enemy to episcopacy and an established Liturgy, the Bishop complied with his prejudices to such an extent, that he asked him to submit to ordination from the adjacent brethren, and "to let him come in among them in no other relation than a presbyter." When the Bishop could so far forget the duty he owed to the Church, of which he had been appointed an overseer, it must have been some very extraordinary violation of the laws of the land, which obliged him to come forward and silence those for whose sake he had ventured so much. That Archbishop Ussher should countenance what was too flagrant a breach of discipline for Bishop Echlin to pass over, is not within the limits of credibility. The account of his life, as given by Dr. Bernard, no friend of the Church, contradicts the assertion. Dr. Bernard states: "He was a constant assertor and observer of the Liturgy of the Church of England to the last. In the Church it was (by his approbation) as duly observed by myself; we had there an organ and a quire, on Sunday the service was sung before him, as is used in Cathedrals in England. Anthems were sung very frequently, and often instead of a psalm before sermon. He came constantly to the Church in his episcopal habit and preached in it, and for myself (by his approbation) when I officiated I wore my surplice and hood, administered the communion, and at such occasions according to the form of ordination which the Church has provided; he is to enforce on the candidate the duties which the Church requires, and to demand of him an acknowledgment of the conditions which the Church imposes; he is not to come in among others in no other relation than as a presbyter' among presbyters, an equal among equals, but he is to come prominently forward, a Bishop above presbyters, a superior above ministers of a lower order; he is not to see the candidate receive ordination from others, but he is himself to ordain him. The Bishop who should err from this line would betray his trust, compromise the Church's character, assume an unlawful power, break his promise, and forfeit his pledge of fidelity. Thus he would commit a grievous sin. And any person who should seduce, or tempt or encourage him to the commission would be a partaker of the sin; nor could he, by the supposed absence of a condition imposed by the Bishop, be held excused from observing the conditions virtually and implicitly imposed by the Church."-Bp. Mant's Hist. of the Church of Ireland, vol. i. pag. 455. d Clavi Trabales, pp. 57, 58, 59. preached in them also. And for all other administrations they were fully observed in each rite and ceremony according to the rubric of the Book of Common Prayer.-And for the Protestant inhabitants that were refractory in the northern parts of Ireland (where the Scotch had mingled with the English) he did his utmost to reclaim them in his provincial visitations, which I was a witness of, and employed by his directions among them for that end." And to the same effect Dr. Parr says: "Nore was his care confined only to the conversion of the ignorant Irish papists; but he also endeavoured the reduction of the Scotch and English sectaries to the bosom of the Church, as it was by law established, conferring and arguing with divers of them, as well ministers as laymen, and showing them the weakness of those scruples and objections they had against their joyning with the publick service of the Church, and submitting to its government and discipline." The very narrative itself contains many circumstances notoriously false. Mr. Blair says the cause of his appealing to Archbishop Ussher was his having previously known him; that five years before he had been introduced to him by Lord Claneboy, and had received a general invitation to his table. "But," says he, "having once met with the English liturgy there I left my excuse with my patron, that I expected another thing than formal liturgies in the family of so learned and pious a man. The Primate excused himself by reason of the great confluence that was there, and had the good nature to entreat me to come to Tredaff where his usual residence was." Blair goes to Drogheda, is greatly pleased with all he sees, and departs with an assurance from the Primate that it would break his heart, if the successful ministry of the Puritans in the North was interrupted. Here is the distinct assertion, that the Archbishop read the Liturgy only when he was in Dublin, exposed to the observations of many; yet Dr. Bernard, giving a detail of the arrangements of the house at Drogheda, states, that morning and evening prayers, acording to the Liturgy, were read every day, and that the Archbishop never failed to attend except prevented by illness: and he also adds, that there were no Protestants in Drogheda who scrupled at the use of the cross in baptism, or kneeling at the communion table, or the like, but "inf all things conformed to what they saw was approved by him." Now these were points upon which Blair held the very opposite opinions, and boasted of having convinced Lord Claneboy and others that sitting was the proper posture for receiving the communion. The first censure is said to have been inflicted in September, 1631, and in May, 1632, they were summoned before the Bishop and silenced, with two others. On this occasion it is reported that they again applied to the Primate, and that he declined interfering, because the Lords Justices had received orders from the King concerning them. Now, it is most probable, from a letter of Bishop Laud to Lord Strafford, that this interference of the Lords Justices was at the suggestion of the Primate, for Bishop Laud says: "I am commanded by his Majesty to send your Lordship a clause of a letter sent to me by the Lord Primate of Armagh, Mar. 1, 1632, at which time his princely pleasure was that your Lordship should assure the Lord Primate, that he would see the jurisdiction of the Church established there to be maintained against both recusants and other factionists whatsoever; and that you should do your best endeavour to stop all such rumours, as may dishearten the Bishops in God's service and his." This passage proves decisively that the Archbishop, so far from supporting, had applied for further powers to put down the Dissenters of the North. The whole narrative of Blair is remarkable for its self-sufficiency and arrogance. "It is not a little remarkable," observes Bishop Mants, "with what arrogant self-sufficiency these irregular ministers habitually speak of their own proceedings, frequently attributing their irregularities and lawlessness to a special divine interposition; and how continually they ascribe to the worst motives the Clavi Trabales, pag. 58. Hist. of Church of Ireland, vol. i. pag. 463. conduct of the Bishops and other friends of the Church, who acted agreeably to their principles and engagements as episcopalians. Episcopacy and every thing connected with it appeared in their eyes and is represented in their writings as a sort of spiritual leprosy; and even their most favored Ussher could obtain from Mr. Livingston no better character than that of being a godly man though a bishop.'" It is with great regret I am obliged to record the assistance, which the Primate gave to an arbitrary act violating the privileges of Trinity College, Dublin. On the 10th of July, 1632, a letter was delivered to the Provost from the Lords Justices and the Primate, desiring him to admit William Newman to a fellowship. Newman was under the protection of Lord Chancellor Loftus, and was afterwards his domestic chaplain'. The Provost called upon the Fellows to advise what answer should be returned. "The opinion of the major part was, that in regard yielding of this desire were the breach of our statute form for election, and by reason of the statute which maketh him incapable who procureth letters in his behalf, satisfaction to their Lordships The letter was as follows: "After our hearty commendations, The testimonies which Mr. Newman Master in the Arts hath given of his abilities in learning hath prevailed with us to join in these our letters to you in his behalf. That by our mediation your favours may be so far extended to him, as to admit him a fellow of that house where he first became a scholar and continued so long as to have received his degree of Master: and because he did formerly sit for a fellowship there, and performed what in such cases are required with good satisfaction to that House as we are informed. And in regard if he should be put to sit for it a second time, it might in common construction be interpreted so as it might reflect upon him in his reputation beyond your intendment. And for that he hath already given good proof of his abilities, we therefore pray you that you will forthwith admit him into his Fellows place, according to his seniority, without putting him to any such second sitting for it, which we conceive will be a favour well placed, and such as we will accept in very good part at your hands, and will acknowledge with special thanks. And so we bid you heartily farewell: from his Maj. castle of Dublin 64 23 June 1632." 66 R. CORKE. Your very loving friends See Commons' Journal, vol. i. pag. 232, June 11, 1641. request could not be given without breach of our oath taken to have the statutes observed." Newman, relying upon the interest which he possessed, proceeded immediately to London with the letter recommending him to the College, and an additional one from the Chancellor. He was not disappointed, but returned to Ireland, bringing with him the following mandamus from the King: "CHARLES R. "Trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. We are given to understand that William Newman a native of that country and Master of Arts, being qualified every way for his sufficiency and recommended both by our Lords Justices and the Primate of Armagh to a fellowship in your House and for whose election both you the Provost and some others consented: only some that combined themselves to oppose Government opposed. We therefore resolving hereafter to have the proceedings of such opposers examined and censured as it shall deserve, do now require and command you according to the recommendation of our Justices and Primate, that you forthwith elect and admit the said William Newman to be a fellow of your House, wherein we expect your ready obedience. Given under our signet at our Court at Whitehall the 16 day of September in the 8th year of our reign. "By his Majestys commandment "J. COKE. "Provost & Fellows of Trinity College." Mr. Newman was admitted by the Provost in compliance with this mandate. The interference of the Primate in this business seems very extraordinary. His signature was not necessary to give effect to the mandate of the Lords Justices, and as Vice-Chancellor of the University he ought to have resisted any encroachment upon its privileges. The resistance of the Fellows seems to have made a deep impression upon his mind, and in a letter to Archbishop Laud, written a year after, he describes the Fellows "as so fac |