« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
tants beheld his actings with no small fear, as biassing too strongly toward Rome; the Puritans exclaimed against him for a Papist; and the Papists cried him up for theirs, and gave themselves some flattering hopes of our coming towards them : But the most knowing and understanding men amongst them, found plainly, that nothing could tend more to their destruction* than the introducing of some ceremonies which by late negligence and practice had been discontinued. For I have heard from a person of known nobility, that at his being at Rome, with a father of the English college, one of the Novices came in and told him, with a great deal of joy, 'that the Eng• lish were upon returning to the Church of Rome; that they
began to set up altars, to officiate in their Copes, to adorn * their churches, and to paint the pictures of Saints in the
church windows:' To which the old father made reply, with some indignation, that he talked like an ignorant novice ; that these proceedings rather tended to the ruin than advancement of the Catholick cause; that by this means, the Church of England coming nearer to the ancient usages, the Catholicks there would sooner be drawn off from them than any more of that nation would fall off to Rome.'
“ In reference to doctrinal points, heterodoxies and new opinions, and such extravagant expressions both from press and pulpit,t he took as much care as in the other. And to that end,
* The real dread with which the Archbishop's measures inspired the Papists, is well expressed in the following extract of a letter, which John Evelyn, Esq. addressed in 1694 to Dr. Tennison, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury “ Mr. Pepys sent me last week the Journal of Sir John Narbrough and Captain Wood, together with Mr. Wharton's preface to his intended history of the Life of Archbishop Laud. I do not know whether I might do the learned editor (for, it seems, he only publishes a MS. written by that great Prelate of his own life,) any service, by acquainting him with a passage relating to that person, namely, the JUBILEE which the sacrifice of the Bishop caused among some at Rome; it being my hap to be in that city, and in company of divers of the English Fathers (as they call them,) when the news of his suffering and the sermou he made upon the scaffold arrived there; which, I well remember, they read and commented on, with no small satisfaction, and (as I thougbt) contempt, as of one taken off who was an enemy to them and stood in their way; whilst one of the blackest crimes imputed to him was, (we may well call to mind,) his being Popishly affected !' I know not, I say, whether the Memoirs may be of any import to Mr. Wharton, with whom I have no acquaintance; I therefore acquaint your Lordship with it,” &c.
† The Archbishop was careful concerning “ extravagant expressions, not only from the press and pulpit," but likewise on other subjects than that of Popery; as the reader will perceive, from the subjoined anecdote, related by the Earl of Clarendon in the Account of his own Life: “ From some academic contests in which Dr. Morley had been engaged during his living in Christ Church in Oxford, where he was always of the first eminency, he had, by the natural faction and animosity of those disputes, fallen under the reproach of holding some opinions which were not then grateful to those Churchmen who had the greatest power in ecclesiastical promotions; and some sharp answers and replies, which be used to make in accidental discourses, and which in truth were made for 'mirth and pleasantness sake, (as he was of the highest facetiousness,) were reported, and spread abroad to
he was not pleased that the Pope should be any longer stigmatized by the name of Antichrist;* and gave a strict charge unto his prejudice. As, being once asked by a grave country gentleman, (who was desirous to be instructed what their tenets and opinions were,) i What the Arminians held,' he pleasantly answered, that they held all the best Bishopricks and Deaneries in England; which was quickly reported abroad as Mr. Morley's definition of the Arminian tevets. Such and the like harmless and jocular sayings, upon many accidental occasions, had wrought upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, Laud, (who lived to change bis mind and to have a just esteem of him,) to entertain some prejudice towards him: And the respect which was paid him by many eminent persons, as John Hampden, Arthur Goodwin, and others, who were not thought friends to the prosperity the Church was in, made others apprebend that he was not enough zealous for it. But that disaffection and virulency, which few men had then owned and discovered, no sooner appeared, in these and other men, but Dr. Morley made haste as publicly to oppose them, both in private and in public; which had the more effect to the benefit of the Church, by his, being a person above all possible reproach, and known and valued by more persons of honour than most of the Clergy were ; and being not only without the envy of any preferment, but under the advantage of a discountenanced person: And as he was afterwards the late King's Chaplain, and much regarded by him, and as long about him as any of his Chaplains were permitted to attend him; so, presently after his murder, he left the kingdom, and remained in banishment, till King Charles the Second's happy return. Archbishop Laud could not relish the joke, because it was not founded in truth; and it was not capable of the same amplitude of meaning, as if it had been said in Archbishop Abbot's days, “ The Calvinists hold all the best Bishoprics and Deaneries in England.'
* This prohibition was not peculiar to France, (page 291,) nor was its origin in England restricted to the days of Archbishop Laud, though such
an assertion has been often ignorantly made; but it formed a part of the i instructions wbich King James delivered to the British Divines, whom he
deputed as his Calvinistic representatives to the Synod of Dort. The manner in which they fulfilled those instructions, is thus related by Balcanqual, in the Latin potes which he took of the Synodical proceedings, and which he occasionally transmitted to the English Ambassador at the Hague for his private information :
“ In the 139ih session, held in the afternoon of the same day, [April 25, 1619,] is read another shorter Preface framed by the synodical Deputies from several forms which had been offered to them; the whole of which pleased the Synod, provided a few alterations were made in it. The British divines thought the tyranny of Antichrist might be more appropriately expressed thus, the Antichristian tyranny. Because although perhaps they might consider it a truth, that the Roman Pontiff was that great Antichrist; yet they scarcely thought, that this point ought to be determined by the Synod without a previous and fair examination. For this bad never yet been done by any of the Reformed Churches, with the exception of that of France, which had already withdrawn this dogina from its Confession.' Some of the members of the Synod could not endure the idea of having this point called in question ; to whom the British divines replied, 'that the fact itself, whether the Roman, • Pontiff'were that Antichrist, was not now called in question; but that this was the real question, Ought this point to be determined by the Synod without any previous deliberation ?
The reader will perceive the very cautious manner in which the whole of their objection is expressed. If in their private opinions concerning the Romish Antichrist, they had been even more decided, than they bere seem to have been, they scarcely committed themselves; and their unanimous wish to destroy Arminianism, by their votes at that Synod, would have induced them to make several more important concessions to their royal master's caprices. I subjoin a translation of one of Mosheim's Notes on the Letters of the ever-memorable John Hales, in elucidation of the obsequious disposition of our pious countrymen :
his Chaplains, · That all exasperating passages (which edify * nothing) should be expunged out of such books as by them
“ When the Calvinistic divines hear the authority of the Synod Dort diminished ou this account, that the men, who sat in it as JUDGES, consti. 'tuted one of the two contending parties,'—they immediately invite our attention to the Foreign Divines who were present at that Council, to whom
the same objection cannot apply, and who were devoid of all party attachmeuts.'-1 shall probably embrace another opportunity to demonstrate, that this is a frivolous excuse, and that these foreign divines were not such men as they choose thus to depict. I will at present only make a few remarks upon the British Deputies; from which it will be apparent, that they did not bring with them to Dort even a permission to form their own judgments (upon the matters in dispute]. Dr. Hall [then Dean of Worcester] clearly testified, in the Latin sermon which be delivered before the Synod, ? that he
and his colleagues had received his Majesty's commands not to suffer any innovations to be made in the received doctrine' [which was Calvinism). The wbole company of the British Divines frankly confess the same, in their judgment on the Five Points, which is recorded in the Second Part of the Acts of the Synod, p. 266. And our author, John Hales, very properly observes, It was the act of an imprudent man to make such a confession ; for, by that declaratiou, this learued man shewed, that he and his associates had come to Dort, not in the capacity of the judges of the
Armivians, but as their enemies.' This indeed was proved in the result. The British clergy at that period were favourable to the dogmas of Calvin : This fact will be reudered apparert to every one who peruses the biography of the learned individuals who were then Professors of Divinity in their Universities. King James the First was likewise bimself attached to the same decrees of Calvin, which were indeed agreeable to the rest of the opinions which he had imbibed. It is not surprizing, that no dogmas took deeper root in the heart of his Majesty than such as are maintained by the Calvinists, who assert, that whatever the King can do, will be justly done, and that his Majesty is confined by no law; and who believe, that the people ought to regard the King's pleasure as just and equitable. See an extract from the sixteenth volume of RAPIN'S Actes Publics d'Angleterre, in LE CLERC's Bibliotheque Ancienne et Moderne. Such sentiments could not but induce the King to believe, that God also might, by his absolute power alone, decree the salvation of men. For he would have dissented from himself, if he had arrogated to himself an absolute empire over his own subjects, and had denied similar upbounded authority to God the Supreme of all Potentates. When, therefore, King James recommended to his divines the patronage of the received doctrine, he in reality commanded them to defend Calvinism? George ABBOT, who, as Archbishop of Canterbury, at that time presided over the British Churches, was addicted to the same principles, and desired, above every thing besides, the destruction of the Arminians. Let him whó entertain any doubts of this, peruse the following extract of a letter addressed to his Grace, by Sir Dudley Carleton, on the 14th of January, 1618 : 'If I be pot deceived, in conformity to what your Grace doth wish,
when the Synod hath done with the Remonstrants' opinions, this course will be taken with their persons,—that the chief ring-leaders (as Vytenbogardt, Episcopius, Grevinchovius, and Vorstius, with some others, will
be branded with some note of infamy, and thrust out both of Church and • State.'-Thus before the Synod had determined any thing about the doctrines of the Arminians, it was settled and decreed to brand them with a mark of infamy and to send them into banishment: And this was the sole wish which the Archbishop of Canterbury indulged.-- What man will now venture to proclaim to us the wisdom and the sanctity of the Dort Fathers ? Are these virtues displayed in deceiving men, and in affording a fund of ridicule for the whole world ?—ROBERT ABBOT, Bishop of Salisbury, who was brother to the Archbishop, was such a favourer of the doctrine of Calvin, as to publish in a quarto volume, at the very time when the Synod was sitting, his Exercises or Grace and the Perseverance of Saints, London, 1618; in
were to be licensed to the press ; and that no doctrines of that church should be writ against; but such as seemed to be inconsistent with the established Doctrine of the Church of
which he refuted the Arminians and defended the Absolute Decree. He accommodated his doctrine to the King's principles : This is evident from his book on the Supreme Authority of Kings, which was published in octavo at London, in 1619. Indeed, it was not possible for him, on this account, to teach any other doctrine."
The arbitrary principles to which Mosheim here alludes, and which he asserts to have been derived from the school of Calvin, are finely elucidated by an anecdote contained in the Life of WALLER the Poet, who was “ chosen into the last Parliament of King James the First, in which he served as burgess for Agmondesbam in Buckinghamshire. On the day of its dissolution, he went out of curiosity or respect to see the King at dinner, with whom were Dr. Andrews Bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Neile Bishop of Durham, standing behind the king's chair. His Majesty asked the two Bishops, My Lords, cannot I take my subjects' money when I want it, • without all this formality in Parliament?'-The Bishop of Durham readily answered, God forbid, Sir, but you should ! You are the breath of our nostrils.- Whereupon the King turved and said to the Bishop of Winchester, Well, my Lord, what say you?'-Sir, replied Bishop Andrews, I have no skill to judge of Parliamentary cases.--The King auswered, “No put-offs,
my Lord! Answer me presently.'—Then, Sir, said he, I think it lauful for you to take my brother Neile's money : for hé offers it.--Mr. Waller said, The company was pleased with this answer, and the wit of it seemed to affect the King,” &c. The attempt to eradicate these tyrannical principles out of the King's mind, was a difficult enterprize. It was equally difficult to erase them from the memory of the three succeeding monarchs of his family; and no mau would hazard much by asserting, that this was one of the principal reasons why Laud did not feel himself at liberty to promote the views of Grotius, when that great man wished to obtain employment at the Court of England. (Page 634.) The Archbishop himself was compelled to submit to many inconveniences, before he could rise at Court. To have become the avowed patron of such a liberal species of Arminianism as had been espoused by Grotius, Episcopius, and the other worthies of Holland,would have been the direct method to render both bimself and his tenets obnoxious to the monarch, who subsequently learut many useful lessons in the school of adversity, but who, unbappily, was never afterwards favoured with au opportunity of reducing them to practice, in the government of the country. “Laud, therefore, deduced his Arminianism from the public formularies of the English Church, and left the politics of the Court to adjust themselves. Arbitrary power had made rapid advauces before be obtained any influence at Court; and it is a fact worthy to be recorded in his favour, that after his admissiou to the King's council-board, several important concessions were voluntarily made, by which the liberty of the subject was greatly augmented. But the complete eradication of the absolute principles which the whole of the Stuart family had imbibed, required a stronger course of medicine than Archbishop Laud was either qualified or inclined to apply. From Calvinism those principles bad been derived ; and by Calvinism, when slighted and neglected, they were in the first instance transferred into the hands of “ the many to no practical advantage. But their utter expulsion was at last effected, by the great men who professed a purer kind of Arminianism than that which Laud had imbibed.-The deteriorating ivfuence of Absolute Predestination on men in power, both in kingdoms and republics, is thus described by Dr. Hammond, who had perceived and lamented its effects in King James and Oliver Cromwell: “This doctrine being imbibed by governors, is very apt to instil into them principles of tyranny, if it be but by imitating and transcribing from God the notions which they have received of him, by doing that themselves which they believe of him,-punishing their subjects by no other rule but that of their wills, decreeing their destruction first without intuition of any voluntary
· England. Upon which ground it was that Baker, Chaplain to the Bishop of London refused to license the reprinting of 'a book about the Gunpowder-Treason, saying to him that brought
crime of theirs, and then counting it a part of their glory to execute such decrees. Thus when Suetonius describes Tiberius as a professed contemner of all religion, and from thence soon improved iuto the most intolerable tyrant, he renders the original of it—that he believed all things to be wrought by a fatality."
In another part of Mosheim's note, the characters of the five British Divines are briefly delineated; and be very properly eulogizes WARD and DAVENANT ; “ for they were inclined to the sentiments of those who believe in the universality of Divine Grace.” He then adds. “ If therefore the affair had been determined by the judgment of these men, we should at this day have had decrees of the Synod of Dort, of a far milder character than those which we possess. But they were compelled to obey the times and yield to circumstances. When they perceived, that the commands of the King, the pleasure of the Archbishop (Abbot], the authority of the English Ambassador, and the wishes and admonitions of the Bishop [Carleton), who was the President of their company, were all opposed to their desires, these very excellent men suffered themselves at length to be induced to affix their hands and seals to an equivocal and ambiguous forinula, and to give it their approval. Indeed these British divines, with those from Bremen, (page 576,) have made it appear doubtful to some persons of the present age, when they have had regard only to the decrees of the Synod, what is the public doctrine of the Calvinists. Though if we inspect the other matters that were transacted in the Synod, none of us can be ignorant of the disposition and intentions of the majority of the members. But since the Fathers of that Council were not unanimous in their sentiments, they were under the necessity of making such laws as might be accommodated to every one's dogmas. Let other people consider, whether such a course was consistent with candour and seriousness."
The following paragraph of Bishop Carleton's letter to the English Ambassador, dated Feb. 8, 1618, is important; for it proves, that the two men best qualified to form a correct judgment about such a matter,-Dr. Davenant who was then Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Dr. Ward who became the Margaret Professor in that University,-both concurred in asserting GENERAL REDEMPTION as the received doctrine of the Church of England :“ When we were to give up our sentence to the Second Article, having first thought of certain Theses, we parted our labour, so that each one had his part of the Theses to confirm. When all was conferred together, it was fouud that Dr. Davevant and Dr. Ward had proceeded so far in declaring their parts, that the rest could not follow them; whereupon we were, at a stand for a time. They perceiving, that neither myself nor the rest of my fellows could approve that which they had set dowy, took occasion of divers conferences, which did rather set us farther asunder: Yet this was private among ourselves. They held that the Redemption of Christ, and the Grace thereof, was GENERAL TO ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION : Wbich being put, I could not see why we should not grant GENERAL GRAce in the largest sense that the Remonstrants would bave it. Their answer was, that it was so far 'to be granted, and we were to yield so much to them.'–Upon this there was some difference ; I took it neither to be a truth of the Scripture, nor the doctrine of the Church of England; and they thought it wAS BOTH. After some time and discourses spent, I told them, that there was a necessity of our agreement. If we could not agree in all things, we must come to such points wherein all may agree ; and willed them to give me liberty to remove the things wherein we could not agree, that we might all agree in the rest. To this they yielded, and so we agreed in some things.-We wrote to your Lordship, - that Mr. President [Bogerman] was offended at some things • which we exhibited, and was desirous that we should write to know my • Lord's Grace his opinion thereon.' In moving of that to my company, I told them, that we might yet take such order as to quiet all things without