iltf American Jtoslijtman
ZHl ■*' - ’ John\Weir 16julj68
Hew Series, "Vol. V, No. 16.
83 00 By Hail. $3 50 By Carrier. )
50cts Additional after three Honths. i
gmmait,.
THURSDAY - , APRIL 16,-1868. ■ •
the IRISH ESTABLISHED CHURCH-PAST
AND FUTURE.
I. The, Past. The vote reached on Saturday,
April 4th, ill the British House of Commons, in
regard to the abolition of the Irish Established
Church, has been received with very generalsatis
faotion ifi this country. Believing that 'the' re
sult of that vote will be to place Protestantism'on
a much better footing in Ireland and'elsewhere,
we see'no reason to regret the vote. But there
are many facts in the history of the Irish Church,,
and many popular mistakes current in regard ■ to 1
it, that call for a discussion on wider groilnds
than it has yet received.
The grievance of ah English: Church estab
lished in Ireland is one of which Rofnanists, as
such, have no right to cotnplain. The English
Church in Ireland—and the Establishment has
been nothing more—is a part of the, English
conquest of Ireland,. a conquest commanded
by the only English Pope who ever worn
the tiara. As for' the ‘first four centuries of
its existence, os a Homan Catholic Church, SO
also for the last three centuries of its continu
ance as a Protestant Church,'it has always been
simply tbs Church of the ' invading army, the
Norman and’ Saxon garrison, as purely such as
the Presbyterian Church has been the Church of
the Scottish colony in Ulster. Now, if there is
one historical event' for which the Papacy must
stand sponsor, it is that English invasion. Up
to that time the Irish Church, and not the Irish
Nation, was the thorn in the side of Europe.
While in every other part of Europe the ecclesi
astical system had been conformed to the civil
Roman Constitution,-—while consul,. pro-consul,
and prsetor bad been everywhere else reproduced
in Patriarch, Archbishop, and Bishop—while
the Papacy itself held divided.; empire with the
Caesars in the rest of Europe, in Ireland the
lUt/HUt" rtwJP Kwil -sew
never formed part of the Roman Empire, and the
primitive social Organization, as in l the Scottish
Highlands, was the only one known. And so, as
if by some law of assimilation, the Church took
the form which most resembled tbe civil polity
of the nation. Ecclesiastical co-arbs or chieftains
ruled ecclesiastical dans and septs. The Bishops
were but a new style of Christian druids
and bards, often seven in a town; often also, un
der tbe rule of a female abbess. The ; canons
seem to have been as free and easy as the
laws. And any proposal to change these things
met with the same violent resistance’ that has
made the AnglicizatioOof Ireland a failure, after
centuries of effort.
The pope dealt with Ireland as the'lnquisition
deals with heretics, —did his best for them
“spiritually,".and then handed them over to the
civil power. ■ The infallible See did not perceive
that the ecclesiastical institutions which he
wished to thrust on Ireland were merely as hu
man and civil in their origin and ,form as those
that he wished to supplant.
With the Anglo-Norman army went the An
glo-Norman Church, 'each alike hostilo to Irish
institutions. Each alike set up the Anglo-Nor
man institutions within the Pale,around Dublin,
and wherever else by force of arms they could
secure a footing. Each alike were opposed with
the united energy of every patriotic Irishman,
sept and soggarth, priest and clansman. Each
alike, for four hundred years, held their .ground
only by the support of the English nation and
and the Papal See. Each alike extended its
bounds or retraced its footsteps, as,, by the for
tune of war, a larger Or more contracted territory
fell to the share of the English. Each alike lost
many adherents through colonies of English be
in" so cut off from the Pale that their only safe
ty was to go over to the enemy, and so becoming
Hiberniores ILhernis ipsis, “ more Irish than the
Irish themselves,” as an old act of the Irish Par
liament declares. To such an extent was this
the case, that in the intensely Irish province of
Connaught, it is this day disputed whether one
half, or only a third of the people are ofNorman
blood. Each alike received a sullen submission
on the part of its foes, as the English rule ex
tended over the whole island. Each alike exulted
in the favor of the Papacy and was sustained by
the public opinion of Western Europe.
The Reformation brought a sudden change on
all hands. The Anglo-Normans who had been
for centuries the most subservient vassals of the
Papal See, became its mostdetermined enemies,
and their Church in Ireland, like their Church'
in England, became Protestant. The Pope
changed as suddenly as the Nobles. The Church
of “ the Wild Irish,” against which the Papacy
had unleashed all the hounds of war, was now
taken under the patronage of its grand persecu
tor.. For a wfiile, the result seemed dubious, and
a generous policy on the part of the English na
tion might have "saved the day, so far as Irish re
ligion, went. • Home the bitterest religious enemy
of all and England the bitterest po
litical enemy .Of Irish nationality, competed for
the. favor of,the outraged nationality of Ireland.
Had the effort of such men as Bale 1 and Usshcr
been seconded 1 } Wild the | advice' of Spencer, that
it was “ ill preaching among diawn' swords •” of
Bacon, that Irish Bibles and'lrish preaching
Be provided, taken; had they, aS’the dean
of Cork puts it,' “ sheathed the sword 1 and sped
the preacher,’?' of bitterness and rebel
lion' might haW Ween saved, and the grahd
anomaly of a } l&nf&iiSt nation" asserting its rights
against a Sidiild ne'vei have ex
isted. The chaWcS Was lost. The' Irish Church
moie than eVer the'Church of the
English garrisory—not till 1685 was the Bible
in Irish ‘abilit y‘to speak Irish
wa§ actually,
benefice. The old policy of repression, dis-‘
trust'and enmity, of stamping out all traces of
a separate nationality, was continued," while the
Pope, wiser" in; Wis' generation, took all. that he
had'for centuries waged war his
protection. ' The Bishoprics 'ind Deaneries and
Rectories of the, SSstabliilimeni" were Wiled with
the off-scourings of the English Church, or as
Swift sarcastically'puts' ‘it, “ not with the godly
bishop appointed by the J English government, but
with the highwaymen who stopped them oh
Hounslow heath; robbed them of their’credentials
and took their, placet.” . 1
The result may well teach both England and
Rome" that “what a man soweth that shall he also
reap. ' If Ireland is to-d ay a Source of weakness 1
and not of strength to the empire; something!
that England cannot leave to 1 itself afid yetcan
nbt consistently with her Ofrtf abstract principles
'of political ' right ifetain; if the wrOngs inherited
,from the, England who obeyed the. Pope cannot
be abandoned by, the England who, defies him, it
- Kaoauaa _ g«n*r(>uS'. flh uroh> - policy, - Wbioh
has, within a century and a half; turned the
Scottish Highlands from,a disloyal, half-civilized,
Romish country into a loyal, intelligent Protes
tant sectiofioftbe nation, ev.en in spite oi politi
cal blunders, has not been pursued also-in Ire
land. " ■ "
And if to-day one of 5 the'only three Eutopean
Countries.that,sincerely adhere to the Papal See,
is unable to throw a feather’s weight of influence
in Rome’s behalf into the great European scale,
if a Protestant sits in every See of the Irish
Church, if the vast preponderance of Irish pro
perty and prestige is in the hands of English
Protestants; if the disposal of all the Church
property in Ireland depends on the votes of an
English Protestant Parliament, then Rbine also is
only reaping what she sowed. Papal Bulls gave
Henry the right in his own eyes, and in the eyes
of all Europe, to invade Ireland, and the English
occupation of Ireland, if it be a wrong, is one of
those wrongs whose redress would now be a
greater wrong*
Especially amusing in view of these facts are
the words of the Romish Archbishop Manning
when in reply to the Englishman’s allegation
that:
“ As for laws and administration, Ireland is on
the same footing with England; and where there
is a difference, Ireland will be found to be better
cared for than England-” ,
He says, “ Let the endowments of the Church
of England be transferred to (he English Catholic
Bishops and clergy .; let the Anglican archbishops
and bishops be liable to fine for assuming their
ecclesiastical titleslet the land in England be
held by absentee Irish landlords by title of past
confiscations,, and let their soil be tilled by ten
ants at will who may at any hour be evicted, and
I shall then think that Ireland and England are
on the same footing. There is yet one thing
wanting. Let some Irish statesman reproach the
English for their unreasoning and unrelenting
animosity, their self chosen poverty, their insen
sibility of the dignity and benefits of being thus
treated by a superior race.”
Well may the Universe that “this is inflexible
Fenianism,” that it is Irish opposition to English
rule simply as English and not as Protestant; for
these wrongs—an alien Church, an alien land-,
proprietorship and slavish land-tenure resting on
confiscation, and the insulting domination of race
over race, are what Romish England, backed by
the Papal See, inflicted for four centuries on Ire
land. The wrongful occupation of Ireland is a
wrong inherited from unreformed England, a
wrong which prescription had made right, as far
as prescription can make anything right, long be
fore the English Reformation. , ' >
jgy* The Alexander Presbyterian church, at
Nineteenth and Green streets; will be dedicated
on Suqday next.
PHILADELPHIA, THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1868.
Although, this was;a much smaller body than
might have been expected from the great Presby
terian population' wiflifn ealy reach of that- hos
pitable and beautiful city, was composed of
representative men from tJjree ( of the .bodies in-,
terested—Old and New. School and United Pres
byterian—a‘nd it accomplished results which,
we think, j yrill : be 'found of no little importance
in shaping,the Union movement. It gave leading
Old Schoolmen, like Dr. Lorjl of Buffalo, Dr. Hall
bf Rochester, and Mr. Rankin of Black. Rock, mot
to me.ntion youngdr men On' She sameeide, —oppor-
tunity tb express ahd’defbhd, the indst 'liberal views
that any sincere Caiyinist intheNew School would
wish to hear. Mr.’Ranking argument from the
language of the Confession,, andfrom. doctrinal
casds'reported in l -the Digest, in;which, as he
wide differehcles of ! doctrinal views were
plainly, flowed by the highest authorities in the
Church, was of the mpst;Cqmplete and satisfac
tory character. ‘ Prom* onfe case thus .reported
—we thidk. it was that'of^Hezekiah 1 Balch—he
showed that the. 'Genera! Assembly''had refused,
when the matter was brought before’them on ap
peal, to condemn the-Governmental Theory of
the Atonement, a heresy over which the hyper
orthodox professor of Allegheny makes such an
ado. Following up. these demonstrations, Dr.
Wisner of Lockport, and Dr. Heacock of Biiffa
-16, ably argued for the clear and frank expression
6,f subh' 1 views 1 in' : the proposed 1 doctrinal basis.
The speech‘of the latter was pungent, witty, elo
quent, and oversowing with-the generous senti
ments that.well so spontaneously from, the heart
Of Dr. Heacock.-’ Dr. Walter Clarke, of the First
Church, as Chairman of the Committee on Reso
lutions, brought' in a paper, altogether" in the
j; same liberal strain, to which an amendment was of
fered by. Rev. W. Calkins, calculated to .test, fully
the strength' of the liberal .sentiments, so freely
uttered by Old School men. This l amendment, 1
as amended by Rev. C. F. <Mussey; of Batavia,
and, accepted by Dr. tlarke, read, as ( follows:
" Such differences ofi&tferpretatian ef that syra
bof [Westminster-Confession] as are now allowed
in the separate branches of the Presbyterian
Church shall be freely and honorably allowed in
the united Church,” The amendment, as first
proposed, read .“differences of doctrine;” but
nioa’of both schools denied that the differences
were so as that language implied. They
preferred to regard the difference's, for example,
of. limited or general atonement, of mediate or
immediate imputation, as differences of interpre
tation. With few exceptions, there seemed to be
a shrinking on all sides from! the imputation of a
difference in doctrine, albeit .the General As
sembly, in the case, of Craighead, referred to by
Mr. Rankin, declared that the doctrines of Craig
head, which they agreed should be tolerated, as
not fundamentally erroneous, were “different
from those of the Reformed Churches.” (Digest., 1
p. 806.) And Dr. Heacock pertinently remind
ed the Convention, that when the plea was made
for Mr. Barnes on his trial, that his view was only a
difference o/interpretation } he was answered that
his interpretation destroyed the doctrine itself.
‘‘lf,” Baid Dr. 11., “ our different views are to.be
treated in the future in the same manner, what
security is there in tlie toleration of diversities of
interpretation only ?” Dr. Me'ars followed on the
same side, urging that there were peculiar doc
trinal views in the other branch of the Church,
like those of Baird, which would need the pro
tection of an explicit and generous toleration.
Nevertheless, under the almost universal under
standing that “ differences of interpretation ” was*
a term sufficiently broad to cover all the extant
/ A Curious Conference .was lately held
Feb. 17th, in the Hall of Sion College (Cong.)..
Rev. W. Rogers, Rector of St. Botolph’s, who
convened the meeting, presided. The Bishop
and clergy of London and leading non-conform
ists, including especially James Martineau, and
Mia 11, Editor of the Nonconformist, were presen tj
The main purpose was to hear from Dean Stan
ley a friendly exposition of the grounds on which
he claimed that the Church and State should he
united. He showed that no secession had ever
taken place simply because of this connection;
that it did not essentially involve the State’s en
dowment of the Church, or the assignment of a
civil status to its ministers (Italy and Russia be?
THE BUFFALO PRESBYTERIAN UNION
CONVENTION.
diversities in the separate branches,ttheiamended
form of expression was prefer-redfatid the resolu
tion, as amended, was adopted unanimously. The
whole series of resolutions will .be found in an
other part of the paper. We believe the doctri
nal basis thus -formed will be found decidedly in
advance of -any other—even preferable in defi
niteness and safety to that of the Joint Commit
tee itself.
ing cases’in point,) and that the . fundamental
principle underlying shch a union was the en
couragement, by the State, ofth’e expression of the
religious sentiment, and the acknowledgment of a
common Centre and Source of their life. He main
tained that those who asserted that the State had
nothing to do’with religion (like those who as
sert that the Church has nothing to do with poli
tics), whether they be High Churchmen or dis
senters, jare'reviving an old Romish dogma that
the Church is-spiritual and the .State profane,
that the’former is the only embodiment of the
kingdom of heaven, and the latter] necessarily, of
the world and. to. be gpyern.ed by worldly maxims,
—adogma protested against by the Reformers,
who maintained, with the -Apocalypse, that the
kingdoms of this world are Become rightfully the
kingdoms of our Lord and of Hie Christ. He
claimed that, the State* was the best representative
of that Christian community, which,'for five cen
turies, chose the bishops and ruled the Church in
the market place ; 1 that its supremacy as a : judge
in matters of faith was virtually recognized in
.eyecy-suit for the possesion”,of a dissenting
chapel,; that-from the days.,of-Caiaphas and Pi
late, and when the Erastian Paul appealed from
the Jewish Church to Caesar;'the tribunals of the
State had always, been fairer than those of the
Churoh, ; ,and not less.competent; ;that Statp con
nection,ensured the. intellectual independence of
the clergy, while what-voluntaries called the
headship of Christ often’meaht the supremacy of
the green-grocer in the next street to. the chapel;
that dissenting preachers ha 4 in/history proved
as worldly and, subservient,, andv Churchmen as
’independent and patriotic (e. g: : Wm. Penn’ and
Bishop Ken) as their neighbors. life looked oh
dissentera as “ dissenting metnhers of* the tftiurch
of England,”: desired, tpeir recognition .as clergy
men; and their admission. to.the: pulpits of the
Ghiirch; ‘ alleging that -it ; was ‘almost if not alto
gether to afloat .'Presbyterians! how;* but
the religious: life of the nption. would be most
seriously injured- blithe abolition of the, Estab
lishment. ' i ,
Mr., Miall admitted that most of these argu
ments were new. to him,.and notisitch as to ad
mit of an immediate answer, and that the main
objection of the dissenters, was to the assumption
that religious teaching, lay within, the sphere of
the State.
The Bishop of London wanted a National
Church on a wide basis, and hoped for more such
conferences as a means, of removing misunder-
standings.
Rev. Jas. Martineau professed .himself in uni
ty with what was said by the Bean and the
Bishop, and thought the State,had a right to look
after the highest as well as the lower interests of
the people.
The proceedings lasted to a late hour.
[*Dean Stanley alludes especially to > the fact
that part of Canterbury Cathedral is by law set
apart for the use.of the French, Protestant Church,
which has a minister resident in the place.]
PASTOR, OB CHURCH?
Our dailies of week before last gave somewhat
extensive accounts of a scene,which occurred in
the Eleventh: Baptist Church, on the_ previous
Sabbath. The affair was one which roust by this
time hiave become deeply mortifying to all con
cerned. The published account hre not lumi
* . - . . )f-’ . '1
nous respecting the or conditions of the
controversy, but-so'mueh as this is obvious, that
the sermon of t*he pastor on Sabbath morning be
came so pointed, or as his opponents would say,
that he was interrupted, questioned and
finally told to desist. Failing to silence him by
other means, resort was at last had to the organ,
and amid the tumult the congregation dispersed.
When the pastor returned for evening service, he
found the doors locked. The law has since been
resorted to for a settlement, or probably an in
creased non-settlement of the difficulty.
We notice the affair only because it so apt ! y,
illustrates the working of a certain system of
church order. Congregationalism is the form of
church government with the Baptist churches,
and the most of them are very tenacious of the
so-called liberties of the people, as against the
prerogatives of the Pastors. In the by-laws of
the Eleventh Church, this jealousy of the pasto
ral prerogative takes organic form in an article
providing that the devotional exercises of the con
gregation shall be under the direction of the
church. Whatever in this case, may be the un
derlying merits of the controversy—-a poiut of
which we have .no means of judging—it appears
pretty plain that the muss feature of it, if not the
whole, grew out of that article; and, taking our
human nature into the account, it was a pretty
natural result. We do not know whether a fully
developed Congregationalism recognizes any such
thing as pastoral authority, or if that is too stiff
a word, say oversight}, but be tbis as it may, if
G-enesee Evangelist, 3STo. 1143.
f Ministers $2.50 H. Miss. $2 00.
l Address:—l334 Chestnut Street.
the office does not‘involve the direction of the
public religious services, it is next thing to a
stark absurdity. Under the by-law, we do not
see why the whole scene in the aforesaid church
was not ecclesiastically regular. The devo
tional exercises of the congregation were under
the control, not of the pastor, hut of the church.
When they thought his serin on was becoming un
edifying, it was their right to interrupt him and
tell' him that he could not he tolerated, and to
order out the booming and screeching of the
organ pipes to drown his‘voice to silence. But
concerning the spiritual wisdom of a system
which exposes our Christian, worship to such
shameful scenes, our readers can judge for them
selves.
AFFAIRS AT THE CAPITAL.
, . Washington, April 13th, 1868.
The Supreme Court adjourned last Monday,
thus postponing, to next, December the adverse
political decisions to which, the Obstructionists
have looked with so much expectancy. On the
last day of the term, decision, was declared in the
famous “ Gaines case” by which at last Mrs.
Gaines is put in possession of the property left
by herfather in New Orleans. For thirty-six years
has this indefatigable woman pressed her suit,
out-living two husbands, spending the large for
tune of the last and pledging a large part of the
property now. secured in lawyer’s fees, through
poverty, reproach, affliction and civil war, and is
.at last by the highest court in the land declared
to be the rightful owner of property which makes
her the richest woman, in America. The history
of this case would possess all the interest of a
romance, and it is to be hoped that Mrs Gaines
who has the legal ability to do it may give it to
the world.
; The ; defense of the President reveals at its
commencement the inherent weakness of the
ease. The opening speech of Judge Curtis,
though adroit and indeed almost wonderful as a
piece of fine spun sophistry failed of any decided
effect. Such legal quibbles, as that the Civil
Tenure act did not apply to Mr Stanton, or that.
Mr. Johnson .did not remove Mr. Stanton hut
only tried to do so, could scarcely have any ef
fect upon Senators except to convince them that
no stronger arguments could be urged. One of
the Senators remarked at the close of the argu
ment that all the points presented by Judge
Curtis were made in secret session when Mr.
Stanton was re-instated.
In the production of testimony the defense has
been equally unfortunate. Gen. Thomas was their
first witness. Inconsistent, pervaricating, doubt
ful and confused, there has been scarcely a point
in bis testimony in which he has not contradic
ted himself or given a double version of all the
facts connected with his attempted entry into
•the War Department. Gen. Butler character
ized him on Saturday as “a weak vacillating,
vain old man just fit to be pampered by a little
bribe to do the thing which no brave man would
dare do.” Taken by itself his testimony would
tend to weaken the charges against the Presi
dent. Not that he has brought new facts to light
or disproved the the testimony of other witnes
ses ; but his appearance makes the attempt to
dislodge such a man as Stahtdff 'a great farce.
It would not bo strange if the counsel for the
President .should usd Thomas's testimony in a
way to surprise the witness, and claim that if
.the President had designed to remove Stanton
he never would have employed such a man as his
tool. The masked ball was a more fitting arena
for him than the head of a revolution.
The testimony of Gen. Sherman, however,
shows that the President’s intentions are not to
be interpreted in the light of the final selection
of Gen, Thomas as his tool. Sherman testified
that oh two occasions the ad interim situation was
offered to himself and both times declined. The
chief purpose of the defense in calling Gen.
Sherman to the stand seems to have been to in
troduce conversations between Mr. Johnson and
himself, in which the former had explained his
purposes in making the appointment.
The Democrats seem determined to present
Judge Chase in a false light before the country.
This week they have claimed him as the author
of a long and heavy article in the Intelligencer
which endeavors to prove that the successor of
Mr. Johnson cannot be Wade or Colfax, but must
be Chase. The- taste that would be exhibited by
the advocacy of such opinious in such a manner
at this time does not shock these new admirers
of Judge Chase; but-the charge of producing
the malignant editorials of the Presidents organ
is too gross detraction, and is authoritatively de
nied.
The reason for the decided opposition of the
Democracy to the impeachment of the President
has come to light —“he has threatened that if re
moved he will enter the Presidential canvas at
once in favor of the Democratic nominees. No
wonder that they fear t the consequences of im
peachment. Fenwick.
City.—At a meeting of the Central Presbytery of
Philadelphia, held on Tuesday, March 31, in the mat
ter of the complaint of a portion of the Second Pres
byterian Church against the consummation of a
union between the Second Church of this city, Bev.
Dr. Beadle, pastor, and the Arch Street Presbyterian
Church, Bev. Mr. Conkling, late pastor, it was, by a
large majority of the Presbytery decided that such
union was undesirable and inexpedient, and therefore
disapproved.