SECTION XIX.
State of the Calvinistic Doctrines in England, from the Death of Elizabeth to that of King James the First.
James the First's accession to the crown of England was, for many years, followed by no shadow of alteration in the theological principles of our ruling ecclesiastics. The king, himself was a Calvinist in theory: but more, by virtue of outward and visible education, than of inward and spiritual grace. His own personal morals did by no means comport with the rectitude of his speculative system. England had seen few princes more warmly orthodox; and not very many, whose private manners were so thoroughly profligate and eccentric. A proof, that the purest set of religious tenets, when they float merely on the surface of the understanding, and are no otherwise. received, than scholastically, as a science, without reaching the heart, are sure to leave the life and manners uncultivated and unrenewed. The regenerating influence of God's holy spirit on the soul, is the best door for the doctrines of grace to enter at. When they flow to us through the channel of celestial experience, they cannot fail to throw our hearts, our tempers, and our morals, into the mould of holiness. There are two sorts of persons, whose condition is eminently dangerous: those, who know just enough of the gospel system, to hate it; and those, who profess to love it, but hold it in unrighteousness.
King James, amidst all his deviations from virtue; amidst all his mental weaknesses, and political absurdities; was the most learned secular prince then in Europe. His talents as a scholar, were far from being so extremely despicable and superficial, as his defect of wisdom and his excess of self-opinion have led some historians to suppose. Had his judgment and his virtues borne any proportion to his acquirements, his name would have adorned, instead of dishonouring, as it does, the catalogue of kings. His two sons, prince Henry, and Charles the first, though they had not half the literary attainments of their father, yet eclipsed him totally, even as a man of parts, by force of superior genius, and by possessing a larger stock of private virtue. Vice (especially those species of it, to which James was enslaved) has a native tendency to debase, enfeeble, and diminish, the powers of the mind. To which must be added, that the erudition, as well as the whole personal and civil conduct, of this mean prince, appeared to peculiar disadvantage, after the wise, the shining, the vigorous administration of Elizabeth: who was immensely his superior, both in elegant learning, and in the art of government.
That James was a speculative Calvinist, his own writings abundantly declare. Mr. Hume gives a sort of ambiguous intimation1 that, towards the end of his reign, he adopted the principles of Arminius. I wish that polite, but not always impartial historian, had favoured us with the authorities (if any such there he) on which that implication was grounded. I should be extremely glad, to see it proved, that James actually did apostatize, in his latter years, to the Arminian tenets. For he really was no honour to us. King as he was, the meanest Calvinist in his dominions might have blushed to call him brother. It were pity, that a man of so corrupt a heart should live and die with a set of sound opinions in his head.
But I have never been able to find, that there is the smallest shadow of foundation, for supposing, that he ever dropped, what Mr. Hume pleases to term, "The more rigid principles of absolute reprobation and unconditional decrees." On the contrary, his religious tenets, and his principles of political tyranny, seem, like flesh and spirit, to have been in perpetual conflict with each other, during the last years of his life. Let me explain myself. The point is curious: and not altogether uninteresting.
James was wicked enough to hunger and thirst after the liberties of his people. But, with all his boasted king-craft (as he called it), he was, providentially, destitute both of wisdom and spirit, to carry his wish into execution. Much of his reign was wasted, in contemptible striving to balance matters between the Protestants and the Papists; the latter of whom he affected to keep fair with, on account of their being, as he phrased it, "dextrous king-killers." Just as some Indians are said to worship the devil, for fear he should do them a mischief.
For sometime before his death, James's wretched politics took a turn, somewhat different. His royal care was to trim between the Calvinists and the Arminians (though the latter, at that time, hardly amounted to a handful): or, rather, to play them off against each other, while he buckled himself the faster into the saddle of despotism.
The Calvinists, though, even in his own judgment, religiously orthodox; were considered by him as state heretics, because they were friends to the rights of mankind, and repressed the encroachments of civil tyranny.
On the other hand, the Arminians (then newly sprung up; or rather, newly imported from the Dutch coast) were detested by James, for the novelty, and for the supposed ill tendency, of their religious sentiments. The Arminians had, therefore, but one card to play, in order to save a losing game: which was to compensate for their religious heterodoxies, by state orthodoxy. They were forced even to avoid the inconveniences of persecution itself (for James had given proof that he could burn heretics as well as any of his predecessors), to fall in with the court-measures for extending the prerogative.
This card the Arminians accordingly played. It won: and gave a new turn to the game. It not only saved them from civil penalties, but (of which, probably, at first they were not so sanguine as to entertain the most distant expectation) they even began to be regarded, at court, as serviceable folks.
Hence, from being exclaimed against, as the very pests of Christian society; they gradually obtained connivance, toleration and countenance. To sum up all: they got ground in the close of James's reign; and, in that of Charles, saw themselves, for the first time, at the top of the ecclesiastical wheel.
Every one who is at all acquainted with the history of James's administration, knows that I have not over-charged a single feature. For the sake, however, of such readers as may not be versed in this kind of inquiries, I confirm the account, already given, by the following extract of Tindal.
"Soon after the accession of king James, the canons of the church were confirmed by the king and convocation. Things were in this state, when a great turn happened in the doctrine of the church. The Arminian, or remonstrant tenets, which had been condemned by the synod at Dort, began to spread in England.2 The Calvinistical sense of the [39] articles was discouraged; and injunctions were published against preaching upon predestination, election, efficacy of grace, &c. while the Arminians were suffered to inculcate their doctrines"3 without control.
So much for the conduct of James and his court. Now, for the reason of that conduct. This the above historian immediately assigns, in manner and form following:
"As Arminianism was first embraced by those who were for exalting the [king's] prerogative above law; all, who adhered to the side of [civil] liberty, and to the Calvinistical sense of the articles, tho' ever so good churchmen, were branded by the court with the name of Puritans. By this means the [real] Puritans acquired great strength: for the bulk of the people and clergy were at once confounded with them,"4 under the absurd, new ininvented names of doctrinal and state-puritans.
What, if to the testimony of this whig historian, we add that of a tory compiler? "The whole nation, was now" [viz. A.D. 1622.] "divided between the court and the country parties. All the Papists, and the Arminians (who were by this time formed into a sect in England), espoused the cause of the king. Those who professed the tenets of Arminius were now as much caressed as they had been formerly detested, by the courtiers. And William Laud, who had adopted this faith, was promoted to the bishoprick of St. David's."5
It is plain, then, that the reason why James I. was "insensibly engaged towards the end of his reign to favour" [for it does not appear that he ever adopted] "the milder theology of Arminius,"6 was, because the partizans of that new theology were much "milder" and more friendly to James's scheme of setting himself above law, than were the partizans of the established Calvinistic doctrines. The moving cause, why that weak and vicious prince laboured to ram Arminianism down the throats of his Protestant subjects, was, the innate fitness of Arminianism to subserve and promote the purposes of arbitrary power. At the very time that James manifestly appears to have abhorred the religious tenets of Arminius, considered as religious, he professedly patronised the maintainers of, those identical tenets, because he regarded both the tenets and their maintainers as the best state-engines he could employ, to effectuate that plan of secular tyranny, on which he had so vehemently set his heart.
To what an unprincely and uncomfortable dilemma had James reduced himself! He could not persist in carrying on his old theological war against Arminianism, without weakening the foundations of the tyrannical fabric he intended to rear. Nor could he proclaim peace, without rendering himself, to the last degree contemptible for his inconsistencies. On one hand, conscience, religious conviction, and a regard to his own character, united to dissuade him from taking the Arminians into his alliance: and haunted him with, O my soul, go not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united. On the other hand, his "king-craft;" i.e. the shallow cunning of a mean and vicious policy, suggested to him, in behalf of the Arminian sect he so deeply hated, If ye be come peaceably unto me, to help me, my heart shall he knit unto you.
To help him, they accordingly tried. And knit to them, as a state party, he certainly was, for the last four years of his life. Should it be asked, 'What could render the friendship of the Arminians so important in James's idea, seeing their number was then so very few?' The answer is obvious. The new and few Arminians were joined by the whole body of Roman Catholics: and it was this junction of forces which augmented their weight. Each of these two obnoxious parties lying open to the lash of the law, wished to recommend themselves to the favour of the court. Effectually to do so, they adopted and propagated the then court-maxim of unlimited obedience to princes, with all possible fervour. A coalition of interests naturally produces a coalition of parties. It was no wonder, therefore, as the Papists and the Arminians had one and the same end to promote, and promoted that end by the self-same means, that they should, as a state faction, swim hand in hand with each other. Nor was the association, considered even in a religious view, at all unnatural. Arminianism pulls up, and removes, five, at the very least, of those ancient landmarks (might I not say five and twenty?) by which Protestantism and Popery are severed from each other. Such a theological and political coincidence might well produce (as it actually did) a civil union between the partizans of Rome and the disciples of Arminius. They both aspired, in amicable conjunction, to the favour of James: and James caught at their alliance, with as great eagerness, as they aspired to his.
But the accession of such recruits, as these, reflected no honour on the king; and, in reality, did him no service. It added to the national jealously, and quickened the national resentment. In all appearance, James died just at the time when matters were ripening to a crisis between him and his people. Had his reign been protracted much longer, 'tis probable, either that his crown would have trembled on his brow; or, that its security must have been purchased by a number of just and necessary concessions to a brave and injured nation.
With what propriety and decency this prince affected to cherish Arminianism, let the productions of his own pen testify. But, before I briefly appeal to these, let James's best historiographer, the honest Mr. Arthur Wilson, supply us with an introduction to them.
"Our neighbours of the Netherlands had" [in the beginning, of the seventeenth century] "a fire kindled in their own bosoms: [namely,] a schism in the church, and a faction in the state. The first author of the schism was Arminius:7 who had been divinity-professor at Leyden. He died in the year 1609; leaving behind him the seeds of the Pelagian heresy.
"This rupture in the bowels of the church (of Holland] grew so great, that it endangered the body of the state. The chief rulers and magistrates, in the several provinces, being tainted with this error, strove to establish it by power: among whom, Barnevelt was a principal agent. He, by the assistance of Hoogenberts of Leyden, Grotius of Rotterdam, and Leidenburgh, secretary of Utrecht, with others their adherents, drew on the design: which was to suppress the Protestant reformed religion, and establish the tenets of Arminius; being fomented by the kings of France and Spain, as the immediate way to introduce Popery. This went on so smoothly that the orthodox ministers were expelled out of their principal towns, and none but Arminians admitted to preach to the people: which, in some places, bred many combustions, that tended to nothing but popular confusion.
"But, long before this time, our king James I. saw the storm coming upon them [viz. that was coming on the Dutch provinces]. For in the year 1611, he forewarns the States: telling, them, that, by the unhappy succession of two such prodigies in one sphere, as Arminius and Vorstius, some dreadful mischief would succeed.
"For, Arminius was no sooner dead, but those that drew on the design had an eye on Vorstius, his [i.e. Arminius's] disciple, to make him divinity professor in his place. Which the king hearing of, and having read some of Vorstius's blasphemous writings, sends to his then ambassador, sir Ralph Winwood, resident there, to let the State know, that Vorstius rather deserved punishment than promotion: that the head of such a viper should be trod upon and crushed, which was likely to eat his way through the bowels of the State: and if, nevertheless, they should persist to prefer him, he (viz. king James himself) would make known to the world, publicly in print, how much he detested such abominable heresies, and all allowers and tolerators of them."8
The States, however, invested Vorstius with the professorship, lately vacated by the death of Arminius. This greatly incensed king James. It, at once, stung his pride, and gravelled his orthodoxy. True enough it was, that he had no right to dictate to the Dutch magistrates, on whom they should betsow their own preferments. "For what is it to his majesty," said his ambassador Winwood, in a remonstrance presented to the States by the king's directions, "What is it to his majesty, whether Dr. Vorstius be admitted professor in the University of Leyden or not? Or, whether the doctrine of Arminius be preached in your churches? Saving that, as a Christian prince, he desires the advancement of the gospel. Let yourselves be judges, in how great a danger the State must needs be at this present, so long as you permit the schisms of Arminius to have such vogue, as now they have, in the principal towns of Holland. The disciples of Socinus, with whose doctrine Vorstius had been suckled in his childhood, do seek him for their master, and are ready to embrace him. Let him go: he is a bird of their own feather: Et dignum sane patella operculum, a fit cover for such a dish. His majesty doth exhort you, that you would not suffer the followers of Arminius to make your actions an example for them to proclaim throughout the world that wicked doctrine of the apostacy of the saints."9 Thus did James cover his own bigotry and haughtiness, with the plausible mantle of zeal for the glory of God and the good of Holland.
Mean while his majesty was not idle at home. By his express command, Vorstius's writings were publickly burnt at St. Paul's Cross10 in London, and in the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. One reason, assigned by James himself for a step so very humiliating to the new Arminian party, was, what his majesty styles, the "impudence" of Bertius; who was another chip of the said Arminian block, Vorstius's intimate friend, and who, together with Vorstius, had been Arminius's pupil.
Does the reader ask, 'Wherein the "impudence" of Bertius consisted?' King James shall answer the question. Bertius had written against the final perseverance of the elect; and, not content with barely that, was, says his majesty, "so impudent, and so shameless, as to maintain, that the doctrine, contained in his book, was agreeable with the doctrine of the Church of England! Let the Church of Christ then judge whether it was not high time for us to bestir ourselves."
But it may be worth while to hear the king's own words at full length. "Some of Vorstius's books were brought over into England; and, as it was reported, not without the knowledge and direction of the author. And, about the same time, one Bertius, a scholar of the late Arminius (who [viz. Arminius] was the first in our age that infected Leyden with heresy) was so impudent as to send a letter unto the archbishop of Canterbury, with a book, entitled, De Apostasia Sanctorum. And, not thinking it sufficient to avow the sending of such a book (the title whereof only were enough to make it worthy the fire), hee was moreover so shameless, as to maintain, in his letter to the archbishop, that the doctrine contained in his booke wits agreeable with the doctrine of the Church of England. Let the Church of Christ then judge, whether it was not high time for us to bestir ourselves, when as this gangrene had not only taken hold amongst our neerest neighbours, [viz. the Dutch], so as non solum paries proximus jam ardebat, not only the next house was on fire, but did also begin to creep into the bowells of our own kingdom. For which cause, having first given order that the said books of Vorstius should be publicly burnt, as well in Paul's Church-yard, as in bothe the Universitys of this kingdom; we thought good to renew our former request unto the States (of Holland), for the banishment of Vorstius."11
This curious king text deserves a commentary. And let us note, 1. What a horrible opinion James entertained of Arminius himself: whom his majesty termed, an infector of Leyden with "heresy." This was neither more nor less than calling the said Van Harmin an heretic; yea, an heresiarch, or an heretical ringleader. 2. Observe, how vigorously the king asserted the doctrine of final perseverance. He denominates the contrary tenet, of the defectibility of the saints, "a gangrene:" and affirms, that the very "title page alone" of Bertius's Treatise, rendered both title and treatise "worthy of the flames." 3. His majesty stared (and well he might), with wonder and amazement, at Bertius's "impudence," in presuming to send "such" a book (a book which maintained that saints might cease to persevere) to an archbishop of the Church of England; who, as a father in that church (and she never had a worthier father than archbishop Abbot), could not but abhor the Pelagian dream of falling finally from grace. But, 4. Behold the royal surprize wound up to the highest astonishment, at the accumulated effrontery of Bertius. It was "impudent" in the said Arminian to make a present of his book, against perseverance, to the archbishop of Canterbury: but for the presentmaker to insinuate, that "the doctrine, contained in his booke, was agreeable with the doctrine of the Church of England," was indeed "shameless" beyond all sufferance: seeing the church herself avers, in the 17th article, that they who are endued with the excellent benefit of election, or predestination unto life, do, at length, actually attain to ever lasting felicity. Observe, 5, The anxiety, with which king James marked the progress of Arminianism in Holland. He trembled, lest the "gangrene" should extend to England also. He considered the Dutch Netherlands as his next-door neighbours: and, their house being "on fire" with the Arminian heresies, he was apprehensive lest the heretical flames might, by Popish winds, be blown over to Britain. 6. He expressed a fear, that Arminianism had already "begun" to "creep" into the bowels of his kingdom. His fears, however, at that time12 seem to have been premature. 7. But the king's fears, Bertius's "impudence," and Vorstius's impieties, all conspired to produce one very good effect: to wit, the burning of Vorstius's books. 8. Let it be added, that James had been almost nine years on the throne of England, when he burned the books aforesaid. A proof that he did not soon discountenance the doctrines of the Reformation. His zeal for those doctrines was red-hot, till he happened to find out that his orthodoxy and his politics stood in each other's way. Nor must I omit, that his own writings, which have supplied me with the materials whence the above conclusions are drawn, furnish me likewise with another proof that his perseverance in defending the faith was long, though not final. For, the edition of his works which I am now making use of was printed 1616, which will spin out his Calvinistic majesty's perseverance to, at least that year; and that year was the fourteenth of his reign.
We have seen that what king James entitles his Declaration against Vorstius, is not only pregnant with threatnings, and almost with slaughters, against that learned Arminian; but likewise breathes a very bitter spirit of implacable resentment against the memory of Arminius himself, who had been then dead about two years. Not satisfied with terming Vorstius a "wretched heretic, or rather atheist,"13 a "monster," an "Anti-St. John," and a "Samosatenian;"14 the king hardly gives better quarter to Arminius, from whose root Vorstius had sprung. His majesty's instructions to his ambassador in Holland have these remarkable words: "You shall repaire to the States General, with all possible dilligence, in our name: telling them, that wee doubt not, but that their ambassadours, which were with us about 2 years since, did inform them of a forewarning, that wee wished the said ambassadours to make unto them in our name, to beware, in time, of seditious and heretical preachers; and not to suffer any such to creepe into their State. Our principal meaning was of Arminius: who though himself was lately dead, vet had hee left too many of his disciples behind him."15 The king added, that "the above-named Arminius "was of little better stuff,"16 than his disciple Vorstius. Arminius's own writings bear full witness to the justness of James's remark. And, continued his majesty, "though [Arminius] himselfe be dead, he hath left his sting yet living among them."17
In a letter to the States themselves his majesty informs them, "It was our [i.e. king James's own] hard hap, not to heare of this Arminius, before he was dead, and that all the reformed churches of Germany had with open mouth complained of him. But as soon as wee understood of that distraction in your State, which after his death he left behind him, we did not faile, taking the opportunitie when your last extraordinary ambassadors were here with us, to use some such speeches unto them, concerning this matter, as wee thought fittest for the good of your State, and which we doubt not but they have faithfully reported unto you. For, what need we make any question of the arrogance of these heretiques, or rather atheistical sectaries, among you; when one of them [viz. Bertius, already noted], at this present remaining in your town of Leyden, hath not only presumed to publish, of late, a blasphemous booke of the apostacie of the saints, but hath, besides, beene so impudent as to send, the other day, a copie thereof, as a goodly present, to our archbishop of Canterbury, together with a letter wherein he [Bertius] is not ashamed (as also in his booke) to lie so grossly, as to avow, that his heresies, conteined in his said booke, are agreeable with the religion and profession of our reformed Church of England. For these respects, therefore, have we cause enough, very heartily to request you to roote out, with speed, those heresies and schismes, which are beginning to bud foorthe among you: which if you suffer to have the reins any longer, you cannot expect any other issue thereof, than the curse of God, infamy throughout all the reformed churches, and a perpetual rent and distraction in the whole body of your State. But if, peradventure, this wretched Vorstius should denie or equivocate upon those blasphemous poynts of heresie and atheism, which already he hath broached; that, perhaps, may moove you to spare his person and not cause him to bee burned (which never any heretique better deserved, and wherein we will leave him to your owne christian wisdome): but to suffer him, upon any defence, or abnegation, which bee shall offer to make, still to continue and to teach amongst you, is a thing so abominable, as we assure ourselves, it wiil not once enter into any of your thoughts."18
More matter for disquisition! but my remarks shall not be exuberant. Observe, then, 1. That Bertius's book against final perseverance, and his presenting a copy of it to the archbishop of Canterbury, but chiefly his having affirmed that he [Bertius] and the Church of England were of one mind in that point; were insults, which James's orthodoxy could neither forget nor digest. 2. In his majesty's opinion, Vorstius was an "heretic" a "monster," and an "atheist;" and Arminius was "of little better stuff." 3. So obscure was Arminius, during his life time, and so little progress had Arminianism then made, that the king had never so much as heard of Arminius 'till after the said Arminius "was dead." A circumstance, which James lamented, and called by the name of "hard hap :" intimating, that had he known of Arminius's schism, while the schismatic himself was in the land of the living, the royal pen would have been drawn no less against Van Harmin himself, than it was, afterwards, against Vorstius. 4. As soon as Arminius's Pelagian innovations became known, the protestants were struck with alarm: "All the reformed churches in Germany," and elsewhere "complained of him," i.e. complained of Arminius, "with open mouth." When king James became acquainted with Arminius's tenets, conduct, and character, his majesty pronounced him to have been, "A seditious and heretical preacher:" Yea, a monster with a "sting," and an "enemy of God." 6. James also declared the new Arminians, or (as himself expressed it), the "too many disciples" whom Arminius "left behinde him," to be "arrogant hereties," and "atheistical sectaries." 7. In the judgment of the said king, Bertius's Treatise against Perseverance was a "presumptuous" and a "blasphemous" book: and the author himself an "impudent heretic," and a "gross liar." Terms these I acknowledge utterly unfit for a king to make use of: but James had no more of politeness in his composition, than he supposed the Arminians to have of Christianity in their system. 8. He "very heartily" requested the States General to "root out" the Arminians, as "heretics" and "schismatics:" and enforces his exhortation, under the penalty of God's "curse," of "infamy" among men, and of perpetual "rent" and "distraction" throughout the whole body of the Dutch Provinces. 9. He desires them to divest Vorstius of his promotion: 10. To banish him from their dominions: and, 11. In his plenitude of outrageous zeal, he drops a pretty broad hint, that the magistrates of Holland would greatly oblige the king of England, were they to "cause" Vorstius "to be burned:" a death, says his majesty, "which never any heretic better deserved." A horrid intimation! but worthy of the sanguinary tyrant that gave it: The Calvinistic doctrines, retained by such an ungracious bigot resembled (what some naturalists have feigned) a pearl in the head of a toad. 12. Let it not be overlooked, that James's declaration against Vorstius, in which the above cited particulars occur, is solemnly dedicated and inscribed, by the king himself, to Jesus Christ.19 I see, therefore, no reason to doubt of the sincerity with which he opposed Arminianism. Bad as he was, he was certainly in earnest. Though same other ingredients, besides that of mere zeal for the Protestant doctrines, had, 'tis probable, a share in the violent counsels with which his Britannic majesty so officiously pestered the States of Holland.
It was, however, no new thing with James, to hate and oppose Arminianism. Of this, he had before given sufficient proof, during the conference held at Hampton Court, in the very infancy of his English reign.
The severity of Elizabeth's laws against the puritans, had retained a great number of that body within the visible pale of the Church established, and forced them into a sort of outward conformity to institutions which they were extremely remote from cordially approving. These, and a very few others, whom no coercive penalties had induced to temporize, flattered themselves, that James, who was by profession a Presbyterian, would on succeeding to Elizabeth's throne, relax and widen the terms of communion.
It is extremely problematical, whether James, even when king of Scotland only, entertained any serious intention to favour those people, should he ever have it in his power. He seems, from the first, to have drunk very deeply into the low arts of a narrow subtlety, which disfigured and discoloured all the leading actions of his life. Twelve or thirteen years before he ascended the throne of England, he laboured to ingratiate himself with the Scotch kirk, by an indecent (and, as heir presumptive to Elizabeth, by a very impolitic) censure of the English ritual. "As for our neighbour Kirk of England," said he, standing in an assembly of his clergy, with his head uncovered, and his hands (in one of which, he held his bonnet,) raised toward heaven; "As for our neighbour Kirk of England, their service is an evil mass said in English. They want nothing of the mass, but the liftings. I charge you, my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity, and to exhort the people to do the same. And I, forsooth, as long as I brook my life, shall maintain the same." This was in 1590. Fight years afterwards he told his parliament, that he had no intention " to bring in Papistical or Anglican bishops."20 Such were his compliments on the church of England.
But he was no sooner at the head of that Church, than he either dropped the masque,21 or was proselyted by the English prelates, who had seasonably and discreetly gained his ear. The Puritans in this kingdom quickly found, that they had mistaken their man: for James was shot up, all at once, into a very high church-man.
Under pretence of trying to bring matters to an amicable compromise between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians, a conference was opened at Hampton Court, between the two parties, on Saturday, the 14th of January, 1604. But, on the king's side, the whole interview was only a mere state manoeuvre, and no otherwise designed from the first. Every circumstance demonstrated, that it had been resolved, before hand, to let all things continue as they were. Dr.Wellwood is undoubtedly right in affirming, that the conference at Hampton court "was but a blind to introduce episcopacy into Scotland: All the Scotch noblemen, then at court, being designed to be present; and others, both noblemen and ministers, being called up from Scotland, to assist at it, by the king's letter."22
How contemptible James rendered himself, in the course of the three days' debate, abundantly appears, even from the well-glossed narrative of Barlow. So far from preserving the dignity of a king, or the candour of a public father, or even the decent coolness of a moderator; he behaved, on one hand, with all the weakness of a dupe: and, on the other, with all the insolence of a bully.
His majesty and Bancroft, bishop of London, monopolized much of the conference to themselves. That prelate has been represented has having leaned to Arminianism: but, for my life, I could never find any proof of it: Sure I am, that, during the said Hampton conference, his lordship acquitted himself, in all theological respects, like a sober, judicious, well-principled Calvinist.
Dr. Reinolds, one of the four who appeared for the Puritans, moved, that part of the 16th article might be explained; and that the famous Lambeth articles might be incorporated with the 39.23
James, it seems, had never heard of those Lambeth articles before: and therefore, says Barlow, "His majesty could not suddenly answer; because he understood not what the Doctor meant by those assertions, or propositions at Lambeth. But, when it was informed his majesty, that, by reason of some controversies, arising in Cambridge, about certaine points of divinity, my lord's grace" [viz. Whitgift archbishop of Canterbury] "assembled some divines of especial note, to set downe their opinions, which they drew into nine assertions; and so sent them to the University, for appeasing of those quarrels: Then his majesty answered, 1. That, when such questions arise among schollers, the quietest proceeding were to determine them in the Universities, and not to stuffe the booke [viz. the 39 articles] with conclusions theological. 2. The better course would be, to punish the broachers of false doctrine, as occasion should be offered: for were the articles never so many and sound, who can prevent the contrary opinions of men 'till they be heard?"
Hence it appears, 1. That one reason of James's declining to super-add, by express authority, the articles of Lambeth to the nine and thirty established articles of the church, was, not any disapprobation of the Lambeth articles themselves; but because he was unwilling to "stuffe," i.e. to enlarge, the 39 articles with more "conclusions theological," than were needful. And, herein, the king judged wisely enough. There was no sort of necessity for inserting the Lambeth propositions: since they do not affirm any single doctrine, which is not, either expressly, or virtually, contained, in the 39 articles already established. I observe, 2. That the king, on being informed what the Lambeth articles were, and on what occasion they had been framed, did tacitly allow the orthodoxy of the said articles: for he gave the company to understand, that there was the less need of embodying those articles with the thirty-nine, as himself stood in constant readiness to "punish" the "broachers of false doctrine:" i.e. to punish those who might broach any doctrine contrary to that of the Lambeth articles, and of the 39 articles of the Church of England.
No sooner did James intimate this his design of punishing the "broachers of false doctrine," than a certain person, then present, took the alarm, and began to enter a caveat in his own behalf. This was Dr. John Overall, at that time dean of St. Paul's, and who died bishop of Norwich. He was supposed, by some, to have been a sort of mongrel divine; half-Calvinist, and half-Arminian. But I am not disposed to judge so harshly of that learned man. The only article, in which (so far as I can hitherto recollect) he appears to have deviated from the Protestant system, was, respecting the possibility of a total, though he denied the possibility of a final, fall from justification.
"Upon this," i.e. instantaneously on James's professing his intention to punish the broachers of false doctrine as occasion should be offered, "the deane of Paules, kneeling downe, humbly desired leave to speak: signifying unto his majesty, that this matter somewhat more nearly concerned him [viz. the speaking dean], by reason of controversie betweene him and some other in Cambridge, upon a proposition which he had delivered there: namely, that whosoever, although before justified, did commit any grievous sin, as adultery, murder, treason, or the like, did become ipso facto, subject to God's wrath, and guilty of damnation; or were in state of damnation, quoad praesentem statutm, untill they repented."24
Thus spake the kneeling dean: and the sum of his opinion certainly amounted to this, that a justified man might totally lose his justification. But whether the said dean (who, doubtless, kept his eyes steadily fixed on the king, and acutely watched every motion of the royal face) actually discerned any symptoms of incipient displeasure lowering on his majesty's brow; or whether the prudent ecclesiastic only intended to guard himself, in general, against all possible "punishment" as a broacher of false doctrine;" cannot, at this distance of time, be infallibly determined. Thus much, however, is certain: that, for some present reason or other, the dean, in the very midst of his oration, suddenly wheeled about, and positively denied that justification could be even totally, much less finally, lost. For thus the narrative proceeds: "Adding hereunto," i.e. dean Overall, immediately after declaring that justified persons, who fall into atrocious sins, are in a state of damnation, quoad praesentem statum, until they repent; subjoined, in the same breath, "That those which were called and justified according to the purpose of God's election, howsoever they might, and did, sometime fall into grievous sins, and thereby into the present state of wrath and damnation; yet did never fall, either totally, from all the graces of God, [so as] to he utterly destitute of all the parts and seed thereof, nor finally from justification: but were in time renewed by God's spirit, unto a lively faith and repentance, &c."25
This seasonable salvo saved Overall's credit with his majesty. James, whose science lay more in terms than in things, was extremely well satisfied with his dean's orthodoxy. As long as some ostensible respect was paid to the two words, total and final; the royal disputant looked no farther.
The king, however, embraced this opportunity of entering "into a longer speech of predestination and reprobation, than before; and of the necessary conjoyning repentance and holinesse of life with true faith: concluding, that it was hypocrisie, and not true justifying faith, which was severed from them. For although," added his majesty, "predestination and election depend not on any qualities, actions, or works of man, which be mutable; but upon God's eternal and immutable decree and purpose: yet, such is the necessity of repentance, after knowne sinnes committed, as that, without it there could not be either reconciliation with God, or remission of those sins."26
Should the reader ask, 'Why I so carefully recite what passed, in the Hampton Court conference, respecting predestination?' I answer: To shew the total want of truth, with which some late Arminian writers insinuate that predestination was not, at that time, a sacred article of faith with James and the ruling clergy.
In this same conference it was, that Bancroft (then bishop of London, and, shortly afterwards, archbishop of Canterbury) suggested that scriptural and judicious caution, concerning predestination, which has been already referred to in a preceding part of this work. That great and able prelate's own words shall close our present sketch of the Hampton interview. "The bishop of London took occasion to signifie to his majesty, how very many, in these daies, neglecting holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting of grace, laying all their religion upon predestination; [arguing thus with themselves], if I shall he saved, I shall be saved: which he [the bishop] termed [and with great reason] a desperate doctrine, contrary to good divinity, and the true doctrine of predestination; wherein we should reason rather, ascendendo, than descendendo, thus: I live in obedience to God, in love with my neighbour; I follow my vocation, &c. therefore I trust, that God hath elected me, and predestinated me to salvation. Not thus, which is the usual course of argument, God hath predestinated and chosen me to life, therefore, though I sin never so grievously yet I shall not be damned."27
In this excellent caveat against the abuse of predestination, Bancroft goes no farther than Calvin himself had gone before, Sitigitur haec nobis inquirendi via ut exordium sumamus a Dei vocatione; says that illustrious reformer: i.e. In all our enquiries into predestination, let us never fail to begin with effectual calling.28 Again: There are some who go on, securely, in sin; alledging, that, if they are in the number of the elect, their vices will not hinder them from going to heaven. Such execrable language, as this, is not the holy bleating of Christ's sheep; but, as Calvin very justly styles it, foedus porcorum grunnitus, the impure grunting of swine. For, adds that incomparable man, we learn from St. Paul, that we are elected to this very end, even to holiness and blamelessness of living Now, if sanctity of life is the very end, scope, and drift of election itself; 'twill follow, that the doctrine of election should awaken and spur us on to sanctification, instead of furnishing us with a false plea for indolence.29 Thus perfectly were Calvin and Bancroft agreed.
Almost fifteen years after the Hampton Court conference, king James and the Church of England gave the most public proof of their continued Calvinism, by the distinguished part they bore in the transactions of the synod of Dort.
The disturbances, raised and fomented by the Arminian faction, in Holland, were, in the year 1613, (i.e. about nine year, after Arminius's decease,) risen to such a height, as threatened to involve both the church and state of the United Provinces in one common mass of total ruin. What emboldened the Arminians, was, the secret encouragement they received from foreign and domestic Papists. We have already heard, from Wilson, that the kings of France and Spain clandestinely blowed the Arminian flame, in Holland, "as the immediate way to introduce Popery." And Mr. Camden has preserved the name of one of the French agents, who were privately dispatched to Holland on that laudible errand. "July 27, news was brought [viz. to the English court], of Bossis, a Frenchman, being sent into the Low Countries, to strengthen the Catholic and Arminian parties."30 Sir Dudley Carlton, also, who was ambassador from the English court to the States General, makes express mention, in a letter to archbishop Abbot, of "the French ambassador's private practices in favour of the Arminian party."31 Could the Dutch Arminians justly complain, if they were treated as enemies to their country?
Treated so they undoubtedly were, for a time: and no faction upon earth ever deserved it more. They artfully attempted to make Europe believe, that they were persecuted, entirely, on account of their religious tenets. But it was no such thing. They were repressed as public enemies to the State. The danger, indeed, and the venom of their political views conduced, very naturally, to bring their theological principles into additional discredit. Yet were they persecuted (as they called it), not merely as Arminians but as traitors.
"On the 19th of August [1618], the prime ring-leaders of the sedition, Barnevelt, Hoogenberts, and Grotius, were seized on at the Hague, as they were entering the Senate, and committed to several prisons. This cast a general damp on the spirits of the remonstrants [for so the Arminians called themselves], as if they had been crushed in the head."32
Of the three delinquents, only Barnevelt was sacrificed to the justice of his injured country. He suffered decapitation at the Hague, May 14, 1619. The sentence by which he was condemned, enumerated, without any exaggeration, the principal crimes whereby he had violated the duties of a good citizen. Among others, he was justly charged with having endeavoured to disturb the peace of the land; with kindling the fire of dissention in the provinces; raising soldiers in the diocese of Utrecht; revealing the secrets of the State; and receiving presents and gifts from foreign princes. Even Peter Heylyn confesses to have heard that the Spanish court secretly fomented the designs of Barnevelt.33
Nor could any thing be more natural. Philip III. still considered the United Provinces as a parcel of his own dominions: and, indeed, they had shaken off his yoke but a very few years before, and were not acknowledged by Spain, as a free state, till thirty years after, viz. the year 1648. No wonder, therefore, that king Philip sought with eagerness to avail himself of the Arminian schism; a schism, which at once bade fair to exterminate the Protestant religion from the Dutch Netherlands, and to reduce them afresh to the obedience of Spain. Hence arose Philip's secret tamperings with Barnevelt, the secular head and protector of that Arminian sect, from whose doctrinal innovations and political intrigues the Spanish monarch had so many advantages to expect. But the wisdom, courage, and activity of Maurice, prince of Orange, were the means, which Providence used, to defeat the iniquitous schemes of the Arminian and Spanish faction. The seizure of the principal rebels and incendiaries, together with the execution of Barnevelt, in whom both those characters were united; laid, once more, that foundation of national liberty and safety, which the Dutch to this day enjoy, and which have since conduced to render that illustrious republic of such weight and importance in the European scale.
What prince Maurice did for the State, the council of Dort did for the church of Holland: as if pure religion and civil liberty were irreversibly fated to fall and rise together.
The Reformation appears to have been first introduced into the Dutch Provinces by the numerous French refugees, who fled thither about the middle of the sixteenth century. For some time, Protestantism diffused itself insensibly among the natives, who were then subject to the crown of Spain. By degrees, the progress of evangelical truth became so extensive, and the number of its partizans grew so considerable, that, about the year 1567, they ventured to draw up a confession of faith, formed entirely on the system of Calvin. Their Spanish governors soon took the alarm. To check the spreading heresy, and to restrain the Dutch within the bonds both of Popish and of Spanish obedience, the inquisition was established by force; and that bloody tribunal dispatched multitudes of souls by a short way to Heaven. Civil and ecclesiastical grievances were, at length, so multiplied and aggravated, that the people, harassed by a never-ending train of intolerable oppressions, were compelled to seek relief in themselves. Every tyranny has its crisis; which having attained, the mock-sun declines more rapidly than it rose. Providence succeeded the pious and patriotic efforts of the Dutch. After some years' noble and obstinate struggle, those Provinces threw off Popery and slavery together. The pure religion of the gospel continued to shine, with uninterrupted beams, for the most part, on that free and happy people; 'till Arminius darkened and disturbed their hemisphere. The commotions, began by that pestilent schismatic, and raised to almost a ruinous height, by his immediate followers, were, as has been already intimated, suppressed by prince Maurice and his patriots, so far as concerned the State. To extinguish the fire which had half consumed the church, and to re-settle its faith on its original Calvinistic basis, was the task assigned to the synod at Dort.
That famous assembly began to sit, on Tuesday morning, November the thirteenth, 1618. The States of Holland intended, at first, that the synod should consist of no more than their own provincial divines. It was at the persuasion of king James I.34 (whose request was signified and seconded by Maurice prince of Orange), that select ministers, deputed from England and from other reformed countries, were admitted to assist in the deliberations at Dort. His majesty, doubtless, wished to seize so fair an occasion of avowing, to all Europe, both his own doctrinal Calvinism, and that of the Church of England.
Heylyn himself gives us to understand, that James's immediate view was, to condemn the Arminian tenets with the greater formality: "Those opinions," says Heylyn, "which he, (the king had laboured to condemn at the synod at Dort)."35 The same writer informs us, that the Dutch antecedently to the actual calling together of that synod, took care "to invite to their assistance some divines, out of all the churches of Calvin's platform; and none else."36 In saying whereof, the Arminian unwarily concedes the church of England, among the rest, to be a church of Calvin's platform; as, in point of doctrine, she certainly is, and has been from her very first reformation.
James's request being granted, and what divines, he might please to send, being invited; his majesty nominated four very eminent dignitaries, to represent the Church of England, in the synod, and one divine to represent the Church of Scotland. The English representatives were, Dr. George Carleton, then bishop of Landaff, and afterwards of Chichester; Dr. Joseph Hall, then dean of Worcester, afterwards bishop of Exeter, and, lastly, of Norwich; Dr. John Davenant, then master of Queen's College, Cambridge, and Margaret professor; afterwards bishop of Salisbury; and Dr. Samuel Ward, master of Sydney College, and archdeacon of Taunton.
The four English divines waited on the king, at Newmarket, to receive his instructions, what those instructions were, may be seen in Fuller.37 On the 8th of October, 1618, Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward attended his majesty, once more, at Royston; who, commanding them to sit down, conversed very familiarly with them for two hours; and, on parting, solemnly besought God to bless their endeavours at the ensuing synod.38
Sailing from the English coast, our- four delegates landed at Middleburgh, in Zealand, October 20; arrived at the Hague, on the 27th, where they had the honour to kiss the hand of the laurelled patriot, prince Maurice; and, thence, repaired to Dort, the main scene Of action. Dr. Balcanqual, who appears to have set out later, did not take his place in the synod, until December 10.
The members of this synod formed a constellation of the best and the most learned theologians that had ever met in council, since the dispersion of the apostles; unless we except the imperial convocation at Nice, in the fourth century. Read but the names of Heinsius, Lydius, Hommius, Voetius, Bisterfield, Triglandius, Bogermanus, Sibelius, Gomarus, Polyander, Thysius, Walaeus, Sculttetus, Altingius, Deodatus, Carleton, Davenant, Hall; exclusively of the many other first-rate worthies, who constituted and adorned this ever memorable assembly; and doubt, if you call, whether the sun could shine on a living collection of more exalted piety and stupendous erudition !
That low and virulent Arminian, John Goodwin, the fifth monarchy man, compares the synod with Herod, who, "for his oath's sake, contrary to his minde, caused John the Baptist's head to be given to Herodius in a platter."39 Intimating, that the Dordrechtan fathers had, before the commencement of their synodical business, taken an oath to condemn the Arminians at all events. Dr. Fuller is even with Goodwin, and repays that libeller in his own coin, by comparing him to Pilate. "See here," says the historian, "how this suggester, though at first he takes water, and washes his hands, with a 'far be it from me to subscribe the report;' yet afterwards, he crucifies the credit of an whole synod, and makes them all guilty of no less than damnable perjury.
"I could have wished, that he had mentioned, in the margin, the authors of this suggestion. Whereas, now, the omission thereof will give occasion to some to suspect him for the first raiser of the report. Musing with myself on this matter, and occasionally exchanging letters with the sons of bishop Hall, it came into my mind, to ask them Joseph's question to his brethren, Is your father well? the old man, of whom you spake, is he yet alive? And, being informed of his life and health, I addressed myself, in a letter, to him, for satisfaction in this particular; who was pleased to honour me with his return, herein inserted :
"Whereas you desire from me a just relation of the carriage of the businesse at the synod at Dort: and the conditions required of our divines there, at or before their admission to that grave and learned assembly; I, whom God was pleased to employ as an unworthy agent in that great work, and to reserve still upon earth, after all my reverend and worthy associates doe, as in the presence of that God to whom I am now daily expecting to yield up my account, testifie to you, and (if you will) to the world, that I cannot, without just indignation, read that slanderous imputation, which Mr. Goodwin, in his Redemption Redeemed, reports to have been raised and cast upon those divines, eminent both for learning and piety, that they suffered themselves to be bound with an oath, at, or before their admission into that synod, to vote down the remonstrants [i.e. the Arminians] howsoever; so as they came deeply pre-engaged to the decision of those unhappy differences. Truly, Sir, as I hope to be saved, all the oath that was required of its, was this: After that the moderator, assistants, and scribes were chosen, and the synod formed, and the several members allowed, there was a solemn oath required to be taken by every one of that assembly; which was publicly done, in a grave manner, by every person, in their order, standing up, and laying his hand upon his heart, calling the great God of Heaven to witnesse, that he would impartially proceed in the judgments of these controversies, and no otherwise: so determining of them, as he should find in his conscience most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures. And this was all the oath that was either taken, or required. And farre was it from those holy souls, which are now glorious in Heaven, or mine (who still, for some short time, survive, to give this just witnesie of our sincere integrity), to entertain the least thought of any so foul corruption, as, by any over-ruling power, to be swayed to a pre-judgment in the points controverted. Sir, since I have lived to see so foul an aspersion cast upon the memory of those worthy and eminent divines, I blesse God that I yet live to vindicate them, by this my knowing, clear, and assured attestation ; which I am ready to second with the solemnest oath, if I shall be thereto required.
"Your most devoted friend, &c.
"Jos. Hall, B. N."40
"Higham, Aug. 30, 1651."
Judge now, what degree of credit is due to the malevolent insinuations of John Goodwin. The wretch lived no fewer than ten years after Dr. Fuller's publication of the above letter. Yet he never, so far as I can find, either retracted the slander he had advanced, or even apologized for it. So hardened was his front, and so thoroughly was he drenched in the petrifying water of a party!41
King James's heart was quite wrapt up in the synod; and all his attention seemed collected to a point, as long as the divines were sitting. With such eagerness and anxiety did he interest himself in the condemnation of Arminianism, that he commanded his British divines to send him "a weekly account of all memorable passages transacted at [Dort]." Yet it happened, that, for a month, or more, the king received from them no particulars of their proceeding: whereat his majesty was most highly offended. But, afterwards, understanding that this defect was caused by the countermands of an higher King, even of him who gathereth the winds in his fists, stopping all passages by contrary weather; he was quickly pacified: yea, highly pleased, when four weekly dispatches (not neglected to be orderly sent, but delayed to he accordingly brought) came altogether, to his majesty's hands."42 The royal baby of fifty-three received his rattles, and was contented. For, by James, religion itself seems to have been regarded chiefly as a plaything, which contributed to his amusement; or, at most, as a pedestal, on which his vanity might display itself conveniently. Two or three years, indeed, after the period of which we are now treating, he considered it under the more serious idea of a commodious engine, which he thought himself capable of working and managing to much political advantage.
Two and twenty sessions had elapsed, ere any thing was done by the synod, relative to the Arminians:43 and yet those people complained (for they came with a resolution to complain at all events), that sufficient time had not been allowed them to prepare their papers of defence. As if they had not known, seven or eight years44 before the synod was called, that such an assembly was to be convened! And as if, even after the synod began to sit, ample space had been denied them, wherein to provide for their appearance!
Determined to clog and interrupt, as much as possible, every wheel of public business, the Arminians, with Episcopius at their head, affected openly to resent their being cited to the synod as delinquents, instead of being invited to sit in it, as judges. A wonderful hardship indeed, that criminals indicted for transgressing the laws of their country, should not be invited to take their seat on the judicial bench!
For the farther clearing of this supposed grievance, let it be considered, 1. That the then Arminians of Holland (for it is of the Dutch Arminians, and of those only who were then living, that we are now treating) had, by kindling a flame in the Church, formed likewise a very dangerous faction in the State; even such a faction, as menaced the loss, not only of religious, but of civil, liberty, to the whole community at large. Hence, 2. They rendered themselves, by every law of society whatever, responsible to that public, whose ruin they had so nearly accomplished. Especially, 3. When it was found, that the Popish courts of France and Spain (those natural enemies, whose power the United Provinces, then in their infancy of strength, had so just reason to dread) were actually grafting political machinations on these ecclesiastical disputes, by aiding, seconding, and encouraging the Arminians to effect the total overthrow of the new-born republic.
Should it be said, that "Though these heinous political offences deserved punishment, yet their punishment should have been assigned, not to the synod of Dort, but to the secular courts of justice;" I answer, 1. An injured State, whose legal forms of procedure (like those of Holland at the above period) have not attained their full maturity, digestion, and establishment, by the length of time, the regularity of equal custom, and the leisurely wisdom of general deliberation and consent, requisite to such a fixed settlement; a State so circumstanced, is at full liberty to refer the cognizance of it's domestic disturbers to what court soever it's self may please to authorise. 2. The synod of Dort not only assembled and sat by virtue of the civil authority; but was, intrinsically, both an ecclesiastical and a civil court. It was far from consisting of ecclesiastics only. Lay assessors (or, as they were termed, "political delegates") sat, with the spiritual deputies, in that great assembly. Consequently, 3. A court, formed on this mixed plan, was the properest court in the world to judge a set of misdoers, whose crimes were of a mixed nature. The Arminians had sinned, equally, against Church and State. The civil power contented itself with laying hold on two or three of the most dangerous and inflammatory: and consigned the rest to a mixed tribunal, consisting of churchmen and of laymen. Could any government have acted with more prudence, temper, and equity? 4. After all, what if some of the Arminians refused to sit in the synod, when that favour was offered them? We shall soon see that this was actually the case.
"But the synod of Dort did not profess to condemn these delinquents, for their state offences; but for their doctrinal deviations from the purity of the Protestant faith." Be it so. The Arminians were liable to two very heavy charges: viz. of undermining the public safety; and of seeking to overthrow the reformed religion. When two indictments thus hang over a man's head, one of which, if proved, will suffice to incapacitate him, for ever, from doing any further mischief, and the man be actually found guilty of that one; what reason can be assigned for trying him on the other? He could but be condemned, if convicted of a thousand crimes. The synod of Dort fixed on one of the two charges against the Arminians. It was a matter of indifference, on which of the two they should proceed. That single charge being demonstratively proved, there was no sort of occasion for their examining the merits of the second. All the purposes, both of Church and State, were answered, without farther trouble; and without exposing the malpractices of the Arminians, beyond what absolute necessity required. That sect were, already sufficiently the objects of public indignation.45 It would have been unmerciful, to have needlessly ript open the whole of their criminality; when amply enough of it appeared, to justify every hostile step, taken against them by the synod.
Thirteen Arminian46 teachers were summoned to appear at Dort. On their arrival in that city, their three chiefs (viz. Episcopius, Corvinus, and Dwinglon) waited privately on our bishop Carleton, in hopes of being able to prejudice him in their favour. That sound and trusty Church of England man gave them an exceeding cool reception. "They entreated me," says his lordship, "to mediate for them, that Grevinchovius might be admitted to their company. I told them, that the [Dutch] Church had deposed Grevinchovius, and the States had approved the deposition: and therefore I could not meddle in that thing. Yet they were very earnest. I told them, I would send for my colleagues; and they should have a common answer. Whilst we staid for my fellows, I fell into some speech with Corvinus, concerning some things which he had written: and found him nothing constant in those things which he hath published. When the rest [of the British divines] came, they gave the same answer.
"Corvinus came to Mr. Mayer, the professor of Basil, and told him, that he [viz. Corvinus] was drawn into these troublesome courses by others: and shewed some dislike, as if he meant to withdraw himself from them [i.e. from the Arminian party, by whom he had been inveigled]."47 The bishop adds: "We hear, that the Jesuits are much offended at the synod. It must be some great good, that offends them."48 The Jesuits, it must be confessed, had reason enough to be "offended" with the meeting of this glorious Protestant synod. But it makes very little for the credit (if any professed Protestants, to stumble at the same stone with the disciples of Loyola.
Nothing could exceed the insolence, the perverseness, and the studied chicanery, with which the Arminians, through the course of their appearance in the synod, exercised the humility and patience of the venerable assembly.
Had the Arminians been required to hold up their hands at the bar of that court, it had been no more than strict justice would have authorized. But, instead of thus treating them with ignominy, the synod, with much candour, desired them to sit; for which purpose, a long table had been provided, surrounded with chairs and forms, in the middle of the synod-house.49 As soon as they were seated, the president politely informed them, that he had, at their request, moved the synod to grant them longer time; but that the deputies of the States were pleased to order their appearance then, and that they should have liberty to open their cause themselves.50
Episcopius, instead of reciprocating the civilities which himself and his party had received, rose sullenly from his chair, and gave the assembly to understand, that he and his associates were come, ad collationem instituendam; i.e. not to appear as defendants, but to open a conference with the synod: and that they [the Arminians] were ready, even at that present, to begin the business they came for, without farther delay.51
Polyander, the Leyden professor, took occasion to animadvert on the haughtiness of the above speech. "The Arminians" (said that great man) "ought to know, that they were not sent for, to hold a conference: nor does the synod sit here as an adverse party to them. Conferences have been held with them often enough, in time past: and all to no purpose. They should recollect, that they were not now called hither to confer, but were cited to give in their opinions, with the reasons by which those opinions are supported. The synod ,it as judges, not as opponents, of the Arminians."52
To provoke the synod into rigorous measures, seems to have been the wish and design of the Arminian faction; that they might have some plausible colour of complaint, and be able to spread an artificial mist before the public eye: just as the cuttlefish, when in danger of being taken, emits an inky fluid, to darken the water, and favour its own escape. "You are incompetent judges," said the Arminians to the synod: "You are schismatics, innovators, and cherishers of schism. Not you, but the civil magistrate, have a right to adjust our controversies."53
Could any thing be more insolent, more scurrilous, and more untrue? Here is a handful of novel schismatics, whose separation from the reformed churches had began but about fourteen or fifteen years before, charging the reformed churches themselves with schism and innovation! Ravaillac, who murdered Henry the fourth of France, might with equal reason, modesty, and truth, have laboured to transfer the name of assassin from himself to Henry.
But what reply did the president, as mouth of the synod, return, to the audacious, indecent, and false invectives of the Arminians? He answered, with all the dignity and gentleness which might be expected from so great a man. "When it shall be made plain to the synod," said he, "what the received doctrine of the Church has been; then will it appear, who they are that have receded from her doctrine, and on which of the two parties the guilt of schism is justly chargeable. If you except against us members of this assembly, merely because our religious sentiments are different from your own, by what tribunal would you wish to he tried? By yourselves? or by the Papists? or by the Anabaptists? or by the libertines? or by some other faction in these countries? Even supposing we actually were the schismatics you have stiled us; yea, were we Scribes and Pharisees, or worse than they; yet would the present synod, as such, be a lawful court. For, it is called and empowered by the civil government, whose authority cannot be questioned. It is composed of delegates and representatives, regularly chosen and deputed. Every individual has also taken a solemn oath, to decide according to justice. If all this will not suffice to render us competent judges, what can?"54 The Arminians had nothing to offer, in opposition to president Bojermann's cool and solid reasonings, but saucy cavils and vain janglings.
The learned Mr. John Hales very justly wonders at the shameless indecency of Episcopius and his comrades: "It was much, that they should grow to that boldness, as that, openly, they should call the synod, the seculars, the chief magistrates, yea, the prince of Orange himself, schismatics."55 But the Dutch Arminians had not yet learned the profitable lesson of absolute obedience to the civil power. Their brethren in England were wiser; and, almost as soon as they arose began to profess an bounded subjection to the will of the chief magistrate. This it was that saved them from James's iron hand, and even lifted them into favour. 'Twas by this clasper, that the tendrils of Arminian novelty twined round the royal leg of James; and, afterwards, under Charles the First, flourished as a green bay-tree in the court of the king's house.
After the synod of Dort had long borne with the grossest insults at the hands of the Arminians, it was agreed, that the said Arminians should be admonished to behave, for the future, with more decency and respect. At the same time, a decree of the States was read to those sectarists: importing, that whereas the Arminians had made many dilatory answers to the injury [i.e. to the hinderance] both of the ecclesiastics and seculars; it was decreed by them [i.e. by the States], that they [the Arminians] should lay aside all frivolous exceptions and dilatory answers, and forthwith proceed to set down their mind concerning the five articles, for which end they were come together.56
Episcopius now began to draw in his horns, and pretend to some degree of veneration for the States. "In the imputation of schism," said he, "we include not the seculars, but the ecclesiastics only." Ridiculous! As if the ecclesiastics and the seculars were not of one mind, and embarked in the same cause!
The president then urged the Arminians to give an answer, whether or no they would set down their minds concerning the points in controversy. But they still flew from the point: alleging, as before, that "the synod were not their competent judges." The president asked, By whom then are you willing to be judged? They insolently replied, "That's a question which we will not answer: suffice it, that we except against this synod." Remember said the secular president, that you are subjects, and ought to shew decent respect to the laws of your country. "The magistrates," answered the Arminians, "have no authority over our consciences."57 True. But this was not the article in question. The magistracy did not pretend to prescribe to the Arminians what they should believe; but only claimed a right to know, from their own mouths, what they did believe. They were called thither by the State, not to have a creed obtruded upon them, but ut sententiam suam dilucide et perspicue exponerent et defenderent: i.e. in order to give them an opportunity of fairly and clearly proposing and defending their own doctrinal principles.58 What shadow of magisterial, or of ecclesiastical tyranny was there in this?
Still the Arminians refused to give any account of their own positive tenets. They would not so much as carry on the conference they had pretended to desire, unless they might be permitted to begin with an attack on the doctrine of reprobation:59 to which the synod objected. Reprobation, or preterition, is but a negative consequence of election. Election, therefore, ought, as first in order of nature, to be first considered: for how absurd would it be, to discuss the naked conclusion, without antecedently canvassing the premises! So that, in proposing such a wild and illogical method of procedure, the Arminians at the synod of Dort acted neither as men of peace, nor as men of honesty, nor as men of sense. They pretended, indeed, that it was "a matter of conscience with them, to put reprobation foremost." But, as the synod very reasonably observed, "The pretext of conscience was idle and absurd. Conscience is conversant with matters of faith and practice. But how can conscience be interested in what relates simply to the mere order and arrangement of a disputation? as, whether preterition, or election, should be handled first."
Great complaint had been made, by the Arminians, against the Palatine catechism and confession. A paper, containing their objections, was delivered to the synod. Hear Mr. Hales's remarks on that frivolous paper, so far as related to the confession. "These considerations are nothing else but queries, upon some passages of the [Palatine] confession, of little or no moment. So that it seems a wonder unto many, how these men [i.e. the Arminians] who, for so many years past, in so many of their books, have threatened the churches with such wonderful discoveries of falsehood and error in their confession and catechism, should at last produce such poor impertinent stuff. There is not, I persuade myself any writing in the world, against which, wits, disposed to wrangle, cannot take abundance of such exceptions."60
The affair of reprobation was again, with equal art and insolence, resumed by the Arminians. Nothing would content them, but making reprobation take the lead of election: and the stale plea of "conscience" was repeatedly urged. "As for conscience," replied the synod, "the word of God is the rule of it. Only prove from scripture, that God has prescribed the mode of disputation you contend for; we'll immediately admit that mode to be a matter of conscience, and allow you to proceed in your own way."61 Mr. Hales very justly remarks, that, by thus stiffly urging their [pretence of] conscience, the Arminians did exceedingly wrong the decree of States and synod, as if by them something against the word of God, some impiety, were commanded:62 Whereas, in reality, the command was only, that firstly should go before secondly; that the chain of disquisition should commence, at the right link; and that every point of enquiry should proceed regularly, and in its own natural order. "No," rejoined Episcopius in the name of his Arminian brethren: "unless we be at absolute liberty to pursue what method of argumentation we please, and to begin with whatever article we ourselves choose, we will not move a step. For, we are resolved, agere pro judicio nostro, non pro judicio synodi; to act according to our own pleasure, and not according to the pleasure of the synod."63 You stand, replied the synodical president, in the presence of God, and in the presence of your lawful magistrates. 'Tis, moreover, a cause wherein the church of Christ is concerned: the peace of which church such behaviour as your's is by no means calculated to promote, "My conscience will not let me act other wise," answered Episcopius. Which impertinent allegation the president, with much dignity of patience and strength of reason, repelled as before: Adde verbum Dei, shew us upon what text of Scripture your conscience is grounded; otherwise, you wrong both the magistrates and the synod.64 But Episcopius and his brethren had no such passage of Scripture to produce.
What could the synod do? The Arminians would not dispute, unless they might be permitted to dispute backward, as a crab walks: i.e. unless they were allowed to turn all due method up-side down, and to obtrude their own perverse and unheard of rules on the synod. Neither would they give a fair and direct answer to such questions as the synod should put to them. In a word, so refractory and untractable were these new sectarists, that they would neither sit in the synod as members of it;65 nor yet appear before it, in duality of (what they indeed were by all the legal authority of the civil power; a cited party.
Mr. Hales, writing from Dort to Sir D. Carleton, who was then at the Hague, thus expressed himself, in relation to the contumacy and petulance of the Arminians: "The state of our synod now suffers a great crisis; and, one way or other, there must be an alteration. Either the remonstrant [i.e. the Arminian party] must yield, and submit himself to the synod, of which I see no great probability; or else the synod must vail to them: which to do [i.e. for the synod to accommodate itself to the perverse humours of the Arminians], farther than it hath already done, I see not how it can stand with their honour [i.e. with the honour and dignity of the synod]. But the synod, bearing an inclination to peace, and wisely considering the nature of their people, resolved yet farther, thoagh they had yielded sufficiently unto them already, yet to try a little more, &c."66 The president recommended to the assembly, "To consider, whether there might not be found some means of accommodation, which might mollify the remonstrants [i.e. soften the obstinacy of the Arminians], and yet stand well with the honour of the synod."67 What could be more healingly and more meekly said? but the Arminian fierceness was too harsh and stubborn to be moderated by any lenient measures. And, hitherto, none but softening measures had been tried. For, those decrees of the synod, extorted from the synod by dint of insolence, and which carried any implication of seeming severity, were, as Mr. Hales observes, "mere powder without shot, which gives a clap, but does no harm:"68 Insomuch that, the same unprejudiced writer adds, "Some thought the synod had been too favourable to the remonstrants already; and that it were best now not to hold them, if they would be going: since hitherto, they [the remonstrants, or Arminians] had been, and for any thing appeared to the contrary, meant hereafter to be a hinderance to all peaceable and orderly proceedings."69 And such they most undoubtedly were in every respect, and on every occasion.
As they persisted in a peremptory refusal to give any account, either of their faith, or of the reasons on which it was grounded; there remained but one thing for the synod to do: which was to convict them of error, from their own writings, which they themselves had formerly published to the world.70 In the discussion of which Arminian writings, the following departments fell to the British divines, in consequence of a plan previously settled among themselves: "We have now," said Dr. Balcanqaul, "divided the business among us. Dr. Ward's part is, to refute the Arminian doctrine of a decree to save men, considered as believers. My lord of Landaff's part is, to answer and solve such arguments, as the Arminians are wont to urge, in behalf of that general decree. Doctor Goad's part71 is, to refute the Arminian tenet of election on faith foreseen: and to prove in opposition to it, that faith, is [not the cause, or condition, but] the fruit, and effect of election. Doctor Davenant's part is, to vindicate orthodox doctrine of election, from the objections alleged against it by the Arminians. My part is, to encounter all the arguments in general, which the Arminians bring, against the orthodox [i.e. against the Calvinistic] scheme."72
The Arminian teachers were, in the end, deposed from their ministry, by the synod; and the sentence of deposition was ratified by the States. The divines from England, having first entered a proviso in favour of episcopacy, testified their entire consent to the Dutch confession of faith,73 so far as matters of doctrine were concerned. Which testification of consent was as strong a proof as they could give, of their rooted attachment to the strictest principles of Calvin.74
"On the 29th of April [1619], the synod ended. The States to express their gratitude, bestowed on the English divines, at their departure, two hundred pounds, to bear their charges in their return.75 Besides a golden medal, of good value, was given to every one of them, whereon the sitting of the synod was artificially represented. And now these [five British] divines, who, for many months had, in a manner, been fastened to their chair and desks, thought it a right due to themselves, that, when their work was ended, they might begin their recreation. Wherefore they viewed the most eminent cities in the Low Countries: and, at all places were bountifully received, Leyden only excepted.76 This gave occasion to that passage in the speech of Sir Dudley Carleton, the English ambassador, when in the name of his master, he tendered the States public thanks, for their great respects to the English divines; using words to this effect: That they had been entertained at Amsterdam, welcomed at the Hague, cheerfully received at Rotterdam, kindly embraced at Utrecht, &c. and that they had seen Leyden."77
It must not be forgotten, that the reformed Churches in France would very gladly have deputed a select number of their body, to represent them at the synod at Dort, and to assist in the condemnation of Arminianism: but the French king, like a sturdy Catholic, restrained them from this step, by his peremptory prohibition. He could not, however, restrain the protestant clergy of that kingdom from solemnly receiving and approving the decisions of Dort, in a national synod, held at Alez, in 1619.78
On the return of our five divines to England, their first care was, to wait on king James. As they entered the Palace-court, his majesty saw them from a window, and said with an emotion of sensible pleasure, "Here come my good mourners:" they being in mourning for the queen, who had died during their absence. "Then," adds Fuller, "after courteously entertaining them, he favourably dismissed them; and, afterwards, on three of them bestowed preferment: removing79 Carleton [from the bishoprick of Landaff] to Chichester; preferring Davenant to [the see of] Salisbury; and bestowing the mastership of the Savoy on Balcanqual. So returned they all, to their several professions: bishop Carleton, to the careful governing of his diocese: Dr. Davenant, besides his collegiate cure, to his constant lectures in the [University-] School: Dr. Ward, to his discreet ordering of his own college: Dr. Goad, to his diligent discharging of domestical duties in the family of his lord and patron; and Mr. Balcanqual to his fellowship in Pembroke-hall."80
Some pacific disquisitions, concerning the extent of redemption, having amicably and privately passed, among the English divines at Dort, several Arminian writers (equally disposed to magnify a barley-corn, into a mountain, or reduce a mountain to a barley-corn, as convenient occasion may require) have laboured to raise, on the narrow bottom of that slender incident, the following enormous pile of falsehood: viz. that the said divines were for absolutely unlimited redemption. But it so happens, that those excellent divines, though dead, are yet able to speak for themselves. Consult the records of the synod itself, and then judge. And for the mere English reader, the ensuing passage, from a letter, written at Dort, by the British divines themselves, and sent to the archbishop of Canterbury, subscribed by the hands of them all; will at once demonstrate, how infinitely distant our religious plenipotentiaries were from arminianizing in the article of redemption. That passage runs, verbatim thus: "Nor do we, with the remonstrants, leave at large the benefit of our Saviour's death, as only propounded loosely to all, ex aequo, and to be applied by the arbitrary act of man's will; but we expressly avouch for the behoof of the elect, a special intention both in Christ's offering, and God the Father accepting: and, from that intention, a particular application of that sacrifice, by conferring faith, and other gifts, infallibly bring the elect to salvation."81
The transactions of the synod of Dort have given grievous offence to more than one class of men. A late respectable compiler, to whose literary endeavours the friends of civil and of religious liberty are under considerable obligation, raises two objections, in particular, against that renowned assembly. As I honour the memory, and value the labours, of the worthy objector, I shall weigh his remarks attentively, though with brevity.
(1.) We are told, that "Whoever calls to mind the deprivations, and banishment, which followed the decisions of this synod, of such great men as Episcopius, Utenbogart, Corvinus, &c. and the persecution, which ensued, throughout the United Provinces, against the Arminians; will be apt to entertain but a poor opinion of those men who were actors in it."82 To clear this matter, let it be remembered, 1. That, if the decisions of the synod were followed by any thing that resembled a persecution of the Arminians, such seeming persecution was the act, not of the synod, but of the civil power: and how were the members of that synod accountable for the conduct of the secular magistrate; especially, for a conduct which did not take place, 'till long enough after the synod had ceased to sit? 2. Even supposing (what I can by no means grant) that the synod actually did persecute the Arminians; yet, certain it is, that the Arminians themselves gave the first blow, and persecuted the Dutch Protestants, long before the Dutch Protestants are feigned to have persecuted the Arminians. And, though nothing can justify persecution even when it amounts to no more than a retaliation; still it is but too natural for a persecuted party (as the Dutch Calvinists had undeniably been) to take the first opportunity of turning the tables on their oppressors
When the Arminian faction, in Holland, began to gather strength and come to a head; so fiercely intolerant was the bigotry, with which they espoused their new system, that they meditated, and in part accomplished, an absolute suppression of such magistrates, ministers, and even military officers, as discovered a resolution to abide by the old doctrines of the reformation.83 Legal magistrates were riotously deposed; legal pastors were deprived by violence; and the orthodox even among the commonalty were liable to loss of property, loss of personal liberty, and to every vexatious injury, which the new sect were able to devise. So furiously did the Arminians drive, at first setting off; that, as far as their power extended, not a Calvinistic minister was suffered to exercise his function. All freedom of conscience was denied: nothing would content the drivers, but a total extinction of the reformed interest, and that Arminianism should reign without a partner and without limitation. Sedition, tumult, rapine, imprisonment, and banishment, were the gentle instruments, made use of by the Arminians, to establish their pretended theory of universal love!
All this happened a considerable time before the synod of Dort assembled: and was, in reality, one reason why that synod was convened. Complaints, therefore, of persecution, would have come with an exceeding ill grace from the mouths of the Arminian faction, if the synod had even meted to them the same measure which themselves had so liberally dealt to their innocent neighbours. But I must add, 3. that the Arminians were not persecuted in return, so far as I have been able to find. Punished, in some degree, they were: but punishment and persecution are essentially different. Social enormity justly exposes an offender to the former: though no religious errors, how great and many soever, can justly subject a person to the latter. Shall the twelve judges of England be styled twelve persecutors, because they vindicate the majesty of law against its transgressors? Shall legal prosecution, and legal punishment be denominated persecution, where the offence is of a secular nature, and adequate in degree to the inflicted penalty? Weigh the political vices of the first Arminians; and then pronounce them persecuted if you can. Nor must I omit to observe, 4. on the credit of a very candid and capable writer, that notwithstanding the due indignation of the Dutch States against the social crimes of the primitive Arminians; the said States, highly calvinistic as they were, consented that "the mere Arminian," who did not connect turbulence and sedition with religious mistakes should be "continued and cherished in the bosom of the Church."84 The same learned and accurate author adds, that Episcopius himself, even that very Episcopius who had flown in the face of the synod and of his country, was hardly displaced from his Leyden professorship, before he was permitted, "both at Rotterdam and Amsterdam, to enjoy an honourable and gainful preferment:"85 With such exemplary moderation did the Dutch Calvinists use the victory which God had given them!
(2.) Dr. Harris's other complaint is, that The kings, princes, and great men concerned [in the synod of Dort], had undoubtedly, worldly views, and were actuated by them: for though purity of doctrine, 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."86 I am glad, that the impartiality of this respectable writer induced him to term those Arminians a "State," i.e. a secular or political faction: for such they were. And, if so, why might not political persons, legally invested with just authority, seek to tie up the hands of a pernicious political faction from doing any farther political mischief? Be it so, then, that prince Maurice had his "worldly views" in filing down the tusks of some restless Arminians. The preservation of the United Provinces from relapsing under the yoke of Spain, was, indeed, a "worldly view," but a very lawful and a very expedient one. Antecedently to the assembling of the synod, Providence had so ordered events, that the interests of pure religion and of public policy were happily twisted together. Hence resulted the Dordrechtan 'alliance between Church and State.' A consequence whereof was, that two birds of prey were disabled at one shot: viz. doctrinal error, and civil sedition. Nor unreasonably: for, the poison being compound, why should the antidote be single?
Sir Richard Baker, though a very high principled historian, mentions the synod of Dort, in terms of remarkable moderation and respect. It was assembled, says he, "to examine and determine the doctrine of Arminius, 1. Concerning God's predestination, election, and reprobation: 2. Concerning Christ's death, and man's redemption by it: 3. Concerning man's corruption, and conversion to God; 4. Concerning the perseverance of the saints. In all which points, the doctrine of Arminius was rejected, as also of Vorstius; and the true doctrine established by a general consent, together with the approbation of the Lords and States. Which yet the Papists made so little reckoning of, that one of them, in scorn, made echo to seusure it [i.e. to sensure the synod] in this distich:
Dordraci Synodus? Nodus. Chorus
interger? Aeger,
Conventus? Ventus. Sessio Stramen? Amen.
But who knows not, that ill-will never speaks well? and that nothing is so obvious in the mouth of an adversary, as scandals and invectives?"87 let this be a word in season, to Mr. Wesley and his man Watty: and restrain them in time to come, from singing in chorus with "the Papists," by traducing the synod of Dort.
Thus have we traced king James's doctrinal perseverance in orthodoxy, down to the year 1619, inclusively: and the church kept pace with his majesty. His having interested himself, so zealously, in the condemnation of Arminianism, struck the secret favourers of that system, in England with a temporary stupor. Even Laud was forced to lie still, and to roll his principles, in private, as a sweet morsel under his tongue; until a more favourable day should invite them to walk abroad with safety. James was always very suspicious of Laud's orthodoxy: and the reluctance, with which he lifted him to episcopal rank, supplies us with another very strong proof of the monarch's Calvinism.
The authorized Bibles, during the first nine years of James's reign, were those of queen Elizabeth: enriched with such marginal annotations, as we have produced sufficient samples of, in the preceding Section. James desired to signalize his own reign, by a translation more exactly conformable to the original languages of the Old and New Testaments. In 1611, that translation (used at this day) was finished by the excellent divines, to whose care this great work had been assigned, and who had spent about three years in the important employ. Instead of human annotations, the margin of this version is very properly filled with references to parallel Scriptures: so that the Bible is now a commentary on itself. If it be asked, 'Whether the ancient notes were omitted, with a simple view to render the Scripture it's own interpreter?' I must confess, that this is a question which I can answer by conjecture alone. And my conjecture is, that James's suspicions policy was afraid to entrust even the bishops and clergymen of the Church of England, concerned in this translation, with the insertion of any marginal notes at all; lest some remark or other, might slip in, tending to emblazon the wickedness and absurdity of despotic power. He was a better textuary, than to be ignorant, that there are a multitude of passages, and of instances in the inspired volume, which grind the doctrine of non-resistance to powder, and disperse its atoms in empty air. Better, therefore, in James's opinion, to forego all explications whatever, than to run the risk of rendering those unfavourable passages more visible than they render themselves. This I88 conceive to have been the true cause of the simplicity, by which our present version is distinguished. As to the calvinistic doctrines, there is no need, nor was there any need from the first, of erecting marginal banners, to distinguish in what places of Scripture they are to be found. What I observed, several years ago, concerning the Liturgy; I now observe, concerning the Bible: open God's word where you will, Calvinism stares you in the face.
In the year 1621, the English Arminians began to recover from the panic, into which they had been thrown, two years before, by the proceedings at Dort. The king's enormous89 concessions to the Church of Rome, in order to facilitate the conclusion of the Spanish match, gave new life to the Popish party, who had the comfort to see themselves objects of court indulgence, their religion openly protected, and their imprisoned priests enlarged.
Where is the wonder, that Arminianism also, taking advantage of a juncture so favourable, should rear its head, unseal its eyes, and venture into open day? "The king's mercy and indulgence extending towards the Papists, taught many men to come as near Popery as they could stretch; finding it the next way to preferment. So that Arminius's tenets flew tip and down, from pulpit to pulpit, and preaching was nothing but declamation, little tending to edification; such orthodox ministers, as strove to refute these erroneous opinions, being looked upon as Puritans and anti-nonarchial."90 To crown the infelicities of this memorable year 1621, Dr. Laud found means (though not without much difficulty and many hard struggles) to climb from the deanery of Gloucester to the bishoprick of St. David's. He was consecrated to that see, November 18.91 A dark day in the annals of the Church of England.
It was not without reason, that even the impolitic and undiscerning James, prognosticated the bad effects, which would probably ensue from Laud's promotion. That incident drew after it a train of consequences, which sadly warranted the justness of his majesty's misgivings: and resulted in a complication of catastrophes, too ruinous and fatal, for a much wiser prince to have foreseen. In fact, Laud owed his bishoprick, not to the king, but to the duke of Buckingham: into the good graces of whom, the Arminian ecclesiastic had insinuated himself, with extreme labour and art, and by a long series of servile and obsequious adulation. What I, in this place, can but barely intimate, shall appear, with sufficient extent, if Providence give me health and leisure, to complete my intended History of Archbishop Laud's Life and Times.
This prelate had not worn lawn sleeves much longer than eight months, before he became instrumental in procuring, and in drawing up, a well-known court paper, entitled, Directions concerning Preachers. The third article of these directions enjoined, "That no preacher, of what title soever, under the degree of a bishop, or dean, at the least, do, from henceforth, presume to preach, in any popular auditory, the deep points of predestination, election, reprobation; or the universality, efficacy, resistibility, or irresistibility, of God's grace; but leave those themes rather to be handled by the learned men [in the two Universities]: and that moderately and modestly, by way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doctrines; being fitter for the schools, than for simple auditories."92 This was the first blow, given by royal authority, to the doctrinal Calvinism of the established Church, since the death of Mary the bloody. For, though it prima facie, seemed to muzzle the Arminians, no less than the Calvinistic clergy; yet its design was, to bridle the latter, and leave the former at liberty to spread their new principles without restraint. The above paper of directions was dated from Windsor, August 4, 1622.
Let not the reader, however, suppose, that the king took this extraordinary stride, out of mere complaisance to Laud. That insidious prelate, in promoting and in helping to frame the said directions, only struck in with the opportunity, and availed himself of certain political circumstances, which had peviously soured and embarrassed the mind of James.
The case stood thus. His majesty, in order to strengthen his unnatural and ill judged union with Spain, was93 projecting a general toleration of popery throughout the British dominions. So far is certain. And, perhaps we should not overshoot the mark, were we to suspect, that something more, than a mere toleration, was remotely in view.
When two houses are to be thrown into one, you must down with the partition wall. The Calvinistic doctrines of the Church of England were considered as the interposing barrier between her and Popery. Though the king was attached to those doctrines, in his heart; yet, as they stood in the way of his political schemes, he lent his authority to certain Arminian engineers, who lost no time in beginning (not to assault and batter, but) to undermine and sap the said wall.
Add to this, that when James consented to publish the above Directions concerning Preachers, his mind was chased and nettled, by a recent quarrel with the parliament. He had flattered himself, for some time, that his designs in favour of Popery were formed with such secrecy, as to elude the vigilance of the house of commons. But he perceived his mistake, when word was brought him, that those wise and zealous guardians of the church and nation had prepared a very strong remonstrance against Popery, and against the illegal encouragement already shewn to Papists. He was stung to the quick, at receiving this intelligence; and prohibited the house from presenting him with an address so peculiarly unacceptable: giving them to understand, that these were "matters above their reach and capacity;" and tended to his "high dishonour, and breach of his prerogative royal."94 What had chiefly offended him in the remonstrance (of which he had procured a copy), was, the patriotic wish, expressed by the national representatives, that his majesty would break with Spain, and marry his son to a Protestant princess. Several altercations passed between his majesty and the commons. The latter, who had sagacity to discern, and integrity to pursue, the real good of the public, conducted themselves with a respectful decency towards the king, yet with an unrelaxing adherence to the cause of their country. James did not maintain his share in the debate, with any degree of prudence. He inculcated maxims of despotism, unheard of, 'till broached by himself; and, to save those maxims from being canvassed by the parliament, he dissolved it, by proclamation, in January, 1622."95
It must be observed, that the members of the lower house in that parliament, were Calvinists in matters of doctrine, as well as friends to the true interest of the state. Never was a nation more faithfully represented, than by that uncorrupt body of senators. The pulse of all the honest Protestants in England beat in harmony with that of the parliament. James was apprised of this, and dreaded the effect. Laud and others, who were on the watch for a trade-wind, immediately hoisted sail, and took advantage of the ill humour into which the king's affairs had thrown him. 'Twas not very difficult to persuade such a monarch as James, that the parliament, the clergy, and the majority of the people, were puritanic, because they hated Popery; and disaffected to the crown, because they hated tyranny: that, at once, to wean them from their abhorrence of Rome, and break them into the trammels of absolute subjection to the throne, Calvinism must be discountenanced, and Arminianism encouraged. James listened, liked, and acted accordingly. Thus it appears, that the "Directions concerning Preachers" were begot on James by motives of mistaken secular policy, arising from the Spanish alliance, and from the intended Popish toleration. The just opposition, which the parliament and nation raised against his majesty's dangerous designs, brought the said "Directions" to the birth: and Dr. Laud, aided by his college of associates, was glad to act as principal midwife and nurse, on the occasion.
Here the matter rested, during the remainder of James's reign. For I must do him the justice to observe, that the Preaching Directions were the first, and the only, public step, taken by that prince, to the professed detriment of the religion established in England, if we except his negotiations with Spain and France, and his tenderness for Papists. It does not appear, that the Protestant preachers paid much regard to the king's "directions," by excluding the doctrine of predestination from the spiritual provision with which they nourished their flocks. In the ensuing reign of Charles the First, when Laud attained to the zenith of ecclesiastical power, those Directions (somewhat amplified, and improved into a proclamation) were enforced with rigour; even to the bringing of the great and good bishop Davenant on his knees before the privy council. But though, while James lived, scarce any severity seems to have seconded the injunction, by which he imposed silence on his divines concerning some of the Calvinian articles; yet, his publication of that order tended, more than a little, to sink him in the public esteem. For, how did such a measure comport with his late profession of zeal against Arminianism? It was no farther hack than the winter of 1617, that he had reproved some of the Cambridge doctors, for permitting the Arminian leaven to gain ground in that University.96 It was but in January, 1619, that his majesty flew into a violent passion, at reading some Arminian positions of Episcopius, sent over hither from Dort.97 And, after bearing so eminent a part in the condemnation of Arminianism, by the synod there assembled; his "directions,"of 1622, can be imputed only to a low, absurd, and misguided policy, which reflected equal dishonour on his civil and religious character.
While he lived, Calvinism still supported itself in the saddle; and Arminianism, unable to keep its legs, could scarcely creep on its hands and knees. Within a few months of his majesty's decease, his zeal and vigilance against the encroachments of Arminianism extorted thanks from the eminently learned and profoundly loyal Dr. John Prideaux, then vice-chancellor of Oxford, and afterwards bishop of Worcester: whose elegant oration to the king, at Woodstock, on the 24th of August, 1624, is still extant, and has passages to the following effect. "Do we rejoice, that the University of Oxford is preserved, untainted from the leaven of Popery? We are indebted for that preservation, to your majesty's prudential care. Do we congratulate ourselves, that our seats remain uninfected by the Arminian pestilence? 'twas your fore-cast, which supplied us with the timely antidote. Are the discipline of the Church, the good order of our colleges, and the episcopal government itself, preserved from the levelling and confounding innovations of Puritanism? 'tis your royal and experienced wisdom, which has damped the rage of Puritans, and restrained them with the bridle they deserve. Yes, to you we owe, that Popery hangs its head; that Arminianism is repressed; and that Puritanism does not lay waste our borders. Within the last nine years, Oxford has sent forth seventy-three Doctors in divinity, and more than one hundred and eighty Bachelors in the same sacred science. I, as your majesty's divinity professor, had the honour to be concerned, in the conferring of those degrees. And I can confidently affirm, that all those two hundred and fifty-three divines and more, are warm detesters of Popery, remote from favouring Arminianism, and strong disapprovers of Puritanism."98 Some needful allowance must be made, for the high strains of complaisance to his majesty, wherewith the learned vice-chancellor thought meet to season his address. This great man (and he was a very great man indeed) knew, that James's palate must be tickled: and therefore, like an experienced college cook, he discreetly larded the oration to the monarch's taste. But the facts, which Dr. Prideaux affirmed, and the conclusions, deducible from those facts, are more than a little important to the argument now in hand.
Death closed the eyes of king James, on the 27th of March, 1625. Guthrie has hit off his character with much judgment and exactness: "He was," says that writer, "a king despicably great: a scholar impertinently learned; a politician unprofitably cunning; and a man immorally religious."99 Burnet justly observes, that "No king could die less lamented, or less esteemed. His reign in England was a continued course of mean practices. He was become the scorn of the age. And while hungry writers flattered him out of measure, at home, he was despised by all, abroad, as a pedant, without true judgment, courage, or steadiness; subject to his favourites, and delivered up to the counsels, or rather the corruption, of Spain."100
He is said to have been the first of our kings, who assumed the appellation of "Most sacred majesty." And certain it is, that he was the first of them, who for his weakness, vanity, inconstancy, and pusillanimity, obtained the nick-name of queen, both among foreigners, and among his own subjects. The terms "king Elizabeth," and "queen James," shew, to what an ebb of contempt the latter was reduced, when set in competition with his magnanimous predecessor.
In the language of sycophants, the reigning king never fails to be the best that ever filled a throne. Such was James, while living, represented to be, by those artful flatterers (and by those only), whose interest led them to practice on his weakness, and to mould him to their own purposes. He was pronounced, "The Solomon of the age;" a "pithy and sweet orator," whose "words were as apples of gold in pictures of silver:" yea, that "he spake by the instinct of the Spirit of God." They declared him to be "such a king, as, since Christ's time, the like had not been." His writings were styled, "blazing stars, which men look upon with amazement;" and which were "fuller of excellent counsels, than a pomegranate is full of kernels." On some occasions, his pen teemed with what are still better than "kernels;" even with "pearls." He was "a divine:" he was "a natural philosopher:" he was a nonpariel, both "for parts of nature, for gifts of learning, and graces of piety."101
But the cant-compliment of the time, which seem to have been most current and in vogue, and to have flowed from the tongue's end of every court lord who had a fortune to make or to mend, was, "Your majesty is the breath of our nostrils." 'Tis the crampe repetita, which occurs again and again, in the court conversations of that reign. No strains of adulation were too fulsome, for James to relish; nor to gross, for his digestion. He would even suck in blasphemy itself, when the vehicle of his own panegyric. Witness that horrid profanation of Scripture mentioned by Balzac.102 One of the Spanish ambassadors in England, receiving a visit from the king, saluted his majesty's entrance, with those words of the centurion to Christ, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof. But what fumes of licentious flattery were ever known to disgust James's nostrils? The stronger the incense the sweeter.
Had not this king's political depravity been counterbalanced by almost an equal portion of invincible timidity; either himself, or the nation, had infallibly been ruined: so that his constitutional cowardice, even while it renders him peculiarly despicable, must be considered as a very happy ingredient in his composition. He laid, without doubt, the foundation of those calamities which so sadly distinguished the reign of his son: and the ill effects of his tyrannical maxims and distempered politics operate even at this day. The state parties, which still continue to divide the interests and the affections of Englishmen, originated in his reign. Sorry I am to add, that so detestible a prince, and so profligate a man, died in all appearance a speculative Calvinist. I wish Mr. Hickman had less respectable authority, than that of Dr. Featly, for assuring us, that "king James called the Arminians, heretics, not many weeks before his death."103
Endnotes: