every thing assumed a different aspect. King James, who was eager to grasp supreme and unlimited power, at once judged that the Presbyterian form of church government was adverse to his designs, and the Episcopal favourable to them; because Presbyterian churches form a kind of republic, which is subject to a number of leading men, all possessing equal rank and power; while Episcopal churches more nearly resemble a monarchy. The very name of a republic, synod, or council, was odious to the king; and he therefore studied most earnestly to increase the power of the bishops; and publicly declared that, without bishops, the throne could not be safe. At the same time he long wished to preserve inviolate the Genevan doctrines, especially those relating to divine grace and predestination; and he allowed the opposite doctrines of Arminius to be condemned by his theologians at the synod of Dort. This disposition of the king was studiously cherished, so long as he had power, by George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury, a man of great weight of character, who was himself devoted to Calvinistic sentiments, and a great friend to English liberty, and whose gentleness towards their fathers the modern Puritans highly extol. But the English envoys had scarcely returned from Holland and made known the decisions of Dort, when the king, with the majority of the clergy, showed himself most averse from those decisions, and manifested a decided preference for the Arminian doctrine respecting the divine decrees'. That there were various causes for this unexpected of these matters, must consult The Summe and Substance of the Conference, which it pleased his Excellent Majestie to hare with the Lords, Bishops, and other of his Clergie (at which most of the Lordes of the Councell were present) in his Majesties Privy-Chamber, at Hampton Court, January 14, 1603. Barlow, the author, was then dean of Chester. He was afterwards successively bishop of Rochester and Lincoln. His work may be considered as official, having been undertaken by desire of Abp. Whitgift. Although it contains the wretched flatteries by which both that aged primate, and Bancroft have permanently injured their reputations, it exhibits the mixture of frivolity and intolerance, which characterised the Puritanical expectations, in such a manner as to offend sectarians, and they have, accordingly, taxed it with partiality. Ed.] 8 [It was a maxim with him, and one which he repeated at the Hampton Court conference: No bishop, no king. See Neal, loc. cit. Tr.] 9 See Anth. Wood's Athena Oxonienses, tom. i. p. 583. Dan. Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. ch. iv. p. 242. [ed. Boston, 1817. p. 111, 258, &c. and the long note of Maclaine on the text. Tr.] Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, vol. i. p. 114, &c. Peter Heylin's History of the Five Articles, p. 444, &c. in the Dutch translation of Gerh. Brandt. Dan. Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. change, will readily be believed by those acquainted with the history of those times; yet the principal cause, I apprehend, is to be sought in that rule for ecclesiastical reformation which the founders of the new English church kept in sight. For they wished to render their church as similar as possible to that which flourished in the first centuries; and that church, as no one can deny, was an entire stranger to the Dordracene doctrines 2. The king becoming alienated from the Calvinistic ch. ii. p. 117, &c. [ed. Boston, 1817. p. 135. Tr.] Neal tells us, that the council of Dort was ridiculed, in England, by the following verses, among other things: "Dordrechti Synodus, Nodus: Chorus integer, Æger: Conventus, Ventus: Sessio, Stramen : Amen." Moreover, for ascertaining the character and conduct of king James, and his inconstancy in religion, much aid is afforded by the writers of English history, and especially by Larrey and Rapin Thoyras. Most of these state, that in his last years, James greatly favoured, not only the Arminians, but also the papists; and they tell us, there can be no doubt, the king wished to unite the English church with that of Rome. But in this, I apprehend, the king is too severely accused; although I do not deny, that he did many things not to be commended. It is not easy to believe, that a king who aspired immoderately after supreme and absolute sway, should wish to create to himself a lord, in the Roman pontiff. [Yet, see the following note. Tr.] But, at length, he inclined more towards the Romish church, than formerly; and he permitted some things, which were coincident with the Romish rites and regulations; because he was persuaded, that the ancient christian church was the exemplar, after which all churches should copy; that a religious community would be the more holy and the more perfect, the nearer its resemblance to the divine and apostolic standard; and that the Romish church retained more of the first and primitive form, than the Puritan or Calvinistic church did. 2 Perhaps also the king was influenced by the recollection of the civil commotions, formerly excited in Scot land, on account of the Presbyterian religion. There are some circumstances, likewise, which indicate that the king, even before he came into England, was not wholly averse from the Romish religion. See the Bibliothèque Raisonnée, tom. xliii. p. 318, &c. ["Thus far the note of our author: and whoever looks into the Historical View of the Negotiations between the Courts of England, France, and Brussels, from the year 1592 to 1617, extracted from the MS. State Papers of Sir Thomas Edmondes and Anthony Bacon, Esq. and published in the year 1749, by the learned and judicious Dr. Birch, will be persuaded, that, towards the year 1595, this fickle and unsteady prince had really formed a design to embrace the faith of Rome. See in the curious collection now mentioned, the Postscript of a Letter from Sir Thomas Edmondes to the Lord High-Treasurer, dated the 20th of December, 1595. We learn also from the Memoirs of Ralph Winwood, that in the year 1596, James sent Mr. Ogilby, a Scots baron, into Spain, to assure his catholic majesty, that he was then ready and resolved to embrace popery, and to propose an alliance with that king and the pope against the queen of England. See State Tracts, vol. i. p. 1. See also an extract of a letter from Tobie Matthew, D.D. dean of Durham, to the lord Treasurer Burleigh, containing an information of Scotch affairs, in Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 201. Above all, see Harris's Historical and Critical Account of the Life and Writings of James I., p. 29, note (N). This last writer may be added to Larrey and Rapin, who have exposed the pliability and inconsistency of this selfsufficient monarch." Macl.] opinions and customs, the old hatred against the Puritans, which had somewhat subsided, again revived; and at last it broke out in open war. In short, James I. died, in 1625, a mortal enemy of the Puritan faith, which he had imbibed in his youth; a decided patron and supporter of the Arminians, whose condemnation he had greatly promoted; and a very strenuous assertor of episcopal government; and he left both the church and the commonwealth in a state of fluctuation, and languishing with intestine maladies. § 20. Charles I., the son of James I., determined to perfect what his father had undertaken. He, therefore, used every effort, first, to extend the regal power, and to exalt it above the authority of the laws; secondly, to subject the whole church of Great Britain and Ireland to the episcopal form of government, which he considered as of divine appointment, and as affording the best security to the civil sovereign: and thirdly, to reduce the whole religion of the country to the pattern and form of the primitive church, rejecting all the doctrines and institutions of the Genevans. The execution of these designs was principally entrusted to William Laud, then bishop of London, and afterwards, from A.D. 1633, archbishop of Canterbury; who was in many respects, undoubtedly, a man of eminence, being a very liberal patron of learning and learned men, resolute, ingenuous, and erudite; but at the same time, too furious, headlong, and inconsiderate, inclined to superstition, and also bigotedly attached to the opinions, rites, and practices of the ancient christians, and therefore a mortal enemy of the Puritans and of all Calvinists. He prosecuted the objects of the king's wishes as well as his own, without any moderation; often disregarded and trampled upon the laws of the land; persecuted the Puritans most rigorously, and eagerly strove to extirpate them altogether; rejecting Calvinistic views, in relation to predestination and other points, he, after the year 1625, contrary to the wishes of George Abbot, 3 See Anth. Wood's Athena Oroniens. tom. ii. p. 55, &c. Peter Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicanus, or the History of the Life and Death of William Land; Lond. 1668. fol. Clarendon's VOL. IV. History of the Rebellion and the Civil Wars in England, vol. i. [Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. ch. iv. &c. and vol. iii. ch. v. Tr.] R substituted Arminian sentiments in the place of them'; restored many ceremonies and rites, which were indeed ancient, but at the same time superstitious, and on that ground previously abrogated; obtruded bishops upon the Scotish nation, which was accustomed to the Genevan discipline, and extremely averse to episcopacy; and not obscurely showed, that in his view, the Romish church, though erroneous, was a holier and better church than those protestant sects, which had no bishops. Having, by these acts, excited immense odium against the king and himself, and the whole order of bishops, he was arraigned by the parliament in 1644, judged guilty of betraying the liberties and the religion of the country, and beheaded 3. 4 See Mich. le Vassor's Histoire de Louis XIII., tom. v. p. 262, &c. [Laud was then merely bishop of London, though in effect at the head of the established church. Legally, neither he, nor any prelate, nor even the king, could abrogate or enact articles of faith, without the consent of parliament. Nor was any such thing attempted. But the king, at the instigation (it is stated) of bishop Laud, issued a proclamation, June 14, 1626, which sets forth, "That the king will admit of no innovation in the doctrine, discipline, or government of the church, and therefore charges all his subjects, and especially the clergy, not to publish or maintain, in preaching or writing, any new inventions or opinions, contrary to the said doctrine and discipline established by law." This apparently harmless proclamation, was, of course, to be executed by Laud and his associates; and Laud was publicly accused of using it to punish and put down Calvinists, and to prevent their books from being printed and circulated, while Arminians were allowed to preach and to print their sentiments most fully. See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. ch. iii. p. 192, &c. and vol. iii. ch. v. p. 222, &c. ed. Boston, 1817, and Maclaine's note (m) on this paragraph. Tr.] The following circumstances gave rise to the proclamation mentioned in this note. Richard Montague, rector of Stanford Rivers, in Essex, a divine of superior acquirements, found some Romish priests active in his parish. He left, in consequence, certain queries at a house which they frequented, adding that satisfactory answers would make a Romish convert of himself. For a time, no notice was taken, but at length he received a short pamphlet, entitled, A New Gag for the Old Gospel. In this piece, the Church of England was saddled with the Calvinistic decisions of the synod of Dort, and other favourite Puritanical speculations. In his answer, and another piece that soon followed it, and was connected with it, he disclaimed all these principles. A violent ferment quickly arose, and the house of Commons, which had become a hotbed of Puritanical politics, commenced a furious persecution of Montague, charging him with popery and Arminianism. Several writers took the same view, and it was to silence this controversy, which was beginning to convulse the kingdom, that Charles issued the proclamation partially cited in this note. Collier, ii. 729. 734. 738. Ed.] [Archbishop Laud was impeached by the house of Commons, and tried before the house of Lords. In 1641, fourteen articles of impeachment were filed, and Laud was committed to prison. In 1644, ten additional articles were brought forward, and the trial now commenced. All the articles may be reduced to three general heads. 1. That he had traitorously attempted to subvert the rights of parliament, and to exalt the king's power above law. II. That he had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the constitution and fundamen After the execution of Laud, the civil conflict which had long existed between the king and the parliament, attained such a height, that it could be extinguished by nothing, short of the life blood of this excellent prince. The parliament, inflamed by the Puritans, or by the Presbyterians and Independents, wholly abolished the old form of church government by bishops, and whatever else in doctrine, discipline, or worship, was contrary to the principles of the Genevans; furiously assailed the king himself, and caused him, when taken prisoner, to be tried for his life; and to the astonishment of all Europe, to be put to death, in the year 1648. Such are the evils resulting from zeal in religion, when it is ill understood, and is placed in external regulations and forms. Moreover, as is often found true, it appeared in these scenes of commotion, that almost all sects, while oppressed, plead earnestly for charity and moderation towards dissenters; but when elevated to power, they forget their own former precepts. For the Puritans, when they had dominion, were no more indulgent to the bishops and their patrons, than these had formerly been to them o. § 21. The Independents, who have been just mentioned among the promoters of civil discord, are represented by most of the English historians, as more odious and unreasonable than even the Presbyterians or Calvinists; and are commonly charged with various enormities and crimes, and indeed with tal laws of the land, and to introduce arbitrary government, against law and the liberties of the subjects. III. That he had traitorously endeavoured and practised to subvert the true religion established by law, and to introduce popish superstition and idolatry. Under this last head, the specifications were, first, that he introduced and practised popish innovations and superstitious ceremonies, not warranted by law; such as images and pictures in the churches, popish consecration of churches, converting the communion tables into altars, bowing before the altar, &c. and, secondly, that he endeavoured to subvert the protestant religion, and encouraged Arminianism and popery; by patronizing and advancing clergymen of these sentiments; by prohibiting the publication of orthodox books, and allowing cor rupt ones free circulation; by persecuting, in the high commission court, such as preached against Arminianism and popery; and by taking some direct steps towards a union with the church of Rome. The house of Lords deemed all the articles proved; but doubted, for a time, whether they amounted to treason. See the whole trial of Laud, in Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. iii. ch. v. pp. 184-255. Tr.] Besides lord Clarendon, and the historians of England already mentioned, Daniel Neal has professedly treated of these events, in the second and third volumes of his History of the Puritans. [Compare also Johnson Grant's History of the English Church and Sects, vol. ii. ch. x. xi. pp. 127303. Tr.] |