former times, the godly people are very sensible of; and now, in the time of reformation, it [this reformation] finds many ministers who cannot be cast out, by order of law, though bad and unprofitable; as appears by the leaving them out of the classes [!] and shall the people be tied to live under them as their ministers who are not worthy to join in government with yourselves? And, for tine to come, as places are void[ed] they must be supplied by the choice of others for them, or by themselves: if by themselves, all parishes are not reformed as concerning the people; and whereas the major part being, generally, the worst, the ministers chosen, by them, will be such as the godly cannot live under their ministry: if by others, those that are the choosers may also be such as they cannot be denied, by law, their right in choosing; and so also, unprofitable ministers may be put upon the godly people: and, if they be not tied to their parishes, the weight of this Reason, and the inconveniences presented, will fall more heavily upon the numerous [or vast] multitude of parishes in city and country."

The Independents having handed in to the Honourable Committee, the portion of all that they intended to present, “After some debate, upon the cautions premised in the paper of the Sub-committee presented Dec. 15th, and drawn out of the [Dissenting] Brethren's preface, it was resolved, by the Honourable Committee, That both the affirmative and negative of the second caution shall be put unto the Question; and accordingly it was Resolved, That they which agree in the substance, etc.'; and again, That such as agree not in, etc.' This ended, the Dissenting Brethren's Paper "this day brought in," was referred to the Sub-committee "to consider of it ;" and the Dissenting Brethren were to go on with their "Answer," in continuation, as above. The latter was accomplished, and presented, February 2nd, 1645-6, with this introduction, "Though it is our desire rather to answer to the Papers brought in by our Brethren, before we go on any further; yet because the Committee requires us to go on, we humbly submit these Papers to the consideration of this Honourable Committee."e

a "To the pains which, in this paragraph, our Brethren have taken in setting forth for the present, and prophesying for the future, of the unprofitableness and unworthiness of the 'ministers'; .. we will reply no more but this, That it is a crimination which might well have been spared in a time of endeavoured and covenanted Reformation... Neither is it equal, to argue from the former times of unjust vexation, when men were tied to their parishes though there were no preaching minister, or one who preached errors or opposed godliness; unto these times, wherein men have covenanted against every thing that is of this nature. Nor do we believe that our Brethren mean that only such should be allowed to gather into their Congregations who live under bad and unprofitable ministers, though that be the only medium here used against our reason... And where the 'ministry' is without just exception, we refer it to our Brethen's own consciences and to the practice of their Congregations, to say how fit it is that the members should ordinarily much less constantly, seek the ordinances elsewhere." P. 84, 85. b See back, p. 47. c Dec. 4th. See back, p. 43.

d"And therefore whosoever agrees," &c.

⚫ March 9th, 1645-6. The Committee met again; when was presented " "The Answer of the Sub-committee of Divines unto the Fourth Paper of the Dissenting Brethren'. Our Brethren.. are not pleased to take notice of those particulars of

"Our Brethren say,

2. That none are to be allowed, upon differences only in matter of Government, to withdraw communion from us in things wherein they declare an agreement: but seeing it is confessed, in worship and doctrine, we are one, and have covenanted to endeavour the nearest conjunction and Uniformity; there may be no such indulgence granted to any, as may constitute them in distinct separate Congregations, as to those parts of worship where they can join in communion with us; but only some expedient may be endeavoured, how to bear with them in the particulars wherein they cannot agree with us.

3. For this purpose, we humbly offer, 1. 'That such as, through scruple or error of conscience, cannot join to partake of the Lord's Supper, shall repair to the minister and elders for satisfaction in their scruples; which if they cannot receive, they shall not be compelled to communicate in the Lord's Supper: provided, that in all other parts of worship they join with the congregation wherein they live, and be under the government of that congregation. 2. That such as, in this manner, are under the government of that congregation wherein they live and are not officers therein, being of the Independent judgment, shall seek satisfaction as in the former proposition; which if they cannot receive they shall not be compelled to be under the power of censures from classes or synods: provided, that they continue under the government of that congregation, and that no man who hath submitted to classes and synods shall decline them in any case, pendente lite.'

"Answer: i. This supposeth what our professed judgment is and hath been against; namely, to be members or pastors of the Parishes, as they now are. For the Honourable Houses think not meet as yet, Forbearance which are [were] offered to consideration, though this would much have ..encouraged us to have studied some further means for their Accommodation; neither do they bring in any reasons out of Scripture to justify their desire of that which, we say, cannot be granted them in terminis. But thus they begin, 'Though it is our desire rather to,' &c. To which we answer, That before our last Papers were brought in, they were ordered by the Committee, to consider of this former Paper, and had a month's time so to have done, but have still declined it, upon other reasons than they here express; and seem more willing to lengthen the work into tedious and fruitless disputes against those things which do not please them, than to express a real endeavour of bringing things to an Agreement so far as may be, by so much as taking notice of those parts of our Paper which tend thereunto, leaving therefore the last two paragraphs of our Paper utterly unobserved, they single out only one Proposition; against which, this present Paper of theirs is wholly directed." P. 95.

"What that is which they call their 'professed judgment' would much more clearly appear unto us if we could ever obtain that which hath been so long and so much desired, namely, a full and distinct Model of their Way... Why our Brethren should make the notion of 'parishes, as they now are', as a ground of Separation when they know further Reformation is covenanted and intended, we know no reason:.. must a man refuse to live in any part of his house, because some one chamber or other is out of repair and about to be mended? It is no good logic as to our own houses, and we think it is no better as to God's... And if our Brethren may be neither 'members' nor 'pastors' of any of our congregations, how come they or what calling have they-to have any ministerial relation at all unto them? They preach to them, they receive maintenance from them; when a delinquent pastor hath been sequestered, they have entered upon his place and received the profits of it. We know our Brethren do not preach to our people as apostles, evangelists, or prophets; nor without any ministerial mission: and if they preach the Word to them virtute muneris, as the ministers of Christ and as unto professed Christians, not as unto pagans;-as we hope they do ;-why they may not stand in relation of membership as well [as] of ministry or teaching, eousque at least as they do doctrinally agree with us, we know no cause. We look upon preaching the Word as an office which no man ought to exercise except he be 'sent,' Rom. x. 15: if our Brethren may be unto our congregations aliquousque et quoad hoc officers; why not, in like manner, members?.. The church of Israel was forty

to give power to the ministers, by a law, to purge the congregations so far as the Assembly itself desireth; and we have not, as you know, presumed to seek the alteration of the rule established: and the rule for purging the Parishes given up, by the Assembly itself, to the Honourable Houses, is not only short but exclusive of what we, in our consciences, think is required by God for the Qualification of members: so that it is not, to us, in view how the Parishes shall be reformed to that which will satisfy our consciences. And as the Divines of the Reverend Assembly have said, 'They cannot, without sin, administer the ordinances to the Parishes as they stand,' so neither can we continue or become members or pastors, according to our principles; and we humbly desire that our consciences may be considered herein, for 'forbearance', as our Brethren desire that theirs may for 'power' by a years together without 'circumcision' in the wilderness and is it unlawful for Christians who live in kingdoms, where there are not.. every office or ordinance,.. to live as 'members' in those churches?.. Especially when some expedient is endeavoured, to cure that defect as to them [our Brethren]; and when Separation-both by the intrinsical evil of itself and by the example which is thereby given, unto as many as will, to despise our churches; and by the pernicious use" which ill-minded men may make of it, to hinder both reformation in the church and tranquillity in the state-doth evidently threaten so much danger unto us!" P. 97-99.

"They herein intimate, that the Assembly hath desired a 'power' to be given 'to the ministers' more than the Houses think fit to grant. We desire our Brethren to show where the Assembly have desired or advised the power, which they [the Assembly] conceive needful for ordering of the church, to be placed in 'the ministers,' without mentioning of others who concur with them. If they cannot, they must give us leave to look on such expressions rather as artifices than arguments. But have our Brethren at all waited to see what 'the Honourable Houses,' with the advice of the Assembly, would do in the Reformation of the church? Did they forbear Separation till it appeared what 'power' the 'Houses' would grant?.. Sure we are that we are little beholding to our Brethren for helping forwards those desires of ours, for such a measure of Reformation as themselves acknowledge to be good, and we believe to be sufficient, when one of them hath publicly professed that 'he would not join with us while he lived;' and it was said in the open Assembly that Though the thing desired was good, yet they would not concur with us in it, because it would be a hinderance unto them!'.. We cannot see what singular excellency the Reformation which our Brethren would seem to aim at hath above what the Assembly have advised; for they [our Brethren] have told us, that they would admit anabaptists, and we suppose, upon the same grounds, Antinomians and Arminians,into communion. And one of our Brethren hath said, that 'In their way, if a man declare himself willing to join in all the ordinances of Christ so far as he knows; this is covenant sufficient to join himself with them ;' we think that most in our churches within the power of the Parliament, have undertaken as much as this comes to, in the national covenant." P. 99, 100.

b".. Our Brethren seek' no alteration in the Rule, because they intend not to be subject to it. The more defective the Rule is, the more colour will they have for Separation;.. and are likely to gain the more people from us!..We believe their piety would dictate and justify as great a presumption as this they speak of, if their wisdom did not look upon it as inconvenient to themselves!" P. 100, 101.

c.. In their last Paper they told us that they had the same rule, for qualification of members, which the Assembly itself holds forth; here, they say, our rule is 'exclusive' of what they, in conscience, 'think is required' nemo tam prope tam proculque nobis: this constrains us to importune them for their rule.".. P. 101.

"We think this is no good argument for separating from true churches, because it is not, 'to us,' in view 'how' they shall be reformed! . . P. 101.

law. ii. If we could; yet, according to what is proposed, we must for ever want that great ordinance of the Lord's Supper: which cannot but much prejudice us to the elders and members of the congregations from whose communion we thus separate, and yet we must be under their government and censures thus prejudiced by us; which how unreasonable it will be, we desire our Brethren to consider. iii. All this supposeth, also, that we are to be under the Government of a Church whereof we are not members! For we account not living in the parishes to be sufficient to make a member of a church; nor did many of you. iv. It supposeth this ground,—the reason of which we see not; only the charity of it, we cannot but wonder at!-that because we come so near in doctrine and worship and communion with you, therefore we must not have an indulgence' in a difference which yet concerns the edification of our souls by ordinances that are so necessary.

".. They would fain make our desire look like a desire of 'power,' theirs only as a desire of 'forbearance;' when, in truth, they desire a greater 'power' than we either do or dare desire. We desire to keep away only those that are scandalous, and to have a 'rule' to strengthen us therein; they do not only keep all such away but many more, without either 'rule' warranting them or a 'forbearance' permitting them. Some better way would [should] be found out to further their own desires than by misrepresenting ours." P. 102.

b"It doth not follow, if they be members of our congregations, that they must for ever want' the Lord's Supper; except they will say, that unto the receiving of the Lord's Supper it is, necessarily, requisite that a man be a formal member of this congregation where he receives it: if they affirm this, what then becomes of their occasional communion? If not, why may not some expedient satisfy them in this, to prevent so great an evil as Separation? for they, here, do themselves profess separation from 'communion' with us! 2... If such persuasion of conscience, when men cannot receive the ordinances but according to their own private principles, shall be a sufficient ground for renouncing membership; we desire our Brethren to consider, how long not our churches only but their own, or any other churches in the world, shall be free from incurable unquietness. 3. If our Brethren's consciences, through error, do cause 'prejudice' against them; is it 'unreasonable' for them, to be under the government of that church which is 'prejudiced' by them? May they with good reason, scandalize the church by Separation; and the church have no reason to govern them? Then, prejudicating or scandalizing errors are a supersedeas to all government! We do not then wonder, that errors and perverse opinions so much abound. It may be, they are all but the mediums to liberty, and exemptions from government! 4. There can no such 'prejudice' remain against them, if what they do they do only by virtue of a special indulgence." P. 103, 104.

"What our Brethren mean by All this,' we know not... Our Proposition.. hath not one word of government,' to this sense, in it; but only of 'communion'.. It doth expressly suppose that they may be members in a church and hold a practical communion' so far as they do doctrinally agree; and, to those purposes, having Forbearance as to those other ordinances wherein they differ. But it is worth the observing, how our Brethren avoid 'government' by withdrawing of membership: cut out their names, as it were out of the College-book, that they may free themselves from the Discipline thereof!.. We grant that 'living in parishes' is not sufficient to make a member.' A Turk, or pagan, or idolater, may live within the bounds of a parish:..a man must, therefore, first, in order of nature, be a member of the Church Visible; and then living in a parish and making profession of Christianity, he may claim admission into the society of Christians within those bounds." P. 104, 105.

d" We think our Proposition was not so destitute either of 'reason' or 'charity,' as our Brethren would seem to charge upon it: the 'reason' in it was this, That doctrinal agreement should preserve practical communion;.. the 'charity' this,

"For the Reason the Reverend Brethren do give [under head 2], That Seeing it is confessed, in worship and doctrine, we are one, and have covenanted to endeavour the nearest conjunction and uniformity; there may be no such indulgence granted to any, as may constitute them in distinct separated Congregations, as to those parts of worship where they can join in communion with us:

"I. We answer,-Whereas the Uniformity' sworn to, in the. Covenant, is now urged here upon this occasion; and continually upon the like, turned as the great argument against us, in pulpits, presses, and ordinary treaties; as if what we desired were contrary thereunto: this argument cannot hold against us, without affixing an Interpretation upon that part of the Covenant; and that, according to our Brethren's principles only, to the prejudice of ours, who, when we took this National Covenant, were known to be of the same principles we now are of. And yet this Covenant was, professedly, so attempered in the first framing of it, as that we of different judgments might take it; both parties being present at the framing of it in Scotland! And if this should be the way of urging, it is as free for us to first, That we did desire to continue fellow-members with our Brethren in churchunity, and to prevent Separation: secondly, That for that purpose we did advise some expedient to be endeavoured:.. we leave it to all men to judge whose charity' is greatest... We think that 'charity' binds Christians to prevent all unjust and needless Separation. And suppose Brownists, Anabaptists, or Antinomians, were in our Brethren's Congregations, and they [our Brethren] should find out some expedient to hold communion with them still and so prevent their Separation; would this be esteemed a breach of 'charity'? Or, is all expedience, to this purpose, impossible, save only renouncing of membership?".. P. 105, 106.

·

a Thus far, our Brethren have made observations on our advice; in all that follows, they endeavour to answer the reasons of it: where we cannot, by the way, but take notice what an edge our Brethren have against UNIFORMITY,' and how 'hastily,' as it is said of Ben-hadad's 'servants,' 1 Kings xx. 33, they 'catch' at that word, to make a large discourse upon it, although had that word been left out of our Paper the force of the reason would have been the very same which now it is. Their answer to our reasons is partly argumentative, and partly historical... They tell us that The Uniformity' sworn, &c. is . . ' turned,' &c.: how it is elsewhere ' turned' against them, by others, we know not; .. but sure by how much the more they hear of it abroad, by so much the more reason have they to lay it to heart; and to consider, whether that great growth of sects and errors in the Church, under which it groaneth at this day, have [has] not, occasionally at the least,..grown out of that liberty and those principles for latitude and difformity as well in practice as in judgment, which our Brethren so much plead for, and allow unto themselves: but for our mentioning it in this Paper, we think it very seasonable, and suitable to the matter for which we allege it; not with any desire of opposition, or to turn it against' our Brethren, as their phrase is, but out of a sincere zeal to the peace of God's Church, and to the preventing of unnecessary Separation.".. P. 106, 107.

b"Our Proposition was never intended for an argument' against them, but for a means of Accommodation, . . not drawn from any private interpretation of the Covenant; which we dare not assume the liberty to affix thereunto, however our Brethren would insinuate the contrary; but from the words themselves... The evidence of our reason doth appear, that since we have covenanted to 'endeavour the nearest,' &c.; therefore.. wherein we profess to be of one mind and judgment, that conjunction' should be practically preserved." P. 107.

"Their principles'.. might have been much better known' would they have given a free and full account of their judgment to the world, in an affirmative way; and not always kept themselves on the negative part... But we wonder our Brethren should be so intimately acquainted with negotiations of State as to tell us that the 'Covenant was, professedly, attempered' to different' principles [judgments]