<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-04-25</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Olivia Bottum</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Did text and markup review.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A96223">
<STC T="W">W1423</STC>
<STC T="T">E506_11</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99863768</BIBNO>
<VID>115982</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>THE ANSVVER Of the ASSEMBLY of DIVINES By Authority of PARLIAMENT Now &s;itting at WESTMINSTER. Unto the <HI>Rea&s;ons</HI> given in to this ASSEMBLY BY THE Di&s;&s;enting Brethren, Of their not bringing in a MODEL of their WAY. And &s;ince Publi&s;hed in Print, under the Title of <HI>A Copy of a Remon&s;trance.</HI> Which <HI>An&s;wer</HI> was humbly pre&s;ented to the Right Honor|able the Hou&s;e of PEERS A&s;&s;embled in <HI>Parliament.</HI></P>
<FLOATEXT LANG="eng" TYPE="order">
<P><HI>ORdered by the</HI> Lords <HI>in Parliament a&s;&s;embled, That this</HI> An&s;wer <HI>be forthwith Printed and Publi&s;hed.</HI></P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Joh. Brown, Cler. Parliamentorum.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</FLOATEXT>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed by <HI>John Field</HI> for <HI>Ralph Smith,</HI> and are to be &s;old at the Signe of the Bible, neer the <HI>Royal Exchange.</HI> 1645.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="2">
<PB N="3" REF="2">
<HEAD>The ANSWER of the A&s;&s;embly of DIVINES, by Authority of PARLIAMENT now fitting at <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ter,</HI> unto the REASONS given in to this A&s;&s;embly by the Di&s;&s;enting <HI>Brethren,</HI> of their not bringing in a MODEL of their Way.</HEAD>
<P>VVHereas the Brethren who Di&s;&s;ent from this <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> in &s;ome particulars of Church Government, did upon <HI>Octob.</HI> 22. 1645. in&s;tead of the long de&s;ired, and much expected Model of Church-Government, to be com|municated to us by them, give in to the A&s;&s;embly a Paper containing &s;ome &s;eeming <HI>Rea&s;ons,</HI> why they declined the bringing in of &s;uch a Model at this time; which &s;ince hath been divulged in Print under the Title of <HI>A Copy of a Remon&s;trance, &amp;c.</HI> We have been put upon this nece&s;&s;ary Vindicating of our Selves from tho&s;e unju&s;t Mi&s;-repre|&s;entations and Mi&s; con&s;tructions of our Proceedings, under which we mu&s;t otherwi&s;e unde&s;ervedly have &s;uffered, if this <HI>Remon&s;trance</HI> &s;hould altogether go unan&s;wered.</P>
<P>The De&s;igne of the Brethrens Paper is, to beget an Opinion of their <HI>Willingne&s;&s;e and Forwardne&s;&s;e, to make known what ever they hold in Church-Government;</HI> and to give an account <HI>what the Rea&s;ons are, Why they have not given in a Model of Church-Government according to their Judgements.</HI></P>
<P N="1">I. <Q>Of their Willingne&s;&s;e to make known what ever they hold concerning Church-Government, even &s;ince the beginning of the <HI>Di&s;cu&s;&s;ions,</HI> they &s;ay they have had pub|like Te&s;timony in this A&s;&s;embly, and have given manife&s;t Proofs and Evidences of it.</Q></P>
<P>This publike Te&s;timony, we &s;uppo&s;e, is but the Te&s;timony of &s;ome few &s;ingle per|&s;ons in the A&s;&s;embly; and not (as &s;ome might be induced to beleeve) the Te&s;timony of the A&s;&s;embly, &s;uch we are &s;ure they have not had: And, we doubt whether even &s;uch &s;ingle Te&s;timony have been given, as that they were &s;o forward, and willing to make known <HI>what ever</HI> they held in Church-Government. Now if the Te&s;timony of &s;ingle per&s;ons, becau&s;e given in a publike way, may be called a publike Te&s;timony, we doubt not, but we can produce more publike Te&s;timonies of their Vnwillingne&s;&s;e, (not onely from the beginning of this A&s;&s;embly, but before) to declare what they hold in Church-Government, then they can of the contrary.</P>
<P>Our Reverend Brother Ma&s;ter <HI>Dury</HI> in a Letter from the <HI>Hague, March</HI> 7. 1643. <HI>Stilo veteri,</HI> now publi&s;hed in Print, gives them this Te&s;timony, that <HI>He had required from them, but never could obtain, to know the true point of difference betwixt them, and the other Reformed Churches.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, the Brethren know that there are many Reverend Mini&s;ters of the City of <HI>London,</HI> and &s;ome Members of this A&s;&s;embly, that mu&s;t give them this Te&s;timony, That whereas there was, long before the &s;itting of this A&s;&s;embly, an agreement between &s;ome of the&s;e Brethren, and &s;undry Mini&s;ters of the City, That the Brethren &s;hould
<PB N="4" REF="3"> give in to them a Narrative of their way of Church-Government, that agreement was never yet performed, but on the contrary the Paper that was the Record thereof, was upon &s;ome pretence privately withdrawn by one of them out of the hands in which it was depo&s;ited, and was never to this day re&s;tored though often demanded, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> the Narrative exhibited though often de&s;ired.</P>
<P>Nay, and them&s;elves have given a publike Te&s;timony of no great Willingne&s;&s;e and Forwardne&s;&s;e to make known what ever they hold concerning Church Government, even &s;ince the beginning of the di&s;cu&s;&s;ions in this A&s;&s;embly, in that <HI>Apologetical Narration</HI> by them publi&s;hed: Which, how far it is from making known what ever they hold concerning Church-Government, we leave to them&s;elves to judge.</P>
<P>And when upon occa&s;ion of this <HI>Apologetical Narration,</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Apollonius</HI> being ap|pointed by the Cla&s;&s;is of <HI>Walacbria,</HI> to &s;et down the judgement of tho&s;e Churches, con|cerning the Controver&s;ies now agitated in <HI>England:</HI> Sent to them an expre&s;&s;e Letter, de&s;iring them to inform him what their Opinion was in tho&s;e Points, that he might not mi&s;take th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">m; he could not yet obtain it from them, as him&s;elf hath complained, and them&s;elves well know.</P>
<P N="2">II. <Q>Yet as a proof of their pretended Willingne&s;s, they tell us of their con|&s;tant, free and open expre&s;&s;ing of them&s;elves, upon all occa&s;ions, and in all que&s;tions propounded to the debate&punc;</Q></P>
<P>The&s;e are but words; we could as ea&s;ily, and might more truely &s;ay, they have been incon&s;tant, ob&s;cure, re&s;erved in expre&s;&s;ing them&s;elves, as they can &s;ay they <HI>have</HI> been con&s;tant, free and open. And whereas they &s;ay, <HI>They have done thou in all que&s;tions, and upon all occa&s;ions,</HI> we de&s;ire them to ask their own hearts, Whether they did ever clearly, and openly expre&s;&s;e them&s;elves, what they unanimou&s;ly hold in the great que&s;tion of <HI>Gathering Churches,</HI> or in the que&s;tion of the <HI>Power of the People,</HI> or in that of the qualification of <HI>Church Members,</HI> or Whether they did ever clearly and directly endeavour to prove that way of Church-Government, which they practi&s;e, to be the onely way <HI>Jure divino?</HI> Though they know they have been often urged to it, upon &s;everal occa&s;ions, and fair opportunities put into their hands; as in their Debates and Rea&s;ons again&s;t Presbyterial Government, and again&s;t Appeals, be&s;ides many others: And par|ticularly <HI>March</HI> 21, 1644. it was earne&s;tly pre&s;sed upon them by many in the A&s;sembly, That <HI>they would bring in what they thought farther needful, for the Reformation of our Congregations, and what they would de&s;ire in reference to their own.</HI> And the que&s;tion was formed up in tho&s;e terms, and a Vote ready to be pa&s;sed upon it, had not they them&s;elves then (who had been &s;ilent in it &s;o long as any objections were made again&s;t it by others) &s;o vehemently oppo&s;ed it, when we &s;aw the A&s;sembly ready to order it; which we conceive they would not have done, had they been &s;o willing as they would now he thought, freely and openly to expre&s;se them&s;elves upon all occa&s;ions, and to make known whatever they hold in Church-Government.</P>
<P N="3">III. <Q>As a further evidence of this their Willingne&s;se, they further in&s;tance their offers to give an open accompt at any time, in whatever &s;hould be asked by any Brother.</Q></P>
<P>We confe&s;se the&s;e Expre&s;&s;ions are large and high: <HI>An open account: At any time: In what ever: By any Brother.</HI> We beleeve our Brethren upon &s;econd Thoughts mu&s;t ab<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">te &s;omewhat of the&s;e large Expre&s;&s;ions; and that at lea&s;t &s;ome of them never made &s;uch in offer. But if there were &s;uch offers, and tho&s;e really intended by all of them; How is it then? That at this time when <HI>All</HI> the Brethren of this A&s;sembly, have de&s;ired a full Accompt of their way, and had expected it above &s;ix Moneths, they plainly ref<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e to bring it in.</P>
<P N="4">IV. <Q>As for their proffering to &s;tate que&s;tions to their own &s;ence&punc; We <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> it hath been u&s;ual with them many times, after &s;undry dayes &s;pent in the <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> a
<PB N="5" REF="3"> Propo&s;ition, and when it was now ripe for a que&s;tion, to de&s;ire to have it otherwi&s;e &s;tated: Which the A&s;&s;embly hath not &s;eldom granted, and them&s;elves have acknow|ledged it a favour. But when the que&s;tion hath been &s;tated by them, it hath been far more perplexed and ob&s;cured then it was before; as in that particular of Ordination which they in&s;tance in, and complain their Papers were laid a&s;ide: Of which we give this faithful and ju&s;t accompt.</Q></P>
<P>The Committee that was appointed to prepare Propo&s;itions about Ordination for the debate of the A&s;&s;embly, did, for their more clear and orderly progre&s;&s;e therein, ca&s;t the whole under the&s;e five que&s;tions. 1. What Ordination is? 2. Whether Ordination be nece&s;&s;ary to be continued in the Church? 3. Who are to Ordain? 4. What per&s;ons are to be Ordained, and how qualified? 5. The manner how &s;uch per&s;ons are to be Ordained.</P>
<P>In An&s;wer to the fir&s;t, this Propo&s;ition was brought in, <HI>That Ordination is the &s;o|lemn &s;etting apart of a per&s;on to &s;ome publike Church Office:</HI> Which, after the debate of a whole Se&s;&s;ion, was voted true <HI>Nemine contradicente.</HI> After four dayes &s;pent in the de|bate of &s;ome of the other particulars, and &s;ome progre&s;&s;e made in the third que&s;tion, our Brethren finding them&s;elves un&s;atisfied in that Propo&s;ition, concerning the &s;ub|&s;tance of Ordination (already re&s;olved <HI>Nemine contradicente)</HI> as in their apprehen&s;ion not &s;ufficiently expre&s;&s;ing the &s;ub&s;tance of it; The A&s;&s;embly thereupon ordered on the Wedne&s;day, <HI>That Ma&s;ter</HI> Goodwin, <HI>Ma&s;ter Ny, Ma&s;ter</HI> Burroughes, <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> Bridge, <HI>Ma&s;ter</HI> Simp&s;on, <HI>and Ma&s;ter</HI> Carter, <HI>Jun. Be a Committee to con&s;ider further of the &s;ub|&s;tance of the Act of Ordination, and to report to this A&s;&s;embly on Friday morning.</HI> And &s;o willing have our Brethren been to make known what ever they held, That this Order was not accepted without reluctancy by &s;ome of them, whereupon it was put to the que&s;tion, and re&s;olved by a Vote.</P>
<P>On Friday morning one of them brings in a report prefacing with <HI>thanks to the A&s;&s;embly, that they would give leave to a di&s;&s;enting party</HI> (&s;o they fir&s;t called them&s;elves before the A&s;&s;embly called them &s;o, and before they had formally entred any di&s;&s;ent,) <HI>to &s;et down their own &s;ence which they did in two Propo&s;itions, as followeth.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Ordination for the &s;ub&s;tance of it, is the &s;olemnization of an Officers outward call; in which, the Elders of the Church in the Name of Chri&s;t, and for the Church, do by a vi&s;ible &s;igne de&s;igne the per&s;on, and ratifie his Separation to his Office with Prayer for, and a ble&s;sing upon his gifts in the mini&s;tration thereof.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That the power which gives the formal being to an Officer, &s;hould be derived by Chri&s;ts In&s;titution from the power which is in Elders, as &s;uch, in the Act of Ordination, as yet we finde not any where held forth in the Word.</HI></P>
<P>The&s;e two Propo&s;itions were taken into con&s;ideration, and the A&s;&s;embly finding nothing in the&s;e Propo&s;itions concerning the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance of the Act of Ordination,</HI> more then what was in the fir&s;t Propo&s;ition, which the A&s;&s;embly had already voted; but rather a complication of &s;undry que&s;tions, &s;ome of which, the A&s;&s;embly had already re&s;olved, and others, the report which they had made progre&s;&s;e in, would more clearly and di&s;tinctly lead them to, and which, the A&s;&s;embly could not debate all at once; and be&s;ides, con&s;idering that many phra&s;es in the&s;e Propo&s;itions, were general and am|biguous, as namely, the term of <HI>Solemnization, Of Elders</HI> (whether onely Preaching Elders, or others al&s;o, which was a que&s;tion di&s;tinctly drawn up <HI>in terminis</HI> in the A&s;&s;embly) for <HI>the Church</HI> (though the Report interpreted that to be <HI>vice Eccle&s;iae,</HI> yet was it not &s;o expre&s;&s;ed in the words of the Paper) <HI>a vi&s;ible &s;igns de&s;igne the per&s;on:</HI> As al&s;o, that the &s;econd Propo&s;ition was not <HI>de veritate rei,</HI> but <HI>de veritate intellectus,</HI> the Language of it being, <HI>as yet we finde not any where held forth in the Word:</HI> Vpon the&s;e, and the like Con&s;iderations, their Paper was laid a&s;ide; and whether the A&s;&s;embly had
<PB N="6" REF="4"> not ju&s;t rea&s;on &s;o to do, let them judge who can di&s;tingui&s;h between per&s;picuity and ob&s;curity, between method and confu&s;ion.</P>
<P>However, the Brethren haue little rea&s;on to complain of laying a&s;ide their Paper, who know that the A&s;&s;embly have often laid by Papers received from the h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">ds of other Committees, as well as theirs, yea, and &s;everal Papers received from the Reverend Commi&s;&s;ioners of the Church of <HI>Scotland.</HI> And one of them, though tran&s;mitted by the Committee of Lords and Commons, and Divines appointed to treat with them, not a week before the laying a&s;ide of their Paper; when one of the&s;e Brethren argued earne&s;tly for the laying it a&s;ide, and that <HI>it &s;hould be le&s;t for the Comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">es to make u&s;e of, as then did of other Writings, and Books in Print.</HI></P>
<P N="5">V. <Q>And as little rea&s;on have they for their next complaint about Papers, <HI>which</HI> (they &s;ay) <HI>we of our &s;elves brought in, giving the &s;tate of the que&s;tion about that extra|ordinary way of Ordination.</HI></Q> The occa&s;ion of which Papers was this, The A&s;&s;embly not being likely &s;uddenly to perfect the whole <HI>Body</HI> of Government, that it might be &s;peedily e&s;tabli&s;hed in all the parts of it; and there being at pre&s;ent a great want of &s;ome way of Ordination for the pre&s;ent &s;upply of Mini&s;ters in the Army, the Navy, and many parts of the Kingdom; The Right Honourable Hou&s;e of Peers &s;ent an Or|der to the A&s;&s;embly to con&s;ider of expediting Ordination, becau&s;e of pre&s;ent Incon|veniences for want of it. Vpon the receipt of which Order, the A&s;&s;embly laid a&s;ide for the pre&s;ent, the con&s;ideration of the ordinary way of Ordination, which they were then upon, and appointed a Committee to bring in &s;omewhat concerning an extra|ordinary way of Ordination for the pre&s;ent nece&s;&s;ity, which Committee accordingly brought in the&s;e two Propo&s;itions.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>That in extraordinary ca&s;es, &s;omething extraordinary may be done, until a &s;ettled Order can be had, yet keeping as neer as po&s;sible may be to the Rule.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>That it is lawful according to the Word, That certain Mini&s;ters of the City be de&s;ired to ordain Mini&s;ters in the City, and the vicinity</HI> jure fraternitatis.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>After many dayes &s;pent in debate of tho&s;e Propo&s;itions, and &s;everal Votes pa&s;&s;ed about them, our Brethren not being &s;atisfied in the &s;tating of them, e&s;pecially of the latter, were oft de&s;ired &s;everal dayes by divers Brethren to propo&s;e how them&s;elves would have it &s;tated: Which they as oft declined, &s;aying, They could not do it pre&s;ent|ly; to which it was at la&s;t replied, That though at the fir&s;t motion they could not do it pre&s;ently, yet now the A&s;&s;embly had been already three dayes about the &s;tating of a que&s;tion; and this the fourth day, onely to &s;atisfie the&s;e Brethren, they now had had time to con&s;ider how they would have it &s;tated: Hereupon, one of them &s;tood up and &s;pake to this purpo&s;e, <HI>I &s;hould not have &s;aid thus, but that I was called upon; But it is not &s;o fair and rational a way, That as &s;oon as we object rationally again&s;t the &s;tating of a que&s;tion, it &s;hould be &s;aid, Then bring in a better &s;tate. Yet we have brought in a Paper as followeth.</HI></P>
<P><HI>For the &s;econd Propo&s;ition, That it is lawful according to the Word [that certain Mini&s;ters of the City of</HI> London, <HI>be de&s;ired to ordain Mini&s;ters in the vicinity</HI> jure fraternitatis] <HI>We conceive it doth really, and</HI> de facto <HI>&s;et up a Presbytery before the Government, that is the ground thereof be disputed. For the &s;ence of many of the Brethren in the debates, have repre|&s;ented this, &s;aying, That it was but a mould for other places, to be perfected and continued; &s;ome affirming it to be a Presbytery, another, that it was a Presbytery both materially and formally, but not in the formality, and urged &s;uch Arguments as for a Presbytery; another, that it was the Seed of a Presbytery.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Secondly, That it was an Act of Juri&s;diction, and therefore</HI> jure fraternitatis <HI>mu&s;t be left out; for a Presbytery is a company of divers Mini&s;ters in one City that joyn together to perform an Act of Juri&s;diction, and this</HI> 1 Tim. 4. 14. <HI>is made peculiarly to be the work of a</HI>
<PB N="7" REF="4"> <HI>Presbytery; from which place the continuance of a Presbytery is mainly argued.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Thirdly, If any thing be extraordinary in it, that is not in an ordinary Presbytery, yet the fir&s;t Propo&s;ition, &s;uppo&s;ing we mu&s;t come as neer as we can to the Rule, doth evidently &s;uppo&s;e that Presbytery is the Rule.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Fourthly, We cannot di&s;pute again&s;t it, but by bringing in all the Arguments again&s;t the Presbyterial Government, yet is would be denied us, as being be&s;ide the Propo&s;ition. This is the</HI> Gravamen <HI>we are under, the term extraordinary that wipes off all the Arguments again&s;t a Presbytery, and yet it is for the &s;ub&s;tance of it a Presbytery.</HI></P>
<P>And after him another of them gave in a Paper to this purpo&s;e;</P>
<P><HI>We conceive concerning this &s;econd Propo&s;ition, being connected with the fir&s;t, it is thereby made an extraordinary Act, coming a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> the Rule as may be; and yet the ordinary Rule for Ordination is not fir&s;t known, nor argued upon, nor the proportion, how far extraordinary, di&s;tinctly &s;et d<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">n, nor a paralel made with the in&s;tance in the fir&s;t Propo&s;ition, which all mu&s;t be done before this can be judged; a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> likewi&s;e, what our judgement it concerning Ordination and Elders. Our Judgement is this in the&s;e two head<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Ordination, and other like Acts of Church power, especially juri&s;diction, are ordinarily to be done by the Mini&s;ters and Officers of tho&s;e Churches whereof they are Officers, and by the con&s;ent of that Church: And &s;o as to this, that Preaching Presbyters are capable of the Act of Ordination, two things are more to be required:</HI> 1. <HI>That they be in Church relation.</HI></P>
<P>2. <HI>That then (if more) they be combined in a Presbytery of a Congregation: As Parlia|ment men, as &s;uch, may not make a Law, but its requi&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">; Fir&s;t, that they be of &s;uch a body politike, and then &s;econdly, that they be orderly <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word">.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That Mini&s;ters of another Church may not warrantably do it, as wanting this relation.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Now here are three things h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">h fle<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">, Fir&s;t, That they is not onely do it as an Act of Order, but of Juri&s;diction, in this Church where they have no relation. Secondly, Not in &s;uch Combination. Thirdly, For the&s;e Churches which are not within their Combi|nation.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e Papers,</HI> &s;ay they, <HI>which we of our &s;elves brought in, being read, were returned back unto us.</HI> To which we An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. This W<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> was but <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">wo of the&s;e &s;even, who brought in each of them a Paper, but neither of them pre&s;ented as the &s;ence of all the&s;e Brethren; but, for ought we know, as their &s;ingle &s;ence; &s;aving onely, that they u&s;ed the word We, which might give the A&s;&s;embly &s;ome ground to think it was the Act of &s;ome others; whereupon, about the end of the debute one of them was asked, In who&s;e name they pre&s;ented tho&s;e Papers, whether in his own name, or in the name of &s;ome others al&s;o, becau&s;e he &s;pake of We and U<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">? And th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> if it were in the name of others, it was de&s;ired it &s;hould be expre&s;&s;ed, who they were. But it was not even then affirmed by him to be given in, in the name of all the&s;e Brethren. But he excu&s;ed the word We, becau&s;e that others were upon the negative in the debute, as well as him&s;elf: Nor were they expre&s;&s;ely owned when pre&s;ented, but by a third per&s;on (&s;o far as either our notes or memories can inform us) who upon occa&s;ion of that que&s;tion &s;tood up and &s;aid, <HI>I own them with the re&s;t of the Brethren;</HI> but who the&s;e Brethren were, or how many of them, was not expre&s;&s;ed. And we que&s;tion, whether the&s;e &s;even Brethren will yet &s;ay, That all of them had &s;o much as &s;een them before they were brought in to the A&s;&s;embly: And therefore it &s;eems &s;omething &s;trange they &s;hould now all &s;ay, <HI>we our &s;elves</HI> (as in the Printed Paper) or <HI>We of our &s;elves</HI> (as in the Paper given in to the A&s;&s;embly) <HI>pre&s;ented Papers;</HI> when neither all did pre&s;ent Papers, nor did it of them&s;elves, but upon the reiterated motion of divers of the A&s;&s;embly.</P>
<P N="2">2. And as <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> is it they &s;hould &s;ay&punc; <HI>The&s;e Papers <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">he &s;tate of the question.</HI> It
<PB N="8" REF="5"> appears from tho&s;e Papers them&s;elves, that the one of tho&s;e Papers was nothing el&s;e but a troubling the &s;tate of the que&s;tion with cavils and jealou&s;ies, and undue com|plaints of <HI>Gravamina,</HI> as that they &s;hould be &s;urpri&s;ed, and by this means a Presbytery &s;et up before di&s;puted, and the like: To prevent which, and &s;atisfie them therein (&s;o little rea&s;on have they to complain of &s;lighting the&s;e Papers) the matter of extraordi|nary Ordination, notwith&s;tanding the Order of Parliament above mentioned, was left <HI>in medio</HI> the Se&s;&s;ion following, and the large di&s;pute of the lawfulne&s;&s;e of a Cla&s;&s;ical Presbytery di&s;patched, before we returned to it again; and then we fir&s;t &s;etled the ordinary way which was the Rule, before we concluded of the extraordinary way for the pre&s;ent nece&s;&s;ity. And the other of tho&s;e Papers was not a &s;tating the que&s;tion, but a di&s;puting and arguing the que&s;tion, and yet not properly that que&s;tion, of Ordi|nation in an extraordinary way, according to the pre&s;ent nece&s;&s;ity; but the que&s;tion of Ordination in an ordinary, and &s;etled way (which was the work the A&s;&s;embly had been about, for many dayes:) And, which after a re&s;olution in the A&s;&s;embly, had been pro|per for them to have put in by way of di&s;&s;ent (according as the Ordinance by which we &s;it, doth provide) but not while it was in agitation, by way of Argument. For our Brethren know the di&s;putes of the A&s;&s;embly are managed by &s;peaking, not by writing, and were it otherwi&s;e, the di&s;putes would be endle&s;&s;e.</P>
<P>The&s;e Papers therefore were as they &s;ay, returned back: Being but the &s;um of what the&s;e Brethren had objected and argued again&s;t the que&s;tion in the debates pa&s;t, and having therein been fully An&s;wered.</P>
<P N="6">VI. But whereas they &s;ay, <HI>It was profe&s;&s;ed publikely, that it was not an allowed way or cour&s;e of this A&s;&s;embly, for any of the Brethren to bring in Papers, unle&s;&s;e they were made a Committee.</HI></P>
<P>We &s;ay fir&s;t, po&s;&s;ibly the unwary Reader may think this and &s;ome other pa&s;&s;ages in their Paper, that &s;peak the &s;ame Language, to have been the publike Vote or Declaration of the A&s;&s;embly; which, whatever it were, was but the expre&s;&s;ion of one Brother: And our Brethren know well, that it hath been often a&s;&s;erted in this A&s;&s;embly, that nothing &s;poken by a particular Brother, can in equity be charged upon the whole A&s;&s;embly; or reputed us their &s;ence, unle&s;&s;e &s;o re&s;olved by Vote or Order of the A&s;&s;embly; el&s;e were the A&s;&s;embly accountable for every Speech of any of the&s;e Brethren di&s;&s;enters, as well as the Speech of any other.</P>
<P>And &s;econdly, It &s;eems very &s;trange, that it &s;hould be publikely declared, to be no allowed cour&s;e to give in Papers, when even at this time out Brethren had been de&s;ired to give in Papers, and no exception made again&s;t it (Though not &s;uch Papers.)</P>
<P>Thirdly, How capable the words &s;poken in the A&s;&s;embly at that time are of the &s;ence the&s;e Brethren put upon them, let the words them&s;elves declare, which were to this purpo&s;e, <HI>I &s;hall give you my thoughts in a few words to the Papers: It was expre&s;&s;ed before, upon what occa&s;ion the&s;e Brethren were de&s;ired to help the A&s;&s;embly, in that which they and we did apprehend to make us &s;tick: They have brought in two Papers, they &s;ay, in the nature of a</HI> Gravamen. <HI>I take it to be a</HI> Gravamen, <HI>and of ill con&s;equence for the time to come, when we have liberty to give in Rea&s;ons to the Hou&s;es, that they &s;hould in writing give in</HI> Gravamen<HI>'s to us. I &s;uppo&s;e the Honourable Hou&s;es have given no &s;uch power. I move, they may have their Papers delivered again, that we have no &s;uch Pre&s;idents.</HI> But our Brethren who can remember this, might plea&s;e to remember that it was at the &s;ame time proffered publikely, <HI>That if they would tender their Papers as Rea&s;ons of a di&s;&s;ent, we would &s;o receive them;</HI> But this was by them declined.</P>
<P>Fourthly, And as for <HI>&s;tating a question,</HI> our Brethren know very well, that it is no <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nu&s;ual cour&s;e, but very frequent in this A&s;&s;embly, for any particular Brother to tender the &s;tate of a que&s;tion in writing; which is &s;ometimes taken into debate, and &s;ome|times
<PB N="9" REF="5"> laid a&s;ide, as the A&s;&s;embly thinks fit; and &s;ometimes &s;everal &s;tatings of the &s;ame que&s;tion offered by &s;everal Brethren: of which, &s;ome one is pitched upon. Yea, and that very day after the giving back of the&s;e Papers, one of the&s;e Brethren among&s;t others, tendered two &s;everal &s;tatings of a que&s;tion in writing; So that our Brethren need not pretend their laying hold on one Example (as they &s;eem to do afterward) of &s;omething brought in by one Brother, and accepted, for their offering the &s;tate of a que&s;tion in writing: As if from the time of the giving back of the&s;e Papers, till the bringing in of the Seven Propo&s;itions there mentioned, there had been but one In&s;tance of a Paper tendered by a particular Brother, and accepted. Nor were they, as they here pretend, by the refu&s;al of the&s;e Papers, prevented for the time to come of doing the like, <HI>viz.</HI> The like to what the&s;e are pretended to be <HI>(Papers giving the &s;tate of the Que&s;tion)</HI> though perhaps they might be prevented of giving &s;uch Papers, as tho&s;e were (to wit, unju&s;t Complaints of grievances) in &s;uch a way.</P>
<P N="7">VII. <HI>Their Complaints about &s;tating the que&s;tion were,</HI> they &s;ay, <HI>frequent.</HI> We &s;ay &s;o to, and wi&s;h that &s;ome had not &s;et them&s;elves more to vex and puzzle the &s;tate of the que&s;tion, and to render a Propo&s;ition clearly &s;tated, perplex, and ob&s;cure, then to di&s;pute the truth or fal&s;hood of it by the Word of God: Who have &s;ometimes con|tended much again&s;t the &s;tating of the que&s;tion, which when it hath been re&s;olved on to be &s;o di&s;puted on <HI>in terminis,</HI> have neither di&s;puted, nor voted again&s;t it.</P>
<P>But thus we an&s;wer, Their Complaints were many times unju&s;t; for the Propo|&s;itions brought in to the A&s;&s;embly, were &s;tated by Committees, where the&s;e Brethren had the liberty, and it was their duty to have been pre&s;ent, being &s;ome of them Mem|bers of each Committee, and ought to have contributed their thoughts towards the &s;tating of que&s;tions there, and not to have troubled the A&s;&s;embly in this kinde; which yet they have often done, and often without cau&s;e: For many a time, when upon their quarrelling with the &s;tate of the que&s;tion, proffer hath been made to offer a fitter &s;tating of it, if they liked not this: It hath been replyed, <HI>They knew no &s;uch law nor the A&s;&s;embly, that who&s;oever findes fault with the &s;tating of a Que&s;tion, mu&s;t have this penalty laid upon him to finde a better.</HI> And yet their frequent Complaints about &s;tating the que&s;tion, received other An&s;wers then what they are now plea&s;ed to mention [viz. <HI>That the A&s;&s;embly &s;ate not to argue the Opinions of a few men]</HI> of which An&s;wer, we onely &s;ay thus much. Fir&s;t, That if there were &s;uch an An&s;wer given, it was but the An&s;wer of &s;ome one man, which the Brethren would, at lea&s;t by in&s;inuation charge upon the whole A&s;&s;embly. Secondly, We wi&s;h the&s;e words true; and, That the A&s;&s;embly had not &s;itten to debate the Opinion of a few men.</P>
<P N="8">VIII. The next thing they alleage, and <HI>which</HI> they &s;ay, is <HI>A &s;ufficient Te&s;timony of this their willingne&s;&s;e,</HI> is their <HI>earne&s;t contending to have &s;ome Que&s;tions, which</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>you all know are the greatest and mo&s;t fundamental points, fairly disputed and debated.</HI></P>
<P>To which we An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. Their earne&s;t contending for <HI>&s;ome Que&s;tions</HI> (wherein they might po&s;&s;ibly hope to advantage them&s;elves, either by dividing the A&s;&s;embly or otherwi&s;e) is no <HI>&s;ufficient Testimony</HI> of their <HI>constant willingne&s;&s;e, and forwardne&s;&s;e to make known what ever they hold in Church-Government:</HI> The rather becau&s;e,</P>
<P N="2">2. Many other points as Fundamental, in reference to differences between them and us, they have never offered to debate or prove, but have rather &s;hunned them when they have had fair opportunities before them, and Arguments put into their mouths: As for In&s;tance, when that que&s;tion was debated, <HI>The Scripture holds forth, that many particular Congregations may be under one Presbyterial Government,</HI> again&s;t which they di&s;puted about thirty dayes together; and (as hath been &s;aid by one of them publikely in the A&s;&s;em|bly) <HI>they mu&s;t confe&s;&s;e they had fair play;</HI> E&s;pecially they having the advantage to di&s;pute
<PB N="10" REF="6"> about half the time on the negative, before the A&s;&s;embly brought one Argument for the affirmative; yet all this time, though the Argument lay fair before them, if they had plea&s;ed to u&s;e it, <HI>That if every particular Congregation have all, and &s;ole power within them&s;elves Independently, then there may be no &s;uch Presbytery over many Congregations:</HI> And though it were often hinted to them, both then and at other times to u&s;e it, they &s;till declined it in their whole di&s;pute; and likewi&s;e in their Rea&s;ons exhibited to both the Honourable Hou&s;es of Parliament, in&s;i&s;ting mean while upon Arguments from Incongruities and Inconveniences. And when moved to u&s;e this Argument, from the In&s;titution of &s;uch intire Independent power in &s;ingle Congregations (which had been the faire&s;t way of di&s;puting again&s;t that Propo&s;ition) it was replyed, That the A&s;&s;embly was not to pre&s;cribe them their Arguments, but while they were Opponents, they might u&s;e what <HI>medium</HI> they thought fit. We might In&s;tance in many other points, which we all know to be great and Fundamental que&s;tions, in reference to that way of Church-Government which the Brethren practi&s;e, as</P>
<P N="1">1. Whether their gathering of Churches here in <HI>England,</HI> was ju&s;t, nece&s;&s;ary, &s;ea&s;onable.</P>
<P N="2">2. How far every particular man and woman may go according to their own judge|ment, in &s;eparating from tho&s;e Congregations wherein they have orderly Communi|cated.</P>
<P N="3">3 What power &s;ingle men and women have of Congregating them&s;elves together, to become a Church as their own di&s;cretion leads them, without the guidance of able Mini&s;ters, and Authority of the Magi&s;trate.</P>
<P N="4">4. Whether people &s;o congregated of their own accord, have all power within them|&s;elves for admitting or refu&s;ing Members, chu&s;ing or ordaining Officers.</P>
<P N="5">5. Whether people are to rule over their Officers.</P>
<P N="6">6. Whether every Congregation ought to have a di&s;tinct Presbytery, or whether many may not lawfully have one common Presbytery ruling immediately over them.</P>
<P>The&s;e and the like que&s;tions we know to be &s;ome of the greate&s;t and mo&s;t Funda|mental points (as to their way) but we do not remember, that ever they did earne&s;tly contend to have the&s;e que&s;tions fairly di&s;puted and debated: Neither do them&s;elves we think remember it.</P>
<P N="9">IX. To the two particulars they in&s;i&s;t upon (for they mention no more) as que&s;ti|ons which they contended to be debated; and which they &s;ay, is <HI>a &s;ufficient Te&s;timony of this their willingne&s;&s;e,</HI> (to make known what ever they hold in Church Government) We An&s;wer particularly.</P>
<P>To the fir&s;t of the&s;e, <HI>That there is a Platform of Government for the Churches under the Go&s;pel, laid down in the Scriptures.</HI> We An&s;wer,</P>
<P N="1">1. That it is a <HI>Fundamental point</HI> in reference to Church Government, we acknow|ledge; but deny that it is a <HI>Fundamental point of difference</HI> between the&s;e our Brethren, and the Presbyterians. For our Brethren may well know, that tho&s;e of the Reformed Churches who practi&s;e a Presbyterian Government, pleaded a <HI>Jus Divinum</HI> for their Government, long before this way of our Brethren was thought upon; and therefore, neither is their conteding for this que&s;tion, any &s;uch Argument of their willingne&s;&s;e to declare them&s;elves in Tenents that are peculiarly their own.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this que&s;tion, or &s;ome other to this purpo&s;e, was contended for to be debated in the A&s;&s;embly at the beginning of their debates about Church-Government, we do remember: But our Brethren may as well remember, that this motion was not onely theirs, but was as well contended for by the Commi&s;&s;ioners from <HI>Scotland,</HI> and many others in the A&s;&s;embly, as by them&s;elves; who did not yet finde them&s;elves agrieved that the major part of the A&s;&s;embly were not of their mindes in point of method.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="11" REF="6"> 3. That this que&s;tion was then&punc; for the pre&s;ent (after &s;ome debate) laid a&s;ide, we grant; but &s;ay withal, That the A&s;&s;embly conceived them&s;elves to have good rea&s;on &s;o to do, it being &s;o often urged as Immethodical to Vote a Platform to be laid down in Scripture, before we had ever inquired, Where it was &s;o laid down, or knew Whether we &s;hould finde &s;uch a Platform there: But, that if upon &s;earch after particulars, we could finde them in Scripture, the Re&s;olution of this que&s;tion, Whether there be any &s;uch Platform there, would be an ea&s;ie re&s;ult from the whole; but would at fir&s;t en|trance be found exceeding intricate and difficult. Which con&s;iderations, together with many others then alleaged, per&s;waded the A&s;&s;embly to lay a&s;ide that que&s;tion at pre&s;ent.</P>
<P N="4">4. But that this que&s;tion was &s;o laid a&s;ide, as never to be taken up or renewed in the &s;ub&s;equent debates; we think our Brethren have no cau&s;e to affirm. For that they may well remember, That after the A&s;&s;embly had concluded a Soveraign power of Govern|ment in Chri&s;t, the Head and King of his Church: And, that the Apo&s;tles had received the Keyes from the hand of Chri&s;t immediately, and did exerci&s;e them in all Churches of the world, upon all occa&s;ions, (which Method, the A&s;&s;embly conceived was a fair way of proceeding) they proceeded to inquire, Whether there were any &s;uch Govern|ment <HI>now</HI> in the Church? And did not onely debate it, but re&s;olved upon the que&s;tion <HI>nomine contradicente,</HI> That <HI>Christ hath in&s;tituted a Government and Governours Eccle&s;ia&s;tical, in the Church.</HI> And that <HI>he hath furni&s;hed &s;ome from time to time with Gifts for Govern|ment, and Commi&s;&s;ion to exerci&s;e the &s;ame when called thereunto.</HI> And this Antecedent to the main debates of Government, having not then Re&s;olved of any other ordinary Church-Officers, &s;ave onely Mini&s;ters of the Word, much le&s;&s;e of the Body of Government which hath been twice &s;ent up (among&s;t others) to the Honourable Hou&s;es of Parliament.</P>
<P N="5">5. Whereas they adde, That <HI>they de&s;ired it to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed, What are the &s;ure and certain wayes to finde out what of Government is held forth</HI> jure divino <HI>in Scripture.</HI> We know no other way of finding what of Government is held forth in Scripture, then by examining the &s;everal Arguments drawn from Scripture for the &s;everal parts of Government, as they came in order to be con&s;idered; and this way we have u&s;ed all along.</P>
<P N="6">6. Neither do we &s;ee any Rea&s;on for that Complaint of theirs, that <HI>by laying a&s;ide this que&s;tion</HI> at that time, <HI>their Arguments were cut off.</HI> For 1. That this was not wholly laid a&s;ide appears, we conceive, from what is &s;aid already. 2. Others who contended for that que&s;tion as well as them&s;elves, have found no &s;uch cau&s;e to complain of their Arguments being cut off; who might, for ought we &s;ee, have made as good u&s;e of Arguments drawn from &s;uch a head, as the&s;e our Brethren. 3. We cannot &s;ee how this principle, though granted on both &s;ides, is &s;uch <HI>a great and nece&s;&s;ary medium, by which the particulars &s;hould have been confirmed, and in a manner, the whole controver&s;ie decided,</HI> as they affirm. The Controver&s;ie between our Brethren and the Presbyterians not be|ing &s;o much, Whether there be a Government <HI>jure divino,</HI> as Whether it be this or that? Whether that which our Brethren pretend to and we deny, or that which the Re|formed Churches have &s;o long practi&s;ed and pleaded for, and they deny. 4. But if this were &s;o great and nece&s;&s;ary a <HI>medium</HI> for their Cau&s;e, the laying a&s;ide the Re&s;olution of the que&s;tion in the A&s;&s;embly, at that time was no hinderance, but that they might have u&s;ed it: For our Brethren very well know that they have u&s;ed other <HI>mediums,</HI> then what have been re&s;olved in the A&s;&s;embly, and might &s;o do without exception. And that they have been often called upon to u&s;e this <HI>medium</HI> for their particular way (as was &s;aid before) and would doubtle&s;&s;e have made u&s;e of it, if they could have made it out, That their way was thus in&s;tituted, which yet they never went about to prove. 5. And to conclude, If this were &s;o advantageous a ground for their Arguments, as they &s;eem here to make it; we have the more rea&s;on to beleeve that it was not meerly a
<PB N="12" REF="7"> <HI>willingne&s;&s;e to make known what ever they h<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ld,</HI> which was the cau&s;e of their contending for this que&s;tion, but rather &s;ome advantage they hoped to make of it.</P>
<P N="10">X. As to <HI>That other next great que&s;tion</HI> (as they call is) <HI>about the intire power of Con|gregations, that have a &s;ufficient Prebytery for all Con&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">r<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">s; which</HI> (&s;ay they) <HI>as it is the first in order, that pre&s;ents it &s;elf for di&s;cu&s;&s;ion, &s;o al&s;o it is one of the greate&s;t points in diffe|rence between us.</HI> We An&s;wer; 1. It is indeed one of the greate&s;t points in difference&punc; But &s;econdly, That it mu&s;t nece&s;&s;arily have the fir&s;t place in our di&s;cu&s;&s;ions, we deny. Our Brethren know the method of the A&s;&s;embly in the&s;e debates about Church Govern|ment, was this; We began with Chri&s;t the Head, the great King, Prie&s;t, and Prophet of his Church (as was intimated before) From him we proceeded to inquite of Offi|cers &s;et by him in his Church extraordinary and ordinary; then of the power of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;e Officers; after that, of the &s;ubject about which this power was exerci&s;ed. Fir&s;t, The general Church vi&s;ible, to which the Officers, Oracles, and Ordinances of the New Te&s;tament were given by Chri&s;t for the Edification thereof. Secondly, Particular vi&s;i|ble Churches Members of that general Church. This, though we do not contend to be the onely method, yet it was that which the A&s;&s;embly judged fitte&s;t to proceed in&punc; And we know not that our Brethren have ju&s;t rea&s;on to except again&s;t it, but that the A&s;|&s;embly might thus proceed. And what Rea&s;ons have been alleaged by them&s;elves or others (for it plea&s;ed them to intimate, that &s;ome others were of their Opinion in this point, of the order of our Di&s;putes) why in &s;ome particular que&s;tion the A&s;&s;embly &s;hould decline this Method, were either hearkned to or an&s;wered.</P>
<P N="11">XI. And whereas it is &s;aid to be <HI>expre&s;ly commended by the Grand Committee of th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> Honourable Members of both Hou&s;es.</HI> We An&s;wer;</P>
<P N="1">1. We do not know, that the &s;aid Grand Committee did at any time recommend it to the A&s;sembly to debate, <HI>The entire power of particular Congregations which have a &s;ufficient Presbytery for all Cen&s;ures,</HI> as our Brethren here a&s;&s;ert.</P>
<P N="2">2. But we acknowledge, that the &s;aid Honorable Committee did recommend &s;ame other que&s;tions far otherwi&s;e &s;tated, of which the A&s;&s;embly returned &s;uch An&s;wer, as (for ought we know to the contrary) they were &s;atisfied with; as may appear by the Order of the &s;aid Committee; and the A&s;&s;emblies An&s;wer to it, which &s;o &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> as they concern the pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, we have thought fit here to in&s;ert.</P>
<P>Augu&s;t 19. 1644. <HI>At the Committee of Lords and Comment, A&s;&s;embly of Divines, and Commi&s;&s;ioners for the Church of</HI> Scotland <HI>re&s;olved.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>That the A&s;&s;embly be de&s;ired to return to the debate about Church-Government, as &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">n as they have done with Ordination.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That they then take into their debate the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Excommunication, and therein <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> di&s;cu&s;&s;e the&s;e three que&s;tions in order:</HI> 1. <HI>Whether there be &s;uch an Ordinance as Excommun|nication, and what it is.</HI> 2. <HI>Whether particular Congregations may Excommunicate.</HI> 3. <HI>Whether Cla&s;&s;ical Presbyteries, and greater A&s;&s;emblies may Excommunicate.</HI></P>
<P>After which, the A&s;&s;embly received from the &s;aid Committee another Order as followeth.</P>
<FLOATEXT LANG="eng" TYPE="order">
<HEAD><HI>At a Committee of Lords and Commons, and A&s;&s;embly of Divines, appointed <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 span"> with the Commi&s;&s;ioners of the Church of</HI> Scotland.</HEAD>
<OPENER><DATELINE><DATE><HI>October</HI> 11. 1644.</DATE></DATELINE> <HI>Re&s;olved, &amp;c.</HI></OPENER>
<P><HI>That whereas about two moneths &s;ince, this Committee did among other particular<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> which they recommended to the A&s;&s;embly of Divines, de&s;ire of them, That when they did return unto the debate of Church-Government, they would then di&s;cu&s;&s;e the matter of Excommunication, and therein to debate the&s;e three particulars in this Method and Order.</HI> 1. <HI>Whether there be &s;uch an Ordinance as Excommunication, and what it is.</HI> 2. <HI>Whether particular Congregations</HI>
<PB N="13" REF="7"> <HI>may exerci&s;e it.</HI> 3. <HI>Whether Cla&s;&s;ical Presbyteries and Synods may exerci&s;e it. The A&s;&s;embly be intreated to return in writing, what they have done in the &s;aid particulars, and that this Committee may receive an An&s;wer at their next meeting on Tue&s;day next.</HI></P>
</FLOATEXT>
<P>To which Order the A&s;&s;embly did accordingly return an An&s;wer, as was de&s;ired, which (after an accompt of what was done in Reference to the three fir&s;t Reque&s;ts of the former Order) was as followeth.</P>
<FLOATEXT LANG="eng" TYPE="answer">
<P><HI>Upon September</HI> 4. <HI>the A&s;&s;embly having fini&s;hed the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Ordination, &amp;c. The Report of the Grand Committee was de&s;ired to be taken into con&s;ideration again, and in the debate thereof, according to the fourth de&s;ire of the Committee, it was ordered, That the A&s;&s;em|bly &s;hould return to the debate about Government. It was farther debated, whether the A&s;|&s;embly &s;hould proceed according to the Method of the Grand Committee, expre&s;&s;ed in the fifth and la&s;t de&s;ire. This was moved by &s;ome of the Members of the A&s;&s;embly; others moved to proceed upon the Report of the first Committee concerning &s;ome additional proofs for the Pres|bytery, over more Congregations then one. Others moved to con&s;ider of the Report of the Committee for the &s;ummary, in ca&s;e the A&s;&s;embly did not think fit to proceed in the Method of the Grand Committee: Others moved next to con&s;ider of the &s;everal &s;orts of A&s;&s;emblies for Government, and their &s;ubordination. This la&s;t was urged by the Commi&s;&s;ioners of</HI> Scotland, <HI>partly, that &s;o the A&s;&s;embly might hold out what Government they would advi&s;e the Parliament unto; which would be of great u&s;e for the perfecting the Propo&s;itions agreed upon by both King|doms; and partly, becau&s;e it was agreeable to the cour&s;e of the A&s;&s;embly, to debate tho&s;e things fir&s;t wherein the A&s;&s;embly would be most uninamous. After a large debate it was Re&s;olved, that this &s;hall be next debated, That it is agreeable to the Word of God, that the Church be Governed by &s;everal &s;orts of A&s;&s;emblies. The A&s;&s;embly accordingly proceeded in that debate, and having concluded of the &s;everal &s;orts of A&s;&s;emblies, and the Members of them, were en|tring upon the Con&s;ideration of the &s;ubordination of them, and the power that they have in common: When it was upon the</HI> 23 <HI>of</HI> September <HI>moved to con&s;ider what to do with Excom|munication, whether to refer it to a new Committee, or to the &s;econd Committee to perfect the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Excommunication, which was formerly committed to them. Whereupon it was Ordered, That the &s;econd Committee &s;hall perfect their Report concerning Excommunication with all convenient &s;peed.</HI></P>
<P><HI>The &s;econd Committee met accordingly, and upon the eight of</HI> October <HI>made their Report, in which Se&s;&s;ion the A&s;&s;embly fini&s;hed the la&s;t Propo&s;ition that they had in debate about the power of A&s;&s;emblies in Common, &amp;c.</HI> [viz. <HI>It is lawful and agreeable to the Word of God, tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> all the &s;aid A&s;&s;embly have &s;ome power to dispence Church cen&s;ures] This Propo&s;ition being Re<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">ved, it was Ordered to debate the Report of the &s;econd Committee: Which the A&s;&s;embly hath now entred upon. But for the point of Method they have concluded nothing, but it is yet free for the A&s;&s;embly to take what Method they &s;hall &s;ee fit.</HI></P>
</FLOATEXT>
<P>By which Papers it appears, what were the particulars recommended to the A&s;&s;embly by the &s;aid Grand Committee; and that they had hitherto fulfilled their de&s;ires. Onely (for the Rea&s;ons therein alleaged) they had interpo&s;ed a debate concerning the &s;everal A&s;&s;emblies for Government, and concluded that <HI>there was &s;uch A&s;&s;emblies</HI> before they con&s;idered <HI>what they might do;</HI> And, <HI>That they had &s;ome power in cen&s;ure,</HI> before they came to that particular, <HI>Whether they might Excommunicate.</HI> And in that point of Excommunication recommended, they had not as yet departed from the Method, but were in debate of the Report of a Committee appointed to draw up Propo&s;itions con|cerning it, and had not proceeded beyond what was in An&s;wer to the fir&s;t of the three particulars propo&s;ed. <HI>viz. Whether there were &s;uch an Ordinance as Excommunication, and what it is.</HI> And, whether the A&s;&s;embly did afterward break that Method de&s;ired, or
<PB N="14" REF="8"> were ju&s;tly blameable herein, will appear by what follows in our An&s;wer to what they charge us with.</P>
<P N="12">XII. Two things there are, wherewith our Brethren charge us in this matter, (viz. <HI>The entire power of Congregations which have a &s;ufficient Presbytery for all Con&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">es)</HI> 1. <HI>That the debate of this was denyed the fir&s;t place.</HI> 2. <HI>That it was to this day declined by us,</HI> though thus and thus urged, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></P>
<P>The fir&s;t branch of which Charge, we conceive to have no great weight, partly by Rea&s;on of what we have &s;aid before, and partly, becau&s;e breach of Method in the Or|der of debates, if the A&s;&s;embly &s;hould be guilty of it (which doth not yet appear in this particular) would not be accounted any great crime by tho&s;e who know the na|ture of &s;uch proceedings. The &s;econd we confe&s;&s;e, if true, had &s;ome more weight in it, and might &s;eem a Charge of con&s;equence, if the A&s;&s;embly in their whole debates of Church-Government &s;hould yet never from fir&s;t to la&s;t, con&s;ider what power is to be allowed to particular Congregations. But we &s;hall An&s;wer particularly to both, branches of this Charge, and to the latter fir&s;t.</P>
<P>To this therefore: Fir&s;t, Will our Brethren upon &s;econd thoughts a&s;&s;ert, That to this day the A&s;&s;embly hath declined it. Was the power of Congregations never before the A&s;&s;embly? Were there no debates upon it? Were there no que&s;tions formed up? No Re&s;olutions on it? No Propo&s;itions of that nature &s;ent up to the Honourable Hou&s;es of Parliament? Surely there were, and our Brethren, we think, cannot deny it. If they have forgotten us we &s;hall put them in minde of &s;ome. Our Brethren may remember, that there were large debates in the A&s;&s;embly concerning a difference, much in&s;i&s;ted upon by our Brethren, between <HI>Congregations fixed in their Officers and Members, having a Presbytery of their own, and Congregations not fixed, but fluid:</HI> Whether &s;uch <HI>fixed</HI> Congregations as well as tho&s;e <HI>not fixed,</HI> might be united under one Cla&s;&s;ical Presbytery: Which was argued at large in the A&s;&s;embly, from <HI>April</HI> 4. 1644. till the fifteenth following.</P>
<P>Our Brethren may remember further, that there were many debates and re&s;olutions in the A&s;&s;embly about particular Congregations, <HI>Whether &s;uch ought to be? Of what Members they con&s;i&s;t? How divided and bounded? What Officers? And what Ordinances ought to be in &s;uch Congregations,</HI> from the &s;aid <HI>April</HI> 15. till <HI>May</HI> 6. following.</P>
<P>Our Brethren may remember likewi&s;e, that there was this Negative brought in by a Committee of the A&s;&s;embly, of which &s;ome of the&s;e Brethren were Members, <HI>This no &s;ingle Congregation may ordinarily a&s;&s;ume to it &s;elf all and &s;ole power in Elections, Ordina|tions, or Cen&s;ures, or in Forin&s;ecal determining Controver&s;ies of Faith, Ca&s;es of Con&s;cience, and things indifferent.</HI> Which que&s;tion, we conceive doth fully reach the debate, which they &s;ay, they &s;o much de&s;ired, and was largely debated in the A&s;&s;embly (fir&s;t for &s;ome dayes intirely, and afterward <HI>per partes)</HI> in &s;everal Se&s;&s;ions from that <HI>May</HI> 6. 1644. till <HI>May</HI> 16 then following, and many Re&s;olves of the A&s;&s;embly upon it: And among the re&s;t, this for one (after a long debate) <HI>That no particular Congregation which can con|veniently A&s;&s;ociate may a&s;&s;ume to it &s;elf all and &s;ole power in Ordination.</HI> Which was after|ward alleniated by prefixing &s;ome words upon a di&s;tinct <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ote thus, <HI>It is very requi&s;ite</HI> that no particular Congregation do a&s;&s;ume, <HI>&amp;c,</HI> and Arguments were brought in and voted by the A&s;&s;embly for the proving of it, and &s;ent up to both Hou&s;es of Parliament.</P>
<P>Our Brethren likewi&s;e may remember, that the A&s;&s;embly procee<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed in debating the <HI>power of Elder&s;hips in particular Congregations,</HI> till <HI>May</HI> 20 following; and it was in &s;everal Votes Re&s;olved, <HI>That they have power authoritatively to call before them any per&s;on within the Congregation, as there &s;hall be ju&s;t occa&s;ion; to inquire into the knowledge and spiritual e&s;tate of any Member of the Congregation; to admoni&s;h and rebuke,</HI> Which Votes have been likewi&s;e &s;ent up to the Hou&s;es of Parliament.</P>
<PB N="15" REF="8">
<P> Our Brethren likewi&s;e may remember, that the A&s;&s;embly then proceeded to debate, Whether <HI>they have power authoritatively to &s;uspend from the Sacrament, a per&s;on not Excom|municated.</HI> In five &s;everal Se&s;&s;ions, from <HI>May</HI> 20, till <HI>May</HI> 24; and again, <HI>October</HI> 24 and 25 following: And Re&s;olved it affirmatively, and carried up their &s;aid Re&s;olution with the Proofs annexed.</P>
<P>And when we &s;hould have proceeded farther about the &s;eat of the power of Excom|munication, we con&s;ulted wayes of Accommodation. Which bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Accommo|dation was thus occa&s;ioned, and thus carried on.</P>
<P>The A&s;&s;embly having fully and unanimou&s;ly agreed, that <HI>Excommunication is an Or|dinance of Chri&s;t;</HI> found their progre&s;&s;e in the further debate of that &s;ubject, made difficult by &s;ome diver&s;ity of judgements, which appeared among them concerning the proper &s;eat of the power of Excommunication. Towards the compo&s;ing of which Differences, &s;ome of the Members of the A&s;&s;embly drew up certain Directions for the Admini&s;tration of Church <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">en&s;ures in the Church; which being communicated pri|vately to &s;ome other Brethren, were with their con&s;ent and liking, brought into the A&s;&s;embly; where being read, it was excepted again&s;t by one of the&s;e di&s;&s;enting Bre|thren (to whom it had been before Communicated, and left &s;ome time in his hands to advi&s;e upon) <HI>That this which was tendred, did accommodate the difference about the &s;eat of the power of Excommunication, as to two parties that differed, but not as to the third;</HI> and moved withal <HI>that that point might be committed to an equal number of each part, to &s;ee if they might finde a way of Accommodation that all might agree in.</HI> This motion was a&s;&s;ented to, and the thing &s;o committed, and (after &s;ome dayes &s;pent in con&s;ultation) <HI>Jan.</HI> 10. 1644. there was a Report brought in as an Accommodation, and &s;o agreed on by that whole Committee, <HI>Nemine contradicente,</HI> and as &s;uch pre&s;ented to the A&s;&s;embly, and &s;uch received by them, with expre&s;&s;ion of much content and joy therein.</P>
<P><HI>Jan.</HI> 14. It was urged by one of the&s;e Brethren, that having now accommodated in one point (in the &s;eat of the power of Excommunication) it would be to their prejudice, unle&s;&s;e all other particulars expre&s;&s;ed in the Paper might be accommodated al&s;o. Vpon this, the whole was committed; both what was before concluded, and what was yet remaining to be di&s;cu&s;&s;ed. And out of a tender de&s;ire not to break with our Brethren in this great point of Excommunication, wherein we hoped we had &s;o happily begun to accommodate; there was &s;uch condi&s;cention to them, as that in conclu&s;ion (that clau&s;e onely excepted which concerns the Order, Peace and Vnity, which Chri&s;t hath e&s;tabli&s;hed in his Church) that whole Directory of Excommunication, both for matter and words, is as we conceive, according to our Brethrens minde. And the A&s;&s;embly to gratifie them, and out of an earne&s;t de&s;ire and expectation of an accommodation with them, did expre&s;&s;e many, if not mo&s;t of the particulars in that Directory, in &s;uch terms and after &s;uch a manner, as otherwi&s;e they would not have done: Yet after all this, when that Paper was Voted to be &s;ent up to the Honorable Hou&s;es of Parliament as an Accommodation: The&s;: Brethren, contrary to what we expected, entred <HI>their di&s;&s;ent to this as an Accommodation;</HI> Which them&s;elves moved, and which had the concurre<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">e of their Votes (<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 word"> Clau&s;e excepted) all along. And by this means have left us bound by our own Votes, and them&s;elves at liberty to practi&s;e what they plea&s;e in Church Cen|&s;ures. Their di&s;&s;ent was as followeth.</P>
<FLOATEXT LANG="eng" TYPE="dissent">
<OPENER><DATELINE><DATE><HI>Feb.</HI> 3. 1644.</DATE></DATELINE></OPENER>
<HEAD>The di&s;&s;ent of the Brethren, who&s;e names are underwritten.</HEAD>
<P><HI>We and divers others in the A&s;&s;embly, having held forth all along this treaty of Accom|modation, that the intent thereof was, That there being different Judgements in this A&s;&s;embly about Excommunication; the words of this Directory are &s;o penned for Accommodation of</HI>
<PB N="16" REF="9"> <HI>all, that each may retain their &s;en&s;e and practi&s;e of the Cen&s;ures in the Church accordingly, without breaking the common Rule: We who&s;e names are under written do enter our di&s;&s;ent to it as an Accommodation in any other &s;ence,</HI></P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thomas Goodwin, William Bridge, Ieremy Burroughs, Phillip Ny, William Carter.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</FLOATEXT>
<P>To which di&s;&s;ent we did then and do now give this An&s;wer, <HI>That our Brethren then</HI> (when the Accommodation was brought into the A&s;&s;embly, and as &s;uch accepted) <HI>put in no &s;uch re&s;triction as now they do, of excepting it as an Accommodation in &s;uch or &s;uch a &s;ence; nay, the Reporter made it a reque&s;t from the Committee to the A&s;&s;embly, That the form of words there agreed upon, might be accepted, and the &s;ence not debated at all. And our Bre|thren know it was &s;o.</HI></P>
<P>2. <HI>Although they did &s;ometimes in the en&s;uing debates, mention &s;uch a &s;ence, yet never urged to have this expre&s;&s;ed as the &s;ence, intent, or condition of the Accommodation, till the very day of their entring their di&s;&s;ent.</HI></P>
<P>3. <HI>Although one of the di&s;&s;enting Brethren, did</HI> Ianuary 14. <HI>occa&s;ionally in another occa&s;i|on mention differing practi&s;es that might be in admini&s;tring Church Cen&s;ures, yet this was not pleaded for, no not by him, as the &s;ence or condition of the Accommodation.</HI></P>
<P>4. <HI>But the very mention of it was by him who had brought in the Report for Accommo|dation, condemned as a thing injurious and prejudicial to Accommodation. So far was it from being held forth as the &s;ence of the Committee or A&s;&s;embly.</HI></P>
<P><HI>However we de&s;ire it may be ob&s;erved the di&s;&s;ent our Brethren enter here, is not to this Directory, as not agreeable to the Word of God; but, as not being &s;uch an Accommodation as will &s;erve them.</HI></P>
<P>All this being con&s;idered (be&s;ides other debates, both before and &s;ince, concerning particular Congregations) we beleeve our Brethren have no cau&s;e to Charge us with laying a&s;ide to this day, the debate of the intire power of particular Congregations, which have a &s;ufficient Presbytery for all Church Cen&s;ures.</P>
<P N="13">XIII. And thus having cleared our &s;elves from the main Charge, and &s;hewed that it was not declined to this day: We &s;hall with ea&s;e acquit our &s;elves of the other al&s;o, about <HI>denying it the fir&s;t place;</HI> for neither is this ju&s;tly charged upon us. Whether the debate of the power of particular Congregations, might ju&s;tly challenge <HI>the fir&s;t place (viz.</HI> Before the debates about the power of <HI>Cla&s;&s;es</HI> and <HI>Synods)</HI> or not; yet we are &s;ure it hath had the <HI>fir&s;t place in the debates of the A&s;&s;embly.</HI> For all tho&s;e Votes and Re&s;olutions forementioned, concerning the power of particular Congrega|tions, were pa&s;&s;ed long before the power, either of <HI>Cla&s;&s;es</HI> or <HI>Synods,</HI> was concluded or debated; &s;o that neither was it <HI>declined to this day,</HI> nor was it <HI>denied the fir&s;t place.</HI></P>
<P N="14">XIV. After all this, as a further evidence of their willingne&s;&s;e to di&s;pute their way, <Q>they mention a Paper delivered in the Honorable Committee appointed by the Honourable Hou&s;e of Commons, to finde out wayes of Accommodating different judgements in the A&s;&s;embly.</Q></P>
<P>Now, though it might &s;ufficiently clear the <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> to An&s;wer that no &s;uch Papers were ever reported to the <HI>A&s;&s;embly;</HI> and therefore the <HI>A&s;&s;embly</HI> cannot be accountable for them; yet we further adde;</P>
<P N="1">1. That this Paper was not the Act of tho&s;e Brethren, nor of any party of them alone, but of four other Members of this A&s;&s;embly joyned with two of them in a Sub-Com|mittee, as them&s;elves acknowledge.</P>
<P N="2">2. That this Paper in the utmo&s;t they can &s;ay of it, did but hold out the <HI>main</HI> and <HI>mo&s;t</HI> of what they practically de&s;ired; and how can a Paper which was the Act of o|thers as well as of them&s;elves, and contained but mo&s;t of what they practically de&s;ired, be a &s;uffiient Proof and Evidence of their willingne&s;&s;e to make known what ever they held?</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="17" REF="9"> 3. There were &s;ome nine Propo&s;itions prepared by the Sub-Committee, in all which they, did not agree; but the parties did in mo&s;t of them counterlock one ano|ther. At the foot of the&s;e Propo&s;itions; as we are Informed by the Chair-man of that Committee, was written as followeth, <HI>We having weighed our Brethrens principles, do finde no probability of Accommodation for them ordinarily to enjoy Congregations: Unle&s;&s;e, when it &s;hall happen in a Pari&s;h, that the Minister cannot Admini&s;ter the Sacraments to all in the Pari&s;h, whom po&s;&s;ibly the Neighbour Mini&s;ters, or the Cla&s;&s;i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> may judge fit to be admitted, &s;uch per&s;ons &s;hall have power to procure to them&s;elves the Sacraments, either by the help of a Neighbour Mini&s;ter, or &s;ome other provi&s;ion he made by a proportionable allowance, out of the Tithes, according to the wi&s;dom of the &s;tate.</HI></P>
<P>Whereunto our Brethren adde as followeth, <HI>Or otherwi&s;e, if in a Pari&s;h it happen there be a con&s;iderable number of &s;uch as cannot partake in the Sacraments with the Mini&s;ter and people, they &s;hall have liberty to di&s;po&s;e of them&s;elves, as a di&s;tinct Church, and to choo&s;e a Mini&s;ter or Mini&s;ters as their own charge to be maintained to be their Pa&s;tor.</HI></P>
<P><HI>If &s;uch a liberty &s;hall &s;e<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> to the wi&s;dom of this Honourable Committee to be &s;o prejudici|al to the peace of the Church, as not to be permitted, we humbly de&s;ire the Doctrinal Principles wherein we differ about Church Government, be taken into &s;erious con&s;ideration, and &s;ome other way of Accommodation in practi&s;e be thought upon, as &s;hall &s;eem fit to this Honourable Committee.</HI></P>
<P><Q>This &s;ay the Brethren was pre&s;ented to that Honourable Committee to be tran&s;|mitted, whether to the Honourable Hou&s;es, or to the A&s;&s;embly, as they &s;hould think meet: But before any &s;uch thing could be done, it plea&s;ed the Honourable Hou&s;e of Commons to &s;uper&s;ede the whole bu&s;ine&s;&s;e.</Q></P>
<P N="15">XV. <Q>They yet pre&s;&s;e us farther with Papers, and tell us, How upon occa&s;ion of &s;omething brought in by one Brother and entertained, they took hold of that example; and one of them with con&s;ent of the re&s;t brought in &s;even Propo&s;itions containing matter of difference betwixt us, profe&s;&s;ing, that if this Reverend A&s;&s;embly would debate them, or any one of them, they would bring in more, until they had brought in the whole frame; and the A&s;&s;embly them&s;elves &s;hould pick and choo&s;e what they would debate, and what not: The&s;e Propo&s;itions &s;ay they, were rejected with a re|fu&s;al to debate any one of them.</Q></P>
<P>The true &s;tory of this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e &s;tands thus, On <HI>March</HI> 2<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">. 1644. it was earne&s;tly de&s;ired by &s;everal Members of the A&s;&s;embly, that the <HI>Brethren, the di&s;&s;enters, might be intreated to be a Committee, to bring in what they thought further needful for the reforming of our Congregations, and what they would de&s;ire in reference to their own,</HI> as hath been touched already. This was by tho&s;e of the <HI>Brethren di&s;&s;enters</HI> who were then pre&s;ent oppo&s;ed with greate&s;t vigour: After &s;ome time &s;pent in the debate of the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, when the que&s;tion was drawn up <HI>in terminis,</HI> and ready to be put, perceiving the extreme aver&s;e|ne&s;&s;e which was in the&s;e Brethren to undertake &s;uch a work we forbare putting the que&s;tion, l<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;t the Brethren &s;hould complain, as they do in this Paper, of our <HI>impo&s;ing upon them.</HI></P>
<P>What Councels the Brethren took we know not, but <HI>March</HI> following after an In|timation given in the A&s;&s;embly by a Brother, who was none of the&s;e di&s;&s;enters, That one of the&s;e Brethren hid &s;omething to offer about the <HI>rights of particular Congregations;</HI> and a motion made and a&s;&s;ented to that he might bring it in: One of them after &s;ome Expre&s;&s;ions of unwillingne&s;&s;e, drew forth a Paper containing <HI>&s;even Propo&s;itions,</HI> and this was the true occa&s;ion of their bringing in the&s;e Propo&s;itions, and nor as they pre|tend <HI>their voluntary taking-hold of a Paper brought in by another Brother.</HI> The Propo&s;iti|ons (&s;o far as our Notes and Records will help us) were as followeth.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>That there is a platform of Church-Government for the Church, laid down in Scripture.</HI></ITEM>
<PB N="18" REF="10">
<ITEM> 2. <HI>That this is immutable, and binding the con&s;cience to the ob&s;ervation thereof.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>3. <HI>That the Officers which are to be imployed in tho&s;e Churches, as Pa&s;tors, Teachers, Ruling Elders, and Deacons, are of divine In&s;titution.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>4. <HI>That the people have an Intere&s;t in the choice of the&s;e Officers.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>5. <HI>That the&s;e Officers are to be de&s;igned each of them to their Functions, by impo&s;ition of hands, and by Prayer.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>6. <HI>That what power the&s;e &s;hould have, and over whom they &s;hould have it, is of divine In&s;titution.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>7. <HI>Where there is a &s;ufficient number of Presbyters in any one Congregation, then may the two great Ordinances of Excommunication and Ordination be Admini&s;tred.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The&s;e Propo&s;itions we conceive were brought in by the <HI>con&s;ent of all the&s;e Brethren,</HI> becau&s;e now they &s;ay &s;o, which is more then them&s;elves affirm of any of their other Papers, unle&s;&s;e the fir&s;t which was given in about Ordination; yet them&s;elves in the debate of them, did not agree upon &s;ome of the termes, nor will they we &s;uppo&s;e &s;ay That all the&s;e Propo&s;itions contain matter of difference betwixt us.</P>
<P>But as to the laying of the&s;e Propo&s;itions a&s;ide, we An&s;wer.</P>
<P N="1">1. The&s;e Propo&s;itions were not to the purpo&s;e of what was then before the A&s;&s;em|bly, nor what was de&s;ired, and expected from us, <HI>viz. What they thought further needful in the Reformation of our Congregations; and what they de&s;ired in reference to their own.</HI> All or mo&s;t of what the&s;e Propo&s;itions contain, having been before debated in the A&s;&s;embly.</P>
<P N="2">2. They were not tendred as already formed up for di&s;pute, but it was added by him that brought them in, <HI>The&s;e Propo&s;itions we are ready to form up, if the A&s;&s;embly think fit.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. It was then particularly objected, that they had not brought them in with Scrip|tures and Proofs annexed, as had been formerly u&s;ed in Committees, and offer made &s;everal times, that if they would bring them in with proofs annexed, the A&s;&s;embly was ready to receive them.</P>
<P N="4">4. Neither indeed can they be &s;aid properly to be brought into the A&s;&s;embly; for when the Reporter had read them, he put them up again without leaving either the original, or a Copy of them in the A&s;&s;embly, and refu&s;ed to give them in, though cal|led for by divers; as likewi&s;e another time, another of the&s;e Brethren, having delivered a Paper to a Committee of the A&s;&s;embly for Accommodation, de&s;ired afterwards, that he might have it to peru&s;e and tran&s;cribe it; which being obtained, we could never re|cover from him to this day, either the Paper, or a Copy of it; and when it hath been called for in the A&s;&s;embly (as it hath been very often) he &s;till replyed, that he had it not about him, onely once he drew it out, and read it over in the A&s;&s;embly, with &s;peed more then enough, and being de&s;ired then to deliver it in, he refu&s;ed then to deliver it in to the A&s;&s;embly, but &s;aid, if he mu&s;t deliver it again, he would deliver it to the Chair-man of that Committee from whence he had it; who not being then pre&s;ent, did not then or &s;ince receive it from him; though a Paper much called for, and de&s;ired, and often demanded by that Chair-man.</P>
<P>All this while the Brethren have been complaining about Papers they brought in to the A&s;&s;embly: But all this is but to &s;hape an excu&s;e for their not bringing in Papers as was expected, <HI>viz. Their Frame or Model of Church-Government,</HI> according to the de&s;ire and order of the A&s;&s;embly.</P>
<P N="16">XVI. <Q>The occa&s;ion of which Order was indeed, as they &s;ay, A Book intituled <HI>The Way of the Churches of Chri&s;t in New England,</HI> and publi&s;hed here by <HI>N. H.</HI> and <HI>J. H.</HI> who in their Epi&s;tle to the Reader &s;ay, they have been informed that the&s;e their Brethren (&s;peaking of the di&s;&s;enting Brethren in this A&s;&s;embly) formerly tendred them&s;elves, that in ea&s;e they might be put into a Committee or like meet
<PB N="19" REF="10"> po&s;ture, they would bring in the whole Frame of their judgements in a body, with their Grounds and Rea&s;ons, That now very lately they gave in Propo&s;itions to be di&s;cau&s;ed with promi&s;e of more; but neither of them was debated.</Q></P>
<P><HI>This Book &s;ay the Brethren they had no band in, no knowledge of;</HI> but they do not &s;ay they had no hand in giving Information, to the Prefacers to this Book: So they &s;ay they had no hand in publi&s;hing the Papers called <HI>A Copy of their Remon&s;trance.</HI> But they will not (we hope) &s;ay, that none of them had a hand in &s;hewing or communicating the written Copy or a Tran&s;cript thereof, either before or &s;ince it came into the A&s;&s;embly.</P>
<P>The A&s;&s;embly finding them&s;elves neerly touched by that mi&s;-repre&s;entation which the&s;e men had made of their proceedings to the world, and knowing that they had often de&s;ired (and almo&s;t enjoyned) the Brethren to be a Committee to that purpo&s;e; but not remembring that the Brethren had tendred them&s;elves unto &s;uch a capacity, took the thing into a &s;trict inquiry; and the mo&s;t that could be alleaged particularly of that nature for our Brethren, was but this, That upon <HI>February</HI> 11. 1644. one of them made an offer of being made a Committee, which upon review of that dayes proceed|ings, we finde to be thus: Vpon a motion of another Brother in the A&s;&s;embly, that they would u&s;e this Argument again&s;t the Propo&s;itions in debate (concerning the law|fulne&s;&s;e of Appeals) <HI>That if every Congregation ought to have all and &s;ole power Independ|ently, and that their &s;entence cannot be re&s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nded by any other power, then there can be no appeal to another Court,</HI> de&s;iring that they would prove &s;uch irrevocable power in Congregati|ons, or if they did not like the torms of the Propo&s;itions, they would be a Committee, and bring in Propo&s;itions to their own &s;ence; one of the Brethren replied, <HI>With all his heart, becau&s;e it was &s;aid they were &s;till upon the Negative,</HI> and <HI>that it was &s;aid abroad, they did not hold forth their minde, they would bring in Propo&s;itions (if the A&s;&s;embly plea&s;ed) to be desputed, which pre&s;ently was well re&s;ented in the A&s;&s;embly;</HI> many of them expre&s;&s;ing their approbation of the motion, and that they were very glad to hear it, being that which they mo&s;t de&s;ired, and nothing would plea&s;e them more, then that the&s;e Bre|thren would clearly hold out their judgements; and the A&s;&s;embly in the mid&s;t of the other debate, were going about to make them a Committee, to bring in what Propo|&s;itions they plea&s;ed, according to the Ordinance of Parliament. And when in the A&s;&s;embly it was called to Order it, many having approved the motion, and none &s;peak|ing again&s;t it, the Brother who had before profe&s;&s;ed his willingne&s;&s;e began to object, <HI>That they mu&s;t know fir&s;t for what they &s;hould be a Committee,</HI> and <HI>what was meant by ac|cording to the Ordinance of Parliament;</HI> and that the <HI>A&s;&s;embly mu&s;t first move the Parlia|ment about it, and then they &s;hould &s;ee what they the&s;e Brethren would do.</HI> And another of the&s;e Brethren moved expre&s;ly again&s;t it upon the &s;ame grounds, that are now objected: <HI>That there were many things already concluded; that it was to no purpo&s;e to make &s;uch an overture; that they could not bring in what was their judgements, without contradicting what was already Voted:</HI> Whereupon the offer being made but by one of the&s;e Brethren, though indeed, as they u&s;e to do, he u&s;ed the word <HI>We</HI> (and not &s;econded by any of the re&s;t, though there were divers of them pre&s;ent) but <HI>flatly oppo&s;ed by one of them,</HI> and <HI>even by him&s;elf, clogged, notwith&s;tanding the Profe&s;&s;ion of his willingne&s;&s;e.</HI> The A&s;&s;embly de&s;i&s;ted and returned to their former debate, about the Propo&s;ition before them, which is the <HI>true Rea&s;on</HI> why the motion &s;o well re&s;ented in the A&s;&s;embly, did not proceed.</P>
<P>The A&s;&s;embly therefore for Vindication of them&s;elves from this a&s;per&s;ion, did up|on the fourth of <HI>April,</HI> notwith&s;tanding much oppo&s;ition of the&s;e Brethren unanimou&s;ly <HI>Re&s;olve upon the Que&s;tion, That the Brethren of this A&s;&s;embly that had formerly entred their di&s;&s;ent to the Propo&s;itions about Presbyterial Government, &s;hall be a Committee to bring in the whole Frame of their judgement, concerning Church-Government in a Body, with their</HI>
<PB N="20" REF="11"> <HI>Grounds and Rea&s;ons:</HI> In the la&s;t part of which Order, we thought fit to retai<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> the words of the Prefacers, though &s;c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">rce &s;ence.</P>
<P N="17">XVII. <Q>To this Order they pretend they yeelded with willingne&s;&s;e, provided, they might bring it in part by port.</Q></P>
<P>With what willingne&s;&s;e, their debate again&s;t this Order, pro&s;&s;ed with vehemency the fir&s;t day, and repeated again the &s;econd day, bear witne&s;&s;e, wherein all tho&s;e di&s;advan|tages wherewith this Paper clogs the bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, were urged and an&s;wered; as namely, <HI>The main part of the Presbyterial Government</HI> (as namely, <HI>that about Ordination, and Go|vernment of Presbyters over many Congregations, and the Subord<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">nation of Cla&s;&s;ical, Pro|vincial and National A&s;&s;emblies) had been voted by the A&s;&s;embly, and &s;ent up to the Honour|able Hou&s;es.</HI> And &s;o they were before the 11 of <HI>Feb.</HI> (which yet was the time, and the onely time, &s;o far as we can remember) that any of the&s;e Brethren made any overture to this A&s;&s;embly, of bringing in a Model of their Way. And if the voting of the&s;e things were not looked upon as advantages; then why are they pleaded as di&s;advantages, to have undertaken it on the 11 of <HI>February?</HI> Why were they &s;o aver&s;e from it on the 21 of <HI>March,</HI> and on the fourth and fifth of <HI>April?</HI> They cannot but remember (yea, they do remember it was &s;aid, <HI>That &s;omething of Church-Government remained undi&s;|cu&s;&s;ed;</HI> but was that all?) It was &s;aid, and by &s;everal Brethren make evident, that what the A&s;&s;embly had voted and tran&s;mitted to the Honourable Hou&s;es, had not &s;o precluded them, but they had &s;cope enough &s;till to bring in what&s;oever they could a&s;&s;ert, and prove, about the power of particular Congregations; and there was &s;carce any thing voted to the prejudice of the pre&s;umed or &s;uppo&s;ed Rights of particular Con|gregations, &s;ave onely in the matter of Appeals. For what ever had been voted law|ful for Cla&s;&s;es and Synods to do, did not thereby exclude Congregations from having &s;uch a power likewi&s;e, if they could prove that by the In&s;titution of Chri&s;t, &s;uch a power belongs to them; be&s;ides, many other things which the&s;e Brethren &s;uppo&s;e to be the <HI>Rights of particular Congregations, and that Chri&s;t hath inve&s;ted them therewith,</HI> which the A&s;&s;embly had not determined again&s;t; and the que&s;tion about <HI>Excommuni|cation</HI> (at lea&s;t if the A&s;&s;embly have as they charge us, <HI>declined to this day the intire power of Cen&s;ures in Congregations) about election of Officers, and the peoples power therein,</HI> as likewi&s;e, <HI>the &s;ufficiency of election to con&s;titute Officers without Ordination,</HI> about the <HI>Con&s;titutions of Congregations, and the way of gathering and con&s;tituting of Churches, their Church Covenant, and the qualifications of tho&s;e that are to be Church Members, and what it is doth con&s;titute a man a Member of a vi&s;ible Church.</HI> The&s;e and many other particu|lars, were yet <HI>Res integrae,</HI> as was then declared. And it was further declared, that even in tho&s;e things which the A&s;&s;embly had Voted and Tran&s;mitted to <HI>both Hou&s;es of Par|liament;</HI> yet we did not &s;o lean to our own under&s;tandings, nor &s;o prize our Votes; but that if the&s;e Brethren &s;hould hold forth &s;uch light unto us as might convince us of an Errour: we &s;hould not onely de&s;ire the Parliament to give us leave to revi&s;e our Votes, but to revoke them if there &s;hould becau&s;e. And when it was moved by &s;ome in the A&s;&s;embly to adde a provi&s;o, that they being not in any thing which hath been al|ready determined in the A&s;&s;embly, it was gain &s;aid by others, moving that there might be no &s;uch re&s;triction, but that they be left to bring in what they would, &s;o that they brought it in with their Grounds and Rea&s;ons, and accordingly the que&s;tion<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> drawn up <HI>March</HI> 21, and the Re&s;olved <HI>April</HI> 4, were without any &s;uch re&s;triction. But this <HI>rea&s;onable &s;atisfaction was not,</HI> (we &s;uppo&s;e) <HI>the ground why they yeelded to be a Committee:</HI> That which over-ruled the ca&s;e was, <HI>That they might take away all jealou&s;ies, that they were unwilling to di&s;cover what they held;</HI> which whether they can do, or no, by the carriage of this bu&s;ine&s;&s;e, time will give them to under&s;tand.</P>
<P N="18">XVIII. <Q>Well, however purpo&s;ed they were, and Re&s;olved among them&s;elves
<PB N="21" REF="11"> to do this work, but to do it in as convenient a time as a work of &s;uch a compa&s;&s;e could in &s;uch a manner a<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> was purpo&s;ed by us, be di&s;patched by them.</Q></P>
<P>It &s;eems then the manner purpo&s;ed by us, that they &s;hould bring in the <HI>Model intire,</HI> and not <HI>part</HI> by <HI>part,</HI> was it that troubled them. Indeed, it was contended for with &s;ome earne&s;tne&s;&s;e, <HI>That they might bring it in part by part, as the Presbyterian Government was brought into the A&s;&s;embly.</HI> And one of the Brethren was &s;o earne&s;t in this conte&s;t, as that he did <HI>profe&s;&s;edly di&s;claim having any hand in it, unle&s;&s;e it might be brought in part by part.</HI> For our parts, we counted it our unhappine&s;&s;e, and found it to be greatly to our prejudice that we were nece&s;&s;itated to bring in the Presbyterial Government part by part; but our Brethren know it could not be avoided; for the A&s;&s;embly being by the <HI>Ordinance, whereby they &s;it bound to treat onely of &s;uch matters as &s;hall from time to time be propounded to them by both or either of the Hou&s;es of Parliament, and no others,</HI> could not appoint Committees to con&s;ult and make preparations for matters of Church-Government, till they had received an Order from the Honourable Hou&s;e to that pur|po&s;e. And having received this Order, they &s;tood obliged now to lay by the <HI>Articles of Religion,</HI> in the review whereof, they had hitherto &s;pent their time, and to fall upon the con&s;ideration of Church-Government, which being now by Ordinance of Parliament put into the hands of the A&s;&s;embly, and made the &s;ubject of our debates, the Com|mittees could not have time to perfect the whole platform, but mu&s;t bring it in by parts as they could di&s;patch them, lea&s;t the A&s;&s;embly &s;hould have no work at all be|fore them; but if the A&s;&s;embly had thought fit to have cho&s;en &s;even men, and made them a Committee to bring in a Platform or Model of Government, according to their own judgements without re&s;pect to the judgement of other Bretheren; and left them to their own time as the&s;e Brethren were left, and priviledged them from other &s;ervices and attendance in the A&s;&s;embly and Committees, as &s;ome of the&s;e Brethren have taken them&s;elves to be, we doubt not through the Grace of God, but they would have brought in a Model of Government perfect and intire, in fewer moneths then we have waited for theirs.</P>
<P>As for the A&s;&s;emblies bringing in of the Government <HI>per partes</HI> was by con&s;traint; but our brethren made it a matter of choice and conte&s;t; what the de&s;igne of this &s;hould be we know not, unle&s;&s;e to gain time and conceal them&s;elves &s;till, and detain us yet lon|ger in expectation and &s;u&s;pence; they having the more opportunity thereby to expre&s;&s;e them&s;elves in what they plea&s;e, and in what they plea&s;e to be &s;till re&s;erved.</P>
<P N="19">XIX. <Q>It likewi&s;e &s;eems to greive them, that the A&s;&s;embly (though pre&s;&s;ed by them) would not declare what they would do with that Model, and tho&s;e Rea&s;ons they &s;hould bring.</Q></P>
<P>But let the Brethren con&s;ider, whether they did then po&s;itively and expre&s;ly declare, Whether they would bring in &s;uch a Model, though pre&s;&s;ed to it by the A&s;&s;embly; and if they would not declare the one, why &s;hould the A&s;&s;embly declare the other? And the Brethren know it is not the cu&s;tome of the A&s;&s;embly, to tell Committees before|hand what they will do with their Report when they bring it in; but when a Report is brought in, then they con&s;ider what to do with it, when they &s;ee what it is.</P>
<P>Moreover, the Brethren need not doubt, but the A&s;&s;embly would at lea&s;t have made as much u&s;e of this, as they were by one of the&s;e Brethren advi&s;ed to make of the Paper of this nature, given in by the Commi&s;&s;ioners of <HI>Scotland.</HI></P>
<P N="20">XX. <Q>But the A&s;&s;embly (&s;ay they) ha&s;tened the voting of what yet remained in Church Government; and when not long after upon occa&s;ion of debate of one par|ticular point wherein they differed from the A&s;&s;embly, they moved it might be d&egrave;|ferred, becau&s;e they &s;hould pre&s;ent their Iudgements, and Rea&s;ons about it, with the re&s;t.</Q> It was publikely an&s;wered, that therefore the A&s;&s;embly &s;hould the rather go on
<PB N="22" REF="12"> to the concluding of it, becau&s;e they intended to bring it in; and accordingly the A&s;&s;embly &s;ent up to the Honourable Hou&s;es, as well what had been &s;ent up by pe<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">c<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> before, as what was &s;ince concluded in one intire Frame.</P>
<P>For the ha&s;tning of the Votes, and the &s;ending up our advice for Government in an intire Frame: The Brethren know the Rea&s;on of it, but they are plea&s;ed to conceal it. The Honourable Hou&s;es had &s;ent &s;everal Me&s;&s;ages and Orders to this A&s;&s;embly, re|quiring them to ha&s;ten the di&s;patch of their advice concerning Church-Government, and to &s;end it up intire: Which Me&s;&s;ages and Orders of the Hou&s;es, we are bound to obey, by that Ordinance whereby we &s;it; and it is not free for us to detain our Votes, when both or either of the Hou&s;es call for them. Our Brethren therefore deal hardly with us, when they <HI>impute</HI> that to us as a <HI>fault,</HI> which was our <HI>duty.</HI></P>
<P><HI>As for the particular which they &s;ay they de&s;ired might be de&s;erred:</HI> We know not what it was they mean, nor when debated; if they had in&s;tanced in the particular, we could more clearly have An&s;wered to the Charge. But if there were &s;uch a motion made by them, and if any Brother &s;hould An&s;wer, that their Model being to come in, and like to hold the A&s;&s;embly in long debate, we &s;hould therefore make the more ha&s;te to di&s;|patch what was before us, that &s;o we might be the more ready to receive what they &s;hould give in (though the A&s;&s;embly be not bound to give an account of the particular Speeches of every Member) yet we conceive there might be &s;ome Rea&s;on why a man might &s;o &s;peak, e&s;pecially con&s;idering that they were not limited, but left to their own time for bringing in their Model; for there was no day &s;et from the fourth of <HI>April,</HI> when they were fir&s;t made a Committee, till <HI>September</HI> 22, and then onely, <HI>That about a fortnight after they &s;hould make a Report of what they bad done;</HI> nor had they all this time declared, that they would bring in a Model: But it &s;eems they were re&s;olved to take time large enough, for they tell us</P>
<P N="21">XXI. <Q>That the Collection of materials co&s;t them two or three moneths.</Q></P>
<P>Strange! Have the Brethren decryed the Government of all other Churches, the&s;e many yeers, and ingaged them&s;elves in a new way of <HI>Church-gathering,</HI> and <HI>governing;</HI> And when they are called upon for the proof of that way, their materials are to &s;eek have they told the world in their <HI>Apologetical Narration, That they have &s;earched out what were the fir&s;t Apo&s;tolike directions, patern, and example of tho&s;e primitive Churches Recor<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">ed in the New Te&s;tament:</HI> And in this <HI>inquiry looked upon the Word of Chri&s;t impartially, and imprejudicedly, as men made of fle&s;h and blood, are like to do in any juncture of time, that may fall out?</HI> Do they &s;pend almo&s;t three whole Pages of the <HI>Apology,</HI> in &s;etting out the <HI>advantages they had in their inquiry above all other that were before either in this or other Re|formed Churches,</HI> yea, <HI>or in</HI> New England? Do they profe&s;se Page 9, 10. <HI>That in the primitive patern, and example of the Churches erected by the Apo&s;tles, they found principles enough, not onely Fundamental and E&s;&s;ential to the being of a Church; but &s;uper&s;tructory al&s;o for the welbeing of it; and the&s;e to them clear and certain, &amp;c.</HI> And are their materials &s;till to collect, and mu&s;t no le&s;se then two or three moneths be &s;pent in the Collection of them? But grant it &s;o, they have had not onely <HI>two, but &s;ix moneths time,</HI> for the pre|paring of their Model; Why is it not yet brought in?</P>
<P N="22">XXII. <Q>They An&s;wer, the A&s;sembly hath ten moneths &s;ince received this Di&s;sent and Rea&s;ons again&s;t the Subordination of Synods, which contains a main part of that wherein they differ, and is of all other, of the greate&s;t moment both to this Church and State; yet notwith&s;tanding, the&s;e Rea&s;ons have not been An&s;wer|ed by any Reply brought into this A&s;sembly, and &s;o not ready to be &s;ent up to the Honourable Hou&s;es; although the Votes concerning Subordination were &s;ent up, by which, we &s;ee &s;ay they, that this A&s;sembly can a&s;sume the liberty, if it &s;o plea&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">, to re&s;erve tho&s;e we &s;hall pre&s;ent unan&s;wered, as they have done the former.</Q></P>
<PB N="23" REF="12">
<P> We grant, that about ten moneths &s;ince, <HI>The&s;e Brethren brought in a Paper containing Rea&s;ons of their Di&s;&s;ent, against the Subordination of Synods,</HI> which we pre&s;ently commit|ted to the &s;ame Committee that had drawn up the An&s;wer to the former Rea&s;ons.</P>
<P>We grant, that as long &s;ince our Votes concerning Subordination were &s;ent up to the Hou&s;es, for the&s;e Votes having been pa&s;sed in the A&s;sembly long before, and no Di&s;|&s;ent to them entred; when upon occa&s;ion of the Treaty at <HI>Uxbridge,</HI> which though it was not then begun, was in preparation; it plea&s;ed the Parliament to require us to &s;end up to them, what had pa&s;sed the A&s;&s;embly in Church-Government; and the A&s;&s;embly thereupon, appointed a Committee to draw up the whole, which had pa&s;&s;ed in the A&s;&s;embly into a method fit to be pre&s;ented to the Parliament; and the Report of the Committee con&s;idered by the A&s;&s;embly; and the whole, Voted to be &s;ent up to both Hou&s;es. <HI>Our Brethren then entred their Di&s;&s;ents to &s;ome particular Propo&s;itions of it, and de&s;ired that the &s;ending up of the whole might be respited till they had brought in the Rea&s;ons of that their Di&s;&s;ent;</HI> which becau&s;e the A&s;&s;embly could not a&s;&s;ent unto, becau&s;e of the Order of Parliament, calling for them in reference to their preparation to the Treaty; The&s;e Votes, together with the re&s;t, were &s;ent up to the Parliament before the Rea&s;ons of their Di&s;sent were brought into the A&s;sembly; and the <HI>Subordination of Synods &s;oon after Voted in both Hou&s;es of Parliament,</HI> and &s;ent afterwards among other Propo&s;itions, to the Treaty at <HI>Uxbridge,</HI> which made us not over &s;olicitous of di&s;patching our An|&s;wer to their Rea&s;ons in all the Formalities, becau&s;e <HI>the&s;e Rea&s;ons and An&s;wers are not to be &s;ent up till called for by the Parliament:</HI> And we conceived it not very probable, that the Hou&s;es would call for Rea&s;ons again&s;t their own Votes; yet thirdly, the Committee had prepared their An&s;wer to the&s;e Rea&s;ons in le&s;&s;e time then the Brethren &s;ay they were put to the expence of Collecting of the materials for their way; for in <HI>Janu.</HI> la&s;t, about twelve Sheets of an An&s;wer to the&s;e Rea&s;ons again&s;t the Subordination of Sy|nods, were read and approved in a Grand Committee of the whole A&s;sembly (the&s;e Di&s;senters onely excepted) and wanted but the formality of the A&s;semblies Vote; and &s;ince another part of our An&s;wer to their Rea&s;ons of Di&s;sent, to another Propo&s;i|tion, were read and approved in the A&s;sembly. Our Brethren therefore need not to have vaunted them&s;elves, as if their <HI>Papers were &s;uch as the A&s;&s;embly could not, or would not grapple with, but can a&s;&s;ume liberty if they plea&s;e, to re&s;erve unan&s;wered.</HI></P>
<P>What remains of this Paper, rather reflects upon the Parliament, then upon us.</P>
<P N="23">XXIII. <Q>If what they would now bring in, &s;hould be undertaken to be an&s;wered by the A&s;&s;embly: yet they are &s;en&s;ible of &s;o much remedile&s;&s;e prejudice, by being bound from replying again, as makes them ju&s;tly wary.</Q></P>
<P>And &s;urely if what they &s;hould now give in, be in their own power (as after|wards they &s;ay it is; <HI>Although our former Rea&s;ons given in former Di&s;putes to both Hou&s;es, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="4 letters">rding to their Ordinance were therefore not our own, but to be di&s;po&s;ed of by their appoinment: yet what we might now give in, we conceive to be in our own power.)</HI></P>
<P>If this can be made good, that it is in their own power, <HI>viz. In their power to Reply,</HI> then is their fear of being prejudiced by being bound up from replying, but pretended: But if there be indeed any &s;uch Re&s;traint, it is from <HI>the Honourable Hou&s;es, not from us:</HI> who&s;e Wi&s;dom and Piety we doubt not will provide, that controver&s;ies &s;hall not be lengthened to eternity, what&s;oever &s;ome have threatned; nor doth it &s;tand with rea|&s;on and equity, that they who are fir&s;t heard in their own cau&s;e, &s;hould &s;peak la&s;t al|&s;o. <HI>If by being in their own power,</HI> they mean in their <HI>own power to divulge or to publi&s;h</HI> as it &s;eems by the publi&s;hing of what they now gave in that they thought &s;o indeed: But to this we An&s;wer, that there is no greater obligation on them in this kinde, then is on the whole A&s;&s;embly, and they have no Rea&s;on to complain of that to us.</P>
<P N="24">XXIV. <Q>For a conclu&s;ion, the Brethren &s;ay they think the A&s;&s;embly hath no
<PB N="24" REF="13"> cau&s;e to require a report now of them; nor will that report be of u&s;e, becau&s;e re|ports are for debates, and bebates for re&s;ults, to be &s;ent up to the Honourable Hou&s;es, who have already voted another Form of Government then what they &s;hall p<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">|&s;ent.</Q></P>
<P>To which we An&s;wer, the A&s;&s;embly hath &s;till great and ju&s;t cau&s;e to expect a re|port from the&s;e Brethren: Tho&s;e of their way having publi&s;hed in Print <HI>that the&s;e Bre|thren are willing to do it.</HI> The A&s;&s;embly having Ordered it, the Brethren having held the A&s;&s;embly &s;ix moneths in expectation of it. Some of them pleading this very <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters">|ployment, as an excu&s;e of there ab&s;ence from the A&s;&s;embly, it having been reported in City and Country, that the Model was fini&s;hed, there being no ju&s;t and &s;atisfa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters">|ry rea&s;on pre&s;ented in tho&s;e Papers, why they &s;hould not yet do it; but only pre|tences, &s;ubterfugies, imperfect and unju&s;t Relations of the proceedings of the A&s;&s;embly, and other &s;pecious diver&s;ions. But whereas they &s;ay, <HI>that &s;uch a Model would be of <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> u&s;e now,</HI> we An&s;wer yes, of much u&s;e in this great bu&s;ine&s;&s;e of Accommodation, which i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> hath plea&s;ed the Honorable Hou&s;es again to put us upon. Vpon which con&s;ideratio<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> we think (not <HI>That the Brethren have no cau&s;e to decline the bringing in their Model <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> this time,</HI> but that they have &s;ome other cau&s;e then what they pretend to, and th<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> &s;omething lies behinde the curtain, which doth not yet appear: po&s;&s;ibly not any one of them is yet at a <HI>point in his own judgement,</HI> nor re&s;olved where to fi<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">; they having profe&s;sed to <HI>keep as a re&s;erve, liberty to alter and retract,</HI> which if their Model were given in, they could not &s;o fairly, and honourably do: Or po&s;&s;ibly they are not <HI>all fixed in <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> and the &s;ame point;</HI> Po&s;&s;ibly they cannot <HI>agree among them&s;elves</HI> (for it is ea&s;ier to agree in di&s;senting, then in affirming) or po&s;&s;ibly if they &s;even can agree, yet &s;ome other of their Brethren in the City, to whom it may be the Model was communicated, did <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> like it; or if &s;o, yet po&s;&s;ibly the Brethren might fore&s;ee, that if this Model &s;hould be publi&s;hed, there are &s;ome who at pre&s;ent are a &s;trength to them, and expect &s;helter fro<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter"> them, may di&s;gu&s;t it; or at lea&s;t they are re&s;olved to waite a further opportunity, <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> improve what they have prepared; it may be when the <HI>A&s;&s;embly is di&s;&s;olved,</HI> and &s;o <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="3 letters"> in a capacity to An&s;wer them, or when the <HI>Presbyterian Government begins to be &s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="2 letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">p;</HI> when they promi&s;e to them&s;elves there will be di&s;content among the people; and lo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="KEYERS" EXTENT="1 letter">t upon that, it may be, as the mo&s;t advantageous time of putting Pen to Paper. But what|&s;oever the cau&s;e be, we <HI>commit our cau&s;e to the Lord, who loves truth and &s;implicity, and</HI> will we doubt not di&s;cover it in due time.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED><LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Cornelius Burges,</HI> Prolocutor pro tempore.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Adoniram Byfield,</HI> Scriba.</ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED></CLOSER>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
