Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tion which the Lord Deputy had evinced towards him, obtained a commission for inquiring into the lands belonging to the see, and "took his journey (though in an unseasonable time of the year) into the northern parts of the kingdom." Such is the mode in which he describes proceeding from Dublin to Armagh in the month of September. He took advantage of his residence at Armagh to solemnize the translation of the Bishop of Raphoe', and to consecrate the Bishop of Ardaghs in the cathedral church of Armagh, "where no such act had been performed within the memory of any man living." These circumstances the Primate states, in a letter to Archbishop Laud, as an excuse for not sooner congratulating him on his promotion, which he does with all the warmth of a sincere friend and admirer. The high opinion which he entertained of Archbishop Laud induced him to exert all the interest he possessed, to have him appointed to the Chancellorship of the University of Dublin, vacant by the death of Archbishop Abbot. He says: "I advised them to pitch upon none other but yourself, which they did with all readiness and alacrity." Archbishop Laud did not wish to hold the office, and wrote to Lord Strafford: "Ast for the College I am very sorry they have chosen me Chancellor, and if they will follow the directions I have given them by my Lord Primate, I hope they will send me a resignation, that I may give it over

John Lesley, Bishop of the Isles, was translated to Raphoe in the year 1633. This distinguished prelate evinced his loyalty to his Sovereign in the most remarkable manner. His castle at Raphoe was the last which held out against Oliver Cromwell. Nor was his zeal for the Church less distinguished. He exercised his pastoral functions during the Commonwealth, and, though prosecuted by the ruling powers, persevered in holding occasional confirmations and ordinations in Dublin. He lived to see the Restoration, and such was his anxiety to welcome his monarch, that, though very far advanced in years, he rode from Chester to London in twenty-four hours. He was in 1661 translated to Clogher, and when he died in 1671, was said to be the oldest bishop in the world, having been consecrated fifty years before. This prelate was father of the celebrated Charles Lesley.

John Richardson was consecrated Bishop of Ardagh on the resignation of Bishop Bedell.

Strafford's Letters, vol. i. pag. 213.

and your Lordship be chosen, being upon the place and able to do them much good." Archbishop Ussher wrote a second letter to Archbishop Laud, urging upon him the necessity of his taking the office of Chancellor, in order to preserve the College, and gives a lamentable account of the disorders then prevalent. He speaks of the factious spirit of the Fellows, and states that nothing will restore order except the removal of the Provost, "who is of too soft and gentle a disposition to rule so heady a company," and the enactment of new Statutes', which would confer increased powers upon the Provost. It must have been very painful to the Archbishop to advise the removal of Provost Ussher, as he was not only his relative, but had been recommended expressly by himself for the situation. Both the recommendations of Archbishop Ussher were carried into effect. Some years elapsed before the new Statutes were given to Trinity

"This and the former letter are dated in Dr. Parr's collection 1632, but this is evidently a mistake. I have changed their place, and placed them between those of August and December, 1633, as Lord Strafford landed in Dublin on the 25th of July, 1633, and Archbishop Laud was translated to Canterbury in the following September.

▾ Dr. Reid, in his History of the Presbyterians, vol. i. pag. 167, has represented the removal of Provost Ussher, and the enactment of new Statutes for Trinity College, as a deliberate plan arranged between Archbishop Laud and Lord Strafford, for the purpose of establishing Arminianism in Ireland. He says, in allusion to Lord Strafford's complaints of the state of the College: "This disorderliness, it is more than probable, consisted solely in the leaven of puritanism which had existed in this seminary from its foundation." The Provost "was related to the Primate and entertained the same sentiments with his predecessors and his illustrious kinsman on the doctrinal points on which the Church was divided. The College thus governed had of course exercised considerable influence in forming the minds of the Irish clergy and rendering them averse to the innovations of Laud. Until this influence should be entrusted to other hands it was evidently impossible to effect any extensive or permanent alteration of the national faith. A change, therefore, both in the Provost and the Statutes, became necessarily a part of Wentworth's plan of reformation." Now this gross misstatement was not the result of ignorance. Dr. Reid had before him the documents which proved every insinuation false. Archbishop Ussher's statement of "the disorderli ness" of the College is much stronger than Lord Strafford's, and he is so convinced of the unfitness of his kinsman, that he recommends the removal of the man whom he had actually himself placed in the Provostship. As

College, but the Provostship was almost immediately vacated, by the removal of Dr. Ussher to the archdeaconry of Meath. He was subsequently promoted to the bishopric of Kildare. The person recommended by Archbishop Laud to Lord Strafford was William Chappell, Dean of Cashel, and the Lord Deputy took effectual means to secure his election. He thus describes them: "I went to the College myself, recommended the Dean to the place, told them I must direct them to chuse the Dean, or else to stay until they should understand his Majesty's pleasure, and in no case to chuse any other. They are all willing, so as on Thursday next he will be Provost, and your Grace shall not need to trouble the King about it." The election of Mr. Chappell was certainly disagreeable to Archbishop Ussher, and, whether by his interference or not, several months elapsed before the new Provost was sworn into office.

to the Statutes, the defects of the existing Statutes had been pointed out many years before by Archbishop Abbot; see Letter 11, vol. xv. pag. 72. Bishop Bedell drew up a new code of Statutes while he was Provost, which received indeed the consent of the Fellows, but was rendered incomplete by the original charter of Queen Elizabeth. And Archbishop Ussher, in his letter requesting Archbishop Laud to accept the office of Chancellor, when he uses the strong language, "miserere domus labentis," mentions, as the first step to amendment in the College, the revision of the Statutes. Thus unfounded is the charge, that the alteration was a plan to get rid of puritanical Statutes. The new Statutes subsequently drawn up by the Chancellor are modelled upon those arranged by Bishop Bedell, and it would be difficult indeed to discover in the alterations any leaning towards Popery. I have already been obliged to notice the misstatements of Dr. Reid, and regret to say further occasions will hereafter A fair history of Presbyterianism is still a desideratum. Dr. Reid's history must take its place beside Neal's History of the Puritans, and seems deserving of equal credit with its precursor. Dr. Reid states, that "while sectarian bigotry is the offspring of pride and ignorance, true wisdom and genuine piety are ever characterized by candour and charity." It is not very difficult to answer the question, whether his account of the conduct of Strafford and Laud to the University of Dublin, be characterized by candor and charity or by sectarian bigotry.

occur.

Chappell himself attributed it to Ussher. He has left an account of his own life in Latin verse (published by Hearne, in the fifth vol. of Leland's Collectanea), and in this he plainly intimates the cause:

[ocr errors][merged small]

In the letter of congratulation to Archbishop Laud already alluded to, reference was made to a transaction which attracted considerable attention, the erection of a monument by the Earl of Cork in St. Patrick's cathedral. The Earl of Cork had, with the consent of the Dean and Chapter of St. Patrick's, erected a monument to the memory of his wife at the east end of the cathedral, and had agreed to pay for the erection of a screen, which should separate it from the choir, and form a place for the communion table. The approbation of the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin had also been obtained. An account of this transaction had been forwarded to Laud when Bishop of London, but no steps seem to have been taken about it until the arrival of Lord Strafford. This delay made Lord Cork consider Lord Strafford as the individual who complained of the monument, an opinion which was one of the causes that influenced him to prosecute the Lord Deputy with such hostility, and become a principal agent in effecting his death. Archbishop Ussher's defence for giving his consent is very strange; he says: "The place wherein it is erected was an ancient passage into a chappel within that church, which hath time out of mind been stopped up with a partition

Ad regimen. Ita quidem voluit. Injuriam
Ignoscat ipsi hanc Deus et innumerabiles.
Nono sequentis Februarii die

(Tandem expiato crimine haud visendi eum
Quum rus abiret) recipior. Recolligo

Me; tum minime omisso oportebat esse animo."

It seems scarcely credible that the Archbishop could have carried his resentment so far, merely because the Provost elect did not wait upon him, yet it may be observed, that the first step Bedell took on coming to Ireland was to proceed immediately to Drogheda, where the Primate then was.

X Archbishop Laud mentions the rumors to Lord Strafford: "I had almost forgotten to tell you that all this business about demolishing my Lord of Cork's tomb is charged upon you as if it were done only because he will not marry his son to my Lord Clifford's daughter, and that I do it to join with you; whereas the complaint came against it to me out of Ireland and was presented by me to the King before I knew that your Lordship was named for Deputy there. But jealousies have no end."-Strafford's Letters, vol. i. pag. 211.

made of boards and lime. I remember I was present when the Earl concluded with the Dean to allow thirty pounds for the raising of another partition betwixt this new monument and the Quire, wherein the ten commandments might be fairly written: which if it were put up, I see not what offence could be taken at the monument; which otherwise cannot be denied to be a very great ornament to the church." How the monument could be an ornament to the church, if it were to be enclosed between the east end and this partition, is not very easily understood; but, waiving this question, the very fact of such a partition becoming necessary proves, that the monument ought not to have been erected in that place. It certainly was near the passage into the Lady's Chapel, but then the monument was not in the ancient passage, but against the wall which separated the choir from the Lady's Chapel. Archbishop Laud, in his answer to the Earl of Cork, accurately describes the place "where" the high altar stood and where the communion table should now stand." Lord Cork wrote

y Strafford's Letters, vol. i. pag. 222. The description seems most cautiously worded, yet Dr. Leland, in his IIistory of Ireland, vol. iii. pag. 11, says, "that it took up the place of what the prelate of Canterbury affected to call the GREAT ALTAR." This is a falsification of quotation for which there is no excuse. I should be sorry to defend all that Archbishop Laud did or wrote, I am ready to admit his errors, and lament his faults, but I cannot avoid remarking upon the utter recklessness of truth which has distinguished the attacks upon this Prelate from the days of Prynne to the present. "To this day," says Mr. Southey, "those who have inherited the opinions of the Puritans repeat with unabated effrontery the imputations against him, as if they had succeeded to their implacable temper and their hardihood of temper also." (Book of the Church, vol. ii. pag. 437).

[ocr errors]

Archbishop Laud concludes his letter to the Earl of Cork with great severity and equal truth: "Your Lordship will I hope give me leave to deal freely with you, and then I must tell your Lordship, if you have done as you wrote, you have suffered strangely for many years together by the tongues of men, who have often and constantly affirmed, that you have not been a very good friend to the Church in the point of her maintenance. I hope these reports are not true, but if they be, I cannot account your works charitable, having no better foundation than the livelihood of the Church taken away to do them." The ravages which this mighty Earl had committed upon the property of the Church were very extensive. His great attempt was purchasing the College of Youghal on a doubtful

« AnteriorContinuar »