-
One of the most poignant poems in Herbert's "Church" is the one entitled
"Church-rents and schismes," a poem that forms a sad contrast with the idealized vision of
"The British Church" presented thirty pages earlier:
I joy, deare Mother, when I view
Thy perfect lineaments and hue
Both sweet and bright . . .
A fine aspect in fit array,
Neither too mean, nor yet too gay,
Shows who is best.[1]
But now the Rose of Sharon, the Church, the Bride of Christ (according to traditional
interpretation of the Song of Songs) has been shredded by controversy:
Brave rose, (alas!) where art thou? in the chair
Where thou didst lately so triumph and shine
A worm doth sit, whose many feet and hair
Are the more foul, the more thou wert divine.
This, this hath done it, this did bite the root
And bottoms of the leaves: which when the winde
Did once perceive, it blew them underfoot,
Where rude unhallow'd steps do crush and grinde
Their beauteous glories. Onely shreds of thee,
And those all bitten, in thy chair I see.
-
In the next stanza Herbert takes a long view of the history of the Church, which,
according to traditional thinking, began with the covenant made by God with Abraham
(Genesis 17). Over the years of the Old Testament the Church suffered a decline for
causes represented by the "abominations" denounced by the Prophets; but the sacrifice of
Christ restored the Church to health.
Why doth my Mother blush? is she the rose,
And shows it so? Indeed Christs precious bloud
Gave you a colour once; which when your foes
Thought to let out, the bleeding did you good,
And made you look much fresher than before.
Now a second decline has begun:
But when debates and fretting jealousies
Did worm and work within you more and more,
Your colour faded, and calamities
Turned your ruddie into pale and bleak:
Your health and beautie both began to break.
Then with the Church thus weakened, neighbors from the north, the Scottish
Presbyterians, took advantage of the controversies to refuse obedience to the governance
and ritual of the British Church against the attacks of the Scottish Calvinist, Andrew
Melville:
Then did your sev'rall parts unloose and start:
Which when your neighbors saw, like a north-winde
They rushed in, and cast them in the dirt
Where Pagans tread. O Mother deare and kinde,
Where shall I get me eyes enough to weep,
As many eyes as starres? since it is night,
And much of Asia and Europe fast asleep,
And ev'n all Africk; would at least I might
With these two poore ones lick up all thy dew,
Which falls by night, and poure it out for you!
The unusual extravagance of this conclusion indicates the depth of Herbert's anguish over
current attacks on his Church.
-
The causes of controversy were manifold, deriving essentially from the
predestinarian theology of Calvin, as opposed to those theologies that believed in the
operations of free will. The doctrine of predestined reprobation was one of the most bitter
points of controversy, because, as its opponents argued, the doctrine might appear to
make God the creator of evil. But no, the strict Calvinists argued, evil derives from the sin
of Adam, which corrupted the whole human race; God, out of his goodness, has chosen to
select a small group of individuals for salvation by the Sacrifice of Christ, leaving the rest
to perdition. But this solution seemed to raise more problems than it answered. If God
predestined the fate of all before the beginning of time, why was the Sacrifice of Christ
needed? And why, when Christ declares that he came for all, why should so few be
selected for salvation?
As Nicholas Tyacke points out,[2] the Calvinist doctrine of grace received by
predestination was antithetical to the traditional doctrine of grace received through the
sacraments of Baptism and Communion. Consequently, to strict Calvinists, these
sacraments could not perform the function of grace, but became tokens of a faith already
granted. Ceremonies celebrating the Presence were therefore unjustified, and, indeed,
"papistical." George Herbert, as a moderate member of the British Church, apparently
wanted to have it both ways: effectual sacraments, and a limited form of predestination -- a
form allowable under the widespread acceptance of the doctrine of God's foreknowledge,
a doctrine which argued that God predestined individuals to salvation or damnation
because he knew what their lives and actions would be. This doctrine was bitterly denied
by strict Calvinists because it opened the way for some degree of reward for "good life."
But nothing in the articles of the British Church prevented someone from privately holding
this belief, as apparently Herbert did, when he concluded his poem "The Water-course" by
saying that God grants Salvation and Damnation "as he sees fit."
-
It may be significant that the word "predestination" occurs only once in the entire
Temple, and there, in "The Thanksgiving," the word comes in the ironical context of a
promise to engage in "good works" -- to merit a favorable predestination, as it seems:
For thy predestination I'le contrive,
That three yeares hence, if I survive,
I'le build a spittle, or mend common wayes,
But mend mine own without delayes.[3]
-
Herbert's belief in the efficacy of the sacraments appears to have undergone
considerable development since his early years at Cambridge, epicenter of Calvinism in
England. The early version of his sonnet "H. Baptisme" makes no mention of the Sacrifice
of Christ and refers only to the abstract "streams" "above the Heavens" that evidently
grant a saving faith to the sinner:
As he that Heaven beyond much thicket spyes
I pass the shades, & fixe upon the true
Waters above the heavens. Or sweet streams
You do prevent most sins & for the rest
You give us teares to wash them . . . .[4]
The final version stresses the relation between Christ's Sacrifice and those "streames" of
grace:
So when I view my sinnes, mine eyes remove
More backward still, and to that water flie,
Which is above the heav'ns, whose spring and vent
Is my deare Redeemers pierced side.
O blessed streams! either ye do prevent
And stop our sinnes from growing thick and wide,
Or else give tears to drown them as they grow.
-
Similarly, his early poem "The H. Communion" makes no claim for the
sacrament's efficacy, but ponders with a surprising lack of reverence the various
controversial views of the Communion, dismissing the problems with a sarcastic tone
arising, no doubt, from his impatience with all this controversy:
First I am sure, whether bread stay
O whether Bread doe fly away
Concerneth bread, not mee . . .
Then of this also I am sure
That thou didst all those pains endure
To'abolish Sinn, not Wheat . . .
I could beleeve an Impanation
At the rate of an Incarnation,
If thou hadst dyde for Bread.[5]
-
In striking contrast, the utterly different poem "The H. Communion" that appears in The
Temple displays a tone of devout reverence, while the poem allows a measure of efficacy
to the physical "quantities" of the sacrament:
But by the way of nourishment and strength
Thou [Christ] creep'st into my breast;
Making thy way my rest.
And thy small quantities my length;
Which spread their forces into every part,
Meeting sinnes force and art.
But these, he adds, cannot "get over to my soul":
Onely thy grace, which with these elements comes,
Knoweth the ready way,
And hath the privie key,
Op'ning the souls most subtile rooms;
While those to spirits refin'd, at doore attend
Dispatches from their friend.
That is to say, Christ, speaking within the soul, sends messages to the physical elements.
This is not the predetermined grace of Calvinism: it is a grace "which with these
elements comes." How Christ is thus so powerfully present Herbert does not explain.
Perhaps he would agree with his younger contemporary Jeremy Taylor, when, in his Holy
Living, he advises: "Dispute not concerning the secret of the mystery, and the nicety of the
manner of Christ's presence: it is sufficient to thee that Christ shall be present to thy soul,
as an instrument of grace."[6] Herbert seems thus to take the Presence in the last stanza of
the lyric that forms the conclusion of this double poem:
Thou hast restor'd us to this ease
By this thy heav'nly bloud;
Which I can go to, when I please,
And leave th'earth to their food.
We should note that the early version of this lyric, entitled "Prayer," contains no such
eucharistic allusion in its ending.[7]
-
Finally, in the twin Communion poems "The Invitation" and "The Banquet" (which
do not appear in the early manuscript), the speaker's fervor arises directly from the taking
of an operative sacrament:
O what sweetnesse from the bowl
Fills my soul,
Such as is, and makes divine!
Is some starre (fled from the sphere)
Melted there,
As we sugar melt in wine?
Or hath sweetnesse in the bread
Made a head
To subdue the smell of sinne;
Flowers and gummes, and powders giving
All their living,
Lest the Enemy should winne?
Doubtlesse, neither starre nor flower
Hath the power
Such a sweetnesse to impart:
Onely God, who gives perfumes,
Flesh assumes,
And with it perfumes my heart.
Here, then, is a sacrament that deserves an appropriate ceremony, as Herbert
explains in The Country Parson, recommending "that there be a fitting, and sightly
Communion Cloth of fine linnen, with an handsome, and seemly Carpet of good and
costly Stuffe, and all kept sweet and clean, in a strong and decent chest, with a Chalice,
and Cover, and a Stoop, or Flagon . . ." But one should not mistake this for the sort of
ceremony that the Reformers were denouncing: "And all this he doth, not as out of
necessity, or as putting a holiness in the things, but as desiring to keep the middle way
between superstition and slovenlinesse . . . ."[8] Herbert, as always, is well aware of the
controversies swirling about him.
-
The twenty-seven poems that occur between "The British Church" and "Church-rents and schismes" provide evidence of Herbert's deep concern over these "fretting"
controversies. Most obvious is "Divinitie," where Herbert strenuously objects to the
current haggling over minute points of doctrine:
Could not that Wisdome, which first broacht the wine,
Have thicken'd it with definitions?
And jagg'd his seamlesse coat, had that been fine,
With curious questions and divisions?
But all the doctrine, which he taught and gave,
Was cleare as heav'n, from whence it came,
At least those beams of truth, which onely save,
Surpasse in brightnesse any flame.
-
But this is the very problem: what are "those beams of truth, which onely save"? Simple
assertion will not bring peace: people will still argue over the sacrament of Communion,
perversely asking, "But he doth bid us take his bloud for wine." Of course Christ bid
nothing of the sort. But does that drinking of the wine have a redeeming effect? This is
the problem, which Herbert seems to answer in his poem "Peace." After many vain
searches,
At length I met a rev'rend good old man,
Whom when for Peace
I did demand, he thus began:
There was a Prince of old
At Salem dwelt, who liv'd with good increase
Of flock and fold.
This is a clear allusion to Melchisedec, "king of Salem, which is king of peace" (Hebrews
7:2), who "brought forth bread and wine" (Genesis 14:18) -- a "type" of Christ. This would seem to lead into a definition of the meaning of the
Communion:
He sweetly liv'd; yet sweetnesse did not save
His life from foes.
But after death out of his grave
There sprang twelve stalks of wheat:
Which many wondring at, got some of those
To plant and set.
It prosper'd strangely, and did soon disperse
Through all the earth:
For they that taste it do rehearse,
That vertue lies therein,
A secret vertue bringing peace and mirth
By flight of sinne.
There is then a secret power within the sacrament: "vertue lies therein, / A secret
vertue" -- "vertue" in the old sense of "operative influence."[9] It is not a mere token of
faith.
-
But as the poem concludes, another possibility emerges as the "rev'rend good old
man" ends his sermon:
Take of this grain, which in my garden grows,
And grows for you;
Make bread of it, and that repose
And peace, which ev'rywhere
With so much earnestnesse you do pursue,
Is onely there.
"Take of this grain" seems to echo the Communion ritual, but the stress falls on "bread";
there is no mention of the wine. Then one thinks: how did the apostles spread their
message over the earth? It was by preaching the Word. Preaching then may be the grain
that leads to "the bread of life," as in the famous verses of John's Gospel: "I am the bread
of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst" (John 6:35). Here, perhaps, is another of Herbert's generous ambiguities: a strict
Calvinist could read this passage as affirming the "secret vertue" of the Scriptures to be
revealed by preaching.
-
Still, the emphasis of other poems in this section falls upon the Communion, as in
the last two lines of "The Bunch of Grapes" or the lines (40-45) of "Love Unknown,"
where the naïve speaker, a true Calvinist, sees himself as one of the chosen. He bathes his
heart "ev'n with holy bloud, / Which at a board, while many drunk bare wine, / A friend
did steal into my cup for good . . ." Yet "The Method" is clearly a poem of free will
presenting a God whose will is not predestinating, but whose judgments are affected by
human acts:
Poore heart, lament.
For since thy God refuseth still,
There is some rub, some discontent,
Which cools his will.
Thy Father could
Quickly effect, what thou dost move;
For he is Power: and sure he would;
For he is Love.
. . . . . . . . .
Then once more pray:
Down with thy knees, up with thy voice.
Seek pardon first, and God will say,
Glad heart rejoyce.
With such conflicting views, peace is never possible, as Herbert testifies in his
poem "The Familie," which may be taken both as a personal reproach and as an implied
allusion to the rents and schisms of the Church:
What doth this noise of thoughts within my heart,
As if they had a part?
What do these loud complaints and puling fears,
As if there were no rule or eares?
But, Lord, the house and familie are thine,
Though some of them repine.
Turn out these wranglers, which defile thy seat:
For where thou dwellest all is neat.
Such conflicts, as Achsah Guibbory argues,[10] inevitably lie at the center of Herbert's
poems. He was writing his later poetry -- the ninety-five poems that do not appear in the
early Williams manuscript -- at precisely the time when religious conflict in England was
rising to a crisis. In the year of his ordination as deacon (1624), the case of Richard
Montagu was being hotly argued in Parliament, with Pym leading the charge of "heresy"
and "popery" against Montagu's inflammatory treatise of 1623, A New Gagg, which
defended free will and the sacraments.[11] In the same year, 1624, Herbert, apparently for
reasons of family, served briefly as a member of Parliament for Montgomery. We do not
know whether Herbert attended any of the sessions devoted to denouncing Richard
Montagu, but we can hardly doubt that he followed the proceedings closely. At this time
Herbert was also caught in a cross-fire from his relatives. His older brother Edward (Lord
Herbert of Cherbury) had published in Paris in 1624 a philosophical treatise, De Veritate,
which contained several anti-Calvinist passages.[12] Meanwhile Herbert's kinsman and
patron, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was strongly supporting the Calvinist position.
Montagu suffered no penalty for his bold anti-Calvinist utterance -- and later, under Laud,
became a bishop.
This emergence of "Arminianism" under the aegis of Laud and Charles I may seem
to represent a sudden shift caused by the change of kings in 1625. But the change was not
really sudden. Ever since the early years of the century, as Nicholas Tyacke has shown, a
rising tide of discontent with strict Calvinism was appearing, encouraged by the anti-Calvinist movement led by Arminius in Holland. Montagu would never have dared to
make his bold utterance if he had not felt that the time was ripe, that he would have
influential supporters among both clergy and laymen, restless under the Calvinist strictures
set forth so bluntly in the famous Lambeth Articles of 1595[13] -- articles that the strict
Calvinists were constantly seeking to have officially adopted as the creed of the British
Church, in order to clarify the ecumenical vagueness of the Thirty-nine Articles.
Among those supporters, by implication, was the man who in 1621 became the
Dean of St. Paul's, John Donne, whose sermons, early and late, contain many passages
that strongly disagree with Calvinism. He issues the challenge openly, knowing that many
of his audience are attuned to Calvinism. Thus in the famous passage from a sermon of
1620 -- the part beginning "I am not all here" -- Donne continues: "You are not all here
neither; you are here now, hearing me, and yet you are thinking that you have heard a
better Sermon somewhere else, of this text before; you are here, and yet you think you
could have heard some other doctrine of down-right Predestination, and Reprobation
roundly delivered somewhere else with more edification to you . . ." (3: 110).[14]
-
And again, in an undated sermon, but earlier than 1621, Donne strikes out at the
current views and practices of English Calvinism:
[W]ee are fallen upon such times, too, as that men doe not thinke themselves
Christians, except they can tell what God meant to doe with them before he
meant they should be Christians; for we can be intended to be Christians,
but from Christ; and Wee must needs seek a Predestination, without any relation
to Christ; a decree in God for salvation, and damnation, before any decree for
the reparation of mankind, by Christ. Every Common-placer will adventure
to teach, and every artificer will pretend to understand the purpose, yea, and the
order, too, and method of Gods eternall and unrevealed decree. (3: 338)
Donne's sermons set forth a deliberate, careful, reasoned attack on the dominant
Calvinism of the older generation. Against their "marks of election" he sets a broader
assurance: that when God says All he means All. Donne declares every human being's
access to salvation, every human being's possession of the indestructible Image of God,
the interior trinity of Augustine, represented in the three powers of the soul, Memory,
Understanding, and Will.[15] Moreover he declares (in a sermon of 1618) that every
person has the ability to use those faculties (under the grace available to all) in such a way
that "our natural faculties, formerly bound up in a corrupt inability to do so, [are] now
able to concurre with [God], and cooperate to good actions." (1: 313) Adam forfeited his
free will, and our free will with his -- "But yet," Donne says (in a sermon of 1615) the robe
of righteousness restored our faculties to create not only "as S Austin qualifies it, a
restitution to the same integrity, which Adam had and had lost, but [a robe] that was
Amictus sapientiae; (so S. Ambrose calls it) it was an ability to preserve himself in that
integrity, to which he was restored . . . so the faculty of free-will works in us as well as it
did in Adam though onely the grace of God enable that faculty" (1: 162-63).
Donne's position is most clearly set forth in his Whitsunday sermon of around
1620, which the Georges, in their influential book,[16] cite as an example of what they
regard as Donne's almost unique departure from the dominant Calvinism of the clergy in
his time. Here Donne first guards himself by launching a series of strong attacks on
Roman doctrine and practice in the earlier part of his sermon; then he concludes with a
potent and withering attack on the Calvinist doctrine of reprobation as it was represented
by William Perkins and others of the old Calvinist generation.
They are too good husbands, and too thrifty of Gods grace, too
sparing of the Holy Ghost; that restraine Gods generall propositions,
Venite omnes, Let all come, and Vult omnes salvos, God would have all
men saved, so particularly, as to say, that when God sayes All, he
meanes some of all sorts, some Men, some Women, some Jews, some
Gentiles, some rich, some poore, but he does not meane, as he
seemes to say, simply All. Yes; God does meane, simply All, so as that
no man can say to another, God meanes not thee, no man can say to himselfe,
God meanes not me.
"The blood of Christ was shed for all that will apply it," Donne insists. "And the Holy
Ghost is willing to fall, with the sprinkling of that blood, upon all that do not resist
him . . . ." (5: 53-4) Similarly, in a sermon of 1618 he opposes the Calvinist doctrine of
irresistible grace:
[S]hall we still trust to such a power, or such a measure of that Grace,
at last, as that we shall not be able to resist, but shall convert us
whether we will or no, and never concur willingly with Gods present
grace? Draw me, and I will run after thee, saies the Spouse: she was
called before, now she awakens; and she does not say draw me . . . and
lay all upon the force of grace, but draw me and I will run; she
promises an application and concurrence on her part. So then venit
salvare, is venit vocare. He came to save by calling us, as an eloquent
and a perswasive man draws his Auditory, but yet imprints no
necessity upon the faculty of the will . . . . (1: 313)
-
Indeed this view of free will is latent in his famous Satire III, where his command
and cry, "Seeke true religion. O where?" would have no meaning if the speaker did not
feel that somehow within himself he had the power to climb, about and about, up that hills
toward truth. The basic point of view in Satire III is surely Protestant: the speaker will
allow no earthly law or power to come between the individual soul and God:
Keepe the truth which thou 'hast found; men do not stand
In so 'ill case here, that God hath with his hand
Sign'd Kings blanck-charters to kill whom they hate,
Nor are they Vicars, but hangmen to Fate.
Foole and wretch, wilt thou let thy Soule be ty'd
To mans lawes, by which she shall no be try'd
At the last day?[17]
-
In this satire, Donne makes a significant reference to the term protestant:
"To
adore, or scorne an image, or protest, / May all be bad." Donne is using the term protest
with strict etymological, legal, and historic accuracy to designate the Lutherans, the
original protestantes -- a term applied to the rulers and citizens of Germany who had made
their formal protestation against the edict of the Diet of Spires in 1529, an edict against
the Reformation. As the OED explains, "In the 16th c. the name Protestant was generally
taken in Germany by the Lutherans; while the Swiss and French called themselves
Reformed." In Satire III Donne is, as usual, making precise distinctions. To adore an
image is Roman, to scorn an image is Genevan, to protest is to be a Lutheran, that is, to
live somewhere between the two extremes, as Luther did by retaining a version of the Real
Presence in the eucharist by his doctrine of consubstantiation.
-
Donne made the point clear in a sermon of 1627, where he discusses the proper
use of pictures, images, in worship. He begins by tactfully recognizing Calvin as his
opponent on this issue. Calvin, "out of his religious wisdome," says Donne, conceded that
at the beginning of the Reformation there were many that needed pictures "because then
they had no other way of Instruction"; but now, Calvin says, that need can be supplied
with sermons. "And this is true," Donne concedes on his own part, "that where there is a
frequent preaching, there is no necessity of pictures; but will not every man adde this, That
if the true use of Pictures bee preached unto them, there is no danger of an abuse; and so,
as Remembrancers of that which hath been taught in the Pulpit, they may be
retained";
and he adds, "they may bee retained here [in England], as they are in the greatest part of
the Reformed Church, and in all that, that is properly Protestant"
(7: 432). Here Donne
is treating the Reformed Church as larger than strict Calvinism and distinguishing the
Reformed from the Lutheran -- those properly called Protestant, who retained much of
the old imagery and ritual, in accord with the view that Donne presents in his Candlemas
sermon of (probably) 1626-7:
The Church of God, in the outward and ceremoniall part of his
worship, did not disdain the ceremonies of the Gentiles; Men who are
so severe, as to condemne, and to remove from the Church,
whatsoever was in use among the Gentiles before, may, before they
are aware, become Surveyors, and Controllers upon Christ himself, in
the institution of his greatest seales: for Baptisme, which is the
Sacrament of purification by washing in water, and the very
Sacrament of the Supper it self, religious eating, and drinking in the
Temple, were in use amongst the Gentiles too. It is a perverse way,
rather to abolish Things and Names, (for vehement zeale will work
upon Names as well as Things) because they have been abused, then
to reduce them [lead them back] to their right use. (7: 325)
-
The implied relation of ceremonies to sacraments here may remind us once again that the
quarrel with the Puritans was not at its heart concerned with external matters of ceremony.
It was concerned with what those ceremonies were celebrating. Donne put it plainly in his
poem "The Crosse":
From mee, no Pulpit, nor misgrounded law,
Nor scandall taken, shall this Crosse withdraw,
It shall not, for it cannot; for, the losse
Of this Crosse, were to mee another Crosse;
Better were worse, for, no affliction,
No Crosse is so extreme, as to have none.
Who can blot out the Crosse, which th'instrument
Of God, dew'd on mee in the Sacrament? [18]
-
Donne did not become the most famous preacher in the London of his day because
he spoke what a firmly Calvinist audience wished to hear. On the contrary, his sermons
seem to recognize a widespread need to be free of Calvinist dominance among the clergy,
to be free of the fears of reprobation that, later on, John Bunyan so vividly described in his
Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners.
-
What we are watching in the poetry and prose of Donne and Herbert is, I believe,
the gradual passing away of the dominant power of strict Calvinism; and indeed, as the
framers of the Lambeth Articles believed, it might be said that there is no true Calvinism
that is not strict. When one denies, or refuses to declare predestined reprobation, or asserts
some measure of free will, or allows some degree of efficacy in the sacraments, it may be
said, and indeed it was said, that one is no longer a Calvinist. One may use Calvinist
terminology and thought as part of an effort to accommodate the old and the new, as
Herbert does in some of his poems, while holding firmly to the Church that keeps its
ancient traditions, purified and reformed in the light of a broader protestantism than Calvin
could offer -- a Church closer to Lutheranism in many ways. This is the
"Church" that is,
as I read it, contained within George Herbert's Temple.
-
Finally, we should note that Donne strongly opposed the view that only a few are
chosen, saying, in a sermon of 1624:
[T]here are an infinite number of Stars more then we can distinguish,
and so, by Gods grace, there may be an infinite number of soules
saved, more then those, of whose salvation, we discerne the ways, and
the meanes. Let us embrace the way which God hath given us, which
is, the knowledge of his Sonne, Christ Jesus: what other way God may
take with others, how he wrought upon Iob, and Naaman, and such
others as were not in the Covenant, let us not inquire too curiously,
determine too peremptorily, pronounce too uncharitably . . . .
"Many shall come;" (he quotes from Matthew 8:11), "How many?" he asks, and answers
from the Book of Revelation (7:9) "a multitude that no man can number"
(6:161, 163).
-
This is as far from Calvin as one can get: a sign of the deep division between
Calvinists and those called "Arminians." It was a schism that within a few years would
play a major role in the destruction of the British Church, its Archbishop, and its King.
1. Quotes from Herbert taken from The
Works of George Herbert. (F.E. Hutchinson, ed.).
2. See Tyacke (176).
3. For Protestants in general “good
works” have no “merit,” but are the result of “faith." Note
the simile involved in the speaker’s procrastination in performing
his promise to build a hospital or repair roads.
4. See Herbert (Works 43- 44),
abbreviations expanded.
5. See Herbert (Works 200-201).
6. See Taylor (1: 259).
7. See Herbert (Works 52-53).
8. The passage from “Fine linnen” to
“Flagon” is part of a passage set in italic in the edition of 1652,
apparently as part of the editor’s effort to stress the importance of
ceremony (Herbert Works 246).
9. See OED, “Virtue” for many early
examples of the meaning of “power” or “efficacy.”
10. See Guibbory, Chapter 3, “George
Herbert: Devotion in The Temple and the Art of Contradiction.”
Guibbory has made fruitful use of the important work by British historians
over the past two decades, exploring the complexity of religious controversy
in Herbert’s era and its relation to the outbreak of the Civil War. See the
notes to her Introduction (228-30) for references to studies by Peter Lake,
Nicholas Tyacke, Conrad Russell, John Norrill, Patrick Collinson, and Kevin
Sharpe, along with other valuable contributions.
11. See Tyacke, Chapter 6, “Richard Montagu,
the House of Commons, and Arminianism.” The attacks on Montagu were
exacerbated by his appeal to the King in 1625: Appello Caesarem. A Iust
Appeale from Two Uniust Informers. Here Montagu’s attack on Calvinism
becomes much stronger. Indeed the treaties amounts to a point-by-point
refutation of the doctrines set forth by the Lambeth Articles and the Synod of
Dort. Calvinists, he declares, “would make the World beleeve, that Ecclesia
Anglicana Calvinistat: as if he were the father and founder of our Faith;
as if our Beleefe were to be pinned upon his sleeve, and absolutely to be
taught after his Institues” (59). What he objects to most strenuously is the
concept of an “irrespective Decree” (58) toward salvation or
damnation – that is, a Decree by God made without respect to the qualities
of actions of individual human beings.
12. See Tyacke (133).
13. For a translation of the Lambeth Articles
see Porter (371; qtd. from Martz [66]).
14. Passages from Donne’s sermons are
quoted from The Sermons of John Donne.
15. Augustine’s doctrine of this interior
trinity with the human soul leads to the assertion of free will, restored by
grace available to all. See especially Donne’s second sermon on the Image of
God (Sermons 9: 68-91) where, distinguishing humankind from the other
creatures, Donne declares that, bearing the Image of God, human beings have
the power of “choosing” or “assenting.” “Make thine understanding,
and thy will, and thy memory (though but natural faculties) serviceable to thy
God; and auxiliary and subsidiary for thy salvation. For, though they be not
naturally instruments of grace; yet naturally they are susceptible of grace .
. . ” (84-85).
16. See George and George, The Protestant
Mind of the English Reformation, 1570 – 1640. The Georges’ view of
Calvinist dominance in the seventeenth century has now been modified by the
studies of British scholars, as noted above.
17. See Donne (Satires, Epigrams, and
Verse Letters 130).
18. See Donne (Divine Poems 260).
