« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
the Archbishop and all persons in ecclesiastical and civil authority should adhere to the cause of the monarchy, and should the bells wherewith they used to call the people together to hear them. These are by some of them cried down as Popish, with other things very many, which their Presbyterian brethren do yet both allow and practise ; though how long they will do so is uncertain, if they go on with the work of Reformation they have begun with as quick dispatch and at the rate they have done these last two seven years. The having of God-fathers at baptism, churching of women, prayers at the burial of the dead, children asking their parents' blessins, &c. which whilom were beld innocent, are now by very many thrown aside as rags of Popery! Nay, are not some gone so far already as to cast into the same heap, not only the ancient hymn Gloria Patri, (for the repeating whereof alone, some have been deprived of all their livelihoods,) and the Apostles' Creed, but even the use of the Lord's Prayer itself? And what will ye do in the end thereof? And what would you have us do in the mean time, when you call hard upon us to leave our POPERY, and yet would never do us the favour to let us kuow what it is ?. It were good, therefore, both for your own sakes, that you may not rove in infinitum, and in compassion to us,—that you would give us a perfect boundary of what is Popery now, with some prognostication or ephemerides annexed, if you please, whereby to calculate what will be Popery seven years hence !".
In various parts of this volume I have shewn, that those who exclaimed most loudly against the reputed POPERY of the Arminians, were not the most eager in combatting the arguments of real Papists; and, in the following able passage from Bishop Sanderson, the sanie fact is repeated, with an additional charge which does not accord well with the declaration of Hugh Peters recorded in page 652: “ As for those other regular sons of the Church of Eugland that have appeared in this controversy on her behalf, how improbable, and so far forth uncharitable, the suspicion is, that they should be any way instrumental towards the promoting of the Papal interest, may appear, amongst other, by these few considerations following: (1.) That those very persons,—who were under God the instruments of freeing us from the Roman yoke, by casting Popery out of the church, and sundry of them martyred in the cause,-those very persons, I say, were great favourers of these (pow accounted Popish) ceremonies, and the chief authors or procurers of the constitutions made in that behalf. Hæ manus Trojam erigent ? (2.) That in all former times, since the beginning of the Reformation, our Archbishops and Bishops, with their Chaplains and others of the Prelatical party, (many of them such as have written also in defence of the Church against the Puritans,) were the principal (I had almost said the only) champions to maintain the cause of religion against the Papists. (3.) That, even in these times of so great distraction, and, consequently thereunto, of so great advantage to the factors for Rome, none have stepped into the gap more readily, nor appeared in the face of the enemy more openly, nor maintained the fight with more stoutness and gallantry, than the Episcopal divines have done, as their late learned writings testify, (Bishop Bramball, Dr. Cosins, &c.)' Yea, and some of them such, as (beside their other sufferings) have lain as deep under the suspicion of being Popishly affected, as any other of their brethren whosoever...(4.) That, by the endeavours of these Episcopal divines, some that were bred Papists, have been gained to our church; others that began to waver, confirmed and settled in their old religion ; and some that were fallen from us, recovered and reduced, notwithstanding all the disadvantages of these confused times: And of each of these, I am able to produce some instance. But I profess sincerely, as in the presence of God, and before the world, that I have not known (at least, I cannot call to remembrance,) so much as one single example of any of this done by any of our anti-ceremonian brethren, whether Presbyterian or Independent!"
Those who know the ecclesiastical history of that period will recollect, that the spirited allusion to Richard Baxter, in the Bishop's Preface, was one cause why that celebrated Presbyterian wrote The Grotian Religion Discovered, in which he says, (sect. 66,) “ But the Reverend Dr. Sanderson thinks, I should also have given notice how the taking down of Episcopacy, &c. hath advantaged the Papists, &c. To which I say, &c.” After a few preli
employ all the power which they possessed to repel the attacks of the republican assailants.* In the midst of these conflicts, he never desisted from his endeavours to establish peace in the
minary sentences, be adds the passage which I have quoted in page 294. But when requested to name those Papists whom he had described as apostates from the Church of England, and favourers of the pacific scheme of Grotius, in which there could ther: (1658), be no possible hazard, with his usual cunning he declines such an avowal : “ For,” says be, (1.) “ Some of them have very lovingly sought to proselyte me, as having (by the reproaches of some unadvised brethren) been brought to have some bopes of me. And, truly, ingenuity prohibits me to betray them that manifested their love to me, though in a mistaken way: For I am confident, they think they are in the right, and intended my good while they endeavoured my hurt. (2.) What if I had named Bishop Goodman, and all the rabble that your friend in the Legenda Lignea describes (wbich are more than Dr. Vane, and Dr. Goffe and Dr. Baily, and H. P. de Cressy, as you may there see,) had it been reasonable that I should have thought there are no more? (3.) Grotius assures me himself, (whom I have reason to believe,) that not a few such there were among the prelatical men. And what if i knew not the name of one them, should I not therefore take any notice that such there are? He then adds the concluding sentences, which are quoted in page 294. The whole stock of bis allegations against the POPERY of the Arminian clergy is exposed in that pamphlet, and in his Key for Catholics ; and the reader who has perused both of them will have perceived how exceedingly small the whole of that stock appears. In the latter publication, Baxter could do nothing more, in his enumeration of Arminiai apostates to Popery, than barely repeat his former list, as is apparent from the subjoined summary of that argument :
“ The Articles exhibited in Parliament against many of the Bishops will tell you, by their works, who were the instigators of them. Of themselves I know of none but Goodman that hath professed himself a flat Papist; and I shall not think it my duty to suspect any ove man of holding an opinion which he professeth uot himself, unless the evidence be very strong to move suspicion. But that many Papists were at work with them in that pretended reconcilemeni, Francis. a S. Clara and divers others put us past doubt. And that Papists crept into places in the Church under the garb of conformable Arminians, is too well known. It is no wonder therefore that Dr. Baily, Dr. Goffe, Dr. Vane, Hugh Paul de Cressy, and many more of them, did openly revolt when the game seemed to be spoiled that was played underboard. It had been far less hurt to us, I think, if all the rest had beeu as open." How far the account respecting Goodman is consistent with truth, may be seen by consulting the note in page 672.
This brief catalogue is in accordance with the following quotation from Evelyn's Diary : “ Nov. 4, 1684. Dr. Turner, now translated from Rochester to Ely, preached before the king Charles II.] at Whitehall, on Rom. iii, 8, a very excellent sermon, vindicating the Church of England against the pernicious doctrines of the Church of Rome. He challenged the producing but of five Clergymen who forsook our Church and went over to that of Rome during all the troubles and rebellion in England, which lasted near twenty years; and this was to my certain observation a great truth.”
* At the close of the right honourable Arthur Onslow's character of Archbishop Abbot, it is said, “ It is not perhaps unworthy of observation, that, in England, CALVINISM went along with civil liberty, and ARMINIANISM the contrary; and that, in Holland, it was at the same time the very reverse.' As a general proposition, this is untrue. The facts of the case stand thus: Two Arminian Bishops, Laud and Juxor, became members of his Majesty's Privy council at the peculiar juncture when the liberty of the subject and the prerogative of the Crown were brought into open competition. Arminianism was not implicated in the origin of that contest, which had agitated the kingdom several years prior to Laud's advancement at Court, and while he occupied only a private station in the Church. It is allowed, that while these two excellent and judicious diviues continued members of the administration, many impolitic as well as unlawful measures were adopted : Yet this concession, taken in its greatest amplitude, is no impeachment on their
Church ; and, though he was fully aware of the unpopularity of such a course at that juncture, he tried to make a favourable impression upon Papists, since schemes of pacification from a individual attachment to constitutional liberty; and Burnet will be praised by no man of genuine liberality for the following sentiment: “In most particulars, Laud excuses himself by this—that he was but one of many, who either in Council, Star-chamber, or High Commission, voted illegal things," &c. The responsibility of the constitutional advisers of his Majesty, it must be recollected in favour of the Archbisbop, was a principle that may be said to have been almost unknown in England till after the Revolution. It may be answered, “ Laud ought to have deserted a ministry that advised and adopted illegal measures." When this is said, the circumstances under which Laud came into power ought to be taken into consideration : He succeeded Dr. Abbot, wbö, for the sake of crushing Arminianism, subjected the Church of England to the daring inroads of its worst enemies. Was this noble structure to be deserted when in such a dilapidated condition ? No, Laud with the intrepidity of a martyr placed himself in the main breach, carefully repaired its walls, and tried to make “ Jerusalem a praise jo the earth.” This noble fearlessness of a great mind, resolved to adhere to the church, till he raised it to its pristine excellence or till he was buried under its ruins, is well expressed in the letter quoted in the text, which was written fifteen years before he fell a willing sacrifice to the fury of his enemies. That a man whose love for the prosperity and comeliness of the church was thus transcendent, should be willing to suffer many evils wbich he could not cure, will not seem wonderful to those who are acquainted with the secret springs which were the motives of actions in that eventful æra.
| But no oue who has carefully studied the history of the incroachments made on the constitution at that period, will pretend to say, that civil liberty did pot receive as much injury from the aggressions of the republican party in the House of Commons on the one side, as from some of the more unprincipled of the king's ministers on the other: So that, even in this view, civil liberty cannot be said “ to have gone along with Calvinism,” any more than with Arminianism. The subjoined extract from BAKER's Chronicle will serve to elucidate this topic: “ The King's extraordinary wants put him, as you have heard, upon some unusual courses for levying of money, not very warrantable by our ancient laws; and some, that were unwilling to countenance such courses, or otherwise disaffected to tbe governmeut, upon refusal were imprisoned; and, because no legal cause could be assigned for such restraint, the warrants whereby they were imprisoned had no cause specified in them, wbich was exclaimed against as not legal and a great grievance. There is scarce any thing, short of death, more grievous than imprisonment; and though by our laws no man can be imprisoned without a legal cause expressed, yet those that are in the exercise of power in tumultuous times, upon extraordinary emergencies are constrained to pass over those bounds; for no such provision hath yet[been]or can be made, to exclude all manner of arbitrary exercise of government; but whoever they be, that exceed in this tender point, it will become their prudence to do it with extraordinary caution !-Upon the return of the fleet after the late actions at sea, the soldiers, for want of pay, were billeted in private houses, which was alledged to be against the law; and to aggravate this, the rudeness of their persons, and their country (being Scotch and Irish) did much contribute. Nevertheless, though their actions were bad, and their persons worse, the Commons liked not that they should be punished by law-martial. For there being a commission issued to try offences of the soldiers by martial law, they exclaimed at it, and it was urged as a grievance; yet till that time the king's prerogative, in making and establishing martial laws, was never questioned, ihough since the petition of right, there is doubt of it. Magna Charta, and six other statutes explanatory of it, were express against illegal levies of money and imprisonments; and though those Statutes were in force, (whether the Parliament thought them antiquated, and therefore less regarded, or for what other reason it is not said) to provide against the grievances complained, &c. they drew up that memorable law, called The Petition of Right, and presented it to the king, to wbich he gave the royal assent in full
reputed Arminian found little encouragement among Puritans. In a subsequent note it will be shewn, that the British Calvinists parliament, to the very great liking of the people. And it was now thought there was so sweet an harmony betwixt the king and the parliament, that nothing could hinder the nation of as much happiness, as it could be capable of; but this concession inflamed the zeal of many of the House of Cominons to press a little further, and they immediately framed a remonstrance of several late miscarriages in government, in the conclusion whereof they said, ' The excessive power of the Duke of Buckingham, and the abuse of
that power, is the principal cause of all the evils and dangers therein mentioned; and therefore they humbly submit it to his Majesty's wisdom, whether it can be safe for nimself, or for his kingdom, tbat so great power, both by sea and land, as rests in bim, should be trusted in the hands of any one subject whatsoever.' On the 17th of June, 1628, this remonstrance · was presented to the king, with the Bill of Subsidies, in the banquettinghouse at Whitehall; who, when he had heard it read, told them, He little expected such a remonstrance, after he had so graciously passed the petition
of right; and for the grievances, specified therein, he would consider of • them as they should deserve.'”-Other stronger facts than these, and of a more recent date, might be quoted in proof of the existence of faults on both sides : But this quotation will suffice to shew, that Arminianism is not chargeable either with the attack upon the liberty of the subject, or upon the rights of the crown, upon both of which the old historian passes some just animadversions. On the just rights of the monarch, consult page 640, in which are contained the brief remarks of Grotius, who may be regarded as a distant and an impartial spectator.
But this will be granting more than is correct respecting these two eminent prelates ; for both of them gave stronger proofs of their attachment to genuine liberty, than several of the most vociferous of their accusers. With regard to Dr. Juxou, it is sufficient to observe, that his mild and equitable conduct had prepossessed even the republican innovators in his favour; he was therefore the last of the English bishops who were despoiled of their dignities and reveuues : And with regard to Archbishop Laud, it is sufficient to quote his own dying declaration, which it would not be difficult to corroborate by other testimonies :-“ I have been accused likewise as an enemy to parliaments : No, I understand them, and the benefit that comes by them, too well to be so. But I did mislike the misgovernments of some parliaments many ways; and I had good reason for it. For corruptio optimi est pessima, there is no corruption in the world so bad as that which is of the best thing within itself; for the better the thing is in nature, the worse it is (when) corrupted. And that being the highest court over which no other hath juris- : diction, when it is misinformed or misgoverned, the subject is left without all remedy.” He had strong reasons for talking thus about “ the misgovernments of some parliaments;" for how excellent soever their professed objects may appear to us who reap the fruit of their labours, the unjust and outrageous measures which out of pure contradictiun to the court they chose to pursue in attaining those objects, can never be justified by men of impartiality. The faults on both sides were many and egregious ; and at this distance of time they will be obvious to all who are not violent partizans. In the spirit of the expressions here quoted, it is easy to imagine, that, in relation to many subjects heside those with which we are acquainted, the ' Archbishop would have been pleased to hehold an amelioration of practice; but at that peculiar juncture of public affairs, the slightest concession would have been interpreted by the opposite party as a complete triumph, as was afterwards perceived when his majesty commenced the work of unguarded yielding. On the same principle, that intrepid and intelligent statesman, the late right honourable William Pitt, previously to his becoming Prime Minister, ably advocated what he considered to be the just rights of the peo ple; yet when he was elevated to that distinguished place in bis Majesty's Council which be filled with such honour to himself and benefit to his cou ntry, he discovered good and valid reasons for refusing the boon which he bad himself instructed the people to demand; and, on account of this oppor
at the Synod of Dort, long before Dr. Laud's advancement, had maintained “that the Pope ought not to be called ANTICHRIST
tune refusal, I never heard that upright minister blamed except by the most illiterate of modern republicans, who would have delighted in beholding England emulate France in acts of licentiousness and atrocity. But the sound part of the nation were too well-instructed to suffer our former scenes of republican frenzy, and profaneness to be re-acted: A single beacon of this description was accounted a powerful warning in the history of any people. Without any intention to compare the Archbishop's notions of liberty with tħose of Mr. Pitt, (for the latter entertained such as were far more correct apd liberal,) I may be permitted to ask, if Mr. Pitt's reasons be deemed just and valid at the period to which I have referred, what can with propriety be alleged against those of Arcbhishop Laud, who lived at a most eventful crisis, when Church and State were assailed by insidious and powerful adversaries? We have a remarkable testimony to the correctness of his views, and to the general propriety of his measures for procuring a strict uniformity, in the conversion of some bishops and other divines of Calvinistic principles, who had been disciples of Abbot, and who bad acted towards their inconformable predestinarian brethren, upon that Archbishop's maxim, quoted in page 673, till they perceived its erroneousness, and the dangerous results which it produced. This will be rendered apparent iu two subsequent notes, one of which relates to the alteration of conduct in Bishop Hall, and the other to that in Bishop Davenant. But the testimony of bis declared enemies, the Presbyterian Calvinists, will probably be considered still more remarkable and convincing. Iu Robert BAYLIE's Dissuasive, which was published by Authority," and dedicated to that curious political character is the Earl of Lauderdale,” only five years after the extirpation of episcopacy, the author attempts to remove the reproach, that " the new monsters of sects' to be ascribed to “ the [Calvinistic] reformation in hand, and Bishops were “maguified, as if they had kept down, and this [the Preshyterian church“ government] did set up, the sects which now predomine.". To this he replies : “ The tyranny and superstition of this step-mother Episcopacy was the seed of Brownism
the great root of the most of our sects, all which were many years ago brought forth, however kept within doors so long as any church discipline was on foot. Now, indeed, every monster walks in the street without controulment, while all ecclesiastic government is cast asleep; this too too long inter-reign and mere anarchy hath invited every unclean creature to creep out of its cave, and shew in public its mis-shapen face to all who like to behold. But if once the government of Christ were set up amongst us, as it is in the rest of the Reformed Churches, we know not what would impede it, by the sword of God alone without any secular violence, to banish out of the land these spirits of error, in all meekness, humility, and love, by the force of truth convincing and satisfying the minds of the seduced. Episcopal Courts were never fitted for the reclaiming of minds; their prisons, their fines, their pillories, their nose-slittings, their ear-cuttings, their cheekburnings, did but hold down the flame, to break out in season with the greater rage. But the Reformed Presbytery doth proceed in a spiritual method, evidently fitted for the gaining of hearts; they go on with the offending party with all respect,” &c. In this quotation, which is introductory to the extracts already given in pages 326 and 348, the impartial reader will perceive the indirect praise which is most reluctantly ascribed to Episcopacy, in “ keeping all the sects within doors." - Respecting the absolụte necessity of suppressing all sectaries, Robert is very decided? The sole difference between him and Archbishop Laud lies in the mode,--the spiritual method of the Reformed Presbytery" being, in his opinion, the best adapted for that purpose. To page 443, and to that curious pamphlet the Burden of Issachar, published in 1646, I refer those who are desirous of knowing more concerning Baylie's intolerant views, and “the mild methods" adopted hy the Presbyterians towards those who were under their ecclesiastical regimen.-But Bishop Burnet asserts, that “ Laud's Diary represents him as an abject fawner on the Duke of Buckingham.” Every man