Ireland, and that the Irish nation was peaceable and most friendly to the English. "Erant," says Bede, "in Hibernia multi nobilium simul et mediocrium de gente Anglorum, qui tempore Finani et Colmani episcoporum, relicta insula patria vel divinæ lectionis vel continentioris vita gratia illo acceperunt. Et quidam quidem mox se monastica conversationi fideliter mancipaverunt: alii magis circumeundi per cellas magistrorum lectioni operam dare gaudebant. Quos omnes Scoti libentissime suscipientes, victum eis quotidianum sine pretio, libros quoque ad legendum et magisterium gratuitum præbere curabant." Several other writers are quoted to the same purpose, concluding with the following remarkable passage from Camden: " Anglo Saxones nostri illa ætate in Hiberniam tanquam ad bonarum literarum mercaturam undique confluxerunt: unde de vitis sanctis sæpissime in nostris scriptoribus legitur; Amandatus est ad disciplinam in Hiberniam."

Various passages are quoted to prove that Ireland was called Scotia until the end of the eleventh century. Alcuin speaks in one place of Willibrord, Archbishop of Utrecht, having been educated in Hibernia, and afterwards calls the seat of his education "Scotorum patria ;" but perhaps the most remarkable passage is from the account of Sulgenus, Bishop of St. David's, written by his son. He describes Sulgenus as determining to visit Ireland, after the example of his fathers, for the sake of study; then as having been driven into Albania by contrary winds, and, after a residence of five years at length reaching the fields of the Scoti, and there devoting thirteen years to the reading of the Sacred Scriptures.

No subject has given occasion to more unfounded ridicule, than the claims of the Irish to a superiority of literary attainments in the dark ages, as they are usually called. The Scottish writers without hesitation claim for their country everything that is said of Scotia, utterly disregarding the testimony of all the ancient historians. No fact of

z "Gentem fuisse innoxiam et nationi Anglorum semper amicissimam." -Bed. Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 22.

early European history can be demonstrated with more certainty than the position of Archbishop Ussher, that up to the twelfth century Ireland was preeminently distinguished as Scotia. The English and other writers reject the narratives altogether, as fables invented by the monks of later times. It must be allowed that the injudicious zeal of many advocates has given a powerful support to this scepticism. These writers, animated with a desire to maintain the glory of their country, have drawn a picture of Ireland in remote times, such as would only suit the progress of civilization at the present day. In the warmth of their patriotism they have forgotten, that the testimonies with regard to learning in Ireland are only relative to the state of other European countries, and by attempting to establish an absolute quantity of literary knowledge utterly unattainable at the period in question, have drawn down the suspicion of forgery upon the whole narrative. What Archbishop Ussher maintained was, that Ireland enjoyed a greater reputation for learning than any other country; drew to its seminaries the students from England and the Continent; and spread over Europe a multitude of learned men, who attracted attention every where to the country of their birth and education. In the words of Selden: "The Irish a people antiently (according to the name of the Holy Island given to Ireland) much devoted to and by the English much respected for their holiness and learning." No person can read with impartiality the ancient English historians, or even the brief extracts made by Archbishop Ussher, without acknowledging that a literary fame was attached to Ireland from the seventh to the twelfth century, far above that of all the surrounding nations. The extent of the instruction given at her seminaries it would not be difficult to ascertain, but that would involve a discussion unsuited to my present purpose. It, no doubt, would not come up to the notions of literary excellence in these our days, yet per

a Festo Avieno insula sacra dicta Hibernia.

b Those who hold in contempt the learning of this period ought to read Mr. Maitland's admirable "Essays on the Dark Ages."

VOL. I.

L

haps it taught a patient diligence of investigation, and a laborious system of preparation, which might be profitably adopted instead of the railroad speed of modern education.

Some doubts may possibly be started as to the propriety of inserting this collection of letters among the works of the Archbishop. Their publication, however, seemed absolutely necessary, in order to render intelligible the preface and very valuable notes which must have been included in the works. If any further apology be required, it may be found in the interesting matter which those letters contain, affording information of the highest value to the student of early European history. The Archbishop certainly had planned a new edition of the Sylloge; there is preserved a copy in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, with corrections in his handwriting, and some notes with Bishop Bedell's name at the end of them: these have been inserted in the present edition.

At this period, if we are to give credit to the Presbyterian writers, Archbishop Ussher exerted himself not merely to grant their ministers toleration, but to countenance them. in occupying parishes as their lawful incumbents, yet refusing to conform to the Liturgy. It is stated confidently, that when Bishop Echlin of Down suspended two remarkable Puritans, Blair and Livingston, Blair appealed to the Primate, who immediately desired the Bishop to relax his erroneous censure. The whole narrative is suspicious in the extreme. Bishop Echlin was a Scotchman, so liberal in his notions of episcopal authority, that when Blair came to him for admission into a benefice, with a request from Lord Claneboy to admit him on easy terms, as he was an

The absurdity of Mr. Blair saying that the Bishop would impose no conditions, and that neither patron nor prelate could say that he had broken any condition to them, is thus ably exposed by Bishop Mant: "This is a perfect delusion. In conferring holy orders, a Bishop is personally nothing he has nothing whatever to say or to do about conditions on his own account. He is the trustee, the representative, the minister, the organ of the Church in her name he acts; his course of proceeding is prescribed by her, and he has promised and is pledged to faithfulness in following it. Thus he is appointed by the Church to confer episcopal ordination, and in so doing he is to conduct himself by lawful authority, and

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: "Hed 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

e Parr's Life, pag. 39.