he was forbidden to defend himself, all who pleased were free to attack him as viciously as they pleased. In 1621, also, the king came into conflict with the Parliament called in that year to provide for his necessities. It offered him advice which he resented as presumptuous meddling with affairs of state, and the House of Commons was bidden to avoid touching the king's prerogatives; what privileges it claimed it held from the crown as "rather a toleration than inheritance," and if members forgot their duty, privileges would be disallowed. On the 18th of December the house entered a protest on its journals declaring "that the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdiction of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritances of the subjects of England." The king held a privy council, sent for the Commons' journal, and with his own hand erased that entry. John Selden, for his knowledge of past history, had been sent for by the house and asked what were its privileges. He had replied as a sound English constitutional lawyer, in whom the love of a just liberty was strong, and the terms of the protest of the house were framed in accordance with his counsel. The king dissolved the Parliament and imprisoned some of its members. Selden also was, for his part in the contest, placed in custody of the sheriff. After five weeks of durance, he was questioned before the Privy Council and discharged. He owed some relief from difficulties at court to the good offices of Bishop Launcelot Andrewes, who was, Selden tells us, the only bishop who approved of the "History of Tithes." Towards the close of his reign, James needing, in February, 1624, again to summon a Parliament, Selden entered it as member for Lancaster. James I. made Bishop of Meath, and nominated at the close of his reign Archbishop of Armagh. Usher, born in January, 1581, was about four years older than Selden. He was the son of Arnold Usher, one of the six clerks of the Irish Court of Chancery, and had, like Selden, an inborn aptitude for antiquarian research, to be applied to living uses. He is said to have had his tendency of work stimulated early by dwelling on a sentence of Cicero, which says that "To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be always a child." As a boy he made chronological tables. He was one of the first students who entered Trinity College, Dublin, which owed its foundation partly to the energies of members of his family. He was still studying when his father died, and then he divested himself of the estate that fell to him as eldest son, providing at once for the other children, and keeping only as much as would maintain him in a quiet college life, and enable him to buy books necessary for his studies. He proceeded to the degree of M.A. in 1600, and was ordained at the age of twenty-one. Some English troops having subscribed £1,800 for the library of the new College, Usher was sent to London in 1603 on a book-buying expedition. He obtained a piece of Church preferment in Ireland, the Chancellorship of St. Patrick's, Dublin, before he came to England again, in 1606, in search of books for his University. In London he became known to Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Thomas Bodley. In 1607 he took the degree of B.D., and soon afterwards, at the age of twentyseven, was made Professor of Divinity at Trinity College. In 1609 he was again in England, and added Selden to the enlarging number of his friends. At the age of thirty-two he was admitted to the degree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1613, Dr. Usher was in London, and published his first book. It was virtually a continuation of Jewel's "Apology for the Church of England," written in Latin, and dedicated to the king. In the same year he married an heiress, the daughter of his friend Dr. Chaloner, who had charged her on his death-bed to marry no one but Dr. Usher, if he offered himself. They lived happily together for forty years. In 1615, Dr. Usher was the member of the Irish Church most active in drawing up a set of 104 Articles of Religion for that Church, which proposed to itself an independent constitution. Usher's theological opinions agreed with those of Calvin, and the tone of his articles caused it to be suggested to the king that Dr. Usher was a Puritan. When he went next to England, in 1619, he took with him testimony to his orthodoxy upon all points touching the royal supremacy over the Church, and made that, furthermore, so clear, in an interview with his Majesty, that James named him for the next vacant bishopric, that of Meath, and distinguished him as his bishop. Usher was zealous against the Roman Catholics, and, as a bishop of the Reformed Church in Ireland, had inevitable dealings with them. A sermon of his, in October, 1622, on the JAMES USHER. (From the Portrait before his " Bodie of Divinity," 1653.) Another man who passed with a high reputation for learning into the reign of Charles I., and who also contributed his thought to the controversies which then gathered intensity, was James Usher, whom 1 "Nescire autem quid antea quam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum." (Ciceronis ad M. Brutum Orator.) Lord Deputy's 'receiving the sword of office, had for its text, "He beareth not the sword in vain," and was thought to be too offensive in its tone. In the following month, he was admonishing of their duty Roman Catholics of rank, who were summoned to the Castle Chamber in Dublin for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy. This was DR. USHER'S SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE CASTLE CHAMBER, CONCERNING THE OATH OF SUPREMACY. What the danger of the law is for refusing this oath, has been sufficiently opened by my lords the judges; and the quality and quantity of that offence has been aggravated to the full by those that have spoken after them. The part which is most proper for me to deal in is the information of the conscience, touching the truth and equity of the matters contained in the oath; which I also have made choice the rather to insist upon, because both the form of the oath itself requireth herein a full resolution of the conscience (as appeareth by those words in the very beginning thereof, "I do utterly testify and declare in my conscience," &c.), and the persons that stand here to be censured for refusing the same have alleged nothing in their own defence, but only the simple plea of ignorance. That this point, therefore, may be cleared, and all needless scruples removed out of men's minds, two main branches there be of this oath which require special consideration. The one positive, acknowledging the supremacy of the government of these realms, in all causes whatsoever, to rest in the King's Highness only. The other negative, renouncing all jurisdictions and authorities of any foreign prince or prelate within his Majesty's dominions. For the better understanding of the former, we are, in the first place, to call unto our remembrance that exhortation of St. Peter: "Submit yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be unto the king, as having the pre-eminence; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." By this we are taught to respect the king, not as the only governor of his dominions simply (for we see there be other governors placed under him), but is ineρéxovтa, as him that excelleth and hath the pre-eminence over the rest; that is to say (according to the tenure of the oath), as him that is the only supreme governor of his realms. Upon which ground we may safely build this conclusion, that whatsoever power is incident unto the king by virtue of his place, must be acknowledged to be in him supreme; there being nothing so contrary to the nature of sovereignty as to have another superior power to overrule it. Qui Rex est, Regem (Maxime) non habeat.1 In the second place, we are to consider that God, for the better settling of piety and honesty among men, and the repression of profaneness and other vices, hath established two distinct powers upon earth: the one of the keys, committed to the Church; the other of the sword, committed to the civil magistrate. That of the keys is ordained to work upon the inner man, having immediate relation to the remitting or retaining of sins. That of the sword is appointed to work upon the outward man, yielding protection 1 "Maximus, let him who is a king, not have a king.” The last line of an epigram of Martial's (bk. ii., ep. 18) "In Maximum," which bids men avoid servility. Its sense is, "I flatter you and earn a supper; you flatter elsewhere for your profit; nay, then, we are equals, and I will not bow to you: let him who is a king not have a king." to the obedient, and inflicting external punishment upon the rebellious and disobedient. By the former, the spiritual officers of the Church of Christ are enabled to govern well, to speak, and exhort, and rebuke, with all authority, to loose such as are penitent, to commit others unto the Lord's prison until their amendment, or to bind them over unto the judgment of the great day, if they shall persist in their wilfulness and obstinacy. By the other, princes have an imperious power assigned by God unto them, for the defence of such as do well, and executing revenge and wrath upon such as do evil; whether by death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment, according to the quality of the offence. When St. Peter, that had the keys committed unto him, made bold to draw the sword, he was commanded to put it up, as a weapon that he had no authority to meddle withal. And on the other side, when Uzziah the king would venture upon the execution of the priest's office, it was said unto him, "It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but unto the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense." Let this, therefore, be our second conclusion-that the power of the sword and of the keys are two distinct ordinances of God; and that the prince hath no more authority to enter upon the execution of any part of the priest's function, than the priest hath to intrude upon any part of the office of the prince. In the third place, we are to observe that the power of the civil sword (the supreme managing whereof belongeth to the king alone) is not to be restrained unto temporal causes only, but is by God's ordinance to be extended likewise unto all spiritual or ecclesiastical things and causes; that as the spiritual rulers of the Church do exercise their kind of government, in bringing men unto obedience, not of the duties of the first table alone (which concerneth piety and the religious service which man is bound to perform unto his Creator), but also of the second (which respecteth moral honesty, and the offices that man doth owe unto man): so the civil magistrate is to use his authority also in redressing the abuses committed against the first table, as well as against the second; that is to say, as well in punishing of an heretic, or an idolater, or a blasphemer, as of a thief, or a murderer, or a traitor; and in providing, by all good means, that such as live under his government may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all piety and honesty. And howsoever by this means we make both prince and priest to be in their several places Custodes utriusque tabulæ, keepers of both God's tables, yet do we not hereby any way confound both of their offices together. For though the matter wherein their government is exercised may be the same, yet is the form and manner of governing therein always different: the one reaching to the outward man only, the other to the inward; the one binding or loosing the soul, the other laying hold on the body and the things belonging thereto; the one having special reference to the judgment or the world to come, the other respecting the present retaining or losing of some of the comforts of this life. That there is such a civil government as this in causes spiritual or ecclesiastical, no man of judgment can deny. For must not heresy, for example, be acknowledged to be a cause merely spiritual or ecclesiastical? And yet by what power is an heretic put to death? The officers of the Church have no authority to take away the life of any man: it must be done, therefore, per brachium seculare; 2 and conse By the secular arm. quently it must be yielded without contradiction, that the temporal magistrate doth exercise therein a part of his civil government, in punishing a crime that is of its own nature spiritual or ecclesiastical. But here it will be said: The words of the Oath being general-that the King is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his Highness' dominions and countries -how may it appear that the power of the civil sword only is meant by that government, and that the power of the keys is not comprehended therein? I answer, first, that where a civil magistrate is affirmed to be the governor of his own dominions and countries, by common intendment this must needs be understood of a civil government, and may in no reason be extended to that which is merely of another kind. Secondly, I say that where an ambiguity is conceived to be in any part of an oath, it ought to be taken according to the understanding of him for whose satisfaction the oath was ministered. Now in this case it hath been sufficiently declared by public authority, that no other thing is meant by the government here mentioned, but that of the civil sword only. For in the book of Articles agreed upon by the archbishops, and bishops, and the whole clergy, in the Convocation holden at London, anno 1562, thus we read: "Where we attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government (by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended), we give not to our princes the ministering either of God's word or of the sacraments (the which thing the injunctions also, lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, doth most plainly testify), but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes, in Holy Scriptures, by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers." If it be here objected that the authority of the Convocation is not a sufficient ground for the exposition of that which was enacted in Parliament, I answer, that these Articles stand confirmed, not only by the royal assent of the prince (for the establishing of whose supremacy the oath was framed), but also by a special Act of Parliament, which is to be found among the statutes in the thirteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, chap. 12. Seeing, therefore, the makers of the law have full authority to expound the law, and they have sufficiently manifested that, by the supreme government given to the prince, they understand that kind of government only which is exercised with the civil sword, I conclude that nothing can be more plain than this: that without all scruple of conscience, the King's Majesty may be acknowledged in this sense to be the only supreme governor of all his Highness' dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal. And so have I cleared the first main branch of the oath. I come now unto the second, which is propounded negatively, "That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." The foreigner that challenges this ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction over us is the Bishop of Rome; and the title whereby he claimeth this power over us is the same whereby he claimeth it over the whole world-because he is St. Peter's successor, forsooth. And indeed, if St. Peter himself had been now alive, I should freely confess that he ought to have spiritual authority and superiority within this kingdom. But so would I say, also, if St. Andrew, St. Bartholomew, St. Thomas, or any of the other apostles had been alive. For I know that their com mission was very large-to "go into all the world, and to preach the gospel unto every creature." So that in what part of the world soever they lived, they could not be said to be out of their charge, their apostleship being a kind of an universal bishopric. If, therefore, the Bishop of Rome can prove himself to be one of this rank, the oath must be amended, and we must acknowledge that he hath ecclesiastical authority within this realm. True it is, that our lawyers, in their year books, by the name of the "Apostle" do usually design the Pope; but if they had examined his title to that apostleship as they would try an ordinary man's title to a piece of land, they might easily have found a number of flaws and main defects therein. For, first, it would be inquired whether the apostleship was not ordained by our Saviour Christ as a special commission, which, being personal only, was to determine with the death of the first Apostles. For howsoever, at their first entry into the execution of this commission, we find that Matthias was admitted to the apostleship in the room of Judas, yet afterwards, when James the brother of John was slain by Herod, we do not read that any other was substituted in his place. Nay, we know that the apostles generally left no successors in this kind; neither did any of the bishops (he of Rome only excepted), that sat in those famous churches wherein the apostles exercised their ministry, challenge an apostleship or an universal bishopric by virtue of that succession. It would, secondly, therefore, be inquired, what sound evidence they can produce to show that one of the company was to hold the apostleship, as it were, in fee, for him and his successors for ever, and that the other eleven should hold the same for term of life only. Thirdly, if this state of perpetuity was to be cast upon one, how came it to fall upon St. Peter, rather than upon St. John, who outlived all the rest of his fellows, and so as a surviving feoffee had the fairest right to retain the same in himself and his successors for ever? Fourthly, if that state were wholly settled upon St. Peter, seeing the Romanists themselves acknowledge that he was Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome, we require them to show why so great an inheritance as this should descend unto the younger brother (as it were by borough English) rather than to the elder, according to the ordinary manner of descents; especially seeing Rome hath little else to allege for this preferment, but only that St. Peter was crucified in it, which was a very slender reason to move the apostle so to respect it. Seeing, therefore, the grounds of this great claim of the Bishop of Rome appear to be so vain and frivolous, I may safely conclude that he ought to have no ecclesiastical or spiritual authority within this realm, which is the principal point contained in the second part of the oath. King James wrote with his own hand the following acknowledgment of this loyal address: JAMES REX. Right Reverend Father in God, and right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor, we greet you well. You have not deceived our expectation, nor the gracious opinion we ever conceived, both of your abilities in learning, and of your faithfulness to us and our service. Whereof, as we have received sundry testimonies, both from our precedent deputies, as likewise from our right trusty and wellbeloved cousin and counsellor the Viscount Falkland, our present deputy of that realm; so have we now of late, in one particular, had a further evidence of your duty and affection well expressed by your late carriage in our Castle Chamber there, at the censure of those disobedient magistrates who refused to take the Oath of Supremacy. Wherein your zeal to the maintenance of our just and lawful power, defended with so much learning and reason, deserves our princely and gracious thanks, which we do by this our letter unto you, and so bid you farewell. Given under our signet, at our Court at Whitehall, the eleventh of January, 1622, in the 20th year of our reign of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. To the Right Reverend Father in God, and our right trusty and well-beloved Counsellor, the Bishop of Meath. The King lost no time in making Usher a Privy Councillor for Ireland. Dr. Usher directed also against the unreformed Church a treatise on the Religion of the ancient Irish and Britons, and in 1624 was combating on the ground of Church antiquities an Irish Jesuit, William Malone, who had adverted to the doctrine and practice of the primitive Christians. Usher had fitted himself for this kind of controversy. In his youth, a Roman Catholic book called "The Fortress of Faith" had been put into his hands. It appealed continually to the writings of the early Fathers of the Church. Usher He had then at once set himself a complete course of reading in the Fathers, took a fixed portion every day, and read them through in eighteen years. thus qualified himself, like Lancelot Andrewes, to meet the arguments of his opponents in the only way that they could recognise as sufficient. In Usher's answer to Malone, he dealt in successive sections with the chief points in dispute between the churches-namely, traditions, the real presence, confession, the priest's power to forgive sins, purgatory, prayer for the dead, limbus patrum, prayer to saints, images, free-will and merits; the treatise extending to nearly six hundred pages. When Dr. Usher had finished his argument against Malone, he visited England again. He was there studying ecclesiastical antiquities, when the death of the Archbishop of Armagh enabled King James to nominate his bishop to the primacy of Ireland. Illness delayed Usher's return; he was not installed as Archbishop until 1626. George Wither's satires against the passions, published in 1613, at the age of twenty-five, as "Abuses Stript and Whipt," and his "Shepheard's Hunting," written when imprisoned in the Marshalsea for his bold speech, have been referred to in another volume of this Library.' In 1618 appeared "Wither's Motto," "Nec habeo, nec careo, nec curo" (I have not, want not, care not), in which those thoughts are amplified into expression of a spirit of honest independence so far as man is concerned, and dependence only upon God: "He that supplies my want hath took my care." In 1622 George Wither, who after education at Oxford had been attending to his father's farm at 1 See "Shorter English Poems," pages 288-291. Bentworth, near Alton, in Hampshire, collected his earlier poems as "Juvenilia," and published a new poem called "Faire-Virtue, the Mistress of Philarete."" Philarete is Greek for a lover of Virtue, and the poem is a love poem, with Virtue personified as the fair object of desire. A characteristic tone of liberty and independence runs through all the verse of George Wither. To the critics he says: "If the verse here uséd be Their dislike, it liketh me. "If this prologue tedious seem, Or the rest too long they deem, Aught to mend what they think bad; To make work of recreation. "Pedants shall not tie my strains I will sing as I shall please, I disdain to make my song For their pleasure short or long; If I please, I'll end it here; If I list, I'll sing this year: And though none regard of it, By myself I pleas'd can sit, And with that contentment cheer me If you note her when she moves, May come learn such winning motions As will gain to Love's devotions "Some, whose bodies want true graces, In behaviour or in wit Or some inward worth appearing Swear a faith, and change no more." Than will suit with her perfection; "Raised by her discourse I fly "If she smile and merry be, "Should I see her shed a tear, "Seldom hath she been espied So impatient as to chide; They'll in love with anger grow. Sigh or speak, or smile or talk, After like praise of her behaviour, her dress, and other aids to Virtue's prevailing charm, Wither continues : "Though sometime my song I raise To unusual heights of praise, As to shew that being blest |