: that part of the Reformed religion which treats of the native depravity of man, his power to do good, the grace of God, and the conversion of the soul to God, by the principles and tenets of the Cartesian philosophy, which he had imbibed completely. But what his opinions really were, it is very difficult to determine and whether this arises from his own endeavours to conceal what he really thought, by enunciating it under an ambiguous phraseology, or from the negligence or the malice of his adversaries, I cannot readily decide. If we believe his adversaries, he was of opinion that man has more soundness and more ability to reform himself than is generally apprehended; that what is called original sin cleaves only to the understanding, and consists principally in want of power to view religious questions clearly and sufficiently; that this faultiness of the human understanding excites the will to evil inclinations and actions; that it is to be cured, not by the powers of nature, but by the influences of the Holy Spirit acting through the medium of the divine Word; that this Word, however, does not possess any inherent divine power, or any physical or hyperphysical energy, but only a moral influence; that is, it reforms the human understanding in the same manner as human truth does, namely, by exhibiting clear and well-defined views of divine things, and such solid arguments as may prove the truths of Christianity to be consistent with right reason, and God's perfections; that every man, therefore, if his power were not weakened and withdrawn by either internal or external impediments, might renew his own mind by the use of his reason, and by meditation on revealed truth, without the extraordinary aid of the Holy Spirit.' But Pajon himself asserts, that he believed and professed all that is contained in the decisions of Dort, and in the other confessions and catechisms of the Reformed; complains that his opinions were misunderstood; and states, that he does not deny all immediate operation of the Holy Spirit on the minds of those who are converted to God, but only See Fred. Spanheim, Append. ad Elenchum Controversiarum; Opp. tom. iii. p. 882, &c. Peter Jurieu, Traité de la Nature et de la Grâce, p. 35, &c. Val. Ern. Loescher, Exercit. de Claud. Paionii ejusque Sectator. Doctrina et Fatis, Lips. 1692, 12mo. [Spanheim was a more candid adversary of Pajon, than Jurieu. Weismann (loc. cit. p. 942,) follows Jurieu for the most part, and is too severe upon Pajon; who had no other aim than to guard against fanaticism and enthusiasm, and probably viewed the word of God with higher reverence than many of his opponents did. Schl.] that immediate operation which is unconnected with the Word of God; in other words, that he cannot agree with those who think that the Word of God is only an external and inoperative sign of an immediate divine operation. This last proposition is manifestly ambiguous and captious. He finally adds, that we ought not to contend about the manner in which the Holy Spirit operates on the minds of men; that it is sufficient if a person holds this one point that the Holy Spirit is the Author of all that is good in us. The sentiments of Pajon, however, were condemned not only by the Reformed divines, but also by some synods of the French church in 1677, and by a Dutch synod at Rotterdam in 1686. § 18. This controversy, which was in a measure settled and ended by the death of Pajon, was propagated in many books and discourses throughout England, Holland, and Germany, by Isaac Papin, a Frenchman of Blois, and sister's son to Pajon. Throwing off all disguise, he ventured to express himself much more coarsely and harshly than his uncle. He declared that the opinion of his uncle was this: That man has even more power than is necessary to enable him to understand divine truth: that for the reformation and regeneration of the soul nothing more is required than to remove an unsound state of the body by medical aid, if such a state happens to exist, and then to place before the understanding, truth and error, and before the will, virtue and vice, clearly and distinctly, with their appropriate arguments. This, and the other opinions of Papin, the celebrated divine of Rotterdam, Peter Jurieu, among others, confuted with uncommon warmth, in the years 1686, 1687, and 1688. They were also condemned by the Synod of Boisle-Duc in 1687; and still more severely by the synod at the Hague in 1688; which also ejected the man from the Reformed church. Provoked by this severity, Papin, who, in other things, manifested fine talents, returned to France in the year 1689, and the next year revolted to the Romish church, in which he died in the year 1709.3 * See the tract which Pajon himself composed, and which is inserted in Jac. Geo. de Chauffepie's Nouveau Dictionnaire, Histor. et Critique, tom. ii. art. Cene, p. 164, &c. VOL. IV. Some think him to have See Jurieu, de la Nature et de la Grâce; and in other writings. Jo. Möller, Cimbria Litterata, tom. ii. p. 608, &c. and others. [According to Möller, loc. cit. Papin's Scheme of doctrine grew been treated unjustly, and that his opinions were misrepresented by his mortal adversary Jurieu; but how true this may be, I cannot say. A defence of the Paionian sentiment was likewise attempted, in 1684, in several tracts, by Charles le Cene ; a French divine of a vigorous mind, who has given us a French translation of the Bible. But as he entirely discarded and denied the natural depravity of man, and taught that we can amend ourselves by our own power, by attentively listening to divine truth, especially if we have also a good education, good examples, and some other advantages, there are those who contend, that his scheme of doctrine differs, in many respects, from that of Pajon.5 § 19. The English church was agitated with most violent storms and tempests. When James I., king of Scotland, on the death of Elizabeth, ascended the throne of England, the Puritans, or friends of the Genevan discipline, indulged no little hope that their condition would be meliorated, and that they should no longer be exposed to the continual wrongs of the Episcopalians. For the king had been born and educated among the Scotch, who were Puritans. And his first movements corresponded well with these expectations, and seemed to announce that he would use the royal authority to assume the character of mediator between the disagreeing parties. But, on a sudden, 6 out of his Cartesian philosophy. He supposed that in creating the world, God so formed and constituted all things, that he never has occasion to interpose his immediate agency, unless when a miracle is necessary. Of course, that the conversion of sinners is brought about, as all other events are, by the operation of natural causes. Tr.] It was published after the author's death, Amsterd. 1741, fol., and was condemned by the Dutch synods. 5 See the Nouveau Dictionnaire, Histor. et Critique, article Cene, tom. ii. p. 160, &c. keep pasche and yule (i. e. Easter and Christmas). What have they for them? They have no institution. As for our neighbour kirk of England, their service is an evil-said mass in English: they want nothing of the mass, but the liftings (i. e. the elevation of the host). I charge you, my good ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity, and to exhort your people to do the same; and I forsooth, as long as I brook my life, shall do the same,' Calderwood's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 256." Macl.]} [King James professed himself attached to the Church of Scotland, until his removal to England in April, 1603. While on his journey, all religious parties in England made their court to him. To the Dutch and French protestants settled in the country, he gave favourable answers. The bishops negotiated with him by their envoys. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge addressed him in behalf of the establishment; and the Puritans presented their every thing assumed a different aspect. King James, who was eager to grasp supreme and unlimited power, at once judged : petition in favour of a reform of the church. One petition of the latter, signed by about 800 Puritan ministers, was called the Millennary Petition, from the signatures to it-almost a thousand. In October, 1603, the king appointed a conference at Hampton Court, to be held the January following, between the Episcopalians and the Puritans, with a view to settle the controversies between them. On the side of the Episcopalians were nine bishops, and about as many dignitaries of the church; and on the part of the Puritans were four English divines, and one from Scotland; all of whom were selected by the king himself. On the first day of the conference, Jan. 14, 1604, the Episcopalians alone were admitted to the royal presence: and the king made some few objections to the English ritual and discipline, which the bishops either vindicated or consented to modify. The second day, Jan. 16th, the Puritans were admitted; and proceeded to state their wishes. But the king treated them harshly, and allowed the Episcopalians to browbeat them. The bishops had a complete triumph and Bancroft, falling on his knees, said: "I protest, my heart melteth for joy, that Almighty God, of his singular mercy, has given us such a king, as since Christ's time has not been." On the third day, Jan. 18th, the bishops and deans were first called in, to settle with the king what alterations should be made in the regulations of the church. Archbishop Whitgift was so elated to hear the king's approval of the law for the oath ex officio, that he exclaimed: “Undoubtedly, your majesty speaks by the special assistance of God's Spirit." After this, the Puritans were called in, not to discuss the points in controversy, but merely to hear what had been agreed upon by the king and the bishops. Thus ended this mock conference; in which the king showed himself exceedingly vain and insolent towards the Puritans, and wholly on the side of the Episcopalians. The next month, a proclamation was issued, giving an account of the conference, and requiring conformity to the liturgy and ceremonies. See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. ch. i. p. 30, &c. and the authors there referred to: also Johnson Grant's History of the English Church and the Sects, &c. vol. ii. ch. ix. p. 52, &c. Tr.] The reason why Episcopalians only were admitted to confer on the first day, is obvious and fair enough. They were to be confronted with opponents who demanded concessions of them. It would save time and irritation if any concessions could be offered to the other party at once. In the end some concessions were made, though none of any great importance; but then, the demands, except that for enforcing subscription to the Lambeth Articles, were objects of no great importance. As for this Lambeth subscription, it would have narrowed the terms of national conformity in a degree highly unjust and impolitic. The defeat of the Puritans, indeed, if defeat it could be called, in this mock conference, as their admirers term it, was the defeat of narrow-minded, arrogant intolerance and scrupulosity. Undoubtedly, both Abp. Whitgift and Bp. Bancroft disgraced themselves by falling into a sycophancy closely bordering upon blasphemy; but it should be stated, as some extenuation of their most reprehensible folly, that it did not occur until lay courtiers had set the example, and that the English hierarchy had come to the conference under some misgivings as to the effect of James's Presbyterian education. Those who wish for an accurate and full account of these matters, must consult The Summe and Substance of the Conference, which it pleased his Excellent Majestie to have 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 the 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.] 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.8 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 and character, who was himself devoted to Calvinistic sentiments, and a great friend to English liberty, and whose gentleness towards their predecessors 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 1 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.] 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. 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 RapinThoyras. 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 Moreover, for ascertaining the character persuaded, that the ancient Christian Peter Heylin's History of the Five Conventus, Ventus: Sessio, Stramen : |