I N D E P 
'office to receive, lay out, and diftribute, the (lock of the 
thurch to its proper ufes; and, as there are different fen- 
timents about the office of ruling elders, who labour not 
in word and doftrine, they agree that this difference 
makes no breach among them. In Article VI. concerning 
Occafional Meetings of Minifters, See. the brethren agree 
that it is needful in weighty and difficult caufes that the 
minifters of feveral churches meet together, in order to 
be confulted and advifed-with about luch matters; and 
that, in particular, churches ought to have a reverential 
regard to their judgment fo given, and not diffent there¬ 
from without apparent grounds from the word of God. 
Article VII. which relates to the Demeanour of Brethren 
towards the civil magiftrate, preferibes obedience to, and 
prayers for, God’s protection and bleffing upon their 
rulers. In Article VIII. which relates to a Confeffion of 
Faith, the brethren efteem it fufficient, that a church ac- 
* knowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God, the 
perfeft and only rule of faith and practice ; and own either 
the doftrinal part of the Articles of the Church of Eng¬ 
land, or the Weitminfter Confeffion and Catechifms drawn 
up by the Pretbyterians, or the Confeffion of the Con¬ 
gregational Brethren, (i. e. the Independents,) to be agree¬ 
able to the laid rule. Article IX. which concerns the 
Duty and Deportment of the Brethren towards thofe 
that are not in communion with them, inculcates charity 
and moderation. It appears from thefe articles, that the 
Independents were led by a kind of neceffity to adopt, in 
many things, the fentiments of the Preffiyterians, and to 
depart thus far from the original principles of their own 
feft. 
The feft of the Independents ftill fublifts in England; 
there is, neverthelefs, not one, either of the ancient or 
modern fefts of Chriftians, that is lefs known, or has 
been more loaded with groundlefs afperfions and re¬ 
proaches. The moft eminent English writers, not only 
among the patrons of epifcopacy, but even among thole 
very pretbyterians with whom they are thus united, have 
thrown out againlt them the bittereft accufations and 
the fevereft inveftives that the warmeft indignation could 
invent. They have not only been reprefented as delirious, 
mad, fanatical, illiterate, factious, and ignorant both of 
natural and revealed religion, but alio as abandoned to 
all kinds of wickednefs and fedition, and as the only 
authors of the, parricide committed on the perfon of 
Charles I. And, as the authors who have given thefe 
reprefentations are confidered by foreigners as the belt 
and moft authentic relaters of tranfaftions that have paffed 
in their own country, and are therefore followed as the 
furelt guides, the Independents appear almoft every where 
under the moft unfavourable afpect. It mull indeed be 
acknowledged, that, as every clals and order of men con- 
lifts of perlons of very different characters and qualifies, 
fo alfo the feft of Independents has been dilhonoured by 
feveral turbulent, faftious, profligate, and flagitious, mem¬ 
bers. But, if it is a conftant maxim with the wife and 
prudent, not to judge of the fpirit and principles of a 
feft from the adions or expreffions of a handful of its 
members, but from the manners, cuftoms, opinions, and 
behaviour, of the generality of thofe who compofe it, 
from the writings and difeourfes of its learned men, and 
from its public and avowed forms of doctrine, and con- 
feffions of faith; then, we make no doubt, but that, by 
this rule of eftimating matters, the Independents will 
■appear to have been unjuftly loaded with fo many-accu¬ 
fations and reproaches. 
Rapin reprefents the Independents under fuch horrid 
colours, that, were his portrait juft, they would not de- 
ferve to enjoy the light of the fun, or to breathe the free 
air of Britain, much lefs to be treated with indulgence 
and efteem by thofe who have the caul'e of virtue at heart. 
Their fentiments concerning government were, if we are 
to believe this writer, of the moft pernicious kind; fince, 
according to him, they wanted to overturn the monarchy, 
iind to ertablifh a democracy in its place. His words are. 
Von. XI. No. 729. 
C N D E N T. 5 
“With regard to the date, they abhorred monarchy, and 
approved only a republican government.” We do ndt 
deny, that there were among the Independents feveral 
perlons that were no friends to a kingly government; 
perfons of this kind are to be found among the Prelbvte- 
rians, Anabaptifts, and all the other religious lefts and 
communities that flouriflied in England during this tu¬ 
multuous period ; but it has never been proved, in an 
evident and fatisfaftory manner, that thefe republican 
principles were embraced by the Independents generally, 
and formed one' of the diltinguifhing charafteriftics of 
that feft. There is at leaft, no fuch thing to be found in 
their public writings. They declared on the contrary, in 
a public memorial drawn up by them in the year 1647, 
that, as magiftracy in general is the ordinance of God, 
“ they do not difapprove of any form of civil government, 
but do freely acknowledge that a kingly government, 
bounded by juft and wholefome laws, is both allowed by 
God, and alfo a good accommodation unto men.” 
Their fentiments of religion, according to Rap'in’s ac¬ 
count, were highly abfurd, fince he reprefents their prin¬ 
ciples as entirely oppofite to thofe of all other religious 
communities: “As to religion,” fays he, “their prin¬ 
ciples were contrary to all the reft of the world.” With 
refpeft to this accufation, it may be proper to obferve, 
that there are extant two Confeffions of Faith ; one of the 
Englifh Independents in Holland, and another drawn up 
by the principal members of that community in England. 
The former was compofed by John Robinfon, the founder 
of the feft, and was publifhed at Leyden in 4to. in the 
year 1619, under the following title, “Apologia pro Exu- 
libus Anglis, qui Browniftte vulgo appellantu r;” the lat¬ 
ter appeared at London, for the firlt time in the year 
1658, and was thus entitled, “ A Declaration of the Faith 
and Order opened and praftifed in the Congregational 
Churches of England, agreed upon, and confented to, by 
their Elders and Meffengers, in their Meeting at the Sa¬ 
voy, Oftober 12, 1658.” Hornbeck gave, in the year 
1S59, a Latin tranflation of their Declaration, and fub- 
joined to it his Epiftolsead Dursum de Independentifmo. 
It appears evidently from thefe two public and authentic 
pieces, not to mention other writings of the Independents, 
that they differed from the Prefbyterians or Calvinift's in 
no fingle point of any confequence, except that of eccie- 
fiaftical government. The Independents have, and al-‘ 
ways have had, fixed and regular minifters approved of 
by the people; nor do they allow to teach in public every 
perfon who thinks himfelf qualified for that important 
office. The celebrated hiftorian has here confounded the 
Independents with the Brownifts, who, as is well known, 
permitted all to pray and preach in public without dif- 
tinftion. We (hall not enlarge upon the other miftakes 
he has fallen into on this fubjeft; but only obferve, that 
if fo eminent a writer, and me fo well acquainted with 
the Englifh nation, has pronounced fuch an unjuft fen- 
tence againft this feft, we may the more readily excufe 
an inferior let of authors, who have loaded them with 
groundlefs accufations. 
It will however be alleged, that, whatever may have 
been the religious fentiments and difeipline of the Inde¬ 
pendents, inn umerabie teltimonies concur in proving, that 
they were chargeable- with the death of Charles I. and 
many will confider this fingle circumftance as a fufficient 
demdnftration of the impiety and depravity of the whole 
feft. We are well aware, indeed, that many of the moft 
eminent and refpeftable Englifh writers have given the 
Independents the denomination of Regicides; and, if by 
the term Independents they mean thofe licentious repub¬ 
licans whole diflike of a monarchical form of government 
carried them the moft extravagant and pernicious lengths, 
we grant that this denomination is well applied. But if, 
by the term Independents, we are to underftand a religi¬ 
ous left, the anceftors of thofe who ftill bear the fame ti¬ 
tle in England, it appears very queftionable whether the 
unhappy fate of the prince above-mentioned ought to be 
C entirely 
