INDEPENDENTS, a sect of Protestants, so called from their maintaining that each congregation of Christians, with its office-bearers, which meets in one house for public worship, is a complete church; has sufficient power to act and perform every thing relating to religious government within itself; and is in no respect whatever subjector accountable to other churches.

The Independents, like every other Christian sect, derive their origin from the practice of the apostles in planting the first churches; but they were unknown in modern times till they arose in England during the reign of Elizabeth. The hierarchy established by that princess in the churches of her dominions, the vestments worn by the [7:12:260]clergy in the celebration of divine worship, the book of common prayer, and, above all, the sign of the cross used in the administration of baptism, were very offensive to many of her subjects, who during the persecution of the former reign had taken refuge amongst the Protestants of Germany and of Geneva. Those men thought that the church of England resembled, in too many particulars, the church of Rome, which they believed to be antichristian; and they called perpetually for a more thorough reformation and a purer worship. From this circumstance they were stigmatised by their adversaries with the general name of Puritans, as the followers of Novatian^[1. The followers of Novatian were called Puritans, because they would not communicate with the Catholic church, under pretence that her communion was polluted by admitting those to the sacred mysteries who through infirmity had sacrificed to idols in times of persecution. These unhappy men were not received by the church till after a long course of penance. But the NovaUans would not receive them at all, however long their penance, or however sincere their sorrow, for their sin. In other respects, th® ancient Puritans were, like the English, orthodox in the faith, and irreproachable in their morals. ] had been in the ancient church. Elizabeth was not disposed to comply with their demands; and it is difficult to say what might have been the issue of the contest had the Puritans been united in sentiments, in views, and in measures. But the case was quite otherwise. That large body, composed of persons of different ranks, characters, opinions, and intentions, and unanimous in nothing but in their antipathy to the forms of doctrine and discipline which were established by law, was all of a sudden divided into a variety of sects. Of these the most famous was that which was formed about the year 1581, by Robert Brown; a man insinuating in his manners, but unsteady and inconsistent in his views and notions of men and things.

This innovator differed not in point of doctrine either from the church of England or from the rest of the Puritans; but he had formed notions, then new and singular, concerning the nature of the church, and the rules of ecclesiastical government. He was for dividing the whole body of the faithful into separate societies or congregations; and maintained, that such a number of persons as could be contained in an ordinary place of worship ought to be considered as a church, and enjoy all the rights and privileges that are competent to an ecclesiastical community. These small societies he pronounced independent jure divino, and entirely exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishops, in whose hands the court had placed the reins of spiritual government; and also from that of presbyteries and synods, which the Puritans regarded as the supreme visible sources of ecclesiastical authority. He also maintained that the power of governing each congregation resided in the people, and that each member had an equal share in this government, and an equal right to order matters for the good of the whole society. Hence all points both of doctrine and discipline were submitted to the discussion of the congregation, and whatever was supported by a majority of voices passed into a law. It was the congregation also that elected certain of the brethren to the office of pastors, to perform the duty of public instruction, and the several branches of divine worship; reserving, however, to themselves the power of dismissing these ministers, and reducing them to the condition of private members, whenever they should think such a change conducive to the spiritual advantage of the community. It is likewise to be observed, that the right of the pastors to preach was by no means of an exclusive nature, or peculiar to them alone; since any member who thought proper to exhort or to instruct the brethren was abundantly indulged in the liberty of “prophesying” to the whole assembly. Accordingly, when the ordinary teacher or pastor had finished his discourse, all the other brethren were permitted to communicate in public their sentiments and illustrations upon any usefuļ or edifying subject.

The zeal with which Brown and his associates maintained and propagated these notions was ardent and active. He affirmed that all communion was to be broken off with those religious societies which were founded upon a different plan from his; and treated the church of England more especially as a spurious church, the ministers of which were unlawfully ordained, whilst her discipline was popish and antichristian, and her sacraments and institutions destitute of all efficacy and virtue. The sect of this innovator, not being able to endure the severe treatment which their own zeal had brought upon them from an administration which was not distinguished for its mildness and indulgence, retired into the Netherlands, and founded churches at Middleburg in Zealand, and at Amsterdam and Leyden in the province of Holland. But their establishments were neither solid nor lasting. Their founder returned into England, and having renounced his principles of separation, took orders in the established church, and obtained a benefice. The Puritan exiles, whom he thus abandoned, disagreed amongst themselves, and having split into parties, their affairs gradually declined. This engaged the wiser part of them to mitigate the severity of their founder’s plan, and to soften the rigour of his uncharitable decisions.

The person who had the chief merit of bringing about this reformation was one of their pastors, called John Robinson, a man who possessed much of the solemn piety of the times, and no inconsiderable portion of learning. This well-meaning reformer, perceiving the defects which reigned in the discipline of Brown, and in the spirit and temper of his followers, employed the utmost zeal and diligence in correcting them, and in new-modelling the society in such a manner as to render it less odious to its adversaries, and less liable to the censure of those Christians who looked upon charity as the end of the commandments. Hitherto the sect had been called Brownists; but Robinson having, in his Apology, affirmed, “Coetum quemlibet particularem, esse totam, integram, et perfectam ecclesiam ex suis partibus constantem immediate et independenter (quoad alias ecclesias) sub ipso Christo,” the sect was henceforth called Independents, and the apologist was considered as its founder.

The Independents were much more commendable than the Brownists, whom they surpassed both in the moderation of their sentiments, and in the order of their discipline. They did not, like Brown, pour forth bitter and uncharitable invectives against the churches which were governed by rules entirely different from theirs, nor pronounce them on that account unworthy of the Christian name. On the contrary, though they considered their own form of ecclesiastical government as of divine institution, and as originally introduced by the authority of the apostles, nay, by the apostles themselves, they had yet candour and charity enough, to acknowledge that true religion and solid piety might flourish in those communities which were under the jurisdiction of bishops or the government of synods and presbyteries. This is put beyond all doubt by Robinson himself, who expresses his own private sentiments and those of his community in the following clear and precise words: “Profiternur 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 simus subscribere. Ecclesias reformatas pro veris et genuinis habemus, cum iisdem in [7:12:261]sacris Dei communionem profiternur, et, quantum in nobis est, colimus.” They were also much more attentive than the Brownists in keeping on foot a regular ministry in their communities; for, whilst the latter allowed promiscuously all ranks and orders of men to teach in public the Independents had, and still have, a certain number of ministers, chosen respectively by the congregations where they are fixed; nor is any person amongst them permitted to speak in public, before he has submitted to a proper examination of his capacity and talents, and been approved of by the heads of the congregation.

This religious society still subsists, and has produced divines as eminent for learning, piety, and virtue, as any church in Christendom. It is now distinguished from the other Protestant communities chiefly by the two following circumstances: 1. The Independents reject the use of all creeds and confessions drawn up by fallible men, requiring of their teachers no other test of orthodoxy than a declaration of their belief in the gospel of Jesus, and their adherence to the Scriptures as the sole standard of faith and practice. 2. They attribute no virtue whatever to the rite of ordination, upon which some other churches lay so much stress; for the Independents declare, that the qualifications which constitute a regular minister of the New Testament, are a firm belief in the gqspel, a principle of sincere and unaffected piety, a competent stock of knowledge, a capacity for leading devotion and communicating instruction, a serious inclination to engage in the important employment of promoting the everlasting salvation of mankind, and ordinarily an invitation to the pastoral office from some particular society of Christians. Where these things concur, they consider a person as fitted and authorized for the discharge of every duty which belongs to the ministerial function; and they believe that the imposition of the hands of bishops or presbyters conveys to him no powers or prerogatives of which he was not before possessed. At the same time it is their custom to impose hands in ordaining pastors, as a token of recognition in a new relation.

When the reformers separated from the church of Rome, they drew up public confessions of faith, or articles of religion, to which they demanded subscription from their respective followers. Their purpose in this was to guard against dangerous heresies, to ascertain the meaning of scriptural language, and, we doubt not, to promote the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. These were laudable ends; but of the means chosen for attaining them, the late Dr Taylor of Norwich, the glory of the Independent churches, and whose learning would have done honour to any church, expresses his opinion in the following indignant language: “How much soever the Christian world valueth these creeds and confessions, I confess, for my own part, that I have no opinion of them. But we are told that they were generally drawn up by the ablest divines. But what evidence is there of this? are divines in vogue and power commonly the most knowing and upright? But granting that the reformers were in those days the ablest divines; the ablest divines educated in popish schools, notwithstanding any pretended learning, might comparatively be very weak and defective in Scripture knowledge, which was a thing in a manner new to them. In times of great ignorance they might be men of eminence, and yet far short of being qualified to draw up and decide the true and precise rules of faith for all Christians. Yea, their very attempting to draw up, decide, and establish, such rules of faith, is an incontestable evidence of their surprising ignorance and weakness. How could they be able divines, when they imposed upon the consciences of Christians their own decisions concerning gospel-faith and doctrine? Was not this in fact to teach and constrain Christians to depart from the most fundamental principle of their religion, subjection and allegiance to Christ, the only teacher and lawgiver? But if they were able men, were they infallible? No; they publicly affirmed their own fallibility; and yet they acted as if they had been infallible, and could not be mistaken in prescribing faith and doctrine.

“But even if they were infallible, who gave them commission to do what the Spirit of God had done already? Could the first reformers hope to deliver the truths of religion more fully and more clearly than the Spirit of God? Had they found out more apt expressions than had occurred to the Holy Spirit? The Son of God ‘ spake not of himself; but as the Father said unto him, so he spake’ (John, xii. 50). ‘ The Spirit of truth spake not of himself; but whatsoever he heard, that he spake’ (John, xvi. 13). ‘ The things of God the apostles spake, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth’ (1 Cor. ii. 13). If the Christian revelation was thus handed down to us from the Fountain of Light with so much care and exactness, both as to matter and words, by the Son of God, by the Spirit, and by the apostles, who were the ancient doctors and bishops? or who were the first reformers? or who were any synods or assemblies of divines, that they dared to model Christian faith into their own invented forms, and impose it upon the minds of men in their own devised terms and expressions?

“Has Christ given authority to all his ministers to the end of the world, to new-mould his doctrines by the rules of human learning whenever they think fit? or hath he delegated his power to any particular persons? Neither the one nor the other. His doctrines are not of such a ductile nature; but stand fixed, both as to matter and words, in the Scripture. And it is at any man’s peril, who pretends to put them, as they are rules of faith, into any new dress or shape. I conclude, therefore, that the first reformers, and all councils, synods, and assemblies, who have met together to collect, determine, and decide, to prescribe and impose matters pertaining to Christian faith, have acted without any warrant from Christ, and therefore have invaded the prerogative of him who is the sole Prophet and Lawgiver to the church. Peace and unity, I know, is the pretended good design of those creeds and confessions. But as God never sanctified them for these ends, so all the world knows they have produced the contrary effect; discord, division, and the spilling of whole seas of Christian blood, for fourteen hundred years together.”

Such sentiments as these are now maintained by Christians of various denominations; but they were first avowed by the Independents, to whom, therefore, the merit or demerit of bringing them to light properly belongs. Our readers will think differently of them according to their preconceived opinions; but it is not our province either to confirm or to refute them. They rise almost necessarily out of the independent scheme of congregational churches; and we could not suppress them without deviating from our fixed resolution of doing justice to all religious parties, as well those from whom we differ as those with whom we agree. It ought not, however, to be rashly concluded that the Independents of the present age, merely because they reject the use of all creeds of human composition, doubt or disbelieve the doctrines deemed orthodox in other churches. Their predecessors in the last century were thought to be more rigid Calvinists than the Presbyterians themselves; as many of those may likewise be who in the present century admit not the confessions and formulas of the Calvinistic churches. They acknowledge as divine truth every doctrine contained in the Scriptures, but they think that scriptural doctrines are most properly expressed in scriptural language; and the same spirit [7:12:262]of religious liberty which makes them reject the authority of bishops and synods in matters of discipline, makes them reject the same authority in matters of faith. In either case, to call any man or body of men their masters, would, in their opinion, be a violation of the divine law, since “one is their master, even Christ, and they are all brethren.”

In support of their scheme of congregational churches, they observe that the word fκ%λjjΛα, which we translate church, is always used in Scripture to signify either a single congregation, or the place where a single congregation meets. Thus that unlawful assembly at Ephesus brought together against Paul by the craftsmen is called sxκλjj-ff∕α, a church (Acts, xix. 32, 39, 41). The word, however, is generally applied to a more sacred use; but still it signifies either the body assembling, or the place in which it assembles. The whole body of the disciples at Corinth is called the church, and spoken of as coming together into one place (1 Cor. xiv. 23). The place into which they came together we find likewise called a church ; “when ye come together in the church, — when ye come together into one place” (1 Cor. xi. 18, 20). Wherever there were more congregations than one, there were likewise more churches than one. Thus, “Let your women keep silence in the cliurchesT ταις ε%πKr t iιαtζ (1 Cor. xiv. 34). The whole nation of Israel is indeed called a church, but it was no more than a single congregation, for it had but one place of public worship, namely, first the tabernacle, and afterwards the temple. The catholic church of Christ, his holy nation and kingdom, is likewise a single congregation, having one place of worship, that is, heaven, where all the members assemble by faith and hold communion; and in which, when they shall all be fully gathered together, they will in fact be one glorious assembly. Accordingly we find it called “the general assembly and church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven.”

Besides these, the Independent can find no other description of a church in the New Testament; not a trace of a diocese or presbytery consisting of several congregations all subject to one jurisdiction. The number of disciples in Jerusalem was certainly great before they were dispersed by the persecution in which Paul bore so active a part. Yet they are never mentioned as forming distinct assemblies, but as one assembly meeting with its elders in one place; sometimes in the temple, sometimes in Solomon’s porch, and sometimes in an upper room. After the dispersion, the disciples who fled from Jerusalem, as they could no longer assemble in one place, are never called a church by themselves, or one church, but the churches of Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee (Acts, ix. 31; Gal. i. 22). Hence the Independent concludes, that in Jerusalem the words church and congregation were of the same import; and if such was the case there, where the gospel was first preached, he thinks we may reasonably expect to find it so in other places. Thus, when Paul on his journey calls the elders of the church of Ephesus to Miletus, he speaks to them as the joint overseers of a single congregation: “Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers” (Acts, xx. 28). Had the church at Ephesus consisted of different congregations united under such a jurisdiction as that of a modern presbytery, it would have been natural to say, “Take heed to yourselves, and to the flocks on ex which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers ;” but this is a way of speaking of which the Independent finds no instance in the whole of the New Testament. The sacred writers, when speaking of all the Christians in a nation or province, never call them the church of such a nation or province, but the churches of Galatia (Gal. i. 2), the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor. viii. 1), the churches of Asia (1 Cor. xvi. 19). On the other hand, when speaking of the disciples in a city or town, who might ordinarily assemble in one place, they uniformly call themxz church; as, the church of Antioch, the church at Corinth, the church of Ephesus, and the like.

In each of these churches or congregations there were bishops, sometimes called elders, and deacons; and in every church there seems to have been more than one elder, in some a great many, “who all laboured in word and doctrine.” Thus we read (Acts, xiv. 23) of Paul and Barnabas ordaining elders (to be bishops and deacons) in every church; and (Acts, xx. 17) of a company of elders in the church of Ephesus, who were exhorted to “feed the flock, and to take heed to themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.” But of such elders as are to be found in modern presbyterian churches, who neither teach nor are fit to teach, the Independent finds no vestige in the Scriptures, nor in the earliest uninspired writers of the Christian church. The rule or government of this presbytery or eldership in a church is not their own, but Christ’s. They are not lords over God’s heritage, nor can they pretend to more power over the disciples than the apostles possessed. But when the administration of the apostles in the church of Jerusalem, and other churches where they acted as elders, is inquired into by an Independent, it does not appear to him that they did any thing of common concern to the church without the consent of the multitude; nay, it seems they thought it necessary to judge and determine in discipline in presence of the whole church (Acts, vi. 1-6, XV. 22; 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5). Excommunication and absolution were in the power of the church at Corinth, and not of the elders as distinguished from the congregation (1 Cor. V·; 2 Cor. ii.). The apostle indeed speaks of his delivering some unto Satan (1 Tim. i. 20). But it is by no means clear that he did it by himself, and not after the manner pointed at (1 Cor. v. 4, 5); even as it does not appear, from his saying, in one epistle, that the gift was given unto Timothy by the putting on of his hands, that this was not done in the presbytery of a church, as in the other epistle we find it actually was. The trying and judging of false apostles was a matter of the first importance; but it was done by the elders with the flock at Ephesus (Rev. ii. 2; Acts, xx. 28); and that whole flock did, in the days of Ignatius, all partake of the Lord’s Supper, and pray together in one place.^[2. The evidence upon which this is stated by Mr Glass, for the whole of this reasoning is extracted from his works, is probably the following passage in the epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians: ’ E< yαη i t >; ×aι ΐιντίξβν πξ l ><rιυχr i , “For if the prayer of one or two be of such force as we are told, how much more prevalent must that be which is made by the bishop and the whole church? He, then, that does not come together into the same place with it, is proud, and hath condemned himself; for it is written, God resìsteth the proud. Let us not therefore resist the bishop, that we may be the servants of God.” The sentence, as it thus stands by itself, certainly countenances Mr Glass’s scheme; but the reader who thinks any regard due to the testimony of Ignatius will do well to peruse the whole epistle as published by Vossius. ] Even the power of binding and loosing, or the power of the keys as it has been called, was by our Saviour conferred, not upon a particular order of disciples, but upon the church. “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of [7:12:263]two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church; but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” &c. (St Matth, xviii. 15, 16, 17, 18.) It is not said, if he shall neglect to hear the one or two, tell it to the elders of the church; far less can it be meant that the offended person should tell the cause of his offence to all the disciples in a presbytery or diocese consisting of many congregations. But he is required to tell it to that particular church or congregation to which they both belong; and the sentence of that assembly, pronounced by its elders, is in a very solemn manner declared to be final, from which there lies no appeal to any jurisdiction on earth.

With respect to the constituting of elders in any church or congregation, the Independent reasons in the following manner. The officers of Christ’s appointment are either ordinary and permanent in the church, or they were extraordinary and peculiar to the planting of Christianity. The extraordinary were those who were employed in laying the plan of the gospel churches, and in publishing the New Testament revelation. Such were the apostles, the chosen witnesses of our Saviour’s resurrection; such were the prophets inspired by the Holy Ghost for explaining infallibly the Old Testament by the things written in the New; and such were the evangelists, the apostles’ ministers. These can be succeeded by none in that which was peculiar to them, because their work was completed by themselves. But they are succeeded in all that was not peculiar to them by bishops and deacons, the only two ordinary and permanent orders of ministers in the church. We have already seen that it belongs to the office of the bishop to feed the flock of Christ. The only question to be settled, then, is, How men are ordinarily called to that office? for about the office of the deacon there is little or no dispute. No man now can pretend to be so called of God to the ministry of the word as the apostles and other inspired elders were, whom he chose to be the publishers of his revealed truth, and to whose mission he bore witness in an extraordinary manner. But what the apostles were to those who had the divine oracles from their mouths, that their writings are to us; and therefore as no man can lawfully pretend a call from God to make any addition to those writings, so neither can any man pretend to be lawfully called to the ministry of the word already written, but in the manner which that word directs. Now there is nothing of which the New Testament speaks more clearly than of the characters of those who should exercise the office of bishop in the church, and of the actual exercise of that office. The former are graphically drawn in the epistles to Timothy and Titus; and the latter is minutely described in St Paul’s discourse to the Ephesian elders, in St Peter’s exhortation to elders, and our Lord’s commission to those ministers with whom he promised to be always present even unto the end of the world. It is not competent for any man or body of men to add to or take from the description of a gospel minister given in these places, so as to insist upon the necessity of any qualification which is not there mentioned, or to dispense with any qualification as needless which is there required. Neither has Jesus Christ, the only legislator to the church, given to any ministers or people any power or right whatsoever to call, send, elect, or ordain, to that office, any person who is not qualified according to the description given in his law; nor has he given any power or right to reject the least of them who are so qualified, and who desire the office of a bishop or elder. Let a man have hands laid upon him by such as could prove an uninterrupted descent by imposition of hands from the apostles; let him be set apart to that office by a company of ministers themselves, the most conformable to the Scripture character; and let him be chosen by the most holy people on earth; yet if he answer not the New Testament description of a minister, he is not called of God to that office, and is no minister of Christ, but is indeed running unsent. No form of ordination can pretend to such a clear foundation in the New Testament as the description of the persons who should be elders of the church; and the laying on of hands is of small importance in the mission of a minister of Christ; for now, when the power of miracles has ceased, it is obvious that such a rite, by whomsoever performed, can convey no powers, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Indeed it appears to have been sometimes used, even in the apostolic age, without any such intention. When St Paul and St Barnabas were separated to the particular employment of going out to the Gentiles, the prophets and teachers at Antioch “prayed and laid their hands on them.” But did this ceremony confer upon the two apostles any new power or authority to act as ministers of Christ? Did the imposition of hands make those shining lights of the gospel one whit better qualified than they were before to convert and baptize the nations, to feed the flock of God, to teach, rebuke, or exhort, with all long-suffering and patience? It cannot be pretended that there was any special virtue in this ceremony. St Paul and St Barnabas had undoubtedly received the Holy Ghost before they came to Antioch; and as they were apostles, they were of course authorized to discharge all the functions of the inferior and ordinary ministers of the gospel. As in this instance, however, the imposition of hands appears to have been a mark of recognition of the parties as qualified for the work to which they were appointed, so Independents usually lay on the hands of the bishops with the same intent. In a word, whoever in his life and conversation is conformable to the character which the inspired writers give of a bishop, and is likewise qualified by his “mightiness in the Scripture” to discharge the duties of that office, is fully authorized to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to teach, exhort, and rebuke, with all long-suffering and doctrine, and has all the call and mission which the Lord now gives to any man; whilst he who wants the qualifications mentioned has not God’s call, whatever he may have, nor any authority to preach the gospel of Christ, or to dispense the ordinances of his religion.

From this view of the Independent principles, which is faithfully taken from their own writers, it appears that, according to them, even the election of a congregation confers upon the man whom they may choose for their pastor no new powers, but only creates a new relation between him and a particular flock, giving him an exclusive right, either by himself or in conjunction with other pastors constituted in the same manner, to exercise among them that authority which he derives immediately from Christ, and which, in a greater or less degree, is possessed by every sincere Christian according to his gifts and abilities. Were the ministers of the gospel constituted in any other way than this; by imposition of hands, for instance, in succession from the apostles; the case of Christians would, in the opinion of the Independents, be extremely hard, and the ways of God scarcely equal. We are strictly commanded not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, but to continue stedfast in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayer, “But can any man,” asks one of their advocates, “bring hin¢self to believe, that what he is commanded to do in point of gratitude, what is made his own personal act, an act expressive of certain dutiful and pious affections, can possibly be restricted to the intermediate offices or instrumentality of others, who act by powers which [7:12:264]he can neither give nor take away? To suppose a thing necessary to my happiness, which is not in my own power, or wholly depends upon the good pleasure of another, over whom I have no authority, and concerning whose intentions and dispositions I can have no security, is to suppose a constitution the most foolish and ill natured, utterly inconsistent with our ideas of a wise and good agent.” Such are some of the principal arguments by which the Independents maintain the divine right of congregational churches. For many years the numbers of this denomination of Christians have been increasing, especially in England; and it is calculated that they have now nearly 1600 congregations in England and Wales. They have only about eighty in Scotland, and thirty in Ireland; but it is reckoned that they have nearly a thousand congregations in America.

Sir James Mackintosh, in his Historical Fragment, gives a short notice of this body. “They disclaimed the qualifications of ‘ national,’ as repugnant to the nature of < a church.’ The religion of the Independents could not, without destroying its nature, be established by law. They never could aspire to more than religious liberty, and they accordingly have the honour to be the first, and long the only, Christian community who collectively adopted that sacred principle. It is true, that in the beginning they adopted the pernicious and inconsistent doctrine of limited toleration, excluding Catholics as idofators, and, in New England, where the great majority were of their persuasion, punishing even capitally dissenters from opinions which they accounted fundamental. But as intolerance could promote no interest of theirs, real or imaginary, their true principles finally worked out the stain of these dishonourable exceptions. The government of Cromwell, more influenced by them than by any other persuasion, made as near approaches to general toleration as public prejudice would endure; and Sir Harry Vane, an Independent, was probably the first who laid down, with perfect precision, the inviolable rights of conscience, and the exemption of religion from all civil authority.”^[3. View of the Reign of James II. p. 166. ]