Chapter 8 - USSHER A COURT PREACHER: BISHOP OF MEATH

Page 114

AT this time the ever-vacillating King, who at one moment would send representatives to the Synod of Dort, and the next rail at the Puritans, was in the latter mood, and hearing of Dr Ussher and his proceedings in the Irish Convocation, had conceived a strong dislike to him which he did not care to conceal. The acute Sabbatarianism of the Irish Articles in particular had vexed him. Ussher being about to visit London, and knowing the sentiments of the King, who was listening to Ussher's enemies, determined to go armed with a letter of commendation from the Irish Government to the Privy Council in England. [1]

[1] According to the Montgomery MSS., pp. 104-5, Ussher did not ask for this letter of commendation.

Page 115

"We are desirous," say the Irish Lord-Deputy and Council (September 30th, 1619), “to set him [Dr. Ussher] right in his Majesties opinion, who it seemeth has been informed that he is somewhat transported with singularities, and unaptness to be conformable to the rules and orders of the Church. We are so far from suspecting him in that kind, that we may boldly recommend him to your Lordships as a man orthodox and worthy to govern in the Church, when occasion shall be presented, and his Majesty may be pleased to advance him, he being one that had preached before the State here for eighteen years, and has been his Majesties Professor of Divinity in the University for thirteen years; and a man who has given himself over to his profession; an excellent and painful preacher, a modest man, abounding in goodness, and his life and doctrine so agreeable, and those who argue not with him are yet constrained to love and admire him. And for such a one we beseech your Lordships to understand him, and accordingly speak to his Majesty.” [2]

[2] Parr's Life of Ussher, pp. 15, 16. This was not the first letter of commendation carried by Ussher to London. In 1612 his former tutor; James Hamilton, thus writes to Sir James Semphill on his behalf: “Clear them to his Majestie that they are not Puritants, for they (Ussher and Challoner) have dignitariships and prebends in the cathedral churches here." - MS. Archiv. Eccl. ,Scot., xxviii. No. 18; see McCries' Life of Melville, p. 380 (note).

Page 116

The Puritan faction being at this time in strong disfavour, there is reason to believe that some leading Irish Roman Catholics were only to glad to affix the name of Puritan to persons who had made themselves obnoxious to their Church by their zeal in propagating Protestant principles; and as Ussher was now well known for his devotion to the Reformed faith, they had fastened the unpopular designation on him.

The letter of the Irish Government had, however, a good effect upon the King, whose interest was further excited when he met Ussher, and listened to his learned discourse. His Majesty declared with his wonted sententiousness, after one or two interviews, that "the knave Puritan was a bad, but the knave's Puritan, an honest man." [3] Elrington, in his Life, [4] observes that no record of the particulars of these interviews between Ussher and the King has been preserved. Fortunately the writer was here in error, for the Montgomery MSS., since published, contain a full and interesting account of what took place. Montgomery, then the Bishop of Meath and his great friend, happened to be in London when Ussher arrived, and, we learn, sent for him at once to come to his lodgings.

[3] Parr's Life, p. 17. "Spalato . . . .was the first who, professing himself a Protestant, used the word ‘Puritan' to signify the defenders of matters doctrinal in the English Church. Formerly the word was only taken to denote such as dissented from the hierarchy in discipline and Church government.” -  Fuller's Church History, vol. iii. p. 305.

[4] Life of Ussher, p. 52.

Page 117

Ussher had only just alighted from his horse at the inn, and was preparing to stay there incognito for a day or two after his long journey. He also wanted to get new habits according to the use of the English clergy. When Ussher got the Bishop's message, he forthwith had his clothes brushed, and “went (Nicodemus-like) when it was night" to the Bishop's lodgings. After “caressings, salutation, and a glass of wine, they sat down together," though Ussher hesitated to do so, from his native modesty, and the great deference he entertained for the Bishop. Montgomery told him to let him know when he got his new clothes that he might introduce him to kiss the King's hand. On the following day Montgomery brought Ussher to the Court, where everyone was anxious to see one of whom so much had been spoken, especially the clergy, "who observed the countenance and deference with which he was treated by the King's favourite bishop." When James saw Ussher, he informed him that he had long "grieved to see him of whom he had heard a great deal of praise.” His Majesty then called for Ussher's letters of recommendation, and having read the names subscribed thereto, he said he should love them all his life the better for their love to Ussher.

Page 118

The King now made Ussher his chaplain-in-ordinary until better provision might be forthcoming, and the new chaplain thereupon fell on his knees and thanked his Majesty, who bade him rise and discoursed with him on divers abstruse points of religion, to which he received “learned, pertinent, answers." A little later Ussher was again called into the royal presence, and told he must preach before the King's Highness within a week; and, opening a little Bible, King James chose a text in the Book of Chronicles, "which was very hard bones to pick," but which Ussher handled with such warmth that he extracted "abundance of good oyl from it," to the great admiration of all that heard him. [5] Shortly afterwards the Bishopric of Meath became vacant by the death of Bishop Montgomery, when the King nominated Ussher, and living long enough to hear of his success, and of his many and earnest labours, he boasted with considerable pride that he "was a bishop of his own making." In Ireland the appointment was received with much satisfaction by the authorities. The Lord-Deputy Grandison wrote at once from Dublin (February 20th, 1620) to congratulate the bishopelect. "I thank God for your preferment to the Bishoprick of Meath; his Majesty therein has done a gracious favour to his poor Church here.

[5] Montgomery MSS. edited by Hill, pp. 104-6.

Page 119

There is none here but are exceeding glad that you are called thereunto, even some Papists themselves have largely testified their gladness of it. Your grant is, and other necessary things shall be, sealed this day or to-morrow. I pray God bless you and whatever you undertake." [6]

The King was now in trouble with his people. His Protestantism was suspected. A reaction had set in after the conclusion of the Synod of Dort, and his enemies regarded this as a conversion of the King to Popery. The proposed alliance of the King's son with the Infanta of Spain was not acceptable. "The new chapel for the Infanta goes on in building," writes Sir Henry Bourgchier to Ussher, "and our London Papists report that the angels descend every night and build part of it." To do away with such prejudices the King determined to call a new Parliament, and as the Protestantism of many of the members of the House of Commons was suspected, he arranged that they should take the test of the Communion and hear a sermon from one who’s Protestantism was beyond question. Dr. Ussher, bishop-elect for Meath, accordingly received the royal orders to preach before Parliament at St. Margaret's Church, Westminster.

[6] Ussher's Works, vol. xvi. p. 374, and Elrington's Life, p. 52.

Page 120

Some notes of the occasion are preserved among the Bishop's memoranda: [7] "February 14 being Shrove Tuesday, I dined at Court, and betwixt four and five I kissed the King's hand and had conference with him touching my sermon. He said, “I had charge of an unruly flock to look to next Sunday.” . . . . He bade me tell them I hoped they were all prepared (for Communion), but wished they might be better; to exhort them to unity and concord; to love God first and then their prince and country; to look to the urgent necessities of the times and the miserable state of Christendom with bis dat qui cito dat." This last a timely suggestion with reference to the supplies to be voted in favour of the Elector Palatine and the support of Protestantism in the Low Countries.

The sermon, which was preached February 18, 1620, pleased the house much, and the King forthwith sent two of its members, Sir James Perrot and Mr. Drake, to request its publication. [8] The discourse was accordingly printed in the following year, and is to be found in the second volume of Ussher's collected works.

[7] Parr's Life, pp. 17, 18.

[8] It would appear that the House of Commons at this time desired to offer Ussher the appointment of Precentor in St. Margaret's Church - See Stanley's Mem. West. Abbey, p. 358 (note).

Page 121

It is one of the only two sermons published with his permission. In the course of the sermon Ussher enters largely into the differences which separated the Churches of England and Rome, and especially on the subject of the sacraments. We need scarcely say it is very unlike a sermon that would be preached in the present day before the House of Commons; indeed, the delivery of such a discourse under the circumstances would now be an impossibility.

Then as now, controversy ranged chiefly round the nature and efficacy of the sacraments, and to this question Dr. Ussher largely devoted himself. The danger to the realm from Jesuitical sophistries, especially in the matter of the oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, also came under notice. The text of the preacher on the occasion was the words of St. Paul, as recorded in I Corinthians x. 17. On them he founded the doctrine of the Unity of the Church - all partaking of the one Bread. "The enemy desires dissension, Hoc Ithacus velit et magno mercentur Atrida . . . . Divide et impera. . . . . The face of Christendom, so miserably rent and torn as it is this day, cannot but present itself as a rueful spectacle unto all our eyes . . . . Out of Christ there is nothing but confusion; without Him we are nothing but, disordered heaps of rubbish, but in Him all the building fitly framed together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord.

Page 122

Of ourselves we are but lost sheep, scattered and wandering in every direction. From Him it is that there is one fold and one Shepherd." [9] The Lord's Supper is itself to often a cause of separation instead of union. "It is a lamentable thing to behold how this holy Sacrament, which was ordained by Christ to be a bond whereby we should be knit together in unity, is by Satan's malice, and the corruption of man's disposition so strangely perverted the contrary way that it is made the principal occasion of that woeful distraction which we see amongst Christians, at this day, and the very fuel of endless strifes and implacable contentions.” [10]

 Ussher goes on to develop the Protestant view of the Sacrament as against the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation. "The bread and wine are not changed in substance from being the same with that which is served at ordinary tables. But in respect of the sacred use whereunto they are consecrated, such a change is made that now they differ as much from common bread and wine as heaven from earth.

[9] Ussher's Works, ii. pp. 423-4.

[10] Ditto, p. 426.

Page 123

Neither are they to be accounted barely significative, but truly exhibitive also, of those heavenly things whereunto they have relation as being appointed by God to be a means of conveying the same unto us, and putting us in actual possession thereof. So that in the use of this holy ordinance, as verily as a man with his bodily hand and mouth receiveth the earthly creatures, so verily doeth he with his spiritual hand and mouth, if any such we have, receive the body and blood of Christ, and this is that real and substantial presence which we affirmed to be in the inward part of this sacred action . . . . We do not receive here only the benefits that flow from Christ, but the very Body and Blood of Christ, that is Christ crucified." [11]

To the question how is it possible that there could be union between us and Christ, seeing the body of Christ is in heaven and we are upon earth, he answers: "If the manner of this conjunction were carnal and corporal, it would be indeed necessary that the things conjoined should be in the same place; but it being altogether spiritual and supernatural, no local presence, no physical or mathematical continuity, or contiguity is any way requisite thereto.

[11] Ussher's Works, ii. p. 429.

Page 124

It is sufficient for the making of a real union of this kind, that Christ and we, though never so far distant in place from each other, be knit together by those spiritual ligatures which are intimated unto us in the words alleged out of the sixth of John, to wit, the quickening Spirit descending down from the Head to be in us a fountain of supernatural life and a lively faith wrought by the same Spirit ascending from us upward to lay hold upon Him.” [12]

On being appointed to the Bishopric of Meath Ussher resigned the Professorship of Divinity in the University of Dublin. There was some difficulty in finding a successor. The Chair was first offered to Mr. Preston, the "patriarch of the Presbyterian party," who refused it in favour of the Presidency of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. [13]

[12] Ussher's Works, ii. pp. 431-2.

[13] John Preston, as Fellow of Queen's College, was suspected of inclination to Nonconformity. He was prosecuted by the Commissary, and recanted, preaching a sermon "warily expressing his allowance of the Liturgy and set forms of prayer, and so escaped." - Fuller's Hist. Univ. Cambridge, p. 308. "After long controversies with the Puritan chief," says Fuller, "Ussher would say, 'Come, Doctor, and let us say something about Christ before we part.’” They kept up the friendships to the last. Preston concludes one of his letters with a postscript, "I suppose you remember me, as I do you, daily." (In a Latin dedication of the above History, Fuller acknowledges his gratitude and obligations to Ussher.) It is stated that Dr. Preston always preached "as if he knew God's will." "He was," adds Fuller, "the greatest pupil-monger in England in man's memory, having sixteen fellow-commoners joint heirs to fair estates admitted in one year at Queen's College." "He as a perfect politician, and used (lapwing-like) to flutter most in that place which was furthest from his eggs." - Fuller's Worthies, iii. pp. 116-I7. It is remarkable as an evidence of the tendency of Puritanism in the direction of free thought that Emmanuel College, erected by Sir Walter Mildmay as a Puritan foundation, shortly begat some of the most prominent leaders in Anglican rational theology - e.g., Whichcote, Smith, Cudworth, &c. A strain of the same kind may be seen in the Church of Ireland, where theology has been Puritan, with a decided leaning towards a tone of thought unhampered by dogmatism.

Page 125

After a delay of four years it was given, to Mr. Hoyle, one of the Senior Fellows, whose sympathies were entirely with the Puritans. Hoyle subsequently was a witness against Laud on his trial, and sat, as we have seen, among the Westminster divines who drew up the Confession of Faith.

It would seem, from a correspondence shortly after Ussher's appointment, that Dr. Hampton, Archbishop of Armagh, was inclined to think that the bishop-elect was a little too hasty in exercising his episcopal rights, not yet having been consecrated. Ussher writes that, in consequence, he has directed his Commissary to surcease immediately from dealing any way with the jurisdiction, in order that he might not seem to stand by any right of his own to the derogation of any point of the Archbishop's authority. As Dr. Hampton had also a similar case against the Bishop of Clogher, Ussher, urges him not to bring it into Court.

Page 126

At the same time he is not prepared to yield to the legal view of the matter propounded by the Archbishop. [14]

It is evident that Ussher's elevation to the episcopate had been anticipated by his friends for some time. As early as 1617, Mr. Warren, writing from Kilkenny, had addressed him as "Bishop of Meath"; [15] and two years previously, Mr. William Eyre, writing from Colchester, "gratulor tibi  purpuram si verus sit rumor." There had also reached him a report of Ussher's state of health, and he adds - " Nobis etiam ipsis vitam et valetudinem tuam gratulari debeo propter tristem rumorem de morte tua apud nos sparsam. Cura, quaeso valetudinem. " [16]

[14] Works, xx. p. 155, &c. The correspondence is interesting as touching on the rights of the Dean and Chapter of Armagh during a vacancy in that see. As we shall find, Ussher afterwards, as Archbishop of Armagh, occupied a somewhat similar position towards Bishop Bedell.

[15] Works, xvi. p. 343. This is certainly puzzling, but it may be explained perhaps on the principle that "coming events cast their shadows before"; and great secrets will sometimes ooze out. We now learn that Montgomery had got a promise from the King of the bishopric of Meath in reversion for Ussher some time before his death. The vicarage of Trim was probably the "good fat benefice" in commendam to which the Bishop refers. - See Mont. MSS., pp. 106-8. Bishop Reeves in the MS. marginal notes to his copy of  Ware, now in the Library of Trinity College, refers to the interesting notices of Ussher in these  Mont. MSS.

[16] Works, xv. p. 87.

Page 127

During Ussher's visit at this time to England, his daughter and only child was born. The parish register of St. Dunstan, London, contains the following entry: "1620. Sep. 19. Elizabeth dau. of Doctor Ussher and Phoebe, was baptized." [17]

[17] Ball Wright's Ussher Memoirs, p. 110.