill, which has been accepted by both 
 Houses of Parliament, must "perjure " herself ; and moreover the 
 men who support Mr. Disraeliand propose to reform the Irish Church 
 by the abolition of some of the bishoprics and other dignities, are 
 proposing that the Queen shall " perjure " herself as truly as Mr. 
 Gladstone. If his measures involve perjury so do theirs. A man 
 is as truly guilty of perjury by swearing fasely in five points as in 
 a hundred. If the oath is to be understood as many interpret it, 
 then whenever any, even the least, rights and privileges, by law 
 appertaining to the "bishops and clergy of England and Ireland and 
 to the churches committed to their charge," have been diminished, 
 abolished, or taken away, even by the Legislature, there the Sov- 
 ereign has in every case violated the Coronation oath. And this 
 oath, thus understood, would prevent for ever any change by the 
 Legislature in the rights and privileges of the bishops and clergy, 
 however much the interest of the nation might demand it, and the 
 people and Parliament desire it, except upon condition that the 
 Sovereign " should be made to perjure herself." Such an inter- 
 pretation catuioi be tlu right one. You see that it is erroneous if you 
 look at the first part of the oath ; you see that it must be erroneous 
 if you look at the consequences to which it leads. 
 
 Moreover, to whom is this solemn " promise " given ? Is it 
 not to the nation represented by the archbishop ? And cannot 
 the monarch be released, if need be, by the expressed will of the 
 nation, for whose benefit it was given ? If the nation, by legisla- 
 tive enactment, has, for its own security, determined to exact the 
 pledge, can it not, by legislative action, for its own welfare, 
 propose the abrogation of such part of it as may be deemed 
 advisable ? AVhat forbids ? 
 
 II. It is alleged that you cannot dis-establish the Irish Church 
 without violating the Act of Union of 1800, thus virtually des- 
 troying the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 The 5th article of that Act to which reference is made, is in 
 these words — " That it be the fifth article of the Act of Union, 
 that the churches of England and Ireland, as now by law estab- 
 lished, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be 
 called the United Church of England and Ireland ; and that the 
 doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the said United 
 Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the 
 same are now by law established for the Church of England. And 
 that the continuance and jireservation of the said United Church 
 as the Established Church of England and Ireland shall be 
 (ieemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental part of the 
 
29 
 
 Union, and that, in like manner, the doctrine, worship, discipline, 
 and government of the Church of Ireland shall remain and be 
 preserved as the same are now established by law, and by the 
 Acts for the union of the two kingdoms of England and Ireland." 
 Three things should here be carefully observed : — 
 
 1. This is a contract ; and a contract can be altered or 
 abrogated by the contracting parties. The contracting parties are 
 Great Britain and Ireland ; but if both parties see that it will be 
 for their advantage to modify the contract, why should they not do 
 so ? Why should not the same powers that made the contract 
 agree to alter it ? What principle of moral obligation is violated ? 
 
 2. If the contracting parties can neither alter nor abrogate 
 the contract, look at the consequences. Then Great Britain and 
 Ireland are in this predicament — whatever happens the terms of 
 the Union must be rigidly kept. Both parties may see that the 
 true life of the nation would be immensely invigorated ; that the 
 ends of the Union would be far better secured by departing, in 
 some respects, from the terms of the original contract ; but, 
 because you have these terms upon a piece of parchment, national 
 welfare must be sacrificed and sacrificed for ever. For the words 
 are — they " shall be, and shall remain in force for ever." Can it 
 be reasonable that one Parliament shall thus have the power to tie 
 up all future generations from free action even in the most mo- 
 mentous matters ? 
 
 3. That the contracting parties have the right to modify or to 
 abrogate the contract is clear from the action which has already 
 been taken by the Legislature, and from the judgments 
 of moralists and statesmen. Lord Macaulay's words upon 
 this subject will sufllice to prove the point : — •' We are told of the 
 fifth article of the Union, as if the fifth article of the Union were 
 more sacred than the fourth. * * * Yet the provisions of the 
 fourth article have been altered with the almost unanimous con- 
 sent of all parties in the State."* 
 
 " It is not by the traditions of ecclesiastical or political 
 parties that that question (of the Irish Church) should be 
 judged, but solely in reference to the good of Ireland, as an 
 integral part of the United Kingdom. For, as the good of the 
 nation is the only end for which a national institution ought to 
 exist, it is only as conducive to that end that its existence can be 
 maintained with justice or defended with honour. The Irish 
 Church disdains to save her position in the Constitution by 
 clinging to the skirts of the English Church or appealing to the Act 
 of Union. She depends not on the patronage of English Church- 
 
 * Hansard, vol. Ixix. , p. 65. 
 
30 
 
 men, nor even on the pledge of a national compact ; and, if her 
 connection with the State as the Established Church of Ireland be 
 not for the good of Ireland let that connection be severed at 
 once." Such are the wise words of the writer of the first of the 
 Essays on the Irish Church by Irish clergymen. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel, the great constitutional minister, declared — 
 " that not even the solemn compact of the Act of Union between 
 two ancient and independent kingdoms, would stand in his way 
 if he thought that the Established Church in Ireland ought to be 
 destroyed."* 
 
 On another occasion, speaking of the Act of Union, Sir R. 
 Peel said : — " But, it may be asked, are compact and authority to 
 be conclusive and decisive ? If we are ourselves convinced that 
 the social welfare of Ireland requires an alteration in the law and a 
 departure from that compact and a disregard of that authority, are 
 our legislative functions so bound up that we must maintain the 
 compact in spite of our convictions ? I, for one, am not prepared 
 to contend for such a proposition, "t 
 
 But we have on this point a much higher authority in Lord 
 Brougham, who, in 1825, on the occasion of Mr. Hume's fourth 
 annual motion on this subject, pointed attention to the fact that 
 the Legislature had cancelled one of the most explicit terms of the 
 Act of Union with Scotland : — 
 
 " Much," he remarked, "had been said of the compact of the 
 Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and its inviolability. 
 Yet, who that looked at the previous union between Scotland and 
 England, but must be convinced that it was incidental to such 
 treaties or engagements to be subjected to the future consideration 
 of the Legislature ? In the Scottish compact, though many of the 
 provisions were left open to the future deliberation of the united 
 Parliament, yet there was one on which, from many considerations 
 of local circumstances, from feudal attachments, from personal 
 feelings, the compact of the union was precise and most strict ; it 
 was the institution of heritable jurisdiction, which, though guarded 
 by such barriers from interference, was forty years after abolished 
 by the enactment of the Legislature." 
 
 IS IT NOT CLEAR THAT IF THE DIS-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 
 IRISH CHURCH BE FOR THE WELFARE OF IRELAND THERE IS NO- 
 THING IN THE CORONATION OATH, OR IN THE COMPACT OF THE 
 UNION OF 1800, THAT CAN FAIRLY STAND IN THE WAY? 
 
 * Dean Murray, Ireland and her Church, p. 360, Note. 
 
 f Speech on state of Ireland, m House of Commons. Times, Feb. 26, 1844. 
 
3 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 
 
 III.— That the Establishment of the Church has been injurious to her 
 spiritual life and an obstacle to her success, and therefore detrimental to 
 religion. 
 
 The proper work of a Church is to serve Christ and bless 
 man by maintaining and extending the Gospel. Has the estab- 
 lishment of the Church in Ireland made it the most efficient in- 
 strument for that work ? Has it produced such fruits as to leave 
 no room for fair question whether or not it ought to be main- 
 tained as the best means of converting men to the truth, and 
 training them for immortality? 
 
 A fair examination of the facts of history from the time when, 
 700 years ago, under Henry II., the State took the Church into 
 close alliance with itself will disclose much reason to conclude 
 that the alliance has been to her a great calamity. Through that 
 alliance she has lost her power of free action ; plans of usefulness 
 which she would have surely carried out as a Church, she has 
 failed to devise or entertain as an Establishment. Through that 
 alliance she came to depend upon the State ; and, tempted to 
 trust too much in worldly status, wealth, and power, she mournfully 
 forgot and forsook the source from which all Church power must 
 proceed ; she became a spectacle of splendid weakness amidst 
 mighty foes. Through that alliance many men were appointed to 
 the highest offices for almost any other reasons than eminent 
 piety, ability, and zeal ; and did almost anything but what should 
 have been their special work ; many, under them, followed an 
 example which permitted sloth, self-indulgence, and petty strife. 
 Through that alliance the Church, being in the hands of political 
 rulers, was made by them a system of machinery for working out 
 political designs ; and thus, becoming identified with much that 
 was impolitic and cruel, she raised in the minds of the majority 
 of the people insurmountable obstacles to the success of her 
 mission. In short, the establishment of the Church in Ireland — 
 whatever may have been the effect of that measure elsewhere — 
 robbed her of free action, of vital power and of Christlike conse- 
 cration, opened the doors of her highest offices to men of worldly 
 ambition, degraded her from the high place of a witness for Christ 
 into an instrument of State craft, and oftentimes into the disgraced 
 tool of faction and the detested abettor of wrong. We speak not 
 
32 
 
 of probable results but of actual fruits, concerning which some of 
 the ablest friends of the Church bear the most decided testimony. 
 
 Let us look at the state of things from the time of Henry II. 
 to the Reformation. 
 
 It was under this monarch that the Church was by Law Estab- 
 lished in Ireland, that tithes were enacted, that Diocesan episcopacy 
 was commenced, and that the Institutes of the Church were in- 
 corporated with the law of the land. 
 
 That none may suspect that historical facts are drawn or 
 dressed from imagination, authorities and testimonies will be freely 
 given, and in any case of doubt or surprise the reader is entreated 
 to search them thoroughly and weigh them well ; all the more as 
 they are, well nigh without exception, either from standard historians, 
 who have taken no part in this controversy, or from writers in de- 
 fence of the Irish Church ; and no evidence can well be stronger 
 than that which they abundantly supply that the Civil Establish- 
 ment of the Church has been detrimental to religion. 
 
 It seems very clear that, from the middle of the fifth century, 
 possibly much earlier, up to the middle of the twelfth, there existed 
 in Ireland a Native Evangelical and Independent Church. Upon 
 this interesting point some facts will hereafter demand our atten- 
 tion. Of course the Romish Church, carried forward by her ever 
 cherished dream of Universal Supremacy, sought to subjugate this, 
 as well as all other churches. Many Danes had settled in the 
 cities of Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, who were, it appears, 
 much inclined to a close union with the Roman Church. Gille- 
 bert. Bishop of Limerick, heartily promoted this. He wrote a book 
 upon the Service of the Church, in the preface of which he states 
 that " he had drawn it up at the request of many of the bishops 
 and clergy, in order that those diverse and schismatical orders of 
 service by which almost all Ireland is deluded may give place to 
 one Catholic and Roman order." " In return for this service he 
 was appointed to the office, hitherto unkno'vn in Ireland, of Papal 
 Legate, and in that capacity presided at the Synod of Rathbreasil, 
 A.D. 1118, notwithstanding the presence there of Kellach or 
 Celsus, the Primate of Armagh, and also of the Archbishop of 
 the newly-constituted see of Cashel. Thus begun, the work of 
 subjection or (as it was mildly put) conformity progressed 
 rapidly. Celsus was the next to espouse the cause, which was 
 finally victorious under his successor, Malachi. Hitherto the 
 pallium, the Romish symbol of archiepiscopal dignity, and like- 
 wise of archiepiscopal subjection, had been unknown in Ireland, 
 where indeed the ofiice of an archbishop, in the modern sense of 
 the term, had only very recently been recognised ; but now by the 
 exertions of Malachi, who went twice to Rome for the purpose 
 
33 
 
 (having first, as a pledge of his disinterestedness, resigned his 
 archbishopric), and also used all his influence at home for the 
 same end, it was brought to pass that, at a National Council or 
 Synod, held at Kells, A.D. 1152, and presided over by Cardinal 
 Paparo as Legate from the Pope, the sees of Dublin and Tuam 
 being erected into archbishoprics, their prelates, with those of the 
 older sees of Armagh and Cashel, were invested with the badge of 
 Papal supremacy, and took the oath which bound them and their 
 Church to Rome."* 
 
 Three years after this, a.d. 1155, Pope Adrian IV. issued a 
 bull giving Ireland to Henry II., king of England, that he " might 
 reform morals, explain the true Christian faith, and widen the 
 bounds of the Church." It was not, however, till the month of 
 October, 1171, that Henry landed atWaterford to take possession. 
 The chieftains, with few exceptions, acquiesced, and all opposi- 
 tion was soon at an end. " The clergy likev/ise, and especially the 
 hierachy, received with open arms one sent to them directly by 
 the Pope, and who came laden with promises of increased wealth, 
 influence, and protection to themselves. Accordingly, kings, 
 nobles, archbishops, bishops, and abbots vied with one another in 
 the alacrity with which they assembled at his command, acknow- 
 ledging him king and lord of Ireland, and swearing fealty to him 
 and his heirs for ever. If the surmise be correct, that a mutual 
 understanding already existed between Henry and the clergy, he 
 certainly lost no time in fulfilling his part of the contract." One 
 of his first acts was to summon a council at Cashel, at which it 
 was enacted that all things shall in future, in all parts of Ireland, 
 be regulated after the model of Holy Church, and according to 
 the observances of the Anglican Church. " Several canons of the 
 Council tended to the exaltation and emolument of the clergy, 
 especially that by which tithes, heretofore almost unknown in 
 Ireland, were now directed to be paid on all cattle, corn, and 
 other produce. These decrees being confirmed by Henry, tithes 
 may be considered as having been now established by secular as 
 well as by spiritual authority. "t 
 
 The panacea proposed for all evils was to bring the Church 
 into conformity with Rome and into close union with secular 
 power, which might give it order, wealth, and dignity. And what 
 were the effects ? 
 
 I . One ivas io disgust the people by setting up t/ie system of compul- 
 sory tithes. Lannigan asserts that " the decrees of this Council 
 
 * Essays on the Irish Church by clergymen of the Established Church in 
 Ireland, pp. 77-8. 
 
 t See Gir. Camb., Hib. Exp., Part i., c. 33, &c. 
 
 F 
 
34 
 
 were disregarded by the Irish clergy and people, who looked only 
 to their ecclesiastical rules as if the Synod of Cashel had never 
 been held (i v., 217). It is certain that the imposition of tithes 
 occasioned great offence. The Rev. William Anderson, writing 
 as an Irish rector, on the difficulties of the Irish Church, says — 
 " It was one of the first acts of the English Crown to provide for 
 the maintenance of the parochial system by giving to the clergy 
 the tithes of their respective parishes. 'WTiatever good may have 
 flowed from this payment in supporting the Irish clergy, the impo- 
 sition of a new tax by the foreign conqueror for their benefit made 
 them U7ipopiilar. Tithes were hated as oppressive and anti-Irish. 
 They were regarded as a badge of conquest. The conduct of the 
 men appointed to high places in the Irish Church after the invasion 
 did not mitigate this prejudice. Many of them were taken from 
 the ranks of the invaders." Another Rector writes of what was 
 then done thus : — " The bishops and clergy, whose wealth, power, 
 and social position were considerably enhanced under the new 
 regime, and among whom moreover a considerable infusion of 
 English ecclesiastics was speedily introduced, were also, for the 
 most part, devoted adherents of England and of Rome. Thus far 
 the establishment of the church enriched the clergy, but built a 
 wall of separation between them and the people." 
 
 2. A second result of the Secular Establishment of Religion 
 was that " all who followed the native customs or spake the Irish 
 language were excluded from preferment. The native Irish had 
 little reason to love either the bishops or the clergy of the Irish 
 Church. The original defect of the Irish episcopate was exagger- 
 ated by the conduct and character of the pre-Reformation 
 bishops." * If the design had been to alienate the people it would 
 be difficult to devise anything more adapted to that end. The aim 
 of all successful missions is to raise up a native ministry ; and, till 
 this is done, the plan of the most successful missionaries has been 
 to approach as near as possible to the people they would bless by 
 mastering their language and submitting, as far as may be, to their 
 mode of life. Here, for political purposes, the people were com- 
 pelled to see their own native pastors, who alone could invest the 
 truths of religion with the charms of their native tongue, and as 
 fellow countrymen, of somewhat better education and higher office, 
 could share their most intimate sympathies, publicly discouraged 
 and disgraced. That which commended them to the people's 
 hearts deprived them of the honours of their Church. However 
 eminent their piety, or great their ability, if they " spake the Irish 
 language or followed the Irish customs, they were excluded from 
 
 • Essays, p. 159. 
 
35 
 
 preferment." Could any church but an Establishment in the hand 
 of politicians have taken such a course ? Could any body of un- 
 shackled Christian men have been either so blind to the right 
 methods of accomplishing their mission or so wilful in throwing 
 them aside ? The true work of a Church is to convert men to 
 Christ and to guide them in His truth ; the aim of the secular 
 power was to subjugate the people to itself ; and, thinking this 
 might effectually be done by making Irishmen into Englishmen, it 
 set itself to bring about this change ; and, using the Church as its 
 tool, it stigmatised and excluded from all credit and honour the 
 only men who could preach the Gospel in a language they could 
 understand to perhaps nineteen out of every twenty of the popula- 
 tion ! — and that too precisely because they were able and willing 
 to do this ! 
 
 3. Corresponding with this was the enactment of harsh statutes 
 against almost everything that was peculiarly Irish. The Rev. 
 William Anderson, after stating that some of the English and Scotch 
 colonists had adopted the Irish language and mode of life, which 
 was regarded as reducing the number of the friends of England 
 and swelling her foes, says,— to prevent this, — " several statutes 
 were passed against Irish customs, Irish laws, and even the Irish 
 language. Thus not only were the Irish people the conquered 
 vassals of a more civilized race to which they were inferior in the 
 arts of war, in religion, and in social life, and by whom they were 
 treated with contempt ; but they found their own customs, dress, 
 manner of living and usages of social and domestic life forbidden 
 under the harshest penalties, not only in their own case, but in the 
 case of any of the conquering race who might think fit to adopt 
 them. Contempt on one side engendered vindictiveness on the 
 other. The Irish people clung with the most desperate tenacity to 
 those venerable usages which they saw so scornfully and bitterly 
 proscribed. It became henceforth a point of honour to retain 
 them." 
 
 It may be said this is very sad no doubt, but what has it 
 to do with the Church and her Establishment ? Let the same 
 writer answer — " The chief agents of this anti-Irish policy were the 
 bishops. The bishops were the most powerful metnbers of the 
 Government. In the absence of the lay peers they were frequently 
 the majority of the Upper House. The instruments of this coercive 
 and barbarous policy could not but become objects of special detesta- 
 tion.'^ He intimates that at some time or other the consequences 
 would come — " This sentiment might perhaps be concealed so 
 long as all parties were united on the subject of religion, while 
 there was nothing to try the influence of the superior over the 
 inferior clergy, or over their respective flocks. But so soon as any 
 
36 
 
 occasion would arise to try this influence — the moment they put 
 themselves at the head of any movement which it v/as desirable to 
 render popular — then the remembrance of the accumulated 
 wrongs which they had lent themselves to inflict would burst forth 
 and it would be seen how little real authority they possessed with 
 the mass of the population."''' 
 
 Was the Church helped or damaged by its political alliances ? 
 Who can doubt ? But mark yet : — 
 
 4. Another mournful effect of union with the State was, that 
 the awful spiritual powers of the Church were prostituted to the 
 accomplishment of merely political objects. Brennan, a Fran- 
 ciscan, in his Ecclesiastical History of Ireland, says, of the pre- 
 Reformation bishops — " One truth is certain, that while these men, 
 with power and influence at their command, were thus busily em- 
 ployed in the political management of foreign interests, the general 
 state, the peace and prosperity of Ireland were subjects scarcely 
 ever contemplated, they were wantonly and shamefully disre- 
 garded, "t 
 
 The same historian admits that, by a statute passed in the 
 reign of Edward IV., the prelates of Ireland were obliged, under 
 the penalty of jQioo, to pronounce setitcnce of excommunication on 
 such of the king's subjects as the authorities should think proper to 
 pronounce disaffected. 
 
 He gives a translation of the words of the oath drawn up by 
 Henry VII., to be taken byallprelatesofthelrish Church, as follows : — 
 "I, A. B., shall, from this day forward, as often as I shall on the 
 behalf of our sovereign lord the kmg be lawfully required, 
 execute the censures of the Church, by the authority of our Holy 
 Father, Pope Innocent VIII., and by his bull given, under lead, 
 against all those of his subjects of what dignity, degree, state, or 
 condition they may be, that disturbeth or troubleth our said 
 sovereign lord, or his title to the Crown of England, and lordship 
 of Ireland ; or causeth commotion or rebellion against the same ; 
 or aideth, supporteth, comforteth, any of those traitors or rebels 
 that intendeth the destruction of his said realm of England and 
 lordship of Ireland, &c."J 
 
 In accordance with this, the Rev. W. Anderson, says — " The 
 limits of dioceses had not been firmly settled, nor had diocesan 
 episcopacy become a national institution till the century of the 
 English invasion. After this invasion, the bishops became iden- 
 tified with the English interest in Ireland. They lent their spiritual 
 authority to the coercive measures that were most unpopular in Ire- 
 
 * Essays, pp. 166-67. + Vol. ii., p. 23. 
 
 X Vol. ii. , pp. 59 and 84, quoted Essays, 167. 
 
37 
 
 land, and they were regarded as the instigators and accomplices of the 
 laws which were passed against the language and the customs of the 
 Irish race."* 
 
 Another Irish rector, the Rev. Arthur W. Edwards, speaking 
 of the times prior to the Reformation, writes — " There is abun- 
 dant evidence likewise to prove that the secular clergy, as a body, 
 degenerated during this period to a deplorable extent, not only in 
 piety but even in outward morality and decency of conduct ; a 
 result not a little furthered by the introduction of large numbers of 
 English and Welsh ecclesiastics, who flocked over to seek prefer- 
 ment, and were frequently men of loose and immoral lives — the 
 off-scourings of the Anglican Church. The bishops moreover soon 
 learned to make use of their spiritual powers of anathema, excom- 
 munication, and interdict, in order to advance their own profit, to 
 avenge some real or supposed injury, or not unfrequently to give 
 force and effect to the otherwise nugatory edicts of the E?iglish Go- 
 vernment; by which means the whole system of church discipline and 
 censure, wholesome and scriptural in itself, fell into absolute loathing 
 and contempt.'' And, as authorities for these strong statements, he 
 cites Lanigan, Mant, &:c.t 
 
 5. Moreover measures for the good of Ireland were defeated 
 by the heads of the church, under the influence of political motives. 
 The prelates of the church were frequently the prime powers in the 
 state. The colonists " gave to the bishops the highest places in 
 the land, in station, in power and in wealth ; they placed them 
 before the oldest families ; they gave them precedence of the Irish 
 Kings. But many of the bishops were Englishmen. They be- 
 came the confidential ministers of the English Crown. The 
 bishops were not onl)' invited to the highest council of the nation, 
 but their proportion to the lay lords was so considerable, many of 
 the latter being absentees, that the bishops not unfrequently 
 formed the majority of the whole.":}: 
 
 The Abbe Mac Geoghegan records the fate of an attempt 
 which was made to found a University in Ireland for the instruc- 
 tion of the natives. The proposal was defeated through the oppo- 
 sion of one of the principal members of the Council, who was a 
 bishop. So one of his friends, who expressed his surprise that a 
 Catholic bishop should frustrate so holy and statutory a measure, 
 the prelate answered, " that he had not decided as a Bishop of the 
 Catholic Church, but as a Senator of England." || 
 
 Indeed, a review of the period of 400 years from the Estab- 
 
 • Essays, p. 167. 
 
 t Eccl. Hist. vol. iv., p. 243 ; Mant's Hist. vol. i., p. 34 ; Essays p. 85. 
 X Essays, 174. || Mac Geoghegan's History, vol i., p. 197. 
 
38 
 
 lishment of the Church in the time of Henry II. to the Reforma- 
 tion, will lead us to admit the. justice of the brief but emphatic 
 words in which an Irish Rector says — " The interests of the Crown 
 and of the Papacy were hitherto believed to be identical ; they had 
 lent each other effectual aid. The Roman Church excommunica- 
 ted the enemies of England ; the English Crown aggrandized the 
 Roman Church."* 
 
 Must we not admit that prior to the Reformation, at least, the 
 Establishment of the Church by its union with the State was 
 detrimental to religion ? 
 
 * Essays, 176. 
 
39 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ESTABLISHMENT AFTER THE REFORMATION. 
 
 A COERCED PEOPLE DISGUSTED AND REPELLED. 
 
 III. — That the Establishment of the Church in Ireland has been injurious 
 to her spiritual life, an obstacle to her success, and, therefore, detrimental 
 to religion. 
 
 We have seen that in Roman Catholic times the Church 
 was the tool of the State ; was it so after the Reformation ? It 
 was. Many facts, resting upon unequivocal testimony, lead to the 
 conclusion that the civil establishment of Protestantism was its 
 great calamity. Had it escaped from the unclean hands of am- 
 bitious and worldly men, had it come before the people free from 
 their blighting patronage, not wearing the habiliments of a corrupt 
 court, but in the simple grace and dignity of truth from heaven, it 
 would have gained a power in Ireland incomparably greater than 
 it has to day. 
 
 Look at some of the consequences of its union with the State. 
 
 I. In the first place the people, many of the English as well as 
 the Irish, were disgusted and repelled because Protestantism was forced 
 upon them by legal enactments and severe penalties. 
 
 By some persons, in whom large confidence seems to be 
 united with very limited information, it is asserted that the clergy 
 and people generally were in favour of the Reformation, and con- 
 formed to the Protestant Establishment. 
 
 These statements are completely erroneous. The fact is that, 
 
 EXCEPTING the BISHOPS, THE GREAT BODY OF THE CLERGY AND OF 
 THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND, BOTH IN THE TIME OF EDWARD VI. AND 
 ELIZABETH, EITHER KNEW NEXT TO NOTHING OF PROTESTANTISM, 
 OR WERE STOUTLY OPPOSED TO IT. 
 
 As to the state of feeling in the time of Henry VIII. Leland 
 states that : — " The old natives were excluded from the pale of 
 English law and the privilege of representation in Parliament. 
 The synods of the clergy were held, as the records express it, 
 ' ifiter Anqlicos.'" Bishop Brown, writing to the Lord Crom- 
 well, speaks of the furious zeal of the people, " whose blind at- 
 tachment to Rome was as determined as the constancy of the 
 most enlightened martyrs to true religion." " Two proctors from 
 each diocese, who had usually been summoned to Parliament, and 
 composed a formidable body of ecclesiastics, avowed adherents of 
 the Holy See, were not permitted to vote." " But although the 
 
4° 
 
 partisans of Rome were thus deprived of the assistance of so power- 
 ful a body, yet when the Act of Supremacy came to be proposed, 
 Lords and Commotis joified in expressing their abhorrence of the 
 spiritual authority assumed by the King." Again, " Fear served 
 to allay the violence of those who could not be persuaded ; so 
 that the most determined partisans of Rome were obliged to re- 
 serve themselves for a clandestine opposition to the execution of 
 a law which they could not prevent from being enacted ; and which, 
 in despite of the legislative authority, they still opposed with 
 indefatigable zeal."* Archbishop Brown, writing to Cromwell in 
 1538, complains bitterly of the opposition he met with, declaring 
 that ever since the first settlement of the English in Ireland the old 
 natives have always been desirous of some foreign power to sup- 
 port and govern them ; and now both English and Irish sacrifice 
 their private quarrels to the cause of religion, and seem on the 
 point of forming a dangerous confederacy, which some foreigner 
 may be soon invited to lead against the English Government." 
 Bishop Mant, in his history of the Irish Church, speaking of this 
 period, says : — " The majority of the bishops, as well as the inferior 
 clergy, were decidedly attached to the Popish Creed and practice."t 
 
 The testimony of the historian Brown as to the same period 
 is in the following words : — " But, except Brown, Archbishop of 
 Dublin, few of the dignified clergy heartily complied. The primate 
 of Armagh not only hindered most of his suffragans and inferior 
 clergy from submission, but laid a curse on all the people that 
 should own Heni7's supremacy, pretending that as the country had 
 been characterized ' the Holy Island' it belonged to none but the 
 Bishop of Rome. And indeed such was the brutish ignorance of 
 both clergy and laity, and their zealous attachment to the idolatries 
 and superstitions of Rome, that they needed no instigation." 
 
 Here then are the testimonies of Archbishop Brown and of 
 Bishop Mant, as M-ell as of the Protestant historians, Leland and 
 Brown, that, in the time of Henry VIII., both clergy and people 
 were zealously opposed to the Reformation. 
 
 Was it the same in the time of Edward VI. ? Leland, speak- 
 ing of that reign, says : — " In England the dispositions of a great 
 part of the people concurred with the Crown, and even ran before 
 the rulers in the revolt from popery. In Ireland the Reformation 
 was tendered to a prejudiced and reluctant people. . . . The 
 vindictive character of Henry VIII., and the rigour of his govern- 
 ment, had driven many of the pale, as well as of the Irish race, to 
 fonnal professions and condescensions, which the very ease and 
 readiness with which they were made show to have been made 
 
 * Vol. II., p. 159-167. 
 
 t Vol. L, p. 188. 
 
41 
 
 without due attention and serious conviction. The authority of a 
 minor King was less esteemed or dreaded, at the same time that the 
 requisitions now to be made were more extensive, and did greater 
 violence to the popular prejudices."* 
 
 Again he tells us not only that Dowdal, Archbishop of Ar- 
 magh, and his suffragan bishops stoutly opposed it, and thus gained 
 popularity with the people, but adds : — " The prejudices conceived 
 against the Reformation, by the Irish natives more especially, were 
 still further increased by the conduct of those who were commis- 
 sioned to remove the objects and instruments of popular super- 
 stition. "+ 
 
 Again he adds : — " But, the truth is, that the business of a 
 religious reformation in Ireland had hitherto been tiothi/ig ?fiore than 
 ihe impositions of the English Government on a prejudiced and bigotted 
 people, not sufficiently obedient to this government, not sufficiently 
 impressed with fear or reconciled by kindness," (p. 201). The 
 measures of Mary for the restoration and establishment of Popery 
 were, he testifies, received with general acclamation in a country 
 " which had scarcely known any other" religion. 
 
 On the death of Mary, and the accession of Elizabeth, shall we, 
 after this, find nearly all the clergy and people Protestants ? No- 
 thing of the sort. The Reformed worship was established by the 
 Parliament which met in Dublin January iith, 1560. Leland 
 says : — " It appears by the catalogue of this Parliament that most 
 of the temporal lords were those whose descendants, even to our 
 own days, continued firmly attached to the Romish communion ; 
 but far the greater part of the prelates were such as quietly enjoyed 
 their sees by conforming occasionally to different modes of religion; nor 
 doth it appear that of the whole number, amounting to 19, more 
 ^ than 2, Welsh, of Meath, and Levereux, of Kildare, were strenuous 
 and determined adherents of the ancient religion." " In the House 
 of Commons we find representatives summoned for 10 counties 
 only, the rest, which made up the number to 76, were citizens and 
 burgesses of those towns in which the royal authoriy was predomi- 
 nant. It is therefore little wonder that, in despite of clamour and 
 opposition, in a session of a few weeks, the whole ecclesiastical 
 system of Queen Mary was entirely reversed by a series of statutes 
 conformable to those already enacted by the English legislature." 
 The counties represented were ten — Dublin, Meath, Westmeath, 
 Louth, Kildare, Catherlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, Tipperary, Wex- 
 ford. The ten counties not represe^ited were — Cork, Kerry, Lime- 
 rick, Connaught, Clare, Antrim, Arde, Down, Kings' County, 
 Queens' County. But the Deputy was so much alarmed by oppo- 
 
 • I.eland II., 192-3. 
 
 t Vol. II., 196. 
 
42 
 
 sition, even in this small and picked Parliament, that he dissolved 
 it in a few weeks. The people were " provoked by the violence 
 offered to their religious prejudices." " The clergy who refused 
 to conform abandoned their cures ; no reformed ministers cotild be 
 found to supply their places ; the churches fell to ruin ; the people 
 were left without any religious worship or instruction." Even in 
 places of most civility the statutes lately made were evaded or 
 neglected with impunity." Three years afterwards the historian 
 speaks of "the total neglect of religion" and the "melancholy 
 prospect" of Ireland, and states that in consequence of this Sir 
 Henry Sidney was appointed Deputy " and a new Irish Privy 
 Council had especial instructions to concur with the Lord Deputy 
 in every measure for enforcing the authority of the Queen and her 
 laws, and for propagating true religion. They found the civil and 
 ecclesiastical state of Ireland in the most alamiing disorder."* 
 Such indeed was the power of Romanism that in 1570, twelve 
 years after Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the " three northern 
 bishoprics, those of Clogher, Derry, and Raphoe, were still granted 
 by the Pope, without control."t 
 
 In addition to these historical statements, let the following 
 tesrimonies concerning the state of feeling towards the Reforma- 
 tion, furnished by Irish Rectors within the last three years, all of 
 them writing in defence of the present Establishment, be considered. 
 
 " Now it is of course true, and has been fully acknowledged 
 in the preceding pages that, owing to various adverse circum- 
 stances, the Church of this country (Ireland), when accepting the 
 Reformation, failed in drawing with her the mass of the popula- 
 lation ; and that she has consequently always been, and still is, in 
 a very numerical minority."]: 
 
 The following are the words of another of the Essayists — 
 " The Irish were as little qualified to judge of such articles of the 
 Reformed religion as they were unwilling to receive it. The most 
 difficult task which was ever committed to a Christian Church was 
 entrusted to the Irish Church in the days of Elizabeth. The con- 
 version, at the present day, of the Roman Catholic Poles to the 
 Greek Church would te much easier." 
 
 " The Irish Protestant Church was expected to precipitate, in a 
 few years, refonns which had been (in England) ripening for cen- 
 turies. Without any combination of parties in her favour, and in 
 spite of the bitterest national hostility (henceforth to take the form 
 of religious antipathy, and to be fostered by the Roman priests, as 
 unscrupulous in their enmity to England as they had formerly been 
 
 • Leland, pp. 224-232. t Page 248. 
 
 X Essays on Irish Church, p. 145; 
 
43 
 
 in their friendship), the Irish Church was expected to effect 
 changes in the popular worship and belief, which (so far as we can 
 tell) could not have been effected in England without the aid of 
 all parties combined together by the strongest motives — love of 
 country, and love of liberty. The only persons in the 7ahole 
 country on whose co-operation the English Government could depend, 
 were the bishops. All the Irish bishops, except two, professed to ac- 
 cept the Reformation, the clergy zealously opposed it." 
 
 Again, " the Irish bishops, before the Reformation, having em- 
 ployed their spiritual authority for political and anti-Irish purposes, 
 had lost their legitimate influence in promoting the Reformation, 
 and widened still further the breach between themselves and the 
 clergy. The clergy, both secular and religious, were in frequent 
 communication with the people, They shared all their feelings of 
 patriotism, clanship, and attachment to the soil, as well as their 
 hatred of the invaders. That the bishops should take the side of 
 the English king was not to be wondered at. Many of them had 
 been brought from England, where they had imbibed the principles 
 of the Reformation, they owed their places, their honours, their 
 wealth, to him. To him they owed and had sworn allegiance. 
 
 That the inferior clergy did not sympathise with the bishops in 
 favouring the Reformation is evident from the proceedings of the 
 Parliament, which was summoned in the reign of Henry VIII., for 
 the purpose of abjuring the Papal Supremacy. It had been usual 
 for two proctors to be returned from each diocese to represent the 
 clergy. They succeeded in throwing out the Bill. The Lord 
 Deputy wrote to England for instructions, complaining of " the 
 forwardness and obstinacy of the Proctors of the clergy from the 
 beginning of this Parliament ;" whereupon peremptory orders were 
 issued that the Proctors should from henceforth be excluded from 
 the House, that they should have no voice, and that their assent 
 should not be necessary to any Act." 
 
 Of Browne, Archbishop of Dublin, it issaid — " He could not 
 induce any of his clergy to follow his example." "Neither," he 
 says, " by gentle exhortation, evangelical instruction, neither by 
 oaths of them solemnly taken, nor yet by threats of sharp correc- 
 tion, can I persuade or induce any, either religious or secular, 
 since my coming over, once to preach the Word of God or the 
 just title of our most illustrious prince." " The Irish clergy, having 
 no knowledge of the reformed doctrines, and having had such bit- 
 ter experience of the fruits of Protestantism in Ireland, were not 
 likely to aspire to preferment in the Protestant Church. Pro- 
 nounced to be ineligible for the lowest places, they would not 
 expect the highest." 
 
 Again the same wnter adds, " And yet the bishops were the 
 
44 
 
 only persons in the land on whose assistance English statesmen 
 could rely in spreading the knowledge of the reformed doctrines. 
 Even the strongest bishops were powerless. None of their clergy 
 would follow them, and none of the native laity." " It is also true 
 that the great body of the Irish clergy and laity professed to embrace 
 the Protestant religion (meaning thereby the rejection of the Papal 
 supremacy), and that for some years they, under the pressure of the 
 laws which imposed a fine for refusing to attend the Protestant 
 Churches, were occasionally present during the performance of Divine 
 service. But it is not true that the Irish people were aier Protestant 
 (in the proper sense of the word), or that, until the present century, 
 
 THEY EVER KNEW OR COULD HAVE LEARNED, WHAT PROTESTANT- 
 ISM WAS, AND WHEREIN IT DIFFERED FROM ROMAN CATHOLICISM. 
 
 The change from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism was 
 regarded in the light of a conversion to another faith. " If this 
 was the case in England, where the mass of the population of all 
 classes embraced the Reformed faith, it was much more likely to 
 occur in Ireland, where the natives continued to be Roman Catholic, 
 and the higher and middle classes (generally speaking), that is, 
 the English and Scotch settlers a?id their descendants, were the only 
 Protestants who had embraced the Reformed faith intelligently and 
 from conviction." * 
 
 Another Essayist writes : "In England the Royal supremacy 
 triumphed over the Papal, and the monarch's authority over the 
 national religion, as chief governor of the Church of England, be- 
 came a settled principle in the Constitution." In IreLvid it was 
 resisted with the wJiole force of the Irish race. Zea.\ for Popery, 
 combined with hatred of English rule to array the Irish clans in 
 resistance to the dominion of England, and the Roman Catholic 
 religion was the source of foreign aid and the centre of life and 
 union to Irish rebellion, from the Reformation to the Revolution. "+ 
 
 It is then an indisputable fact, stated by unprejudiced histo- 
 rians, again and again affirmed in the strongest terms by able 
 writers in defence of the Irish Establishment, tliat the great body of 
 the Irish clergy and people were at the time of the Refortnation 
 opposed to Protestantistn. What measures were employed to con- 
 vert them? Coercive enactments and severe penalties. With 
 what effect ? Disgust and detestation with some measure of ex- 
 ternal conformity. What but this could be the effect ? Look at 
 some of the penalties : — 
 
 PENALTIES. 
 
 By 28 Henry VIII. : "All officers of every kind and degree 
 
 • Essays, pp. 178-184. 
 
 t Essays, p. 270. 
 
45 
 
 were directed to take the Oath of Supremacy, and every person 
 who should refuse it declared as in England to be guilty of high 
 treason." * 
 
 The Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI. was never laid 
 before Convocation but by Act of Parliament passed January, 
 1549, it was appointed to be used through the whole Kingdom, 
 under pain of six months' i7np7-isoninent and loss of a year's salary for 
 the first faiilt ; forfeiture of all preferments, and a year' s imprisonment 
 for the second ; forfeiture of all goods and imprisonment for life for 
 the third f"-^ 
 
 Touching the King's Supremacy it was enacted by Edward VI., 
 cap. 12, " If any person shall by open preaching, express words or 
 sayings, affirm that the King is not, or ought not to be, the 
 Supreme Lord on earth of the Church of England immediately 
 under God, he, his aiders, comforters, abettors, and counsellors, 
 shall for the first offence forfeit his goods and be imprisoned during 
 the King's pleasure; for the second offence shall forfeit his goods 
 and the profits of his lands and spiritual promotions during his life, 
 and also be imprisoned during his life; and for the third offence shall 
 be guilty of high treason I "% 
 
 These statutes were abolished in the reign of Queen Mary, 
 but upon the accession of Elizabeth they were re-enacted in very 
 nearly the same form. By 2 Elizabeth, c. i, 2, 3, it was enacted 
 in the Irish Parliament which assembled on nth January, 1560, 
 " that such as maintain the Pope's, or any foreign authority, shall 
 for the first offence lose all his goods, or be imprisoned for one year if 
 he had not twenty pounds' worth of goods, and also lose his benefice if 
 a clergyman ; and should for the second offence incur a premunire ; 
 and for the third incur the pains of high treason /" 
 
 In the same Parliament the use of the Prayer Book was en- 
 forced as in England. Every parson, vicar, or other minister, was 
 required to use the Book of Common Prayer in the public services 
 of the Church, and no other rite, ceremony, order, or form. Every 
 clerg)TXian, violating this law, was, " for the first offence, to forfeit 
 a year's stipend aiul be imprisoned six months ; for the second 
 offence, to be imprisoned a year and be deprived of all his spiritual 
 promotions ; and the patron might present to his living as if he 
 were dead ! " || All the people were compelled to attend public 
 worship, under pain of fine and spiritual censure. 
 
 What but disgust and detestation, with some measure of 
 
 • Leland, vol. ii., p. 163. Brown's History, vol. I, p. 363. 
 
 t Brown's History, p. 122. X Bum, vol. iii., p. 658. 
 
 II Leland, vol. ii., pp. 224-5. Brown, vol. i., pp. 864-6. 
 Essays on Church, pp. 95-97. 
 
46 
 
 hollow external conformity, could be the effect of such measures ? 
 There is abundant evidence that these were the bitter fraits. Some 
 proofs, which none can doubt or question, shall be given from a 
 series of State Papers concerning the Irish Church in the time of 
 Queen Elizabeth, recently edited by Dr. Maziere Brady, which 
 the author has read since the foregoing was written. These papers, 
 the originals of which — preserved some in Her Majesty's Record 
 Office and others in the British Museum — were brought under the 
 Editor's notice by Mr, Froude, the historian, supply irrefragable 
 evidence of the accuracy of the view here given of the state of 
 Ireland at the time of the Reformation, and of the mournful effects 
 of the coercive measures then adopted. 
 
 Brady, Bishop of Meath, to Earl of Sussex, 1565, April, 4. 
 
 (Five years after the Establishment of Protestantism in Ireland. ) 
 
 I have written to the Queen's Majesty, simply advertising the 
 
 danger and misery of this state. I have done it dutifully. I pray God it be so 
 taken. Greater trouble will shortly follow than I would be glad to see, unless 
 it be advisedly prevented (p. 2). 
 
 Same to same, 1 566, April 27. 
 
 But I hope your good nature, even of mere justice, will either 
 
 name the accusers, together with the accusation (if any may be), or else 
 receiving this my purgation bring me out of doubt, protesting before the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, with the testimony of my conscience, you are the nobleman in the 
 world I most honour, and whom, during my life, I will serve with all possible 
 duty, requiring most humbly your good lordship will bring me out of doubt of 
 your favour towards me (p. 4) . 
 
 Sa?ne to Sir William Cecil, 1570, February 6. 
 
 The Baron Cusack, eldest son of Sir Thos. Cusack, having 
 
 served in the room of second Baron, of long time, both painfully and faithfully, 
 by all men's report, is the only man of his profession that favoureth religion in 
 this land, and, therefore, in my opinion, the fitter for that room. The number 
 of lawyers is great, and beareth no less sway. So are they for the most part, 
 nay, I might say all, thwarters and hinderers of matters that should tend to the 
 reformation of matters of religion (p. 8). 
 
 Edward Waterhouse to Her Majest/ s Secretary, Sir Francis Walsittgham, 1574, 
 June 14. 
 
 I am bold to tell your honour what I hear of these things, be- 
 cause you must be the instrament to redress them. But whensoever any altera- 
 tion shall happen, let all offices be given to soldiers of experience and to none 
 others. I would the Queen vi'ould also so bestow her bishoprics, for here is 
 scarce any sign of religion, nor no room for justice till the sword hath made a 
 way for the law 
 
 Earl of Essex to Walsingham, 1575, May 9. 
 I cannot blame her Majesty, though she were weary of Ireland, and 
 loath to be persuaded to do anything that showeth difficulty, because it is cer- 
 tain her Highness hath spent /'6oo,ooo in her time here, and the realm never 
 
47 
 
 the better. But, trust me, Sir, Reformation was never intended till now, as I 
 think. 
 
 Sir Htnry Sydney's Report of his Progress" in Minister, 1 5 76, Jaruary to 
 April. 
 
 Muhster was then in good "towardness" to be reformed; 
 
 "but it neverneeded more a discreet and active Government there continually 
 resident, for these people are, for the most part, all Papists, and that of the 
 
 malicioust degree." At the end of the account of his "progress," 
 
 Sydney discourses on the Reformation of Ireland. He thus treats of the 
 Church : — "The first head is the Church, now so spoiled (as well by the ruins 
 of the Temples, as the dissipation and embezzling of the patrimony, and most 
 of all for want of sufficient ministers), as so deformed and overthrown a Church, 
 there is not, I am sure, in any region where Christ is professed, and preposte- 
 rous it seemeth to me to begin reformation of the politic part, and neglect the 
 religious. 
 
 Sir H. Sydney's Letter to the Queen, 1576, April 28. 
 
 And now, most dear mistress, and most honoured Sovereign, 
 
 I solely address to you — as to the only sovereign salve — giver to this your sore 
 and sick realm — the lamentable estate of the most noble and principal limb 
 thereof; the Church, I mean, as foul, deformed, and as cruelly crushed as any 
 part thereof — by your only gracious and religious order to be cured, or, at 
 least, amended. I would not have believed, had I not for a great part viewed 
 the same throughout the whole Realm, and was advertised of the particular 
 estate of the Church in the bishopric of Meath (being the best inhabited country 
 of all this realm) by the honest, zealous, and learned bishop of the same, Mr. 
 Hugh Brady, a godly minister for the Gospel, and a good servant to your 
 Highness, who went from church to church himself and found that there are 
 within his diocese 224 parish churches, of which number 105 are impropriated 
 to sundry possessions now of your Highness, and all leased out for years or in 
 fee farm to several farmers ; and great gain reaped out of them above the rent 
 which your Majesty receiveth. No Parson or Vicar resident upon any of them, 
 and a very simple or sorry curate, for the most part, appointed to serve thereon . 
 Among which number of curates, only eighteen were found able to speak En- 
 glish — the rest Irish priests or rather Irish rogues, having very little Latin, less 
 learning, and civility. All these live upon the bare alterages, as they term them 
 (which God knoweth are veiy small), and were won't to live upon the gain of 
 masses, dirges, shrivings, and such like trumpery, godly abolished by your 
 Majesty. No one house standing for any of them to dwell in. In many places 
 the very walls of the churches down, very few chancels covered, windows, and 
 doors ruined or spoiled. There are 52 other parish churches more in the same 
 diocese (of Meath) who have vicai's endowed upon them — better served and 
 maintained than the other, yet but badly. There are 52 parish churches more, 
 residue of the first number of 224, which pertain to divers particular lords. 
 And these, though in better estate than the rest, commonly are yet far from well. 
 If this be the estate of the churches in the best peopled diocese, and best governed 
 country of this your realm ( as in truth it is), easy it is for your Majesty to con- 
 jecture in what case the rest. is, where little or no Reformation, either of religion 
 or rnanners, hath yet been planted and continued among them. 
 
 In choice of ministers for remote places where the English 
 
 tongue is not understood, it is most necessary that such be chosen as can speak 
 Irish. And [thus] in the meantime thousands would be gained to Christ that 
 are now lost, or left at the worst. 
 
 I wish and humbly beseech your Majesty that there may be three or four 
 
48 
 
 grave, Icamed, and venerable personages of the clergy, there, be sent hither, 
 who in short space, being here, would sensibly perceive the enormities of this 
 overthrown Church." 
 
 Lord Chancellor Gerrard to IValsingham, 1577, February 8. 
 If the Deputy can keep Ireland with a small garrison, it is well. But in 
 my opinion — so writes the Irish Chancellor — if in ten years past the Govern- 
 ment had been enabled to subject the whole Irishiy to the sword — which manner 
 of goverment, if encr Ireland shall be thoroughly reformed, must be practised — 
 Ireland had been in other terms of wealth and obedience than it is this day. 
 
 Sir IV. Diirry, Lord President of Mitnster, to Walsingham, 1577, April 16. 
 Speaking of certain Papal prelates, he says " The first is called John 
 White, who is worshipped like a god between Kilkenny and Waterford and 
 Clonmel. He suborneth all the dwellers of those parts to detest the true relig- 
 ion stablished by her Majesty." The city of Waterford' is "cankered in 
 Popery." " Masses infinite they have in the several churches without any fear." 
 
 The same to the Privy Council in Dublin, 1 5 78, March 24. 
 There have been, to my judgment, since my first entry into office [a year 
 and nine months] about 400 executed by justice and martial law within this 
 province [Munster]. 
 
 Mr. Commissioner Garvey, 1579, January 2, states that some of the 
 Queen's bishops employed Papal bishops to ordain priests for them ; and that 
 they sold livings to "horsemen, "boyes," "Keame," "laymen," and other 
 incapable persons. 
 
 .SVV William Pelham, Lord justice, to Walsingham, 1579, Dec. 7. 
 
 Some one of Her Majesty's farmers of parsonages inapropriate near this 
 place, hath sixteen benefices in his hands, and amongst those not one vicar or 
 minister maintained that can read English or understand Latin, or give any 
 good instruction to his parishioners. 
 
 Marmaduke Middleton, Bishop of Waterford, to Walsingham, 1580, June 29. 
 
 Such is the miserable state of this wretched city [Waterford] that all 
 things are done contrary to the sacred Word and blessed will of the Lord, and 
 also her Majesty's most godly proceedings in causes spiritual. The Gospel of 
 God utterly abhorred. The Church in time of Divine Service of all hands 
 eschewed ( nisi a paucis et id forma tatitum ). The sacraments condemned and 
 refused. Massing in every comer. No burial of the dead according to the 
 Book of Common Prayer 
 
 There is no difference betwixt the clergy and the layalty [laity] here, 
 for they have joined together to prevent her Majesty's most godly proceedings. 
 Of David Clerc, dean of Waterford, and suitor for the bishopric of Fenis, he 
 says, — I know the man, his life, doctrine, and conversation (because he is dean 
 in my church) better than some others. In religion he is but a hypocrite and 
 by nature malicious. Neither a preacher, neither hath he sufficiency thereto. — 
 An arguer, with tliat little knowledge he hath, against the truth. This man I 
 hold an unfit bishop, yet so well friended — as none better in this world than the 
 wicked — as, both his preferment shall be sought, and who shall withstand him 
 shall hazard a displeasure. God knoweth we have too many such bishops in 
 Ireland. 
 
49 
 
 Sir Nicholas Maltby to Walsingham, 1580, September 7. 
 But my hap is worse of any man's in that I hear it is said I use the 
 sword over severely. I am sorry I have spared it so much ; and, if it be not 
 used more sharply than hitlrerto it has been, her Majesty is likely to lose both 
 sword and realm. It is now a quarrel of religion, and the expectation of foreign 
 aid doth much further it. 
 
 Lord Grey, Lord Lieutenant, in a private letter to the Queen, 
 1580, December 22, speaking of the Baron of Delvin's " obstinate 
 affection to Popery " and its effects, says : — 
 
 Such is the yield of such seed, which would to God were not so plenty 
 in this land. Your Majesty must be careful therefore to root it out, otherwise, 
 without heap of care, men, and treasure, and continued wars, never account to 
 sway this government. 
 
 TJie same to Walsingham, 1581, April 24. 
 
 I have followed man too much in it [the government], and this is the 
 cause that neither the chief can hearken to that concerns both honour and 
 safety most, nor you that persuade the truth be believed, nor I that desire the 
 right can be satisfied. But Baal's prophets and councillors shall prevail. I see 
 it is so. I see it is just. I see it is past help. I rest despaired. Help me 
 away again for God's sake. 
 
 Andrew Trollope, an English lawyer, to Walsingha?n, 1581, Sept. 12, says, on 
 meeting with an Irish lawyer : — 
 I fed his humour as much as I might and thereby learnt of him the miser- 
 able state of Ireland, and that all the judges of the law, her Majesty's chancellor, 
 and barons of the Exchequer, and counsel learned, and such as execute inferior' 
 offices (with few exceptions) were all Irishmen and Papists, as all Irishmen be. 
 
 W. Johnes to Walsingham, 1584, July 14. 
 There are here, even in that part of the country which should be best 
 reformed, so many churches fallen down ; so many children dispensed withall 
 to enjoy the livings of the Church ; so many laymen (as they are commonly 
 termed) suffered to hold benefices ; so many clergymen tolerated to have the 
 profits of three or more pastoral dignities, who, being themselves unlearned, are 
 not meet men (though they were willing) to teach and instruct others — as, whoso 
 beholdeth this miserable confusion and disorder and hath any zeal of God in his 
 heart, must not choose, but make the same known, especially unto such as 
 bestow their whole care and travail to reform these enormities, and would, no 
 doubt, be glad to see those decays and ruins of religion built up again. 
 
 The Prebendaries of St. Patrick's, Dublin, to the Lords op the Council, in 
 England, Dec, 1584. 
 Tliere is an infinite number of impropriate Churches in Ireland, all being 
 in her Majesty's hands and her farmers. There is not in any one impropriation 
 a preacher. There is scant a minister to be found among them, but rather a 
 company of Irish rogues and Romish priests, teaching nothing but traitorous 
 practices — all in a manner enemies by profession to God's true religion. 
 
 This Cometh chiefly by the wantonness of her Majesty's farmers, who for 
 the most part allow not the minister above 40s. or £t, by the year, and therefore 
 seeketh a priest that will serve his cure cheapest, without regard to the person 
 or quality, and then this curate, to make his stipend as he may live upon, 
 Iravelleth, like a lackey, to three or four churches in a morning — every church 
 H 
 
5° 
 
 a mile or two miles asunder — and there once a week readeth them only a Gospel 
 in Latin, and so away — and so the poor people are deluded. 
 
 Archbishop Loftus to Burghley, 1585, March 18. 
 Then my lord behold the state of this wretched country. In all the 
 whole realm there is not one preacher (three bishops excepted) of whom two 
 were prepared out of this church [of St. Patrick's] but only in St. Patrick's. 
 Archbishop of Armagh to Walsingham, 1585, June 4. 
 And I assure your honour if we used not the people more for gain than 
 for conscience, here would the Lord's work be mightily prefeiTed." 
 
 Thesajne to the same, 1585, July 8. 
 It is a hard thing to be thought of that the land is not able to afford, of 
 the birth of the land, forty christians which have the taste of the true service of 
 God, and how then can they be true hearted to her Majesty? 
 
 Sir H. Wallop to Walsingham, 1586, Januaiy 6. 
 I doubt not but your honour hath been advertised of the villanous mur- 
 der of the good bishop of Ossory, committed upon him by one James Dullerde. 
 He was the only man of his coat, that ever I knew born in this country, that 
 did most sincerely know and teach the Gospel. 
 
 Andrew Trollope to Walsingham, 1587, October 26. 
 I have herein, without art or method, briefly bewrayed such things as I 
 find amiss in this realm, and decyphered the causes thereof. As first : — There 
 is no divine service in the country ; that all the churches in the country are 
 clean down, ruinous, and in great decay ; and in those in cities and in walled 
 towns is over seldom any service said, and yet that negligently repaired unto. 
 Here are also above thirty bishopricks and not seven bishops able to preach ; 
 and yet those which be, by making of long leases, reserving small rents, and 
 sundry sinister devices, so much impair their sees as, if they be suffered, all the 
 bishopricks in Ireland within few years will not yield sufficient maintenance for 
 one man worthy of this calling. The ordinaries and patrons here have so ordered 
 the matter as most ministers are stipendiaiy men, and few have £^ a year to 
 live on — the most not above 535. 4d. In truth such they are as deserve not 
 living or to live. For they will not be accounted Ministers, but Priests. They 
 will have no wives. If they would stay there it were well, but they -wAX have 
 harlots, which they make believe that it is no sin to live and lie with them and 
 bear them children. But if they marry them they are damned. And with long 
 experience and some extraordinary trial of these fellows, I cannot find whether 
 the most of them love lewd women, cards, dice, or drink best. And when they 
 must of necessity go to church they carry with them a book, in Latin, of the 
 Common Prayer, set forth and allowed by her Majesty. But they read little or 
 nothing of it, or can well read ; but they tell the people a tale of our lady, or 
 St. Patrick, or some other saint, horrible to be spoken or heard, and intolerable 
 to be suffered ; and do all they may to dissuade and allure the people from God 
 and their prince and their due obedience to them both, and persuade them to 
 the Devil and the Pope. And sure the people so much hear them, believe them, 
 and are led by them, and have so little instmction to the contnuy, as here is, in 
 effect, a general revolt from God and true religion, our prince and her High- 
 ness's laws. Here are many most unmeet men bishops, deans, archdeacons, 
 and chancellors, treasurers of churches, and such like spiritual officers, as some 
 Papists, yea some reconciled to the Pope. 
 
 Such according to eye witnesses, who were friends to the in- 
 stitution, were the effects of the Civil Estabhshment of Protestant- 
 ism during the first twenty years of Queen Elizabeth's reign. 
 
51 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AFTER THE REFORMATION. 
 
 THE NATIVE MINISTRY DISCOURAGED AND DISGRACED — THE 
 PEOPLE LEFT IN HELPLESS IGNORANCE OF SCRIPTURE AND 
 PROTESTANT TRUTH MANY UNFIT MEN APPOINTED TO OFFICE. 
 
 III. — That the Establishment of the Church in Ireland has been injurious 
 to her spiritual life, an obstacle to her success, and therefore detrimental to 
 religion. 
 
 2. In consequence of the political connection of the Church 
 with the State, the native ministry and language were discouraged 
 and disgraced. 
 
 Speaking of those whom the revival of the English power in 
 Ireland, in the time of Queen Elizabeth had tempted to that coun- 
 try, Leland says, "The natives were provoked at the partiality 
 shewn to these insolent adventurers : they were treated like aliens 
 and enemies (as the annalist of Elizabeth repeatedly observes) and 
 excluded with contemptuous insolence from every office of trust 
 and honour ; it is therefore natural to find them not always zeal- 
 ously affected to the administration of government."* 
 
 Upon this subject the Rev. William Anderson says, "Political 
 motives pra'cnted the employment of the Irish language in the ser- 
 vices of religion, and thereby made it impossible to convert the native 
 Irish to Protestantism. Nothing could be more absurd than to ask 
 a man to give up the religion of his fathers because it was incon- 
 sistent with Scripture, without at the same time giving him the 
 means of judging for himself of this inconsistency. 
 
 " The attempt to convert the tiative Irish to a reasonable faith 
 without giving them any reason for the change, met the fate it 
 deserved." 
 
 " For the success of the Protestant religion in Ireland it was 
 a most unhappy coincidence that political changes vitally affecting 
 all ranks of the native Irish were introduced along with the Refor- 
 mation, and that the laws of England were not extended to all the 
 inhabitants of both races till after the Reformation. Had these 
 laws been explained to the people and administered in their own 
 language, the new system would have supplanted the old, and all 
 parties would have willingly acknowledged their justice. But what 
 was to be done ? They could not be employed except in Irish, 
 How could the Irish tongue be employed without being encouraged, 
 • P. 248. 
 
52 
 
 and strengthened, and perpetuated ? Thus the very purpose for 
 which the new laws were introduced, to unite together the EngHsh 
 and Irish races into one nation, would be defeated. Precisely the 
 same difficulties met the Churchman in his efforts to promote the 
 Protestant religion. If the Irish language was not to be employed 
 in the administration of justice, how could it be employed in the 
 offices of religion ? The rulers of the State, who were also the rulers 
 of the Church, with the history of three centuries teaching them 
 that no legislation could prevent the degradation of the English 
 colonists through their adopting the Irish language, took the course 
 Avhich (though it proved to be the most disastrous) appeared at that 
 time to be the wisest. They legislated for the interest of the colon- 
 ists and not of the natives."* 
 
 Again : — " Political 7notives having prevented the employment 
 of the Irish language by the Irish Church in public worship, or 
 through the private circulation of the Scriptures, the only hope of 
 Protestantism in Ireland lay in the immigrants from England and 
 Scotland."t 
 
 To these testimonies we may add the words of that most 
 earnest defender of the Irish establishment. Dean Murray. " An 
 Act passed in the 28th year of the reign of Henry VIII., chap. 15, 
 entitled an Act for the English order, habit, and language, was 
 the first heavy blow which the Reformed Church received ; that 
 Act directed that the Irish habit and apparel should be abolished, 
 and the peculiar form in which the Irish wore their hair should be 
 discontinued. 
 
 It further provided, that spiritual promotion should be given 
 only to such persons as could speak the English language, unless, 
 after four proclamations in the next market town, no such could 
 be had. 
 
 And again, in an Act of Uniformity, passed by Queen Eliza- 
 beth, the preamble runs thus : — " Forasmuch as in most places of 
 this realm there cannot be found EngHsh ministers to serve in the 
 Churches or places appointed for common prayer ; and that if 
 some good means were provided, that they might use the prayers, 
 &c., in such language as they might best under staf id, the due honor 
 of God should be thereby much advanced, and for that also, that 
 the same may not be in their native language, as well from difficulty 
 to get it printed, as that few in the whole realm can read the Irish 
 letters ; We do, therefore, most humbly beseech your Majesty that 
 it may be enabled by the authority of the present Parliament, that 
 in every such Church, where the common minister hath not the 
 use of the English tongue, it shall be lawful to say or use all their 
 
 * Pages 185, 190, and 191. 
 
 t I'age 194. 
 
53 
 
 common and open prayers in the Latin tongue ; " which was accord- 
 ingly enacted by the statute II. EHzabeth, cap. XV., anno. 1559-60. 
 
 Had the great enemy of truth been the concoctor and passer 
 of these ParUamentary and royal enactments, no surer method 
 could have been devised to arrest at once the progress of the Re- 
 formation in a country whose prejudices, feelings, and best inter- 
 ests were thus alike insulted. The interfering with non-essential 
 customs, which long habit had made a second nature, would of 
 itself have unsheathed the sword of resistance, in the hands of a 
 half-civilized and enthusiastic people."* 
 
 3. The people were left in helpless ignorance of Scripture and 
 of Protestant truth, tlirough the adverse influence of a Protestant 
 Establishment. 
 
 Leland says, " As to the inferior orders of men, no measures 
 appear to have been taken from the first beginnings of the Refor- 
 mation to enlighten their ignorance or correct their prejudices." 
 " Hard it is (saith a chancellor of Ireland in this reign of Edward 
 the Sixth) that men should know their duties to God and to the 
 King when they shall not hear teaching or preaching throughout 
 the year." "At a time when the mechanics in England could hear 
 and convey instruction, and were habituated to religious inquiry, 
 the same minister complains, that in Ireland preaching we have 
 none, which is our lack, without which the ignorant can have no 
 knowledge." 
 
 He goes on to say that wthin the English pale the Irish lan- 
 guage was much spoken, but " In those tracts of Irish territory 
 which intersected the English settlements, no other language was at 
 all known. So that here the wretched flock was totally inaccessible 
 to those strangers who were become their nominal pastors. The laws 
 made in the late reign to correct these inconveniences, even if 
 duly obeyed, required some considerable interval to operate with 
 any effect. In the mean time, the partizans of Rome found a 
 ready admission into those districts where the Reformed clergy, if 
 such there were, could neither be regarded nor understood. They 
 spoke to their countrymen and kinsmen in their own language, 
 and were heard with attention, favour, and affection. If we look 
 to those parts of Ireland more remote from the seat of English 
 government the prospect still appears more gloomy. Here, many 
 of the prelates continued to be nominated by the Pope, and en- 
 joyed their sees by his provision, in defiance of the crown of Eng- 
 land ; others, though appointed by the King, had yet a rival sent 
 from Rome to contend Avith. The people removed beyond the 
 sphere of English law had not known, or not regarded, the ordi- 
 
 • Murray Iribh Church, p. 224. 
 
54 
 
 nances lately made with respect to religion, nor considered them- 
 selves as interested or concerned in any regulations hereafter to be 
 made. The only instance in which they conceived themselves bound 
 to the English government, even in the present revival of its power 
 and consequence, was that of not rising in arms and invading the 
 King's subjects ; and that authority which had not as yet reduced 
 them within the bounds of civility could not, ^vithout the imputa- 
 tion of extravagance, attempt to model their religious senti- 
 ments."* 
 
 In addition it will suffice upon this point to quote the testi- 
 mony of two earnest defenders of the Established Church in Ire- 
 land — that of the Rev. Wm. Anderson, and then the strong ex- 
 pressive language of the Very Rev. Richard Murray, D.D., Dean 
 of Armagh : — 
 
 " To punish the whole body of the Irish clergy still further 
 it was enacted that the native Irish-speaking priests should from 
 this time be ineligible to benefices in the Irish Church, unless, after 
 four proclamations in the next market town, no Englishman could 
 be had. This was the first acquaintance of the Irish clergy with 
 the Protestant religion. In this way the Protestant religion was 
 introduced to the men who were expected to be its future ministers 
 in a country where there was not a single condition favourable to 
 its reception. Irish Protestantism commenced by excluding the 
 representatives of the inferior clergy from Parliament, and by de- 
 claring the whole body of the native clergy to be ineligible for pro- 
 motion in their own Church. The most worthless English-speak- 
 ing priest was to be preferred to the man of the highest character 
 who spoke only the language of his country. The inevitable result 
 of this policy was to alienate the whole body of the Irish clergy 
 from the Reformation, and to unite them as one man in defence of 
 the Romish Church, "t 
 
 "But, as if this were not enough, every avenue of light and know- 
 ledge, wider the withering statute book of England, was at once 
 closed up by their being deprived of instruction in their native 
 language, and either the hateful English or the equally unintelligible 
 Latin being substituted in its place. 
 
 Can we suppose anything less than judicial blindness to have 
 promoted measures calculated at once to exasperate prejudice, 
 and to involve in midnight darkness, a people wedded to their 
 own customs, and fond, to excess, of their own language ? One 
 generation of professing, but, alas, uninstnicted, Protestants passed 
 away, and another succeeded, brought up, if possible, in a state of 
 greater ignorance and spiritual destitution than their Romish fore- 
 
 * Leland, Vol. ii., 193-4. 
 
 t Essays, 181. 
 
55 
 
 fathers, deprived of all means of grace, and stung to the quick by 
 the dishonor cast upon their national dress and language. 
 
 Can we then wonder at the effects produced ? Effects which 
 England too justly feels the bitterness of, even at the present day. 
 For, so far in the history, the iron hand of power had been stretched 
 forth, unfurling proclamations, as subversive of the true principles 
 of policy as they were of the true principles of the Reformation." 
 " The Acts of Henry and Elizabeth, now brought before us, enforc- 
 ing again almost all the baneful clauses of this statute,* have left 
 so vivid an impression on the minds of the Irish that I fear it will 
 never be effaced till that country be really brought into subjection 
 to the Crown of England, or, what would be still better, brought 
 under the influence of the Gospel of Christ. "t 
 
 4. Through the intimate connection of the Church with 
 political affairs many most unfit men were appointed to office. 
 
 The Rev. W. Anderson writes — " The most worthless Eng- 
 lish-speaking priest was to be preferred to the man of highest 
 character, who spoke only the language of his country. The in- 
 evitable result of that policy was to alienate the whole body of the 
 Irish clergy from the Reformation, and to unite them as one man 
 in defence of the Romish Church." 
 
 Again, " Some of the Irish clergy (who, probably, in default 
 of better men) were elevated to the highest places in the Irish 
 Church, were traitors in disguise. A bishop of Deny died in the 
 habit of a Franciscan prior. In 161 1 the bishop of Elphin died 
 professing the Roman Catholic faith ; and in 1622 the bishop of 
 Cashel, who had governed that see for fifty-two years, to the great 
 scandal and injury of the Church, openly confessed that he was, 
 and had been a Roman Catholic. "J 
 
 What Archbishop Laud and the Deputy Wentworth thought 
 of some of the Prelates in their time may be seen by a brief ex- 
 tract from their correspondence. Laud, speaking of the plunder 
 practised in the Irish Church, writes — " Nor can I answer what 
 became of the Primate and the rest of the bishops, while the poor 
 inferior clergy were thus oppressed — more than this, that I ever 
 thought it was not in their power to help it ; but if it shall appear 
 to you otherwise, and if any of them be as bad, for the oppression 
 of the Church, as any layman, great pity it is, but some one or 
 other of the chief offenders should be made a public example and 
 turned out of his bishopric ; such a course once held would do 
 more good in Ireland than anything that hath been done there this 
 
 • The Statute of Kilkenny, passed in 1369, which the writer speaks of as the 
 crowning sin of the Anglo- Popish aristocracy. 
 
 t Pp. 225-6. 
 
 X King's Ch. Hist, p. 1223. 
 
56 
 
 forty years." That it did " appear otherwise" to Wentworth is evi- 
 dent from his thus expressing himself :— " Nothing new here, ex- 
 cept that I have, in the case of the bishop of Killala, adjudged, 
 and given him possession of as much land, usurped from the See, 
 as is worth at least ^loo per annum. I have sent for the Arch- 
 bishop of Cashel, but his grace returns he is ' ill of the sciatica, and 
 not able to travel ; ' likes not, I believe, to come to a reckoning, 
 but I have writ his answer. In good faith, my lord, his grace has 
 beguiled me, and keeps his sixteen vicarages still, but I will roundly 
 prepare him for a purge as soon as I see him." 
 
 Mark the following language used by the Bishop of Oxford, 
 in the House of Lords, June 29, 1868 : — " There is one argument 
 used against the Church of Ireland upon which I wish to say one 
 word. It is said that one of the first duties of the Church was to 
 convert the Roman Catholics, and in that duty it has failed. Now 
 no living man would rejoice more than I should do if they had 
 succeeded in that object. But you must allot the blame — and if 
 you do not allot the blame what right have you to allot the punish- 
 ment — you must allot the blame where it mainly falls ; and I say 
 that it is mainly the fault of the Church and the State of England. 
 I believe that the reason, the great and master reason, of the failure 
 of the Church to do her work is because the Church was made the 
 worst aftd meanest iiistniment of English misrule ; and that it was 
 not anything internal in the Church herself If you refer to the 
 writings of Archbishop Boulter, or to the poetical and perhaps ex- 
 aggerated statements of Spencer, or if you come down to the never 
 exaggerated impressions conveyed by one who seemed almost in- 
 capable of a poetical feeling, if you refer to the writings of Dean 
 Swift, you have the same melancholy account of the condition of 
 the Church. Dean Swift says that the English government was 
 always careful to select the best Clergymen for Irish bishops. 
 There could be no doubt of that. But when the pious man now 
 set out in his chariot to reach the sea coast he had to pass over 
 Hounslow Heath, where he was robbed and murdered, and the 
 captain of the highwaymen put on his small clothes and came over 
 to Ireland as the bishop, and so it happened that, with the best 
 intentions on the part of the English government, they always got 
 a highwayman for their bishop. (Great laughter and cheering.) 
 
 Now THIS WAS NOT AN OVERDRAWN STATEMENT, AND THE CONDI- 
 TION OF THE CHURCH WAS SUCH THAT IT MIGHT BE SAID TO BE THE 
 
 RULE AND NOT THE EXCEPTION. Then the penal laws — did the 
 Irish Church pass the penal laws ? There was the Act forbidding 
 to teach the natives to read — did the Church of Ireland pass that 
 law ? No, the Irish Church was sent there manacled, to do the 
 work of an apostle ; and now that she is rousing herself to do her 
 
57 
 
 work you turn round upon her and say that for the ills inflicted by 
 your forefathers she shall suffer dis establishment." No, we say, 
 set her free, knock off the manacles — let her be no longer under 
 those who " as a rule" have appointed highwaymen as bishops ; 
 no longer allow her to be " made the worst and meanest instru- 
 ment of English misrule." 
 
 I 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH AFTER THE REFORMATION. 
 
 MEASURES OF USEFULNESS NEGLECTED OR REJECTED THE MOURN- 
 FUL EFFECTS OF POLITICAL CONNEXIONS. 
 
 III. — That the Establishment of the Church in Ireland has been injurious 
 to her spiritual life, an obstacle to her success, and, therefore, detrimental to 
 religion. 
 
 5. Obvious measures of usefulness were neglected, or when 
 proposed, rejected. 
 
 We mention only one illustration of this, and that in the very 
 tenns in which it has been put by a defender of the Irish Church. 
 " In the year 17 11, when the fruits of a whole century's neglect of 
 the Irish tongue had shown that without employing it there was 
 no hope of converting the native Irish to the Protestant religion, 
 the Upper House of Convocation was suinmoned for the express 
 purpose of adopting; the most effectual method of cojiverti/ig the native 
 Irish. The royal licence was granted to the prayer of a memorial 
 that Bibles, Prayer-books, and other religious publications, should 
 be printed in the Irish tongue, and distributed among the native 
 population. The Upper House of Convocation refused the required 
 sanction, and was dissolved." Remember that this Upper House 
 of Convocation consisted of the prelates of the Irish Protestant 
 Church, that they were asked to sanction the only means by which 
 the Irish people could be instructed in Protestant truth, that they 
 met in solemn assembly to consider whetlier they would do what 
 the Church would have done 150 years before but for its political 
 connections, and they refused. How speaks Archbishop King of 
 this ? In anticipation of this result he wrote : — " We shall, I be- 
 lieve, have some considerations of methods to convert the natives ; 
 but I do not think it is desired by all that they should be con- 
 verted. It is plain to me by the methods that have been taken 
 since the Reformation, and which are yet pursued by both the civil 
 and ecclesiastical powers, that there never was, nor is, any design 
 that all should be Protestants." Mark these words — they apply 
 to the whole period from the Reformation to 17 11, that is, if you 
 date from the Parliament of Elizabeth, a period of 150 years ; if 
 from the Iri.sh Parliament of Henry VIII., 175 years: — "There 
 never was nor is any design that all should be Protestants.'' 
 " This is plain by the methods that have been taken since the Re 
 
59 
 
 formation, and which are yet pursued." By whom ? Who is re- 
 sponsible ? " Both the civil and ecclesiastical powers" These 
 statements are made under the authority of one of Irelands noblest 
 bishops.* 
 
 The Rev. James Byrne, writing of the same period, says : — 
 " During all that long period of alternate rebellion and confiscation 
 which extended nearly from the accession of Elizabeth till the 
 taking of Limerick in 169 1, the Irish Reformed Church was sepa- 
 rated from the native Irish by an impassable chasm caused by 
 difference of language and civil convulsion. Nor was it only the 
 hostility of the Irish which impeded her efforts. The giiardiajts of 
 English power in Ireland also discouraged her attempts to imdertake the 
 great work ivhich always invited her Christian zeal. Bedell's en- 
 lightened labours were discountenanced by Laud and Strafford, 
 who in that zeal for authority and that hatred of the free action of 
 thought and piety which were engendered by the struggle with the 
 Puritans, looked with disfavour on his efforts to appeal to the 
 thought and piety of the Irish through their own language."t 
 
 Is it not plain that on account of political connections and 
 influences, the Church refused even to attempt to carry out the 
 great work which Christ entrusted to her ? 
 
 6. In what has been already said, it seems very evident that the 
 great and glaring sins and shortcomings of the Irish Church — a few 
 of which have been here mentioned — are attributable to her con- 
 nection with the civil government ; that, in short, the Establishment 
 of the Church has been her greatest calamity. But as this is a 
 vital point, upon which everything in this discussion hangs, a few 
 more testimonies directly bearing upon it .shall here be given. 
 
 The Rev. W. Anderson writes, " When it was determined to 
 regard the Irish Church rather as an institution for introducing 
 civilization into a semi-barbarous coimtry, than for converting the 
 native Irish to the Protestant religion, there was a confident expect- 
 ation that the example of the colonists, to whom this higher stand- 
 ard of living was habitual, would be the most effectual means of 
 winning over the native Irish to imitate their industry and frugality. 
 The experiment was not successful. It was not the least of the 
 many evils which her association with higher social position and a 
 better standard of living inflicted on the Church, that slie became 
 the chief object of the jealousy and discontent which these advan- 
 . tages were sure to provoke." Again, " Of the two aspects under 
 which the Irish Church presented itself to the English statesmen 
 
 * Mant's History of the Irish Church, ii., p. 224. 
 See also Rev. A. W. Edwards' Essays on Irish Church, 121. 
 
 t Essays, p. 281. 
 
6o 
 
 who took upon them to control and direct its action in Ireland, as 
 an instrument for converting the Roman Catholics through the 
 Irish language ; or for civilizing them through the English settlers, 
 and preventing these setders themselves from degenerating, and so 
 becoming estranged from the English interest, — we have seen that 
 the political seemed more important than tJie religious. Not eren the 
 hope of co)ivertitig thQ native Irish to Protestantism could overcome 
 their dread of encouraging the Irish tongue." " It was the inev- 
 itable result of this determination that the class of which the 
 Church was composed must, so long as this social distinction con- 
 tinued, be numerically inferior to the rest of the population. After 
 the Reformation, we hear no more of the degeneracy of English 
 colonists. The tendency was no doubt checked ; it was not erad- 
 icated nor overcome. All its hurtful influence was henceforth 
 spent on the Church itself, and where we had formerly degeneracy 
 from civilization, we shall have perversions from Protes- 
 tantism." * 
 
 " To all this jealousy and ill-will the Irish Church has been 
 constantly exposed. It was the Church of the Government, of the 
 highest officers of the Crown, of the courts of law, and of the no- 
 bility and gentry. The Irish Church was regarded as the institution 
 which would present to the native population the most perfect 
 illustration of the benefits of English civilization. The territorial 
 dignity and social position of the clergy were chiefly regarded as 
 the means of presenting to the country these benefits. In other 
 parts of the world, as well as in Ireland, the higher standard of 
 comfort enjoyed by Protestants has been observed. Nowhere else 
 has this distinction been exalted into so great a prominence as in 
 Ireland by the political antecedents of the Protestant and Roman 
 Catholic churches respectively, as well as by the original differences 
 of race." .... 
 
 " To the Church in Ireland the association with higher com- 
 fort was unfortunate, as directing against her the largest share of 
 that floating discontent which must always exist in such a country 
 as Ireland. Those very qualifications which rendered her most use- 
 ful to England politically, and to Ireland socially and economically, 
 have seriously hindered her in the discharge of her proper 
 FUNCTION. They have also impaired her strength, and made it 
 unfair, as well as ungenerous, to judge of her efficiency by a 
 numerical standard. They have, of necessity, kept her numbers 
 considerably below the numbers of those who were less prudent 
 and less industrious, and have stirred up against her the enmity of 
 the Celtic population : first on account of her loyalty to England 
 
 Essays, p. 202. 
 
6: 
 
 and secondly on account of the higher comforts and more indus- 
 trious habits of the people." .... 
 
 " But the injury inflicted on the Irish Church by the penal 
 laws was greater than all the other evils against which she had to 
 contend, and has been the most lasting in its effects, 7wt only in 
 leading her to depend on them entirely to the exclusion of her 07vn 
 labours, and in seeming to justify the government of the day in 
 applying the revenues of the Church for purposes of political cor- 
 ruption, to the utter neglect of the spiritual wants of the Church 
 (so as frequently to leave dioceses without bishops, bishops without 
 clergy, and clergy without churches), but also in enlisting against 
 her the sentiments of patriotism and independence, and making it 
 a point of honour with the Roman Catholic population not to enter 
 her fold. Distinguished Roman Catholic writers have acknow- 
 ledged that these laws, though professedly framed in the interests 
 of the Irish Church, were designed for political and not religious 
 objects."* 
 
 What does this amount to but a strong statement of the fact 
 that a close union of the Church with the State, and her subjec- 
 tion to political powers, has " seriously hindered her in the dis- 
 charge of her proper functions," has tempted her to sloth and de- 
 pendance upon penal enactments, and brought upon her the scan- 
 dals of corruption and cruelty — has, in short, been her greatest 
 calamity ? 
 
 Dr. Lee, who has witten so much in defence of the Irish 
 Church, says : — " During the eighteenth century the Irish Church 
 suffered much from being made an instrument of governmc?it in 1/ 
 Ireland, by England. If we read the letters of Primate Boulter we 
 shall find that the great object sought for in making episcopal and 
 other dignified appointments during his Primacy was the promo- 
 tion of the English interest in Ireland ; and thus, whilst politically 
 the bishops might be good enough and always ready to vote on the 
 right side, they were too often men who brought no credit on the 
 sacred ofiice they held, no benefit to the Church which they pro- 
 fessed to serve. This was another hinderance, and no slight one 
 to the progress of the Church in Ireland, for the evil effects of 
 episcopal negligence or inefficiency (apart from tlieir pernicious 
 effects on the laity, which are always great) reacli down to the 
 humblest curate of the diocese over which the bishop jjresides, and 
 if the bishop be seen to be negligent of his duties, the rectors 
 and curates, with few exceptions, will not be slow to follow his 
 example, "t 
 
 The Rev. James Byrne, speaking of the still continued fears 
 
 Essays, pp. 202-7-9-10. 
 
 t Essays, pp. 2^5-6. 
 
62 
 
 concerning the use of the Irish language in the early part of the 
 1 8th century, writes : — "Such fears had been excited by Bedell's 
 proceedings, and had afterwards raised an opposition to Boyle's 
 publication of the Irish Bible ; but they now were more easily 
 aroused on account of the recent troubles. It was apprehended 
 that the religious instruction of the Irish in their own language 
 would keep up the continued use of that language, which was the 
 great bond and screen of rebellion. Such intercourse with them 
 was considered also to be contrary to all the traditions of English 
 Government, whose constant aim, in statutes still in force, had been 
 to keep the English colonists from using the Irish language, lest 
 they should degenerate into Irish enemies. And the violent strug- 
 gle with the Irish, a)id the vindiciive ki^islalion toivards them which 
 folloivcd, had indisposed the minds of the governing classes for any 
 effort to improve their religious condition. Such an effort cannot 
 be made without real sympathy in thought and feeling with those 
 to whom it is directed, and this was quite inconsistent with the 
 feelings which had been engendered by protracted warfare and 
 subsequent oppression. The Irish Cliurch seems to have been 
 held back by such iiifliiciiccs as these from following her own impulses, 
 and to have been hindered by the suspicion and dis-union of the 
 country from adopting the only means by which at the time the Ro- 
 man Catholics could be reached. The great work of bringing the 
 faith of the Reformed Church into contact with the Irish people 
 whom it had never reached seems to have been finally abandoned 
 tinder the influence of Primate Boulter, whose first object was to 
 secure the English interest in Ireland ; and thus political circum- 
 stances hiiulcrcd the missionary action of the Church and diverted her 
 energy from missio/iary enterprize."* 
 
 Dean Murray, speaking of the relapse of the Irish people to 
 Romanism, says : — " But candour obliges us to acknowledge that 
 all their efforts (the Jesuits) thus aided and supported (by Rome 
 and Spain) would have fallen powerless before the power of truth 
 and the armour of righteousness, had not the wretched policy of 
 England fatally combined with the plans of her enemies to arrest 
 the progress of the Reformation." And the prelates of the Church 
 were the prime advocates and instruments of this policy. 
 
 Can any man hesitate to admit that the Establishment of the 
 Church in Ireland has been her greatest calamity? 
 
 The causes which have been here referred to continued to 
 produce their disastrous results throughout the latter part of the 
 1 6th, and the whole of the 17th and i8th centuries, in scenes of 
 oppression, of discontent, and of moral desolation. We quote only 
 two testimonies out of many : — 
 
 * Essays, 282-3. 
 
63 
 
 Statement of Wentuwrth, the Deputy, to ArchbisJwp Laud. 
 
 " The best entrance to the cure will be clearly to clisco\ er the 
 state of the patient, which I find many ways distempered. Ati 
 ufilearned CIci-gy, which have not so much as the outward form of 
 Churchmen; t/ie Chiirdies unbuilt; the parsonage and vicarage 
 houses utterly ruined ; the people untaught, through the non-resi- 
 dency of the Clergy, occasioned by the unlimited shameful number 
 of spiritual promotions with cure of souls ] the rites and cere- 
 monies of the Church run over without all decency of habit, order, 
 or gravity ; the possessions of the Church, to a great proportion, in 
 lay hands ; the Bishops aliening their very principal houses and 
 demesnes to their children, and to strangers ; the schools eithe r 
 ill-provided, ill-governed, or, what is worse, applied underhand to 
 the Diaiiiteiumce of Popish schoolmasters, &c. Here are divers of 
 the Clergy whose wives and children are recusants, and there the 
 Church goes most lamentably to wreck, and hath suffered ex- 
 tremely under the wicked alienations of this sort of pastors."* 
 
 " The close of the seventeenth and the commencement of the 
 eighteenth centuries were signalized by the enactment of many 
 stringent laws against Roman Catholics, which entailed on them 
 great hardships and disabilities. All Romish bishops and other 
 ecclesiastical authorities, and all monks and other regulars were 
 ordered to leave the kingdom ; all monasteries were suppressed, 
 and all intermarriages with Protestants rendered penal. No Papist 
 was permitted to hold landed property, to carry arms, or to prac- 
 tice as solicitor, "t 
 
 A description of the state of things under the House of Han- 
 over is given in the Historical Sketch by Rev, A. W. Edwards, 
 M.A. :— 
 
 " The death of Queen Anne, in 17 14, made way for the ac- 
 cession of the Hanoverian dynasty in the person of George I. For 
 some time previously an impression had prevailed that the Queen 
 was favourable to the succession of the deposed family, and hopes 
 were confidently expressed by the Jacobites, both in England and 
 Ireland, that this would now be accomplished. Considerable 
 anxiety was consequently felt by the supporters of the new dynasty ; 
 and a more watchful jealousy than ever was exhibited towards those 
 who were in any way suspected of antagonism, or even lukewarm- 
 ness to the English government. To oppose or disapprove of any 
 measure emanating from it, was sufficient proof of disloyalty to 
 make the offender an object of distrust, and to exclude him from 
 
 • Wentworth's State Letters, Vol. i., p. 187. 
 
 t Essays, p. 119. 
 
64 
 
 all favour and preferment. This narrow and suspicious policy was 
 for many years productive of the worst effects on the Irish Church. 
 Promotion was henceforward to be looked for as the reward, not 
 of professional merit, but of political usefulness or compliance. 
 Clergymen were sent over from England to fill the highest offices 
 in the Church of Ireland for the advancement, not of religion, but 
 of " the English interest ; " and an Irish preferment became too 
 often the recompense of one whose promotion would not be tole- 
 rated in England. It was, moreover, at that period, customary to 
 send a new Chief Governor to Ireland, on an average, every three 
 or four years. Each of these Governors was sure to bring with 
 him an English chaplain. Each of these chaplains was equally 
 sure to claim, and to receive, the first Irish bishoprick that hap- 
 pened to fall vacant ; and scarcely less sure, when he had obtained 
 it, to bring over some two or three English friends or relatives to 
 place in Irish benefices in his gift. Such wholesale importations 
 were of course viewed with indignation by the native clergy ; and 
 soon resulted in the establishment of what had so often before, 
 and in so many different fonns, been evoked — an English and an 
 Irish party in the Church, mutually jealous of each other, and 
 therefore incapable of united or harmonious action. Another evil 
 connected with this system was, that those who were thus placed 
 in posts of authority and responsibility, being in general strangers 
 to Irish habits, feelings, and character, as well as to the peculiar 
 circumstances of the country, were (though in many cases sincere, 
 zealous, and able) but little calculated to attract to themselves the 
 confidence of the clergy, or to forward the work of evangelization 
 among the people."* 
 
 And what was the state of things up to the year 1834? I 
 will not attempt to describe it; but if the reader will carefully look 
 over the following tabular statements, which I have myself copied 
 from the Parliamentary returns, he will see some indications of the 
 Irish Church after Protestantism had been established more than 
 270 years. 
 
 ♦ Pages 122-124. 
 
65 
 
 The first is a Statement of Income : — 
 
 Gross Income. Net Income. 
 
 £ s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Sees ... ... ... 151,127 12 4 128,808 8 3 
 
 Glebe lands ... ... 92,000 o o 81,972 o o 
 
 Ministers money ... ... 10,300 o o 9,270 o o 
 
 Tithe composition ... ... 531,782 o o 505,092 18 o 
 
 Other income from rents, &c., 
 
 to Dignataries, &c. ... 7,500 o o 7,125 o o 
 
 Total of Ecclesiastical sole 
 Corporations ... ... 792,709 12 4 732,368 6 3 
 
 Corporations Aggregate. 
 
 Incomes belonging to Deans 
 and Chapters, and divisable 
 amongst the members thereof 
 
 as a common estate ... 1,042 11 3 928 o 2 
 
 From ecomomy estates ... 11,055 14 7 10,552 18 ii 
 From estates of minor Canons, 
 
 Vicars, Choral, &c. ... 10,525 19 5 9,999 13 6 
 
 Total ^815,333 17 9 ^753,848 18 10 
 
 " Parliamentary return ; a calculation of the Incomes of Arch- 
 bishops, Bishops, Dignitaries, and Parochial Clergy of Ireland, 
 before the Church Temporalities Act, &c. 
 
 31 July, 1835. Mr. F. Baring." 
 
 From this it will be seen that the gross income was ^815,333 
 17 s. 9d. ; the net income, after deductions for collecting, &c., 
 ^^753,848 i8s. lod. 
 
More 
 than 
 30,000. 
 
 00 
 
 More 
 than 20, 
 and not 
 more than 
 30,000. 
 
 N 
 
 More 
 than 15, 
 and not 
 more than 
 20,000. 
 
 CN 
 CO 
 
 More 
 than 10, 
 
 and not 
 more than 
 
 15,000. 
 
 vo 
 
 More 1 More 
 than 3000 than 5000 
 and not and not 
 more than more than 
 5,000. 10,000. 
 
 10 
 
 0 
 
 More 
 than 1000 
 and not 
 more than 
 3,000. 
 
 00 
 
 \o 
 
 CO 
 
 More 
 than 500, 
 and not 
 more than 
 1,000. 
 
 
 More 
 than 200, 
 and not 
 more than 
 500. 
 
 <o 
 
 1 More 
 than 100, 
 and not 
 
 liiUi C Ulictll 
 200. 
 
 
 Not more 
 than 
 100. 
 
 10 
 
 66 
 
 More 
 than 
 5000. 
 
 
 More 
 than 2000 
 and not 
 more than 
 5000. 
 
 ON 
 
 More 
 than 1000 
 and not 
 more than 
 
 2000. 
 
 ON 
 
 to 
 
 More 
 than 500 
 and not 
 more than 
 1000. 
 
 On 
 0 
 
 More 
 than 200 
 and not 
 more than 
 
 500- 
 
 
 More 
 than 100 
 and not 
 more than 
 
 200. 
 
 
 More 
 than 50 
 and not 
 more than 
 100. 
 
 0 
 NO 
 
 Are more 
 than 20 
 and not 
 
 more than 
 
 C^ 
 
 Is I and 
 not more 
 than 20. 
 
 CN 
 ON 
 
 Is no 
 member 
 of the 
 Estab- 
 Hshed 
 Church. 
 
 5- 
 
 30 c tJ x 
 3 
 
 S ^ 5. ^ 
 w 
 ; JG 
 
 c 
 
 11 ^ OJ 
 
 j2 1) o 
 
 <u y S i2 
 
 tS) '7^ j:: <u 
 
 ci t2 CIh, 
 
 ° 8 
 
 'o o 
 o 
 
 c °~ 
 
 ^- flj O rt 
 
 M O u o 3 
 
 & § - c e^iJ 
 
 • b Cq « - ^ 
 
 G 
 
 'He 
 
 »— I cj u5 O ^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^ G 
 
 - ^ G ^ ^ 
 
 H ^ 0 D 
 
 Si o 4j ■> w 5 
 
67 
 
 S 5 5 
 
 o i> 
 
 o o 
 
 p-i y 
 
 ■5 o ^ 
 
 No Glebe House, 
 535- 
 
 In which Incumbent is 
 non-resident, and no Di- 
 vine Service is performed 
 by him or by a Curate in 
 a place of worship, 
 157- 
 
 With Glebe 
 House, 
 850. 
 
 Non-resident but 
 
 Divine Service 
 performed by him 
 or Curate, 
 339- 
 
 Inwhich Parishes 
 are not conti- 
 guous, 
 87. 
 
 Incumbent is 
 resident, 
 889. 
 
 0 <^ 
 H « 
 
 In which there is 
 no Church, 1 
 210. 
 
 Being unions of 
 two or more 
 Parishes, 
 478. 
 
 0 0 
 
 Consisting of 
 Single Parishes, 
 907. 
 
 In which more 
 than one Church, 
 118. 
 
68 
 
 Revenues of Dignataries, &c. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Number of other 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 offices held by the 
 
 
 •E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Deans & Chapters. 
 
 Dioceses. 
 
 Dignatj 
 
 Prebend 
 
 Total. 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 rebends. 
 
 enefices. 
 
 Other 
 offices. ; 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 I30I7 
 
 s. 
 
 7 
 
 ^. 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 0, 
 
 pq 
 
 
 Armagh ... 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 Clogher... 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 7180 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 — 
 
 Down 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 6248 
 
 19 
 
 1 1 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 Connor ... 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 5755 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 Dromore 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 5953 
 
 17 
 
 5 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 Deny 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 8040 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 Raphoe ... 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 5003 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 Dublin, Christ Ch.... 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 7216 
 
 I 
 
 II* 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 16 
 
 I 
 
 Dublin, St. Patrick's 
 
 6 
 
 20 
 
 26 
 
 1 1690 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 54 
 
 2 
 
 Kildare ... 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 161 
 
 17 
 
 II 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 25 
 
 6* 
 
 Ferns 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 ^5 
 
 9419 
 
 17 
 
 10 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 — 
 
 Leighhn ... 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 2552 
 
 17 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 — 
 
 Ossory ... 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 12 
 
 6224 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 Cashel ... 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 6301 
 
 0 
 
 II 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 18 
 
 — 
 
 Emly ... 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 4574 
 
 10 
 
 6j 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 19 
 
 — 
 
 Waterford 
 
 4 
 
 
 4 
 
 1955 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 * 
 
 Lismore ... 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 5163 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 20 
 
 4 
 
 Limerick 
 
 5 
 
 
 16 
 
 8796 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 28 
 
 3 
 
 Ardfert ... 
 
 5 
 
 
 c 
 
 0 
 
 155 
 
 13 
 
 3* 
 
 3 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 Cork ... 
 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 17 
 
 9749 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 30 
 
 I 
 
 Ross 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 1975 
 
 13 
 
 oi 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 Cloyne ... 
 
 3 
 
 14 
 
 17 
 
 10772 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 30 
 
 
 Killaloe ... 
 
 5 
 
 
 5 
 
 2047 
 
 17 
 
 3t 
 
 I 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 Kilfenora 
 
 5 
 
 
 5 
 
 1471 
 
 14 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 7 
 
 I 
 
 Tuam 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 II 
 
 2530 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 Elphin ... 
 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 II 
 
 2472 
 
 II 
 
 5* 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 38 
 
 
 Clonfert ... 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 II 
 
 851 
 
 I 
 
 
 5 
 
 II 
 
 46 
 
 4 
 
 Kilmaclaugh 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 7 
 
 1062 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 29 
 
 4 
 
 Kellalla ... 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 
 1233 
 
 
 6i 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 25 
 
 I 
 
 Achoury ... 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 1468 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 129 
 
 166 
 
 295 
 
 152666 16 
 
 8* 
 
 105 
 
 125 
 
 574 
 
 39 
 
 * Except Chapter dividends. 
 The extra offices in the last 3 columns were held by 178 
 members of these corporations. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Revenues, Ireland Reports, 1833-6, pp. 126-7. 
 
69 
 
 Here are 295 persons dividing among them, as Deans and 
 Chapters, ;^i52,666 i6s. Sjd. And of these fortunate men 178 
 are still more fortunate, for besides and in addition to all they get 
 as Deans and Chapters they hold among them 105 dignities, 125 
 prebends, 574 benefices, and 39 other offices, making altogether 
 843 ! ! 
 
 Does not this seem incredible ? Though I have myself copied 
 the figures from the parliamentary returns, I can hardly accept them 
 as correct. And yet they must be so. Could anything like this 
 ever take place except in an Established Church — a Church which 
 is made the prey and tool of politicians and political jobbery ; 
 which men look upon, not as an embodiment of the life and love 
 of Christ, but as a place where scheming or good luck may get 
 patronage, place, and pay, with little or nothing to do — the carcase 
 round which the eagles may gather? Do we charge the state of 
 things indicated in the facts and testimonies which have come 
 under our review upon the constitution, doctrine, or worship of the 
 Episcopal Protestant Church ? Verily not. We attribute all this 
 to its disastrous union with political powers ; their influence pene- 
 trated, pervaded, poisoned, its very life. In the same circum- 
 stances no Church could have flourished, or even have made any 
 tolerable effort towards accomplishing its proper mission. I en- 
 treat my Christian brethren to look candidly at this question ; not 
 permitting themselves to turn away from evidence because it may 
 seem to conduct to conclusions adverse to their views and senti- 
 ments, not supposing that all who differ from them, on this sub- 
 ject, must be animated by sentiments of hostihty to themselves 
 and their Church ; but regarding the question with open and honest 
 heart, as one affecting the honour of Christ and the welfare of men, 
 I implore them, if they see reason to think that the political con- 
 nections of the Irish Church have been baneful to her life, purity, 
 and success, to surrender them, in humble reliance upon Divine 
 energy. " Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith 
 the Lord of Hosts." 
 
 It is, however, but just to state that the Irish Church is in a 
 vastly better condition now than it was in 1834. Great changes 
 were brought to pass by the Church Temporalities Act, and other 
 and higher changes followed. Many, however, who declared 
 themselves to be pre-eminently the friends of the Irish Church de- 
 nounced and opposed that measure as vehemently as they do dis- 
 establishment now, and with just the same arguments. Spoliation ; 
 unsettling the foundations of property ; perjury of the Sovereign ; 
 violation of the Act of Union ; inin of Protestantism in Ireland ; 
 endangering the Constitution ; and shaking the throne, were the 
 favourite topics then, as now. And yet it may well be questioned 
 
70 
 
 whether the Irish Church could have been maintained till to-day 
 had that Act not passed. It swept away many glaring abuses, and 
 was followed by many great improvements. 
 
 Notwithstanding, it must be confessed that the success of the 
 Church among the Irish people has been small indeed. In proof 
 of this I advert to only one point — the number of Church adher- 
 ents now, as compared with the number in 1834. I am deter- 
 mined to quote no figures that are open to dispute. The figures 
 here are furnished by the Parliamentary Commissioners, and 
 nobody questions them. In 1834 Ireland had a population of 
 7,962,891 ;* when the census was taken in 1861 the numbers were 
 found to be 5,793,967, shewing a diminution of 2,168,924. There 
 was of course a large decrease in all churches. But it is found on 
 comparing the relative numbers of the three large denominations 
 in Ireland, at the different periods, that they stand thus : — 
 
 Denominations 
 
 1834. 
 
 1861. 
 
 Results. 
 
 Established Church. 
 
 107 
 
 II-9 
 
 1-2 increase. 
 
 Roman Catholics. 
 
 80-9 
 
 777 
 
 3 '2 decrease. 
 
 Presbyterians. 
 
 8-1 
 
 9-0 
 
 o'9 increase. 
 
 The relative increase in the Established Church between the 
 two periods amounts to one and two-tenths in the hundred — that 
 is in every 500 of the population there were 6 more Protestants in 
 1 86 1 than there were in 1834. But how came it to pass that the 
 population of Ireland diminished in 27 years 2,168,924? Was it 
 not by famine, by pestilence, and by emigration ? But upon what 
 classes would these causes act most powerfully ? Would they not 
 be the poor cottiers who live chiefly upon potatoes, and those who 
 were only just a grade above them ? Do you think that where 
 100 of the poor died of hunger and pestilence, or were driven to 
 emigration, there would be 50 belonging to the upper and well-to- 
 do classes ? — that for every 2 of the former there would be i of 
 the latter ? But the upper and well-to-do classes are nearly all 
 Protestants. Though so small a portion of the population we are 
 told that they own 9-ioths of the soil of the country, which is 
 surely a clear indication of their position as compared with the 
 general population. You cannot suppose that famine, pestilence, 
 and emigration diminished the numbers of the well-off Protestants 
 half as much as they did the poor Roman Catholics. But if they 
 did tell to this extent, if they acted half as powerfully in the diminu- 
 tion of the Protestants as they did in the diminution of the Roman 
 
 * Ecclesiastical Instruction, First Report, 1835, p. 7. 
 
7 
 
 Catholics, then, this difference exactly accounts for all the sup- 
 posed progress of the Irish Church from 1834 to 1861. For it is 
 a fact that whereas the Roman Catholics diminished something 
 more than 27 per cent., the Protestants, both Episcopalians and 
 Presbyterians, in the same period, diminished something more than 
 13 per cent. — the loss being a little greater among the Presbyterians 
 than among the Episcopalians. So that the apparent increase of 
 I "2 per cent, is in fact a less severe loss, arising from a higher 
 social position, and more immunity from the great calamities 
 which have come upon the country. If the same causes could act 
 in the same manner, and diminish the population of Ireland in the 
 same proportions, in a single month — at the end of the month the Irish 
 Church, without a single convert from Romanism, would stand 
 about I '2 better as to numbers than she does to-day. If 
 there have been conversions there have been corresponding losses. 
 It seems very clear, though very sad, that the improved relative 
 position of Protestantism is attributable to the calamities of the 
 country rather than to the success of the Church. 
 
 Does not the candid reader see in the facts and testimonies 
 that have come under our review much reason to conclude that 
 
 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH IN IRELAND HAS BEEN 
 INJURIOUS TO HER SPIRITUAL LIFE, AN OBSTACLE TO HER SUC- 
 CESS, AND, THEREFORE, DETRIMENTAL TO RELIGION ? 
 
72 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 IV. — That there is great reason to fear that the continuance of the Estab- 
 lishment would be detrimental to the Protestant religion. 
 
 " Let US find out abuses, sinecures, anomalies — and correct 
 them ; let us lop off the dead branches, but not cut down the tree ; 
 let us reform, but not destroy." This, after what has been ad- 
 vanced, will be the thought of many. Our reply is that the only 
 sufficient and effectual reformation will be found in dis-establish- 
 ment, which alone could give true freedom and invigorated life. 
 In confirmation of this let the following points be considered. 
 
 I. There is associated in the minds of the Irish people with 
 the support of the Established Church a sense of injustice which 
 no measures of internal reformation would remove, and which 
 must stand in the way of anything like a fair examination of Pro- 
 testantism, as well as of a thorough and loyal union among all 
 classes of the people. 
 
 Some men who have lived in Ireland, and say they know the 
 people well, deny the existence of any such feeling, declare that 
 the people in general not only regard the clergyman as their best 
 friend, but are well content with Church affairs as they stand. 
 Marvellous ! Let any man spend only a few weeks in the South 
 of Ireland— let him, in a spirit of sympathy and good will, talk 
 freely with all classes, only seeking to see facts as they really are, 
 and he cannot say there is no sense of injustice. He ■will find it 
 everywhere, and will mournfully feel that there is no hope for Pro- 
 testantism or for the unity and prosperity of the nation till that 
 sense of injustice can be removed. The men who can honestly 
 deny this, if they have lived in Ireland, must have lived among a 
 " set" who re-echoed their own sentiments ; and, whenever they 
 went beyond their own set, they must have taken the courteous 
 and flattering expressions of a people naturally poHte as proof of 
 content and approval. Whether you think it well-founded or ill- 
 founded, there is certainly the fact of a deep and wide-spread sense 
 of injustice among the Irish people. 
 
 But is it not well-founded ? Is there not injustice ? Let the 
 voice of common humanity answer. " As ye would that men 
 should do to you, do ye even so to them." Place yourself in the 
 circumstances of the Roman Catholics. Should you experience 
 no sense of injustice? Roman Catholics in England do not bear 
 quite so high a proportion to the rest of the population as Angli- 
 
73 
 
 cans in Ireland, but they approach near to it, (and some of you 
 say it is not a question of numbers at all). How would you like 
 that fraction of the people to enjoy all the dignities, cathedrals, 
 churches, glebes, and social honours of the Established Church of 
 England ? Would you be content ? Would you make no effort 
 to bring about a change ? Lord Cairns said in the House of 
 Lords : — " If there is anything unjust there can be no difficulty in 
 putting your finger on what constitutes the injustice," and he put 
 his finger upon several places, protesting that neither he nor any- 
 body else could find anything of the sort. But common sense may 
 venture to look at a question even in the presence of high legal 
 authorities ; and common sense will, I think, tell us that under three 
 aspects of the case the Established Church is felt by the Irish 
 people to be an injustice. 
 
 I. They feel that it is unjust to be compelled to support 
 heresy. Are they not obliged to support a Church which they 
 regard as the upholder of mortal error ? Veil it, excuse it, look 
 away from it as men may, is not that the fact ? It is said that the 
 landlords pay the tithes ; that nine-tenths of the landlords are 
 Protestants ; that the other tenth purchased the lands subject to 
 the condition of paying tithes ; therefore there is no hardship ; for 
 Sir C. Lewis said " that tithes are of the nature of a rent charge 
 upon the land." And thoughtful men can in this way try to per- 
 suade themselves that the general population of Ireland in no way 
 and in no measure contribute to the support of the Irish Church I 
 
 First the statement as to the proportion of landlords is not 
 correct. " It is indeed likely enough to be true that Anglican 
 landlords, including absentees, do really own nine-tenths of all the 
 land in Ireland. A few Anglicans may possess large tracts of 
 country, while a great many proprietors of small estates may be 
 of a different religion. The total of landed proprietors in Ireland, 
 according to the census of 1861, was 8,412, of whom less than half, 
 namely 4,044, were Anglicans ; 3,576 were Roman Catholics, and 
 578 were Protestant Dissenters. In the province of Ulster, ac- 
 cording to the last census, the Roman Catholic landed proprietors 
 are more numerous than the Anglicans ; while in Connaught the 
 Roman Catholic landlords are more than twice as many as the 
 Anglicans.""* 
 
 Second, the tenants pay tithes through the landlords. Is not 
 the idea of tithes a tenth of the produce of the land ? Prior to the 
 passing of the Tithe Commutation Act did not the tithe proctors 
 extort from the small farmers and miserable cottiers by threats, by 
 law, by armed force, the payment of the tithe of his crops either- 
 in kind or in the shape of the shilling or half-crown which after- 
 * An Irish Hector, Daily Nnvs, April 10, 1868. 
 
 L 
 
74 
 
 wards stood in its place? Can we forget Carleton's mournful 
 picture of the tithe proctor ? 
 
 But it is said all that was altered by the Commutation Act 
 under which the tithe is payable by the landlord, and the tenant 
 pays nothing at all. Is that so? Does he not pay indirectly ? 
 WhsLt was the occasion and meaning of the Act ? Let us listen to 
 an able defender of the Church. Speaking of the determined op- 
 position to tithes, which led to fearful scenes of bloodshed from 
 1820 to 1838, he says, "At length, in the year 1833, the evil had 
 become so crying that Government was constrained to come to the 
 aid of the sufferers by a loan from the treasury of a million sterling ; 
 which loan was subsequently turned into a gift — a gift, however, 
 not so much to the defrauded tithe owner as to the defrauding 
 payer, inasmuch as it involved the wiping out of all arrears. After 
 this it was of course impossible that payment could be enforced 
 on the former footing ; and accordingly in the year 1838 a fresh 
 enactment was made, by which the tithe composition, heretofore 
 
 CHARGEABLE ON THE OCCUPIER, WAS CONVERTED INTO A RENT 
 CHARGE PAYABLE BY THE OWNER, WHO WAS HENCEFORTH TO 
 RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM HIS TENANT IN THE SHAPE OF AN 
 
 ADDITION TO THE RENT ; while the tithe owner was obliged to 
 compound by the sacrifice of one-fourth of his income for the 
 peaceable and regular receipt of the remaining three-fourths. 
 Heavy, however, as was the price exacted, the measure was, on 
 the whole, received by the clergy as a boon. Whatever the income 
 might now be, they were likely to receive it, and they would no 
 longer be brought into direct collision with the small occupiers 
 grudgingly and tardily handing forth the half crown or shilling at 
 which they were assessed." * 
 
 This is a rational and true statement of the facts by a friend 
 of the Establishment. " The owner was henceforth to receive the 
 amount from his tenant in the shape of an addition to the rent," 
 and for the trouble of collecting he was allowed 25 per cent. 
 Does not the produce pay both rent and tithe ? Where would be 
 the tithe if there were no produce ? Is it not the case of the 
 compound householder ? You may just as well say of him that 
 he pays no rates, because his landloi'd pays them. It is the idea 
 of the law, it is the fact of the case, that every tenant in Ireland 
 as truly pays tithe to the Protestant Anglican Church as every 
 man in England pays taxes upon whatever tobacco, beer or spirits 
 he consumes.t Neither pays directly ; indirectly both pay. If it 
 be the fact that nine-tenths of the land of Ireland is omied by 
 Anglicans it is not less the fact that eight-ninths of the population 
 
 * Historical Sketch. Essays, pp. 133-4. 
 + See note at the end of the Chapter. 
 
75 
 
 are compelled to support a Church which they believe to be the 
 teacher of mortal heresy. 
 
 Third. Everybody quotes Sir C. Lewis as saying that tithes 
 in Ireland involve no injustice, because they are " of the nature of 
 a rent charge." No doubt Sir C. Lewis was an able man, but it is 
 difficult to see why we should be called upon to receive his dictum 
 as infallible. But what do those who quote it mean ? The words 
 appear to be regarded b)' some as a most convenient and decisive 
 method of settling the whole question — but do these same persons 
 understand them ? Have they explained them ? The words which 
 are supposed sufficient to silence and abash every opponent are : 
 " The grievance is commonly stated to be that the Roman Catho- 
 lics are compelled to contribute by the payment of tithes to the 
 support of a Church from which they differ. Now in fact the 
 Roman Catholics, although they may pay tithes, contribute nothing, 
 inasmuch as in Ireland tithe is of the nature, not of a tax but of a 
 reserved rent, which never belonged either to landlord or tenant." 
 The common defence of Irish tithes is, that the tenant does not pay 
 them because they come out of the landlord's pocket ; but here 
 we are told that neither contributes anything, as they are of the 
 nature of a reserved rent, which never belonged to landlord or 
 tenant. Why ? Because both came into possession or occupation 
 of the property subject to this payment. Then if a man buys a 
 farm subject to the property tax, he may pay the tax, but he con- 
 tributes nothing towards the public burthens, because that payment 
 never belonged either to him or his tenant ! " Oh, but you mis- 
 take ; — the Irish tithes are not of the nature of a tax but of a re- 
 served rent" So then you have the landlord paying rent But 
 what is the distinction between this rent and a tax ? Is not tithe 
 a payment levied without distinction and enforced by law for 
 national objects or institutions? What is that but a tax? 
 According to this, if Parliament were to pass a law enforcing upon 
 the Irish people an additional tithe for the support of a Roman 
 Catholic Establishment, after the death of all the present genera- 
 tion of owners and tenants, you might say of that additional tithe, 
 in the words of Sir C. Lewis, " Now in fact the AngHcans, although 
 they pay the tithe, contribute nothing to Romanism, inasmuch as 
 in Ireland tithe is of the nature, not of a tax but of a reserved rent, 
 which never belonged either to landlord or tenant." 
 
 But these very convenient words " a reserved rent," what do 
 they mean ? A charge in lieu of so much rent falling upon the 
 tenant ? Then the tenant after all pays the tithes. Yes, but he 
 pays them " in lieu of rent." Now if there is one particle of force 
 in that it must mean that the tenant's pecuniary position would be 
 just what it is ; the burthens he bears just as heavy ; the effort 
 
76 
 
 necessary to live just as great as at present, if there were no tithes 
 at all ; that if the tenth of the produce, or that which represents it, 
 now taken by the Church were not so taken, but left to be dis- 
 tributed among the people, that the tenant would not come in for 
 one penny of it. Is it meant to make that statement? If it is the 
 statement is as utterly opposed to fact as it would be to say that 
 the abolition of borough and parochial rates would not make a 
 particle of difference to tlie working man ; and if it is not meant 
 to make that statement, then to use these words, as they are com- 
 monly used, to signify that the tenants of Ireland contribute no- 
 thing to the Irish Church, is either to impose upon yourself with 
 nonsense, or to impose upon others by throwing dust into their 
 eyes. 
 
 It is said, moreover^ that as the Roman Catholic landlords 
 purchased their property subject to the payment of tithes to the 
 Protestant Church, they can have no reason to complain. Can 
 you honestly think there is any force in that ? Did not every pur- 
 chaser of house property 25 years ago buy it subject to the window 
 tax? Did he therefore say I must not complain, nay, it would be 
 unjust of me to attempt to get rid of this tax? If you were now 
 to purchase a farm would not part of its produce be subject to the 
 malt tax, would you consequently be uneasy in your conscience if 
 that tax were repealed ? Was not all the property in England 
 purchased or inherited liable to Church-rates, and yet have not 
 both houses of Parliament passed a measure whose leading princi- 
 ple is that it is unjust to compel Nonconformists to pay these 
 rates ? Looking candidly at what has been advanced, must you 
 not admit that it is a fact that Roman Catholics are compelled to 
 support a Church which they believe to be the teacher of mortal 
 heresy, and that they feel, and rationally feel, that this is an in- 
 justice? 
 
 It may be well to place the argument from the words of Sir 
 C. Lewis by the side of one which has been frequently employed, 
 but has risen into distinguished favour by receiving the high sanc- 
 tion of Sir Roundell Palmer. In the language of the Standard : 
 — " Another point of great importance cannot be better put than 
 Sir R. Palmer has put it. The vested rights of the clergy are to 
 be respected ; why are the vested rights of the laity to be con- 
 temptuously set aside ? Is nothing but money deserving of pro- 
 tection ? are pecuniary interests alone worth the consideration of 
 Parliament ? The incumbent of a parish receives p^4oo a year 
 for ministering to the congregation ; the congregation of parish- 
 ioners possess an endowment of ^400 a year for the support of 
 their church and clergyman. The incumbent's interest is by general 
 iidmission inviolable ; he must have the ;^4oo a year as long as he 
 
77 
 
 lives. But why is the interest of the parishioners to be confiscated ; 
 why are they not, on the same principle, to retain through their 
 lifetime (aye, and that of their descendants, who have already a 
 reversion therein), their right to the free enjoyment of the Church 
 services and the ministrations of an educated clergyman ? Their 
 pecuniary interest, even, is as just, as definite as his. At present 
 they have ^£400 a year for the supply of their religious needs ; by 
 what right are they, on the death of the incumbent, to be deprived 
 of this, and forced, if they would retain the same spiritual advan- 
 tages, to pay p^4oo a year out of their own pockets ? Is not this 
 a clear confiscation of existing rights ? " 
 
 According to this, then, the ;£4oo a year is the property of 
 the parish. For " the congregation or parishioners possess an en- 
 dowment of ^400 a year for the support of their Church and 
 clergyman." And " the incumbent receives the ;!^4oo a year for 
 ministering to the congregation." That is, the property is public 
 property, and if not paid to the incumbent for ministering to the 
 parishioners, should be employed in some other way for their 
 benefit. 
 
 But the Stmidard goes on with its account of Sir Roundell's 
 speech, presenting a noteworthy aspect of the property question : 
 — " The same point again presents itself in a somewhat altered 
 light. Seven-eighths of the Church's tithe income is derived from 
 the estates of Churchmen. A pays £200 a year to the parish 
 rector, in return for which he enjoys the benefits of the parish 
 church and the rector's parochial ministrations. Wliat right have 
 you to call upon him to continue the payment without receiving 
 the equivalent ? You say that the Church may subsist on the 
 voluntary principle. But A already pays j£200 out of (say) ^2,000 
 a year to the Church. Is it just that you should confiscate this 
 ^200, and then say to him, ' If you Avant a clergyman in the parish 
 you must pay him another £,200 out of your remaining income? ' 
 This is not putting him on a level with the Roman Catholic farmer 
 or Presbyterian manufacturer who pays his minister ;^ioo out of 
 an income of ;^i,ooo. The Church landowner does this already; 
 you call on him to do it twice over. Under the Church Tempo- 
 ralities Act the Churchmen who own seven-eighths of the land of 
 Ireland accepted the liability to pay a rent-charge of ^350,000 in 
 lieu of tithe. For what equivalent ? — the peaceful, undisturbed 
 maintenance of a Protestant Church and clergymen in their several 
 parishes. If you deprive them of the consideration, what right 
 have you any longer to extort the payment ?" 
 
 Then, according to this, that most useful argument from the 
 words of Sir C. Lewis, which has done almost universal service, 
 about tithe being a rent charge, must be given up — it is gone. 
 
78 
 
 According to that, neither the landlord nor the tenant, though 
 paying tithe, cotiirihute anything to the Irish Church ; for the tithe 
 never belonged to the one or the other." According to this, the 
 landlords contribute all ; — " for A already pays £200 out of (say) 
 ;^2,ooo a year to the Church. Is it just to confiscate this and 
 make him pay again ?" 
 
 These arguments destroy each other. The same persons, 
 however, use them ; only they use them for different purposes. 
 When you want to meet the statement that it is unjust to compel 
 Roman Catholics to contribute to a Protestant Church, then you 
 may use the formula of Sir C. Lewis, and prove in a trice that in 
 paying tithes they contribute nothing; when you wish to object to 
 dis-establishment on the score of property, then you may use the 
 formula of Sir Roundell Palmer and prove that the landlords pay 
 everything, even as " the Roman Catholic farmer or Presbyterian 
 manufacturer who pays his minister ;^ioo a year." This, no doubt 
 is very convenient, though some little awkwardness may arise if 
 some people should happen to see that the effective answer to Sir 
 C. Lewis is Sir Roundell Palmer ; and the effective answer to Sir 
 Roundell Palmer is Sir C. Lewis. 
 
 And it may be as well here to point out that you can 'argue 
 against dis-estabHshment upon the ground of property in three 
 different ways ; first, the property belongs to the Church — is sacred 
 — you must not lay unhallowed hands upon the ark ; second, it is 
 the property of the parishioners — " are the vested rights of the laity 
 to be contemptuously set aside ?" Third, it is the property of the 
 landlords — "what right have you, by throwing the Church upon the 
 voluntary principle, to make them pay twice over." You cannot 
 of course employ all these arguments at once ; but you may do so 
 at different times, as is the common custom. But which is the 
 right argument ? they cannot all be right. Well, if the answer 
 may be suggested by the practice of certain controversialists, it 
 must be whichever you find most convenient. 
 
 2. The sense of injustice arising from being compelled to 
 support a Church which they look upon as heretical, is rendered 
 more intense by the feeling that the ecclesiastical property of Ire- 
 land was formerly possessed by their own Church — that men 
 holding their own views — their forefathers — were forcibly evicted 
 for Protestants to take possession. If any historical fact is un- 
 questionable it is this, that tithes were instituted in Ireland in 
 support of a Church owning the authority and holding the doctrines 
 of Rome ; and that for nearly 400 years that Church enjoyed all 
 the emoluments and dignities of the National Establishment. It is 
 also a fact which must soon be generally acknowledged, that the 
 Reformation in Ireland was little more than an irrational attempt 
 
79 
 
 to force the religion of the rulers upon a people not only reluctant 
 but stoutly opposed. The leading features of the narrative may be 
 seen by reference to pages 39-45. Can you be surprised that a 
 people knowing and remembering these things, and paying tithes 
 to Protestants who occupy the benefices, palaces, and cathedrals, 
 are dissatisfied, especially when you recollect that of the 8,412 
 landlords in Ireland, only 4,044 were, according to the census of 
 1861, adherents of the Anglican Church? 
 
 But it is said Roman Catholics do not claim the ecclesiastical 
 property for their own Church, neither are they willing to accept 
 endowment from the State. We are told that Sir Roundell Palmer 
 " notes the absence of any counter claim to the endowments of 
 the Church as a strong legal, moral, and practical evidence of her 
 right. In law and in reason, if A possesses a thing which B or C 
 desire to wrest from him, it is requisite that they should not only 
 find a flaw in A's title, but should prove their own." The Roman 
 Catholics say, " We do not claim the restoration of the property ; 
 we are unwilling to submit to the conditions which its enjoyment 
 would involve ; " but does that shut their mouths ? Does that 
 take away all ground of complaint ? Is that any good reason for 
 compelling them to support a Church which they look upon as 
 heretical ? When, in former times, our government gave bounties 
 upon certain manufactures, were they who objected to these un- 
 reasonable unless they claimed them for themselves ? Were the 
 opponents of the com laws unreasonable because they did not 
 claim the cash which had gone into the pockets of the landlords ? 
 And without claiming the tithes for their own Church, Roman 
 Catholics may rationally be unwiUing to pay them to the Anglican 
 Establishment. 
 
 3. The sense of injustice is aggravated yet more by the fact 
 that while the whole nation contributes to it, all this wealth is en- 
 joyed by so small a fraction as one-ninth of the people, and they 
 the most wealthy and favoured of the land. Look over again the 
 tables, pages 65-69, furnished by the Parliamentaiy Commission- 
 ers, and bethink you that they are an indication of the state of 
 things which had existed, only ofttimes worse, for 300 years. 
 Since then the Church Temporalities Act, which was denounced as a 
 measure of sacrilege and ruin, has wrought great improvements ; but 
 even to day you may go into scores of parishes and find that three, 
 four, or five families comprehend all the worshippers who enjoy 
 the benefit of parsonages, churches, glebes, — of deans, bishops, 
 cathedrals, — of palaces, tithes, and social status :— while scores and 
 sometimes hundreds of the poorest families in the same place are 
 not only shut out from all advantages, but, besides sustaining their 
 own religion, are compelled, directly or indirectly, to contribute to 
 
8o 
 
 that of the favoured few. And they are compelled to do so be- 
 cause they are under the power of England. But for that the 
 Irish Establishment would perish like Jonah's gourd or fall like 
 Fonthill Abbey. Left to themselves the Irish people would not 
 sustain it for a day. It is a sad truth, but a truth nevertheless 
 which cannot be denied, that the Anglican Church in Ireland is 
 kept up by the sword. In nothing is the supremacy of England 
 so offensively and perpetually paraded, — is the feeling of degraded 
 subjection so painfully pressed into the Irish heart as in connection 
 with an Establishment for the support of a religion whose first law 
 is the law of love, and whose first and noblest anthem is " Glory 
 to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men." 
 How under these circumstances can you expect men to listen to 
 Protestant truth. Have they not hearts ? In proportion to the 
 vivacity of their feelings will be 'the intensity of the loathing with 
 which they turn from a system which, having 300 years ago de- 
 prived their Church of her property, has ever since compelled the 
 vast multitude of the poor to contribute out of their penury towards 
 clothing the religion of the rich in costly and splendid gannents. 
 Had men not become accustomed to the existing state of things, 
 they could entertain no hope of converting the Irish people to 
 Scriptural religion while Protestantism comes to them not only 
 associated with repulsive thoughts and painful feelings, but still 
 living upon the injustice by which it has been stained for genera- 
 tions. Here you have an insuperable barrier to the success of 
 your mission as a Church. Will you break down the barrier or 
 sacrifice your mission ? 
 
 4. And this brings us to another consideration — that the 
 memories connected with the past history of the Irish Establish- 
 ment will stand in the way of the success of the Church. The 
 complaint has been frequently and justly made that Englishmen 
 know next to nothing of the history and condition of India, 
 though that vast country is under their rule and open to their 
 energies. But with much greater reason may Irishmen complain 
 that we know so little of a beautiful and fertile land which, lying 
 within a few hours of our coast, has been for 700 years subject to 
 our government and identified with our fortunes. If men of all 
 parties could be induced to study candidly Ireland's history, we 
 might hope for a deeper interest in her welfare and a nearer ap- 
 proach to unanimity as to the causes and cures of her chronic 
 maladies. Among other things it would be seen that as you can- 
 not in the life of a nation, any more than in that of an individual, 
 ignore the past — as its streams must flow into the present — as the 
 marks of bygone national evils cannot be easily effaced — as the 
 scars of former conflicts and sufferings remain for ages — as the 
 
8i 
 
 memories of past wrongs retain for centuries their vitality, giving 
 direction to the thoughts, colour to the emotions, and character to 
 the entire life of a people, it is well nigh vain to attempt to win 
 the Irish nation to Protestantism by the agency of the Irish Es- 
 tablishment. It is so closely associated in their minds with the 
 neglects, oppressions, and heart bitterness with which it has been 
 bound up in former times that to attempt to convert 
 them in that way is like trying to- run with your arms tied, to fight 
 with your leg broken, or to swim with a great bag of gold round 
 your neck. 
 
 Little indeed is known in the present day of the cruel penal- 
 ties inflicted in former times with a view to compel conformity to 
 the Established Church. By the 23 Eliz., ch. i. — " Every person 
 above the age of sixteen years who shall not repair to some 
 church, chapel, or usual place of common prayer, but forbear the 
 same contrary to the 1 Eliz., ch. ii., shall forfeit to the Queen's 
 Majesty for every month which he shall so forbear ;^2o, and over 
 and beside the said forfeitures every person so forbearing by the 
 space of twelve months shall, after certificate thereof in writing, 
 made unto the King's bench by the bishop of the diocese, or a 
 justice of assize, or a justice of the peace of the county where the 
 offender shall dwell, be bound with two sufficient sureties in £200 
 at least, to the good behaviour and so to continue bound until he 
 conform himself and come to church. . . . And if such per- 
 son shall not be able or shall fail to pay the same within three 
 months after judgment given, he shall be committed to prison till 
 he have paid the same or conform himself to go to church." 
 
 These penalties fell upon Protestant Nonconformists as well 
 as upon Roman Catholics. 
 
 The following are some of the prohibitions and penalties en- 
 forced by statutes passed soon after the Reformation to suppress 
 the Roman Catholic religion : — -" All books used in Roman 
 Catholic worship, with all images, relics, &c., to be destroyed — 
 if not destroyed or surrendered to be burnt — the holder, for the 
 first offence, to pay a fine for each article of 20s. ; for the second 
 off'ence of for the third offence to be imprisoned at the 
 
 King's will. 
 
 " To print such books, or bring them from beyond sea, a fine 
 of 40s. each. 
 
 " To wear a cross or Ag?!Us Dei received from the Pope, or 
 from any person authorized to consecrate the same— pre- 
 munire. 
 
 " Houses of Popish recusants might be searched for books, 
 pictures, relics, &c., &c. 
 
 " AH priests expelled the realm upon pain of high treason. 
 
82 
 
 " All who receive and maintain them to be guilty of felony 
 without benefit of clergy. 
 
 " Any students, not priests, at foreign colleges to return 
 within six months upon pain of high treason. 
 
 " To subscribe to any such colleges, even for your son's 
 education — premunire. 
 
 " If you know of any priest and do not inform the authorities 
 — imprisonment at the King's pleasure. 
 
 " Suspected priests might be taken and imprisoned at 
 pleasure. 
 
 " For discovering to the authorities any person receiving a 
 priest, or any priest saying mass, on conviction of the same, to 
 receive one-third of the forfeiture, so as the total do not exceed 
 ^150, and if it shall exceed that, the sum of ;!^5o for every 
 discovery. 
 
 " To say mass, 200 marks and a year's imprisonment ; to 
 hear it, a year's imprisonment and 100 marks. 
 
 " If a parent send his child beyond sea for education he shall 
 forfeit ;^ioo, the child all rights to lands, legacies, and debts in 
 the realm ; and, if they took the child wittingly, the owner shall 
 forfeit the ship and tackle, and the captain his goods and be im- 
 prisoned for 12 months."* 
 
 Such are some of the coercive enactments by which the civil 
 power, in its endeavour to suppress Popery and to uphold its own 
 Established Church, made the people more determined Papists, 
 furnished occasion for bloody rebellions and wars, and filled the 
 heart of the nation with bitter memories of wrong, which have been 
 handed down as a heritage of sorrow from generation to generation 
 even to our own day. 
 
 Moreover bitter emotions and memories were not permitted 
 to die for want of food — they might fare sumptuously every day. 
 After the period when the life of the Irish people had long been 
 crushed under heavy penalties a number of cruel enactments were 
 passed, which are often spoken of as the Irish penal laws. " The 
 close of the seventeenth and the commencement of the eighteenth 
 centuries were signalized by the enactment of many stringent laws 
 against Roman Catholics, which entailed upon them great hard- 
 ships and disabilities."t These enactments are justly spoken of 
 in the following emphatic terms : — " They may be read in the Irish 
 statute book from 1690 to 1790. Well, look first at the disadvan- 
 tageous position in which Irish Roman Catholics were placed by 
 law, as respects the oflSces and ministrations of their own Church, 
 Their higher ecclesiastics were sentenced to perpetual exile, and 
 
 Bum, Art Popery. 
 
 t Rev. A. W. Edwards, M.A. 
 
83 
 
 large rewards offered for their discovery within the kingdom. 
 Their parochial priests were compelled to register, as a kind of 
 ticket-of-leave functionaries ; to give heavy bail that they would 
 not go beyond the limits of their respective counties ; and to en- 
 gage that they would never exercise their functions out of their 
 own parishes. They were forbidden to assume any ecclesiastical 
 title and to wear any professional dress — to erect any steeple, to 
 toll any bell, to officiate in any grave-yard. Their images were to 
 be destroyed, their crosses thrown down, and their pilgrimages 
 prohibited. But, on the other hand, handsome annuities were of- 
 fered by law to those priests who should apostatise. How were 
 the Irish Roman Catholics treated in regard to education ? Every 
 Catholic school was closed ; every Catholic schoolmaster subject to 
 transportation, with the penalty of death in case of his return ; 
 no child of Catholic parents could be sent abroad for education 
 without a special license, and, lest the Act should be evaded, any 
 magistrate might at any moment demand that the child should be 
 produced in his presence. What was their case in regard to the 
 ordinary occupations of life ? They were incapacitated from hold- 
 ing any commission in the army or navy, and from every liberal 
 profession but that of medicine. They could purchase no landed 
 estate, nor occupy any farm the profits of which exceeded a third 
 of the rent If they betook themselves to industrial or commercial 
 pursuits they were literally at the mercy of Protestant municipalities. 
 If, in spite of these restrictions, they acquired some property, what 
 was their control over it ? It was taxed ad libitum by the State, 
 county, municipal, and parochial authorities. No one belonging 
 to the discouraged sect was allowed even to possess a horse of 
 above ;;^5 value. He could receive no real property from Protes- 
 tants, either by deed of gift or by bequest ; and if, during his life- 
 time, his eldest son turned Protestant, he lost all legal control over 
 him, and became incapable of charging his estate with portions 
 for his other children. Finally, in regard to the general privileges 
 of citizenship, no Roman Catholic could marry a Protestant lady, 
 nor entrust, at his death, the guardianship of his children to his 
 wife or friends, nor exercise the elective franchise, nor sit in Par- 
 liament."* 
 
 And even after the relaxation of penal laws the land presented 
 an appalling spectacle of disorganization and massacre, in conse- 
 quence of the measures taken to enforce the payment of tithes in 
 support of an Establishment which was at that time mournfully 
 disgraced by pampered indolence and inefficiency. The following 
 is the description of " the condition of the Established Church for 
 
 • Miall's Speech in House of Commons, May, 1856. 
 
84 
 
 a long lapse of time both before and after the Union," by William 
 Carleton, Esq., author of " Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasan- 
 try," who writes as an enemy of agitation and an eye witness of 
 the deplorable state of his native country, which he depicts : — 
 " The Established Church in Ireland, then in its unpurged and 
 unreformed state, was very little else than a mere political engine 
 for supporting and fostering British interests and British principles 
 in this country ; and no one here had any great chance of prefer- 
 ment in it who did not signalize himself some way in favour of 
 English policy. The Establishment was indeed the only bond 
 that bound the political interests of the two nations together. But 
 if any person will now venture to form an opinion of the Irish 
 Church from her gorgeous and immense wealth at that period, he 
 will unquestionably find that what ought to have been a spiritual, 
 pure, holy, self-denying, and zealous Church, was neither more nor 
 less than an overgrown, proud, idle, and indolent Establishment ; 
 bloated by ease and indulgence, and corrupted almost to the very 
 core by secular and political prostitution. The state of the Es- 
 tablishment was indeed equally anomalous and disgraceful. So 
 jealous was England, and at the same time so rapacious of its 
 wealth that it was parcelled out to Englishmen without either shame 
 or scruple, whilst Irish piety and learning, when they did happen 
 to be found, were uniformly overlooked and disregarded. All the 
 ecclesiastical offices of dignity and emolument were bestowed upon 
 Englishmen ; upon men who lived here with reluctance and but 
 seldom, who had no sympathy with the country or its inhabitants, 
 nay, who looked upon us, in general, with feelings of hostility and 
 contempt, and who, by example and precept, rendered no earthly 
 equivalent for the enormous sums that were drawn from a poor and 
 struggling people. It is idle to say that these prodigious ecclesi- 
 astical revenues were not paid by the people, but by the landlord, 
 who, if the people had not paid them, would have added them to 
 the rent. But even so the struggling peasant reasoned naturally, 
 for he felt it to be one thing to pay even a high rent to the land- 
 lord, whose rights, as such, he acknowledged ; but a very different 
 thing to pay forth out of his own pocket a tenth of his produce to 
 a pastor of a hostile creed, which had little sympathy with him, 
 for which he received no spiritual equivalent, on which, besides, 
 he was taught to look as a gross and ungodly heresy. 
 
 But this was not the worst of it. In the discussion of this 
 subject it is rather hazardous for the champion of our former Es- 
 tablishment to make any allusion to the landlord at all ; the fact 
 unfortunately being, that in the management and disposal of land 
 the landlords, in general, were gifted with a very convenient for- 
 getfulness that such a demand as tithes was to come upon the 
 
85 
 
 tenant at all. The land in general was let as if it had been tithe- 
 free, whilst at the same time, and in precisely the same grasping 
 si)irit, it so happened that wherever it was tithe-free the rents 
 exacted were also enormous, and such as — supposing the tithe had 
 not an existence — no country ever could suffer to become the basis 
 of valuation, or to settle down into a system. In fact, such was 
 the spirit, and so profligate f/ie midition of the Established Church 
 for a lo/ig lapse of time, both before and after the laiion, that we may 
 lay it down as a general principle, that every thing was rewarded 
 in it but piety and learning. 
 
 " If there were anything wanting to prove the truth and accu- 
 racy of our statements, it would be found in the bitter and relent- 
 less spirit in which the Established Church and her pastors were 
 assailed at that period of which we write. The course of clerical 
 education had been defined, established, and extended ; young 
 profligates could not enter the Church as in good old times, without 
 any earthly preparation, either in learning or fnorals. They were 
 obliged to read, and thoroughly to understand, an extensive and 
 enlightened course of divinity, to attend lectures, and entitle them- 
 selves, both by attendance and answering, to a certain number of 
 certificates, without which they had no chance for orders. In 
 point of fact, they were forced to become serious ; and the conse- 
 quences soon began to appear in the general character of the 
 Church. Much piety, activity, learning, and earnest labour were 
 to be found in it ; and indeed we may venture to say that, with the 
 exception of her carnal and debasing wealth, she had been purified 
 and reformed to a very considerable extent even then. Still, how- 
 ever, the bloated mass of mammon hung about her, prostrating 
 her energies, secularizing her spirit, and, we must add, oppressing 
 the people out of whose pockets it was forced to come. . . 
 
 " Such, then, was the state of the Protestant Established 
 Church for a considerable length of time before the tithe agitation 
 and also immediately preceding it."* 
 
 Regarded as the Establishment is, and must be, on account of 
 the memories of the past and the feelings produced by a sense of 
 present injustice ; with also the certainty that political parties will, 
 as occasion offers, still make it the instrument of their own pur- 
 poses, are we not justified in saying that there is great reason 
 
 TO FEAR that THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WOULD 
 BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PROTESTANT RELIGION? 
 
 Note to 74th page. — By sec. x., 1st & 2nd Victoria, ch. 109, the Act in 
 question, persons holding by lease, at the time of the passing of this Act, lands 
 
 * Carleton's Tithe Proctor, chap. viii. 
 
86 
 
 liable to tithes were obliged to pay the rent charges substituted in lieu of tithes 
 to their landlords in addition to their stipulated rent. And the landlords might 
 "enforce payment of such sum by Distress, Ejectment, or Re-entry, or by 
 Action of Debt Covenant, or otherwise, as he may enforce payment of the rent 
 reserved by such lease. " Only the leaseholders whose lease contained a cove- 
 nant to the effect that the landlord should pay the tithes could claim exemption. 
 And this is in harmony with an Act for the Relief of Owners of Tithes in Ire- 
 land, 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 100, section 25, which provides that when the person 
 owing a sum for tithes shall occupy the land, the landlord, on paying the same^ 
 may add such sum to the rent, and enforce payment thereof as if it were rent. 
 
87 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE FREE PRIMITIVE CHURCH OF IRELAND. 
 
 V. — That for 700 years, when there was no Established Church, Evan- 
 gelical religion flourished in Ireland more than it has done at any subsequent 
 period. 
 
 If, it is said, you dis-establish the Irish Church you hand over 
 the country to the domination of Popery ; Protestantism will be 
 powerless, scarcely maintaining a feeble and languishing existence ; 
 where Anglicans are few, it will be impossible to keep up worship, 
 and they will speedily be absorbed into the Romish Church. A 
 fitting reply to these forebodings, though by no means the only 
 one, is found in the history of the Church and country. The 
 Primitive Church in Ireland was not a Civil Establishment. For 
 700 years it consisted of free, independent, self-governed, self-sup- 
 porting, and aggressive communities, and was far more vigorous in 
 the proper attributes of Church life than at any period during the 
 700 years of State patronage and control. 
 
 There is reason to conclude that very early in the Christian 
 era Ireland was visited by the men who " went everywhere preach- 
 ing the Gospel ; " but the information concerning these first wit- 
 nesses and workers is not very precise, neither is it necessary for 
 our present purpose to review it. The evidence of the proposition 
 at the head of this chapter gathers round the history of one re- 
 markable man whose name has been for ages identified with Ire- 
 land. Lest I should be supposed to colour or to transmute the 
 facts by putting them into my own language, I shall give them, 
 almost entirely, in the words of warm friends of the Established 
 Church, only using a few of my own to weave together the extracts 
 of which the history will be composed. 
 
 EARLY LIFE OF ST. PATRICK. 
 
 " The most ancient, and by far the most reliable sources of in- 
 formation respecting St. Patrick and his labours are to be found in 
 two tracts, both professing to have been written by the Saint him- 
 self towards the close of his life, and almost universally admitted 
 to possess all the marks of genuineness. The one, called the 
 ' Confession of St. Patrick,' is in the nature of an apology, and 
 gives some account of his early life and ministry. The other, 
 "The Epistle of Coroticus," is a remonstrance addressed to a 
 Welsh chieftain of that name, who, although himself a professed 
 
88 
 
 Christian, had made a marauding attack on the Christian Irish, 
 and contains likewise several references to the writer and his 
 labours. From these ancient documents we learn that he was the 
 son of a deacon and the grandson of a priest ; that while living 
 with his parents at a place called Bonavem Taberniae (generally 
 supposed to have been in Brittany) he was carried captive from 
 thence at the age of i6 years by a band of pirates, and sold into 
 slavery in the north-east of Hiberio, or Ireland ; that while there, 
 employed in tending cattle, and enduring many hardships, he was 
 brought to a sense of his sin and unbelief of heart, and to turn 
 earnestly to the Lord ; that, having at the end of six years escaped, 
 and, after many perils and adventures, been restored to his parents, 
 he felt constrained in his mind to return to Ireland as a missionary 
 to the still heathen natives there, with whose language and habits 
 he had become acquainted during his captivity ; that his friends, 
 opposing his design, he was finally confinned in it by a remark- 
 able vision ; that he accordingly came to Ireland and had laboured 
 successfully for many years at the time when these epistles were 
 written. 
 
 ST. Patrick's doctrine. 
 
 " As to the first [doctrine] we may gather from the two tracts 
 already named (the former of which contains something in the 
 nature of a creed or profession of faith) as well as from some other 
 writings, less unanimously ascribed to him, that he held and taught 
 the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation, death, resurrection, 
 and ascension of Christ, and of His coming again at the last day 
 to judge all men, and likewise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 
 to make us sons of God and heirs of immortality. He held, more- 
 over, the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, and quotes them 
 freely and exclusively as the authority by which all statements of 
 doctrine are to be proved and confirmed. On the other hand, 
 the doctrines of human merit, purgatory, saint-worship, transub- 
 stantiation, papal infallibility, and other distinctive tenets of modern 
 RomanisiTi, not only find no place in these writings, but are wholly 
 irreconcilable with many passages in them."* 
 
 Dean Murray wites, " The Irish we are told by St. Bernard, 
 in his Life of Malachi, ' rejected auricular confession as well as 
 authoritative absolution.' They confessed to God alone, as be- 
 lieving ' God alone could forgive sins.' They would neither give 
 to the Church of Rome the tenths, nor the first-fruits ; nor would 
 they be legitimately married, that is, according to the forms insist- 
 ed on by the Romish Church. Before the Council of Cashel, con- 
 
 * Essays, pp. 61-64. 
 
89 
 
 vened by Henry II. in 1172, marriage was regarded as a civil rite, 
 and was performed by the magistracy ; at that Council the priests 
 were authorized to perform the ceremony, and therefore we find 
 the ancient Irish Christians denounced ' as schismatics and here- 
 tics,' by St. Bernard : and as being in reality ' pagans, while calling 
 themselves Christians.' " 
 
 Alcuin, in his epistles, thus speaks of the Irish : — " None of 
 the laity are willing to make their confessions to priests, whom we 
 believe to have received from Christ (our) God, the power of 
 binding and loosing as the Apostles did." — {Epist. 26 or 71.) St. 
 Bernard reports that Malachi, who lived in the twelfth century, 
 instituted atiav (in the Irish Church) the salutary practice of con- 
 fession, the sacrament of confirmation, and matrimonial contracts, 
 all of which they ktmv not, or neglected." {In vita Malachi.)* 
 
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM OF THE PRIMITIVE IRISH CHURCH. 
 
 " The ecclesiastical system adopted by St. Patrick, and which 
 for several centuries continued to characterise the Irish Church, 
 was likewise well adapted to the state of society which then pre- 
 vailed — viz., the establishment throughout the country of religious 
 communities, who kept up in their churches the stated worship of 
 God, trained in the doctrines and ritual of the Church native can- 
 didates for the ministry, and instructed the people around them in 
 the principles of Christianity. Though of the nature of monastries, 
 these establishments were by no means at first so rigid in their rules 
 as such institutions subsequently became. Women, for instance, 
 were not altogether excluded from them, nor were their inmates 
 confined to cloisters or bound by vows. They were usually lo- 
 cated on grants of land, often very extensive, made by the kings or 
 other chieftains who had been converted to Christianity and desired 
 to have the worship of God set up among their people, and thus 
 became identified with the clan or tribe in which they were settled. 
 It is obvious that such a system must have tended considerably 
 to the protection, as well as the increased influence, of the 
 community, 
 
 The monastic and missionary character thus early impressed 
 on the Church in Ireland was no doubt the principal cause of 
 several peculiarities in her ecclesiastical arrangements which ex- 
 posed her at a subsequent period, when all Churches came to be 
 measured on the Procrustean bed of Rome, to the charge of irregu- 
 larity, and even of schism, such as the multiplication of bishops, 
 their frequent consecration per saltum (that is, without having first 
 passed through the inferior orders) and by a single bishop instead 
 
 • Murray, p. 43, and note. 
 
90 
 
 of by two or three, and, what was still more remarkable, the ab- 
 sence of any regularly defined episcopal jurisdiction. The dis- 
 tinction of 07-der was indeed carefully maintained, and there are no 
 instances on record of any but bishops being pennitted to ordain, 
 confirm, or consecrate Churches ; but no special field of labour, 
 or recognized jurisdiction appears to have been assigned to them. 
 The Episcopal dignity was conferred apparently as a recognition 
 of superior learning or sanctity, and, when conferred, its functions 
 were generally exercised, as in St. Patrick's own case, at the dis- 
 cretion of the recipient, whether as the inmate of a monastery, 
 living in obedience to his abbot — or as connected with some par- 
 ticular tribe or clan, subject to his chieftain — or as the head of a 
 school of learning — or as a missionary to the still heathen countries 
 of continental Europe. 
 
 The designation "Archbishop," occasionally given to ecclesi- 
 astics in the early Irish Church, was not intended to express any 
 such superiority of station or of jurisdiction over other bishops as 
 is imphed in its later acceptation, but merely eminence of character 
 or special celebrity." See Todd, p. i6. King's Memoir of the 
 Primacy of Armagh, p. i6. Rev. A. W. Edwards in ^j-j^rjj, p. 66-7. 
 
 " The limits of dioceses had not been firmly settled, nor had 
 diocesan episcopacy become a national institution till the century 
 of the English invasion. 
 
 The settlement of the numbers and territorial jurisdiction of 
 bishops, as well as the endowment of parishes almost synchronized 
 with the English invasion."* 
 
 GREAT NUMBER OF BISHOPS IN IRELAND ; THE ROMISH CHURCH 
 WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THEM. 
 
 Dean Murray writes : — " A further and striking proof of the 
 Eastern, and consequently the anti-Romish origin of the Irish 
 Church appears to be the great multitude of bishops in Ireland, where 
 they chaiigcd and multiplied them at pleasure. In like manner we 
 read that St. Basil in the fourth century had fifty rural bishops in 
 his diocese, and that there were five hundred sees in the six 
 African provinces. 
 
 " This rule of the Irish Church occasioned great animosity on 
 the part of Rome. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, complains 
 bitterly, that ' our bishops everywhere were elected and consecra- 
 ted without a title, and by one bishop instead of three, which was 
 according to the Roman plan.' No objection can be made to the 
 
 * Rev. W. Anderson, in Essays, 167-171. 
 
9 
 
 testimony of St. Bernard and Anselm, on this head, being Romans 
 themselves ; but the truth of it does not depend on their state- 
 ments alone, for it appears that Virgil and seven Irish bishops 
 went forth on a mission together to Germany in the middle of the 
 eighth century. 
 
 " In the seventh century the Irish bishops swarmed in Britain, 
 as may be seen from Bede ; in fact, the Churches in Scotland and 
 the north of England were regularly supplied with bishops and 
 Presbyters from the Irish Church, and this was become so general 
 that there could not be found three Romish bishops to consecrate 
 Wulfred, all being of Irish consecration and natives of Ireland. 
 
 " In 670, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, decreed that 
 * they who were consecrated by Iri,sh or British Bishops, should 
 be confirmed anew by a Catholic one.' The fifth canon of the 
 Council of Cealehyth, in section sixteen, requires ' that none of 
 Irish extraction be permitted to usurp to himself the sacred minis- 
 try in any one's diocese ; nor let it be allowed such an one to touch 
 any thing which belongs to those of the holy order, nor to receive 
 any thing from them in baptism or in the celebration of the mass, 
 or that they administer the Eucharist to the people, or invade the 
 parish of another, without the bishop's consent, so much the rather 
 should we refuse to receive the sacred ministrations from other 
 nations, where there is no such order as that of Metropolitans, nor 
 any regard paid to other orders.' 
 
 " Here we can trace, by collecting and comparing these facts, 
 the steps taken by the ever-watchful jealousy of the Church of 
 Rome to supplant the Iri.sh Church, which had taken so deep a 
 root at this time in England, and which was extending its influence 
 to so many different parts of Europe. 
 
 " The fears of the Saxons were soon communicated to the 
 continental clergy. The forty-second Canon of Chalons, in section 
 thirteen, forbids ' certain Irishmen, who gave themselves out to be 
 bishops, to ordain priests or deacons without the consent of the 
 ordinary.' The same year the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle observes, 
 ' that in some places there were Irish who called themselves Bishops, 
 and ordained many improper persons, without the consent of their 
 lords, or of the magistrates.' These alanns could only have been 
 excited by the numbers, zeal, and perseverance of the Irish Bishops, 
 and the jealousy with which their exertions were regarded as an 
 independent Missionary Church."* 
 
 RICH IN GREAT AND GOOD MEN. 
 
 The Rev. A. W. Edwards testifies : — " It was nevertheless a 
 
 * Murray, pp. 37-39. 
 
92 
 
 period rich in great names and noble deeds — a period in which, 
 by the many famous schools of sacred Hterature estabhshed at 
 home, and frequented by multitudes from England and the con- 
 tinent, as well as by the no less famous monasteries founded 
 abroad, in Scotland, France, Switzerland, Germany, and elsewhere, 
 the name of Scots [Irish] became illustrious throughout Christen- 
 dom, and their country obtained the appelation of the ' Island of 
 Saints.' "* 
 
 O'Driscol, a Roman Catholic writer, says : — " There is some- 
 thing very singular in the ecclesiastical history of Ireland. The 
 Chrisrian Church of that country, as founded by St. Patrick and 
 his predecessors, existed for many ages free and unshackled. ' For 
 above 700 years this Church maintained its independence.' It 
 had no connection with England, and differed upon points of im- 
 portance with Rome. The first work of Henry II. was to reduce 
 the Church of Ireland into obedience to the Roman Pontiff. Ac- 
 cordingly he procured a Council of the Irish Clergy to be held at 
 Cashel in 1172, and the combined influence and intrigues of Henry 
 and the Pope prevailed. This Council put an end to the ancient 
 Church of Ireland, and submitted it to the yoke of Rome. ' That 
 ominous apostacy has been followed by a series of calamities hardly 
 to be equalled in the world.' From the days of St. Patrick to the 
 Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious era for Ireland. From 
 the sitting of this Council to our time the lot of Ireland has been 
 immixed evil, and all her history a tale of woe."t 
 
 NOT CONNECTED WITH ROME. 
 
 The letter of Henry to Pope Adrian is conclusive evidence on 
 the subject. In that letter he alleged — " That as the Irish were 
 Schistnatics and bad Cliristians it was necessary to reform them 
 and oblige them to own the Papal authority, which they had hitherto 
 disregarded ; and that the most probable means was to bring them 
 into subjection to the Crown of England, which," he says, "had 
 ever been devoted to the holy See."i 
 
 These statements, which might be amply confirmed from other 
 sources, the writer is willing to leave without comment. They 
 prove that the Primitive Free Church of Ireland, without State 
 support, legal tithes, diocesan episcopacy, or the parochial system, 
 jjroceeded just as our best missionaries have done in our own time, 
 preaching, teaching, living the truth, in some places founding com- 
 munities composed of Christian men and women bound by no 
 monastic vows, here training the young and preparing men for the 
 
 * Essays, p. 71. t O'Driscol, vol. ii., p. 85. 
 
 I Murray, p. 46. 
 
93 
 
 ministry, and from these homes of piety and learning sending forth 
 Christian women and EvangeHsts to subdue the ignorance and 
 heathenism around them. And though Rome acknowledged them 
 not, denounced them as Schismatics whose pastors were unautho- 
 rized intruders into the sacred office, possessing neither orders nor 
 authority, yet religion extended, learning flourished, bishops 
 abounded, they even swarmed in Britain ; men of power and con- 
 secration became missionaries to other lands, and their fame 
 was known in most parts of Europe. Can as much be said of the 
 Irish Church after she became a Civil Establishment ? 
 
 With confidence, warranted by authentic facts, we write again 
 our proposition — That for 700 years, when there was no 
 
 ESTABLISHED CHURCH, EVANGELICAL RELIGION FLOURISHED IN 
 IRELAND MORE THAN IT HAS DONE AT ANY SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. 
 
94 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE PROGRESS OF FREE CHURCHES. 
 
 VI. — That the history of other churches justifies the expectation that 
 dis-established Protestantism would be aggressive and flourishing. 
 
 We are told even by some of the ablest men among the 
 supporters of the Irish Establishment that the consequences of dis- 
 solving the connection of the Church with the State in Ireland, and 
 leaving her to self-government and in some measure to self-reliance, 
 must be most deplorable — that among many undefined disasters, 
 three especially are sure to come upon the country: — ist, The 
 Anglicans, who are now the friends of England, will become her 
 foes ; 2nd, To a very large extent Protestant ministrations must 
 cease, and Protestantism be swallowed up by her relentless foe, 
 and 3rd, That Ireland will be handed over to Papal jurisdiction. 
 
 " Those who are now," writes Dr. Alfred S. Lee, " the strength 
 of England in Ireland, would become to her a source of perpetual 
 weakness, those who are now her silent enemies would become her 
 open and triumphant foes, and Rome — the only obstacle to her 
 supremacy removed — would dictate to successive governments the 
 terms on which peace and submission to authority could be ob- 
 tained in that country, which would then no longer be merely 
 nominally under the jurisdiction of the Pope." 
 
 " Have those who advocate the total abolition of the revenues 
 of the Irish Church ever seriously considered what the effect, mor- 
 ally, socially, and religiously must be of leaving 700,000 of their 
 fellow Christians in Ireland totally destitute of the ordinary means 
 of grace ? The plea usually put forward that the process of dis- 
 establishment would be gradual, and therefore comparatively 
 innocuous, totally fails on examination. Should such a measure be 
 carried, the Church population of a parish in Ireland would be 
 liable to be left suddenly by the death of the incumbent without 
 any spiritual ministrations whatever, and without any reliable 
 means of procuring them in the future." . . . 
 
 " The parochial system is of the essence of Church ministra- 
 tion. It is in this that the Church especially differs from the 
 voluntary religious bodies which surround her. Their system is 
 congregational, hers is parochial. ' They follow the laws of demand 
 and supply ; the Church obeys the higher law ; she follows the 
 commandment of Christ.' By the one system the Gospel is 
 preached to the poor, by the other to those only who can afford to 
 
95 
 
 pay for their seats, and therefore the Protestant poor of Ireland 
 would be the great losers by any movement which would substitute 
 the congregational for the parochial system." 
 
 " Are the poor laboring Church Protestants in the South and 
 West of Ireland scarcely able to provide for their daily sustenance, 
 much less to contribute to the support of their minister (for 
 although this may be possible when the population though poor is 
 numerous, it is quite impossible when they are few and scattered), 
 to be left without a Church to resort to or a clergyman to minister 
 to their spiritual needs ? Are they to be deserted by that very 
 nation to whom the Churchmen of Ireland have always looked up 
 to with respect and affection ? It must not, it cannot be." * 
 
 Although this style of utterance fills some staunch Protestants 
 with astonishment, it must be admitted that it is the style very 
 commonly adopted by defenders of the Establishment. It has 
 been heard in both Houses of Parliament — falls in melancholy ca- 
 dences from the chair of prelates, aud Sunday after Sunday comes 
 ringing from hundreds of pulpits over the heads of bewildered 
 congregations. 
 
 But is it indeed true that the Anglicans of Ireland for them- 
 selves,' and their advocates on this behalf, can tell us that if you take 
 from them a monopoly of enormous privileges — if you place them, 
 not upon a level, but something more nearly upon a level with 
 their fellow countrymen, then they " who are now the strength of 
 England in Ireland will become to her a source of perpetual 
 weakness ?" Is this their loyalty ? their love of " Queen and Con- 
 stitution," about which we hear so much ? Is it nothing better 
 than the farce of hired dancers at an Eastern wedding, or mercen- 
 ary mourners at a grave ? Has it nothing better to say than this, 
 — •" So long as you permit us, who are but a fraction, though the 
 wealthiest fraction of the nation, to have our religion exclusively 
 maintained by national property and clothed with State honours, 
 so long as you pemiit our chief pastors to be dignified with baro- 
 nial titles, palaces, incomes, and to hold seats in the House of 
 Peers, and ourselves, in virtue of Government patronage, to occupy 
 a social status above all others, we are with you — you may reckon 
 upon us — we are your strength in Ireland ] but as soon as you 
 cease to treat us in this way of special favouritism — act with strict 
 impartiality to all alike, though you may declare this to be essential 
 to the welfare of the country — that moment we shall " become a 
 source of perpetual weakness " — then look for alienations, plots, 
 conspiracies, rebellions — then if trouble should come and foes 
 threaten, you will know where to find us." Is that what is meant ? 
 It is w hat is really said. But it cannot be said with reflection ; it 
 ♦ Property and Statistics of Irish Church, pp. 251, 257, 258, 259, 262. 
 
96 
 
 cannot be meant. The man who deliberately says that appears 
 to me to cast reproach upon Ireland more bitter than any 
 contained in any single fact of her mournful history, or conveyed 
 in the allegations of her worst foes. He in effect declares that 
 Protestant Churchmen in Ireland, notwithstanding their professions 
 and privileges are the most worthless of men ; that they are un- 
 worthy of association with the British people ; for they amidst all 
 their differences and defects are animated by an unpurchaseable loy- 
 alty which flourishes without favouritism, and in hundreds of thou- 
 sands of their hearts has proved itself possessed of vigorous life in 
 spite of neglect, repression, and social persecution for conscience 
 sake. 
 
 The truth is that not a few of the sayings of the warm friends 
 of the Irish Establishment are a slander upon the Protestant reli- 
 gion and upon the Irish race. 
 
 But our purpose here is to touch upon the alleged effects of 
 dis-establishment upon Protestantism in Ireland. It is said that 
 this will be " leaving 700,000 of their fellow Christians in Ireland 
 totally destitute of the ordinary means of grace." " Are the poor 
 labouring Church Protestants in the South and West of Ireland 
 . . . to be left without a Church to resort to or a Clergyman 
 to minister to their spiritual wants ? " This will be the effect of 
 the Church ceasing to be a State Establishment, the essence of 
 which is the parochial system, for the voluntary system follows the 
 law of supply and demand — that is, never sends religious ministra- 
 tions except to those who are both able and willing to pay for them. 
 
 If any one doubts whether this is a just representation of Dr. 
 Lee and many others let him read again the foregoing extracts. 
 
 What confidence in truth and in the King of Truth, and what 
 intimate acquaintance with the history of truth, do these sayings 
 exhibit ! Why cannot these Christian men trust in something better 
 than an arm of flesh ? Why do they not get some lessons from the 
 progress and triumph of Primitive Churches in opposition to all the 
 powers of the world ? Why not from the Primitive Church of their 
 own country ? Did that not flourish and extend as a fruitful vine 
 sending forth its branches ? Was that a State Establishment ? 
 Had it anything but free-will offerings? Had it either the paro- 
 chial system or diocesan episcopacy ? Did it follow the law of sup- 
 ply and demand, sending ministrations only to those who were 
 able and willing to pay for them ? It is surprising that sensible 
 men can make such inaccurate representations as those often made 
 of the nature and effects of the principle of voluntary church life 
 in opposition to some of the plainest facts of history and of daily 
 observation. 
 
 The writer has no hesitation in making the following assertion, 
 
97 
 
 which he will endeavour to prove : — That the gospel has been 
 
 MORE EXTENSIVELY PREACHED TO THE IGNORANT OR INDIFFERENT, 
 TO THOSE WHO WERE EITHER UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO PAY FOR 
 IT, DURING THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS UPON THAT PRINCIPLE 
 WHICH IS SAID TO ACT ONLY UPON THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DE- 
 MAND THAN UPON ANY OTHER ; AND THAT THE GREATEST PRO- 
 GRESS MADE BY PROTESTANT TRUTH DURING THE SAME PERIOD 
 HAS BEEN MADE EITHER WITHOUT THE AID OF THE CIVIL GO- 
 VERNMENT AND THE STATE CHURCH PRINCIPLE OR IN OPPOSI- 
 TION TO IT. 
 
 I. In proof of this consider first the progress of Nonconform- 
 ists in England and Wales. We can do nothing more than state 
 in the briefest possible forms the facts and authorities. 
 
 1689. 
 
 " The whole body of Dissenters constituted at this period about the one- 
 hundredth portion of the inhabitants of England and Wales, or a little more 
 than a hundred and ten thousand persons." — Skeafs History of the Free 
 Churches, p. 151. 
 
 The proof is supplied in a Return to an Order in Council, as follows : — 
 Province of Canterbury, Conformists ... 2,123,362 
 ,, ,, Nonconformists ... 95.15' 
 
 Papists 11,878 
 
 Province of York ... Conformists ... 353,892 
 ,, ,, ... Nonconformists ... '5,525 
 
 ,, ,, ... Papists 1,987 
 
 — Cole's MSS. in the British Museum., vol. 10. 
 
 " The total number of Nonconformist places of worship licensed in the 
 two years from a. D. 1688 to 1690 was nearly one thousand" (namely, tempo- 
 rary 796, permanent 153 — Parliamentary Papers). — History of the Free 
 Churches, p. 1 5 7. 
 
 NONCONFORMISTS, 1715-16. 
 "To be able to ascertain the number of Dissenters with any precision 
 would be extremely gratifying on many accounts. But the opportunity was lost 
 and cannot be regained. One document, however, remains, and as it is the 
 most specific and gives the mo.st particular and authentic information on the 
 subject, its insertion will be agreeable to the reader. It is a li.st of the number 
 of Dissenting Congregations in each county of England and Wales, wliich was 
 drawn up in the years 1715 and 17 16 by Daniel Neal, the author of the History 
 of the Puritans. The character of the man is a voucher for its accuracy : as it 
 was done soon after the death of Queen Anne the alterations during so short a 
 space would be inconsiderable : and it may be looked upon as the most faithful 
 statement which can now be given of the number of Dissenters at the close of 
 the first period of the history." — Bogue and BenneVs History of Dissent, 
 vol. 2, //. 98, 99. 
 
 The account follows, showing the number of congregations in each 
 coimty of England and Wales, the total being in England 1,354, Wales 43. 
 O 
 
98 
 
 NONCONFORMITY AT THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III. 
 " The most accurate account which can now be obtained of the number 
 of the Dissenting Congregations at the accession of George III. is from a more 
 particular catalogue drawn up by Josiah Thompson, a minister of the Baptist 
 denomination in 1772. Though it was made twelve years after the close of this 
 period, on considering all the circumstances it seems highly probable that it 
 contained nearly the number of congregations in 1760. Mr. Thompson's state- 
 ment contains the name of every town and village where a congregation met. 
 The total numbers are in England 1482, Wales 219." — Bogue and Bcniiefs 
 History of Dissent, vol. 3, //. 329, 330. 
 
 DISSENTING CONGREGATIONS IN 1808. 
 England .. 1583 
 Wales ... 419 
 
 — Bogue and Bennefs History of Dissent, 
 vol. 4, //. 327, 328. 
 
 1809. 
 
 " It was shewn that the Free Churches were increasing in far greater 
 proportion than the places of worship belonging to the Establishment. It 
 appeared that in the parishes containing more than a thousand inhabitants, 
 while there were only 2, 547 places of worship connected with the Establish- 
 ment, there were 3,457 places (besides many private houses for religious worship 
 which were not enumerated) connected with the free churches. In only five 
 dioceses did the Church possess a majority of public edifices in such times." — 
 Annual Register, a.d. 1810, /. 268, App. Skeat's Free Churches, p. 563. 
 
 1851, 
 
 " 34,467 places of worship in England ; more than half that number, or 
 18,077, belonged to the Free Churches. 
 
 "In the manufacturing districts the Establishment was every^vhere in a 
 minority. In Wales nine-tenths of the people rejected its ministrations. 
 
 "Of the actual worshipping population of the whole country, only 52 
 per cent, were estimated to belong to the Established Church. 
 
 "The Congregationalists possessed 3,244 places of worship : the Bap- 
 tists 2,789 ; the Wesleyan Methodists 6,579 ; and the Methodists 5,365. The 
 Unitarians had 229, and the .Society of Friends 371 places of worship." — His- 
 tory of the Free Churches, p. 623. 
 
 " It ought not to be forgotten that the rapid extension of the Free 
 Churches of England dates no further back than the present century. Their 
 marvellous progress since that time is thus succinctly indicated in a valuable 
 little work on the Census of 1S51, entitled J'oliuitaiyism in England and Wales, 
 or the Census of 1851. (Simpkin, Marsliall, and Co.) 'While the whole 
 population of England and Wales has increased between iSoi and 1851, loi 
 percent, the sittings in all places of worship have increased 102 '8, and the 
 percentage of the sittings to population has been raised from 5 6 '6 to 57 per 
 cent. The proportion of the sittings provided by the Church of England and 
 all other religious denominations respectively in 1801 were 8o'8and 19 2. The 
 sittings provided by the Church of England in 1801 were 4,069,281, and in 
 1851,5,317,915, showing an increase of 1,248,634 sittings, equivalent to 30'6 
 per cent ; the increase of the population being loi per cent., the increase of 
 sittings fell short of the increase of the population 70 per cent. The sittings pro- 
 vided by all other denominations in 1801 were 963,169, and in 1851 4,890,482, 
 showing an increase of 3,927,313, equivalent to 407 per cent, increase of .sittings, 
 and being in excess of the increase of the population 306 per cent.'" — British 
 Quarterly Review, No. 85, p. 143, Januaiy, 1866. 
 
99 
 
 "It was shown by Mr. Mann that ui 1851 48 per cent, of the whole 
 religious resources of England and Wales was provided by Non- Established 
 Churches. Since that time, while the Established Church has advanced in the 
 Metropolis at the rate of 25 per cent., the Non- Established Churches have in- 
 creased in the ratio of over 40 per cent. Now in 185 1 these two sections stood 
 towards each other in the Metropolis in the proportion of 59 to 41. That rela- 
 tion is now as 56 to 44, showing a comparative gain on the part of the 
 Non- Established Churches of 6 per cent. Though only a matter of opinion 
 founded on partial data and a general knowledge of what has been going on 
 throughout the countiy, we think it may fairly be concluded that this 6 per 
 cent, difference as compared with 185 1, would apply to England and Wales as 
 a whole. But taking only half this percentage, the case would stand as follows : — 
 
 ENGLAND AND WALES. 
 Proportion of Sittings by Proportion of Sittings by 
 
 Established Church. Noti-Establislied Churclies. 
 
 1851 ... 52 ... 48 
 
 1865 ... 49 ... 51 
 
 If this our conjecture be correct, the aggregate members of the Non- Established 
 Churches of England and Wales are more than equal in number to those of the 
 Established Church." — British Quarterly Review, January, 1 856, p. 157. 
 
 NONCONFORMIST EFFORT IN ENGLAND. 
 
 "Whereas only a century ago the Dissenting Chapels in England num- 
 bered little more than a thousand, they have since then multiplied literally 
 twenty-fold. They voluntarily raise an annual amount of not less than three 
 millions sterling, two millions of which being at the rate of los. per occupied 
 sitting, are for their own support, and the rest for extraneous religious objects." 
 
 " An immense expenditure of voluntary effort is at present put forth on 
 London, both by Church and Dissent. vSince 1 851 the Established places of 
 worship have been increased by 95, while Nonconformists in the .same period 
 have added 124. This, compared with their respective totals, exhibits a rate of 
 progress for the Non-Establislied Cluirches of 40'5 per cent., while that of the 
 Church of England is only 24^9 per cent." — Rev. joAn Guthrie on Church Es- 
 tablishiiieiUs, pp. 175, 177. 
 
 RETROSPECT. 
 
 "We have seen thus what the policy of the Anglican Church has been 
 from the days of Elizabeth. To this hour it remains unchanged. Those old 
 Tudor and Stuart forms of thought concerning matters, theological and ecclesi- 
 astical, are still imposed upon us. We cannot, it seems, amend what was then 
 done. We cannot know anything which was not then known. That past must 
 be our present. And what has followed this Chinese philosophy? Every 
 second worshipper in tlie Kingdom, is a Nonconformist, and a large majority of 
 Nonconformists have come to be opposed not merely to the formularies of tlie 
 Church of England, but to llie principles on which all such cluirches rest. The 
 action of the civil power in reference to religion in history has been such as to 
 have forced thoughtful and conscientious men to ask many curious questions in 
 relation to it. The result is, that in place of praying that the exercise of this 
 sort of authority may be considerate and humane, they have come to pronounce 
 the authority itself a mistake — a great and terrible mistake." — Rev. Dr. 
 Vaui^haiC s English Nonconformity, pp. 469, 470. 
 
 NONCONFORMITY IN WALES. 
 "To see at one glance the gradual progress of Nonconformity in the 
 
lOO 
 
 Principality during the last 150 years, we give the number of congjcgalions at 
 four different periods : — 
 
 1716 1775 1816 1861 
 
 no 171 993 2927 
 
 The Welsh are now emphatically a nation of Nonconformists. The bulk of the 
 very small minority who make up the congregations of the Established Church 
 are emigi-ants from England and some Anglicized Welshmen. — Rees^ Noncon- 
 formity in Wales, p. 485. 
 
 In 1715 "we may safely calculate that fifty thousand or about one-eighth 
 of the population of Wales were Nonconformists." — Rees, p. 293. 
 
 Hearers Excl. 
 of Memle,^. 
 104,351 
 
 Chnpels. 
 
 Members, 
 
 Independents 
 
 766 
 
 91 Ml 
 
 (In addition to Preaching 
 
 
 
 stations) 
 
 100 
 
 
 Calvinistic IVIethodists 
 
 937 
 
 90,560 
 
 Baptists 
 
 S06 
 
 50.903 
 
 Wesleyan Methodists 
 
 533 
 
 24,395 
 
 Primitive Methodists... 
 
 100 
 
 
 Wesleyan Association 
 
 48 
 
 
 Unitarians 
 
 7 
 
 
 ■73,584 
 
 650 
 
 -Rec-s,p. 582. 
 
 " The population in 185 1 was 1,118,914, and the total number of places 
 of wor.ship 4,006, of which the Established Church furnished only 1180, while 
 Nonconformists furnished 2,826, or more than two to one. The total number 
 of sittings was close upon a million, of which the Church furnished about 
 300,000, or 30 per cent., while the Nonconfomiists furnished nearly 700,000, or 
 70 jser cent. Assuming with Mr. Horace Mann that there should be accom- 
 modation for 58 per cent, of the population — which in Wales would be 
 689,569 — the Church falls short of the demand by 387,672 sittings, while Dissent 
 alone actually exceeds it by 2,770. On 31st March, 185 1, there were present 
 of the worshipping population of Wales 21 per cent, in tlie Established Churches 
 and 79 per cent, in their Dissenting Chapels, the Nonconformist attendance thus 
 outnumbering that of the Church in the proportion of nearly four-fifths to one- 
 fifth. .Since that time, that Welsh dissent still holds its own, is sufficiently plain 
 from the fact that since 1851 somewhere about 300 new chapels have been built 
 or old ones enlarged." — Rn'. H. Richard's Letters on Wales. 
 
 All this growth has taken place in spite of odium, persecu- 
 tion, and social repression such as few persons in the present day 
 have any idea of It was not till 181 2 that the Conventicle and 
 Five Mile Acts were repealed. It was not till 1828 that the Test 
 and Corporation Acts were, after earnest opposition on the part of 
 Lord Eldon and others, repealed. Before that no Nonconformist 
 could enter Parliament, be Mayor of any Borough, member of any 
 Town Council, or hold any corporate office whatever — not even 
 the post of parish constable could be entrusted to them. Not till 
 1836 could they be legally married or their children legally regis- 
 
I O [ 
 
 tercd, unless they resorted for the purpose t3 the parish church. 
 Nt.it till the establishment of the London University, about 30 
 \'ears ago, could any Nonconformist minister or layman, however 
 learned he might be, obtain any English literary degree. Certainly 
 Churches may grow without State aid. 
 
 FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 
 "Disruption in 1843 — 478 Ministers or nearly one-half left the Estab- 
 lished Church. By l86i, eighteen years after their origin, they had spent in 
 buildings alone nearly a million and a half sterling, and since that time this 
 amount has been greatly increased. The Free Climrh Monthly Rivino for 
 July, 1866, says, ' Tliis is the greatest year, financially, since the disniption. 
 Hitherto the disruption year has stood out pre-eminent : and when one recollects 
 the great efforts and sacrifices which were then made — especially for building 
 purposes, for which there was raised in that year alone ^227,836, it might have 
 licen expected to continue long unrivalled. The present year, however, has sur- 
 p.assed it, and by no less a sum than £\(),ioo, while it e.xceeds the immediately 
 jireceding years (1864-5) by /^25,374.' The total revenue for the past year 
 amounts to ;^383,572 4s. lod. — Rev. John Guthrie on Church Establishments, 
 pp. 199. 
 
 II. Still more remarkable is the progress of rehgion in the 
 United States, where there is no Established Chtirch. The Rev. 
 Henry B. Smith, D.D., a man having a high reputation for the 
 e-Ktent and accuracy of his information read a report on the state 
 of religion in the United States of America at the General Confer- 
 ence of the Evangelical Alliance at Amsterdam, 1867. From that 
 Report the following remarkable statements are taken : — 
 
 " The war of the Revolution left the churches eighty years 
 back enfeebled and distracted, for they were then entering upon 
 the untried career of separation from the State. Our distinctive 
 American Christianity has been built up on the basis of that sep- 
 aration, and now after a sterner trial than ever before, we are more 
 than ever convinced that for the churches of our land this is the 
 way of safety and of growth. There was here no precedent, and no 
 analogy. Those accustomed to the compact external unity of a 
 State Church might easily hope or fear that our many external 
 divisions were signs of internal weakness, and that we should be 
 disintegrated by the violence of the civil commotion and strife. 
 Of this fear we were not ourselves conscious : and the progress of 
 events has shown that the ecclesiastical tendencies in the midst 
 of our civil strife have looked in the direction of reunion rather than 
 of increased subdivisions. 
 
 " The special and determining characteristic of our American 
 Christianity, growing out of the very necessities of our history, is 
 found in the separation of Church and State — which separation in 
 its last grounds rests on the one hand upon the principle of religi- 
 
I02 
 
 ous liberty, and on the other upon a confidence in the self-sustain- 
 ing power of Christianity itself. 
 
 " This separation does not imply indifference, still less oppo- 
 sition. Legally, it means simply the non-recognition of any form 
 of Christianity as established by the State. But the State still 
 guaranteed to all our Churches their legal rights. The general 
 Government also recognizes the Christian religion in various ways ; 
 it administers oaths of office ; it honours the Christian Sabbath, 
 both Houses of Congress are daily opened with prayer, it appoints 
 chaplains for the army and navy — 500 were under appointment at 
 one time during the late war. President Lincoln issued an anny 
 order for the observance of the Sabbath, and he repeatedly ap- 
 pointed days of fasting and supplication and thanksgiving, which 
 were solemnly observed by all our Churches. A movement is now 
 on foot to procure a more express recognition of the Christian 
 religion in our Constitution. The individual States too aid in 
 various ways institutions and objects not only of a benevolent but 
 also of a specific Christian character, and as society is more and 
 more penetrated by the Christian system, the laws and the institu- 
 tions of the State will come into more entire accord with the fun- 
 damental principles of the Kingdom of God." . . . 
 
 " Notwithstanding the diversities of name and external order, 
 we are agreed on the main articles of our common evangelical 
 Christianity, and the sense of this unity is increasingly felt. At 
 least three-fourths of our entire population are under the dominant 
 influence of the chief Protestant Churches — the Presbyterians and 
 Congregationalists, the Methodists and Baptists, the Episcopalian, 
 the Lutheran, the German, the Dutch Reformers — to name no 
 other. And as a simple matter of fact, the largest development and 
 increase of Christianity in the nineteenth century has been found in 
 the United States. The Methodists have increased in communi- 
 cants from 15,000 to about 2,000,000 ; the Baptists from 35,000 
 to about 1,700,000 ; the Congregationalists from 75,000 to 275,000; 
 the Lutherans number over 300,000, and the German Reformed 
 more than 100,000. And each of these Churches reaches a popu- 
 lation about four times as large as the number of its Church 
 members. 
 
 " That the voluntary principle, which is the necessary logical 
 result of the separation of Church and State, is favourable to our 
 progress, appears from the following statistics. According to the 
 United States Census for i860 there were then 54,000 church edi- 
 fices in the country erected wholly by voluntary contributions, at 
 an estimated value of 171,390,432 dollars, and the number of these 
 churches had increased 50 per cent., and their value doubled in the 
 previous ten years. There was an average of one church to 544 
 
I03 
 
 persons. The total church accommodation was 12,875,119, or 
 about one sitting to every two and a half of the entire population. 
 (Of these edifices the Methodists had 19,883 at an average value 
 of 2,000 dollars; the Baptists 11, 211, of the value of 1,700 dollars 
 each ; the Presbyterians and Congregationalists 8,953, of the value 
 5,500 dollars, &c.) The increase in Church membership has out- 
 run, in spite of the influx of foreign population, the relative increase 
 of the population ; in 1800 the total population was 5,305,935, 
 and the number of Church members was 350,000; in 1832 the 
 population was 13,614,420, Church members 1,348,948 ; in i860 
 the population was 31,429,801, Church members 5,035,250. That 
 is, the ratio in 1800 was one communicant to about fifteen of the 
 population ; in 1832 it was one in ten ; in i860 one to six. While 
 the population increased six-fold, the Church membership increased 
 more than fourteen-fold. And this too, notwithstanding the fact 
 that during the last period (from 1832 to i860) the number of 
 aliens arriving at our ports was over four millions ; and Texas, New 
 Mexico, and California were added to our territory. The propor- 
 tional increase since i860 has probably been greater, for the immi- 
 gration has been much less. This estimation does not include the 
 Roman Catholics, who may number three and a half millions. A 
 larger proportionate increase is also found in our benevolent and 
 missionary contributions." 
 
 The wTiter gives the statistics of different denominations, of 
 which the follo^\nng is a condensed summary : — 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church last year celebrated the centenaiy 
 of its introduction into the country. Proposing to raise a thank-offering of a 
 million, its receipts have come near to four millions. The Northern Church re- 
 ports 64 Annual Conferences, 13,172 preachers, 1,039,184 Church members, 
 10,462 church buildings, of the value of 30,000,000 of dollars ; 25 colleges and 
 theological schools. The Church of the .South has about 700,000 communi- 
 cants. There are other branches of Methodists, which being included the total 
 Methodist Church membership is found to be more than two millions. 
 
 Baptists. — Numbers, 2,335,396. Churches, 17,220. Theological 
 schools, II. Periodicals 23. Subscriptions amounting to more than a million 
 of dollars have been made for the Baptist Colleges and Seminaries. In Canada 
 and the West Indies 120,787 members and more than 905 churches. 
 
 The Presbyterians in 1867 had 77 synods, 385 presbyteries, 6,499 
 churches, 4,262 ministers, 586,506 communicants. And these numbers are 
 probably far below the facts. There are 340 churches and 4 presbyteries from 
 which there is no report. 
 
 The Congregationalists had in 1867, 2,900 churches, 3,009 minis- 
 ters, 272,974 membei-s. The gain last year was 60 churches, 3,913 members, 
 28 ministers. Amount of contributions reported, 1,024,720 dollars, but there 
 was no report from thirteen States. 
 
 The Lutheran Church has 421 sj-nods, 1,644 ministers, 2,915 con- 
 gregations, 323,825 communicants, 29 periodicals, 15 Theological Schools, and 
 17 Colleges. 
 
I04 
 
 The Protestant Episcopal Church numbers 34 dioceses, 44 bish- 
 ops, 2,416 priests and deacons, 2,305 parishes, 161,234 communicants, 151,819 
 Sunday School scliolars. In 1866 tlie contributions exceeded three millions of 
 dollars. 
 
 The Reformed Protestant Dutch Church. — Churches 444, 
 ministers 461, communicants 57,846, Smiday School scholars 46,411 ; contri- 
 butions, 1,053,189 dollars. 
 
 German Reformed Church, 1866. — 2 synods, 29 classes, 476 min- 
 isters, 1,162 churches, 109,258 communicants, 5 colleges, 3 theological semin- 
 aries, 9 periodicals. Contributions, 160,882 dollars. 
 
 The United Brethren in Christ. — 4,255 preaching places, 3,297 
 societies, 91,570 membere. Contributions, 341,279 dollars. 
 
 The Roman Catholic Church. — ^43 Dioceses, 3 vicariates apostolic, 
 43 bishops, 3,795 clergymen, 49 Institutions, 29 colleges, 134 schools for girls, 
 66 asylums, 26 hospitals. 
 
 The Quakers [orthodox] number 54,000. The Hicksites 40,000. In 
 Philadelphia they recently contributed 125,000 dollars for a school for coloured 
 children. 
 
 Such has been the wonderful progress of rehgion where State 
 aid is unknown ; can anything hke a parallel be found in connec- 
 tion with the wealthiest State Establishment in the world. More- 
 over, institutions for higher education have come to be for the 
 most part dependent upon voluntary support. "And it might well 
 have been feared that when the country was absorbed in a vast 
 war laying strong hands on all its resources, the more remote in- 
 terests of education (which is essentially a provision for future needs 
 and well-being,) would at least for a time be neglected. But the 
 contrary has been the fact. Never have our spontaneous offerings 
 for higher education been as large, never have they increased in 
 such proportion as during the years in which we were struggling 
 for national existence. And this is another evidence of the safety 
 of the voluntary principle among a people trained thereto. The 
 total amount thus given during the past four years cannot be less 
 than seven or eight millions of dollars." 
 
 " There has also been a like advance in the receipts of our 
 chief philanthropic and Missionary Associations during the past 
 few years. Into all the details connected with these organizations 
 it would be impracticable to enter. I have compared the aggre- 
 gate receipts of about twenty-five of them, as given in the reports 
 of 1866, with the amounts reported in i860 — the year after and 
 the year before the war. And the result is that about two and a 
 quarter millions were given in i860, and something over five mil- 
 lions in the last year." 
 
 " Such is the marvellous commingling of churches in the 
 midst of -w hich we live and labour. But in all this diversity of 
 tongues, there is still one language. We have one Lord, one faith, 
 and one baptism. Our diff"erences are chiefly external and super- 
 ficial, our union is internal and vital. The tendencies to reunion 
 
105 
 
 are growing in all the denominations. The centiifugal force has 
 well nigh spent itself, and the centripetal is beginning to claim its 
 rights." 
 
 Now it should be kept in mind that all this progress is taking 
 place in a country which is receiving emigrants from other lands — 
 many of them ignorant and irreligious — at the rate of a thousand 
 a day. 
 
 The appended testimonies concerning the Episcopal Church 
 in the United States are especially worthy of notice. The Hon. 
 George Bancroft, in the ninth volume of his History says,— "The 
 complete separation of the Church and State by the establishment 
 of perfect religious equality was followed by the wonderful result, 
 that the separation was approved of everywhere, always, and by all. 
 The old Anglican Church, which became known as the Protestant 
 Episcopal, wished to preserve its endowments, and might complain 
 of their impairment ; but it jireferred ever after to take care of it- 
 self, and was glad to share in that equality which dispelled the 
 dread of Episcopal tyranny, and left it free to perfect its organiza- 
 tion according to its own desires." 
 
 The following speech was delivered at a meeting of a Church 
 Defence Association at Cambridge, on the 14th of November, 
 1866, by the Bishop of Illinois : — 
 
 "The Bishop of Illinois said his duty was to give them some 
 detail of the manner in which the laity of the Episcopal Church of 
 America took part in the legislative departments of that Church. 
 But before domg so, he must premise, first that the circumstances 
 under which the Church existed in the new world were entirely 
 different from those under which it existed in the Old ; and he 
 would remind them that there was a vast difference between build- 
 ing a new church and repairing an old one ; so that there might be 
 many changes which it might not be well suddenly to introduce into 
 the Church of England ; and tlioreforc, whatever he said, must be 
 taken on the simple ground that lie desired to render wliat informa- 
 tion he could respecting the Ciiurch with which he was connected. 
 In the next place the Chu-ich of tlie United States was entirtily dis- 
 sociated from the civil power ; there was no connection between 
 the Episcopal or any other Church and the State. Its government 
 was left entirely to itself, though the Chri.stian religion was 
 acknowledged in the oaths of those who held office, and in the 
 opening of Con.gress by reading prayers. Tliey had neither en- 
 dowment nor protection from the State, and they even had to 
 settle for themselves questions relating to Church property, except 
 when those questions were in conflict with the law of the land. 
 Hence, whatever was their hereditary character, they were simply 
 a sect among sects. Thirdly, with them everything was voluntary ; 
 p 
 
io6 
 
 they had no endowments or hereditary relations ; in many cases 
 they had nothing to begin with, and they might be described as 
 hving from hand to mouth. They Uved by faith — faith that God 
 would take care of the cause of His dear Son, and that he would 
 open the hands and hearts of His people to sustain the great claim 
 of the Gospel of Christ. In the United States people were not 
 compelled to support religion of any kind. In the next place, with 
 them everything was elective. The people originated everything. 
 The bishops were elected by the diocesan synod, or Convention, as 
 they called it, and this was a mixture of clergy and laity. Each 
 parish elected its own minister, who was referred to the bishop for 
 his approval. Next they were federal, like everything else in the 
 United States ; they had a General Convention consisting of two 
 houses — in the upper house sat the bishops, missionary as well as 
 diocesan ; and in the lower house sat four clergymen and four lay- 
 men from every diocese in the United States ; the same number 
 was sent from each diocese quite irrespective of its size. The 
 lower house sat with open doors ; the upper house with closed. 
 Nothing was passed without the approval of both houses. An 
 alteration in the Liturgy had to be approved by both houses, and 
 then sent down to every convention in the country, by whom it 
 was returned for the next meeting (after a lapse of three years) ; 
 and it then rested with the General Convention for final approval 
 or rejection. He mentioned this to show how careful they were 
 about introducing changes. As to the diocesan relations, the dio- 
 cesan synod met once a year, of which the bishop was, virtute 
 officii, president, and at which the clergy and three laymen from 
 every parish assembled, so that the laity had their full share in the 
 executive and legislative departments of the diocese. Then in 
 every diocese they had a standing committee, consisting of four 
 clergymen and four laymen from each of the smaller parishes, 
 and three clergymen and three laymen from each of the smaller 
 dioceses. Here again there was an equality of both orders. The 
 office of this committee was to be employed as a council of advice 
 to the bishop, by whom it might be convoked. Amid singular dis- 
 advantages they had found their system act admirably ; and espe- 
 cially should be remembered, the general prevalence of what would 
 here be called Radical feelings, and which were not favourable 
 to the progress of such work. Having thus explained the relation 
 which the laity had in tlie executive and legislative functions of the 
 Church, it was only right he should tell them what had been the 
 experience of the Church in this particular. It had had a fair 
 trial under very disadvantageous circumstances, and he was bound 
 to say the introduction of the lay element had proved entirely 
 successful. He would now inform them of the co-relative advan- 
 
I07 
 
 tages which grew out of the system of the blending of the laity 
 with the clergy in the management of the affairs of the Church. 
 In the first place it made the laity intelligent in all the Church's 
 affairs. They became so complete a part and parcel of its whole 
 that they grew with its growth ; they knew its wants and feelings, 
 and they consequently felt a desire to advocate the rights and 
 interests of the Church of God. This direct agency by the laity 
 c illed forth Christian charit}\ The laity became familiar with the 
 trials and troubles of the Church, as well as with its practical 
 working; and this knowledge challenged from them a larger 
 liberality, and connected them closer to the Church because they 
 were one with it. The next point in connection ^\^th lay adminis- 
 tration was, that where it assumed a mere voluntary relation. That 
 was, how far the laity could be invoked as assistants to the 
 ministr)^ in their peculiar work. In this respect the Church in 
 America was only in the beginning of its work. They found a 
 difficulty in getting laymen for the work. Their system was this : 
 they employed lay readers who had to perform all the services of 
 the Church, with the exception of reading the absolution and the 
 blessing, and they could read no sermon of their own. These 
 laymen were therefore enabled to supply nearly all the service 
 without interfering with the strict duties of the minister. The 
 Bishop concluded by paying a high compliment to the Church of 
 England, observing that the sister Church in America looked with 
 admiration at the large donations and liberal gifts which the 
 Church of England now and again obtained. They (the American 
 Episcopalians) were but learners in many things of the Church in 
 England, and he was sure that in matters of voluntary and personal 
 benevolence the Church of England had no reason to be ashamed." 
 
 Do not such facts as these justify the confident expectation 
 that the Church in Ireland rejoicing in the liberty wherewith Christ 
 has made her free, and reljing upon him for success, would be ag- 
 gressive and flourishing ? 
 
 III. Yet more remarkable and cheering are the facts con- 
 nected with the progress of English Protestant Missions in heathen 
 lands during the present century. The following is a brief sum- 
 mary of the agency, the income, and the results so far as they ap- 
 pear in the number of members or communicants : — 
 
io8 
 
 ^ O O 
 00 ^^ O 
 
 O rr> ^ OV Tj- 1 iM 
 O O N 00 CTl 
 
 rr> O 00 -1 o 
 
 -1 lO oc O O 
 
 o\ o <^ 
 
 N 1 00 
 
 - ^ « 
 
 +- 
 
 l-O 
 
 O OS O 
 
 O M O 
 
 o o o 
 
 U3 M in o ai 
 OJ rt OJ -{^ cu 
 
 rt c =^ C 
 C C C 
 .2 1n .2 > .2 
 
 ^ S ^ § 
 
 f i- 
 
 C/2 
 
I09 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 VII.— That practically our choice appears to lie between two or three 
 Establishments and none. 
 
 Shall we maintain the present F,stal)lis1i( <! Church in Ireland? 
 Or shall we level up Roman Catholics aiv.l I'icsbyterians to an 
 equality with it, and thus have three State Eslublishments side by 
 side in the same country? Or shall we maintain no State Church 
 at all ? Only these three courses are open, wliich shall we take ? 
 
 Our purpose here is to point to what seems to preclude the 
 first — to show that you cannot take that — consequently you must 
 establish all or none. And if that be the case there can be little 
 doubt what the country will prefer. 
 
 But we are met by a parliamentary objection. It is said by 
 Dr. Begg, and sent round the country endorsed by the Protestant 
 "Association as a thing of great weight, that either to cilablish ail 
 denominations or not to establish any is a policy of indifference — 
 that indifference is sin — and that you are not warranted to say to 
 any man that he is under the necessity of taking a course which is 
 sinful. 
 
 But the argument, if argument it can be called, is utterly fal- 
 lacious ; for may not a Statesman be anything but indifferent to 
 religion and yet be of opinion that it is either not possible or not 
 wise to uphold an Established Church. Would it be just to say 
 that a ruler is indifferent to the clothing of the people if he does 
 not set up national clothing establishments ; or to their food if he 
 does not maintain granaries and butchers shops ; or to the 
 national industry unless he keeps up all kinds of workshops 
 throughout the country? Profoundly interested in these things, he 
 may see that his own wishes may be best carried out by encourag- 
 ing the people to clothe and feed themselves ; and in like manner 
 he may see that the interests of religion will be best promoted by 
 government abstaining from establishing any particular Church, 
 while governors endeavour to set the example of Christian lives. 
 
 It may be permitted to ask the men who argue after this style, 
 if they intend to say that under all circumstances, a statesman or 
 ruler is bound to maintain a State Establishment of religion ? The 
 reply must be Yes or No. If Yes, then of course the Governors 
 Generals of India, the Governors of Canada and of our other 
 Colonies, and the President of the United States, are bound to set 
 up a State Church ; and, not doing so, however godly may be 
 their lives, and however extensive their influence as christian men. 
 
TIO 
 
 they are chargeable with the sin of indifference to the kingdom of 
 Christ. But if the answer be No, rulers are not in all cases obliged 
 to set up State Establishments of religion, then our reply is — You 
 are begging the whole question in saying that if our Statesmen do 
 not maintain the Irish Church they will be guilty of the sin of in- 
 difference, for the circumstances may be just those which would 
 make it their duty not to do so. 
 
 But if a Statesman is not bound in every case, regardless of 
 circumstances, to maintain a State Church — if this is admitted to 
 be a duty only sometimes — then his wisdom is to take the course 
 which, all things considered, is, first, possible ; second, best. 
 
 Now, as it seems to us, there is a sentiment in the country, 
 becoming daily more deep and strong, in favour of religious equality, 
 which will make it impossible to maintain the Protestant Estab- 
 lishment in Ireland except upon condition of making the Roman 
 Catholic and Presbyterian Churches State Establishments also. 
 If you are disposed to put all upon a level by disestablishment you 
 may, but it must be favours to none, or favours to all ; — favouritism 
 to the wealthy few at the expense of the poor and struggling many, 
 the prevailing and resistless sentiment in favour of equality will 
 not permit. Among indications of the strength of this sentiment 
 we may mention 
 
 1. The course of legislation for many years past. 
 
 Our limits will not permit a detail of movements and measures, 
 but it may suffice to point to such facts as the following : — That 
 the grants to Roman Catholics out of the public funds have been 
 steadily increasing, so that they now amount, according to Dr. Begg, 
 to something near ^350,000 per annum ; that the appointment of 
 Roman Catholic chaplains in the army, and in prisons, &c., takes 
 place now almost without comment ; that whatever is advanced 
 in either House of Parliament in support of additional privileges to 
 Roman Catholics is almost sure to obtain a favourable hearing ; 
 that concessions are equally made, whatever political party may be 
 in power ; that no attempt has ever been made to enforce the pro- 
 visions of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, and that the principle gen- 
 erally acknowledged and acted upon in our colonies is this principle 
 of equality — government supporting all or none. These are plain, 
 unquestionable facts — are they not significant ? With these facts 
 before you, can you expect to repeal the Maynooth grant and all 
 other grants out of public funds, or even to prevent further and 
 larger grants, while you maintain the Protestant Establishment in 
 Ireland? 
 
 2. The conclusion is warranted by the utterances of public 
 men and the proposals of the present Conservative government. 
 
 The point here to be marked is that the dominant idea in the 
 
minds of leading men of all parties is the necessity of placing the 
 adherents of the principal denominations in Ireland upon a footing 
 of equality. We concern not ourselves with the particular measures 
 which they advocate, but only with the fact that this is the end at 
 which they aim. For many years this idea of equality has been 
 put prominently forward by men eminent in the State as the only 
 sound basis of legislation for Ireland. 
 
 In a debate on the Irish Church in the year 1845, the late 
 Earl Grey, who was the Prime Minister of England at the passing 
 of the Reform Bill, said : — " I have always regarded the mainten- 
 ance of the Irish Church on its present footing as contrary to every 
 principle of justice and policy. I believe in my conscience the 
 maintenance of that Church has been the great obstacle to the 
 spread of the Protestant religion. ... I believe the Church 
 of Ireland is the main source of all that misgovernment and oppres- 
 sion under which the Irish for nearly three centuries have suffered."* 
 
 "There is," said Mr. Grote in 1834, "but one case in all 
 European experience in which the greater portion of the Church 
 Temporalities has devolved — not to the Government — not to the 
 majority of the people, but to the religion of a small and incon- 
 siderable minority ; — that case is the Church of Ireiand."t 
 
 Lord Howick said in 1844, "They must do full and equal 
 justice to the people oflreland, but how was thisto be accomplished ?" 
 They might make the Roman Catholic Church the Established 
 Church ; or they might have no Establishment at all ; or they 
 might make provision for the spiritual wants of the people in pro- 
 portion to theirnumber," adding "Any of these modes of proceeding 
 would carry into effect the principle for which he was contending. 
 They must be prepared to deal with the question on the principle 
 of extending to the Catholic faith every advantage they would 
 extend to others. . . . They must do so unless they were 
 prepared that all the past dangers, and which now prevailed in 
 Ireland, should continue. . . . The right hon. baronet (Sir 
 R. Peel) had in his speech told the House that this Church ques- 
 tion was at the bottom of all differences of opinion. It was so, 
 and of all the difficulties they felt in carrying on the government 
 of Ireland. "J 
 
 In the same debate on the state of Ireland, Mr. Bellew said : 
 — " The Church was pre-eminently the question on which the 
 whole government of Ireland, for good or evil, must turn, and till 
 that was satisfactorily arranged it was impossible that peace or con- 
 tentment could prevail. . . . He thought the State should pro- 
 
 • Hansard, vol. 79, p. 1274, f Mirror of Parliament, vol. 3, p. 1936. 
 I Times, nth Feb., 1844. 
 
112 
 
 tect and patronise the three great denominations in Ireland equally, 
 and he believed that a large number of the most respectable Pres- 
 byterians and Dissenters in Ireland were prepared to see that ques- 
 tion fairly settled." 
 
 Mr. Hume said : — " With regard to the Church, how was it 
 possible for t1ie people of Ireland to be satisfied with the Church 
 as it was ? Scotland had her own Church, England had her own 
 Church ; how could Ireland be expected to be satisfied with a Pro- 
 testant Church while the vast majority of the inhabitants were 
 Roman Catholics?" * 
 
 Earl Russell has recently given expression to his former and 
 his present views, in the following terms : — " I think the people of 
 Ireland are entitled to have all the subjects of her Majesty in that 
 country placed on a footing" of equality, and it is to me rather a 
 secondary question whether that equality should be obtained by 
 the endowment of all the different communions or by the dis-en- 
 dowment of all. Gentlemen, I do not disguise my preference on 
 that subject, but I say at once that, as I perceive that the people 
 in general of England and Scotland — the Protestant people of Eng- 
 land and Scotland — do not wish to endow all these communions, 
 and that on the other hand the Roman Catholics of Ireland do not 
 wish to accept any endowment, I at once discard any preference of 
 my own, and decide for dis-endowment. That is the sense of Mr. 
 Gladstone's resolution." — St. James s Hall, i6th April, 1868. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, speaking in the recent debates of the propo- 
 sals of the (government, said, — "An earnest of these plans was 
 given in the shape of a proposal with respect to a Roman Catholic 
 University ; and their general character was indicated in two parts 
 of the speech of the noble Earl — one in which he stated that a 
 grant made to the Presbyterians under the name of the Rei^ium 
 Donuin was miserable in amount and inadequate for the purpose, 
 and would require to be considerably increased ; and the other, in 
 which going beyond the case of the Presbyterians, he recognised 
 fully, and of course in the main with reference to the Roman 
 Catholics, the doctrine of religious equality for Ireland ; and said 
 there would be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's govern- 
 ment to establish religious equality in that country, provided it were 
 done by giving and not taking away. I apprehend there can be no 
 serious debate or division of opinion on the meaning of those very 
 important words. The meaning was that the government recom- 
 mended us to proceed to the removal of anomalies in Ireland by 
 the method of concurrent endowment, of establishing by means of 
 public funds other endowed churches in addition to that which now 
 
 • Tunes, 23 Feb., 1844. 
 
113 
 
 existed ; and that the position of the Government may be fairly 
 considered as thus defined. To that method of proceeding it ap- 
 peared to us that there were insurmountable objections. We are 
 entirely at one with the Government, although I do not know how 
 far we are at one with the bulk of those that sit behind them ; but 
 we are at one with the Govo ntiient with respect to the adoption of the 
 principle of religious equality in Ireland. We think, however, that 
 the attempts to found a variety of churches in Ireland, either at 
 the public charge or even by a division of the ecclesiastical pro- 
 perty, is a plan diametrically and fundamentally opposed to the sen- 
 timents and convictions of the great mass of the population of 
 Great Britain ; while on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ire- 
 land, who form the bulk of the population, such plan has been 
 generally and emphatically repudiated. AVe propose therefore to 
 deal with the matter in a manner opposite to the plan of the go- 
 vernment, and to obtain the great aim for religious equality for 
 Ireland, which we have in view in common with the members of 
 the Cabinet, by another process, which is generally knowm as the 
 method of dis-establishment and general dis-endowment."* 
 
 To this should be added the following words spoken by Mr. 
 Gladstone in the House of Commons, 2nd of April, — " In my 
 opinion, any plan, such as I have been endeavouring to lay the 
 basis and foundation of, must include provisions for the relief and 
 the entire relief, whether immediate or not of the Consolidated 
 Fund, from all charges either for the Maynooth Grant or any other 
 religious principle."t 
 
 Earl Granville says, — -" Lord Mayo's statement was substan- 
 tially to the eifect that Government meant to endow a Roman 
 Catholic University to let the college question wait. . . The 
 noble lord's policy was to make all churches in Ireland equal, to 
 follow in fact the plan of levelling up as it was called. The noble 
 lord had no definite plan, but he sketched out the outline of a 
 concurrent endowment of Protestant and Roman Catholic 
 churches. There was, it was true, a contradiction of that state- 
 ment, about two months after it was made, but during the whole 
 interval the public were misled as to the intentions of the Go- 
 vernment."!. 
 
 Mr. Baxter, — " The question lay between disendowment 
 and indiscriminate endowment." || 
 
 Lord E. Cavendish, — ■" The Secretary for Ireland had 
 
 * Standard, 23rd May, 1868. t Standard, April 3, 1868. 
 
 X -Debate on " Irish Church Suspensory Bill," House of Lords, Daily News, 
 26th June, 1868. 
 II House of Commons, May I, 1868. 
 
 Q 
 
114 
 
 talked of ' levelling up,' and what could that mean but the endow- 
 ment of Roman Catholics."* 
 
 Mr. Young, — " The Government admitted that religious 
 equality did not exist in Ireland ; and they proposed to produce 
 it by levelling upwards. The right hon. gentleman, as the head of 
 the government, said that the policy of the government was ' to 
 create, not to destroy.' "t 
 
 Lord Elcho, — "Apply the principle of levelling up to the 
 Irish, and what did it mean ? As far as he understood, it must 
 mean, sooner or later, an endowment of the Roman Catholic 
 Church — of a Roman Catholic University — and giving the status 
 to the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, a status which they must 
 all rejoice to see had already been given to Cardinal Cullen by his 
 being invited to dine with the Lord Lieutenant. Would that give 
 religious equality ? Certainly not. What religious equality would 
 there be unless Roman Catholic Bishops got a seat in the House 
 of Lords, and unless the Lord Lieutenant might be a Roman 
 Catholic.''^ 
 
 The Rev. Mr. MacCreedy, a recipient of the Regium Donum, 
 — " I am not one of those who contemplate with dismay the 
 projected ecclesiastical changes in this country. The present state 
 of things is indefensible and untenable, and if the only remedy be 
 religious equality, relatively to the State, I prefer dis-establishment 
 and dis-endowment to indiscriminate endowment." || 
 
 P. Dawson, Esq., in the House of Commons, — " As a resi- 
 dent Irishman, deeply interested in the prosperity of the country, 
 he should be willing that the Reformed Parliament should con- 
 sider what modifications might fairly be introduced in regard to the 
 status of the three existing Churches in Ireland, and he should be 
 glad to see a satisfactory arrangement made for adequately endow- 
 ing both the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches, though 
 this should be done without entrenching on the revenues of the 
 Established Church." § 
 
 Clergymen eminent in the Irish Church advocate the same 
 views. 
 
 The Rev. James Byrne, M.A., examining chaplain of the 
 Lord Bishop of Derry, says, — " If, then, the Establishment of one 
 Church with a view to bring over the other religious bodies into 
 conformity with it be, as regards this end, useless, and if the 
 voluntary system be both defective and pernicious, there only re- 
 mains, as a mode of dealing with the aggregate of the religious 
 bodies, the system of general endowment. And our axiom, ap- 
 
 • Daily Ncivs, 26th June, 1868. t Dailv News, 26 June, 1868. ' 
 
 X House of Commons. — Daily News. || Independent, 5th June, l868. 
 
 § Siatidard, 1st April, 1868. 
 
115 
 
 plied to the present religious condition of the country, points it out 
 as the duty of the State to adopt this system, as that without which 
 the universality and permanence of the beneficial influences of reli- 
 gion cannot be adequately secured nor their quality maintained. 
 As far as the effects of any political measure can be foreseen it 
 would seem that this should be the most beneficial and healing 
 measure which could possibly be passed for the United Kingdom 
 in general and Ireland in particular." . . . 
 
 " Now no doubt a Protestant legislature must wish to have the 
 Roman Catholics converted to Protestantism, or at least the evil 
 qualities of the Romish system reduced. But under the guidance 
 of this very principle what ought it to do ? It cannot by legisla- 
 ture bring the Roman Catholics to conformity. Ought it not, 
 then, to adopt the method which tends to mitigate the evil that 
 Romanism involves, and which at least leaves the prospect of their 
 conversion as hopeful as any other method which could be adopted ? 
 That which the State would in fact maintain by the endowment 
 would be the effect which the endowment would produce, and that 
 would be not Romanism, but an amelioration of it." 
 
 Again, " the exclusive Establishment of the Irish Reformed 
 Church was the method of conciliating the civil and religious in- 
 fluences which the ideas of the time rendered necessary ; just as 
 now the continued establishment of the same Church as the Church 
 of the leaders of the nation's civilization, concurrently with the 
 general endowment of the other religious bodies, seems to be the 
 best mode of combining with our civilization the spirit of Chris- 
 tianity." 
 
 III. These utterances in favour of the principle of equality 
 are in full harmony with the strong and irrepressible feelings of the 
 Irish people, and represent the sentiments of certainly not less 
 than one-half of the inhabitants of Great Britain. If, as Sir Robert 
 Peel said in 1834, the Irish Church was at the bottom of the diffi- 
 culties of governing Ireland, it was because that Church was felt by 
 the people to be a grievous wrong. But have these feelings 
 changed ? Have they not become deeper and more general ? 
 Have they not rendered necessary a considerable standing army in 
 addition to a force of armed and drilled police, such as we maintain 
 in no other part of the British dominions? and of late the almost 
 continued suspension of what Englishmen regard as their dearest 
 rights, in order to keep down discontent threatening to burst out 
 itito civil war ? AVhat will you do ? Will you remove discontent 
 by removing its principal cause ? or will you battle with it and try 
 to break it down by physical force, an(l' thus have at your side a 
 foe waiting for the moment of your peril, as the opportunity of re- 
 taliation, in place of a warm-hearted and vigorous ally ? 
 
6 
 
 But must we give way to every demand of the Irish people, 
 whatever it may be ? Certainly not. But two things should be 
 considered, ist. Is the demand founded in justice and favourable 
 to the peace and welfare of the country? and 2nd, Does it secure 
 the sanction of any considerable portion of the people of Great 
 Britain ? Now it is not too much to say that something has been 
 advanced in the foregoing pages tending to show that the measure 
 desired would by its very justice promote the peace of the countr)"^ 
 and the interests of the Protestant religion. And certainly the 
 sentiments of a very large proportion of the British people are in 
 harmony with the measure. Are not the large majorities in the 
 House of Commons, upon a question so momentous, a proof that 
 Mr. Gladstone's proposals fell in with and expressed a deep popu- 
 lar feeling ? No mere scheme for the overthrow of a Ministry 
 could have produced such results in Parliament and in die country. 
 If you believe it to have been a party move, you must admit that 
 it owed its great success to the sentiment to which it appealed, even 
 more than to the skill of the general in the use of the forces which 
 it placed at his disposal. And look at the press of the country — 
 is not its powar, especially in newspapers, magazines, and reviews, 
 on this side ? Do not popular gatherings show diat the popular 
 current runs in this direction ? And will not the Report of the 
 Irish Church Commission, just issued, give to it additional strength ? 
 It recommends that one archbishopric and four bishoprics 
 be abolished, and that the stipends of the remaining eight 
 prelates (excepting Dublin) be reduced to ^^3,000 per 
 annum, with ^^500 additional when attending Parliament ; 
 that twenty-two out of thirty deaneries and cathedral bodies 
 be abolished, also seventeen out of thirty-three archdeaconries ; 
 and that all benefices, in royal or ecclesiastical patronage, not 
 having a Protestant population of forty persons, be suppressed ; of 
 these benefices there are stated to be 199. Prior to 1834 it was 
 said by the defenders of the Irish Establishment that it was not so 
 successful as it should be, partly because it had not enough bishops 
 and other officers, and partly because it was too poor to meet the 
 requirements of the country — what will they now say to this Report 
 of a Commission consisting chiefly of their own friends ? What 
 will the general public think when they find that Commission ex- 
 pressing the opinion that from ^^3 2,000 to ^33,000 per annum is 
 suflicient to pay for the episcopal supervision of the Irish Church ; 
 whereas the cost of that supervision, which is now about ^51,000, 
 was before the year 1834, 5 1,000 per annum, so that for gen- 
 erations nearly ^121,000 a year has been unnecessarily expended 
 in the payment of bishops. In like manner prior to 1834 thirty 
 deans and capitular bodies enjoyed incomes amounting tO;;^i52,666 
 
117 
 
 per annum ; now the Commission say that eight of these corporate 
 chgniuiries will suffice, and if we suppose these eight to divide 
 among them ;^32,666, then we are conducted by the Commission 
 to the conclusion that for time out of mind 20,000 a year has 
 been wasted upon superfluous dignitaries in the Irish Church, so 
 that upon bishops and dignitaries together there has been a super- 
 fluous expenditure of ;j^24o,ooo a year. Moreover, out of 1,385 
 benefices there are 199 in royal and ecclesiastical patronage — how 
 many in private patronage we are not told — which not having forty 
 Protestants ought to be suppressed. 
 
 If the friends of the Church, as they termed themselves, who 
 so vigorously denounced the Church Temporalities Act of 1834 as 
 gross blundering, and wicked spoliation, were so much mistaken 
 then, as the present Commission warrants us to conclude, the pub- 
 lic will be apt to think they may be mistaken now ; and not a few 
 of those who feel most profoundly interested in the welfare of the 
 Protestant Church in Ireland — among whom we place ourselves — ■ 
 will be inclined to consider that the best thing for that Church will 
 be to give her whatever property she can rightfully claim, together 
 with freedom from Parliamentary Commissions and political tink- 
 ering and the full right to regulate her movements and fulfil her 
 mission according to her own sense of duty. If by this she loses 
 some amount of worldly wealth, she will gain immensely in higher 
 riches. 
 
 Among Irish Churchmen there are men who can look with hope 
 and confidence to the future. The Dean of Cork (Dr. Magee), in a 
 speech delivered at Salisbury last year, after observing that some 
 of the most interesting questions affecting the Church were being 
 worked out in the Colonies, and that the history of the connection 
 of Church and State might be summed up in the same words as 
 the history of an unfortimate marriage, said, speaking of the pro- 
 bable separation, — " He for one should deplore the separation, he 
 for one believed there were many and great blessings arising to the 
 State from its union with the Church. And on the other hand he 
 believed that there were blessings, not perhaps the greatest, arising 
 to the Church from its union with a Christian State, though more 
 j;reciqus things than even that union were not to be sacrificed be- 
 cause of and for that union — but he did say with all his heart, and 
 soul, and might, that all the wealthy establishments in the world 
 were not to be set in competition in the first place with the truth 
 which the Church was bound to uphold, and in the second place 
 with that inherent lil)erty and the right to govern, without the pos- 
 session of which the Church must at last cease to be able to testify 
 to the truth. Then it came to this, that if the wedded husband of 
 the Church declared that the union that bound them together was 
 
8 
 
 no longer to continue he was bound to give back to the Church 
 her freedom of speech, her right of self-government, the control of 
 her own affairs, and to make her free even if he made her poor. 
 Even if the State kept the dowry of wealth, let it give back to the 
 Church the dowry of freedom and the dowry of free speech, and 
 then God speed the right. He was not afraid for the future ; that 
 divorce might impoverish, but it could not disgrace the Church. 
 He felt strongly, speaking as an Irish Churchman, and he might 
 perhaps be pardoned for one moment if he returned to that which 
 must be uppermost in the mind of every true Churchman — the 
 future of his own Church. He felt most deeply and most strongly 
 that the Irish Church, which was nothing in truth but a Colonial 
 Church — and it would be well if English statesmen would remem- 
 ber that fact — he felt most deeply, he repeated, that whatever the 
 difficulty, whatever the poverty, whatever the distress, whatever the 
 trial which awaited that Church in the future, Irish Churchmen, 
 and he trusted even English Churchmen, would make the claim for 
 the Irish Church, that if she was to be deprived of her endowments 
 and her local status as an Established Church, there would be given 
 back to her, as we should give back to the Churches in the colo- 
 nies, the right of self-government, the freedom of property, if they 
 were not to have the embarrasments and the dignity of wealth and 
 station. Even if the Church should be deprived of her endow- 
 ments, there might be a glorious future for her ; there might be 
 a faithful and a successful testimony bringing about greater results 
 in times to come than may even spring from misapplied and wasted 
 wealth. He believed the Church in Ireland and the Church in the 
 Colonies, and possibly even yet our great powerful and prosperous 
 Church in England, might be put to try this issue, whether no union 
 with the State were incompatible with faithfulness to God, with the 
 testimony of truth to Christ, and with the great duty of preserving 
 and spreading the truth, whether the Church should not demand 
 that separation from the State, and with that separation the rights 
 and privileges which it brought with it at that union with the State." 
 
 This, or the "levelling up" of Roman Catholics and 
 Presbyterians to her own status must be the result of present dis- 
 cussions : and even after such levelling she would have only.a pre- 
 carious existence, destitute of conscious dignity, made miserable 
 by a sense of bondage and the perpetual intermeddling of her 
 political masters. 
 
9 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 VIII. — That National Religion is essential to National Prosperity, but 
 not dependent upon National Establishments. 
 
 "Are we to have no national recognition of the Supreme 
 Ruler or of man's higher nature ? Shall we, by the abolition of 
 our national Establishments of religion, avow ourselves a nation of 
 Atheists ? " In a tone of astonishment, almost indignant, these and 
 similar questions are asked by many good men. Let them be 
 assured that among the most earnest advocates of dis-endowment 
 there are those who would as much deplore and dread national 
 Atheism as themselves, and that they advocate that measure be- 
 cause it would promote national prosperity by promoting national 
 religion. 
 
 Let us explain by attempting a brief answer to the question 
 — What is the relation of true religion to national life ? ^Ve 
 promptly avow our deep conviction that the measure of true reli- 
 gion, other things being equal, is the measure of national pros- 
 perity. " Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach 
 to any people." These pregnant words of the Holy Book give us 
 the essential principle of the whole question. 
 
 I. Righteousness must be founded upon true religion — that 
 we take as a first axiom. What is righteousness ? It may be said 
 to consist of two parts — right being, and right doing. Men too 
 often look chiefly at the latter ; if they can get right doing — so far 
 as the act is concerned- — ^or some approach to it, they are satisfied. 
 Not so the Great Teacher. " Do men gather grapes of thorns, or 
 figs of thistles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good 
 fruit ; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree 
 cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth 
 good fruit." First right being, and then will be sure to come right 
 doing, — the streams from the fountain — but from a soul that is 
 MTong — evil — you can by no manner of expedients get right doing. 
 Something like it — that may appear like it at a distance — an image, 
 but not really animated by living righteousness. 
 
 But if we speak of right — right being or right doing— we must 
 have reference to some standard. What standard shall we take ? 
 Let it be the true one — that which truly expresses what is right. 
 If you have a false or defective measure you cannot by that ascer- 
 tain the right ; confonnity to that would still be conformity to 
 wrong. As a false balance is an abomination to the Lord, so should 
 it be to man. 
 
I20 
 
 Is not, then, the Divine standard of right the true one ? If 
 you take any human standard you will not have righteousness for 
 two reasons. They are always defective — imperfect measures, im- 
 perfect scales. They, moreover, content themselves with right 
 doing — ^^da not demand right being. They look at the outward 
 appearance — not at the heart. Now, as we have seen, righteous- 
 ness must comprehend right being, without which there is no right 
 doing. 
 
 But if this be so, righteousness must involve, rest upon, true 
 religion, for it is recognition of and aspiration after, conformity to 
 the law of God — the only true .standard of right. That cannot be 
 without looking to Him as your Supreme and Righteous Lord, 
 admitting and feeling his claims to your trust, adoration, gratitude, 
 obedience, — that is religion. 
 
 Righteousness moreover must rest upon rehgion, because from 
 no other source can sufficient motive come to secure righteousness 
 even between man and man. The great golden law is this, "As ye 
 would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." 
 There will be no true, righteousness, nothing that approaches the 
 standard, unless this have sway. But this will not, cannot be, 
 apart from love. Nothing but this in the heart will impel a man 
 thoroughly to do justice to his fellow. If he aims only to fulfil 
 law, he will come short of right. Only love, which seeks to impart 
 blessedness, can do unto others as ye would that they should do 
 unto you ; and love can come only from religion. There only 
 is the sufficient motive power : upon no lower grounds than true 
 religion can true righteousness be built. 
 
 II. We come now to a second axiom — That righteousness, or 
 true religion, is the measure of national prosperity. 
 
 The locality and physical characteristics of a country may 
 have something to do with its prosperity, but the character of the 
 people much more. The place in which you plant a tree will have 
 some effect, but the nature of the tree will principally determine 
 that of the fruit. In no situation will you get grapes from thorns 
 or figs from thistles ; and in no morally debased nations, however 
 favourably situated, will you find the truest nobleness, severest in- 
 tegrity, the amplest benevolence, or even the greatest material 
 prosperity. 
 
 Righteousness promotes strength — unrighteousness destroys it. 
 Strength, vigour, is a prime element of prosperity. As a man's 
 strength is more valuable than a child's, so a nation of strong men 
 — strong in body, mind, will — is worth more, more effective for 
 every good purpose than a nation of feeble men. But unrighteous- 
 ness diminishes strength. It is a violation of law, and to a large 
 extent a violation of the laws of health. If you compare a commu- 
 
121 
 
 nity of vicious people with a community of persons whose lives are 
 marked by purity, sobriety, and integrity, the evidence of facts will 
 be found to concur with the testimony of science in showing that 
 in the latter case sickness will be much less and life much longer 
 than in the former. 
 
 Unrighteousness has the same effect upon mind and w!ll — 
 brings weakness. We may not be able to trace the action of 
 causes so clearly, nor point to evidence so obvious here, but it is 
 none the less sure that indulgence in wrong weakens the mental 
 and moral powers. An ungodly man has not in these respects the 
 vigour of the man in whose soul righteousness reigns. Nations as 
 they have become morally debased, have become mentally and 
 morally weak. 
 
 Skill is an element of national prosperity ; righteousness is 
 favourable, unrighteousness injurious to it. Skill consists of two 
 parts — clearness of vision and aptness of expression ; seeing clearly 
 and doing easily and well the right thing ; the perception and the 
 fitting execution of the true, the just, the beautiful. But does not 
 righteousness contribute to clearness of vision ? " Blessed are the 
 pure in heart, for they shall see God." That is a general principle 
 applicable to the perception of all things true and beautiful. "If 
 thine eye be single, thy whole body is full of light ; if thine eye 
 be evil, thy whole body is full of darkness." The most admir- 
 able productions of nations have come from the best and purest 
 periods of their life. 
 
 Wealth is an element of national prosperity, which righteous- 
 ness increases and conserves. Unrighteousness diminishes it — by 
 indolence — by indulgence — by extravagance — by the cost of crime. 
 Think of a manufactory worked by 500 vicious and drunken men, 
 and another worked by 500 righteous men. What would be the 
 difference at the end of the year? 
 
 Happiness is an element of national prosperity. Righteousness 
 is joy. "A holy life is a perpetual feast." Wickedness is misery 
 — gives power to bad passions — brings sorrowful consequences — 
 causes discords in the soul, in the family, in the neighbourhood, in 
 the land. 
 
 Confidence is an element of national prosperity ; is the foun- 
 dation of domestic and social peace, and of commercial enterprise ; 
 the cement of society as a prosperous commonwealth. But right- 
 eousness alone can be the sure resting place of confidence ; 
 unrighteousness saps the solid ground — confidence finds its feet 
 sinking in the mire, and takes wing. 
 
 Last in place but first in importance, the blessing of God is 
 prosperity. "That maketh rich and bringeth no sorrow." "Blessed 
 is the people whose God is the Lord, and the nation whom he hath 
 
 R 
 
12 2 
 
 chosen for his own inheritance." Righteousness or true religion is 
 the ground and measure of national prosperity. 
 
 III. The reUgion of a nation does not depend upon and must 
 not be measured by Religious Professions, Religious Observances, 
 or State Institutions. 
 
 It is not meant to say that these things are worthless, or that 
 they are to be altogether disregarded, but only that they are not 
 identical with religion, and supply very imperfect means of 
 judging of its power among a people. Observances and life are 
 very different things. Loud professions of virtue and religion may 
 be made by the man who is destitute of both, and who becomes 
 the more demonstrative on that very account, in the hope of con- 
 cealing the corruption within. In the same m.anner a nation may 
 by public measures make great professions ; may have admirable 
 institutions, multitudes of churches, colleges, and officials of 
 many kinds ; may observe impressive services ; perform no end 
 of Te Deums ; and yet possess little religious life. Like an 
 army with brilliant uniforms and little discipline or valour — a 
 band with much noise but little music — a university with plenty of 
 professors and books, but little learning — a nation may have State 
 professions, ceremonies, and institutions, with very little religion, 
 and even be more attentive to the forms precisely because it has 
 so little of the substance. "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with 
 iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters :. they 
 have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the holy one of Israel 
 unto anger, they are gone away backward." And yet how religious 
 they were ! " Hear the word of the Lord ye rulers of Sodom, and 
 give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what 
 purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the 
 Lord : I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed 
 beasts, and I deliglit not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs, or 
 of he goats. When ye come before me, who hath required this at 
 your hand to tread my courts ? Bring no more vain oblations ; in- 
 cense is an abomination unto me ; the new moons and sabbaths, 
 the calling of assemblies, I cannot away \vith ; it is iniquity, even 
 the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts 
 my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me ; I am we:\ry to bear 
 them ; and when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes 
 from you : yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear : your 
 hands are full of blood." If, moreover, you look to the state of 
 things prior to the Reformation, the pictures of those times present 
 to our view ample religious professions, splendid national edifices, 
 — institutions with rich endowments and imposing ceremonials, 
 especially upon State occasions ; and, withal, a mournful condition 
 of moral corruption ; — Hypocrisy, Intemperance, and Impurity in 
 
123 
 
 close attendance upon religious ceremonies and Church proces 
 sions. And if you listen to the statements of many persons, the 
 condition of things is much the same to day in some parts of Italy, 
 Spain, and Portugal. It is plain that there may be State profes- 
 sions, State institutions, and State observances in large abundance 
 with ver}' little religion. With all these you may have an irreligi- 
 ous, even an atheistic nation. 
 
 But where then is the place and what the strength of re- 
 ligion in a community ? The answer is a brief one : — There 
 is just as much religion in a nation as in the hearts and lives 
 of the people. Real religion is not in word but in deed, for the 
 Kingdom of God is not meat and drink — not external observance 
 — but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. As 
 much as there is of these, so much is there of true religion. 
 How can there be more ? You may indeed appropriately express 
 this in various ways — in services, gifts, and institutions ; still it 
 is the fact, always true, that you have as much religion in the 
 nation as you have in the hearts of the people. Books, parch- 
 ments, buildings, observances, may all be valuable, may all be 
 made most useful, but they are not religion ; though, unfortunately, 
 many people act as though they were, and when they speak of 
 religion refer chiefly to such things as these. 
 
 And this furnishes opportunity for an observation on what has 
 sometimes been spoken of as the national conscience. Is there 
 any such thing as a national conscience ? If so. Whence is it ? 
 Where is it? How does it express itself ? You cannot speak of 
 the conscience of any one person as the conscience of the nation. 
 The conscience of the Sovereign, for instance, cannot be that of 
 the community. It may be much more enlightened than the con- 
 science of the majority. It may be much less so. It may be a 
 very bigoted and ill-informed conscience, like that of George III., 
 or a very loose one, like that of George IV. And there may be a 
 mournful and sudden change in the reigning conscience, as a wise 
 and good sovereign may be removed and give place to one of a 
 very different character. The phrase National Conscience can 
 only be an imperfect mode of expressing an abstract idea. We 
 personify the nation, ascribe to it the attributes of an individual, 
 and then speak of the National Intelligence, the National Wealth, 
 the National Conscience ; but this, if we understand what we are 
 talking about, can mean only the intelligence, the wealth, the con- 
 sciences of the people composing the community : there is no con- 
 science but the consciences of the people, and there is no one 
 exact measure or expression of these. 
 
 But the religiousness of a nation may have abundant power 
 and free expression, either independently of or altogether without a 
 
124 
 
 State Church. The State may give exckisive support to some one 
 form of doctrine and worship, partial support to many, or support 
 to none, and, in either case, there may be a true, vigorous, national 
 religion. Political parties may concur in saying, — " There are 
 differences among good and upright men. Religion does not de- 
 pend upon political arrangements — for it must show its vitality by 
 contest, progress, and conquest, before politicians ever think of 
 betrothing it to the State, — and the affairs of the Church should 
 not be subject to the changes and chances of political parties ; we 
 will not therefore support or try to rule any particular Church, we 
 will, in all our relations, public and private, political and religious, 
 avow our own convictions, and endeavour every^vhere to act out 
 the great principles of truth and righteousness ; but we will not 
 place any one denomination in a position of special favour and 
 distinction*" In that case the religiousness of the country would 
 remain just what it was, wielding just as much power in the hearts 
 and lives of the people, and possibly manifesting itself with more 
 freedom and vigour than through the medium of a State Establish- 
 ment. This really national religion might express itself in rever- 
 ence for Divine authority ; in discouraging common vices ; in 
 attendance upon worship ; in love to our neighbour ; in the gen- 
 erous support of religious and benevolent activities ; in the charac- 
 ter of men chosen for Parliament and public offices ; in the spirit 
 in which elections are conducted ; in the recognition of the au- 
 thority and blessing of the Most High in public documents and 
 speeches ; in the character of the laws ; and in the administration 
 of justice. As a nobleman's family may be religious without hav- 
 ing a paid chaplain in the house ; as a large commercial establish- 
 ment may be pervaded by the spirit of righteousness without having 
 a chapel on the premises ; as there may be, without State organi- 
 zations to maintain and manifest them, national industry and 
 wealth — national literature — national wit — national music — and 
 national taste ; so there may be a true and vigorous national 
 religion without a State Church. If not, if a people without a 
 State Church must be indifferent or infidel, what shall we say 
 of the people of Canada, and of other colonies, where there is 
 no such thing — what of the people of the United States, where, as 
 we have seen, notwithstanding the increase of a thousand per day 
 by immigration alone, the population are more amply provided 
 with means of public worship than in most of our large towns, and 
 the increase in the members of churches has far outstripped the 
 wonderful growth of the people ? Shall we say that though they 
 thus support churches, ministers, colleges, Bible and Missionary 
 Societies ; though they have days of national thanksgiving and hu- 
 miliation ; though they recognise the authority and blessing of God 
 
in public documents ; though they open their legislative sittings 
 and even their parochial meetings with prayer ; yet, because they 
 support no one denomination as a State Church, they are charge- 
 able with national atheism ? We must do so unless we admit that 
 National Religion is essential to National Prosperity but 
 
 NOT dependent UPON NATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 
 
 If our propositions have been made good then the dis-estab- 
 lishment of the Irish Church is the direct way to the prosperity of 
 Ireland and the progress of Protestantism. The fears of some 
 good men upon the latter point are very great. Is it not true, 
 they ask, that as Rome aims at supremacy, this will open the way 
 for the prosecution of her schemes ? No, it will put insuperable 
 obstacles in her way ; it will take from her the plea of injustice, 
 which is the most effective weapon in her armoury ; it will, by 
 adopting the principle of no State Church as the basis of Irish policy, 
 render it impossible for her ever to occupy the place and com- 
 mand the powers of a Civil Establishment, will keep her bishops 
 out of Parliament and her hands from touching the public funds or 
 wielding the civil sword ; it will place Protestantism in a position 
 of freedom, energy, and independence, such as it has never known 
 in Ireland ; it will, by showing Irishmen that you are determined 
 to treat them justly and kindly, open their hearts to you and to 
 your religion. The sullen sense of degradation, which now too 
 readily breaks out in conspiracy and crime, will give place to the 
 conscious dignity of citizens who, respected by others, respect 
 themselves ; a feeling of oneness with England — of brotherhood 
 — will gradually arise ; suspicion will die out, confidence spring 
 up ; military establishments will be diminished ; life will become 
 safe and investments secure ; the land question will be fairly met 
 and settled ; the soil will be well cultivated and trade will flourish ; 
 — thus shall the friends of Ireland, after generations of discord and 
 misery, behold the bonds of peace and the pledges of prosperity. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 ACT OF UNION: 
 
 Fifth article, 28 — A contract between En- 
 gland and Ireland, 29 — May be dissolved by 
 contracting parties, ib. — Consequences of 
 being unable to alter, /A.— Already altered 
 by Legislature, ib. — Object of, Opinions 
 of eminent men with reference to, 29, 30 
 
 ARCHBISHOP: 
 
 Of Dublin 10, 12, 13— Of Armagh, 10, 12,13. 
 
 ARCHBISHOPRICS : 
 
 Reduction of, 20, 28— Not known in Primi- 
 tive Irish Cliurch, 90 
 
 ARNOLD (Dr.) : 
 Observations of, 22 
 
 BISHOPS: 
 Temporalities of, gift of State, 8 — By whom 
 appointed, 9 — Disliked by the Irish, 36-7— 
 Many of the professing Protestants really 
 Roman Catholics, 55— No diocesan in primi- 
 tivi Irish Church, '87, 92 
 
 BISHOPRICS: 
 
 Reduction and abolition of, 20, 28 
 
 BROUCJHAM (Lord, : 
 Observations of, 22, 30 
 
 BROWN : 
 
 Archbishop of Dublin, 10, 12, 13 
 
 BURKE: 
 
 Huld^ property as trustees for public, 7, 8— 
 Temp iralities of ihe gift of the State, 8, 17 
 —Property n pulih^ property, 9— Appoint- 
 mcniti. •Ill- 11 III' I Inirch made by State 
 otfic]. ! II' of belong to the 
 
 Qut L M ii ive of the nation, 9 
 
 — C III iilv on ground that 
 
 It 1 , ill' nil Miient, 10— 
 
 '3. 32, 87, 
 I liie State, 
 . Ill ln,h Church 
 Act, 65, 69— After, 
 rchmen since 1834, 
 
 EQUALITY (Religious) : 
 
 Strong feelfng in fevour of, in Parliament 
 and the country, no — 118 
 
 ESTABLISH.M.KNT OF CHURCH IN 
 IRELAND: 
 Its efiects (belore the Reformation!. 33. 38, 
 39 — Separated clergy n-'ini iv.iK. 14 — 
 Ex-cluded the Irish frmii 1 ■ ^ 
 
 Became a bad^eofcmi 11-,. 
 chiefa2entsintheani.i :, 
 
 Church prostituted to ] 1 ,ii i. .. ^o 
 
 — Bishops regarded by tlio In.^li their 
 worst enemies. 36. 37 — Clergy deeenerafed, 
 37— System of Church discipline fell into 
 contempt. — Bishops defeated measures for 
 good of Ireland, ib. — After the Reformation) 
 People repelled by the forcing upon them of 
 Protestantism. ^9. 40. 41— Native languaze 
 and ministry discouraged. 51 — Native cus- 
 toms subjected to a penalty. 52— People left 
 in ignorance of religion. 53— Unfit men ap- 
 pointed to offices in the Church. 55 — Church 
 made the instrument of EnLjlish misrule. 
 56, 57-Measures of u.i_-fiilni,,- m -lcoted 
 and rejected. 58. 50 - 1 I in , ,11: of 
 
 Church has been her lm i i . c^. 
 
 64 — Produced jealou.iv .m 1 ,1 — 
 
 Church s political ends n it 1. nin 1 m 1 nii iuan 
 Its religious. 60-Has aim i t cnilritly di- 
 verted it from Its pin])jr lunctions. and 
 crippled Its effnti-i. 01. ti.i. iio--t,oiitinuance 
 of. detriment il in I '1 1 ,icsl uilism. 72. 86— 
 Ev iiij 11 ispcreil prior to, 87 
 
 England and 
 101 ; m the 
 then lands. 106 
 
 FR 
 
 Stan Minin 11 Liin tiiiic of equality, held 
 
 bv ( .nvi.riinnjiit and himself. 112, 113— 
 Would abolish Mavnooth Grant. 113 
 GRANVILLE lEarll : 
 
 Remarks of. 18 
 HENRY II, : 
 
 His attempt to bring the Irish Church into 
 th Rome. 33 — Its eflects. ib. 
 
 pared by. for tne prelates of 
 
 irnh. 36 
 
 LANDLORDS : 
 
 Number of, in Ireland. 73 — Do 
 pay tithes. 72. 79 
 
ild be abolished 
 
 LEE (A. S.', : 
 
 Observations of, 7, 30, ri 
 LEGISLATURE : 
 
 Its powers over Church property, 4 — 25 
 LEWIS (Sir G. C.) : 
 
 Observations of, 73, 75 
 LIVINGS : 
 
 By whom appointed to, 9 — Numbers, with 
 
 population, adherents, &c., in 1834, 66, 67 
 MACAULAV .Lord; : 
 
 Observations of, on Act of Union, 29 
 MAGEE (Dean) : 
 
 View of the fnture of the Irish Church, 116 
 MAVNOOTH : 
 
 Grant, and every other, 
 
 by Mr. Gladstone, 113 
 MINISTERS MONEY: 
 
 Abolition of. 21, 27 
 MURR-W Dean : 
 
 Observations of, 24 — On Act of Union, 30 
 NATIONAL RELIGION : 
 
 Essential to national prosperity, 112— i 
 
 — Not dependent upon State Establi- 
 
 ments, 121 — 124 
 NOEL (B. W.) : 
 
 Observations of, 5, 8, 17 
 OATH: 
 
 To be taken by Irish prelates, 36 
 OBSTACLES TO DIS-ESTABLISH- 
 
 MENT : 4, 26, 28, 94, 95, 119 
 OXFORD (Bishop of) : 
 
 Remarks of, 56 
 PALMER Sir R.) : 
 
 Arguments of, as to Church property, 76, 78 
 PARLIAMENT: 
 
 liish, of 1536, 10; 1535, II ; 1556, 13 ; 1560, 
 
 14, 41 — First national Irish. 15 
 PARLIAMENTARY RETURNS: 
 
 Income, 65 — Benefices, 66 — Places of Wor- 
 ship, 67— Parishes, i*.— Revenues of Digni- 
 taries, 68 
 PEEL (Sir R.): 
 
 Observations of, on Act of Union, 30 
 PRAYER BOOK: 
 
 Of Edward VI., 12— Appointed to be read 
 
 in Ireland, 45 
 PRESCRIPTION : 
 
 Title by. 24 
 PRIMITIVE IRISH CHURCH : 
 
 Doctrine, 88- -Church system, 89 — Great 
 
 number of Bishops, 90, 91 — Independent of 
 
 Government and of Rome, 92 
 PROPERTY: 
 
 Argument upon, 4 — 23,— Counter arguments, 
 
 23—25 
 
 PROTESTANTISM ; 
 
 Established in Ireland by Statute, 11, 11, 
 
 REFORMATION : 
 
 In Ireland, 10, 12. 14, 15, 16, 17 — Not re- 
 ceived bythe Irish, 14, 17, 23, 39, 40 — 50, 54 
 —The Established Church before the, 31—38 
 — After, 39 — 71 — In Ireland, nothing more 
 than English impositions on an unwilling 
 people, 41 — A failure, 42 — Irish cler^ op- 
 posed to, 43, 54 — By what penalties at- 
 tempted to be forced upon the Irish, 44, 
 46. S+ 
 
 RENT CHARGE : 
 Creation of, 21, 28 
 
 ROMAN CATHOLICS: 
 Holding ecclesiastical property in Ireland, 
 9 — Deprived thereof, 16, 17, 24 — En 
 _aiM;n<.t. 45. 63 
 
 2S Hen 
 —26 He 
 
 nil., c. 15 Irish statute^ 10, s» 
 •VIIl .c. I. 11-37 Henry VIII., 
 
 c 17, II— 2 Edward V'l. 1549!, 12 — 3 & 4 
 Philip and Mary, cc. i & 2, 13—1 Elizabeth, 
 c. I, 14—2 Elizabeth, cc. 1, 2, 3, 14 — 2 
 Elizabeth, c 15, 53—23 Elizabeth, c. i, 8i 
 — I William & Marj', c. 6, a6 — 5 Anne, c. 
 8, 26—1 & 2 Victoria, 74, 85 
 
 ST. PATRICK: 
 
 Early life and doctrine of, 87, 88 
 
 SUPREMACY: 
 Act of, 18, 19, 40-King's, 12, 14, 15, 36, 4S 
 — Oath of, 10, II, 45 
 
 TITHES : 
 
 Origin of 5, 6, 7, 25, 33, 34— To whom paid, 
 ip— Abolition of, 19, 20, 21, 27 — Composi- 
 tion in lieu of. 20, 21, 28— litle to use, 33 — 
 By whom paid, 25— Whose property, 25 — 
 Regarded as oppressive, 34 — Separated 
 
 What it effected, 74 — Provisions as to lease- 
 holders, 85 note' 
 
 TITHE RENT CHARGE : 
 What it is. 75, 76 
 
 TRANSFER : 
 
 Of Church property, 4, lo, 14, 17, 18, 19 
 
 UNIFORMITY : 
 Act of 14, 18, 10. 52 
 
 WHATLEY Archbishop) : 
 Observations of, 2a 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Printrd by William Lhwis, "Dirsctorv" Office, i», Nobthoate Street, Bath. 
 
Date Due 
 
 FE 2 b '53 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — '~~mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
r^-" Now Beadv, PHc« Sixpence. 
 
 (rTHE BREAKING^EJ. A fr-^rt^g^^s^ 
 I 1 occasion of the Meeting o the September 
 I St.\ Patrick's Cathedral. Dablu .^ on ^^^^ 
 
 29tb, 1868. By ^i^i.^tl i''^liACH. 
 
 urch Congress, 
 
 ' i tion. and anarchy ? oaition WiU ^^^^^ 
 
 words . ^ ,^ V)e for the weltare u compao'^ ot 
 
 I -,, wqcnnon; Church coronation Oath. • ° the way." 
 
 I nB« nothing m the Co^°°,^,^t can fai^^^^^^^^^ 
 
 «'l f^'^cT .,rrl theunionof 1800. beCorona^^^^^^^ 
 
 .. EXECOTIVE CAPAO'^^ capacitiea- 
 
 fn the had almost Baid te _ 
 
 ■ We «""?'^Ihorid the book reach a a. We 
 
 treat t^^*' " paaaage t^ay be e i j^^^to^eal 
 
 ♦Vvia most onensiva ^ .j^^j througn " . ^^le 
 
 ihaU not follow ou^-uth,, I, he fo--d« 
 
 connection with tae j^^,,,^ at aU. Ana ^,on 
 
 '''OHO/l'"