« ForrigeFortsett »
to confess their sins with sincere contrition and to fight boldly against the enemy. The English loudly sounded their trumpets as they approached, and the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the vizors of their helmets; thus the distance was now but small between the two armies, although the French had retired some paces. Before, however, the general attack commenced, numbers of the French were slain and severely wounded by the English bowmen. At length the English gained on them so much, and were so close, that excepting the front line, and such as had shortened their lances, the enemy could not raise their hands against them. The division under Sir Clugnet de Brabant, of eight hundred men-at-arms, who were intended to break through the English archers, were reduced to seven score, who vainly attempted it. True it is, that Sir William de Saveuses, who had been also ordered on this service, quitted his troop, thinking they would follow him, to attack the English, but he was shot dead from off his horse. The others had their horses so severely handled by the archers, that, smarting from pain, they galloped on the van division and threw it into the utmost confusion, breaking the line in many places. The horses were become unmanageable, so that horses and riders were tumbling on the ground, and the whole army was thrown into disorder, and forced back on some lands that had been just sown with corn. Others, from fear of death, fled; and this caused so universal a panic in the army that great part followed the example.
'The English took instant advantage of the disorder in the van division, and, throwing down their bows, fought lustily with swords, hatchets, mallets, and bill-hooks, slaying all before them. Thus they came to the second battalion that had been posted in the rear of the first; and the archers followed close king Henry and his men-at-arms. Duke Anthony of Brabant, who had just arrived in obedience to the summons of the king of France, threw himself with a small company (for, to make greater haste, he had pushed forward, leaving the main body of his men behind) between the wreck of the van and the second division; but he was instantly killed by the English, who kept advancing and slaying, without mercy, all that opposed them, and thus destroyed the main battalion as they had done the first. They were, from time to time, relieved by their varlets, who carried off the prisoners; for the English were so intent on victory, that they never attended to making prisoners, nor pursuing such as fled. The whole rear division being on horseback, witnessing the defeat of the two others, began to fly, excepting some of its principal chiefs.
'During the heat of the combat, when the English had gained the upper hand and made several prisoners, news was brought to king Henry that the French were attacking his rear, and had already captured the greater part of his baggage and sumpter-horses. This was indeed true, for Robinet de Bournouville, Rifflart de Clamasse, Ysambart d'Azincourt, and some other men at arms, with about six hundred peasants, had fallen upon and taken great part of the king's baggage and a number of horses, while the guard was occupied in the battle. This distressed the king very much, for he saw that though the French army had been routed they were collecting on different parts of the plain in large bodies, and he was afraid they would renew the battle. He therefore caused instant proclamation to be made by sound of trumpet, that every one should put his prisoners to death, to prevent them from aiding the enemy, should the combat be renewed. This caused an instantaneous and general massacre of the French prisoners, occasioned by the disgraceful conduct of Robinet de Bournouville. Ysambart d'Azincourt, and the others, who were afterwards punished for it, and imprisoned a very long .time by duke John of Burgundy, notwithstanding they had made a present to the count de Charolois of a most precious sword, ornamented with diamonds, that had belonged to the king of England. They had taken this sword, with other rich jewels, from king Henry's baggage,—and had made this present, that, in case they should at any time be called to an account for what they had done, the count might stand their friend.
'The count de Marie, the count de Fauquemberg, the lords de Louvroy and du Chin, had with some difficulty retained about sis hundred men-at-arms, with whom they made a gallant charge on the English; but it availed nothing, for they were all killed or made prisoners. There were other small bodies of French on different parts of the plain; but they were soon routed, slain, or taken. The conclusion was a complete victory on the part of the king of England, who onlv lost about sixteen hundred men of all ranks; among the slain was the duke of York, uncle to the king. On the eve of this battle, and the following morning, before it began, there were upwards of five hundred knights made by the French.
'When the king of England found himself master of the field of battle, and that the French, excepting such as had been killed or taken, were flying in all directions, he made the circuit of the plain, attended by his princes; and while his men were employed in stripping the dead, he called to him the French herald, Montjoye, king-atarms, and with him many other French and English heralds, and said to them, 'It is not we who have made this great slaughter, but the omnipotent God, and, as we believe, for a punishment of the sins of the French.' He then asked Montjoye, to whom the victory belonged: to him, or to the king of France? Montjoye replied, that the victory was his, and could not be claimed by the king of France. The king then asked the name of the castle he saw near him: he was told, it was called Azincourt. 'Well then,' added he, ' since all battles should bear the names of the fortress nearest to the spot where they were fought, this battle shall, from henceforth, bear the ever-durable name of Azincourt." '—lb. pp. 340—343.
The consequence of this victory, followed up by the daring heroism of the English monarch, was the complete humiliation of the French king. The power of the empire passed into the hands of Henry, whose regal pomp is thus mournfully contrasted by Monstrelet with the humble and deserted fortunes of his own sovereign.
'On the 21st day of May in this year 1422, Catharine queen of England, who had been some time recovered of her lying-in of her first-born child Henry, arrived at Harfleur in grand state, attended by ladies without number, and escorted by a large fleet filled with menat-arms and archers under the command of the duke of Bedford, brother to the king. On landing, she went to Rouen, and thence to the castle of Vincennes, to meet the king. Queen Catherine travelled in royal state, alway accompanied by the duke of Bedford and the men-at-arms.
'King Henry departed from Meaux with his princes to meet her, and she was received by them as if she had been an angel from heaven. Great rejoicings were made by the king and queen of France for the happy arrival of their son-in-lawand their daughter; and on the 30th day of May, VVhitsun-eve, the kings of France and of England, accompanied by their queens, left Vincennes, and entered Paris with much pomp. The king and queen of France were lodged at the hotel of St. Pol, and the king of England and his company at the Louvre. In each of these places, the two kings solemnly celebrated the feast of Pentecost, which fell on the day after their arrival.
'On this day, the king and queen of England were seated at table gorgeously apparelled, having crowns on their heads. The English princes, dukes, knights, and prelates, were partakers of the feast, each seated according to his rank, and the tables were covered with the rarest viands and choicest wines. The king and queen this day held a grand court, which was attended by all the English at Paris; and the Parisians went to the castle of the Louvre to see the king and queen at table crowned with their most precious diadems; but as no meat or drink was offered to the populace by the attendants, they went away much discontented; for in former times, when the kings of France kept open court, meat and drink was distributed abundantly to all comers by the king's servants.
'King Charles had indeed been as liberal and courteous as his predecessors, but he was now seated in his hotel of St. Pol at table with his queen, deserted by the grandees and others of his subjects, as if he had been quite forgotten. The government and power of the kingdom were now transferred from his hands into those of his son-in-law king Henry; and he had so little share, that he was managed as the king of England pleased, and no attention was paid him, which created much sorrow in the hearts of all loyal Frenchmen, and not without cause.'—lb. pp. 477> 478.
The getting up of the work is, as we have already remarked, in the same style of elegance and cheapness as its predecessor Froissart. The pictorial excellence, and the accurate delineation of architecture and costume which distinguish the numerous wood-cuts, render them an invaluable addition to the work, and greatly facilitate an intelligent apprehension of the text to which they are attached. A copious index and tables of contents are also supplied. In every respect the work is entitled to the patronage of an intelligent public, and we shall be disappointed if that patronage is not liberally bestowed.
Art. III. Sermons on the ' First Principles of the Oracles of God.' Hebrews v. 12. By Henry Erskixe Head, M.A., Rector of Feniton, Devon, and Chaplain to his Majesty the King of Hanover. Sidmouth and London. 1840.
^PHE rector of Feniton has been too distinguished a victim of .*' episcopal tyranny not to have engaged the sympathy, and has taken too noble a stand in defence of Christian liberty not to have awakened the admiration, of all friends to freedom of thought and the rights of conscience. By the applause which has greeted him as a confessor he has probably been led to present himself to the public as an author; not without an expectation, perhaps, that his reception in both characters might be equally gratifying. For our own part, we can truly say that it would have afforded us the most sincere satisfaction to have found in the volume before us materials for commendation. There are few men whom we would rather have praised than Mr. Head. And, wherein we cannot do this, we shall say as little, and that little as gently, as our critical duty will permit.
The rector of Feniton, we are sorry to say, has adopted the hyper-calvinistic divinity. We must not be understood as intimating hereby, either that he is a systematic divine, or that all the sentiments he expresses belong to the hyper-calvinistic system. The reverse of this is the case; and he gives utterance in the course of twenty-four sermons to many tilings which we think must be either altogether or almost peculiarities. Our meaning is that he adopts and broadly states the leading doctrines of the hyper-calvinistic school, as in manner following.
'We learn from other parts of Scripture, that man is condemned inasmuch as he inherits the corrupt nature of Adam; that to inherit condemnation it suffices that we are born of Adam; that in Adam, 1 Cor. xv., all die; that by one man sin entered into the world, and death passed upon all men; that by the offence of one man judgment came, Rom. v., upon all men to condemnation ; that every human being is no better than a seed of sin deserving God's condemnation, and growing up into rebellion and enmity against God more and more every day, as surely as a viper's offspring grows up into a viper.'
—pp. 107, 108.
'The doctrine of Scripture is, that, as all men are made sinners by the transgression of Adam, and condemned by imputation of his guilt; so, all who apprehend it by faith (that is the spiritual seed of Abraham) are made righteous and delivered from condemnation by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Every child born into the world is a sinner and deserves eternal condemnation, although our actual guilt is that which makes the justice of our condemnation more apparent to our own view.'—pp. 265, 266.
'If we would guard against insipid interpretations of Scripture, we should remember that we are utterly unable to turn to God before regeneration; that our state before regeneration is utterly wretched, depraved, and at enmity with God, Rom. viii.; that God both claims and exercises the right of making some free, and suffering others to remain in bondage, Gal. iv. 24—31 ; that God does not deal alike with all men, Rom. ix. 11; that the mercy published in the gospel neither is, nor needs to be ratified, by the natural man, but that the boundless grace of the new covenant mahet us willing to turn to God. As it is certain that none escape from eternal perdition but those to whom he extends the grace of the new covenant,—so it is also certain that he extends this grace to whom he will, and withholds it from whom he will. For he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth, Rom. ix. What our Lord and his apostles tell us repeatedly and constantly with regard to the bulk of the Israelitish nation, holds good with regard to all mankind: namely, if you inquire as to the immediate cause of their perdition and rejection, it is their actual guilt:—if you inquire further, it was from the secret counsel of God, who had predetermined not to extend to them the grace of the new covenant (which it is his divine prerogative to give to some and to withhold from others), in other words, not to remove from them the condemnation in which all men are justly involved already.'
These, we regret to say, are prominently brought forward by our author as exclusively ' the first principles of the oracles of * God.' Whether we shall have the happiness of contributing at all to the modification of his views we know not, but we snail take the opportunity of making on them a few remarks, which we hope will not be altogether lost.
We would not, of course, be understood as calling in question all that is contained in the extracts we have given. There never was an error which did not ally itself with some portion of truth; and it is one of the most painful features of the errors which we conceive lie now before us, that they ally themselves closely with some of the most fundamental and glorious truths of the gospel. We are not going to place among erroneous tenets, either the federal relation between Adam ann his posterity, or the covenant character of the work of redemption. Neither Mr. Head nor any other person can hold more strongly than ourselves, first, that mankind are sharing by equitable implication the consequences of their first father's crime; and, secondly, that all who will be recovered from the universal state of sin and misery, will be so by virtue of a well-ordered covenant in which they have been from eternity comprehended. The points to which we object are the following.
In the first place, we demur to the sentiment that mankind are, for the sin of Adam, under sentence of eternal wrath. We are not ignorant of the seemingly conclusive process by which this