INDEPENDENT. 
£ 
well-meaning reformer, perceiving the defefts that reigned 
in the difcipline of Brown, and in the fpirit and temper 
of his followers, employed his zeal and diligence in'cor¬ 
recting them, and in new-modelling the fociety in fuch a 
manner as to render it lefs odious to its adverfaries, and 
lefs liable to the juft cenfure of thofe true Chriftians, who 
look upon charity as the end of the commandments. 
Hitherto the fed had been called Brownifts ; but Robinfon 
having, in his Apology, affirmed, Ccetum quemlibet particu- 
larem effe totam, integrant, et prefeElam ecclefiam ex fuis partibus 
conftantem immediate et independenter (quoad alias ecclefiasj 
fub ipfo Chrifto, the fed was henceforth called Independents , 
of which the apologift was conffdered as the founder. 
The Independents were much more commendable than 
the Brownifts. They furpafled them both in the mode¬ 
ration of their fentiments and in the order of their difci¬ 
pline. They did not, like Brown, pour forth bitter and 
uncharitable invedives againft the churches which were 
governed by rules entirely different from theirs, nor pro¬ 
nounce them on that account unworthy of the Chriftian 
name. On the contrary, though they conffdered their 
own form of ecclefiaftical government as of divine infti- 
tution, and as originally introduced by the authority of 
the apoftles, nay by the apoftles themfelves, they had yet 
candour and charity enough to acknowledge, that true 
religion and folid piety might flourifli in thofe communi¬ 
ties which were under the jurifdidion of bilhops or the 
government of fynods and prefbyteries. This is put be¬ 
yond all doubt by Robinfon himfelf, who exprefl'es his 
own private fentiments and thofe of his community in the 
following clear and precife words : “ Profitemur coram 
Deo et hominibus, adeo nobis convenire cum ecclefiis re¬ 
formats Belgicis in re religionis, ut omnibus et fingulis 
earundem eccleftarum fidei articulis, prout habentur in 
harmonia confeflionum fidei, parati fimus fufcribere. Ec- 
clefias reformatas pro veris et genuinis habemus, cum 
iifdem in facris Dei communionem profitemur, et, quan¬ 
tum in nobis eft, colimus.” They were alfo much more 
attentive than the Brownifts in keeping on foot a regular 
miniftry in their communities; for, while the latter al¬ 
lowed promifcuoufly all ranks and orders of men to teach 
in public, the Independents had, and ftill have, a certain 
number of minifters, chofen refpe&ively by the congre¬ 
gations where they are fixed ; nor is any perfon among 
them permitted to fpeak in public, before he has fubmit- 
ted to a proper examination of his capacity and talents, 
and been approved of by the heads of the congregation. 
This religious fociety ftill fubfifts, and has produced 
divines as eminent for learning, piety, and virtue, as any 
church in Chriftendom. It is now diftinguiftied from 
the other Proteftant communities chiefly by the two fol¬ 
lowing circumftances. 
1. The Independents reject the ufe of all creeds and 
confeflions drawn up by fallible men, requiring of their 
teachers no other teft of orthodoxy than a declaration of 
their belief in the gofpel of Jefus, and their adherence to 
the Scriptures as the foie ftandard of faith and pra&ice. 
2. They attribute no virtue whatever to the rite of or¬ 
dination, upon which fome other churches lay fo much 
ftrefs; for the Independents declare, that the qualifica¬ 
tions which conftitute a regular minifter of the New Tef- 
tament, are, a firm belief in the gofpel, a principle of fin- 
cere and unaffe&ed piety, a competent flock of know¬ 
ledge, a capacity for leading devotion and communicating 
inftruftion, a ferious inclination to engage in the impor¬ 
tant employment of promoting the everlafting falvation 
of mankind, and ordinarily an invitation to the paftoral 
office from fome particular fociety of Chriftians. Where 
thefe things concur, they confider a perfon as fitted and 
authorifed for the difcharge of every duty which belongs 
to the minifterial funftion; and they believe that the im- 
pofition of the hands of bilhops or prelbyters would con¬ 
vey to him no powers or prerogatives of which he was 
not before pofleifed. 
When the reformers feparated from the church of Rome, 
they drew up public confeflions of faith, or articles of r«i- 
ligion, to which they demanded fubfcription from their 
refpeftive followers. Their purpofe in this was to guard 
againft dangerous herefies, to afcertain the meaning of 
fcripture-language, and to promote the unity of the fpi¬ 
rit in the bond of peace. Thefe were laudable ends; but 
of the means chofen.for attaining them, the late Dr. Tay¬ 
lor of Norwich, a diftinguiftied Independent, and whofe 
learning would have done honour to any church, exprefl'es 
his opinion in the following ftrong language: “ How 
much foever the Chriftian world valueth thefe creeds and 
confeflions, I confefs, for my own part, that I have no 
opinion of them. But we are told that they were gene¬ 
rally drawn up by the ableft divines. But what evidence 
is there of this ? are divines in vogue and power com¬ 
monly the molt knowing and upright ? But granting that 
the reformers were in thofe days the ableft divines the 
ableft divines educated in popifli fchools, notwithftanding 
any pretended learning, might comparatively be very 
weak and defe&ive in fcripture-knowledge, which was. a 
thing in a manner new to them. In times of great igno¬ 
rance they might be men of eminence; and yet far Ihort 
of being qualified to draw up and decide the true and 
precife rules of faith for all Chriftians. Yea, their very 
attempting to draw up, decide, and eftabliffi, fuch rules 
of faith, is an inconteftible evidence of their furprifing ig¬ 
norance and weaknefs. How could they be able divines,, 
when they impofed upon the confciences of Chriftians 
their own decifions concerning gofpel-faith and doftrine? 
Was not this in fa£t to teach and conftrain Chriftians to 
depart from the molt fundamental principle of their reli¬ 
gion, fubjtElion and allegiance to Chrift, the only teacher and, 
lawgiver ? But, if they were able men, were they infalli¬ 
ble ? No: they publicly affirmed their own fallibility ; 
-and yet they afted as if they had been infallible, .and could 
not be miftaken in prefcribing faith and doftrine. But, 
even if they were infallible, who gave them commiffion to 
do what the Spirit of God had done already ? Could the firft 
reformers hope to deliver the truths of religion more fully 
and more clearly than the Spirit of God ? Had they found 
out more apt expreflions than had occurred to the Holy 
Spirit ? The Son of God Jpake not of himfelf ; but as the. 
Father faid unto him, fo he fpake. John xii. 50. The Spirit 
of Truth fpake not of himfelf ; but whatfocver he heard, that he 
fpake. John xvi. 13. The things of God the apcjlles fpake, not 
in the words which man's wifdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghojl teacheth. 1 Cor. ii. 13. If the Chriftian revelation 
was thus handed down to us from the Fountain of Light 
with fo much care and exa&nefs, both as to matter and 
words, by the Son of God, by the Spirit, and by the apoftles 3 
who were the ancient doftors and bifhops, or who were 
the firft reformers, or who were any fynods or affemblies 
of divines, that they dared to model Chriftian faith into 
their own invented forms, and iinpofe it upon the minds 
of men in their own devifed terms and expreflions ? Hath 
Chrift given authority to all his minifters, to the end 
of the world, to new-mould his doftrines by the rules of 
human learning, whenever they think fit? or hath he de¬ 
legated his power to any particular perfons ? Neither the 
one nor the other. His doftrines are not of fuch a duc¬ 
tile nature; but ftand fixed, both as to matter and w’ords, 
in the Scripture. And it is at any man’s peril, who pre¬ 
tends to put them, as they are rules of failk, into any new 
drefs or fliape. I conclude therefore, that the firft re¬ 
formers, and all councils, fynods, and affemblies, who 
have met together to colleft, determine, and decide, to 
prefcribe and impofe matters pertaining to Chriftian faith, 
have afted without any warrant from Chrift, and there¬ 
fore have invaded the prerogative of him who is the foie 
Prophet and Lawgiver to the church. Peace and unity, 
I know, is the pretended good defign of thofe creeds and 
confeflions. But, as God never fanftified them for thofe 
ends, fo all the world knows they have produced the con¬ 
trary effects ; difcord, divifion, and the fpilling of whole 
feas of Chriftian blood, for 14-00 years together." 
Such 
