century after Christ, but this he did not live to finish. The general merits of this great work are so well known, that it is unnecessary to dwell upon them. The system has been adopted in the Reformed Churches, and the dates of Ussher have been annexed to the later editions of the Bible, and sanctioned by public authority. He fixed the creation of the world in the year 4004 before Christ, which subsequently was discovered to be a very remarkable astronomical epoch; and, following the Hebrew chronology, placed the Deluge in the year of the world 1656, or 2348 before Christ. The two other remarkable periods which he fixed for establishing his harmony of sacred and profane chronology were the Exode, in the year of the world 2513, or 1491 years before Christ, and the return of the Jews, that is, the first year of Cyrus, in the year of the world 3468, or 536 years before Christ.

About this time a very bitter controversy was carried on between Ludovicus Cappellus and Arnold Boate3, an eminent Hebrew scholar, concerning the various readings in the Hebrew text of the Bible, and the possibility of correcting them by the Septuagint. Both parties appealed to the Primate, but he declined giving an opinion, till at length he yielded to the repeated importunity of Cappellus, and published "Epistola ad Ludovicum Cappellum de textus Hebraici variantibus lectionibus," 1652. Three years afterwards he republished this letter, and another addressed to himself by William Eyre, at the end of a tract, "De Græca Septuaginta interpretum versione Syntagma: cum libri Estheræ editione Origenica et vetere Græca altera ex Arundeliana Bibliotheca nunc primum in lucem productak."

J Bishop Marsh says that "his name is now buried in oblivion, and deserves to be mentioned on no other account than that this attack was published in the form of a letter to Archbishop Usher."-Lectures, pag. 211. These remarks are unjustly severe. Archbishop Ussher certainly entertained a high opinion of the acquirements of Boate, and vindicates his observations in very decided language from the animadversions of Cappellus.

These are printed at the close of the seventh volume of the Archbishop's works. The treatise on the Septuagint is the only work placed

It is well known that Cappellus was the first writer who ventured to question the propriety of the respect with which the Hebrew text was received. He was Hebrew Professor at the French Protestant University of Saumur, and published', in 1624, his celebrated work, "Arcanum Punctuationis revelatum." This work contains almost every argument that has since been urged against the antiquity of the Hebrew vowel points, and was considered as an attack upon the integrity of the Hebrew text itself. Into this question the controversy soon turned, and Cappellus published, in 1650, his "Critica sacra."

The Archbishop vindicates Buxtorf and Boate from the charge brought against them by Cappellus, of not allowing the slightest variation in the Hebrew text, and quotes from the younger Buxtorf the following passage: "Neque enim existimo tales esse ut in nullo plane punctulo, apiculo aut literula a primis Mosis et prophetarum autographis apographa unquam discesserint aut nullum omnino vitium vel levissimum in eos irrepserit. Nam ne ipsi quidem Judæi hoc asserunt: qui et antiquitus jam exemplaria corrupta, sed ab Esra iterum correcta et restituta fuisse; et posterioribus temporibus cum inter celebres authores, tum inter exemplaria varia dissensiones et discrepantes quasdam lectiones." He also strongly censures the opinion of Cappellus, that the ancient versions of Scripture are to be considered as so many copies of the Hebrew original, or that the variations of the Hebrew text can be collected from them with the same certainty as from Hebrew manuscripts. And more particularly he refutes the notion, that the Septuagint version exhibited the text of a Hebrew manuscript in existence when the translation was made. He remarks that there may be other causes, besides a variation of copy, for differences in a translation, and quotes from Cappellus himself the acknowledgment that he had observed in the Septua

out of chronological order, but this transposition was rendered necessary by the impossibility of commencing the Annals at the close of a volume. 'Cappellus did not venture to publish this work in France, but employed Espenius to edit it at Leyden.

gint many shameful deviations from the true meaning of words and phrases, and from the design of the sacred writers, even in those passages of Scripture where the translators evidently had the same text which we now possess.

The Archbishop equally rejects the use of the Samaritan Pentateuch for ascertaining various readings in the Hebrew. He conceives that this corruption of the Hebrew text was introduced among the Samaritans by Dositheus, who is mentioned by Origen as an impostor, pretending to be the Christ foretold by Moses. These attempts to introduce various readings from the version of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, he designates as "viam longe periculosissimam ad pervertendum Spiritus Sancti in mille Scripturæ locis germanum sensum." He then gives his own version very clearly: "Sententia mea hæc perpetua fuit. Hebræum Veteris Testamenti codicem scribarum erroribus non minus esse obnoxium, quam Novi codicem et libros omnes alios: sed ad errores illos dignoscendos et corrigendos peculiare hic nobis suppeditavisse subsidium tantopere ab omnibus prædicatam Masoretharum industriam. Ex quibusdam veterum interpretationibus excerpi aliquas posse variantes textus Hebraici lectiones: ex vulgata Græca versione et editione Samaritana nullas."

The Archbishop, in his Treatise on the Septuagint, puts forward an opinion in which he is almost singular. He maintains that the seventy Jews sent from Jerusalem to Ptolemy Philadelphus translated only the Pentateuch, and that this version, accurately corresponding with the Hebrew, was deposited in the Alexandrine Library. That subsequently, in the reign of Philometor, an Alexandrine Jew translated not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament, in order to gratify the curiosity of the Gentiles about the Jewish religion. That this version was more correct in the Pentateuch than in any other part, because the author availed himself of the celebrated translation lodged in the Library of Ptolemy, and soon was generally received by the Jews, ignorant of any language but Greek. The Greeks converted to Christianity by the Apos

tles received this version from the Hellenist Jews living amongst them, and the Latins from the Greeks.

The Archbishop further supposes, that although the original copy of the Septuagint perished when the Alexandrine Library was destroyed by fire in the war of Julius Cæsar, yet some copies were preserved by private individuals: that Philo saw one of those copies, which he so highly extolled for its faithfulness, yet quoted in his works the common edition. In the new Alexandrine Library, founded by Cleopatra, a copy of the later version, revised by some person well skilled in the Hebrew language, was deposited, and remained for several ages, to the time of Chrysostom; and that from it Origen inserted in the Hexapla that which was considered the uncorrupted version of the Septuagint, distinguished for its greater purity from the Vulgate. Archbishop Ussher adds, that the copy which was preserved in the Library of Cleopatra had been sent to her by Herod along with a copy of the original Hebrew, and thus accounts for an extraordinary mistake of Justin Martyr. He says: "Ad bibliothecam Cleopatra ornandam Herodes Judæorum rex libros sacros Instrumenti veteris Hebraica lingua conscriptos misit, ac Græcam eorundem, quæ Hellenistis in Syria et Palæstina tum in usu erat, interpretationem, ab aliquibus Hebraicæ linguæ peritis (ut videtur) recognitam et pluribus in locis emendatam, quantum ex Justini M. secunda pro Christianis Apologia colligere licet, mira quadam aßλía Ptolemæi Philadelphi et Cleopatra bibliothecarum historiam commiscentis." The opinion of the Archbishop was refuted soon after its publication by Henry de Valois, better known as Valesius, who, however, did not fail, while opposing the theory of the Archbishop, to bear testimony to the greatness of his learning, and the value of his labors. He thus addresses the Archbishop: "Nolo hic tibi laudes tuas ingerere. Neque enim id modestia tua, nec amicitia nostra patitur. In plerisque quidem, quæ illic a te scripta sunt, assentior tibi; tuamque eximiam eruditionem et acumen ingenii magnopere demiror. Sunt tamen nonnulla a quibus a te dissentiri cogor invitus." At a subsequent period the whole subject was discussed with great learning

by Dr. Hody, and almost every writer unites with him in condemning the theory of the Archbishop. This was the last work published by Archbishop Ussher.

For some time it had suited the policy of Oliver Cromwell to confer favors upon a few of the episcopal clergy. He had sent for Dr. Brownrigg, Bishop of Exeter, and treated him with great professions of respect; and he had made Dr. Bernard, Dean of Kilmore, formerly chaplain to Archbishop Ussher, his Almoner. Cromwell now directed his attention to Archbishop Ussher, and expressed a desire to see him. The Primate at first hesitated to comply with the request, but afterwards, fearing lest he might exasperate the Protector against himself and the other episcopal clergy, he obeyed the command. Dr. Parr is able only to state that Cromwell received his visitor with great civility, but could not learn what was the precise nature of the conversation between them, but that it referred generally to the promotion of the Protestant interest at home and abroad. It is very improbable that Cromwell would have adopted any advice that Archbishop Ussher gave him, but no doubt he wished to make a display of consulting one whose character was held in such high estimation over every part of Europe. Dr. Bernard asserts that Cromwell settled upon the Archbishop a sum of money arising from deodands; but the only favor Dr. Parr was aware of being offered, was a promise to grant him a lease for twenty-one years of part of the lands belonging to the see of Armagh, which the Archbishop did not refuse, regarding them as in justice his own, and wishing to make some provision for his daughter" and many grandm Dr. Aikin says: "Cromwell showed himself superior to the religious bigotry which at that time pervaded almost every sect, and was as far as policy would suffer him to be the friend of toleration:" yet within two pages he is obliged to record one of the most tyrannical acts of intolerance on record. The utmost extent of his liberality was, that he extended unlimited toleration to all except to Roman Catholics and members of the Church of England. These he persecuted rigorously.

It must have been about this time that Mrs. Ussher died, but no mention is made of the event by any biographer. Dr. Parr states that it preceded the Archbishop's death a year and a half. On the 27th June, 1662, a pension of £500 per annum was granted to Lady Tyrrel by the Irish Parliament.