In civil matters, Ireland in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, presented the same, or nearly the same, condition as she did more than three centuries before, when the English first landed on her shores. The Pale was literally bounded by the Liffey and the Boyne, and the old feuds, the long-protracted wars between the Anglo-Irish and the natives still subsisted. The regular administration of the law was limited to the four counties adjoining the capital, called the “Four Obedient Counties.” It seems incontestable that religion was in a flourishing condition in this country during the period; for an unwonted activity and fervour animated both clergy and people, as can be inferred from the number of religious houses established; the frequency of Synods held denoting zeal and regularity on the part of the prelates convening them; and the common practice, so much then in vogue, of visiting, through a spirit of penance and devotion, the Holy Places at home and in far-off countries. Our Annals prove this to demonstration. But, it must be borne in mind that the spirit of exclusion was still in full force amongst the Anglo-Irish clergy, and no Irishman was eligible for benefices within the Pale. Learning, which is ever the handmaid of true piety, found its home as in ancient times amongst the two classes of the clergy, the secular and regular. The number of learned works published at that time clearly proves it. Amongst the many eminent men who then adorned the Church in Ireland, Maurice O’Fihely, Archbishop of Tuam, ranks foremost. His biographers, for he had many, inform us, that he “was eminent for his extraordinary knowledge in Divinity, Logic, Philosophy, and Metaphysics,” that he published a Dictionary of the Holy Scriptures, and was styled by his contemporaries at home and abroad, “The Flower of the World.” He had been a Franciscan Friar before his promotion to the See of Tuam, but did not long survive his appointment.

Now, capital has been made by some writers out of a description of the Church in Ireland taken from the State Papers, Part III., Vol. II., pp. 15, 16. If it reflected a true picture, a Reformation would indeed have been needed, but not the kind introduced by Henry VIII., nurtured by Edward VI., and propagated with fire and sword by Elizabeth. The Report states: “Some sayeth, that the prelates of the Church and the clergy is much the cause of all the mysse order of the land, for there is no archbyshop, ne bysshop, abbot, ne prior, parson ne vicar, ne any other person of the church, high or lowe, greate or smalle, Englysh or Irishe, that usythe to preach the worde of Godde, saveing the poor fryers beggars.”... “Some sayeth”—Who were these “Some,” or what was their assertion worth? Were they parties who benefited by the disturbance of the old order of things at the Suppression, and so suspected of having been partial, and eager to seek any and every palliation for the State Church as by law established. Now every student of Irish history, as contained in our Annals, knows that that anonymous statement is unwarranted by fact. It will suffice to take two instances, as we find them recorded in Dowling’s Annals about this time, to show the fallacy of the accusation of wholesale neglect of preaching the Word of God. Of Nicholas Maguire, Bishop of Leighlin, 1490-1512, Dowling (Protestant Chancellor of Leighlin) writes: “When he was Prebendary of Ullard, he preached and delivered great learning with no less reverence, being in favour with the King and nobility of Leinster, who, together with the Dean and Chapter, elected him Bishop of Leighlin.” And of Maurice Deoran, or Doran, who a few years later succeeded him in Leighlin, Dowling again writes: “He was a most eloquent preacher.” It cannot be denied that at that time some Church dignitaries affected the airs and magnificence of worldly magnates, nor that they gave scandal to their flocks by their absenteeism. Other abuses, no doubt, existed, but the watchful providence of God had made provision for their removal through His authorised ministers. But, alas! a new condition of affairs shall soon arise. The most powerful political engine ever fabricated for the extension of the English power in Ireland shall be introduced, one which shall eventually break up the tribe lands, annihilate the sway of the ancient chieftains, and reduce their impoverished descendants to the condition of serfs and menials. And this shall be called reforming the Church! Even in this revolution, Mellifont shall play her part, and become revolutionized and misappropriated.

CHAPTER VII.

THE SUPPRESSION OF MELLIFONT.

“No more shall Charity with sparkling eyes,
And smiles of welcome, wide unfold the door,
Where pity listening still to nature’s cries,
Befriends the wretched and relieves the poor.”
(Keats.)

he Religious Orders, which succeed each other in the Catholic Church, are subject to laws similar to those that govern the productions of nature. They grow from feeble and imperceptible seeds, increase, flourish, and bear fruit; then decrease, fade, and fall to the ground. But they have produced a fruit, which contains within it the germs of a new seed-time, and which bursts forth vigorously from the decaying sheath to reproduce its never-failing kind. This work of reproduction and subsequent expansion is aided, directed, and encouraged by him, to whom is divinely committed the government of the Church; and when pseudo, self-styled reformers essay the difficult task, their true character is unmasked in the inevitable ruin and desolation which follow, instead of the order and rehabilitation which were promised. Bluff King Hal, or the Merrie Monarch, as Henry VIII. was familiarly and affectionately called by his loving subjects in the beginning of his reign, was in need of money to squander on his passions and pleasures. In his newly assumed character, therefore, of Head of the Church in his dominions (which, by Act of Parliament, he made it high treason to deny), he suppressed the lesser monasteries whose annual income did not exceed £200. This was done, forsooth, in the interests of religion!!! The proceeds of the confiscation were soon dissipated, and the wily Cromwell, whom the King had appointed his Vicar General, suggested the suppression and appropriation to the King’s uses, of all the monasteries within the realm. Again it is his zeal for the promotion of God’s glory that is pleaded as his motive for the nefarious deed. Three years before, when addressing the Houses of Parliament in behalf of the measure for the suppression of the lesser monasteries, he publicly gave thanks to God, that in the large communities “religion is right well kept and observed.” And yet, what a metamorphosis in such a short space! All had now fallen away, and had inexplicably sunk into all manner of iniquity! Spelman, in his History of Sacrilege, tells the mode adopted by this model Reformer to carry his motion for investing in the Crown the property of all the Religious Orders. “The King sent for the Commons,” he tells us, “and informed them he would have the Bill pass, or take off some of their heads.” This they knew to be no empty threat; and pass the Bill they did on that memorable day of May 13, 1539. The Lords, as a body, voted for it; partly through a feeling of jealousy towards the Churchmen, who enjoyed no inconsiderable share of the monarch’s confidence and favour, and so they rejoiced at whatever promised to destroy this good understanding between them; and partly through cupidity, for they hoped for a share in the booty. The Bishops at that juncture are blamed for their weakness in complying with so unjust a proceeding; but they were divided in their councils; some considering it the less of two evils to sacrifice the Religious houses, in the hope that the misunderstanding between the King and the Pope would be soon adjusted and the monks restored, yielded to the King; others, unworthy of their office, as it must be admitted, worldly men, courtly prelates, who dreaded the King’s displeasure, obsequiously obeyed his mandate.

Besides his greed for gold, the King had another potent motive for suppressing the monasteries, one that gave a zest to this disgraceful act: he wanted the further to spite the Pope by inflicting such an unheard-of injury on religion. Other motives, too, were not wanting, such as state policy, so the King alleged, and the want of constant affection towards his person on the part of the Religious, particularly in his new capacity. This, Lord Herbert (who was no friend of the monks) admits in his Life of the King. His Lordship writes: “The monks were looked upon as a body of reserve for the Pope, and always ready to appear in his quarrels.” Perhaps, their opposition to the King’s assumption of spiritual power precipitated matters. At all events, one of them, zealous for God’s law, had the courage to reproach him to his face in a sermon preached at Greenwich before the King’s marriage with Anne Boleyn. This fearless champion of justice, this intrepid son of St. Francis, thus addressed the dissolute monarch:—“I am that Micheas, O King, whom you will hate because I must tell you truly that this marriage is unlawful; and I know that I shall eat the bread of affliction and drink the water of sorrow; yet, because our Lord has put it in my mouth, I must speak it.” And when he and another faithful brother friar were brought before the King’s council, who rebuked them, and declared them deserving of being shut up in a sack, and thrown into the Thames, for the boldness of their language in the matter of the King’s marriage, his companion smiling said: “Threaten these things to the rich and dainty persons, who are clothed in purple, and fare deliciously, and have their chiefest hope in this world; for we esteem them not, but are joyful, that, for the discharge of our duty we are driven hence; and, with thanks to God, we know the way to heaven to be as ready by water as by land.” (Stowe, Church Chronicle.)