Presbyterians vs Independents on the Civil Government of the Church

[TryingToLearn]

Can someone explain the general differences between the two and how this connects their differing polities? For instance here https://reformedbooksonline.com/the-civil-magistrates-authority-around-spiritual-things-circa-sacra/ under the section on the Independents, or Congregationalists”, I’m having a hard time grasping what exactly is being debated here and what the differences are between the two groups.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Can someone explain the general differences between the two and how this connects their differing polities? For instance here https://reformedbooksonline.com/the-civil-magistrates-authority-around-spiritual-things-circa-sacra/ under the section on the Independents, or Congregationalists”, I’m having a hard time grasping what exactly is being debated here and what the differences are between the two groups.

Presbyterians = Establishment Principle (original WCF Chapter 23.3: "The civil magistrate... hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." (see also original WCF Chapter 31.2&5)

Independents = US concept of separating Church and State ("no law respecting an establishment of religion" Amendment 1, US Constitution)

 

[TryingToLearn]

Presbyterians = Establishment Principle (original WCF Chapter 23.3: "The civil magistrate... hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." (see also original WCF Chapter 31.2&5)

Independents = US concept of separating Church and State ("no law respecting an establishment of religion" Amendment 1, US Constitution)

I would’ve thought so, but note the part of the site that says:

As per the below, and other books of the Independents from the mid-1600’s (during their classical era) that could be quoted (especially those of Philip Nye), the Independents generally held that the Magistrate could, of his own official jurisdiction, judge and enforce matters of faith, or things in sacra, which nature, Scripture and the presbyterians deny.

And the Independents in their own words say:

And if the magistrate’s power (to which we give as much, and (as we think) more, than the principles of the presbyterial government will suffer them to yield)

Which is what seems very confusing to me as the Independents seem to be arguing for a greater power of government in sacred things even though I thought it would’ve been the other way around.

In other words,, many were either joining with or being accused of erastianism and I’m trying to see why.