7 The sect of the Independents, though a modern one, and still existing among the English, is, however, less known than almost any christian sect; and on no one are more marks of infamy branded, without just cause. The best English historians heap upon it all the reproaches and slanders that can be thought of; nor is it the Episcopalians only who do this, but also those very Presbyterians, with whom they are at this day associated. They are represented, not only as delirious, crazy, fanatical, illiterate, rude, factious, and strangers to all religious truth, and to reason, but also as criminals, seditious parricides, and the sole authors of the murder of Charles I. John Durell, (whom that most strenuous vindicator of the Independents, Lewis du Moulin, commends for his ingenuousness. See Anth. Wood's Athena Oxonienses, tom. ii. pp. 732, 733,) in his Historia Rituum Sancta Ecclesia Anglicana, cap. i. p. 4. Lond. 1672. 4to. says, "Fateor, si atrocis illius tragœdiæ tot actus fuerint, quot ludicrarum esse solent, postremum fere Independentium fuisse.-Adeo ut non acute magis, quam vere, dixerit L'Estrangius noster: Regem primo a Presbyterianis interemptum, Carolum deinde ab Independentibus interfectum." Foreign writers, regarding these as the best witnesses of transactions in their own country, have, of course, thought proper to follow them: and hence, the Independents almost every where appear under a horrid aspect. But, as every class of men is composed of dissimilar persons, no one will deny, that in this sect also there were some persons, who were turbu lent, factious, wicked, flagitious, and destitute of good sense. Yet if that is also true, which all wise and good men inculcate, that the character and the principles of whole sects must be

estimated, not from the conduct or words of a few individuals, but from the customs, habits, and opinions of the sect in general, from the books and discourses of its teachers, and from its public formularies and confessions; then, I am either wholly deceived, or the Independents are wrongfully loaded with so many criminations.

We pass over what has been so invidiously written against this sect, by Clarendon, Laurence Echard, Samuel Parker, and many others; and to render this whole subject the more clear, we will take up only that one excellent writer, than whom, though a foreigner, no one, as the English themselves admit, has written more accurately and neatly concerning the affairs of England, namely, Rapin Thoyras. In the twenty-first book of his immortal work, the Histoire d'Angleterre, vol. viii. p. 535, ed. second, [Tindal's translation, vol. ii. p. 514. fol.] he so depicts the Independents, that, if they were truly what he represents them, they would not deserve to enjoy the light of their land, which they still do enjoy freely, and much less, to enjoy the kind offices and love of any good man. Let us look over, particularly, and briefly comment on the declarations of this great man concerning them. In the first place, he tells us, that after the utmost pains, he could not ascertain the origin of the sect: "Quelque recherche que j'aye faite, je n'ai jamais pû decouvrir exactement la premiere origine de la secte ou faction des Independents." That a man who had spent seventeen years in composing a History of England, and consulted so many libraries filled with the rarest books, should have written thus, is very strange. If he had only looked into that very noted book, Jo. Hornbeck's Summa Controversiarum, lib. x,

p. 775, &c. he might easily have learned, what he was ignorant of, after so much research. He proceeds to the doctrines of the sect; and says of them in general, that nothing could be better suited to throw all England into confusion. "Ce qu'il y a de certain c'est qu'ils avoient des principes tout à fait propres à mettre l'Angleterre en combustion, comme ils le firint effectivement." How true this declaration is, will appear from what follows. He adds, first, respecting politics, they held very pernicious sentiments. For they would not have a single man preside over the whole state; but thought the government of the nation should be intrusted to the representatives of the people. "Par rapport au Gouvernement de l'Etât, ils abhorroient la Monarchie, et n'approuvoient qu'un Gouvernement Republicain." I can readily believe, that there were persons among the Inde pendents unfriendly to monarchy. Such were to be found among the Presbyterians, the Anabaptists, and all the sects which then flourished in England. But I wish to see decisive testimony adduced, if it can be, to prove this the common sentiment of this whole sect. Such testimony is in vain sought for, in their public writings. On the contrary, in the year 1647, they publicly declared, "that they do not disapprove of any form of civil government, but do freely acknowledge, that a kingly government, bounded by just and wholesome laws, is both allowed by God, and a good accommodation unto men." See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 146, [ed. Boston, 1817. p. 161. I pass over other proofs, equally conclusive, that they did not abhor all monarchy. Their religious opinions, according to our author, were most absurd. For, if we may believe him, their sentiments were contrary to those of all other sects. "Sur la religion, leurs principes étoient opposez à ceux de tout le reste du monde." There are extant, in particular, two Confessions of the Independents; the one of those in Holland, the other of those in Eng

land. The first was drawn up by John Robinson, the founder of the sect, and was published at Leyden, 1619. 4to. entitled: Apologia pro Exulibus Anglis, qui Browniste vulgo appellantur. The latter, was printed, London, 1658. 4to. entitled: A Declaration of the faith and order owned and practised in the Congregational churches in England, [more than 100 in number. Tr.] agreed upon, and consented unto by their Elders and Messengers in their meeting at the Saroy, October 12, 1658. John Hornbeck translated it into Latin, in 1659, and annexed it to his Epistle to Duraus, de Independentismo. From both these,-to say nothing of their other books, it is manifest, that, if we except the form of their church government, they differed in nothing of importance from the Calvinists or Presbyterians. But, to remove all doubt, let us hear the father of the Independents, Robinson himself, explaining the views of himself and his flock, in his Apologia pro Exulibus Anglis, p. 7. 11. "Profitemur coram Deo et hominibus, adeo nobis convenire cum ecclesiis Reformatis Belgicis in re religionis, ut omnibus et singulis earundem ecclesiarum fidei articulis, prout habentur in Harmonia Confessionum fidei, parati sumus subscribere

Ecclesias Reformatas pro veris et genuinis habemus, cum iisdem in sacris Dei communionem profitemur et quantum in nobis est colimus." So far, therefore, were they from differing altogether from all other sects of christians, that, on the contrary, they agreed exactly with the greatest part of the Reformed churches. To show by an example, how absurd the religion of the Independents was, this eminent historian tells us, that they not only rejected all ecclesiastical government and order, but also made the business of teaching and praying in public, and explaining the Scriptures, common to all. "Non seulement ils ne pouvoient souffrir l'épiscopat et l'hierarchie ecclésiastique ;" (This is true. But it was a fault not peculiar to them, but chargeable also on the Presbyterians, the Brownists, the Ana

baptists, and all the sects of Nonconformists.) "Mais ils ne vouloient pas mesme qu'il y eut des Ministres ordinaires dans l'Eglise. Ils soutenoient que chacun pouvoit prier en public, exhorter ces freres, expliquer l'Ecriture Sainte, selon les talens qu'il avoit reçus de Dieu.-Ainsi parmi eux chacun prioit, prechoit, exhortoit, expliquoit la S. Ecriture, sans autre vocation que celle qu'il tiroit lui même de son zele et des talens qu'il croyoit avoir, et sans autre autorité que celle, que luy donnoit l'approbation de ses Auditeurs." All this is manifestly false. The Independents employ, and have employed, from the first, fixed and regular teachers; nor do they allow every one to teach, who may deem himself qualified for it. The excellent historian here confounds the Independents with the Brownists, who are well known to allow to all a right to teach. I pass over other assertions, notwithstanding they are equally open to censure. Now, if such and so great a man, after residing long among the English, pronounced so unjust a sentence upon this sect, who will not readily pardon others much his inferiors, who have loaded this sect with groundless accusations. [On all these charges, see Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. iii. ch. iv. p. 157, &c. ed. 1817. Tr.]

But this, (some one may say,) is certain, from numberless testimonies, that the Independents put that excellent king, Charles I. to death; and this single fact evinces the extreme impiety and depravity of the sect. I am aware, that the best and most respectable English historians charge them alone with this regicide. And I fully agree with them, provided we are to understand by the term Independents, those persons who were hostile to regal power, and attached to an extravagant kind of liberty. But if the term is used to denote the ancestors of those Independents, who still exist among the English, or a certain religious sect, differing from the other English sects in certain religious opinions, I am not certain that their as

sertion is quite true. Those who represent the Independents as the sole authors of the atrocious deed committed on Charles I. must necessarily mean to say, either, that the nefarious parricides were excited to the deed by the suggestions and the doctrines of the Independents, or that they were all adherents to the worship and the doctrines of the Independents: neither of which is capable of solid proof. In the doctrines of the sect, as we may see, there was nothing which could excite any one to attempt such a crime; nor does the history of those times show, that there was any more hatred or malevolence towards Charles I. in the Independents, than in the Presbyterians. And that all those who put the king to death were Independents, is so far from being true, that, on the contrary, several of the best English historians, and even the edicts of Charles II. testify, that this turbulent company was mixed, and composed of persons of various religions. I can easily admit, that there were some Independents among them. After all, this matter will be best unravelled by the English themselves, who know better than we, in what sense the term Independents must be used, when it is applied to those who brought Charles I. to the block. [According to Neal, loc. cit. vol. iii. p. 515, &c. 521, &c. 533, no one religious denomination is chargeable with the regicide, but only the army and the house of Commons, both of which were composed of men of various religions. Only two Congregational ministers approved the putting Charles to death; and the Presbyterian clergy in a body remonstrated against it. Tr.]

When I have carefully inquired for the reasons, why the Independents are taxed with so many crimes and enormities, three reasons especially, have occurred to my mind. I. The term Independents is ambiguous, and not appropriated to any one class of men. For, not to mention other senses of it, the term is applied by the English, to those friends of democracy, who wish to have the people enact their own laws,

and govern themselves, and who will not suffer an individual, or several individuals, to bear rule in the state; cr to adhere to the letter of the name, who maintain, that the people ought to be independent of all control, except what arises from themselves. This

faction, consisting in a great measure of mad fanatics, were the principal actors in that tragedy in England, the effects of which are still deplored. Hence whatever was said or done by this faction, extravagantly or foolishly, was, I suspect, all charged upon our Independents: who were not indeed altogether without faults, yet were far better than they. II. Nearly all the English sects, which distracted the nation in the times of Charles I. and Oliver Cromwell, assumed the name of Independents; in order to participate in that public esteem, which the real Independents enjoyed on account of their upright conduct, and in order to screen themselves from reproach. This is attested, among others, by John Toland, in his letter to John le Clerc, inserted by the latter in his Biblioth. Universelle et Historique, tom. xxiii. pt. ii. p. 506. "Au commencement tous les Sectaires se disoient Independans, par ce que ces derniers étoient fort honorez du peuple à cause de leur pieté." Now, as the term was so extensively applied, who does not see, that it might easily be, that the enormities of various sects might be all charged upon the genuine Independents?-III. Oliver Cromwell, the usurper, gave a preference to the Independents, before all the other sects in his country. For he was as much afraid of the councils or synods of the Presbyterians, as he was of the bishops but in the form of church government adopted by the Independents, there was nothing at all which he could fear. Now, as men of like character incline to associate together, this circumstance might lead many to suppose, that the Independents were all of the same character with Cromwell, that is, very bad people.

8

They undoubtedly received the

name of Independents, from their maintaining that all assemblies of christians had the right of self-government, or were independent. This very term is used by John Robinson, in his exposition of this doctrine, in his Apologia pro Exulibus Anglis, cap. v. p. 22. where he says: "Coetum quemlibet particularem (recte institutum et ordinatum) esse totam, integram, et perfectam ecclesiam ex suis partibus constantem immediate et independenter (quoad alias ecclesias) sub ipso Christo." And possibly, from this very passage, the term Independents, which was before unknown, had its origin. At first, the followers of Robinson did not reject this appellation: nor has it any bad or odious import, provided it is understood in their own sense of it. In England, it was entirely unknown, till the year 1640. At least, in the Ecclesiastical Canons, enacted this year in the conventions held by the bishops of London and York, in which all the sects then existing in England are enumerated, there is no mention of the Independents. See the Constitutions and Canons ecclesiastical, treated upon by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the rest of the bishops and clergy in their several Synods, A. D. 1640. in David Wilkins's Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ et Hiberniæ, vol. iv. cap. v. p. 548. But a little afterwards, and especially after the year 1642, this appellation is of frequent occurrence in the annals of English history. Nor did the English Independents, at first, refuse to be called by this name; but rather, in their Apology, published at London, 1644. 4to. (Apologetical Narration of the Independents,) they fearlessly assume this name. But afterwards, when, as we have remarked, many other sects adopted this name, and even seditious citizens, who plotted the destruction of their king, were commonly designated by it, they very solicitously deprecated the application of it to them, and called themselves Congregational Brethren, and their churches Congregational Churches.

[There are two points of difference