It might happen, when he should come to realize how absolutely he had obeyed the tuition of the Advocate and favoured the party which he had been so vehemently opposing, that he might regret and prove willing to retract.  But for the time being the course of politics had seemed running smoother.  The acrimony of the relations between the English government and dominant party at the Hague was sensibly diminished.  The King seemed for an instant to have obtained a true insight into the nature of the struggle in the States.  That it was after all less a theological than a political question which divided parties had at last dawned upon him.

“If you have occasion to write on the subject,” said Barneveld, “it is above all necessary to make it clear that ecclesiastical persons and their affairs must stand under the direction of the sovereign authority, for our preachers understand that the disposal of ecclesiastical persons and affairs belongs to them, so that they alone are to appoint preachers, elders, deacons, and other clerical persons, and to regulate the whole ecclesiastical administration according to their pleasure or by a popular government which they call the community.”

“The Counts of Holland from all ancient times were never willing under the Papacy to surrender their right of presentation to the churches and control of all spiritual and ecclesiastical benefices.  The Emperor Charles and King Philip even, as Counts of Holland, kept these rights to themselves, save that they in enfeoffing more than a hundred gentlemen, of noble and ancient families with seigniorial manors, enfeoffed them also with the right of presentation to churches and benefices on their respective estates.  Our preachers pretend to have won this right against the Countship, the gentlemen, nobles, and others, and that it belongs to them.”

It is easy to see that this was a grave, constitutional, legal, and historical problem not to be solved offhand by vehement citations from Scripture, nor by pragmatical dissertations from the lips of foreign ambassadors.

“I believe this point,” continued Barneveld, “to be the most difficult question of all, importing far more than subtle searchings and conflicting sentiments as to passages of Holy Writ, or disputations concerning God’s eternal predestination and other points thereupon depending.  Of these doctrines the Archbishop of Canterbury well observed in the Conference of 1604 that one ought to teach them ascendendo and not descendendo.”

The letters of the King had been very favourably received both in the States-General and in the Assembly of Holland.  “You will present the replies,” wrote Barneveld to the ambassador in London, “at the best opportunity and with becoming compliments.  You may be assured and assure his Majesty that they have been very agreeable to both assemblies.  Our commissioners over there on the East Indian matter ought to know nothing of these letters.”