An
Appendix
Whosoever reads,
and impartially
considers what we
have in our
forgoing
confession
declared, may
readily perceive,
That we do not
only concenter
with all other
true Christians on
the Word of God
(revealed in the
Scriptures of
truth) as the
foundation and
rule of our faith
and worship. But
that we have also
industriously
endeavoured to
manifest, That in
the fundamental
Articles of
Christianity we
mind the same
things, and have
therefore
expressed our
belief in the same
words, that have
on the like
occasion been
spoken by other
societies of
Christians before
us.
This we have done,
That those who are
desirous to know
the principles of
Religion which we
hold and practise,
may
take an estimate
from our selves
(who jointly
concur in this
work) and may not
be misguided,
either by undue
reports; or by the
ignorance or
errors of
particular
persons, who going
under the same
name with our
selves, may
give an occasion
of scandalizing
the truth we
profess.
And although we do
differ from our
brethren who are
Paedobaptists; in
the subject and
administration of
Baptisme,
and such other
circumstances as
have a necessary
dependence on our
observance of that
Ordinance, and do
frequent our
own assemblies for
our mutual
edification, and
discharge of those
duties, and
services which we
owe unto God, and
in
his fear to each
other: yet we
would not be from
hence
misconstrued, as
if the discharge
of our own
consciences
herein, did any
wayes disoblige or
alienate our
affections, or
conversation from
any others that
fear the Lord; but
that we may and do
as we have
opportunity
participate of the
labors of those,
whom God hath
indued with
abilities
above our selves,
and qualified, and
called to the
Ministry of the
Word, earnestly
desiring to
approve our selves
to
be such, as follow
after peace with
holyness, and
therefore we
alwaies keep that
blessed Irenicum,
or healing Word
of the Apostle
before our eyes;
if in any thing ye
be otherwise
minded, God shall
reveal even this
unto you;
nevertheless
whereto we have
already attained;
let us walk by the
same rule, let us
mind the same
thing, Phil 3. v.
15, 16.
Let it not
therefore be
judged of us
(because much hath
been written on
this subject, and
yet we continue
this our
practise different
from others) that
it is out of
obstinacy, but
rather as the
truth is, that we
do herein
according
to the best of our
understandings
worship God, out
of a pure mind
yielding obedience
to his precept, in
that method
which we take to
be most agreeable
to the Scriptures
of truth, and
primitive
practise.
It would not
become us to give
any such
intimation, as
should carry a
semblance that
what we do in the
service of
God is with a
doubting
conscience, or
with any such
temper of mind
that we do thus
for the present,
with a
reservation that
we will do
otherwise
hereafter upon
more mature
deliberation; nor
have we any cause
so to do, being
fully perswaded,
that what we do is
agreeable to the
will of God. Yet
we do heartily
propose this, that
if any of
the Servants of
our Lord Jesus
shall, in the
Spirit of
meekness, attempt
to convince us of
any mistake either
in
judgement or
practise, we shall
diligently ponder
his arguments; and
accompt him our
chiefest friend
that shall be
an instrument to
convert us from
any error that is
in our ways, for
we cannot
wittingly do any
thing against the
truth, but all
things for the
truth.
And therefore we
have indeavoured
seriously to
consider, what
hath been already
offered for our
satisfaction in
this
point; and are
loth to say any
more lest we
should be esteemed
desirous of
renewed contests
thereabout: yet
forasmuch as it
may justly be
expected that we
shew some reason,
why we cannot
acquiesce in what
hath been urged
against us; we
shall with as much
brevity as may
consist with
plainness,
endeavour to
satisfie the
expectation of
those that shall
peruse what we now
publish in this
matter also.
1. As to those
Christians who
consent with us,
That Repentance
from dead works,
and Faith towards
God, and our Lord
Jesus Christ, is
required in
persons to be
Baptized; and do
therefore supply
the defect of the
(infant being
uncapable of
making confession
of either) by
others who do
undertake these
things for it.
Although we do
find by
Church history
that this hath
been a very
antient practise;
yet considering,
that the same
Scripture which
does
caution us against
censuring our
brother, with whom
we shall all stand
before the
judgment seat of
Christ, does also
instruct us, That
every one of us
shall give an
accompt of himself
to God, and
whatsoever is not
of Faith is Sin.
Rom. 14:4, 10, 12,
23. Therefore we
cannot for our own
parts be perswaded
in our own minds,
to build such a
practise
as this, upon an
unwritten
tradition: But do
rather choose in
all points of
Faith and Worship,
to have recourse
to
the holy
Scriptures, for
the information of
our judgment, and
regulation of our
practise; being
well assured that
a
conscientious
attending thereto,
is the best way to
prevent, and
rectifie our
defects and
errors. 2 Tim. 3.
16,17.
And if any such
case happen to be
debated between
Christians, which
is not plainly
determinable by
the Scriptures,
we think it safest
to leave such
things undecided
until the second
coming of our Lord
Jesus; as they did
in the
Church of old,
until there should
arise a Priest
with Urim and
Thummim, that
might certainly
inform them of the
mind
of God thereabout,
Ezra 2. 62, 63.
2. As for those
our Christian
brethren who do
ground their
arguments for
Infants baptism,
upon a presumed
faederal
Holiness, or
Church-Membership,
we conceive they
are deficient in
this, that albeit
this
Covenant-Holiness
and
Membership should
be as is supposed,
in reference unto
the Infants of
Believers; yet no
command for Infant
baptism
does immediately
and directly
result from such a
quality, or
relation.
All instituted
Worship receives
its sanction from
the precept, and
is to be thereby
governed in all
the necessary
circumstances
thereof.
So it was in the
Covenant that God
made with Abraham
and his Seed. The
sign whereof was
appropriated only
to the
Male,
notwithstanding
that the female
seed as well as
the Male were
comprehended in
the Covenant and
part of the
Church of God;
neither was this
sign to be affixed
to any Male Infant
till he was eight
dayes old, albeit
he was
within the
Covenant from the
first moment of
his life; nor
could the danger
of death, or any
other supposed
necessity, warrant
the circumcising
of him before the
set time, nor was
there any cause
for it; the
commination of
being cut off from
his people, being
only upon the
neglect, or
contempt of the
precept.
Righteous Lot was
nearly related to
Abraham in the
flesh, and
contemporary with
him, when this
Covenant was made;
yet inasmuch as he
did not descend
from his loynes,
nor was of his
houshold family
(although he was
of the same
houshold of faith
with Abraham) yet
neither Lot
himself nor any of
his posterity
(because of their
descent from him)
were signed with
the signature of
this Covenant that
was made with
Abraham and his
seed.
This may suffice
to shew, that
where there was
both an expresse
Covenant, and a
sign thereof (such
a Covenant as did
separate the
persons with whom
it was made, and
all their
off-spring from
all the rest of
the world, as a
people
holy unto the
Lord, and did
constitute them
the visible Church
of God, (though
not comprehensive
of all the
faithful
in the world) yet
the sign of this
Covenant was not
affixed to all the
persons that were
within this
Covenant, nor
to any of them
till the prefixt
season; nor to
other faithful
servants of God,
that were not of
descent from
Abraham. And
consequently that
it depends purely
upon the will of
the Law-giver, to
determine what
shall be the sign
of his Covenant,
unto whom, at what
season, and upon
what terms, it
shall be affixed.
If our brethren do
suppose baptism to
be the seal of the
Covenant which God
makes with every
beleiver (of which
the
Scriptures are
altogether silent)
it is not our
concern to contend
with them herein;
yet we conceive
the seal of
that Covenant is
the indwelling of
the Spirit of
Christ in the
particular and
individual persons
in whom he
resides,
and nothing else,
neither do they or
we suppose that
baptism is in any
such manner
substituted in the
place of
circumcision, as
to have the same
(and no other)
latitude, extent,
or terms, then
circumcision had;
for that was
suited only for
the Male children,
baptism is an
ordinance suited
for every
beleiver, whether
male, or femal.
That
extended to all
the males that
were born in
Abrahams house, or
bought with his
money, equally
with the males
that
proceeded from his
own loynes; but
baptisme is not so
far extended in
any true Christian
Church that we
know of, as
to be administred
to all the poor
infidel servants,
that the members
thereof purchase
for their service,
and
introduce into
their families;
nor to the
children born of
them in their
house.
But we conceive
the same parity of
reasoning may hold
for the ordinance
of baptism as for
that of
circumcision;
Exodus 12.49. viz.
one law for the
stranger, as for
the home born: If
any desire to be
admitted to all
the
ordinances, and
priviledges of
Gods house, the
door is open; upon
the same terms
that any one
person was ever
admitted to all,
or any of those
priviledges, that
belong to the
Christian Church;
may all persons of
right
challenge the like
admission.
As for that text
of Scripture, Rom.
4. 11. He received
circumcision a
seal of the
righteousness of
the faith which
he had yet being
uncircumcised; we
conceive if the
Apostles scope in
that place be duly
attended to, it
will appear
that no argument
can be taken from
thence to inforce
Infant baptism;
and forasmuch as
we find a full and
fair
account of those
words given by the
learned Dr.
Lighfoot (a man
not to be
suspected of
partiality in this
controversie) in
his Hor. Hebrai,
on the I Cor. 7.
19. p.42, 43. we
shall transcribe
his words at
large, without any
comment of our own
upon them.
Circumcision is
nothing, if we
respect the time,
for now it was
without use, that
end of it being
especially
fulfilled; for
which it had been
instituted: this
end the Apostle
declares in these
words, Rom. 4.11
. But
I fear that by
most translations
they are not
sufficiently
suited to the end
of circumcision,
and the scope of
the Apostle whilst
something of their
own is by them
inserted.
And after the
Doctor hath
represented
diverse versions
of the words
agreeing for the
most part in sense
with that
which we have in
our Bibles he thus
proceeds.
Other versions are
to the same
purpose; as if
circumcision was
given to Abraham
for a Seal of that
Righteousness
which he had being
yet uncircumcised,
which we will not
deny to be in some
sense true, but we
believe that
circumcision had
chiefly a far
different respect.
Give me leave thus
to render the
words; And he
received the sign
of circumcision, a
seal of the
Righteousness of
Faith, which was
to be in the
uncircumcision,
Which was to be (I
say) not which had
been, not that
which Abraham had
whilst he was yet
uncircumcised; but
that which his
uncircumcised seed
should have, that
is the Gentiles,
who in
time to come
should imitate the
faith of Abraham.
Now consider well
on what occasion
circumcision was
instituted unto
Abraham, setting
before thine eyes
the history
thereof, Gen. 17.
This promise is
first made unto
him, Thou shalt be
the Father of many
Nations (in what
sense the Apostle
explaineth
in that chapter)
and then there is
subjoined a double
seal for the
confirmation of
the thing, to wit,
the change of
the name Abram
into Abraham, and
the institution of
circumcision. v4.
Behold as for me,
my Covenant is
with thee,
and thou shalt be
the Father of many
Nations. Wherefore
was his name
called Abraham?
for the sealing of
this
promise. Thou
shalt be the
Father of many
Nations. And
wherefore was
circumcision
instituted to him?
For the sealing
of the same
promise. Thou
shalt be the
Father of many
Nations. So that
this is the sense
of the Apostle;
most
agreeable to the
institution of
circumcision; he
received the sign
of circumcision, a
seal of the
Righteousness of
Faith which in
time to come the
uncircumcision (or
the Gentiles)
should have and
obtain.
Abraham had a
twofold seed,
natural, of the
Jews; and
faithful, of the
believing
Gentiles: his
natural seed was
signed with the
sign of
circumcision,
first indeed for
the distinguishing
of them from all
other Nations
whilst they
as yet were not
the seed of
Abraham, but
especially for the
memorial of the
justification of
the Gentiles by
faith,
when at length
they should become
his seed.
Therefore
circumcision was
of right to cease,
when the Gentiles
were
brought in to the
faith, forasmuch
as then it had
obtained its last
and chief end, &
thenceforth
circumcision is
nothing.
Thus far he, which
we earnestly
desire may be
seriously weighed,
for we plead not
his authority, but
the evidence of
truth in his
words.
3. Of whatsoever
nature the
holiness of the
children
mentioned, 1 Cor.
7. 12. be, yet
they who do
conclude that all
such children
(whether Infants
or of riper years)
have from hence an
immediate right to
baptism, do as we
conceive
put more into the
conclusion, then
will be found in
the premisses.
For although we do
not determine
positively
concerning the
Apostles scope in
the holiness here
mentioned, so as
to
say it is this, or
that, and no other
thing; Yet it is
evident that the
Apostle does by it
determine not only
the
lawfulness but the
expedience also of
a beleivers
cohabitation with
an unbeliever, in
the state of
marriage.
And we do think
that although the
Apostles asserting
of the unbelieving
yokefellow to be
sanctified by the
believer,
should carry in it
somewhat more then
is in the bare
marriage of two
infidels, because
although the
marriage
covenant have a
divine sanction so
as to make the
wedlock of two
unbelievers a
lawful action, and
their conjunction
and cohabitation
in that respect
undefiled, yet
there might be no
ground to suppose
from thence, that
both or either
of their persons
are thereby
sanctified; and
the Apostle urges
the cohabitation
of a believer with
an infidel in the
state of wedlock
from this ground
that the
unbelieving
husband is
sanctified by the
believing wife;
nevertheless
here you have the
influence of a
believers faith
ascending from an
inferior to a
superior relation;
from the wife to
the husband who is
her head, before
it can descend to
their off-spring.
And therefore we
say, whatever be
the nature
or extent of the
holiness here
intended, we
conceive it cannot
convey to the
children an
immediate right to
baptism;
because it would
then be of another
nature, and of a
larger extent,
then the root, and
original from
whence it is
derived, for it is
clear by the
Apostles argument
that holiness
cannot be derived
to the child from
the sanctity of
one parent only,
if either father
or mother be (in
the sense intended
by the Apostle)
unholy or unclean,
so will the
child be also,
therefore for the
production of an
holy seed it is
necessary that
both the Parents
be sanctified; and
this the Apostle
positively asserts
in the first place
to be done by the
beleiving parent,
although the other
be an
unbeliever; and
then
consequentially
from thence
argues, the
holiness of their
children. Hence it
follows, that as
the children have
no other holiness
then what they
derive from both
their Parents; so
neither can they
have any
right by this
holiness to any
spiritual
priviledge but
such as both their
Parents did also
partake of: and
therefore
if the unbelieving
Parent (though
sanctified by the
believing Parent)
have not thereby a
right to baptism,
neither
can we concieve,
that there is any
such priviledge,
derived to the
children by their
birth-holiness.
Besides if it had
been the usual
practice in the
Apostles dayes for
the father or
mother that did
beleive, to bring
all their children
with them to be
baptised; then the
holiness of the
beleiving
Corinthians
children, would
not at
all have been in
question when this
Epistle was
written; but might
have been argued
from their passing
under that
ordinance, which
represented their
new birth,
although they had
derived no
holiness from
their Parents, by
their
first birth; and
would have layen
as an exception
against the
Apostles
inference, else
were your Children
unclean,
&c. But of the
sanctification of
all the children
of every beleiver
by this ordinance,
or any other way,
then what
is
beforementioned,
the Scripture is
altogether silent.
This may also be
added; that if
this birth
holiness do
qualifie all the
children of every
believer, for the
ordinance of
baptism; why not
for all other
ordinances? for
the Lords Supper
as was practiced
for a long time
together? for if
recourse be had to
what the
Scriptures speak
generally of this
subject; it will
be found, that the
same qualities
which do intitle
any person to
baptism, do so
also for the
participation of
all the
Ordinances, and
priviledges of the
house of God, that
are common to all
believers.
Whosoever can and
does interrogate
his good
Conscience towards
God when he is
baptised (as every
one must do that
makes it to
himself a sign of
Salvation) is
capable of doing
the same thing, in
every other act of
worship that he
performs.
4. The arguments
and inferences
that are usually
brought for, or
against Infant
baptism from those
few instances
which the
Scriptures afford
us of whole
families being
baptised; are only
conjectural; and
therefore cannot
of
themselves, be
conclusive on
either hand: yet
in regard most
that treat on this
subject for Infant
baptism, do (as
they conceive)
improve these
instances to the
advantage of their
argument: we think
it meet (in like
manner as in
the cases before
mentioned so in
this) to shew the
invalidity of such
inferences.
Cornelius
worshipped God
with all his
house, the Jaylor,
and Crispus the
chief ruler of the
Synagogue,
believed God
with each of their
houses. The
houshold of
Stephanus addicted
themselves to the
Ministry of the
Saints: so that
thus
far Worshipping,
and Believing runs
parallel with
Baptism. And if
Lydia, had been a
married person,
when she
believed, it is
probable her
husband would also
have been named by
the Apostle, as in
like cases,
inasmuch as he
would have been
not only a part,
but the head of
that baptised
houshold.
Who can assign any
probable reason,
why the Apostle
should make
mention of four or
five housholds
being baptised and
no more? or why he
does so often vary
in the method of
his salutations,
Rom. 1. 6.
sometimes
mentioning only
particular persons
of great note,
other times such,
and the Church in
their house? the
Saints that were
with them;
and them belonging
to Narcissus, who
were in the Lord;
thus saluting
either whole
families, or part
of families, or
only particular
persons in
families,
considered as they
were in the Lord,
for if it had been
an usual practise
to
baptize all
children, with
their parents;
there were then
many thousands of
the Jews which
believed, and a
great
number of the
Gentiles, in most
of the principle
Cities in the
World, and among
so many thousands,
it is more then
probable there
would have been
some thousands of
housholds
baptised; why then
should the Apostle
in this respect
signalize one
family of the Jews
and three or four
of the Gentiles,
as particular
instances in a
case that was
common? whoever
supposes that we
do willfully debar
our children, from
the benefit of any
promise, or
priviledge,
that of right
belongs to the
children of
believing parents;
they do entertain
over severe
thoughts of us: to
be
without natural
affections is one
of the characters
of the worst of
persons; in the
worst of times.
Wee do freely
confesse our
selves guilty
before the Lord,
in that we have
not with more
circumspection and
diligence train'd
up
those that relate
to us in the fear
of the Lord; and
do humbly and
earnestly pray,
that our omissions
herein may be
remitted, and that
they may not
redound to the
prejudice of our
selves, or any of
ours: but with
respect to that
duty that is
incumbent on us,
we acknowledge our
selves obliged by
the precepts of
God, to bring up
our children in
the nurture and
admonition of the
Lord, to teach
them his fear,
both by
instruction and
example; and
should we set
light by this
precept, it would
demonstrate that
we are more vile
then the unnatural
Heathen, that like
not to
retain God in
their knowledge,
our baptism might
then be justly
accompted, as no
baptism to us.
There are many
special promises
that do incourage
us as well as
precepts, that do
oblige us to the
close pursuit of
our duty herein:
that God whom we
serve, being
jealous of his
Worship, threatens
the visiting of
the Fathers
transgression upon
the children to
the third and
fourth generation
of them that hate
him: yet does more
abundantly
extend his mercy,
even to thousands
(respecting the
offspring and
succeding
generations) of
them that love
him, and
keep his commands.
When our Lord
rebuked his
disciples for
prohibiting the
access of little
children that were
brought to him,
that he
might pray over
them, lay his
hands upon them,
and blesse them,
does declare, that
of such is the
Kingdom of God.
And the Apostle
Peter in answer to
their enquiry,
that desired to
know what they
must do to be
saved, does not
only
instruct them in
the necessary duty
of repentance and
baptism; but does
also thereto
encourage them, by
that promise
which had
reference both to
them, and their
children; if our
Lord Jesus in the
forementioned
place, do not
respect
the qualities of
children (as
elsewhere) as to
their meekness,
humility, and
sincerity, and the
like; but intend
also that those
very persons and
such like,
appertain to the
Kingdom of God,
and if the Apostle
Peter in
mentioning
the aforesaid
promise, do
respect not only
the present and
succeeding
generations of
those Jews, that
heard him, (in
which sense the
same phrase doth
occurre in
Scripture) but
also the immediate
off-spring of his
auditors; whether
the promise relate
to the gift of the
Holy Spirit, or of
eternal life, or
any grace, or
priviledge tending
to the
obtaining thereof;
it is neither our
concerne nor our
interest to
confine the
mercies, and
promises of God,
to a
more narrow, or
lesse compasse
then he is pleased
gratiously to
offer and intend
them; nor to have
a light esteem of
them; but are
obliged in duty to
God, and affection
to our children;
to plead earnestly
with God and use
our utmost
endeavours that
both our selves,
and our off-spring
may be partakers
of his Mercies and
gracious Promises:
yet we
cannot from either
of these texts
collect a
sufficient warrant
for us to baptize
our children
before they are
instructed in the
principles of the
Christian
Religion.
For as to the
instance in little
children, it seems
by the disciples
forbidding them,
that they were
brought upon
some other
account, not so
frequent as
Baptism must be
supposed to have
been, if from the
beginning
believers
children had been
admitted thereto:
and no account is
given whether
their parents were
baptised believers
or not;
and as to the
instance of the
Apostle; if the
following words
and practice, may
be taken as an
interpretation of
the
scope of that
promise we cannot
conceive it does
refer to infant
baptism, because
the text does
presently subjoyn;
Then they that
gladly received
the word were
baptised.
That there were
some believing
children of
believing parents
in the Apostles
dayes is evident
from the
Scriptures,
even such as were
then in ther
fathers family,
and under their
parents tuition,
and education; to
whom the Apostle
in several of his
Epistles to the
Churches, giveth
commands to obey
their parents in
the Lord; and does
allure their
tender years to
hearken to this
precept, by
reminding them
that it is the
first command with
promise.
And it is recorded
by him for the
praise of Timothy,
and encouragement
of parents betimes
to instaruct, and
children
early to attend to
godly instruction,
that from a child, he
had known the holy
Scriptures.
The Apostle John
rejoyced greatly
when he found of
the children of
the Elect Lady
walking in the
truth; and the
children of her
Elect Sister joyn
with the Apostle
in his salutation.
But that this was
not generally so,
that all the
children of
believers were
accounted for
believers (as they
would
have been if they
had been all
baptised) may be
collected from the
character which
the Apostle gives
of persons fit
to be chosen to
Eldership in the
Church which was
not common to all
believers; among
others this is
expressely one,
viz. If there be
any having
believing, or
faithful children,
not accused of
Riot or unruly;
and we may from
the
Apostles writings
on the same
subject collect
the reason of this
qualification,
viz. That in case
the person
designed for this
office to teach
and rule in the
house of God, had
children capable
of it; there might
be first a
proof of his
ability, industry,
and successe in
this work in his
own family; and
private capacity,
before he was
ordained to the
exercise of this
authority in the
Church, in a
publick capacity,
as a Bishop in the
house of God.
These things we
have mentioned as
having a direct
reference unto the
controversie
between our
brethren and us;
other
things that are
more abstruse and
prolix, which are
frequently
introduced into
this controversie,
but do not
necessarily
concern it, we
have purposely
avoided; that the
distance between
us and our
brethren may not
be by us
made more wide;
for it is our
duty, and concern
so far as is
possible for us
(retaining a good
conscience towards
God) to seek a
more entire
agreement and
reconciliation
with them.
We are not
insenible that as
to the order of
Gods house, and
entire communion
therein there are
some things
wherein
we (as well as
others) are not at
a full accord
among our selves,
as for instance;
the known
principle, and
state of
the consciences of
diverse of us,
that have agreed
in this Confession
is such; that we
cannot hold
Church-communion,
with any other
then
Baptized-believers,
and Churches
constituted of
such; yet some
others of us have
a greater
liberty and
freedom in our
spirits that way;
and therefore we
have purposely
omitted the
mention of things
of that
nature, that we
might concurre, in
giving this
evidence of our
agreement, both
among our selves,
and with other
good
Christians, in
those important
articles of the
Christian
Religion, mainly
insisted on by us:
and this
notwithstanding we
all esteem it our
chief concern,
both among our
selves, and all
others that in
every place call
upon the name of
the Lord Jesus
Christ our Lord,
both theirs and
ours, and love him
in sincerity, to
endeavour to
keep the unity of
the Spirit, in the
bond of peace; and
in order
thereunto, to
exercise all
lowliness and
meekness,
with
long-suffering,
forbearing one
another in love.
And we are
perswaded if the
same method were
introduced into
frequent practice
between us and our
Christian friends
who agree with us
in all the
fundamental
articles of the
Christian faith
(though they do
not so in the
subject and
administration of
baptism) it would
soon beget a
better
understanding, and
brotherly
affection between
us.
In the beginning
of the Christian
Church, when the
doctrine of the
baptism of Christ
was not
universally
understood,
yet those that
knew only the
baptism of John,
were the Disciples
of the Lord Jesus;
and Apollos an
eminent Minister
of the Gospel of
Jesus.
In the beginning
of the reformation
of the Christian
Church, and
recovery from that
Egyptian darkness
wherein our
forefathers for
many generations
were held in
bondage; upon
recourse had to
the Scriptures of
truth, different
apprehensions were
conceived, which
are to this time
continued,
concerning the
practise of this
Ordinance.
Let not our zeal
herein be
misinterpreted:
that God whom we
serve is jealous
of his worship. By
his gracious
providence the Law
thereof, is
continued amongst
us; and we are
forewarned by what
hapned in the
Church of the
Jews,
that it is
necessary for
every generation,
and that
frequently in
every generation
to consult the
divine oracle,
compare our
worship with the
rule, and take
heed to what
doctrines we
receive and
practise.
If the ten
commands exhibited
in the popish
Idolatrous service
books had been
received as the
entire law of God,
because they agree
in number with his
ten commands, and
also in the
substance of nine
of them; the
second
Commandment
forbidding
Idolatry had been
utterly lost.
If Ezra and
Nehemiah had not
made a diligent
search into the
particular parts
of Gods law, and
his worship; the
Feast of
Tabernacles (which
for many centuries
of years, had not
been duly
observed,
according to the
institution,
though it was
retained in the
general notion)
would not have
been kept in due
order.
So may it be now
as to many things
relating to the
service of God,
which do retain
the names proper
to them in their
first institution,
but yet through
inadvertency
(where there is no
sinister design)
may vary in their
circumstances,
from their first
institution. And
if by means of any
antient defection,
or of that general
corruption of the
service
of God, and
interruption of
his true worship,
and persecution of
his servants by
the Antichristian
Bishop of Rome,
for many
generations; those
who do consult the
Word of God,
cannot yet arrive
at a full and
mutual
satisfaction
among themselves,
what was the
practise of the
primitive
Christian Church,
in some points
relating to the
Worship of
God: yet inasmuch
as these things
are not of the
essence of
Christianity, but
that we agree in
the fundamental
doctrines thereof,
we do apprehend,
there is
sufficient ground
to lay aside all
bitterness and
prejudice, and in
the
spirit of love and
meekness to
imbrace and own
each other
therein; leaving
each other at
liberty to perform
such
other services,
(wherein we cannot
concur) apart unto
God, according to
the best of our
understanding.
FINIS