« PreviousContinue »
ud ' . f il E L I F fe t) F
disobedient, preachers of erroneous doctrines and corruptors of religion; and as such condemned to be deprived of all ecclesiastical and academical functions*
tions and banishment which followed the decisions of this synod, of such great men as Episcopius, Uytenbogart, Corvinus, Sic. and the persecution which ensued throughout the United Provinces, against the Arminians; whoever considers thesej will be apt to entertain but a poor opinion of those men who were actors in it. Some of the divines might possibly mean well; but the kings, princes, and great men concerned therein, had^ undoubtedly, worldly views, and were actuated by them; For though purity of doctuine, peace of the church, extirpation of heresy, were pretended, the state faction of the Arminians was to be suppressed,- and that of Maurice prince of Orange exalted. A synod was judged necessary for these purposes, and it extremely well performed What it was intended for. The remonstrants were rendered odious to the populace; their men of parts sent into exile 5 their strength was exhausted ; and they could no longer oppose the measures of their adversaries. Dr. Heylin observes, that" as king James
"had formerly aspersed the remonstrant party, so he "continued a most bitter enemy untothemj till he had "brought them at the last to an extermination. But "he seems at a loss to tell what should induce him here"unto. Some supposej fays he, that he was drawn in," "to it by Abbot and Mountague; others imputed it to "his education in the church of Scotland: one thought "that he was drawn into it by his affection for prince "Maurice; another that he was moved by reason of *' state, for the preventing a dangerous and incurable "rupture, which otherwise was like to follow in thestate "of the Netherlands." This last reason he thinks most probable. He afterwards adds, " that James sent such ** of his divines as were most likely to be sufficiently
But severe as "James was against the Arminians abroad, he favoured them much at home (ddd), and advanced several of them
"active in the condemnation of the Arminians (/<)." G»)Heylin'» Seasons of state might have had some influence on James, pr*fo0f ^e though he had little knowledge of it, and generally was ans, p. 40*. little influenced by it. But I fancy it was a regard toFo1- Oxford his own character which chiefly induced him to act as l6_°' he did in this affair. For we have seen how he, had ^
treated the name of Ar/ninius, in a writing dispersed throughout Europe. Had he failed on such an opportunity to extirpate his errors, his zeal for orthodoxy might have been thought to have been lessened, and he to have failed in that which he had declared to be the duty of a king, the extirpation of heresy.
. (ddd) He favoured the Arminians much at home, j The articles of the church of England are plainly calviXiistical, as will appear to everyone who will read them, attentively. They were " agreed on by the archbishops "and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy, "in the convocation holden at London, in the year "1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and "for the establishment of consent touching true religion "(«)." The avoiding of diversities of opinions, and (") v;d- ths the establishment of consent, was the prosessed design of "f.16!" of , them, and doubtless the compilers of them imagined constituthat they should effectually accomplish it, by requiring tions and all who entered into the church to subscribe to them. ?K°a,ec," But they were very much mistaken. Diversity of opi- canon 36. nions soon arose, and men who subscribed the fame ar- and &"»& tides, held contradictory opinions. Nor could it pof- j* k&V fibly be otherwise; for while men are inquisitive they and 3. will see things in new lights; and those who are honest and sincere, will not speak contrary to their sentiments. Subscriptions then are only clogs and incumbrances; they answer no good end, but may occasion many mischiefs. Yea, many there are who believe that"' the K "imposing
to the greatest dignities. So amazingly inconsistent was his conduct.
"imposing articles has given occasion to almost all the "uncharitableness and persecutions, the devastations "and destruction of christians, that have ever been
(£> Essay on '* since articles first were made (b)." In the time of
imposingand £l}zaietf, there was a pretty great uniformity of belief
iublcnbing , , _ . r .' °. . '.
ariuiesof in tne doctrinal points of religion among the clergy; religion, by they in general were Calvinists, and so were their sucPhjleku- cefl'ors ln the reign of James. Bancroft indeed was
tierus Can- ,._ ...= ..-'_ ... '>., .
tabrigicnsi;, very different in his opinion. But Abbot, Mountague, and p. 31. Lond. almost all the rest of the bishops adhered to the doctrine 1719. 8vo. 0f tne cnurcn in like manner as their predecessors. Thus things continued till about the year 1616, when "James being acquainted with what dangers would proceed from training up of young students in the grounds of Calvinism, dispatched some directions to the vicechancellor, and prosessors of divinity at Oxford, which was " the first step, fays Dr. Heylin, towards the sup"pressing of that reputation which Calvin and his wri(0 Heylin's" tings had attained unto in that university (c)." And lifeofLaud, in the year 1622, instructions were drawn up and sent 1668 Fo". 'to tnc archhiihops, and by them to the bishops, in which they were required to see to it, " that no preacher "of what title soever, under the degree of a bishop cr "dean at the least, do henceforth presume to preach in "any popular auditory, the deep points of predestina"tion, election, reprobation, or of the univerfality, "efficacy, resistibility, or irresistibility of God's grace (<QI6\p.98." (d)" Laud had a hand in drawing this up, and what his intent was thereby, is not difficult to guess. However so it was, that the Calvinists continually lost ground in the king's favour, and the Arminians had credit with him. Laud, JHowfon, and Corbet were advanced to bilhopricks by him, though publicly known to be Arminians: Neile, of the like opinion, was in great favour, and received many promotions from him:
Cardinal Perron having pronounced in the thamber of the third estate at Paris, Jan. 15, 1615, an oration, and sent it to James,
and Richard Mantague, one of the most violent Arminians of the age, received his open protection and approbation Of all the opinions contained in the book for which he was afterwards questioned in parliament (e). Whatr^) Hevlin't •shall we think of such a conduct as this? are the fame'iseofLau^ doctrines heresies abroad, and truths at home? are men j£ ^A' "*"* in Holland to be deemed enemies to God, and worthy uu of synodical condemnation for holding particular opinions, and in England fit for the highest ecclesiastical promotions? what must the world judge of the man who
behaved so very contradictory? But James had his
reasons for favouring the Arminians in England. They were supple and fawning, they knew how to flatter artfully, and, above all, they seemed very zealous ist pleaching up
The right divine of kings to govern wrong,
Nothing could be more acceptable to him than this, UTM^V f' *' attoned for their errors, yea made them most orthodox in his sight. For he was either indifferent as to all religious principles, or believedjust nothing atall about themj or otherwise he could not have acted as we see he'did.
The following account from Mr. Waller's lise will make a proper supplement to what has-been faid con- . cerning the artful flattery, and high prerogative notions
of the Arrninian clergy at this time. "On the day
"of the dissolution of the last parliament of king "James I. Mr. Waller, out of curiosity or respect, "went to see the king at dinner, with whom were '' Dr, Andrews the bishop of Winchejler, and Dr. Ncal
K 2 . *' bisho?
he soon after published his remonstrance (eee) for the right of kings, and the inde
"bishop of Durham, standing behind his majesty's "chair. There happened.something very extraordinary "in the converfation those prelates had with the king, "on which Mr. Waller did often reflect. His majesty "asked the bishops, My lords, cannot I take my fubjelts "money when I want it, without all this formality in "parliament? The bishop of Durham readily answer"ed, God forbid, Sir, but you Jhould; you are the breath of "our ncjlrils: whereupon the king turned and (aid to "the bishop of Winchester, well, my lord, what fay "you P Sir, replied the bishop, I have no skill to judge "of parliamentary cafes. The king answered, no put"efss, my lord, answer me presently. Then, Sir, faid "he, I think it is lawful for you to take my brother '* Neal's money, for he offers it. Mr. Waller faid the "company was pleased with this answer, and the wit g) Account" of it seemed to affect the king (g)."
JfMr"w»i- (fee) He published his remonstrance for the rights ler, p efixed of kings. J This piece is written with much more deto his po- cency than the other controversial tracts of James. He edit! Lond.'' acknowledgeth Perron to be a prelate in great authority, 3712.121110. and of no less learning [a), and owns his courtesy in (a) King sending him a copy of his oration (b). But at the fame works, p. time he insinuates that in the cardinal's speech, his lips 38?. looked one way, and his conscience another: and pro
8fiM' p fr^s, " his rest is up, that one of the maynes for which "God had advanced him upon the loftie stage of the "supream throne, was, that his words uttered from so "eminent a place, for God's honor, most shamesully "traduced and vilified in his own deputies and lieute(f) Id.p. "nants, might with greater facility be conceived (c)." 382. Then he gives the reasons for his engaging in this con
troversy: which were first, " the common interest of