from the fact, that with the Brownists they | diction, and that they should not be combelieved that individual churches are all pelled to obey the authority and laws Independent or subject to no foreign juris- either of bishops or of councils composed

l'Eglise. Ils soutenoient que châcun pouvoit prier en public, exhorter ses frères, expliquer l'Ecritare Sainte, selon les talens qu'il avoit reçus de Dieu.-Ainsi parmi eux châcun prioit, prêchoit, exhortoit, expliquoit la S. Ecriture, sans autre vocation que celle qu'il tiroit luimême 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 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. chap. iv. p. 157, &c.-Mur.] But this (some one may say) is certain from numcrous 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 clear that their assertion 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 of the worship and the doctrines of the Independents, neither of which is capable of solid proof. In the doctrines of the sect, as we have seen, 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. And 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, ubi supra, 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.-Mur.]

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 well-known book, 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 firent 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 entrusted to the representatives of the people:-"Par rapport au gouvernement de l'etât, ils abhorroient la monarchie, et n'approuvoient qu'un gouvernement républicain.' I can readily believe that there were persons among the Independents 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 that this was the common sentiment of this whole sect. Such testimony is in vain sought for in their public writings. On the contrary, in the year 1617 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. 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 ceaux 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 England. 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 Brownista 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 one hundred in number.-Mur.] agreed upon and consented unto by their elders and messengers in their meeting at the Savoy, 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 When I have carefully inquired for the reasons why in sacris Dei communionem profitemur et quantum in the Independents are taxed with so many crimes and nobis est colimus." So far therefore were they from enormities, three reasons especially have occurred to differing altogether from all other sects of Christians, my mind:-I. The term Independents is ambiguous that on the contrary they agreed exactly with the and not appropriated to any one class of men. For not greatest part of the Reformed churches. To show by to mention other senses of it, the term is applied by the an example how absurd the religion of the Indepen-English to those friends of democracy who wish to have dents was, this eminent historian tells us that they not the people enact their own laws and govern themselves, Only rejected all ecclesiastical government and order, and who will not suffer an individual or several indivibut also made the business of preaching and praying in duals to bear rule in the state; or, to adhere to the letter public and explaining the Scriptures common to all:- of the name, who maintain that the people ought to be Non seulement ils ne pouvoient souffrir l'épiscopat et independent of all control except what arises from l'hiérarchie ecclésiastique" (this is true; but it was a themselves. This faction, consisting in a great measure fault not peculiar to them, but chargeable also on the of mad fanatics, were the principal actors in that traPresbyterians, the Brownists, the Anabaptists, and all gedy in England, the effects of which are still deplored. the sects of the Nonconformists), " mais ils ne vouloient Hence whatever was said or done extravagantly or pas mesme qu'il y eut des ministres ordinaires dans foolishly by this faction was, I suspect, all charged upon

of presbyters and delegates from several or teach on religious subjects, with very churches. It is in this single opinion that few exceptions and those not of much imthey especially differ from the Presby-portance, is almost throughout in accordance terians.2 For whatever else they believe with the Genevan doctrines. The parent

our Independents, who were not indeed altogether without faults, yet were far better than they. II. in the times of Charles I. and Oliver Cromwell, as

well, that is, very bad people.

dents from their maintaining that all assemblies of

independent. This very term is used by Robinson, in

of the sect was John Robinson, minister of a Brownist church which was settled at Nearly all the English sects which distracted the nation Leyden in Holland, a grave and pious man. sumed the name of Independents in order to participate Perceiving that the discipline which Robert in that public esteem which the real Independents Brown had set up was in some respects enjoyed on account of their upright conduct, and in defective, he undertook to correct it, and to order to screen themselves from reproach. This is attested, among others, by Toland in his letter to Le give it such a form as would render it less Clerc, inserted by the latter in his Biblioth. Universelle odious than before. In two respects paret Historique, tome xxiii. part ii. p. 506:-" Au commencement tous les sectaires se disoient Indépendans, ticularly are the Independents better than par ce que ces derniers étoient fort honorez du people à the Brownists; first, in moderation and cause de leur piété." Now, as the term was so exten- candour, for they did not, as Brown had sively applied, who does not see that it might easily occur that the enormities of various sects should be all done, execrate and pronounce unworthy of charged upon the genuine Independents? III. Oliver the Christian name the churches which had Cromwell, the usurper, gave a preference to the Independents before all the other sects in his country. For adopted a different form of government; he was as much afraid of the councils or synods of the but they admitted that piety and true reli Presbyterians as he was of the bishops; but in the form of church government adopted by the Independents, gion might flourish where the ecclesiastical there was nothing at all which he could fear. Now, as affairs were subject to the authority of men of like character incline to associate together, this bishops or to the decrees of councils, notcircumstance might lead many to suppose that the Independents were all of the same character with Crom-withstanding they considered their own form of government as of divine institution, and as originating from Christ and his apostles. In the next place, the Independents excelled the Brownists by abolishing that liberty of teaching which Brown had allowed equally to all the brethren. For they have regular teachers, elected by the whole brotherhood, and they do not allow any one to deliver discourses to the people, unless he has been previously examined and approved by the officers of the church. This sect which began to exist in Holland in 1610, had very few adherents at first in England, and to escape the punishments decreed against Non-conformists, kept itself concealed; but on the decline of the power of the bishops in the time of Charles I. it took courage in the year 1640 and boldly showed itself in public. Afterwards it soon increased so much in reputation and in numbers, that it could compete for priority, not only with the Episcopalians, but also with the very powerful Presbyterians; which must be attributed, among other causes, to the erudition of its teachers and to the reformed morals of the people. During

1 They undoubtedly received the name of IndepenChristians had the right of self-government, or were his exposition of this doctrine in his Apologia pro Erulibus 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 Wilkin's Concilia Magna Britanniae et Hibernia, 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 in their apology published at London, 1644, 4to (Apologetical Narration of the Independents), they rather 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.

tom. iv. cap. v. p. 548. But a little afterwards and

and limits the independence of the individual churches, they have discarded the name of Independents.-Mur.

3 In the year 1616, Mr. Jacob, who had adopted the religious sentiments of Robinson, set up the first Independent or Congregational church in England.-Macl.

2 There are two points of difference between the Presbyterians and the Independents or Congregationalists. The first relates to the independence of individual churches, or their exemption from any foreign jurisdiction. The second relates to the location of the legislative and judicial powers of each church. The Presbyterians assign these powers to the eldership of the church or to the pastor and the ruling elders assembled in a church session; but the Independents or Congregationalists confide them to a general meeting of all the male members of the church, or to the officers and the whole brotherhood assembled in a church meeting. From this latter principle it is that the Independents are called Congregationalists. And as in modern times they admit of a connexion or confederation of sister churches, which in some measure bounds-Mur.

4 Neal, History of the Puritans, vol. ii. p. 107, 391, 393, vol. iii. p. 141, 145, 276, 303, 537, 549; Böhm's Englische Reformationshistorie, book vi. chap. iv. p. 794. [A part of Mr. Robinson's congregation at Leyden removed to Plymouth in New England. in the year 1620. And during the reign of Charles I. and down even to the end of the century, great numbers of the English Independents removed to New England and there formed flourishing colonies; so that New England, for about two centuries, has contained more Independents or Congregationalists than Old England.

the reign of Cromwell, who for various reasons was its greatest patron, it was everywhere in the highest reputation; but on the restoration of the English monarchy under Charles II. it began to decline greatly, and gradually sank into its former obscurity. At the present day it exists indeed but is timid and depressed; and in the reign of William III. A.D. 1691, it was induced by its weakness to enter into a coalition (yet without giving up its own regulations) with the Presbyterians resident in London and the vicinity.'

22. While Oliver Cromwell administered the government of Great Britain, all sects, even the vilest and most absurd, had full liberty to publish their opinions; the bishops alone and the friends of episcopal government were most unjustly oppressed and stripped of all their revenues and honours. By far the most numerous and influential of all were the Presbyterians and the Independents, the latter of whom were most favoured and extolled by Cromwell (who however actually belonged to no sect), and manifestly for the sake of curbing more easily the Presbyterians, who sought to

1 From this time onward they were called United acquire ascendancy. In this period arose

Brethren. Sec Toland's letter, in Le Clerc's Biblioth. Universelle et Historique, tome xxiii. p. 506. [It must not be supposed that the distinction between Presbyterians and Congregationalists ceased in England from the year 1691, or that both have ever since formed but one sect. They still exist as distinct yet friendly sects. Being agreed in doctrines and anxious to hold communion with each other, notwithstanding their different modes of church government, they adopted these articles of agreement and consent, in which each sect endeavoured to come as near to the other as their different principles would admit. Moreover, these articles with very slight alterations were adopted by the Elders and Messengers of the churches of Connecticut, assembled at Saybrook in the year 1708; and they now form a part of what is called the Saybrook Platform or the ancient ecclesiastical constitution of Connecticut. See Trumbull's History of Connecticut, vol. i. p. 510, 513, 514. The Articles themselves may be seen in Toulmin's History of Dissenters, vol. ii. p. 130, &c. and in the Saybrook Platform, p. 99, &c.-Mur.] William Whiston published the articles of agreement in the Memoirs of his Life and Writings, vol. ii. p. 549, &c. They are nine in number. Article I. treats "of Churches and Church Members." Here, in sec. vi. the Presbyterians and Independents declare, "that each particular church hath right to choose their own officers, and hath authority from Christ for exercising government and of enjoying all the ordinances of worship within itself;" and sec. vii. that "in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastors and other elders of every particular church (if such there be) to rule and govern, and to the brotherhood to consent according to the rule of the Gospel." Here both the Presbyterians and the Independents depart from their original principles. Article II. treats "of the Ministry," which they acknowledge to be an institution of Christ. They require the ministers of religion not only to be pious (sec. ii.) but also learned; and (scc. iii. iv. v.) would have them be elected by the church with the advice of the neighbouring churches, and also solemnly ordained. Article III. "of Censures," decrees that scandalous or offending members be first admonished, and if they do not reform, be excluded from the church by the pastors, but with the consent of the brethren. Article IV. "of Communion of Churches," declares all churches to be on a perfect equality and therefore independent, yet makes it the duty of the pastors and teachers to maintain a kind of communion of churches, and often to meet together and consult on the interests of the churches. Article V. "of Deacons and Ruling Elders." Here the United Brethren admit that the office of Deacon or curator of the poor is of divine appointment, and say: "Whereas divers are of opinion that there is also the office of Ruling Elders, who labour not in word and doctrine, and others think otherwise, we agree that this difference make no breach among us." Article VI. "of Synods," admits that it is useful and necessary in cases of importance, for the ministers of many churches to hold a council; and that the decisions formed in these conventions must not be rejected by the churches without the most weighty reasons. Article VII. "of our demeanour towards the civil Magistrate," promises obedience to magistrates and prayers for them. Article VIII. treats" of a Confession of Faith," and leaves the brethren free to judge whether the Thirty-nine Articles of the English church, or the Confession and Catechism

of the Westminster assembly, that is, of the Presbyterians, or lastly, the Confession of the Congregational Brethren published by the convention at the Savoy in 1658, be most agreeable to the Holy Scriptures. [Their words are: "As to what appertains to soundness of judgment in matters of faith, we esteem it sufficient that a church acknowledge the Scriptures to be the word of God, the perfect and only rule of faith and practice; and own either the doctrinal part of those commonly called the Articles of the church of England or the Confession or Catechism, shorter or larger, compiled by the assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be agreeable to the said rule."-Mur.] Article IX. "of our duty and deportment towards them that are not in communion with us," inculcates only love and moderation towards them. It hence appears that the Independents, induced by necessity, approached in many points towards the opinions of the Presbyterians, and departed from the principles of their ancestors. [As respects union and communion of churches, their mutual accountability, and perhaps also the powers and prerogatives of church officers, there was some change in the views of the Independents of England and also in America. But the English Presbyterians also softened considerably the rigours of Presbyterianism, as it was introduced and set up among them by the Scotch. This coalition of the two denominations tended to abate the zeal of both in maintaining the jus divinum of their respective systems of church government. For a considerable time, the Presbyterian and Congregational ministers in and near London continued to hold meetings for mutual consultation, and for regulating the licensing of candidates. And in some other counties of England similar united meetings were held. But ere long they were dropped, and the two denominations, though on friendly terms with each other, manage respectively their own ecclesiastical affairs in their own way.-Mur.

2 Mosheim's account of the Presbyterians is quite too meagre for those who are expected to read this translation of his work. It is therefore deemed necessary to introduce here a summary history, first of the Scottish church and then of the English Presbyterians, during this century [and of the Irish Presbyterians.-R.]

THE SCOTTISH CHURCH.-From his first arrival in England in 1603, king James set himself to undermine Presbyterianism in Scotland, and to establish Episcopacy on its ruins. For this purpose, he not only spoke contemptuously of the Presbyterians as being insolent men and enemies to regal power, but actually nominated bishops to the thirteen Scottish bishoprics; and in 1606 obtained from the parliament of Perth an act declaring the king to have sovereign authority over all estates, persons, and causes whatsoever, in Scotland; and also an act restoring to the bishops their ancient possessions, which had been annexed to the crown. This made the new bishops peers of the realm. The General Assembly protested. But in 1608 a convention claiming to be a General Assembly declared the bishops perpetual moderators of all the Synods and Presbyteries. Another convention however was then sitting in opposition to this, and committees from both attempted a compromise. The bishops carried their point in 1609, and the next year the king, contrary to law, authorized them to hold High Commission Courts. In the same