The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-11-28 00:00:00

CRADLEY HEATH.

THY. jason Citt-erw.—On Sunday evening the Vicar
of Cradle). With, the Rev. F. J. Clarke, preached a nor
mon on this subject. His discourse was founded upon
Mark xvi. ch.. 15th varse. Various means, he said, had
been employed to reform men. Philosophers had tried
their but, and large kingdoms hail existed whose refined
civilisation had exerted a powerful influence, but all had
failed. Homan euileavours were fruitless, because man
was depraved and sinful; it required a power more than
human to raise the tendencies of the human heart. It
could only be done in and through the et onninent of
Christ. The command given in the text fully illustrated
the agency which alone was to raise mankind from its
,I,.graded po:dtion. At the time .f Christ the church
was in a minority, but there would • time come when
the whole world should taste and experience the joys of
the Gospel. It was the duty of all in the meantime to
seek to know the truths of the Gospel as far as they
consul. and to witness them before men. The church in
Ireland was a witness of the troth. It taught and dis-
seminated the same vital principles as the English
Church, and although it did so, yet there was an attempt
being mule to take away its endowments ; a course which
was unfair in the extreme. For those endowments were
not received from Government, nor from the English
people. but they were the property of the church. which
it had possessed more than 30a) years. The Roman
Catholics had endowments, and many of the Dissenters
in this country hail endowments yet these were not to
be touched. whilst in Ireland it was proposed to rob and
confiscate the property of the church, and that property
too which enabled her to propagate the true Gospel. It
was robbery. inasmuch us the State was only a trustee,
and her duty consisted in seeing that all required of the
church was performed. When the State went farther
then that. it W. doing what it bad no right to do; and
certainly in taking away these endowments robbery was
committed. The rev, gentleman next noticed the argu-
ments in favour of the diseendowment, which he char-
acterised as very unfair. 011 P was' Justice to Ireland,"
which meant, he said, to rob one part of the people to
benefit another portion, How. he asked, could it be just
to those descendants of the Protestants, who in ages
past no boldly and mentally resisted the efforts of the
Roman powers who sought to stamp out their holy reli-
gion ; and how could it be just to rob them of that which
WI had possessed so lone? Justice more absurd was
never talked of. Was it just to deprive one part of the
eommnnity which was thoroughly loyal, to please another
part which wan. rebellious, and who were sworn to count
all men as heretics and traitors who did not acknowledge
the power and supremacy of the Pope? It had been
said too that the Irish Church was an alien church. It
existed long before Roman Catholicism was known there,
and Ireland was truly Protestant till it was made Catho-
lie by the Governmmit of Fusthtnd. It was the Remish
Church which was the alien church. Again, it had been
said that the Irish Church was hateful to the feelings of
the Catholics, Perhaps they would remember that
eight-ninths of the land owners were Protestants, and
that the monarch of that country was bound by law to
be R Protestant. Were they prepared then to do away
with things simply for this cry. If they were rid of the
chorch they would seek to he rid of the landowners, and
then of the monarch. Were they prepared to do iiway
with these simply to please a rebellious people ? It had
been said too that the Irish Church was the great cause
of discontent in thet country. Never was a greater
falsehood spoken. During a two years' ministry in the
south-west part of Ireland, in the very heart of the Ceti'.
slice, he never heard a single Catholic speak of the
church as a hardship. It {MI the land, law that was the
secret of discontentment, and not the Irish Church. It
had been said, and he acknowledged it was true, that
there were abuses in the Irish Church ; but they should
be removed. Certainly they were no argument for dc.
struction, but rather for reform. There were abuses in
the English Church—Pusey ism, Ritualism, and even
J nits were at work. But how Wll9 it that the leader of
tine thsendowment party should leave the abuses at his
own door, and go to Ireland:' The measures, too, em-
ployed were not only shameful but lying. He then
dwelt et some length upon sonte statistics pot forth by
Lord John Russell in 182.1, and said that though the mis-
statements which were being made were shown to be
false, yet they were made again and again afterwards.
fle then referred to some statistic,' state Dents made by
I a Dr. Norman Brown, at Cheltenham, and proved flair
I falsity. But the strangest thing said of the Irish
! Church, he continued, was that it would be better for the
I Irish church if she was disendowed ; that meant that if
she were robbed—if she were plundered—she would
afterwards be donbly vigorous, which was tantamount to
a Lyles; to some mission in a foreign land, we will not sup.
! port you, anal then you will be ttuly vigorous and sucees-
ful. Having shown that the church had extelided its in.
tluence, and was doing good, he remarked that disendow-
ment would be the means of stopping the work of God
!in that country. In conclusion, he said the Church of
Rome was an organised body: the Dissenters, on the
. other hand, were unorganised. How would they, when
I left to themselves, withstand the influences of Popery.
' He wished they would not join themselves with Raman
Catholic., with Infidels, and with Unitarians, enemies of
the true faith, in endeavouring to destroy the Irish
Church.