Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:46:32.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Caroline church: James Ussher and the Irish dimension*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Amanda L. Capern
Amanda L. Capern
Affiliation:
University of Hull
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent works by Kevin Sharpe and Julian Davies have revised thinking about the religious policies of the Caroline church. Davies's distinction between ‘Laudianism’ and ‘Carolinism’ sums up one of the major conclusions he shares with Sharpe; that Charles I was the initiator of many of the religious policies previously attributed to William Laud. The following article tests this conclusion by viewing the religious policies emanating from England through the eyes of James Ussher, the Irish archbishop of Armagh. It finds that, from the Irish perspective at least, it was impossible for a contemporary to make the same distinction between ‘Laudianism’ and ‘Carolinism’, about policies that were deeply unpopular across the Irish Sea. What follows is an examination of Ussher's reception of a range of policies he considered detrimental to Calvinist unity in the face of catholic threat, including a detailed examination of his attempts to save the Calvinist Irish Articles. Through consideration of his own patronage concerns and directions in publishing it is demonstrated here that, through the 1630s, the Irish protestant primate continued to believe (rightly or wrongly) that behind the religious tensions of Britain lay the dual spectre of ‘Arminianism’ and popery.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 57 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kevin, Sharpe, The personal rule of Charles I (New Haven, 1992), pp. 279–85.Google Scholar

2 Julian, Davies, The Caroline captivity of the church (Oxford, 1993), passimGoogle Scholar; cf. Sharpe, , The personal rule, pp. 281–2, 285, 288–9.Google Scholar

3 Derek, Hirst, Review: ‘The king redeemed: a revisionist account of the reign of Charles I’, Times Literary Supplement, 15 Jan. 1993, p. 3.Google Scholar

4 Sharpe, , The personal rule, pp. 287, 291–2.Google Scholar

5 Much of the information for this has been extracted from Capern, A. L., ‘Slipperye times and dangerous dayes: James Ussher and the Calvinist reformation of Britain, 1560–1660’, Unpub. Ph. D. thesis (University of New South Wales, 1991)Google Scholar, especially ch. 4.

6 Nicholas, Bernard, The life and death of the most reverend and learned father of our church, Dr James Usher, late archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland (London, 1656), pp. 37, 44–6Google Scholar; Richard, Parr, The life of the most reverend father in God, James Usher, late lord arch-bishop of Armagh, primate and metropolitan of all Ireland (London, 1681), pp. 8, 10–11.Google Scholar

7 Sharpe, , The personal rule, p. 278.Google Scholar

8 Cf. Hugh, Kearney, Scholars and gentlemen: universities and society in pre-industrial Britain 1500–1700 (London, 1970), pp. 67–70Google Scholar; Alan, Ford, The reformation in Ireland, 1590–1641 (Frankfurt, 1985), pp. 23, 56, 75–7, 107, ch. 8, 250–1, 259–67, 273–6, 291Google Scholar; Moody, T. W. et al. , A new history of Ireland (Oxford, 1976; rep. 1991), III, 257Google Scholar.

9 Knox, Robert Buick, James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh (Cardiff, 1967), pp. 27, 33–5Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1623–1625 (C. S. P. D.), 12 Feb. 1625, p. 472Google Scholar; a separate and detailed account of Ussher's movements in the early 1620s is to be found in Capern, ‘Slipperye times and dangerous dayes…’, ch. 3.

10 Bernard says he was at court until August when he returned to Ireland – Bernard, Life… of… James Usher, p. 86. See also Elrington, C. R., The life and works of the most reverend James Ussher (17 vols., Dublin, 1847–1864)Google Scholar (W. W.), Ussher to Samuel Ward, 17 Aug. 1626, XV, 349–50; Ussher is supposed to have preached a sermon before the king on 25 June 1627 – this is reprinted in W. W., XIII, 335ff. – however, this is possibly misdated as on the 16 June 1626 Ussher told Samuel Ward that the king had asked him to preach on 25 June of 1626 before he left for Ireland. It seems too much a coincidence that exactly a year later he was preaching before the king again, especially as evidence points to him being in Ireland through 1627. Dr Elrington believed he made another very brief trip to England in 1632; W. W., I, 131. He follows Parr's account here – Parrstates states that Ussher returned to England in late 1631 for the English publication of A discourse of the religion anciently professed by the Irish and British; Parr, , Life of… James Usher, p. 40Google Scholar. There is no other evidence to support Parr's account and he may be mistaken.

11 Aidan, Clarke, The Old English in Ireland, 1625–42 (New York, 1966), pp. 28–31Google Scholar; for the crown's vacillating policies concerning the Old and New English in Ireland, see Brendan, Fitzpatrick, Seventeenth-century Ireland: the war of religions (Totowa, N. J., 1989), ch. 2Google Scholar; Calendar of state papers relating to Ireland 1625–1632 (C. S. P. I.), July 1627, pp. 250–1.Google Scholar

12 Cf. Knox, , James Ussher, pp. 35–6Google Scholar; W. W., Ussher to Archbishop Abbot, 9 Feb. 1626/27, XV, 366.

13 The protestation of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, against the toleration of poperie, agreed upon, and subscribed by them at Dublin the 26 of Novemb., in the year of our Lord 1626 (London, 1641 – this was printed for propagandist reasons at the outbreak of the Irish rebellion)Google Scholar, Sig. A2–A2V.

14 This speech was made at Dublin Castle on 30 Apr. 1627 and is transcribed at Bodleian (Bodl.) Tanner MS 314, fos. 57–9; see also C. S. P. I. 1625–1632, p. 229; Bernard, , Life… of… James Usher, pp. 66–81.Google Scholar

15 C. S. P. I. 1625–1632, 24 May 1628, pp. 339–40, 1 Aug. 1628, p. 327.

16 W. W., Richard Sibbes to Ussher 27 May 1628, XVI, 522 (this letter is one of the collection of 300 letters printed by Parr and added by Dr Elrington as an appendix in W. W., XVI – Elrington followed Parr's dating of 1634–5, but apart from the mention of a petition of right, Sibbes also talks of John Preston ‘inclining to a consumption, …his state is thought doubtful’, and Preston in fact died the day the letter was written in 1628).

17 Richard, Montagu, Appello Cæsarem: a just appeale from two unjust informers (London, 1625), p. 72Google Scholar; Montagu's emphasis, throughout his work, on the English church ‘foreignizes’ anything outside England so that he frequently damns Irish formulations by implication, e. g. A gagg for the new gospell? no: a new gagg for an old goose (London, 1624), pp. 157, 183.Google Scholar

18 The constitutional documents of the puritan revolution 1625–1660, selected and edited by Gardiner, Samuel Rawson (Oxford, rep. 1979), p. 81Google Scholar; Commons debates 1628, Keeler, M. F., Cole, M. J. and Bidwell, W. B. (eds.) (New Haven, 1978), p. 261Google Scholar; cf. Nicholas, Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: the rise of English Arminianism c. 1590–1640 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 154–5.Google Scholar

19 Davies, , The Caroline captivity of the church, pp. 10–11, 13–14, 16, 297, 300Google Scholar; Richard, Cust and Ann, Hughes (eds.), Conflict in early Stuart England: studies in religion and politics 1603–1642 (London, 1989), PP. 25, 130.Google Scholar

20 William, Prynne, Anti-Arminianisme: or, the church of England's old antithesis to new Arminianism (London, 1630), Epistle dedicatory, pp. 13–14, 17–21.Google Scholar

21 Historical Manuscripts Commission (H. M. C.), Hastings MSS IV, William Laud to John Bramhall, 11 May 1635, p. 67.

22 Laud shared this fear with Richard, Montagu whose Diatribe upon the first part of the late history of tithes (London, 1621)Google Scholar attacked John Selden's Erastian claims over the church. See, for example, the letter signed by Laud, John Buckeridge and John Howson to the duke of Buckingham 2 Aug. 1625 supporting Montagu and arguing that the church has never submitted to any judge of her doctrines but the monarch and the national synod of convocation, nor should ever be made to; rep. in Tyacke, , Anti-Calvinists, pp. 266–7Google Scholar citing The works of the most reverend father in God William Laud… lord archbishop of Canterbury, Scott, W. and Bliss, J. (eds.) (7 vols., Oxford, 1847–1860), VI, 244–6Google Scholar (from B. L. Harl. MS 7000, fo. 183r– v). Laud's later distrust of parliaments was partly shaped by the opinions of Wentworth, but stemmed from his experience of the interference in the church's handling of the Montagu affair by the Caroline parliaments of the late 1620s.

23 Parr, , Life of… James Usher, pp. 40–1Google Scholar; W. W., I, 129–30, 198–200; Knox, , James Ussher, pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

24 Hugh, Trevor-Roper, ‘James Ussher, archbishop of Armagh’, in Catholics, Anglicans and puritans (London, 1987), p. 140Google Scholar; there are not many letters exchanged between Laud and Ussher extant. Dr Ellington claims that most for the early 1630s had perished (W. W., I, 186). It has to be wondered why and suspicions are raised when Richard Parr tells us that he ‘selected’ his 300 letters for publication (Parr, , Life of… James Usher, p. 41Google Scholar); however, there are twenty-two letters between Ussher and Laud to be found transcribed at Bodl. Sancroft MS 18. These have now been printed; Alan, Ford, ‘Correspondence between archbishops Ussher and Laud’, Archivium Hibernicum, XLVI (1991–1992), 5–21Google Scholar. It must also be noted that on two occasions after Wentworth went to Ireland Laud complained about Ussher's dilatoriness in writing to him at all, The earl of Strafford's letters and dispatches with an essay towards his life by Sir George Radcliffe, William, Knowler (ed.), (Strafford's letters and dispatches)Google Scholar, (2 vols., printed by R. Reilly for Robert Owen, 1711), William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 15 Nov. 1633, I, 156, 29 Dec. 1638, II, 263.

25 Peter, Heylin, Aerius redivivus: or, the prehistory of the presbyterians (Oxford, 1670), p. 394Google Scholar; Cyprianus Anglicus: or, the history of the life and death of… William… lord archbishop of Canterbury… containing also the ecclesiastical history of the three kingdoms… (London, 1671), pp. 24, 192–5Google Scholar, The historical and miscellaneous tracts of Peter Heylin: the quinquarticular history of the church of England, above p. 630Google Scholar; Ussher's biographer, Nicholas Bernard, accused Heylin almost of heresy for his redefinition of Ussher as ‘Calvinist’ and ‘puritan’ – for this debate, see Nicholas, Bernard, The judgement of the late archbishop of Armagh…of the extent of Christ's death and satisfaction…with a vindication of him… (London, 1657)Google Scholar; William, Sanderson, A compleat history of the life and raigne of King Charles (London, 1658)Google Scholar; Peter, Heylin, Respondet Petrus; or, the answer of Peter Heylin to Dr. Bernard's book entituled The judgement of the late Primate of Ireland. To which is added an appendix in answer to certain passages in Mr. Sanderson's History of the life of King Charles (London, 1657)Google Scholar, Parr, , Life of… James Usher, p. 42 and AppendixGoogle Scholar. A measure of the success of Laud's, and later Heylin's, propaganda about Ussher specifically (not to mention William Prynne's, which did him more harm than good), and the character of the Anglo-Irish church more generally, is that this debate was taken up again in the nineteenth century, when Ellington tried to rescue Ussher from co-option into the Scottish presbyterian church fold – see Reid, James Seaton, History of the presbyterian church in Ireland (3 vols., Belfast, 1867), I, 92–3, 136, 158, 406–13Google Scholar; Ellington, C. R., An answer to Dr. Reid's animadversions upon the life of Archbishop Ussher (London, 1849), passimGoogle Scholar; Montagu, , Appello Cæsarem, pp. 10, 69, 72, 105, 107, 110–14, 118, 148.Google Scholar

26 Davies, , The Caroline captivity of the church, p. 2 and passim.Google Scholar

27 For example, Ussher sent a detailed report on church revenues to Laud (as bishop of London) on 11 Sept. 1629, C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, p. 481. Another example is the letter used against Laud in his trial in which Ussher told him ‘You strike such terror in the hearts of those who wish to despoil the church, that if I merely mention your name at the Council table it is like a Gorgon's head to some of them.’; C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to William Laud, 11 July 1631, p. 622. Originally, this letter was probably intended to flatter rather than incriminate.

28 W.W., I, 160–3.

29 Ussher's notes and petitions about the primacy are at Trinity College Dublin (T.C.D.) MSS 580, 581, 582, 786, some of which are printed in W.W., I, Appendix VI, pp. cxxvii–cxliii.

30 W.W., Ussher to John Williams, 6 July 1625, XV, 278–9, 20 Aug. 1625, XV, 296–300; C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, petition of Ussher and the dean and dignitaries of St Patrick's cathedral, 31 Dec. 1628, p. 416.

31 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Charles I to Lord Deputy Falkland, no date, p. 364.

32 W.W., Ussher to John Williams, 20 Aug. 1625, XV, 300.

33 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, certificate of William Crofton, and Charles I to Lord Deputy Falkland, pp. 451, 364; cf. Knox, , James Ussher, pp. 42–3.Google Scholar

34 W.W., I, 160–3; C.S.P.I. 1633–1647, 14 July 1634, p. 62.

35 Davies, , The Caroline captivity of the church, pp. 39–40.Google Scholar

36 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to William Laud, II July 1631, p. 622.

37 Barkley, J. M., ‘Some Scottish bishops and ministers in the Irish church, 1605–35’, in Duncan, Shaw (ed.), Reformation and revolution (St Andrews, 1967), pp. 142–3, 145–7, 149, 156–7Google Scholar; Ford, , The protestant reformation in Ireland, p. 99.Google Scholar

38 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to William Laud, II July 1631, p. 622.

39 Barkley, , ‘Some Scottish bishops and ministers in the Irish church’, in Shaw, (ed), Reformation and revolution, pp. 142–3, 145, 151, 153, 157.Google Scholar

40 Ibid. p. 158.

41 Ibid. pp. 157–8. Robert Echlin of Down replaced Blair, Dunbar and Welsh in 1634; Henry Leslie of Down deposed Edward Bryce, Robert Cunningham, James Hamilton (who was the only person brave enough to vote against the Laudian canons after the trouble in convocation in 1634), John Livingstone and Samuel Row in 1636 and John Leslie of Raphoe deposed Robert Pont; David Kennedy was removed by the court of high commission in 1638 and John McClelland and Hugh Peebles were forced to go back to Scotland. All the deposed ministers were graduates of Glasgow except Bryce and Row.

42 Observations made from tabulating information in Handbook of British chronology, SirPowicke, F. and Fryde, E. B. (eds.), Offices of the Royal Historical Society (London, 1961), pp. 202–91, 351–74Google Scholar; it is also worth recording that Scotland had a very low turnover, most of the bishops being the 1610 appointments of James I.

43 W.W., Ussher to Archbishop Abbot, 10 Jan. 1626/27, XV, 361–2, 9 Feb. 1626/27, XV, 365–7, Abbot to Ussher, 19 Mar. 1626/27, XV, 375, Samuel Ward to Ussher, 16 May 1628, XV, 402–5; W.W., I, 86–8.

44 Trevor-Roper, , ‘James Ussher’ in Catholics, Anglicans and puritans, p. 141Google Scholar and Archbishop Laud 1573–1645 (Hamden, Connecticut, 1962, 2nd edn, rep. London, 1988), p. 239.Google Scholar

45 W.W., William Bedell to Ussher, 15 Apr. 1628, XV, 397–8; Bodl. Tanner MS 71, William Bedell to Samuel Ward, 2 Apr. 1630, fos. 43–4; W.W., Samuel Ward to Ussher, 25 May 1630, XV, 507; Dr Ellington published sections of undated and incomplete letters of Bedell's to prove the essential friendship between himself and Ussher, W.W., XV, 508–20; see also W.W., I, 118–19.

46 Barkley, , ‘Some Scottish bishops and ministers in the Irish church’, in Shaw, (ed.), Reformation and revolution, p. 157Google Scholar; W.W., Archibald Hamilton to Ussher, 8 Apr. 1629, XV, 433.

47 W.W., William Laud to Ussher, 16 June 1629, XV, 443, Laud to Ussher, 25 June 1629, XV, 445, Ussher to Laud, 10 Aug. 1629, XV, 449, Joseph Mede to Ussher, 4 May 1630, XV, 494.

48 Strafford's letters and dispatches, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 11 Mar. 1633/34, 1, 213.

49 Ibid. William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 11 Mar. 1633/34, 1, 213, Wentworth to Laud, 1 Sept. 1632, I, 299.

50 Works of… William Laud, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 19 Jan. 1634/35, VII, 99.

51 C.S.P.I. 1633–1647, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 8 Sept. 1636, p. 140, Works of… William Laud, Laud to Wentworth, 26 Sept. 1636, VII, 287.

52 Works of… William Laud, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 26 Sept. 1636, VII, 288.

53 Ibid.

54 C.S.P.I. 1633–1647, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 18 Oct. 1636, p. 141 (rep. in Strafford's letters and dispatches, II, 36–7).

55 H.M.C., Cowper MSS, 12th report, series 23 (1888), Ussher to Sir John Coke, 10 Aug. 1631, 1, 438–9; Kevin Sharpe has recently cited this as an example to show that the personal rule of Charles I did have avenues for criticism even though no parliaments were held. However, the seriousness of the archbishop of Armagh questioning the legality of some aspects of that personal rule cannot be overestimated – Sharpe, , The personal rule, p. 707.Google Scholar

56 C.S.P.I. 1633–1647, Ussher to William Laud, 24 Mar. 1633, p. 6, 26 April 1633, p. 8, Charles I to Thomas Wentworth, 10 May 1633, P. 10, Ussher to the lords justice and council, 24 Aug. 1633, P. 3, Charles I to earl of Nithesdale, 29 July 1635, p. 109; C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to Laud, 23 Dec. 1631, p. 638.

57 Strafford's letters and dispatches, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 30 Apr. 1633, 1, 81–2.

58 See the description in Wedgewood, C. V., Thomas Wentworth, first earl of Strafford 1593–1641 (London, 1961)Google Scholar, citing Strafford's letters and dispatches, I, 172, British Library (B. L.) Harleian MS 4297, fo. 35, C. S. P. D. 1633–1634, p. 179.

59 C.S.P.I. 1633–1647, John Bramhall to William Laud, 10 Aug. 1633, p. 16.

60 Ibid. William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, c. end Sept. 1633, p. 20.

61 Ibid, order of the lord deputy and council, no date (between Sept. and Dec. 1633), pp. 31–2; Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, no date, Dec. 1633, 1, 173.

62 On 15 Nov. 1633 Laud commented to Wentworth that he had not heard from Ussher since Wentworth had arrived in Ireland – Strafford's letters and dispatches, 1, 156.

63 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 1 Sept. 1634, 1, 298.

64 Ibid. William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 11 Mar. 1633/34, I, 211.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid. William Laud to the earl of Cork, 21 Mar. 1633/34, I, 222–3.

67 Ibid. Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 1 Sept. 1634, I, 298.

68 Ibid. cf. John Bramhall's comment to Laud – ‘I am tied by promise not to acquaint you with the passages in the Convocation House. The Irish Articles had like to be confirmed the very last day of the session… together with the English, without consulting his Majesty or his Deputy… What exceptions are against them you know well. For this kingdom and at this time they are most incommodious’ – H.M.C., Hastings IV, John Bramhall to William Laud, 21 Aug. 1634, p. 61.

69 It has never been confirmed that Ussher was the sole author of the Irish Articles and Alan Ford has questioned his authorship, suggesting instead that the Irish Articles need to be seen as a product of the Irish convocation and the consensual Calvinist milieu of the Irish church (Ford, , The protestant reformation in Ireland, pp. 194 ff.)Google Scholar. Ussher's early biographers affirmed him as author (Bernard, , Life… of… James Usher, pp. 49–50Google Scholar; Parr, , Life of… James Usher, pp. 14–15)Google Scholar and I am willing to accept their version because of the weight of circumstantial evidence – the wording of the articles bears remarkable correspondence to Ussher's early catechistical work at Trinity College Dublin. See T. C. D. MS 291 rep. W.W., XI, 197 ff.

70 It is difficult not to regard Wentworth simply as an insensitive bully. However, two of his biographers have researched his relationship with Ussher and formed the opinion that Ussher was cunning and could not be trusted. There is certainly evidence here that Ussher went to great lengths to cover his tracks over the Irish Articles. See Elizabeth, Cooper, The life of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford and lord lieutenant of Ireland (2 vols., London, 1874), pp. 304–5Google Scholar; Wedgewood, , Thomas Wentworth, p. 176.Google Scholar

71 H. M. C., Hastings IV, John Bramhall to William Laud, 21 Aug. 1634, p. 61.

72 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 1 Sept. 1634, I, 298.

73 Ibid. William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 10 Oct. 1634, 1, 329–30.

74 Davies, , The Caroline captivity of the church, pp. 10, 13–14, 16, 38.Google Scholar

75 Works of… William Laud, Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 31 Oct. 1634, VII, 94–5.

76 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 16 Dec. 1634, 1, 343.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid. p. 344.

79 cf. Knox, , James Ussher, pp. 49–52Google Scholar, which plays down any tension between Wentworth and Ussher over the Irish Articles, suggesting instead that Ussher may simply have been fearful of the consequences of disturbing the church (by implication suggesting that Ussher did not act as he did out of a deep commitment to the theology of the Irish Articles) and Wentworth thought Ussher just an inefficient administrator (rather than deliberately concerned to deceive the lord deputy).

80 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 16 Dec. 1634, 1, 343–4.

81 Works of… William Laud, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 19 Jan. 1634/35, VII, 98.

82 Ibid. John Bramhall to William Laud, 20 Dec. 1634, VI, 43 (see also Knox, , James Ussher, p. 51)Google Scholar; an account of the affair written later in Bramhall's life confirms his role as spy against Ussher. ‘I was the man who acquainted the Earl of Strafford with what the Convocation had done’; John, Bramhall, The works of the most reverend father in God, John Bramhall: sometime lord archbishop of Armagh… (Oxford, 1842)Google Scholar, ‘Life and defence of Ussher’, 1676 (ironically, this is another defence of Ussher's ‘orthodoxy’ in the face of Heylin's accusations), V, 82.

83 W.W., 1, 178–86.

84 H.M.C., Hastings IV, William Laud to John Bramhall, 16 Jan. 1634/35, p. 66.

85 Strafford's letters and dispatches, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 4 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 375.

86 Ibid. Thomas Wentworth to Charles I, 27 Jan. 1634/35, 1, 367–8.

87 Ibid. Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 10 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 381.

88 Ibid.

89 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to William Laud, 11 July 1631, p. 622.

90 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 9 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 520, 16 Dec. 1634, 1, 344, 10 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 380.

91 Ibid. William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 10 Oct. 1634, 1, 331; Wentworth to Laud, 10 Mar. 1634/35, 378.

92 Ibid. Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 10 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 379; Laud made equally snide remarks about the tomb in his reply, Works of… William Laud, Laud to Wentworth, 27 Mar. 1635, VII, 116.

93 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 10 Mar. 1634/35, 1, 381.

94 Ussher's letter to Laud does not survive, but it is clear it was written from the reply, W.W., William Laud to Ussher, 10 May 1635, XVI, 7–8.

95 Hugh, Kearney, Strafford in Ireland 1633–41: a study in absolutism ([1959] rep. Cambridge, 1989), p. 119Google Scholar, citing Strafford MS 6, fo. 296.

96 W.W., Ussher to Samuel Ward, 15 Sept. 1635, XVI, 9.

97 W.W., 1, 176; Knox, , James Ussher, pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

98 Sharpe, , The personal rule, p. 359Google Scholar citing Travels in Holland, the United Provinces, England, Scotland and Ireland by Sir William Brereton, Hawkins, E. (ed.) (Chetham Society, 1844), I, 139–40.Google Scholar

99 Ibid. p. 291.

100 Davies, , The Caroline captivity of the church, passim.Google Scholar

101 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 10 Mar. 1634/35, I, 381.

102 Michael, Perceval-Maxwell, ‘Protestant faction, the impeachment of Strafford and the origins of the Irish civil war’, Canadian Journal of History, XVII (1982), 235–55.Google Scholar

103 Wedgewood, , Thomas Wentworth, p. 177Google Scholar citing Camden Miscellany, XI (1895), 54Google Scholar; as Ussher retreated from Dublin, it is doubtful he and Wentworth dined often and this incident may have taken place on the one (and only) occasion Wentworth mentions dining with Ussher in a letter to Laud, commenting on the lack of even a communion table at Ussher's house – Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 27 Nov. 1638, II, 250, Laud to Wentworth, 29 Dec. 1638, II, 263. Ussher attended Wentworth at his execution – see Parr, , Life of… James Usher, p. 47Google Scholar; H.M.C., Hastings II, Lettice, Viscountess Falkland to Lucy, Lady Hastings, no date, May 1641, p. 82; Wedgewood, , Thomas Wentworth, pp. 383–4, 386Google Scholar. Bernard, , Life… of… James Usher, p. 86Google Scholar has an allusion to Ussher's prophecy of expecting to live in poverty, which lends extra authority to the anecdote about his interchange with Wentworth over dinner.

104 Wedgewood, , Thomas Wentworth, pp. 226–7Google Scholar, citing Strafford MS VII, Wentworth to Laud, 10 July 1637; Works of… William Laud, Laud to Thomas Wentworth, no date, 1637, VII, 368–9.

105 Works of… William Laud, Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 30 Nov. 1634, VII, 212; H. M. C., Hastings IV, Ussher to John Bramhall, 27 Oct. 1634, p. 70.

106 W.W., Ussher to Samuel Ward, 10 Mar. 1637/38, XVI, 34.

107 William Lamont has pointed out that Arminian doctrine was basically not properly understood by some, like Richard Baxter; and when it was understood, by the 1640s and 1650s, it was no longer feared by many and Baxter even embraced the doctrine. Lamont argues that the greater spectre behind the ‘puritan paranoia’ of the 1620s (and for Ussher, in Ireland, this persists into the 1630s) was the Grotian vision of an end to the schism with Rome – ‘Arminianism: the controversy that never was’ in Nicholas, Phillipson and Quentin, Skinner (eds.), Political discourse in early modem Britain (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 45–66.Google Scholar

108 W.W., Ussher to Samuel Ward, 15 Mar. 1629/30, XV, 480–1.

109 Ibid. Samuel Ward to Ussher, 25 May 1630, XV, 500.

110 Ibid. Samuel Ward to Ussher, 12 Aug. 1634, XVI, 520.

111 Ibid. Ussher to Samuel Ward, 30 Apr. 1634, XV, 578.

112 Ibid. Ussher to Samuel Ward, 15 Sept. 1635, XVI, 9; Peter, Lake, ‘The Laudians and the argument from authority’, Kunze, Bonnelyn Young and Brautigam, Dwight D. (eds.), in Court, country and culture: essays on early modem British history in honour of Perez Zagorin (New York, 1992) p. 152Google Scholar citing Robert, Shelford, Five pious and learned discourses (Cambridge, 1635), p. 11.Google Scholar

113 W.W., John Prideaux to Ussher, 27 Aug. 1638, XV, 419 (W.W. follows Parr in dating this letter 1628, but Trevor-Roper points out that 1628 must be wrong because of the internal evidence of the letter, and suggests it was written 1639–40; ‘James Ussher’ in Catholics, Anglicans and puritans, n. 44 on p. 290Google Scholar. I opt for 1638, suggesting that Parr's dating of 1628 was a misprint of 1638, but make no particular claims for greater accuracy.)

114 The full tide of this work was Gotteschalci et prædestinatianæe controversiæ ab eo motæ historia una cum duplice ejusdem confessione nunc primum in lucem edita. It is reprinted in W.W., IV, 1–233; in 1618 Ussher told Camden a press had been set up but its operations were limited until the 1630s– W.W., Ussher to William Camden, 8 June 1618, XV, 135; Reid, , History of the presbyterian church in Ireland, p. 29Google Scholar; information about the publication of religious controversies through Dublin's press is to be found in Declan, Gaffney, ‘The practice of religious controversy in Dublin, 1600–1641’, in Sheils, W. J. and Diana, Wood (eds.), The churches, Ireland and the Irish, Studies in church history, XXV (Oxford, 1989), 145–58.Google Scholar

115 C.S.P.I. 1625–1632, Ussher to William Laud, 30 June 1631, p. 618.

116 Strafford's letters and dispatches, William Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 9 Sept. 1633, I, III.

117 Rep. W.W., IV, 235–381.

118 W.W., IV, 260, 253.

119 Anthony, Milton, ‘The church of England, Rome, and the true church: the demise of a Jacobean consensus’, in Kenneth, Fincham (ed.), The early Stuart church 1603–1642 (London, 1993), pp. 187–210.Google Scholar

120 H.M.C., Hastings IV, John Bramhall to Ussher, 10 Jan. 1636/37, p. 71.

121 C.U.L. Add. MS 40, Samuel Ward to Ussher, 24 May 1637, fo. 2.

122 H.M.C., Hastings IV, John Bramhall to William Laud, c. June 1637, p. 73.

123 Strafford's letters and dispatches, Thomas Wentworth to William Laud, 18 Oct. 1637, II, 119.

124 Rep. W.W., IV, 573–617.

125 W.W., IV, 611–12; cf. Milton, , ‘The church of England, Rome, and the true church’, in Fincham, The early Stuart church, p. 192.Google Scholar

126 Works of… William Laud, Laud to Thomas Wentworth, 30 July 1638, VII, 463–72, 10 Sept. 1638, p. 482; Strafford's letters and dispatches, Laud to Wentworth, 29 Dec. 1638, II, 263.

127 C.S.P.I. 1533–1647, John Bramhall to William Laud, 23 Feb. 1638/39, p. 182.

128 W.W., Ussher to Samuel Ward, 10 Sept. 1639, XVI, 46.

129 Britannicarum ecclesiarum antiquitates, quibus inserta est pestiferæ adversus Dei gratiam a Pelagio Britanno in ecclesiam inductæ hæresesos Historia, rep. W.W., V, VI

130 C. S. P. D. 1639, Joseph Hall to William Laud, 28 Sept. 1639, pp. 526–7; C. S. P. D. 1639–1640, Laud to Hall, 12 Oct. 1639, pp. 30–1; the treatise appeared as Certaine brief treatises, written by diverse learned men, concerning the ancient and moderne government of the church (Oxford, 1641)Google Scholar, to which Ussher contributed.

131 The crucial importance of the difficulties inherent in ruling three kingdoms on the breakdown of the British state into civil wars in the mid seventeenth century has been recognized in the work of Conrad Russell. See ‘The British background to the Irish rebellion of 1641’ in Unrevolutionary England, 1603–1642 (London, 1990), pp. 263–79 (orig. pubGoogle Scholar. in Historical Research, LXI [1988], 166–82Google Scholar), The causes of the English civil war (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar, The fall of the British monarchies 1637–1642 (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar; Elliott, J. H., ‘A Europe of composite monarchies’, Past and Present, CXXXVII (1992), 52–3, 55–6, 58.Google Scholar

132 Cf. Fitzpatrick, , Seventeenth-century Ireland, pp. 74–6.Google Scholar

133 H.M.C., Hastings IV, William Laud to John Bramhall, 2 Sept. 1639, p. 83, and p. 86 n.

134 Cf. Milton, , ‘The church of England, Rome, and the true church’, in Fincham, The early Stuart church, p. 210Google Scholar in which he argues that ‘the destruction of the Jacobean consensus was finally accomplished, not by the importation of totally new doctrines, but by the manipulation of inconsistencies which lay at its very heart’.

135 Cf. Tyacke, , Anti-Calvinists, pp. 7–8, 136, 185, 223Google Scholar – one of Tyacke's major conclusions, that ‘Arminians… transformed the issue of Protestant conformity’ (p. 246) has enormous implications for the study of Ireland in the 1630s.

136 Cf. Lamont, , ‘Arminianism: the controversy that never was’, in Phillipson, and Skinner, (eds.), Political discourse in early modem Britain, passim.Google Scholar

137 B. L. Add. MS 40, Ussher to Lady Mary Vere, 17 Feb. 1624/25, fo. 32.

138 Parr, , Life of… James Usher, pp. 94, 40–1.Google Scholar

139 Bernard, , Life… of… … James Usher, p. 93Google Scholar calls them ‘eminent persons’; see also Trevor-Roper, , ‘James Ussher’ in Catholics, Anglicans and puritans, p. 148Google Scholar citing Rawdon Papers, E. Berwick (ed.) (1819), George Wentworth to John Bramhall, II June 1640, pp. 78–9.

140 Bernard, , Life… of… James Usher, pp. 93–4Google Scholar and The whole proceedings of the siege of Drogheda in Ireland… (London, 1642)Google Scholar; W.W., 1, 207–8.