The mode of administering the Lord’s supper was that which had been, long before, adopted by the Brownists {128b}—that which the apostolic account, {128c} and the nature and design of the institution, alike indicated as the most appropriate. They who had openly professed their love and allegiance to Jesus Christ, commemorated his death in obedience to his command, enjoyed communion with Him and with one another in the sacred feast and, with grateful joy, found themselves delivered from the imposition of a posture, which had been the natural accompaniment and indication of a belief in transubstantiation, which was unsuited to the ordinance, and had no warrant in the word of God. Baptism was administered to the children of believers, as a sign of the gracious covenant God had made with the parents, and as an occasion for parental dedication and the solemn promise of christian instruction. But the use of sponsors was discarded, as alike unscriptural and unnatural; the sign of the cross was omitted, as a departure from the simplicity of the gospel, implying a proportionate approach to superstition; and the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was rejected, as calculated to produce and nourish a fatal delusion. It is essential to the efficient existence of every society, whether secular or religious, that some regulations should be adopted with regard to the admission of its members. But the distinction cannot be too carefully noticed, between arrangements of this nature assented to by persons voluntarily associated for religious purposes, and terms of church fellowship enforced by authority, under civil penalties, directly or indirectly attaching to nonconformity. The former are consistent with unlimited toleration; the latter involve the very essence of intolerance. Mr. Ottee appears to have exercised a very commendable prudence in the admission of members into his church. Some of the brethren were usually appointed to confer with the candidates, “in order to the church’s satisfaction.” And repeated instances are recorded in which the society suspended its decision, until they could “give further satisfaction,” and should again apply for admission. At a church meeting, held 25th February, 1656, the following resolution was recorded, apparently referring to Mr. Ottee’s recent settlement.