1645.
While Independent principles favoured universal toleration, the Presbyterians, by advocating the establishment of classes, synods, and a general assembly, and by calling on the magistrate to enforce the authority of the Church, plainly interfered with the civil rights of the people. The thoughtful among the Independents therefore became more and more averse to the Presbyterian scheme; they saw that it would be fatal to those very liberties for which the nation had so valiantly contended in the field. Accordingly, we find that Philip Nye, in the March of 1644, boldly contended before the Assembly that a presbytery was inconsistent with the civil state. This was a galling accusation, and the Presbyterian party indignantly cried down the assertion as impertinent. Great confusion arose in the Assembly; but, undismayed by the combined opposition of a large majority, the champion of Independency on the following day renewed the impeachment. It was an aggravation of his offence in the eyes of his adversaries, that he took advantage of the presence that day of some distinguished noblemen and others to make his bold avowal. He would enlighten these personages on the great question. He repeated that the liberties for which the people fought would be unsafe if Presbyterianism were established. Again the Presbyterians endeavoured to silence him. The meeting was in a tumult. Some would have expelled him; but the Independents rallied round their intrepid friend, declaring their resolution not to enter the Assembly again if he should be excluded. Whether, after this scene of excitement, during which it is not improbable that Nye manifested some warmth of temper, he really became more calm in the advocacy of his principles; or whether it was a mere expression of triumph on the part of one who helped to form the majority of the convocation, and to overcome by clamour the voice of reason, we do not venture to determine,—but the Scotch Commissioner concludes his account of that memorable day's proceedings by observing, "Ever since we find him in all things the most accommodating man in the company."[533]
Committee of Accommodation.
1645, November.
As Presbyterians and Independents thus frequently came into collision at Westminster, at last a Committee of Accommodation was appointed, with the view of healing the differences betwixt these two parties. This committee arose out of a suggestion by Oliver Cromwell; and the Parliament who appointed it in 1644 directed the committee, in case union should be impracticable, to devise a plan for meeting the scruples of tender consciences. The committee selected six of their number, including two Independents, to draw up propositions for the purpose; from which it appears that the Independents claimed for their male Church members the power of voting upon ecclesiastical questions, and that they contended for the necessity of signs of grace as a qualification for membership. These positions were irreconcilable with the scheme of their opponents, which placed the Church under the power of presbyters, and admitted to communion all who were not scandalous in their lives. No method could be devised for combining the Independent with the Presbyterian scheme, although the Independents professed themselves ready to make the trial; for the Presbyterians determined in the first instance that their own form of Church government should be settled as a standard, and that until that was done the exceptions of the dissentients should not be taken into consideration. As the Presbyterians resolutely pushed forward the completion of their own model, the dissenting brethren at last abandoned all attempts at comprehension, and drew up a remonstrance complaining that they had been unfairly dealt with. In the month of November, 1645, the Jerusalem Chamber witnessed further debates between the two parties; but the question had now reached this point, how far tender consciences, which cannot submit to the established ecclesiastical government, may be indulged consistently with the Word of God and the welfare of the nation? The Independents pleaded for a full toleration, to which the Presbyterians would not consent, and the former could not without difficulty be brought to propose any measure of liberty to be enjoyed exclusively by themselves; yet urged by their opponents to state what they required in their own case, they replied that they did not demur to the Assembly's Confession of Faith, and that they merely sought liberty to form their own congregations, to have the power of ordination, and to be free from Presbyterian authority. "In our answer," observes Baillie, "we did flatly deny such a vast liberty." All the indulgence conceded was that Independents should not be compelled to receive the Lord's Supper, nor be liable to synodical censure; and this amount of freedom was made dependent upon their joining the parish congregation, and then submitting in all but the excepted particulars to the new ecclesiastical government. Baillie, who supplies some knowledge of party secrets, informed a friend that had not the Presbyterians allowed some indulgence, they would have brought upon themselves insupportable odium, and that in making their limited offer they were persuaded that it would not be accepted. The Independents of course were not content with the result of the controversy, and still sought the liberty of forming Churches of their own.
Committee of Accommodation.
The threadbare argument about the abuse of liberty and the opening of a door to all manner of sectaries was zealously urged against any such toleration as the Independents claimed. Altar would be set up against altar, it was said, the seamless robe of Christ would be rent, and the unity of the Church would be destroyed. At last, Burroughs rose and declared "that, if their congregations might not be exempted from that coercive power of the classes, if they might not have liberty to govern themselves in their own way as long as they behaved peaceably towards the civil magistrate, they were resolved to suffer, or go to some other place of the world where they might enjoy their liberty. But while men think there is no way of peace but by forcing all to be of the same mind, while they think the civil sword is an ordinance of God to determine all controversies of Divinity, and that it must needs be attended with fines and imprisonment to the disobedient; while they apprehend there is no medium between a strict uniformity and a general confusion of all things;—while these sentiments prevail there must be a base subjection of men's consciences to slavery, a suppression of much truth, and great disturbances in the Christian world."[534] The expression of such wise and beautiful sentiments closed the debates of this fruitless Committee.
