תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

Two Popish bishops deprived of their sees.

Supply of the vacancies.

SECTION II.

Two Bishops deprived for refusing the Oath of Supremacy. Conformity of the others. Abuse of Episcopal Property. Depreciation of Bishopricks. Exercise of the Royal Prerogatice in appointing Bishops. Titular Bishops. Act of Parliament caused by clerical irregularities. General immorality and irreligion. Act for erecting Free Schools. Opposition to attempts at propagating the Reformed Religion. Irish Liturgy and Catechism. Bull of the Pope, and its con

Irish New Testament.

sequences.

THE enactments concerning the Church in Queen Elizabeth's first Parliament had no unpleasant effect upon its governors; save that by the Act of Supremacy, or rather by their own obnoxious conduct in defiance of it, two bishops were deprived of their sees: Leverous, bishop of Kildare, who refused to take the Qath of Supremacy; and Walsh, bishop of Meath, who not only refused to take the oath, but preached also against the queen's supremacy, and against the Book of Common Prayer.

Their places were supplied respectively, by Alexander Craike in the see of Kildare, and Hugh Brady in that of Meath. The former, who had been previously in possession of the deanery of St. Patrick's, was permitted to retain that preferment in commendam; but this did not prevent him from alienating the property of the bishoprick much to the injury of his successors'. To the worth of Bishop Brady testimony was borne by the queen, in a letter of October 6, 1564, to Sir Nicholas Arnold, lord justice, and the rest of the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical. "Which commission we send at this

1 WARE'S Bishops, p. 391.

present by the reverend father in God, the Bishop of Meath, with whom we have had such conference, as well in the matters contained in that commission, as in sundry other belonging to the weal of that our realm, as we see very good reason to allow of our former choice of him; and do certainly hope, that he shall prove a faithful minister in his charge concerning his pastoral office, and a profitable councillor of our estate there"."

flicted on the

The penalties upon the two displaced prelates Penalties invaried according to their offences. The former, Popish bishops. being deprived of his bishoprick, was left at liberty; and for some time enjoyed the hospitable protection of the Earl and Countess of Desmond, and then earned his livelihood by keeping a school at Limerick, and in its neighbourhood: the latter, after his deprivation, was thrown into prison, and some years later was sent into banishment, and died at Alcala in Spain, January 3, 1577, and was there buried in the church of a Cistercian monastery, of which order he was a monk3.

In a book entitled De Processu Martyriali, &c., printed at Cologne, in 1640, and quoted in MASON'S History of St. Patrick's Cathedral', of which Bishop Leverous was dean, his reason for non-compliance with the demand of acknowledging the queen's supremacy is thus recorded. The Lord Deputy required to know the cause of his refusal to take an oath, already taken by many learned and illustrious men. To whom he made answer, that all ecclesiastical jurisdiction was derived from Christ: and, since he thought not fit to confer ecclesiastical authority on the Blessed Virgin, his mother, it could not be believed that supremacy, or primacy of eccle

* Rolls.

3 WARE'S Bishops, p. 153.

• P. 163.

Bishop Levenon-compliance.

rous's reasons for

Only two deprived bishops.

siastical power, was meant to be delegated by Christ to any other person of that sex. He added likewise, that St. Paul commanded no woman should speak in the church, much less should one preside and rule there: to confirm this opinion, he adduced authorities from St. Chrysostom and Tertullian. The Deputy then represented to him, that, if he should refuse to comply, he must of necessity be deprived of all his revenues: he quoted in answer the text of Scripture, "What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" An answer which entitles him to respect for integrity in acting up to his conviction, however weak and fallacious may be judged the grounds on which his conviction rested.

man.

Whilst we lament that the political offences of these two prelates subjected them to such visitations, we cannot but call to mind that they had in the preceding reign assisted in depriving other bishops of their sees, and other clergymen of their livings, and in particular, each his predecessor of his bishoprick, for the unpardonable offence of being a married These are the only two Irish prelates who appear to have been deprived in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. In the anonymous work indeed, noticed above, as cited in STRYPE'S Ecclesiastical Annals, mention is made of "an uncertain number of other bishops there" being deprived, besides the Archbishop of Armagh. But, as the Archbishop of Armagh was certainly not deprived, for from the death of Goodacre the see was vacant for some years, except the time that Dowdall filled it, during the reign of Queen Mary', and he, as we have already seen, died before the accession of Queen Elizabeth; so there is neither record, nor rational ground of

5 WARE'S Bishops, p. 94.

suspicion, of the deprivation of any others, except the two, whose deprivation is matter of historical notoriety. Had any others been deprived, the fact must have been known and recorded, and can hardly have escaped the notice of the ecclesiastical historians of the time. Indeed, upon an inspection of the condition of the different sees about this time, it is evident that in about twenty no change of occupants occurred: and whatever obscurity may attach to the occupancy of the remainder, being, as they are, those of the least note and importance, there is not the faintest probability thence given to the hypothesis in any case, that either of the bishops underwent a deprivation.

The simple fact may be thus stated, without fear of reasonable contradiction: that whilst many of the temporal lords retained their attachment to the religious principles in which they had been educated, and transmitted the same to their descendants, all, with two only exceptions, of the spiritual peers, who had been formerly friends of the Papacy, either saw cause to approve of the recent alterations, or, perceiving no disposition in the government to treat them with rigour, contentedly acquiesced in the existing order of things, whilst not a few of them took advantage of the uncontrolled power which they possessed over the property of their sees, for enriching their kindred, and impoverishing the church and their successors.

[blocks in formation]

structions about

property.

The abuse of episcopal property was so injurious, Lord Deputy's Inand of such extent, that when Sir Henry Sidney was ecclesiastical sent to Ireland as Lord Deputy in October, 1565, amongst other instructions he brought with him this, "That the Church lands and estates be preserved

Oct., 1565

Impoverishment

of Ossory,

Kildare,

Ferns,

Leighlin,

Cashel,

from waste and alienation"." Whatever means of preservation may in consequence have been used, they failed of producing the desired effect: for at times subsequent, as well as antecedent, to this instruction several cases are on record, some of which may be cited as examples of the enormity.

Between the years 1553 and 1565, Thonory, bishop of Ossory, made many fee-farm leases of the manors and possessions of his bishoprick at low and inconsiderable rents, which greatly impoverished the see, and lopped off from the bishoprick large branches of its revenue'. Between 1560 and 1564, Craike, bishop of Kildare, exchanged almost all the manors and lands of the bishoprick, for some tythes of little value, by which exchange the very ancient See of Kildare was reduced to a most shameful poverty; and in the short time of three years he did more mischief to his see, than his successors were ever able to repair. About 1582, Allen, bishop of Ferns, made long leases of many farms, reserving very small rents, and committed many wastes on the lands of the see'; and about the same period, Cavenagh, bishop of Leighlin, treated the property of his bishoprick in the like manner, leaving it in such a naked condition as to be scarce worth any person's acceptance: so that the poverty of the see caused it, first to be held with some other preferment, and then to be united to the see of Ferns". Archbishop Magragh, who succeeded to the see of Cashel in 1570, made most scandalous wastes and alienations of the revenues belonging to it; and impoverished it by stripping it of much of its ancient estate". And Linch, who obtained the bishoprick

• Cox, i. 319.
• Ib., p. 446.

7 WARE'S Bishops, p. 418.

10 lb., p. 462.

a Ib., 391.

11 Пb., p. 484,

« הקודםהמשך »