TO make known what ever we hold, con­cerning Church-government, as wee have had publique testimony in this Assem­bly, so we have manifold instances and e­vidences of it; Witnesse that constant, free, and open expressing our selves upon all occasi­ons, and in all questions propounded to the debate, with offers to give an open Account at any time, in what ever should be asked us by any Brother. Our proffering divers times to bring in Propositions, stated to our sense for the dispute, and when we were made a Committee to that purpose, in the point of Ordina­tion, and did bring our Iudgements concerning it for a dispute, It was laid aside. And at another time, when we our selves brought in Papers, giving the state of the question, about that extraordinary way of Ordi­nation, which were read, and returned back unto us, it being publiquely professed that that was not an allowed way and course of this Assembly, for any of the Brethren to bring in papers, unlesse they were made a Committee by the Assembly it selfe. And so we were prevented of doing the like for time to come.

Likewise our frequent complainings of the stating of questions, so that we could not fully argue for our Iudgements, wee being bound up to the questions as stated by you. The usuall answer to our Complaints herein being, That the Assembly sate not to argue the [Page 2] opinions of a few men, but if wee had any thing to say to the assertion brought in, we might.

As also our earnest contending to have some questi­ons ( which you all know are the greatest and most funda­mentall points) fairly disputed and debated, is a suffi­cient testimony of this our willingnesse. As in the entrance into the dispute of Government, the first day, we pressed the handling of this, That there is a plat­form of Government for the Churches, under the Gospel, laid down in the Scripture, and desired to have discussed, what are the sure and certain wayes, whereby wee may judge what of Government is held forth Iure Divino therein, which should have been fundamentall to all the disputes that were to follow: and this was profes­sedly laid aside by you, which therefore in none of the subsequent debates, we could renew, and thus Argu­ments were cut off, It being that great and necessary Medium, by which the patticulars should be confir­med, and in a manner the whole controversie decided; the greatest difference that were likely to grow be­twixt us, being this, That the forms of Government, you pretend to, and we deny, are asserted to be Iure divino.

In like manner, that other next great question, a­bout the intire power in Congregations, that have a suf­ficient Presbytery for all Censures, which as it is in or­der the first that presents it selfe for discussion (as was urged) so also it is one of the greatest points in difference betwixt us & you: Yet the debate of this was not only denyed the first place in the dispute, but was to this day declined by you; Although to have it argu­ed was contended for by us▪ and not by us only, but by many of those, that are for a subordinate government thereof to Synods. And though earnest desires and [Page 3] motions for it were renewed and inculcated, yet were they as often laid aside. Yea and this, although it was once expresly commended by the grand Committee of the Hon. Members of both Houses, joyned with twelve Divines of the Assembly, to be next disputed, as the best means, both of expedition, and of ending the Contro­versie.

And over and above all this, to argue this our wil­lingnesse to dispute our way, In the aforesaid Ho­nourable Committeee appointed by an Order of the Honourable House of Commons, to find out wayes, of accommodating different Iudgements in the Assembly, the Sub-Committee of Divines, consisting of two of us, and foure others, appointed by that Honourable Committee to prepare wayes and Propositions of Ac­commodation, brought in the main and most of what practically we desired, and we therein added, That if such a liberty shall seem in the wisdome of this Honorable Committee, to be so prejudicical to the peace of the Church as not to be permitted, we humbly desire, the doctrinall principles wherein we differ about Church-Government, may be taken into serious consideration, and some other way of accommodation in practise thought upon, as shall seem fit to this honourable Committee: and this was pre­sented to that honorable Committee and those twelve of the Assembly, to be transmitted, whether to the ho­norable Houses, or the Assembly as they should think meet.

After this, when upon occasion of something brought in by one Brother, and entertained, we took hold of that example, and one of us, with consent of the rest, brought in 7 Propositions, which contained matter of difference betwixt us, professing, That if this Reve­rend [Page 4] Assembly would debate them, or any one of them, we would bring in more, untill we had brought in all the Frame, and the Assembly themselves should pick and chuse what they would debate, & what not. But these Propositi­ons were rejected with a refusall to debate any one of them.

And after all this, though the main parts of a Pres­byteriall government▪ had been then voted by the As­sembly, and sent up to the honorable Houses (as, name­ly, that about Ordination, and the Presbyteriall govern­ment over many Congregations, as also concerning the Subordination of Nationall, Provinciall and Classicall As­semblies) and there was not much remaining about Church-government, to be concluded in this Assembly: yet this Reverend Assembly requiring, (by occasion of a book published, that reflected on these proceedings, that we had no hand in nor knowledge of) a whole Frame of Government, with the grounds and reasons thereof, to be brought in by us, and voted us hereto to be a Commit­tee, we yeilded our selves to be a Committee to bring in part by part, in like manner as the Presbyteriall Go­vernment was brought into the Assembly, and dispu­ted: but that was not accepted. And then it being said, that there was something in Church-government, remaining undiscussed, and unresolved; and it being further alledged that the Assembly had not sent up all that which they had concluded, but meant to pre­sent an entire Frame and Body to the Honourable Houses: And that we might take away all occasions of any such jealousies that we were unwilling to dis­cover what we held (which were commonly in mens mouths abroad) we yeilded to be a Committee, to bring in the whole to this Assembly, though upon all [Page 5] the fore-mentioned disadvantages, & were purposed & re­solved amongst our selves so to do, and that in as conveni­ent a time as a work of such a compasse could, (in such a manner as was proposed by you) be dispatched by us. And as in the debate about making us a Committee, the Assem­bly would not declare (though pressed by us) what they would do with that Modell, and those Reasons we should bring in; so the voting of what yet remained in Church-government, was hastened by you.

And when not long after, upon occasion of the debate of one particular point, in which we differed from this As­sembly, we moved it might be deferred, because we should present our Judgements and Reasons about it, with the rest, (for therein lay that which we accounted the favour of being made a Committee by you) it was publiquely answered, that therefore the Assembly should the rather go on to the concluding of it, because we intended to bring it in; and before we could dispatch that Body we intended, so as to report it unto you according to your order; (the collecti­on of the materials whereof, spent us two or three months, and we could not obtain the liberty to bring in any thing but the whole) this Assembly had presented to the honou­rable Houses, as well what had been sent up by peeces a­fore, as what was since concluded, in one intire Frame. By all which we perceived, that that which was the main end and use of presenting such a Modell to this Assembly, would be frustrated.

And furthermore, we having given in (as this Assembly knows) but two heads of dissenting reasons: The one a­gainst the Presbyteriall government over many Congregations: The other against the subordination of Synods. By the successe of the latter we see, that this Assembly can assume the liberty (if it so please) to reserve those we shall now [Page 6] present, unanswered, as they have done those our dissenting Reasons against subordination of Synods, although it con­tain a great and main part of that wherein we differ, as also is of all other, the greatest moment, both to this Church and State, and hath been given in to this Assembly ten months since, and their votes concerning these Subordinations, as long since presented to the honourable Houses, but have not been answered by any reply brought into this Assembly, and so not ready to have been sent up to the Hon. Houses.

And if These we might now bring in, should be under­taken to be answered by this Assembly, yet we still retain the sense of so much remedilesse prejudice, by being bound from replying again, as doth make us justly wary: we may for ever lie under whatever mis-interpretations may happen, (suppose but through mistake of yours, or imperfection of our expression) without clearing our meaning, and wee may be bound up from further urging or driving home that wherein the strength of any argumenr lies, if the dint thereof should be avoided by some specious diversion. And although our former Reasons given in after dispute to both the honourable Houses, according to their Order, were therefore not our own, but to be disposed of according to their appointment; yet what we should now give in, we conceive to be in our own power.

Upon these considerations we think that this Assembly, hath no cause now to require a Report of us, nor will that our Report be of any use, seeing that Reports are for Debates, and Debates are for Results to be sent up to the Honorable Houses, who have already voted another forme of Government then what we shall present. However it may be of more use some other way, which by this course may be prevented, And therefore we are resolved to wait for some further op­portunity to improve what we have prepared.