Chapter 14 - ARCHBISHOP USSHER AND LAUD: CORRESPONDENCE: THE NATURE OF SACRAMENTAL GRACE: APPOINTMENTS TO THE PROVOSTSHIP OF TRINITY COLLEGE.

Page 222

BOTH Ussher and Laud (with whom the Primate had now [1629] begun, a voluminous correspondence) had at this time passed through grievous sickness. "It is true, my Lord,” writes Laud to the primate, “God hath restored me even from death itself, for I think no man was further gone and escaped." A little later, we find Ussher writing to his friend, Dr. Ward, that God had brought him "even unto the pit's brink." He had suffered from “an excessive bleeding of many days together.” “As Abraham had received his son from the dead, so,” writes Dr. Ward, hearing of his recovery, “we all, even God’s Church, have received your Lordship in the like manner a faucibus orci.” [1]

[1] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 499.

Page 223

Still Ussher is busy with literary work. He writes to Mede from Armagh, August l0th, 1632, that he has in hand a treatise, De Britiannicarum Ecclesiarum Primordiis, and also a work on the Chronology of the Scriptures. He sends Vossius certain MS., including his history of Gottescalcus, and the predestination controversy (already noticed), and we find he has been busy on a large censure of the Epistles of St. Ignatius.

He asks for a transcription of the Latin MS. of Ignatius in Caius College. In a subsequent letter, August 9th, 1632, he acknowledges a receipt of the transcript which "served him to a singular good use." He also says he has got a good large fragment of the beginning of Clement's genuine Epistle to the Corinthians." [2] Ussher is anxious, if possible, to get some Irish preferment for the learned John Gerard Vossius, and mentions to Laud for the purpose the Deanery of Armagh. Laud replies that he will do what he can in the matter. [3]

It is observable that the abstruse theological questions that occupy our attention today were just as rife, in Archbishop Ussher's time. The subjects of predestination, election, perseverance, baptismal regeneration, were as warmly discussed then as now.

[2] Ussber's Works, xv. p. 559.

[3] Vossius did not get the Deanery. In 1623 he was made Professor of History in the University of Amsterdam. He died some years later from injuries received by falling from his library ladder.

Page 224

"Not only divines," writes Dr. Ward, "but lawyers and women meddle with these points." [4] Into questions of the sort we find Ussher, Bedell, Downham, Davenant, Ward; and others plunging with characteristic fervour. Ussher writes to Ward on “the efficacy of baptism of infants" as "an obscure point;" and desires to be instructed. The Bishop of Derry has a book on the subject adapting St. Augustine's opinion - Sacramenta in solis electis hoc vere efficiunt quod figurant. Dr. Ward, writing to the Archbishop, says his views are those of Hooker, proving that already the authority of this great English theologian was well established: "The instrumental conveyance of the grace signified to the due receiver is as true an effect of a sacrament, when it is duly administered; as obsignation, and is pre-existing in order of nature to obsignation." [5] Bedell, joining in, says, “I think the nature of sacraments to be not as medicines, but as seals to confirm the covenant, not to confirm the promise immediately”; but he writes on this subject “in exceeding hot haste.” [6]

[4] Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 520.

[5] Ditto, xv. p. 506.

[6] Ditto, p. 509.

Page 225

Ward replies in favour of infants receiving "spiritual ablution of original guilt" in baptism, "since they cannot interpose any impediment to hinder the operation of the sacrament"; and he thinks the definition of a sacrament in the Catechism "a good and sound definition." [7] Bedell next points out that infants in their baptism do receive a benefit, inasmuch as they are received thereby into the visible Church, which is "a comfort to the parents and an honour and profit to themselves." There is presently granted them an entrance into covenant with God, wherein God promises pardon of sin, and life eternal upon their faith and repentance, to which they have a present right, though the accomplishment may be deferred. If God takes them out of this world in a state of expectation, it is pious to believe that He takes the condition for performed. The mystery of redemption by Christ is revealed to them most probably, and faith granted to them. All that come to the sacrament, elect or non-elect infants alike, receive the pardon of sin, original and actual, sacramentally, and whoever performs the conditions of the covenant has the fruition of what has been already sealed to him.

[7] Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 5I1. Fuller says of Ward, he was "a Moses, not only for slowness of speech, but otherwise meekness of nature." - Hist. Univ. Cambridge. p. 234.

Page 226

”This conceit of sacraments to make them medicines, thinks Bedell "is the root of all error in the matter." [8]

On May 29th, 1630, a son was born to the King, and a messenger of the Court, "an officer of honour" specially selected for the purpose, was sent to Dublin with a royal letter to announce the event to the Lords Justices, who forthwith requested the Primate to preach the thanksgiving sermon which he did on the text; "Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth."

[8] Ussher's Works, p. 520. Though Bedell was in some respects a Puritan, he was no bigot. His acquaintance with Father Sarpi had not been thrown away on him. In the last letter written by him and addressed to Daniel Swiney, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Kilmore, as "My reverend and loving brother,” he says, "There is the difference of our way of Church worship - I do not say of our religion, for I have ever thought and published it in my writings that we have one common Christian religion." - See Article "Bedell" in. Dict. Nat. Biog. In this respect Bedell has his counterparts in Bishop Jebb of Limerick and Bishop Law of Killala. The latter, in a pastoral letter to his clergy in I793, said: "I look on my Roman Catholic brethren as fellow-subjects and fellow Christians; believers in the same God; partners in the same redemption. Speculative differences on some points of faith are with me of no account. They and I have but one religion - the religion of Christianity. Therefore, as children of the same Father, as travellers in the same road, and seekers of the same salvation, why not love each other as brothers?" - Stanley's Essays on Church and State, p. 325.

Page 227

The Primate was also requested to see that the day should be duly notified to all the Clergy, that on that day there be “public prayers, thanksgivings, and sermons, in all the churches," and that the said prayers be then publicly read in the time of divine service; and that afterwards ringing of bells, making of bonfires, and all other expressions of joy may be made to testify the general joy and gladness of that day." [9]

On April 30th, 1634, Ussher announces to Ward the death of the good Bishop of Derry (Dr. Downham), and "ye Dr. Bramhall," he writes, "is likely to succeed Him in that bishopric, which is absolutely the best in the whole kingdom."

To keep up the continuity of our story, we must now glance at the successive appointments made to the Provostship of Trinity College, after the promotion of Bedell - a matter in which Archbishop Ussher was naturally much interested. Laud writes to him to say the King would fain have a man who would go on where Mr. Bedell leaves (off). "I am engaged for none. I heartily love freedoms granted by charter, and would have them maintained." [10] By Laud’s advice, the King consents that the Fellows' petition, that they might be allowed to elect their own Provost, should be granted, provided they elect a man serviceable to the Church and to him, [11] but the election must not be carried through without submitting the name of the new Provost to his Majesty, for his royal approval.

[9] Ussher's Works, xv. pp. 529-30.

[10] Ditto, p. 443.

[11] Ditto, p. 445.

Page 228

The Fellows thereupon elected Dr. Robert Ussher, the Primates cousin. The Archbishop writes to Laud, August 10th, 1629: "Dr. Ussher is indeed my cousin-german, but withal the son of that father at whose instance, charge, and travel, the charter of the foundation of the college was first obtained from Elizabeth. . .  To his learning, honesty and, conformity unto the discipline of the church, no man, I suppose, will take exception." His ability in government had been already shown during his Vice-Provostship. He means to go on where Bedell left off, and the Archbishop promises that if his cousin is appointed he will hold himself strongly engaged thereby, "to have a special eye to the government of that college.” [12] Robert Ussher was accordingly appointed (October 3rd, 1629), the sum of £10 having been paid into the King's Exchequer for the royal letter authorising the Fellows to carry out their own statute. The new Provost showed himself very anxious to further his predecessor’s ideas on the subject of instruction in the Irish tongue. "He directed that a chapter of 'the Irish Testament should be read by a native each day during dinner. [13]

[12] Ussher’s Works, xv. pp. 449-50.

[13] Stubbs' History, p. 62.

Page 229

Ware says of him, "He was an enemy to all theatrical representations, and would not admit them in the college until he was in a manner commanded by the Lords Justices." [14]

Robert Ussher, who was thus elected a second time to the office, proved himself an unsuccessful head. He wanted the character and decision required to rule the disorderly spirits who then made mischief within the walls of the college. In this difficulty, the Primate, who had pledged himself for the good governance of the college, applied to Laud as to what was best to do. He suggests that the Provost should be removed, as being one "who was of too soft and gentle a disposition to rule so heady a company." Ussher also asks Laud to use his influence to procure new statutes which would invest the Provost with additional powers. The difficulty was removed by inducing Robert Ussher to accept the Archdeaconry of Meath in lieu of the Provostship, and shortly afterwards he was made Bishop of Kildare.

Laud now recommended William Chappel, Dean of Cashel, and formerly Fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, for the office.

[14] Ware's Works, i. p. 392.

Page 230

In his earlier years, Chappel had acted as Dean and Catechist in that College, where he had among his pupils John Milton. [15] There is some interest attaching to Chappel, owing to the belief that he is the original of the "old Damaetas" of Milton's Lycidas. [16] The Lord-Deputy Strafford accepted the nomination, and true to his policy of “thorough” at once proceeded to carry it out: "I went to the College myself recommended the Dean to the place, told them I must direct them to choose the Dean, or else to stay until they should understand his Majesty's pleasure, and in no case to choose any other.

[15] Stubbs’ History, p. 30; Rawdon Papers, p. 109. Chappel was esteemed "a rich magazine of rational learning, and a most painfull careful tutor." He disputed on one occasion before James I, on points of controversy between Protestants arid Roman Catholics, the King himself entering into the arena. He was accused of the awful sacrilege of having whipped the future author of "Paradise Lost" while his pupil at Christ College. After his flight to England on the outbreak of the Rebellion in 1641 he suffered many grievous things from the Parliamentary party. Chappel's Life of himself, written in Latin verse, is printed by Hearne in Leland's Collection, v. pp. 261-8. - See Masson's Life of Milton, i. pp. 128, 159-61; Cooper's Annals of Cambridge; and the Article in the Diet. Nat. Biog. It may be observed that the "Lycidas" of Milton was Edward King, son of Sir John King, Knt, an Irish Privy Councillor. King was a pupil of Chappel, and was drowned on his way to Ireland in 1637.

[16] See Stubbs' History, p. 67 (note). Chappel was likewise reputed to be the author of “The Whole Duty Of Man,” Rawdon Papers, p. 51. The authorship is discussed in Nichol's "Lit. Anecdotes, ii. pp. 597-604. There were at this time six Senior Fellows of the College whose Fellowships were worth £9 a year with diet, and eight Junior Fellows with a salary of £3 a year and diet; sixty poor scholars, whose scholarships were only worth their diet, and about fifteen Fellow Commoners.

Page 231

They are so, as on Thursday next he will be Provost, and your Grace shall not need to trouble the King about it." [17]

From his Latin Life of himself it would appear that Chappel accepted the office with reluctance, and then went to London to ask Laud to excuse him. Chappel was no exception to his predecessors; he seemed as little able to maintain discipline within the College walls. A great difficulty was experienced in filling up a Senior Fellowship, the three Fellows at the head of the Seniors being irreligious men who neglected the chapel services. The surplice difficulty again arose. To one of them, Nathaniel Hoyle, this “rag of Popery" was so distasteful that he refused to wear one till immediately before the election. Chappel and the two Senior Fellows, on their own authority, proceeded to repeal as much of the statute as required the vote of four Senior Fellows to elect to the Board. For this act the two Seniors, Newman and Conway, were expelled and the Provost censured. The proceedings were communicated to Laud, who wrote back to Strafford. In his reply the Lord-Deputy acknowledges the differences between the Provost and Fellows "are grown very high." The Archbishop regrets that "so great differences should be revealed in view of so many Romanists as swarm there, and cannot but look upon it with joy."

[17] Strafford to Laud, August 23rd, 1634.

Page 232

To Chappel the Provostship proved anything but a bed of roses. He was attacked on all sides - “Ruunt facto agmine In me profana turba, Romae Genevaeque." Eventually he was found to give so much trouble that those who had the interest of the College at heart were glad to get rid of him at any cost, and a place was found for him in the See of Cork. The King, however, seems to have stood by him, and granted him leave to hold the Provostship for eighteen months in commendam with the bishopric. He also won the approval of the Lord-Deputy, who wrote: "I have so great an opinion of his government and integrity that I am putting my son thither under his eye and care, by which you will judge I purpose not to have him one of Prynne's disciples."

Ussher and Chappel do not seem to have hit it off. Chappel hints that the Primate was not pleased with him because he had not gone down to wait on him at Drogheda as his predecessor had done on his appointment, and he goes on to attribute most of the College troubles to Ussher's interference.

Page 233

One of the "charges brought against Chappel was that he was "an Arminian," which probably meant that he was too much of a Churchman. Another was that he was an "Irish Canterbury." [18] On his resignation, the Provostship was conferred in 1640 on Richard Washington, B.D., Fellow of University College, Oxford; and thus the long reign of Cambridge Provosts was broken, although the choice still remained in favour of an English divine to rule over an Irish university. [19] Washington was only a short time Provost, as he fled from Dublin in the following year, on the outbreak of the Rebellion, and returned to Oxford, where he was re-elected a Fellow. He saved himself from ejection by turning Cromwellian. [20]

Probably a less understood prelate never existed than Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. There is almost no enormity of which he has not been accused.

[18] This was a favourite phrase used towards obnoxious Churchmen. Bramhall, amongst others, enjoyed the title; he was also dubbed by the Presbyterians, "Bishop Bramble.” - Dict. Nat.Biog.

[19] Fuller brings the charge against the College that it was perpetually "Cantabrising" in its appointments. - Church Hist., iii. p.137. He had previously spoken of the University as "a colony of Cambridge." - Ditto, p. 134.

[20] Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 135.

Page 234

Erastianism is a favourite charge brought against him, and the statutes he succeeded in getting drawn up for the better government of Trinity College, Dublin, have been put down to his desire to Erastianise that institution, and place the appointment to the Provostship entirely in the hands of the Crown. It has also been said that he desired to crush out Puritanism, and establish High Churchism within the walls of the College. Now none of these charges can be proved. The fact is, they are very far from the truth. Laud was not the original mover in the matter of the new statutes, and he was very unwillingly dragged into the controversy. He had enough on his hands without being troubled with the internal affairs of the University of Dublin.

Archbishop Ussher was anything but an extreme Churchman, as it was at his solicitation that Laud, much against his will, accepted the Chancellorship. "I advised them," writes Ussher to the English Primate, "to pitch upon no other but yourself, which they did with all alacrity. If your Grace will deign to receive that poor society under the shadow of your wings, you shall put a further tie of observance not upon that only, but upon me also, who had my whole breeding there." [2l]

[21] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 572.

Page 235

Laud did not wish for the office, and wrote back to Lord Strafford: "As 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, and your Lordship be chosen, being upon the place and able to do them much good." It was only on the receipt of a second and pressing letter from Archbishop Ussher, representing the disorganised condition of the University, that Laud consented to take the Chancellorship. Now as to Laud's share in the new statutes. It was not the first attempt to revise the original and necessarily imperfect statutes of Queen Elizabeth. Bedell, had already attempted something of the kind, and when Ussher pressed the Chancellorship on Laud, it was with a view partly to give the College a body of new statutes for its better government. "Miserere domus labentis" writes Ussher. The new statutes were as a matter of fact modeled on those drawn up by Bedell. The principal change made by Laud in the internal affairs of the College, was making the Fellowships tenable for life instead of for seven years; and he likewise took steps to promote the study of the Irish language.

Page 236

"There is no doubt," says the latest historian of the University of Dublin, "of the wisdom which is conspicuous in Laud's emendation of the statutes, and of the excellent fruit which it afterwards produced in the growth and success of the College." [22] The expression on the part of Laud that “the Romanists" should hear of the wranglings going on inside of the College walls, proves how little the Primate's sympathies lay in that direction, although his enemies never tire of asserting that Laud was in heart a Roman Catholic. This was not the only occasion when Laud referred in hostile terms to the “Romanists." Congratulating Ussher on the termination of the meeting of Convocation a short time later, he wrote: "If you should have risen from this Convocation in heat, God knows when or how the Church would have cooled again, had the cause of differences been never so slight. By which means the Romanists, which is too strong a party already, would both have strengthened and made a scorn of you." [23] This surely is not the language of a Romaniser! What really moved the English Primate was the disorganised state of Trinity College.

[22] Stubbs' History, p. 78.

[23] Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 7. "It was Laud's constant effort to prove that Irish Catholicism need not be Roman, and in this Strafford was of one heart and mind with him." - Hutton's Laud, p. 168.

Page 237

"For that College, as your Lordship has often acknowledged unto me,” writes Laud to the Lord-Deputy Strafford, "both by letter and otherwise, having been as ill-governed as any other in Christendom, or worse, will never be able to recover, and to settle to be a good seminary for that Church, if both the power and the credit of the Provost be not upheld by his superiors; and should a Provost that is otherwise vigilant and careful err in some circumstantial business, it is far better for the publick, if not to maintain his errors, yet to pass by them rather than to give countenance and encouragement for such young heads as seek for no other liberty than that which may make way for licentiousness.”

"My Lord, upon this ground I could heartily wish the heats which, I doubt not, have been in this business had been forborne, or that yet, your lordship could bring it to that temper that both parties would lay down the cause and not put me to give a public decision, which, as this case stands, may do some hurt which way soever the justice of the cause, upon full evidence, shall sway my judgment." [24]

[24] Strafford's Letters, vol. ii. p. 36; Laud's true character has been defended by no one more eloquently than Mr. Gladstone, who says of him: "He was the patron not only of the saintly and heroic Bedell, but on the one hand of Chillingworth and Hales, on the other of Ussher, Hall, and Davenant, groups of names sharply severed in opinion, but unitedly known in the history of ability and learning." - Lecture at Oxford, Oct 24, 1892; see also Hutton's Laud, p. 152; and, for a similar (Presbyterian) opinion of Laud, Tulloch's Rational Theology, ii. pp. 352-3.

Page 238

It is evident from this that Archbishop Laud did not thrust himself into the affairs of Trinity College, but was a most unwilling arbiter of the differences which unhappily existed at the time. As to the charge of Erastianising, it is sufficient answer to point out that the change was merely a nominal one, since the Sovereign had interfered more or less with every nomination to the office since the founding of the University.