Imágenes de páginas

This attestation appears to have produced a good effect, but Ussher was indebted for his success much more to a conversation with his Majesty, in which the King exercised his favourite office of examinant into points of faith and doctrine. Of the particulars of the interview no record has been preserved. If the King pressed his two favourite subjects of discussion, the Head of the Church, and the unlawfulness of resistance to regal authority, Ussher could have given his Majesty the fullest satisfaction, that he did not entertain Puritanical notions on these questions; but whatever were the topics debated, he succeeded so completely, that the King declared, "that the knave Puritan was a bad, but the knave's Puritan an honest man." It is probable indeed that his Majesty had many interviews with Ussher, who appears to have remained two years in England. In January 162 Dr. Montgomery, Bishop of Meath, died, and the King immediately named Dr. Ussher the new bishop, and often boasted "that he was a bishop of his own making." The appointment was hailed with great delight in Ireland, as the following letter from the Lord Deputy testifies:

"To Dr. James Ussher, Bishop Elect of Meath.

"Dublin, 3rd February, 1620. "MY LORD, I thank God for your preferment to the Bishoprick of Meath; his Majesty therein has done a gracious favour to his poor Church here: there is none here but are exceeding glad that you are called thereunto, even some Papists themselves have largely testified their gladness of it. Your grant is, and other necessary things shall be sealed this day or to-morrow. I pray God bless you and whatever you undertake, so I rest

"Your Lordship's most affectionate Friend,

a Dr. Parr states that his conge d'elire was immediately sent over, and he was elected by the Dean and Chapter. This is a strange mistake. A conge d'elire is never issued in Ireland, as the Bishoprics are absolute donatives by the 2 Eliz. c. 4; and Meath is the only See in Ireland in which there is not a Dean and Chapter.

Various circumstances at this time had raised the cry of Popery against the King. His remarkable change of sentiment after the Synod of Dort was represented by the Puritans as a conversion to Popery. His refusal to assist his son-in-law the Elector Palatine was held up as a desertion of the Protestant cause, and his projected alliance for his son with the Infanta of Spain gave a new subject for clamour. The King, to silence these rumours, called a new Parliament, but the suspicions of the people extended from the monarch to the House of Commons; and the report was industriously circulated, that many members of the House of Commons were Roman Catholics. In order to remove all pretext for these murmurs it was determined, that the members of the House of Commons should attend at St. Margaret's church on the first Sunday in Lent to receive the communion, and the new Bishop elect was called upon to preach on the occasion. The following extract from the Bishop's memorandums has been preserved by Dr. Parr : "I was appointed by the Lower House of Parliament to preach at St. Margarets Westminster. The Prebends claimed the privilege of the Church and their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction for many hundred years, and offered their own service: whereupon the House being displeased appointed the place to be at the Temple. I was chosen a second time and Secretary Calvert by the appointment of the House spake to the King, that the choice of their preacher might stand: the King said, it was very well done. Feb. 13 being Shrove Tuesday I dined at Court; and betwixt four and five I kissed the Kings hand, and had conference with him touching my sermon. 'I had charge of an unruly flock to look to next Sunday.' He asked me how I thought it could stand with true divinity, that so many hundred should be tyed upon such short warning to receive the communion upon a day, all could not be in charity after so late contentions in the House: many must needs come without preparation and eat their own condemnation that himself required all his own houshold to receive the communion, but not all the same day, unless at Easter, when the whole Lent was a time of pre

He said,

paration. He bad me to tell them I hoped they were all prepared, but wished they might be better; to exhort them to unity and concord; to love God first, and then their Prince and country; to look to the urgent necessities of the times and the miserable state of Christendom with Bis dat qui cito dat. Feb. 18th the first Sunday in Lent I preached at St. Margarets to them: and Feb. 27th the House sent Sir James Perrot and Mr. Drake to give me thanks, and to desire me to print the sermon, which was done accordingly; the text being upon the First of the Cor. x. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread."" The sermon' was judicious and forcible. In the first part treating of the Communion of Saints and the mystic body of the Church, he exhorts his hearers to preserve peace not less in civil than in ecclesiastical matters, and to unite in brotherly love not only with our own fellow-citizens, but with all those joined to us in the same faith; and he concludes this part with a compliment upon the liberality, with which they had voted supplies for the support of the Palatine and the Protestant religion. In the second part he puts forward clearly and distinctly the doctrine of the Church of England with respect to the Sacraments, that "they are signs and more than signs, even pledges and assurances of the interest we have in the heavenly things, that are represented by them;" and then more particularly enters into the question about the real presence, which is to be found not in the external symbols, but in the mind of the worthy recipient, and exposes the idolatry of the service offered by the Roman Catholics in their sacrifice of the mass. He concludes with some very strong remarks upon the Jesuits' doctrine with respect to oaths, and more particularly the oath of allegiance, and warns his hearers that "they must provide by all good means that God be not dishonoured by their ido

This sermon was printed in 1621. See Works, vol. ii. pag. 515. Dr. Parr says that this sermon and one upon Ephes. iv. 13, concerning the unity of the Catholic faith, were all the sermons he could find to have been published with his allowance.

latries, nor our King and State endangered by their secret treacheries."

The death of Bishop Montgomery had not only vacated the See of Meath, but also that of Clogher, to which James Spottiswood, brother of the celebrated Archbishop of St. Andrews, had been named. A serious dispute arose between him and Primate Hampton as to the exercise of episcopal jurisdiction, before he was consecrated. A letters is preserved from Ussher to the Primate professing his determination to respect his metropolitan authority, but at the same time urging his Grace not to bring the question into the courts of law, as he feared they would interpret the words of the Patent in a manner favourable to the King's prerogative, and not to the power of the Keys; that the Act of Elizabeth which took away the conge d'elire put the bishop who received the King's patent into the same situation, as if he were canonically elected and confirmed. The Archbishop in answer asserts his own opinion, and combats the arguments advanced by Ussher, but declares that he has no intention of bringing the matter into the courts of law, that he resists the exercise of jurisdiction, and that he will defend himself, if the Bishop of Clogher should feel aggrieved and bring an action against him. It is to be supposed that the Bishop did not feel himself justified in taking such a step, for there is no further notice of the proceedings. Before he returned to Ireland, the Bishop elect resigned the Professorship of Divinity in the University of Dublin. From the measures taken about the appointment of a successor, it appears that the same pernicious counsels, to which I have before alluded, influenced the government of the College. In the Registry Book there is the following entry "May 9, 1621. Mr. Preston of Queen's College Cambridge was chosen Professor of Theological Controversies, Mr. Dr. Ussher, who is now Bishop of Meath, having surrendered his interest to that place, which for many years together he performed with great credit and good to the College." Preston, whom Ward with great


See Letter xlii. vol. xv. p. 155.

justice calls the Patriarch of the Presbyterian party, declined the office. He no doubt preferred the chance of being chosen Master of Emmanuel College at Cambridge, to which station he soon after got himself appointed by a trick. Samuel Ward of Ipswich was then named Professor, but he also declined. The reason is not known, but it is tolerably certain that no loss was sustained by his refusal, for he was soon after silenced by the High Commission Court, and retired into Holland, where it is said that het rejected episcopal ordination, and that he and Mr. Bridge ordained each other. After the place being thus virtually vacant for four years Mr. Joshua Hoyle, one of the Senior Fellows, was appointed in March 1623. He was "a noted Puritan," fled to England in 1641 and became one of the Assembly of Divines. He assisted also in the evidence against Archbishop Laud for his conduct as Chancellor of the University of Dublin.

Dr. Ussher" was consecrated in St. Peter's Church, Drogheda, by Primate Hampton. The assisting bishops were Robert Bishop of Down, Thomas Bishop of Kilmore, and Theophilus Bishop of Dromore. His high promotion rather increased than diminished his zeal to spread the true doctrines of Christianity through the land, and he directed his attention to the conversion of the numerous Roman Catholics who were spread over his diocese. He preached with indefatigable constancy, following, as Dr. Bernard remarks, the example of St. Augustine, who "episcopatuw suscepto multo instantius ac ferventius majore authoritate, non in una tantum regione sed ubicunque rogatus, verbum salutis æternæ alacriter et suaviter, pullulante atque crescente Domini ecclesia, prædicabat:" and he still further

The only defence Mr. Brooke, in his History of the Puritans, can make for Ward is, that the story is not probable.

[ocr errors]

I cannot ascertain the date of the consecration. The writ of consecration bears date June 27, 1621. Harris, in his edition of Ware, says that Dr. Ussher was presented to the living of Trim on the 17th of April, 1620, but was never instituted. This is a mistake. The patent granted him the Rectory of Trim, to hold in commendam with the Bishoprick.

Theophilus Buckworth, brother-in-law to Dr. Ussher.

w Posidon. in Vita August.

« AnteriorContinuar »