Argument here is a Supposition of Shipwrack upon some desolate Island and we easily grant that one of the Company being elected may become a Minster of God unto them but it is more from the Providence and Call of God than their Election It s God must furnish 〈…〉 Itâ— God must incline him to undertake it Its God that â—â—iâ—s up the People to receive and entertain him as a Minister God gives success to his Ministry c. But besides this it is to be considered that God does not tye himself to those means which he has tyed us unto in ordinary cases according to that usual saying Jus divinum pâ—sâ—tivum cedit juri divino Naturalâ— The case is whoâ—â—y extraordinary and God that makes the Necessity wiâ—â— also dispence with our unavoidable Complyance Were our Author in the right the sinful Will of Man whereon the Election does depend might frustrate the whole Ministry that Christ has instituted But alas whether men will hear oâ— whether they will for bear our Lord will send his Ministers and whether Men will call them or no they shall beforced to confess Verily we had Prophets among us Ezek. 33 33. We wonder also that they â—â—o insist upon it That it is Christs peculiar Prerogative to state his own Worship should sâ—oil him of another part of it to make his own Officers If the People may do one why not the other And it increases our Wonder that the Reverend Author should revive this Assertion at this ti 〈…〉 of day Forty six years after it has been so learnedly and so fully refuâ—ed in Jus Divinum Ministerij Eva gâ—liâ—i published by the Provincial Assembly of London chap. 9. without taking Notice of their Answers and Arguments 2dly We shall pâ—ss by several things in these Chapters which in a severe Disquisition we might justly except against Our second Charge is That he makes imposition of hands a little unnecessary Ceremony Though we can distinguish between Ordination and I â—position of Hands and approve what the afore-mentioned Assembly says pag. 157. We must distinguish between the Substance Essence and formal Act of Ordination and the Rite used therein The Essential Act of Ordination is the constitâ—ting or appointing a man to be a Minister or the sending him with Power and Authority to preach the Gospel The Ritâ— is Imposition of hands Yet we can see no reason why this Ritâ— being of divine Institution 1 Tâ—m 5. 22. used by the Apostles the primitive Church and generally since the Reformation should now be run down as so triffling a Ceremony We know the Reyerend Author could have quoted a whole Lâ—af of famous Authors who speak highly for it If the Provincial Assembly at London displease him the New-England Plat-form may satisfie him That Church Officers are not only to be â—â—oâ—â—n by the Church but abâ—â— ordained by Imposition of hands and Prayer or the Answer to the 32 Questions that says expresly Ordination is necessary by divine Institution But iâ— the Author indeed disquieted it the imposition of hands because but a Ceremony It is out looking back to pag 80 and we shall see he as much magnifies and contends for as meer a Rite to be sure sâ—â—l the right hand of fellowship The Reverend Author not only speaks meanly of the laying on of hands of the Presbytery but â—â— too â—â—ch countenances the Imposition of hands by Brethren or Persons out of Office His Text of Scripture Numb 8 9 10. respecting the Children of Israel s putting their hands on the Levites is so fully and punctually answered by the Provincial Assembly of London pag. 188. that we remit the Reader thither for â—â— love â—ot to transeribe In the New Testament he owns there is no instance of Persons out of Office imposing hands And notwithstanding all his instances the Apostles assertion stands good Heb. 7. 7. and without all contradiction the less is blessed of the greater The Authors next Essay is to remove the weighty Objection That none can give what himself hath not And this he does by some Similiâ—udes To touch upon one pag. 99. A Woman saith he by giving her â—elâ— in Marriage causeth the Man to â—â—oâ—â— she giveth her self â—â— have the power of a Husband but no man will be so absurd â—â— to say that a Woman has formally the power of an â—â—â—shâ—â—d A poor Return indâ—â—d to so weighty an Objection An unmarriâ—d Woman has power over her self to rule and govern her self and her Actions as fully as the Husband has when she is married though a particular Church without any Officer has not power to â—eed teach govern themselves and ad 〈…〉 Ordinances Here â—â— a plain Disparity Moreover it is groâ—â— â—â—â—uâ—d to affirm that the Wife gives the Power to the Husband Indeed she gives her self but it is the Institution and Command of God that gives the Power and could we suppose that to be laid aside they would be equal To be sure it Women once get this Notion by the end that they give the Power to their Husbands we should soon have them indenting limiting and reserving in part to themselves by a Marriage Contract as well their Power and Authority as their Estates 4ly The Author asserts That no man ought to be ordained a Pastor except unto a particular Church pag. 101. Which kind of Doctrine doth indeed startle us because it manifests the Reverend 〈◊〉 to be very uâ—stable in his Judgment It is credibly reported That at a general Convention of Ministers at Boston May 26. 1698. and there are enough yet living who knew the truth of â—t to whom we appeal this Question was discussed Whether a Minister might be ordained though he had as yet no particular Church in order to 〈◊〉 Administration of Baptism and the gathering settling a Church This as we are told had a more peculiar reference to Mr. Clap's Nation at Rhode Island and it was voted and carried in the Affirmative and what is yet stranger was lead on and put to the Vote by the Author himself he being the Moderator of the Assembly Upon this conclusion Mr. Williams was ordained in the Colledge Hall in order to his Voyage to Barbadoes Now it is wonderful to us how the contrary to that which was a truth two years ago should obtain now Possibly the Reverend Author'â— modesty won't suffer him to think the Ballance equal or we would put the late Vote of May 98 in the Scale against the Council of Calcedon p 105. 5ly We crave the Readers patience and will offer but one Remark upon these two Chapters In pag. 102 its said Pastar and Flock are Relates and therefore one cannot be without the other It is contrary to the Rules of Reason as Logicians know that the Relate should be without its Correlate To say that a wandering Levite who has no Flock is a Pastor is as good sence as to say to the who has no Children is a Father and the Man who has
Arguments In the fore-going Chapter when he would prove there ought to be a tryal of Persons he tells us of the Porters that were set ut the gates of the Temple 2 Chron. 23. 19 but those Porters were Officers 1 Coron â—6 1. so he Instances in the Twelve Angels at the Gates of the Mystic 〈…〉 Jerusalem which tho' it may imply that the Gâ—â—es were kept yet not that the fraternity were the keepers He instances also in Phillip and John the Baptist which if it argues any thing is applicable only to the Officers and not in the Brother-hood But to examine his strength in this Chapter what he calls argument may more truly be stiled dogmatical affirming or a more mean begging the Question Till pag. 24 25. he quotes a cripture or two in proof of his assertions â—â—iâ— 1 Corinth 5. 12. 2 Cor. 2. 6. in both which places the Apostle is writing to the Church at Corinth about excommunicating the lâ—cestuouâ— Person to hâ—â—â—â—n and the restoring him again upon his Repentance And w 〈…〉 t the Reverend Author to the same holy Apostiâ— for an â—â—swer 〈…〉 t is that known place 1 Corinth 1â— chap. where he compares the Church to a mans Body and shows the distinct offices and operations of the respective Members as the Eye and Ear the Hand and Foot And to render the allusion the more intelligible he names the Officers God had set over his Church as more immediately referred to v. 28. God has set some in his Church first Apostles secondarily Prophets thirdly Teachers and in the close of the 14. chap. he adds Let all things be done decently and in order The result of all is this The Apostle would have every one to keep his proper place and sphere and do his own work soil in the Censure of the faulty Person the Eldership were to do theirs the Brotherhood not to usu 〈…〉 or arrogate any thing above their Province For as the Apostle queries v. 19 are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Teachers i. e. in a govern'd Body we cannot expect all should be Governors vid. Pool's Annot. There is another Text also produced to prove the power of the Brethren scil Mat. 18. 17. and if he shall neglect to hear them tell it to the Church This Text has been often brought on this account and sometimes on other accounts and as often answered yet here brought again but it will not answer the end The Context supposes an Offender and the wronged party proceeding against him and here are three steps the dissatisfied Person is directed to take in order to heal the wound given 1. To tell the Offender his fault in private 2 To tell him before 2 or 3 witnesses and if the end be not obtained 3. To tell it to the Church Suppose now a Person acting according to this Rule as we could give instances if need were when the first step did not gain his Brother nor the second answer the end at last the dissatisfied Person carried the case to the Pastor and now he reckened he had told it to the Church The Pastor sending so the Offendor presently convinced him brought him to Repentance and to give satisfaction and the thing was issued Here the Rule was attended the Church told the offendor healed the wronged Person satisfied and the matter issued when the Brotherhood all this while knew nothing of it It is evident from the next verse that by the Church must be meant those who had Power to bind and loose which Power Christ had given to the Apostles Moreover let the sense be that the Offence is to be told to the Rulers first and then by then to the multitude not for the multitude to judge of it but for their warning and example for their prayers for the offendor and their approbacion of the Elders Censure and that they might take care to avoid the familiarity of such an insectious sinner vid. Pools Annot. But if Scripture will not prove the Power of the Brethren possibly some venerable Maxim may do the feat Quod â—angie omnes debet ab omnibus approbari But alas this Maxim gives so much to the Sisters as to the Brethren Surely it is no divine Oracle it neither came from Heaven nor is it according to the manners of men upon Earth If a master of a family take in a soâ—ouâ—nor or a servant all are concerned but their vote is not asked If a Captain list a Souldier all the Company is concerned but it is done by his Authority without asking their leave And pray carry this mâ—xâ—m to the Colledge and see if the President and fellows will stand by it in their admissions If it be objected that even in all these cases if there be any sufficient reasons presented by those concerned a prudent Ruler will yield to it we easily grant it and therefore it s not unfit that men be proposed to the Congregation if there be any thing to object against their lives c. Another argument for the Brethrens Power in admission is lest the whole Power should sometimes reside in the hands of a single Minister and that this is unreasonable we have a Speech quoted from the Presbiterian Ministers in London But it is strangely perverted from their true meanning as appears not only from the whole series and scope of the Book but also from what is expressed in the page quoted p. 71. where they say That the Power cannot be placed in the whole Church collectively taken The Scripture makes an exact distinction between Rulers and ruled They only plead that there should be more Rulers in a Church then one or that when there are more then the Power belongs to the whole meaning the ruling Elders as well as the Teaching And what is that to the Power of the Brethren One officer has Power in plain cases to act in the Kings name Indeed our Saviour did frequently send forth his Disciples two and two But yet Phillip was sent alone to baptize the Ethiopian Eunuc 〈…〉 It will not excuse a Minister in the neglect of Christs work because he has no fellow labourers with him But the strongest argument comes last The way to keep Popery our of the World saith our Author is for the fraternity to assert and maintain that Power which does of right belong to them In answer to which we need only blot out the word fraternity and in its room write the word Elaâ—rship An excellent argument that will equally prove either way and by the change of a word serve also to answer Doctor Owens long Speech which ends that Chapter In short all Power is firstly in Christs â—aâ—ds and our Reverend Author produces no commission or order from Christ for the â—rethren â—â— ma 〈…〉 ge the affairs oâ— his House in his name for he has appointed Officers of his own to that end Q. 4. Whether is it necessary tâ—at Persons at their admission into the Church should make a publick
relation of the time and manner of their Conversion The Reverend Author answers in the Negative and adds that the Churches of N. E do not impose it â—or ought it to be required or desired He gives four substantial reasons why it ought not And had he stopt here he had done well or had he added more reasons to those four as he could have done it had been an acceptable performance But about he wheels again and seems to plead hard for it or something like it which he calls the Practice of the Churches of New England This he would recommend from a story receiv'd from the Reverend Mr. Eliot but we have heard another story from the same Reverend Person how when one of the Brethren was highly commending his neighbours Relation and preferâ—â—â—g it to others the said Mr. Eliot turned upon him and said Aâ— Brother don 't be so much taken with fine words but look to the mans conversation The Author relates another story from the Reverend Mr. Hoâ— of one who through importunity was brought to make a relation and made the Congregation weep when he did it but whether for joy or grief we are left in the dark The Author gives us his arguments but they do not reach his end He pleads for them in that they are edifying but we have known some that have been no ways so or granting they were always so can that justifie the instituting and imposing them would it â—ot be edifying if every Sabbath day evening some well disposed talkative Brethren should stand up and relate the experiences of the week past yet shall we make it a law or custom will not some people assure you they have been wonderfully edified by a womans preaching in Publick and yet will our Reverend Author be induced to prostitute his Pulpit to them or part with a Sallary to cherish their zeal Again the Relation of Experiences is pleaded for in that God may be Honoured by them But we have known some to Gods dishonour being inâ—â—pid sensless things to use our Authors own words meer formalities too scandalous and superstitious He saith they are a means to gain love with the Children of God But we have known some that have lost love and credit by them But the Question is Whether they are an instituted means for any of these ends Whether appointed by God to promote his glory edisie the Congregation or gain love If not they are but the Institutions of men and therefore to be rejected as the before quoted Mr. Willard instructs us God has appointed the preaching the Gospel the Sacraments c. for edification and the promoting Christian love among his people but we read nothing of these imposed relations neither when Christ himself nor when his Apostles after him administred this holy Sacrament Nor is there any appearance of such a Custom in the primitive Church Indeed there are some occasions as our Author observes on which a Person who has had a remarkable Conversion may declare it but there 's neither precept nor rule in the Word of God that it should be done at this set time and in publick And with what sace can we impose it when our Fathers fled from the impositions of men whether arbitrary Impositions are insufferable in themselves or not yet certainly they are â—old and insolent in New-England where the greatest out-cry is made against them in others But it would make a man smile were he never so serious or displeased to read the Texts that are brought for this Custom as that Psal â—0 10. I have not concealed thy Truth from the great Congregation And indeed the Royal Prophet had been inexcusable if he had as a Minister would now that should not declare to his flock the whole counsel of God Again Psal 66. 16. he says Come and hear all you that fear God and I will declare what he has done for my soul We imagine the Reverend Author supposes the Psalmist thus calling aloud in some vast religious Concourse and that in order to his partaking of the priviledges of the Jewish Church But should we grant a supposal so ridiculous and extravagant yet this makes nothing for imposing Relations for then it should have been spoken and challenged by the People Do you come and stand forth Sir and tell us what God has done for your soul and then we admit you to all the priviledges of the Temple Another Text strangely perverted to scare some good people is that Mat. 10. 33. Whosoever denyeth me before men him will I also deny before my father which is in Heaven As if there were no confessing Christ without making formal speeches in the Church And as if a credible profession of our faith in Christ the taking his Name upon us in Baptism and the renewal of our Baptismal Vow and a devout attendance on the Ordinances of the Gospel were not the true confession our Lord expects Wo be to the world if all were to be rated denyers of Christ who whether from inability modesty or a just indignation refuse to make a quaint Speech in the Church The last Scripture we shall name which has been equally abused with the rest is that in 1 Pet. 3. 15. That Christians should be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them to everyone that asketh it to wit in a proper place and time for a fit end and on sufficient Reasons where there is Authority to command or it is desired with modesty The sense indeed is that we should be ready to defend our Faith against the scoffs and cavils of Infidels and Persecutors and that it is a shame to Christians not to be able to argue for their Religion and confute gain-sayers So that if you would infer hence any publick Speech in the Church it must be rather an Apology for the Christian Religion or a Sermon to prove its reasonableness and evidence but neither is it in the least intimated that this should be made a stated term of Communion and we are sure the Church has no more power to debar the resuser from any Christian priviledge then to require Oaths Subscriptions and Conformity to a Thousand more Ceremonies We have but one Remark more to make here and that is the Apostle requires this reason of our hope to be given with meekness fear The true sense whereof is that which we are contending even with Infidels yet we must not argue with an intemperate Passion or Zeal Or if we construe it as in opposition to Pride and Presumption of a mans own gâ—fâ—s and abilities It is a severe Rebuke to many of our bold and forward Zealots who have been famed for their promptness to speak in the Church and the first that have fallen under its deserved â—ash We should indeed be better reconciled to this custom of Relations were this prescribed meekness and fear more visible in them But this is the misery the more meek and fearful are hereby kept out of
account not enjoy them And that those who are thus covenanted or the major part of them have power to make or unmake Officers to admit or reject Church Members to mannage Discipline to order the affairs of Christs House in his Name as if they had warrant and commission from him so to do Of such a Church Covenant neither Moses nor Christ himself the Prophets nor the Aposties have spoke any thing None of the Scriptures Arguments or Quotations of our Reverend Author prove any thing of it We will take leave therefore to call it Mans Covenant and noâ— Gods for it has nor Gods Seal affixed to it though good wise or learned men may endeavour to obtrude it and plead its harmless â—â—ifying or for the Interest of Religion yet according to the afore-quoted Rule of the reverend Mr. Willard we are to reject it and shall do so till it comes with a divine Stamp But possibly this may be called a Misrepresentation You will say Who owns it or will plead for it in this Dress We Answer by querying Whether there be not several that own and plead for the things contained in it We wish there were a less Number But to evince it let us take it into the several parts Are there none that plead for a seperate Covenant which some and generally the lesser part must enter into and if it be good and for good ends why must so many be excluded If it be to reform Manners if to maintain the Ministry and Worship of God if to lay stricter Bonds of Duty if to bring men more effectually to submit to Discipline why then are not the whole brought in for the whole Congregation are oblig'd to these Duties and why must the Covenant be seperate Again do not some plead it is requisit in order to a Persons partaking of the Lords Supper But did our Lord Jesus Christ require any such thing when he first instituted that holy Sacrament Did the Apostles when they administred it Was it the term of Communion in the primitive Church or where iâ— the Scripture that commands it and why should Gods holy Ordinances be annexed to Mens Covenant Again do not some plead that those who thus covenant have the Power to make and unmake Officers The Reverend Author will not scape here whose Opinion in this matter we shall see hereafter And finally do not some pretend â—â—at these are the Persons commissioned by Christ for the admitting and rejecting of Church Members This the Reverend Author defends with all his Might under the third Question tho' as we showed he could find no Proof And so much for the Church Covenant which is a stranger to the Scripture and has no foundation in the Word of God Q. 6. Is publick Reading of the Scriptures without explication or exhortation there-with part of the Work incumbent on a Minister of the Gospel The Author does not mean as we suppose if there be no explication or exhortation throughout the whole time of exercise If he doth he fights with the air for we know no Sect of Men but have some explication tho' many among us neglect reading We therefore take his sense to be this If no explication follow immediately without the interposition of Prayer or any other part of divine Worship For we conceive that the ordinary preaching the Word may very properly be call'd exposition explication exhortation and that in every Sermon there is a competent portion of Scripture for one time explicated and applyed Noâ— can we imagine the Reverend Author means that every clause a Minister reads in publick should be in a formal manner explicated Methinks it should satisfie if after one or more Chapters read some select clause verse oâ— paragraph be insisted on and expounded i. e. chosen as a Text and preached on We are obliged to the Author if but for quoting the Text in Timothy where it is given him in charge as his Ministerial Work To give attendance to Reading as well as to Doctrine Exhortation That the Jews were wont to read the Scriptures in their Synagogue saith the Reverend Author we all know and that it was their Duty to read the Scripture at some set and solemn Times we also know for so it was appointed Deut. 31. 11. Again he grants that in Just in Martyrs time the Scriptures were read and thereupon followed a Sermon We should have been thankful if he had added more Proofs by way of Encouragement as he could easily have done and thereby confirmed some that are apt to stagger He could have toâ—d how the Assembly of Divines at West minster do order and advise to iâ— He could have quoted the many famous Churches that do practise it at this day He could have named several famous Ministers in England and some in New-England that plead for it and practise it He could have told of more than the Bishop of Derry that complain of the neglect of it and that to use the woâ—ds of a most eminent Divine not far from us as the most just Reproach that the Churches of New-England labour under He could have told for encouragement that it is a clause in our publick Confession of Faith in New-England chap. 22. which treats of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day Sect. 5 The reading the Scriptures Preaching and hearing the Word of God singing of Psalms as also the Administration of Baptism and the Lords Supper are all parts of the Religious Worship of God to be performed in Obedience to God with Vnderstanding Faith Reverence and godly â—ear Finally He could have told us had he searched all our New-England Antiquities on this head how in the Preface to our Version of the Psalms the reading of David's Psalms as other Scriptures in Churches is taught to be one end of them as well as singing of them which is another end It is ridiculous to say that reading with exposition is here meant for then why was it not so said However it looks very oddly that they who neither read nor expâ—uâ—d should talk so much and quote so many Nameâ— as our Author has done for a Practice which they never intended to come up unto We have heard what our Author has said and much more that he could have said to encourage this good Practice His Discouragements follow And first he brands it with a hard uncouth Name and twice tells us that somâ— call it Dumb Reading We wish he had named those that so term it There is so much Venom in the Epithite and so complicated a Maliâ—nity in the Phrase that we fear its infectious and may propagate a Spirit of Pride contempt of his Neighbours and irreverence to his Maker The Author well thought so odious a Mark on the Front would give all honest People a disgust to â—â— villanous and stigmatiz'd a Practice But his Policy has failed him for it raises a just Indignation in all sensible and â—nâ—enuous Christians We will for once inform the
correct our own defects here at home in refusing to Baptise in private be the extremity never so great or life never so â—azardous Not that we are at all tiâ—ged with the error of St. Austin namely a peâ—swasion of the absolute necessity of Baptism to Salvation â—ut we â—â—â—eem iâ— the most publick owning of God which the state of the person admits of or the providence of God aâ— present allows and 〈…〉 good to â—e found in the way of blessing and we may expect that 〈…〉 his own Institâ—tions 〈…〉 the lawfulness of private Baptism in cases of necessity abundantly appears from that One instance of the Goaler Acts 15. 33. To â—â—â—ch our Author answers St. Paul was an extraordinary Officer But by his leave that is nothing to the purpose for the ordinary Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Apostles in those thing in taâ—e of an ordinary and standing nature in the Church as baptism iâ— â—ndeed his other reason is good that it was difficult if noâ— impossible to get a Congregation of Christians and therefore necessity was put upon the Apostle to Baptize the Goaler and family in private which plainly holds forth thus much that in like cases of necessity as in times of persecution danger of Death c. the same practice is allowable and a duty wherein we have the promise of Christs gracious Presence with us as well as when it iâ— administred in a larger Congregation Mat. 18. 20. For where two oâ— thâ—â—e are gathered together in any Name there aâ— I in the midst of them Q. 9 Oâ—ght all that contribute towards the maintenance to have the privileage of voting in the Election of a Pastor The Reverand Author in the very first line of his answer to this question tâ—râ—sts in a most â—â—kind inâ—â—nuation and not altogether free from Calumny as if the affirmative could not be maintained but the change of Simony must be incurred We therefore once for al profess that we abhor as much as he pretend to do the thought that Money should purchase us Church priviledges but this is so wide a Ramble that it is not worth while to say more to it All the Authors arguments under this head infer only that it is the Churches priviledge to chuse their own Minister And â—â—der his 4th argument he tells us that nothing is more evident then that in the first Ages of the Church Pastors were chosen by all and only their flocks Which we verily believe noâ— could he have expressed the truth in more apt words For long since he has caught us I â—as adult baptized Persons are of the Church and 〈◊〉 proved it in his Treatise annixed to the first Principles of New England under which denomination they claim the priviledge of voting in the election of a Minister Indeed there is one argument at first blush seems pretty plausible p. 68. for them who have no rigâ—â— to the Lordâ— Supper themselves â—o apâ—onâ—t â—â—â— shall be the Dispencer oâ— that Ordinance to others is â—igâ—ly irrational We Answer The administration of the Lords Supper is but one part of a Ministers work and but a little part compared with all the rest Let us turn the argument then and say For some few to appoint who shall be the Preacher to the whole Congregation is as highly irrational Suppose we what is frequent in this Country thirty or forty Communicants and it may be two hundred to be admitted in convenient time is it not every whiâ— as absurd that not one of these who are to be examined prepared and admitted to this holy Ordinance shall have liberty to chuse the Person who shall do this Work for tâ—em but the Person must be altogether chose by others whâ—â— he has not this Work to do for A hopeful argument that will help both sides The Reverend Author calls it A priviledge purchased for the Communicants Only by the Blood of Christ but he gives no proof aâ— all of any such Appropriation and leaves â—â— yet in the firm belief that the Priviledge is purchased for the whole Flock who had need stand for their own We might here borrow of the Author the Maxim he gave us in another case Quod tangit omnes â—â—bâ—t aâ— oâ—â—â—bâ—s app 〈…〉 arâ— It was exploded in the other case but if he will give uâ— leave to put in Aequaliter Quod tangit omneâ— aequaliter c. then â—t would suit the casâ— and afford him some conviction The Reverend Author also gives us another Maxim in pag. 87. with this Elogium That it has its foundation in Nature and Reason though we are sure it makes strongly against him here namely That which Pertains to all is not valid if some of all sorts have not a consent in it for some places have no Communicants and there all grant this Right and Priviledge belongs to the whole if afterwards they come to have some Communicants by what Rule or Reason do they take away that Priviledge which belonged to others before In short let our Author find one Text that limits or confines it to the Communicants alone and then deprive the Majority But since Scripture fails him he has another Refuge viz. the Authority of the Synod and the Law of the Land The last of these we think excepts Boston and of both we need only say that as they were done by men so they may be altered and undone by the same men when they please It is also hinted That this may prove fatal to the Churches But there is no danger Truth does no harm and we rather think it may be retorted on the Author and his Practice There was lately a grievous Complaint made by a principal Man of Swanzy before some Ministers and others That the Law which gives the Power to the Communicants only to call a Minister is like to ruin them and their Posterity forever by excluding them from an able and orthodox Ministry and the Ordinances for the Baptists taking advantage thereby have set up a gifted Brother and spoil the place of the publick Ministry Qu. 10. Is it expedient that Churches should enter into a Consâ—ciation or Agreement that matters of more than ordinary â—â—â—ortance such as the gathering a new Church the Ordination Deposition or Translation of a Pastor be done with common consent The Reverend Author answers That it is both expedient and necessary though he had answered as well had he said It is altogether needless But leâ—t we be mis-understood in this matter let the Reader carefully observe We do not mean that the Communion or Fellowship or Prayer or Assistance or Duties that the Church or People of God owe to one another are needless But for particular Churches that are parts and result from the Catholick and are united to the Head and in Covenant with him and bound to perform all Duties both to the Head to all the Members respectively for such to talk of entering into an agreement on this account seems very idle and
of that other Church a declension from the first principles of New-England and of the Congregational way The Reverend Author Answers No not at all Had the Question been whether this be a deciâ—â—sion from the Truâ—â— we had fully joyned with him in the Answer It being true Doctrine that a Minister upon desire may as well Minister to another Church as to â—â—â— own both being Churches of Christ and he a Minister of Christ there being but one Faith one Body one Baptism But had we been of the Authors Principles which he pleads for in this Book we must have answered that â—â— is a great Aâ—â—stacy and Declension And when the Reverend Author first put out this in the year 1693 some of the old men and women did express themselves after this Rate That it was not thus from the beginning and that he had pull'a such a Pin out of the good ole â—ay as would in a little wâ—ile bring the whole abriâ—k to the ground Noâ— was this complaint without reason for if particular Churches are specifically distinâ—â— if Pastor and Flock are Relate â—â—â— Correlate that give being to one another as Husband and Wife if the â—ssence of a Ministers Call lie in a muâ—â—â—l Election between the Church and him then we can by no means allow the Authors assertion That a Pastor may administer c Tâ—â— in vain to plead I were may be at well commuâ—â—â—â— of Officers as of Members for these Principles will not allow so much as a Member of one Church to communicate in another Hence the acâ—â—e Mr. Hooker â—â— the Author 〈…〉 iles him could never get over that difficulty but looks upon it as unwarrantable or private Members to communicate in another Church Neither can Dr. Oven or Dr. Goodwin whom he 〈…〉 pillars among the Congregational though they twist and squeze and strain hard maintain this 〈…〉 on these Principles noâ— satisfy a â—ational mind about it Tho' they plead they are transient Members for that time yet this no more excuses it than if an Aâ—ultâ—â—â—s â—o hi 〈…〉 â—â—â— shame and folly should excuse it by saying She made the Man her Husband for that turn and act For if we run it to the narrow the Administrator must deliver the Sacrament as an Officer or not there is no Medium If as an Officer then he his Power from Christ as such to administer the Sacrament where he iâ— occasionally called And then down go the Authors Principles at once of the Churches being specifically distinct of the Essence of the Ministerial Call lying in the mutual Election of Minister and People of Pastor and Flock being Relate and Correlate so as to give being to each other as such or else on the other hand it must be said That a Minister when he administers to another Flock acts not as an Officer but as a private Man and this lays all in common and destroys the Ministerial Power at once And to attempt to reconcile it with our New-England Platform will be but as Mr. Hooker has the expression to make the Plat-form to speak Daggers and Contradictions Neither can it be pretended that the generality of the Ministers in New-England were of that mind in the beginning In the Answer of the Elders of several Churches in N. England unto the Nine Positions it is said Position 8. If you mean by a Ministerial Act such an act of Authority and Power in dispensing Gods Ordinances as a Minister does perform to the Church whereunto â—â— is called to be a Minister then we aâ—ny that he can perform any Ministerial Act to any other Church but his own because his Office extends no farther tâ—aâ— his Call And now we appeal to the Reader if the Reverend Author must not either Renounce these his darling Principles or own himself guilty of that Declension from the first Principles of New-England which in another he would call Apostacy And indeed we know well enough that a few years ago no young man could have escaped that odious Brand that durst have printed such a Principle But all is well that we do our selves and every other Congregational Tenet had been laudably rejected had some men the doing of it Let another presume he is a Backâ—â—iâ—er an Aposâ—aâ—â— â—â—â—uâ— â—aâ—b Contemptuous and Despisâ—â— of his Fathers The same thing to aâ—ude to the Authors words pag. 71. in one man is a modest inoffensive Dissent in another a daring Contradiction to Synods Qu. 16. Is it a Duty for Christians in their Prayers to make use of the words of that which is commonly called the Lords Prayer Though the Authors answer hereto be very large yet we shall say very little to it or against it He yeilds and allows it may be lawfully used as well as other Prayers and Passages in Scripture in our Addresses to Heaven That it has been used in antient Times he does not deny and we know that it is most frequently used by the most famous Divines in these days And he gives us an instance of Mr. Jeâ— Burroughs which we thank him for having never heard it before That it has been abused to Superstition and the Tryal of Witch-craft we also know but the abuse of a thing does not take away the proper lawful Use of it nor is it fit so far to gratifie those that made it a Charm as â—oâ—â—hâ—t reason to â—â—â—rain to use it But verily the Author would have us more superstitious that we are willing to be for he quarrels â—â— the varying but of one word or clause in this excellent form of Prayer If instead of Debts or Sinâ— we say Trespasses it is a fearful Crime For why says the Author It smells rank of the Liâ—â—â—gy its leâ—â—n'd â—â—â— of the Common-Prayer Book He might have said rather That we learn first to read â—â— so in our Horn-Books and are mis-taught from our infancy But truly we account this difference of Translation a petty thing And if instead of Hallowed the Author would say sanctified and instead of daily Bread he would chuse to say convenient Food we should not full foul on him No says the Author pag. 123. why then you give up the Cause In truth then the Author has no adversary in the world where the Lords Prayer is used in any Language beside the Greek for who bindâ— himself to a Translation as to an Original but the Author's meaning is apparent he would insinuate into the heedless Reader That whoever useth the Lords Prayer ought not to vary one word from the words Christ gave it in and truly then they must like Barbarians to the People tone it in the Original Greek We would offer here one Query more Does the Author mean in stating this Question to enquire whether it be an indispensible Duty to use the words of the Lords Prayer in all our Addresses to God so that as often as we bow our Knees in Prayer we should think it necessary to repeat this Form Here again he would have no
enough to set us down resolved against any such thing if we can say there is a silence about it in the Scripture that God has no where commanded it in his word either expresly or by just and necessary consequence it s no Order of his devising Scripture silence about any Tradition gives a full condemnation what ever â—leas men may bring for it as That it is profitable many have been edified by it it is a prudent way to secure the Interest of Religion many wise holy learned Men have pleaded for it and practised it that there is much of decency in it and the thing it self is no waye harmâ—uâ— Aâ—l this is fully answered with that one word God has spoke nothing about it Heb. 7. 4. It never entered into his hâ—art to enjoyn it Jer. 7. 31. Thus he This being publickly practised and printed so long a go by so eminent a Minister and never since contradicted we take it for granted that none have any thing to say against it And we are thankful to him for furnishing us with a Doctrine so fully laid down to bear off the Institutions Traditions and Impositions that men would lay upon us But it is high time now to consider the Questions which the Reverend Author propounds and the Answer he gives to each of them In which attempt we shall offer no other Apology for our brevity save that our Author himself 〈…〉 ight have been as brief and yet full as clear and 〈…〉 ivâ— Gospel Order Revived c. THe two first Questions might have been wholy spared yet may serve as a good Introduction to others of aâ—â— ill aspect Quest 1. Whether particular Churches ought to consist of Saints and true Believers in Christ It is granted that the matter of a particular Church for the Question is not stated with reference to the Catholick is visible Saints And tho' the Answer is not given in the words yet we would charitably hope his sense is the same with the united Ministers in London That none shall be admitted as members in order to Communion in all the special Ordinances of the Gospel but such as are knowing and sound in the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion without scandal in their Lives and to a judgment regulated by the word of God are Persons of visible Godliness and honesty credibly professing cordial subjection to Jesus Christ Had our Reverend Author only said thus much and indeed more is needless he had saved us the labour of any Reflections on this part of his Essay But there is one passage in p. 15 which we cannot but except against A Scripture saith he which has respect in the times of the Gospel severely rebukes those Ministers which shall bring men that are uncircumcised in bearâ— unregenerate persons into the sanctuary into the Church of God to eat the Bread and drink the Blood which 〈…〉 y that are there partake oâ— Ezek. 44. 7 9. A hard saying and wâ—o can â—ear it The Text is here mangled and the principal things left out What God has joyned our Reverend Author has seperated to drive on his design The Text saith Uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh but here we have it only uncircumcise in heaâ—t interpreted unregenerate persons What a rebuke is this to the best of Ministers because forsooth they are not heart searchers and dare not invade the prerogative of God Did the Reverend Author or the Church with him never admit any un 〈…〉 â—erate Person to communion with them He will not dare to pretend to it and therefore the rebuke is to himself We know our Lord Jesus Christ admitted Judas uncircumcised in heart an unregenerate Person to holy things and in the purest Ages of the Church there were Hypocrites crept in many of whom turned Apostates Nay our Author is so sensible of this that p. 19. he quotes the opinion of the Reverend M. Coâ—ton That its better to admit diverse Hypocrites than to keep out one sincere Child of God It is obvious then that Hypocrites may be admitted and yet the Minister incur neither the rebukes of Conscience or of this Scripture nay he may be approved of God as doing his Duty though Hypocrisie may too well consist with sufficient Knowledge found belief a blameless Life a credible Profession c. To conclude It s very observeable the Reverend Author closes this first Enquiry by saying That the Churches here are free to admit those into their communion who are thus qualified We marvel then his Zeal is not stirred to rebuke them afresh But what will the Reader think if we should make an Apology after all for the Reverend Author and assure him he means no more than that Ministers ought not to admit known Infidels or Prophane for for his part he pretends not to know mens hearts We only can intreat the Reader not to rebuke the Author too severely for his inconsistency for he may mean well and all parties are agreed Unless he should imagine himself attacqued by the Reverend Author of the Doctrine of instituted Churches Q 2. Whether there ought not to be a Tryal of Persons concerning their qualifications and fitness for Church communion before they are admitted thereunto We shall not here examine the force of the Authors arguments whether they unresistably conclude or not and whether the consequence is good from the tryal of the Apostles the Porters at the Temple or the 12 Angels at the Gates of the Mystical Jerusalem to the tryal of Church Members It suffices that the Reverend Author has modestly stated this Truth and cited us to a merciful Bar the judgment seat of a rational Charity where the Judge avoids severity and the tryal is managed with abundant tenderness the bruised Reed is not broken nor the smoaking flax quenched the tender Lambs find the kind Shepherds Arms to fold them and a gentle carriage in his bosom This is indeed the part of the good shepherd and we could now gladly commit our selves to the Reverend Authors Pastoral care So many good words remove all jealousie of a rigid Tryal But alas the Clouds return upon us and a black doubt is started as follows Q 3 Whether are not the Brethren and not the Elders of the Church only to judge concerning the qualifications and fitness of those who art admitted into their Communion The Reverend Author allows there may be a difference of apprehension as to this point and yet no breach of Union We think so too and therefore as we continue to honour the Person though we expose his opinion so we â—oâ—â— the negative will not deleâ—ve the popular cry Oh Apostacy Apostacy The difference as the Reverend Author tells us is between the Brethren of the Presbyterian and the Congregational way the former giving this power only to the Eldership the latter joyning the fraternity with them He takes up for the latter but whether he proves it the world may see when we have considered his
needless To iâ—â—ustrate the matter if a Servant has bound himself to a Master he need not go to make new Covenants to carry it dutifully to the Mistress lovingly to the Children faithfully to the fellow Servants this being all contained in the Masters Covenant So if a Person marry a Husband she has no need to make a new Covenant with his Father that he shall be her Father or that his Brothers Sisters or other Relations shall become hers this being all â—mplyed in the Mâ—â—â—iâ—gâ— Covenant The respective Duties must be performed but there is no need of new agreements or covenants to be entered into Mr. Burroughs as quoted by the Reverend Author expresses this well They are bound in Conscâ—ince to give an account of the wayes to Churches about them or to any other who shall reqâ—irâ— it and this not in an Aâ—bitraâ—â— way â—â—t as a Duty they owe to God and Man The united Bâ—ethâ—eâ— in London speak yet more fully in the Chapter of Communion oâ— Câ—urâ—â—es â— 1. We agree that particular Churches ought not to walk so distâ—â—ct and seperate from each other as oâ— to have care and tenderness to one another But their Pastors ought to have frequent Meeting together that by mutual advice support encouragement and bâ—otâ—â—â—ly intercourse they may strengthen the â—earts and hands of each other in the ways of the Lord. We may add here the whole Chapter of occasional Meetings of Ministers and so dismiss this Question Qu. 11. May the Brethren in Churches and not the Pastors only be sent unto and have their Voice in Ecclesiastical Councils It is to be observed that by this means the Brethren in a Synod will surpass the Elders in Number and by a Cabal may easily out vote them Wherefore we can never believe that our Lord Jesus Christ has left every private Brother an equal Vote with any of his Officers in ruling oâ—â—â—â—â—agiâ—g his Church It will be granted that the advantage is of the Elders side as to Learning Prudence Parâ—â— Piety Zeal and Devotion at least taking the whole Synod together yet that men of mean Parts no Education nor under the awe of an Office that obliges to the care of Souls peculiarly should be equalled to the former in all Decisions tho' not Debates whereof they are uncapable is very unaccountable Indeed had our Lord in his Word positively required this we might expect that his Spirit of Counsel would more abundantly reside on the weaker Vessels but otherwise to fill a Council from the Plough and the â—â—all is a tempting Christ and betraying the Church Neither are we ignorant what Tools they are in the hands of any one designing Man of a Reverend and August Name let his Opinions be what they will these are Biggâ—â—s and the Man is himself a Synod We coâ—sâ—ss such a Man would be tempted to stand up for the Brethrens Authority which is his own support and the mean while the Church is like to be well govern'd But what is a further Outrage to the sacred Office the Author will not let Ministers fit as Officers of Christ or as Persons authorized by him for thus he expresses himself pag. 80 It s not their Office but the Churches Delegation that gâ—vâ—â—â— Power to th 〈…〉 Members of Syâ—â—â—â— the specificating Act in which Synod all Power and so the rigâ—â— oâ— a decisive Vote â—â—â—oâ—nded is tâ—e Churches Delegation And to prove this he instancetâ— iâ— the first Synod that ever sate as â—e terms that Acts 15. a Copy and Samplar left to all succeding Generations But how Comical is this as if that was so constituted or its Members delegated by particular Churches Or how long had this inspired Synod sat before that case was brought before them or were they summoned upon this single occasion Truly the Author begâ— the whole and proves nothing of it Indeed the Reverend Author tells us in the same page That of these Delegates from the Churches the â—lâ—ers oâ—gâ—t to be the principal or principally concerned A mighty grace ineed yet even this cannot be allowed and he consistent with himself for in the next page he tells us There are some Brethren in the Churches whose Gifts and Abilities are beyond their Pastors and some again are more Noble and Honourable Now if they are alike delegated and those can act no more in the Name of Christ than the other pray why should they be the principal Why may not a â—rother of equal Authority asâ—ume and arrogate the first place to himself which if he chance to do we leave the Author to be catechized by him and to do Pennance patiently by his own Principles Qu. 12. Doth the Essence of a Ministers Call consist in his being Ordained with the imposition of hands by other Ministers Qu. 13. May a Men be ordained a Pastor except to a particular 〈…〉 ana in the presence oâ— that Church We joyn these two together partly because they are of near affinity and partly because some things the Reverend Author asserts under one of them may indifferently be referred to the other Our chief Exceptions may be reduced to these five 〈…〉 That he asserts she essence of a Ministers Call consists in a mutual election between him and his People pag 91. If we underâ—tand the Author he means that a person cannot be a Minister without his mutual Election and that with it he may and is He had just before noâ—ed that some think the essence of the Ministry to he in Orai 〈…〉 on others in its being done by a Bishop Which last Noâ—â—oâ—â—â—ts off saith â—â— mâ—st of the Ministers in France Switzerland Denmark 〈…〉 d Scotland c. But to retort you words Sir we think that your assertion cuts off more both for Number and for Eminence It cuts off the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists It cuts off all the Bishops that are and have been And though these in general may signifie lâ—â—tie with our Reverend Author yet some of them he mentions as great and eminent Lights He cuts off Thousands of Presbyters famous Ministers who apprehending the Essence of their Ministerial Call to â—ie in their being ordained and sent of God do whoâ—y wave this mutual Election as a little thing The Scipture speaks â—ery highly and honourably of the Ministerial Calling They are â—aâ—ed Ministers of God of Christ of the New Testament of the Gospeâ— Ministers in the Lord Ambassadors for Christ Angels Lights Stewards of the Mysteries of God c. All whiâ—â— thâ—ws that not only the â—â—â—encâ— but the Excellency of the Ministry conâ—â—sts in their Relation to God and our Lord Jesus Christ and to that seperate and sacred Work that the holy Ghost has called them unto Acts â—3 2. But what scripture inâ—iâ—â—tes to us That their Essence or Emmency lies in their Relation to this or that particular People The Prophets of old never pleaded their Election by Man but that they were called sent ordained and commissioned by God The Authors chief
no Wife is a Husband This is worn thred-bare and answered long ago by the Assembly at London and others and sometimes by the Author himself A Minister may be considered under a double Notion as a Minister of C 〈…〉 t or of this or that particular Church In this latter sence they are Relate Correlate and no otherwise Hence if he leaves them he ceases to be their Minister and they cease to be his Flock but still he may be a Minister of Christ and they a Church of Christ And thus in that little Book that is enâ—itâ—led The judgment of several Divines of the Congregational way concerning a Pastors Power occasionally to exeâ—t Ministerial acts in another Church besides that which is his particular Flock the Reverend Author expresses himself after this manner pag. 1. The Ministerial Power which a Pastor has received from the Lord Jesus Christ â—â— not so â—oâ—fined to his particular Flock as that he shall cease to be a Minister when he shall act in the Name of the Lord else where And a little after I am as to this particular fully of the same judgment with the learned Dr. J. Owen in 〈◊〉 judicious Treatise concerning a Gospel Church Pag. 100 101 where he has these words Although we have no concerâ—â—â—us in the sigâ—ent of an indelible Character accompanying sacred Orders yet we do not think the Pastoral Office is such a thing as a man must leave beâ—â—nd him every time he goes from home for my own part â— I did not think my self bâ—â—nd to preach as a Minister authorized in all places and â—â— all occasions when I am called thereunto I think I should never preach more in this World Thus Dr. Owen We see then that our Reverend Author and the famous Dr. Owen plainly hold that though there be a Relation to a particular flock yet a Minister is so auâ—hroâ—zed by Jesus Christ that he is capable in his Name to perform Ministerial Acts in other places and upon all occasions And were not our Author sincerely of this Opinion we cannot but think he would highly condemn any Minister that should be absent from his Flock four years together upon any service whatsoever â—ure if he be no way capable to act as a Minister of Jesus Christ he is all that while but as a stray Bird idly wandering from its Nest Yet at this time our Author would bear the World in hand that a Minister has no power to act as such but to his particular Flock and therefore quotes the words of the Plat-form chap. 9. sect 7. He that is clearly loosed from his Office Relation to that Church whereof he was a Minister cannot be looked on as an Officer nor perform any act of O 〈…〉 e in any other Church unless he be again called unto Office But a more eminent Assembly of Divines at London have quoted this very Paragraph pag 1â—5 and severely but justly answered it as a great â—bsâ—rdity and contrary to sound Doctrine The answer to the other part of the Question Whether a Minister should be ordained only in the presence of that Church where he is â—â—serve â— Will result from what has been already laid down The presence of Christ must be supposed when ever a person is seperated to his Ministry but seeing our Lord Commissions none immediately such must be present as have Power to authorize Commission and give the charge in his Name When ever a Call is given received and accepted whether it be by Words Message or letter both Minister and People are conceived as present face to face But the Circumstances of Times Places Persons Distance c. must determine this matter which as they mâ—â— fall out may sometimes render it both prodent regular and necessarâ— then its the Voice of Providence for a Min 〈…〉 to be ordained on one Land and to serve in another Q. 14. Is the Practice of the Churches of New-England in granting Letters of Dismission or Recommendation from one Church to another according to Scripture and the Example of other Churches The Reverend Author refers to many Scriptures to prove the Affirmative but not one of them reaches the Question or proves â—â— dismission for this end soil to take a person off from being a Member of one Church to be made a Member of another The Epistles or Letters he refers to are all Apoâ—taâ—â—cal or Ministerial not the Letters of one Church to another some only excepted which is mentioned as writ by the Brethren but Apolâ—â— on whole behalf they wrote was not a Member of their Church nor do they write to those in Achaia to receive him as a Member but rather as a Minister or as a Christian of eminence and singular goodness Indeed there may be a good use of Letters of Recommendation and especially among strangers and where a Member removes from one Church to another a mutual satisfaction may be laboured after But we cannot but think such Letters frivilous when in the same Town and at two streets distance a Person known over all the Town for an exemplary Conversation prefers anothers Ministry Civility will constrain such persons to acquaint then Ministers of their purposes and the same Christian Civility obliges such a Minister to acquaint the other Pastor if need be to whose Ministry they repair that they have carried themselves well in his Communion and that he hopes they may prove blessings in all other But as for the Brethren We need not go to them to make a second Speech now to ask leave to with-draw and to render an account to every impertinent Talker who thinks the man Married to him and that his bed is broke into or that there 's no just reason for a divorce Moreover some people are forever dissatisfied neither conveniencies of Habitation liking the others Ministry profiting under it or dislike of some Customs and Practices which he would willingly be rid of the light of can satisfy And what must the grieved person do further in this case Why truly he has done his duty and may hear and communicate where God and his own sober Conscience directs him Noâ— ought any Minister of Christ to reject his claim to the Lords Table with him To say no more our Reverend Author having in a former Treatise proved that persons baptized are thereby subjects of Discipline We think they all ought to be accountable to the Society where they are there persons being dismissed by the Providence of God whether they have letters of dismission or not Else by their principles an ordained Minister in London formerly of Communion with a Church in Boston being called to Office in a particular Church and having accepted the Pastoral Care thereof must first send over a Pacquet to New-England for a Letter of dismission And don't you think he would be well imployed Qu. 15 Is not the asserting that a Pastor may administer the Sacrament to another Church besides his own particular Church at the aâ—fire
Gods House while the more conceited and presumâ—tuous never boggle at this oâ— any thing else But it seems there is a gross Corruption of this laudable practice which the Author does well to cenâ—ure and that is when some who have no good intention of their own get others to devise a Relation for them The Author may be satisfied there is something of truth in such reports neither Charity nor Interest should make us too increduâ—â—us But then he passes a severe sentence on such Lyars to the holy Ghost Which they truly deserve iâ— in their relations they pretended to tell the time and manner of their Conversion or if they so much as suggested it to be their own devising but if it be only a profession of their Faith Repentance it is not material who composes it if they can conscientiously subscribe to it And indeed a general form might be best of all in the case if they must needs be made us To sum up all we not only believe with our Author that such as delude the Church by bringing relations not of their own devising do exceedingly provoke the Lord but also that the imposers of them as a term of Communion do so too Qâ— 5. Hath tâ—â— Church Covenant as commonly practised in the Churches of New England any Scripture foundation In reference to this Question the Reverend Author and others of his opinion in their discourses about it love much to keep in the dark We confess our selves at a loss about those words as commonly practised and Solomon has long ago told us that he that answers a matter before he understands it it is a folly and shame to him The Reverend Author knows we suppose or if he don't we do that in some Churches of N. E. they have no Church Covenant at all and that in other Churches it is differently p 〈…〉 Some understand by it only a Covenanting with God to perform by his Grace the Duties we owe to him and our Christian Bâ—eâ—â—â—en accordingly â—o propose it others mean by it a Covenant with a particular Church whereby they are bound to walk in Communion therewith till by their consent dismissed Others will have it to be a necessary Qualification in order to a persons partaking of the Lords Supper either there or else where And others have Notions of it quite different from all these The Reverend Author first bears us down with a formidable Authority telling us the Question was considered at a General Convention of the Ministers May 1â—98 and that all the Ministers then present save one did concur in the Affirmative but we have heard qâ—â—te otherwise and that it was then proposed and urged to have the Church Covenant more distinctly opened though it was not hearkened to It is a good policy to hurry on a vote their cause depends on and like a first Principle it must not be deliberated or debated and such as we hear was the mannagement of that vote And it is observeable the Reverend Author avoids whether industâ—iousty or no we shall not guess to state the nature of this Covenant but confusedly saith as it is practised by the Churches in N. E. In the Preface we have the Authors own description of this Covenant where he calls it explicâ—t Covenanting with God and his Church and sometimes with God and his People But we renew our Complaint that we are yet most miserably in the dark It might be enquired here whether it be two distinct Covenants one with God and the other with his People iâ— so which of them is the proper Church Covenant If but one whether it binds the person that enters into it to perform the same Duties to God and to the Church and in case a person be dismissed whether it is from his whole duty or from a part of it and whether God and his Church Promise â—he same thing to the party covenanting These Queries are offer'd only to provoke a clear state of the thing debated which should be cleared to the understandings of people before it s imposed on their Consciences as a term of Communion But before our Author ends this Chapter he puts another disguise and a more taking face on this matter He would infâ—â—uate that the Church Covenant as practised in New-England is nothing more than the publick Profession of Faith and promise of a holy Lâ—â—â— for which he quotes both Synods and several private Reverend mens Names But this unfair dealing may be stript of its disguise by shewing in what sence we allow a Church Covenant and in what sence we allow it not 1 st We own and plead for a Covenant with God whereby a Person or People become his and bâ—nd themselves to walk in all his ways This was the Covenant that constituted Israel of old to be a Church and People of God and which God made with Abraham and his Seed after him by which â—â— became in a special manner their God and they his People This is the Covenant that Israel renewed with God in the Wilderness â—â—cut 26. 17 18. To this God annexed his Seals Circumâ—â—sion in the days of old and Baptism under the Gospel It s by this Covenant that a Person or People are united to Christ the head and do become Members of his Body By this the Catholick Church is constituted and we have an Interest in all those Priviledges that belong to believers as such This is the Covenant we own and which we renew every time we attend the publick Worsâ—iâ— of God Psal 50. 5. and this Covenant ought to be explicit openly professed and published to the World It is a false and abusive in nuâ—tion but frequently made in an awful Desk that People are against all explicit Covenanting or the open renewal of it for there is no pretence for such a Câ—lumny that we can hear of It must therefore arise either from idle Fears or some mischievous Policy 2 â—ly We also highly approve of a Covenant of Reformation A great 〈…〉 uty in times of Apostacy and gross corruption of Manners to covenant to put away these and those reigning sins to return to the Lord and perform such particular Duties as have been visibly neglected Oâ— this we have frequent instances in Scripture Ezra 10 3 5. 3dly We may also allow a Covenant between Minister People whereby they â—iâ—â— themselves to thâ—se respective Duties that the Word of God has made incumbent on them on account of that Relation But we altogether deny a Church Covenant in the following sense and say Our Lord Jesus Christ has no where appointed in his Word that there should be a Covenant entâ—â—'d into by some Persons of a Christian Society exclusive of the rest whereby they being in Covenant one with another should thereby call themselves a Church of Christ making the Ordinances of Christ or any of them to depend on this Covenant so that those who scruple it or refuse to joyn in it shall on that