« PreviousContinue »
hended and sent to the tower of London. “O'Sullevan asserts that he was fettered and that various efforts were made both by means of threats and of proferred rewards, to induce him to change his religion, but that he remained stedfast in his original faith. He adds that the archbishop was falsely accused of having attempted to deflower the daughter of A charge of his gaoler. The day of trial eame on, and Creagh was arraigned in a immorality crowded court. His accuser, an elegant and beautiful girl, came for alleged ward to give evidence against him. But when she looked steadily on against him, the countenance of this innocent and injured man, a sudden pang of remorse seized her soul. She became conscience stricken, and unable to bear the false evidence against him, which she had previously meditated.- Vox faucibus hæsit.' At last, when she had recovered the is publicly powers of utterance, she declared that she had never seen a man of retracted. more pure and holy life, that he had neither violated her person, nor even touched the hem of her garment The archbishop, thus honorably acquitted, was brought back a prisoner to the tower, where in a few days he expired, A.D. 1585," Oct. 14 ; poison having been put, as His death, it is said, into his food, by an undergoaler named Culligius. According A.D. 1585. to Stanihurst he spent the best part of his (ministerial?] life in the castle of Dublin and in the tower of London.
As to the date of Creagh's consecration, the letter of James Navar- Date of chus, the Jesuit above mentioned, supplies us with certain particulars Creagh's from which it may with some probability be inferred. The entire letter consecrawould be too long for insertion here; but the following extracts from it, tion. which contain the particulars referred to, will suffice for our present purpose.
[Richard Creagh) " then, having received his commission from Rome, J. Navarset out, not without having experienced the most liberal munificence chus deon the part of the supreme pontiff Pius, to rescue his sheep from the scribes jaws of these ferocious wolves, and from the fury of the lioness, [i. e. Creagh's apQueen Elizabeth) and to discharge his pastoral office among them prehension with zeal and piety. Having arrived in the island, he celebrated the and imprisacrifice of the mass in some monastery belonging to his province . sonment, The prelate is apprehended . . . brought before the queen, and pressed A.D. 1564 with Inany queries in the court of Westminster, where the monarchs of England spend much of their time. When he had made satisfactory replies, for a length of time, to the objections of all his examiners, and given them in modest style a good account of the grounds of our faith, he is led for a show, between two constables, through almost the whole city of London, furnishing all the spectators with occasion of derision and contempt, as a consequence of his steadfastness in the faith of
• The original is to be found in Rothe's Analecta, vol. 2. De Processu Martyriali quorumdam fidei pugilum in Hibernia, &c. pp. 20– 34. Colon. 1619.
Christ. Then without trial or condemnation, he is immured in a dark, deep, dreary, dungeon, named the tower, (this was on the very day of St. Peter's Chair) from which he was at length allowed to come up to a more spacious and lightsome apartment. For some who had a respect for justice and law, from having had some little intercourse with good men, urged that it was not consistent with equity, that one, whose cause had not been brought to a trial, should be so inhumanly treated, and compelled to drag on a wretched existence in such a dark
and confined nook as he was forced to occupy. and how a “ While the prelate . . . is undergoing these affiictions, God ... hope of es inspired him with a sure hope of deliverance . . . on that very day of cape occurs s. Peter, named after his chair . . . He, continuing instant in prayer, to his mind; on the third day after, which was the Lord's day, began to recite the
office of the mass from memory, as carefully as he could, in his prison chamber ... at this time) .:: he was expecting . . . that he should ere long be offered up for Christ's sake as a sacrifice in defence of the faith. He was also looking forward to the coming of those that were to institute an inquiry into his faith and life, who were to come to him, as he had been made aware, on the very day of S. Patrick, the patron of Ireland, his own first predecessor, and founder of the cathe dral church of Armagh . . . Having been examined on the said day, and presently again on the fourth day after, he learns from the gover nor of the tower that the business of investigating his case had been committed to certain individuals. . . . And now (after he had been frequently and on various occasions tempted by divers persons to change his faith) the fifth week from his imprisonment had passed away, closing in Passion Week,* when a thought suggests itself to him, I know not how, unless by divine inspiration, relative to the pos sibility of making his escape. : .. (A little bird, in some odd way, was the means of originating the notion in his mind. On the third day after this,' he thought he saw various strange visions, the ghosts of persons on whom he had bestowed indulgences out of the
stock supplied to him by the pope, 'on Easter day itself, and the day which he following: Next day he escapes ; spends three days in London, manages to walking
the streets, &c., and at length gets a passage to France among realize. certain Protestants, and arrives safe in Brabant.)
" It is not unworthy of consideration,” adds Navarchus," what I may here subjoin, that he underwent an examination at Rome, some where about the feast of St. Patrick, when he was about to be elected to the episcopate. Afterwards when a year had elapsed, he was on the same st. Patrick's day, subjected to a diversified and scrutinizing eramination, as a confessor of the faith of Christ at London. And
• Jam quinta ab incarceratione hebdomada effluxerat, quæ infra octavam Paschæ incidit,
that he made his escape out of prison, and regained his liberty im the return, after the lapse of a year, of the very same day on which he had been consecrated bishop. ... &c." Lovan. Cal. Oct. 1565.
Rothe immediately goes on to say that “after an interval of some Examinatime" Creagh “ returned again a third time into Ireland" as primate, tion of the ("the supreme pontiff urging on him that it was expedient so to do,") dates con in the heat of Shane O'Neill's rebellion, &c. &c.
nected with Now bearing in mind that the Sunday letter for the year 1565 was this impriG, and that the Festival of St. Peter's Chair above mentioned falls on sonment. the 22nd of February, and that Easter Sunday in the same year happened on the 22nd of April, it would appear from the above letter of Navarchus, that Creagh, after having being sent over from Ireland, was in. terrogated at Westminster and committed to the tower of London on February 22nd (in the end of 1564, 0. S.) On St. Patrick's day, March 17th following, being a Saturday, and on the Wednesday (March 21,) Dext after it, his case was further inquired into. On Easter Tuesday, April 24th, 1565, he made his escape from prison, which being the anniversary of his admission to the episcopal office, it would follow that he must have been consecrated at Rome by pope Paul IV. on the 24th of April, 1564 : unless the anniversary day in the letter of Navarchus refer to Easter Tuesday, rather than to the day of the month, in which case his consecration would have taken place on April 4th, 1564, Easter Sunday having occurred on April 2, in that year. This may seem the more probable, if we suppose that the day chosen would have been a Sunday or holiday. For the 24th of April, 1564, was neither, but a plain Monday, although the very next day was the feast of St. Mark.
If these inferences be at all correct, then the dates connected with Probable arthe appointments, &c. to the see of Armagh about this period will be rangement these. Dowdall died on the 15th of August, 1558. Loftus was conse of them; crated on March 2, 1563; and Creagh a month later, on April 4, 1564.
But a difficulty still remains. How could the fifth week from not however Creagh's imprisonment end in Passion Week of that year, when from clear from February 22 to April 22 are more than eight weeks? The only reply all difficulty. is, that there is plainly some mistake in the letter, which will only be increased by any other supposition, (such as that of a different year, or the like,) which can, as far as I see, be suggested.
• For instance, in February, 15€4, the Dominical letter being then B, “the third day after St. Peter's chair," would not be the Lord's day. Otherwise, the "5 weeks" mentioned by Navarchus correspond sufficiently with the order of days in this year.
Statement Mr. Stuart, referring to the part of Rothe's work now under consiof Mr. Stu- deration, says, that, “Dr. Creagh had been imprisoned in the Tower of art on this London, A.D. 1565, from whence he was liberated after five weeks conpoint. finement, on St. Patrick's festival, being the anniversary day of his
consecration at Rome." This appears to be plainly at variance with
the letter above quoted, and entirely unsatisfactory. Creagh's Richard Creagh was the author, we are told, of many learned works, writings. including a treatise “De lingua Hibernica," a “Chronicon Hibernia,"
and sundry others. He was also very exertive in advancing the mis
sion of the Jesuits in Ireland, commenced by his precursor Waucop. Whether he If we might believe the statement of the Jesuit Fitz Symonds, in his was asked to Britannomachia,t published in 1614, it would appear, that presently consecrate after the accession of Q. Elizabeth, when arrangements were in proParker, &c.? gress for the consecration of the Protestant bishops, newly appointed
to various English sees, application was made to a certain Irish archbishop then confined in the Tower of London, offering him his liberty and other benefits, on condition that he should undertake the conse cration of Parker and his fellows; which however the imprisoned prelate steadily refused to agree to, having an utter repugnance to laying his sacred hands on heretics, or being a partaker in other men's sins. “I have not ascertained," says Fitz Symonds, “ (beyond a probable conjecture) whether this individual was the thrice illustrious martyr Creagh, primate of Armagh, who effected a miraculous escape from the tower of London in the reign of Elizabeth" and was long after again shut up there, and cut off by a poisoned piece of cheese. Undoubtedly it could have been no other person, if the story had any foundation in truth, as it is well known that none of the lawful arch. bishops of Ireland were then imprisoned in London. But as it seems certain that Creagh was neither bishop nor archbishop, but more probably a plain schoolmaster, when Parker was consecrated on Dec17, 1559) so may we believe that this whole story, narrated by Fitz Symonds, is not more remarkable for strict adherance to truth than
many others proceeding from authors of his class. E. Mac
2. To Creagh succeeded in the titular dignity EDMUND MAC Gauvran,
GAUVRAN, who in the beginning of the year 1594 was appointed by SECOND the pope his envoy to the Irish Romanists, for the purpose of exciting PRIMATE
them to take up arms in defence of their religion. He was also charged of the new with a commission from King Philip II of Spain, to the Irish chieftains, succession. to whom that monarch promised effectual aid in their wars against the A.D. 1594. English government. Mac Gauvran in the execution of these com
missions visited the leading men of Ulster, but resided chiefly with Maguire, lord of Fermanagh. This chieftain not only refused to give
• Ware and Rothe, ut sup.
+ Lib. 3, pars 5ta, pag. 320.
him up to the lord deputy Russel, but accompanied by him, invaded An agent of the province of Connaught in the early part of A.D. 1594. A corps treason for of troops commanded by Sir W. Guelfort having been sent against Spain. him, the two armies met at a place called Sciath nu feart, ( Scutum miraculorum) where, the day being dark and misty, the cavalry, which had preceded the foot, in total silence, met unexpectedly front to front. Maguire transfixed Guelfort with a spear, and slew him on the spot. And near to the place where the British commander fell, an impetuous Meets with encounter ensuing on both sides, Archbishop Mac Gauvran also met a warrior's with his fate, and fell transfixed with a horseman's spear.
fate. 3. PETER LOMBARD, his successor, was the son of a Waterford Memoir of merchant, who gave him a most liberal education. He became at an P. Lom. early age a pupil of Westminster school, where under his preceptor, bard, THIRD the celebrated antiquary Camden, he gave strong indications of talent, primate of and made rapid advances in literature. Camden himself bears honour- the new able testimony to his
pupil's abilities, styling him “a youth of admir- race in Ireable docility," and boasting that he had converted him to the reformed land. religion, though he had been "popishly bred and affected.”+ But the A.D. 1608 ? effects produced on Lombard's mind by the controversial arguments of his learned preceptor were probably counteracted at Louvain, where For a time a he afterwards pursued his studies, and became D.D. He was then Protestant. made provost of the Cathedral of Cambray in or before A.D. 1601, and subsequently promoted by the pope to the title of the see of Ar. His foreign magh. At what time this appointment was made, it seems not easy promotion. to determine; but it must have been before June 1610, in which month Lombard gave a commission to D. Rothe, afterwards titular bishop of Ossory, to be his vicar general for all Ireland, he himself residing in Rome. Pleased with his literary attainments and religious zeal, his
p. 819 sup. The Four Masters record, at A.D. 1593, that, on the side of the rebels, was "slain Edmond Magauran, (Titular) primate of Armagh, who accidentally happened to have been along with Maguire." Our more poetical writers, Rothe, &c., describe his death in their own way, thus ;-that having taken refuge with Maguire, he was recognised by a government "itinerant satellite ; " "and while engaged in receiving the confession of a dying man, he was mortally wounded, and died near Armagh, A.D. 1598." See Rothe, Ana. Sac. in Processu Martyr, p. 44. Mr. Brennan, Ec. Hist. ii. 140, 221. O'Sullevan, Hist. Cath., tom. ii., lib. 2, cap. 6. Stuart's Armagh, p. 270. P. Lomb. de Reg. Hib. Com. p. 345.
Jus Prim. Armac., c. 27. De Burgh, Hib. Dom., p. 602, (who follows Rothe's account.)
+ Camden's Letter in Aikin's Life of Ussher, p. 322, quoted by Stuart, p. 271.
* See the title of his book, de Reg. Hib. Ware's Writers, p. 103.