Page images
PDF
EPUB

difobedient, preachers of erroneous doctrine; and corruptors of religion; and as fuch condemned to be deprived of all ecclefiaftical and academical functions:

But

tions and banishment which followed the decifions of this fynod, of fuch great men as Epifcopius, Uytenbogart, Corvinus, &c. and the perfecution which enfued throughout the United Provinces, againft the Arminians; whoever confiders thefe, will be apt to entertain but a poor opinion of those men who were actors in it. Some of the divines might poffibly mean well; but the kings, princes, and great men concerned therein, had, undoubtedly, worldly views, and were actuated by them. For though purity of doctrine, peace of the church, extirpation of herefy, were pretended, the ftate faction. of the Arminians was to be fuppreffed, and that of Maurice prince of Orange exalted. A fynod was judged neceffary for thefe purposes, and it extremely well performed what it was intended for. The remonftrants were rendered odious to the populace; their men of parts fent into exile; their ftrength was exhaufted; and they could no longer oppofe the measures of their adverfaries.Dr. Heylin obferves, that " as king James

had formerly afperfed the remonftrant party, so he "continued a moft bitter enemy unto them, till he had "brought them at the last to an extermination. But "he feems at a lofs to tell what fhould induce him here

[ocr errors]

unto. Some fuppofe, 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 reafon of "ftate, for the preventing a dangerous and incurable

rupture, which otherwife was like to follow in the state "of the Netherlands.' This laft reafon he thinks most probable. He afterwards adds, " that James fent fuch

of his divines as were moft likely to be fufficiently

"active

But fevere as James was against the Arminians abroad, he favoured them much at home (DDD), and advanced several of them

to

active in the condemnation of the Arminians (p)." (p) Heylin's Reasons of ftate might have had fome influence on James, hift. of the though he had little knowledge of it, and generally was ans, p. 40%. - little influenced by it. But I fancy it was a regard to Fol. Oxford his own character which chiefly induced him to act as 1670. he did in this affair. For we have feen how he had treated the name of Arminius, in a writing difperfed throughout Europe. Had he failed on fuch an opportunity to extirpate his errors, his zeal for orthodoxy might have been thought to have been leffened, and he to have failed in that which he had declared to be the duty of à king, the extirpation of heresy.

(DDD) He favoured the Arminians much at home.] The articles of the church of England are plainly calvihiftical, as will appear to every one who will read them attentively. They wore" 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 diverfities of opinions, and for the establishment of confent touching true religion (a)." The avoiding of diverfities of opinions, and (4) Vid. the the establishment of confent, was the profeffed defign of articles of religion,and them, and doubtlefs the compilers of them imagined conftitu that they should effectually accomplish it, by requiring tions and all who entered into the church to fubfcribe to them. clefiaftical, But they were very much mistaken. Diverfity of opi- canon 35. nions foon arofe, and men who fubfcribed the fame ar- and ftatute ticles, held contradictory opinions. Nor could it pof- 13 Eliz. c. fibly be otherwife; for while men are inquifitive they and s will fee things in new lights; and those who are honest and fincere, will not speak contrary to their fentiments. Subfcriptions then are only clogs and incumbrances; they answer no good end, but may occafion many mifchiefs. Yea, many there are who believe that "the impofing

K

66

canons ec.

12. fect. 1,

to the greatest dignities. So amazingly inconfiftent was his conduct.

Cardinal

"impofing articles has given occafion to almoft all the " uncharitableness and perfecutions, the devastations " and destruction of chriftians, that have ever been (b) Effay on fince articles firft were made (b)."- -In the time of impofing and Elizabeth there was a pretty great uniformity of belief fubfcribing in the doctrinal points of religion among the clergy religion, by they in general were Calvinifts, and fo were their fucPhileleu- ceffors in the reign of James. Bancroft indeed was tabrigienfis, very different in his opinion. But Abbot, Mountague, and p. 31. Lond. almost all the reft of the bishops adhered to the doctrine 1719. 8vo. of the church in like manner as their predeceffors.

articles of

therus Can

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 Calvinifm, difpatched fome directions to the vicechancellor, and profeffors of divinity at Oxford, which was the firft ftep, fays Dr. Heylin, towards the fup"preffing of that reputation which Calvin and his wri(c) Heylin'stings had attained unto in that univerfity (c)." And life of Laud, in the year 1622, inftructions were drawn up and fent to the archbishops, and by them to the bifhops, in which they were required to fee to it," that no preacher "of what title foever, under the degree of a bifhop cr "dean at the leaft, do henceforth prefume to preach in

P. 72. Lond. 1668. Fol.

[ocr errors]

any popular auditory, the deep points of predeftina❝tion, election, reprobation, or of the univerfality,

efficacy, refiftibility, or irrefiftibility of God's grace (d) Id. p. 98. " (d)." Laud had a hand in drawing this up, and what his intent was thereby, is not difficult to guefs. However fo it was, that the Calvinifts continually loft ground in the king's favour, and the Arminians had credit with him. Laud, Howfon, and Corbet were advanced to bishopricks by him, though publicly known to be Arminians: Neile, of the like opinion, was in great favour, and received many promotions from him:

and

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

he

P. 125. and
Cabala, P.

and Richard Montague, one of the moft violent Arminians
of the age, received his open protection and approbation
of all the opinions contained in the book for which he
was afterwards queftioned in parliament (e). What (e) Heylin's
fhall we think of fuch a conduct as this? are the fame life of Laud,
doctrines herefies abroad, and truths at home? are men
in Holland to be deemed enemies to God, and worthy 11.
of fynodical condemnation for holding particular opini-
ons, and in England fit for the higheft ecclefiaftical pro-
motions? what muft the world judge of the man who
behaved so very contradictory?But James had his
reasons for favouring the Arminians in England. They
were fupple and fawning, they knew how to flatter art-
fully, and, above all, they feemed very zealous in
preaching up

The right divine of kings to govern wrong,

And

Th' enormous faith of millions made for one (ƒ). (ƒ) Pope's

Nothing could be more acceptable to him than this, it attoned for their errors, yea made them most orthodox in his fight. For he was either indifferent as to all religious principles, or believed juft nothing at all about them; or otherwife he could not have acted as we see he did.

The following account from Mr. Waller's life will make a proper fupplement 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 diffolution of the laft parliament of king <s James I. Mr. Waller, out of curiofity or refpect, "went to see the king at dinner, with whom were "Dr. Andrews the bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Neal

K 2

"bishop

ellay on

man, Ep. 38

1.243

[ocr errors]

he foon after published his remonstrance (EEE) for the right of kings, and the independance

"bishop of Durham, ftanding behind his majesty's "chair. There happened fomething very extraordinary "in the converfation thofe prelates had with the king, 66 on which Mr. Waller did often reflect. His majefty afked the bishops, My lords, cannot I take my fubjects money when I want it, without all this formality in parliament? The bishop of Durham readily anfwer"ed, God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the breath of "cur noftrils: whereupon the king turned and faid to "the bishop of Winchester, well, my lord, what fay

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

you? Sir, replied the bishop, I have no skill to judge "of parliamentary cafes. The king anfwered, no put"offs, 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 pleafed with this answer, and the wit

g) Account of it feemed to affect the king (g)."

of the life

and writings

of Mr. Wal

ems, p. 67.

383.

(b) Id. p.

(EEE) He publifhed his remonftrance for the rights ler, p efixed of kings.] This piece is written with much more deto his po- cency than the other controverfial tracts of James. He edit. Lond. acknowledgeth Perron to be a prelate in great authority, 1712.12mo. and of no less learning (a), and owns his courtesy in (a) King fending him a copy of his oration (b). But at the fame James's works, p. time he infinuates that in the cardinal's fpeech, his lips looked one way, and his confcience another and profeffes, "his reft is up, that one of the maynes for which "God had advanced him upon the loftie ftage of the "fupream throne, was, that his words uttered from fo "eminent a place, for God's honor, moft fhamefully "traduced and vilified in his own deputies and lieute"nants, might with greater facility be conceived (c).” Then he gives the reafons for his engaging in this controverly which were firft," the common interest of kings."

386.

(c) Id. p. 382.

7

Secondly,

« PreviousContinue »