Nov. 1. 1851.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



349 



turn to you for the resolution of many of our 

 doubts ; and, under these circumstances, it were 

 better that you spake not at all, than that your 

 language be incomplete or uncertain. But the 

 present question, from the very nature of the case, 

 is involved in some difficulty ; and, to set about 

 the proof of individual instances of the non-celi- 

 bate as a rule of the bishops of the primitive 

 Church, or to discuss probabilities, which have 

 already formed the subject of much TrapaSiaTpiS-ri, 

 would fill more of your pages than you would be 

 ready to devote to such a purpose. It would best 

 then subserve the intentions of your publication, 

 upon such a matter as the present, to direct the 

 attention of your correspondents to accredited 

 sources of information, and leave them to work out 

 the results for themselves. Voluminous are these 

 authorities, but it will be found that the following 

 contam the entire subject in dispute, as presented 

 by the combatants on both sides ; namely. The 

 Defense of the Apologie, edit. fbl. 1571, pp. 194 — 

 231.540 — 545.; Wharton's Treatise of the Celi- 

 bacy of the Clergy, in Gibson's Presei-vative agaiiuit 

 Popery, fol. 1738, vol. i. pp. 278 — 339. ; and 

 Preby. Payne's Texts ExamirCd, &c., in the same, 

 pp. 340 — 359. Previously, however, to commenc- 

 ing the study of these authorities, I would recom- 

 mend a perusal of the statement made by Messrs. 

 Berington and Kirk, on the celibacy of the clergy, 

 in Th^ Faith of Catholics, &c., edit. 1830, p. 384. 



COWGILL. 



[CowGiLL is right: the question of the Marriage of 

 Ecclesiastics is not calculated for our pages. But our 

 correspondent Cephas having impugned the scholar- 

 ship of H. Walter, and the lionesty of the translators 

 of the authorized version, justice required that we 

 should insert Mr. Walter's answer, and one of the 

 many replies we have received in defence of the trans- 

 lators. With these, and Cowgill's references to autho- 

 rities which may be consulted ui)on the question, the 

 discussion in our columns must terminate.] 



JvORD STRAFFOED A'XD ARCHBISHOP USSHEE. 



(Vol. iv., p. 290.) 



The question raised by Peregrinus is one of 

 interest, which a comparison of original and 

 trustworthy writers enables us soon to settle. It 

 is no vulgar calumny which implicates Ussher in 

 the a<lvice which induced Charles I. to consent to 

 the murder of Lord Strafford ; and though it seems 

 not unlikely that from timidity Ussher avoideil 

 giving any advice, but allowed it to be inferred 

 that he coincided in the counsel of Williams ; 

 after weigiiing the evidence on this subject it is, to 

 say the least, impossible for us to believe for an 

 instant that he acted in the same noble manner as 

 Bisho]) .Ju.Kon. Tlius far is clear, that Bishop 

 Juxon, knowing that th(! king was satisfied of the 

 ianocence of Lord Strallbrd, besought him to refuse 



to allow of the execution, and to "trust God with 

 the rest." Neither is it denied that Bishops Wil- 

 liams, Potter, and Morton advised the king to as- 

 sent to the bill of attainder, on the ground that he 

 was only assenting to the deeds of others, and was 

 not himself acting responsibly. And assuredly 

 the same evidence which carries us thus far, will 

 not allow of our supposing that Ussher joined with 

 Juxon, though, as I have said before, he may, 

 when summoned, have avoided giving any advice. 

 The facts seem simply these : when it was known 

 that the king, satisfied of the innocence of Lord 

 Strafford, hesitated about affixing his signature to 

 the bill, or granting a commission to others to do 

 so, the London rabble, lord mayor, and prentice 

 lads were next called up, and the safety of the 

 royal family menaced. This led to the queen's 

 solicitation, that Charles would regard the lives of 

 his family and sacrifice Strafford. Still the king 

 could not be moved. He had scruples of con- 

 science, as well he might. This the peers knowing, 

 they selected four bishops who should satisfy these 

 scruples : the four thus selected were Ussher, Wil- 

 liams, JNIorton, and Potter. On Sunday morning, 

 the 9th of May, the four should have proceeded to 

 Whitehall : the thi-ee latter did so ; but Ussher 

 preferred the safer course of going and preaching 

 at St. Paul's, Covent Garden, leaving to hit brother 

 bishops the task of distinguishing between the 

 king's private conscience and his corporate one. 

 The king, not satisfied to leave the matter in the 

 hands of those specially selected to urge his con- 

 sent, summoned the Privy Council. Juxon was 

 present as Lord Treasurer, and gave that noble 

 and truly Christian advice: "Sir, you know the 

 judgment of your own conscience; I beseech you 

 follow that, and trust God with the rest." Moved 

 by this, and by his own conviction of Strafford's 

 innocence, the king still refused assent ; and it was 

 needful to hold another meeting, which was done 

 in the evening of the same day. As evening ser- 

 vice had not been introduced into churches, Ussher 

 was present at the palace, and by his silence acqui- 

 esced in the advice tendered by Bishop Williams. 

 After the bill was signed, he broke silence in use- 

 less regrets. But it was then too late to benefit 

 Strafford, and quite safe to utter his own opinions. 

 In opposition to this, which rests upon indisput- 

 able evidence, and with which Ussher's own state- 

 ment entirely accords, Peregrinus adduces the 

 fact that Ussher attended Strafford on the scaffold. 

 But what docs this prove ? JMerely that the liiction 

 which would not tolerate that Laud or Juxon 

 should minister the last ofiices of the Church to 

 their dying friend, did not object to Ussher's pre- 

 sence ; and that Strafford, who could have known 

 nothing of what had passed on Sunday in the in- 

 terior of Whitehall, gladly accepted the consola- 

 tions of religion Irom the hands of the timid Primate 

 of all Ireland. 



