SOURCE: Kirk, Rudolf. “A Seventeenth-Century Controversy: Extremism vs. Moderation.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 9, no. 1 (spring 1967): 5-35.

[In this essay, Kirk suggests that Hall's public battle with Henry Burton anticipated his confrontation with Milton and the writers of Smectymnuus. The critic emphasizes Hall's moderation in both conflicts, noting that while it did not serve Hall well in the short term, it may have benefited the Church of England in the end.]

The controversy over episcopacy between Bishop Joseph Hall and John Milton is well known to all students of the poet and to others concerned with the politics leading up to the English Civil War. In this struggle, extreme views held sway, and moderation was swept aside. After the blasts of Smectymnuus, supported by Milton, against Bishop Hall, the advocate of the via media, moderation played little part in affairs. Shortly after this contest Hall was sent to the Tower with other bishops, his property was sequestrated, he was deprived of his episcopal office, and he was forced to retire from his palace in Norwich to a small house at Higham.

Hall had been well known for many years for his moderate attitude toward theological questions. As a delegate to the Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, he had made his position clear by his opposition to the rigid stand of the Calvinists at that meeting. On the crucial subjects of predestination and grace, indeed, he had inclined toward the liberal view of the Arminians, whose theology was close to that of the Church of England. Ten years after this, in 1628, and a dozen years before Smectymnuus, Hall found himself engaged in a sharp contest with Henry Burton, an ardent Puritan. To him, and others, Arminianism was loosely associated with the episcopal government and liturgical forms of the Church of England, and as such, it was anathema. The purpose of this paper is to trace the course of the brief but significant struggle between Hall and Burton, in which Hall's moderate stand was met with violent opposition.

I. HALL'S POSITION

In the autumn of 1627 Dr. Joseph Hall, then Rector of Waltham, was named Bishop of Exeter, a diocese in the western parts of England. He had not greatly longed for this elevation; indeed, he had refused the See of Gloucester three years earlier and had enjoyed his work at Waltham, in Essex, so much that in 1629, after two years at Exeter, he could say to his old friend, Edward, Earl of Norwich, “if none but earthly respects should sway me, I should heartily wish to change this Pallace … for my quiet Cell at Waltham, where I had so sweet leasure to enjoy God, your Lordship, and my selfe,”¹ for he did not relish being drawn into the religious controversy of the day.

Even before Hall was instituted at Exeter, however, while he was still Bishop elect, he published a book in which he attempted to define the position of the Church of England between extremists who were attacking the Church. By November, 1627, over a month before he was consecrated, his printers registered his new book: “The Olde Religion: A Treatise, Wherein is laid downe the true state of the difference betwixt the Reformed, and Romane Church; and the blame of this schisme is cast vpon the true Authors. Serving For the vindication of our innocence, for the setling of wauering minds for a preseruatiue against Popish insinuations. By Ios. Hall, B. of Exon. London, Printed by W. S. for Nathaniell Butter and Richard Hawkings. 1628.”²

In “The Epistle Dedicatorie,” addressed “To My Newe, and Dearely Affected charge, the Diocesse of Exceter,” he explained that “the same God, who hath cald me to the ouer-sight of your Soules, hath wrought in me a zealous desire of your saluation.”³ During the year and a half that had passed since the death of Bishop Valentine Cary, Hall's predecessor at Exeter, the new Bishop evidently had heard rumors of trouble with Puritans. Moreover, there were many who suspected that Hall leaned toward Arminianism: “It hath beene assured mee, that in this time of late Vacancie, false Teachers, catching the Forelocke of occasion, haue beene busie in scattering the tares of errours amongst you.” And he added: “I easily beleeue it; since I know it is not in the power of the greatest vigilancie to hinder their attempts of euill. Euen a full See is no sufficient barre to craftie seducers; Their suggestions wee cannot preuent, their successe wee may.” The Bishop then stated that he intended to prevent the success of these false teachers by “bending my stile against Popish Doctrine, with such Christian moderation, as may argue zeale without malice, desire to winne Soules, no will to gall them.”⁴ Hall cautioned his ‘Deare brethren” against error, “not more busie then subtile,” and he remarked, thinking of the dangers of the Church of Rome, “outward visibilitie may too well stand with an vtter exclusion from saluation.” He then reminded them: “Saluation consists not in a formalitie of profession, but in a soundnesse of beliefe. A true body may be ful of mortall diseases: So is the Romane Church of this day.”⁵ In this dedication, as in his life, Hall expressed the moderate view of the Church of England toward the Church of Rome. As we shall see, however, he was to meet with an immediate rebuff from extremist factions, which in the next two decades would go to war, in fact as well as in thought, for their cause. In consequence of this moderate stand, Hall was never fully accepted by Archbishop William Laud and his followers, who insisted on greater observance of the ancient Catholic forms in liturgy and in Church discipline generally, and, of course, he was heartily disliked by the Puritans, who were not slow in launching a pamphlet war against the Bishop.

When The Olde Religion appeared, probably in the early months of 1628, it brought down upon Bishop Hall's head the fury of a number of Puritans, as is suggested by the fact that later in this same year, the tract was reissued with a phrase added on the title page: “The second Edition with an Advertisement now added, for such Readers as formerly stumbled at some passages in the Booke.” After his text in this edition, the Bishop placed “An Apologeticall advertisement to the Reader,” in which he made clear his disgust with some who, he declared, had misinterpreted his words.

Hall began his “Advertisement” in The Olde Religion with the plaint, “Nothing can bee so well sayd or done, but may bee ill taken.” Therefore, he chose to assume ignorance rather than malice on the part of those who had attacked him: “Whiles I thus sincerely pleade for truth, the well meaning ignorance of some mis-takers hath passed as deepe, as vniust censures vpon mee.” Then he added a clause, referring to his new episcopal position—“as if preferment had changed my note, and taught mee to speake more plausible language concerning the Roman Church, than I either did, or ought.” He pitied “their uncharitablenesse,” but he would try “to rectifie their iudgement.”

Hall pointed out that “The mayne ground” of the complaint made against him by the Puritans was “that I yeeld the Church of Rome a true visible Church.”⁶ Explaining that the phrase was “mis-construed,” he maintained that his meaning was not a defense of Roman Catholicism but rather an attempt to clarify differences in doctrine in regard to outward visible form and inward spiritual grace. He believed the Puritans had missed the point, for they denied that any grace could be found in the Roman Catholic Church. Hall maintained that grace might or might not be found in the Roman Church. “For this (belike) in their apprehension seemes to sound no lesse; then, as if I had sayd, The Church of Rome is a true-beleeuing Church; or a true part of the mysticall body of Christ; A sence, which is as far wide from my words, or thoughts, as from truth it selfe.” He further insisted: “For who sees not, that Visible, referres to outward profession; True, to some essentiall principles of Christianitie, neither of them to soundnesse of beleefe; So as these two may too well stand together, a true visible Church, in respect of outward profession of Christianity; and an heriticall, Apostaticall, Antichristian Synagogue in respect of doctrine and practice.” In succeeding paragraphs he continued his disavowals: “I doe no whit differ from my selfe” and “I differ not from the Iudgement of our best, orthodox, and approuedly classicall Diuines.”⁷

In substantiation of these statements he cited the opinions of many English and Reformed divines of the past century, and referred to his own No Peace with Rome (1611).⁸ Lest his readers “goe away with an idle misprison,” he declared:

Wee are a true visible Church, what neede wee more? why should we wish to bee other then wee are? Alas poore soules, a true visibility may, and doth stand with a false beleefe: Ye may bee of a true visible Church & yet neuer the nearer to heauen …

In The Olde Religion Hall prayed for Peace in the Church, Da pacem. He wished that “if differences in Religion cannot bee auoided, yet that they might bee rightly iudged off, and bee but taken as they are.” He deplored “preiudice in this kinde,” and in his characteristic effort to find a via media, he identified three groups of extremists: (a) “the aduerse part [i.e., the Roman Catholic] brands vs with vniust censures, and with loud clamours cries vs downe for heretickes”; (b) “On the other side, some of ours [i.e., Church of England] doe so sleight the errours of the Romane Church, as if they were not worth our contention; as if our Martyrs had beene rash, and our quarrels trifling”; (c) “Others againe, [i.e., Puritans] doe so aggruate them, as if we could neuer bee at enough defiance with their opinions, nor at enough distance from their communion.” He believed that “All these three are dangerous extremities,” but he considered the third group especially troublesome, because their “zeale transports them to such a detestation of the Romane Church, as if it were all errour, no Church; affecting nothing more, then an vtter opposition to their doctrine and cereminie, because theirs.” He was reminded of Juan de Maldonado, the Spanish Jesuit, who “professeth to mislike and auoide many faire interpretations, not as false, but as Caluins.”⁹

Hall, the Episcopalian, admired Luther, but the Calvinistic Puritans disapproved of him. Hall therefore declared that the extremists against Rome “have not well heeded that charitable profession of zealous Luther (Nos Fatemur, & c.) [.] We professe (saith hee) that vnder the Papacy there is much Christian good, yea all; & c.” In approving the words of Luther, which he believed the Puritans had not sufficiently heeded, Hall declared: “I say moreouer, that vnder the Papacie is true Christianitie, yea the very kernell of Christianitie, & c.”¹⁰

In order to make clear the true visibility of the Roman Church, Hall used two metaphors:

Fundamentall truth is like that Maronæ an wine, which if it be mixed with twenty times so much water holds his strength: The Sepulchre of Christ was ouer-whelmed by the Pagans with earth and rubbish; and more then so; ouer it they built a Temple to their impure Venus; yet still, in spight of malice, there was the Sepulchre of Christ.

In support of his last example, he cited the opinion of the Roman lawyer Papinian, “that a sacred place looseth not the holinesse, with the demolished walles.”

From all of this Hall drew his own conclusion:

No more doth the Romane, loose the claime of a true visible Church, by her manifold and deplorable corruptions; her vnsoundnesse is not lesse apparent, then her being; If she were once the Spouse of Christ, and her adulteries are knowne, yet the diuorce is not sued out.¹¹

Having stated the general grounds of his moderate course, Hall went on to point out the guilt of the Church of Rome and the newness of many of its doctrines, such as justification by inherent righteousness, transubstantiation, and others, each of which, in his opinion, was against Scripture and against Reason. He ended his Treatise on “the true state of the difference betwixt the Reformed, and Romane Church” with a plea for “a serious and feruent opposition” to Rome “ioyned with a charitable endeuour of reclamation”: “Shortly, let vs hate their opinions, striue against their practice, pitie their mis-guiding, neglect their censures, labour their recouerie, pray for their saluation.”¹²

II. BURTON'S ATTACK

Conciliatory to both extremes as Hall's treatise seemed to be, the new bishop was soon under attack from Henry Burton (1578-1648), a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, who, as a younger man, could have known Hall, then a Fellow at Emmanuel. Burton had been Clerk of the Closet to Prince Henry and, after the death of Henry, to Prince Charles, who had become King in 1625. Burton was now rector of Saint Matthew's, Friday-street, London, and an ardent Puritan, seeking every occasion to expose the bishops and the Arminians, who at that time were identified with supporters of the High Church.

Before making an attack on Hall, Burton had already assailed the bishops in a pamphlet entitled “Israels Fast. or, A Meditation Vpon the Seuenth Chapter of Joshua; A faire Precedent for these Times. By H. B. Rector of S. Mathews Fryday-Street … Printed at London. 1628.” Under the guise of a biblical allegory, dedicated “To our Royall Ioshua, and loyall Elders of Israel, the author proposed a fast for the “purging out” of “the Troublers of our Israel,” that is, “Jesuites and Seminary Priests,” “Popish Idols,” and “Neutralizers” or those within the Church of England who “labour to bring in that old Babylonish strumpet hookwinkt.” As an example of the danger he feared, he cited “a certain Booke of Priuate Deuotions (so called) published by Authority,”¹³ namely, A Collection of the Private Devotions or The Houres of Prayer, by John Cosin, who compiled this book in 1627 at the direction of Charles I, and who after the Restoration was to be made Bishop of Durham. Burton also quoted from Religion and Alegiance: In Two Sermons, by Roger Maynwaring, 1627, though he did not name this defense of the divine right of kings.¹⁴ Outraged by the fact that “no Booke may be set out, if it be directly against Popery and Arminianisme: nor against Popery in speciall, but with some qualification, or Ingredient, such as this: That the Church of Rome, though she haue many errours, yet is a true Church,”¹⁵ Burton warns Charles and the Parliament of the dangers from the bishops and from the Arminians, who, Burton believed, leaned toward Roman practices.

Not long after the publication of Israels Fast, Burton published “The Seven Vials Or A briefe and plaine Exposition vpon the 15: and 16: Chapters of the Revelation, very pertinent and profitable for the Church of God in these last times. By H. B. Rector of Saint Matthews Friday-street … Printed by William Jones, dwelling in Red-crosse-street. 1628.” Again he dedicated his book to King Charles, but this time without allegory: “To the High and Mighty Prince, CHARLES, King of GREAT Britaine, France, and Ireland; Defender of the Faith, & c.” Beginning “Dread Soveraine,” he alluded to some recent vexation when he told an anecdote of Diogenes, and declared: “What hee did & suffered for Philosophy's sake, the like or more am I ready to sustaine for the service and honour of Your Majesty. No Discouragements can beat me from this resolution; no not death it selfe.” Obviously referring to remarks made by the King and repeated to him, he wrote: “Yea though I was told Your Majesty was lately offended with me. But I answered, No; I had no reason to believe it.” Then, after some flattery, he revealed the fact that he had been reprimanded by the Bishop of London: “You are the breath of our Nostrills. And as I told my Lord of London, at my first examination about Israels Fast, All that I had done, was for Gods glory, the service of my King & Country, & the Church of England, whereof wee were members; and for which I was ready (if need were) to lay downe my life.” Burton urged His Majesty to read his book, which was a consideration of the seven Vials described in Revelation 16: “It is but the Expense of a few howers, but may exercise Your best meditations and noblest thoughts for many dayes, many yeares after.”

Since Israels Fast had been published without a license, and since Burton was again risking the condemnation of the censor, he carried his case in his “Epistle Dedicatorie” directly to the King, whom he had known personally for many years. He called the King's attention to his situation: “But me thinks I heare some suggest, O Sir, this booke is not licensed.” And he asked, “But whose fault is that? The Authors? Or the Licensers?” He pressed his case by inquiring, “why Orthodox bookes are so borne downe, as they may not be licensed.” Whereas, “Popish & Arminian bookes are licensed; but the contrary, such as are writen in confutation of them, & are according to Gods word, & the doctrine of the Church of England, may not be allowed.” Then he raised the whole issue of freedom of the press and of speech: “So that I humbly submit it to your Maiesties unpartiall iudgement to determine, whether the Printer for printing such a booke as this without license, or he that should license such Orthodox bookes, & will not, according to authority in that behalf, be more worthy of censure.”

Burton believed that the problem of the licensing of orthodox books was important, for “certainly they that suppresse Orthodox bookes, would they not also stop Preachers mouthes, that they should not speake the truth? Yes certainly.” But Burton would not tolerate freedom of speech and of the press for everyone:

For whereas vpon a Proclamation published in your Highnesse name, Iune 14. in the second of your Raigne, expressely forbidding any preaching, or printing of such Doctrines, as were repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of England established, we all hoped, that all Arminian & popish Doctrines would be husht, & silenced; wee by experience find it quite contrary.

We must remember that fifteen years later, when in Areopagitica John Milton pleaded for liberty of the press, he too adopted the same attitude of intolerance, when he wrote: “I mean not tolerated Popery, and open superstition, which as it extirpats all religions and civill supremacies, so it self should be extirpat, provided first that all charitable and compassionat means be us'd to win and regain the weak and the misled.”¹⁶

In the tract that followed, Burton proceeded to analyze and discuss his text, with citations and quotations from the work of Charles's father, King James I. After he had “powred out” the first and then the second of his Seven Vials, and before he came to the third Vial, he averred that “it will be very requisite here to discuss one question, Whether the Church of Rome be either a true Church, or a true visible Church.”¹⁷ The author posed this question and cited several recent books, which he suspected of Romanism. Though he refrained from mentioning the titles,¹⁸ Hall's Olde Religion and books by two other authors can be identified.

Burton first quoted in the Seven Vials from “An Answer to Mr. Fishers Relation of a Third Conference betweene a certain B. (as he stiles him) and himselfe … Which is here giuen by R[ichard]. B[aylie]. Chapleine to the B. that was imployed in the Conference,” published in 1628. Richard Baylie was the chaplain to Bishop William Laud, and Baylie later became dean of Salisbury. Laud is the “B.” whose initial appears in the title of An Answere. Burton quoted the Bishop as saying in the course of the debate, “We acknowledge an honest ignorant Papist may be saued.”

As a Puritan he commented, “This makes well for Popish Ignorance, when all failes,” and raised two Questions: (a) “Whether any Papist, by his religion may be saved,” which he discussed briefly; and (b) “May not a simple Papist, misled by education, or long custome, or over-valuing the soverainty of the Roman Church, and so in the simplicity of his heart imbracing them, finde mercy at Gods hand, by a generall repentance, and faith in the merit of Christ, attended with charity and other vertues?”¹⁹

Having considered the proposition contained in his two Questions, Burton came to his conclusion: “No Papist, as a Papist, whether learned or ignorant, can be saved,” thus reflecting the extreme views of the most zealous Puritans.

Against Hall's treatise The Olde Religion, however, Burton launched his most violent attack in The Seven Vials. In spite of the fact that in the “Apologeticall Advertisement to the Reader,” added to the second edition of The Olde Religion, Hall had attempted to clarify and define more exactly his meaning, Burton did not distinguish between the original and the addition, but he indiscriminately quoted passages from both, silently combining part of the first printing with parts from the second without indicating which he was talking about. For instance, as if quoting exactly, Burton put into one sentence parts of two sentences that he had found on page 190 of the “Advertisement.” Where Hall wrote—

… I yeeld the Church of Rome a true visible Church; wherein, the harsh noyse of a mis-construed phrase offends their eare, and breedes their quarrell. For this (belike) in their apprehension seemes to sound no lesse; then, as if I had sayd, The Church of Rome is a true-beleeuing Church; or a true part of the mystical body of Christ. …

Burton contracted the sentence and destroyed Hall's emphasis: “the Church of Rome is a true visible Church, though not a true beleeuing Church.”²⁰ Then, immediately, without warning his reader, Burton quoted the sentence from the first chapter, in which the Bishop made clear the folly of opposing the doctrine and ceremony of the Roman Church merely “because theirs.”²¹ After arguing for two or three pages against Hall's claim, he quoted from The Olde Religion, “Neither for the chaffe do we leaue the floore of God, neither for the bad fishes doe wee breake his Netts,” only to declare the floor Antichrist's and the nets such as catch “bad fishes.”²² Again where Hall had written, “All truth is sweet; it is indeed Gods, not ours, wheresoeuer it is found, the Kings coyne is currant, though it be found in any impure Channell.”²³ Burton misquoted in The Seven Vials and distorted Hall's meaning: “All truth, wheresoeuer it is found is Gods, not ours, as the Kings coine is currant, though it be found in any impure channell.” Burton continued: “All truth is Gods. True. But when the truth of God is turned into a lye, and this lye put for Gods truth, the case is altered.” Then followed a long figure of speech, after which the author affirmed that “Gods coyne, his pure silver and gold” have been used “to overlay their drosse, or base metall, to make it the more currant with the world, one side being stampt with Christs Image, and superscription, and with Antichrists on the other.” He asked: “And what is all this, but to guild over all those his base metals of false Doctrines, that so they may passe for the more currant Catholicke coyne? Thus Gods truth is vsed but as a bare pretence, to colour over the Popes lyes.”

Burton next picked up the sentence concerning the Maronaean wine, which he admired and on which he punned: “This comparison is pretty, if it did hold water.” But “what if into the Maronaean wine, twentie times so much poyson be put?” Or “Take the Maronaean wine, and extract the spirits out of it, and what is it then, but a dead vappa?” He wrathfully added: “Such is that truth which is now in the Church of Romes keeping, the nature, force and strength of it is quite Abolished, by their mixing twenty times so much of poysoned humaine, or rather diabolicall Inventions with it.”

Turning to Hall's comparison of the sacredness of the Sepulchre of Christ, even though replaced by a heathen temple, he argued against this as a proof of the true visibility of the Roman Church. He could not understand “how the Church of Rome may be proved to be a true visible Church, because once it was so.” His point of view is summed up: “Do not all sound Divines know, that places are not further nor longer sacred, then the vse remaineth, whereupon at first they began to be sacred?”

Burton argued for five pages against Hall's statement, “If the Church of Rome were once the spowse of Christ … yet the divorce is not sued out.” He concluded: “Yea, even he that saith, The Church of Rome is a true visible Church; will confesse withall, that She is Babylon, and the Antichristian Church. Now if she be Babylon, Christ ownes her no longer for his Spouse: come out of her my people.”²⁴

At this point Burton confused the reader by appearing to pursue his attack on Hall's argument as we have shown it drawn from his first chapter. Though he wrote, “But here followes a distinction,”²⁵ he actually quoted a sentence that Hall had written in his last chapter: “As it is a visible Church then, we haue not detracted to hold communion with it (though the contemptuous repulse of so many admonitions haue deserued our alienation) as Babylon, wee can haue nothing to doe with it.”²⁶ In quoting this sentence Burton omitted the parenthetical phrase, thus weakening Hall's emphatic denunciation of Rome. Furthermore, Burton compounded his faults of deception (“here follows a distinction”) and misquotation by claiming that Hall had delayed “till a day after the faire” to distinguish between the visible Church and Babylon.²⁷ In his “Epistle Dedicatorie,” however, Hall had charged his “Deare brethren:”

What euer become of these worthlesse driblets, be sure to look well to the free-hold of your saluation. Errour is not more busie then subtile; Superstition neuer wanted sweet insinuations: make sure worke against these plausible dangers, Suffer not your selues to be drawne into the net by the common stale of the Church; Know that outward visibilitie may too well stand with an vtter exclusion from saluation. Saluation consists not in a formalitie of profession, but in a soundnes of beliefe. A true body may be full of mortall diseases: So is the Roman Church of this day.²⁸

Burton had shown already that he was familiar with Hall's “Apologeticall advertisement to the Reader,” beginning, “Nothing can bee so well sayd or done, but may bee ill taken.”²⁹ He now asked, “But is it well said or done, to affirme that the Church of Rome is yet a true, or a true visible Church?” In putting this question, Burton was of course dodging the point that Hall had striven to make clear. Hall had insisted on the true visibility of the Roman Church, and he pleaded for charity on the part of his reader, but Burton gibingly asked: “whether we had not reason to haue expected an ingenious Palinody, or Augustin-like Retraction, rather then such an Apology; which whether it be rather to be pittied, then any vncharitablenes in the Reader, in taking such a saying ill, let judicious charity it selfe judge.”³⁰

Burton then argued that the Roman Church is not a visible church. Toward the end of this discussion he touches on Hall's citation of his own books written “well neere twenty yeares agone,” all opposing the Roman Church. Burton captiously exclaimed, “Let not antiquitie in the holding of an opinion, prescribe against Truth, Opinions ancient.” Utterly disregarding Hall's stated position, or disdaining to bother with the point, he urged “our Reverend Author” to heed the words of Saint Ambrose, “Nullus pudor est ad meliora transire,” and to be “otherwise minded” than to assert the true visibilitie of the Roman Church. Burton tauntingly referred to the famous Stoic thought and style of Hall: “So shall our Divine Seneca partake also of great S. Augustines prayse, while by an humble and ingenuous Retractation, he shall both purge away the staine, and put a more glorious luster to his most sweet, pious, and, for their kind, vnparalleld workes.”³¹

Burton ended his scathing attack on this “Reverend Antistes,” or head priest, by the following satirical paragraph:

And for me, a poore, vnworthy Minister, I hope his meek and sweet spirit, having well waighed my reasons, and pitied my weaknesses, will be pleased to excuse me of any transportation of zeale, vnlesse herein I haue exceeded the bounds, in presuming so farre vpon the patience of such a Reverend Antistes of our Church. But I trust he will not impute this to any arrogancy of spirit, when it shall appeare, it is to vindicate Christs truth and glory, against the Synagogue of the proud Antichrist.³²

Burton would “Take one instance more,” he declared in Seven Vials, as he turned from Richard Baylie's Answere to Mr. Fishers Replie and from Hall's Olde Religion, to the third object of his attack, A Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attribvtes, by Dr. Thomas Jackson (1579-1640), vicar of St. Nicholas Church in Newcastle upon Tyne. Burton spoke slurringly of the author, because he had dedicated his book to the Earl of Pembroke, who was at that time chancellor of the University of Oxford. The cause of Burton's particular concern was that Jackson was known as a favorer of the doctrines of Luther, which, as we have seen, Hall also approved, and of Arminius, and his advancement would give him a wider audience. Having argued against Jackson's theological view at some length, Burton apologized for “his digression,” noted that the author “inferreth many insolent conclusions,” promised to “name but some of them,” and to proceed “with a touch and away.”³³ In another thirty pages he completed the emptying of his Seven Vials against those who, like Baylie, Hall, and Jackson, seemed to him to be harboring a latent belief in Papistry, and thus endangering, not only Charles, but also the very stability of England.³⁴

III. THE CONTROVERSY ENLARGED

In the altercation between Hall and Burton neither of these men was without his supporters, and, before the fight was over, each of the protagonists would be back in the field in his own defense.

The first to rush to the Bishop's aid was a young man, Robert Butterfield, whose book was registered on 16 October 1628:

Maschil or, A Treatise To Give Instrvction, Touching The state of the Church of Rome since the Councell of Trent, Whether shee be yet a Trve Christian Chvrch, And if she have denied the Fovndation of our Faith, For the Vindication of the right Reuerend Father in God, the L. Bishop of Exeter, from the cavills of H. B. in his Book intituled The seven Vialls. By Robert Bvtterfield, Master of Arts, and Minister of Gods Word … Printed by H. L. and R. T. for N. Butter. 1629

This little book was dedicated “To the Reuerend and Right Worshipfull Mr. Richard Chamber [sic], Dr. of Diuinity, the Encourager of my Studies, and Abettor of my honest Endeauours,” who, Butterfield remarked, had “often extolled” Bishop Hall.³⁵ He said: “The haynous Crime which is layd to the charge of that worthy Bishop, is this, That he is of opinion that the Church of Rome, notwithstanding her manifold and deplorable Corruptions, cannot yet be truly said to bee all Errour, no Church.” He saw Hall “traduced as one that would helpe Poperie over the stile, and censured as one whose Charitie is cold, whose Judgement unsound.”

Because of “this imputation layd vpon the learned Bishop,” the people “thinke his Works vnworthy to be read any longer.” Therefore, Butterfield undertook to defend Hall. He followed the dedication with an epistle, “Robertus Butterfield Magistro Henrico Burton salutem dicit,” in which he took Burton to task for his attack on the Bishop, and among other matters praised Hall's stand at the Synod of Dort: “Et quam Arminio sit amicus, indicio nobis erit eius and Synodum Dordracenam non sine summo vitae discrimine profectio; vbi quàm praeclarè se gesserit, quamdiu per valetudinem ibi manere licuit, nemo qui non inuidus est ignorat.” He concluded: “Non te moror diutius, precor tibi mentem meliorem, & dico. Vale.”

In his Maschil, Butterfield filled his margins with dozens of citations—from the Bible, from the Fathers, from Calvin, from Hooker, Usher, Prideaux, and others of the English Church. He quoted from Burton's Seven Vials and attempted to refute all the principal points alleged by Burton. He informed his reader that the second edition of Hall's Olde Religion, with the “Apology” added, had not come into his hands until he had already written the first part of Maschil, and he said, “had the second Edition of the Reuerend Bishops booke come sooner to my hands, I think I had saued my paines, and not proceeded this farre.”

The second person to come to Hall's defense was the Reverend Hugh Cholmeley,³⁶ Hall's boyhood friend and college mate at Emmanuel, whom Hall had in August 1628 appointed a prebend at Exeter.³⁷ In the dedication to Bishop Hall, Cholmeley reminded Hall that he had approved the writing of this little book when they were together in September. The book was licensed for the press 4 November 1628: “The State of the Now-Romane Chvrch. Discussed By way of vindication of the Right Reuerend Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Exceter, From the weake Cauills of Henry Bvrton.” It was published early in 1629.

In his dedication Cholmeley made it clear that he was aware that a number of persons, and particularly Henry Burton, had spoken against Hall: “There are risen vp, I know not what hot-spurres, and bold Braggadochioes in the Campe, who mutinouslie doe turne weapons from Babel against you; as if you were therefore become their enemy, because you tell them the truth. And amongst other, one Master Henry Burton, hath publikely taken the quarrell vpon himselfe in the name of all the rest.”

In a separate note before the body of his book, Cholmeley addressed the author of the Seven Vials. He explained that he had never met Burton, and he desired to be corrected if anything he said should be in error. He signed himself “Your louing friend, and fellow Labourer in the work of the LORD, H. C.”³⁸

Cholmeley attempted by means of school logic to expose the errors in Burton's arguments in The Seven Vials. In his pamphlet he employed the quotation-and-answer method familiar to the controversialists of that day. Though we need not dwell upon the details of Cholmeley's tract, it is appropriate to quote his words on Bishop Joseph Hall, his old school fellow: “it is well knowne to God and man, that all his courses from the cradle haue beene such, that Fame her selfe may lay her hand vpon her mouth, so as he need not endeauor to purge away any staine, which they shall impute vnto him.”³⁹

Butterfield's and Cholmeley's defenses were possibly not off the press, when the Bishop himself sent out another pamphlet, this one an attempt to restore harmony among the parties of the quarrel, for Hall always liked to think of himself as a man of peace.

On 12 January 1629 Nathaniel Butter, the well-known printer, entered in the Stationers' Registers a little book by Hall, which he published with the following title page: “The Reconciler. An Epistle Pacificatorie of the seeming-differences of opinion concerning the truenesse and visibility of the Roman Church. By Ios: Exon. London. Printed by M. E. for Noth: Butter. 1629.” Hall addressed this Epistle to his old friend and patron, the Earl of Norwich, to whom, as Lord Denny, he had thirty-one years before presented Characters of Vertues and Vices. To the Earl he poured out his distress that his effort to achieve a Christian understanding should have been so badly misconstrued:

My ever honored Lord,

I confesse my charity led me into an error; Your Lordskippe well knows how apt I am to be overtaken with these better deceits of an over kinde credulity. I had thought that any dash of my pen, in a sudden, and easie advertisement, might have served to have quitted that ignorant scandall, which was cast upon my mis-taken assertion, of the true visibility of the Romane Church. The issue proves all otherwise: I finde, to my griefe, that the misunderstanding tenacitie of some zealous spirits hath made it a quarrell.

Deeper than his personal sorrow was Hall's intellectual concern, lest the position of the moderates in the Church of England should be misunderstood:

It cannot but trouble me to see that the position, which is so familiarly current with the best reformed Divines; & which hath beene so oft and long since published by mee without contradiction; yea, not without the approbation and applause of the whole representative body of the Clergie of this kindome, should now be quarrelled, and drawne into the detestation of those that know it not.

Hall assured the Earl: “I doe earnestly desire, by a more full explication, to give cleare satisfaction to all Readers; and by this seasonable reconcilement, to stop the flood-gates of contention.”

In an effort to achieve peace and at the same time to maintain his claim for the true visibility of the Church of Rome, the Bishop revealed a plan whereby he would transmit to the Earl certain “welcome papers,” which by him “should be transmitted to many.”⁴⁰ These letters were not printed in the first edition of The Reconciler; perhaps they were sent with the printed Epistle for his Lordship's perusal in advance. Whatever was the case, we may be sure that the Earl approved them, because, possibly two months later, the second edition appeared with the following title page: “The Reconciler: OR An Epistle Pacificatorie of the seeming differences of opinion concerning the true being and visibilitie of the Roman Church. Enlarged With the Addition of Letters of Resolution, for that purpose, from some famous Divines of our Chvrch. By Jos: Exon. London, Printed for Nath: Bvtter. 1629.”

In the Epistle, Hall restated his case for the true visibility of the Roman Church, and again tried to make his statement in terms that could not be misunderstood. To this end, he altered on the title page the phrase “the truenesse and visibility of the Roman Church,” to read, “the true being and visibility of the Roman Church.” He cited the opinions of many of the most learned men of the Reformed and Roman Churches, and cried out in his vexation:

Christian Reader, let me beseech thee, in the bowels of Christ, to weigh well this matter, and then tell me why such offense, such advantage should bee rather given by my words, than by the same words, in the mouth of Luther, of Calvin, of Zanchie, Iunius, Plessee, Hooker, Andrewes, Field, Crakenthorpe, Bedel, and that whole cloud of learned and pious Authors, who have, without exception, used the same language? And why more by my words, now, than twentie yeares agoe, at which time I published the same truth, in a more ful and liberall expression.⁴¹

In his annoyance he repeated some of his former arguments, but he realized, “It is an unreasonable motion to request mindes prepossessed with prejudice to heare reason.”⁴²

Hall told the Earl that his enemies were envious of his new position as bishop: “Alas, my Lord, I see and grieve to see it; It is my Rochet that hath offended, and not I; In another habit, I, long since, published this, and more, without dislike; It is this colour of innocence that hath bleared some over-tender eyes.” He referred to the supposed rewards of the bishops: “It is the honour, the pompe, the wealth, the pleasure (he saith) of the Episcopall Chaire that is guiltie of the depravation of our Calling; and if himselfe were so overlayd with greatnesse, hee should suspect his owne fidelitie.”⁴³ Hall could only lament concerning Burton: “Alas, poore man, at what distance doth hee see us?” But he would wish for merely a mild revenge:

All the revenge that I would wish to this uncharitable Censurer, should bee this, that hee might bee but for a while adjudged to this so glorious seate of mine; that so his experience might taste the bewitching pleasures of this envied greatnesse; hee should well finde more danger of being over-spent with worke, than of languishing with ease and delicacie.⁴⁴

For the second edition of The Reconciler, which he had “enlarged” with “Letters … from some famous Divines of our Church,” Hall composed a short preface “To the Christian Reader.” This he placed after the Epistle and before the “Letters.”

He now realized that in spite of all he had said and done to pacify the feelings of those who disliked what he had written in The Olde Religion, even after the “Advertisement,” the disagreement had degenerated into a quarrel:

Whiles there might be some colour of ambiguitie of termes, and possibilitie of mis-construction, in that Position concerning the true being, and visibility of the Roman church; I could the lesse marvell that a mistaking should breed a quarrell; but now, after so clear an explication, as I have given of my sense, and so satisfactory a reconcilement, as no ingenuous Christian can except against; I am not a little troubled to see the peace of the church yet disquieted with personal, and unkinde dissertations.

He reiterated the thoughts expressed in The Olde Religion: “we call all Christians to no lesse detestation of the abhominable corruptions, & Idolatries of the Roman Church, notwithstanding the yeeldance of a bootlesse visibilitie, then those that deny it the being, and name of a Church.” He insisted: “Neyther is here the least contradiction to any clause of the Articles of our Church, of England, in that sense wherein I have delivered my selfe.” Finally, he told his readers: “I have craved the judgement of some, of the most eminent & approved Divines of our Church, & the French; whose names are justly reverend; whose workes have made them famous in our gates.”

Hall had written to two bishops and two doctors for their opinions as to the true visibility of the Roman Church, and was in this second edition of the The Reconciler printing his letters and their replies: “Peruse them, Reader, and take satisfaction; and confesse it was they mistaking, and not my errour that made me appeare foule.”⁴⁵

In the second edition there follow Hall's letters to Thomas Morton, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, to John Davenant, bishop of Salisbury, to Dr. John Prideaux, professor of divinity at Oxford, and to Dr. Gilbert Primrose, preacher to the French Church in London, together with their answers. At the end of the volume Hall included a letter that he had written “To my Worthy and much respected Friend Mr. H. Chomley.” To each of these men Hall had sent a copy of his pamphlet.

All the scholars to whom Hall had submitted his Reconciler heartily supported his views. At least two of them, Bishop Morton and Dr. Prideaux, sought out other books in the controversy in order to make more informed answers. Perhaps the opinion of the group may be judged from the words of Bishop Morton, who said that Hall's view was “according to the generall interpretation of all sound professors of the Gospell of Christ.”⁴⁶

The letter to Hugh Cholmeley was of a different nature from the other letters by Hall. Since we find in it a definite reference to a remark by Henry Burton, which is contained in Burton's next pamphlet in this controversy, we shall do well, first, to consider the attacks made on Cholmeley and Butterfield by Henry Burton, and later to return to Hall's letter to Cholmeley.

Some time after the appearance of Robert Butterfield's and Hugh Cholmeley's defenses of The Olde Religion by Bishop Hall, one Thomas Spencer published an undated pamphlet in support of Burton, with the title: “Maschil Vnmasked. In a Treatise Defending this sentence of our Church: Vidz. The present Romish Church hath not the nature of the true Church. Against the publick opposition of Mr. Cholmley, and Mr. Butterfield, two children revolted in opinion from their owne subscription, and the faith of their Mother the Church of England. By Thomas Spencer. London, Printed by William Iones, dwelling in Red-crosse-streete.” Dedicating his tract “To the Commons Hovse of Parliament,” the author maintained “that two revolted children of this our English Church and Common-wealth, are risen vp in hostile manner against their Mother,” which church, so he claimed, “hath decreed” that “The Romish Church, is so farre wide from the nature of the true Church, as nothing can be more.” He said that these two revolters, Cholmeley and Butterfield, “vndertake to maintaine, that, The present Romish Church, hath the true, and formall essence of a Church.” He dissected the arguments of these two opponents, but he devoted himself principally to Butterfield. In concluding, he proved to his own satisfaction that Messrs. Cholmeley and Butterfield should eat their words. Though Spencer seems to have read much in the religious pamphlets that were pouring out of the printing houses at that time, he was not a profoundly learned man. He admitted that he knew no Hebrew, and he quoted almost no Latin. He appears, however, to have been devoted to the Church of England, though opposed to the prelates.

Burton had not finished his attack on Hall and now he could include two newcomers in the fight. Not long after the publication of The Reconciler (whether the first or the second edition is difficult to tell), he replied to the charges of Cholmeley and Butterfield and indirectly to Bishop Hall in a fierce tract: “Babel no Bethel. That is, The Church of Rome no true visible Church of Christ. In answer to Hugh Cholmley's Challenge, and Rob: Butterfields Maschil, two masculine Champions for the Synagogue of Rome. By H. B. Rector of St. Mathews Friday-street … Printed for M. S. 1629.”

This time Burton did not address the King, as he had done in the Seven Vials, for probably Charles had not cared for his attack on the Arminians, the Church of England, and the new Bishop of Exeter. Rather he dedicated his book, “To the High and Honourable Court of Parliament now by Gods mercy assembled, the Spirit of wisdome and vnderstanding, the Spirit of counsell and concent, the Spirit of zeale & courage for Christ and his Truth be multiplyed.” After greeting the “Most Sacred Senate,” the author remarked on the sorry state of religion at the time, and quoted Machiavelli to support his contention that religion is important in a well-ordered state. He demanded, “And when did the state of Religion in our land cry lowder for a repurgation, then now?” He declared, “The babylonish aduersaries were neuer more insolent; more confident.” He called on the reader to “Witnesse two Pamphlets lately published with priuiledge, the one by Hugh Cholmley, the other by Robert Butterfield.” He lamented the publication of books “such as maintaine eyther the Arminian heresie, or the Antichristian Apostacie? Besides the abundance of Popish bookes transported hither from beyond the Seas, to the infinite dammage of simple chapmen, which are bought and sould without checke or controule.”

But Burton had a remedy for the evil state of things: the licensing of Protestant books and the prohibition of the publication of Arminian and Popish books. He had complained in the Seven Vials and elsewhere that only Arminian and Popish books could obtain licenses. In this “Epistle Dedicatorie” to Babel no Bethel he stated of “the Arminian heresie,” “none was euer more damnable, none more repugnant to the grace of the Gospell.” Since many of Burton's books had had to be published without license, he now wrote of the Arminian doctrines, “Which damnable heresies ere now had been beaten to dust, or pressed to death, if the presses might haue had faire play. In the meane time the fautors and authors of them goe prettily on, to keepe their heresies on foot.” And he cited the example of “a profest Arminian booke already printed, hauing lyen a pretty while in the decke, not daring as yet to come abroad, which the feare of some Parliament-storm, like a spring frost keepes backe from putting forth the leaues.” He blazed out:

For the Antichristian Apostacie, and Romish Synagogue is maintained tooth and nayle to be a true visible Church. Which if it were by Iesuites we should not meruail: but the mischiefe is, it is by our own profest Ministers. And it should seem (I craue pardon, if I mistake) as though there were some secret plott, which all the world knowes not, for the reducing either of Popery into England, or England to Popery, or at least reconciling vs together vpon some indifferent termes.

Among the plotters and reconcilers he included Cholmeley, who had spoken “reproachfully” of Burton, “as his constant manner is throuout his booke.”

Burton now came to his point:

Wherefore my hunble suite in the name of Iesus Christ, to this Sacred Senate is, that there may not be left on Idolatrous Masse-monger or Iesuite in this Church, Court, or Country. … For Gods sake therefore, joyne hearts and hands to the purging of the Court, Citie, Countrie, and euery corner of the Land of all popish Priests and Idols. Let not a rag of Romish trumperie be left, to separate vs from our God, to the infatuating of our Counsels, the cowardizing of our English spirits, the ruinating of our State, and Religion, and the betraying of our selues and the neighbouring Churches … to become a prey to the Romish Dragon, or Spanish Eagle.⁴⁷

Though Burton burned with resentment against those who a few months before had refused to license Israels Fast and the Seven Vials, he remained intolerant toward the books of the Papists and the Arminians.

After the publication of the Seven Vials, but before Burton had published Babel no Bethel, the Bishop of Exeter had sent to the two bishops and the two doctors The Reconciler, by means of which he hoped to resolve “the seeming differences of opinion” that were disturbing the intellectual peace and would soon stir the political parties to the point of civil war. Perhaps ironically, or perhaps in an honest effort to win the moderate Bishop Hall to his side, Burton had followed his dedication of Babel no Bethel to Parliament by a two-page letter, “To the right Reuerent Father in God, the Lord Bishop of Exon.” The rector of St. Matthew's began his letter:

Right Reuerend,

Being prouoked and assaulted by two Antagonists, who out of some strange zeale, (whether against the cause I propugne, or towards your Lordship I iudge not) haue heated the furnace of their indignation seuen times hotter then ordinary, to force me bow to the Image of their exalted imagination: I thought it my duty before I enter the lists, to addresse my selfe to your Lordship, not fearing to choose your selfe for Vmpire, whom they haue so deepely ingaged (as I suppose they thinke) in their quarrell.

He went on to express his reliance on Hall's “ingenuity and integritie of iugement, when once you haue heard both parties,” and, referring to the Seven Vials, he wrote: “But first let me craue pardon of your LoP: in case (in a cause so important, as I conceiue) any one drop (in the powering out of those Vials) hath distilled from my pen, which might (for the more praise sake) deserue the spunge.” Burton quoted with approval sentences from The Reconciler, made a reference to his own Babel, and expressed the hope that

I haue followed your truely Episcopall counsell in your Reconciler, by turning my sword into a sith, to cut down the ranke of their corruption of the Romish Synagogue, and any speare into a mattocke, to dig downe the walls of great Babylon, so as, I trust your Lordship and all men shall see the fall of this controversie, lying buried in Babels ruinous heape, whence I hope none will offer to rake it out, and set it on foote againe.

But Hall was not the true object of Burton's attention. Rather he meant to attack Hugh Cholmeley for his book, The State of the Nowe-Romane Church, which he would not treat so mildly as he had treated that of Bishop Hall. Cholmeley had in his tract assumed a haughty tone in saying to Burton, “I suppose myselfe your equal for time, studies, or labour.” This boast Burton could not forgive. In his salutation to Cholmeley, Burton “wisheth more sound Knowledge, more sincere loue of the Truth, more zeale for Christ, and Lesse for Anti-Christ.” Though Burton pretended to find in the Epistle addressed to himself “the mild voyce of Iacob,” in the book itself he said, “I am sure I felt the rough hands of Esau.” He was surprised that

it was possible, that such a one as Mr. Cholmley, should write such a booke, whether wee consider the matter or the style. For the style, or language of it, I tooke it to bee some Iesuites, … and that it was not possible for an Israelite to plow with so sharpe a share, vnlesse hee had borrowed a Philistins file. And for the matter, I wondred as much, how it was possible for an ancient, painefull, laborious Minister of the Church of England, euery way equall (at least) in his Ministeriall labours and studies (as you say of your selfe) to Henry Burton, to take vp the bucklar in such a quarrell.

Burton observed that Cholmeley had written his book “to vindicate the cause of your reuerend Diocesan,” but he felt that in fact the Bishop had been dishonored, for Hall “denieth the Church of Rome to be an Orthodox or true belieuing Church,” a phrase taken right out of the “Advertisement” to The Olde Religion. Referring to the Prebendaryship that Bishop Hall had conferred upon Cholmeley, Burton struck a hard and an unjust blow: “Newther doe I belieue the report to be true, that you are already rewarded with a Prebend for this your good seruice.” We must remember that Cholmeley had received the appointment before he undertook to write in Hall's defense.

Burton next wanted to know how Cholmeley had got his “Plea for Babel licensed for the press.” To Cholmeley's request to Bishop Hall in the last paragraph of his “Epistle Dedicatory,” that he “protect, this vnworthy seuen daies defence of your worthy cause,” Burton replied, “And for ought I know, you may spend Seuen yeares in such a defence, and be neuer the neerer, for all you call mee a Braggadochio.” He wrote that Cholmeley's and Butterfield's books were so worthless and sold so badly that he hesitated to answer them, but that the cause was important.

Cholmeley had made a number of personal remarks, on which Burton sharply commented. He declared Cholmeley “ouer head and eares in a Premunire, for defending a point contrary to the stablished doctrine of the Church of England.” That is to say, Burton accused Cholmeley of acknowledging the supremacy of Rome over the King. He signed himself “Your brother in Christ, but profest adversary in the cause of Antichrist.” Burton was even more scathing in his attack on his second antagonist, than he was on the unfortunate Cholmeley.

Since Butterfield was a young graduate of Clare College, Cambridge, and also a cleric, in the very salutation to his address the author was insulting: “H. Bvrton to Mr. Rob: Bvtterfield, wisheth more ripenesse of yeares, and more soundnesse of judgement, before he doe any more handle such deepe Controuersies.” Burton began by jeering at Butterfield's youthful display of learning: “Master Bvtterfield, let not your iuvenilitie insult, that I answer your Latine Elegancie with my English rusticitie. For it would not be a Decorum in mee to seem to contend with you vpon all terms of paritie or correspondence: suffice it mee I haue not disdained to nominate you in the quarrell.” Burton would not deign to give Butterfield a separate answer: “the substance of the Answere to your Maschil, you may find all along in this to Master Cholmley's.” He would, however, devote a paragraph to “the stupendious [sic] title of your Booke,” because “you would seeme to instruct all the world that you are an Hebrician, and that you had some young Pupils to deale withall.” He would then teach Butterfield some Hebrew, i.e., the difference between two words written with almost the same letter: “me thinkes you should haue named the Child rather Mashchil, then Maschil; Mashchil signifying an Abortiue, one borne before the due time. And for Maschil you might haue kept it to your selfe, for your owne priuate vse and better instruction, how to meddle in such high matters.” Burton would not even grant the young man the courtesy of a signature, but closed with the word, “Farewell.”

Burton proceeded in his tract to dismember Cholmeley and Butterfield by his favorite method, that of school logic, and he reached the same conclusion we have already read in the Seven Vials: “Therefore the Church of Rome is no true visible Church of Christ.”⁴⁸

Of his complete victory he felt no doubt. Addressing Archbishop Laud in 1640 in A Replie to a Relation of the Conference Between William Laude and Mr. Fisher the Jesuite, Burton, when “a closse prisoner and Exile,” wrote that in Babel no Bethel he had “proved the Church of Rome, to be no true Church of Christ, but a meere Antichristian Apostacie from the Faith.” He boasted that his “two hot Antagonists” had not been able to answer his arguments, “because unanswerable.” In the margin, he noted the names of the “two hot Antagonists,” as “Mr. Chalmley [sic], and Mr. Butterfield, who is since gone to Doway and turned Iesuite.”⁴⁹

Bishop Hall did not agree that Burton was the victor. In his letter to Hugh Cholmeley to thank him for The State of the Now-Romane Chvrch, which Hall placed at the end of the second edition of The Reconciler, he wrote: “you haue in a iudicious eye abundantly righted your self, and cleared in a iust cause; so, as the Reader would wonder where an Aduersarie might find ground to raise an opposition.” Hall knew, however, the difficulty of persuading a man against his will, and he felt that the quarrel should be stopped: “Silence hath somtimes quieted such like mis-raised brabbles, neuer, interchange of words.” He remembered what was probably the Martin Marprelate affair of “some fortie yeares agoe,” and observing, “it soone died, without noyse,” he ended, “so I wish it may now doe.” He would not continue the fight, but, confident in the support of the learned divines whose letters he had sought and in The Reconciler printed, he advised dropping it.

Bishop Hall, the childhood and college friend of Cholmeley, wished to soothe the feelings of the old rector: “As for those personall aspersions that are cast vpon you by malice, be perswaded to despise them.” After some further kind remarks, Hall mentioned the prebend in Exeter Cathedral that he had conferred on Cholmeley, which Burton had so unkindly and hypocritically spoken of in Babel no Bethel. He asked, “who would care for a contumely so void of truth?” A “worthlesse gift was conferred vpon you, ere this taske came into either of our thoughts,” and he mentioned “the entire respects betwixt vs, from our very cradles, till this day.” He also explained why Cholmeley preached infrequently, a point which Burton had maliciously brought up. The fact was that Cholmeley had four churches under his charge and was forced to divide his services. Hall could not “sufficiently wonder at the libertie of those men, who professing a strict conscience of their wayes, dare let their pens, or tongues loose to so iniurious and vncharitable detraction, whereof they know the iust auenger is in Heauen; It should not be thus betwixt Brethren, no not with enemies.” Before he closed and, as umpire, awarded “an eternall silence to both parts,” he gave a pat on the back to Butterfield, “Whose yong ripenes, and modest and learned discourse, is worthy of better intertainment then contempt.” Since Hall always sought after peace, he charged Cholmeley as he signed his letter to do likewise:

And let your Zealous Opponents say, that you haue overcomne [sic] your selues in a resolued cessation of pens; and them, in a loue of peace.

Farewell, from your louing

Friend and Colleague.

IOS. EXON.⁵⁰

IV. THE OUTCOME

It is evident that this bitter controversy came to an end because of the episcopal order of this peace-loving Bishop. Since Hall's letter to Cholmeley had been published in The Reconciler, Henry Burton must have known of the order of the Bishop when he belligerently claimed that he had not been answered, because his arguments were “unanswerable.”

In the course of the quarter century following his controversy with Henry Burton, Bishop Hall endured many great troubles. In 1640 he had defended episcopacy, and within the next two years he was to be attacked fiercely by Smectymnuus and John Milton, against both of whom he put up a brave defense. Moreover, he suffered personal calamities in the loss of his wife and of several children. But in these years his words in The Olde Religion were not entirely forgotten by the Puritans, though they were still misinterpreted.

On 5 November, 1654 Hall addressed a long letter to “a private friend,” acknowledging “that strange pamphlet which I received from you yesterday.” Hall remarked that he was “startled to meet so inexpectedly with the name of Bishop Hall disgracefully ranked with priests and Jesuits, and the man that was executed the other day.” This little tract, written, as Hall tells us, by Anthony Sadler, bore the title Inquisitio Anglicana: Or The Disguise Discovered; and had been published a few weeks before. The title-page informs us that the author was petitioning the Lord Protector and High Court of Parliament against the Commissioners for the Approbation of Ministers, who had delayed and finally denied confirmation of a living which had already been presented to Sadler by the Lady Pagett. As the title suggests, Sadler asserted that the present English government was adopting the practices of the Spanish Inquisition. In the course of the Second Examination, reported in the Inquisitio held on July 3, 1654, one of the Commissioners asked Sadler, “What doe you say of the Church of Rome? Is it a True Church or no?” And he continued, “Bishop Hall saies, it is a True Church, and the Priests and Jesuites, and He that was Executed the other day, said, It was a True Church: What say you?”

Poor Sadler, knowing the temper of the Commissioners, replied, “Its [sic] no True Church. I think the Church of Rome is a Virgin Defloured; She was Pure, but she is Defiled.” Evidently the answer was unsatisfactory, for Sadler concluded, “Then they bid me Withdraw.” As far as we know, he was never confirmed in this living.

Addressing the unknown man who sent him the pamphlet, Hall again stated the case he had so ardently fought for in the “Apologeticall advertisement” attached to the end of the second edition of The Olde Religion. Though hurt to find himself so completely misrepresented, Hall treated Sadler and the Commissioner with charity when he wrote:

I am confident if Mr. Sadler had had leisure to have considered, he would rather have distinguished than denied; and the questionist, whoever he was, would upon second thoughts have thought good to suffer my innocent name to rest in peace; whereas now he hath wronged me, and himself more, in drawing upon himself an opinion of either ignorance or uncharitableness, or both. God forgive him; I do.⁵¹

In Hall's autobiographical essay, entitled “Observations Of some Specialities of Divine Providence In the Life of Jos. Hall, Bishop of Norwich,” the Bishop summarized his view of the altercation with Burton:

… I adventured to set my pen on work; desiring to rectifie the Opinions of those men, whom an ignorant zeal had transported, to the prejudice of our holy Cause, laying forth the Damnable corruptions of the Roman Church, yet making our game of the outward visibility thereof, and by this means putting them to the probation, of those newly obtruded corruptions which are truly guilty of the breach betwixt us; The drift whereof, being not well conceived, by some spirits, that were not so wise as fervent, I was suddenly exposed to the rash censures of many well affected and zealous Protestants, as if I had in a Remission to my wonted zeal to the Truth attributed too much to the Roman Church, and strengthened the adversaries hands and weakened our own; This envy I was fain to take off by my speedy Apologeticall advertisement, and after that by my Reconciler, seconded with the unanimous Letters of such Reverend, Learned, sound Divines, both Bishops and Doctors, as whose undoubtable authority, was able to bear down calumny it self; which done I did by a seasonable moderation provide for the Peace of the Church, in silencing both my defendants and challengers, in this unkind and ill-raised quarrell …⁵²

Burton, too, summarized his concept of the quarrel, which was included in A Narration of the Life of Mr. Henry Burton, 1643. Speaking of the books he had attacked, he wrote:

A third was a Book of Dr. Hall B. of Exceter, wherein he affirmed the Church of Rome to be a true Church. Which in a Treatise of mine upon the 7. Vials I occasionally confuting, and Mr. Cholmley his Chaplen, and Mr. Butterfield another Minister, making each of them a severall reply, I thereupon made one full answer to them both, so as both sate down, and replyed no more; and Dr. Hall himselfe would salve or rather dawbe up the matter, by begging the suffrages of two Bishops, and two Doctors, who so shuffled together each his own Cards, that they easily make one pack. And wel might they both shuffle, pack, cut, and deale, when no answer was permitted to be published. But for all that, my Babel no Bethel, remains intire, and unshaken by any of their breaths, saving that some of their black mouths laboured to besmeare me with their proud scorne. And for so writing against the Church of Rome, as no true Church of Christ, and because such kind of Bookes were printed without licence when none could be obtained, I was brought the first and second time into the High Commission, whence I had not escaped without cindging at least, to make me smell of it ever after, if not sigmatizing either in my name or purse, had I not come in time to procure a Prohibition in the Court of Justice, before the doore was shut, which was not long after, the Bishop having a little before my Prohibition threatened in open Court, that whosoever after that of Mr. Pryns then rendered, should be the next (which fell to my lot) to dare to bring a Prohibition there, he would set him fast by the heeles. But instead of setting me by the heeles, he hung me up by the head; for the next morning after that my Prohibition was tendered in Court, whereat the whole Board was husht, he sent his Pursuivant for me, and anew quarrelled with me for my late preaching against bowing at the Name of Jesus; and though I told him that it was first injoyned by the Pope, and shewed by Scripture it had no ground there: yet he proceeded to suspend me from preaching. But I appealing from him to the Arches of Canterbury (which afterwards I came to see, was no better then to goe from the black Witches inchantment to be healed with the Spell of the White Witch) and held him so to it, that he was glad to loose me againe from my suspension.

In this dispute between the Bishop of Exeter and Henry Burton, 1628-1629, we seem to have a preview of the Smectymnuun quarrel of 1641, when John Milton made his furious assault on the Bishop. In this paper we have attempted to show Hall, the moderate bishop, opposing Burton, the Puritan extremist, as he later opposed Milton.

The character of “Dictator Burton” was described by his contemporary, Peter Heylyn, a supporter of Archbishop Laud, as that of “a man in whom the Element of fire had the most predominancie, which made that which is zeale in others, to be in him a zealous furie. The rather since he had deceived himselfe in his expectations, and swallowed down those hopes, he could not digest.”

Heylyn continued:

He had beene a servant in the Closet to His Sacred Majestie, then Prince of Wales: and questionlesse being in the Ascendant, he thought to Culminate. But when he saw those hopes had failed him, and that by reason of his violent and factious carriage, he was commanded to depart the Court, he thought it then high time to Court the people; that he might get in the hundreds, what he lost in the Countie. This pincheth him it seemes, to this very day; and he is so ingenious [sic], (which I wonder at) as to let us know it.⁵³

It is not to be expected that a man of Burton's temperament would have considered patiently such a judicious and staid tract as The Olde Religion. On the other side, Hall's moderation aroused the suspicions of Archbishop Laud, who, Hall wrote in his Observations, sent spies to Exeter to report on the Bishop's conformity. The King, too, who liked Hall well enough to translate him from Exeter to Norwich and who could have profited by his moderate counsels, was not to be swayed from his extreme course. Within a few years the lives of both Laud and Charles were ended on the block though Hall survived the storm.

The real root of the quarrel which has here been recounted was the position of the prelates, who seemed to Burton, the Calvinist, to sympathize with Rome. Bishop Hall did not fail to understand this underlying objection to the very organization of the Church of England. We have read his plaint to the Earl of Norwich, “It is my Rochet that hath offended, and not I.” This same point was made again four years after Hall's death in the preface to The Shaking of the Olive-Tree (1660). The anonymous writer deplored the “prejudiced eyes of this Age and Generation, who cannot indure innocency it self, when habited in a Rochet.” Referring to Hall's character, he commented: “happy is it for him, that the blackest Stigma that can be fastned upon him, is that his robes were whiter then his Brethrens, that only the coat of our Joseph hath drawn their envy upon him, the Mr. Dr. Hall was not the object of their distast, but the Bishop.”⁵⁴

Burton, like Milton some years afterwards, inveighed against censorship and against the bishops, but his extreme doctrines could not prevail; and he lost his living, suffered imprisonment for many years, and even had his ears cut off by order of the Star Chamber. Hall, too, was to endure persecution at the hands of Parliament, and to be driven from his cathedral. It is noteworthy, however, that before the century ended the extreme views of the Royalists and of the Puritans, alike, were rejected by the country. The Church and the Crown at last came to accept a moderate course between High Church Arminianism and Puritanism, one not far from that suggested in The Olde Religion, by the Bishop of Exeter. Joseph Hall, by courageously holding to the via media against extremists from both sides, thus helped to establish the Church of England on a firm foundation.

Notes

1. The Reconciler, 1629, first edition, pp. 34-35. A chronological list of the tracts discussed in this paper follows:

   Richard Baylie, An Answer to Mr. Fisher's Replie, 1624; Roger Maynwaring, Religion and Alegiance, 1627; Thomas Jackson, Treatise of the Divine Essence and Attributes, 1628; Henry Burton, A Tryall of Private Devotions, 1628; Joseph Hall, The Olde Religion (entered 21 November, 1627), 1628 (second edition with “Apologeticall advertisement,” 1628; third edition, 1630); Henry Burton, Israels Fast (later than 2 August 1628), 1628; Henry Burton, Seven Vials (after Israels Fast), 1628; Robert Butterfield, Maschil (entered 16 October, 1628), 1629; Hugh Cholmeley, State of Now-Romane Church (entered 4 November, 1628), 1629; Thomas Spencer, Maschil Unmasked, c. 1629; Joseph Hall, Reconciler (entered 12 January 1629), 1629 (“Enlarged” edition 1629); Henry Burton, Babel no Bethel (after Reconciler), 1629; Henry Burton, A Replie to a Relation, 1640; Anthony Sadler, Inquisitio Anglicana, 1654; Joseph Hall, The Shaking of the Olive Tree, 1660.

   The author is indebted to the Henry E. Huntington Library for a grant-in-aid, which enabled him to study all of the items concerning the controversy between Bishop Hall and Henry Burton.

2. Stationers' Registers, IV, 189. The Olde Religion was entered to Nathaniel Butter and Richard Hawkins: The Olde Religion, or a treatise wherein is layd Downe the true State of the difference betweene the Reformed and Roman Church. by Joseph Hall elect Bishop of Exeter.

3. The Olde Religion, 1628, sig. ¶₃-¶₃^v.

4. Ibid. sigs. ¶₄-¶₄^v 184-185. The New English Dictionary furnishes us with the following definition: “Visible Church: the church as visibly consisting of its professed members upon earth; contrasted with the church invisible, or mystical.”

5. Olde Religion, sigs. †₈^v-A^v.

6. Ibid., pp. 191-192.

7. Ibid., pp. 192-194.

8. Ibid., pp. 215-217.

9. Olde Religion, pp. 3-5.

10. Ibid., pp. 5-6. Burton (Seven Vials, p. 45) quotes the sentence from Luther and the one from Hall's comment (“I say moreouer, that under the Papacie is true Christianitie”) as if they were both from Luther.

11. Ibid., pp. 6-7.

12. Ibid., p. 189.

13. Israels Fast, 1628, sig. A₂-B₂^v. This book was a reply to “A Proclamation for a generall Fast” issued by King Charles, 29 March 1628, of which Burton disapproved. Israels Fast must have been published after 2 August 1628, for this date is mentioned on page 15.

14. Ibid., sig. B₃. Burton quotes and paraphrases from Maynwaring's first sermon, page 11: “that Kings are partakers of Gods owne Omnipotency.” On B₃^v Burton quotes: “Iustice can be no Rule or Medium, whereby to giue God, or the King his right.” In substance this sentence occurs on page 25 of Maynwaring's second sermon.

15. Ibid., sig. B₂^v-B₃.

16. Complete Prose Works of John Milton, edited by Don M. Wolfe (New Haven, Connecticut, 1959), II, 565.

17. Seven Vials, p. 28.

18. Burton says: “… onely I omitt, for the present, to mention the names of the bookes or authours, if happily they may check themselues, and retract their errours, or call in their bookes, by the same authority whereby they were published, least persisting in them, they proue heresyes, and that not of the lowest kinde, and so come to fill vp the measure of this Viall (Seven Vials, p. 111).

19. Seven Vials, pp. 30-33. An Answere, p. 68, includes after “Christ” the clause “as eyther to returne euill for euill in this headie course.”

20. Seven Vials, p. 33.

21. Olde Religion, p. 5.

22. Seven Vials, p. 36.

23. Olde Religion, p. 5.

24. Seven Vials, p. 36-44.

25. Ibid., p. 44.

26. Olde Religion, p. 185.

27. This type of deception is typical of many Puritan controversialists. See Donald J. McGinn, The Admonition Controversy (New Brunswick, 1949), especially Chapters IV and V. Dr. McGinn's more recent work, The Marprelate Controversy (New Brunswick, 1966), gives important background for a study of the Hall-Burton Controversy. I am grateful to Dr. McGinn for his careful reading and criticism of this paper on Bishop Hall and Henry Burton.

28. Olde Religion, sig. A₃^v-A₄.

29. Burton misquoted Hall's sentence: “… nothing can be said, or done, but may be ill taken.”

30. Seven Vials, pp. 47-48.

31. Ibid., p. 52. Burton's reference in this quotation to Hall as “our Divine Seneca” is the earliest occurrence I have found of this appellation, which has been well known since Thomas Fuller called Hall “our English Seneca” in the Worthies, 1662. Sir Thomas Aston mentions “our English Seneca, Bishop Hall” (Remonstrance against Presbitery, 1641). Professor Franklin B. Williams, Jr., called my attention to the use of the term by Hall's colleague at the Synod of Dort, Dr. John Davenport, who spoke of “that true Christian English Seneca (The Christians Daily Walke, 1631), and Professor Philip A. Smith reported (PMLA, LXIII, 1203) that Richard Whitlock spoke of “our English Divine Seneca” (Zootamia, 1654).

32. Seven Vials, pp. 51-52.

33. From the epistle “To the Reader” prefixed by Henry Burton to A Tryall of Private Devotions, 1628, we learn that Burton had incurred the disapproval of parishoners and neighbors. To Burton it seemed that he was considered a mad man: “I heare, Alas poore Burton, he is crackt.” Like the fanatic he undoubtedly was, Burton combatted “the censures of the wise world:” “What shall I say? Am I crackt? Wherewith? Not, I am sure, either with too much learning (as Festus charged Paul,) or too much living. And if I am mad, I am not the first. Even the Prophets of old were so accounted. When one of them was sent to annoint Iehu, his followers said, what said this mad fellow to thee? Yea Christ the Prince of Prophets escaped not this doome: He is mad, why heare yee him?” The thought of Christ's suffering, strengthened him: “Patiently therefore will I beare his reproach.”

34. Seven Vials, pp. 113-117. Burton quotes from Jackson's Treatise of the Divine Essence again and again. These references are on the margins of pages 119 to 123 of the Seven Vials. There are various short quotations; for instance, three parts of sentences quoted by Burton on page 114 are to be found on pages 148-149 of A Treatise of the Divine Essence.

    In Seven Vials, p. 114, Burton speaks of “transcendental speculations.” This use of the word “transcendental” is earlier than any occurrence recorded in the New English Dictionary. On page 113 Burton attributes the phrase to Thomas Jackson.

35. Though the identification is not certain, Butterfield's patron was apparently Richard Chambers, who was born about 1583, matriculated from St. John's College, Cambridge, circa 1595, and received his D.D. in 1614.

36. The spelling of Cholmeley's name is as it is given at the end of the dedication, on the assumption that the author himself preferred this spelling.

37. Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae. Compiled by John Le Neve. Corrected and continued by T. Hardy, London, 1854, I, 423.

38. State of the Now-Romane Chvrch, sig. A5.

39. Ibid., p. 114.

40. Reconciler, first edition, pp. 1-3.

41. Ibid., pp. 23-24.

42. Ibid., p. 29.

43. Ibid., p. 30.

44. Ibid., pp. 32-33; in second edition, pp. 31-33.

45. Reconciler, second edition, pp. 37-43.

46. Ibid., p. 67.

47. Babel no Bethel, “The Epistle Dedicatorie.”

48. Ibid., p. 129.

49. Replie to a Relation, pp. 69-70.

50. Reconciler, second edition, pp. 137-148.

51. The Works of the Right Reverend Joseph Hall, D. D., edited by Philip Wynter, Oxford, 1863, X, 529-532.

52. The Shaking of the Olive-Tree. The Remaining Works of that Incomparable Prelate Joseph Hall, D.D. Late Lord Bishop of Norwich … London 1660, p. 40. The names of the “Reverend, Learned, sound Divines” are listed in the margin: “B. Morton, B. Davenant, Dr. Prideaux, Dr. Primrose.”

53. A Briefe and Moderate Answer, to The seditious and scandalous Challenges of Henry Burton, late of Friday-Streete … By Peter Heylyn … Anno Domini 1637. “The Preface,” sigs a3^v-a4^v.

54. Shaking of the Olive-Tree, sigs. a3 and verse.