Richard Henry Cotter, Kildimo, County Limerick

On Saturday 11th April, 1896, the Bishop of Limerick, Edward O’Dwyer, charged the Rev Richard Henry Cotter, incumbent of Kildimo, County Limerick (wiki), with having deliberately avowed and maintained that
1) the baptism of infants was not agreeable with Scripture, and should not be retained by the Church; 
2) that, following his own logic, Rev Cotter had himself baptised publicly within a service of worship in the Baptist House of Prayer, in Limerick; 
3) That he failed to baptise “ the child of Isaac Langrill, a parishioner of Kildino, though requested to do so by its parents.”

Cotter had published his views in: Deliberate Steps towards Hell Fire!!! now being made by Freemason sorcerers, Episcopalian idolaters, and Government liars-and inevitable political ruin! (1886) I have not found a copy online. 

He had also described the martyred Roman Catholic Archbishop, Plunket, as “as a member of the blaspheming scorpion Freemasons, the Grand Pontiff scorpion president of the Synod.” (Plunket's entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia has a different view, as does Wiki) 

There was a fourth point of conflict. Cotter had persistently refused to wear a white surplice as required by the canons of the church despite several instructions to do so by the Bishop. 

Cotter replied to the Bishop. He denied the jurisdiction of the Bishop’s court. 

Trial

In my amateur view, Cotter had lost contact with reality. However Anglican canon law, in particular the large degree of independence that the freehold system accorded its clergy, meant that the Bishop had very few effective means to act against a clergyman who refused to conform. The legal process to evict him came only after a long period of correspondence and informal pressure had failed to persuade Cotter to moderate his rhetoric and comply with church law.

The court met on April 20th. The offences alleged were:
First, on the 12th day of June, 1895, the respondent published a statement, which he subsequently had published for circulation, and which purported to emanate from him at Ardcanny Glebe aforesaid, in which, contrary to Article 27 of the Articles of Religion, he deliberately avowed for, and maintained that the baptism of infants is not agreeable with the institution of Christ, and is contrary to the authority of Scripture, and should not retained by the Church.

Second. In pursuance and furtherance of this doctrine, the respondent procured himself to be publicly baptised at the celebration of religious service, held in the Baptist House of Prayer, Limerick, on the 12th day June, 1895.

Third. The respondent, in further pursuance and maintenance of these doctrines neglected or refused publicly christen the child of Isaac Langrill, a parishioner in the same parish of Kildimo, although requested so by its parents, or one of them, and thereby transgressed the 9th of the Canons Ecclesiastical of the Church of Ireland.

Fourth. On the occasion of such reference the respondent gave a copy of the aforesaid statement to the parents of the child he refused to christen, for the purpose of promulgating the respondent’s views expressed therein.

Fifth. In further maintenance of his said doctrines, [on] the 16th day of July, 1895, the respondent sent a copy of this statement, in writing under his own hand, to the petitioner [the Bishop].

Sixth. The respondent, in transgression [of] the fourth of the said Canons, performed Divine service habitually the church at Ardcanny aforesaid for several years last past, and in the church of Kildimo on many occasions since he took the duties there [in] the month of June, 1895, without wearing a plain white surplice with sleeves, as prescribed by the said fourth Canon.

Seventh. The respondent has refused to obey the directions of the petitioner, repeatedly given with reference to the wearing of the white surplice at the celebration of Divine service.

Cotter denied the legal right of the Archbishop of Dublin to try him, asserting that the Archbishop was a “member of the blaspheming scorpion Freemasons”, though he later accepted that his Diocesan Bishop had never been a Mason.

The case proceeded despite Cotter’s protest; he did not attend. Due process was observed and the court went over the evidence against Cotter, including his refusal to wear a surplice.

The core of the doctrine case - or, at least, the most solidly evidenced - was Cotter’s published opinions on the baptism of infants. He had asserted that there was no authority in Scripture for the practice, that it did not conform with Christ’s institution of baptism, and that it should not be retained in the church. The court duly found him guilty of false teaching on the issue and also, in the absence of a surplice, of being improperly dressed for divine worship. He was ordered not to repeat his offences.

At this point the court could go no further. In the case against James Hunt (1895) the court had decided that a conviction on the charge of false teaching was not enough in itself. Only if the defendant refused to recant or retract his earlier views could he be immediately expelled from the church.

But Cotter was not capable of bending his views, nor even of keeping quiet. In an interview with the Cork Daily Herald (Tuesday 5 May 1896, p.5 col.5) he identified his opinions on Freemasons as a key point of friction between himself and his superiors. He attacked them again, calling them blasphemous men who “drink out of the skull of a dead man in their lodges“.

The Bishop withheld Cotter’s stipend and threatened his pension. Further legal action followed and on Wednesday 17th June 1896 Cotter “was deprived of his benefice at Ardcanny, County Limerick, on the ground that he had enunciated doctrine regarding infant baptism contrary to the teaching of Scripture.” (Sheffield Independent - Thursday 18 June 1896 p.7)

But Cotter still kept up the fight and refused to leave.

Eviction

Eventually,"on learning of the intention to evict him forcibly, he hoisted the union-jack over the glebe-house and affixed scrolls of paper the windows on which were inscribed protests against his treatment. Finally he barricaded the house and announced his intention to resist eviction." (St James's Gazette - Friday 27 November 1896 p.10 col.1, and very widely reported.)

As the sheriff and bailiff climbed in through a rear window “the reverend gentleman then left the hall-door quietly and without any demonstration whatever. carried black bag on his shoulder and some books in a parcel.” He took the train to Limerick and, I guess, the Bishop gave a huge sigh of relief.