the correctness of his opinions. It is not my intention to enter into a discussion, how far the opinions of Gotteschalcus, even if they agreed with those of Augustine, are the orthodox creed of the Church; but the most zealous defenders of this unfortunate writer must allow that he expressed himself most unguardedly, and enabled his opponents to make a strong case against him. There can be no doubt that he taught a twofold predestination, one to eternal life, the other to eternal death; that God does not will the salvation of all men, but only of the elect; and that Christ suffered death, not for the whole human race, but only for that portion of it to which God had decreed eternal salvation. His opponents state that he went much further, and that he wished to have it believed, that God not only predestinated certain persons to suffer punishment, but likewise to commit the sins by which they incurred that punishment. Archbishop Rabanus, in his letter to Archbishop Hincmar, says "that he had seduced many who had become less careful of their salvation, since they have learned from him to say, why should I labour for my salvation? If I am predestinated to damnation I cannot avoid it, and on the contrary if I am predestinated to salvation, whatever sins I may be guilty of, I shall certainly be saved." That Gotteschalcus must have been very unguarded in his language is evident from the fact, that many distinguished ecclesiastics at that time held the opinions, which his friends maintain were advocated by him, and yet never were censured by ecclesiastical authority. Archbishop Amolo, in his letter to Gotteschal authorities. But Mr. Milner appears never to have heard of Ussher's Life of Gotteschalcus. He says he found great difficulty in procuring information on the subject, and extracted his account from Du Pin and Fleury. He complains of the Magdeburgian Centuriators as not affording their readers any proper materials on which to form a judgment, a fault into which he undoubtedly falls himself, for he gives his readers no information whatever. His ignorance of Ussher's work, or the subsequent one of Mauguin, is very extraordinary. He should certainly have referred to them, when he wished to make a defence for Gotteschalcus and his opinions. For the particulars which I have added to the Archbishop's Life of Gotteschalcus, I am indebted to Mabillon, and the lives of Gotteschalcus, Rabanus, and Hincmar, in Ceillier's "Auteurs Ecclesiastiques." cus, seems to have expressed accurately his faults: "Displicet nobis valde, quia tam dure et indisciplinate et immaniter de divina prædestinatione sentis et loqueris in damnatione reproborum." The same unguarded style appeared in his arguments about the Trinity, when he asserted "Deitas sanctæ Trinitatis trina est." Hincmar wrote a book to refute this blasphemy. Archbishop Ussher refers to the confession of Gotteschalcus, as sufficient proof that he was not guilty of the heresy of the TritheistsTM, however objectionable the expressions might be, and quotes the following defence from Colvenerius: " Id quidem minus recte et improprie dicitur: cum trium personarum in Sancta Trinitate non sit nisi una numero Deitas. Sed eo sensu dici potest trina Deitas, quia est in tribus personis." Mauguin has brought forward an extraordinary charge against the Archbishop, couched in the most disrespectful language. He accuses him of having published without leave the Confessions of Gotteschalcus, from a manuscript which Sirmond had lent him. His words are : "Cum1 Sirmondus illius copiam Usserio fecisset, ratus sola lectione contentum fore, ab eo fraude delusus est." Mauguin gives no authority for this accusation, and I cannot find any mention of it in Sirmond's writings. The character of the Archbishop is the best refutation of such a calumny: but we might find in the preface to the History additional proof that the writer was not claiming more merit for his work than he deserved: in the most unassuming manner he says: "Ex Lugdunensis Ecclesiæ scriptis et Flodoardo, majore ex parte eam contexens, de meo vero nihil adferens nisi ordinem." Dr. Smith states, that in his private letters he acknowledges the kindness of Sirmond, but that he did not publish the acknowledgment, being prohibited by the donor, lest he might be injured by the zealous Romanists. This defence seems founded rather on conjecture than on any evidence now extant. In a letter to Dr. Ward, the m❝In confessione sua Deum naturaliter quidem unum, sed personaliter trinum clarissime prædicat."— Gotteschalci Hist., Works, vol. iv. pag. 17. "Mauguin, Gotteschale. Controv. Histor. Dissertat. pag. 94. Archbishop speaks of having obtained the two confessions, never before printed, from Corbey Abbey in France, and in another of having "had them from Jacobus Sirmondus." The publication of Gotteschalcus seems to have been in direct opposition to the orders issued by the King against reviving the Predestinarian controversy, yet no censure was passed upon the author or his book. This is the more striking, if we compare the conduct of Bishop Laud to Dr. Downham, Bishop of Derry. The Bishop of Derry printed, a short time before the publication of Gotteschalcus, a work, in which he handled the controversy of perseverance and the certainty of salvation ;" or, as Prynne calls it, "a book" against the Arminians and the totall and finall Apostacie of the Saints from Grace." As soon as this book reached England, a letter was written, in the King's name, to Archbishop Abbot, desiring him to call in and suppress the work within the realm of England, and a similar letter was addressed to Archbishop Ussher. In proof that Bishop Laud was the author of this insult to Bishop Downham, Prynne quotes a letter from Archbishop Ussher, which, as he states, was found at Lambeth. The letter is as follows: "MY MOST HONOURED LORD, "The 8th of October, I received your letters of the 22 August &c. The last part of your Lordship's letter concerneth the Bishop of Derryes book, for the calling in whereof the 15 day of October I received his Majesties letters dated at Woodstock the 24 of August', whereupon I See Letter 163, Works, vol. xv. pag. 482. I believe the book referred to is," The Covenant of Grace, or an Exposition upon Luke, i. 73, 74, 75." Dublin, 1631. 4 Ibid. pag. 172. P Canterbury's Doom, pag. 171. This was the day after that on which the three Puritans, Ford of Magdalen Hall, Thorn of Balliol, and Hodges of Exeter, were expelled from Oxford, for their sermons reflecting upon the royal instructions. The text of Hodges was well chosen for an inflammatory harangue, being taken from Numbers, chap. iv.: "Let us make a captain and return into Egypt." At the same time the learned John Prideaux, Rector of Exeter College and Regius Professor of Divinity, was publicly censured by the King and Council for supporting these men. VOL. I. K presently sent out warrants and caused all the bookes that were left unsent into England to be seized upon; what did pass heretofore to the presse of Dublin, I had no eye unto, because it was out of my province, and the care I supposed did more properly belong unto my brother of Dublin. But seeing his Majestie hath been pleased to impose that charge upon me: I will (God willing) take order that nothing hereafter shall be published contrary unto his Majesties sacred directions. It seemeth your Lordship did conceive that my Lord of Derryes booke came out since the Historie of Gotteschalcus, whereas it was published about half a yeare before, whereby it came to passe, that all the coppies almost both in Ireland and England were dispersed before the prohibition came forth. The matter is not new (as your Lordship hath rightly observed) but was long since preached in St. Pauls church, when Doctor Bancroft was your Lordships predecessour in that see, at which time the treatise of Perseverance was to have been published, with Dr. Downams Lectures upon the 15th Psalme, as at the end of that booke is partly intimated. And in the History of Gotteschalcus your Lordship may see your owne observation fully verefied, that after Prelates had written against Prelates, and Synods against Synods, these things could have no end, until both sides became weary of contending. But sure I am I have made your Lordship weary long ere this and therefore it is high time now to end. Therefore craving pardon for this prolixitie, I humbly take leave and rest "Your Honours faithfull servant, "Drogheda, November 8, 1631." This letter was probably manufactured by Prynne. There are many letters extant from Archbishop Ussher to different prelates, and he never commences any one of them "Most Honoured Lord." The commencement of all his letters to Laud when Bishop of London, is "My very good Lord;" and he never concluded them "Your Honours faithfull Servant." There is, however, no doubt that the order was sent to suppress Bishop Downham's book. The cause of a similar order not having been against the History of Gotteschalcus, we must seek in the high respect entertained for the Archbishop by Charles I., and still more by Bishop Laud. Collier accounts for the circumstance thus: "Ussher's book being written in Latin did less disservice; and besides some regard was shewn to the eminence of his station." Dr. Parr states that the Archbishop went to London in the close of the year 1631, and published there his work on the religion anciently professed by the Irish and British. It must have been in January, 163, for there is a letter from him to Dr. Forbes, dated the 13th of December, 1631, from Drogheda. Except the publication of this book there does not remain any account of the Archbishop's employment during his residence in England, which was not, however, of long continuance, as we find that he was in Dublin at the commencement of the following June. The work on the religion of the ancient Irish and British had appeared before, in nearly the same form, appended to a treatise of Sir Christopher Sibthorp, one of the Judges of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland. The new edition is dedicated to his very much honoured friend, Sir Christopher Sibthorp. In this dedication he states that he was induced to publish the work, from the hope that "a true discovery of the religion anciently professed in this kingdom might prove a special motive to induce his poor countrymen to consider a little better of the old and true way from whence they have hitherto been misled." Though not professedly written to refute their errors, he pointedly refers throughout to the false histories of Campian the Jesuit and O Sullevan. Of the latter he does not hesitate to say: "Philip O Sullevan a worthy ⚫ Collier, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. pag. 750. Collier contradicts the letter by saying, "For preventing these prohibited sallies Beadle Bishop of Kilmore was ordered to overlook the press and keep it inoffensive." He does not, however, give any authority for the statement. Rel. of ancient Irish, Works, vol. iv. p. 334. O Sulle van, often called O Sullevan Bear, from the part of the county of Cork where he was born, was descended from an ancient Irish family, remarkable for their hostility to the English government. He fled with his parents into Spain after the battle of Kinsale, and was educated at Compostella. His first work |