that God would take them out of the world. How far this imprecation took place on himself or any of his posterity, I leave, with Mr. archdeacon Eachard, to the determination. of an omniscient Being. *

A SUPPLEMENT to the reign of JAMES I.

IT is proper to add here some account of the state of a sect of dissidents, who have been mentioned in a former reign, but appear under James I. to have gained ground and increased, and to have assumed more of a fixed and regular form: 1 mean the Baptists. In the year 1608 there was a small piece published, by Enoch Clapham, representing, in a way of dialogue, the opinions of the different sects of protestants, at that period. He speaks of some of them as leaving the kingdom to form churches amongst people of another language: and others, who remained in England, he censures for withdrawing from the national worship, and assembling in woods, stables, and barns for religious service. He particularly distinguishes from Puritans and Brownists, on the one hand, and from Arians and Socinians, on the other, those whom by way of reproach were called Anabaptists; and who separated both from the church and other dissenters. Whatever may be thought concerning the truth and justness of their views on the question relative to baptism, their great seriousness of spirit and diligence in inquiry, must be praised by all candid persons. They arose out of those who, being tired with the yoke of

The reader will be pleased to hear the sentiments of a learned foreigner on the reign and character of king James. The same bias will not be imputed to him as to Mr. Neal. "In the year 1625 died James I. the bitterest enemy of the doctrine and discipline of the Puritans, to which he had been in his youth most warmly attached; the most 'inflexible and ardent friend of the Arminians, in whose ruin and con'demnation in Holland he had been singularly instrumental; and the 'most zealous defender of Episcopal government, against which he had 'more than once expressed himself in the strongest terms. He left the constitution of England, both ecclesiastical and civil, in a very un'settled and fluctuating stute, languishing under intestine disorders of various kinds."

Ed.

Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, translated by Maclaine, 2d edit: vol. iv. p. 517-18. VOL. II.

22

superstitious ceremonies, the traditions of men, and corrupt mixtures in the worship of God, resolved by the grace of God, not to receive or practise any piece of positive worship which had not precept or example in his word. On this principle they pursued their researches, which they accompanied with fasting and prayer. When, after long search, and many debates, it appeared to them that infant baptism was a mere innovation and even a profanation of a divine ordinance, they were not brought to lay it aside without many fears and tremblings, lest they should be mistaken, considering how many learned and godly men were of an opposite persuasion; and gladly would they have had the concurrence of their brethren with them. But since there was no hope of this, they concluded that a christian's faith must not stand in the wisdom of man, and that every one must give account of himself to God; so they resolved to practise according to their own convictions. They were persuaded, that believers were the only proper subjects of baptism, and that immersion or dipping the whole body into water, was the appointed rite. But as this was not practised in England, they were at a loss for an administrator to begin the practice. After often meeting together to pray, and confer about this matter, they agreed to send over into Holland Mr. Richard Blount, who understood the Dutch language, to a baptist church there: he was kindly received by the society and their pastor; and upon his return he baptized Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister; these two baptized the rest of the company, to the number of fifty-three. Some few others of this persuasion were among the original planters of New-England. They who continued in England, published, in the year 1615, a small treatise to justify their separation from the church of England; and to prove that every man has a right to judge for himself in matters of religion; and that to persecute any one on this account is illegal and antichristian, contrary to the laws of God, as well as several declarations of his majesty.

In the year 1618, another vindication of their principles came from the press, entitled, A plain and well-grounded Treatise concerning Baptism. It was a translation from a Dutch piece, and is thought to be the first that was pub

lished in English against the baptism of infants. But the vindication of their principles procured them no security against the power of persecution. They were inveighed against from the pulpits, and harrassed in the spiritual courts. Their goods were seized, and their persons confined by long and lingering imprisonments, under which many of them died, leaving widows and children. This drew from them, in 1620, during the sitting of parliament, an humble supplication to king James, representing their miseries, avowing their loyal and blameless behavior, and remonstrating against the cruel proceedings under which they suffered, as unbecoming the charity and goodness of the christian religion, tempting men to hypocrisy, and exhibiting the marks of antichrist, and humbly beseeching his majesty, the nobles and parliament to consider their case, and according to the direction of God's word, to let the wheat and tares grow together till the harvest. Notwithstanding the odium cast upon them, and the severities used against them, they maintained their separate meetings, had many disciples, and supported an exemplary purity of character.*

Another matter in the preceding period, into which it may be wished that Mr. Neal had more fully entered, is the Synod of Dort. A sketch of its proceedings would have assisted the reader to form his own judgment concerning the equity and impartiality of this celebrated council. A full detail would, indeed, have been remote from the general subject of his history; and would, now, extend these supplemental remarks to too great a length. A few particulars may serve to shew that this council conducted itself as others have done. The synod, contrary to the order of the States-General, consisted of a great majority of ministers of the United Provinces, so that by superiority of numbers they could easily carry any measures against the votes of the foreign divines. The secretary and commissioners were men incompetent in point of theological knowledge, and prepossessed against the remonstrants. And a man, who was an enemy to toleration, and had declared that heretics ought to be put to death, was elected moderator. The remonstrants were not admitted to a free debate,

*See Crosby's History of the English Baptists, vol. i. p. 88-139.

but were cited, like criminals, before a synod consisting of their enemies; who deemed it beneath their authority to reason, and assumed the power of a judge to decree. Their language was, "that they thought it fitter to give than receive laws; that the remonstrants forgot themselves 'to be citati, standing before God and their magistrates; 'who were commanded by the states to obey the decrees of 'the synod, under the penalty, if they refused, of expecting 'both civil and ecclesiastical censure." When a decree of the synod having been read, Episcopius desired a copy of it, the president refused it, saying, "It is only that you may 'find some words to cavil at, and therefore he should have none; it was sufficient that he knew the meaning of it." The conduct of the moderator was particularly repugnant to candor, and inconsistent with his office for he always interrupted the remonstrants, when he thought it convenient, or commanded them to be silent, or to withdraw; that he might in their absence say what he pleased without fearing to be convicted of partiality. At one time the remonstrants were inveighed against in the sermons delivered before the synod; at other times they were upbraided in its sessions as audacious and insolent, criminated for lies and deceitful speeches, and threatened "that their pertinacity should be exposed to all the christian world." During one whole session they were shut up in a room, and so well observed, that none of their friends could impart to them what passed in the synod. The doors of the room, into which they withdrew, when they went out of the synod were generally locked; and door-keepers placed to prevent their coversing with any one, as if they had been guilty of some capital crime. The members of the synod sometimes carred their jealousy so far, that, in winter, they even looked with candles under the tables and benches to see whether any body laid concealed, in order to observe what passed inthe synod, and report it to the remonstrants. Mr. Hales, spaking of it, says, "Our synod goes on like a watch, the main 'wheels upon which the whole business turns, are least in 'sight; for all things of moment are conducted in private 'sessions; what is done publicly is only for show and 'entertainment." Several foreign divines complaned of

their proceedings, and that the remonstrants were confuted in their absence, when they were still in town, and had offered to explain their doctrine, if they should be allowed a rational liberty. By these particulars, the reader will instantly perceive, that the members of this council, like those of all others, acted both as judges and parties; will think that Brandt spoke in mild terms of it, when he called it" one of the most needless and insignificant synods that ever met; a synod called only to please angry divines:" and will be disposed to enter into the feelings of Martinus of Bremen, who told his friends, "I believe, ́now, what St. GregoryNazianzen says, 'that he had nev'er seen any council which had a happy success, but rather increased the evil instead of removing it.' I declare, as well as that father, that I will never set my foot in any 'synod again. O Dort! Dort! would to God, that I had never seen thee."*

* Brandt's History of the Reformation abridged, vol. ii. p. 394—432. Hale's Works, printed at Glasgow, 1765, vol. ii. Letters from the Synod of Dort; and Harris's Life of James I. p. 124, &c.

1