A LETTER OF MANY MINISTERS IN OLD ENGLAND, Requesting The judgement of their Reverend Brethren in New England concerning Nine Positions.  
Written Anno Dom. 1637.  
Together with their Answer thereunto returned, Anno 1639.  
And the Reply made unto the said Answer, and sent over unto them, Anno 1640.  
Now published (by occasion mentioned in the Epistle to the Reader, following in the next page,) upon the desire of many godly and faithful Ministers in and about the City of London, who love and seek the truth.  
By Simeon Ash, and William Rathband.  
1 Thes. 5. 21.  
Prove all things; Hold fast that which is good.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Vnderhill, at the sign of the Bible in great Woodstreet. 1643.   

I Have diligently perused this Reply to the Answer, of the Ministers of New-England, to the nine Positions which I have approved, and judge very necessary, and seasonable to be Printed, and published, july the fifth, 1643.  
james Cranford Rector of Christopher's London.   

Errata.  
PAge 22. Marg. read Romae. p. 33 line 27 r. society. p 37. l. 21. r. Of all true Churches. p 37. l. 3●. r. parium. p. 47. l. 41 r. saith. p 48. l. 30. r. quin. p. 50. l. 31 r. Ordinance. The faults escaped in the quotation p. 5●. in some Copies, the reader is desired to correct by Beza de Presb. p 57 l. 7. r. is the same. p 61 l 25. r. Objection. p. 61. l. 28. r. were dispensed. p 64 l ●4 r. which without. p. 67. l. 14. r parium. p. 67 l. 29▪ r. therefore to them, p. 6●. l. 28. r. with Christ.   

To the Reader.  
Good Reader,  
Upon the receipt of the Answer returned unto the Nine Positions, Master Ball moved by the request of Brethren, drew up this reply, which upon perusal and joint approbation, was directed unto the reverend Elders of the several Churches in New England. The Reply sent miscarrying in the hand, to which it was committed, though both Letters and printed Books trusted in the same hand were delivered: Hereupon another Copy was from New England desired, and accordingly prepared in the year following. In the mean time, the Answer being tendered to the Press, it was judged more meet to keep the Reply in readiness to attend the publishing of the Answer, then to part with it in the other way. This intelligence was the last year conveyed into New England, since which time, there hath been an expectation to see that in Print, which now is sent abroad to open view. By this Relation it is manifest who are volunteers, and who are pressed to come forth as defendants in these Controversies. These differences betwixt the loving Brethren of old England and New, had not been made thus notorious, if some who cry up the Church way in New England, as the only way of God, had not been forward, to blow them abroad in the world. But surely the providence of God is remarkable in bringing these questions into debate at this time. When the Ministers of the Gospel from all the Counties in the Kingdom are called together by both houses of Parliament, to consult about the healing of our breaches, which are very many and dangerous: The Copy of this Reply being committed to our custody we are necessitated to appear in the publication of it: yet we shall preface nothing concerning the Treatise itself, because our known respects to the reverend and judicious Author will tender us partial, and our testimony can add no credit to his works which withal indifferent Readers will plead sufficiently for their own acceptance. If this discourse shall add any discovery of light unto them, who desire a sound judgement in the controversies here agitated, our end is obtained, and our prayers answered, who are.  
Thy Servants in and for the truth, 

Simeon Ash,  
William Rathband.     

The Letter of those Ministers in England, who requested to know the judgement of their Brethren in New England, in Nine positions, wherein the reasons of this their request, are truly reported.  
(Reverend and beloved Brethren)  
WHiles we lived together in the same Kingdom, we professed the same faith, joined in the same Ordinances, laboured in the work of God to gain souls unto his kingdom, and maintained the purity of worship against corruptions, both on the right hand and on the left. But since your departure into New England, we hear (and partly believe it) that divers have embraced certain vain opinions, such as you disliked formerly, and we judge to be groundless and unwarrantable. As that a stinted form of prayer, and set Liturgy is unlawful; That it is not lawful to join in prayer, or to receive the Sacrament, where a stinted Liturgy is used. 3. That the children of godly and approved Christians, are not to be Raptized, until their parents be set members of some particular congregation. 4. that the Parents themselves, though of approved piety are not to be received to the Lords Supper, until they be admitted as set members. 5. That the power of Excommunication, etc. is so in the body of the Church, that what the major part shall allow, that must be done, though the Pastors and Governors, and part of the assembly be of another mind, and peradventure, upon more substantial reasons. 6. That none are to be admitted as set members, but they must promise, not to depart, or remove unless the Congregation will give leave. 7. That a Minister is so a Minister to a particular Congregation, that if they dislike him unjustly, or leave him he ceaseth to be a Minister. 8. That a Minister cannot perform any ministerial act in another Congregation. 9 That members of one Congregation may not communicate in another.  
These and other such like (which we omit to reckon up) are written and reported to be the common Tenants in New England, which are received with great applause, maintained with great confidence, and applauded, as the only Church way, wherein the Lord is to be worshipped. And letters from New England have so taken with divers in many parts of this Kingdom, that they have left our Assemblies because of a stinted Liturgy, and excommunicated themselves from the Lords Supper, because such as are not debarred from it. And being turned aside themselves, they labour to ensnare others, to the grief of the godly, the scandal of Religion, the wounding of their own souls (if they did advisedly consider the matter) and great advantage of them, that are wily to espy, and ready to make use of all advantages to prejudice the truth. (Beloved brethren) if you stood in our places, we are well assured it would be no small grief unto you, to hear and see the people led afide to the disgrace of the Gospel, upon weak and groundless imaginations, and in rash and inconsiderate zeal to deal with that which is of God▪ as if it were of man. And if it be to us grief of heart to hear that you have changed from that truth which you did profess, and embrace that for truth which in former times upon sound grounds you did condemn as erroneous, we hope you will not be offended. You know how oft it hath been objected, that Non-conformists in practice are Separatists in heart but that they go cross to their own positions, or smother the truth for sinister ends. They of the Separation boast that they stand upon the Nonconformist's grounds. A vainglorious flourish and sleight pretence. But both these are much countenanced by your sudden change if you be changed, as it is reported. How shall your brethren be able to stand up in the defence of their innocence and the uprightness of their cause, when your example and opinion shall be cast in their dish? Must they leave you now, with whom they have held society? Or will you plead for Separation, which you have condemned as rash and inconsiderate? You know that thy who have run this way have fallen into manifold divisions, and may not you justly fear, lest the same befall you? Some warnings you have had already, and have you not cause to fear every day more and more? Error is very fruitful and will spread apace. A crack in the foundation may occasion a wide breach in the building, where there will not be means, or mind to amend it. Experience every day may tutor us herein. But to let pass all inconveniences, our request in all meekness and love is, that if these, or any of the forementioned opinions be indeed your Tenants you would be pleased to take a second review of your grounds, and send us your strongest reasons that have swayed you in these matters: and if we shall find them upon due examination to be such as will carry weight, we shall be ready to give you the right hand of fellowship; if otherwise you shall receive our just and modest animadversions in what we conceive you have erred from the truth. You will not judge, if we cannot apprehend the strength of your grounds, it is because we love not the truth, or be carried with by-respects (though these conceits prevail too much:) Such rigid and harsh censures, cannot lodge in meek and humble breasts. Weighty reasons promote the truth not unadvised judging. You yourselves have judged that to be error, which now you take to be truth when yet you were not blinded with by-respects, nor hudwinked your eyes, that you might not see the light. And if you have just warrant from God to pull down what you have builded, and to build what you have pulled down, we desire you would lovingly and maturely impart it▪ for as yet we have scene none, which we are not ready to prove, and show by the rule of truth to be too weak to carry any burden.  
We adore with you the fullness of the Scripture, and we know the Counsel of the Lord shall stand: if you can show that you walk in the ways of God, we shall heartily rejoice to walk with you: but if you have turned aside, we shall earnestly desire that you would be pleased seriously to consider the matter, and speedily reform, what is out of order. Thus not doubting of your favourable interpretation of this our motion, for the preventing of distraction, maintenance of peace, and searching out of the truth, whereby we may be directed to live to the praise of God the good of his people, and comfort of our souls, beseeching God to lead and guide us into all truth and holiness, and keep us blameless until his glorious appearance, we rest  
Your loving Brethren.   

An Epistle written by the Elders of the Churches in NEW-ENGLAND, to those godly Minister's forementioned that sent over the Positions.  
Reverend and beloved Brethren:  
IN these remote Coasts of the earth, whereunto the good hand of God hath brought us, as we do with much comfort of heart call to mind the many gracious blessings, which both with you, and from you, we enjoyed in our Christian and holy communion, (the memory and fruit whereof we hope shall never be blotted out) so we have also seen cause to look back to our former administrations there, and to search and try our ways; that wherein soever we have formerly gone astray, we might judge ourselves for it before the Lord: And that seeing now God hath set before us an open door of liberty, we might neither abuse our liberty in the Gospel, to run out into any groundless unwarrantable courses, nor neglect the present opportunity to administer (by the help of Christ) all the holy ordinances of God, according to the pattern set before us in the Scripture; In our native Country, when we were first called to the Ministry, many of us took some things to be indifferent and lawful, which in aftertimes we saw to be sinful, and durst not continue in the practice of them there; Afterwards some things that we bore as burdens, that is, as things inexpedient, though not utterly unlawful; we have no cause to retain and practise the same things here, which would not have been not only inexpedient, but unlawful: such things as a man may tolerate when he cannot remove them, he cannot tolerate without sin, when he may remove them; Besides some things we practised there (which we speak to our shame and grief) which we never took into serious consideration whether they were lawful, and expedient or no, but took them for granted, and generally received; not only by the most Reformed Churches, but by the most godly and judicious servants of God amongst them; which nevertheless when we came to weigh them in the balance of the Sanctuary, we could not find sufficient warrant in the Word to receive them, and establish them here: of one of these three kinds will these our present practices appear to be, which you call our new opinions, or, Innovations here; except it be some few of them, which though they have been reported to you to be our Judgements and practices, yet are indeed far from us: The partieulars are too many, and too weighty to give you account of them, and the ground of our proceedings about them in a Letter. But to give you (if it be the will of God) the better satisfaction, we have sent you a short Treatise touching each particular, that according to your desire you might understand from us how far we do acknowledge any of these tenants, and upon what ground, hoping that according to your promise, if upon due examination you shall find any weight in them, you will give us the right hand of fellowship. But if otherwise, you will send us your just and faithful animadversions, and we do not suspect your loves to the truth, or your sincere speaking according to your conscience in the sight of God. Neither tax we you as siding from the truth with by-respects, whereof you complain, verily we abhor such rash, harsh, and presumptuous notoriousness, we see as much cause to suspect the integrity of our own hearts, as yours; and so much the more, as being more privy to the deceitfulness of our own hearts then to yours. And we cannot but with much thankfulness of heart acknowledge the many rich precious treasures of his grace, wherewith the Lord hath furnished sundry of you above your Brethren, which causeth us with great reverence to accept, and receive what further light God may be pleased to impart unto us by you. But as we have believed, so have we hitherto practised, and so have most of us spoken this our Answer to your particulars, most of us we may say, because there wants not some Brethren amongst us who proceed further, even to look at all set forms of Prayer invented by men of another age or congregation, and prescribed to their Brethren to be read out of a book for the prayers of the Church, as Images, or Imaginations of men, forbidden in the second Commandment; But as we leave them to their liberty of their own judgements without prejudice, so do we also concur with the rest of them, so far as we all go in bearing witness against any set forms, or the corruptions in them; In dispatching whereof, we have been the more slow because it behoved us first to inquire into, and to settle some controversies amongst ourselves, before we could well attend to entertain discourse about foreign questions which do not so nearly concern our present estate and practice. Besides your Letters being sent to the Ministers of the Churches, and some of us dwelling far asunder, it was not an easy thing for all of us often to meet together to consider of these Questions, much less to resolve upon one just answer. But having at length (by the assistance of God) brought our Answers to this issue, we commend it to the blessing of the Lord, and in him to your Christian, and judicious consideration; where if all things be found safe, and duly warranted from Scripture grounds; do you also as seemeth vigilant Watchmen of the Lords flock, and faithful witnesses to God; If any thing seem doubtful to you, consider and weigh it very well before you reject it: If any thing appear to be unsound, and dissonant from the Word (which we for our parts cannot discern) we shall willingly attend to what further light God may send unto us by you: In the mean while we entreat you in the Lord, not to suffer such apprehensions to lodge in your minds, which you intimate in your Letters; As if we here justified the ways of riged separation, which sometimes amongst you we have formerly borne witness against: and so build again the things we have destroyed; you know they separate from your Congregations, as no Churches; from the Ordinances dispensed by you as mere. Antichristian, and from yourselves as no visible Christians. But we profess unfeignedly, we separate from the corruptions which we conceive to be left in your Churches, and from such Ordinances administered therein as we fear are not of God, but of men; And for yourselves, we are so far from separating as from no visible Christians, as that you are under God in our hearts (if the Lord would suffer it) to live and die together; and we look at sundry of you as men of that eminent growth in Christianity, that if there by any visible Christians under heaven, amongst you are the men, which for these many years have been written in your foreheads (Holiness to the Lord) which we speak not to prejudice any truth which ourselves are here taught and called to profess, but we still believe though personal Christians may be eminent in their growth of Christianity: yet Churches had still need to grow from apparent defects to purity; and from reformation to Reformation, age after age, till the Lord have utterly abolished Antichrist with the breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming to the full and clear revelation of all his holy Truth; especially touching the ordering of his house and public worship; as a pledge of this our estimation of you, and sincere affection to you, we have sent you these Answers to your demand, and shall be ready, by the help of Christ, to receive back again from you, wise, and just, and holy Advertisements in the Lord.  
Now the Lord God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, your Lord and ours; lead us all unto all Truths, purge out all Leaven out of his Churches, and keep us blameless and harmless in his holy Faith and fear, to his heavenly kingdom, through him that hath loved us; In whom we rest,  
Your very loving Brethren, the Elders of the Churches in New-England.   

Reverend and dear beloved Brethren,  
IT is not to be doubted but while we live here, we shall have just cause to search and try our ways, look back upon former courses, and call things done to more strict examination. For being overclouded with ignorance, compassed about with infirmities, and 
It is truly observed by Master Davenport out of Ambros. Offic. l 1. c. 1. Et quantum libet quisque profecerit, nemo est qui doceri non indigeni dum visit. Appoll. Preface to the Reader.  beset with many temptations to sin, knowing what we know best, but darkly and in part, no marvel, if in many things we offend ignorantly, of frailty for want of due consideration, rashly mistaking Error for Truth, condemning Truth for Error, suspecting evil without cause, and not suspecting where is just reason, drawing erroneous conclusions from sound principles, and maintaining truths upon weak grounds; so that in examination of our ways, and endeavours of their Reformation we had need to look warily, that we turn not to the right hand or to the left, for in the one we add to the Word of God, as well as in the other, and of ourselves are apt to strike aside to both. A loose conscience will be profane, a tender, scrupulous. It stands us therefore upon to have ourselves in suspicion, in as much as experience teacheth that many have swerved from the path of sound peace and comfort on each hand.  
Wherefore (Beloved Brethren) if since your coming into New England, upon serious Review of former actions you have discovered any truths heretofore not taken notice of, we shall be so far from rejecting them because of your former judgement and practice, that we shall heartily desire to know and embrace the same with you, and bless God for you as the happy instruments of his glory, our Instruction & the advancement of the truth. But if the discoveries be of the like nature with the positions mentioned in the Letter; as before, so still, we conceive them to be new opinions, and not warranted by Scripture, which is the true Antiquity.  
Opinions we say, not practices, for not changing your opinion, you might lawfully alter your practice; nay, what you did tolerate formerly as a burden, in case not free, you might well forgo being at your liberty. Your judgement being the same, you might use your liberty in forbearance of a set Liturgy, and yet retain the same judgement of a stinted Liturgy, that you had before; you might forbear for a time upon special Reason (such as present state and occasion might suggest) to receive to the Sacrament approved Christians, not set members of a particular Congregation; as some Brethren do) who yet dare not think it unlawful to communicate with such in the act of worship, or deem it just and right altogether to debar them, as having no right nor title to those privileges of the Church. It is your opinions whereto we had respect, not simply your practice. It never entered into us to persuade you to a set Liturgy, much less to complain that you had not accepted ours. But that all stinted Liturgies should be condemned as devised worship, and so condemned as that none may lawfully be present at, or partake of the Sacraments administered in a stinted or devised form, this we called a new opinion.  
Neither do we mention it because we knew it to be the private opinion of some Brethren among you, whom we had left to the liberty of their own judgement, so far as the maintenance of the Truth, and a just call did not engage us: but because it was cried up, and advanced with all diligence, and endeavour of some among us standing affected New England-ward, as if a chief point of holiness consisted in separation. You know how great a fire a little sparkle kindles. And seeing this Distraction and Rent had its original, growth and continuance from some Brethren in those parts, or affected to that way, when in loving and friendly manner we could neither receive grounds at home for our conviction, nor procure just satisfaction to the contrary; what could we do less than call upon you jointly to know your judgement, and either by sound proof to be by you convinced (if happily you should approve their separation (which we esteem groundless, rash, unlawful, and prejudicial to outward peace) or being backed by a testimony of its dislike from you, we might the better be both encouraged, and furnished to endeavour the quenching of that fire which was kindled but in too many places,  
In other particulars also, we conceive, you go beyond Commission given of God: granting them authority to whom God hath not committed it, debarring others from the privilege of the Sacraments, who have title thereto by the Covenant of grace.  
Your love in that you were pleased to signify first your kind and respective acceptance of our Letter, and now also to send us an answer thereto, we acknowledge it with all thankfulness, and shall endeavour (through the grace of God) to return like affection in truth of heart, if in measure we fall short. Of your respect to us in particular, we make no question, your expressions are beyond that we could expect, as also what we dare own. But we humbly beseech the Lord to direct, uphold, and guide us, that in some measure we may walk worthy of our vocation, and approv ourselves faithful to your consciences.  
It was one end of our writing to be satisfied in this point, whether you approve the ways of Separation (whereof we complain) and their courses who laboured with all their might, (when they conceived hope to be heard) to persuade thereunto. Against which (if we knew your judgement) you testified among us.  
You know they that separate are not all of one strain and temper. Some deny all communion with us public and private, some admit of private, but deny all public, and some join in Prayer before, and after Sermon, as also preaching of the Word (because in their esteem, this may be done without communion in a Churchway) but refuse to partake of the Sacraments. All which Separations we judge uncharitable, contrary to the Commandment of Christ, and have ever thought that you (whilst with us) and we were of one mind herein.  
If of late we have conceived fears of some of you (dear Brethren) as leaning too much to what formerly you disliked, we beseech you weigh what urgent and pressing Reasons forced us thereunto, and we shall most gladly (we heartily desire you to rest assured) lay hold of every line and syllable, that may tend to dislodge such apprehensions.  
For as we conceive, the dispute to be unreasonably moved, the Rent offensive, the opinions themselves prejudicial to the cause of God, and the advancers thereof to have passed the limits prescribed by God; so we shall esteem it an inestimable blessing, if (now what hinders being removed) we might join with one heart and soul, in one way of God to promote his glory, and seek the good of his Church and people.  
We trust in the Lord, we should not draw back in any course wherein we may see the Lord going before us, nor be an offence to any to keep the Lords way; we seek the truth, and are persuaded it is the cause of God which we defend: we plead for Communion with the Churches of Christ, no further than they hold communion with Christ, still desiring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, with yourselves and all others, who walk in the right way of truth, peace and comfort.  
How the Lord may be pleased to deal with us, or dispose of us we know not (his blessed will be done.) But of this we are resolved, through his grace, not willingly to raise trouble or dissension among you, if through ignorance or infirmity we shall not so fall in, as to be of one mind with you in these matters. And here we desire you to consider that in these particulars you descent as much one from another as we descent from you, and that wherein we descent from you (and perhaps from the lesser part of you) you descent from the judgement and practice of all Reformed Churches.  
This we speak not to prejudice your 
Wrence these men (saith Cann against Robi) superstitiously addicted to their new devise, that beware how to reject the unanimous judgement and practice of all learned men and true Churches. Stay against straying. pag. 47. I am and shall be always ready to give all due respect to those good customs of Churches, which are taken upon good warrant and ground, and long continued among God's people. I. D. Apol. p. 31. Good customs taken up by the Churches upon good grounds should not lightly be broken or laid down, wherein I do fully agree with the Author of that elaborate Commentary upon the fourth Chapter of john, I. D. Apol. Sect. 12. Examina. p. 251.  cause, but to entreat your serious re-examination of what you have sent us, and this trial thereof, by the Touchstone of the Word. For if we mistake not, in many things it will not abide the Test.  
You have written in great love and tenderness, that your Positions might be so scanned, and we shall endeavour with such affection to try all things, and hold fast that which is good. And now (beseeching the guidance of the Spirit) with your leave, we shall endeavour to deal fully and plainly, as the nature of the cause requireth, entreating you impartially to consider the grounds whereupon we, go and weigh what we shall say in the balance of the Sanctuary. The Lord of his rich mercy in Jesus Christ, direct us in discerning what is right and pleasing in his sight, Cast offences out of the Church, close up Rents and Divisions, reveal his Truth more and more, set up and maintain the purity of his own Ordinances, unite the hearts of his people to the love and fear of his holy Name, teach us self-denial, and keep us blameless to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.  
Amen.   

I POSITION. That a stinted form of Prayer and set Liturgy is unlawful.  

Answ.  
BEfore we proceed to declare ourselves concerning this position: It will be needful that some thing be premised, for the explication of the terms thereof. We suppose,  
1 By a Liturgy and form of Prayer, you mean not a form of private Prayers composed for the help and direction of weaker Christians: but the System or body of public Prayers generally used in the English Parishes, compiled for the Churches use by other men not infallibly guided by God, to be said or read out of a Book by their Ministers as the Church's Prayers. And that this is your meaning, may appear from your Letter itself, wherein you complain that divers in many parts of that Kingdom have left their Assemblies, because of a stinted Liturgy. Now we know not of any other stinted Liturgy from which the people do absent themselves, but only that which is in use in the English Churches.  
For as for a form of Prayer in general, we conceive your meaning cannot be of that. For it is evident that many Preachers constantly use one set form of Prayer of their own making before their Sermons, with whom the people refuse not to join.  
2 By stinted and set, you mean such Prayers, as are so imposed upon the Churches and Ministers, as that they are limited to that very form of words expressed in the Book without addition, diminution, or alteration; for that Liturgy and form among you, is in this sense set and stinted.  
3 By unlawful, you mean that we looking at that form, as swerving from the Rule; neither dare first practice it ourselves, nor secondly approve the use of it by others.  
This being the true state of the question, so far as it appears to us, from the letter. We answer, 1 For our own practice, the Churches here do not use any stinted form of Prayer and set Liturgy, for these and other such Reasons. 1 Because we find no necessity of any stinted Liturgy to be used among us, by virtue of any divine precept. And seeing the Commission of the Apostles limited them, to ●each men to observe and do only what Christ did command them in matters of this nature, Math. 28. 20. Who are we and what are our Churches, that we should presume above this Commission? And, we hope, it will not be offensively taken by any godly Brethren, That we stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free in this, as well as in all other things.  
Secondly, because the lawfulness of set forms and stinted Liturgies is questioned and doubted of by many faithful servants of God: whereas for Church-officers to edify the Churches by their own gifts, as well in praying as in preaching, all sorts without controversy grant it to be lawful. Now spiritual prudence guideth believers, when two ways are set before them, one doubtful though ventured on by some, the other certainly safe and good, though neglected by many, to choose that which is safe, declining the other.  
Thirdly, Because Primitive patterns of all the Churches of God in their best times (when as touching this point they kept the rule in their eye) whether Jewish before Christ, or Christian above a 100 years after Christ, yield not the least footstep to show us another safe way to walk in, than this which we have chosen. As for after times towards the end of the second, and beginning of the third Century, we know how far the Churches were then degenerated and declined from the first purity; neither do we marvel at it, seeing in the Apostles time the mystery of iniquity began to work, and it was then foretold, that the power of godliness would be in aftertimes exchanged for empty forms. In which respect, we look not at them as our guides neither in this, nor other particulars not warranted by the Rule, herein following the advice of Cyprian, who himself saw the corruption of those times, Non est attendendum quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus fecerit & faciendum praeceperit.  
To conclude, seeing our Christian liberty freeth us from binding ourselves to any religious observances, whereunto the written word doth not bind us. And seeing spiritual prudence directs us to choose those ways, which on all hands are confessed to be s●fe, avoiding those that be doubtful and hazardous. And seeing it will not be safe for us, needlessly to swerve from the constant practice of all Churches that are recorded in Scripture, and there held forth as a cloud of Witnesses for us to follow in matters of this nature, we therefore may not, do not, dare not use set forms of Prayers and stinted Liturgies in these Churches.  
More particularly, in that we do not use that form of Prayer and stinted Liturgy, which is in use among yourselves: these and such other like Reasons have induced us thereunto. 1 The many and just exceptions whereunto that Liturgy is liable both for matter and manner; for the proof whereof we refer you to those faithful servants of God, who have gone before us in witnessing against the same: Amongst others to Master Cartwright, and the Abridgement.  
2 In as much as that Liturgy was never commanded of God, and hath been greatly abused to Idolatry and Superstition, and is not of any necessary use, and therefore we are afraid to bring it into the Worship of God, as knowing the jealousy of the Lord, in matters of this nature; Exod. 20, and how strictly he commandeth his people, that all monuments and remnants of Idolatry and Superstition should be abolished from among them, Deut. 5. 25, 26. Exod. 23. 13. Esay 30. 2●. 2 Cor. 6. 17. In which respect the holy Ghost hath greatly commended jacob, David, jehu Hezechia and josiah for taking away the remembrance of such things, Gen. 35. 2, 4. Psal. 16. 4. 2 King 10. 26, 27. & 18. 4. & 2●. all the Chapter. And where other Kings of judah came short of the like zeal, the Scripture notes it as a blemish in them that the high places were not taken away, albeit the people did not sacrifice in them to false gods, but only to the Lord, 2 Chron. 15. 17. & 20. 33. & 33. 17. Yea, moreover, it appeareth by the Scripture, that somethings that had a good Original and use (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) are unlawful when once they are known to be defiled by Idolatry, and abused to it, 2 King. 18. 4. Hos. 2. 16, 17. As the brazen Serpent was at the first an Institution though but temporary: but when the children of Israel burned Incense to it, Hezechiah, is commended for breaking it in pieces, and the Lord witnesseth of him that he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and according to his Commandment, which he commanded Moses, 2 King. 18. 3, 6. how much more in the like case ought other things to be removed, which never were commanded of God, but only were devised by men? And that that Liturgy hath been superstitiously abused, may be clear to any that shall consider that it is the same for substance that was used in the days of Popery. And therefore when the Papists in Devonshire and Cornwall, had made a Commotion and Rebellion upon the change of Religion, in the days of King Edward the Sixth. It was told them by the King, for the pacifying of them: That it was the selfsame Service in English, which had been before in Latin: and if the Service of the Church was good in Latin, it remaineth good in English, for nothing is altered: Fox Acts and Monuments, Edward 6. And Pope Pius the fifth did see so little variation in it from the Latin Service, that had been formerly used in that Kingdom, that he would have ratified it by his authority, if Q. Elizabeth would have so received it. And many of the people put such holiness in it, that they think God is not rightly worshipped, nor his Sabbath well observed, nor the Sacraments sufficiently administered, if there be no reading of that Service. And others put such holiness and necessity in it, that they prefer it before God's holy Ordinance of preaching the Word. In so much as the Ministers are in the danger of being called 
This Argument is used by the Abridgement against conformity to the Ceremonies, and we do not see but it is as strong against this Liturgy.  in question, and of being censured, if they do not read that Liturgy every Lord's day without omitting any part thereof, either in respect of preaching or otherwise.  
3 In regard of the many woeful scandals, and dangerous consequences of using that Liturgy, of which we suppose you are not ignorant.  
To mention but two, Viz. The hardening of Papists who are emboldened to think better of their own Breviaries, Masse-Books, Portuisses, seeing that Liturgy hath been extracted out of those books, and rather fetched from them then from the forms used in any of the reformed Churches.  
2 The conntenancing and establishing of an unlearned Idol Ministry, of not-Preaching curates, non-resident, Pluralities, etc. in whose skirts is to be found the blood of so many men's souls living and dying in their sins, while they ignorantly content themselves with, and harden themselves in some empty forms of Religion and blind devotion, which are begotten and cherished chiefly by such prayers and ministers. Neither is there less scandal hereby (we mean not only taken but given) then by the eating of an Idolathite, in the Idols Temple condemned by the Apostle 1 Cor. 8. 7 10. For if the eating of an Idolathite by him that had knowledge, and knew that an Idol was nothing, and that all meats were lawful, did embolden others to honour the Idol, and therefore was a scandal given, so also it is in this case.  
4 Seeing that book is so imposed as that the minister in reading of it, is limited to the very words set down without any diminution, addition, or alteration; therefore we dare not use it.  
For 1 The Lord himself hath not limited his people to his own forms and therefore we see not, how it can be lawful to be limited to other men's forms; For in thus doing we should subject ourselves to the exercise of such an authority and power of the Prelates, as in this case puts forth a stronger act of limiting power then Christ himself, who doth not limit us to those forms, which himself hath set down in Scripture: For though we acknowledge the Lords prayer and other forms set down in Scripture, may be lawfully used as prayers (due cautions being observed) yet there is not a limitation lying upon the Churches in the use of those prayers. And therefore we do not find that the Apostles ever used that form taught by Christ in those very words, much less limited themselves to it, when they prayed, nor did they teach the Churches so to do.  
2 If the Lord would not have us limit ourselves in our own forms, whiles we are exercising our own gifts (which he hath specially sanctified to edify his Church Act. 6. 4. Eph. 4. 8. 1 Cor. 12. 7.) lest we should quench or at least straiten his spirit in prayer, 1 Thes. 5. 19 would he then have us limited to other men's forms, which have not been in like sort sanctified of God, but will rather quench or straiten the spirit of God, whiles we are so limited to them?  
3 The entertainment of this form hath been a manifest snare unto the Churches who upon the same ground on which they have received this form into the desks have been limited to others in the pulpit, by means whereof the poor Church of Christ hath been wholly deprived of the public use of the Ministers gifts in prayer, and the spirit of prayer in the Ministers in public, hath been greatly restrained.  
As for our Judgement concerning the practice of others, who use this Liturgy in our native Country, we have always been unwilling to express our minds there against unless we have been necessarily called thereunto, and at this time we think it not expedient to express ourselves any further concerning this matter, as loath to intermeddle with the affairs of other Churches, but contenting ourselves with, and blessing the Lord for those liberties which we, by the mercy of God, do here enjoy, reserving also due reverence to the judgements of our beloved brethren and dear Countrymen, who may concerning this matter be otherwise minded.   

Reply.  
THis position cannot bear that meaning which you give it, if you take it according, o our minds, and the plain construction of the words. We never questioned why you made not use of a stinted Liturgy, much less why you did not wholly and in every part tie yourselves unto, and approve of that form in use amongst us. You might well think we had little to do to put forth such a demand, viz. whether you think it lawful to approve in others and practice yourselves, what swerveth from the rule, and we think it strange you should give our words such a meaning.  
The thing we craved resolution in was, whether in your judgements all stinted and set forms of prayer and Liturgies be unlawful. The reason hereof was because in writings from New-England, we had seen all set liturgies, and set forms of prayer condemned as devised worship which God would not accept, and partaking in the Sacraments of the Supper in our assemblies, therefore disallowed, because administered in a stinted Liturgy, which things were received with such liking among some brethren with us, and by them imparted and recommended to others, that they occasioned that rent and distraction whereof we complain.  
It is true, the people among us separate from our form of prayer or liturgy, but the reason hereof is because it is stinted, not because this or that or ours in particular.  
You confess you want not some brethren among you who look at all set forms of Prayer invented by one of another age or congregation, and prescribed to their brethren, to be read out of a book for the prayers of the Church, as Images and Imaginations of man forbidden in the second Commandment, and that the lawfulness of Liturgies, and set forms is questioned and doubted of by many faithful servants of God, such also as come over occasionally, who withdraw themselves from the Sacraments in the congregation, do it on this pretence, that a stinted Liturgy is a humane invention. And if we examine the reasons brought against stinted forms and Liturgies, we shall find them to strike at all forms and Liturgies though devised by men of the same age and congregation, and to be used but now and then, or but once on set purpose, and that either in public or in private, as elsewhere we may have occasion to show.  
You say it is evident, many Preachers constantly use a set form of Prayer of their own making before their Sermons with whom the people refuse not to join; And you know (we doubt not) that such set forms are disliked also. And if the grounds be examined (in our understanding) they make as much against the one as the other. View but the reasons why you admit not a stinted Liturgy and form of prayer, and see whether the two last will not in the same terms directly conclude 'gainst both. But what ever is to be thought herein, or whether men's practices agree with their opinions we now dispute not. This is plain and manifest, that men's opinions are to be judged by their express words and reasons, not by their practices. The Brownists (as they are commonly called) can separate from no stinted Liturgy amongst us, but that which is in use, and for aught we know they may join with their own Pastors, though they oft use the same form of prayer in whole or in part, in thanksgiving before meat, or in prayer before Sermon, or the like. And yet their opinion is that all stinted Liturgies and set Forms of prayer be unlawful, humane inventions forbidden by the second Commandment.  
But if any thing had been left doubtful in the Letter, that it might be strained to another sense, either because we were short in expression, or many of you not informed in the passages which gave occasion to the question, it is well known what the words mean in ordinary construction. And we doubt not but many brethren among you, might and could fully inform you of our meaning that there need no such straining to find it out.  
That which followeth in your answer to the position (as you interpret it) we pass over, because it is not to the matter intended. And we are as unwilling to trouble you with the affairs of other Churches taking you from your own weighty occasions, as you are unwilling to be interrupted. Only in regard of promise, and because plain dealing serves to maintain love, we think good to advertise you these few things.  
1 That your reasons why you accept not of a stinted liturgy be ambiguously propounded, for sometimes you plead only for your liberty herein, and that a stinted form is not necessary, and sometime you speak so, as they that look at Stinted Liturgies, as Images forbidden in the second Commandment will easily draw your words to their meaning.  
2 The reasons you bring against a set form of prayer or Liturgy do hold as strong against a set form of Catechism confession and profession of faith, blessing, baptising and singing of Psalms.  
3 We have not called upon you at this time to witness for, or against the corruptions in the Communion-Booke. This you fall upon by straining the sense of our demands contrary to the true meaning thereof.  
The reasons which you bring against it, we cannot approve them all; The exceptions which have been taken both from the matter and manner thereof we know: But to esteem the whole for some corruptions found therein, a monument of Idolatry, that we have not learned.  
The Argument in the abridgement which is used against conformity to the Ceremonies did not in their judgement who were authors of the Book hold against the liturgy, of which opinion we are also.  
4 If these reasons be intended only to show why you receive not our form of administration, it is that which (we are persuaded you know) we never required of you. If to disallow the use of the Book amongst us altogether in things lawful, good and pertinent, they will not hold weight.  
5 You are generally (as you say) loath to meddle with the affairs of other Churches, unless you have been necessarily called thereunto. But when some upon the request (as we suppose) of private friends, and others out of their zeal and forwardness have laboured to draw many to separation from the Sacrament, because ministered in a stinted liturgy: we cannot apprehend any just ground of this apology. The Rent is wide, and some brethren had their hands deep therein, which made us at this present to crave your judgements, and the reasons thereof to make up the breach.  
6 I. D. objecteth to Master P. that his manner of preaching was disorderly in carrying that matter, he speaks of, to the Classes, before he had declared to the Church the equity of his refusing 
Whereas the publisher of this answer to the six Positions, refers the reader to Mr. Cottons answer unto Mr. Ball for satisfaction in this point concerning set forms of prayer. The reader is earnestly entreated to compare Master Balls Treatise, and Mr Cottons answer with seriousness and indifferency, because Mr Ball having received that answer before the publishing of his Treatise (being much enlarged, whereof Mr, Cotton was ignorant) was confident, that with addition of some marginal no●es (which in reference thereto he added) his Treatise would sufficiently defend itself, against all the assaults, which that answer made against it.  the Ministers desired by the Scriptures. And may not we with like reason object, that this manner of proceeding is disorderly in seeking to draw men to Separation, because of stinted Liturgy, before you had showed to us or other brethren (whom it may concern) by Scripture, or reasons drawn from thence, that a stinted Liturgy was unlawful? but of this we may entreat more fully elsewhere.    

II. POSITION. That it is not lawful to join in prayer, or receive the Sacraments where a stinted Liturgy is used, or as we conceive your meaning to be in this, as in the former question viz. where, and when that stinted Liturgy is used.  

Answer.  
IT seemeth by this your letter, the ground of this Position hath been the separation of divers from your assemblies, because of a stinted Liturgy: and we are not ignorant of the rigid separation of divers people, who withdraw themselves from an able faithful ministry, as no ministry of Christ, and from their godly congregations as no Churches of Christ; because of some corruptions from which (through want of light, not love of the truth) they are not throughly cleansed. Against which practice we have ever witnessed.  
As for our Judgement concerning the Position itself, we would promise two things; First concerning the persons reading this Liturgy, which may be either an ungodly or unable Minister, or an able and a godly.  
Secondly, concerning the Liturgy itself, which may be either of the whole or some select prayers, which may be conceived to be the least offensive.  
Now if the question be of joining in prayer with, and when that whole Liturgy is used, or where that which is used, is read by an unable and ungodly Minister, we then see not how it can be lawful to join in prayer in such cases; For  
1 The prayers of the Minister are not his private prayers, but the public prayers of the whole assembly, whose mouth he is to God. And when the prayers offered up by the Minister, as a living holy, and acceptable service to God, are not through humane frailty, but otherwise for matter and manner corrupt, we see not what warrant any one hath to join with such prayers, Mal. 1. 13. 14.  
2 When men join therein with an insufficient Ministry, they do not only countenance them in their place and office, whom the Lord hath rejected from being his Priests. Hos. 4. 6. but also set up those Idols and means of worship to edify themselves by, which God never appointed in his holy word Ezeck. 11. 17.  
But if the question be of joining in some few select prayers read by an able and painful Minister out of that book as on the one side we are very tender of imputing sin to the men that so join: so on the other side, we are not without fear, lest that such joining may be found to be unlawful: unless it may appear that the Ministers with whom the people have communion in reading those prayers do neither give any scandal by reading of them nor give unlawful honour to a thing abused to Idolatry, and superstition, nor do suffer themselves to be sinfully limited in the reading of them.   

Reply.  
SUfficient hath been spoken of the meaning of the position and the grounds thereof and if we have not mistaken your judgement & practice both, you have born witness against both that you call the rigid separation, and this more moderate also; And we humbly wish, the moderate do not degenerate into the rigid ere long. It is very strange, if they take not great encouragement upon your grounds. The truth of our ministry, Churches, Ordinances, and calling is questioned, and where men will stay the Lord knoweth, and what more common than that our Liturgy is unlawful, because it is the devise of man; The Author (or publisher at least) of a letter against our Service book beginneth with such like distinction.  
Against this Prayer-book (saith he) divers have pleaded in a different manner. First some arguments are proper to the Separatists qua tales, viz. that it is offered in a false Church; 2. By a false minister; 3. In the behalf of the subjects of the Kingdom of Antichrist. These are properly theirs, being the grounds whereupon they make a total separation from all the Churches in this Land, as no Churches of Christ. These I approve not, yet note them that ye may see upon what different grounds, the same Position is maintained by several persons, and that ye may be delivered from the prejudice, which hinders many from receiving those truths, because they fear the reproach of Brownisme.  
Secondly, there are other grounds which are common to all that plead for the the purity of Christ's ordinances, and which do not necessarily infer such separation, but only serve to show the unlawfulness of that practice, and our communicating therein.  
Thus the Epistle wherein the same distinction of separation is noted: but how truly, let the indifferent judge. If none must be counted Separatists, but such as have pleaded against the book of Common prayer as unlawful, because offered up in a false Church, etc. then are there none such in the world, that we have known or heard of: for it is apparent they cast us off as no Churches of Christ, because our Service is a humane devise, will-worship, Idolatry; And not on the contrary, that our Service is will-worship, or Idolatry, because our Churches are false Churches. Against all Communion with us they plead, because we are a false Church, but against our stinted Liturgy they argue not in that manner.  
The grounds on which that Author builds (which he saith are common to all, that plead for the purity of God's ordinances) are one and the same with the grounds of the Separatists, shafts taken out of the same quiver and peculiar to them, some few brethren only excepted, who of late have looked towards that opinion. See how affection will transport. Those reasons shall be common to all that plead for the purity of Christ's Ordinances, which were never taken to be sound and true, either by the reformed Churches abroad, or by the godly Brethren at home, whether now at rest with the Lord, or for the present living, or yet by the most of the brethren among whom they live, and with whom they hold society, or by any minister or Society which did hold the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace for the space of this 1400 years and upwards, by your own confession, unless within these few days, and that by a few only. If this be not to strengthen the hands of the Separatists, or at least, to lay blocks of offence in their way, what is? As yet we think most of them that have separated, are not so far gone, as to condemn all our Assemblies as no Churches of Christ, but we judge they have proceeded further than Christ the Lord and Saviour of his Church hath given them commission or allowance, that the grounds whereon they build are unsound, and such as make way for further danger, if the Lord prevent not. And that the reasons mentioned in the letters are the proper grounds of Separatists, and not common to all them that seek the purity of religion, for they are not approved by yourselves: and if all this tend not to turn them who halt, out of the right way, we heartily entreat you to consider.  
Your judgement concerning the Position, you deliver in three propositions (for so many they be for substance) In respect of the persons reading the Liturgy, or the thing itself that is read. As if any part of the Liturgy be read, (put case some few selected prayers only, by an unable and ungodly minister: it is unlawful (say you) for the people to join in that case. But if it be unlawful for the people to join, when an ungodly minister readeth some few select prayers, it is either in respect of the Minister, or the prayers themselves. Not of the prayers themselves, for they be select and choice, faultless 
We may not Communicate at all in that ministry, which is exercised by an unlawful Person or in an unlawful. place Robinson against Bern. Counsel debated p 17 Ibid. pag 79  both in respect of matter and manner, as it is taken for granted, unless this distribution be to no purpose; if in respect of the Minister, than it is not lawful to join with such a one in any ordinance of God whatsoever. For if the Minister make it unlawful, than all communion in any part of God's worship, with such Ministers is unlawful, and so the Church in all ages of the world, the Prophets, our Saviour Christ, the Apostles, and the faithful in the primitive Churches sinned, in holding Communion with such, when the Priests were dumb dogs that could not bark, and greedy dogs that could never have enough; when the Prophets prophesied 
Esa. 56. 10. Ezech 4●. 7, 8. Mic 3. 11, 12. jer. 5. 31. Esa. 9 15, 6. joh. 2. 16. Math 5. 20, 21. & 15. 4, 5. & 23 1▪ 3. 14.  lies, and the Priests bare rule by their means; when the Priests bought and sold Doves in the Temple, and took upon them to provide such things for them that were to offer; when the Pharisees corrupted the Law by false glosses, taught for doctrines men's precepts, made the commandments of God of none effect through their traditions, under pretence of long prayer devoured widows houses, taught the Law, but practised it not; when they were such, and did such things, they were ungodly Ministers; But we never find that the Prophets, our Saviour, the Apostles, did either forbear themselves, or warn the faithful not to communicate with such in the ordinance of worship. We read our Saviour charged his Disciples, to beware of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees, to let them 
Math. 16 6. 12. & 15. 14.  alone, because they were the blind leaders of the blind, but he never forbade to communicate with them in the ordinances of God. It is not then for private Christians to withdraw themselves from the ordinance of worship, and communion of the Church, because such are 
See Whitak de pontiff q 4. f: 10. pag. 557. Phil. 1. 15.  permitted to deal in the holy things of God, whom they judge or know unfit: when men join in the worship of God with unworthy Ministers, they do not countenance them in their place and office, but obey the commandment of God, who requires their attendance upon his highness in that way and means.  
To go no further than the text you quote, Because thou hast despised knowledge, I will also reject thee, etc. Properly the text is spoken of the 
Hos. 4 6, 7.  ten tribes called Israel, and the Priests among them who worshipped the Calves which jeroboam had set up, whom the Lord threateneth to reject, because they had rejected knowledge being either wilfully ignorant, or withholding the truth in unrighteousness. Whether they were for the present absolutely rejected, or the Lord threatens only to reject them we will not dispute.  
This may suffice that it is not to be found either in this or any other Text of Scripture, that the people joining in the true Worship of God, with unworthy Ministers, do countenance them in their place thereby. On the contrary, if you will extend this Text to all unworthy Ministers of what sort soever, whom the word of truth doth condemn as not approved Ministers of God, the Scripture teacheth evidently not only that the people by joining do not countenance them in their place and office, but that they must and aught to join with them in the worship of God, and in separating from the Ordinance they shall 
1 Sam. 2. 12, 13, 14, 17, 14. jer. 8. 8, 9 Mic 3. 11, 12. Phillip 1. 15.  sin against God, much less than do they in such joining set those Idols and means of worship, which God never appointed in his Word. For the worship is of God, and the Ministry is of God, the person unworthily executing his place, is neither set up by some few private Christians, nor can by them be removed. And warrant to withdraw themselves from the worship of God, because such as ought not, are suffered to intermeddle in the holy things of God, they have none from God. Dumb Dogs, greedy Dogs, Idol-sheepheards, false Prophets, Strangers, are unworthy Ministers, but they that communicate with such in the ordinance of worship, are never said to set up Idols or means of worship which God never appointed. The sheep of Christ will not hear strangers in the Lord's sense, but outwardly they heard those strangers preach (if the Scribes and Pharisees were such) and by hearing them discovered them to be strangers, i. e. false Prophets; Some strangers at least, of whom our Saviour speaks, were of the true Church, and of Israel, but brought false doctrine tending to kill the soul, such strangers none should hear, that is, believe and follow: but as they be tolerated in the Church, so they may hear them, so long as they bring the truth. Unworthy Ministers are no Ministers for themselves, but they are Ministers for the people of God, that is, so long as they be in the place of Ministers, the acts of their administrations are of force to the faithful, if they observe the form of administration prescribed by Christ; for Christ's Ordinances have their efficacy from him, not from them that serve about them, and evil Ministers minister not in their own name, but in Christ's and by his Commission.  
It hath evermore been held for a truth in the Church of God, that although sometimes the evil have chief authority in the ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet for as much as they do 
Helv conf. cap 18 § 11. & 19 §. 9, Gal. conf. art. 28 Arg. conf. Art. 13. Saxon. conf. Art. 12 Zep. de Sac l. 2. c. 6. Art. of Religion, Hybera. Art 70 Carlton praelect de Ecclesia, cap. 20.  not the same in their own name but in Christ's, and minister by his Commission and Authority, we may use their Ministry both in hearing the Word, and receiving the Sacraments; neither is the effect of Christ's Ordinance taken away, by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly do receive the Sacraments administered to them which are effectual; because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.  
Beza de Presbyt. et excommunicate. p. 25 26. Ista vero, quia nonnulli à sacris caetib. & sacrament. usu propter aliorum vitia ultro abstinent i. e. seipsos excommunicant magnam reprehensionem merentur. 
The reasons whereby the ancient Churches condemned the Donatists and Catharists for their voluntary and seditious separation and the modern Churches condemn the Anabaptists for their unwarrantable departure from, and so renting of the body of Christ, will hold against separation from the prayers of the congregation, because they are read by an ungodly minister.   
The second proposition. Where the whole Liturgy is used, though by an able and godly Minister, it is not lawful to join in prayer in that case. Herein we cannot be of your judgement; for in the times of the Prophets, and our Saviour Christ, as great abuses, no question, were found in the Church of the Jews in the administration of holy things of God as can be imagined in our Liturgy or form of prayer: but the Prophets and our Saviour who taught the people to keep themselves pure and undefiled, never taught them to separate from the administration of the holy things of God. And if the presence at our forms of prayer be not lawful by reason of the corruptions alleged, there can be no visible society named throughout the world since 200. years after Christ or thereabouts, wherein a Christian might lawfully join in Prayer, reading the Scripture, hearing the word or participation of the Sacraments. For compare the doctrines, prayers, rites at those times in use in the Churches with ours, and in all these, (blessed be the name of the Lord) we are more pure than they. But no man will be so bold (we hope) as to affirm the state of the Churches within 200. years after Christ, to be so miserably decayed that the faithful could not without sin hold communion with them in the aforesaid ordinances. The prayers of the Minister, whether conceived or stinted in a set form, be not his private prayers, but the public prayers of the whole assembly, whose mouth he is to God both in the one and the other. But you will not say, the people ought not to join with their Pastor in the public assembly, if ought be amiss in his prayer for matter, or manner, or both. It is all one to the people in this case, whether the fault be personal (as some distinguish) or otherwise known beforehand or not known: For if simple presence defile, whether it was known beforehand or not, all presence is faulty. And if simple presence defile not, our presence is not condemned, by reason of the corruptions known, whereof we stand not guilty, whether the corruption be through humane frailty or not, it is not in us to inquire, but rather whether we be called to come, and the faults such as one Christian cannot or must not tolerate in another without breach of charity. For if the error be such as may be tolerated, and I am called to be present; by such fault I am not defiled though known before. If the error be such as in conscience may not be tolerated, though not known before hand, I am bound, if present some way to profess against it. This distinction of personal and ministerial faults in this case until it be cleared by some Text of Scripture or sound reason from the word, must go for the devise of man.  
A Church, a Minister, or a Christian may be stiff in an error (being mispersuaded it is a truth) after many means long used to convince them, with whom yet we must hold communion in the ordinances of Religion: and the error may be such as we cannot without hypocrisy or denial of the truth hold communion, though such means of conviction have not gone before. But the corruptions alleged against our form of prayer for matter or manner, are such as one Christian may and must tolerate in another where he hath no power to redress them.  
Hath not Christian wisdom and experience of humane frailties lessoned you (dear brethren) to bear one with another in matters of greater consequence than any have or can be objected truly against the form of prayer in use among us? And why such corruptions should not be ascribed to humane frailty; we see not: For if a godly Minister make use of a book in things which he judgeth lawful for matter and manner, the corruption in him that useth it according to his judgement, from what cause can it spring but humane ignorance and frailty? We rest assured you question not the integrity of many, who make much more use of the book then only in a few select prayers. From the bottom of our hearts we desire and pray that God would remove out of his Church and worship whatsoever offendeth for matter or manner, and that all things may be so done, not only that they may be tolerated but that they might be approved in the conscience of all men. But we are persuaded that not only some few select prayers but many prayers & other exhortations may lawfully be used, 
We see no warrant why for every particular act, that in a larger sense is Idolatrous, adjoined to God's true worship, we should forbear our presence at the true worship itself. Unreason. of separation. answ to 6. argument.  with fruit and edification to God's people.  
To aggravate faults especially when it tends to draw away people from the Ordinances of God, is no less fault then to excuse them, it may be greater, and therefore we dare not esteem the prayers read by a godly and faithful Minister according to the book in use among us, a corrupt sacrifice whether in such as read them, or them that be present. In them that join according to Christ's command (and liberty of absence from Christ hath not been showed) notwithstanding the corruptions, we hold the prayers to be an holy and acceptable sacrifice to God, and pleasing to Jesus Christ. The corrupt sacrifice is that, which the deceiver bringeth voluntarily, and out of neglect, having a male in his flock: but the faithful bringeth himself and his godly desires according to the will of God, and as for corruptions, whether respecting matter or form, they are none of his, they cleave not to his Sacrifice to stain or pollute it. As for the Text of the Prophet Mal. 1. 13, 14. it is cited by many in this business, and to many purposes applied, but we cannot find that in the Prophet for which it is here brought, The deceiver is accursed that offereth a corrupt thing to the Lord. This we read and believe, but that a godly man, being present at this form of prayer among us, read by a godly and faithful Minister, is the deceiver, who offereth a corrupt thing unto the Lord, that is not proved. No argument can be brought from this place to the purpose, but by analogy, which is a kind of arguing of all other most ready at hand, but liable to most exceptions, and apt to draw aside, if great care be not had, (which in this place we find not) to take the proportion in every material point just and right. And we desire such as allege this passage of Scripture against simple presence at the prayers of our Liturgy, advisedly to consider whether God allow them to make such application of his truth which we much doubt of, to say no more.  
Your third proposition. That as you are very tender of imputing sin to those men that join in some select prayers read by an able and godly Minister: so on the other side you are not without fear, lest such joining may be found unlawful, unless it may appear that the Ministers with whom the people have communion in reading those Prayers, neither give any scandal by reading them, nor give unlawful honour to a thing abused to Idolatry and Superstition, nor do suffer themselves to be sinfully limited in the reading of them.  
1 We cannot conceive how you should imagine the practice of a godly Minister in reading some few select prayers to be scandalous or offensive in their congregations when the people generally, not in their assemblies only, but throughout the whole land, were persuaded of the lawfulness of that course till now of late some have been drawn away to separate, who yet by warrant of Scripture produce nothing of weight to countenance that practice.  
2 If the book should be as you take it an idolathite, latent offence doth not oblige. If any man say unto thee, this is sacrificed to Idols, eat it not, so that if it do not manifestly appear that this practice is scandalous; it is not lawful for the people to withdraw themselves.  
3 The book (we speak of the Liturgy so far as it is sound and good) by your confession is no Idolathite, neither was it taken out of the Masse-book in such sense as you object, but rather the mass & other Idolatrous prayers were added to it, for popery is as a scab or leprosy cleaving to the Church, and many truths belonging to the Church as her proper legacy were stolen and heaped together in that den. And why the true man may not challenge his goods where ever he finds them, or the thief plead title to the true man's goods by prescription, we know not? It is no hard task to show that our Service-booke was reform in most things according to the purest Liturgies which were in use in the Church long before the mass was heard of in the world. And if that could not be showed, yet forms of speech generally taken (we speak not of this or that special word or phrase) is no more defiled by Idolatry then the light air, or place where Idolatry is committed. It is not unlawful to pray, Lord help, or Lord have mercy, or to give thanks, praised be God, because the Papists say, Lady help, or, praised be God and the Virgin Mary.  
Fourthly, Put case the Minister in reading such prayers gives offence, or attributes unlawful honour to a thing abused to Idolatry and Superstition, or suffer himself to be sinfully limited in the reading of them, what is that to the faithful? This can be no just ground of the peoples not joining with them in the worship of God, for that offence is personal only, and not the sin of them that be present, they join in prayer only, and not in his reading or limiting himself. Not to say that every particular person must be herein both accuser and Judge. If he give offence must they stumble at the stone, and separate from the ordinance of grace? we should rather think it is their duty to look unto their feet, that they go not awry. Let it be showed out of the Word of God, that either the Minister is guilty of giving unlawful honour, or that the people may lawfully withdraw themselves in case he should do so, and we will then say as you do, but until that be proved, (being pressed and called to proffer our judgements) we believe that separation is scandalous and sinful, never taught of God, nor confirmed by the approved example of the godly in any age 
Compare what ' Master I. D. hath written in defence or excuse in resorting to the Assemb. of the Separatists, called Brownists. Apol. Sect. 5. exam. p. 6●. & Apol. Sect. 28 exam. pag. 246.  or time of the Church: yea, against the positive Law of God, injurious to the Church's distracting Christians, bringing contempt upon the Ordinances of God, and defrauding believers of the spiritual food of their souls, which is indeed to infringe their Christian liberty, and what ever may be thought of it now, in former times it hath been accounted no small offence.  
Fiftly, if this and such like scruples make it unlawful to join in the ordnance of worship, we must hold communion with no society under heaven. For may not the brethren which hold all stinted Liturgies, and set forms unlawful say with like strength of reason, It is unlawful to join in conceived prayer with others, if either they give too little honour to it, as deeming the other lawful, or sinfully limiting, or suffering themselves to be limited to one stinted form, though conceived at first by themselves? And may not the brethren who hold a stinted form lawful in like manner object? It is unlawful to join in prayer with them because they attribute too much honour to conceived prayer, as making their device and method the worship of God? And may not the Brethren which hold it lawful to use some selected prayers according to the forms among us, upon the same grounds condemn communion with both sorts? and all of them one with another, because they either limit themselves too much, or too little? You say in the exposition of the first position, many Preachers constantly use a set form of prayer of their own making before their Sermons, must you not say upon this ground, that it is unlawful to join with them, because they sinfully stint themselves? In probability a Christian may presume, that in the public worship of God, there will be through humane ignorance & infirmity somewhat amiss for matter, or manner, or both, & that upon this ground, he must join with no society in any part of Gods worshipat all.  
The advancing of every small difference to this height, is that which will bring all to confusion, if men walk uniform to their own principles. It is well observed by Master I. Da. that unless men will yield so much favour each to other in some difference of opinions, a dissolving not only of Churches, but of humane societies also must necessarily follow, & not only not two Ministers, but not two men should live together, which were to put off even humanity itself.  
Sixtly, we have credibly heard that you hold fellowship with professed, rigid Separatists without any acknowledgement of their error, and receive them as members, or communicate with them in the privileges of the Church, though you profess you approve not their opinion or practice. And if in godly wisdom, you can see grounds to join with them, we marvel you should be so timorous in this particular.  
Seventhly, if you judge the practice of such godly Ministers, scandalous to them that separate from the ordinance, because it is not administered in this, or that but in a stinted form. It is a scandal taken, and not given; and by forbearing, if to confirm men in error, be to scandalise them, they should offend them the more: yea, they should prejudice the truth, and it might be an occasion to beget needless scruples in others, and draw them ignorantly from the fellowship of the Saints in the holy ordinances of God, and strengthen them who by your own confession, are run too far into Schism already.    

III POSITION. That the children of godly and approved Christians, are not to be baptised until their parents be set members of some particular Congregation  
IV POSITION. That the Parents themselves, though of approved piety, are not to be received to the Lords Supper, until they be admitted as set Members.  

Answ.  
THese two Positions may be maintained with one and the same defence, being somewhat coincident, and therefore we join them as if they were but one. Therefore to prevent all mistakes, it may please you to take notice that we are not of their judgement who refuse all religious communion with such as are not Church Members, nor do we appropriate communion in this privilege of the seals only to the Members of our own Churches, excluding all other Churches of Christ from the same, though they may be through error or humane frailty defective in some matters of order, provided that the liberty of our Churches be preserved, of receiving such satisfaction as is meet (as well by Letters of recommendation, or otherwise if it be requisite) concerning those whom we admit unto fellowship in the seals. For as we account it our duty to keep the unity of spirit inviolate with any, in whom we discern any fruits of the spirit, so we hold ourselves bound to discharge this duty, according to order. Spiritual communion in prayers, holy conferences & other religious actions of like nature we maintain with all godly persons, though they be not in Church order: But Church communion we hold only with Church members admitting to fellowship of the seals the known and approved, & orderly recommended members of any true Church. But into fellowship of the censures, admittance of members and choice of Officers, only the members of that particular Church whereof they and we (any of us) stand members. These things being premised, the considerations whereupon our judgement and practice is swayed for administration of the Seals only to such as are in order of a true visible Church are these that follow.   

Reply.  
What is here premised to prevent all mistakes, doth seem more to raise then to abate scruples if we mistake not your meaning. You refuse not all religious communion with all that are not Church members, and so much they profess, who formerly have gone for, and professed themselves Separatists from our Assemblies. You do not appropriate this privilege of the Seals only to the members of your own Churches, excluding all other Churches of Christ from the same; If your meaning be only this, that you deny not the Sacraments administered in other Churches to be the true Sacraments of Christ for substance, than you ascribe little more to the Churches of Christ in this, then to the Synagogue of Satan, the Church of Rome. For you will not deny Baptism administered among them to be true for substance: If you deny not to have fellowship with them in the Scals, and to admit them to the Sacrament, and to communicate with them: then either your judgement is contrary to your practice, or you exclude the Churches of England from the number of true visible Churches of Christ, which is to destroy what you formerly builded, and here profess. All possible care to keep the Ordinances of God from contempt, we allow and commend, provided you go not beyond the Lords warrant, and deny not the privileges of the Church to them, to whom they are due by divine appointment, nor the name and title of Church to those societies, which God hath plentifully blessed with means of grace, have received the Tables and Seals, and have entered into Covenant with his Highness. Your liberty to receive such satisfaction as is meet, is not called into question, nor whether you are to keep the bond of the Spirit inviolate according to order. But whether this be to keep the bond of the Spirit inviolate (viz) to exclude from the Sacrament true visible believers or known recommended Christians, formerly members of visible Churches among us; and their children; because they are not members (as you speak) in Church Order. And whether God alloweth to put this difference between Church members of your societies & other visible believers walking in holiness, though not admitted members of any society according to your Church order, as to receive the one, though members of another society, unto the Seals, and to debar the other and their children. These are the things to be considered in these present positions. And first we will examine your Reasons for your judgement and practice by themselves, and then so far as we judge meet, try your answers to the objections you make against it.   

1 Consideration.  
THe Seals Baptism & the Lords Supper are given to the Church, as a privilege peculiar thereto in ordinary dispensation. Indeed the preaching of the word is not so, being an ordinance given not only for the edifying of the Church already gathered but also for the gathering of men to the Churches that yet are without: whereas the dispensing of the Seals is God's Ordinance, given only for the edifying of the Church being gathered, and not for the gathering of it: And because there is now, no universal visible Church on earth wherein the Seals are dispensed, there being no place, nor time, nor Officers, nor Ordinances appointed in the New Testament by Christ our Lord, for any such Assemblies as the jews had under Moses.  
It remains that the Christian Churches, whereunto these privileges were given, are congregational, consisting only of so many as may and do meet together ordinarily in one place for the public worshipping of God, and their own edifying.  
Hence it is that we read so much in the New Testament of the Churches in the plural number, the Churches of Christ, the Churches of God, the Churches of the Saints: and not only when they were of divers 
Rome 16 16. 1 Cor. 11 16. & 14 33. Rome 16 4. Gal ● 22. 1 Thess 2 14. 1 Cor 16 19 Gal. ● 2. Act 15 2. & 19 37. & 15. 25 38.  Nations, the Churches of the Gentiles, but also of the same Nation, The Churches of judèa, and not only when that Country was of large extent and circuit, the Churches of Asia, but also of a small part of the Country, The Churches of Galatia: yea, when congregations in several Cities are spoken of, They are called Churches, as the Churches of jerusalem, the Churches at Antioch. To wind up all, seeing the Churches in the Gospel are congregational, and that Baptism and the Lords Supper (being Church privileges) belong only to the Churches, it will follow, that as City privileges belong only to Citizens and their children: so baptism and the Lords Supper being Church privileges, belong only to the members of particular Churches, and their seed. And that seeing sigillum sequitur donum, to apply them to others what is it but to abuse them? As a seal of a corporation is abused if added to confirm the grant of privileges which are peculiar to any Town corporate to one that being no freeman of that corporation is uncapable thereof.   

Reply.  
IF by the Church be understood the Society of men, professing the entire faith of Christ, the seals are given unto it as a peculiar privilege; but if by the Church you understand only a congregational assembly in Church order, the seals were never appropriated to it. But to examine every thing in order as it is propounded.  
1 The Seals, Baptism, and the Lords Supper, are given to the Church as privileges peculiar thereunto, not only in ordinary (as you say) but also in extraordinary dispensation. True baptism is not without the 
Eph. 4. 4, 5.  Church, but within it; an ordinance given to it, and they that are baptised, must needs be of a Church. The Sacraments are the seals of the Covenant to the faithful, which is the form of the Church, and when for substance rightly used, tokens and pledges of our spiritual admittance and entertainment into the Lord's family, and symbols 
Acts. 2. 38. 41. Gen 1. 10. Math. 28. 14 20. Robin's. against Bern. reas. discus. pa. 77.  or testimonies whereby the people of God are distinguished from all other Nations. This is most certain, as in the ordinary; so in the extraordinary dispensation of the Seals, as is confirmed by the Texts of Scripture alleged in the Margin. For the Apostles (as you say) dispensed the seals in an extraordinary way, but the seals dispensed by the Apostles were Seals of the covenant, privileges peculiar to the Church, privileges of spiritual admittance and entertainment into the Lord's family.  
And when you say the dispencing of the Seals is an Ordinance given only for the edifying of the Church being gathered, and not for the gathering of it, must it not be understood in extraordinary, dispensation as well as ordinary: To what pupose then are those words (in ordinary dispensation) added to the proposition? if thereby you would intimate that the Sacraments be not the peculiar privileges of the Church, and Seals of the Covenant in extraordinary dispensation, it is evidently cross to the Text you cite, and to yourselves afterward. If your meaning be, that in ordinary dispensation the Sacraments do of right belong to them only, who be set members of a visible congregation, it is all one with the conclusion, that which is in question and should be proved, and that which this very Scripture doth plentifully disprove '; for they that were baptised were not set members of a particular congregational Church whereunto they were baptised, nor in a Church way before baptism (as is evident and granted by the most of yourselves) but by baptism solemnly admitted into the Church, and then it is not for your purpose; or they were set members (as some of the brethren seem to contend in answer to the objection framed against this consideration) and then the words are more than superfluous. Added, they were to prevent the objection which you foresaw might be made from the Apostles practice and example but so as they cut asunder the sinews of the consideration itself, and make it of no force. For as those beleivers were of the Church: so are approved Christians and their seed among us: therefore the privileges of the seals belong unto them.  
2 And as the seals: so is the word of salvation preached and received a privilege of the Church. If by the preaching of the word you understand nothing but the tender of salvation or the publishing of the will of God, concerning the salvation of man, whether by private or public persons; it is not proper to the Church but an ordinance given for the gathering of men to the Church, and not only for the edifying of the Church. For the Apostles first preached to the Gentiles when Infidels, that they might be converted; And we doubt not but a Minister or private Christian coming into a country of Infidels, may as occasion is offered, and as they shall be enabled, instruct and persuade them to receive the faith of Christ: but if by the preaching of the word be meant the giving of the word to a people, to abide and continue with them, and consequently their receiving of it at least in profession than it is proper to the Church of God.  
The word makes disciples to Christ, and the word given to a people is Gods covenanting with them, and the people's receiving this 
Lev 2. 13. Deut. 29. 12. & 26. 17. 18.  word and professing their faith in God through jesus Christ is the taking of God to be their God. The laws and statutes which God gave to Israel, was the honour and ornament to that Nation, 
Rom. 3. 2 Deut. 4 6. Psa. 247 19 20 Neb. 9 13. Act. 7. 38. Luk. 16. 29. 2 Cor 5 19 & 11. 2. Deut 33. 3. 10. 8. 30  and a testimony that God had separated them from all other people, even the Gentiles themselves being judges. The word of reconciliation is sent and given to the world reconciled in jesus Christ, and they that receive the doctrine, law, or word of God are the Disciples, servants and people of God.  
In your second consideration you intimate that there is a two fold preaching, the one by office and authority, the other in Common charity, or how ever else it may be called. For thus you write. God hath joined to preach (viz by office) and to baptise together, therefore we may not separate them. Now to preach unto, that is to instruct or counsel in charity is a duty which may be performed to an infidel, but to preach by office is proper to them that are called to that office: and so to be taught and instructed by Officers in the 
Robin against Bern P 159.  Church is proper to the Church.  
To have pastors who shall feed with knowledge and understanding is a gift of matrimonial love which God vouchsafeth unto his Church. The Apostles first gathered Churches and then ordained elders 
Act 14 22. 'tis 1 5. Rob: against Bern. Act 11 26. In the same verse the same persons are called the Church disciples, and Christians pag. 106 107. 211 etc. also pag. 51  in every City or Church; so that it is proper to the Church to be fed and guided by true spiritual pastors who teach and bless in the name of the Lord. And if the word preached and received be a certain note of the true Church, they that have intyrely received the word of salvation and have Pastors godly and faithful to feed and guide them, they and their seed have right and interest unto the seals in order.  
Moreover the true worship of God is an inseparable and infallible mark of the true Church of God, for where Christ is, there is his Church. This is the prerogative of the church. The Prince shall be in the midst of them, and he shall go in when they go in, etc. And Christ saith, where 2. or 3. are met together in my name there am I in the midst among them. And for certain 
Ezeck. 46. 10 See Lava●er on Ezek Math 18. 20. jer. 14. 9  they are gathered in the name of Christ that being lawfully called do assemble to worship God and call upon his name in the mediation of jesus Christ. In times past, the Church was acknowledged by the fear of God, and entire Service of his Majesty, by the professing 
jos. 24. 14  of the true faith and faithful calling upon God's name. The signs of Apostolic Churches are these. The continuance in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread and prayer. And if faith, true and 
Rom. 10. 14 Act 2. 42  lively (though mixed with many doubtings and errors) make a man a living member of jesus Christ, the entire profession of true faith joined with holiness of life in some measure answerable thereunto, makes a man a true member of the visible Church. And if the feales belong to the Church in right and orderly dispensation, they that join together in the true worship of God, according to his will, with godly and faithful pastors, they have right and title to the Sacraments according to divine institution.  
Thirdly, that there is now no visible Catholic Church in your sense will easily be granted. i e. there is no universal society consisting of all such as are accounted or to be esteemed Christians, subjected to one or many universal Pastors or guides, wherewithal subordinate's must communicate in some sacred things which may make them one Church and which may and can be performed by that universal and head Church only. Such an universal Christian Church Christ never ordained, no not in the days of the Apostles, to whom all the care of all the Churches, was committed. The Churches planted by the Apostles had all the same substantial laws and customs, the same guides and officers for kind, the same ordinances of worship and means of Salvation: But one flock or Society in the fore mentioned acceptation they were not, because they were but subordinate to one visible head, Christ, with which they were to hold union and communion in some worship to be performed by them all jointly assembled at some special solemnity, nor subjected to the government of any supreme tribunal constantly to be erected and continued among them.  
Nevertheless, in some respects of reason, the visible Church, may be called 
As Christ is that one great Pastor, so hath he generally one fold and flock, john 10. 16. Ezeck. 34 22, 23 which is his Church, as he saith. And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture are men, Ezek 34. 31. Aynsw. Cant 1. 8. Sure it is that he is none of Christ's sheep visibly, or in respect of men which is without Christ's sheepfold, for there is one sheepfold and one shepherd. john 10 16. Robin's against Bern likelihoods, p. 61.  the Church, sheepfold or flock of Christ; for if the whole society or body mystical of Christ be one, this Church militant in like sort is one: the unity of which society consists in that uniformity, which all several persons thereunto belonging, have by reason of that one Lord whose servants they all are, and profess themselves, that one Spirit whereby they are animated as the body by one soul; whereby they believe in Christ, and which they acknowledge and profess, that one Baptism inward and outward, whereby they put on Christ, and are initiated.  
This society is one in the inward fruition and enjoying of the benefits of 
Hieron. tom. 2. Ep. 85. Nec altera Romae urbis Ecclesia, alteratotius orbis existimanda est, & Gallia, & Britannia, & Asia, etc. & omnes barbarae Nationes unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis.  Christ's Death and Resurrection, and in outward profession of those things which supernaturally appertain to the very essence of the Church, and are necessarily required in every Christian, this acceptation of the word is not unusual in Scripture. As God hath set some in the Church. His body's sake which is the Church. The Church viz. whereof Paul was made a Minister, and whereunto the rest of the Apostles were ordained, which was the Catholic visible Church, the society of men professing the faith of Christ throughout the 
1 Cor 12. 28. Col. 1. 21. 1 Cor. 12, 13.  world, divided into many particular Churches whereof some are pure, others impure, some more, others less sound. Hereunto it may be added, that every multitude and society of believers are indefinitely called the Church, I persecuted the Church of God. The house of God which is the Church of the living God. In which sense all the Churches 
1 Cor. 15. 9 Gal. ●. 13. Phil. 3. 6. 1 Tim. 3. 15. 1 Pet. 5. 2.  in the world may truly be called one. And thus the Apostle Peter writing to many dispersed Churches, who could not assemble in one place nor be fed by one Shepherd, speaketh of them singularly as one flock. Feed the flock of God which is among you. But that flock are the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia. Asia, Cappadocia, and Bythinia, which could not possibly join together in the Ordinances of Worship, or make one distinct congregated assembly. 
pastors sunt omnes, sed grex unus qui ab Apostolis omnibus unanimi consensu pascatur. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae.  And if the Catholic Militant Church be one Society, the Seals that are given as a prerogative to the Church are given unto it, and the true Members of the Catholic Church have right and title to them in due order, though they be not admitted into the Church fellowship you speak of.  
For as the flock or society is one: so is the Ministry, Faith, Covenant, and Sacraments, 
Etsi pastores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, Cypr. l. 3. Epistola 13. Cum sit a Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa item Episcopatus unus Episcoporum multorum concordi numero diffusus, etc. Cypr. l. 4. Ep. 7.  which are given as a communion prerogative unto the whole Church, and not appropriated to this or that part ormember, as separated from the whole; which is further evidenced hereby, that sometime it hath, and too often it may fall out, that a Christian may be a true member of the universal visible Church (i. e. he may hold, profess, and maintain that holy Catholic Faith, pure, and undefiled, without which no man can be saved) who for the present is no actual member of any particular or visible society in Church order. As for example, a man may be cut off by Excommunication, from all commerce with the present visible Church wherein he was bred and born, when he is not cut off from the Catholic, Orthodoxal 
john 9 22 35. & 12. 42 & 16. 2. A●●anasius may be for an example.  Church. He may be deprived of participation of the Ordinance in every particular society, when his right and title to them is much better than these who have most injuriously cast him out, or debarred him of the means of salvation.  
The communion of Saints, whether visible or invisible is the effect and property of the Church Catholic, and agreeth to the several parts and members thereof, as they be members of that body under the head, and if particular Churches have communion together it must of necessity be, that they be parts and members of the whole body which is one.  
4. Though there be no universal congregation or assembly nor can be imagined, yet there are and have been many visible assemblies or societies, true Churches of Christ, to whom the Prerogative of the Seals is given, which have not been united and knit together, in Church-order into one congregational body or society, For every society in covenant with God is the true Church of God: for what is it to be the flock, people or sheep of God, but to be the Church of God? And where there is a Covenant, there is the people of God. They that are of the faith of Abraham, are the children and seed of Abraham, 
Gen 17. 7. Leu. 16. 12. Apo. 1 11. 13. Heb. 16. 10.  and within the Covenant of Abraham (though but two or three) and so of the same Church with him by that covenant. The communication and accepting of the tables of the covenant is an undoubted token of a people in covenant or confederate, but every society professing the 
Rob. against Bern. pa. 127. Rom. 4. 12. ●8. Gen. 12. 3. Gal. 26, 7, 3, 15, 16, 17 Rob. against B●r. pa. 2●2.  true and entire faith, joining in prayer and thanksgiving, receiving the truth of God to dwell among them, and in some measure conforming themselves to the obedience of God's Commandments, is in covenant with God. It is simply necessary to the being of a Church that it be laid upon Christ the foundation, which being done, the remaining of what is forbidden, or the want of what is commanded, cannot put the society from the title or right of a Church. For Christ is the foundation and head corner stone of the Church, and a people coming unto Christ, united unto him, built upon him, having communion with him and growing up in him, are the true Church of God: and if the seals be annexed to the covenant by God himself, as we cannot deny a people in covenant to be the Church, so we must not deny their right and title to the Sacraments. If therefore the meaning of the proposition be, that the seals be given to the Church, that is, to true and sound Christians, and people in covenant with God, as a privilege whether in ordinary or extraordinary dispensation we accept it as good and sound, but it makes against your judgement and practice in keeping away such as have right and title to the ordinances. If you mean the seals are given to the Church, that is, only to set members of some particular society combined by covenant (as it is among you) we cannot receive it, because it implieth a distinction not taught in Scripture, and cross to yourselves. And for the thing itself the Scripture hath nothing but many things against it as hath been showed.  
5 If it be granted that the seals are the prerogative of a particular visible Church, known and approved Christians among us, and their seed are members of true and visible Churches, and so to be esteemed among you before they be entered into Church membership as you call it. For every society professing the entire and true faith, and joining together in the right use of the Sacraments in matters substantial is the true Church of God, and every visible 
See Mr. I. D. Apol. 11. Sect. exam p. 117.  believer receiving the word and professing the true entire faith, admitted to the right and lawful participation of the Sacraments is a visible member of the true Church, if he have neither renounced that society, nor deserved justly to be cast out by excommunication or Church censure. For the entire profession of the truth, the dwelling of the truth among men, the right use of the Sacraments (which is ever joined with truth of Doctrine, and to be esteemed by it) is proper to them that be in covenant with God, And they that truly partake of the Seals must needs be of a Church, for the seals are not without but within the Church an ordinance given unto it, and if they be true members of the true Churches of Jesus Christ, other Churches, are bound to hold communion with them in the ordinance of worship as divine providence shall minister occasion.  
In answer to the ninth position you say the members of other Churches, well known and approved by virtue of communion which Churches, do mutually and with good acceptance communicate each of them at others Churches, even so often as God's providence leads them thereunto, and themselves desire it. In your preface to this consideration, you say you admit to fellowship of the seals, the known, approved, and orderly recommended members of any true Church, and if known and approved Christians, members of our Churches coming over into New England, shall desire either to have their children baptised, or to be admitted themselves to the Lords Supper before they be set members of any society these, we desire to know upon what grounds from God you can deny them, if you acknowledge our Churches, Ministry, and Sacraments, to be true and of God (as you profess) and the members of the Church be known and approved, orderly recommended unto you.  
It is the privilege of Christians baptised themselves, and walking in the faith, that their children should have right to baptism in all true Churches in the world. It is the privilege of Christians lawfully and justly admitted to the Lords Supper in one visible Church, and walking in covenant with God, that they have right to this privilege in all Churches professing their entire faith, and you must show just and sound reasons from God of your judgement and practice in debarring their seed from baptism, and parents themselves from the Supper, or else (to use the words of a reverend Elder among you, in a case of less importance, and not concerning so many) you will be found guilty of 
I. D. Apol. 5. Sect. exem. pag. 61, & 18.  adding to the words, and making eleven Commandments, and setting up humane customs, and selfewill against God's appointment. For the Sacraments are given to the Church as a privilege peculiar thereunto, but you deny this privilege to the true visible members of the Church, (as yourselves confess.) For if the Ministers be the Ministers of Christ, and their congregations the Churches of Christ, then known and approved Christians are members of the Church. In your opinion the members of the Jewish Church might be received unto baptism, upon confession of the Christian faith, before they were entered into Church fellowship, and it is more than strange to us that you should not think the true visible members of the Churches of Christ to have as much title and interest to the Seals, as the members of the Jewish Church to the Sacrament of Baptism.  
6 The distinct Churches mentioned in the New Testament, it is not certain that they were congregational societies consisting only of so many as might and did meet together ordinarily in one place at one time for the public worship of God, and their own edification, and if this were granted it would not carry the weight that was laid upon it, But because it may make way for the clearing of some other points pertaining to discipline and Church orders, we entreat leave to set down, and desire you to examine what may be objected against it. We will not insist upon this that the least circuit wherein there is mention of Churches is ample enough to contain some dioceses and the least City, populous enough to make many numbersome congregations. Nor upon this, that to 
Bucer. diss. ep 3 pa 43 & ep 48. pa. 226.  meet at one time and one place, as one assembly is a thing merely accidentary to the unity of the Church and society Ecclesiastical which is still one, when they are dispersed asunder, and no particular man of that society at first remaining now alive. The number of believers was so great in some Cities as they could not conveniently meet in one place as one assembly to worship the Lord according to his will and for their edifying. That there was a Church gathered in the City of Samaria by the ministry of Philip will not be denied, for they received the word and were baptised, but that the Church in that City was only a congregational assembly is more than can probably be concluded out of Scripture. For the whole City or the greatest part could not ordinarily assemble in one place to their edification: But the whole City of Samaria, in a manner, (as it is probable) embraced the faith. 
Act. 8. 6. & 15 4. Act 8. 12. 14. & 18. 12.  As the whole City from the least to the greatest had given heed to Simon Magus before, so to Philip now when he preached Christ, And the Text saith expressly that Samaria received the Gospel.  
The Christian Church at jerusalem was one and distinct, but it 
Acts 2. 41. & 4. 4. & 5 14. & 6. 1. & 6. 7  grew and increased first to 3000. then to 5000. afterwards multitudes of men and women were added, and the multitude of Disciples increased; it is also noted that a company of the Priests received the faith. The Syriac hath it of the Jews, (scil.) inhabiting Judea, but the Greek, Arabian, vulgar, Chrisostoms & Ethiopians approve the former, and the number of the Priests was not small: there is mention also of millions of believers. And when all the Apostles, or the greatest part of them remained at 
Ezra. 2. 36, 37, 38. Act. 6. 2 & 81. 15. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23 & 16. 4. & 21 18. 28.  Jerusalem for a time continuing in the ministry of the word and prayer, and that they might do it the more earnestly and diligently, left the care of the poor to others: how can we think but that Church did grow exceedingly, and the number of believers there to be more than could fitly meet ordinarily in one congregation. Without question the number of believers in Antioch was not small, of which it is said expressly, that a great number believed, turned to the Lord and that a great multitude was added to the Lord by the preaching of Barnabas, and that Paul and Barnabas continued there one whole year preaching the word of 
Act 11. 21.  God, and teaching the multitude, so that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antiach. After that this Church was visited by Paul 
Act. 11 24 26  and Barnabas, who continued there teaching and preaching the Word of God with many others also, and may we not think 
Act. 13 12 et 14. 27. et 15. 30 34, 35.  that this Church did quickly rise to such bigness that they could not well assemble in one congregation as now we call them?  
It will easily be credited that the number of believers was not small at Ephesus, if we call to mind that when Paul had been there but two years, all they that dwelled in Asia had heard the word of the Lord both jews and 
Acts 19 10. & 16. 9 & 29. 27. Acts 19 19  Grecians, that a great door and effectual was opened to him at Ephesus, That the art for making Shrines, and Diana's Temple was in danger to be set at nought, and that those that had used curious arts, came and burnt their books in the sight of all men, which could not be done without great danger unto the Church, unless a great part of the City had believed. Where a Church did comprehend a City with its Suburbs and the Country circumjacent, i. e. the believers who professed the faith within that circuit. It might well be that the number did so increase through the extraordinary blessing of God, which accompanied the preaching of the word in those primitive times, and first planting of the heavenly Kingdom, that they could not well meet ordinarily in one place, and yet continued one Society. For when a number is gathered in small Villages, or some added to the number already gathered, it is not meet they should be neglected because small, nor divided from the body, because the number not competent to make an entire and perfect body of itself. The increase of the Churches doth require an increase of Elders, and (if they grow to bigness more than ordinary) an increase of places for their assembling, when the essence of the visible Church is not changed, nor one multiplied or divided into many. And it is more available for the good of the Church, and further removed from all ambition, if the Society shall assemble occasionally in divers places as parts and members of the body, then to constitute a distinct free Society consisting of a few Believers, not fit to make up an entire body contrary to the precedent examples of the Apostles. In times of grievous and hot persecution the Churches of God could not assemble in any great number in public places, but have been compelled to meet in Woods, Caves, Dens, and dark corners, as the Lord hath offered opportunity, one and the same Society in sundry places: So that either it is not essential to the Church to meet together in one place ordinarily, or their Society is broken off by persecution, when their meeting together in one place is interrupted. It is said by some where the Church grew greater, sometimes by the sudden and extraordinary conversion of more than could well so assemble, than was there presently a dispersion 
Robinson against Bern p. 196.  of the former, and a multiplication of more particular Assemblies. But in the Scriptures quoted no such thing doth appear, but rather the contrary as hath been proved. In aftertimes when the Church was within the Cities as of Rome, Ephesus, Alexandria, Carthage, 
Euseb h●st l. ● c. 35 ●at 43. G●ae● 33. Raff.  jerusalem, etc. the number of Believers did greatly exceed the bigness of a convenient and fitting assembly which might ordinarily congregate in one place to worship God according to his appointment when the Church was but one.  
Seventhly Seeing then both the Seals in ordinary and in extraordinary dispensation belong to the Church, id est, to the faithful, and repentant, taught made Disciples, who have received the word, believe, and profess the faith, have received the holy Ghost, and walk in obedience, who are members of other visible Churches, or to be made members of a visible Church for the time being, by admittance unto the Sacraments, and not unto set members of congregational assemblies only. And seeing the godly and faithful Ministers among us are the true Ministers of Christ, and their godly congregations, true Churches, and known, and approved Christians, true members of visible Churches formerly baptised, and admitted to the Lords Supper. This consideration is of no weight to justify your opinion and practice in debarring known and approved Christians, professing the faith, members of the true visible Churches amongst us from the Lords Supper, or their seed from Baptism, because they be not yet received as set members of some particular congregation amongst you: And if such Believers are not to be received to the Seals, we desire you to consider if ever the Sacraments of the New Testament, were rightly dispensed in the Church of the New Testament from the first Plantation thereof unto this day.  
The Seal doth follow the grant, and as the Seal is profaned, if it be put to a false grant or Charter, so are the faithful wronged if the Seal in a lawful way desired, be denied to them that have received the grant, i. e. have right unto Jesus Christ, and communion with him. But the faithful 
1 hit de Sacra contr de bapt. qu 2 & 3 pag 237, 238. A●●ers. of the Sacr: l. 2 c 6 fol. 211.  who have received the word with gladness, believe, and profess, be members known and approved by other visible Churches, or such as desire to be admitted members of that visible Society for the time by communicating in the ordinance, are already partakers of the grant or charter, have right and interest in Christ, may lawfully desire the Seals, and may be admitted as members for the time being of that particular Society. Therefore to debar such, from the Lords Supper, and their seed from Baptism, is against the Law of nature, and the positive Law of God, an injury to the faithful and their seed, a wrong to the Catholic visible Church, that particular society, and the Pastors themselves that so debar them. They sinned grievously who deferred Baptism to the end of their life, and the negligence of Pastors and Teachers who did not instruct the ignorant and reprove the superstitious, was great. And is not the severity in debarring such as 
〈◊〉 de P●es●y●. pag. 79.  crave and desire to be admitted to the Seals an injury to be reprehended?  
Answ. 2 Consider the ordinary administration of the Seals is limited to the ministry and the ministry to a particular Church; therefore the seals also must necessarily be proper to the Church and to the members thereof.  
1. That the administration of the seals is limited to their Ministry is evident from the first institution Math. 28. 19 where God hath joined (to preach) viz. by office, and (to baptise) together, therefore we may not separate them. For howsoever: any man may by the appointment of the Lord and Master of the family, signify his mind and deliver his message from him to the family, yet the dispensing of a fit portion of food to every one of the household is a branch of the steward's office. Indeed the keys are given to the whole Church yet the exercise and dispensation of them in this as well as in other particulars is concredited to the Ministers who are called to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Cor. 4. 1. And no Church office can be orderly performed by any, but one that is called thereunto nor will God vouchsafe his presence, and blessing (wherupon all spiritual efficacy depends) in an ordinance dispensed, but when it is dispensed by those whom he hath ordained and appointed thereunto.  
2. That the ministry is limited to the Church appears as from evident texts of Scripture: so also upon this ground. 1 The office is founded in the relation between the Church and the officer, wherefore 
Act. 14 ●3 Col. 4. 17 1 Pet 5. 2 Act 20. 28  take away the relation, and the office and the work ceaseth.  
For where he hath not power, he may not do an act of power, and he hath no powerwhere he hath not a relation by office. Herein the proportion holdeth between an officer of a town corporate, and of a Church that as the power of the former is only within his own corporation: so the power of the latter is confined to his own congregation.   

Reply.  
THe proposition is granted that the dispensation of the Sacraments in the New Testament both ordinary and extraordinary is limited to the Ministry. But in that you allege for confirmation, somethings may be noted.  
1 The first institution of Baptism is not contained in that passage Math. 28. 19 but confirmed; For the seals of the New Testament were instituted by Christ before his death, and his disciples had baptised many which they could not do before the institution of the Sacrament. Secondly we see not how you can 
joh. 4. 2. & 23 23.  apply that text to Preaching by office, which according to our exposition must be a dispensing of a fit portion of food to every one of the household. For it is plain the Apostles were sent forth to preach to every Creature or unto the world, to convert men unto God, to make them disciples 
Mark. 9 15.  and not to preach unto disciples only, or members of the household. 
Act 17 22 23 32. & 19 8. 9  The Apostles certainly had authority, and preached by authority, but they preached not to Infidels and Heathens, as to disciples or 
Rob. against ●ern. p 151 these Keys in d. etc.  members of the Church, much less did they give a portion to them as to the household which is the preaching by office, which you acknowledge. Thirdly if under the power of the keys you comprehend preaching by office, dispensing the seals, casting out, and receiving again into the bosom of the Church we deny the power of the keys to belong to the Church or community of the faithful: we cannot find in Scripture that Christ ever granted such power to the faithful, as faithful joined together in Covenant in those passages which speak of this power, the execution of this authority is given to them to whom the authority is committed. 
In the Corporation (the Church) there is always the whole power of Christ to residing, which you may call officers for the use of itself, to which it is sufficient that it can without officers use this power for things simply necessary; as for receiving in of members by profession of faith and confession of sins, for edifying of them by exhortation and comforts in the ordinance of prophesying, and so for excommunication. Rob. against B. pag. 224.   
If the power of the keys be given to the whole Church the Apostles themselves must derive their authority immediately from the Church, and not from Christ, for the power must be derived from them, unto whom it was given; but their power, and authority was not from the Church, but from Christ immediately. And if the dispensation, and exercise of the keys, be concredited to the Ministers; Doth it hold in all things or only in the dispensation of the Sacraments, and preaching by office? Do they dispense the seals as the Stewards of Christ, from whom they receive their authority immediately or as the servants of the Church, from which they derive their authority? If in the first sense; the power of the keys is not in the community of the faithful. If in the second, the office of a Minister is not the immediate gift of Christ, nor the Minister, so much the servant of Christ, as of the Church, from whom he must receive laws, in whose name he must do his office, and to whom he must give an account. We could wish you had explained in what sense, you hold the dispensation, and execution of the power of the keys is concredited to the Ministers, and by whom. For if the community of the faithful have to do in all matters concerning the body, to 
See Rob. against Ber. pag. 130. 131. 132. If you call it consultation in an assembly wherein all have equal power and voice in determining things some one going before the rest Idem pag 202  admit members, and cast them out, to make and depose Ministers, to bind and lose by authority derived from Christ, we cannot see how in your judgement the dispensation, and execution of the power of the keys is concredited to the Ministers.  
Fourthly That which you add, that God will not vouchsafe his presence and blessing to an ordinance but when it is dispensed by those, whom he hath ordained and appointed thereunto, must be warily understood, or it may occasion errors and distractions not a few, You know what corruptions soon entered into the Church of God, both in respect of Doctrine, Worship, Offices, and entrance thereunto, and how ready and apt is the conclusion from your words, That 
Robin's against Bern. Coun. debated, p 32. ibid. p. 79.  Christ hath not vouchsafed his presence, and blessing in his Ordinances to his Church? But of this before.  
And on the contrary, seeing God hath vouchsafed his blessing in his Ordinances dispensed by yourselves, when you stood as visible Ministers in the congregation, and Churches of old England, you must confess, did approve both your stand and his Ordinances dispensed by you.  
Secondly, as for the Assumption, that Pastors and Teachers are limited to a particular charge or society; but that flock is not ever one congregational assembly meeting in one place, neither the band so straight, whereby they are tied to that one society, that they may not upon occasion perform some Ministerial Act or Office in another congregation, or to them that be not set members of their proper assembly. For first to dispense the Seals of the covenant is a ministerial act, an act of Office, and not an exercise of gifts only: But the Pastors of one Assembly may dispense the Sacrament to the set members of another society upon occasion, as you confess in this and in your answer to the ninth position.  
And if the members of one Church may lawfully upon occasion receive the Sacrament of the Supper in another society from the Pastor thereof, then may the Pastor of one congregation perform a Ministerial act to the members of another, and if to the members of another then in another congregation with consent, and upon occasion.  
Secondly, As the Ministers are exhorted to feed their fleek: so is every Christian and Minister to try and examine himself whether he be in the faith, but you will not allow this conclusion. I must examine myself. Ergo 
1 Cor. 11 28. 2 Cor. 23. 5.  no man is debarred from the Sacrament for his unworthiness, or to be tried or examined by others, to be observed, admonished, and brought to repentance for notorious sin. No more can it be rightly gathered from the former passages of Scripture, that the Minister is not upon occasion to perform 
Beza de Presbyt. & Excom. pag. 32 Robins against Bern. pag. 252.  any Ministerial act to any other people or society, because ordinarily he is to attend his own flock.  
Thirdly, As the Ministers have peculiar relation to their particular flocks, so the people unto their particular Ministers, unto whom they are tied in special manner, as to their Overseers, who must give account for theirsculs. And if this peculiar relation betwixt the people & the Minister doth not hinder the people from receiving the Lords Supper at the hands of another Minister; nor the minister from performing the Ministerial act to the members of another congregation. Neither doth his peculiar Relation to his own flock hinder him, from administering unto others upon just occasion being entreated thereunto. As the combining of the people to their peculiar Minister, doth not quite cut off their communion with other Ministers: so neither doth the restraining of a Minister to a peculiar flock quite cut him off from administering upon occasion: unto another people. Paul appointeth the Ephesian Elders unto the care & charge only of their own particular flock, but so to attend them 
Acts 20 28 The Word of God and Canons of Counsels will have Pastors so to care for their own flock, that they forbid them not to care for the whole Church, especially in a time of common combustion. The answer of some Brethren, pag 12. Publica Dei invocatio non minima pars communis in unâ fide consensionis. Beza contra Erastum, de Presbyt pap. 13.  ordinarily according to the rules of the Scripture; that as occasion was offered, might perform some Ministerial acts in another congregation. The taking heed unto their flocks which Paul requires in this place doth comprehend under it the administration of the Word, Prayer, and Sacrament, and if it must be restrained to their own particular Churches only, it is unlawful for a Pastor to preach or call upon the name of God in any public Assembly save his own, upon any occasion, as these be duties prtaining to common confession or profession of faith. Ordinary Pastors and Teachers it is true, are not Apostles, who are to go from place to place, from Country to Country, to plant and erect Churches, but they are tied ordinarily to one flock, as the Text proveth, and to which purpose it is commonly cited. But that a Pastor is so tied to his flock, that he can perform no ministerial act to any other upon any occasion that it proveth not, nor can we find that it was ever so understood by Divines ancient or modern. W. B. telleth us, the learned bring these allegations 
Euseb. Hist 5. c. 26. Graec. Cham●●● Panst. Tom 2. l. 10. c. 8. Sect. 16. The Church's Plea, pag 44. Ap●l pag. 117 & 298.  to this purpose. But the author in alleging the consent of the learned was very careless or much abused, for there is not one that speaketh to the purpose. I. D. disclaimeth that position; and for the rest it is a matter notorious, they were never thought to be of that opinion; and we doubt not if any could be named to free this allegation from suspicion of Novelty, you would have cited one or more as you have done in that which followeth.  
Feed the flock of God (saith Peter.) But he speaks of all those dispersed Churches to whom he writes, which he calls a chosen Generation, a Royal Priesthood, a peculiar people: And in some respect of reason, under which we may apprehend them, are one flock, but not really as combined under the same Pastor, or meeting in one place. And as these dispersed believers, or socieities make one Flock: so the Ministers attending their flocks or societies, and the Ministry exercised by them is, or maketh one.  
4 A Minister chosen and set over one society, is to look unto his people committed to his charge, and feed the flock over which the Lord hath made him overseer, but he is a Minister in the Church Universal, for as 
Orig. in Isa. Hom. 6. Qui vocatur ad Episcopatum, vocatur ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae. Chrysoft. in 2 Cor. hom. 18. Vniversae curam gerimus. See Cham Panstr. Tom. 2. pag. 10. cap. 12. Sect. 8, 9, 10. etc. Jun. Animadv. in Bellar. contro. 5. lib. 1. c. 3. not. 3. & cap. 7 not. 7.  the Church is one, so is the Ministry one, of which every Minister (sound or Orthodox) doth hold his part, and though he be Minister over that flock only which he is to attend, yet he is a Minister in the universal Church. The function or power of exercising that Function in the abstract, must be distinguished from the power of exercising it, concretely, according to the divers circumstances of places. The first belongeth to a Minister every where in the Church, the latter is proper to the place and people where hedoth minister. The lawful use of his power is limited to that congregation ordinarily. The power itself is not so limited and bounded. In Ordination, Presbyters are not restrained to one or other certain place, as if they were to be deemed Ministers there only, though they be set over a certain people. And as the faithful in respect of a community betwixt them, must and aught to perform the Offices of love one to another, though of different societies, so the Ministers in respect of their communion, must and aught upon occasion to perform ministerial Offices towards the faithful of distinct societies.  
5 If this be not so, what shall become of the poor flock when the Pastor is driven away by personal persecution, so that he cannot, if others may not afford them help and succour: what when the congregation itself is dispersed, must no shepherd receive them into fold, when they are driven from their own, or neglected by him?  
6 If the Pastor may be absent from his flock upon necessary, just, and weighty occasion, respecting his own good, the good of that society, or the common good of Churches consociate, then may the Pastor, the society, the Churches procure some man to supply the defect, and do the office of a Pastor, preach the Word, pray, and as occasion is offered, administer the Sacrament in that Congregation unto that Assembly until their Shepherd shall return. Shall the people be left as sheep without a shepherd; because for the good of the Churches their own shepherd is called from them for a time, that he might return with greater joy and comfort?  
The Pastor is appointed to feed his own flock, and yet for the good of the whole Church he may be called to leave, if not the care, yet the oversight of his flock for a while; and by the same reason a pastor of another flock or congregation may perform the office, and do the acts of a Minister in his congregation during absence: Yea if for the good of the Churches he be called away, do not the Churches stand obliged in conscience to provide that the flock sustain no hurt by his absence which possibly ye cannot do if one Minister may not perform a Ministerial act in another Congregation.  
7 If the Prophets of one Church may prophecy in another, and apply their doctrines, exhortations and prayers to any of the occasions of the Churches where they speak, whereof they are not set members, 
Act. 13. 15.  what hinders why the Pastor of one congregation, may not preach and pray, administer the Sacraments in another? The pastor of one congregation is appointed to his peculiar charge but he is a Minister in the universal Church, as well as the Prophets of one Church may be called Prophets of the universal Church by virtue of that Communion which all true Churches have one with another. Without consent the Prophet may not prophesy by exhortation, and with consent the Pastor may administer the Sacraments.  
8 In the Primitive Churches when Elders were ordained in every City, they were not only to look to their flock but endeavour the conversion of poor Infidels among whom they lived, and the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom, for the work of the Lord must be done in its season, and 
Rom. 16 3. 12. Phil. 2. 15, 16. & 4. 2.  then was the time of the calling of the Gentiles:  
It was not their office proper and essential to travail from Country to Country as did the Apostles, nor were they pastors of the Infidels, but by private instruction and public teaching (if any of them would be penitent) they were to 
●am 5. 19, 20. Act. 4. 26. 40 & 9 38. & 10. 5. & 11. 19 21 1 Cor. 14. 23, 24. Esay 2. 3. Ezr. 8. 23. 10. 1. 41. 45. & 42. 9 & 12. 20. Revel. 3. 9  labour the coming of them to God. And these Infidels converted to the saith were to be baptised of the Elders ordinarily in those Cities, though the number might be so great as they could not well meet in one Congregation, nor be subject to the same Pastor; for either they must be baptised by the pastors among whom they lived, (being converted to the faith) or continue unbaptised until they were a number convenient to make a distinct society, or grow together into one body, and to elect and choose their own Minister by whom they may be baptised: But that either they must stay so long without baptism, or that a society of unbaptised men had power in those times to elect and choose their Minister, by whom they should be baptised is contrary to all precedents in Scripture.  
9 And so if a Pastor may not perform a ministerial act to any other person or people but his own flock only, than a company newly converted from infidelity, which cannot join themselves as set members to another assembly, must remain unbaptised till they have chosen their Minister to do that office. Then must the people thus converted want officers till there be among themselves able men to pray, preach, exhort in the congregation at the ordination of their Minister, or (if that may be omitted) till there be fit men among them to examine the fitness of him that is chosen.  
10 If subtle Heretics arise, and seduce, and draw away many from the faith, and the body of the society be not able to convince them, either they must be let alone or cast out without conviction, for neighbouring Ministers stand in peculiar relation to their flocks only, and must not meddle beyond their calling according to your tenant.  
11 There is no precept or example in 
What example have you but grounds for the baptising of infants? or where read you of any officer excommunicated by any Rob. against Ber. p. 214. we may not expect examples of any Pastors in scriptures: who did thus. I. D. Apol. 9 Sect. exam p. 1●3.  Scripture more to warrant the admitting of a set member of one congregation unto the Supper in another, or the baptising of his child, occasionally in another assembly then there is for receiving of known and approved Christians and their seed that are not set members. The Pastor is no more the pastor of the one then of the other, nor the one more of his flock then the other, neither of them set members, and both sorts may be members for the time being, and they most properly who are of longest abode among them. But as we hear it 
See I. D. Apol. texts. exam pa. 288.  is frequent among you (as at Dorchester, etc.) to baptise the children of another Assembly, and usually you admit to the Supper of the Lord, members of other Churches, and therefore the Minister is not so limited to his particular Church or flock but he may dispense the seals to others, which in this consideration is denied.  
12 If the want of one Officer in a Congregation for a time may be supplied by another, as the want of the Doctor, Ruling Elder, or Deacon, by the Pastor; why may not the defects of some Congregation or Christians be supplied by Pastors or Ministers of another Congregation, when they are requested and desired? the mind herein is godly, and the means lawful, and well pleasing unto God.  
13 And if a Synod consisting of sundry members of particular Churches, met together in the name of Christ about the common and public affairs of the Churches shall join together in prayer and communion of the Supper, we can see no ground to question it as unlawful, although that Assembly be no particular Congregation or Church, hath no Pastor over them, make not one Ecclesiastical body as a particular congregational Church, unless it be for the time only. The Minister therefore may do an act of office to them that be not set members of his flock as he may stand in Relation to them for the time.  
14 Your comparison betwixt an Officer of a Town Corporate, and of a particular Congregation is not alike, unless you will say that a member of another Corporation occasionally coming into the Town, is thereby a member of that Society, and subject to the authority of the Officer. For so you profess that the members of one Society may occasionally communicate with another, and so be subject to the Pastor for the time being, which if you grant, it overthrows the whole strength of this consideration. Howsoever the comparison itself is very perilous if it be pressed. For if the Officer of a Town Corporate, presume to do an act of power out of his own Corporation, it is a mere nullity, but if a Minister of the Gospel dispense the Sacrament of Baptism, or the Lord's Supper to believers of another Society (though done without consent) it was never deemed or judged a nullity in the Church of God. Let the comparison hold good, and most Christians have cause to question whether they be truly baptised, or ever lawfully received the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. If it may not be doubted, whether ever the Sacraments of the New Testament were truly or by authority dispensed, especially if we consider what follows in the other considerations. This Argument from comparison is very usual in the Writings of Brethren against communion with our Churches, but for the most part greatly mistaken, to say no more.   

Answer 3 Consideration.  
CIrcumcision and the Passoever were to be administered only to the members of the Church. Ergo, Baptism and the Lords Supper is so to be administered also. The consequence is made good by the parity of these Ordinances. For if the Argument hold strong for the proof of Paedobaptism which is taken from the circumcision of Infants, why may we not as well infer a necessity of Church membership to Baptism, from the necessity of it to circumcision. And that Circumcision was peculiar to the Church members of the Church, may appear in that persons circumcised, & only they, might eat the Passeover, and they only might enter into the Temple, which were the privileges of Church members. In our 
Exod 1248. Exod. 447.  answer to the second Objection against the first consideration we have showed that Circumcision was not administered to all that were under the Covenant of Grace (which all believers were) but only such of them as joined themselves to the Church, at first in Abraham's family, whereunto Baptism doth so far answer that the Apostle counteth these express equivalent to be circumcised in Christ with circumcision made without 
Col 2. 11, 12.  hands, and to be buried with Christ in Baptism. Indeed, in somethings they differ as only the Males were circumcised, whereas with us Females are also baptised. The Reason is because God hath limited Circumcision to the Males, but under the Gospel that difference is taken away. Again, Circumcision was administered in the private family; but Baptism, only in the public Assemblies of the Church. The Reason of this difference is, because they were bound to circumcise the Males on the eighth day, but that could not stand with going to the Temple which was too far off, for the purpose, to bring every child thither from all parts of Judaea to be Circumcised the eighth day. Nor had they always opportunity of a solemn convention in the Synagogue on every eighth day; when some child or other might be to be circumcised. But there is no precise day set down so Baptism, nor are opportunities of public Assemblies so remote where Churches are kept in a congregational frame, but that every first day of the week Baptism may be administered if it be required. Again, for the Aforesaid Reason, Circumcision required not a peculiar Minister (for aught we find in Scripture) but it is not 〈◊〉 in Baptism, as was showed in the second Consideration. But no good Reason can be given, why, in this they should not both agree, viz. that they are both to be dispensed only to members of the visible Church, as it hath been proved in the first Consideration.   

Reply.  
THis whole Reason as it is propounded makes only against itself; who eve● thought that the Seals of the Covenant were not proper to confederates or th● Church of God? But of old all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace walking in holiness, were of the visible Church, and in Church Order according to the dispensation of those times, though not joined in external society with the Family of Abraham. And to exclude Melchisedeck or job, because they were n●● members of the visible Church, when yet they were visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace, and in Church Order as those times required, is well-nigh a contradiction, And so it is to debar known and approved Christians members of ou● Congregation, and their seed from the Seals, because they be not of the visible Church, for they are members of the Church, and so to be held and esteemed all true Churches and members of the Church, The true & proper meaning of this Consideration, is that as Circumcision and the Passeover were not to be dispensed to all visible Believers under the Covenant of Grace, but only to such as were joined to Abraham's Family, or to the people of the God of Abraham, no more may Baptism and the Lords Supper be administered to any Believers now, unless they be joined to some particular Congregation in Church Membership, or unless by solemn Covenant, they be set members of some particular Assemblies.  
The strength of this Consideration stands in the parity which is betwixt the Sacraments of the Old 
Erast so objects against Bern. Sicut a Circumcisione ad Baptismum argumentamur ut probemus infantes esse baptizandos, ita etiam licet ab agno Paschatis ad Coenam Domini, etc. whereto he truly replieth. Ego vero, non negolicere etc. at non temere & universaliter. Beza contra Erast. pag. 23.  and New Testament, Circumcision and Baptism, for parum par est ratio, but this parity is not found in every thing (as is manifest by the particulars alleged in the Consideration itself.) And we must justly require some reason to prove them like in that particular, but to unfold it more fully, we will consider three things. First, how far an argument may be drawn sound from one Sacrament to another, or wherein the Sacraments agree, and wherein they differ. Secondly, What we are to think of the proposition itself. Thirdly, whether the Reason of Circumcision and Baptism be one in that particular.  
First the Sacraments of the old Testament and the new agree in their Common author, nature and end, and therefore what is spoken of one in respect of the common author, nature and end that doth hold true of every one. If Circumcision be of divine institution a seal of the Righteousness of faith, and of the Covenant of grace, a Sacrament in general is an ordinance divine, a seal of the Covenant pro●er and peculiar to them that be confederates. But what is peculiar to one Sacrament that agreeth not to another. What is proper to the sacraments of the old Testament, in respect of the manner of dispensation that agreeth not to the new, as if ●he Sacraments of the old Testament be with blood, obscure in signification, painful ●or use, peculiar to one Nation, and to be abolished, the Sacraments of the new Testament must be without blood, clear for signification, easy for use, universal ●o all Nations, and perpetual to continue in the Church for ever.  
Circumcision and Baptism are both Sacraments of divine institution, and so they ●gree in the substance of the things signified, the persons to whom they are to be administered, and the order of administration, if the right proportion be observed. ●s circumcision sealed the entrance into the covenant the righteousness of faith, and circumcision of the heart: so doth Baptism much more clearly: As Abraham and ●is household, and the infants of believing jews were to be circumcised, so the faithful, ●heir families, and their seed are to be baptised. None must eat the passover who was not circumcised, women excepted, who were circumcised in the males. Nor may a man unbaptised be admitted to the Lords supper. Circumcision was but once applied by God's appointment and the same holds in baptism according to ●he will and good pleasure of God: But circumcision and baptism agree not in ●heir special form, and manner of dispensation appointed of God. And in these ●hings a reason cannot be drawn from the one to the other affirmatively. The males only were to be circumcised as only capable of that sign: but males and females both aught to be baptised. The infant's males were to be circumcised the eighth day because seven days they were legally unclean. 
●ev. 12. 23. & 22. 7 Exo. 22. 30,  But the seed of the faithful are not to be reputed unclean. Ergo, no set time is appointed for baptism. Circumcision as other Ceremonies did distinguish the jews from the Gentiles; but Christ now of two hath made one. Circumcision signified Christ to come, Baptism is the seal of 
Eph. 215.  ●he New covenant made in Christ already come. And so in the degree of grace given, some difference may be put: The other differences alleged in the considerations with the reasons thereof are not so clear and undoubted: for Baptism is not tied to the first day of the week: and the Jews might gather an Assembly on ●he eighth day as occasion required, and it might be appropriated to the Priests and Levites though done in private: But in whatsoever they agree or differ we must ●ooke to the institution and neither stretch it wider, nor draw it narrower than the Lord hath made it. For he is the Institutor of the Sacraments according to his own good pleasure. And it is our part to learn of him, both to whom, how, and for what end the Sacraments are to be administered, how they agree, and wherein they differ. In all which we must affirm nothing but what God hath taught us, and as he hath taught us.  
Secondly, as for the Proposition itself; certain it is, Circumcision and the Passeover were to be administered only to the visible members of the Church, i e. to men in Covenant, professing the true faith; But that in Abraham's time none were visible members of the Church, which joined not themselves in Church orders to the family of Abraham, we have not learned. In the first Institution of Circumcision, we find that God gave it to Abraham, as the Seal of the Covenant formerly made with him: But of any Church covenant or order whereunto Abraham's family should enter before Circumcision we read not. Melchizedeck, Lot, job, etc. were not only visible Believers under the Covenant of grace, but visible members of the Church, according to the order and dispensation of those times. We read not (you say) that Melchizedeck, Lot or job were circumcised, but that is no good reason to infer negatively that they were not Circumcised. We read not that john the Baptist, or the Apostles, or the 500 brethren were Baptised, we must not forthwith 
Etiam si daremus nullam legi ab Apostolis excommunicationem non tamen sequeretur ita esse, quum satis constet non omnium singularia Apostolorum gesta perscripta fuisse. Bez. de Presb. p. 7. Et si de Melchizedeck & jobo quae huc adferuntur non sunt extra controversiam. Nam foedere cum Abra. inito non excluduntur ij qui ante erant in foedere sed accensentur foederi. Ita autem se habuit Melchizedeck, etc. omnino enim consors promissionis divine fuit ante foedus cum eo initum. Gen. 17. Job vero & credens fuit promissionibus foederis & de sententia veterum fuit circumcisus etiam haereditarià circumcisione a paterno maternaque sanguine. Vt elegantèr scribit author libri de verà Circumcisione qui Hieron. ad scribitur. jun. anim adv. in Bellar. contrav. 4. lib. 3. cha. 16. not. 13.  conclude, that they were not initiated by that seal. Moreover, if they were not Circumcised, it may be the Institution of that Sacrament was not known unto them, or the Author of Circumcision (upon whose will and pleasure they must depend) did not command it unto them, or require that they should join themselves in Covenant with Abraham's family: and in that case if they had Circumcised themselves they had transgressed. But then the reason why they were not circumcised was not this, that they were not (as you speak) in Church order: but because Circumcision was appropriated to Abraham's family by divine Institution in some special and peculiar respects belonging to the manner of Administration. After the Church of the Jews was constituted (when we can no more imagine that there was a Church among the Gentiles, then that there are Christians among the Barbarians at this day) we find none must be admitted to the Passeover that was not first Circumcised, but nothing was required of a stranger to circumcision, but that he profess the true faith, and a vouch the God of Abraham to be his God, which of necessity must be done before he could be reputed a visible Believer, or under the Covenant of promise.  
Thus a learned and reverend divine, Circumcision was a seal of the covenant, that God made with Abraham concerning Christ that 
1●. D. exam 〈◊〉 tents p 309.  should come as concerning the flesh of Isaac and so of jacob of whom were the 12 tribes who were the Israelites, etc. Rom. 9 4. 5. So that as in Abraham's time none were bound to be Circumcised but those that were of his family as being borne there or bought, and so brought thither which were not of his seed: So afterwards none were bound to be Circumcised which were not borne in the family of Jacob and Patriarches, or joined to them. And after their coming out of Egypt none were bound to be Circumcised but the children of the jews (than the only Church of God,) and those that desired to join unto them. The sum is thus much, God gave circumcision to Abraham as a seal of the Covenant but whether it was given to other believers in his time it is (at least) a thing uncertain. And if they were not Circumcised it was by reason of the special Institution of God, and peculiar manner of administration of the Covenant of promise which in some respect was proper, to the family of Abraham, and not common to all the visible members of the Church at that time in Church fellowship and order. Afterwards when there were none in covenant but the seed of jacob or strangers professing the faith of Abraham, circumcision was not to be administered to any man who was not in Covenant nor any man to be admitted to the Passeover who was not circumcised. This is the most that can be said with any probability: But hence it will not follow by just analogy or proportion, that the seed of the faithful must not be admitted to Baptism, or visible beleivers be received to the Lords Supper unless they be set members of some particular congregation united in Church order. Thirdly, presupposing therefore that Melchizedeck, Lot and job, were not Circumcised, we say there is not the like reason of Circumcision and Baptism in this particular. For, first if Circumcision was ever appropriated to the family of Abraham, and might be communicated to other visible Believers, it was in the first Institution and administration; but in the first Institution and administration of Baptism, it was not observed that believers should be first gathered into a political body or Christian church membership, and then baptised. john the Baptist baptised such as came to him confessing their sins. The Apostles 
Mat. 3. 7.  baptised Disciples, such as gladly received their doctrine, believed 
10 42. Act. 2 37, 38. 41. & 8 37. & 10. 47. 48.  in Jesus Christ, and received the gifts of the holy Ghost, before they were gathered into Christian Church order, or made fit members of a Christian congregational Assembly.  
2 If Circumcision was by special Institution given as a privilege to the Males of Abraham's Family, Melchizedecke, job, Lot, and other visible Believers were not bound to join themselves as members to Abraham's family, or desire and seek to be circumcised: But they that have received the doctrine of salvation, believe Christ, and profess the faith, are bound to seek, and desire the privilege of the seals in an holy manner.  
3. Melchizedech, Job, and Lot were not only visible believers, but visible members of the Church, according to the manner of dispensing in those times: but the Seals (as you confess) belong to all believers knit together in Church-Covenant.  
4. If circumcision be appropriated to the family of Abraham, it is because the Covenant sealed by circumcision is peculiar to Abraham's posterity, (sc.) that Christ should come as concerning the flesh, of Isaac. But Baptism is the seal of the Covenant of grace without any peculiar or special tye or respect.  
5. You contend, that Baptism did belong to such believers as were members of the than Jewish Church, which cannot stand, if Abraham's family did answer to a Christian society or congregational Assembly; Just reason therefore may be given why circumcision was dispensed only to the males of Abraham's family, when baptism is not to be limited only to the set members of a particular society; and if this consideration be applied to the purpose, instead of saying, Circumcision and the Passeover were to be administered only to the members of the Church, you must say Circumcision was to be desired of or administered unto all the true approved visible members of the Church. And if there be the same reason of both, than all visible approved members of the Church must not desire nor be admitted to the seals, but this conclusion you will not acknowledge.   

Answ. 4. Consideration.  
THey that are not capable of the Church censures, are not capable of the Church privileges. but they that are not within Church-Covenant are not capable of Church censures. Ergo. The proposition is evident, The Assumption may be proved, 1 Corinth. 5. 12. What have I to do to judge them that are without. Now to be without is not only the case of Heathens and Excommunicates, but of some believers also, who though by external union with Christ they are within the Covenant of grace, yet being not joined externally to the visible body of Christ (a particular Church) are in regard of visible Church communion said to be without. To this purpose is this text alleged by other Divines also, as Dr. Ames Cas. of consci. l. 4. c. 24. q. 1. resp. 5.   

Reply.  
FIrst, men are capable of Church censures in two respects, either in having the power of the keys, and authority to dispense them according to God, or as subject to the censures of the Church. In the first sense, many are capable of Church privileges that are not capable of Church censures, as the seed of Christian parents, children and women. You say you admit to the seals the known and approved, and orderly recommended members of any true Church: but to fellowship in the censures, admittance of members, and choice of Officers only, the members of that particular Church whereof they and we (any of us) stand members. In the second sense also many are capable of Church privileges who are not subject to Church censures: as the children of Christian parents are capable of baptism, the known and approved members of any true Church are capable of the Seals in other Congregations among you who are not subject to the censures of that other Society. Spiritual communion in public prayer is a Church privilege, which is not denied to visible believers and godly persons, though not in Church order, and so not in subjection in your sense to Church censures.  
Secondly, a person baptised is not baptised in that particular congregation only, but into all Churches, and every particular Church where he cometh he hath all the privileges of a baptised person in respect of his baptism, and is so to be esteemed by them. Now the privilege of a baptised person who is able to examine himself, and walketh in the truth, is to be admitted to the Lords Supper. All circumcised persons had right thereby to eat the Passeover in any society, in the place which God should choose to put his Name there. Exod. 12. 4. 47. Deut. 16. 1, 2. So all baptised persons have true and entire right to the Lords Supper in every true Church where God hath set his Name.  
Thirdly, there is not the same reason of every Church privilege, for one may have right to some, who is not to meddle with others. The members of one society may hear the Word, join in Prayer, and receive the Sacraments in another, when they are not to meddle in the election and ordination of their teachers. The Ministers of the Gospel may preach the Word, and administer the Sacraments in another congregation, and hereto he needs no other calling but that God offers an opportunity; there is much need of his help, and he is entreated, or hath leave from them in place or office; but he is not to admit members into the society, or cast them out that be admitted. And if the Pastor of one Church shall preach or administer the Sacraments in another, contrary to the liking and approbation of the Society and Governors, though the act be irregular, it was never esteemed a nullity; but if he shall presume to excommunicate the members of another society, without the consent o● the Church, and approbation of Pastors and Teachers, under whose charge and jurisdiction they live, it hath been judged a mere nullity. Therefore the proposition is not so evident as to be taken without proof, that they have no power to admit a believer into communion in any Church privilege who have no power to excommunicate.  
Fourthly, that visible believers baptised into a true Church professing the true faith, and walking in holy obedience, and godly conversation, that they and their seed should be judged such as are without in the Apostles 
1. Cor. 5. 12.  sense, because they be not externally joined as set members to some particular congregation in Church-Covenant is affirmed, not proved.  
1. It hath, and may fall out many times through the ignorance, rashness, or pride of a prevailing faction in the Church, that the true members of the Catholic Church, and the best members of the orthodox visible flock, or congregation of Christ may be no members of any distinct visible society. And shall their posterity be esteemed Aliens and Strangers from the Covenant, and debarred from the Sacraments, because their parents are unjustly separated from the inheritance of the Lord? Surely as parents unjustly excommunicated do continue still not only true members of the invisible body; but visible members of the flock of Christ: so the right of Baptism doth belong to the Infants of such parents, though not actual and constant members of this or that present assembly in Church order.  
2. If they be without, because no members of a politic body or spiritual fellowship: then all members which are of one society are without to another: For they that be not of the body are not capable of Church censures, or subject to the authority one of another. And so not being under the judgement of that particular Church to it they are without; whereas in ancient and modern times distinct Societies did communicate together, admit and receive each other as brethren, to testify their fellowship in the faith. If the reason whereupon the Apostle saith the Church of Corinth was not to judge them that were without, was because they were not within the Church of Corinth, and so not under their censure or judgement: this holds true of them that be of another society admitted to the Sacrament, as well as of such as be no set members desiring to be received to the Lords Supper.  
3. (The fornicators of this world) do they not explain whom the Apostle pointeth unto by the title of being without, ver. 10. 11. such as had not received the covenant of grace.  
4. Church order is necessary we deny not; but this order that a man should be a constant and set member of a particular society by covenant, to make him a true member of the visible Church, or to give him title or interest to the public order, this is not taught of God.  
5. Paul divides all men into two ranks, the first and greater without; the last and lesser within: but that believers who have received the holy Ghost, and have been baptised into Jesus Christ, that they and their children should be reckoned among them that are without, that we read not in this nor any other Scripture, but in phrase of Scripture heretics themselves 
1. Job. 2. 19 1. Cor. 11. 19  are within the Church.  
6. The believers not yet gathered (as the godly learned think) into a certain distinct body are called believers, brethren, disciples; but that they should be comprehended under them that are without, it hath not been believed in the Church.  
7. Without (saith the Apostle whether alluding to this place or not, let others judge) are dogs, enchanters, whoremongers, not such as are called 
Rev. 22. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. Tim. 3. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Script. ethnici apud patres audiunt. 01 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Matth. 8. 11. Ephes. 2. 12. Rob. against Ber. p. 101.  faithful and holy, walking in integrity, believing in and professing Jesus Christ to be their Saviour.  
8. They that are without in the Apostes sense are Aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but we hope you will not pass such rash and unadvised censure upon your brethren, who be not gathered into your society as set members.  
9 Let the interpretation stand, and he is without, not only who is no set member of some congregational Assembly, but he that is not subject to the censure of the community of that particular combination few or many, with, or without Officers. And so all the reformed Churches in the world who ascribe the power of the keys to the Presbitry or Classes, and not to the community, and some amongst yourselves (if not the most) shall be without also.  
And therefore we cannot think approved Christians desiring to be received unto the Sacrament, either to be without, or uncapable of Church censures for the time being if they should offend, though not set members of any particular congregation: for desiring baptism for their children or themselves to be admitted to the Lords Supper for the time they put themselves under the ordinance of Jesus Christ there. And as they are members for the time, so they might be proceeded against according to the rule prescribed by our Saviour, as they would proceed with an offending member.  
10. If upon just and good reason a passage of Scripture can be cleared to prove that for which it was never alleged by any writer, we are not to except against any truth of God, because it wanteth man's testimony. Only if we desire credit in such cases, our reasons must be weighty and convincing. But for your exposition of this text of Scripture, as yet we have not observed one substantial ground, or approved author to be alleged. Doctor Ames showing the necessity of Christians joining themselves to some particular Church, giveth this reason, Quoniam alias fieri non potest qu●● conturbentur signa illa quibus fideles ab infidelibus discerni possunt. 1. Cor. 5. 12. But herein Dr. Ames manifestly showeth that by them that are [without] heathens, and unbelievers must be understood, and not believers and godly men though of no particular settled society for the time, for thus we conceive he argueth. The signs and evidences whereby the faithful are to be discerned from unbelievers, must not be confounded: but unless Christians make themselves actual members of a Society or Church, the signs whereby the faithful are discerned from unbelievers, will be obscured and darkened. And if this be his reason how can that text of Scripture be alleged for confirmation, unless by [men without] Infidels be understood. Again Doctor Ames in the same book, lib. 4. ca 27. speaking of Infants to be received, it is required (he saith) that they be in the covenant of grace in respect of outward profession, and estimation in respect of their parents, and that there is hope they shall be instructed and brought up in the same covenant. 2. That Baptism doth most properly belong to those infants whose parents, at least one of them is in the Church, and not without, because baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. 3. That children that are cast forth are in charity to be esteemed the children of Christian parents, when there is no just cause of presuming the contrary, that in admitting unto baptism a difference must be put between the Infants of those who in some sort belong to the Church, but openly break the covenant of God, and the children of others.  
1. Because a distinction must be observed in holy things between the clean and unclean; seeing else the ordinance of God cannot be preserved from all pollution. To say nothing of that which he addeth touching the baptism of Infants borne in fornication, excommunication, and Papists, which is more than sufficient to clear his meaning in the former passage. To this may be added that he holdeth it not necessary that Christians should gather themselves into a particular society, but as opportunity and occasion should offer itself. So that it was never his mind to censure them who be not gathered into Church-Covenant, because they want means or opportunity as men without in the Apostles sense.  
His judgement is further manifested in his second Manuduction, pa. 33. So many parish Assemblies of England (saith he) as have any competent number of good Christians in them, united to worship God ordinarily in one Society, so many have the essence and integral form of a visible Church, and all they have entire right to Christ, and to all the means of enjoying him, how ever they are defective in the purity of their combination, and in the complete free exercising of their power, whereupon a reverend 
* Mr. 10. D. Apol. Sect. 40. exam p. 182.  Elder now among you draws this conclusion, Ergo to dischurch them wholly, and to separate from them as no Churches of Christ, or to deny baptism to the Infants of their known members is not warrantable by any rule of Scripture that I know, nor justified by any assertion or practice.   

Answ. 5. Consideration.  
WE may add hereunto for a fifth Consideration, the evil and pernicious consequences of extending communion in Church privileges beyond the bounds of Church fellowship: for thus, 1. The extraordinary office of the Apostles, and the ordinary office of Pastors and Teachers will be much confounded, if the latter be as illimited as the former in the execution of their office beyond the bounds of their own particular Churches. 2. The distinction of Church assemblies from the confused multitude is abrogated, if without membership in a particular Church the parents may communicate with the Churches in the Lord's Supper, and their seed in baptism. 3. The Church shall endanger the profaning of the seals, and want one special means whereby the grace and piety of men may be discerned and made known; for if without respect to their Church estate men of approved piety (as you say) are to be admitted to fellowship in the seals, how shall their piety be approved to the Church not by their own report of themselves alone without attestation of such as are approved by the Church; and how can such bear witness to their approved piety, who against light refuse to profess subjection to the Gospel of Christ by orderly joining themselves in fellowship with some approved Church of Christ as members thereof when they have opportunity thereunto, seeing such fellowship is an action of piety required of all believers in the second Commandment; and true piety frameth men's spirits to have respect to all God's Commandments. And we have had much experience of it, that men of approved piety in the judgement of some have been found too light, not only in the judgement of others, but even of their own consciences, when they have come to trial in offering themselves to be members of Churches, with such a blessing hath God followed this order of taking hold of Church-Covenant by public profession of faith and repentance before men be admitted to the seals; but this means of discovery of men's piety and sincerity would be utterly lost, if men should be admitted unto the Lord's table without entering in Church-fellowship.   

Reply.  
IF it be repugnant to Divine Institution to admit of approved Christians lawfully baptised, walking in the faith, members of the visible Churches, and partakers of Church privileges among us to the Lords Supper, or their children to baptism, because they 
What though this inconvenience do arise sometimes through man's corruption it should be otherwise; and we must ever consider of the nature of God's ordinances in their right use, etc. Rob. against Ber. pa. 213.  be not entered into Church fellowship according to your order, than it is unlawful though no such evil consequences are to be feared.  
But if by accident some abuse should fall out, the evil is to be prevented by all lawful means: but the faithful are not utterly to be debarred 
Respondit caam nullam fuisse cur 10. Bapt. istos accedentes rejiceret ut qui ad ejus bapt. venirent cum peccatorum agnitione nec ipse potestatem haberet eos excommunicandi etiamsi fuissent excom. digni. Beza de Presb. p 23.  of the order of God, whereto they have right and title by his free grant and gracious invitation. And no question but the seals of the Covenant may be profaned many times when it is not in the power of the dispensers to put back or expel such as profane them. If the Congregation shall admit of, or tolerate an unworthy member, the Church's privileges are profaned; and yet we conceive you will say the Pastor is not faulty in receiving him, when the Church doth tolerate unworthily, if he do what pertaineth to his office to keep the holy things of God from contempt. But in the case propounded there is no fear or danger of such consequences necessary to follow: for the question is not of all sorts at randame, but of Christians professing the faith entirely, 
Recte sane quis illos à sacris prohibuerat, etc. etsi sit tam sceleratus quispiam quam esse exist imatur tum si tale judicium sibi quisque sumat quae mox fuerit Ecclesie facies? sed pretered tenendum est istud in hoc negotio inita cujuspiam cons. non probabillas rectam alterius consciam. Id. pa. 26. Id in privatorum arbitrio relinquere ut alibi diximus & periculosum nimis & toti Ecclesiae valde damnosum fuisset. Id. p. 80.  lawfully baptised, known, and approved to the consciences of the wise and judicious visible members of the Churches of Christ among us often admitted to the Lords Table, whether these either sufficiently known unto you, or orderly recommended may upon desire and suit themselves be admitted to communicate in the Lord's Supper, and their children to be baptised, what fear is there now that the extraordinary office of the Apostles, and the ordinary office of Pastors and Teachers shall be much or little confounded? Is this to take as illimited power as the Apostles did in the execution of their office? How shall this tend to abrogate the distinction of Church Assemblies from the confused multitude? or how is the profanation of the seals thereby endangered?  
You ask if without respect to their Church estate men of approved piety (as we say) are to be admitted into fellowship in the seals, how shall their piety be approved to the Church, not by their own report of themselves alone, etc. Do not you say the same, That there be many godly persons, and of approved piety among us, who are not approved by their own report of themselves (unless ye will take their wisdom, faith, patience, courage, constancy, and holiness of life for their report) approved, we say by as ample and sufficient testimony as the Apostles exacted of them whom they received into Church fellowship, or can be required of members admitted unto the privileges of the Church, if men will follow the Lords direction, or as you can give to ordinances members of your societies. You profess high respect of your brethren in old England, but it seems you judge them insufficient to give orderly testimony of the sincerity and uprightness of approved Christians, well known unto them, and living among them, which two cannot well agree. We speak not of such who against light refuse to profess subjection to the Gospel of Christ to join themselves orderly in fellowship with some approved Church: But of such as do with all readiness profess subjection, and walk accordingly, and heartily desire to join themselves to the most pure and complete Churches so far as they are taught of God, or have opportunity thereunto. And if exception be taken against them only, who refuse against light to submit themselves to the Gospel; by what rule do you proceed when you judge men to refuse against light, or debar them who do not refuse against conscience, but for lack of opportunity. No doubt (as you say) but now and then a man of approved piety in the judgement of some may be found too light, yea and in the judgement of his own conscience when he hath come to trial. And no question but many have been admitted by the Church, who indeed and truth are much too light; and some refused who deserved better than they that cast them off, we will not dispute what errors have been committed, nor what blessing ye have found upon your proceedings; we heartily beseech the Lord to keep your congregation pure, make his ordinances more and more effectual, go before you in the way wherein you should walk, and multiply his mercies upon you in the same. But this we are persuaded, and therefore we speak, that in debarring godly Christians from the Lords Supper, and much more the children of those parents who are in covenant with God, from holy baptism you exceed your commission you have received from God, and go beyond your due bounds. And notwithstanding your circumspection more worthy and faithful Christians have been denied when of less worth, and meaner sufficiencies have passed, and been by you received.   

Answ. 6. Consid.  
NOne have power to dispense the Seals but they that are called to the office of Ministry; and no man can be so called till first there be a Church to call him, seeing the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church; and thence it follows, that all those that desire to partake 
Demonstr. of Disc. ca 4.  of the Seals, are bound to join themselves in Church state, that so they may call a Minister to dispense the Seals unto them. And this duty by the appointment of God lieth not only upon some Christians, but equally upon all: ergo no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the Seals till he have joined himself in Church fellowship, and in the call of the Minister. And indeed seeing a Church, and a Minister called by the Church, is of such necessity for the dispensing of the seals, it may seem unreasonable that some Christians should be bound to become a Church, and to call a Minister that so the seals may be dispensed, and other men (when this is done) have equal liberty to the seals who refuse to join unto the Church.   

Reply.  
THis conclusion is not to the question propounded, for we speak of such as cannot, not of such as refuse to join themselves unto the Church; or if they do not join, it is not out of contempt or wilful neglect of God's ordinance, or desire of carnal liberty, and not to be in subjection to Christ, but for lack of opportunity, or through their fault that should admit them but do not. For if in any of your Churches you shall require more of members to be admitted then Christ the chief Shepherd of the flock doth, or press that upon their consciences which they cannot consent unto, if they shall sit down quietly for the time and serve God in private, when they cannot enjoy Church privileges, it is your fault and not theirs. And they may more justly challenge the Assembly as injurious and tyrannical, than you them as wilful despisers of God's ordinance. We accuse not the wisdom and discretion of your Chuches, but we know the zealous multitude may sometimes be rash; And when a reason is craved of your judgement, why you do debar the most known and approved Christians which come over, and their children from the seals of the covenant, we dislike you should put this note upon them, as if against light they refused orderly to subject themselves to the Gospel of Jesus Christ: What warrant you have thus to censure, what use of this manner of dispute we leave it to your godly wisdom to judge. In the Consideration itself there are many Propositions couched together, which we must examine severally as they have reference to the conclusion intended, and then try whether it can be raised from them.  
The first Proposition, That none have power to dispense the Seals, but they that are called to the office of Ministry, is freely granted.  
The second, That no man can be so called till first there be a Church to call him, needeth explication. For by the Church you must understand the community of the faithful, as they are one body, without officers or guides. And such a Church there cannot be without a Ministry to call and admit them into Church-fellowship. The Apostles baptised not themselves, but by the help of others, & those not called of the people to be baptised, 1 Cor. 1. 17. The Apostles appointed by election, Elders in every city or Church. And so there was a Church before Elders were set over it, but this Church was a society of believers by baptism admitted into Church-fellowship. There can be no Church to call a Minister to feed the flock, and dispense the seals, till they have received the doctrine of salvation entirely, and by the seal of initiation be solemnly received into the society of men professing Christ. A company of men converted to the faith being unbaptised, may and aught to desire baptism, but they have not power to elect and choose one among themselves to dispense the seals unto the rest for aught is to be found in Scripture: The Church's constitution into which Christians are to gather themselves must be Apostolical, and 
Rob. against Bern. likely veiwed. p. 40.  not one day or hour younger in nature and form of it, thus the first Church of the New Testament. But it can never be showed in Scripture that any society of unbaptised persons did first choose from among them a Pastor or Teacher by whom they might be baptised: you cannot produce one example or other proof in the Scripture, of one man teaching the Gospel ministerially but he was baptised, and a member of a true Church, or of a society who made choice of a Pastor and teacher, but they were baptised persons.  
The third Proposition, That the power of calling Ministers is given by Christ unto the Church, must also be rightly understood: For by the Church must be meant the society of the faithful, not only engrafted into Christ, set into the state of salvation, and made heirs apparent of everlasting blessedness, but solemnly entered and enrolled into the society of Christ's flock, and acknowledged members by free admission into the Seals of the Covenant. Again, by the Church if we speak of ordinary calling, must not be understood of the faithful alone, but their guides and officers together with them, who are to go before the rest, and to direct and govern them in their choice. Neither can we say, that any two or three believers linked together in society do make such a Church, as to whom the calling of the Minister doth belong: but that right was given by Christ to such Churches as were gathered and established by the Apostles. The Church hath a Ministry of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of Office given him in the vacant place. But the office, gift, and power of the Ministry, is immediately from Christ and not from the Church. The Church doth neither virtually nor formally give power to her Officers but ministerially only, as ministering to him who hath power and virtue to confer it. And this right of election is so given to the community and body of the people, that if they have consented to give away their right, or if it be taken injuriously from them, the call of the Minister notwithstanding may be true, and ministerial acts done by him that is thrust upon the people without their consent may be effectual to their salvation. A wrong it is altogether to debar the godly of their consent in the calling of such as must watch for their souls; but it makes not the calling itself a mere nullity; for then many Churches in the world within a few hundred years after Christ should have wanted both ministry and Sacraments, and they would have been altogether destitute of both ministry and Sacraments for many hundred years.  
The fourth, That all those who desire to partake in the Seals, are bound to join themselves together in Church-state, that so they may call a Minister to dispense the Seals unto them, will not follow from the former rightly understood. We deny not but Christians are bound to join themselves together in holy fellowship, if God give them opportunity: but they must partake in the Seals before they can join themselves together in Church-state. And such as for lack of means and opportunity cannot join themselves into such an estate, or be dispersed by persecution, or be destitute of Pastors and Teachers, may for a time desire and seek to have the seals dispensed unto them by the Pastors and Teachers of other Societies, with whom they hold communion in the faith. The people also who are deprived of right and liberty to choose their Pastor, may desire and seek to have the Seals dispensed unto them by him who is set over them. If a company of Infidels should be converted to the faith, they must desire to partake in the ordinances of grace before they could join together in a Churchway to call a Minister of their own, who might administer the Sacraments unto them. To make Disciples and baptise are joined together. And if these Propositions be allowed for current, a nation or people 
John 4. 2. Math. 28. 19  plunged into Idolatry or Infidelity, or otherwise dischurched, cannot by ordinary means recover into a Church-estate, wherein they may lawfully and according to God's appointment desire or expect that the Seals of the Covenant should be dispensed to them.  
The fifth Proposition riseth beyond measure, that no Christian can expect by the appointment of God to partake in the Seals till he have joined himself in Church-fellowship and the calling of the Minister. We conceive you will not say that children and women have to do in the call of the Minister (for women they are debarred by their sex as from ordinary Prophesying, so 
1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. Tit. 2. 11, 12. Rob. ag. Ber. pa. 206.  from any other dealing wherein they take authority over the man) If some part of the Congregation do not consent in the election of Pastors or Teachers, have they not right to expect to have the Seals of the Covenant dispensed to themselves or their seed? If the people be deprived of that liberty to choose or call their Minister, must they separate from the ordinances of worship there dispensed, and from the Congregations as no true Churches? If some persons by the providence of God live in such places where they cannot join in Church-fellowship and call of the Minister (as suppose the Christian wife, child, or servant) nor lawfully remove to any such Society must they and their children live as strangers and aliens from the Covenant of grace, wherein they may not expect to partake of the Seals▪ If Infidels be converted to the faith, must they not partake in the Seals, because they cannot join in Church-fellowship and call of the Minister, before they be admitted to Baptism?  
Here you say the people must join together in the call of the Minister, before they can lawfully desire to be admitted to the Seals. And another 
Rob. ag. Bern. pa. 239.  hath zealously affirmed (It is a presumptuous sin in any to choose an Officer not trained up and tried (scil.) in the debating, discussing, carrying, and contriving of Church-affaires, as also in admonition, exhortation, and comfort, publicly occasioned and so manifested) Lay these two together, and let it be considered how long many a poor soul converted to the faith must be compelled to want the comfort of God's ordinances. Besides, if a people be joined together in Church-fellowship, and have called a Pastor to feed and watch over them, we desire (not words but) proof why the poor dispersed Christians wanting means or opportunity to join themselves together into society, ought not to desire, and that others be not bound in conscience to afford them the comfort of God's ordinances.  
If the Propositions may stand for good, I fear we shall scarce find that ever in ordinary way, the Sacraments were lawfully dispensed or received in the Christian Churches of God since the first foundation of them. Now the premises being liable to so many exceptions, the conclusion to be laid upon them, will fall of itself. And thereunto we oppose the direct contrary. That Infidels converted to the faith, or godly Christians, formerly visible believers, known and approved members of Congregations professing the entire faith, and joining together in the lawful use of the Sacraments for substance according to the Institution, may and aught to desire and expect the Seals of the Covenant to be dispensed to them, and to their seed, though for the present they be not joined into such Church-state and call of Ministers as you require.   

Answer 7. Consideration.  
THat our practice may not be censured as novel and singular, give us leave to produce a Precedent of the like care observed and approved by public countenance of State in the days of Edward 6. of blessed and famous memory, who in the year 1550. granted Johannes Alasco a learned Noble man of Poland under the great Seal of England, liberty to gather a Church of strangers in London, and to order themselves according as they should find to be most agreeable to the Scriptures. Among other godly orders established in that Church, that which concerned the Administration of Baptism to prevent the profanation of it we will repeat in Alascoes' own words. Baptism in our Church (saith he) is administered in the public Assembly of the Church after the public Sermon: for seeing Baptism doth so belong to the whole Church that none ought to be driven thence, which is a member of the Church, nor to be admitted to it who is not a member of it, truly it is equal that that should be performed publicly in the Assembly of the whole Church, which belongs to the whole Church in common. Again, he addeth; Now seeing our Churches are by God's blessing so established by the King's Majesty, that they may be as it were one parish of strangers dispersed throughout the whole City, or one body corporate (as it is called in the Kings grant) and yet all strangers do not join themselves to our Church, yea there are those who while they avoid all Churches, will pretend to the English Churches that they are joined with us, and to us that they are joined to the English Churches, and so do abuse both them and us, lest the English Churches and the Ministers thereof should be deceived by the impostures of such men (and that under colour of our Churches) we do baptise their Infants alone who have adjoined themselves to our Churches by public confession of their faith, and observation of Ecclesiastical discipline. And that our Churches may be certain that the Infants that are to be baptised are their seed, who have joined themselves thereto in manner aforesaid, the father of the Infant to be baptised (it possible he can) or other men and women of notable credit in the Church, do offer the Infant to Baptism, and do publicly profess that it is the seed of the Church, yet we suffer no stranger to offer Infants to Baptism in our Churches, who hath not made public profession of his faith, and willingly submitted himself to the Discipline of the Church, lest otherwise they who present their children to Baptism, might in time plead that they belong to our Churches, and so should deceive the English Churches and their Ministers. To those which presented Infants to Baptism, they propounded three questions, the first was; Are these Infants which ye offer the seed of this Church, that they may lawfully be here baptised by our Ministry? etc. Answer, Yea. This Instance is the more to be regarded, because Alasco affirmeth in the preface of that Book, that this liberty was by the King granted to them out of his desire to settle alike reformation in the English Churches, which in effect you see the same with our practice in this particular.   

Reply.  
THe practice of the Church of strangers in London, recorded by John Alasco, is far different from your judgement and practice, not in some by-circumstances, but in the main point in question; for your judgement is that true visible believers, baptised and partakers of the Lords Supper in other Churches not yet gathered into Church-estate or fellowship, have no right or interest in the Seals, (they nor their seed) But this Church of strangers held no such opinion as their own words (which you have omitted) do plainly speak. And Paul testifieth (say they) that by Christ's Ordinance the Church itself without exception of any member of it, is to be accounted clean or holy by the ministry of Baptism. Whence we may easily see, that Baptism doth neither belong to those who are altogether without the Church, nor to be denied to any member of the Church. Secondly, They held communion with the Church of England as one and the same with theirs. For so they profess: Yet nevertheless, that we may openly show that the English Churches and ours are one and the same Church (though we differ somewhat from them both in language and Ceremonies) We do not refuse that the English may as public witnesses of the Church offer the Infants of our members to Baptism in our Churches, if they have both the use of our language and a certain testimony of their piety. As in like manner our members are accustomed to offer the Infants of the English to Baptism in the English Churches. If your judgement be this of the English Churches, your judgement in acknowledging us members of true Churches, and practise in debarring visible believers and their seed from the Seals, are opposite the one to the other. Thirdly, This order was observed by them to prevent the impostures of some, who whilst they avoided all Churches, pretended to the English, that they were joined to the strangers, and to the strangers that they were joined to the English. But you debar known Christians who desire to join themselves with you, not to prevent impostures of them who avoid all Churches: yea, you debar them as men having no right to the Sacraments, because they be not in Church-fellowship: and herein you can show no precedent ancient or modern, either from Scripture or Monuments of the Church: And as your practice is without example, so without warrant from the word of God. And this is the main reason why we cannot consent unto you in this particular which we thus propound.   

1 Reason.  
THat sacred order which God hath set in his visible Church for all his Saints to keep and walk by, that is religiously to be observed. But for men to set up that as a necessary order which God never allowed, approved, or commanded, is great presumption. Now the Lord hath not ordained that a man should be a set member of a particular Society, or body politic of faithful people joined together in spiritual Church-fellowship by Covenant, before he be admitted unto the Lord's Supper, or that the parents should be actual visible set members of some particular distinct body before their children be baptised. They that believe in Jesus Christ have received the word of promise and walk therein, they and their children are within the Covenant, and have right and title to the Seals of the Covenant, but in their order, the infants to baptism, parents baptised, to the Lords Supper. And if in that state by divine grant they have interest to the Sacraments, the Church in debarring them because they be not yet grown into one distinct separate society of mutual covenant, doth exceed the bounds of her commission. For a ministerial power only is committed to the Church to admit or refuse them who are to be admitted or refused by authority from God: But the Church if she thrust believing parents from the Supper of the Lord, and their seed from baptism; she denieth these benefits to them who by the grace and gift of God have lawful right and title thereto.  
1. For first, the baptism of John was true baptism, and truly administered by him: And they that were baptised by him received the seals of the Covenant, and were esteemed members of the visible Church: But John never demanded of them who came to his baptism whether they were entered into spiritual fellowship by mutual covenant one with another. 
Matth 3 6, 7.  This was not then known to be a necessary and essential point in the lawful, due, and orderly administration of the Sacrament. The disciples of our Saviour made and baptised disciples professing the faith, but not combined into Church-state or fellowship. The Apostles commission was first 
job. 4 2. and 3. 22. Matt. 28 19 20.  to teach the Gentiles, and then to baptise them having received their doctrine. And this they carefully observed in the execution of their ministry upon grounds and reasons common to them and us: for as soon as any man or number of men gladly received the doctrine of salvation, and gave their names to Jesus Christ, if they desired to be baptised forthwith they accepted them, never excepting, that they were no set members of a distinct visible congregation. When the first 3000. converts, being pricked in their consciences, came to Peter, and the rest of the Apostles, saying. Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter returns this answer, Repent and be baptised 
Act. 2. 37, 38.  every one of you in the Name of Jesus, etc. For to you is the promise made, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, etc. As soon as the Samaritans believed, Philip who preached the things that concerned the kingdom of God, they were baptised both men and women. When the Eunuch asked of Philip, See 
Act. 8. 12. Act. 8. 47. & 11. 16. 17. Act 8 37.  here is water, what doth let me to be baptised? he answereth not if thou be'st first received as a set member into a visible congregation thou mayest: but if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. Can any man forbid water (saith Peter, speaking of the Gentiles upon whom was poured the gift of the holy Ghost) that these should not be baptised who have received the gift of the holy Ghost as well as we? At that time it was not held a bar 
Act. 10 47. and 11. 16. 17.  sufficient to keep them from the Sacrament of baptism, because they were not set members of a distinct society, which had it been essential to the lawful and orderly administration of the Sacraments, questionless it had been observed in the first Institution and administration of them. Annanias baptised Paul before he was any set member of a congregational Assembly. Lydia and her household, the Jailor and his house were baptised 
Act. 9 18. Act. 16, 14. 33.  without regard to their Church-estate. For in the same night which he was converted, he was baptised with all his household. And this was done not by the Apostles only upon special dispensation, but by others upon grounds and reasons common 
1. Cor. 1. 17. Matth. 28. 19 Act. 2. 41. and 8. 12, 13, 37. Helu. conf. c. 20. Gallic. Sect. 35. Anglic. & ab eo neminem qui velit profiteri nomen Christi ne infantes quidem Christianorum hominum, etc. Scot conf. c. 23.  to them, and all ages, viz. because they were disciples, believed, gladly received the Word, had received the holy Ghost, were called, and the promise was made to them, and to their seed, even to all them that were afar off.  
Now if the Apostles dispensed the seals to them that were not in Church-fellowship upon common grounds, it is not 
Belgic. act. 34. Zengerm, conf. de Bapt. insant. pro. 44. Argent. conf. ca 17. Saxon, confess. ca 14. Palab. conf. Sect. ad usum vero ipsum, etc.  essential to the lawful dispensation of the seals, that all partakers should be under such a covenant. If the baptised disciples, believers, such as gladly received the Word, and had received the gift of the holy Ghost, than the seals of the Covenant belong unto such, and by the grace of God they have right and title unto those privileges.  
2. As we received the Sacraments from God by divine Institution; so must we learn from him, how and to whom the same are to be administered, observing what he hath commanded without addition or diminution. But we have learned from Christ the Author of Baptism, and the constant practice of the Apostles (the first dispensers of these holy seals who best understood the mind and pleasure of the Lord herein) that such as be called of God to whom the promise is made, who have received the gifts of the holy Ghost, believed in the Lord Jesus, professed their faith in him, and repentance for sins passed with purpose of amendment for the time to come, that such have right unto, and desiring it ought to be received unto Baptifme, and are greatly wronged if they be deprived of that unspeakable benefit.  
3. By a lively faith a man is made a living member of Jesus Christ, and hath internal communion with him by the entire profession of Christian faith joined with conformity of life in righteousness, and holiness, and fellowship of love, he is a member of the visible congregation or flock of Christ, though no set member of a free distinct independent Society. And Baptism is the seal of our admission into the congregation or flock of Christ; but not evermore of our receiving into this or that particular society as set members thereof. This latter is accidental to baptism, not essential. It may fall out to be so, but it is not ever necessary; nor is the Sacrament to be denied, nor can we say it is imperfectly administered where it cannot be attained. For the Catholic Church is one entire body, made up by the collection and agregation of all the faithful unto the unity thereof; from which union there ariseth unto every one of them such a relation to, dependence upon that Church Catholic as parts use to have in respect of the whole. And this holds true, not only of sound believers in respect of internal fellowship with Christ their head, and so one with another; but of all men professing the true and entire doctrine of faith and salvation in respect of them that hold and profess the same faith of Christ, and worship God according to his will; whereupon it followeth that neither particular persons, nor particular guides, nor particular Churches are to work as several divided bodies by themselves, but are to teach, and be taught; and to do all other duties as parts conjoined to the whole, and members of the same flock or society in general: And so believers professing the faith, and walking in holiness, may and aught to be admitted to the Seals as actual members of the Church of Christ, and sheep of his pasture, though not set members of one congregational Church.  
4. Not to insist upon this here, that it hath and may fall out many times through ignorance, hasty-greediness, or pride, of a prevailing faction in the Church, that the true members of the Catholic Church, and the best members of the Orthodox visible flock, or Church of Christ, may be no actual members of any distinct Society, and shall they for this be accounted men out of Covenant, and their posterity be esteemed aliens and strangers: but if they be in Covenant, then are they holy in respect of the Covenant, and their children holy as pertaining to the Covenant, and have right to the Sacrament of initiation. Thus Mr. Rob. frameth the argument. The Sacrament of Baptism 
Rob. against Ber. pa. 92. Matth. 28. 19 Act. 2. 41. & 8. 12 13 37. and 10. 47. and 2. 39  is to be administered by Christ's appointment, and the Apostles example only to such as are (externally, and so far as men can judge) taught and made disciples, do receive the Word gladly, do believe, and so profess, have received the holy Ghost, and to their seed. And thus the Church of God ever since the Apostles 
1 Cor. 7. 19  days understood the covenant and promise, and their practice in receiving believers and their seed to the Seals of the Covenant was answerable, as might be showed at large, if it was not a thing confessed. Hereunto you answer.   

Answer.  
Where the holy Ghost is given and received (which was the case of the Centurion) and where faith is professed according to God's ordinance (which was the case of the rest) there none may hinder them from being baptised, viz. by such as have power to baptise them. In the Instances given baptism was administered either by Apostles or Evangelists, not ordinary Pastors: the persons baptised, if they were members of Churches, had a right to baptism in their state, and the Apostles being Officers of all Churches might dispense the seals to them where ever they came, which yet will not warrant ordinary Officers to do the same. Nor is it improbable but that all these were in Church-order, Art, on Act. 18. 1. is of opinion, that the Centurion had a constituted Church in his house; the eunuchs coming to Jerusalem to worship, 
Act. 8. 27.  argueth him to be a Proselyte, and member of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved: and therefore upon the profession of the Christian faith capable of Church privileges at that time. As for Lydia and the Jailer it appeareth that in the beginning of the Gospel there was a Church at Philipp● which communicated with Paul as concerning giving and receiving: As he expressly saith, before his departure was from Macedonia, which departure 
Act. 4. 15.  was immediately upon the Gaylors' conversion. In which respect what should hinder that Lydia and the Jailer should first be joined to the Church, and then to be baptised though it be not mentioned in that story? As neither there is mention of a Christian Church, which Paul mentioneth in his Epistle to the Philippians. At least it is probable that Lydia was a member of the Jewish Church, because she is said to be one that worshipped God. But if any man think they were not members of any Church yet baptised, though we see not how it will be proved, yet if it were so, the object doth no whit weaken the argument, which speaketh of the ordinary dispensation of the seals, and not of what was done in an extraordinary way. So that suppose that in the cases alleged, baptism dispensed to some that were not in Church-fellowship, yet the examples of the Apostles and Evangelists in so doing will not warrant ordinary Pastors to do the like. The reason of the difference why Apostles and Evangelists might administer Baptism out of Church-order, whereas Pastors and Teachers may not, is double. 1. Because their calling gave them illimited power over all men, especially Christians wheresoever they came. But we do not find that ordinary Pastors and Teachers can do an act of power, but only over their own Church, which hath called them to watch over them in the Lord. 2. Because they were assisted with an immediate direction and guidance of the holy Ghost, in the places of their administration in the cases alleged. But ordinary Church-Officers are to walk according to ordinary rules of the Scripture in the dispensation of the Seals, and not to expect immediate inspirations and extraordinary revelations for their help in such cases. This difference between Apostles and ordinary Church Officers must needs be acknowledged, or otherwise a man might from their example justify Baptism in private houses.   

Reply.  
THis Answer stands of many parts, wherein things doubtful are affirmed, and that which more weakeneth the force of the consideration before alleged, and the Answer itself, then of the reason whereunto it is applied. For  
First, If where the holy Ghost is given and received, and where faith is professed according to God's ordinance, there none may hinder them from being baptised, viz. by such as have power to baptise them: Then either men that have received the holy Ghost, and profess the faith, be members of the Church, or Baptism is not a privilege of the Church, than it is not essential to the first Institution of Baptism, that it should be dispensed to none but such as were entered into Church-fellowship, or were set members of a congregational Assembly. Then the Apostles in dispensing the Seals unto such, or commanding them to be dispensed, did walk according to the rules of Scripture, and upon grounds common to them and us, viz. they admitted them unto the Sacraments who had right and interest to them, according to the mind and pleasure of the Institutor, not extraordinarily revealed, besides the common rules, or by special dispensation and prerogative excepted from the common rule, but made known in the Institution itself. And then the difficulty remaining is only this, whether a Pastor or Teacher hath authority from Christ to dispense the Seals of the Covenant to one who hath right and title to them, and doth orderly desire that benefit because he is not as yet received as a set member of that particular society which your practice in admitting of set members of other Congregations unto the Seals doth manifestly convince. For if both have equal interest unto the Seals, the Pastor upon lawful suit and request hath equal authority to receive the one as well as the other.  
Secondly, In the particular Instances given, it is not probable that Baptism was evermore administered by Apostles or Evangelists; For before the death of Christ, the Disciples baptised when they were properly neither Apostles nor Evangelists: After the death of Christ (not to insist 
Joh 4. 2, 3. & 3. 27.  upon conjectures whether any assisted the Apostles in the baptising of the first three thousand converted) it is not certain, whether Peter baptised Cornelius and his family, or commanded others then present with 
Act. 10. 48.  him to baptise them: the words may be read: Et jussit eos baptizari in nomine Domini. Syr. & Arab. Praecepit eye ut baptizarentur. 
Whit. de Sacra. q. 3. de Bap. cap. 2. pa 260. Act. 8. 12. & 9 18. 1 Cor. 1. 17.  The Interlineary gloss leaveth it doubtful, Associis suis vel a scipso. Others are of opinion that Peter did baptise them himself. It cannot be proved that Philip and Ananias were both Evangelists, when the one baptised the Samaritans and the Eunuch, the other Paul. Paul himself baptised but a few as he testifieth of himself, and reason to convince that others converted by his preaching were baptised by Evangelists, we know not any. And if Philip, Ananias, and others might baptise such as had right and title to the Seals, being as yet no set members of any particular Congregation: and a Congregation destitute of their proper Pastor, may desire another to baptise their Infants, and dispense the Sacrament of the Supper to them in that their necessity. And if the members of one Congregation may lawfully communicate in another, then may the Pastors of particular Congregations upon occasion admit to the Seals of the Covenant such known and approved Christians, as have right and title thereunto, and duly and orderly require the same; for of all these the reason is like and perpetual.  
Thirdly, It is very improbable that the persons baptised, were in Church-state or order. If they were members of the Jewish Church not yet dissolved, this is not to the purpose; for men have not right to Baptism, because they were members of the Jewish Church, but because Disciples and (as you say) joined together in Covenant, and have fellowship and calling of their Minister, who is to dispense the Seals unto them. And Baptism is the Sacrament of initiation, not into the Jewish but the Christian Churches. Secondly, when you say, the Seals in ordinary dispensation are the privileges of the Churches. There are no Ministers but of particular Churches. Baptism and the Lords Supper are to be administered only to the members of the Church. No society may lawfully desire the Seals, unless they have joined in the choice and calling of their Minister. Believers not yet joined in Church-order are without. Do ye not in all these understand a Christian society, united in a Churchway, etc. which cannot agree to the members of the Jewish Church, not yet dissolved. Thirdly, 
Against B. pa. 88  The constitution of the Church (saith Mr. Robin.) is the orderly collection and conjunction of the Saints into and in the Covenant of the New Testament; but the members of Jewish Churches not yet dissolved, were not in such constitution. If the Eunuch and Centurion were proselytes and members of the Church of the Jews; The Samaritans whom Philip baptised were not so. And that any Gentiles, or the Gailor whom Paul baptised in the Apostles times, were set members of a Christian Assembly before baptised, is very strange If there was a Church at Philippi, yet the Gailor who was baptised and converted the same night, could not be a set member by solemn admission before Baptism. It is said the Apostles baptised these persons in an extraordinary way. But in this practice of the Apostles two things are to be considered. 1. The circumstance of the action. 2. The quality or substance of the act. In some circumstances the baptising of some of these persons might be extraordinary, but the substance and quality of the action was grounded upon rules perpetual and common to us with them.  
1. That is done in an extraordinary way, which by peculiar privilege of dispensation is made lawful to some one or few men, which is unlawful to all others, not having the same dispensation, but where the ground and reason of the action is common: we must not conceive the thing to be done in an extraordinary way by special dispensation. What was done by the Apostles upon special revelation and immediate direction, besides the ordinary and common rule, in that we are not to imitate or follow them, because we have not their warrant. But what they did upon reasons and grounds reaching unto us no less than unto them, in that we have the same liberty, allowance, or commandment that they did walk by. In one and the same action there may be and oft is something ordinary, something extraordinary or peculiar to special times or persons. So it was in the Apostles administration of the Seals: but in every place where they came by illimited power (as you speak) they did baptise Disciples, if they did baptise; this was proper to them, and could not be communicated to any others by them; For there is no passage of Scripture which teacheth this, that one Officer may communicate his power to another, or do that which particularly belongeth to his office by a Deputy: But that they baptised believers professing their faith in the Lord Jesus, and repentance towards God, such as had gladly embraced the Word, and received the gifts of the holy Ghost: this was common to them with all Pastors and Teachers, because they did it, not by power illimited or special dispensation, but upon this standing perpetual reason, that the promise was made to them and to their seed, and to as many as the Lord shall call, that they had received the holy Ghost, and the kingdom of heaven belonged to them. And if the grounds and reasons of their practice be common reaching to us, no less then unto them, the practice itself was not extraordinary. To say nothing that this Answer will not stand with the former; for if the parties baptised were set members of particular Societies, the Apostles did not baptise them in an extraordinary way, they did it by the guidance and direction of the Spirit, that is true, but not by guidance of dispensation, or prerogative, whereby that was made lawful without such inspiration had been unlawful. But they were infallibly guided to do that which was according to the word of God, and might stand for our direction: that in case it be orderly desired a Pastor hath authority in his own Congregation, to receive known and approved Christians to the seals of the Covenant, hath been proved before. If the Apostles dispensed the seals only to the Church, Disciples, faithful, who received the doctrine of salvation with gladness of heart, and were partakers of the holy Ghost, than they dispensed the seals in an ordinary way, for such have title and interest to the seals by the Institution and appointment of God. And every Pastor by his Office may and aught to dispense the seals unto such, within the bounds and limits of his calling: But the Apostles dispensed the seals only to the Church, Disciples, faithful, etc.  
2. An Argument followeth necessarily from particular example to a general; when one particular is proved by another particular, by force of the similitude common to the whole kind, under which those particulars are contained: But the practice of the Apostles in baptising Disciples and faithful, by force of similitude common to the whole kind, agreeth with the practice of Ministers receiving to Baptism the seed of the faithful, though as yet not set members of any particular society, In some circumstances there may be difference when yet the reason is strong, if the difference be not in the very likeness itself whereupon the reason is grounded. One circumstance that is material to the point may overthrow the likeness pretended, and twenty different circumstances, if they be not to the point in hand make no dissimilitude. Now in this matter we speak of, no circumstance is or can be named why we should think it lawful for the Apostles to baptise Disciples as yet being no set members of particular societies, and the same should be unlawful in all cases for ordinary Pastors in their particular Congregations, though it be desired.  
3. What is done by extraordinary dispensation, that is lawful for them only who have received such dispensation, and by them cannot be communicated to others. But the Apostles baptised by others seldom by themselves, as hath been showed.  
4. We might urge the rule which a reverend Elder among you, giveth in another matter, (scil.) Those examples which are backed with some 
See J. D. Ap. Sect. 12. pa. 152, 153, 154.  divine precept, or which are held forth in the first Institution of an ordinance, being part of the institution, or which were the constant lawful actions of holy men in Scripture, not civil but sacred so bind us to imitation, as that not to conform thereunto is sin. For the Assumption to this Proposition, it is plain and natural: But the practice of the Apostles in receiving the faithful, Disciples, etc. is backed with divine precept, held forth in the first Institution, and was their constant lawful practice, agreeable to the practice of all others who were employed in that service; Ergo, etc.  
5. In the first consideration, you prove the Seals to be the privilege of the Church in ordinary dispensation, by this passage of Scripture, Then they that gladly received the Word were baptised: but if Apostles baptise by extraordinary dispensation in your sense this testimony is insufficient for that purpose.   

2 Reason.  
OUr second reason. In due order, the Seals belong to them to whom the grant is given, viz. Baptism to the seed of the faithful, and the Lords Supper to believers, able to try and examine themselves: But the grant is vouchsafed to the faithful and their seed, forgiveness of sins, sanctification, adoption, and what other good things are promised in the covenant of grace are the grant or good things sealed in the Sacrament. But those are granted to believers according to the covenant; and they are so linked together, that under one promised all are understood; and if one be vouchsafed, none is denied. When God promiseth to circumcise the heart, the forgiveness of sins is employed. And when Circumcision is said to be the Seal of the righteousness of faith, the circumcision of the heart by spiritual regeneration is 
Deut. 30. 6. Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8, 9 Rom. 4. 11. Gen. 17. 11, 12 and 26. 4.  included. To whomsoever then the spiritual gift, or inward grace of the covenant is given and granted, to them the Seals of that gift and grant doth belong in their due order. But the spiritual gift or grace which is the thing signified in the Sacrament, is freely granted to true believers, who have received the doctrine of salvation, and walk in the ways of truth and righteousness, therefore the privileges of the Seals belong unto them. To this you answer.  
The scope of the Apostle in the place, Rom. 4. 11. is not to define a Sacrament, nor to show what is the proper and adequate subject of the Sacrament; but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God, not by works but by faith. Thus as Abraham the Father of the faithful was justified before God, so must his seed be (that is, all believers whether Jews or Gentiles, circumcised or uncircumcised) for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Jews to confirm the righteousness which he had before, while he was uncircumcised, that he might be the Father of both: but lest any one should think his circumcision was needless if he was justified by faith before circumcision; he addeth that his circumcision was of no use as a seal to confirm to him his faith, and the righteousness which is by faith: yet as Justification is not the only thing that Circumcision sealed, but the whole Covenant also made with Abraham and his seed was sealed thereby; so Abraham is to be considered in using circumcision not simply, or only as a believer without Church relation, but as a confederate believer, and so in the state and order of a visible Church. Though the Apostle maketh mention of the righteousness of faith as sealed thereby, which was not that which served for his purpose.  
Now that Circumcision also sealed the Church-Covenant, may appear from Gen. 17. 9 10, 11. where you may find that Abraham and his seed, though believers, were not circumcised till God called them into Church-Covenant; and there is the same reason & use of Baptism to us which serveth to seal our justification as circumcision did, yet not that alone, but also the whole covenant with all the privileges of it, as Adoption, Sanctification, 
Act. 2. 38. Gal. 3. 26. 27. Tit. 3. 5. Mat. 20. 23. 1 Pet. 3. 21.  and fellowship with Christ in affections, and the salvation of our souls, and the resurrection of our bodies. And not only the covenant of grace which is common to all believers: but Church-Covenant 1 Cor. 15. 19 Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates. According to that of the Apostle, By one Spirit we are baptised into one body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. And by one body he meaneth that particular Church of Corinth whereunto he writeth and saith, Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular, ver. 27. And ergo Church-membership is required as well to the orderly partaking of Baptism as it was of Circumcision. Nor do we find that circumcision was administered to all that were in the Covenant of grace (as all believers were) but only to such of them as were joined to the people of the God of Abraham. Melchizedech was under the covenant of grace, so was Lot, so was Job and his four friends; yet we no where read that they were circumcised, nor do believe they were. So that if Circumcision was administered to none but those that were joined together in Abraham's family, and to the Church of God in his seed, then may not baptism in ordinary course be administered to any believers now, unless they be joined to the Church of Christ, for parum par est ratio. But the first is true, Ergo, the second also.   

Reply.  
THe particulars in this Answer hath been examined already, and might have well been passed over, because it is tedious to repeat the same things again and again. Two things are affirmed by you.  
1. That the scope of the Apostle, Rom. 4. 11. was not to define a Sacrament, nor to show what was the proper and adequate subject of a Sacrament. But this weakeneth no part of the argument, for if the Apostle do not fully define a Sacrament, nor mention every particular benefit or prerogative sealed in the Sacrament; yet he showeth sufficiently to whom the Sacraments in due order do appertain, even to the heirs of salvation, to them that are justified by faith, and walk in the steps of our Father Abraham. And thus we argue from the text of the Apostle. They that are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament, to them belong the Seals of the Covenant, according to God's Institution. But they that are justified by faith are partakers of the good things sealed in the Sacrament, to them belong the Seals of the Covenant according to God's institution. If Justification be not the only thing that Circumcision sealed, this is nothing to the point in hand. For the gifts of the holy Ghost is not the only thing that is sealed in Baptism: But you confess in your Answer immediately going before, that they have right to baptism who have received the holy Ghost; and the reason is the same of Justification. Besides if Justification be not the only thing that is sealed in the Sacrament, it is one principal thing which doth infer the rest. For the blessings of the covenant of grace in Christ are inseparable; where one is named, others are employed: and where one is given, no one is absolutely wanting. Christ is made of God wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption: whom God doth justify, 
1 Cor. 1. 30.  them he doth sanctify, and them he will glorify.  
2. The second thing you affirm is, that not only the covenant of grace which is common to all believers; but Church-Covenant also which is peculiar to confederates is necessary to the participation of the Seals. This sense your words must bear, or else they reach not the point in hand: but this is that which should be proved substantially, and not barely affirmed; and which (as we conceive) is contrary to the first institution of the Sacrament, and the lawful practice of John the Baptist, our Saviour Christ, his Apostles, and all others who are recorded lawfully to administer the Seals. In Gen. 17. we find the first Institution of circumcision recorded, and that it was the seal of the Covenant to Abraham and his seed, to them that were borne in his house, or bought with his money: but we find no mention of any Church Covenant besides the covenant of promise which God made with Abraham. There is no mention of any Church-order into which Abraham's family was now gathered more than formerly. God gave circumcision to Abraham and his seed as a seal of the righteousness of faith; but that this family was first gathered into Church-order as you speak we cannot believe, because the Scripture saith it not whether Lot, Job, Melchizedech were circumcised or not, we will not dispute; but if they received not the seal, we cannot think the reason to be because they were not in Church-order as those times required, if any such thing had been required, we cannot think that either they were ignorant of it, or that they walked against their light: But accordiug to the dispensing of those times we judge as they were visible believers, so they walked in that Church fellowship which God prescribed; and therefore if circumcision had been the seal of such Church-Covenant as you conceive, it should have been given to them no less than to Abraham's family. But of this sufficient is said before. As for Baptism it is the seal of the whole Covenant, which the passages quoted prove it to be. Whether it be the seal of our fellowship which Christ in affliction, and the resurrection of our bodies, we leave it to your consideration: but that it should be a Seal of a Church-Covenant which is peculiar to confederates, that to us is very strange. That it is a solemn admission into the Church of Christ, and that of necessity it must be administered in a particular society (though in the passage to the Corinthians the mystical body of Christ be understood) will easily be granted. But that it is the seal of any other covenant but the covenant of grace we cannot digest.  
The Sacraments are of God, and we must learn of God for what end and use they were ordained. But by the Institution of Baptism recorded in Scripture we have learned it belongeth to the faithful, to disciples, to them that are called of God: and as for any other covenant necessary to the right participation of the Seals, there is deep silence of it in the Institution, in the lawful and approved practice of the first dispensers of these sacred mysteries. Enough hath been said to this matter already, but we will conclude it with the words of that reverend Author whom we have cited many times before upon occasion. Afterwards (saith he) John the Baptist walked in the same steps, and by the same rule administered baptism in the Church whereof he was a member, required of all that came to his baptism a profession of repentance, and amendment 
Matth. 3. 6. 7. Mark 1. 4. 5. Luk. 13. 3. 16.  of life for remission of sins whereof baptism was a seal, and preached Christ to them. This order our Lord Jesus Christ after his resurrection established to continue in the Christian Churches, giving a commission to 
Matth. 28. 19, 20. Mar. 16. 15, 16.  his Disciples to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and to gather all such as should believe through the world, as a testimony to them, that the righteousness of faith did belong to them also, and not to the Church of the Jews only. Accordingly the Apostles and servants of Christ were careful to observe this rule in their administering baptism. Thus Peter when he saw those three thousand souls pricked in their hearts, preached unto them concerning repentance, remission of sin, Christ, the promise, baptism, faith, amendment of life, baptised those that gladly received 
Act. 2. 37. 47.  his word, and testified the same by joining together in the procession thereof. The same course Philip took with the Church that was gathered in Samaria, where many were baptised, but none till they 
Act. 8. 12. 14.  professed their belief of the Gospel, and their receiving of the Word of God. And therefore it is said expressly, When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised both men and women. When Ananias was commanded to go and baptise Paul, he objected against it at first, till the Lord assured 
Act 9 11-17.  him that he was one to whom the Seal of the Covenant belonged, and then he went and did it.  
When Peter and those that came with him saw that the holy Ghost fell on Cornelius, and those that were assembled at that time in his house, 
Act. 10. 43-48.  whilst he spoke these words, To him give all the Prophet's witness, that through the Name of Jesus whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins. Peter demanded, Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received the holy Ghost as well as we? In this catalogue we see profession of faith and repentance required in them that were admitted to partake in the seals; but there is not a word of Church-Covenant, either in the Institution or administration of the Seals before they were admitted to them. That Christians are solemnly engrafted into the body of Christ, and into particular Societies by the Seals, is a truth acknowledged on all sides: but that ever it was deemed necessary, that a Christian should be a set member of a particular congregational Church before he were admitted to the Seals, or that by divine institution any such thing is ordained as necessary thereunto, that upon the grounds before mentioned we deny, and cannot account it less than an addition to the institution. For if the Sacraments be seals of the Covenant of grace, and baptism by divine Institution belong to Disciples, faithful, Saints, who have gladly received the Word of grace, are justified by faith, sanctified by the Spirit, adopted to be the children of God by grace, and heirs apparent to the kingdom of heaven; then to debar such from the Seals, and their seed from Baptism, because they be not in Church-Covenant (as you speak) is an addition to the ordinance of grace, and many ways injurious to the people of God.    

V. POSITION. That the power of Excommunication is so in the body of the Church, that what the Major part shall allow must be done, though the Pastors and Governors and the rest of the Assembly be of another mind, and that peradventure upon more substantial reasons.  

Answer.  
IF the Question had been, Whether the power of Excommunication 
Vid. Park. Pol. Ecclesiastica. l. 3. c. 1, 2 etc.  lies in the body of the Congregation, consisting of officers and members; our Answer should be Affirmative, and according hereunto is also our practice, and we hope your judgement and ours are not different herein: But seeing the Question is, Whether it is so in the body of the Congregation, that what the Major part doth allow that must be done, though the Pastors and Governors, and the rest of the Assembly, do dissent upon more substantial reasons. Our Answer is Negative, viz. that the power of Excommunication is not sealed in the Congregation, neither ought it to be so in any of the Churches of the Lord Jesus, who ought not to carry matters by number of votes against God, as this Position implieth, but by strength of rule and reason according to God. The power of the Apostles was not to do things against the truth but for the truth, 2 Cor. 13. 8 and not for destruction, but for edification, 2 Cor. 10. 8. And the same may be said concerning the power which God hath given to the Church, and if any Church among us have swerved from the rule (which is more than we know) we do not allow them in such a practice, but should be ready as the Lord should help to convince them of their sin therein.   

Reply.  
THis Question is much mistaken, for the demand is not whether in the Congregation matters should be carried by number of votes against God, as you interpret the Position, but whether the power of Excommunication so lie in the body of the Congregation as that sentence must proceed in externoforo, according to the vote and determination of the Major part, and so whether power of admission of members do so reside in the community, as that they must be refused whom the Major part refuse, though the Pastors and Governors and part of the Congregation be of another judgement, and he admitted whom the Major part doth approve. And though the Church hath received no power against God, but for God, yet in the execution of the power no doubt the members of that Church may be of different judgements and affections, wherein the one side or other doth err, and is deceived. Now the Question hereupon moved is, whether the power of the keys be so given and committed to the society of the faithful, as that in external Court that act or sentence must stand and be in force which the greater part shall determine amongst them which hold the power of the keys to be given to the Church. Some 
a Fen. Theol. lib. 7. Park. de Pol. lib. 3. c. 1. J. D. Apol. 27. Sect. exam. p●. 238, 239, 240.  distinguish betwixt the power itself which they give to the Church, and the execution and exercise of it, which they confine to the Presbytery: 
b Rob. against Ber. pa. 182. By two or three are meant the meanest communion or society of Saints, with or without Officers. Rob. against Ber. Certain observations, p. 4. Only he that is of the true visible Church and furnished with the power of Christ, the keys of the kingdom for the Censure can admonish his brother in order, and those degrees which the word prescribeth Mat. 28. 15. 17. Id. pa 99 The power as to receive in, so to cut off any member is given to the whole body together of every Christian Congregation, and not to any one member apart, or to more members sequestered from the whole, using the meetest number for pronouncing the Censures, Id. pa. 124-126.  Others give the power of the keys with the exercise thereof to the whole body of the Church, or if in the dispensation they attribute any thing to the Officers, it is but as servants of the Church, from whom they derive their authority. By Church also some understand the community of the faithful, together with their officers and guides. And here lieth the stone at which they of the Separation stumble, and which we conceive to be your judgement and practice, wherein we required your plain answer, with your reasons, but have received no satisfaction. You refer us to Mr. Parker's reasons to prove the power of the keys to belong to the whole Church, who are of far different judgement from Mr. Parker in the point itself. And if your judgement and practice be according to that of the Separation (which we fear) you descent from him, and we cannot but descent from you upon these considerations.  
1. No power agreeth to the multitude or community of the faithful, but that which is given them of the Lord by his positive Law; For the whole spiritual power for the gathering and government of his Church is given to Christ as Mediator. And if the power of the keys be derived from, 
If the brethren have liberty in the ordinance of Prophesying, they have also liberty in the other ordinance of Excommunication, for they are both of the same nature; Look to whom Christ gave the one key of Knowledge, to them he gave the other key of Discipline, Rob. against Bern. pa. 238, 239.  and communicated by Christ unto his Church, of necessity it must draw its original from divine positive Law, and can agree to none but as it is communicated. But the communicated power of the keys with the execution thereof, Christ hath not given immediately to the whole multitude, but to some persons and Officers designed and appointed thereunto. Peruse the several passages of Scripture, wherein power and authority of preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, binding and losing is given to the Church: and it is apparent that distinct several persons are spoken of, and not the whole community; Go teach all Nations, and baptise them, etc. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted, 
Mat. 28. 19 28. Joh. 20. 21, 22. & 21. 15, 16.  etc. Feed my Lambs, feed my sheep, etc. Were these things spoken to the whole community, or to special persons?  
2. If Christ gave this power to the community, was it from the beginning of the Church, or took it effect after the Churches were planted and established by the Apostles. Not the first, for then the Apostles themselves should derive their power from the community and society of the faithful, which they did not, but from Christ immediately, both in respect of gifts 
Gal. 1. 1. joh 21. 22. Whit. de pont. q. 8. c. 2. 3.  and graces, their calling itself, and the designation of their persons.  
It is said the power of the keys given to the Apostles was given to the Church, In tuitu ejusdem tanquam finis & totius. And it is true the Apostles were given to the Church, and the power they received was for the good of the whole; but this is not enough. That power may be said to be received immediately by the Church, as the first receptacle of it, and from it derived to others. But this power must be in the community as the first subject, from whom it cometh to the Officers. As the power of seeing is not only given in tuitu hominis, as the end of it, and the totum to whom it agreeth, but is in homine as the first subject from which it cometh to the eyes. The Apostles and other Governors were given of Christ for the Church as for 
1 Cor. 3. 22. & 4. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Authoritas rectorum pro dono quidem ecclesiae à Christo data est, sed non pro dono absoluto, ut penes totam Ecclesiam resideat cui datur, sed pro dono conditionali, ut rectoribus ipsis communicetur ad totius aedificationem, Park. de Polit. lib. 3. cap. 8.  their end, and all their authority was given unto them for the Church as for the whole: but the authority itself was immediately derived from Christ, and is not in the Church as the immediate subject, nor derived from the Church, but from Christ the King of the Church. The authority of Governors is given of Christ for a gift to the Church, but not for a gift absolute, that it may reside in the power of the whole Church, to whom it is given, but for a conditional gift communicated to the Governors themselves for the good of the whole. It is one thing then to ask for what end or use the keys are given, another to whom. To every one is given the declaration of the Spirit for profit, i. e. for the good of 
1 Cor. 12. 7. 1 Cor. 3. 12. 1. Tim. 3. 15. 1 Cor. 4. 1.  the Church. But was this gift given to the community of the faithful first and immediately? No; By gift and possession it was given to some, but for use and profit it was public.  
After the Churches were established it took not effect; for than it must be showed where Christ committed the power of God, first to the Apostles, and after to the community of the faithful. But that is no where to be found in holy scripture. The Ministers and guides of the Church were immediately 
Act. 20. 28. Eph. 4. 8. 11. 1 Co. 12. 28, 29 2 Co. 5. 19, 20. Tit. 1. 7.  of Jesus Christ, from whom immediately they derive their power and authority, by whom they are set over their charge, in whose Name they must execute their office, whose Stewards, Legates and Ambassadors they are, and unto whom they must give an account. Yea, Pastorship is the gift of Christ no less than Apostleship, and that the more because it is perpetual in the Church; every Pastor is not immediately called, but the Office and order of Pastors, the calling, authority and jurisdiction is immediately from Christ, and not from the Church: 
Successor habet jurisdictionem ab eo a quo praedecessor, alioqui non verè succedit. But Pastors and Teachers are the Successors of the Apostles. Whit. de pont. q. 8. c. 3.  The Steward is appointed of the Master of the family alone, and hath all his authority and jurisdiction from him: Every Ambassador in the cause of his ambassage doth immediately depend upon him from whom he is sent. But if the function, order and authority of Pastors and Teachers, be immediately from Christ, than it is not received from the Church as the immediate receptacle. Thus Protestant Divines dispute against Papists. If Bishops receive their power 
Fr: Victor rel. 2. de potest Ecclesiae q. 2. Alphons. de Castr. li. 2. c. 24. de insta baret. Whit. de pont. q. 8. c. 1.  and authority of exercising immediately from Christ, by mandate, mission, and commission from him, than they derive it not from the Pope. And if Presbyters receive their order jurisdiction and power of execution from Christ by his mandate and Commission, than they receive it not from the Bishop. And by the same reason, if the power of the keys be the immediate gift of Christ to his Ministers, than they derive not their power and authority from the people. It is usually objected that the Church cannot convey what she never had, but the people may Elect their Pastor. Whereunto the answer is direct and plain. Nothing can give that which it had not formally or virtually, unless it give it as an instrument ministering to one who hath it, but so it may give what it never had, nor is capable of. A Steward may give all the offices in his Master's house, as ministerially executing his Master's pleasure. Electors have not evermore authority over him whom they elect: but power and authority only to apply that power to him whom they choose. The power and authority whereunto a Minister is elected, is not in the people that elect him, but from Christ the King and head of his Church, who out of power doth confer that office upon him. If we consider what men give, or give not universally, it must be deemed that any men can make Ministers, because they give not the office, gifts, or authority, 
Cham. panstr. tom. 2. lib. 11. c. 18. sect. 11.  which are from Christ alone.  
3. If Ecclesiastical and spiritual power be in the multitude and community of the faithful, the Church doth not only call, but make Officers out of power and virtue received into herself, and then should the Church have a true lordlike power in regard of her Ministers. 
In the Church the Officers are the Ministers of the people, whose service the people is to use for administration and executing their judgements, that is, pronouncing the judgement of the Church (and of God first) against the obstinate. Rob. against Ber. p. 136. The Officers in the Church are both Christ's and the people's Servants and Ministers. Id. p. 165.   
For as he that will derive authority to the Church maketh himself Lord of the Church: so if the Church derive authority to the Ministers of Christ, she maketh herself Lady and Mistress over them in the exercise of that authority over them. For all men know it is the property of the Lord and Master to impart authority. Did the Church give power and authority to the Pastors and Teachers, she might make the Sacraments and preaching which one doth in order no Sacraments, no preaching. For it is the order instituted of God that gives being and efficacy to these ordinances. And if the power of ruling, feeding, and dispensing the holy things of God, do reside in the faithful, the Word and Sacraments in respect of dispensation and efficacy shall depend upon the order and institution of the Society. If the power of the keys be derived from the community of the faithful, then are Officers immediately and formally servants to the Church, and must do every thing in the name of the Church, Rule, feed, bind, loose, remit and retain sins, preach and administer the Sacraments, than they must perform their Office according to the direction of the Church more or less, seldom or frequent, remiss or diligent. For from whom are they to receive direction how to carry themselves 
Ames Bel. enerv. tom. 2. l. 3. c. 1. Ministri Ecclesiastici sunt Ecclesie tanquam objecti circa quod versantur ministri sunt Christi tanquam principalis causae & Domini à quo pendent ministri sed nullo modo episcoporum.  in their Office but from him or them from whom they receive their Office, whose works they do, and from whom they expect their reward? If their power and office be of God immediately, they must do the duties of their place according to his designment, and to be accountable unto God: But if their power and function be from the Church, the Church must give account unto God, and the Officers unto the Church whom she doth take to be her helpers.  
If it be said that God will have the Church to choose Officers to execute the power committed unto her. The answer is, either God will have her elect officers of his designment to do his work according to that power which he shall give them, and by his direction, and then they are God servants, and not the Churches, and receive their charge and function immediately from God, and not from the people: or he leaveth it to the arbitrament of the Church, to choose according to their pleasure such as must receive charge and authority from her. And then they must execute their office in her name so as shall seem good unto the Church, and neither longer nor otherwise. For if the Ministers of the Church be subject to God and Christ by the intervention of the people only, they have it from them, and not from God: but they preach or administer the Sacraments, rule, or feed, and if they depend immediately upon the faithful, viz. two or three gathered together in covenant, they must draw what in order they are to preach unto them in the name of the Lord; For from him must the Ambassador learn his errand from 
Omnis legatus in causâ legationis suae immediatè pendet ab eo à quo mittitur, & instrumento mandatorum in corrupto est indelebili.  whom he receiveth his Commission. We forbear to press the 
a We deny the order of Elders to be superior to the order of Saints, since it is not an order of mastership but of service. Rob. against Bern. pa. 201. It were a strange thing that men could have no command over their servants, as I have oft showed the Church-officers to be her servants. Id. p. 214. The order of servants is inferior to the order of them whose servants they are: but the order of Church-officers is an order of servants, and they by office to serve the people, Id. p. 215. 227.  confessions and reasons of such as maintain this opinion, that the officers of Christ be both of and for the people, and that in relation as the officers are called servants, the Church may be called Lord.  
4. Moreover if the power of the keys be given first and immediately to the community of the faithful, what reason can be alleged why in defect of Officers the Church might not rule, govern, feed, bind, loose, preach and administer the Sacraments, or if any fail in any office, why she might not supply that want by her power. For the power of the keys doth contain, both authority and exercise, power being given to this end, that it might be exercised as it is vouchsafed. But the Church when she is destitute of Officers, cannot exercise those acts of rule, nor by her power supply the want of any Officer. Only she hath a ministry of calling one whom Christ hath described, that from Christ he may have power of office given him in the vacant place. For these reasons (not to insist on any more) we judge the multitude or community of the faithful not to be the immediate receptacle of Ecclesiastical authority, and so the power of excommunication not to belong to them. If consent of the Churches of God be asked in this point (to omit others) the Churches of Scotland speak fully and expressly for us, in the second book of Disci. cap. 1. The Church as it is taken for them that exercise spiritual functions in the congregation of them that profess the truth, hath a certain power granted by God according to which, it useth a proper Jurisdiction and government exercised to the comfort of the whole flock. Power is an Ecclesiastical authority granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirke, gathered, and having its ground in the word of God, and to be put in execution by them unto whom the spiritual government of the Church by lawful calling is committed. The policy of the Kirke flowing from this power is an order or spiritual form of government which is exercised by the members appointed thereto by the Word of God, and therefore is given immediately to the office-bearers by whom it is exercised to the weal of the whole body.  
Vt universam scripturam evolvat D. Erastus, nunquam tamen inventurum verba Ligandi, & Solvendi aliis quam publico ministerio fungentibus, & quidem met aphoricè, divinae videlicet & spiritualis potestatis respectu, tribui. Sunt enim judicialia haec verba. etc. Beza de Presb. p 60. See Helvet. conf. ca 18. Sect. Nunc ergo, etc. Belgic. confess. art. 3. Argentinens. conf. art. 13. Bohem. confess. art 14.    

VI POSITION. That none are to be admitted as members but they must promise not to depart or remove unless the Congregation will give leave.  

Answer.  
OUr Answer hereto is briefly this. We judge it expedient and most according to rule, that such brethren as are in covenant with the Church, and ours as fellow-members, and have committed their souls to our charge as Ministers, should not forsake our fellowship, nor obruptly break away from us when and whither they please; but first approve themselves therein to their brethren's consciences, and take their counsel in so weighty a matter. For which we propound to consider these two reasons following. The former is drawn from the nature of the Church-Covenant, which consists in these four particulars.  
1. Every member at his admission doth openly profess, and solemnly promise, that by Christ's help assisting, he will not only in general give up himself (as to the Lord to be guided by him, so) to the Church according to God to be directed by it, which is no more than the members of the Church of Macedonia, did in a parallel case, 2 Cor. 8. 5. but also in particular, that he will perform all duties of brotherly love and faithfulness to all the members of the body, as of diligent watchfulness over all his brethren, thereby to prevent sin, so of faithful admonition after their falls to regain them to the Lord, from their sin, the former being enjoined, Hebr. 3. 13. And the want thereof deeply condemned in Cain, that would not acknowledge that duty of being his brother's keeper, Gen. 4. 9 the latter given in charge to the Church-members of Israel by the hand of Moses, Levit. 19 17. and so by Christ himself, Matth. 18. 15. And by Paul also to the Galat. c. 6. 1, 2.  
Secondly, the engagements are not made only by the members admitted into the Church, but by the Church back again to the member. So that thereby the whole Church in general, and every member thereof in particular, stand as well in conscience bound to perform all duties of love and watchfulness to him, as he doth to them; And this we do according to the golden rule of love and equity enjoined by our Saviour, Matth. 7. 12. fearing that contrary practice of Scribes and Pharisees so much condemned by Christ, of laying greater burdens upon others, than we ourselves are willing to undergo. Matth. 23. 4.  
3. These promises thus lawfully and mutually made, that member, as also the whole Church, are bound not only every one for himself, actively to perform them, but passively also to suffer his brethren to do those offices upon and towards himself: If he neglect the former, he shall falsify his covenant so solemnly before God, Angels, and men made, and so not only break promise to his brother, contrary to Psal. 15. 4. but also in some sort commit the sin of Ananias and Saphira in lying against the holy Ghost, condemned and punished severely by Gods own hand, Act. 5. 3. 5. 10. If he fail in the latter, he shall not only be guilty of the same sin of breach of Covenant with God and man as in the former; but shall also be guilty of this folly of despising counsel so much condemned, Prov. 12. 15. and 1. 7. and shall also proclaim this his folly and pride by showing to all the Church that he is wise in his own eyes, and leans to his own wisdom both reproved, Prov. 3. 7. and 23. 4. Seeing need of no further light to be held forth by his brethren, than what he apprehends himself, which is one of the greatest properties of folly.  
4. From all these things premised, it appears that we can do no less (and yet we do no more) then require a member before he depart according to our covenant thus lawfully, deliberately, and mutually made, to express to his brethren his desire of departing, and the place and society to which he tends, whether to a godly Church where he may be edified; or to some corrupt Assembly where he may be destroyed. And 2. his grounds and reasons which move him so to do, which if they hold good being scanned by the Word, he may be not only confirmed in his way by the consent and advise of many, but counselled also how to manage his departure for his best comfort. And so after all, solemnly with the whole Church's prayers, and blessings in the name of Christ dismissed: But if his grounds either be none at all, or weak and sinful, and that his desire of departing savours of self-will, inordinate love of gain, rash precipitancy, or a spirit of schism, more strongly then of sound reason, then what can we do less without breach of Covenant, then in love and tenderness show him his weakness, dissuade him from his purpose, and refuse to consent. Yet if after all this we see his spirit steadfastly and stiffly bend for a departure, then though we dare not act against our light by consenting or counselling, yet if his fin be not apparent, and danger eminent, we use rather (through indulgence in cases of like nature) to suspend our vote against him, as not willing against his will to detain him, abhorring to make our Church's places of restraint and imprisonment. But if any should object that this argument holds firm where this Church-Covenant is allowed to be lawful, but with some it is questioned, and with them it avails not. Ans. Some indeed have questioned the necessity of our Church-Covenant, but none (we hope) of these our reverend brethren that we write unto do question the lawfulness of such a Covenant being nothing else for the matter of it, but a promise of doing such Christian duties as the Gospel of Christ requires of all Saints in Church-estate; for we do not herein promise to perform any new duty to our brethren which was not before commanded us of the Lord, but only revive and renew our purposes afresh of performing such duties unto that particular body into which we are then incorporated as were before enjoined in the Word, as to love each other, and to watch over each other out of love for their good, to be ready to give counsel to, and to take counsel from each other, to prevent sin in them, or to gain them from 
Heb. 13. 1. Pro. 12. 19 & 1 7. 23. Gen 4. 4. 9 Levit. 19 17. Mat. 18. 15. Gal. 6. 1.  sin. All which are plentifully and frequently held forth in the Scriptures; for the defect of which care and watchfulness, all the body shall be wrapped in the same guilt & punishment with the member that commits the sin, as the whole Church of Israel was in Achans sin and punishment.  
Secondly, It's a thing very reasonable, and a known fundamental rule in all societies, that he that is incorporate thereto, and so participates of the privileges thereof, should engage himself to conform to all such lawful rites and orders as are expedient for the well being of that society, the contrary whereto will be a thing injurious in him to offer, and confusion to themselves to accept.  
The second ground is drawn from the necessity that may fall upon the body if every particular member should depart at his own pleasure. For as every society, so much more a Church of Saints, both from principles of nature and Christianity also, not only lawfully may, but in duty are bound to endeavour the preservation of itself, and Ergo timely to foresee and wisely to prevent all such things as would bring destruction to itself. Now if any member might, when, whither, and wherefore he please without consent of the Church depart away from it, this may by unavoidable consequence dissipate the whole; for if one man may so depart, why may not another also, though never so useful in that body, and whose absence might much shake the well-being of it: and if one why not two, six, ten, twent● as well? For where will ye stop seeing any may plead the same liberty, and if members may so do why not the Pastor and Teacher also? Seeing they are tied to him by the same relation that he is to them, and so the principals falling, the whole building must down: and if this may be so in one Church, why not in all, and so Christ should have no settled Church on earth.   

Reply.  
IT is one thing abruptly to break away when and whither they please, and forsake fellowship, another thing not to depart or remove habitation, unless the Congregation will give leave. Also it is one thing mutually to compound and agree not to depart from each other without consent and approbation, another to require a promise of all that be admitted into society, that they shall not depart without the Church's allowance. If such a promise be required of all members to be admitted, we cannot discern upon what grounds your practice is warranted. First, you exclude all such as be not set members from the Sacrament of the Supper, and their children from Baptism, and yet hinder them from entrance into Church society, because they cannot promise continuance in the place where they are resident for the present. Here we desire to be satisfied from the word of God by what you require it. Did the Apostles ever stipulate with such as desired to be baptised, that they must abide in particular society, and not remove thence without approbation from the Church? or did they deny the seals unto them, because they could not make any such promise? Was it ever heard of in the Church of God from the beginning thereof unto this day, that any such thing was propounded unto, or required of, members to be admitted into Church-fellowship? That Church Covenant which is necessary was not in use in the Apostles times, but the Covenant they entered into bound no man to this condition for aught we read. They did not prescribe it, no Church ever yet covenanted it as necessary to the preservation of the body.  
Secondly, It pertains not to the whole Congregation to take notice of, be acquainted with, or judge of the cause of every particular members removal. May not a servant remove from his Master to another Congregation? or the father bestow his son or daughter in marriage to one of another Congregation, but the whole Church must be called to council in this matter? If the Assembly once grow to be populous, of necessity they must be negligent in, or weary of such an heavy task; and for the present, for every one to challenge so much authority over other is usurpation. Let it be showed that ever by divine right this power was committed to the Church, and then we will confess it to be expedient and necessary. But till then we think the Church is over ridged in exacting such a condition of the members, and the members themselves go beyond their measure as busi-bodies in other men's matters, and things whereof they are not well able to judge many times, if they arrogate such power unto themselves we allow not rashness, or precipitancy, pride or self-conceitedness, we know it is meet that weighty matters should be managed by Council, but it is not necessary to bring every particular thing to the whole Church. In the multitude of Councillors there is peace, but over many Councillors oft causeth distraction, and different apprehensions breed delays. The nature of your Church-Covenant, as you describe it, inferreth not a necessitle of bringing every such business unto the Church; for you bind yourselves mutually to watch over one another, and in love to admonish one another in the Lord, to prevent sin and to encourage in well-doing, as it concerneth every man within the limits of his place and calling. But this essentially tieth not any man to a perpetual residence in one place, for then even occasional absence should be a breach of Covenant, unless it be by consent and approbation of the Church.  
You say in your Covenant you promise to perform no new duty to your brethren which was not before commanded of the Lord, but only revive and renew your purposes afresh of performing such duties to that particular body into which you are then to be incorporated, as were before enjoined in the Word. But in the word of truth, it is not commanded either expressly or by consequent, that no member of a Congregation should remove, or occasionally be absent from the place of his habitation, before he have acquainted the Church whither he goeth, and upon what occasions, and whether the place be dangerous, where he is likely to be infected; or safe, where he may be edified. These things are matters of weight and to be undertaken with advice, but the knowledge thereof belongeth not to every particular member of the society. And the Church shall burden herself above measure if she take upon her to intermeddle in all such occasions. Neither is it safe to commit the determination of such matters ever to the vote of the multitude, or weight of reasons, as they shall apprehend the matter. And if such business must be determined on the Lord's day, and to go before the administration of the Word, Sacraments, and alms, lest the holy things be polluted by notorious obstinate offenders, we 
Rob. ag. Bern. pa. 230.  fear the time appointed for the exercise of Religion shall be profaned with unseasonable disputes. Instances might be alleged, if it were a matter to be insisted upon.  
As for the Covenant itself which you mutually enter into, if therein you exact nothing but what God requires both for trial and stipulation, far be it that we should disallow it, but if ye constrain men to meddle with things that belong not to them, and wind them up higher than God would, and strain every thing to the pitch that you seem here to do in this branch a godly and sober mind may well pause before he make such promise. All members of the Church are not equally necessary to the preservation of the whole body; & if to the removal of some, it were expedient to have the consent, not only of the whole society, but of neighbouring societies, Ministers especially, it is very much to draw this to the removal or abode of every particular member. And if any man shall not intermeddle with every business of this kind, as questioning whether it doth belong to him or no, or not ask the advice of the whole society, as knowing the most to be unfit to counsel in such a case, doth he break his Covenant therein, and so commit a sin in a sort like the sin of Ananias and Saphira? Judge yourselves if in other cases you would not censure this to be an high encroachment upon Christian liberty, and a strict binding of men's consciences by humane constitutions. May you not expect to hear from your own grounds that herein you have devised an expedient, or necessary rite or custom to preserve the unity, and prevent the dissolution of the body, which never came into the mind of the Lord Jesus, the Saviour of the Church, and that in so doing (if your exposition will hold good) you break the second Commandment. Rites and customs expedient to prevent confusion for the time, let them be observed as customs expedient, and what God requires in the examination or admission of members, let that take place according to the precedents given in the Scriptures, and the constant practice of the universal Church in the purest times. But to press customs only expedient for the time, as standing rules necessary at all times, and for all persons, to put that authority into the hands of men which God never put upon them, to oblige men to intermeddle further in the affairs of men, than the Word doth warrant, to bind the conscience, and that under so heavy a penalty as the sin of Ananias and Saphira, where God hath not bound it, and to debar known and approved Christians from the Seals of the Covenant, because they cannot promise as settled members to abide and stay in the society, unless they shall obtain leave of the Congregation to depart, and to charge them in the mean season to be men, who against light refuse subjection to the Gospel; this is that which we cannot approve, which yet we suspect will follow from your judgement, and desire to be resolved of in your practice. And here we entreat leave to put you in mind of that which you have considered already, schil. That the Church and every member thereof hath entered into Covenant, either expressly or implicitly to take God for their God, and to keep the words of the Covenant and do them, to seek the 
Exod. 24. 37. Deut. 2. 14. & 4. 3. 4. & 9 7.  Lord with all their hearts, and to walk before him in truth and uprightness: but we never find that they were called to give account of the work of grace wrought in their souls, or that the whole Congregation were appointed to be Judge thereof. You stand 
Ezek. 16. 6. 8. Num. 23. 48. 50. Deut. 29. 10. 11, 12.  all of you this day (saith Moses) before the Lord your God, etc. that thou shouldst enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God. All the people that were borne in the Wilderness Joshua circumcised, but it is incredible to think that among that great multitude, there was not one who did not give good testimony of the work of grace in his soul: We read often times that Israel after some grievous fall and revolt, renewed their Covenant, 
Josh 24. 1. 14. 23, 24, 25. judg. 2. 8. 11. & 3. 9 15. & 6. 7. & 10. 10-17. 2 Chr. 15. 12 2 Kin. 11. 17. & 23. 3. 2 Chr. 34. 31. Heb. 10 29. 30  to walk with God, to serve him only, and to obey his voice, as in the days of Joshua, the Judges, David, Samuel: Also Joash, Josiah, and Nehemiah, etc. But no particular enquiry was made, what work of grace God had wrought in the hearts of every singular person. But the confession and profession of obedience was taken. When John Baptist began to preach the Gospel, and gather a new people for Christ, he admitted none to Baptism but upon confession of their sins; but we read of no question that he put forth unto them to discover the work of grace in their souls, or repelled any that voluntarily submitted themselves upon that pretence. It appeareth many ways that when the Apostles planted 
Act. 2. 38. & 8. 37. & 19 17, 18, 19  Churches, they made a Covenant between God and the people whom they received. But they received men upon the profession of faith, and promise of amendment of life, without strict in query what sound work of grace was wrought in the soul. In after ages, strangers from the covenant were first instructed in the faith, and then baptised upon the profession of faith, and promise to walk according to the covenant of grace. Now the profession at first required of all that were received to baptism was that they believed in the Father, Son, and holy Ghost. This was the 
Act. 8. 37.  confession of the Eunuch when he was baptised, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Creed is honoured of the ancients with glorious titles, as the rule of faith, the sum of faith, the body of faith, the persuasions of faith: but by the Creed they understand that rule of faith, and law of faith, and institution of Christ which was then given when he was about to ascend into heaven, and commanded his disciples, saying, Go teach all Nations, etc. It is true, that in after times as occasion required some other Articles were added as explanations of the former, to meet with the heresies of the times which began to trouble the Church. But for substance of matter in things to be believed, the Church never required other acknowledgement of them that were to be received into the congregation of Christ's flock, and admitted into her communion. And for things to be done, or the practical part, she requireth of them that were to be received to baptism an abrenuntiation of the devil, the world, and the flesh, with all their sinful works and lusts.  
The first principles then of the doctrine of Christ being received, and the foresaid profession being made, the Apostles, and the Church following the example of the Apostles, never denied baptism unto such as sought or desired it. If this be the Covenant that members admitted into Church-fellowship do enter into, and this be all you require of them whom you receive, you have the practice of the Apostles, and the whole Church in after ages for your precedent. But if you proceed further than thus, and put men to declare what work of grace God hath wrought in their soul, in this or that way, which perhaps is not determined by the word of grace, at least not agreed upon among yourselves, we beseech you consider by what authority you do it, and upon what grounds you stand. But we will enter no further upon this matter, because it comes not within the compass of these Positions, and to attribute so much to private letters, as to make them the ground of another dispute we may not.    

VII. POSITION. That a Minister is so a Minister of a particular Congregation, that if they dislike him unjustly, or leave him, he ceaseth to be a Minister.  

Answer.  
OUr Answer to this consists in two branches. 1. In case a Minister be set aside by the Church merely through his own default. 2. By the Church's default without any desert of his. In the former case it is evident he ceaseth to be a Minister to them any longer, as appears in four conclusions.  
1. It is clear from the Word, that a Pastor or Teacher in these days hath no Apostolical power over all Churches, but only limited to that one Church where God hath set him. Paul gives not the Elders at Ephesus a general Commission to go teach all Churches, but to go feed that one flock over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers. Act. 20. 28. So Peter gives direction to Elders to feed that flock of God only which was among them, and take the oversight thereof. 1 Pet. 5. 2.  
2. It is as clear that all this power of feeding which the Minister hath in that Church is nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church, who hath solemnly called him to the work, and promised to obey him therein: for if he have it elsewhere, it must be either from Christ immediately, or from some other men deputed by Christ to confer it on him, or he must take it up of himself. Not the first, for that was proper to the Apostles or Apostolical men, therefore Paul proving his Apostleship, saith he was called not of men, nor by men, but by Jesus Christ himself. Gal. 1. 1. Not the second, for we never read in God's Word that any ordinary Officers, or other besides the Church, that had any Commission given them from Christ to call Ministers unto Churches. Not the third, for no man taketh this honour, viz. of a Priest under the Law, or of a Minister under the Gospel, but he that is called of God, Hebr. 5. 4. Therefore it must needs be from Christ by the Church.  
3. As the Church in the name of Christ gave this power to a Minister to be what he is, and do what he doth amongst them: when such a Minister shall make and manifest himself apparently, unworthy, and unfit to discharge the place, which they thus called him unto, so that they may discern that Christ the head of the Church hath refused him, from being a Minister unto him, they may then upon as good grounds depose him from it, as they called him to it.  
4. When a Church hath thus in Christ's name put forth this power of shutting, as before it did of opening to a Minister, than he must cease to be a Minister unto them any more, for we know no such indelible character imprinted upon a Minister, that the Ministry ceasing, the Minister ceaseth also.  
2. In case the Church shall without cause, or sufficient weighty cause, rashly or wilfully set him aside whom Christ hath set over them, and whom they so solemnly called, and promised before the Lord to submit unto, and so abuse their power given them by Christ; it is doubtless a very great wrong unto the Minister, and sin against Christ himself before whom it was done; and not only Christ himself will take it ill at their hands, for such contempt done to him in his Ministers according to Christ's speech, Luke 10. 16. He that rejecteth you, rejecteth me. And God's speech, 1 Sam. 8. 7. They have not cast off thee but me. But even other Churches also may admonish them. And if they prove obstinate therein, withdraw the right hand of fellowship from them; and concerning the Minister himself thus deposed, seeing it is done not by Christ, but by the Church without Christ, yea against the mind of Christ, we conceive though he be by them deprived of the execution of his ministry among them, yet until he accepts of a call to another people, he doth yet still remain a Minister of Christ, in whose account (notwithstanding such deposition) he hath true right of administration among that people.   

Reply.  
THe question is of Ministers unjustly forsaken, or driven from the Church or congregation: and your answer is for the most part of Ministers set aside or deprived through their own default. We never purposed to speak one word for any unworthy Minister whom Christ hath put out of office, and therefore your labour to prove that such justly rejected by the Church are no longer Ministers might well have been saved. But sitting them aside, we will in few words examine your conclusions upon which you bind the certainty of that sentence you pass against them.  
First, it is certain and clear from the Word, that a Pastor or Teacher neither in these days hath, nor in any other age of the Church, aught to have Apostolical power over all Churches. The Apostles had only power to serve the Church with the personal service of their Apostleship. But pastoral power of ordinary Ministers or Teachers they never had: and if the Apostles had not the power of ordinary Ministers, much less can Pastors receive the power of Apostles, for Christ gave both the one and the other order. But as the Apostles were not Pastors of that Church to which they preached, and among whom they continued for some space; no more do Pastors become Apostles if they preach the Word, or dispense the Sacraments to another flock or people beside their own, whereof they have the special oversight. But of this matter we have spoken before, and of the texts of Scripture here alleged, therefore we will not repeat what hath been said already: only it seemeth somewhat strange, that you should cite those texts of Scripture, as if the Apostle had said, feed one flock, or feed that flock of God only. For we find the word (one) or (only) neither in the text expressly, nor in the sense for which it is here alleged, viz. as if he might not perform any ministerial act in another Congregation upon any occasion whatsoever.  
Secondly, the power of feeding which the Minister hath is neither confined to one society only, nor nextly derived to him from Christ by the Church. The office and authority of a Pastor is immediately from Christ. The deputation of the person which Christ hath designed is from the Church ministerially, but neither virtually nor formally. The consent of the people is requisite in the election of Pastors and Teachers we grant, the direction of the Elders going before or along with them; but the authority, office, and gift of a Pastor is not from the people or Elders, but from Christ alone. 
Whit. de pontq. 1 ca 1. p. 14.  When an Apostle was to be chosen in the place of Judas, Act. 1. 22, 23. no one had the handling of that business, but Peter declared unto the brethren present, what an one ought to be taken, and they present two, whereof one was elected by lot. In this example somethings are extraordinary, for one only was to be chosen, and that immediately by God himself: and somethings ordinary for our imitation. For if Peter would do nothing without consent of the disciples, thenmay not ordinary elections be passed without consent and approbation of the Church, but it is not a popular election, not governed by the fore-direction of Elders, which is concluded from this passage of Scripture: but a Church election by the free consent, and judgement of the faithful with the fore-leading of the Presbytery. When Deacons were to be chosen, Act. 6. 1. 6. in the Church of Jerusalem, it was done by the consent of the Church. The mutiny of the Hellenists against the Hebrews occasioned that election, but was no cause why it was made by free consent. The Apostles show what persons must be chosen, and who ever thought the Church was left at liberty to choose as she please without direction. But in this election the people did first choose, the Apostles only directing whom the people ought to make choice of: when most commonly the Apostles instructed the people, and went before them in the election, and they consented. Act. 14. 23. The Apostles by consent chose Elders, and so in every matter of great importance belonging directly to the whole body of the Church, whether severally in one congregation, or jointly in many, the consent of the faithful by observation of the Apostles was required. Act. 11. 22. and 15. 22. and 16. 4. 1 Cor. 8. 19 But in the primitive times after the Apostles, one Church might elect and choose a Pastor for another. As Ignatius exhorts the Phyladelphians, that they would elect a Pastor for the Church of Antioch. And so when the East Church was infected with arianism, Basil. epist. 69. 70. 74. thought it a fit means to remove the heresy, if the Bishops of Italy being sent thither did condemn the heresy, and he imploreth the aid of the Bishops of Italy, France, and all the East. Cyprian 
Ep. 13. li. 3.  saith, all Bishop's sunt mutuae concordiae glutine copulati: that if any hold heresy the rest should help. It would be too long to reckon up examples which in this case might be produced. If here it be questioned whether your election of the people be essential to the calling of a Minister: We answer. 1. A thing is essential two ways. First, as absolutely necessary, so that the thing can have no existence without it. Secondly, as necessary to the integrity of the thing, so that it is maimed without it.  
Again, either the people be few in number, and simple apt to be led aside, unable to judge of the sufficiency of their Minister, or they be more in number, increased in wisdom, sound in faith, and able to discern betwixt things that differ. In the first sense the election of the people is not necessary or essential; But in the second we cannot say he is no Minister that is not chosen by the people, but his calling in that respect is maimed. If the people be few and simple, apt to be deceived, they stand in more need of guidance and direction, both from their own Elders, and other Churches. If the people be many in number, full of wisdom and understanding, their liberty to choose is the greater; and it is the greater wrong to be deprived of it. The practice of the Apostles and the primitive Churches for many ages will confirm this; for sometimes men were propounded to the Church to be chosen: Sometimes the choice was wholly left to them: and was not that for our direction, that more liberty is given where the danger is less, and more restraint and caution used where the danger is more apparent, that if they be left to themselves, either an ill or unfit choice will be made? In reason this is evident, for the child's consent is required in marriage, but the more able he is to choose for himself, the more liberty may parents grant, the less able, the more watchful must they be; and so in this business. Brotherly society requires that we mutually exhort, admonish, reprove and comfort each other as occasion requires, and as need requires. It is a duty of Neighbour-Churches to lend their help to their brethren in the choice and election of their Minister. When the Scripture willeth that one 
Rome 15. 14. Heb. 3. 13.  should admonish another, it is not only a command to every singular man towards his fellow, but also to any whole company too: another society Bellarmine asketh, quo jure unus populus Episcopum alterius populi elegere potest? Junius answereth; Certe charitatis jure & communione 
Bel. de Cler. li. ●. c. 7. Jun. animad. contr. 5. l. c 7. no●. 13. Rom. 12. 12.  sanctorum. And Paul when he teacheth that all the faithful are members of one mystical body of Christ, who ought to have a mutual care one of another, laid the foundation of this policy.  
It is a blemish in the calling of a Minister, if either the people be not fit to choose, or being fit they be shut forth from the choice, but this maim doth not make a nullity in his calling; for in every true Church where the word is preached and received, and the Sacraments for substance rightly administered, there is a true and lawful Ministry, and a true and lawful calling of that Ministry, though in some things defective. In the Church of God all sound and saving truth is to be found, for it is the pillar and ground of truth, and where the true profession of all saving truth, with the right use of the Sacraments for substance is to be found, there is the Church, which ordinarily cannot be had, maintained and continued without a lawful Ministry, nor that without a calling. The saving truth of God & a lawful Ministry, are both essential to a true Church. Something of this remains in every complete society that hath any thing of the Church; and for essence and substance they are true in every true, lawful, complete society. The profession of the truth may be true and sound in all necessary and fundamental points, though mixed with divers errors, and the Ministry for truth and substance lawful, though many ways deficient. In the true Church there is a true Ministry, but the true Church hath continued there by the blessing of God, where the election of Ministers hath been given away by the people, or taken from them. In the primitive Church, when the people had a voice in the choice of their Pastor, oftentimes there were factions in the Church, the people stood against their guides and challenged the whole power of election to themselves. Sometimes they were divided 
Theod. hist. l. 4. c. 6. Aug Epist. 110. & 225. Socrat. hist. l 7. c. 34, 35. 39 Zozom. hist. l. 2. c. 18, 19 Nazian. in Epitaphium patris Evagr. l. 2. c. 5. 8. Theod. hist. l. 5. c. 23. Jun. animadver in Bel. cont 5. l. 1. c. 7. nor. 16, 17. Cartur. reply 2d. part 1. pa. 212. Illiris. cattle. test. li. 2. tit. Ecclesiae gubern.  among themselves. Sometimes they gave away their power, at least in part, and sometimes Ministers were set over them without their council and advice, whose Ministry notwithstanding was not reputed void and of none effect. If it be objected that many things were amiss in those primitive elections, what will follow thence, but that the Ministry may be lawful and good, where there be many wants in the manner of calling? If this be not granted, what shall be done when the people and their Elders be divided in the choice of a fit Officer. If the people prevail against their Elders, he whom they choose is no Minister to them, because not chosen by their suffrages: if the Elders against the people, he whom they approve is no Minister unto theirs, because not chosen by their suffrage; And so if there be dissension they must separate from, or excommunicate one another, because he is no Minister to the one whom the others approve. The Orthodox Pastors did profess, so that the Donatists would return to the true and Apostolical doctrine, they would not disallow their Bishops, that they might understand that Catholics did not detest Christian consecration (as Augustine speaks) by humane error. The high Priesthood was bought and sold for money, and sometimes made annual, and every year new high Priests created, Sicut isti praefecti quos singulis annis promutant reges, as Sol: Jarchi saith. That as every man would lay out more or less money, he should get or lose the Priesthood, which may be seen in the examples of Jason or Menelaus.  
Nevertheless, so long as the Jews continued the true 
Jos. Antiq. l. 20. c. 18. c. 4. See Ambros. de officijs. l. 1. c. 50. Hieron. ad Ocean & Epist. add Nepotian. T. C. Reply 1. pa. 41. a River. Cathol. orth. tract. 2. q. 8. Sect. 3. Cartw. Reply 2. par. 1. pa. 273.  Church of God, the Priesthood was true also. The reformed Churches who have separated from the abominations of Rome, profess the first reformers among them received some ordinary calling in the Roman Synagogue. They that think the basest of Rome, will acknowledge Baptism unduly administered by Priests or Jesuits, to be for substance the holy Sacrament of Christ. And if the Baptism of God may be derived from the Ministry, it is no absurdity to think that the first seekers of reformation derived authority from Christ to preach the Word and administer the Sacraments by them, as Stewards used of God to set them in that office: for the seekers of reformation derived their authority from God, and that which is instituted by Christ, is not made void by the corruptions of men.  
The third and fourth consideration we will pass over, because from what hath been spoken, it is easy to understand in what sense they may be admitted, and in what denied, and we have no desire to trouble you with the examination of that which falleth not into question.  
As for the second branch of your Answer, that in case the Church shall without cause, or without sufficient weighty cause, rashly or wilfully set him aside whom Christ hath set over them, yet he still remains a Minister of Christ (until he accepts of a call from another people) in whose account, notwithstanding such Depositions, he hath true right of administering among that people: We know not well your meaning; if this be your mind that a Minister lawfully called and set over one Congregation, is to be esteemed a Minister in the usual Church, as the particular Church hath unity with, and is part of the universal or Catholic: and as a party baptised is not baptised into that particular Congregation only, but into all Churches; and that the Ministry is one, Cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur, as Cyprian speaks; and therefore though the Minister be unjustly cast off by one Congregation, yet he is not to be esteemed as no Minister, we freely consent. But if your meaning be that he is only by right a Minister of that particular Congregation, because unjustly deposed, as formerly in the execution of his office he was a Minister to them only, and to none other society whatsoever, or in what respect soever; your opinion is contrary to the judgement and practice of the universal Church, and tendeth to destroy the unity of the Church, and that communion which the Churches of God may and aught to have one with another; for if he be not a Minister in other Churches, then are not the Churches of God one, nor the Ministers one, nor the flock which they feed one, nor the Communion one which they have each with other. And if the Pastor derive all his authority to feed from the Church, when the Church hath set him aside, what right hath he to administer among that people. If they err in their deposition, it is true they sin against Christ. But as they give right to an unworthy man to administer among them, if they call him unjustly, so they take right from the worthy if wrongsully they depose him. The Minister is for his Ministry the office for the execution, and so the Pastor and the flock are relatives: And therefore if their Election gave him authority among them to seed, their casting him off hath stripped him of the same power which formerly they gave him. And his ministry ceasing, he should cease to be their Minister, if he stood as Minister only to that Congregation in every respect.  
Whit. depont. q. 4. Sec. 10. pa. 559. Certe lex naturae & ratio clamitat cujus est instituere ejus est destruere, sive destituere, ad quem institutio pertinet ad eundem destitationem, seu destructionem pertinere. Rob. aga. B. p. 214. If the Congregation may choose and elect their Governors, than they may refuse and reprobate them.    

VIII. POSITION. That one Minister cannot perform any ministerial act in another Congregation.  

Answer.  
IF you take ministerial act improperly as sometimes it is taken by some, only when the Minister of one Church doth exercise his gifts of praying and preaching in another Church, being by themselves so desired. Then we answer, in this sense a Minister of one Church may do a ministerial act in another, which he doth not perform by virtue of any calling, but only by his gifts; and thus upon any occasion we mutually perform those acts one in another's Churches: But if you mean by ministerial act, such an act of authority and power in dispensing of God's ordinance as a Minister doth perform to the Church, whereunto he is called to be a Minister; then we deny that he can so perform any ministerial act to any other Church but his own, because his office extends no further than his call. For that solemn charge, Act. 20. 28. is not to feed all flocks, but that one flock only, over which the holy Ghost hath made them overseers. If the question were propounded to any Minister so exercising in an others Church, which was once to our Saviour by the chief Priests and Elders: By what power dost thou these things, and who gave thee this authority? let that Minister whosoever he be, study how to make an answer.   

Reply.  
THe preaching of the Word, public prayer in the congregation met together solemnly to worship God, and the administration of the Sacraments, are acts properly ministerial (if any other) to be performed by power and authority from Christ, as you acknowledge, for the preaching 
To baptise is a duty of the Pastor's pastoral office. ●. D. Apol Ser. exam. pa. 287.  of the Word, and dispensation of the Seals in your second Consideration. But these acts one Minister may perform in another Congregation, or towards the members of another Church. You know by whom your question hath been propounded touching one Ministers exercising in another Minister's Church, and how it hath been answered; and if you see more light and truth then formerly, we would desire you substantially to confute what answers some of you have returned to that demand. To admit (saith Mr. J. D.) those that are known members of another Church to Communion in the Sacraments upon fitting occasions 
Exam. of texts, pa. 290.  I hold lawful, and do professemy readiness to practise accordingly. Again, I conceive that (besides my membership else where, and the 
Apol. exam. of texts. p. 288.  right which those Churches give to known passants of being admitted to the Communion for a short time) both himself and the whole Church acknowledge me for a member with them for the time of my abode in that service, which they testified by desiring the help of my public labours, and their cheerful admittance of me to that ordinance during that time without the least scruple. And if a Minister may pray, preach, bless the congregation in the name of the Lord, and receive the Sacrament with them, being thereunto requested; we doubt not but by consent of the Pastor and the Congregation he may lawfully dispense the Seals amongst them also as need and occasion requires.  
That distinction of preaching by office, and exercising his gifts only, when it is done by a Minister, and desired of none but Ministers, and that in solemn, set, constant Church-assemblies, we cannot find warranted in the Word of truth, and therefore we dare not receive it.   
FINIS.