Advertisement THe Reader is desired to take Notice that the Press in Boston is so much under the aw of the Reverend Author whom we answer and his Friends that we could not obtain of the Printer there to print the following Sheets which is the only true Reason why we have sent the Copy so far for its impression GOSPEL ORDER Revived Being an Answer to a Book lately set forth by the Reverend Mr Increase Mather President of Harvard Colledge c. ENTITULED The Order of the Gospel c. Dedicated to the Churches of Christ in new-New-England By sundry Ministers of the Gospel in new-New-England Prov. 18. 17. He that is first in his own Cause seemeth just but his Neighbour cometh and searcheth him Isa 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speak not according to this Word it is because there is no Light in them Printed in the Year 1700. ERRATA ADvert l. ult r. it is Printed Ep. Ded. side 3 l. 29. r. ground S. 4 l. 7 r. wills l. 10. r. impose one l. 19. r. Anti-Synodalia S. 5 l. 3. r. voluminous S. 6 l. 6 r. banner S. 7 l. 5. r. sell l. 22 r. inartificial S. 8 l. 13. r. publickly Preached Gosp Ord. p. 9 l. 3 r that when p. 9 l. 16. r. invention p. 10 l. 9. r. notions p. 15 l. 33. r. stumble p. 17 l. 14. r altogether l. 32 that at p. 21 l. 11 r. of their ways p. 22 l. 14. r. Synodical l. 33. r. we leave the Author to be chastized p. 23 l. 10. r. without this p. 28 l. 27. r. Apostolical l. 28. r. one only excepted p. 29 l. 25. r. their persons p. 32 l. ult r. we 'l for once give our p. 34 l. 14 r. his book l. 16. r. were greater p. 37 l. antep r. ferre p. 40 l. 10. r. â—â— Exemplary The Epistle Dedicatory To the Churches of Christ in N. England IT can incur no just Censure that we address our selves to the Churches of Christ here in the following Sheets inasmuch as they are but a Reply to a Book lately dedicated unto them Nor does our zeal we hope for Truth the Honour of God the Safety Peace Flourishing of these Churches come short of what our Reverend Author may be inspired with in his performance We make the same glorious Pretence with him to maintain defend the Order of the Gospel altho' we cannot allow what is suggested in the Title page That every Principle so strenuously contended for in that Treatise is either professed or practised by the Churches of Christ in new-New-England One part at least therefore of his Book the Reverend Author ought to have published in his own Name and not have obtruded it on the Churches here whose Practise never gave grounds to suspect them leavened with so gross thoughts as particularly his Doctrine of the Ordination of Ministers is We will not guess at the Authors secret aim or whom in particular he raises his Batteries against We'd charitably hope he has no private Interest to bribe him in this Affair and we hope for a like favourable and candid Construction of this Reply Indeed the Name prefix't to that faulty Treatise may be presumed with a multitude of prejudiced People to weigh down all the Reasons and Arguments which can possibly be brought for their Conviction And we have no such advantage to boast of yet are happy in this that we are not over-awed by any Name and the Truth we know is greater and more venerable than all things It s well known how liberal some men are of the odious brand of Apostates for every one who cannot digest the late published Orders but without arrogance 〈…〉 sume as more due the Title of Proficients and doubt not to make it out that our dissent from many of them is so far from a going back from any Gospel Truth or Order that it is rather a making progress and advancing in the Evangelical Discipline It is a groundless Calumny which is suggested That a latitude beyond what our Author contends for is but a betraying the liberties and priviledges which our Lord Jesus Christ has given to his Church or the Brethren of the Church These we profess to prize and stand for and would by no means lose But wherein do they consist not in the Brethrens challenging any part of the Ministerial Work Not in imposing upon others any thing which Christ has not imposed which is but a debarring Christians of the Priviledges they have a right to But they consist as we conceive in such things as these That our Consciences be not imposed on by Men or their Traditions Christ being the alone Lord of the Conscience 1 Cor. 7. 23. That Believers are through Christ freed from the guilt and dominion of Sin from the curse of the Law and from the sting and terror of Death That we have the liberties of Gods House and Ordinances therein communion with God That we may have the benefit of the gifts of his Ministers for edification and such like according to the Apostles Doctrine 1 Cor. 3. 22. Nor is that Objection less frivolous when if we appear less Rigid than others of the Reverend Authors severity we are reflected on as casting dishonour on our Parents their pious design in the first settlement of this Land No we reverence our Ancestors and the Memory of their divine Zeal and Constancy and would derive it as a Truth sacred to our Posterity that it was a religious Interest which carried them through all the amazing Difficulties Discouragements in that Undertaking But yet the particular design or end has been some-what differently conveyed unto us Some have carried it as if the great end were the Conversion of the Heathen and there have been great Complaints by some of late how this has been neglected and contradicted and another course taken up whereby instead of bringing the Heathen into the Church of God many whose Fathers and themselves were once of the visible Church are now strangely left out scarce any face of Religion remaining among them As for this we bewail it and look upon it as a Reproach to the Land and would therefore countenance no such Principles or Practices as have any tendency to such Apostacy Again some have made this the great Design to be freed from the Impositions of Men in the Worship of God wherewith they were sometimes burthened and as they sought freedom for themselves we cannot suppose they design'd to impose upon others In this we are risen up to make good their grounds The Reverend Mr. Willard in his Sermon of the sinfulness of Worshipping God with Mens Institutions p. 27. gives this as the errand of our fore-Fathers into this Wilderness namely to sequester themselves into a quiet corner of the World where they might enjoy Christs unmixt Institutions and leave them uncorrupted to Posterity and the gain-saying or counter working this is as he intimates to cast
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-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
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-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
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-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-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
of that other Church a declension from the first principles of new-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-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-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
dishonour upon them or call them fools This Charge falls heavy on those who are for imposing their will on others We crave no more but to enjoy the Institutions of Christ unmix't And it appears very strange that those who flâ—d from an Act of Uniformity should presently impose on themselves on their Neighbours and entail the Mischief on their Posterity Some indeed would make the design of our first Planters to consist in some little Rites Modes or Circumstances of Church Discipline and those such as the Word of God no where requires These are the men who dishonour their Country and their Fathers Memory by making their great design to lie in so small matters And it is notorious there has been no agreement in these points from the beginning It s known there was Anti-Synodatia printed and who had a hand in it and how modest his Dissent was and in what terms they contradicted what the Synod had established tho' the like is criminal and insufferable in any other These Principles in Church Discipline are also wrote against in English by the Assembly of Divines by Mr. Câ—â—dry Mr. Ratherford Mr. Baâ—ly c. In a word if it be the Truth according to Gods Word we stand for it would not be grievous to any of our pious Ancestors were they now on Earth neither will it be grievous to them now in Heaven nor should it be grievous to any good Man to receive Conviction We refer all therefore to the Word of God to the Law and to the Testimony In the Preface or Epistle to said Book we find several things that might be justly excepted against but designing neither to be contentious nor volumnious we shall speak but to one or two In pag. 8. the Reverend Author is pleased to number up seven or eight erronious Doctrines as he apprehends them to be the consequence from all is this that if we espouse these Principles we give away the whole Congregational Cause at once Whence we perceive now the professed cause which the Author engages in tho' we hope it is not the Name or the Party but the Truths they delend We shall have occasion to examine these Principles hereafter it may suâ—tiâ—e here to say they are craftily unfairly worded in the Dress they are here clad we do not espouse them yet according to their most fair genuine construction there is a great deal of Truth in most of them And this is but a block the Author politickly casts in the way which at last we fear may but discourage some from embracing the Congregational way seeing it must needs fight for its life against some Truths It s hard kicking against the pricks Acts 9. 5. Another thing Remarkable in the Preface is the Authors heat and 〈◊〉 pag 9. Shall we then by Silence betray the Truth shall we reâ—ort therefore we are bold to speak too Who is on the Lord side Who shall we answer we are we trust through Gods Grace together with you and all other siding 〈◊〉 would have in contempt Is there no one that will stand up for the Churches of Christ God orbid but we should had others declined it The good People in them then may well think their Watch-men are all either dead or a sleep or if they talk light and heady they may conclude them in a trance or not quite awaked 〈◊〉 which cause it is that I dedicate this ensuing Dissertation And for the same cause we address you in the following answer It is not my cause but yours Nor is it ours but the Churches and every good Christians in common Did I say yours nay it is Christ cause We list under the same Banners and would to God we were all as really as we would seem to be divested wholly of carnal self ........ for truly our present Defence is become the peculiar concern of these Churches But why all this heat we would not interpret too hard but these Expressions seem plainly to carry this sense That every one who obeys not the late published Orders is an opposer of Truth not on the Lord side Enemies to the cause of Christ and the Churches of new-New-England Whereupon the Reverend Author roules himself and sounds an Alarm to the Churches To put down all such If this be not involv'd in it we would beg his Pardon and be informed better But truly Sir it is a mistaken Zeal â—dly lavish'd away and not kindled from above â—or we know no such conspiracy against the Truths of our Lord Jesus Christ or against the good of the Churches in new-New-England altho' we are not proselyted to some of your particular Opinions It appears to us that the Reverend Authors infirmity in this matter is the same with the Apostle Johns Mark 9. 38. Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy Name and he followeth not us and we forbad him because he followed not us Which too forward zeal ouâ— Lord checks and reconciles the matter Vers 39 40. And â—esus answered forbid him not he that is not against â—â— is on our part But in this case as in many others we â—ould instance in if need were the Reverend Author tho' very zealous for a time yet is not very steady constant for before he ends his Book he comes about again in pag 139. where he proposeth his Brothers Essay for Union wherein he shows how inconsiderable the Differences are between those of the Presbyterian and Congregational judgment that they need not set Truth to purchase Peace And yet by the cry just now you would have thought all the Truths of Christ trampeled under foot the Cause of Religion deserted and and a formidable War commenced by the Presbyterians against the order of the Gospel It is observable that the Reverend Author in the Dissertation of the following Questions makes use of abundance of Quotations from several famous Persons in their Generations but in some the sence is perverted to a wrong end beside the obvious intention of the Writers in some he brings them in contradicting at one time what they said at another and sets some in opposition to others And where he endeavours to confirm his Tenets by the Testimony of some he might if he had pleased have brought many others to contradict the same thing But this is a good way to amuse the Reader and to cloud his mind and to terrifie him by mustering a legion of 〈…〉 artificaâ— Arguments We shall be sparing in Quotations and pass by many cited by the Author tho' we approve them not Only we crave leave to present one Quotation which may be of use to us all along being we are unwilling to be imposed on to believe what God never spoke or to do what God never requir'd It is that of the Reverend Mr. Willaâ—a in his fore-quoted Sermon pag. 23. 24. Hence it follows that there â—s nothing to be received by us on this account but what has Gods Seal affixed to it It s therefore
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
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-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
Reverend Author that the Scriptures are read in Churches audibly and intelligibly Nor can we guess what Dumb reading should mean unless when men sleep over their Books and in charity to the Author we wish he had been a sleep when this unlucky word droâ—t from his Pen. We are further beholden to the Author for his judgment that the reading of one Chapter with a brief explication wiâ—â— edifie the Congregation more than the bare reading of twenty Chapters But this is only his single Opinion and as it will not weigh against the daily experience of thousands of People who must judge for themselves so neither does it favour of modesty to think any one of his Sermons oâ— short Comments can edifie more than the reading of twenty Chapters We would not charge on the Reverend Author all the hard consequences of his own words or we should say that it is audacious so vilely to disparage the Inspirations of God Alas Sir the Scripture wants nothing of ours to make it Perfect We have the Confessions of many who have come to hear the Word read with prejudice that God gives it authority from the lips of the Minister And we know that as all Scripture is given by Inspiration of God so it is in it self profitable without any help or advantage from us for Doctrine for Reproof for Correction for Instruction in Righteousness â—o perfect the Man of God the Minister as well as his People and if it were not so in it self it could not be so by being explained Here let our Confession of Faith speak for us chap. 1. Sect. 7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselues nor alike clear unto all yet those things w 〈…〉 are necessary to be known believed and observed for Salvation are so clearly propounded opened in some place oâ— Scripture or other that not only the learned but the unlearned in a due use of the ordinary means may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them There is one Argument in pagâ— 47 48 brought by the Reverend Author against this Dumb Reading but so picious a stuâ—â—ble so miserable an inconâ—equence that we are loath to name iâ— To issue this Head we are more and more confirmed that the reading Gods Word in the great Congregation is so far from being offensive to God that it is the greatest Reverence and Honour we can do it and the most suitable acknowledgment we can make to him who in mercy has given us his Word and will judge the World by it at the great Day Qu. 7. Is Baptism to be administred to all Children whom any professing Christians shall engage to see educated in the Christian Religion The Reverend Author according to his wonted Bounty aâ— first dash concedes to us that he will not oppose the adoptive right We then declare our selves satisfied and crave no more for we do not conceive that any man can engage or undertake for the Education of a Child in the Christian Religion unless he has the Authority of a Parent devolved on him for the government of the Child Nor would any conscientious Minister accept the engagement of one who has no power or ability to perform his Vows So that this engagement necessarily implyes the care and authority of a Father and consequently there is an adoptive Right to Baptism But the Author stumbles at the phrase professed Christians and seems to think that the Question if carried in the Affirmative would conclude for Papists Socinians and the groslest Hereticks as also for the most notorious Prostigates and prophane Persons as if it ever entered into the heart of a Protestant Divine to accept the Engagement of some lewd Debauchce or professed Papist to institute his Child for the Devil or Popery Our complaint here is the same that the Reverend Mr. How once made of his Adversaries That â—e gravely falls a combating with his own Man of Straw and so we are to be tortured in Effigie But to pacific him we would inform him what a charitable Man would understand by a professed Christian viâ— the sâ—me that our Catechism does when it instructs us That Baptism is not to be administred to any till they profess their Faith in Christ and obedience to him We leave our Author therefore to fight it out with that Reverend Assembly for truly his Argument is formâ—dable against them in as much as Papists Socinians Heretick the Prophane c. do all profess their Faith in Christ and Obedience to him Such is the Power of Interest Faction Passion and personal Opposition that it blinds a Man on a suddain to fight with those Truths which he has learned and reverenced from his Infancy Qu. 8. Is Baptism in a private House where there is no Church Assembly allowable The Question seems to grant there may be a Church Assembly in a private House as we read Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. so there may be a publick place and no Assembly We agree with the Reverend Author that Baptism is a part of the publick Ministry nor may it be administred by one who is not called to the publick Ministry neither should it usually and oâ—â—inaâ—â—ly be administred but in a full Congregation and in the most publick manner nor would we drop a word to discourage so pious a Practice Yet let the Congregation be never so great if the Administrator be not a publick Minister commissioned by our Lord Jesus Christ it may be called private Baptism and altogether unallowable and if the number of people be small and the place otherwise private yet if the Administrator be a publick Officer and Minister of Christ the Baptism may in a sense be called Publick and in some cases as that of dangerous sickness not only allowable but necessary and a duty When a Justice of the Peace acts in his Office though but few are present yet they are acts of publick Authority as truly as those done in higher Courts and with greater solemnity Altho among us where Churches are orderly settled there is little occasion either for private preaching or Baptism it being certain the more publick both are the more God and his Ordinances are honoured thâ— general profit of his people consulted But yet as was hinted before there are some cases of necessity wherein it s ones duty to seek a more private Baptism the providence of God not permitting a more publick attendance and no Minister ought to refuse their desire As for instance in apparent danger of death it would be cruelty to deny such a request if privacy be the only Objection We need not suggest that all what we call private Baptism there may be a competent number of people present the neighbourhood being called in and notice given to some of the Brethren of the Church We observe a good Medium herein between the two dangerous extreams We avoid all unnecessary common Baptizing in private for which our Brethren in England are so very faulty and we would