Chapter 11 - BOOKS AND MANUSCRIPTS: ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH: THE QUESTION OF TOLERATlON

Page 160

AT the close of the year of 1623, Ussher lost his earliest and one of his most learned correspondents by the death of Camden the historian. Sir Henry Bourgchier thus communicates the event: "The latest [news] which I must send you is very sad and dolorous, being of the death of our late worthy friend, Mr. Camden, whose funeral was solemnised at Westminster on Wednesday last in the afternoon, with all due solemnity, at which was present a great assembly of all conditions and degrees." [1]

The Bishop's correspondence at this time illustrates the conditions under which literary work was in a large measure carried on in the seventeenth century: As libraries were not as numerous and accessible as they are now nor books as plentiful, a considerable business went on in lending and borrowing. Ussher was also always alert to the possibility of enriching his collection by purchase.

[1] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 203.

Page 161

The above correspondent informs him, in November 1624, that there are come to London "two dry-fats of mart books, and they expect but one more; you may perceive by the catalogue what they are. Here will be very shortly some good libraries to be had." [2] Dr. Ward writes that he has sent Sir Robert Cottons manuscripts of Bede's Ecclesiastical History to Ussher, and expects the book back when he has done with it, for that he would keep it till Sir Robert restores a book of his which he had borrowed from Mr. Patrick Young. [3] The Bishop in his turn writes to Ward, entreating him to borrow for him a history of the Church of Durham. Later on, Dr. Ward writes to Ussher to say he has borrowed for him the two books he mentioned, and Dr. Maw entreats him to set down some limited time for which he would borrow them, and asks for a receipt of them in some note under his hand. [4] The learned Mr. Selden is also a borrower on a large scale, and Ussher notes at the foot of one of his letters, under date September 19, 1625, the books lent, among which were "The Book of Hoath" and "Fragments of the Annals of St. Mary's Abbey, Dublin."

[2] Ussher's Works ,xv. p.227. "For books," says Parr, "he (Ussher) had a kind of laudable covetousness, and he never thought a good book, either manuscript or print, too dear."

[3] Ditto, xv. p. 229.

[4] Ditto, xv. p. 293.

Page 162

Sometimes, as might be supposed, these borrowed books never came back to their owners, and there is a strange story of one of his books having been discovered by Ussher exposed for sale on a bookstall in the streets of London. [5] Ussher went further afield than England in search of rare MSS. and precious tomes. He had an agent in the East in the person of the Rev. Thomas Davies, chaplain to the British Factory at Aleppo and a predecessor of Edward Pococke. It was through his instrumentality that in the year 1624 the rare "find" was made of the “five books of Moses in the Samaritan character," which he discovered “by a mere accident with the rest of the Old Testament joined with them." "But the mischief,” adds Mr. Davies in his letter to Ussher, "is, there wants two or three leaves of the beginning of Genesis and as many in the Psalms." A search for the Old Testament in the Syriac tongue was made about the same time at Mount Lebanon and also at Tripoli in vain. Mr. Davies was an enthusiastic henchman.

[5] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 116. See also xvi. pp. 570-3. Ussher was exceedingly anxious to get hold of the original MSS. of the Book of Howth and the other Carew MSS. for the Library of Trinity College, and asked the refusal of them before any other; but they went eventually to the Lambeth Library, on the death of Sir Thomas Stafford. - Ussher's Works, xv. 433-4.

Page 163

“I should think myself happy,” he writes to Ussher, "that I were able to bring a little goat's hair or a few badger skins to the building of God's tabernacle." [6] Elsewhere in his letter the Bishop acknowledges his deep indebtedness to Davies.

But Ussher had other cares besides literary ones. His advice was sought on many subjects, great and small. Thus we find a Mr. Randolph Holland requesting him to write to the Bishop of Cork to interfere with one Stuke, of Bandon, on account of errors in “faith and piety." Doing so, the Bishop will be “like to the prophet Elisha with his cruse of salt seasoning the bitter waters of Jericho," and making the new corporation of Bandon Bridge, now leavened with errors, "a commodious seat for honest and faithful Christians." [7] Sir Henry Bourgchier as usual lightens his correspondence with the gossip of the day. "Out of Ireland,” he writes to the Bishop, January 5th, 1624, "there is no late news that I hear of.

”

[6] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 222. Dr. Hall, Bishop of Norwich, uses the identical figure of speech in a letter to Ussher, Works, xvi. p. 598. A successor to Pococke, in the same chaplaincy in 1670 was Huntingdon, who in 1683 became Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and afterwards Bishop of Raphoe.

[7] Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 405.

Page 164

He tells him of the burning of Donnybrook [8] and that Sir Edward Herbert, late Ambassador in France, is made Lord Herbert of Castleisland, in the county of Kerry.

At this time Ussher is found residing at Much Hadham in Hertfordshire. He is invited thither by Mr. Theophilus Ailmer, who writes, "Mine earnest desire is that it would please your lordship and the virtuous gentlewoman your wife to take one whole week's repast with me at my poor house in Hadham, that your mind may have some relaxation from daily studies by taking view of my poor library . . . How will the great Bishop Nazianzus, with that prince of eloquence, the Caesarian Archbishop; how will his Nicene brother, that treasure of learning; how will that golden-mouthed Constantinopolitan Archbishop rejoice to see that bishop in whom themselves shall see all their particular prayers jointly concurring? Your lordship cannot conceive with what desire Epiphanius, Eusebius, and immortal praise-deserving Athanasius, do expect you, since I named the expectation of your coming.

[8] Donnybrook (Domnach-broc, the Church of of Broc) at that time was a small hamlet, situated at a considerable distance from the city. It was destroyed by a great fire in the above year. That the Usshers had some interest in Donnybrook is plain from the fact that Sir William Ussher, Constable of Wicklow Castle, lived there in 1605". Henry Ussher, as Arch-deacon of Dublin (afterwards Archbishop of Armagh), was Rector of Donnybrook in 1580. Arthur Ussher, son of the above Sir William, was "drowned in Donybrook River" (the Dodder) on March 2, 1628. - See Beaver Blacker's Sketches of Donnybrook, pt. i. p. 66; Notes and Queries, second series, vol. viii. , P.438.

Page 165

Some of them have decked themselves in new and fresh apparel, as desirous to be somewhat answerable in outward hue to the view of their fellow bishop; others of them have covered themselves with old and dusty garments, as lamenting your so long absence." The writer sends a coach to meet them, and horses for the men to ride on, and to attend them. In a postscript he humbly entreats the Bishop and “the virtuous Mrs. Ussher" to take up into the coach, which he shall send, his daughter, Elizabeth Cole, in case they should meet with her. [9]

But to return to the Bishop’s public life. Ussher was now to ascend to the highest position he could occupy in the Irish Church. In January 1624, Primate Hampton had died, and the King forthwith nominated the Bishop of Meath to succeed him. [10]

[9] Ussher's Works, xvi. pp. 412-13. At this time Ussher was looking for a house at Godstow or Water Eaton, near Oxford, "for facilitating his studies." - Works, xv. p. 211.

[10] According to Mr. Justice Philpot, it was on Hampton's earnest representation that Ussher was selected to succeed him in the Primacy. - Ussher's Works, xvi. pp. 419-20. He was appointed by letters under the Privy Seal, dated at Westminster 29th January, and had restitution of the temporalities the next day (Rolls, 22  Jac. 1.). Ware says he was made Archbishop of Armagh "to the universal satisfaction of all the Protestants of Ireland.” - Works, i. p. 105.

Page 166

One of the first to hear of Ussher's likely preferment was the Bishop's old friend, Dr. Ward, who wrote to him from Cambridge, March 21st, 1624: "I did hear at London of the decease of the late Primate of Armagh, and of your lordship's designment by his Majesty to succeed in that place.” [11] The Bishop of Kilmore, Dr. Moygne, also congratulates him, "out of an assured and most firm persuasion that God hath ordained him as a special instrument for the good of the Irish Church;" "and," adds the Bishop, "my good lord, now remember that you are at the stern not only to guide us in a right way, but to be continually in action and standing on the watch-tower to see that the Church receive no hurt." [12] Ussher had only held the bishopric of Meath for four years; he was to be acting Primate for the next sixteen.

As Archbishop of Armagh, Ussher became at once one of the most important functionaries in the country; he stood next to the Lord-Deputy himself. The King not only conferred this mark of his favor and approval on Ussher, but he also wrote to the custodian of the temporalities, directing him to hand them over, free of all deductions, to the new Archbishop.

11 Ussher’s Works, xv. p. 268.

12 Ditto pp. 272-3.

Page 167

This was the last official act of James in connection with the affairs of Ireland, as he died shortly afterwards. Perhaps nothing is more to the credit of the King than the steady friendship he maintained toward Ussher, and the appreciation which he evinced of his devotion to the Protestant religion. The patronage of the Sovereign was not, however, to tease with the death of James, as his son and successor warmly took up the Irish prelate, and wrote to the Lord-Deputy and Treasurer to bestow upon the Archbishop the sum of £400 out of the funds of the kingdom. [13] Ussher was in England at the time of his translation, and was suffering from a severe attack of ague. Writing to Sir Robert Cotton, from Much Hadam, May 1625, he says: "My weakness is such that I am thereby disabled as to write any letter myself, so to dictate very few."

Before he returned to Ireland, however, Ussher was to prove once more how able and convincing a controversialist he could be when it was a question between the claims of the rival Churches of England and Rome.

[13] "English money, out of any casualty or casualties that should first happen in Ireland." - Cal. (English) State Papers, Oct. 19, 1626; Reeves' Ware, i. p. 106, MS. note. It was said that the King had committed the jewel of his royal prerogative over all persons and causes ecclesiastical into Ussher's hands. - See Clogy's Memoirs of Bedell; p. 117.

Page 168

John, Lord Mordaunt, afterwards the first Earl of Peterborough, was a zealous Roman Catholic. His wife, a daughter of Lord Howard of Effingham, was a decided Protestant, and as each was most anxious for the conversion of the other to what they believed to be the true faith, they decided that the points of difference between the two Churches should be argued before them. Lord Mordaunt chose as his champion an English Jesuit, who went under the feigned name of Beaumont, but whose real name was Rookwood. Lady Mordaunt selected Archbishop Ussher. The scene of the combat, which took place towards the close of 1625, was his lordship's seat of Drayton, Northamptonshire. Ussher left a memorandum of the proceedings among his papers. The first three days of the disputation were in the hands of the Archbishop, who chose the subjects of Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Worship of Images, and the Visibility of the Church, as points where the Church of Rome had gone astray from the true faith. On the fourth day, Rookwood was to reply; but when it arrived the Jesuit was nowhere to be found! Ussher had proved altogether too formidable an antagonist, and Rome's champion sent a message to the effect that all his arguments, which he thought he knew as perfectly as his Paternoster, had been forgotten, and that he believed it was the last judgment of God upon him for daring to dispute with a man of Ussher’s eminence and learning without the permission of his superiors.

Page 169

Lord Mordaunt, disgusted with the result, adopted the Reformed faith, and became a sincere Protestant, while his wife lived to show herself Ussher's staunchest friend and be his stay and comfort in the dark days that were before him in the future. It was at her house in Reigate that he breathed his last thirty years later. As for Rookwood, he was admonished to "beware of Drayton House, lest he should there chance to light upon another Ussher, and be again put to flight, to the great disgrace both of himself and his profession." [14]

The Primate after this encounter returned to Ireland via Liverpool, and was duly installed in the Chair of St. Patrick. On his arrival in Dublin he was welcomed by a large gathering of the nobility, bishops, and clergy.

[14] See Bernard's Life, pp. 54-6, for an account of this controversy. Such theological duels were common enough in those days. Thus we find that two years previously Bramhall, then in his twenty-ninth year, took part in one at Northallerton with a Jesuit named Hungate. According to some authorities, Ussher had a similar controversy with another learned Jesuit with whom he crossed swords under the guise of being only a simple country parson. The Jesuit declared that the country vicar had more learning than all the English bishops. - See the Biographia Britannica, vi. p. 4070.

Page 170

Ussher did not enter on his high office without trouble from Dr. Ryves, Judge of Faculties and Prerogatives in Ireland, who claimed by virtue of his patent to exercise authority independent of the Primate. The matter was the subject of more than one communication between Ussher and Dr. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln, the Lord Keeper, and Lord Treasurer of England. He claims that his powers as Archbishop of Armagh should at least be equal to those exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and asks, "Did ever any reasonable man hold it to be a thing unreasonable that a substitute should be ordered by him that hath, appointed him to be his substitute?" [15]

As might be supposed, the Archbishop had many applications for patronage; one, John Parker, writes to him from St. Patrick's Close, April 26th, 1625: "I could wish to live under your command and jurisdiction, and to enjoy the comfort of my ministry there. The height of my ambition is to be once able before I die to preach on these words of St. Paul, 'Owe nothing to any man.'

[15] See the correspondence, Ussher's Works, xv. 278-9, 296, &c.

Page 171

For next unto the pardon of my sins, I desire that blessing, and therefore if your Grace will be pleased to be mindful of me when you have remembered those that have nearer relation unto you for some addition that may help me out of that Egyptian bondage of debt which I have fallen into . . . I shall be found a thankful receiver." [16]

On July 12th, 1625, Ussher writes to Sir Robert Cotton warning him that if Arabic, Syriac, Hebrew and Persian books were to be sought from the East, it must be done very speedily, because “the Jesuits of Antwerpe are already dealing for the Oriental press.” The same month the Archbishop's agent at Aleppo advises him that, he has forwarded the first five books of Moses with parcels of the New Testament in the Chaldean tongue. He also sends him some of the works of Ephrem, but has not been able to come on the New Testament in the Ethiopic language. In August, Dr. Ward, writing from Cambridge, mentions that the plague is raging there; but he is careful that his letter is conveyed "by persons safe from all infection." It is to be observed that in his later years Ussher came to the conclusion that the study of these Eastern languages was a mistake and a bootless labour. [17]

[16] Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 425.

[17] "In discourse with him [Ussher], he told me how greate the loss of time was to study much the Eastern languages; that excepting Hebrew, there was little fruite to be gathered of exceeding labour." - Evelyn's Diary, i. p. 294.

Page 172

England at this time was going through one of those "scares” about Irish matters with which she is periodically affected and under which she has always shown a tendency towards panic legislation. Both France and Spain were hostile, and the Pope, Urban VIII, had issued a fresh Bull against the oath of supremacy as interfering with his rights in claiming supreme Vicar of God. The result was an agitation throughout the country antagonistic to the English interests, and Charles determined to increase his Irish army. At the same time, with a strange inconsistency, the penal laws were to be relaxed in favour of those Roman Catholics who willingly subscribed towards the cost of the new levies. Nothing could be worse in the way of policy. It was one of those crooked enterprises of Charles I. which brought so much trouble on himself and misery on his people. The Protestant party were outraged, at the same time that the “recusants” came forward cheerfully to buy religious liberty with their offerings. A toleration of this kind, and under the circumstances, was what the heads of the Established Church in Ireland could not endure, and eleven of the bishops assembled in the house of Archbishop Ussher in Drogheda to draw up a protest, which was published on April 23rd, 1627.

Page 173

As seven or eight of the bishops, however, remain to be accounted for, this action of theirs cannot be regarded as having been unanimous. [18]

The "judgment" of the bishops “concerning toleration of religion," did not mince matters. The religion of the Papists was denounced as superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine, erroneous and heretical; their Church, in respect of both, apostatical. To give them, therefore, toleration, or to consent to allow them freely to exercise their religion and profess their faith and doctrine, was, "a grievous sin."

Fairly enough, indeed, the bishops contended that to grant the Roman Catholics toleration "in respect of any money to be given, or contribution to be made by them, was to set religion to sale, and with it the souls of the people whom Christ our Saviour hath redeemed with His most precious blood." In a letter to Archbishop Abbot, Ussher writes: "Some of the adverse party have asked me the question, where I have heard or read before that religion and men's souls should be set to sale after this manner? Unto whom I could reply nothing but that I had read in Mantuan that there is another place in the world where calum est venale, deoque." 19

[18] See the judgment in Parr's Life, pp. 28-9.

[19] Ussher's Works, xv. p. 366

Page 174

One thing is certain, very few Protestants, if any, would put their hand to such a document in the present day, and the fact that Christian bishops could draw up a denunciatory judgment of the kind, only shows how little the principles of Christian toleration were generally understood even so late as the seventeenth century.

"A religious establishment” in the words of Bishop Butler, "without, a toleration of such as in conscience think they cannot conform to it, is itself a general tyranny." Strange to say, Milton, the great apostle of religious liberty, put the Church of Rome beyond the borders of toleration on the ground of her "idolatry." [20] It was reserved at this period for Jeremy Taylor, alone of all the great divines, to conceive a constitution broad and tolerant enough to throw the shield of its protection even over Roman errors. [21] The episcopal declaration was followed up by violent sermons preached before the Court in Christ Church Cathedral. The Bishop of Derry, Dr. Downham, occupied the pulpit the first Sunday, and read out the judgment. He ordered the congregation to say "Amen" after it, when the church shook with the response, to the great annoyance of Lord Falkland. [22]

20 See Milton's Treatise of True Religion, Heresy, Schism, and Toleration. - Works, 2nd ed. 1753.

21 See Liberty of Prophesying, sect. xx.

22 Fuller's Worthies, p. 189; Ware, I .p. 292.

Page 175

On the following Sunday Archbishop Ussher preached. He charged the authorities with endeavouring, like Judas, to sell their Lord for thirty pieces of silver.

The excitement of the protestant party, led on by the Bishops, was now intense and it was felt that if peace was to be preserved an entire change of tactics was necessary. Archbishop Ussher, at the request of the Lord-Deputy, had unequivocally condemned this sale of indulgences to the Roman Catholics; the money, however, was required for the King’s purposes, and should be raised in some other way.

Ussher was quite ready to back up the King's demands, provided that they did not endanger the interests of the Protestant religion and encourage the Roman Catholics in the public exercises of their faith. Accordingly at a meeting of the Council in the Castle of Dublin, the Primate set forth in very powerful language the reasons why the country should come to the aid of the King. The dangers of a foreign invasion and of a domestic rebellion were imminent. The Duke of Medina Sidonia had declared in ’88 that his sword knew no difference between a Catholic and a heretic, but that he had come to make way for his master; the translating of the throne of the English to the power of a foreigner is the thing that mainly intended, and the re-establishing of the Irish in their ancient possessions which were gained from them by the valour of our ancestors.

Page 176

As a divine he told them plainly that to supply the King with means for the necessary defence of the country was not a thing left to their own discretion either to do or not to do, but a matter of duty, which in conscience they stood bound to perform, on the principle of rendering unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. [23] The eloquence of Ussher, however, was thrown away. The Irish Roman Catholics who professed their willingness to contribute to the royal necessities, in return for a removal or moderation of their religious disabilities, refused to do so as a matter of duty to the King, and the supplies were not granted. It has been said that if the army in Ireland had been brought to its full strength at this time, the dreadful outbreak of 1641 would never have taken place. [24]

[23] The speech is given in full in Parr's Life, pp. 29-35.

[24] Ussher, as we have already seen, was regarded in his day as a prophet, because he was believed to have foretold this and several other leading events. "He was wonderfully endowed with a spirit of prophecy whereby he gave out several true predictions and prophecies of things a great while before they came to pass." In 1678 there was published in Dublin a small quarto, entitled "Strange and Remarkable Prophecies and Predictions of the Holy, Learned, and Excellent James Ussher, late Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Lord Primate of Ireland." The book, which sets forth Ussher’s predictions regarding the rebellion of 1641; the confusion and miseries of England in Church and State; the death of the King; his own poverty and want; the divisions in England in matters of religion and "lastly, a great and terrible persecution which shall fall on the Reformed Churches by the Papists," was "published, earnestly to persuade us to that repentance and reformation which can only prevent our ruin and destruction." The title-page is garnished with the text: "Shall I hide from Abraham the thing that I do?" (Gen. xviii. 17). Ussher is also credited with having foretold the burning of London - that it would be "burnt to a cinder." See Biog. Brit. vi. p. 4079.

Page 177

That may be as it may, but the method taken to raise the supplies was indefensible. The Roman Catholics had either a natural right to the free exercise of their religion, or it was a right that could not be purchased with money. It was a measure fruitful in future evils.

In the lull that followed this excitement, Ussher had time to return to his studies. He laid himself out once more to collect rare books and manuscripts, and his agent at Aleppo was busy. We have already seen how he furnished his patron with one of the first, if not the first copy of the Samaritan Pentateuch known to the Western world, [25] a volume which with other books was

[25] Selden's Mar. Arundel, and Walton's Preface to the Polyglot Bible. See also Ware, i. p. 207; "Vix aliud exemplar, si forte illud," Smith in Life of Ussher, p. 59. According to Bernard, Life of Ussher, p. 85, the Archbishop received four Samaritan Pentateuchs, of which he gave one to the Library at Oxford, a second to Leyden, a third to Sir Robert Cotton’s Library, and the fourth he kept himself. A previous copy had been received in Paris from the famous traveller, Pietro dele Avale, from which Morinus published a copy in the Polyglot of Le Jay. - Todd's Life of Walton, i. p. 185 (note). Walton places Ussher at the head of his literary benefactors in his Polyglot; the Archbishop collated no less than sixteen MSS. for him, the various readings of which are admitted into the Polyglot. - Ditto, pp. 79, 182-3.

Page 178

placed at the disposal of Walton when compiling his Polyglot, and which now rests in the Bodleian Library, with an inscription from the pen of the Archbishop who had presented to Laud, and with these words written underneath in Laud's handwriting: Qui librum hunc mihi dono dedit, W Cant. Ussher was now contemplating an edition of the Syriac version of the Old Testament, and had literary agents to assist him. [26]

The loan moneys required at this time by the new King were not being levied off the Irish clergy without much discontent and grumbling; and on January 27th, 1626, we find the Primate writing from Drogheda to Lord Faulkland, promising to do what he can towards getting in the money, and he will give a particular certificate of those who will not pay in order that the Deputy may deal with them as he thinks fit.

[26] "It is impossible even to imagine the pains, labour, and expense which Ussher bestowed upon Oriental studies till we take up his correspondence, and not the numerous agents he maintained at Constantinople, Smyrna, and throughout the East, seeking for and purchasing ancient MSS. I would venture to say, that there is not at the present time a single scholar in the British islands who takes one quarter the trouble in this respect that Primate Ussher took more than 200 years ago.” - G.T. Stokes, in F.R.S.A Ireland, fifth series, i. pp. 17,18. See also Dunton’s Life and Errors, pp. 497-8.

Page 179

From the Latin Diary of a Dr. Arthur, a Roman Catholic physician, in Limerick, we learn that at this time Ussher was in ill-health. Dr. Arthur seems to have been very successful in treating a disorder that had baffled the English physicians. On April 14th, he took him over to Lambay Island, off Malahide, where amid the salubrious air of the place he gradually regained his strength. They returned to Dublin on June 9th, and were received in state by the Viceroy and his Court. Lord Falkland was so pleased that he appointed Arthur physician to himself and his family. Ussher gave him a fee of £61 5s. 4d. [27]

[27] The Journal of the Kilkenny Archaeological Society for 1867, where Dr. Arthur's fee-book is printed, and Ball Wright's Memoirs, pp. 92-3. Lambay Island was part of the Ussher property at this time, subject to £6 rent per annum to the See of Dublin. - Ditto, p. 106 (note). The house where he lived on the island is still to be seen. There must have been in idea at one time that the island was rich in ore, for we find John Challoner writing to Cecil on May 28, 1563, asking permission "to work the silver and copper veins in the island of Lambay." - Cal. State Papers, Elizabeth, of above date.