Chapter 20 - USSHER IN LONDON: STRAITENED MEANS: CROMWELL AND USSHER: THE DEATH OF CHARLES I.

Page 344

ALWAYS alive to the studies that interested him most, Ussher was now spending much of his time on valuable additions to his great work, "The Antiquities of the British Churches," enlarging it by illustrations drawn from ancient Welsh sources, materials for which he found in the library at St. Donate's. In the midst of these labours he was prostrated by a serious illness, and thought his end had come. The report, indeed, was circulated that he had died. Calling to his bedside his chaplain, Dr. Parr, he delivered through him solemn injunctions to all his friends to remember their latter end, saying "it was a dangerous thing to leave all undone till their last sickness.” To a member of Commons, a relative of Lady Stradling, he said: "They have dealt very injuriously with the King:" [l]

[1] Parr's Life of Ussher, pp. 60-1.

Page 345

Contrary to all expectations, the attack passed off, and the Archbishop recovered. [2]

Ussher's nest was now again to be stirred up. The tide had set strongly against the Royalist cause, and his position at St. Donate’s was no longer a safe one. Like other prominent men, he was contemplating flight to the Continent, and had actually chartered a vessel to convey him to France. Before he could sail however, a fleet under the command of the Parliamentary Admiral Molton drew down on Cardiff, and there was some danger of Ussher being taken prisoner. In the emergency he received a kind invitation from the Dowager Countess of Peterborough to seek shelter at her house in Covent Garden, London. His means, which had been much crippled by all his losses, were inadequate to the expenses of the journey, but some friends came forward with a spontaneous offer of help, and he set out for London in the month of June, 1646. [3]

[2] So sure were some of his friends that Ussher's death had taken place that one of them, John Greaves, then Savilian Professor of Astronomy, drew up an inscription for his monument. - Elrington's Life, p. 246.

[3] On his way Ussher stopped at Gloucester, and endeavoured without success to convert Biddle, the famous anti-Trinitarian. - “Either he was in damnable error, or else the whole Church of Christ, who had worshipped the Holy Ghost had been guilty of idolatry." Biddle afterwards published twelve Questions against the commonly received opinion touching the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. "Biddle was several times fined and imprisoned for his heterodoxy and finally died under his sufferings. - Edwards' Gangraena, iii. p. 87; Wood's Aht. Oxon., iii. p. 593.

Page 346

As soon as his arrival at the capital became known he received a summons from the Court of Examiners, who were sitting in the interests of the Cromwellian party, to appear in person before them. They refused to accept a deputy. Coote's charge was brought up against him, which he denied in general terms. He was then dismissed with a warning that he should take the “negative oath,” which, however was not enforced. The enfeebled Prelate now retired with his patron to her country seat at Reigate, where after a while he regained some of his old strength, and began to preach with much of his wonted vigour to all who came to hear him.

While Ussher was seeking an asylum in Wales, a hyper-Calvinistic work, entitled "A Body of Divinity, or the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion," had been published under his name by one Downham. It was at once repudiated by Ussher, who stated that, it was printed from a common-place book wherein he had taken down expressions from Cartwright and others. In divers places he declared it differed from his own judgment, and could not be owned by him. [4]

[4] Parr's Life, p. 74.

Page 347

Notwithstanding this disclaimer, the book continued to be published up to a recent date, as if it represented his mature opinions. Elrington refused, though requested to do so, to publish it among Ussher's recognised works. In the catalogue of the Archbishop's printed works in the Library of Trinity College there is a note to this effect: “The Body of Divinity is spurious, having been expressly disowned by Ussher. See his Life, by Elrington, in the collected works, vol. i. p. 248. [5] 

 In 1647 we find Ussher discharging the duties of Lecturer at Lincoln's Inn, to which honourable position he had been elected by the Benchers. He was at first unwilling to assume the office in consequence of the opposition of Parliament, [6] and only accepted it through the intervention of his friend and admirer, Matthew Hale, the eminent jurist, and afterwards Chief Justice of England.

[5] Strange to say, it is quoted in the Gorham case as if it reflected the opinions of Ussher. Dean Goode also quotes it as an authority in his Infant Baptism, pp. 312-13. Bernard in his Life of Ussher says the Archbishop “permitted" the publication of it, though displeased at its being published without his knowledge, because he heard it had done some good. - Life, pp. 41-2. There is a MS. copy in the Library T.C.D., Class D.3.7). It is thus annotated in the MS. Catalogue: "Had been collected by the author in his younger years for his own use, and was printed through the importunity of friends to whom it was lent. However, this copy is spurious, for the transcriber has omitted all the passages that reflect on the Church of Rome."

[6] See State Papers, Feb. 1647.

Page 348

Hale and Ussher had shared in the friendship of Strafford and Laud, each of whom had enjoyed the advantage of Hale's able advocacy.

Among Ussher's constant hearers in Lincoln's Inn was the famous Royalist, John Selden. Another drawn to listen to him was the chatty John Evelyn. This he enters in his Diary, under March 25, 1649: “I heard the Common Prayer (a rare thing in these days) in St. Peter’s, at Paul’s Wharf, London; and in the morning the Archbishop of Armagh, that pious and learned man Ussher, in Lincoln’s Inn Chapel." Again, March 29, 1652: "I heard that excellent Prelate; the Primate of Ireland (Jacob Ussher) preach in Lincoln's Inn on 4 Heb.16, encouraging penitent sinners." [7]

Here Ussher continued to preach for eight years, resigning at the end of that period owing to increasing infirmities of sight and articulation. With the exception of this duty, the Archbishop had now withdrawn entirely from public life, but he never ceased to protest against Cromwell's policy. By permission of the Benchers he had taken up his quarters at Lincoln’s Inn, and had collected about him what remained of his library. He also preached occasionally in the Chapel.

[7] Evelyn's Diary, vol. i. pp. 236-263.

Page 349

He preached November 5, 1654, before the Society of Gray's Inn, of which he had been made member some thirty years earlier. [8] In this year his lifelong friend John Selden died, and was buried in the Temple Church, when Ussher preached the funeral sermon. In the course of it the Archbishop gave expression to the regard with which he had always held the deceased. He looked upon him "as so great a scholar that he himself was scarce worthy to carry his books after him." Ussher had visited and ministered spiritual consolation to Selden, and "absolved" him before his death. [9] The last sermon the Archbishop preached was delivered in Hammersmith church on Michaelmas Day 1655, and a year later his own end had come.

In the beginning of the year 1648, Ussher had exhibited another instance of his versatile genius by publishing a dissertation on the change from Solar to Lunar months made by the Macedonians about the year 334 B.C., an essay full of remarkable chronological and astronomical knowledge.

[8] The following is an extract from the admission-book of Gray’s Inn, fo1. 811 "Jacobius Usherius Divinia providentia dominus episcopus Methensis in regno Hibernia, admissus est in societatem, hujus hospitii vicessimo sexto die Januarii, in Anno Dom: 1623.

[9] Rawlinson MS., B. clviii. fol. 75. Macray's Annals Bod. Lib., p. 77 (note). It was reported at the time that Selden had refused to see a clergyman.

Page 350

By certain calculations he attempts to fix the martyrdom of St. Ignatius for March 26, 169. He also gives rules for finding Easter for ever. Other curious lore is to be found in this treatise. [10]

Ussher had now dropped the empty title of Archbishop and Primate from the title-pages of his books; he continued, however, to sign himself in his private letters by his ecclesiastical title, sometimes introducing the surname. A correspondent is distressed almost to tears at the omission and writes (we give a plain rendering of the Latin): “What, I said within myself, has become of the Archbishops and Primate of all Ireland? Alas! And can you suffer your honours to be thus taken from you with so much patience and without resistance? But I perceive how it is, you think it has been by your many and admirable books, composed alike in English and Latin, that no region is so remote that it does not understand, and no age so backward that it does not recognise the fact, that the title of Armagh prefixed to your works is not confined to the place, but is an essential part of your honour and dignity, and rightly your judge: ‘It is necessary to obey; For what can one do when a madman compels, and he, too, The stronger?’"

[10] Elrington gives a brief analysis of the work. - Life of Ussher, pp. 253-4. He points out in a footnote that Pearson refuted Ussher’s calculation, and fixed the death of St. Ignatius on March 26, 147.

[11] "Parere necesse est; Nam quid agas, quum te furiosus cogat, et idem Fortior." - Fuv. Sat. ii. 90: Ussher's Works, xvi. pp. 124-5.

Page 351

It may be asked what were the resources of Ussher, deprived as he now was of the emoluments of his See, and robbed of nearly all his private property. These resources were almost nil, and Parliament, recognising his great claims, had voted him the sum of £400 a year, but it had been irregularly paid. Cromwell renewed the grant, and in this way the Archbishop was saved from absolute penury. [12]

Later on, according to Dr. Bernard, Cromwell settled upon Ussher the profit of certain deodands; but his other biographer, Dr. Parr, says the favour was a promise to grant him a lease of twenty-one years of certain lands belonging to the See of Armagh, a grant which the Archbishop did not, enjoy, and which was refused to Lady Tyrrel and her husband after his death, on the ground of “malignancy." [13]

[12] Dr. Parr states that the "Independent faction getting the upper hand, soon put an end to the payment." - Life of Ussher, p 74. The original order for the payment, extracted from the London Rolls Office, may be seen in Elrington's Life, pp. 251-2. See also Notes and Queries, Second Series, vol. vii: p. 193. Storey, in his Cathedrals, says: "Oliver Cromwell, like Buonaparte, feigned respect for great learning, talents and virtues." Hallam, in his Constitutional History, draws out a parallel between these two men. - See Macaulay's Essays, i. pp. 82-3.

[13] Parr's Life, p. 74.

Page 352

However, the Irish Parliament, in 1662, granted Lady Tyrrel an annuity of £500. [14] Ussher was now a widower. Lady Tyrrel appears to have been no exception to the proverbial longevity of annuitants. According to some authorities, she lived to be 106, but this must be a mistake, as the inscription on her monument in Oakley church, Berks, proves. She left behind her a family of twelve children - four sons and eight daughters. The inscription, which mentions her death in 1693, speaks of her as "an excellent wife and most indulgent mother, and highly charitable to the poor." This last characteristic was shared by Sir Timothy Tyrrel, whose monument in the same church records that he was "an indulgent husband, a kind father, and a good master; just in his dealings, and highly charitable to the poor."

[14] The grant was moved for in the House of Commons on June 16, 1662, by Sir Paul Davys, Knt., the King's Principal Secretary of State. - Mont. MSS., p. 99 (note). Ussher closes a letter to Lady Tyrrel, written from London, July 27, 1654, "in great haste," with the following reference to Mrs. Ussher and his grandchildren: "I am now in London to see your mother who is indifferent in her health, and remembereth herself very kindly to my son and yourself and all the little ones, as doth also your most loving father:" - Ussher's Works, xvi. p. 297.

Page 353

Cromwell and Ussher came into personal communication on more than one occasion toward the close of their lives. The Protector was wise enough to recognise the influence of the Archbishop, while he admired his learning, which he felt to be an honour to their common country. On the other hand, Ussher had little confidence in Cromwell. He frequently expressed the opinion that his usurpation was like that of some of the Grecian tyrants, and would have a similar fate; as it began with an army, so it commonly ended with the death of the usurper. [15] He never recognised the lawful authority of the Protector, who had been so prominent an agent in dragging down alike Church and Crown; and when in 1649, after the execution of Charles, he sent for Ussher, the Archbishop at first refused to appear. Four years later, Ussher was again in his presence, and sought some concessions under his hand on behalf of the persecuted clergy. Cromwell was suffering at the time from an ulcerous tumour, and was in the hands of the surgeon. "If this core were out,” he said to Ussher, "I should, soon be well”; to which Ussher replied, with great boldness of speech, "I doubt the core lies deeper; there is a core in the heart which must be taken out, or else it will not be well."

[15] Smith's Life of Ussher', p. 109; Elrington, ditto, p. 266.

Page 354

"So it is indeed," replied the Protector with a sigh. [16] Cromwell refused to grant the Archbishop's request of more favourable terms for the clergy, and so he left his presence; and returning to his rooms, according to his chaplain and biographer, broke out into an expression of indignant anger. "This false man hath broken his word with me, and refuses to perform what he promised; well, he will have little cause to glory in his wickedness, for he will not continue long; the King will return, though I shall not live to see it; you may." According to Dr. Gauden, afterwards Bishop of Exeter, Ussher said, "he saw that some men had only guts and no bowels (intestina non viscera)." [17] This was the last occasion on which these remarkable men met.

A few years before this, two events had happened which left an indelible impression on the mind of Ussher, and no doubt had intensified at once his monarchical and ecclesiastical sympathies. On January 10, 1645, his friend of many years’ standing, and who had so frequently counselled him on Irish Church matters - Strafford - had fallen before the storm, and laid his head on the block.

[16] Parr’s Life, p. 75.

[17] Wood's Athen. Oxon., iii. p. 614. "The poor orthodox clergy have passed a Sunday in silence. The old Bishop of Armagh has been with Cromwell but to little purpose, though he had some court holy-water, a dinner, and confirmation of leases in Ireland.” - State, Papers, April I, 1656.

Page 355

Four years later, on January 31, 1649, Ussher saw his Sovereign led forth to execution. From the roof of the Countess of Peterborough's house, close to Charing Cross, he witnessed the solemn tragedy. "When he came upon the leads, the King was in his speech; the Lord Primate stood still and said nothing, but sighed, and lifting up his hands and eyes (full of tears) towards Heaven, seemed to pray earnestly; but when his Majesty had done speaking, and had pulled off his cloak and doublet, and stood stripped in his waistcoat, and that the villains in vizards began to put up his hair, the good Bishop, no longer able to endure so dismal a sight, and being full of grief and horror for that most wicked act now ready to be executed, grew pale, and began to faint; so that if he had not been observed by his own servant, and some others that stood near him (who thereupon supported him), he had swooned away.” [18] They carried down the aged prelate and laid him upon his bed, where he prayed with tears for his Prince. Ever afterwards Ussher kept the day a private fast. His strong opinion was that the deed would further the designs of the Church of Rome in England.

[18] From the narrative of an eye-witness, related by the Archbishop's servant to his grandson, Mr. James Tyrrel. - Parr’s Life, p.72.