religion and state in seventeenth-century ireland

Religion and State in Seventeenth-Century IrelandAuthor(s): Conor RyanSource: Archivium Hibernicum, Vol. 33 (1975), pp. 122-132Published by: Catholic Historical Society of IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487416 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 14:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Catholic Historical Society of Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchivium Hibernicum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:35:21 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25487416?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Religion and State

in Seventeenth - Century Ireland

Conor Ryan

When English power for the first time became effective over the whole of

Ireland in 1603 an important decision had to be made about the future

course of English policy in Ireland. Because of the difference in religion between the English government and the vast majority of the Irish people

rehgion was inevitably going to be an important consideration in that

decision. The English crown had traditionally entrusted the administration of

Ireland to the Old English group, descendants of the early Norman lords. There was now, however, since the Reformation a significant religious differ

ence between the crown which was Protestant and the Old English who were

mostly Catholics. The decision facing the crown was whether the Old English Catholics were to continue to share the government with the New English

planters who were for the most part Protestant, or was the administration to

be entrusted exclusively to the Protestant group alone. There was, of course, no question of sharing power with the Old Irish or Gaelic group. As well as

being predominantly Catholic they were regarded as uncivilised or in the

language of the time as lacking in 'civility'. As such they were untrustworthy and indeed the plantations among them, especially the Plantation of Ulster,

were justified as an attempt to introduce this 'civility' to them.2 The choice

lay between the Old English and the New English groups. There were three

factors which ensured that religion would be a decisive consideration in this

choice: (a) the outlook of the king, James I, an outlook that was shared in

large measure by most of the Stuart kings; (b) the political importance of

religious conformity in the seventeenth century; (c) the political beliefs of

the Catholics.

James I was steeped in the ideology of monarchical rule which was

dominant in Europe at the beginning ofthe seventeenth century. In 1576 the

Six livres de laRepublique of Jean Bodin was published, in which the doctrine of an absolute secular and indivisible sovereignty got its most influential

expression.3 The seventeenth century was dominated by this idea of

sovereignty, whether it was defended in the interests of the parliament, the

people, the king, or even the Pope.4 Sovereignty, then, meant absolute power unrestricted by parliament, church or law. According to James, not alone was

the king absolute but he exercised absolute power by divine right. The king succeeded to the throne by divine right and exercised his power by divine

right, being answerable to nobody except God.5 In support of this theory was a political and theological corpus of learning much of which had grown up in

opposition to papal claims and papal interference in England. Full control over the church was an essential part of the sovereignty claimed by James,



SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY IRELAND 123

but the Catholics had a divided allegiance, part of their allegiance being directed to the Pope and part to the king.6 This James regarded as treason

able. Thus if he wanted to rule Ireland with absolute power he would have to

create a centralised Protestant state, necessarily Protestant because a divided

allegiance was diametrically opposed to absolutism.

James's absolutism demanded that the Irish state be Protestant, but

security demanded it too. This brings us to our second point, namely, the

political importance of religious conformity. In the seventeenth century no

ruler could dispense with the assistance which an established church could

lend in building up a political and social unity in the country. The nation

states in Europe were as yet in their infancy, still only emerging from the

medieval commonwealth. They were establishing their independent identities

and forging bonds of unity among the peoples over which they had jurisdic tion. But they had not yet sufficient time to forge those secular bonds of

unity which afterwards cemented people in a unified state. Unity was

imposed from above and inevitably it was a mechanical type of unity relying

largely on the power of the ruler to enforce it. The unifying effect of a single established church was very important and no ruler could afford to dispense

with its services. The people must conform to this church, and those who

refuse to conform must be divested of all power and influence. Legal toleration

of dissident religious groups was out of the question. Loyalty to the king included religious conformity to the state church.

Even apart from the dilution of royal sovereignty implied in the allegiance which Catholics accorded to the Pope there were also political beliefs which

Catholics held or were widely believed to hold. These beliefs amounted to the

claim that the church could control and direct the activity of the state in certain matters. This was known as the indirect power of the Pope in

temporal matters, and it extended to the censuring and deposing of kings and the power to order Catholics to withhold allegiance from an errant king. The

Presbyterians also held the same type of doctrines. As contemporary

pamphlets would have it, dissenters and romanists are all 'Jesuits' because

they weaken the subjects' allegiance to the king. (The reference here is to the

teaching of Jesuits such as Bellarmine and Mariana that the people can depose an unjust king

? the official papal teaching was that the Pope could depose a

king). James did not need to be reminded of these doctrines because he had

first-hand experience of them in the gunpowder plot. The two systems of

papal supremacy and Presbyterian 'discipline' are both clerical in essence.

They both assert a claim by divine right for God's minister, whether he be the

Pope or the Presbyterian minister, a claim superior to all civil government. James saw that both Catholicism and Presbyterianism were at one in subject

ing, in the final analysis, the royal power to a higher power, namely, God ?

but in effect to God's minister. The theory of the divine right of kings was

formulated in answer to this.

But while James might regard Catholic and Presbyterian doctrines as



124 RELIGION AND THE STATE

equally treasonable there were some significant differences between the two

groups. The Presbyterians were technically still members of the state church.

They might object to the church structure and liturgy but there was still a

strong hope that they could be weaned into full participation in the church.

Furthermore they were Protestants and did not acknowledge an authority outside the kingdom. The Catholics on the other hand had already opted out

of the established church. They furthermore acknowledged an authority outside the kingdom who while he might be their spiritual leader was also a

temporal prince, a temporal prince who had a multi-national organisation of

immense power and influence, so powerful in fact that at least some of the

ruling houses in Europe had demonstrated their fitness to rule by their success in opposing the power of this multi-national organisation in their own

territories. Royal absolutism demanded that the Irish state be Protestant,

security demanded that people of consequence be members of the state

church, and finally the political beliefs of the Catholics and the political power of the papacy made the protestantisation of the Irish state an urgent and immediate task.

James, however, failed to build up an absolutist state in Ireland, not

because he failed to make the state Protestant but because he failed to realise

that simply diverting power from Catholic hands into Protestant ones was not

enough. Protestantism gave him control ofthe church but the political power which the Catholics lost to the new Protestant planter group was exercised by these latter largely independently of the king. The new planter group increased its power not only at the expense of the Catholics but also at the

expense of the king's government. In the reign of Charles I, when in 1632

Wentworth became the king's deputy in Ireland he set out to correct this

oversight on the part of James. He realised that land ownership was the key to political power and those who held land independently of the king also

exercised power independently of the king. He attempted to make all land

ownership depend on the will of the king and thus to concentrate absolute

power in his hands. Quite consistently with the theory of absolutism he determined to force the Presbyterians in the north into full conformity with

the state church.7 They had objected to episcopacy and also to many

liturgical practices in the state church which savoured too much of Catholicism.

Wentworth's efforts to create an asbolute state antagonised practically every group in Ireland. His policy of concentrating political power in the hands of the government drove the various groups into an uneasy alliance in opposition to him, and this opposition crystallised in his last parliament of 164041. It was basically an alliance between the Old English Catholics and the new planter Protestant group of which the Presbyterians in the north formed a significant section. The Church of Ireland at the time was predomin antly Calvinist in its theology (though not in its church government) and this was a more congenial climate for the Presbyterians who were also strongly




Calvinist in outlook.8 Wentworth, ably assisted by his episcopal lieutenant

John Bramhall, bishop of Deny, had tried to make the Church of Ireland

Arminian, and thus to bring it into line with the Arrninianism of the Church

of England under William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury. The opposition alliance in the parliament decided to resist by claiming that Wentworth's

absolutism was illegal and unconstitutional, that it was destructive of the rule

of law and against the traditional rights of parliament. Helped by the English House of Commons they succeeded in bringing about the downfall of

Wentworth, but because they failed to defeat the absolutist designs of the

king the constitutional problem posed by their religion remained. The alliance

broke up when the Old Irish group in Ulster who were not represented in the

parliament of 1640-41 rose in arms in 1641. The Irish Calvinists were at ease

in co-operating with the predominantly Calvinist English House of Commons

against Wentworth and ultimately against the absolutism ofthe king. But for

the Catholics this was a dangerous business because they needed the protec tion of the king against the virulent anti-catholicism of the English House of

Commons and of the Irish Calvinists. The Old English Catholics eventually saw the logic of the situation and joined the Old Irish Catholics in rebellion.

The Catholics were in arms to protect their rights, to be secured in the

ownership of their lands, and to have full rights of citizenship and especially to be allowed to participate in the government of the country. This implied, of course, that their Catholicism be legally recognised. They were by no

means agreed on what this legal recognition should be, but they were agreed that they should not be discriminated against because they were Catholics.

They formed a political institution to conduct the war and to administer the

territory under their control, and also to treat with the king. This they called the 'Catholic Confederacy.' The Catholics now had a chance to put forward a

solution to the constitutional problem of a Protestant king with absolutist intentions ruling over a largely Catholic country, which acknowledged allegiance to the Pope as well as to himself. This is our interest here in the

Confederation; but to understand the Confederation we must understand the

groups who participated in it.

The most powerful of these groups was undoubtedly the Old English.

Traditionally they were loyal to the English crown and had sided with the

English occupation armies against the Old Irish. For centuries the English monarchs had entrusted the Irish administration to them. Their loyalty to

Catholicism was beyond doubt but their enthusiasm for a Catholic establish

ment, even if it was possible, was tempered somewhat by a congenital distrust of clerical interference in political affairs and a real fear that they would be

deprived of lands once the property ofthe Catholic Church but given to them

by Henry VIII. The freedom to practise their Catholicism quietly through tacit toleration would have satisfied many of them. They strongly asserted their loyalty to the crown and insisted on their ability to reconcile

recognition of the Pope's spiritual primacy with their duty to uphold the




temporal authority of the English crown. They claimed that their religion should have no bearing on their relationship with the government. If the

government accepted this plea, then a significant admission of the secular

nature of political obedience would be made. Although they would accept a legal toleration of their religion the logic of their claim was much more

radical. They were really proposing a doctrine of religious freedom.

Though numerically the bulk of the population, the other Catholic group, the Old Irish, were by the 1640s the least important group politically and

socially. They had no parliamentary tradition and so in an emergency they had to rely on the haphazard organisation formed on the spur ofthe moment

by local nobility, ecclesiastics and soldiers. Their lack of leaders made them

rely all the more on the guidance of their clergy. It is not accurate to say that

they were more loyal to Catholicism than the Old English, but their catholic

ism tended to be more militant because of the stronger influence of the clergy,

especially the pro-Spanish bishops who dominated the hierarchy. Because

they had lost more in the plantations than the Old English they were less

interested in maintaining the status quo. They were loyal to the Stuarts but

also very critical of them. It is however essential to realise that many of their

leading gentry, prominent among the organisers ofthe rebellion of 1641, had

held their lands and shared with the Old English group a tradition of judicious

compromise with the English crown.9 They sought freedom for their religion and security for their way of life. They had as much if not more in common

with the lords of the Pale as they had with their dispossessed kinsmen and

neighbours.10 For the most part they combined with the Old English in the

Confederation to form the moderate group. While it is dangerous to use terms like 'moderate' and 'extreme' there is

some justification for it here. The 'moderates' did not want to cause an

upheaval in land ownership by demanding that the plantations be reversed and they were very conscious of the legal problems which freedom for Catholicism would entail. They saw, for example, that the penal statutes were an essential part of the ideology upon which the English monarchy was based, but the penalties which accompanied these statutes were not essential. They would have been happy if the penalties were removed and in this way a legal toleration accorded to their religion. They were moderate also in that they felt they could achieve this objective through negotiation and compromise. They dominated the Confederation up to 1643 but their failure to work out a satisfactory settlement with the king's deputy Ormond lost them their

commanding position. Ormond, a Protestant, refused to give way on the

question of papal authority, seeing the allegiance ofthe Catholics to the Pope as dangerous to the authority of the king.11

Of more extreme outlook were those who had lost lands in the plantations and wanted these lands restored. There were also those who wanted a full restoration of Catholicism to its former status. They wanted to see the Catholic Church given a position of political dominance and they wanted the

churches, lands and livings restored to the Catholic clergy. It is not inaccurate




to describe both these groups as extremists because their objectives, whether

religious or economic, would have to be wrung from the king by force of

arms. The extremists did not form a united group in the early days because

some wanted the reversal of the plantations whereas others wanted the

re-establishment of Catholicism. Rinuccini and Owen Roe O'Neill managed to

unite them against the moderates but the union was a precarious one and

Rinuccini nearly destroyed it when he was prepared to accept a satisfactory

religious settlement without any mention of the plantations. The extremists gained considerable strength in the Confederation with the

return ofthe exiles in the summer of 1642. Many of these had lost their lands

in the plantations and they were schooled in the militant Counter-reformation

Catholicism of the continental type. They were veterans ofthe religious wars

in Europe and this was hardly the best background to help them appreciate the complexities of the Irish situation or the need for some accommodation

with a Protestant king. It was tempting for them to view the war in Ireland as

the Irish phase of the religious struggle which had gone on all over Europe for

nearly a hundred years.12 Counter-Reformation thinking practically com

mitted Catholics to a fight to the end against Protestantism. The Council of

Trent had not considered compromise of any sort.

Strong also among the extremists were the clergy, especially the pro

Spanish bishops. Some of the old English clergy however supported the

moderates. In July 1643 the clerical party in the Confederation got a new

vigorous leader with the arrival of the papal delegate, Scarampi. Scarampi was a shrewd politician trained in Counter-reformation Catholicism and

sufficiently influential to draw round himself a party who shared his views. He was determined to get the Confederates to stiffen their religious demands.

By 1645 when he was replaced by the nuncio Rinuccini he had managed to

get the Confederation to insist on the repeal of the penal statutes, retention of the churches already in their possession, freedom from the ecclesiastical

jurisdiction of the Protestant clergy and the right to practise their own. When

Rinuccini arrived in Ireland in October 1645 the Confederate armies were

very successful in the field and he was able to insist on a demand for even

stiffer religious concessions. He won a major victory when he managed to get the king's secret negotiator Glamorgan (a Catholic) to concede freedom to the Catholic Church to exercise its jurisdiction and to retain the churches

already in its possession. Under pressure from Rinuccini, Glamorgan also

agreed that the viceroy should always be a Catholic, and that Catholic bishops should have the right to sit in Parliament. This agreement assured the Catholic Church much of the political power and favoured social position which we

associate with establishment. This is the extreme religious proposal stated in its most complete form. It was different from the official Counter-reformation attitude only in that it allowed freedom to protestantism.

Even though this agreement came to nothing the ease with which

Glamorgan had conceded Rinuccini's demands convinced many moderates




that the nuncio's policy was realistic. As a result the Confederation over

whelmingly rejected the proposed peace treaty with Ormond in 1646 because

its religious clauses were highly unsatisfactory. While the nuncio had his way in having the peace of 1646 rejected, the manner in which this was achieved

caused considerable disquiet among the Confederates and must have

confirmed Protestants like Ormond in their view that papal jurisdiction was

dangerous to the peace of the realm. Rinuccini the papal representative,

exercising papal jurisdiction, had excommunicated the Catholic representatives who signed the peace and had instigated Owen Roe to imprison the supreme council of the Confederation. This disquiet became open division when

Rinuccini excommunicated the Confederates who were negotiating a truce

with the Protestant Inchiquin in 1648. In this case the dispute centred around

the question of whether Catholics could co-operate with heretics, and it was

agreed on all sides that they could, provided Catholicism gained by it. This was a practical political question to be decided by the elected political leaders. The intervention of Rinuccini could be only regarded as a gross

example of clerical interference in politics.13 If the nuncio's policies were a

taste of what papal jurisdiction openly and legally exercised in Ireland would mean then it was hard to see how it would not be dangerous to the peace and

security of the kingdom. The extremists withdrew from the Confederation and the moderates

concluded a Peace with Ormond in January 1649 in which they only secured a vague promise on the question of papal jurisdiction.14 In effect the

Catholics of the Confederation had failed to solve the problem of royal

authority and papal jurisdiction and had in fact only confirmed Protestants

in their view that the political doctrines of the Catholics were dangerous to

the security of the state. Cromwell blamed the clergy for the insurrection of

1641. He claimed he was unwilling to meddle with any man's conscience and

in fairness to him he did not penalise those who did not attend the state

church which he set up. This church was based on a very wide comprehension and ministers of many Protestant persuasions were supported within it by the state. Furthermore the oath of fealty to the new government was purely

political in character. He would not, however, tolerate the exercise of the Catholic religion. Though it was not his intention to exterminate the

Catholics, he declared all-out war on the Catholic clergy who, he said, usurp the secular power to uphold civil and ecclesiastical tyranny.15 The

Cromwellian persecution chastened the Irish Catholic clergy and they came

from this period a subdued group. Gone forever were all dreams ofthe return of a Catholic establishment and a privileged position for the Catholic Church. The moderate aim of religious freedom and equality for all creeds became the

accepted Catholic policy as was evident in the laws passed by the Catholic

parliament in 1689.

The restoration of Charles II in 1660 saw religious and political intolerance

entrenched in the government. This intolerance was mostly directed at the




Calvinists and especially at the Presbyterians in the north. It had the effect of

finally driving the Presbyterians out of the state church and into dissent, in

which state they suffered the same legal disabilities as the Catholics. This

penal code (Clarendon Code) was largely vindictive though it did have the

political justification that gatherings of dissenters were potential centres of

revolutionary activity. The political climate was more favourable to the

Catholics. The king had cause to be grateful to them for their loyalty to him

in exile and they hoped for the benefits of the Ormond Peace of 1649.

Leading bishops in the Church of Ireland like Bramhall and Jeremy Taylor felt that Catholicism should be accorded legal toleration provided it did not

present a political threat.16 Furthermore political thought had come to

realise that absolutism did not demand that everybody belong to the state

church but that the king could control dissenting churches precisely as

dissenting, as separate churches in the same way that he ruled his dominions as separate nations.17 Leading lay Catholics felt that if they could dissociate

their Catholicism from dangerous political opinions and reject the claims of the papacy to indirect power in temporal affairs they might induce the

government to restore them to their confiscated lands. They signed a remons

trance to this effect in 1661 and they set about getting the clergy to sign it

also. The remonstrance acknowledges Charles as lawful king and the obligation under pain of sin to obey him 'in all civil and temporal affairs'. This obedience

is due to the king no matter what power is claimed by the Pope and despite a

papal sentence to the contrary. Any foreign power be it papal or princely which interferes with their allegiance is repudiated. It is an impious doctrine

that subjects can kill their princes and they promise to reveal all conspiracies

against the king.18

Implicit in the remonstrance is the somewhat arbitrary division of

authority into spiritual and temporal. The civil authority is supreme in its own (temporal) sphere and any interference here by the Pope or by any other

foreign prince is repudiated. The remonstrance does not explicitly deny the

indirect power of the Pope in temporals but it certainly condemns its use in the dominions of Charles II. Is the doctrine ofthe indirect power ofthe Pope in temporals an essential part of Catholic teaching? Those who said it was

followed Bellarmine and Suarez and argued that the priest's power, which was at its highest in the Pope's power, extended to all human activity in which sin entered and so the priest's power extended indirectly into temporal affairs.

The church's end is supernatural, the state's end is a natural one. Thus, from

this difference, results a superiority of the spiritual over the temporal power and the Pope has an indirect power in all temporal matters that concern the

spiritual sphere.19 Those who deny the indirect power of the Pope are

usually called Galileans because their leading writers were Frenchmen who

defended the 'Gallican liberties' of the French church. They separated the

spiritual and temporal spheres completely and gave each an independent origin and status. The Pope was supreme in the spiritual, and the king in the




temporal. But some areas of activity overflow into both spheres, e.g., the

guardianship of morals and their sanction, ecclesiastical jurisdiction and

discipline, and finally church property. The Gallicans had no doubt that these

were all the province of the king while the followers of Bellarmine accorded

them to the Pope. The remonstrance was quite Gallican in tone and quickly brought

condemnation from Rome, and also from the university of Louvain. It posed the question of the limits of papal and royal power in its theological form.

The controversy over the Inchiquin truce had dealt with the same question but in the form of civil authority and ecclesiastical interference. It was

however the same question, and there is no doubt that the remonstrance

implicitly contained a' condemnation of the nuncio's policies in the

Confederation. Many of the clergy opposed the remonstrance as an inadequate

definition of the Pope's power, because it gave too much to the king and not

enough to the Pope.20 The clergy who supported it pointed to the six propos itions adopted by the theological faculty at the Sorbonne in 1663. 1. Subjects are bound in conscience to obey their prince in all civil and temporal affairs, in which sphere the Pope has no authority either direct or indirect. 2. The

king has no authority above him under God in temporal affairs. 3. No power can dispense subjects from the obedience they owe to the king. The first

three propositions, then treat of royal power in relation to the Pope. The

other three deny: 4. Any propositions contrary to the Gallican liberties, e.g., that the Pope can depose bishops contrary to these liberties. 5. That the Pope is above a general council. 6. That the Pope without the consent of the

church is infallible.21 The latter three propositions related more to Gallican

theology than to political theory but had the effect of handing jurisdiction over the church to the French king.

The clergy met at a synod in Dublin in 1666. They refused to sign the

remonstrance of 1661 but neither did they condemn it. They signed the first

three Sorbonne propositions and added a statement of loyalty of their own.

They refused to sign the last three Sorbonne propositions mainly on the

grounds that the French king was a Catholic and secured their spiritual jurisdiction and temporal possessions to the French clergy.22 If they signed the last three propisitions they would surrender the government of the

Catholic Church to the king. Could the Irish Catholics safely entrust such

far-reaching powers over their church to a Protestant king who did not maintain them in their possessions and jurisdictions and whose law made

illegal all forms of papal jurisdiction both spiritual and temporal? In effect the synod accepted the Remonstrance in all but name. The claims of the

papacy in temporals are rejected but jurisdiction over the Catholic Church is

rightfully the Pope's and not the king's. They failed, nonetheless, to solve the

problem of papal jurisdiction when the king claimed to be absolute. They had, however, divested their Catholicism of most of the dangerous political doctrines associated with it.




The most immediate effect of the remonstrance controversy seems to have

been a more co-operative attitude to the government among the Catholic

clergy. Significant in this regard were the efforts of the two archbishops Oliver Plunkett and John Brenan to break the menace of Toryism. Catholic

political thought, born out of the Old English parliamentary tradition,

developed by the moderates in the Confederation, purified by the Cromwellian

persecution, finely tuned in the controversies surrounding the remonstrance, came to full fruition in the laws passed by the Catholic parliament of 1689.

This parliament passed an act allowing to everybody freedom of conscience

and the right to worship as they pleased. It left church property in the hands

of the Protestants but tithes were to be given by Protestants to the Protestant

ministers and by Catholics to their priests. Like the Protestant bishops, the

Catholic bishops would be paid by the state but the king would have the

right of naming them.23 This marked a significant advance on the road to

religious freedom.

The determination of the Protestants to secure an exclusive position for

their church proved victorious however, and they strengthened their position

by winning support from the Presbyterian dissenters in the north. The legal disabilities of the Presbyterians were lifted early in the eighteenth century and their opposition to the Protestant Establishment was diluted by the

payment of an annual grant to their ministers.

Notes

1. This article contains in substance part of an M.A. thesis entitled 'The emergence of royal absolutism in Ireland*, presented to the Faculty of Philosophy, St Patrick's

College, Maynooth, in 1970. 2. N.P. Canny, 'The ideology of English colonisation: from Ireland to America', in

Wm. and Mary Quart., series 3, xxx, no. 4 (Oct., 1973). 3. An English translation appeared in 1606. 4. Acton, Essays on church and state (London, 1952), p. 42. 5. The workes of the most high and mightie Prince James (London, 1616). 6. J.R. Tanner, Constitutional document of James I (Cambridge, 1930); J.N. Friggs,

The theory ofthe divine right of kings, pp 90-93,177-83. 7. T. Ranger, 'Strafford in Ireland: a revaluation', in T. Aston (ed.), Crisis in Europe

1560-1660 (London, 1965), pp 271-93 (reprinted from Past & Present, no. 19 (1961). 8. For example, the Articles adopted by the Irish convocation of 1615 incorporated

the strongly Calvinistic Articles of 1595. 9. P. O Gallachair, 'The 1641 war in Clogher', in Clogher Rec, iv, no. 3 (1962),

pp 135-6.

10. Compare T.S. O'Cahan, Owen Roe O'Neill (London, 1968), pp 14 ff. with

Gilbert, Contemp. hist., 1641-52, i, xiii and T. O Fiaich, 'The son of Sir Phelim O'Neill, in Seanchas Ardmhacha, i, no. 2, p. 42. 11. Gilbert, lr. confed., v, 286-310. 12. Phillips, Ch. of Ire., iii, 71. 13. Bellings, lr. confed., vi, 224-78. 14. Ibid., vi, 160-61. 15. Gilbert,Contemp. hist., 1641-52, ii, 307;D.Murphy, Cromwell in Ireland (Dublin,

1883), pp 416-18.




16. Phillips, Ch. of Ire., iii, 119. A.W.H. (ed.), Works of John Bramhall; R. Heber (ed.), The whole works ofthe Rt Rev. Jeremy Taylor, D.D., (London, 1828). 17. C. Russell, The theory of treason in the trial of Strafford', in E.H.R., Ixxx

(1965), p. 47; see also A. Kamen, The rise of toleration, pp 194-5. 18. P. Walsh, The history and vindication of... the Irish remonstrance, first treatise,

p. 8.

19. H. Rommen, The state in Catholic thought, pp 545-9.

20. Walsh, op. cit., pp 661,685. 21. Ibid., pp 51, 84-6; B. Millett, The Irish Franciscans 1651-1665 (Rome, 1964), p. 441.

22. Walsh, op. cit., pp 687-90.

23. J.G. Simms, The Jacobite parliament of 1689 (Dundalk, 1966), pp 12-15.



religion and state in seventeenth-century ireland

Documents