We learn from Hume, that on the 13th of February, two days after the execution of the perse

tory says, but not with his usual pious feeling and good temper, "on Jan. 18, 1641, happened the first fruits of Anabaptistical insolence, when eighty of that sect, meeting at a house in St. Saviour's, Southwark, preached that the statute in the 35th of Elizabeth, for the administration of common prayer, was no good law, because made by bishops; that the king cannot make a good law, because not perfectly regenerate; and that he was only to be obeyed in civil matters. Being brought before the Lords, they confessed the articles, but no penalty was inflicted on them."

The reader who is curious enough to know all about this matter, should consult, as I have done, the Journals of the House of Lords of that period. He will find that the Lords treated the six or seven men who were brought before them for having dared to preach against the king's supremacy, in spiritual matters, with great respect; enquired where they assembled; and intimated they would come and hear them. Accordingly, the next Lord's Day, three or four of the peers, to the great astonishment of many, went to "Deadman's Place, in Southwark ;"-three or four of the peers attend their religious worship!-"The people went on in their usual method, having two sermons, in both of which they treated of those principles for which they had been accused; founding their discourses upon the words of our Saviour, 'All power is given unto me, both in heaven and in earth, &c.' After this, they received the Lord's Supper, and then made a collection for the poor, to which the peers contributed liberally with them. At their departure they signified their satisfaction as to what they had heard and seen, and their inclination to come again; but this made so much noise, that they durst not venture a second time.”—(Ivimey's History of the English Baptists, vol. i. p. 153, 154.)

cuting Archbishop Laud, the House of Commons ordered a bill to be brought in for abolishing superstition. On the 1st of March, a committee was established to prepare reasons for depriving ecclesiastics of all secular employments. At length a bill for excluding ecclesiastics from all secular employments passed the House of Commons, and was sent up to the Lords, among whom it met with great opposition.-The Commons immediately brought in another bill for the total abolition of episcopacy. Then the Lords gave them to understand, they were ready to concur with the first bill, excepting the clause which deprived bishops of their seats in parliament. The Commons presented nine reasons for excluding bishops from parliament. On the 7th of June, the Peers voted, 'That the bishops should be maintained in their right to sit in parliament.'—On the 15th, the lower House passed a vote, importing, 'That all deans, chapters, archdeacons, prebendaries, chanters, canons, and their officers, should be totally suppressed, and their revenues employed for the encouragement of study, science, and other pious uses; that the King should be indemnified for his rents, first fruits, and other rights; and that a convenient subsistence should be assigned to those who should be thus deprived of their livings, provided they were not delinquents.'

Twelve prelates, meeting at the house of the

archbishop of York, subscribed a protest, which was presented to the Lords and the King, importing, 'That, as they had an incontestable right to vote in parliament, they were ready to do their duty, if not prevented by force and violence; that they abhorred all opinions tending to the advancement of popery; that, as they had been insulted, and their lives endangered by the fury of the populace, they could no longer repair to the House of Peers, unless measures should be taken for their personal safety; and therefore they protested against all laws, votes, and resolutions, that should be made in their absence.'-The Lords no sooner received this protest, (which was, in effect, an effort to dissolve or suspend the parliament,) than they demanded a conference with the Com-mons, who, having taken it into consideration, resolved to accuse the bishops of high treason, for having attempted to subvert the fundamental laws and the very essence of parliament. This resolution was immediately executed, and the twelve bishops were committed to prison.

The king passed the bill to exclude the bishops from their seats in parliament; soon after, the two houses, in 1643, signed "the Solemn League and Covenant," which bound the two kingdoms to the extirpation of popery and prelacy.*-(Hume's History, vol. vii.)

That the proceedings of the Parliament, in putting out

From this period may be dated the establishment, increase, and prosperity of the Independent and Baptist Churches.*

Considering how much MILTON had contributed

the bishops, gave great pleasure to the country, is evident from many circumstances; one may be mentioned :-In the Journals of the House of Lords, 22d April, 1642, there is an entry from "the knights, &c. &c. of the county of Cornwall," in which it is said, "That they heartily praise God, and thank you, for your happy conjunction with the House of Commons, in casting out bishops for sitting and voting among you."

* The Baptists, who held the principles afterwards called Calvinistic, and had, from the time of Wickliffe, been mixed up with the Lollards and Sacramentarians, formed themselves, in the year 1633, into a separate church. Their beginning was very small; but they soon abundantly increased. Mr. William Kiffin, who joined them in 1638, and who became, from his character and influence, the father of the denomination, gives the following simple account of their origin. "There was a congregation of Protestant dissenters of the Independent persuasion in London, gathered in the year 1616, of which Mr. Henry Jacob was their first pastor; and after him succeeded Mr. John Lathorp, who was their minister in 1633. In this society several persons, finding that the congregation kept not to its first principles of separation; and being also convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but to such as professed faith in Christ, desired that they might be dismissed from that communion, and allowed to form a distinct congregation, in such order as was most agreeable to their own sentiments.

66

The church considering they were now grown very

nu

towards this consummation-the abolition of Diocesan Episcopacy—the event of " the extirpation of prelacy" must have afforded him exuberant joy; because, with his sentiments, as expressed in his several treatises against the prelates, he considered, as the parliament appears to have done, that popery and prelacy were identical, or at least so closely united, that in death they could not be divided! The pious bishop, Joseph Hall, who was one of the protestors, calls the treatment they received from the Commons "hard measure!" might have been so to him and a few others, who were devoted Christian ministers of the Gospel; but as to most of them, they were any thing rather than Christian bishops!-Cruel persecutors of the godly dissenters, and base sycophants to the king

It

merous, and so more than could in those times of persecution conveniently meet together; and believing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience, and not from obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that they should be constituted a distinct church; which was performed Sept. 12, 1633. And as they believed that baptism was not rightly administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism which they had at that age as invalid, whereupon most or all of them received a NEW BAPTISM, [by being immersed in water on a personal profession of repentance and faith.] Their minister was Mr. JOHN SPILSWhat number there were is uncertain, because in the mentioning of about twenty men and women, it is added, with divers others.'"-Hist. of Eng. Bap. vol. i. p. 138.

BURY.

6

-1811.