Chapter 19 - USSHER IN ENGLAND: DEATH OF STRAFFORD: REVOLUTIONARY CHANGES IN CHURCH AND STATE

Page 323

RETURN we now to the public life of the Archbishop. It was his painful duty about this time to take part in the degradation and sentence of a brother bishop, John Atherton, Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, who had been found guilty of unnatural crime and sentenced to death. Ussher was much concerned about his fate, and his chaplain, Dr. Bernard, was most assiduous in visiting him in prison, in the Castle of Dublin. Atherton showed signs of true penitence, and Bernhard preached a sermon afterwards entitled "The Penitent Death of a Woeful Sinner," in which this fact was set forth with great power. [1]

[1] Bernard's sermon, which was dedicated to Archbishop Ussher, was long a popular chap-book in Dublin. Lord Strafford had taken up Atherton and made him Prebendary of St. John’s, Dublin, in 1630. In 1635 he became Chancellor of Christ Church and in 1636 Bishop of Waterford and Lismore. In 1640 he was put on the capital charge, and degraded and hanged in Dublin, Dec. 5th of that year. His body, by his own desire, was buried in an obscure part of St. John’s churchyard. Carte is responsible for the theory that Atherton attracted the enmity of the Earl of Cork by suing for some of his lands, and that falling a victim to his hostility he had this charge trumped against him, but this cannot be proved, and the Bishop acknowledged to his guilt. His execution was witnessed by an immense crowd, his last words being interrupted by a wretch who sat astride on the top of the gallows and derided the unhappy man. Bernard's sermon was preached at the Bishop's burial, the night after his execution, in St. John's Church, Dublin. - See Wood’s Athen. Oxon., ii. p. 892; Cotton's Fasti Eccl. Hib.; and Bernard's Penitent Death, &c.

Page 324

The last important engagement of Ussher, previous to leaving Ireland, never to return, was discharged when he preached before Parliament in March, l640, being then in his fifty-ninth year. Immediately afterwards he crossed with his family to England, and proceeded to Oxford, where he first took up his quarters at Christ Church. [2]

[2] There is a tradition, which has no support beyond the gossip of one of Robert Wodrow’s correspondents, published in a collection of anecdotes, that Ussher took Scotland on his way in order that he might make the acquaintance of Rutherford, and that he preached in his church. First, all the biographers agree that Ussher travelled to London on this occasion accompanied by his family.  Secondly, summoned over for consultation on important State business, it is not likely that Ussher would have allowed himself to have been delayed so long by a tedious and troublesome journey via Scotland and the North of England. If he did take this route, it is incomprehensible that none of his many biographers knew anything about it. - See Wodrow's Analecta,ii. p. 364 and iii. pp. 133-4. The apocryphal character of the story is further proved by the fact that the episode about the "eleven" commandments is also told on the occasion of Ussher's supposed shipwreck on the coast of Ireland. There is no record of his having ever been shipwrecked. - See Elrington's Life, pp. 280-1 (note).

Page 325

Ussher had previously waited on the King in London, who received him with much graciousness. [3] Dark days were now in store for Church and State. The first mutterings of the storm that was shortly to break over the country, and before which crown and mitre were alike to go down, were heard, and the King had need of wise councillors. Ussher was called into the royal presence, and his advice sought on the question of the Church of Scotland. A spurious tract had been issued at the time, bearing as its title "The Directions of the Archbishop of Armagh concerning the Liturgy and Episcopal Government.”

[3] According to Ware, Ussher was invited over by some eminent persons on account of the then difference between the King and Parliament. - Works, i. pp. 108-9; also Smith's Life p. 71. We learn from a letter addressed to him by Laud, that he was to be put up by the King's permission at the Dean of Westminster lodgings, where he was to spend the winter. There was some difficulty about the keys of the chambers, but Laud says, "I will do all that lies in me to accommodate your Grace.” In a postscript Laud alludes to the coming troubles. Two thousand Brownists had raised disturbance at St. Paul’s, crying out that they would have no Bishops nor High Commission.” - Ussher’s Works, xvi. pp. 536-7.

Page 326

Ussher at once disowned the publication, and applied to the House of Commons to have it suppressed, which was done, although it was republished by the Puritans a short time later as a genuine work and with the malicious addition on the title-page - “Being thereunto requested by the Honourable the House of Commons, and then presented in they year 1642.” This was not the only pamphlet that was improperly fathered upon Ussher, a fact which goes to prove how much he was thought of at the time, and how great was the desire of opposing factions to represent him as being on their side. [4]

Bishop Bramhall, who remained behind in Ireland was now in trouble with the authorities. Such high quarry as Archbishop Ussher having escaped the enemies of the Church turned on Bramhall. On March 4th, 1641, articles of high treason were brought against him in the Irish Parliament. In his distress he appealed to Ussher from his prison in Dublin Castle on April 25th, 1642. The Archbishop successfully interceded on his behalf with the King; and the proceedings were stayed. "I assure you," wrote Ussher, “my care in soliciting your cause never slackened at Court with as great vigilancy as if it did touch my own proper person.” [5] While these two men differed much in temperament and the way in which they viewed some things, they maintained an unbroken friendship to the last.

[4] See Elrington’s Life of Ussher, pp. 223-4 and 248-50.

[5] Bramhall's Life in Anglo-Cath. Lib. App., p. xxi.

Page 327

"Although,” says his biographer, "the former (Bramhall) was a man of active zeal and hasty temper and devoted heart and soul to the restoration of the Irish Church in a way Archbishop Ussher opposed, and upon principles with which he did not sympathise, in times, too, of strong excitement and violent party feeling, yet there ever existed between them a most friendly and, even affectionate intercourse." [6] In his “Discourse on the Sabbath," speaking of Ussher and his suffragans, Bramhall says, "We were like the Candles in the Levitical temple, looking one towards another and all towards the stem." [7]

We have already drawn attention to the eirenicon proposed by Ussher with a view to a reconciliation between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. It would seem as if under pressure of the times Ussher did for a moment contemplate the possibility of reducing episcopacy to a kind of moderatorship - the Bishops to be deprived of their orders and proper jurisdiction, and reduced to the level of superintendents or presidents of Ecclesiastical Council. But if this were so, it was only a temporary aberration, for some time later he produced those tracts on the apostolical origin and authority of the episcopate already referred to.

[6] Bramhall's Life.

[7] Bramhall's Works, vol. v. p. 74.

Page 328

His action, contradictory as it may appear, may be fully explained by his strong desire to preserve in a great crisis some shadow of episcopal government. "If we can save it here,” he writes to Bramhall “(for which I can tell you we are put to our utmost), there will be no need to fear anything that moveth from thence” - referring to the anti-episcopal agitation likewise proceeding in Ireland. [8] At the time it was made a question of life and death between the King and his enemies, and accordingly we find that during the royal imprisonment in Carisbrook Castle some years later (1648), a conference was called at the intervention of the Presbyterians, who had fallen out with the Independents, at which the King sought the advice of some of the bishops, and amongst others of Archbishop Ussher. The Irish Primate would not hear of the plan for abolishing bishops, but once more proposed the scheme he had advanced in 1641, and which now obtained the acceptance of the Presbyterian ministers who were present.

[8] Sir John Clotworthy hath presented a far larger petition to the House of Commons for the abolishing of episcopacy in Ireland than that which you sent unto me and signed with a huge number of hands." - Ussher to Bramhall, Rawdon Papers, p. 82.

Page 329

The King, in a temporising mood, went so far as to undertake that the exercise of the episcopate should be suspended for three years, and that episcopal ordinations should be performed only with the consent of presbyters, and that all episcopal jurisdiction should be carried on subject to authority of King and Parliament. The Puritan party, however, were determined on the total suppression of the episcopal order and would listen to no compromise, and so the conference fell through. Matters went so far that some of the enemies of the bishops had the audacity to threaten the King that if he would not consent to "the utter abolition of Episcopacy he would be damned." [9]

A more invidious task had been put before the Archbishop sometime previously, when called upon to decide as to the justice or otherwise of consenting to the death of his friend and former coadjutor in the Irish Government, Lord Strafford.

[9] See Elrington's Life of Ussher, p. 256 (note). For an account of this Conference, see Fuller's Ch. Hist., iii. pp. 556-562, and. Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, ii. pp. 68-74. Butler, in his Hudibras, catches the spirit of the time:

“The oyster women locked their fish up,

And trudged away to call 'No Bishop!'

Some cried the Covenant instead

Of pudding, pies and ginger bread." - Canto ii.

See also Fuller's Ch. Hist., iii. p. 431; and Walker's Trials of the Clergy, p. II.

Page 330

The Earl had been impeached and condemned for high treason by Parliament, and his death sentence was now awaiting the Roya1 signature. In this emergency Charles asked "the counsel of the Bishops of London, Durham, Lincoln, and Carlisle, together with that of Ussher. The meeting was held on Sunday, and, as Ussher was preaching in St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, he said he could not be present. He attended, however, the second meeting held in the evening. There seems to have been a large amount of Jesuitical casuistry over the question, and a straightforward answer was not forthcoming. The episcopal advisers of his Majesty's conscience could not agree. It is alleged that Ussher gave a reluctant assent. [10]

[10] See, among other authorities who take this view, Dr. Littledale in Encyc. Brit., under "Ussher." He speaks of it as one blot on Ussher's memory, "that being one of the five prelates whom Charles I. consulted as to whether he could conscientiously assent to the Act of Attainder against the Earl of Strafford after having pledged his word to him for his safety, Ussher joined in the casuistical advice given by all except Juxon, who alone told the King that his word could not be lawfully broken." Lord Campbell also, in his Lives of the Chancellors, vol. ii. pp. 485-6, inculpates Ussher. Elrington indignantly denies the truth of the charge, as do also Bernard and Parr. On this side likewise is Gardiner, Hist. Fall Charles I., ii. p. 173. The question is discussed in Notes and Queries, First Series, vol. iv.

Page 331

Later in his life, and when supposed to be dying, according to Dr. Parr, Ussher made the following statement: "I never gave nor approved of such advice as that the King should assent to the Bill against the Earl, but, on the contrary, told his Majesty that if he was satisfied by what he heard at his trial that the Earl was not guilty of treason, his Majesty ought not in conscience to consent to his condemnation." After it was reported that Ussher was dead, the charge that he had consented to the death of Strafford was repeated in the royal presence, when Charles, according to Dr. Parr, repudiated the truth of the accusation in the strongest manner, and declared that Ussher had come to him with tears in his eyes, exclaiming, "Oh, Sir, what have you done? I fear that this act may prove a great trouble to your conscience, and pray God your Majesty may never suffer by the signing of this Bill." [11]

Be this matter how it may, and it does seem unlikely that Ussher counselled the signing of the death warrant, the King selected Ussher to bear his last message to his devoted servant. That message contained the rather equivocal announcement, "That if the King's life only were hazarded thereby, he would never have given passage to his death, and that the execution, without extreme danger, could not be deferred." [12] There is reason to believe that the prelate who induced the King to consent to the Earl’s death was, Dr. Williams, Bishop of Lincoln. [13]

[11] Parr's Life, p: 61.

[12] Memorandum by Ussher preserved in his Almanack. - Elrington's Life, pp. 214-15.

[13] See Clarendon’s History, vol. i. p. 147. Williams made a Jesuitical distinction between the “public” and “private” conscience of the King.

Page 332

A further and apparently convincing reason for believing that Ussher did not act with such incredible baseness, is the fact that he waited on the Earl in his last moments, an office of affection and even danger he could scarcely have fulfilled had he counseled his death. He accompanied Strafford to the scaffold, where he knelt and prayed beside him at the block. Ussher afterwards told the King “he had seen many die, but never saw so white a soul return to his Maker.” Writing to Bishop Bramhall, he likewise expressed his admiration of the hapless Earl, as ending his sufferings after a most Christian and magnanimous fashion - Ad stuporem usque. [14]

[14] See the Rawdon Papers, No. xxxiv.; Smith’s Life of Ussher, pp. 80-1; Parr's ditto, pp. 46, 61; and Sanderson's Hist. of the Reign of Charles, under date 1641. It was disgracefully charged against Ussher that he could never find it in his heart to forgive Stafford for his action with regard to the Articles of the Church of Ireland in the convocation of 1634, and he took his revenge by voting for his death (Heylin, in his observations on L’Estrange’s Hist. of the Reign of Charles I., pp. 240-1). It was said that Ussher carried “a sharp tooth” against Strafford on this account. But, as Bramhall nobly says, the good Primate was not “of such a vindictive disposition (vindictive is too low an expression; I might more aptly call it diabolical) as to write discontents in marble, and, like another Haman, to give bloody counsel upon private disgusts." Any one who lived in Ireland “could not choose but see what mutual and cordial respects passed daily between these two great persons from the first day of their acquaintance to the last.” Bramhall goes on further to gather many instances of their constant friendship, and ends thus: "Lastly, which weigheth more with me than all the rest, the choosing him (Ussher) to be his ghostly father and spiritual adviser at his death, and his receiving Absolution and the Holy Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ from his hands when he had chaplains of his own in the city, doth convince me and all ingenuous persons that there was no dissatisfaction of either party against the other.” - Works, v. pp. 83-4.

Page 333

Ussher had not long left Ireland when the rebels pounced upon his property in Drogheda. His houses in the country were plundered, his rents withheld, his cattle maimed and killed, and it was only a vigorous defence that saved his house in Drogheda, with its matchless collection of books and manuscripts. [15]

[15] The news reached London in a strange way, as we gather from an insertion in the Calendar of Domestic Papers of 1640 (Rolls Series), where we learn how one James Smith, apothecary to Dr. Langham, was at dinner at the house of Mr. Clay, grocer or druggist, of Lombard Street, London, when he mentioned that he had received certain news out of Ireland to the effect that after the Lord-Lieutenant left the country the Irish utterly razed and pulled down Ussher's dwelling-house, and that the Archbishop was himself coming from Ireland to England for succour, "by reason there is a rebellion in Ireland like to the rebellion in Scotland." The house referred to must have been the palace at Termonfechan, as the Archbishop's house in Drogheda was saved as we learn from Bernard's history of the siege. He writes: "One of the chiefest cares that lay upon me was that great treasure of my Lord Primate's library . . . We heard of the daily rudeness of the vulgar in burning and cutting in pieces the papers and books of such of the clergy already made a prey of,” and he especially notices the libraries of Lord Conway and the Bishop of Meath. - History of the Siege, p. 9.

Page 334

Through all his troubles the Archbishop’s serene temper never failed him. He had learned, as his biographer Dr. Parr says, "in whatsoever state he was, therewith to be content.” The King, to make up in some degree for his losses, had presented him to the See of Carlisle in commendam; but he was shortly deprived of the scanty revenues of the bishopric when the Parliamentarians sequestered all episcopal revenues. [16] Some time after his arrival in England, Ussher was requested to take part in a committee called together by the House of Lords to see if they could come to some compromise whereby the Church might be saved from the dangers that surrounded it. At the head of the committee sat Williams, Bishop of Lincoln. Nothing came of it. It met for about a month, but when it took in hand the cathedral establishment, and proposed to do away with deans and chapters, it melted away.

[16] Story, in his Cathedrals, under “Carlisle," seems to say that Ussher resided for a time in that city, but we can find no proof of it elsewhere. We find in a Carlisle correspondence, published in Wood's Ath. Oxon., iv., p. 799, a writer saying: "I do not find, or have ever heard, that he [Ussher] was here in person."

Page 335

Archbishop Laud, now in prison thus refers its meetings: “A committee for religion settled in the Upper House of Parliament. Ten earls, ten bishops, ten barons - so the lay votes will be double to the clergy. The committee will meddle with doctrine as well as ceremonies . . .  Upon the whole matter, I believe, this committee will prove the national Synod of England, to the great dishonour of the Church. And what else may follow upon it, God, knows." [17]

It would have been impossible for a man of Ussher’s reputation to have remained destitute and without employment for his talents, and more than one overture was made to him to transfer himself to foreign parts. The University of Leyden invited him to fill a Chair in that (then) renowned seat of learning, and Cardinal Richelieu invited him to France. Civilities passed between these two remarkable men. The Cardinal presented him with a gold medal, as an acknowledgment of his services to literature, and the Archbishop returned the compliment (it is said) with a pair of Irish wolf-dogs, a sly hit, as has been supposed, at the well-known hunting tastes of the French ecclesiastic. [18]

[17] Laud's Diary, quoted by Elrington, Life of Ussher p. 229 (note).

[18] See Bishop Fitzgerald's article in the Dublin University Magazine, xviii p. 154.

Page 336

According to D'Alembert, who is an authority for the story, the return gift disgusted the Cardinal, and prevented further courtesies. [19]

The year 1642 finds Ussher pursuing his studies in Oxford, where he lodged in the house of Dr. Prideaux, Bishop of Worcester, and close to Exeter College. On Sundays he preached plain sermons to crowded congregations in St. Olave's or Allhallows churches. [20] At the close of the year we find Ussher again in attendance with the King, who receives the Holy Communion at his hands, and takes the opportunity of declaring his unabated devotion to the true Protestant religion “without any connivance of popery."

On the first day of July, 1643, the famous Assembly of Divines, whose deliberations and conclusions were destined to affect so materially the future current of theology in these countries, met at Westminster. Ussher amongst others was invited to attend the Assembly, which was convened by Parliamentary authority, but without the consent of the King, who refused to sanction the Bill passed to summon it. Ussher not only refused to be present, but preached against it as an illegal and schismatical gathering.

[19] D'Alembert, Works, ix. p. 224; also Ware's Works, i. p. 109.

[20] Parr's Life, p. 48. It was while resident in Oxford that his daughter Elizabeth was married to Sir Timothy Tyrrel of Shotover and Oakley.

Page 337

In return the House of Commons had the meanness to confiscate the Archbishop's library, which had been brought over from Drogheda and deposited in Chelsea, College. The books would have been sold and dispersed had not Dr. Featley interfered, and with the assistance of Mr. Selden, also a member of the Assembly, succeeded in protecting them. [21] There had been some disputing as to whether the members should admit Ussher into the Assembly at all. “They had as good inquire," said Seldon, "whether they had best admit Inigo Jones, the King’s architect, to the company of mouse-trap makers." [22] In the Assembly, Dr. Featley alone stood up for episcopal Church government. He afterwards wrote to Ussher saying what part he had taken, and asking for preferment. The letter was intercepted, and laid before the Assembly, who forthwith expelled Featley, sequestered his benefice, seized his books, and cast him into prison, where he languished till his death. [23]

[21] Parr's Life of Ussher, p. 50; Elrington's ditto, pp. 230-2.

[22] See Todd's Walton, i. p. 181 (note).

[23] Clarendon's History, ii. pp. 228-9. Featley was charged with being “a spy and intelligencer to Oxford." - See Cal. State Papers,1643, p. 489.

Page 338

It is a marvellous illustration of the intellectual detachment of Ussher, and of his power to rise above external circumstances, that it was during these convulsions in Church and State he perfected and published his edition of the Ignatian Epistles. He also published a short time afterwards (1647), an Appendix, in which he notices some objections to his work; [24] he likewise contemplated an edition of the Epistle of Barnabas, but the manuscript was, as already mentioned, unfortunately destroyed by fire in a printer's office.

Not only English but Irish questions were now pressing on the attention of the King. The Irish Privy Council had sent a deputation to England urging the King to withhold toleration from his Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. Sir Charles Coote, one of the most violent and harsh of the Protestant leaders, charged Ussher with counselling moderation. [25] Later on, when summoned to meet this charge before the Court of Examiners established by Parliament, Ussher declared that neither Sir Charles Coote nor any other party had communicated with him on the subject; but that he had advised the King to make no concessions to the Roman Catholics without his advice.

[24] Appendix Ignatiana; see also Praefationes in Ignatium; Ussher's Works, vii. pp. 273-295.

[25] Coote was cruel and vindictive all round. He harried alike Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians. - See Leland's History, iii. p. 146; Reid's History, ii. p. 239.

Page 339

It is likely that Ussher, conscious of the excesses committed on both sides, was anxious to moderate between the contending parties. He spoke for peace and for the exhibiting of the practical fruits of Christianity. What little chance there was of such principles prevailing in any part of the kingdom at this time, is plain from the violent pamphlets that were now sown broadcast. Among the most bitter of these pamphleteers was Prynne, who had got hold of this charge of Coote against the Archbishop, and had strangely distorted it. Ussher's advice he characterised as “a very strange speech for a saint-seeming Protestant Archprelate. The very best and learnedest in all the whole pack of prelates, even the Primate of Armagh, hath extremely degenerated in his Christian zeal for the Protestant religion since he turned Royalist and Cavalier. The God of heaven deliver us from such an hypocritical, false archiepiscopall generation of vipers." [26]

That Ussher's close communication with the King while the Court remained at Oxford, had drawn him towards his afflicted and perplexed Sovereign is highly probable. He seems to have been called on to solve the very difficult question how far a people would be justified in taking up arms against their King, and to have decided it largely on the side of “passive obedience."

[26] Canterbury's Doom, p. 14, quoted by Elrington, p. 237. The Puritans had a remarkable facility for calling names.

Page 340

The archbishop’s views may be seen at large in his on treatise on "The Power of the Prince," an essay composed at the request of Charles, but not published till after Ussher's death. It appeared in 1660, with a dedication to Charles II. and a preface by Bishop Sanderson. [27]

Matters had now become so serious in Oxford that Ussher, by the advice of his friends, determined to seek safer quarters. The entire town had been turned into a camp, and soldiers were billeted on all the colleges. He left accordingly for Bristol in the escort of the Prince of Wales. The King remained for some time longer in his quarters in Christ Church College, where he attended daily prayers in the Cathedral. From Bristol Ussher went on to Cardiff, which was held for the Royalists by his son-in-law, Sir Timothy Tyrrel. Here he worked for a year among his books, and went on with his Chronological Annals. It was not long before he was rejoined by the King, who had left Oxford after the battle of Nasbey. They lodged together in the same house.

[27] Ussher's Works, vol. xi.

Page 341

An interesting memento of this sojourn still exists, in the shape of a small volume in the Bodleian Library, containing a metrical version of the 100th and 101st Psalms by Sir Philip Sydney, with a marginal note by Ussher: "I delivered a copy of this to the King at Cardiffe, Aug. 4th, 1645, having preached there unto him the day before." [28]

Cardiff did not long remain a safe halting-place for the much troubled Archbishop. As soon as the King had left and withdrawn the garrison, Ussher was again compelled to change his quarters. He had not far to go on this occasion, as Lady Stradling invited him to take shelter in her castle at St. Donate's, a small village in Glamorganshire on the northwest coast of the Bristol Channel, overlooking the mouth of the Severn. Here there was a fine collection of books, of which Ussher took full advantage. His visit was not made without considerable danger and loss, as the party were attacked on their journey by a band of wild Welshmen, who pillaged their baggage and scattered the unfortunate Primate's books and papers. He was happily rescued out of their hands by some English gentlemen, who, coming up at the moment, discovered who they were. His losses were subsequently advertised over the country, and by degrees he recovered most or his literary treasures. Some things however, were irretrievably lost, including, most probably, the Medicean MS. of Ignatius.

[28] See Elrington's Life, p. 243 (note).

Page 342

He also lost the Oxford Readings of the New Testament which he had copied out. [29] Dr. Parr, who was with him at the time, writing afterwards of the annoyance that thus came to the Archbishop, says: "I must confess that I never saw him so much troubled in my life; and those that were with him before myself said that he seemed not more sensibly concerned for all his losses in Ireland than for this, saying to his daughter and those who were endeavouring to comfort him: ‘I know that it is God's hand, and I must endeavour to bear it patiently, though I have too much human frailty not to be extremely concerned, for I am touched in a very tender place, and He has thought fit to take from me at once all that I have been gathering together above these twenty years, and which I intended for the advancement of learning and the good of the Church.’" [30] Ussher was a real connoisseur of books. “There was scarcely a choice book or MS. in any of the libraries," says Dr. Parr, "but was known to him.

[29] Ussher’s Works, xvi. P. 174

[30] Parr's Life of Ussher; pp. 59-60; Ware's Works, i. pp. 111-112.

Page 343

Nor was he conversant in the libraries of our own nation alone, but also knew most of the choice pieces in the Vatican, Escurial, and Imperial Library at Vienna; as likewise in that of the King of France, of Thuanus at Paris, and Erpinius in Holland, as still appears by the catalogues he had procured of them, many of which I have now in my custody." [31]

[31] Parr's Life, p. 99.