not order them to become Mahometans. At the beginning of the reign of Henry the Eighth there was scarcely a vestige of religion in the country. The aristocracy were pillaging the poor and the clergy, -no preachers in the country except the friars, minors, and mendicants. The clergy, who were supported almost wholly by the contributions of the poor, were, generally speaking, most ignorant, depraved, and secular men; they had no idea of reforming themselves or any one else; and all they appear to have known of the Reformation was, that they were ordered to use the English liturgy, (or to read it in Latin wherever Irish was the only language spoken,) and to perform other conditions, under certain pains and penalties. Any one acquainted with the State Papers, recently published, with Sir J. Davis's Tracts, and the Letters of Archbishop Laud and Lord Strafford, will know whether this picture be overdrawn or not. The reformed church in Ireland is neither more nor less than an endowed mission. Ireland, as a nation, as a mass of human beings, has never been reformed, to this day. Archbishop Laud appears to have been the only person who ever thoroughly understood the condition of this country, or the method of reforming it. From the period of the Revolution, the church of Ireland has been made a job, and its patronage a marketable commodity in ministerial diplomacy. The maintenance of the English interest and connexion has sanctified such a system of sacrilege as is more than sufficient to account for the present civil and ecclesiastical condition of both countries. I am thankful to have the opportunity of expressing my deep and mature conviction, that (as far as human foresight can discover) the great mass of the people of Ireland, that which is, neither in law, nor justice, nor right, but in fact and sad reality, the church of Ireland, never will be reformed by any exertions from without,-by any system of proselyting, however judicious, or however partially successful, that, in fact, the church of Rome in Ireland never will be reformed but from within, by the operation of the Spirit of God on the minds of their priesthood and hierarchy, leading them to inquire after the old paths, and preparing them to abandon the degrading system of fraud and falsehood by which they have so long maintained their ascendancy, and kept their people in ignorance and immorality. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of any individual that has conformed to the reformed church in Ireland; but, from everything I have been able to observe, or to collect from the experience of others, I fear there is nothing in the character of the proselytes, especially of the clerical proselytes, to warrant more sanguine expectations. Generally speaking, (and, of course, there are honourable exceptions,) the priests who conform to the church are extremely ignorant, and of, at least, very questionable integrity-some of them are avowed enemies of episcopal authority and jurisdiction. Had I been born and educated a Roman catholic, and ordained a priest in Ireland, or in any other country, and had I been, by the goodness of God, taught to see the errors and wrong practices of my church, I do not think I should leave its communion; I should feel it my duty to protest against these errors, and endeavour to enlighten the minds of my flock, and of my brethren in the priest

hood, and then patiently to suffer whatever persecution such a line of conduct would most probably induce. When I had been expelled from their communion, I should feel at liberty to conform to the reformed church, but not till then. In so doing, I think I should best imitate the example of the Lord and his blessed apostles. Such certainly has been the course adopted by Mr. O'Croly, who (without defending all his opinions) is by far the most learned and respectable priest that has conformed in Ireland for many years.

There is another consideration, also, which can scarcely fail of pressing on any reflecting mind. The reformed church in Ireland is daily becoming less capable of effecting the objects of its mission. When the provisions of the Church Temporalities Acts shall have been completely brought into operation, to say nothing of Mr. Lewis's improvements on them, there will be scarcely a learned clergyman in Ireland. There are very few at present; learning having scarcely ever been considered in the disposal of government patronage; but then, I fear, there will be none. Everything like learned leisure is to be destroyed. Both parties vieing with each other to make sacrifices to the rapacity of our friends and enemies. Now, without a learned clergy, we never can touch the Roman church. It is this which has hampered and crippled us. Ever since the Revolution, the patronage of the crown to the dignities and sinecures of the church has been prostituted in so shameful a manner that we have had scarcely any persons qualified to enter on the controversy. And I need not say to you, that nothing has done more to impede the progress of the Reformation than the zeal of ignorant, but eloquent men, who, too often, have utterly misunderstood and misrepresented the tenets of both churches, and frequently, in attacking what they thought popery, have attacked fundamental truths of the catholic faith. In fine, I do not believe that the church of Rome in Ireland will be reformed except from within, and that whatever chance we may formerly have had of producing so desirable a result, in our character of a missionary endowment, is daily becoming less. With such feelings, (and they are the feelings of every churchman acquainted with Ireland whom I have known,) the sentence objected to was written; and entertaining such views, I cannot but most earnestly desire that our efforts should be directed rather to the gradual illumination of the minds of the population of Ireland, than to gaining over proselytes to our own communion. If they once receive truth, our disunion will soon be terminated. The majority of religious persons, indeed, seem to think, that if the Roman catholics become protestants, it is little matter by what means the change is effected, and still less what section of protestants they join. I certainly have no community of feeling with such a sentiment.

Are the Roman catholics of Ireland members of a Christian church? Are their clergy as truly bishops, priests, and deacons of the church of Christ, as we are? Intruders and schismatics though they be, recognised neither in law nor equity; slaves and emissaries of a foreign usurpation, degrading the minds of their "subjects" with superstition and idolatry; standing between them and civilization,

education, and truth; are not they and their people part and parcel of the church of Christ, as truly as we are?-and do not we and they (shudder at it as we may) compose, in the sight of God and his angels, the church of Ireland? And was there ever exhibited such a spectacle since the foundations of the church were laid? In every city, two bishops; in every parish, two priests; without one single interchange of Christian communion; regarding each other with feelings of irreconcilable animosity. How is such a state of things to end, but in total atheism? Unless God interpose, I do believe it will end, it can end, in nothing short of it. On the one hand, the clergy of the reformed church know that their aristocracy and laity never will rest until they have reduced them to a voluntary system, and seized on every shilling of ecclesiastical property. They have been carrying on their systematic spoliation ever since the Revolution, and each act of robbery has stimulated them to another and a larger. On the other hand, the Roman priesthood have let loose all the restraints of morality, in order to effect the entire prostration of the empire, and the extinction of their rivals in both countries. They are the tyrants of the poor; the demagogues and agitators of their bleeding country. They have goaded on their ignorant and lawless slaves to such a state of violence, that no one now will insure the life of an Irish protestant clergyman; and, in some counties, a curate durst not attend the call of a sick or dying parishioner without loaded pistols. The Conservatives imagine that such evils can be cured by concessions; the Radicals, by destruction; the Whigs, by an alliance with Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Murray. Meantime, who that loves Christ and his church in this wretched and tormented country, would not rejoice with unutterable joy if the Romish clergy of Ireland could be induced to retrace their steps, and, renouncing the novel yoke of foreign tyranny and exac

*

Roger Hoveden and the "Annals of Mailros" deny that the pope ever sent a pall to Ireland until the year 1151 or 1152, in the legateship of Cardinal Papiro; which is confirmed by St. Bernard, who says also, that Gilbert (who was Bishop of Limerick in the beginning of the twelfth century) was the first Apostolic Legate in Ireland." "Sir J. Ware's Irish Bishops. Harris's edit., p. 21.

The passage from Hoveden alluded to by Harris is as follows:

"Anno gratiæ, 1151, qui est annus 16 regni regis Stephani, Papa Eugenius IV., pallia per legatum suum, Johannem Papirum, in Hyberniam transmisit, quo nunquam antea pallium delatum fuerat, et in 4 locis 4 constituit archiepiscopos."-Rer. Anglic. Scriptores post Bedam, p. 281.

"In the year of grace 1151, which is the sixteenth year of the reign of King Stephen, Pope Eugene sent four palls into Ireland, by his legate, John Papiro, where a pall had never been brought before, and appointed four archbishoprics in four places."

Giraldus Cambrensis records the same fact in the following words :

'Archiepiscopi vero in Hibernia nulli fuerant: sed tantum se episcopi invicem consecrabant; donec Johannes Papyrio Romanæ Sedis legatus non multis retro annis advenit. Hic quatuor pallia in Hiberniam portavit," &c.

"There had been, however, no archbishops in Ireland, but bishops only used to consecrate each other, until John Papyrio, Legate of the Roman See, arrived not many years ago. He brought into Ireland four palls," &c.- Topog. Hib., Part III., cap. 17.

S. Bernard, in his Life of S. Malachy, (cap. x., vol. i., col. 674, ed. Ben.,) says, that he was particularly urged to accept the Archbishopric of Armagh by two bishops, Malchus and Gillebert; of whom the former is the same elder of Lismore

tion, renouncing a subjection which debases their morals as men and as clergymen, would cast off, by an honest and bona fide reformation, all that is really anti-scriptural in their doctrine and worship,-all that is really incompatible with sound and healthy, primitive and catholic, Christianity. Surely, if they could be persuaded to make such a

of whom mention was made above; the other, who, they say, discharged the first legation of the Apostolic See throughout all Ireland,"-" quem aiunt prima functum legatione Apostolicæ Sedis per universam Hiberniam." In the fifteenth chapter, (col. 678,) he says, that S. Malachy thought proper to go to Rome and to obtain the authority of the Apostolic See, "especially because the use of the pall, which is the plenitude of honour, was still wanting to the Metropolitan See (Armagh), and had been wanting from the beginning." "Maximeque quod Metropolitica Sedi deerat adhuc, et defuerat ab initio pallii usus, quod est plenitudo honoris." Innocent II. appointed S. Malachy his legate, on account of the old age and infirmities of Gillibert, but refused to grant palls until a general council of the Irish should solicit them. —(Ibid., chap. xvi., col. 680.) Archbishop Ussher quotes the Annals of Mailros in confirmation of S. Bernard's statement-" In the year 1151, Pope Eugenius (the same to whom Bernard did write his books de Consideratione,) did, by his legate, John Papiron, transmit four palls into Ireland, whither a pall before had never been brought. "Anno 1151, Papa Eugenius quatuor pallia per legatum suum, Johannem Papirum, transmisit in Hiberniam, quò nunquam antè pallium delatum fuerat" -Annal. Melros. MS. in Bibliotheca Cottonianâ. On the assertion of Giraldus Cambrensis, that before 1151 there were no archbishops in Ireland, Ussher observes, "Whereupon, some of our chroniclers after him give this note concerning Gelasius, who was at that time Archbishop of Armagh-that he is said to have been the first archbishop, because he used the first pall; and that others before him were called archbishops and primates in name only, for the reverence of St. Patrick, as the apostle of that nation." "Hic primus archiepiscopus dicitur, quia primo pallio usus est. Alii verò ante ipsum solo nomine archiepiscopi et primates vocabantur; ob reverentiam et honorem Sancti Patricii, tanquam apostolus illius gentis."-Pembrigius, author. Annal. Hibern., a Guil. Camdeno, edit. Thomas Casaus in Chronic. Hibern. MS. ad ann. 1174. (Ussher's Discourse of the Religion anciently professed by the Irish and British, p. 58. Lond. 1687; p. 77, ed. 1631.) Indeed, S. Bernard (cap. x., col. 673) calls Celsus, S. Malachy's predecessor in Armagh, and the bishop by whom S. Malachy was ordained deacon, presbyter, and bishop, " Archbishop," and also shews, (as Ussher truly observes, ibid., p. 59,) that the Archbishops of Armagh "were so far from being metropolitans and primates in name only, that they exercised much greater authority before they were put to the charges of fetching palls from Rome than ever they did afterward; and that they did not only consecrate bishops, but erected also new bishoprics, and archbishoprics too, sometimes, according as they thought fitting." The Irish Canons, edited by D'Achery, and collected before the eighth century, ("ante sæculum VIII. confecti sunt,"-D'Acher,) expressly requires the consent of the metropolitan to the consecration of a bishop-" Synodus ait, cum consensu clericorum, et laicorum, et totius provinciæ episcoporum, maximèque metropolitani, vel epistolâ, vel auctoritate, vel præsentiâ, ordinetur episcopus."— Can. Hib., lib. i., Can. V., D'Ach. Spicil.,i., 493.

So late as 1523, it is evident, from Alan's Letter to Cardinal Wolsey, in the "State Papers," (vol. ii., p. 100,) that the native Irish paid no regard to the legatine powers, (see also Cox, Hib. Anglic., Part I., p. 212.) In 1250, the Irish bishops had come to a determination to protect the independence of their church by refusing to admit any native of England to a canonry. Henry the Third appealed to Pope Innocent IV., who issued a bull commanding them, within one month, to revoke the offensive statute.-(Rymer's Fœdera, vol. i., p. 274, new edit.; Wilkins' Conc., I. 697.) In 1367, the Parliament of Kilkenny made it highly penal to present an Irishman to an ecclesiastical benefice, or to receive them into monasteries or religious houses. Both the resolution of the Irish clergy in 1250, and the statute of Kilkenny, prove how far the Irish church was from relinquishing its ancient customs, or amalgamating with the subjects of the Romish See.-(Cox, Hib. Angl., Part I., p. 127; Leland, Hist. of Ireland, b. ii., ch. v., p. 320. The Statutes of Kilkenny are in the Carew MSS., in the Lambeth Library, No. 603, fol. 165; 608, fol. 1.)

reformation as this, the existence of two rival churches need continue no longer. Some arrangement might be made, and the surviving bishop and priest might be put in possession of the undivided diocese and parish. Unless some such event be brought about by an internal reformation of the Roman-catholic church in Ireland, I see no possible termination to our unnatural and disgusting disunion but universal anarchy and atheism. My dear Sir, faithfully yours,

January 5th, 1837.

C.

LETTERS ON THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS.

:

NO. XIX.

(Continued from vol. x., p. 287.)

Such is the testimony, as far as a few specimens can represent it, borne by Cyril, the friend of the Arians, in the earlier part of the fourth century, to those ecclesiastical views which are often considered a corruption of the gospel. Let the object with which it has been adduced be clearly understood not thereby directly to prove the truth of those views, much less as taking him by himself as an authority in the question; but, the hypothesis having been hazarded in some quarters, that perhaps those views were an early corruption, and the burden of proving a negative being thrown upon us by men who are better pleased to suggest doubts than to determine anything, we, in our excess of consideration, are going about from one quarter to another, prying and extravagating beyond the beaten paths of orthodoxy for the chance of detecting some sort of testimony in favour of our opponents. With this object we have fallen upon Cyril; and since he for a time lay under suspicion of heresy, we thought there was a chance of his serving their purpose; but he, though of a distinct school from Cyprian, or Origen, is no less precise than they in his ecclesiastical views, and as much opposed to what now is considered pure protestantism. Every additional instance of this kind goes indirectly to corroborate the testimony of the catholic church; and, as such, I insist upon it.

The more we can vary our witnesses, the better. The consent of fathers is one sort of witness to apostolical truth; the accordance of heretics is another; received usage is a third. I shall now give an instance of this last-mentioned, as afforded in the existence of the apostolical canons. These canons were once supposed to be, strictly speaking, apostolical, and published before A.D. 50. On the other hand, Daillé and De la Roque, in the sevententh century, contended that they were composed by some heretic after 450. Pearson and Beveridge maintained that they were published before 325, and were undoubtedly the digest of catholic authorities in the course of the second and third, or at the end of the second century, as well as received and used in most parts of Christendom. This view has since been acquiesced in by the theological world, so far as this, to suppose the matter and the enactment of the canons of the highest antiquity, even though the edition which we possess was not published so early as Beveridge supposes. At the same time, it is acknowledged on all