Page images

Cardinal Perron having pronounced in the chamber of the third estate at Paris, Jan. 15, 1615, an oration, and sent it to James,


and Richard Montague, 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), What(V) Heylin't shall we think of such a conduct as this? are the fame life of Laud, doctrines heresies abroad,, and truths at home? are men Q^j*' and in Holland to be deemed enemies to God, and worthy Iii"'P* of synodical condemnation for holding particular opinions, and in England sit for the highest ecclesiastical promotions? what must the wprld 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 in preaching up

The right divine of kings to govern wrong,


Th' enormous faith of millions made for one (/). (/) pope**

esl'ay on

Kothing could be more acceptable to him than this, it "^L,'' V attoned for their errors,, yea made them most orthodox in his sight. For he was either indifferent as to all religious principles, or believed just nothing at all about them; or otherwise he could not have acted as we fee he did.

The following account from Mr. Wallers life will make a proper supplement to what has been faid concerning the artful flattery, and high prerogative notions

of the Arminian 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 Winche/ler, and Dr. Ntal £ 2 "bisliop he scon after published his remonstrance (eee) for the right of kings, and the inde


"bishop of Durham, standing behind his majesty's "chkir. 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, Mv lords, cannot I take my subjects "money when I want it, without all this formality in "parliament? The bishop of Durham readily answer"ed, GodforbidrSir, but you Jhould; you are the breath of ." cur nostrils: whereupon the king turned and laid to "the bishdp of Winchester, well, my lord, what fay "you? Sir, replied the bishop, I have no skill to judge "of parliamentary cafes. The king answered, no put*' offs, my lord, answer me presently. Then, Sir, faid "he, / 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)."

ot'the life

ofMr'vvaU (ejee) He published his remonstrance for the rights ler, p efixed of kings.] This piece is written with much more detohis po- cenCy than the other controversial tracts of James. He edit.' Lono\' acknowledgeth Perron to be a prelate in great authority, 1711.12'1>°. and of no less learning (a), and owns his courtesy in (a) King fending him a copy of his oratioh [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 prog«W' P" feffes* " his rest is up, that one of the maynes for which J "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 shamefully "traduced and vilisied in his own deputies and lieute,/fVTd.p. "nants, might with greater facility be conceived (c)." 381. Then he gives the reasons for his engaging in this controversy: which were sirst, the common interest of * * kings." 7


pendance of their crowns, again'st the oration

Secondly, "The cardinal's speaking as one repre-; *' scnting the clergy and nobility."

Thirdly, "Because he himself had been represented "by him as a sower of dissension, and a persecutor, "under whom the church is hardly able to fetch her "breath; yea, for one by whom the catholics of his *' kingdom are compelled to endure all sorts of punisti"ments."

Lastly, " By reason that France was reduced to so "miserable terms, that it was become a crime for a "Frenchman to stand for his king, it was a necessary "duetie of her neighbours to speak in her behalf (d)." (d) King ,These are the reasons alledged by 'James for en- Jam«'$ gaging against Perron. After this he proceeds to his ^^s' e defence of the right of kings, and endeavours to shew "that what the cardinal had advanced in support of his "doctrine, that it was absurd and incongruous to con"demn, or wrappe under the solemn curse, the abetters "of the pope's power to unking lawful and sovereign *' kings: he endeavours to prove that what was faid "by the cardinal in behalf hereof, was meer nullity, "matter of imagination, and built upon false presup"positions (e)." To enter into a minute detail of(i)H.p, James's arguments would be tiresome to the reader. 395. Let it therefore suffice to fay, that he quotes fathers, councils and schoolmen; and that history, and scripture are alledged by him, and sometimes not impertinently.

It appears from this defence of the right of kings,

that James had had a correspondence with Perron for years before; that he had sent him a discourse in wri- . ting, to which in three years the cardinal had not replied, which is attributed not to a want of capacity, but to " well advised agnitibn of his own working and "building upon a weak foundation (/)." If one knew (y) u, p nothing more of James than what might be gathered 47o. from this book, one should be tempted to imagine that he was a most zealous protestant. For he attributes all K 3 the

tion os the most illustrious cardinal of Per

: ron.

the miseries of France and Great Britain to the Romifii (g) H. p. clergy (g), whom he paints out in no very agreeable colours ; and atthe fame time praises the French protestants in an extraordinary manner. He tells us he could never "learn that those of the religion in France, took arms "against their king. In the sirst civil wars, fays he, "they stood only upon their guard; they armed not, nor "took the sield before they were pursued with sire and "sword, burnt up and slaughtered. They were a re"fuge and succour to the princes of the blood ; in re*' gard of which worthy and honourable service, the "French king hath reason to have the protestants in "his gracious remembrance. He then sets forth their *' great merit with respect to the third and fourth Henry, "to whom thev stood in all their battles, to bear up So.'1"'" "t,le crown tnen tottering and ready to fall (b)."

This is a very remarkable testimony to the sidelity and loyalty of the Hugonots, as it comes from one who hated their principle of parity in the church, looked on such as held it as very pests in church and commonwealth, and who spoke more bitterly of them than of (;) See note the papists (/). For the French protestants differed notMl* thing at all from the English and Scotch puritans, either in discipline or doctrine. This remonstrance against Perron, was written sirst in French by his majesty, afterwards bv his leave translated into English, as also into Latin, anno 1616, in 4to. for I remember to have

({) Charac- seen such an edition of it in that language. Perron

ten histori- though he had neglected James's private writing rej?ezlr\c,T~ turnet^ an answer to this public remonstrance, for in the Vol. II. 'p. account of the faid cardinal's writings in Perraulss cha5- rasters (k), and in Collier's dictionarv (7), I sind a work

historic*' '"titled, " a reply to the king of Great Britain's andiaionary, "swer." Whether this is the whole of the title I know article Per- not3 any more than I do what the answer contained, (James Da- ^or koth these authors are by much too supersicial in their vj du.) accounts of the most eminent writers, and their perform ances.

ron. This was his last controversial work. But besides the pieces already mentioned, he published also a counterblaste to tobacco (fff), began a tranflation of thepsalms of


formances («). As this remonstrance is the last pole- fm) Vm.

mical work of James which we have to mention, Lord aPPcndlx<

Sbaftjbury's description of him as a prince-writer, will

not improperly conclude this note. As to which, from

what has been seen by the reader already, he may in a

good measure be able to judge of its truth and propriety.

*' A prince of a pacific nature and fluent thought, sub

"mittinga/Tw and martial discipline to the gown; and

"considing in his princely science and profound learn

"ing, made his style and' speech the nerve and sinew

"of his government. He gave us his works sull of

"wise exhortation and advice to his royal so*n, as well

"as of instruction to his good people; who could not

"without admiration observe their autbor-Covere'ign,

'' thus studious and contemplativein their behalf. 'Twas

"then one might have seen our nation growing young

"and docile, with that simplicity of heart which qua

"listed them to profit like a scholar-people under their

"royal preceptor. For with abundant eloquence he

"graciously gave lesions to his parliament, tutored his

*' ministers, and edified the greatest churchmen and

'' divines themselves ; by whose suffrage he obtained the

"highest appellations which could be merited by the

'c acutest wit, and truest understanding. From hence i

"the British nations were taught to own in common a

"Solomon for their joint sovereign, the founder of their

•' late compleated union («)." Whether this descrip- („) Charae*

tion of our author-sovereign, as his lordship styles him, teriftidu,

be too soft or severe, I leave entirely to the judgment of °' cj;^

the reader: nothing doubting but he will be pleased to nmo.1746.

see it, whatever he may think of it.

(fff) He published a counterblaste to tobacco] Thi9 K 4 was

« PreviousContinue »