plan before any other scheme passed into a law; but the Presbyterians, without any regard to the compromise, by the assistance of their Scots friends, pushed the affair to a conclusion in Parliament; upon which the Independents laid aside their own model, and published a remonstrance, complaining of the artful conduct of the Assembly, and that the discipline of the Church being fixed, it was too late to think any more of a comprehension. The House of Commons having seen their mistake, resumed this affair with their own hands, and by an order dated November 6, 1645, revived the Committee of Accommodation, which, besides the Scots commis-sioners, consisted of the following peers, viz. : Earl of Northumberland, Lord Visc. Say and Seale, Earl of Manchester, Lord Wharton,

Lord Howard.

with the dissenting brethren of the Assembly,

Mr. Bridge,

would not consent to the negative, so as to set
as agree with them should be tolerated; and
bounds or limits of forbearance to tender con-
sciences, nor make such an agreement a neces-
sary qualification for receiving the sacrament.*
exempted from the jurisdiction of their classes,
To the request of the Independents, of being
and having a liberty of erecting separate con-
gregations, the Presbyterians replied,

the established rule.
1. That this implied a total separation from

of other true churches.
2. The lawfulness of gathering churches out

3. That the Parliament would then destroy what they had set up.

4. That the members of Independent churches would then have greater privilege than those of the establishment.

5. That this would countenance a perpetual schism. And,

6. Introduce all manner of confusion into families.t

They therefore proposed that such as, after conference with their parish minister, were not satisfied with the establishment, should not be compelled to communicate in the Lord's Supper, nor be liable to censures from classes or synods, provided they joined with the parish the government of it in other respects. congregation where they lived, and were under

M. T. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr. Drury. The committee met in the Jerusalem Chamber, November 17, and would have entered upon The Independents replied, that they did not a scheme for comprehension, but the Independ- intend a total separation, but should agree with ents moved only for an indulgence or toleration, their brethren in the most essential points; as observing that, as they had already moved, in in worshipping according to the Directory, in the Assembly and elsewhere, that their scheme choosing the same officers, pastors, teachers, of government might be debated before the ruling elders, with the same qualifications as in Presbyterian had passed into a law, and for this the rule. That they should require the same purpose had offered to prepare a complete mod-qualifications in their members as the Assembly el, if they might have been indulged a few days,* had advised, that is, visible saints, professing and that having been overruled, and another faith in Christ, and obedience to the rules of form of government settled, they apprehended faith and life taught by Christ and his apostles ;‡ themselves shut out from the establishment, that they should practise the same church cenand precluded from any farther attempts to- sures, being accountable for their conduct to wards a union or comprehension; but still they their civil superiors. They would also hold were willing to enter upon the second part of occasional communion with the Presbyterian the Parliament's order, which was to consider churches, in baptism and the Lord's Supper, how far tender consciences, who cannot in all communicating occasionally with them, and rethings submit to the established rule, may be ceiving their members to communion as occaindulged, consistent with the Word of God and sion required. Their ministers should preach the public peace. Accordingly, in their next for each other, and, in cases of difficulty, they meeting, December 4, they offered the follow-would call in their assistance and advice; and ing proposals:

Taking for granted that both sides shall agree in one confession of faith, they humbly crave, 1. That their congregations may have the power of ordination within themselves.

2. That they may not be brought under the power of classes, nor forced to communicate in those parish churches where they dwell, but that they may have liberty to join with such congregations as they prefer; and that such congregations may have power of all church censures within themselves, subject only to Parliament, and be as so many exempt or privileged places.

To the preamble the Presbyterians replied, that only such as agreed to their confession of faith and Directory should have the benefit of the forbearance to be agreed on, with which the committee concurred; but the Independents would admit only of the affirmative, that such * Papers of Accommodation, p. 14, 24.

when an ordination falls out, they would desire the presence and approbation of their ministers with their own. does not imply a total separation; but if in some Now surely, say they, this rule without sin, we think such persons ought things men cannot comply with the established not to live without communicating in the Lord's Supper all their days, rather than gather into churches where they may enjoy all ordinances without offence to their consciences; nor ought such separation to be accounted schism, which is a name of reproach we desire not to be branded with, when we are willing to maintain Christian love and communion with our neighbours, as far as our consciences will permit. They add, farther, that if the state is pleased to grant them this liberty, they will refer themselves to the wisdom of the Legislature to consider of limit

ing their congregations to a certain number, to be as so many receptacles for pious persons of tender consciences.*

fore they should be obliged to a total and constant conformity.

The committee met the last time, March 9, The Presbyterians, in their next reply, De- when the sub-committee of Presbyterian dicember 23, after having blamed the Independ-vines answered the last paper of the Independents for not going upon a comprehension, argue ents, maintaining all their former positions, and against the lawfulness of a separation after concluding in this strange and wonderful manthis manner: "That if a pretence of conscience ner: "That whereas their brethren say that unibe a sufficient ground of separation, men may formity ought to be urged no farther than is gather impure and corrupt churches out of pu- agreeable to all men's consciences, and to their rer, because upon the dictates of an erring con- edification; it seems to them as if their brethscience they may disallow that which is pure, ren not only desire liberty of conscience for and set up that which is agreeable to their er- themselves, but for all men, and would have us ring consciences; and we very much doubt, say think that we are bound by our Covenant to bring they, whether tenderness of conscience in doubt- the churches in the three kingdoms to no nearful points will justify a separation; it may oblige er a conjunction and uniformity than is consistmen to forbear communion, but not to set up a ent with the liberty of all men's consciences; contrary practice. If a church impose any-which, whether it be the sense of the Covenant, thing that is sinful, we must forbear to comply, we leave with the honourable committee."* yet without separation, as was the practice of Hereupon the Reverend Mr. Jer. Burroughs, the Puritans in the late times." They then a divine of great candour and moderation, deargue, from the concessions of the Independ-clared, in the name of the Independents, "that ents, that because they agree with them in so many material points, therefore they should not separate. "If," say they, "you can communicate with our church occasionally, once, or a second and third time, without sin, we know no reason why you may not do it constantly, and then separation will be needless: as for such a toleration as our brethren desire, we apprehend it will open a door to all sects; and though the Independents now plead for it, their brethren in New-England do not allow it."‡

As to the charge of schism, they admit that difference in judgment in some particular points is not schism; nor does an inconformity to some things enjoined deserve that name; but our brethren desire, farther, to set up separate communions, which is a manifest rupture of our societies into others, and is therefore a schism in the body. This is setting up altar against altar, allowing our churches (as the Independents do) to be true churches; for St Austin says, "Schismaticos facit non diversa fides, sed communionis disrupta societas." And we conceive it is the cause of the separation that makes schism, and not the separation itself; if, then, the cause of our brethren's separation be not sufficient, by what other name can it be called? To all which they add, that this indulgence, if granted, will be the mother of all contentions, strifes, heresies, and confusions in the Church, and contrary to their Covenant, which obliges them to endeavour to their utmost a uniformity.

When the committee met the next time, February 2, 1645–6, the Independents replied chiefly to the point of uniformity, and argued that it was not necessary to the peace of the churches; and ought not to extend beyond people's light and measure of understanding, according to the apostolical canon, "As far as we have attained, let us walk by the same rule," Phil., iii., 15. As for a mere exemption from the censures of the classes, they declared frankly they could not acquiesce in it, because it would deprive them of the enjoyment of the Lord's Supper; and that it was very hard to urge that, because they came so near the brethren, there

* Papers of Accommodation, p. 40.

+ Ibid., p. 51.

Ibid., p. 65, 73, 74.

+ Ibid., p. 56.
| Ibid., p. 86.

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," says he; "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."

Thus ended the last committee of Lords and Commons, and Assembly of Divines, for accommodation, which adjourned to a certain day, but, being then diverted by other affairs, never met again. Little did the Presbyterian divines imagine that in less than twenty years all their artillery would be turned against themselves; that they should be excluded the establishment by an act of prelatical uniformity; that they should be reduced to the necessity of pleading for that indulgence which they now denied their brethren; and esteem it their duty to gather churches for separate worship out of others, which they allowed to be true ones. If the leading Presbyterians in the Assembly and city had carried it with temper towards the Independents, on the foot of a limited toleration, they had, in all likelihood, prevented the disputes between the army and Parliament, which were the ruin of both; they might then have saved the Constitution, and made their own terms with the king, who was now their prisoner; but they were enamoured with the charms of Covenant uniformity and the Divine right of their Presbytery, which, after all, the Parliament would not admit in its full extent. Mr. Baxter, who was no friend of the Independents, says, "that the Presbyterian ministers were so little sensible of their own infirmities, that they would * Papers of Accommodation, p. 123.

VOL. II.-B

not agree to tolerate those who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments and members in the churches, prudent men, who were for union in things necessary, for liberty in things unnecessary, and for charity in all; but they could not be heard." ""*

Great was the resort of the city divines to Sion College at this time, where there was a kind of synod every Monday, to consult proper methods to propagate religion, and support the Assembly at Westminster in their opposition to the toleration of sectaries; for this purpose they wrote them a letter, dated January 15, 1645-6, in which they recite the arguments of the committee, and beseech them to oppose with all their might the great Diana of the Independents, and not to suffer their new establishment to be strangled in the birth by a lawless toleration. The whole Scots nation was also commanded into the service; the Parliament of that kingdom wrote to the two houses at Westminster, February 3, telling them, that "it was expected the honourable houses would add the civil sanction to what the pious and learned Assembly have advised; and I am commanded by the Parliament of this kingdom," says the president, "to demand it, and I do in their names demand it. And the Parliament of this kingdom is persuaded that the piety and wisdom of the honourable houses will never admit toleration of any sects or schisms contrary to our solemn League and Covenant." At the same time they appealed to the people, and published a declaration against toleration of sectaries and liberty of conscience; in which, after having taken notice of their great services, they observe, that there is a party in England who are endeavouring to supplant the true religion by pleading for liberty of conscience, which (say they) is the nourisher of all heresies and schisms. They then declare against all such notions as are inconsistent with the truth of religion, and against opening a door to licentiousness, which, to the

Baxter's Life, p. 103.

utmost of their power, they will endeavour to
oppose; and as they have all entered into one
Covenant, so to the last man in the kingdom
they will go on in the preservation of it. And
however the Parliament of England may deter-
mine in point of toleration and liberty of con-
science, they are resolved not to make the least
start, but to live and die, for the glory of God,
in the entire preservation of the truth.
Most of the sermons before the House of
Commons, at their monthly fasts, spoke the lan-
guage of severity, and called upon the magis-
trate to draw his sword against the sectaries.
The press teemed with pamphlets of the same
nature; Mr. Prynne, against J. Goodwin, says,
that if the Parliament and synod establish Pres-
bytery, the Independents and all others are bound
to submit, under pain of obstinacy. Another
writes, that to let men serve God according to
the persuasion of their own consciences, is to
cast out one devil that seven worse may enter.*

better service.

* Prynne was foremost in this inglorious contest. Forgetful of his own sufferings, he transferred to the cause of intolerance the same zeal, intrepidity, and unwearied diligence, as had distinguished him in a and all were directed to the one great end of his His publications were numerous, party, the suppression of sects and the triumph of Presbytery. "Up, therefore," said the fiery advocate of the Covenant, in one of his addresses to Parliament, "and be doing justice to some few chief offenders of this kind, for the present, to prevent execution upon many others, if not ruin on us all, for the future, and God himself, no doubt, will be with. you; and not fear what flesh can do unto you, or sectaries speak or write against you."--A Fresh Discovery of some Prodigious New Wandering, Blasting Stars, &c., Epistle dedicatory, 1645.

The same course was enforced by the most celebrated Presbyterian divines in their discourses before Parliament. "If you do not labour," said Calamy, in a sermon preached before the Commons October press the errors thereby that are spread in the king22, 1644, "according to your duty and power to supdom, all those errors are your errors, and those heresies are your heresies; they are sins, and God calls for a parliamentary repentance from you for them this day. You are the Anabaptists, you are the Antinomians, and 'tis you that hold that all religions are to be tolerated."-See Crosby, vol. i., p. 176.

Their Diana was toleration, of which the ministers at Sion College expressed their detestation and abhorrence; and the design of their letter was to show the unreasonableness, the sin, and the mis- Baillie, speaking of the propositions of the Indechievous consequences of it. "Not," said they, "that pendents, in the Committee for Accommodation, we can harbour the least jealousy of your zeal, says, "They plead for an accommodation to other fidelity, or industry, in the opposing and extirpating sects as well as to themselves; and with much ado of such a root of gall and bitterness as toleration is could we get them to propose what we desired to and will be, both in present and future ages." An- themselves. At last they gave us a paper, requiring other instance of the same bitter spirit appeared in a expressly a full toleration of congregation in their piece published by the ministers and elders of Lon-way everywhere, separate from ours. In our answer, don, met together in a provincial assembly, Novem- we flatly denied such a vast liberty, and backed it ber 2, 1749, entitled "A Vindication of the Presby- with reasons, and, withal, we began to show what interial Government and Ministry," in which they dulgence we could for peace' sake grant. Here represent the doctrine of universal toleration as con- Mr. Marshal, the chairman, has been their most dilitrary to godliness, opening a door to libertinism and gent agent to draw too many of us to grant them profaneness, and a tenet to be rejected as soul poison. much more than my heart can yield to, and which The ministers of Lancashire published a paper in to my power I oppose. We have had many bicker1648, expressing their harmonious consent with their ings with the Independents about the indulgence for brethren in London; and remonstrate against tolera- their separate congregations; for this point both they tion, as putting a cup of poison into the hand of a and we contend tanquam pro oris et focis."—Letters, child, and a sword into that of a madman; as letting vol. ii., p. 172, 174. loose madmen with firebrands in their hands, and appointing a city of refuge in men's consciences, for the devil to fly to; and instead of providing for tender consciences, taking away all conscience. In the same year, another paper was published in Warwickshire, by forty-three ministers, breathing the same spirit, and expressing the like sentiments.-Crosby's History of the English Baptists, vol. i., p. 188, 192.— Rushworth, p. 234.

ED.

Dr. Price on this subject remarks, "Had they (the Assembly) yielded to the reasonable request of the Independents, the supremacy of the army might have been prevented, and the civil liberties of the nation have been established on an imperishable basis. But, by an opposite course, they threw the sectaries, as all dissenters from their policy were opprobriously styled, into the arms of the soldiery; and thus gave to the latter a moral weight and influence which enabled

But the cause of liberty was not destitute of advocates at this time; the Independents pleaded for a toleration so far as to include themselves and the sober Anabaptists, but did not put the controversy on the most generous foundation; they were for tolerating all who agreed in the fundamentals of Christianity, but when they came to enumerate fundamentals they were sadly embarrassed, as all must be who plead the cause of liberty, and yet do not place the religious and civil rights of mankind on a separate basis: a man may be an orthodox believer, and yet deserve death as a traitor to his king and country; and, on the other hand, a heretic or errant nonconformist to the established religion may be a loyal and dutiful subject, and deserve the highest preferment his prince can bestow.

rule, 'Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, that do ye to them.'”

or estates; no opinions or sentiments of religion being cognizable by the magistrate, any farther than they are inconsistent with the peace of the civil government. The way to put an end to diversity of opinions is not by fines and imprisonments; can Bedlam, or the Fleet, open men's understandings, and reduce them from error? No, certainly, nothing but sound reason and argument can do it, which, it is to be feared, they are not furnished with, who have recourse to any other weapons. Schism and heresy are to be rooted out, not by oppression, but by reason and debate; by the sword of the Spirit, not of the flesh; by argument, not by blows, to which men have recourse when they are beat out of the other. Schism and heresy are words of terror thrown upon the adversary by all parties of men; and, perhaps, there may need an The letter of the city divines to the Assembly infallible judge to determine where the schism received a quick reply from a writer of more lies, before we venture upon extraordinary methgenerous principles, who complains, "that the ods to extirpate it." He adds, "that persecuPresbyterians, not content with their own free- tion will breed more confusion and disturbance dom and liberty, nor with having their form of than toleration; and that their solemn League government made the national establishment, and Covenant ought to bind them no farther were grasping at as much power as the prelates than it is consistent with the Word of God. before them had usurped; for this purpose they Now that toleration, or liberty of conscience, is had obtained the privilege of licensing the press, the doctrine of Scripture, is evident, 1. From that nothing might be written against them but the parable of the tares and wheat growing towhat they should please to approve; they gether till the harvest. 2. From the apostle's were continually soliciting the Parliament to direction, 'Let every man be persuaded in his establish their church government, which they own mind.' 3. That of whatsoever is not called the government of Christ, with a coer-faith, is sin.' 4. From our Saviour's golden cive power; they were always busy in framing petitions, and engaging the magistrates of the city to present them to the houses; and not content with this, they were now moving the Assembly of Divines, of whom themselves are a considerable part, to become the patrons of oppression." Our author maintains that "liberty of conscience is the natural right of every man, though, of all parties of men, those deserve least the countenance of the state who would persecute others, if it were in their power, because they are enemies of the society in which they live. He that will look back on past times, and examine into the true causes of the subversion and devastation of states and countries, will find it owing to the tyranny of princes and the persecution of priests. All governments, therefore, which understand their true interests, Lord Clarendon admits* that the king enwill endeavour to suppress in every sect, or di- deavoured to make his advantage of these division of men, whether Papist, Episcopal, Pres-visions, by courting the Independents, and prombyterian, Independent, or Anabaptist, the spirit of dominion and persecution, which is the disturber of mankind and the offspring of the devil. But the ministers say, if we tolerate one sect we must tolerate all; which our author admits, and adds, that they have as good a right to the liberty of their consciences as to their clothes them to crush the Parliament. The only alternative left to the assertors of civil liberty was to counterpoise the power of the Presbyterians by that of the army. The danger thus incurred has been proved by the event to be great; but it need not awaken surprise that men should have sought relief from a present and previous evil at the hazard of one that was distant and undefined. Nor must it be forgotten, in order to a correct appreciation of their conduct, that the army was yet submissive to the Parliament, and its officers free from those ambitious views by which their patriotism was ultimately eclipsed." Vol. ii., p. 324.-C.

#

Vol. Pamphlets, No. 52.

This pamphlet was answered by another, entitled "Anti-Toleration," in which the author endeavours to vindicate the most unbounded license of persecution; but neither the Assembly, nor the city divines, nor the whole Scots nation, could prevail with the Parliament to deliver the sword into their hands. The high behaviour of the Presbyterians lost them the affections of great numbers of people, who began to discover that the contention between them and the prelates was not for liberty, but power, and that all the spiritual advantage they were like to reap from the war was to shift hands, and instead of Episcopal government, to submit to the yoke of Presbyterial uniformity.

ising some of them very valuable compensations for any services they should do him; intimating that it was impossible for them to expect relief in their scruples from persons who pretended they were erecting the kingdom of Christ; but though the Independents were enemies to the Presbyterian discipline, they had no confdence in the king's promises. Mr. Whitelocket agrees with the noble historian, that the king was watchful to take advantage of these divisions, and commanded one Ogle to write to Mr. Tho. Goodwin and Phil. Nye, two of the Independent ministers, and make them large overtures, if they would oppose the Presbyterian government intended to be imposed upon England by the Scots; but these two gentlethe proposal, which put an end to the corremen very honestly acquainted their friends with spondence; all which might have convinced † Ibid., p. 76.

*Vol. ii., p. 746.

* Husband's Collections, p. 636, 637.

There was also a celebrated piece from his pen, levelled against the Baptists. It originated from a disputation which he held with four of that persuasion in Southwark, in the month of October, 1641. of this debate in a book entitled "The Dippers dipAbout two years afterward he published an account ped; or, the Anabaptists ducked, and plunged over head and ears, at a Disputation in Southwark." This title savoured of the taste and spirit of the times, and is no favourable omen of the strain of the work. In his dedication, he tells the reader, "that he could hardly dip his pen in anything but gall." The doctor wrote, indeed, under an irritation of spirits, from being unhappy differences between the king and Parlia deprived of two livings, which he enjoyed before the ment. He had the character, however, of an acute as well as vehement disputant. He had for his fellow-prisoner Mr. Henry Denne, educated at the University of Cambridge, and ordained, in 1630, by the Bishop of St. David, who signalized himself by his preaching, writing, disputing, and suffering for the baptistical opinion. As soon as he came into prison, Dr. Featly's book was laid before him in his apartment; when he had read it, he offered to dispute with the author on the arguments of it. The challenge was accepted, and they debated on the first ten arguments, when the doctor declined proceeding, urging that it was not safe for them to dispute on the subject without license from government; but he bid Mr. Denne write, and said he would defend his own arguments. Mr. Denne, on this, drew up a learned and ingenious answer; but it