new Provost, was placing under his care a lately converted Roman Catholic priest, Mr. O Fary".

These public and embarrassing duties did not divert the Primate's attention from the interests of literature, or from augmenting his library with manuscripts as well as printed works. To the MSS. in the East he looked particularly for assistance in his Biblical researches, and he found an able agent in Mr. Davies, who was settled at Aleppo, as chaplain to the English merchants residing there. Among the treasures procured by Mr. Davies were several copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Syriac version of the Old Testament. The Archbishop says, in a letter to Capellus : "Samaritanam Pentateuchi editionem vel primus vel certe inter primos nostris temporibus in occidentem ipse intuli." With indefatigable diligence he collated the various readings of the Hebrew and Samaritan copies, and would have published them, had he not found it impossible to find a bookseller who would undertake the work. However, at the request of Selden, he transcribed, for his Marmora Arundeliana, those parts of the fifth and eleventh chapters of Genesis which contain the genealogies of the Patriarchs, and accompanied the copy with a very learned letter, in which he examines the Samaritan chronology, as published by Scaliger, and comments upon the remarks of Julius Africanus, Eusebius Cæsariensis, and Georgius Syncellus. Selden, in his preface, acknowledges his obligations to the Primate in very strong terms: "Codicem vero, qui hæc nobis suppeditavit Samaritanum magnis impensis ante quadriennium aut circiter ex oriente sibi comparavit reverendissimus antistes, Jacobus Usserius, archiepiscopus Armachanus, vir summa pietate, judicio singulari, usque ad miraculum doctus et literis severioribus promovendis natus. Mecum exemplar quod vetustius est et charactere Samaritano, scilicet vetus

▾ In Bedell's Registry is the following entry: "Mr. O Fary desired a chamber, and had liberty to keep in yt wch belongs to the Provost at ye staire foot."

w See Letter 295, vol. xvi. pag. 219. It is probable that the first copy was introduced into Europe by Pietro della Valle.

* Letter 127, vol. xv. pag. 380. y Selden, op. tom. ii. pag. 1445.

tissimo et Ebræis in usu ante Esdræ tempora, descriptum, pro humanitate sua, cui plurimum me debere semper agnosco, in Anglia circa id tempus communicavit. In Hiberniam secum postmodum transvexit, priusquam iis quæ volui inde exscribere adversaria mea ditassem. Literis igitur nuper rogatus, eas capitum v. et. xi. Geneseos partes quæ patriarcharum tempora designant, ex eodem ad me ex Hibernia transmisit exscriptas, seu potius accuratissime depictas. Nam ut ipsissimi characterum apices ubique repræsentarentur curavit, quod charta oleo perlita, quæ facilem exscribenti operam efficeret, præstitum est." The copy from which these extracts were given, was presented by the Archbishop to the library of Sir Robert Cotton, with the following inscription :

"Pentateuchum Samaritanum a decem tribuum reliquiis, post regni Israelitici excidium, primo acceptum, a Dositheo Samaritarum pseudo-propheta, temporibus Apostolorum postea interpolatum, ab Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus Eusebio, Diodoro, Hieronymo, Cyrillo, Procopio, Anespero, Georgio Chronographo identidem citatum, atque a Cuthæis hodiernis demum redemptum, Bibliothecæ Cottonianæ, quæ amicissimi Domini summa humanitate semper mihi patuit,

"L. M. D.

"JACOBUS USSERIUS

"Armachanus, Hiberniæ Primas."

There is also the following memorandum in the Archbishop's handwriting :

"Ex librarii notatione ad calcem Geneseos colligimus exemplar hoc sexcentis siclis argenteis (h. e. libris Anglicanis 75) emptum fuisse mense Rabi anni 792. regni Ismaelis, circa Martium viz. mensem anni æræ Christianæ 1390.

"JACOBUS ARMACHANUS."

Two other copies were presented by the Archbishop, one to Archbishop Laud, and the other to Ludovicus de Dieu. On the copy presented to Archbishop Laud, and now deposited in the Bodleian Library, is written:

"Pentateuchum hoc Samaritanum, in principio et fine mutilatum, antiquissimis Phoenicum literis descriptum, ab Ecclesiasticis scriptoribus Eusebio, Diodoro. Tarsensi, Hieronymo, Cyrillo, Procopio, Gazæo, Georgio Syncello et aliis sæpius est citatum, a Cuthæis vero hodiernis una cum aliis aliquot eorum monumentis

redemit

"JACOBUS USSERIUS Armachanus

"Hiberniæ Primas."

Underneath Archbishop Laud has written:

"Qui librum hunc mihi dono dedit.

"W. CANT.”

In the end of the book is the following memorandum:

"Folia postrema hæc sex jussu reverendissimi præsulis Gulielmi Laud Archiepiscopi Cantuarensis descripta sunt ex vetusto, eoque integro, Bibliothecæ Cottonianæ exemplari: quod anno Ismaelitarum, sive Hegira Mahommedanæ DCLXIV. id est, salutis reparatæ, A. MCCCLXII. junctis operis in Oriente exararunt Ithamar ben Aharon atque Abraham ben Abi Nitzaion, nomine seu auspiciis Semoki Tobi Isaak, ben Semoki Selomoh, ben Jacob, ex familia Isburiana, summo in agro Damasceno principatu insigni: sic Abraham ille ad Numerorum calcem in memorato exemplari subnotavit."

De Dieu uses the strongest language to express his sense of the favour conferred upon him. He speaks of a Syrian manuscript given him ab ornatissimo, doctissimo, et æterna memoria digno Præsule, Jacobo Usserio Archiepiscopo Armachano, qui et ante biennium me Pentateucho Samaritano beaverat." In two letters, written to De Dieu, the Archbishop gives an account of the different manuscripts which he had obtained from the East, and he subsequently lent them to Bishop Walton, for the edition of the Polyglott Bible which he was preparing. The Archbishop

z Ludov. de Dieu, Comment. in quatuor Evangelia, Præf. a See Letters 186 and 190, vol. xv. pag. 555, 567.

at this time was meditating an edition of the Syriac version of the Old Testament, and sent a person into Holland for the purpose of purchasing types fit for the work: no account is given of the cause which induced him to give up so important an undertaking.

In the year 1628' commenced the correspondence between the Archbishop and Laud, then Bishop of London, which was kept up without interruption for twelve years, and only terminated by the unfortunate calamities of the country. It is quite evident that Ussher had no suspicion of his illustrious correspondent entertaining any affection for the doctrines of Popery, and his exertions to make him Chancellor of the University of Dublin prove incontestably that he regarded him as the fittest person to support the Protestant University, and with it the cause of Protestantism in Ireland. On the other hand, the terms in which Archbishop Laud speaks of Ussher, afford sufficient evidence that he was not the Puritan which the enemies of our Church represent him to have been, and that if he did not enforce the discipline of the Church, it was not from want of affection for its ordinances, but from the gentleness of his nature, which rendered him unwilling to inflict punishment.

The next year commences with an extraordinary demand upon the Archbishop to exert his authority in civil matters, and gives a curious specimen of the state of Ireland at that period. The declaration of the Bishops, of which an account has been given before, and the still more annoying remonstrance of the English House of Commons to the King, "that the Popish religion was publicly professed in every part of Ireland: and that monasteries and nunneries were there newly erected and replenished with votaries of both sexes, which would be of evil consequence, unless seasonably repressed," were not sufficient to prevent the success of the Recusants in obtaining favours from the Crown. In despite of public clamour and suspicion, the Irish agents proceeded to London, and made an offer to the

b In the Diary of Provost Bedell it is recorded, that on the 28th of December in this year, the Primate dined in the College Hall.

King of a voluntary contribution of one hundred and twenty thousand pounds, to be paid in three years. The graces which they solicited in return for this extraordinary exertion of loyalty, were in some instances favourable to Recusants, but in general were calculated for the redress of grievances which persons of all denominations experienced, and had an obvious tendency to promote the peace and prosperity of the country. The bounty was accepted, the graces were conferred, and were transmitted, by way of instructions, to the Lord Deputy and Council. The articles in these instructions were very numerous: perhaps the most important was that for the security of all proprietors; their several estates were to be confirmed to them and their heirs by the next Parliament to be holden in Ireland, and also an Act was to be passed for a free and general pardon, in order to remove the apprehensions of every one throughout the realm. In these instructions the sincerity of the King is at least doubtful, for he took no legal steps to summon a Parliament: however, the people relied on the royal promise, and the concessions were considered as fully granted,

In the instructions the King fixed the third day of the succeeding month of November, as the time when he intended the Parliament should be holden. Lord Falkland, without attending to any further circumstances of formality, issued writs of summons for an Irish Parliament to meet on the day named by the King. The impropriety of this proceeding was obvious by the law of Poynings, a certificate of causes and considerations, by the Lord Deputy and Council, was previously necessary, before the King's license could be transmitted for holding a Parliament in that kingdom. The Council Board of England soon discovered and censured an omission so essential. The matter was referred to the Judges, who pronounced the present writs of summons illegal and void. It seems extraordinary that the King and his Ministers could have been ignorant of the legal method of proceeding on this occasion: or if that careless inattention to the affairs of Ireland, which sometimes prevails in England in times the most composed, betrayed them into error in those days of agitation, it is still more extraordinary that the Deputy and Council of Ireland should have been equally ignorant and erroneous. But whether the irregularity were casual or premeditated, nothing could have been corrected more easily and readily, if Charles had been sincerely disposed to give effectual relief and satisfaction to his Irish subjects. Yet no new writs were issued, or any new time assigned for a legal and regular convention of the Irish Parliament.-Leland, vol. ii. pag. 487.