THe two firſt Queſtions might have been wholy ſpared, yet may ſerve as a good introduction to others of 〈◊〉 aſpect.

〈◊〉 . 1. Whether particular Churches ought to conſist of Saints and true Believers in Chriſt?

It is granted that the matter of a particular Church (for the Queſtion is not ſtated with reference to the Catholick) is viſible Saints. And tho' the Anſwer is not given in the words, yet we would charitably hope his ſenſe is the ſame, with the united Miniſters in London. That none ſhall be admitted as members in order to Communion, in all the ſpecial Ordinances of the Goſpel, but ſuch as are knowing and found in the fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion, without ſcandal in their Lives, and to a judgment regulated by the word of God, are Perſons of viſible Godlineſs and honeſty, credibly profeſſing cordial ſubjection to Jeſus Chriſt. Had our Reverend Author only ſaid t •• s much (and indeed more is needleſs) he had ſaved us the labour of any Reflections on this part of his Eſſay. But there is one paſſage in p. 15 which we cannot but except againſt. A Scripture, ſai • h • e, which has reſpect to the times of the Goſpel, ſeverely rebukes thoſe Ministers, which ſhall bring men that are uncircumciſed in heart • unregenerate perſons) into the ſa • ctuary, into the Church of God, to eat the Bread and drink the Blood, which they that are there, partake o • , Ezek 44.7, 9. A hard ſaying, and who can • ear it. The Text is here mangled, and the princi •• l things left out. Wh • t God has joyned, our Reverend Author has ſeperated, to drive on his de •• gn The Text ſaith Uncircumciſed in heart, and un • ircumciſed in fl • ſh: but h • re we have it o • ly uncircumciſed in heart, interpreted unregenerate perſons. What a rebuke is this to the b • ſt of Miniſters becauſe (forſooth) they are not heart ſearchers, and dare not invade the prerogative of God Did the Revere •• Author or the Church with him, never admit any unregenerate Perſon to communion with them? He will not dare to pretend to it, and therefore the r • b • ke is to himſelf. We know our Lord Jeſus Chriſt admitted Judas uncircumciſed in heart, an unregenerate Perſon to holy things; and in the pureſt Ages of the Church there were Hypocrites crept in, many of whom turned Apoſtates. Nay, our Author is ſo ſenſible of this, that p. 19. he quotes the opinion of the Reverend M. Co • ton, That its better to admit diverſe Hypocr • tes than to keep out one ſincere Child of God. It i • obvious th • n that Hypocrites m • y be admitted, and yet the Miniſter 〈◊〉 neith •• the • ebukes of Conſcience, or of this Scripture: nay, he may be approved of God, as doing his Du • y, though Hypo • riſie may 〈◊〉 well conſiſt with ſufficient Knowledge, • ound belief, a • l • meleſs Life, a credible Profeſſion, &c. To conclude, Its very obſervea • le, the Reverend Author cloſes this firſt Enquiry, by ſaying, That the Churches here are free to admit thoſe into their communion, who are thus qualified. We marvel then his Zeal is not ſtirred to rebuke them afreſh.

But what will the Reader think if we ſhould make an Apology after all for the Reverend Author, and aſſure him he means no more, than that Miniſters ought not to admit known Infidels or Prophane; for, for his part, he pretends not to know mens hearts. We only can intreat the Reader not to rebuke the Author too ſeverely for his inconſiſtency, for he may mean well, and all parties are agreed. Unleſs he ſhould imagine himſelf attacqued by the Reverend Author of the Doctrine of inſtituted Churches.

Q. 2. Whether there ought not to be a Tryal of Perſons concerning their qualifications and fitneſs for Church communion, before they are admitted thereunto?

We ſhall not here examine the force of the Authors arguments, whether they unreſiſtably conclude, or not; and whether the conſequence is good from the tryal of the Apoſtles, the Porters at the Temple, or the 12 Angels at the Gates of the Myſtical Jeruſalem, to the tryal of Church Members. It ſuffices that the Reverend Author has modeſtly ſtated this Truth, and cited us to a merciful Bar, the judgment ſeat of a rational Charity, where the Judge avoids ſeverity, and the tryal is managed with abundant tenderneſs: the bruiſed Reed is not •• oken, nor the ſmoaking flax quenched: the tender 〈◊〉 find the kind Shepherds Arms to fold them, and a gentle carri • ge in his boſom. This is indeed the part of the good ſhepherd, and we could now gladly commit our ſelves to the Reverend Authors Paſtoral care. So many good words remove 〈…〉 of a rigid Tryal. But alas! the Clouds return upon us, and a black • ou • t is ſta • t • d, as follows.

Q 3 Whether a • e not the Brethren, and not the Elders of the Church only, to judge concerning the qualifications and fitneſs of thoſe who are admi • ted into their Communion?

The Reverend Author allows there may be a difference of apprehenſion, as to this point, and yet no breach of Union. We think ſo too, and therefore as we continue to honour the Perſon, though we expoſ • his opinion; ſo we ho • e the negative will not deſerve the popular cry, Oh Apostacy! Apostacy! The difference, as the Reverend Author tells us, is betwee • the Brethren of the Presbyterian and th • Congregational way, the former givi • g this power only to the Elderſhip, the latter joyning the fraternity with them. He takes up for the latter; but whether he proves it, the world may ſee when we have conſidered his Arguments.

In the fore-going Chapter, when he would prove there ought to be a tryal of Perſons, he tells us of the Porters that were ſet at the • gates of the Temple, 2 Chron. 23.19. but thoſe Porters were Officers 1 Chron. 6.1. ſo he Inſtances in the Twelve Angels at the Gates of the Myſtic • l Jeruſalem, which tho' it may imply that the Gates were kept, ye • not that the fraternity were the keepers. He inſtances alſo in Phillip and John the Baptiſt, which if it argues any thing, is applicable only to the Officers, and not to the Brother-hood.

But to examine his ſtrength in this Chapter what he calls argument, may more truly be ſtiled dogmatical • ffirming, or a more mean begging the Queſtion. • ill pag. 24, 25. he quote a Scripture or two in proof of his aſſertions, ſcil. 1 Corinth. 5.12. 2 Cor. 2.6. in both which places the Apoſtle is writing to th • Church a • Corinth, about excommunicating the Inceſtuous Perſon fo • his ſin, and the reſtoring him again upon his Repentance. And we remit the Reverend Author to the ſame holy Apoſtle for an anſwer. It is that known place, 1 Corinth. 12. chap. where he compares the Church to a mans Body, and ſhows the diſtinct offices and operations of the reſpective Members, as the Eye and Ear, the Hand and Foot. And to render the alluſion the more intelligible, he names the Officers God had ſet over his Church, as more immediately referred to v. 28. God has ſet ſome in his Church, firſt, Apoſtles, ſecondarily, Prophets, thirdly, Teachers— and in the cloſe of the 14. chap. he adds, Let all things be done decently and in order. The reſult of all is this.

The Apoſtle would have every one to keep his proper place and ſphere, and do his own work, ſcil. in the Cenſure of the faulty Perſon, the Elderſhip were to do theirs, the Brotherhood not to uſurp or arrogate any thing above their Province. For as the Apoſtle queries, v. 19. are all Apoſtles? are all Prophets? are all Teachers? i. e. in a govern'd Body we cannot expect all ſhould be Governors, vid. Pool' • Annot.

There is another Text alſo produced to prove the power of the Brethren, ſcil. Mat. 18.17. and if he ſhall neglect to hear them, tell is to the Church. This Text has been often brought on this account, and ſometimes on other accounts and as often anſwered, yet here brought again, but it will not anſwer the end.

The Context ſuppoſes an Offender, and the wronged party proceeding againſt him; and here are three ſteps the diſſatisfied Perſon is directed to take, in order to heal the wound given, 1.) To tell the Offender his fault in private. 2) To tell him before 2 or 3 witneſſes, and if the end be not obtained; 3.) To tell it to the Church. Suppoſe now a Perſon acting according to this Rule (as we could give inſtances if need were) when the firſt ſtep did not gain his Brother, nor the ſecond anſwer the end, at laſt the diſſatisfied Perſon carried the caſe to the Paſtor, and now he reckoned he had told it to the Church. The Paſtor ſending fo • the Offendor preſently • onvinced him, brought him to Repentance, and to give ſatisfaction, and the thing was iſſued. Here the Rule was attended, the Church told, the offendor healed, the wronged Perſon ſatisfied, and the matter iſſued, when the Brotherhood all this while knew nothing of it. It is evident from the next verſe, that by the Church muſt be meant thoſe who had Power to bind and looſe, which Power Chriſt had given to the Apoſtles. Moreover let the ſenſe be that the Offence is to be • old to the Rulers firſt, and then by them to the multitude; not for the multitude to 〈◊〉 it, but 〈◊〉 their wa • ning and example, for their prayers for the offendor, and their approbation of the Elders Cenſure, and that they might take care to avoid the fami • iarity of ſuch an infectious ſinner, vid. Pools Annot.

But if Scripture will not prove the Power of the Brethren, poſſibly ſome venerable Maxim may do the feat. Quod tangit omnes deb • t ab omnibus approbari. But alas! this Maxim gives ſo much to the Siſters, as to the Brethren. Surely it is no divine Oracle, it neither came from Heaven, nor is it according to the manners of men upon Earth. If a maſter of a family take in a ſojou • nor or a ſervant; all are concerned, but their vote is not asked. If a Captain liſt a Souldier, all the Company is concerned, but it is done by his Authority, without asking their leave. And pray carry this m • x • m to the Colledge, and ſee if the Preſident and Fellows will ſtand by it in their admiſſions. If it be objected, that even in all theſe caſes if there be any ſufficient reaſons preſented by thoſe concerned, a prudent Ruler will yield to it; we eaſily grant it, and therefore its not unfit that men be propoſed to the Congregation, if there be any thing to object againſt their lives, &c.

Another argument for the Brethrens Power in admiſſion, is, leſt the whole Power ſhould ſometimes reſide in the hands of a ſingle Miniſter, and that this is unreaſonable we have a Speech quoted from the Preſbiterian Miniſters in London. But it is ſtrangely perverted from their true meanning, as appears not only from the whole ſeries and ſcope of the Book, but alſo from what is expreſſed in the page quoted (p. 71.) where they ſay, That the Power cannot be placed in the whole Church collectively taken. The Scripture makes an exact diſtinction between Rulers and ruled. They only plead that there ſhould be more Rulers in a Church then one; or that, when there are more, then the Power belongs to the whole meaning, the ruli • g Elders as well as the Teaching. And what is that to the Power of the Brethren? One officer has Power in plain caſes to act in the Kings name.

Indeed our Saviour did frequently ſend forth his Diſciples two and two. But yet Phillip was ſent alone to baptize the Ethiopian E • nuch. It will not excuſe a Miniſter in the neglect of Chriſts work, becauſe he has no fellow labourers with him.

But the ſtrongeſt argument comes laſt. The way to keep Popery out of •• e World, ſait • our Author, is • or the fraternity to 〈◊〉 a • d maintain▪ 〈◊〉 Power, whic • do • s o • right belong to them. 〈…〉 to which, we re • d only blot out the word fraternity, and 〈…〉 • oom write the word 〈◊〉 An excellent argum •• t that wi •• equally prove either 〈◊〉 ; and by the change of a 〈…〉 to anſwer 〈…〉 long Speech, which ends that Chapter.

〈…〉 , all Power is fi • ſtly in 〈…〉 , and our Reverend Aut •• r produces to commiſſ • on 〈…〉 Chriſt, for the Breth • en 〈…〉 the affairs of his 〈◊〉 in his 〈◊〉 ; for he has app ••• te • Officers of his own to that • nd.

Q. 4. Whether is it neceſſ •• y t • at 〈◊〉 at their admiſſion into the Church ſhould make a publick relation 〈◊〉 the time and manner of their Conve • ſion?

The Reverend Author anſwers in the Negative, and adds, that the Churches of N. E do not impoſe it, • or ought it to be req • ired or deſired. He gives f • ur ſu • ſtantial 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 preferring i • to others, the ſaid Mr. Eliot turned upon him, and ſaid, An 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. How, of o • e 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 ed • fying; 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 not be edifying if every Sabbath day evening, ſome well diſpoſed (talkativ • ) Brethren ſhould ſtand up and relate the experiences of the week paſt? yet ſhall we make it a • aw or cuſtom? will not ſome people aſſure you, they have been wonderfully edifi • d by a womans preaching in Publick? and yet will out 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 pl •• d • d for, in that God may be Honoured by th • m. But we have known ſome to Gods diſhonour, being in •• pid, ſenſl • ſs things, to uſe ou • Authors own words, meer fo • m • lities, too ſcandalous and ſuperſtitious. He ſaith, they are a means to gain love with the Ch • ldren 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 〈◊〉 ends? Whether appointed by God, to promote his glory, edifie the Congregation, or gain love? If not, they are but the Inſtitutions of m • n, and therefore to be rej • cted, as the before quoted Mr. Willa • d inſtructs us.

God has appointed the preaching the Goſpel, the Sacraments, &c. for edi •• cation, and the promoting Chriſtian love among his people; but we read nothing of theſe impoſ • d relations, neither when Chriſt himſelf, nor when his Apoſtles after him, adm • niſtred this holy Sacrament. Nor is there any appearance of ſuch a Cu • tom in the primitive Church.

Indeed, there are ſome occaſions, as our Author obſerves, on which a Perſon who has had a rema • kable Converſion, may declare it: but there's neither p • ecept nor rule in the Word of God, that it ſhould be done at this ſet time, and in publick. And with what face can we impoſe it, whe • o • r Fathers fled from • he impoſitions of men? whe • her 〈◊〉 Impoſitions are inſufferable in themſelves, or not; yet c •• tainly they are bold and i • ſolent in New-England, where the greateſt out-cry is made againſt them in others.

But it wou • d m • ke a man ſmile, were he never ſo ſerious or diſpleaſed, to read the Texts that are brought for this Cuſtom; as that Pſal. • 0 10. I have not concealed thy Truth from the great Congregation. And indeed the Ro • al Prophet had been inexcuſable if he had as a Miniſter would now, that ſhould not declare to his ſtock the whole counſel of God.

Again, Pſal. 66 16. he ſays, Come and hear all you that fear God, and I will declare what • e ha • done fo • my • oul We imagine • he Reverend Author ſuppoſes the Pſal •• ſ • thus 〈…〉 ſome va •• religious Concourſe, and that in order to his partaking of the priviledges of the Jewiſh Church. Bu • 〈…〉 a ſuppo •• • o ridiculous and extravagant, yet this makes • othing 〈…〉 Rel • tions, for then it ſhould • ave been ſpoken and 〈◊〉 by the People. Do you come, • nd ſtand forth, Sir, and tell us what God has do • e for you • ſoul, and 〈◊〉 we admit you to all the privil • dg •• of the Temple. Another Text ſtrang • ly perverted to ſcare ſome good people is, that, Mat. 10 33. Whoſoever denyeth me before men, him will I alſo deny b •• ore my • ather 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 O • dinances 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 q • aint Speech in the Chu • ch. The laſt Scripture we ſhall name, which has been equ • lly 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 every one that a • keth it, to wit, in a proper place and time, for a 〈◊〉 , and on ſufficient Reaſons, where there is Authority to command, or it i • de •• red with modeſty. The ſenſe indeed is, that we ſho •• d be ready to defend our Faith againſt the ſcoffs and cavil • of Infid • l and Perſecutors: and that it is a ſhame to Chriſtians not to be a 〈◊〉 to argue for their Religion, and confu • e gain-ſayers. So that if you would infer hence any publick Speech in the Church, it m • ſt be rather a • Apology for the Ch • iſtian Religion, or a Sermon to prove its reaſonableneſs and evidence; but neither is it in the leaſt intimated that this ſhould be m • de a ſtated term of Communion; and we are ſure the Church has no more power to debar the 〈◊〉 f • om any Chriſtian priviledge then to require Oaths, Subſcriptions, and Conformity to a Thou • and 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 〈◊〉 . The true ſenſe whereof is, th • s which we are contending even with • nfi • els, yet we m • ſt not argue wi • h an intemperate Paſſion or 〈…〉 we conſtrue it, as in oppoſition to Pride and Preſump •• on of 〈…〉 abilities; It is a ſevere Rebuke to many of our bold and forward Zealots, who have been • amed for their promptneſs to 〈◊〉 in the Church, and the firſt that have fallen under its deſervee 〈◊〉 . We ſhould indeed be better reconciled to this ••• tom of Relatio •• ▪ we • e this preſcribed meekneſ • and fear more viſible in them. Bu • this is the miſery, the m • re me • k and fearful are hereby kept out of 〈◊〉 Houſe, while the more conceited and preſumptuous never boggle at this, o • any thing elſe.

But it ſeems the • e is a 〈◊〉 Corruption of this laudable practice which the Author do •• well to cenſure; and that is, when ſome, who 〈◊〉 no good intentio • 〈◊〉 • heir 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 incredulous. But then he paſſes a ſevere ſentence on ſuch Lyars to the holy Ghoſt. Which they truly deſerve, if 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 & R • penta • ce, it is not material who compoſes it, if they can conſcientiouſly ſub • cribe 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 •• inging 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.

Q • 5. 〈…〉 Church Cover • n • , as commonly practiſed in the Churches of New-England, a • y Scripture foundation?

In reference to this Queſtion, the Reverend Author and others of his opinion, in their diſcourſ • s 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 b • fore he underſtands it, it is a folly and ſhame to • im.

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 Chu • ches it is different • y 〈◊〉 . Some underſtand by it only a Cove • anting with 〈…〉 perfo • m by his Grace the Duties we owe to h • m, • nd ou • Chriſtian Brethren, & accordingly ſo propoſe it; others 〈◊〉 by it a Covenant with a particular Church, where •• , they are bound to walk in Commu • ion therewith, till by their co • ſent di • miſſed. Others wi • l have it to be a nec • ſ • ary Qualification i • ord • r to a perſons part • king of the 〈◊〉 Supper, either there or 〈◊〉 where; And others have Noti • ns of it quite different from all theſe.

Th • Reverend Au • hor firſt bears us down with a formidable Authorit • , te •• ing us • his Qu • ſtion was conſide • ed at a G • neral Convention of the Miniſt • rs, May, 1 • 98 and that an the Miniſters then preſent ſave one, did concur in the A • firmative, but we have heard quite otherwiſe, and that it was th • n propoſed and urged to have the Church Covenant more diſtinctly ope • ed, though it was not hearkened to. It is a go • d policy to hu • ry on a vo • e 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 (whethe • induſtriouſty or no, we • hall not gueſs▪) to ſtate the nature of t • is Covenant, bu • c • nfuſedly ſaith, as it is practiſed by the Chu • ches • N. E

In the Preface we have the Au • hors own deſcription of this Covenant, where he calls it expl ••• Covenanting with God and 〈◊〉 Church, and ſometimes with God and his People. But we renew our Complaint, that we are yet moſt miſerably in the dark. It migh • be enquired here, whether it be two diſtinct Coven • nts, one with God and the other with his People? if ſo, whi • h 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 the 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 its impoſed on their Conſciences, as a term of Communi • n.

But before our Author ends this Chapter, he puts another diſguiſe, and a more taking face on this matter. He would inſinuate that the Chu • ch Covenant, as practiſed in New-England, is nothing more than the publick Profeſſion of Faith, and promiſe of a holy Lif • ; for which he quotes both Synods and ſeveral p • ivate Reverend mens Names. But this unfair de • l •• g may be 〈◊〉 of its diſguiſe, by ſhewing in what ſenſe we al • ow a Church Covenant, and in what ſence we allow it not.

1ſt. We own and plead for a Covenant with God, whereby a Perſon or People become his, and bind themſelves to w • lk in all his w • ys. This was the Covenant that con •• ituted Iſrael of old to be a Church and People of Go • , and which God made with Abraham and his Seed after him, by which • e became, in a ſpecial manner, their God, and they his People This is the Covenant that Iſrael renewed with God in the Wilderneſs, •• ut. 26.17, 18. To this God annexed his So • ls, Circumciſion 〈◊〉 the days of old, and Baptiſm under the Goſpel. Its by this Coven • nt 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 th • t belong to • elievers, as ſuch. This is the Covenant we own, and which we renew every time we attend the publick Worſhip of God, Pſal. 50.5. and this Covenant ought to be explicit, op • nly profeſſed an • publiſhed to the World. It is a falſe and abuſive in n •• 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 pr • tence for ſuch a Calumn • , that we can hear of: It muſt therefore ariſe either from idle Fears, or ſome miſchievous Policy.

2dly. We alſo highly a • prove of a Covenant of Reformation. A great Duty in times of Apoſtacy, and groſs corruption of Manners; to cov • nant to put away th • ſe and thoſe reigning ſins, to return to the Lord, and perform ſuch particular Duties as have been viſibly neglected. Of this we have frequent inſtances in Scripture, Ezra 10.3 5.

3dly We may alſo allow a Covenant between Miniſter & People, whe • eby they bind themſelves to thoſe reſpective Duties, that the Wo • d 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 enter'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 i • it, ſhall on that 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 Apoſtles 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 not Gods, for it has not Gods Seal affixed to it; & though good, wiſe or learned men may endeavour to obtrude it, and pl • ad, its harmleſs, edifying, 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 M • ſrepreſentation. 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 is the Scripture that comma •• s it? and why ſhould Gods holy Ordinances be annexed to Mans 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 herea • ter. And, finally, do not ſome pretend, That 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. Nor 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 o • 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 th • 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 Juſtin Martyrs time the Scriptures were read, and thereupon followed a Sermon.

We ſhould have been th • nkful 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 told how the Aſſembly of Divines at Weſtminſter, do order and adviſe to it: 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 i • New-England, that plead for it, and practiſe it. He could have told of more than the biſhop of De •• y that complain of the neglect of it, and that to uſe the wo • ds of a moſt emine •• Divine not fa • from us • as the moſt juſt Reproach that the Churches of New-England labour under. He could have told, for encouragement, that it is a clauſe in our publick Confeſſion of Faith in New-England, chap. 22. which treats of Religious Worſhip, and the Sabbath day, Sect. 5. The reading the Scriptures, Preaching and hearing the Word of God, ſinging of Pſalms, as alſo the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm and the Lords Supper, are all parts of the Religious Worſhip of God, to be perform • d in Obedience to God with Ʋnderſtanding, Faith, Reverence and godly fear. Finally, He could have told us (had he ſearched all our New-England Antiquities on this head) now 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 ſi • ging of them, which is another end. It is ridi • ulous to ſay, th • t reading, with expoſition is here meant; for then why was it not ſo ſaid?

However, it looks very oddly, that they who nei • her read nor expound, ſhould talk ſo much, and quote ſo many Names, 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 h • ve ſaid to encourage this good Practice: His Diſcouragements follow.

And firſt, he brands it with a hard uncouth Name, and twice tells us, that ſ • me 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 Malignity in the Phraſe, that we fear its infections, 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 ſo villanous and ſtigmatiz'd a Practice. But his Policy has failed him, for it raiſes a juſt indignation in an ſenſible and ingenuous Chriſtians. We will for once inform the Reverend Author, that the Scriptures are read in Churches audibly and intelligibly. Nor can we gueſs what Dumb reading ſhou • d m •• n, unleſs when men ſleep over their Books; and in charity to the Author, we wiſh he had been a ſleep when this unlucky word dro • t from hi • Pen.

We are further beholden to the Author for his judgment, that the reading of one Chapter • with a bri • f explication▪ 〈◊〉 edifie the Congregation more than the bare readi • g • f twenty Chapters. But this is only his 〈◊〉 Opinion, and as it wi • l not weigh againſt the daily experien • e of thouſands of People, who mu • t judge for themſelves; ſo neither does it favour of modeſty, to think any one of his Sermons▪ o • ſhort Comments, can edifie more th • n the reading of twenty Chapters We would not charge on the Reverend Author all the hard conſequences • f his own words, or we ſhould ſay, that it is audacious ſo vilely • o diſparage the Inſpirations of God. Alas! Si • , the Scripture wants nothing of ours to make it Perfect. We have th • Confeſſions of m • ny who have come to hear the Word read with p • ejudice, th • t God gives it autho • ity from the lips of the Miniſt • r And we know, that as all Scripture is given by Inſpiration of God, ſo it is 〈◊〉 it ſelf profitable (wi • hout any help or advantage from us) for D • ctrine, • or Reproo • , for Co • r • ction, for Inſtruction in Rig • teouſn ••• — • perfect the Man o • God, the M • niſter as we • as 〈◊〉 People; and if it were not • o in it ſelf, it could not 〈◊〉 ſo by being explained. He 〈…〉 Confeſſi • n o • Faith ſpeak for u • , chap. 1 S • ct. • . A • things in Scripture are not • lik • plain in themſ • lves, nor alike clear unto 〈…〉 things which are neceſſary to be known, beli • ved and obſerved for Salvation, are ſo clearly propounded & opened in ſome plac • o • Scripture or other, t • at not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due uſe of the ordinary m • a • s, may attain unto a ſufficient underſtanding of them.

There • s one Argument in pag 47, 48 brou • ht 〈◊〉 the Reverend Author againſt this Dumb Reading, b • t ſo 〈◊〉 a ſtumble, ſo m • ſerab • e • n inconſequence▪ that we are loath to name i • .

To 〈…〉 He • d, we are more and more c • nfirm • d, that the reading Gods Word in the g • eat Cong •• gation, is ſo far from being offen •• ve to God, that it is the greateſt Reverence and • onour we can do 〈…〉 •••• owledgment we can 〈◊〉 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, at firſt daſh concedes to us, that he will not oppoſe the adoptive right. We then d • clare 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, prof • ſſed Christians, and ſeems to think that the Queſtion, if carried in the Affirmative, would conclude for Papists, Secinia •• and the groſſeſt Hereticks, as alſo for the moſt notorious Profl • g • tes, and prophane Perſons; as if it ever entered into the heart of a Proteſtant Divine to accept the Engagement of ſome lewd Debauchee 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 • e gravely falls a combating with his own Man of Straw, and ſo we are to be tortured in Effigie. But to pacifie h • m, we wou • d info • m him what a charitable Man would underſtand by a pro •• ſſ • d C • riſtian, viz the ſame 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 ther • fore to fight it out with that Reverend Aſſembly, for truly his Argument is formidable againſt them, in as much as Papiſts, Socinians, Heretick • , the Prophane, &c. do all profeſs their F • ith 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 Bap • iſm in a private Houſe, where there is no Church Aſſ • mbly, 〈◊〉 ?

The Queſtion ſeems to grant, there may be a Church Aſſembly in a private Hou • e ( 〈◊〉 we 〈…〉 . 10.5. 〈◊〉 . 2) ſo there • ay be a publick place, and 〈…〉

We agree 〈…〉 Reverend Au • hor, that B • ptiſm is a part of the publick Mi • iſtry, 〈…〉 by one who is not called to the 〈◊〉 Miniſtry; 〈◊〉 ſh • uld it uſually and o •• inarily be admin • ſt • ed but in 〈…〉 Co • g • egati • n, and in the moſt publick manner, no • • oul • we drop a • ord to diſ • omage ſo pious a Practice.

Yet, let the Congregation be never ſo g • eat, if the Ad • iniſtrator be not a publick 〈◊〉 , commiſſioned 〈◊〉 our Lord J • ſus Chr ••• , it may be called private Baptiſm, and a • toge • her unallowable, and if the number of people be ſma • l, and the place otherwiſe privat • , yet if the Adminiſtrator be a publick Officer and Miniſter of 〈◊〉 , the Baptiſm may in a ſenſe be called Pu • lick, and in ſome caſes • as that of dangerous ſickneſs) no • only allowable but neceſſary, and a duty. When a Juſtice of the Peace acts in his Office, though out few are preſent, yet • hey 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 p • eaching or Baptiſm, it being certain the more pub •• ck both are, the mo • e God and his Ordinances are honoured, & the gener • l profit of his people conſulted.

But yet (as was 〈◊〉 before) there are ſome caſes of neceſſ •• y, wh • rein its o • es duty to ſeek a more private 〈◊〉 , the pr • vidence of God not permitting a more publick attendance, and no Miniſter ought to refuſe their 〈◊〉 .

As for inſtance, in apparent danger of death▪ it would be ••• tity to deny ſuch a requeſt, i • pri • acy be the only O • jection▪ 〈◊〉 need not ſuggeſt, that all what we call private 〈…〉 be a competent numbe • of people p • eſent; the neighbourhood • eing called in, and notice given to ſom • of the Brethre • of the Church. We obſerve a good 〈…〉 betwee • the two dangerous extreams. We avoid 〈…〉 & 〈◊〉 Baptizing 〈…〉 , for which our Brethren in England are ſo very faulty, and we would correct our own defects here at home, in refuſing to Baptiſt in private, be the extremity 〈◊〉 ſo great, or life never ſo hazardous. Not that we are at all ti • ged 〈◊〉 the error of St. Auſtin, namely, a perſwaſion of the abſolute neceſſity of Baptiſm to Salvation: but we eſteem it the moſt publick owning of God which the •• ate of the perſon admits of▪ or the providence of God at preſe • t allows▪ and it is good to be found in the way of bleſſing, and we may expect that God will bleſ • his • wn Inſtitution • .

But the lawfulne • s of private Baptiſm, in caſes of neceſſity, abundantly appears from that One inſtance of the Goaler, Acts 10.33. To which our • u • hor anſwers, St. Paul was an extraordinary Officer. But by his leave, that is nothi • g to the purpoſe; for the ordinary Mi • iſters of the Goſpel ſucceed the Apoſtles in thoſe thi • gs th • t are of an ordinary a • d ſtanding nature in the Church, as Baptiſm is, indeed, his other reaſon is good, that it was difficu • t, if no impoſſible to g • t 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, tha • in like caſes of neceſſity, as in times of perſecution, danger o • Death &c. the ſame practice is allowable and a duty; wherein we have the promiſe of Chriſts gracious Preſence with us, as w •• l a • when it i • adminiſtred in • large • Cong • egation Mat. 18.20. For where two or three are gathe • ed together in my Name, there am I in the midſt of them.

Q 9 O • ght all th • t contribute towards the maintenance to have the priviledge • o • voting in t • e Elect • on of a Paſtor?

The Reverand Author in the v • ry fi • ſt line of his anſwer to this queſtion, 〈◊〉 in a moſt •• kind inſinuation, and not alt • gether 〈…〉 Calumny, as if the Affirmative could not be maintained, but 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 m • ſt • e i • curred.

We therefore one ſo 〈◊〉 prof • ſs, that we abhor as much as he 〈◊〉 to do, the thought that Money 〈◊〉 purchaſe us Church 〈…〉 ; but this i • ſo wide a 〈◊〉 that it is not worth while to 〈◊〉 mo • e to it.

A • l the Authors arguments und • r this head infer only that it is the Churches priviled • e 〈…〉 . And under his 4th argument no tells us, that nothing i • more evident, then that in the 〈◊〉 Ages of the Church, Paſtors were choſen by all and only their 〈◊〉 . Which we verily believe, no • could he have expreſſed the truth in more apt words. For long ſince he has taught us, That adult 〈◊〉 Perſons are of the Church, and unde • iably proved it in his Treatiſe annixed to the firſt Principles of New England, under which denomina • ion they claim the priviledge of voting in the ele • tion of a Miniſter.

Indeed there is one argument at firſt bluſh ſeems pretty plauſible, p. 68. 〈◊〉 them who have no right to be Lord • Supper t • emſelves, 〈…〉 who 〈◊〉 be the Diſpen ••• o • that Ordinance to others, is 〈…〉 .

We An • wer; The adminiſtration of the Lords Supper is but one pa • t 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 • ppoint who ſhall be the Preacher to the whole Congregation, is as 〈◊〉 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 whit as abſurd, that not one of theſe who are to be examined, prepared and admitted to this holy Ordi ••• ce, ſhall have liberty to chuſe the Perſon who ſhall do this Work 〈◊〉 them; but the Perſon muſt be altogether choſe by others, whom • e has not this Work to do for. A hopeful argument that will help both ſides!

The Reverend Au • hor calls it A priviledge p • rchaſed for the Com • unicant • Only by the Blood of Christ; but he gives no proof a • all of any ſuch App •• priation, and leaves us yet in the firm belief, 〈◊〉 the Privil • dge is purchaſed for the whole Flock, who had 〈…〉 for their own.

We might here borrow of the Author the Maxim he gave 〈…〉 ••• ther ca • e, Quod tangit 〈…〉 omnib •• app • obar • 〈…〉 •• ploded in the other caſe, but if • e will give u • leave to 〈…〉 qualiter (Quod tangit omne • aqualiter, &c.) then it would • uit 〈◊〉 ca •• , and afford him ſome conviction.

The Reverend Author alſo gives us another Maxim in pag. 87 with •• is Elog •• m, That it ha • its foundation in Nature and Reaſon, 〈…〉 • e are ſure it makes ſtrongly againſt him here, namely. That 〈…〉 to all is not valid, of ſome of all ſorts have not a conſent 〈…〉 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 • inted, 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 Conſociation or Agreement that matters of more than ordinary Importance, 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 altog • ther needleſs. but leſt we be miſ-underſtood in this matter, let the Reader carefully obſerve, We do not mean that the Communion, or Fellowſhip, or Prayers, 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 •• lted to the Head, and in Co • enant with him, and bound to perform all Duties both to the Head & to all the Members reſpectively; for ſuch to talk of ente • ing into an agreement on this account, ſeems very idle and needleſs. To •• uſtrate the matter; If a Servant has bound himſelf to a Maſter, he need not go to make new Covenants to carry it dutifully to the Miſtreſs, lovingly to the Children, faithfully to the fellow Servants, this being all contained in the Maſters Covenant. So, if a Perſon marry a Husband, ſhe has no need to make a new Covenant with his Father, that he ſhall be her • ather, or that his Brothers, Siſters or other Relations ſhall become hers, this being all • mplyed in the Marriage Covenant: The reſpective Duties muſt be perform • d, but there • s no need of new agreements or covenants to be ent • red into Mr. B • rro • g • s, as quoted by the Reverend Auth • r, expreſſ • s this well. They are bound in Conſci • nce to give an account of the wayes to Churches about them, or to any other who ſhall req • ir • • t; and this not in an A • bitrary way, but as a Duty they owe to God and Man. The united Brethre • in London ſpeak yet more fully in the Chapter of Communion of Churches, • . 1. We agree that particular Churches ought not to walk ſo dist •• ct and ſeperate from each other, as • ot to have care and tenderneſs to one ano •• er. But their Paſtors ought to have frequent Meetings together, that by mutual advice, ſupport, encouragement and brot • erly intercourſe, they may stre • gt • en the • earts and • ands of each other in the ways of the Lord. We may add here the who • e Chapter of occaſional Meetings of Miniſters, and ſo diſmiſs this Queſtion.

Qu. 11. May the Brethren in Churches, and not the Pastors only, be ſent unto, and have their Voice in Eccleſiaſtical Councils?

It is to be obſ • rved, that by this means the Brethren in a Synod will ſurpaſs th • E • der • in Numb • r, and by a Cabal may eaſily out vote them Wherefore we can never believe • hat our Lord Jeſus Chriſt has leſt every private Brother an equal Vote with any of his Officers, in ruling o • m • nnaging his Church. It will be granted that the advantage is of t • e Elder • ſide, as to Learning, Prudence, Parts, Piety, Zeal and Devotion, at leaſt, taking the whole Synod together; yet that men of mean Parts, no Edu • ation, nor under the awe of an Office that obliges to • he care of Souls pecu • iarly, ſhould be equa • led to the former in • ll Dec •• io • s, tho' not Debates, whereof they 〈◊〉 uncapabl • , is very unacc • untable. Indeed, had our Lord in his Word p • ſitively required this, we might expect that his Spi • i • of Counſel would more abundantly reſide on the weaker Veſſels; but otherwiſe, to fill a Co •• c • l from the Plough, and the Stall, is a tempting Chriſt, and betraying the Church. Neither are we ignorant what Tool they are in the hands of any one deſigning Man of a Reverend and Auguſt N • me, let his Opinions be what they will; theſe are Bigg •• s, and the Man is himſelf a Synod. We confeſs ſuch a Man would be tempted to ſtand up for the Brethrens Authority, which is his own ſupport, and the mean while the Church is like to be well govern'd.

But what is a further Outrage to the ſacred Office, the Author will not let Miniſters fit as Officers of Chriſt, or as Perſons aut • orized by him; for thus he expreſſes himſelf, pag. 86. Its not their Office, but the Churches Delegation, that giveth Power to the Members of Synods, the ſpecificating Act in which Synod all Power, and ſo the right of a deciſive Vote is founded, is t • e Churches Delegation. And to prove thi • , he inſtance •• in the firſt Synod that ever ſate, as he ter • s that Acts 15. a • opy and Samplar left to all ſucceeding Generations. But how Comical is this? as if that was ſo conſtituted, or its Members delegated by particular Churches Or, how long had this inſpired Synod ſat before that caſe was brought before them? or were they ſummoned upon this ſingle occaſion? Truly the Author begs the whole, and proves nothing of it.

Indeed, the Reverend Author tells us in the ſame page, That of theſe Delegates from the Churches, the Elders ought to be the principal, or principally concerned. A mighty grace ineed! yet even this cannot be allowed, and he conſi • tent with himſelf; for in the next page he tells us, There are • ome Brethren in the Churches, whoſe Gifts and Abilities are beyond their Pastors, and ſome again are more Noble and Honourable. Now if they are alike delegated, and thoſe can act no more in the Name of Chriſt than the other, pray why ſhould they be the principal? Why may not a Brother of equal Authority aſſume and arrogate the firſt place to himſelf, which if he chance to do, we leave the Author to be catechized by him, and to do Pennance patiently by his own Principles.

Qu. 12. Doth the Eſſ • nce of a Miniſters Call conſist in his being Ordained with the impoſition of hands by other Ministers?

〈◊〉 . 13. M • y a Man be ordained a Paſtor, except to a particular 〈◊〉 , and in the preſen •• of 〈…〉 ?

〈◊〉 joyn theſe two together, partly becauſe they are of near 〈◊〉 and partly becauſe ſome things the Reverend Author aſſerts 〈◊〉 one of them, may indifferently be referred to the other. Our 〈◊〉 exceptions may be reduced to theſe five.

〈…〉 he aſſerts, The eſſence of a Miniſters Call conſiſts 〈…〉 e • ection between him and his People, pag. 91. If we 〈◊〉 and the Author, he mean, that a perſon cannot be a Miniſter 〈◊〉 his mutual Election, and that with it he may, and is. He 〈…〉 before noted, that ſome think the eſſence of the Miniſtry to 〈…〉 ; others, in its being done by a Biſhop; Which laſt 〈…〉 (ſaith he) moſt of the Miniſters in France, Switzerland, 〈…〉 , Scotland, &c. But, to retort your words, Sir, 〈…〉 your aſſertion cuts off more both for Number and for 〈◊〉 . It cuts off the Prophets, the Apoſtles and Evangeliſts! 〈…〉 all the Biſhops that are and have been. And though theſe 〈…〉 , may ſig • ifie li • tle with our Reverend Author, yet ſome 〈…〉 he mentions as great and e • inent Lig • ts. He cuts off 〈◊〉 of Preſbyters, famous Miniſters, who apprehending the 〈◊〉 of their Miniſterial Call to lie in their being ordained and 〈…〉 God, do who •• y wave this mutual Election, as a little thing.

〈…〉 ſ • eaks very highly and honourably of the Miniſterial 〈◊〉 . They are ca •• ed Miniſters of God, of Chriſt, of the New 〈◊〉 , of the Goſpel: Miniſters in the Lord, Ambaſſadors for 〈◊〉 ; Angels, L • g •• s, Stewards of the Myſteries of God, &c. 〈…〉 •• ews, that not only the Eſſence, but the Excellency of the 〈◊〉 conſiſts in th • ir Relation to God and our Lord Jeſus Ch • iſt, 〈◊〉 to that ſeperate and ſacred Work that the holy Ghoſt has called 〈◊〉 unto, Acts 13 2. But what Scripture in • imates to us, That 〈◊〉 Eſſence or eminency lies in their R • lation to this or that 〈…〉 People? The Prophets of old never pleaded their Election 〈◊〉 , but that they were called, ſent, ordained and commiſſioned 〈◊〉 God.

〈◊〉 • uthors chief Argument here is a Suppoſition of Shipwrack upon ſome deſolate 〈◊〉 : and 〈◊〉 eaſily grant, that one of the Company being elected, may become a 〈◊〉 of God unto them, bu • it is more from the P • ovidence and 〈◊〉 of G • d, than their Election. Its God 〈…〉 God muſt incline him to 〈…〉 : Its God that 〈…〉 to receive and entertain him as a Miniſter: God gives 〈…〉 his 〈◊〉 , &c. But beſides 〈◊〉 , it is to be conſidered, that God does not tye himſelf to 〈◊〉 • eans which he has tyed u • unto in ordinary caſes; according to tha • uſual ſaying, Jas 〈…〉 jar • divino Naturali. The caſe is wholly extraordinary, and G • d that makes the Neceſſity wi •• alſo diſpence with our unavoidable Compl • ance.

Were our Author in the right, the ſinful Will of Man, whereon the Election does depend, m • ght f • uſtrate the whole Mi • iſtry that Chriſt has inſtituted. Bu • , alas! whether men will 〈◊〉 , o • whether they will forbear, our Lord will ſend his Miniſters; and whether Men will call them or no, they ſhall be forced to confeſs, Ve • ily, we had Prophets among us, Ezek. 33.33.

We wonder alſo, that they who inſiſt upon it, That it is Chriſts peculiar Prerogative to ſtate his own Worſhip, ſhould • 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 ſhou • d revive this Aſſertion at this time of day, Forty ſix years after it has been ſo learnedly and ſo fully refuted in Jus Divinum Ministerij Eva • g • l •• i, publi • hed by the Provincial Aſſembly of London, chap. 9. without taking Notice of their Anſwers and Arguments.

2dly. We ſhall paſs 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 Impoſition 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 conſtituting or appointing a man to be a Miniſter, or the ſending him with Power and Authority to preach the Goſpel; The 〈…〉 of hands. Yet we can ſee no reaſon why this Rite, 〈…〉 divine Inſtitution, 1 Tim 5.22. uſed by the Apoſtles▪ 〈…〉 Church, and generally ſince the Reformation, ſhould now 〈◊〉 down 〈◊〉 ſo triffling a Cerem • ny We know the Reverend 〈◊〉 could have quoted a whole 〈◊〉 of fam • us Authors, 〈…〉 highly for it. If the 〈…〉 at London diſpleaſe 〈◊〉 , the New-E • gland 〈…〉 him, That 〈…〉 are not only to be choſen 〈…〉 ordained by 〈◊〉 of • ands, and Prayer; o • the 〈◊〉 to the 〈…〉 expreſly, Ordination is 〈…〉 indeed diſquieted 〈…〉 ? It is but look • ng 〈…〉 magni • ies and contends for as meer a 〈◊〉 , to 〈…〉 right hand of fellowſhip.

The Reverend Author not only ſpeaks meanly of the laying on 〈…〉 of the Presbyter • , • ut he too much countenances the 〈◊〉 of hands by Brethren, or Perſons out of Office. His 〈◊〉 of Scripture, Numb. 8, 9, 10 reſpecting the Children o • 〈◊〉 putting their hands on the Levites, is ſo 〈◊〉 , and punctually 〈◊〉 by the Provincial Aſſembly of London, pag 188 〈…〉 the Reader thither, for we love not to tranſcri • e. 〈…〉 Teſtament • e owns there is no inſtance of Perſons out of 〈…〉 • ands. And notwithſtandi • g all his inſtances, the Apoſ •• e • 〈…〉 good, Heb 7 7. and without all contradiction 〈…〉 of the greater.

The Authors next Eſſay is, to remove the weighty 〈…〉 what 〈◊〉 hath no • And 〈…〉 . To touch upon one, 〈…〉 ſelf in Marriage▪ 〈…〉 the power 〈…〉 has • ormally the powe • 〈…〉

A poor 〈…〉 Woman has power 〈…〉 her Action 〈…〉 partic •••• 〈…〉 • each govern the 〈…〉 •• in Di • pa ••• ! Moreov •• it 〈…〉 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, if Women once get this Notion by the end, that th •• give the P • wer to their Husbands, we ſhould ſoon have them 〈◊〉 , limiting and r • ſerving in part to themſelves, by a Mar • i • ge Contract, as well their Power and Authority, as their 〈◊〉 .

4ly. The Au • hor aſſerts, That no man ought to be ordained a 〈…〉 , pag. 101. Which kind of 〈…〉 , b • cauſe it manifeſts the Reve • end 〈…〉 his Judgment. It is credibly reported, 〈…〉 Convention of Miniſters at Boſton, May 26. 1698. (and t • e • e are eno • gh yet livi • g, who kn • w the truth of it, to w •• m we app • al) this • ueſtion was diſcuſſed, Whether a Minister 〈…〉 ordained, though he • ad, as yet, no particular Church, in order to th • A • miniſtration of Bap • iſm, and the gathering & ſettling a Church? Thi • , as we are told, had a more pecu • iar reference to Mr. Clap's ſtation 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 〈◊〉 Author himſelf, he being the Moderator of the Aſſembly. Upon this conclu • ion Mr. Wi • liams was ordained in the Colledge Hall, in order to his Voyage to B •• bad • es. 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' • modeſty won't ſuffer him to think the Ballance equal, or we would put th • late Vote of May, 98. in the Scale againſt the Council of Calcedon, p▪ 105.

5ly, We crave the Re • ders patience, and will offer but one Rema • k upon th • ſe two Chapters. In pag 102. its ſaid, Paſtor and Flo • k are Relates, and therefore one cannot be without the other. It is contrary to the Rul • s of Reaſon (as 〈◊〉 know) that the Relate ſhould be without its Correl • te. To ſay, 〈…〉 Levite, who has no Flock, is a Paſto • , i • is g • od 〈◊〉 as to ſay, 〈…〉 who has no Children is a Father, and 〈…〉 H • ſband

This is wo •• th •• d- • a • e, and anſwered long ago by the Aſſembly at London, and others, and ſometimes by the Author himſelf • Mini • ter may be 〈◊〉 under a double Notion, as a Miniſter of 〈◊〉 , or of this or that particular Church. In this latter ſence they are Relate & Correlate, and no otherwiſe. Hence, if h • leaves them, 〈◊〉 ceaſes to be their Miniſter▪ and they ceaſe to 〈…〉 ; but 〈◊〉 he may be a Miniſter of Chriſt, and they a Church of Chriſt. And thus in th • t 〈…〉 that is entituled, The judgment o • ſeveral Divines o • the Congregational way, concerning a Paſtors Power occaſionally to exert Miniſterial acts in another Church, be •• des that wh • ch is his particular Flock; the Reverend Autho • expreſſes himſelf after this manner, pag. • . The Minist • rial Power which a Pastor has received from the Lord J • ſus Christ, 〈◊〉 not ſo confined 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 af • er, I am, as to this particular, fully of the ſame judgment with t • e learned Dr. J. Owen in it judi • ious Treatiſe concerning a Goſpel Church, P • g. 1 • 0, 101. where he has theſe words, Although we have no concernm • nt in the fig • en • of an indelible Character accompanying ſacred O • ders, yet we do not think the Paſto • al Office is ſuch a thing as a man m • st leave behind him every time he goes from home; for my own part, i • I did not think my ſelf bo • nd to preach as a Miniſter authorized, 〈◊〉 all places, and on all occaſions when I am called thereunto, I think I ſhould never preach more in this Wo • ld Thus Dr. Owen.

We ſee then, that our Reverend Author and the famous Dr. O • en plainly hold, that though there be a Relation to a particular flo • k, yet a Miniſter is ſo au • hroize • by Jeſus Chriſt, that he is cap • ble in his Name to perform M • niſterial Acts in other places, and upon all occaſions. And were not our Author ſi • cerely of this Opinion, we cannot but think he w • uld highly condemn • n Mini •• er that ſhould be abſent from his Flock four years together, upon any ſervi • e whatſoever. Sure, 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 th • World in hand, that a M • niſter has no power to act a • ſuch, but to his particula • Flock; and therefore quotes the words of the Plat •• o • m, chap. 9. ſect. 7. He that is clearly looſed from his Office Relation to that Church whereof he 〈◊〉 a Minister, cannot be looked on as an Officer, nor perform any act of Office 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 1 • 5 and ſeverely, but juſtly anſwered it as a great abſurdity, and contrary to ſound Doctrine.

The • nſwer to the other part of the Queſtion, Whether a Miniſter ſhould be orda • ned only in the preſence of that Church where he is to • e •• e? Wi • l • e • uit from what has been already laid down.

The preſence of Chriſt muſt be ſuppoſed, when ever a perſon is 〈…〉 to his Miniſtry; but ſeeing our Lord Commiſſions none im •• diately, ſuch muſt be preſent as have Power to authorize, Commiſſion and give • he 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, a • preſent face to face. But the Circumſtances of Times, Places, Perſons, Diſtance, &c. muſt determine this matter; which as they may fall on • , may ſometimes render it both prudent, regular and neceſſar • , (& then its the Voice of Providence) for a Miniſter to be ordained in one Land, and to ſerve in another.

Q. 14. Is the Practice of the Churches of New-England in granting Letters of Diſmiſſion or Recommendation from one Church to another, according to Scrip • ure, and the Example of other Churches?

The Reverend Author refers to many Scriptures to prove the Affirmative, but not one of them reac • es the Queſtion, or prove a diſmiſſion for this end, ſcil to take a pe • ſon off from being a Member of one Church, to be made a Member of another. The Epiſtles or Letters he refers to, are all Apoſtatical or Miniſterial, not the Letters of one Church to another, ſome only excepted, which is mentioned as 〈◊〉 by the Brethren; but Apollo, on whoſe behalf they wrote, was not a M • mber of their Church; nor do they write to thoſe in Achaia to receive him as a Member, but rath • r as a Miniſter, or as a Chriſtian of eminence and ſingular goodneſs.

Indeed the • e may be a good uſe of Letters of Recommendation, and eſpecially among ſtra • g • rs. 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 ano • hers Miniſtry. Civility will conſt • ain ſuch perſons to acquaint their Miniſters of their purpoſes, and the ſame Ch • iſtian Civility obliges ſuch a Miniſter to acq • aint 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. No • ought any Miniſter of Chriſt, to reject his claim to the Lords T • ble 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 b • ing diſmiſſed by the Provid • nce of God, whether they have letters of diſmiſſion or not. Elſe by their principles, an ordained Miniſter in London, formerly of Communion with a Church in Boſton, being called to Office in a particular Church, and having accepted the Paſtoral Care thereof, muſt firſt ſend over a Pacquet to New-England for a Letter of diſmiſſion. And don't you think he would be well imployed?

Qu. 15. Is not the aſſerting that a Paſtor may adminiſter the Sacrament to another Church beſides his own particular Church, at the deſire of that other Church, a declenſion from the fi • ſt principles of New-England, and of the Congregational way?

The Reverend Author Anſwers, No, not at all. Had the 〈…〉 been, whether this be a d • clenſion from the 〈◊〉 , we 〈…〉 joyned with 〈…〉 the Anſwer. 〈…〉 Doctrine, that a Miniſter upon 〈◊〉 , may as well M •• iſter to another Church, as to h • s own 〈…〉 and he • Miniſter of Chriſt, there 〈…〉

But 〈…〉 w • ich he pleads for in this 〈◊〉 ▪ we muſt hav • anſwe • ed, that 〈…〉 great Apoſtacy and Decleni • ion. And whe • the Reverend 〈…〉 out th • s in the year 1 • 93 ſome of the old men and women did expreſs th • mſelves after this Rate T • at it was not thus from 〈…〉 , and that he had pull'd ſuch a 〈…〉 the good old way 〈…〉 a little while brin • the whole • abrick to th • ground No 〈…〉 without reaſon, for if particular Chu • ches are 〈…〉 , if Paſtor and Flock are Relat • and Correlate, 〈…〉 to one another▪ as Hu • band and Wife, if the offence of a Mi • iſt • rs 〈…〉 in a mutual Election b • tween the • hu • ch and him; th • n we can by no mean • allow the Authors aſſertion, That a Paſtor may adminiſter, &c 'Tis in vain to plead, I • ere may be as well communion 〈◊〉 Offi • ers, as of Members; for theſe Principles will not allow ſo much 〈◊〉 a Mem •• r of one Church to communicate in another. Hence the 〈◊〉 Mr. Hooker (as the Author 〈◊〉 him) could never get over that diffi • ulty, but looke upon it as unwarrantable • or private Members to communicate in another • hru • h Neither can Dr. Owen or Dr Go •• wi • (whom he 〈◊〉 pi • l • rs among the Congregational) though the • tw • ſt and ſqueze and ſtrain ha • d, maintain this Truth on theſe Principles, no • ſatisfy a rati • nal mind about it. Tho' they plead 〈…〉 Members for that time, yet this no more excuſes it, tha • if an 〈◊〉 to hide her ſhame and fo • ly, ſhould excuſe it by ſaying She made the Man her Husband o • that turn and act. For if we 〈◊〉 it to the narrow, the Adminiſtrator and deliver the Sacrament as an Officer, or not▪ ther • is no 〈◊〉 : if as an Officer, the • he h • s Power from Chriſt, as 〈◊〉 , to adminiſter the Sacrament where he is occaſionally c • lled. And • hen down go the Authors P • inc • ples at once, of the Churches bei • g ſpecifically diſtinct, of the Eſſence of the Miniſterial Ca • lying in the mutual Election of M •• iſter and People, of Paſtor and Flock b • i • g 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 Contrad • ctions. Neither can it be pretended, that the g • nerality of the Miniſters in New-England were of that mind in the beginning. In the Anſwer of the Elders of ſeveral Churches in N. England, u • to the Nine Poſitions, it is ſai • , Poſition 8. If you mean by a Miniſterial Act, ſuch an act of Autho • ity and Power in diſpenſi • g Gods O • dinances, as a Miniſter does 〈◊〉 to t • e Church whereunto he is called to be a Minister, then we deny that • e can p • r • orm any Miniſterial Act to any other Church but his own, beca • ſe his Offic • • xtends no • arther t • an his Call. And now we appeal to the Reader, if the Reverend Author muſt not either Renounce theſe hi • •• rling Principles, or own himſelf guilty of that Declenſion f • om th • firſt Principles of New-England, which in another he would call • po •• acy.

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 Backſlider, an Apostate, Proud, Raſh, Contemptuous, and Deſpiſer of his Fa • hers. The ſame th • ng, (to a •• ude to the Authors words, pag. 71.) in one man, is a modeſt inoffenſiv • 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 littl • to it, or againſt it. He yeilds and allows, it may be lawfully uſed, as well as othe • 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 f • equently uſed by the moſt famous Divines in theſe days. And he gives us an inſtance of Mr. Jer. 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 for that reaſon to refrain to uſe it

But verily the Author w • uld have us more ſuperſtiti • us than we are willing to be; for h • quarrels at the varying but of one word or clauſe in this excellent form of Prayer: If inſtead of Debts or Sins we ſay Treſpaſſes, it is a fearful Crime. For why? ſays the Author, It ſmells rank of the Liturgy, its learn'd out of t • e Common-Prayer Book. He might have ſaid rather, That we learn firſt to read it ſo in our Horn-Books, and are miſ-taught from our Infancy. But truly, we account this diff • rence of Tranſlation a petty thing. And if inſtead of Hallowed, the Author would ſay Sanctifi •• ; and inſtead of daily Bread, he would chuſe to ſay convenient Food, we ſhould not •• ll 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 wo • ld, where the Lords Prayer is uſed in any Language beſide the Greek; for who binds 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 • ow our Knees in Prayer, we ſhould think it neceſſary to repeat this Form? Here again he would have no Adverſary under Heaven Yet the Queſtion may be ſtrained to all this, and he has taken no care to bound it.

But to detain the Reader no longer, 'tis enough and enough that the Reverend Author juſtifies it as lawful; for then doubtleſs it may be ſometimes proper: for that would be a ſtrange thing indeed, that is always lawful, and never (in no Circumſtances▪ not in that of Mr. Burroughs himſelf) can be proper. But ſince 'tis lawful, I'll for once give my ſence when it is proper, ſcil. When People have been long taught and made to believe, that the Uſe of it is Superſtitious, To place a great p •• t • f their Religion in the diſlike of it; To think this a principal ground of Non-conformity, and a di •• inguiſhi • g Badge of a Diſſenter; or, that it is too vain a Formality to compo •• wi • h the Spi • it of Devo • ion. Then, if ever, it is high tim • to correct ſuch a Prejudice, and to ſhow the People it may be uſed without Superſtiti • n, and that neither the Spirit of Religion, nor yet the Arguments for Epiſcopacy, Pr • ſbyterianiſm nor Independency are any ways concerned in this affair.

Here we would crave the R •• ders patience for one Quotation, and the rather inaſmuch as the N • me of Mr. Phil • ip Henry m • y be of more Aut • o • ity with the Reverend Author, than many arguments, when bar • ly offered by us. It is ſ • id in th • 97th page of Mr H • nry's Life, That he lo • k • d upon the Lords Prayer to be not only a Directory or Pattern for Prayer, but (according to the advice of the Aſſembly of Divine • ) proper to b • uſed as a Form. He thought it was an Error on the o • e • and to lay ſo much ſtr • ſs upon it, as ſome do, who think no ſolemn P • ayer accepted, nor no ſolemn adminiſtration of Worſhip compleat without it; and he thought it an Error on the other hand not to uſe it at all, ſince it is a Prayer, a compendious comprehenſive Prayer, and may be of Uſe to us, at leaſt, as other Scripture Prayers; but he thought it a much greater Error to be • ng • y at thoſe who do uſe i • , to judge and cenſure them, and for no other reaſon to conceive Prejudices againſt them and their Miniſtry. A great ſtrait (ſaith he • poo • Miniſters are in, when ſome will not near them, if they do not uſe the Lords Prayer, and others will no • hear them if th • y do! What is to be done in this caſe? • e muſt walk according to the light we have, and approve our ſelves to God, either in uſing 〈…〉 it, and wait for the day when God wi • l mend th • matter, which I hope he will do in his own due time. — Thus ſpake the holy and heavenly Mr Henry, and with in the late Reverend Dr. Bates, who writes the D • dication of his Life, and as he hath fully expreſſed ou • ſenſe in this mat • er▪ ſo we would wait and pray w • th him, for the Happy Day ▪

Well, but if the caſe be ſo circumſtanced, ſays the Author, pag. 135. that it cannot be done without Offence, it is rather a Duty, and wil be 〈◊〉 pleaſing to Chriſt, not to uſe it as a Poru • . But then ſuch Offence m •• t be manifeſted, and appear to be conſcientious. This confirms what I before ſuggeſted, That there is a riveted Pr • judice people are e • ucated in againſt this Practice, that they ſtart at it as a thing in it ſ • lf ſinful and ſcandalous.

But to ſhow we are in Charity with the Author, and all thoſe who omit the Uſe of this excellent Form of Prayer, we ſhall cloſe this Chapter in the wo • ds of St. Pa • l, Rom 14.3 Let n • t him that eateth d • ſpi • e him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth.

Qu. 17. May the Churches under the Presbyterian and Congregational Diſcipline ma •• tain Communion with one another, notwithſtanding their different Sentiments, as to Church Government?

The Author anſwers, That they may and ought to do ſo. And truly, had this Book contained only this one Queſtion and Anſwer, it might have turned to more Edification than the whole. He tells us, There was greater Differences than theſe in the Apostolick Churches. • e thinks then we of latter Days may the better bear with one another, the effuſions of the Spirit of Peace and Truth being ſince much reſtrained

The Reverend Author obſerves further, That both Perſwaſions have been Confeſſors and fellow Sufferers, and • e thinks this ſhould endear them. We think ſo too, but to our ſorrow, ſome of us have heard how it hath been in England, & now, alas! we ſee it verified in our • uthor, that when their own Perſecution ceaſes, they carry on the Tragedy on others. We do not wonder at what the Author ſaith Mr. Baxter told him, That if all Independants were like N. England Independants, he would ſoon be one. For we can eaſily gueſs what deceived that excellent Perſon (whoſe Moderation ſuited his Piety & Devotion) into ſo endearing an Expreſſion. He form'd his Idea of New-England Independency by the Authors plauſible carriage when in London, which th • ugh for that time might be very ſincere, yet either the difference of the Climate, or that his Dominion here is more rightful, quite alters him. We are aſſured, the Author is eſteemed more a Presbyterian than a Congregational Man, by ſcores of hi • Friends in London. 〈◊〉 ▪ is lov'd and reverenced for a moderate Spirit, a peaceable Diſpoſition, and a Temper ſo widely different from his late Brothers in London He was moſt converſant at the Preſbyterian Board, and ofteneſt in their Pulpits, and profeſſed the greateſt Reverence for their Perſons. And no wonder Mr. Baxter ſhould be ſo enamoured of ſuch Independents! Did our Reverend Author appear the ſame here, we ſhould be his eaſie Proſelites too. But we are loath to ſay how he forfeits that venerable Character, which might have conſecrated his Name to Poſterity, more than his Learning, or other honorary Titles can. To confirm what we have here ſaid, the Author declares how Inſtrumental he was to promote the Union betwixt the United Brethren in London. We only wiſh he would be as cordial and active to keep it, as he was to make it; or elſe the World will think his Zeal for it was, becauſe far enough from home, where Inte • eſt was not touched.

As for the thr • e Articles of Ʋnion, which the Author tranſcribes, we would endeavour to maintain them, and all the reſt. But there are ſ • me Caſes and Times, when Miniſters of ſome particular Opinio • s will not bear to be conſulted wi • h. Or if there is a neceſſity of di •• b • ying their Opinions for once, it is beſt not to conſult them, mee • ly to do their Counſels the more Deſpight. We think this modeſt and ingenuous Nor can it be reaſ • nably ex • ected that a Congregational Claſſi • (if ſuch there be) ſhould be conſu • ted in thoſe th • ngs w • ich are properly P • eſbyterian, their Prejudice, in favour of their own Opinions, rendering them unfit to adviſe with in that matter; and the more ſerious the appl • cation to ſuch is, the more ſeverely would they think themſelves bantered.

As to his Query, Whether the embodying into a Church state be not a mighty matter? We muſt needs profeſs, we want ſome better account what that is, before we can ſo eſteem it. We read nothing in Scripture of gathering a Church, or embodying it into a Church ſtate, unleſs it refers to the converting and baptizing of Heathen, and then adminiſtring the Ordinances of the Goſpel in a ſtated way to competent Numbers, whoſe convenience will permit th • m to meet conſtantly at one and th • ſame place of Worſhip. All further Solemnity in this matter is ex abundanti, and therefore the matter ſeems not ſo very weighty.

WE now humbly take leave of the Author and his Book, wiſhi • g there had been no occaſion for there Reflections, and accounting it a ſufficient Apo • ogy, that we have been c • ntending for what we apprehend to be the Truth; and it became the more neceſſary to vindicate it, leſt it ſhould ſuffer more by the Reverend Author's Name and Authori • y, than by 〈◊〉 a • gum • nts So far is the Preſidency of the Colledge from being a Pro •• ction, that it is the loudeſt argument in ou • 〈◊〉 for a zealous 〈◊〉 .

Nor can the Reverend Author much reſen • • his our ſearch after Tru • h, if he remembers the liberty that the humble and holy Mr. Baxter once Pray'd him to take, in examining and refuting any Errors he ſhould find in his Books, or ſh • uld the • uthor g • ow angry, it would but cauſe us to ſu ••• ct (what abundance of people have long obſtinately be • ieved) that the conteſt for his part is more for Lordſhip and Dominion than for Truth.

'Tis poſſible ſome good people may blame us, for carrying on the Contention, whe •• in, as one ſaith, though 〈◊〉 be but little Truth gain'd yet a great deal of Cha • ity may • e l • ſt. We hope the b • ſt, as to both theſe, but however it happens, we are willing • o promiſe the Reader, that ſcarce any thing ſhall provoke us further to concern our ſelves in theſe diſputes: no, not ſo much as to make any Return, ſhould a Thouſand pretended Anſwers be publi • hed; for we love not to be contentious, but • as the Reverend Author is wont to ſay in like caſes it ſuffices that we have born our Teſtimony.

And here we muſt do juſtice alſo to thoſe who have firſt openly aſſerted and practiſed thoſe Truths among us. They deſerve well of the Churches of Chriſt, and though at preſent decryed as Apoſtates and backſlider • ▪ the generations to come will bleſs them. So a ſcore of years or more paſt, the En • argement of Baptiſm was cryed out upon, as a woful declenſion▪ but the preſent generation feels the happy effects of it, and riſing up at the Reformers names▪ do call them bleſſed

To concluds all, i • is the Anſwerers ſincere deſire and deſign, if it be poſible, and a far as in them i • , to live peaceab • y with al • men 'Tis the • prayer, that God would grant peace and Truth i • our dayes, rebuke the evil Spirit of pride, uncharitableneſs, come 〈…〉 contempt of others, and pour for •• on us all his Spirit of Grace and Love.

And now the God of Peace, that brought again from the Dead our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the Blood of the everlaſting Covenant, make us perf • ct in every good Work to do his Will, working in us that which is well pleaſing in his ſight, through Jeſus Chriſt, to whom be glory forever. Amen.