doth not shew my words are there all assertory of what I conceive infants cannot do in their own persons not a word of perswasion or disswasion to the parents or any other And for that which is added then it seemes you know not how a Father should engage his child by covenanting in his name and after you would have no parents to engage their children solemnly to God in Christ by Covenanting in their names there is not a word of it in that place 'T is true in my Sermon intituled Fermentum Pharisaeorum I gave a little touch against the use of sureties at baptisme according to the Doctrine of the catechisme in the common prayer-book that they did promise that they should believe c. which I conceived onely belongs to Christ as surety of the better Covenant Heb. 7. 22. But I never denied that the Elders of a Nation may engage solemnly the posterity even the unborne to take the Lord for their God but this I rather take to be an adjuration under a curse if they do not then a promise for them that they shall nor that a parent may engage his child by a promise of his own endeavour that he shall and that the child is engaged thereby but not by vertue of the Fathers promise but by vertue of the obligation of the thing promised the Fathers promise is an incitement to do it the rather but makes not the child bound to do it of it self but onely because the thing is a duty which he were bound to did the Father promise for him or not But I deny that this makes a visible Church-member or that in nature or law as his childs act according to the Gospel for his being admitted a visible Church-member Now Mr. B. hastily answering me jumbles things together and as one impatient of considering what I say chargeth me with what I avow not and then concludes scoffically And I pray you how well do you free your self from this charge Should I imitate him I should cry shamelesse foul dealing c. But I am resolved to examine his writing not to follow his fashion Pag. 179. He saies I did not distinguish of disciples or yield infants disciples in any sense If I acknowledge them disciples in any sense I should speak out To which I say I put in those words in my Sermon in that sense Christ appointed disciples to be baptized to intimate that I did not deny but infants might be disciples by the immediate secret work of Gods spirit though not in the ordinary mediate way of preaching the Gospel about which the rule Mat. 28. 19. is set As for Mr. Bs. sense of a disciple of Christ without learning Christs doctrine of a servant of God without service actively or passively a disciple remotely by the Fathers being a disciple it is nothing like the use of the word disciple in the New Testament or the terme servant of God as equipollent to a disciple and no marvel I should mistake Mr. B. who used termes in a sense I never met with in the New Testament and I still conceive to be a piece of new gibberish And when he saith he took servant and disciple according to their relative formal nature and not either with the accidental consideration of active or passive it is no marvel I should be at a stand what to answer him using termes in such an uncouth non-sense acception as I never met with before For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare himself to battel And it seemes to me a grosser absurdity which Mr. B. hath in those words then any of those he chargeth me with to take disciple and servant in their relative formal nature without learning or service active or passive whereas Mr. B. himselfe page 92. where he saies the relation of a servant disciple souldier husbandman trades-man remaines when the act ceaseth for a time yet expressely saith the relation and so the denomination is from the act of service learning c. and yet he would have infants to be denominated disciples and servants of God without their act of learning or service or capacity of actual learning or service in an ordinary way and he is not ashamed to call learning or service actively or passively accidental to the title or denomination of a disciple or servant Which is a monstrous absurdity to make a denomination without the forme denominating yea to count it accidental to conceive a relation without the foundation which is all one as to call one a Father without begetting a Lord without dominion a signe without signification not unlike the riddle vir non vir percussit non percussit avem non avem lapide non lapide super arbore non arbore or rather absurdorum absurdissimū oppositum in apposito And yet this notion of a disciple never proved is the ground work of Mr. Bs. first argument and therefore if I may use Mr. Bs. words they are very tractable soules that are led by his notions page 180. He thinks strange that a man of my parts should know of no separation to God but by election or calling he questions whether election be proper separation he saies that the Jewes first-borne were seperated by a law and men now by dedication separate goods to God that he meanes separation neither by election nor extraordinary or ordinary call but by the law or Covenant of God To which I reply Mr. B. still abuseth me by leaving out my words as the case now stands which were put in as remarkable to exclude that way of separation to God whereby the first born Priests goods c. were holy as separated to God Election is alwayes with seperation that is differencing one from another and as election is said to be according to purpose Rom. 9. 11. so likewise separation Paul was separated from his mothers wombe Gal. 1. 15. according to Gods pleasure and purpose that is by his election And with this separation infants may be said to be sanctified as Jeremiah ch 1. 5. And so the terme holy is applied Rom. 11. 16. to the Jewes then unborne who were after to be called ver 24 25 26 27. And called Saints is used 1 Cor. 1. 2. As for infants of believers whether elect or reprobate outward federal holinesse I know no such there 's no law or Covenant separates every child of a believer to God According to Mr. B. the Covenant sealed by baptisme is conditional and that belongs to all the sons of Adam till persons are severed by believing and unbeliefe this Covenant therefore of it self without putting the condition doth not separate any to God and so not infants till they be believers the absolute is onely to the elect and according to it and so onely the elect are separated which are not all perhaps but a few of the children of believers but an Isaac of all Abrahams children Rom. 9. 6 7 8. A law or Covenant of God
can make his infant a visible Church-member and baptizable for his children are uncleane But it is not possible for a baptizer to know the parent to be a real believer before God without special revelation and therefore without it he cannot be certain he doth his duty according to Mr. Bs. suppositions yea he may be certain he doth not his duty For he may be certain he cannot observe the rule of baptizing onely the infants of those that are real believers before God it being certain some in the visible Church are hypocrites and he is not to baptize the infants of such if Mr. B. rightly expound the Apostle they being unclean that is no visible Church-members nor baptizable and therefore he may be certain in baptizing promiscuously infants of visible professors that he doth not his duty if Mr. Bs. exposition be good but sins against the Apostles determination in baptizing those that are not baptizable by the Apostles determination as Mr. B. expounds him and if he be intelligent against his own light but cannot be certain he doth his duty because he cannot know which are baptizable those infants being onely baptizable according to the Apostles resolution as expounded by Mr. B. who are the children of believers not onely so accounted in the judgement of charity but also really such before God which he cannot know without special revelation SECT XII That Mr. B. unjustly chargeth me to be a Sect-Master TO his virulent and most unrighteous speech of me page 188. that he hath as good evidence that I am a Sect-Master as that I am a Christian I have replied before sect 4. And now I say further that my conscience acquits me from the guilt of making any Sect and my proceedings at first with my brethren in the Ministery manifested in my Examen and Apology in my applying my self to the Assemby and Mr. M. do fully clear my aime to have been Reformation with peace and concurrence in the work of Christ with them which course Mr. B. approves pag. 246. and if my writings had been fairely examined it is very probable they had not bin printed What I did I was necessitated to by their sleighting the thing aed determining contrary to my positions in a Magisterial manner notwithstanding my writings whereby it became poenal to hold my tenet which enforced me to print And yet neither then did I meddle with the practise till Mr. Baillee awakened me by telling me my infant-baptisme must be null by my principles Nor have I baptized save one nearely related to me but where I was chosen a preacher where I conceived my self bound to baptize by Christs rule Mat. 28. 19. those disciples to whom I preached nor did I joine any in communion till I saw that those that did their duty in being baptized were rejected and made odious with Ministers and people whereby they are necessitated to join in communion by themselves And if any others do not joine with them it is partly because notwithstanding I am for my own particular much inclined to unite in the communion those that differ in judgement about infant-baptisme according to my judgement expressed in my Apology sect 12. and Mr. Jesseys determinations in his book intitled A store-house of provision to further resolution in sundry cases of conscience yet because it is manifest from Acts 2. 41 46. 1 Cor. 10. 1 2 3. 12. 13. persons were baptized afore they brake bread together and Justin. Martyr Apolog 2. ad Antoninum hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is This food is with us called the Eucharist or thanksgiving of which it is not allowed for any other to partake but him that believeth those things to be true which are taught by us and is washed with that washing which is for the forgivenesse of sins and unto new birth and that lives so as Christ hath delivered which passage is alleadged by Mr. B. page 156. though maimedly And Augustin tom 7. de pecc mer. et remiss lib. 1. cap. 20. Adsacramentum mensae Domini nemo ritè nisi baptizatus accedit And Lumb sent l. 4. dist 8. Hoc coeleste manna non nisi renatis praestari debet And the generality of Popish and Protestant Divines hold so Mr. B. page 342. We have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament to admit any member into the Church without baptisme and therefore the taking any without baptisme to the Lords Supper will but strengthen men in their opinion that their infant-sprinkling is sufficient and partly because by Mr. Bs. book and other meanes men are so possessed with the restoring of baptisme as if it were an error schisme a practise accursed by God that consciencious timorous men do of themselves shunne us and others furiously oppose us therefore I see a necessity of desisting from that enterprise yet resolved to join with other Christians of different judgement in what agreement communion I can with a good conscience in prayer preaching disciplin c. And I speak unfeignedly notwithstanding all the injuries done me by Mr. M. Mr. Geree Mr. Baillee and now beyond all the rest by Mr. B. yet my heart is towards them to promote with them the work of Christ according to the solemn Covenant I think Mr. B. others are not ignorant that I have as absolutely and diligently opposed if not so happily the Popish Arminian Antinomian Familistical Socinian errors now broached as other men What I said in my Apology sect 20. I say still I seek unity with truth and I am certain that Mr. B. hath most injuriously accused me as unpeaceable whether it hath come from others suggestions or his own misconceits of me To that which is from pag. 189. to 169. is answered before SECT XIII That it is not a right way to judge of the truth of a doctrine by strange accidents though wonderous PAge 197. He drives on more furioso having recited my words concerning unsafenesse to judge of doctrine by such accidental strange things as Mrs. Dyers and Hutchinsons monstrous birthes in New England and alle adged an example of determining that God was against the marriage of Priests by the falling of a house and added we are to judge God may order accidents for stumbling blocks he flies out thus Will not this man rather fight against heaven and dispute against miracles then let go his error and then in his pathetick Rhetorick insinuates as if this speech of mine were weakening the credit of Gods testimony in wonderous providences not farre from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost that I am fallen so farre as freely to sacrifice Gods glory to my fancies and then brings in exceptions against me in four things 1. That I call them onely strange accidents 2. Compare it to the falling of a house 3. That I disswade from judging of doctrine by such accidents 4. Yea rather would have men think that they are stumbling blocks that men should not receive
the book of Gods judgements on Sabbath-breakers he is jealous lest it be from no good will to the doctrine of the morality of the Christian Sabbath as being against the scope of the book though the occasion shew it was onely to prove the uncertainty of relations that men may not rest on them as proofes of a truth But I perceive as Mr. B. is very prone to have hard thoughts of me so both he and Mr. M. seek advantage to create prejudice against me about this point of the Lords day which makes me more full in my clearing my self in this thing and in other things not so much regarding my own personal esteeme as desirous to prevent that indirect way of wounding the truth through my sides I would have no man adhere to my tenet because it 's mine nor would I have any to reject it because it is mine I know too much evil by my self yet not in the things in which I am accused at least not in that degree in which Mr. B. accuseth me Mr. Bs. telling me in print this manner of crimes not proved but imagined is no whit justified by the rules and examples he brings his ranking me with seducers I defy and know that I shall better be able to prove it against him then he against me SECT XVI The ground of my opposing infant-baptism is confirmed by Mr. B. himself PAge 205. He tells me all the Ministers and schollers that he can meete with that heard my disputes did think I had silly grounds to build my confidence in and though I boast much of my answers by writing he thinks my writings have little to be boasted of Answ. I have some experience of Ministers and Schollers and I sind few fit to judge of controversies and of those few not many willing to search impartially into a point that 's against the streame and likely to expose them to hard measure some that talk much study little nor is it a new thing to find some that wrangle in dispute for such a sense of a Scripture as when they are out of the heat of dispute they themselves expound otherwise The Ministers and Schollers at the dispute such as they were weigh but little with them that know them best My writings are not boasted of by me yet men equal to Mr. B. or any auditors of the dispute have said more of them then I am willing to speak of My imployment in this argument seemes to me to be part of my work God hath allotted me though I am known not to be idle in other work What Mr. B. calls fallacies passing from me will be proved verities My arguments from Mat. 28. 19. Marke 16. 15 16. are to be found in my Exercit. sect 15. Examen part 4. sect 1. to which Mr. Ms. replies are insufficient as I shall shew in my Review In the worship of God it was wont to be accounted a certain rule that Gods worship should be observed according to his appointment and no otherwise And so Protestant Divines argue from 1 Cor. 11. 28. selfe-examiners are appointed to eate Ergo no infants or younglings though young ones ate the Passeover Yea Mr. B himself page 221. If Christ never sent any but Ministers to baptize then no others may do it If there be no example of any but Ministers that have baptized though parenrs did circumcise then no others may do it For the Apostles established the Church according to Gods mind and the Scripture is a sufficient rule page 222. if there be no command or example in Scripture of any but Ministers administring the Lords Supper then no others may do it Page 342. If we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemne institution of baptisme Mat. 28. to admit any member into the Church without baptisme but both percept and example of admitting them by it then we must not admit any without it ordinarily I take his own medium mutatis mutandis and thence inferre If we have no warrant by word or example in all the New Testament since the solemne institution of baptisme Mat. 28. to admit any member into the Church by baptisme but believers by profession but both precept and constant example of admitting them by it then we must not admit any without it ordinarily I use his own words and texts But the Antecedent is evident John 4. 1. Acts 2. 38 41. and 8. 12 13 16 36 38. and 9. 18. and 10. 47 48. and 16. 15 33. and 18. 8. and 19. 3 4 5. Rom. 6. 3. c. the Consequent is undoubted to those that take the word for their rule If Mr. B. will stand to his own argument he must make good my arguing from Mat. 28. 19. Marke 16. 15 16. unlesse he have some such strange shift as Mr. Cotton puts in the mouth of Silvanus who personates himself in his book intitled The grounds and ends of baptisme in the Preface page 3. where he intimates that the urging against childrens baptism this main principle of purity and reformation to wit that no duty of Gods worship nor any ordinance of religion is to be administred in the Church but such as hath just warrant from the word of God is from Satan but from God when it is urged against the Prelatists and Papists so Mr. B. thinks his medium good against Socinians but not though it be the same for the Anabaptists He addes All your confident words shew me not the least ground for your conclusion no more then thus Scripture requireth faith to justification therefore none but believers are justified which is false yet like yours if I know what you would thence deduce Answ. He now I hope knowes what and how I deduce or rather how Mr. B. deduceth my conclusion from Mat. 28. 19. Marke 16. 15 16. not onely in my words but also his own though I had often long before deduced my argument in the places before quoted and elsewhere in my writings of the validity of which deduction I am the more confident because it is in Mr Bs. own words justly brought by me against himself If the Scripture requireth saith of all to justification then it is not false that none but believers are justified Yet infants may be justified by habitual faith or actual by operation in an extraordinary way But the Scripture requires profession of faith afore any be baptized ordinarily As for what may be done extraordinarily elsewhere I have expressed my self and have vindicated my self from the wrong inferences made thence Postscript sect 15. and elsewhere Page 206. The People of Kederminster did not heare from my mouth in the dispute Jam. 1. How little Anabaptists could say in the hardest point of baptisme for I used no such wordes nor any thing I said or omitted to say can infer it and when they have read my answer me thinks they should believe I could say more then I did say then and see the reason why no
and such pernicious effects following that people think therefore they are Christians because baptized which opinion of theirs is confirmed by Mr. Bs. words For they are visible Christians that are baptized into the name of Christ if they have not since by word or workes renounced him and rest therein and are thereby held in carnal presumption we ought rather to think those that maintain infant-baptisme play the Devils part which expressions of mine being added the vanity of Mr. Bs. arguings will appear That which he hath page 178. that it is no more thankes to me then to Satan that I keep not God from making promise to his people which intimates I would do it if it were in my power for if there be no more thanks to me then Satan it is because there 's no more hindrance in me from doing it then in Satan̄ and so the same will is a suggestion that exceedes all moderation as if Mr. B. were bent not onely to rake up all the dirt he can to cast in my face but also to put an ill construction on all I say My answer was a faire answer to a virulent charge In 2. senses I conceived it might be said that Infants are disputed out of the Covenant of Christ the one as if my dispute made Christ not Covenant to them the other as if it made them not Covenant to Christ. I said neither was true What saies Mr. B. 1. Election is not a Covenant Nor did I say it was And then addes nor are they in Covenant because elected which speech is most false contrary to Rom. 9. 8. where the children of the promise is all one with the Elect as the Analysis shewes as may be seene in the Authors cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Besides whom more may be produced I will add two now Mr. Rutherfurd in that piece of his which is the exactest of his workes Exercit Apol. 2. c. 2. num 7. Soli electi dicuntur in Scripturis foederati filii haeredes promissionis Rom. 9. 8. The elect alone are said in the Sctiptures to be in Covenant children and heires of the promise Rom. 9. 8. and Mr. Norton in resp ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum foederis gratiae sunt soli electi The object of the Covenant of Grace are the elect alone Next he saith that I deny that God Covenanteth with our infants to be their God in Christ and to take them to be his peculiar people which is the Covenant he formerly made with infants and which he now affirmes What he affirmes distinctly I cannot well tell he doth so confusedly expresse himself in his bookes He distinguished between an absolute and a conditional Covenant of Grace The absolute he saies belongs onely to the elect but this he will not be thought to meane when he speakes of infants of believers being in Covenant or baptism's sealing of it yea he blames me often for so conceiving of him and page 223. he disputes against that tenet as my fifth error The conditional is a Covenant of justification and salvation upon-condition of faith this he saith is sealed by baptisme not the other and this he makes belonging to all the posterity of Adam elect and reprobate And this it seemes most likely he meanes when he speaks of infants of believers being in Covenant because it is that which baptisme seales and they that are in Covenant are to be sealed thereby But according to this conditional Covenaat either all are in Covenant with God whether elect or reprobate infants of believers or unbelievers or else none till they performe the condition which is faith and so not all infants of believers Mr. B. in his additions to the Saints everlasting rest part 3. sect 3. prop. 2. A conditional promise puts nothing in being till the performance of the condition nor gives any certainty but of such performance As for any Covenant of God or Christ besides these containing onely the promise of visible Church-membership or such like imagined priviledges in the New Testament to infants of Gentile believers I take to be a phantasme and when I come to examine Mr. Bs. opinion of infants visible Church-membership which I could not do till I had his book I doubt not to make it appear to be so that not one text he hath brought proves such a promise and that he hath not proved more to belong to infants by promise then I acknowledge and yet neither visible Church-membership nor right to baptisme in infancy ordinarily will follow thereon As for that he saith in general termes that I deny that God covenanteth with infants of believers to be their God in Christ and to take them to be his peculiar people is said like a Calumniator my words being so plaine to the contrary in that very place In a word I have said that the Covenant or promise of regeneration sanctification forgivenesse of sins adoption and eternal life is not made to all the natural children of the most godly believers no not of Abraham himself or to any barely because they are their children but because elect or believers in their own persons which Mr. M. and Mr. Geree in their answers to me confesse to be true as being expresly delivered Rom. 9. 8. and by the streame of Protestant writers maintained But I deny not that many infants of believers are in the Covenant of Grace nor dare I say that no infants of unbelievers are in the Covenant of Christ in this sense I onely say I neither know which of the one or the other are thus in the Covenant of Grace As for the arguings that he that denies Infants baptisme doth deny them to be in the Covenant of Grace they are built on these fancies that to be a seale of the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of baptisme that there is a certain connexion between being in the Covenant of Grace and right to be baptized which with other hypotheses of Paedobaptists I shall examine in my Review Mr. B. addes That I flatly deny infants Covenanting with God whereas my words were farre from such flat denial being onely these for my part I know not how any person should Covenant with Christ till he promise c. which were not such a peremptory or flat denial as Mr. B. saies they are and they are true it being against all experience that infants do so Covenant but on the contrary when they are baptized cry and shew their unwillingnesse as August lib. 1. de remiss et mer. pecc c. 23. flendo et vagiendo cùm in eis mysterium celebratur ipsis mysteriis vocibus obstrepunt Then Mr. B. saies I disswade parents from so engaging their children in Covenant and promising in their names which yet they ever did in the Church before Christ and it was their duty to do as Deut. 29. and other places shew But in which words I perswade parents not to do as he saies I do he
I pray with him may perish of schism or zeal for it I am not conscious that truth I avouch will stand when Mr. Bs. rotten pillars fall to the ground To many questions and charges in sundry pages 213. c. an answer may be gathered from what is said before SECT XIX The six imagined errors charged on me by Mr. B. are cleered from his censure MR. B. addes a confutation of six of my pretended errors The first was onely a speech of mine in conference on occasion of Mr. Bs. words in a Sermon which were taken to be a fling at me and my meaning was this that the truth I maintained and such like being about a thing of frequent practise so that by reason of ignorance sin will be committed were not to be concealed when if it be it is like to be lost for the peace of the Church that is to prevent differences in opinion and the breaches in communion that by reason thereof do by accident from the corruption of men fall out Mr. B. opposeth it as if I meant a man must not suspend any truth of the Scripture no not though a total breach bringing bloodshed ruine c. follow yea by his last argument he would insinuate as if it would follow on my tenet that every one that doth but think it is a truth that Christ is not God that there is no God c. that he will think himself bound to reveale it to the world though it turne all to confusion and after his satyrical veine saith He that had rather see the Church in this case then his doctrine of Anabaptistry should be concealed is good for nothing but to make an Anabaptist of that I know To which I answer my meaning in that speech of mine was this that no truth of God that a person is certain is such and can demonstrate so to be which concernes the faith or practise of Christians through concealing of which they shall erre and sin is to be concealed when a person may perceive by circumstances that if he conceale it at such a time the contrary will be established and so truth be lost in the eye of reason though much trouble follow thereon And this I resolved heretofore in my book of scandals chap. 4. sect 20. not that I know of excepted against by any ground on Pauls words Gal. 2. 5. avouched by many Divines and without which the Waldenses Hussites Protestants will be condemned for opposing the Monkish profession halfe communion c. though warres followed thereon And our present and former non-conformists will be deeply guilty of sin in opposing the Prelacy ceremonies canons c which hath been one cause of the great troubles of the land which have proved greater then any raised by the Anabaptists And so far as many prudent men can discerne many of the Presbyterian Ministers of the land do as little regard the peace of this land at this time through discontent that they want the establishment of discipline after their mind as any Anabaptist heretofore did And I presume they that sit at the sterne do find the so called Anabaptists as faithful to the publique cause as their opposites As for the two next errors about others then Ministers baptizing and administring the Lords Supper Mr. B. delivers as much himself as the errors pretended affirm in these words page 221. In a case of necessity as if people were in the Indies where no Ministers can be had if any fay that it is better a private man baptize and adminster the Lords Supper then wholly omit them I will not deny it and he gives two reasons But faith he Mr. T. speaks it in reference to our ordinary case in England Concerning which I answer that for baptizing it is true I speak in reference to the case in England all or most of the Ministers ordained being against baptizing of persons of years sprinkled in infancy and there lying upon them that see infant-baptisme a corruption a necessity to be baptized upon profession of faith there is a necessity that they be baptized by persons not ordained by laying on of hands of the Presbytery though I do conceive laying on of hands an ordinance in force from 1 Tim. 5. 23. and 4. 14. Act. 13. 3. Heb. 6. 2. Nor do I like the argument from Numb 8. 10. to prove that non-preaching elders may lay on hands conceiving no Mosaical ordinance concerning any positive ceremonial rite belonging to the Jewish service is a rule to us now and therefore do wish there were either by authority or consent of Churches some way of restoring it till which I see a necessity that persons not ordained yet preachers of the Gospel do baptize But for administring the Lords Supper though I acknowledge it most fit in many respects it should be received some Minister ordering it not so much for the consecrating of the Elements as they call it by vertue of office as for the comely and edifying dispensing of it by prayer and exhortation the ordinance being holy and to be performed with much reverence to which none are so fit as a Minister that is set apart for the word and prayer yet whereas it is claimed as a part of the Ministers office to be Minister of the Sacraments or as they call them seales and it is aggravated as if it were the sin of Uzzah or Uzziah for any else to do it and too much I think is ascribed not onely by Papists but also by others to the power of order and many require it as a Ministers duty to give them the Sacrament and if Mr. Bs. doctrine be good in his treatise of the Saints rest page 651. Their being baptized persons or members of the universal Church is sufficient evidence of their interest to the Supper till they by heresie or scandal blot that evidence Ministers cannot deny it them without instustice and hereupon many perplexities are in Ministers about giving the Lords Supper and perplexities in receivers from whom they receive it it being taught that they do justifie their Ministery and own them as their Ministers who receive the Lords Supper from them and it is taught that Ministers have a power to deny some the seals and this is made a chief part of their government I have I confesse said and I think it still true that a company of believers though they have no Minister ordained in case of want of an ordained Minister may some one or more in holy and seemely manner by giving thanks praying and declaring the end and use of that rite and guiding the action remember the Lords death in breaking bread and this may be truly a Sacrament as it is called and acceptable to God if performed with a holy heart And my chief ground is because whereas it is made one of the chief disorders in eating the Lords Supper at Corinth 1 Cor. 11. 20 21. that in eating every one took his own Supper before other