Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	act_n	offence_n	punish_v	1,000	5	10.2563	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78447	The censures of the church revived. In the defence of a short paper published by the first classis within the province of Lancaster ... but since printed without their privity or consent, after it had been assaulted by some gentlemen and others within their bounds ... under the title of Ex-communicatio excommunicata, or a Censure of the presbyterian censures and proceedings, in the classis at Manchester. Wherein 1. The dangerousness of admitting moderate episcopacy is shewed. ... 6. The presbyterian government vindicated from severall aspersions cast upon it, ... In three full answers ... Together with a full narrative, of the occasion and grounds, of publishing in the congregations, the above mentioned short paper, and of the whole proceedings since, from first to last.	Harrison, John, 1613?-1670.; Allen, Isaac, 17th cent.	1659 (1659)	Wing C1669; Thomason E980_22; ESTC R207784	289,546	380

there may be a necessity why he should be noted with the censure of Excommunication that he might be ashamed 2 Thes 3. 14. be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 5. 5. The Magistrate also may have punished him to the satisfaction of the Law and yet the Church remain unsatisfied and there be danger also of leavening others by his unreformedness except this old leaven be purged out 1 Cor. 5. 6. Civil punishments are necessary to be inflicted for the restraining from publike disorders not fit to be tolerated in a Christian state But if there be not repentance for such offences the souls of such offenders notwithstanding the Law be satisfied may be damned for their impeniteney for the preventing whereof Church censures are necessary and usefull Both Magistracy and Ministry are Ordinances of God the power of both are necessary and usefull a blessing from God may be expected on the due punishment and censures that are inflicted by both And therefore the asserting of the one doth not take away or destroy the other But if your doctrine be good if there be an appointment of civil punishments to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate and the civil Magistrate proceed to do his duty all the power of the Church is vacated neither must she inflict any censures or spirituall punishments that she is intrusted with the dispensing of though she see her members to be incorrigible impenitent and in danger to perish if her physick that is for the soul be not applied after the civil Magistrate hath gone as farre as he can because then one and the same person should be punished twice for one offence which you say is against Law but we are sure is against the rules of sound and good Divinity 3. But seeing you say that for a man to be punished twice for one offence is against Law and to make this out do urge two Statutes 1. Mar. chap. 3. 1. Eliz. cap. 2. unto this we say that however it doth not properly belong to us to expound the Laws of the Land we hope we may have leave to say what upon the perusall of those Statutes common reason doth dictate to us And therefore we answer 1. Your assertion is too generall to be made out by these Statutes That of the first of Mary speaking only of the penalties to be infficted on those that should disturb by word or deed Preachers in their Sermons or should molest a Priest preparing or celebrating Masse or other Service or abuse the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ or should break any Altar or Crucifix and providing in the close of it that the persons offending in the premises should be but once punished for one offence as there had been reason for some of those things that are there mentioned as offences why the transgressors of that Act should not have been so much as once punished The other Statute of the first of Elizabeth cap. 2. for so your quotation is in the Copy you presented unto us and which we judg to be the Statute you here mean there being nothing to this purpose to be found cap. 12. is likewise as expresly limited as the former For it entreats only of the penalties to be inflicted on those that should use any other Service then the Book of Common Prayer or should deprave the same Book or should do any thing or speak in the derogation of it or cause other Prayer to be said or sung or should not resort to the Church on the Sundays or other Holy days and then after the appointment of the punishment to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate in such cases and the other punishment to be inflicted by the Ordinary doth provide that whatsoever persons shall offend in the premises shall be but once punished for one offence providing particularly as you mention But you might have taken notice that the book of Common Prayer is taken away and so are Holy dayes by the Ordinance appointing the Directory and we could never see there was reason for that severity either of Ecclesiasticall censures or civil punishments to be inflicted upon all those that might be found punishable at any time by this Act. However the provisions mentioned in these Acts refering only to the particular cases mentioned in them your proof from them falls short to make out your assertion that is generall that it is against Law for a man to be punished twice for one offence 2. But yet we further answer that when the Parliament passed the Ordinance of 1648 whereby the offendors there mentioned are made censurable by us with the Church censures as there may be occasion according to the rules layd down in the form of Church Government there were sundry penall Statutes in force inflicting civil punishments on severall of the offendors mentioned in that Ordinance and yet there is no proviso in this Ordinance that was passed after those Statutes to the purpose you speak of and restraining the Church from inflicting Church censures in case the civil Magistrate had punished them by civil punishments but it gives the Church full liberty to proceed without the least hint of any such a limitation 3. You also who pretend to be so expert in the Laws might have taken notice that in the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. cap. 23. there is an appointment of the order of awarding and returning the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and also what was to be done upon the appearance of the offeudor and what if he could not be found and by which Statute it is most clear that the civil Magistrate was to inflict a civil punishment upon the same offendor that had been excommunicated by the Ordinary as it is there provided that upon the Bishops receiving the submission and satisfaction of the person excommunicated and certifying the same the party was to be released from the Sheriffs custody or prison By which we think it is manifest that you who would appear to be men so well skilled in all Laws both of God and men have laid down such a generall assertion as can be made out by neither it being cleer by that Act that a civil punishment was to be inflicted on the person that by his offence had incurred the censure of Excommunication Further you might have observed that by the Statute 10 Caroli cap. 1. there is a forfeiture appointed to be levyed on every person using any unlawfull pastimes on the Lords day and yet in the close thereof there is a proviso in these words that the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction within this Realm or any the dominions thereof by vertue of this Act or any thing therein contained shall not be abridged but that the Ecclesiasticall Court may punish the said offences as if this Act had not been made The like proviso we also find in the Statute 30 Caroli cap. 1. which yet

such lawless persons whether drunkards swearers c. as will not subject themselves to the present Government of the Church they are onely punishable by the civil Magistrate and that we cannot exclude them the Church by any of our censures this is as easily by us denied as it is by you asserted and we leave it to be judged of by the Reader upon his perusall of what hath been said by both whether you or we have the better reason for what is herein maintained by us But we must again mind you that notwithstanding in our answer we had here told you that however we did not judg all those to be lawless persons that do out of conscience not come up to the observation of all those rules which are or shall be established by Authority for regulating the outward worship of God and Government of his Church yet both you and we might well remember that such as should have refused to have subjected themselves to the late Prelaticall Government would have been accounted in those times lawless persons yet to this also you do here say nothing although it was one of your queries in your first Paper whether all that subjected not themselves to our present Government must be taken for lawless persons and which was a matter more considerable to have replied to then to have put us off as you do with that which is not at all here to the purpose your querie to which we answered not being about our power to censure the persons that we counted lawless but who those lawless persons were The Gentlemens Paper Sect. IX To our next Quaere viz. How farre you extend this Saintship this Church and Assembly of Saints You answer As farre as the Apostle did when writing to the Church of Corinth and Galatia he calls them Saints and Churches notwithstanding the gross errours of many members in them and therefore though there may be sundry of the like stamp in your Assemblies you do not un-church them or make your Assemblies not Assemblies of Saints because of the corruption of such Members c. But by your leave you answer not our question which was not Whether all your Assemblies were called assemblies of Saints for no question you will not un-church your selves or un-saint your Assemblies notwithstanding the corruptions in them But whether none else but you were accounted Saints none Bretheren and Sisters in Christ but such as stand for your pretended discipline If so then the Donatists crime may be imputed to you and we say with St. Augustin O Impudentem Vocem Nay but this cannot be laid in your dish whose principles and practises are so manifestly against the practises and opinions of the Donatists of old it may more fitly be charged upon such as have rent themselves from your Churches But who are they that have rent from your Church we hear but of few that ever admitted themselves members or prosessed themselves of your association that ever rent from it Those that are out say they were never of you never had sworn obedience to or subscribed any Articles of yours as you or many of you had sworn Canonicall obedience to the Government by Bishops and subscribed the 39 Articles of the Church of England Here is a rent indeed a Schism in the highest which is not satisfied but with the utter overthrow of that Church from whom they rent and rasing out those Articles of Religion they had formerly confirmed by their own subscription saying Illa non est c. O Impudentem Vocem this saying doth not concern you But still we are unsatisfied in the word Publique what you mean thereby to which you Answer Such as you by your profession and practise do own for publique such as you do constantly frequent and stir up others to frequent also where are also the publique Ordinances of the word Sacraments and Prayer dispensed But here again you come not home to our Question Whether none are publique Assemblies nay publique Assemblies of Saints but such as you constantly frequent or whose discipline you own however publique yours are And then your Order is Notice shall be taken of all Persons that forsake the publique Assemblies Notice of all Persons in order to censure so is your meaning and purpose as a little before you have said we may gather from your Paper to censure all Persons that maintain private meetings in opposition to publique whether out of conscience or out of a principle of carelesness sloth worldliness c. All Persons that crie down your Churches Ministry c. is your purpose and meaning by that order And you say further Neither do we transgress any Laws of the Land which have made no Proviso to exempt any man that we meddle with c. Here sure you are mistaken for you can no more proceed to censure such as forsake the publique Assemblies by virtue of any Ordinance of Parliament or rule laid down in your form of Church Government then you or any other Minister or Magistrate civill or Ecclesiastical can punish them by an Act of 1. Eliza. intituled An Act for Vniformity of Prayer and Administration of Sacraments or by an Act of 35. Eliza. Intituled An Act for punishing of Persons obstinately refusing to come to Church c. Or an Act of 23. Eliza. against such as refuse to come to Church All which with your Ordinance are repealed by an Act made Septemb. 27. 1650. Intituled An Act for relief of Religious and peaceable pcople from the rigor of former Acts of Parliament in matters of Religion By which these are not only repealed but it is enacted further That all and every the branches clauses Articles and Proviso's Expressed and contained in any other Act or Ordinance of Parliament whereby or wherein any penalty or punishment is imposed or mentioned to be imposed on any Person for not repayring to their respective Parish Churches c. shall be and are by the Authority aforesaid wholly repealed and made void None by this Act shall be censured or punished by virtue of any former Act or Ordinance for refusing to come to their Parish Church c. though they obstinately refuse And if by no former then not by that you pretend to Now to the end no prophane and licentious Person may take occasion by the repealing of the said Laws intended onely for relief of pious and peaceable minded people from the rigor of them o neglect the performance of Religious duties It is further enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and every Person and Persons within this Commonwealth and the territories thereof shall having no reasonable excuse for their absence upon every Lords day dayes of publique thanksgiving and humiliation diligently resort to some publique place where the service and worship of God is Exercised or shall be present at some other place in the practise of some Religious duty either of Prayer Preaching reading or Expounding the Scriptures or conferring upon the same And

well remember how under the Episcopall government there was a generall admission and that sundry grosly ignorant did croud in amongst the rest unto this Ordinance and therefore that these might be discovered and kept off from this Sacrament till fitter for it we judged it requisite that according to that power that is glven to the Eldership in the form of Church-government for this purpose there should be a triall taken of all the communicants that so there might be some distinction made and not be a promiscuous admitting of all as heretofore And we are sure that such amongst us who having been anciently catechised and a long while commoners at the Lords Table to use your own expressions have witnessed the best confession for their parts and piety have been the most forward to draw on others to be willing to be re-examined by their own good example therein and that the greatest opposers of this course however they may be some of them persons of parts yet have been such as have been either scandalous in their lives or not so forward for piety as were to be desired We have thus given an account of what is our practice in this matter but this examination of communicants de novo was not the thing we here spake of as why the examination of them before their admission of them at the first was here mentioned we have delared before But we see you are willing to lay hold on any thing wherein you apprehend you have any advantage against us though it be never so small Fifthly You charge us again with another non sequitur when we inferre that if the Churches lawfull Pastors have power to excommunicate the scandalous we see not in reason how you can find fault with our proceedings if there should be occasion for our censuring any such persons but this inference yet stands good against any thing by you alleadged to the contrary and in it self is clear and manifest being there is no excommunication that passeth with us against any but by the juridical act of the lawfull Pastors of our several Churches or Congregations and whose power by you should not be questioned or the validity of their censures because of the concurrence of the ruling Elders as by way of preventing an Objection we hinted to you in our answer considering what power was exercised in the time of Episcopacy by the High Commissioners Chancellors and Commissaries as much Lay-men then in your judgement as ruling Elders can be now to whom yet there was a submission by you This reason you say is weak but you do not prove it to be so Nay here you fall short in two main points For 1. You misrepresent the matter of fact and that in two particulars 1. When you would intimate that the High-Commissioners Chancellors and Commissaries did all of them officiate by deputation from and under a lawfull Pastor when as it is manifest the High-Commissioners had no deputation from the Bishop but received their Commission from the King if not the Chancellors also and did act in those Ecclesiasticall censures that were by them passed in joynt and equall power with the Bishop by virtue of their Commission 2. The Parliament that did appoint the ruling-Elders in the form of Church government did not oblige any that were to submit to them to acknowledg the jus divinum of their Office neither do we impose this opinion of them upon any And therefore notwithstanding our own judgment concerning them in this respect the comparison betwixt them and the other as to what is necessary for your satisfaction doth still hould good and is neither weak nor frivolous as you say 2. But if the matter of fact should be granted to have been according to your representation sc that High-Commissioners Chancellours c. did all of them officiate by deputation from or under a lawfull Pastor how doth this help the matter to make your submission to these lawfull and yet your submission to the ruling Elders unlawfull For 1. we are as yet to learn and we think you will never be able to make it good that a trust committed to one by man much less reposed by God in an officer in the Church and particularly in the Pastor may be delegated If this be so he might sufficiently discharge his duty by another preach by another administer the Sacrament by another as well as dispense the censures of the Church by another who yet himself is to give an account of their souls unto God which he will never be able to make in the omission of those duties in his own person though he appoint another unto them But being the highest officer in the Church doth not himself act out of plenitude of power for that were to make him a Pope and Antichrist that belonging only to Jesus Christ the King and Lord of the Church to whom all power is given in Heaven and earth and hath no more but a ministry committed to him which he hath received of Christ as his servant who hath required him to fulfill it he may not depute any other as under him or as his servant to do that which his Lord and master hath intrusted him with and appointed him to do himself 2. But further we do here enquire of you whether by virtue of that deputation which the persons spoken of received from a lawfull Pastor according to your allegation you will have them to be Ecclesiasticall officers or but meer lay-men still If notwithstanding that deputation they be but meer lay-men how will you awarrant them to meddle with Ecelesiasticall censures because deputed thereunto by the Bishop when God hath excluded all those that are but meer lay-men from medling authoritatively with Ecclesiasticall matters If the High-Priest in the time of the Law had given to Vzziah a Commission to have gone into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the Altar of incense and he had so officiated by deputation from and under him would that have been sufficient to have born him out in so doing whenas that work pertained not unto him but unto the Priests the sonnes of Aaron that were consecrated to burn incense If by vertue of that deputation they had from the Bishops they were Ecclesiasticall officers invested with authority to exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and dispense Church-censures and so not meer lay-men we may say much more for the outward call unto that office that our ruling Elders do execute they having been elected by the people that anciently had a vote in the choice even of the very Bishops as is clear from the Records of Antiquity and examined by the Pastors of the Churches and by them approved as fit and set apart solemnly to rule in the house of God by exhortation and Prayer as hath been said before 6. But you now go on and declare whom you mean by lawfull Pastors sc such persons as have received their Ordination from men lawfully and

of the Land which had made no proviso to exempt any of these from being censured by us we are willing to examine the utmost you have to say for them which is but only this that we can no more proceed tocensure such as forsake the publick Assemblies by vertue of any Ordinance of Parliament or rule laid down in our forme of Church Government then they may be punished by an Act of 1. Elizabeth or an Act of 35. Elizabeth or an Act of 23. of Elizabeth all which with our Ordinance as you say are repealed by an Act made Septemb 37. 1650. The title whereof you give us as you had done before By which you say the former are not only repealed but tell us what is further enacted But the strength of this allegation hath been tried before and found to be as weak as water This Act of 1650. that you insist on repealing only the Statutes or Ordinance that inflict civil punishment upon those that repair not to their respective Parish Churches c. and meddles not at all with repealing of the Ordinance authorizing the censuring of offendors with Church censures and which we have in our answer to the fourth Section of this Paper sufficiently demonstrated And therefore all that you say for those you here undertook to exempt from being censured by us is but what hath been discovered before to have no strength and so therefore is of no force at all except we must believe that by your repeating it and coming over with it again and paraphrasing upon it it had gained some new strength that it never had And so all that follows now to the conclusion of this Section is of no weight For we cannot against manifest reason to the contrary judge it to be any great boldness in us to censure those as forsakers of the publick Assemblies of the Saints who falling under the character that we have given of them are made censurable by the Ordinance establishing the form of Church Government Neither can we hereupon be brought to fear any danger of running thereby into a praemunire which you again mind us of There are only two things more we desire might be taken notice of before we pass from this Section 1. That the Act of 1650. which you quote doth so farre discountenance those who out of a principle of sloth worldliness or prophaneness frequent not the publick Assemblies that it leaves them to be punished with civil punishments as offendors against the Law notwithstanding its taking off the civil penalties from some that are mentioned in it and as is manifest from what you recite out of it and it not speaking one syllable that may carry any shew of a repeal of the Ordinance for Church Government doth both leave these and all other offendors against that Ordinance to be censured by the censures of the Church as there may be cause 2. That you having told us if notwithstanding this Act we should proceed to censure and might run our selves into a praemunire and then imputing to us such a gross assertion as if we should have said we were not to be blamed for any mistakes that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris whether simple or affected do hereby plainly discover you matter not much with what you charge us so you can but render us absurd enough For our sense is clear from the whole tenour of our discourse where we used any such expressions that we said we were not to be blamed for any mistakes in you that might arise ab ignorantiâ juris whether simple or affected we determined not but left you to examine and which is so plain that when you your selves recite our words in the beginning of the fourth Section of this Paper you represent that which doth plainly shew that there you understood us as we have declared and of which we minded the Reader in our second Animadversion on that Section But now we are the persons that affirm a thing so absurd as if we were not to be blamed for our ignorance of the Law whether simple or affected and then you cry out a strange saying and tell us that you have heard it said that ignorantia facti excusat but ignorantia juris non excusat c. But how faithfully and sincerely you have herein dealt with us the Reader may judge and we wish you in the examination of your consciences to consider The Gentlemens Paper Sect. X. To our next Quaere Whether those that forsake the publique Assemblies of the Saints in the 2d Order may not be taken for scandalous Persons and so comprehended in the 3d You Answer We conceiving your meaning to be such are not mistaken For they are really and indeed scandalous and so justly merit to be censured by you And although we be not mistaken in our conceits of you yet we must tell you you are mistaken in your own to think you may bring in any that forsake your publique Assemblies under that notion of a scandalous Person and so proceed to censure accordingly for the reasons we have given before Nay nor yet can you proceed to censure the more known scandalous in life such as you instance of Drunkards swearers and whore-masters they being all punishable by the civill Magistrate as by the several Acts made for that purpose appeareth And not by any Ecclesiastical much less by your Elderships short and blunt sword of Excommunication by any Laws now in force We are not so sensible of the Multiplicity of Canons and burdensomness of Ceremonies under which in the time of Episcopacy any truely conscientious did sigh or groan but if we may judg ex pede Herculem by the number of Canons already made in your Provincial Assemblies and elsewhere in this short usurpation of Presbytery many urged necessary de fide what they would amount to had you lived the Age of Episcopacy 1600. years and upwards we might well crie out Quare oneramini ritibus and censure you as Dr Andrews doth Bellarmine in behalf of our English Church Nobis non tam Articulosa fides quàm vestris hominibus qui ad singulas Theses crepant est de fide Vobis quibus datum est vestra omnia in eodem lumine videre quibus vestra omnia ab eodem proponente infallibili habere abundare licet Articulis ad Arthritim usque c. The Animadversions of the Class upon it 1. HEre you having nothing to object against the reason we had given you in our answer why though such as forsake the publick Assemblies of the Saints being indeed scandalous and so such as might be comprehended under the latitude of that expression we did notwithstanding mention them distinctly in a distinct order from that wherein the scandalous were mentioned have no further thing to tell us but what you had said before that we were mistaken to think we might proceed to censure under the notion of scandalous persons such as forsake the Assemblies of the Saints for the

Mosely Esq Francis Mosely Thomas Holland Thomas Simond Captaine John Byrom Gentlemen Subscribed by them and many others containing some exceptions against the Representation agreed on and published by this Class to which an Answer is promised the next Class Mr Harison desired to draw up the Answer and some of the Ministers to meet a weeke before to consult about the same f Classicall Records Feb. 9. 1657. Mr Harrison according to the request of the Class had drawn up an Answer to the Paper which was presented to this Class at their last meeting by sundry Gentlemen which Gentlemen waiting for the said Answer at this time it was ordered that this Answer should be returned to them viz. That if they had directed their Paper to any one single person the Answer might have been prepared and punctually delivered at the time but since they had directed it to the whole Association there must be a time taken that the Answer may pass the consideration and approbation of the whole Class for which reason and for the transcribing of Copies of it as was necessary at present they could not deliver the said Answer though it was in substance prepared But the Class promised that it should be sent in to some one of them whom they should fix on to receive it sometime before the next Class without any further trouble to them They nominated Nicholas Mosely Esq to receive the Paper from this Class The Class is appointed at Manchester February 22. to conclude more speedily about the Answer to be given to the foresaid Paper g Classicall Records Feb. 22. 1657. The Answer was read and approved Mr Buxton and Mr Byrom desired to deliver it to Mr Mosely the day after h Classicall Records March 9. 1657. Nicholas Mosely Esq with other Gentlemen brought another Paper to the Class subscribed by Mr Allen the said Mr Mosely c. the which was read and because in the latter end of it they hinted their unsatisfiedness in what was alledged in our Papers in Answer to their first for the proof of our authority for the exercise of the present Government from the Law of the Land now in force they having charged us before with the danger of a Praemunire The Class resolved to wave any other matter tendred in this last Paper till they made out their exceptions in that thing And this Answer was returned to the foresaid Gentlemen viz. That the Class did desire they would make out what they seemed to assert against the validity of our acting in the Presbyterian Government by virtue of civill Authority i Classicall Records Aprill 13. 1658. Nicholas Mosely Esq and severall Gentlemen as before attended the Class with an Answer to the Classe's last Paper The Class taking into consideration the other contained weighty businesses that were upon them whereby they would not be free to continue this matter in debate by writing thought fit to referre it to a Committee to meet a certain number of the Subscribers of the foresaid Paper to debate the matters further therein and in the former Papers conteined if need required for mutuall satisfaction which being consented unto by such of the Gentlemen as were present the Class appointed Mr Heyrick Mr Angier Mr Harrison Mr Newcome Mr Constantine and the rest of the Ministers within this Class as also Mr Hide Captain Ashton Mr Vrigley Mr Wickins Mr Meare Mr Lancashire Mr Buxton Mr Byrom Mr Wollen or any six of them to be a Committee for this purpose and the Committee to meet the 28th of Aprill instant and after to meet the aforesaid Gentlemen at such time and place as may be agreed on by both Parties k Classicall Records May 12th 1658. The Committee appointed by the last Class gave in an account of their proceedings on the 28th of Aprill the Committee met according to the Order of the Class at the time appointed there appeared on the behalf of the Gentlemen Mr Nicholas Mosely only the Committee understanding that he was at the doore desired Mr Harrison and Mr Wickins to go forth to him and to acquaint him that the Committee was ready to nominate their men that might treat about their last Paper and touching an accommodation according to their former Paper which they did accordingly He replyed the last Paper was not any thing to be discussed c. but only the accommodation Mr Harrison who had brought the Answer of the Class to the Gentlemen that day they had presented their Paper Answered that he mentioned both unto them as matters to be discoursed of He said indeed that before their Paper was read he was sent forth unto them by the Class to signifie unto them that the Class was willing to entertain a treaty with them touching an accommodation and that this was the only thing that at that time was mentioned but when he was sent unto them the second time after that the Class was risen and the Class had heard their Paper read he mentioned both their last Paper and the accommodation as the Subject matter about which the persons to be nominated on both sides were to treat however he or the rest might have forgotten the same But Mr Harrison and Mr Wickins told him they would go in again and further know the Committees mind the Committee hereupon insisted much on the last Paper and conceived it was necessary before they proceeded to treat about an accommodation satisfaction should be given touching some things in it and at which they said they had just reason to be offended and therefore desired Mr Harrison and Mr Wickins to go forth again and tell Mr Mosely so much and that if he pleased to nominate persons that might treat about this as well as touching the accommodation they were ready to proceed To which Mr Mosely replyed that he was not authorized to meddle with any thing about the last Paper and that for his part he could wish all the Papers on both sides were burned and that if the Class was offended at any thing in their last Paper justly he should be ready it being shewed him to make satisfaction at the Market Cross They returned Mr Mosely's Answer to the Committee who taking the matter into further consideration resolved not to infist on the Method but that they would give way that the accommodation might be first treated on provided that at that time the Paper also might be discoursed on and desired Mr Harrison and Mr Wickins to go forth again and to tell Mr Mosely what they had resolved on and to desire him to nominate persons within the bounds of the Class the matter to be debated being before the Class only that might treat with the like number to be nominated by them touching the matter above mentioned To this Mr Mosely replyed they had not Ministers within the Class to equallize the number that the Class might nominate and that therefore he desired on the behalf of the re●● that they might take others that