Imágenes de páginas

of it."

every year the more confident, to my after wonder and admiration, there being nothing visibly tending to the fear But from the events just related, it is evident that the sermon could not have been preached in 1601, that it must have been preached in the end of 1602, or in the course of 1603. Ussher was not ordained till December, 1601, at which time the battle of Kinsale took place. Subsequent to this was the influx of Roman Catholics into the churches, and the appointment of the preachers to the different parishes, so that even if the sermon had been caused by the advice to which Lord Mountjoy alludes, as having been given by him, it must have been preached late in the year 1602, and as it was most probably not preached till after the official declaration made in consequence of the communications from England, we must fix the date of March, 1602-3, or 1603, so that all prophetical accuracy is removed from the sermon: it was a judicious conjecture, or more probably a mere application of the remarkable prophecy to Ireland, where the preacher fixed the commencement of the period from the sin of Ireland, but did not exactly limit it to forty years.

A circumstance to which military history affords few parallels occurred about this time in Ireland. The English army, after having suppressed the rebellion of the native Irish, and taken Kinsale from their allies the Spaniards, determined to testify their respect for learning, and subscribed the sum of £1800 for the use of the library in Trinity College, Dublin. This sum was intrusted to Dr. Chaloner and Mr. Ussher, who were sent to London, for the purpose of purchasing books. The anecdote related by Bernard, that Ussher visited Christopher Goodman, in Chester, on his death-bed, fixes the date of this mission to the year 1603, for Goodman died on the 4th of June, 1603.

* Dr. Bernard mentions that Ussher, on his journey "visited Mr. Christopher Goodman, who had been Professor of Divinity in Edward the Sixth's days, then lying on his death bed at Chester, and that he would be often repeating some grave wise speeches he heard from him." The biographer does not mention the cause of Ussher visiting Goodman. It most probably arose from some acquaintance formed by his father or

These two faithful and attached members of Dublin College executed their task with great diligence and skill. It is not a little remarkable that they met in London Sir Thomas Bodley, then engaged in a similar occupation for the purpose of making his magnificent bequest to the University of Oxford, and these distinguished individuals became known to each other, giving mutual assistance in their difficult undertaking.

Soon after the return of Ussher from London he was presented by Archbishop Loftus to the chancellorship of St. Patrick's Cathedral. To this dignity the parish of Finglass belonged, and there he preached every Lord's day. His biographers are not content with detailing his anxious fulfilment of the duties imposed upon him, but always strive, with unnecessary zeal, to find some extraordinary cause for exalting his services. They state, in the present instance,

[ocr errors]

uncle with Goodman, when he went over to Ireland as chaplain to Sir Henry Sydney. Ussher certainly could not at any time of his life have approved of Goodman's opinions. The truth is, says Wood, Goodman was a most violent nonconformist, and for rigidness in opinion he went beyond his friend Calvin, who remembers and mentions him in his Epistles, 1561." Goodman was known by a book against the government of women, which he published in hatred to Queen Mary. The title was, "How superior Powers ought to be obeyed of their Subjects, and wherein they may lawfully, by God's Law, be disobeyed and resisted, wherein is declared the Cause of all this present Misery in England, and the only way to remedy the same. Printed at Geneva by John Crispin, MDLVIII.” This book (as also the similar one by John Knox) was disapproved of by Beza, Fox, and most of the Protestants at Geneva. In the reign of Elizabeth Goodman promised "never to write, teach, nor preach any such offensive doctrine," and in the year 1571 was compelled to sign a protestation of his obedience to the Queen. The whole document is given by Strype, Annals, vol. ii. p. 1, pag. 141; yet he does not appear to have much changed his sentiments, for Strype says, I find him in Cheshire, anno 1584, a refuser of subscription to the Articles, and a dissuader of others thereto. Of whom Archbishop Whitgift complained unto the Lord Treasurer, that it was Mr. Goodman, a man that for his perverseness was sufficiently known."

[ocr errors]

The date of the presentation cannot be ascertained. Harris, in his edition of Ware, gives the date of 1607, but this must be a mistake, as Archbishop Loftus died in April, 1605. The appointment must have taken place between the end of 1603 and the beginning of 1605. It is probable that he then resigned his fellowship. He certainly was not a Fellow in 1606.

that, as Chancellor, he was not under any obligation to preach at Finglass; but this must be a mistake, for as there was not a vicar endowed, the cure of souls was in the dignitary. That he fulfilled the duty imposed upon him with exemplary fidelity and diligence is surely praise enough. He indeed took care that his successors should be exonerated from this duty, and when he was about to resign the chancellorship for the bishopric of Meath, he endowed a vicarage with a glebe, and a portion of the tithes. The deed bears date in 1621. This dignity was the only ecclesiastical preferment which Ussher enjoyed, until his promotion to the episcopal bench. "Here," says Dr. Parr, "he lived single for some years, and kept hospitality proportionable to his income, nor cared he for any overplus at the year's end (for indeed he was never a hoarder of money); but for books and learning he had a kind of laudable covetousness, and never thought a good book, either manuscript or print, too dear."

In the year 1606, Ussher again visited England for the purpose of consulting books and manuscripts'. During this visit he became acquainted with the two celebrated antiquarians, Camden and Sir Robert Cotton. Camden was, at this time, preparing a new edition of his Britannia, and he applied to Ussher for information about Nennius and St. Patrick, and also with respect to the antiquities of Ireland, particularly of Dublin. The answers to these inquiries Camden inserted in his description of Dublin, and added this flattering acknowledgment, "Hæc de Dublinio, quorum plurima diligentiæ et doctrinæ Jacobi Usheri, cancellarii ecclesiæ S. Patricii, qui annos varia doctrina et judicio longe superat, me debere agnosco." The history and ecclesiastical antiquities of Ireland had for a long time attracted the attention of Ussher, and now divided his studies with his laborious undertaking of reading through the works of the Fathers. From this period it was his practice to visit Eng

'He also purchased a considerable number of books for himself and for his college. A list of them, with the prices annexed to several, is still extant in his handwriting, and preserved among the MSS. of Trinity College, Dublin.

land every third year, and spend one month at Oxford, another at Cambridge, and the third in London, where the collection of Sir Robert Cotton was the object of greatest attraction.

In the year 1607 Ussher took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity. His biographers have not transmitted the subjects of disputation on this occasion; but Dr. Bernard states, that when he performed the acts, he only committed to paper the heads of the several subjects, and, as in his English sermons, trusted for the rest to "the strength of his memory and his present expression." He expressed himself in Latin with great fluency, and, even at a late period of his life, when, during his Primacy, he acted as moderator of a disputation', at St. Patrick's, he excited the admiration of his auditory by the fluency of his language, though he could not have had any practice for more than seventeen years.

Immediately after his taking this degree he was appointed Professor of Divinityk in the University of Dublin, and continued to deliver lectures during the following fourteen years, at first twice, afterwards once in every week. His principal subject was an answer to the controversies of Bellarmine. Dr. Bernard says, he read three volumes of these lectures, and that it would be an honour to the University where they were read, to have them published. There is only one volume now in existence, and it does not appear that the other two were ever deposited in the Library of Trinity College. The volume now in existence bears evidence of having been commenced with an intention of publishing the lectures, but they are left unfinished in every part; I have, however, printed them in the fourteenth volume of the Archbishop's works, as much anxiety was expressed to have them made public. There is a great deal

Dr. Bernard has recorded, that in the speech which the Archbishop delivered on that occasion, he took occasion to defend the use of hoods for graduates, against the charge of being Popish ornaments, and maintained that they were used in the time of Basil and Gregory Nazianzenus.

The origin of the Divinity Professorship was a legacy from James Cottrell, Esq., of £8 per annum for ever, towards the maintenance of a Divinity lecturer.

of information contained in them, imperfect as they are. and a remarkable display of logical acuteness in a contest with the most learned and able disputant of the Romish Church.

It appears from the letters that passed between him and Dr. Ward', that he was at this time laboriously employed in arranging the Canons of the ancient Church. His discovery of the true arrangement was, however, anticipated, as he states himself, " by a learned Parisian :" that learned Parisian was Leschassier, who published an anonymous tract, the title of which is, “ Consultatio Parisii cujusdam de controversia inter Sanctitatem Pauli Quinti et serenissimam rempublicam Venetam ad virum clarissimum Venetum." They both arrived at the same conclusion, that the first collection of Canons consisted only of those made at the first general Council, and the five provincial Councils, the Canons of Nice, Ancyra, Neocæsarea, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodicea, to which were subsequently added those promulgated in the general Councils which followed. Ussher, however, states that he "resolved after the same manner, but upon somewhat a more sure ground." I suppose he alludes to the testimony of Dionysius Exiguus, which had been made use of by him, and not noticed by Leschassier, for in all other respects the arguments are similar; they discovered that the Canons quoted at Chalcedon as the ninety-fifth and ninetysixth were the same as the sixteenth and seventeenth Canons of the council of Antioch, and by adding the number of Canons framed at Nice with the number of those of the five provincial Synods, the numbers were found to agree. The letters of Ussher and Ward on this subject are well deserving of attention, and we must feel surprised at the forbearance of these learned men, in not making public their laborious investigations on this intricate subject. It is probable that Ussher reserved this, along with his history of the Decretal Epistles, for the Bibliotheca Theologica, which he had already commenced. He notices the common mistake of attributing the collection to Isidorus, and adds, "as in

See vol. xv. pag. 37.

« AnteriorContinuar »