by him, by our commandment and for the good of the Church."

The Bishop must have proceeded to London about the end of November 1623. It appears from a letter of Sir Henry Bourgchier, that he had not reached London on the 22nd of November 1623, and Dr. James in the January following mentions that he had been some few weeks there. Dr. Parr is very confused in this part of his narrative, he makes the Bishop return to Ireland in 1624, publish his answer to the Jesuit Malone, and proceed again to England; but the answer to the Jesuit was published in London at the very end of 1624 or beginning of 1625, and I think it could be proved from the dates of letters that the Bishop did not return to Ireland till August, 1626. He preached before the King in June, 1624, was in England certainly in September and November, and resident at Much Haddam in the beginning of January, and in August, 1625.

The subject of the sermon he preached before the King at Wansted was the Universality of the Church of Christ, a learned and well arranged discourse, particularly suited to the taste of James, as it enters into the question of the Roman Church as predicted in the Apocalypse, and of the Pope being Antichrist, discusses the different creeds, and then answers the objections of the Roman Catholics in the question, where was the religion of the Protestants before Luther. The sermon was published by command of the King. The Bishop also published his answer to the Jesuit Malones, which had been for some time in preparation. Six years had elapsed since William Malone, an Irish Jesuit, published a challenge for any Protestant to answer him,

8 William Malone was born in Dublin about the year 1586. He went at an early age first to Portugal, then to Rome, where he became a member of the Order of Jesuits in the twentieth year of his age. He soon after returned to Ireland, and remained there till he was sent for to Rome and appointed Rector of the Irish College of St. Isidore. After governing this College for six years he returned again to Ireland as Superior of the whole Mission of the Jesuits. In this office he excited the suspicion of the Government, and was arrested; but having contrived to make his escape, he fled to Spain, where he died in 1659, Rector of the Irish College at Seville.

What Bishop of Rome did alter the religion which the Protestants acknowledge to have been true for the first four hundred years? and how can their religion be true which disalloweth the chief articles which the Saints and Fathers of that primitive Church held to be true? Dr. Ussher put forth a short answer at the time, replying in general to the question proposed, and accepting the challenge by calling upon Malone to bring forward his proofs. This Malone never did; and Ussher would not have proceeded further, had not, as he says himself in the preface, "some of high place in both kingdoms advised him to go forward and to give the judgment of antiquity touching those particular points in controversy wherein the challenger was so confident, that the whole current of the doctors, pastors, and fathers of the primitive Church did mainly run on his side." The work consists of eleven chapters, on Tradition, the Real Presence, Confession, the Priest's Power to forgive sins, Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, Limbus Patrum, and Christ's descent into Hell, Prayers to Saints, Images, Free Will, Merits, and is dedicated to King James, but I believe he died before the work was actually published. The author declares, "the doctrine which I take upon me to defend is that which by public authority is professed in the Church of England, and comprised in the Book of Articles agreed upon in the Synod held at London in the year MDLXII. concerning which I dare be bold to challenge our challenger and all his complices that they shall never be able to prove that there is either any one article of religion disallowed therein, which the Saints and Fathers of the primitive Church did generally hold to be true, or any one point of doctrine, which by those Saints and Fathers was generally held to be untrue." In this work, as in that " De Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione et Statu," the number and variety of the quotations must astonish the reader; the very list of authors which are quoted is sufficient to impress the mind with wonder at the learning and diligence of the author. This work will always hold a foremost place among the bulwarks of the Protestant faith against the innovations of Romanism, and is particularly

VOL. I.

F

successful in exhibiting the novelty of the doctrines, which are triumphantly put forward as the "Quod ubique, quòd semper, quod ab omnibus." To give any abstract of the work would be impossible, it must be read through in order to form any opinion of its merits. Three years elapsed before Malone took any notice of this work, and he then published at Douay an answer, the title of which was "A Reply to Dr. Ussher's Answer about the Judgment of Antiquity concerning the Romish Religion." The argument was weak, and supported either by false and garbled quotations from the Fathers, or by extracts from books of doubtful authority containing such false miracles and legends as could only impose upon the ignorant, and the style was such as rendered it unworthy of the Bishop's notice. "Not a page," says Dr. Synge, "may be found, wherein he useth not a licentious libertie and a reviling tongue against the most learned answerer. Whereupon some Divines did labour to dissuade the most Reverend the Lord Primate from rejoining thereunto, in regard of the indignity of the raylor and violence of the work, and also because it would hinder him in other studies more necessary for the Church, and did offer their endeavours to examine the same, which being accepted the work is now so farre prepared that it waytes at the presse." Dr. Synge then adds that he published the first part because he understood that the adverse party had used deceit, and got possession of the sheets as they were printed in order to answer them. This first part is stated to be, "wherein the general answer to the challenge is cleared from all the Jesuits' cavills." The whole work was never published. Dr. Hoyle, who also published an answer in 1641, states that "it was first intended that all should go under one as a common work, without any particular name," and that he, for his part, was ready. But seeing, he says, "the work suffered some unexpected delayes, he undertook a more laborious task, and as the Lord Primate had prevented him in the Fathers, he directed his

h A third answer was published by Mr. Puttock, who styles himself, Minister of God's Word at Navan.

course for the schoolmen, that he might persequi fontes Papismi' and drive them home to their own cabin."

On the 3rd of January, 1623, died Primate Hampton, and in the March following James appointed the Bishop of Meath his successor. This was almost the last act of James' reign, for he died within a few days. His successor, however, did not shew himself less attentive to the new Primate, for not long after his accession he signified by a letter under his privy signet to the Lord Deputy and the Treasurer of Ireland, that "Whereas the present Archbishop of Armagh had for many years together, on several occasions, performed many painful and acceptable services to his dear Father deceased, and upon his special directions, that therefore he was pleased, as a gracious acceptation thereof, and in consideration of his said services done or to be done hereafter, to bestow upon the said Primate out of his princely bounty 400 pound English, out of the revenues of that kingdom."

Since his arrival in England he had been in the habit of preaching constantly, and had been induced by some ministers in Essex to preach on the week days, as they could not hear him on Sundays; but this exertion was too much for his strength, and immediately upon his appointment to the Primacy he was seized with a quartan ague, from which he did not recover for many months. Soon after his recovery an incident occurred, which produced important consequences to the Primate in his after life. The only note of it in his handwriting is as follows: "That in November, 1625, he was invited by Lord Mordant and his lady to my Lord's house at Drayton in Northamptonshire, to confer

'Dr. Parr, and of course the succeeding biographers, here relate his election by the Dean and Chapter, which never could have taken place, see page 52. Dr. Parr then proceeds to relate a circumstance which I do not very well understand, and shall give in his own words: " The next testimony that he received of His Majesty's favour was his letter to a person of quality in Ireland, who had newly obtained the custodium of the temporalities of that see, forbidding him to meddle with, or receive any of the rents or profits of the same, but immediately to deliver what he had already received unto the receivers of the present Archbishop, since he was here employed on His Majesty's special service."

with a priest he then kept, by the name of Beaumont, upon the points in dispute between the Church of Rome and ours: and particularly that the religion maintained by publick authority in the Church of England was no new religion, but the same that was taught by our Saviour and his Apostles, and ever continued in the primitive Church during the purest times." Lord Mordant, afterwards Earl of Peterborough, was a zealous Roman Catholic, and his lady, the daughter and heiress of Howard Lord Effingham, a Protestant: Lord Mordant was very anxious for the conversion of his lady, and consented that each should choose a divine to hold a disputation on the controverted points between the Churches. Lady Mordant made choice of Archbishop Ussher, and prevailed upon him, though not yet quite recovered, to undertake the journey. His antagonist was a priest called Beaumont, but his real name was Rookwood, a brother of Ambrose Rookwood, who had been executed for the Gunpowder Plot. The points proposed were, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Images, Visibility of the Church. Three days were spent in disputation, three hours in the forenoon of each day, and two hours in the afternoon, and during this time the Primate was opponent. On the fourth day the Jesuit was to take the place of opponent, while the Primate was the respondent; but when the appointed hour arrived he did not appear, but sent, as an excuse, a message to the Earl," that all the arguments he had framed within his own head, and thought he had them as perfect as his Paternoster, he had forgotten: that he believed it was the just judgment of God upon him thus to desert him in the defence of his cause, for the undertaking of himself to dispute with a man of that eminence and learning without the license of his superiors." The Earl was displeased with this shuffling excuse, and entered into further discussion with the Archbishop, the result of which was that he became a sincere convert, and continued a member of the Church of England till his death, and the Archbishop obtained in the Countess a faithful friend, whose attachment soothed and comforted the closing hours of his life. Dr. Bernard gives this narrative from an eye-witness, and it is confirmed by a