« EelmineJätka »
discipline, and government of the said united
Church within this realm—the United Church of England and Ireland. The English portion, and the Irish portion, at the period of the Union, were bound together indissolubly, and for ever. They are one in doctrine, one in discipline, one in government, one in worship. Each portion, therefore, must be treated as the other. I do not, indeed, say that there may not be circumstantial, modal differences, precisely as there are varieties of arrangement within the English branch itself; as, for example, the manner of raising and collecting the Church revenue in London, may differ from the manner of raising and collecting the Church revenue in York.
But against any substantial, any essential, any vital difference of treatment, I most solemnly protest; and I do not hesitate to declare such a difference morally and constitutionally impossible. I would exhort those who love and venerate our constitution, both in Church and State, to consider what we have at stake—the integrity of one United Kingdom, and the Protestant faith of this Protestant empire. If one portion of the Church suffer, all must suffer with it. The Church in England and the Church in Ireland have no separate interests, have no separate being; THEY MUST STAND OR FALL TOGETHER. The United Church of England and Ireland is one and indivisible. It was made so by solemn national compact, in the Act of Union. This identity constitutes the fundamental article of union; we might as properly speak of two Houses of Commons, two Houses of Peers, two Sovereigns, two complete Legislatures, the one for England, the other for Ireland, as speak of two distinct Churches. The national faith of both countries is pledged equally to maintain one Church, one King, one House of Commons, one House of Lords. If Parliament, therefore, were to subvert or remodel onr Church establishment in Ireland, it would break the Union; and if it break the Union, it will enact its own destruction; it will enact a revolution ; and of such a revolution, the fruit would be nothing else than anarchy and public ruin.”
The temporal Union of the Churches of England and Ireland was the necessary consequence of the legislative Union of the two Kingdoms; and the title of United Church followed as a matter of course. church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever,
No synodical sanction was requisite to make this title valid; for ecclesiastically considered, it is clear that the Churches had previonsly been united; being one in doctrine and discipline, and bishops translated from one to the other.
Notwithstanding this, however, neither the letter nor the spirit of the Act of Union has been practically recognized. Had it been otherwise; had learning and high character been recommendations for the episcopal bench, many eminent men who had graduated in Ireland would have been selected to fill some of the vacant bishoprics in England; and it would have very much tended to cement the two countries, had not only English clergymen been occasionally made Irish bishops, but Irish clergymen occasionally made English bishops. So far was this from being the case, that as Bishop Jebb observes: "For ages prior to the legislative union of the countries, it was the English plan to govern Ireland by a system of exclusion. Primate Boulter's Letters, (a book which should, in the hands of Irish Governments, be a perpetual warning) will tell you, that in his days, as it had been from the first, the crime of being a born Irishman, was an insurmountable obstacle to high advancement, either in the Church or at the Bar. On every successive vacancy,
in either Bench, his continual cry was, "Send over an Englishman, or you cannot hold the country.' Nor did this rule of Helotism cease with the administration of Archbishop Boulter.” 2 Bishop Jebb's Life, 478. ed. Lond. 1836.
The following letters from “the Earl of Ossorie to Thomas Cromwell, his Majesty's (Henry VIII.) Secretary;" from Lord Chancellor Cusacke to the Duke of Northumberland, in 1552 ; and from Archbishop King to Mr. Southwell, in 1725; will, however, corroborate Bishop Jebb's statement, that prior to the Union it was the English plan to govern Ireland by a system of exclusion.
" It may please y' good mastership to be advertized that this bearer” [Thomas 0 Mullaly, who was made Abp. of Tuam in 1513, and died 1536) "hath made Petition to me to ascertain y mastershipp of the ralue of a bishopricke in Conaughte neere Galway ye same bishopricke is called Enaghdune, distancing farre from the
as the same are now by law established for the Church
Englishe pale, amongs the inordinate wilde Irishry, not meete for any stranger of reputatio, and exceedeth not xx.'i yearly by my estimacon. The clergy whereof be farre out of order and the see church in ruine : for the reformation therof it should be very necessary ye there were a bead provided there, who must bave frendshipp and favour of the country, or else little mighte prevaile. And thus Jesu preserve your mastershipp
“ P. Oss : “To the Right worshippful Mr. Cromwell of
the King's most Honourable Council.”
[From Ware's MSS. ex. coll. D. Geo. Carew, vol. lxxv. p. 38. Lambeth Library.]
This letter illustrates the discreditable motives which were likely to prevail with the English Government to induce them to appoint an Irishman to an Irish bishopric at the beginning of the Reformation ; they are, 1, that the bishopric was worth little ; 2, that it was so far from the Court as not to be meet for any stranger of reputation ; 3, that being among the wild Irish, none but an Irishman would be safe there.
In a letter of the 8th of May, 1552, froin Thornas Cusacke, Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to the Duke of Northumberland, he gives it as his opinion, “that the poor and simple people be as soon brought to good order as to evil, if they were taught accordingly; for hard it is for such men to know their duties to God and to the king, when they shall not hear teaching or preaching through all the year, to edify the
poor ignorant to know his duty. So as, if these poor people were taught to know their duties, and brought up as other subjects be, it is like that they would be good subjects, whereas now they show themselves obedient through honest exhortation, and most part for fear.” And he afterwards says, that “preachers should be appointed amongst them, to tell them their duties towards God and their king, that they may kņow what they ought to do. And as for preaching,” he again complains, “we have none, which is our lack : without which the
of England; and that the continuance and preserva
ignorant can have no knowledge, and which were very needful to be redressed.” MSS. T. C. D., F. 3, 16, p. 70.; cited i Mant, Hist. Church of Ireland, 221, 222.
In December, 1725, Archbishop King thus writes to Mr. Southwell: “I told you in my last, that since my Lord Lieutenant was nominated to the government, about £18,000 annual rent have been given in benefices, employments, and places to strangers, and not £500 to any in Ireland ; but I find I was mistaken ; for I find there have been above £20,000 disposed that way, and I understand several have not yet come to my knowledge. There are several vacancies now in prospect to the value of some thousands, and I hear strangers are already named for them.
“ The bishops sent us from England follow the same tract in many instances. The Bishop of Derry, since his translation to that see, nas given about £2000 in benefices to his English friends and relations. Lord Primate hath bad two livings void since his translation : one he has given, of about £200 per annum, to one of his Walton (Qy. Waltham ?) blacks, whom he has since ordained priest, and the other to one Mr. Blennerhassett, whom they commonly call an Hottentot; I know not for what reason.
“I tell you what is generally said and believed. Whether in all circumstances true or not, it showeth the sense of the kingdom as to the treatment they meet with from the Government. The Bishop of Waterford has not only given all livings of value in his gift to his brothers and relations, but likewise his vicar-generalship and registry, though none of them reside in the kingdom.” 2 Mant, Hist. Church of Ireland, 445. Bishop Jebb also states, “
Since the year 1822, while one or two creditable appointments have been made on other grounds, and in connection with the University, not a single appointment, high or low, bas taken place in Ireland, on that ground, which, with every wise government, and in every well-ordered Church establishment, ought to stand first, . . the ground of theological learning and attainments. In one word, the qualification which has, in England, long
tion of the said united church, as the established Church
stood first, and always stood high, has absolutely stood below zero in Ireland, . . and has become, if possible, less than a negative quality. Such, I must repeat has been, and such continues to be, the neglect of what ought to be this paramount claim, . . that, for all the appointments made by the Crown, since the period above alluded to, the Government have not so much to show, in justification of their choice of men, as even a single published sermon of common respectability!" 2 Bishop Jebb's Life, 481.
It should also be observed, that this exclusive policy has been extended even to the Colonies, for although Ireland contributes her fair share of subjects to the Colonial Empire, no Irish clergyman has ever been appointed a Colonial bishop.
Irishmen seeking clerical employinent in England have been discouraged to an extent and in a mode inconsistent with the spirit of the Act of Union between England and Ireland. This reprehensible and narrow-minded line of conduct is not, however, universal. The Bishop of Exeter does not exclude Irishmen from his diocese ; neither, among other prelates, do the Bishops of Lincoln, St. Asaph, Winchester, Hereford, Lichfield, and Norwich; and in reply to a letter from the Editor to the Bishop of Worcester, his Lordship thus writes :-"Considering the Established Church to be now the United Church of England and Ireland, I have not felt myself justified in making any distinction between the two branches of the same Church. All, therefore, that I require from Irish candidates for orders is, that they should have passed through the theological course at Trinity College, Dublin ; a condition which is, I understand, considered indispensable by all the Irish bishops."
The rule of exclusion has been rigidly acted upon in regard to the higher benefices in England of the United Church. The gross injustice of this proceeding is rendered the more offensive by the fact, that the honours and emoluments of the Irish branch of the United Church are freely thrown open to clergymen ordained in England. Thus, of the great diguities of the Irish branch of the Church, Armagh stands first. This see has been occupied exclusively by men from the English