Page images

continuance of the last Parliament.In truth, I purposely omitted all these particulars in my preceding letters ; partly, advertisement of the death of Bertius, who over-lived his own credit and reputation.” And on the 21st of January 1629, the same gentleman wrote thus :

“ I wrote to your Grace in my former letter, of Mr. Vossius being here in England. Within these two days I heard from him, by Mr. Junius his brother-in-law, who went over with him: He liked his entertainment so well in England, that he hath now a good mind to settle himself here."

It appears, that Archbishop Usher wished to provide some good preferment for Vossius in Ireland, and for that purpose addressed a letter to Laud, who was then Bishop of London, and who wrote a reply on the 23 of Feb. 1629, of which the following is an extract: “ It is true, my Lord, God hath restored me, even from death itself; for I think no map was farther gone, and scaped. And your Grace doth very cbristan-like put me in mind, that, God having revewed my lease, I should pay him an income of some service to his church; which I hope, in the strength of his grace, I shall ever be willing and some time able to perform.--As touching the Deanery of Armagh, I am glad to hear, that any place of preferment in that kingdom bath so good means of subsistence without tythes. But I must needs acquaint your Grace, that neither my Lord of Winchester that now is, nor Dr. Lindsell, did ever acquaint me with your Grace's purpose of drawing Johanues Gerardus Vossius into those parts: Had I known it in time, the business might have been easier than now it will be.-For, First, Upon an attempt made by the Lord Brook to bring Vossius iuto England, to be a reader in Cambridge, the States [of Holland) allowed him better maintenance, and were unwilling to have him come: And himself was not very willing, in regard of his wife and many children, being loath to bring them from all their kindred and friends into a strange place. And if he were unwilling upon these grounds to come into England, I doubt whether he will venture to Ireland or not.But, Secondly, my Lord, since this, my Lord Duke (of Buckingham] in his life-time procured him, of his majesty, the reversion of a Prebend in Canterbury, which is since fallen. And Vossius came over into England in the time of my infirmity, and was installed ; and I was glad I had the happiness to see him. After he had seen both the Universities, he returned home again ; and, within these two days, I received a letter from him of the safety of his return thither. The church of Canterbury, notwithstanding his absence, allow him

a hundred pounds a year, as they formerly did to Mr. Casaubon. Now, I think, the Prebend of Canterbury, would he have been priest and resided upon it, would have been as much to him as the Deanery of Armagh. But, howsoever, the king, having given him ibat preferment already, will hardly be brought to give him another, especially considering what I could write unto you, were it fit. Nevertheless, out of my love to the work you mention, if you can prevail with Vossius to be willing, and that it may appear the Deanery of Armagb will be of sufficient means for him and his numerous family, if your Grace then certify me of it, I will venture to speak, and do such offices as shall be fit.”

Thus, it seems, Archbisbop Usher was as culpable as the Bishop of London in granting, encouragement to professed Armiuians. Indeed, the whole affair, if fully explained, would serve highly to enbance the Lord Primate's character: For it is known to all the learned, that he and Vossius differed on the subject of Godeschalchus and his opinions, and that the Archbishop published in 1632 a History of Godeschalchus, and of the Predestinarian controversy excited by him, which he addressed to Vossius, and in which he tried to correct some of the supposed mis-statements in the Pelagian History:-Bishop Laud's letter contains an allusion to one which he had received from Vossius, only two days before, relating “ the safety of his return.” In that letter Vossius says : “ By the Divine favour, I found all things exactly in the same situation as they were when I departed. It is scarcely possible for me to recount the number of those who, during the few first days, waited upon me to welcome my return : Nearly, the whole of their diseourse was occupied about his most serene majesty King Charles, or his privy counsellors. Their judgments and conclusions were exceedingly dissimilar, according to the stronger attachment which each of them felt for Monarchy or Democracy, for the ancient or for the modern Church. Indeed,

because this affair, how lightly soever I might touch it; is a sore, which, since I could not heal it, I was unwilling to chafe I by no means arrogate to myself any depth of intelligence respecting those matters which eoncern the public affairs of the kivgdom: For I know well how far they transcend the capacity which I possess, whom God has placed in a station that is much inferior. Yet my sense of religion would not permit me to do otherwise than encounter their intemperance with expressions of modesty and friendship: I mean the intemperance of those persons who, in their own eyes, seem to touch heaven with a finger, if they be able in any possible way to injure the name and reputation of the individuals upon whose safety and continuance in office depends the welfare of Great Britain, and without whose ruin the present state of the kingdom and of the Church cannot be overturned. But though my discourse made no advantageous impression upon those who have no relish for any thing, except what is popular and novel, yet the more prudent kind were glad to have their scroples and surmises removed, which had been injected into them by the calumpies of some men of a seditious spirit," &c. This letter, written thirteen years prior to the death of Bishop Laud, is in proof of the dreadful animosity of the Dutch Presbyterians against every thing which bore the name of Episcopacy or Monarchy. In the United Provinces, the political storm which overwhelmed England was, for many years, in a course of formation; and several of the Republican Sectaries, who lent their willing aid to effect that revolution, had been adventurous and voluntary exiles in Holland, but returned as soon as they were informed, that they might desseminate their seditious principles with impunity. On the 21st of July, 1630, Bishop Laud in his brief reply to some of the preceding remarks, says: “ I am sufficiently aware of the kind of friends that will be found among you, by those who are in any way whatsoever favourers of the royal authority and of the ancient church. You have acquitted yourself to very good purpose, if you have removed the doubts and scruples of the more prudent party; and with regard to those who are lovers of sedition, I refer them to the populace, for whom let him care that has any desire. Your letter does not make mention of my name, but I understand the matter well enough, and can perceive in it much madness and extravagance. I wish you to know, that though I am not engaged in allaying the tempests which in these days agitate the Church, yet by the favour of God, I will neither faulter towards the cause, por fail in the performance of my duty. In the mean time it is apparent to every one, that while the Church is tossed about by waves, the kingdom is subject to imminent peril," &c.

The reader will perceive, that all these occurrences transpired some time before Vossius applied to Bishop, Laud in favour of bis friend Grotius; and perhaps some of the reasons advanced in page 634, why Grotius was not invited into England, will apply remotely to the case of Vossius, who, in a letter to his friend then residing in Paris, says, iu reference to his British voyage: “I was received with such honour and favourg-by his most serene majesty the King, by the Archbishop, by Earls, Barons, Bishops, by the chief men in each of the Universities, aud by others who are famous either for their dignities or by their learning, -as was not suitable to Vossius, but to one who was much his superior. And I was not suffered to depart until I had been exalted to the dignity of a Prebendary of Canterbury, on this sole condition to enjoy the perquisites of the office in a foreign country: I do not know whether this affair

bas procured for me a greater portion of honour from some men, or of envy from others to whom the moderation of my mind is ungrateful. But I may adopt the phrase of the Theban hard [Pindar) and say, It is a more easy matter to sustain envy, than to require pity." To this part of his friend's communication Grotius replied, after polite con gratulations : “ Beside the advantages which accrue to you from this honour, it is one of great eminence, and, so far as I know,

never yet bestowed on any foreigner, except yourself and Peter Du Moulin. It is the same thing as to have merited the freedom of the city of Corinth." in the succeeding troubles, the conduct of Du Moulin was detestable and ungrateful: See pages 282, 392: That of Vossius was timid and peaceable; he sighed in secret when he beheld the destruction of the fairest ecclesiastical fabric in the world, though, with the feelings of a man born under a Republic, be

[ocr errors]

and irritate ;* and partly, because nothing was at any time more unpleasant to me than (nidum proprium födare] to circulate an unfavourable report concerning my own country. Another

did not approve of all the measures which were at first devised by the Court of king Charles for the suppression of seditions. But Grotius excelled both these men, in a noble disinterestedness and unsubdued courage.—Many reflections suggest themselves on a perusal of this correspondence, which the well-informed reader will easily discover and improve.

But I cannot close this long note without saying, that the family of Vossiuş, independently of his personal merits which were uncommonly great, had just claims on the gratitude of Great Britain and of Christendom itself. Francis Ion or JUNIUS, who was father-in-law to Vossius, with the assistance of the celebrated Tremellius, gave the Protestants of Europe one of the earliest and best Latin versions of the Old Testament. Its excellence will soon be appreciated, if a comparison be instituted between it and our own admirable translation ; indeed, the one seems to be almost a literal rendering of the other, as far as the genius of the two languages would admit of a close resemblance. His writings on other subjects, and especially on religious toleration, are entitled to the highest commendation. His moderate views on Predestination, had been extensively promulgated in the Low Countries, before the name of Arminius had attained any of its subsequent just celebrity; and the circulation of those views, 'heyoud any other circumstance, prepared the way for scriptural Arminianism. The son, who is said in Sir H. Bourchier's letter to be "c Vossius's brother-in-law," was likewise called Francis JUNIUS: He came into England in 1620, and was, I believe, through the interest of Grotius, admitted into the family of the Earl of Arundel, whose name stands high in the annals of learning as one of the noble contributors to the scientific treasures of his native country. Under the roof of that munificent patron of learning Junius resided thirty years, and is well known, to all the lovers of our national literature, as the most profound Anglo-Saxon scholar in Europe. The matchless' stores of his extensive eruditiou, which served to revive in England the needful study of the ancient northern tongues, enrich the University of Oxford, and have received from all competent British lexicographers their due meed of praise. His fame likewise is not inconsiderable on account of his admirable book on the Paintings of the Ancients, which was published at London both in Latin and English.—1 regret to add, that Isaac Vossius, the son of Gerard John, though in many respects a great man, did not prove himself as worthy of the high patronage which he obtained, as did honest Meric Casaubon. See

The discrepancies in the dates of Laud's letters, and in those of Vossius, will be easily accounted for and rectified by those who know, that the computation of time according the Gregorian Calendar (was used in the one country, while the other adhered to the Old Style of reckoning.

* The exertions of Bishop Laud during that session of Parliament, will be described in the subsequent notes. At the opening of the preceding short Session of 1627, he preached before the Parliament, as Dr. Heylin informs

“ To make himself more gracious in the eyes of the people, bis majesty releaseth such gentlemen as had been formerly imprisoned about the Loan; which in effect was but the letting loose of so many hungry lions to pursue and worry him : For, being looked upon as confessors, if not martyrs, for the common-wealth, upon the merit of those sufferings they were generally preferred afore all others to serve in Parliament; and, being so preferred, they carried as generally with them a viudicative spirit, to revenge themselves for that restraint, by a restraining of the prerogative within narrower bounds. At the opening of this Parliament, March 17, the preaching of the sermon was committed to [Dr. Laud] the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who shewed much honest art in persuading them to endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peuce, (Ephes. iv, 3.) which he had taken for his

In wbich, first laying before them the excellency and effects of unity, he told them, amongst other things, ' that it was a very charitable tie, but

page 380

us :


U u

reason was, because I wished to say nothing concerning the Parliament except what was good, and truth would not always better kn wn than loved ; a thing so good, that it was never broken but by the worst men; nay, so good it was, that the very worst men pretended best when they broke it,

and that it was so in the Church, never yet heretic renting ber bowels, but he pretended that be raked them for truth; that it was so also in the State, seldom any uuquiet spirit dividing her union, but he pretends some great abuses which his integrity would remedy: O that I were made a judge in the land, that every man which hath any contro

versy might come to me, that I might do him justice :' And yet no worse 'a man than David was king when this cuuning was used ! (1 Sam. 15.)

That Unity both in church and common-wealth was so good, that none but the worst willingly broke it; that even they were so far ashamed of • the breach, that they must seem holier than the rest, that they may be • thought to have had a just cause to break it.'. And afterwards coming by degrees to an application,

« Good God!' saith he,' what a preposterous thrift is this in men, to sew up every small rent in their own coat, and not care what rents they not only suffer but make in the coat of Christ? What is it? Is Christ only thought fit to wear a torn garment? Or can we thiuk that the Spirit of Unity, which is one with Christ, will not depart to seek warmer cloathing? or if he be not gone already, why is there not Uvity, · which is wherever he is ? or if he be but yet gone from other parts of Chris,

tendom, in any case (for the passion, and in the bowels of Jesus Christ, I • beg it) let us make stay of bim here in our parts,' &c. Which sermon (being all of the same piece) so well pleased the hearers, that his majesty gave command to have it printed."

This excellent sermon gave much offence to several of the high spirits in the House of Commons, who presented their celebrated REMONSTRANCE to king Charles on the 17th of June, in which “ Neile Bishop of Winchester, and Laud Bishop of Bath and Wells" are called “the principal patrons of the growing faction of the Arminians, who are Protestants in show, but Jesuits in opinion and practice.” ,(See page 327) The Royal answer to that Remonstrance is generally ascribed to the pen of Laud, whose uncommon abilities, on the recommendation of the Duke of Buckingbam, bad then been brought into public notice, and they were ever afterwards devoted to the service of his sovereigu. He was consecrated Bishop of St David's in 1621, and Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1626; and he had scarcely been a month installed in the Bishopric of London, when, on the 23rd of August, 1628, bis patron the Duke of Buckingham was murdered at Portsmouth by Felton. Bishop Laud and the rest of his Majesty's counsellors were then left to prosecute two unpopular wars, (page 598) and to procure the necessary supplies from a refractory Parliament. To call an ecclesiastical personage, thus recently brought into employment, a prime mover in all public matters,” is an egregious misnomer; yet the same tale is repeated, for purposes that are very obvious, by men whose historical information must have taught them many of the peculiar difficulties which Bishop Laud was compelled to encounter, during the succeeding five years of civil bickering and preparations for intestine warfare till, in 1633, he was nominated Archbishop of Canterbury. All the fury of the Puritans, wbich had been concentrating itself from the time of the Synod of Dort, was then turned against him; and the malice of that party ultimately vented itself in his murder, and in that of the Earl of Stratford, whose iutimacy with Bishop Laud commenced at this particular juncture, and is thus described by Dr. Heylin : “ Sir Richard Weston then Lord Treasurer, created afterwards Earl of Portland, having gained him to the king, not only procured him to be one of his majesty's Privy Council, but to be made Lord President of the North, and advanced unto the title of Viscount Weutworth: Being so gained unto the king, he became the most devout friend of the Church, the greatest zealot for advancing the Monarchical interest, and the ablest minister of State both for peace and war, that any of our former histories have afforded to us. He had out long frequented the Council-Table, when Laud and he, coming to a right understanding of one another, entered into a league of such inviolable friendship

allow me, if I spoke at all, to say any thing in commendation of that parliament.* But the principal cause of my silence was

that nothing but the inevitable stroke of death could part them; and, joining hearts and hands together, co-operated froin thenceforth for advancing the honour of the Church, and his Majesty's service.” On “this co-operation" of two celebrated men, and the similarity of their fate, the following lines from loyal old Cleaveland are very expressive:

“ How could success such villanies applaud ?
The STATE in Stratford fell, the CHURCH in Laud;
The twins of public rage, adjudg’d to die
For treasons they should act hy prophecy!
The facts were done before the laws were made,
The trump turn'd up after the game was play'd!
Be dull, great spirits, and forbear to climb!
For worth is sin, and eminence a erime.
No church-man can be innocent and high,

'Tis beight makes Grautham steeple stand awry." The difficulties with which they and the other ministers of the Crown had to contend, were of no common magnitude : Comparatively little versed in affairs of State, it was their province not only to rectify the errors and imprudences of their predecessors, but to introduce a better state of things, though the measures which they devised were not such as in every respect to command the admiration of an enlightened posterity. But their deeds, if judged with equity, must be subjected to another standard than our modern and more eplightened opinions. The year 1628, whieh may be reckoned the first of Laud's political life, was exceedingly disastrous ; and, on the 25th of Oct. in that year, he gave to his friend Vossius the following relation of the troubles which he had been called to eudure : “I return to that indescribable grief with which I am oppressed on account of the ever-to-belamented murder of the illustrious Duke, &c. Now listen to the marked occurrences of this-a year most inauspicious to me : At the commencement of it, as you already know, I broke the tendon of my leg, and still walk lamely. The sermon at the opening of the session of Parliament succeeded; the delivery of wbich the king imposed upon me while I was in a very infirm condition, and it was an office both of peril and difficulty in the existing posture of our affairs. Soon afterwards the Duke of Buckingham, who was extremely dear to me, by I know not what kind of fatality, was killed most unhappily and not without the aid of the devil : This unfortunate circumstance occurred at the close of a Session, in which peither he nor I found the most friendly treatment. I indulged in unfeigned and secret grief at this loss; and, after many sighs, I contracted a severe disorder, from which I have not yet fully recovered. Four of my servants have been attacked by various diseases, and another of them is dead of the pleurisy: And I do not know the evils which the succeeding portion of this calamitous year threatens to inflict. But it is God, whose servant I am! His presence with you and yours, by his special grace, is earnestly implored by

Yours most affectionately,

WILLIAM LONDON.” This letter elucidates some of the facts related in page 661; and it proves the high value which king Charles attached to the good Bishop's services even as an ecclesiastic, when he laid upon him, in that state of weakness, his royal commands to preach at the commencement of the Session. But the Bishop was a man whose spirit never knew what fear was, when his duty to his sovereigp or to the church called him to the performance of services in which he might encounter either “ peril or difficulty.” This noble bravery of spirit was too frequently called into exercise by those who required its powerful assistance: Avd it was this circumstance, which, beyond all others, accelerated the Archbishop's downfal.

* In a subsequent note from Baker's Chronicle, the conduct of that Par.. liament is faithfully pourtrayed. Archbishop Laud had advised his Majesty

« PreviousContinue »