Search

CONFORMITY TO THE NEW CANONS, 1635–40 Nicholas Bernard's Penitent death of a woeful sinner (Dublin, 1642) transforms the penitence of the most embarrassing contemporary figure in the Church of Ireland into a critique of its government from 1633 onwards. Atherton finally comes to true contrition when he repudiates not only his carnal sins but also his ecclesiastical sins. What are those sins? Prosecuting ‘too bitterly in the High Commission court’, attending too much to ‘law business’, too much ‘over-reaching of men’ (criticisms of Atherton's part in the temporalities campaign) and his neglect of public preaching. At the root of it was ‘his too much zeal, and forwardness, both in introducing and pressing some church innovations, and in dividing himself from the House of Convocation, Anno 1634 in opposition to the Articles of Ireland’. Atherton had been motivated in order to ‘please some mens persons’. Bernard understood the imposition of the English articles as the work of a few powerful people. He went still further and equated corruption and sexual immorality with the 1634 settlement, High Commission and the means by which church property had been restored. Wentworth and Bramhall were not only misguided, they were also immoral. The Penitent death was, above all, a work of sensational edification but it also tapped into a current of resentment flowing through the Church of Ireland during the 1630s. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND, 1541–1632 In November 1638, Wentworth was directed by Laud to answer those Scots in Ireland looking for the same concessions as their countrymen that ‘whatsoever he [the king] has indulged to Scotland, is because they have had there sometime a church government, such as it was, confused enough without bishops; but for Ireland, it has ever been reformed by and to the Church of England’. This response was, broadly speaking, correct. A reading of Meredith Hanmer's recently published translation of Giraldus Cambrensis's account of the last canon of the council of Cashel, ‘that all the divine service in the Church of Ireland shall be kept used and observed in the like manner and order as it is in the Church of England’, would have lent a gratifyingly ancient tone to Laud's argument. The Henrician statutes did declare ‘the King's Majesty to be only supreme head on earth of the church of England and Ireland’ and they did endorse the validity of Irish canons, constitutions and other instruments of church government until ‘such time as the King's highness shall order and determine according to his laws of England’. While the Act for Kingly Title of 1541 caused the term ‘Church of Ireland’ to be used on its own, the titles and contents of statutes tended to mirror those of their Westminster equivalents. They did this so completely that some statutes ended up with inappropriate references to York and Canterbury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For my care of this church, the reducing of it into order, the upholding of the external worship of God in it, and the settling of it to the rules of its first reformation I make not the least doubt in the world but that the Church of England before the reformation and the Church of England after the reformation are as much the same church as a garden before it is weeded and after it is weeded is the same garden. The English reformation failed to make Ireland Protestant. The reconstruction of the Church of Ireland failed because it was a variant of a reconstruction of the Church of England. Once again in the 1630s, Ireland's failure to be or to become England was at the heart of the matter. The programme of reconstruction carried out from 1633 to 1640 came close to being a refoundation of the established church in Ireland. It was ambitious and it was vigorous and the lord deputy, the lord archbishop of Canterbury and the lord bishop of Derry worked on it with energy and determination. Everything they did concerned itself with the visible church. There were the new canons, acts of state, statutes, and even another formulary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

THE TEMPORAL ESTATE OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND UNDER JAMES I AND CHARLES I There is little agreement about what actually happened at James Ⅵ & I's Hampton Court conference of January 1604. One thing is certain: the king used Ireland as a rallying cry. It was scary, it was irreligious, it made him but ‘half a king’ and it needed preachers. By March of 1610, in the wake of the previous year's rebellion, James was telling the English parliament that a plantation was the only way to solve the great problem. As it turned out, the Ulster plantation was the first great opportunity to radically revive the fortunes of the Church of Ireland. In these escheated counties the prospect of sweeping away the pre-reformation jumble and starting afresh presented itself. Endowing the church handsomely was to prepare it for serving the expected influx of Protestant settlers who themselves would act as leaven in the dough of the ‘benighted’ natives. James had reached these conclusions largely because of a series of reports compiled by George Montgomery, then bishop of Derry, Clogher and Raphoe. This Scot, who, tellingly, retained his deanship of Norwich for most of his episcopate, saw Ulster as the chance to start afresh. He envisaged a church firmly founded on a generous allotment of lands to a vigorous British episcopate whose prosperity would be assured by excision of all unassimilable Gaelic customs and structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the preceding chapter, frequent references were made to education, certification, examinations, and other forms of credentialing that preoccupied most of the new professional organizations in the German Reich. These issues are rarely far from the central concerns of any professional organization; but they were particularly burning ones in the Wilhelminian era. Nor did they cease to be important after the turn of the century, and we shall have to return to them in subsequent chapters. But the beginning of the twentieth century did mark a certain cesura in some ways, bringing to a climax a number of separate or intertwined debates that had been swirling for decades in the hot currents of Imperial German rhetoric. This chapter focuses upon this highly charged area of professional concern and activity separately from the others discussed in Chapters 5 and 6. In treating the disparate policies and desiderata of the German professions together and topically here, I hope to show certain patterns that they shared in their strategies for changes in educational structures, examinations, and related aspects of the complex system of credentials based on expert knowledge that is the heart of modern professional self-justification. Thus, the chapter will deal with a series of topics, ranging from preprofessional education (e.g. the debate between “humanists” and “realists” about higher schools) to the admission of women to professions. Within each topic, the positions of each major professional group will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The models of modern professionalization developed in the Anglo-American world, as discussed in the introduction, present many serious shortcomings when applied outside that world of experience. One of the untested assumptions underlying them is a degree of political, economic and social stability that allows actors to carry out their roles consistently and over protracted time periods. If, to take one example, the American Medical Association was to exploit the argument of the superiority of school medicine in obtaining monopoly status for American licensed physicians, it needed stable and effective governments to squelch the quacks. From 1918 to 1933, Germany lacked stable and effective governments comparable to those of America and Britain. The shifting multiparty coalitions of the Weimar Republic and the rapid change of cabinets implied a weak state constantly distracted by crises. Of course the old imperial administrative bureaucracy carried on, giving a certain continuity, but political imperatives from the parliament now had more weight, although they tended to cancel each other out over the long run. In the face of this weak state, many historians have suggested, the influence of the Verbände, of corporate lobbies, unions, associations, and dozens of other types of groups reached new levels during the Weimar era. The professional associations were not least among those clamoring to achieve their own aims, in this case what one might term the completion of the professionalization agenda. Did they? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]