Mofes, by which it appears that he was a good scholar, and understood the fcriptures well. He is fuppofed to have been poifoned by the Jews, whom he invited to a difpute upon the prophefies concerning the Meffiah. His congregation after him chofe Mr Canne, author of the marginal references to the bible, and several other treatifes. Smith, whom we mentioned already, was a learned man, and a perfon of good abilities, but fickle in his judgment, and unfettled in his opinion; for he turned Baptift, and left Amfterdam and fettled at Ley, where being at a lofs for one to baptize him, he plunged himself, and then proceeded to baptize others, which procured him the name of a Se-baptift. He at laft turned Arminian, and published several treatifes upon the controverfy between the Arminians and Calvanifts, which were answered by Mr Robinfon. Smith died foon after, and his congregation was extinguished.

Another Independent who fet up on high principles, was Mr John Robinson of Norfolk; he was extremely rigid at firft in his opinions, but by converfing with Dr Ames and fome others, he became more moderate he always maintained the neceffity of feparating from the churches among whom he lived, but did not deny them to be true churches, but admitted their minifters to occafional communion, and his own church to join with the Dutch churches in prayer and hearing the word, but not in the facraments and difcipline; which gained him the name of a Semi-feparatist.

Independents who at first wrote against the Brównists, but by converfing with Mr Robinfon became a profelyte to his opinions. He was a perfon well read in theology, and skilful in understanding the scriptures: he wrote a treatife endeavouring to prove from fcripture that there was fpecial neceffity for reforming the church of England.

The Puritans were at this time warmly engaged in a difpute among themfelves, concerning the lawfulness of feparating from the church of England; the conforming clergy looked on and beheld the combat. The greatest part of the Puritans were for holding communion with the establishment in her doctrines and facraments, though fhe was defective in her difcipline, and corrupt in her ceremonies. The Independents maintained that the church of England, in her prefent conftitution, was no true church of Chrift, but a very limb of Antichrift, or at best a mere creature of the state; that her minifters were not lawfully called or ordained, nor the facraments rightly administered; and for these reasons it was unlawful to hold communion with her. The other Puritans who were against the church, and would not hold communion with her, allowed her to be a true church, but at the fame time maintained it was unlawful to join with her, and lawful to feparate from her. They affirmed that it was as lawful for them to feparate from the church of England, as for the members of that church to feparate from the church of Rome, which they allowed to be a true church.. After this manner did the controverfy proceed concerning fepa

ration at this time. It is manifeft that the church divines were not able to answer with any folid arguments either the one party or the other of these Puritans; every argument which they ufed might eafily be turned against themselves; but they had a method of reafoning which anfwered their purposes full as well. They had the law on their fide, and by the influence thereof could anfwer all arguments which were brought against them.'

This year was famous for the gunpowder 1605. plot, which was contrived to blow up the King and parliament. It was contrived by the papifts to make way for the establishment of popery; but it was difcovered before it was executed, and the confpirators punished according to their defert. As this plot more efpecially belongs. to civil hiftory, I fhall pafs it over with a few obfervations. James, though he had the plaineft demonftration of the defigns of the papifts against his government, continued ftill to favour their fentiments, and to perfecute the Puritans; which would naturally make men believe that he thought it only a crime fo far as it was meant against himself. The difcovery of this plot was made by the King himself, by means of reading a letter fent to Lord Monteagle, which would make one believe that the King himfelf was in the fecret; for the letter is fo myftical, that all the King's council could not understand it: the King alone could difcover the meaning thereof. The King fmelled gunpowder in the letter, which none difcovered except himself; which renders it probable that he was no ftranger to this horrible

U u 2

machi

་

machination. This plot was intended to have been fathered upon the Puritans, and the King in his speech to the parliament, on the ninth of November, takes fpecial care to bring them into it; for after he had cleared the Roman catholic religion from encouraging fuch murdering practices, he adds, that the cruelty of the Puritans was worthy of fire, that would not allow falvation to papifts; fo that if the Puritans had been blown up, his Majefty thinks they would have met with nothing but what they deserved. The intention of this fpeech feems to have been to turn away the popular refentment from the Roman catholics, whom James both feared and loved, to the Puritans, who had never under all their perfecutions moved the least fedition against the government. The merciful difpofition of the King towards the catholics afterwards, and his feverities to the Puritans, make it highly probable that neither King nor parliament were in great danger by the gunpowder concealed under the parliament-house.

Some defperados had indeed intended to blow up the parliament-houfe, and very likely meant to detroy both King and parliament; but others who were of the fame religion, and had complied fo far with the reft to find out their fecret, betrayed them to the King, because they found it a more probable way to practife upon James, who was welldisposed towards popery, than by fuch an horrid action to render themselves odious to all christian ftates. It is very probable that the wifer fort of the papifts understood the King's bias to popery,

and

and were not without hopes that one day or other he would declare in favour of that religion; for this reafon it was natural for them to infer, that it was better for them to wait for a feafon, and have their religion established by authority, than by one defperate action to run the risk of lofing all. By difcovering this plot to the King, they would render themselves and their principles more acceptable, and fhew him that it was not the principles of the Roman religion, but defpair, which had driven the confpirators to fuch a wicked exploit. This will easily account for the King's fpeeches, and his future behaviour towards the Roman catholics.

This plot occafioned a new oath of allegiance to be impofed, which paffed both houfes of parliament, and was appointed to be taken by all his Majefty's fubjects. This oath is different from the old oath of fupremacy, which obliges the fubjects to acknowledge the King to be fupreme head of the church, as well as of the ftate, and was calculated to answer thofe papifts who did not believe that the Pope had power to depofe Kings, and fequeftrate their dominions. The greateft part of the Roman catholics took this oath, contrary to the Pope's exprefs prohibition, which occafioned a new debate concerning the Pope's power with regard to temporals, between the learned of both religions. James and the Pope joined iffue in this debate, and the King reproached his Holinefs with ingratitude for interfering with his government, feeing he had been fo favourable to the catholics within his dominions fince