the advice of persons learned in the law. The inconsistency remarked between the archbishop's pronouncing the marriage null and void, and the peers condemning her to death as an unfaithful wife to Henry', does not throw any discredit on the archbishop, because the act of parliament which came first, did not pronounce, but only supposed the validity of the marriage. Cranmer is blamed for not interceding more vigorously for Anna Boleyn's life, but it appears, in fact, that he was the only person who attempted to speak in her favour to the king, and he doubtless did it in the way he judged most persuasive to a man of violent temper. Thirdly, the marriage of Henry with Anne of Cleves was pronounced null for certain causes assigned, not merely by Cranmer, but by the whole convocation. Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, was the chief agent in this proceeding, and not Cranmer, as Bossuet pretends". His signing the death warrant of Lord Seymour, condemned without hearing his cause, was an act which he should have avoided from the apprehension of scandal; but unless it can be shown that Seymour was innocent, and that there was not certain and unquestionable evidence against him, which has not been done; the substantial injustice imputed to Cranmer cannot be proved. His recantations said to have been made more than once, with a hope of preserving his life, are only proofs that his natural firmness did not exceed that of the great majority of men: even some of the early martyrs had exhibited at first a similar weakness: but his last hours shed a splendour on his name. Altogether it may be

e

137.

Soames, Hist. Ref. vol. ii. p.

f Burnet, p. 371.

Ibid. p. 364, &c. b Ibid. 508, 509.

concluded, that Cranmer was a man liable to infirmities, not free from faults and mistakes, but altogether free from the crimes which have been attributed to him by our adversaries: and as we do not view him or any other prelates or theologians of our church at that time, as its founders, though we acknowledge with gratitude the beneficial reforms which their learning and piety aided in effecting; we do not hold ourselves responsible for every private opinion which some of them have entertained, or for any particular act which they performed as individuals.

CHAPTER IX.

ON THE REFORMATION AND SCHISM IN IRELAND.

THE churches of Ireland had, in the course of four centuries before the Reformation, become subject to the Roman see", which gradually usurped the patronage of the bishopricks and other benefices by provisions, and exacted oaths of allegiance from the subjects whom it promoted. The people were immersed in barbarism, ignorance, and superstition, through the anarchy caused by the wars and insurrections of a multitude of rival septs.

The abolition of the papal power in England by the united action of the temporal and spiritual powers, was speedily, though imperfectly, imitated in Ireland. In 1537, the Irish parliament declared the king supreme head of the church of Ireland, prohibited appeals to Rome, suppressed the papal jurisdiction in Ireland, and prohibited all pecuniary payments to the Roman see". The primate Cromer opposed ineffectually these regulations; they were sustained by Brown, archbishop of

a It was only in 1152 that the Roman pontiff acquired ordinary jurisdiction over the Irish churches, when at the Synod of Kells, the four archbishops for the first time received palls from

Rome.

b Cox, History of Ireland, p.

247.

c Ibid. p. 256. Ware's Bishops of Ireland, edited by Harris.

Dublin, and other prelates, and it seems that the clergy took the oath of regal supremacy, and rejection of the papal jurisdiction, prescribed by the act of parliament. The Irish princes and lords also consented universally to take this oath, and made indentures to the same effect with the king ". In 1538 images abused by pilgrimages and superstitions were removed, yet during the rest of the reign of king Henry, it appears that not much was accomplished; partly through the intrigues of the Roman pontiff and his adherents, and partly on account of the disturbed state of Ireland. Even in the reign of Edward VI., A.D. 1550, the adoption of the English Ritual, recommended by a royal proclamation, was opposed in the assembly of the clergy by the primate Dowdal, who, with most of his suffragans, refused to accept it'. Brown, archbishop of Dublin, and other prelates, however, approved the Ritual, and introduced it into their dioceses. It appears, in fact, that notwithstanding the events which took place in 1537, the papal power continued to prevail partially in Ireland during the whole reign of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., for even as late as the year 1550, the crown occasionally admitted to the possession of their temporalities bishops who had been provided with Irish sees at Rome".

In the reign of Mary, the chief prelate Dowdal, under royal commission in 1554, deprived and expelled from their sees the archbishop of Dublin and three or four other prelates favourable to reformation', and six bishops were ordained in place of the prelates expelled or compelled to fly. In 1557 the parliament also reversed all the acts made against the authority of the Roman see, which it restored in its full vigour.

In the reign of Elizabeth the emancipation of the church of Ireland from the Roman usurpation was finally accomplished, yet not without the accompanying calamity of a schism which has continued ever since. Few parts of history have been more misrepresented than that which concerns the catholic church of Ireland, and the schism there in the reign of Elizabeth. It is too often asserted, without contradiction, that religion was changed at that time by merely secular and parliamentary power; that the catholic bishops and clergy were expelled from their places, and supplanted by ministers sent from England to propagate their opinions by force.

The ecclesiastical regulations made at this time consisted in the rejection of the papal jurisdiction, the acknowledgment of the regal power in ecclesiastical affairs, and the adoption of the English instead of the Roman Ritual'. I have elsewhere proved (see Chapters

i Cox, History of Ireland, p. 299, Ware's Bishops. Staples of Meath, Brown of Dublin, Lancaster of Kildare, Travers of Leighlin, were deprived. Bale of Ossory and Casy of Limerick fled, and others were put in their place irregularly.

The church of Ireland does not seem to have enacted any new

formulary of doctrine during the whole of the sixteenth century. It was not till 1615 that the Synod of Ireland authorized 101 Articles, which in most points followed closely the doctrine of St. Augustine. The XXXIX Articles of the Synod of London 1562, though always esteemed orthodox in Ireland, were not