Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	church_n	member_n	society_n	2,075	5	9.3482	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85422	VVater-dipping no firm footing for Church-communion: or Considerations proving it not simply lawful, but necessary also (in point of duty) for persons baptized after the new mode of dipping, to continue communion with those churches, or imbodied societies of saints, of which they were members before the said dipping; and that to betray their trust or faith given unto Jesus Christ to serve him in the relation and capacity, whether of officers, or other members, in these churches (respectively) by deserting these churches, is a sin highly provoking in the sight of God. Together with a post-script touching the pretended Answer to the Forty queries about Church-communion, infant and after baptism. By John Goodwin, a servant of God in the Gospel of his dear Son.	Goodwin, John, 1594?-1665.	1653 (1653)	Wing G1213; Thomason E723_15; ESTC R202234	72,402	91

amongst the Saints and which hath put the Christian world about us into a flame is by one of the gravest Authors and and greatest Apostles of the Anti-paedo baptistical Faith called and that with evidence enough of truth a carnal Ceremony † i. e. an external Rite of some sacred signification or import Now to make new partition walls of carnal Ceremonies and this not only between Abrahams spiritual seed and the prophane Gentile part of the world but between one part of this blessed seed it self and another so that the one because of this Ceremony rising up in their way may not come at to enjoy any spiritual communion with the other is it not the founding of a new kind of Judaism in the world and the making work for Christ to be crucified a second time for the dissolution of it CONSIDERATION X. Ignorance in some things appertaining to the knowledg of God and the mystery of Christ whether found in a Church or in particular persons rendereth neither the one nor the other unclean upon any such terms but that both may lawfully and without the least tincture of guilt be conversed with in a Church-way Otherwise there will neither Church nor Member be found upon Earth but whose communion will defile us in as much as the Apostle speaking as well of himself and his fellow Apostles as of the intire successive body of Christians in all ages saith We know in part and we prophecy in part 1 Cor. 13. 9. Again where Churches or persons know but in part it cannot be expected they should practise in whole or in full He is a good Christian who practiseth and walketh up to his light though he doth not walk above it yea although his light be somewhat low and mixt with much darkness And though an erring or mistaking Conscience will not simply or totally justifie a concurring practise yet will it justifie it comparatively it being better to follow the dictate or light of a mis-guided or mis-taught Conscience then to rebel against it Otherwise sad were the case of those sacrilegious Church-breakers who out of Conscience I judg no worse of many of them practise this enormity Now then they who give sentence against a Church or people as unclean for communion only because they do not practise Baptismal Dipping must ground the equity of such a sentence either 1. Upon their non-conviction of the necessity of such a practise or 2. Upon the non-practise it self which they must suppose either to be concurrent with or repugnant unto the light of their Judgments and Consciences If the former of these the ignorance or non-conviction of a Church or people of the necessity of Dipping be pretended for a ground of the sentence we speak of to justifie this pretence it must be proved that every mistake or dissatisfaction in Judgment in any controversal Point whatsoever of like difficulty or disputeableness with that about the necessity of Dipping rendereth a Church or people unclean for Communion But I look to see Jesus Christ as he is long before this be proved 2. If the ground of the said sentence be the latter the non-practise of dipping then in case it be supposed that this non-practise be a matter of conscience in the Church or people we speake of and confirm to their judgments they are adjudged unclean for not defiling or not sinning against their conscience But far be it from us to suspect our Brethren in the Faith of such a judgment as this If it be supposed to be contrary to their judgment and that in refusing to practise Baptismal dipping they go against their consciences then are the Supposers judgers of evil thoughts supposing that which they cannot prove indeed have no ground or reason at all to suspect but ground in abundance to conclude the contrary So that they can upon no Christian or reasonable ground pronounce any such hard sentence against their non dipping Brethren as of uncleanness for Church Communion And if they would but please plainly and clearly to declare wherein they place the high demerit the unpardonable crime of non-dipping whilest men remain dissatisfied either touching the lawfulness or necessity of the practise I verily beleeve they would soon be ashamed of their notion and out of hand pull down all they have built upon it CONSIDERATION XI When the Apostle writeth to the Churches in his days in sundry the inscriptions of his Epistles unto them wherein he describeth them he insereth the mention of their sanctification their calling to be Saints their being beloved of God their Saintship their faithfulness in Christ c. but never so much as hinteth their having been baptized Which is a strong presumption at least if not a demonstration that in case it be supposed that all these Churches were baptized yet the Apostle did not look upon their Baptism as any part of their Church-ship or of the visibility thereof much less as any essential part or point of either For if such a thing shall be supposed what reason can be imagined why their Baptism should not once or twice at least have been mentioned in their discription as well as their Faith Sanctification calling c. so frequently and well-nigh constantly I mean one or other of them So then it is a plain case that the Apostle doth not estimate the truth of Churches by the observation or practise of Baptism much less by the practise of such or such a determinate kind of baptizing but by the Faith and Holiness of the persons inchurched Baptism is never mentioned so much as by way of commendation either of Church or person at least not more then the observance of other ordinances no not when several other matters of praise are insisted on in reference unto either See 1 Cor. 11 2. Rom. 1. 8. 1 Cor. 1. 4 5. Ephes. 1. 5. Luk. 1. 6. Acts. 11. 24. to pass over other texts of like import and yet many things may be commendable in either which are not essentially requisite to their being And doubtless if men were not under some strong enchantment and the rational powers of their Souls strangely held in reference at least to the subject we now speak o● such an imagination as this would never have been found amongst all their thoughts That Baptism according to one mode or other should be a constituting principle of a true Church CONSIDERATION XII When the Apostle Paul instructeth Christian Churches with their respective members who and what manner of persons they are who are unmeet for their Christian Communion he mentioneth Fornicators Covetous Idolaters Railers Drunkards Extortioners Disorderly walkers c. but never persons of an holy and blamless conversation whether baptized or unbaptized If our Brethren reply that there was no occasion why he should mention persons unbaptized in as much as there was none such in these days who lived holily or had the names of Brethren amongst Christians We answer 1. That our Brethren are still

known by his own fruit Luk. 6. 44. then is our Baptism no corrupt Baptism but the Baptism commended by Christ or however far from being a nullity For it is a true rule Nonentis nulli sunt affectus nulla opperatio Nullities or non-entities have neither affections nor effects or operations produce nothing which is proper to be produced by a real and truly excistent cause But that Baptism amongst us which our Brethren very inconsiderately and invita veritate vote to be a nullity is as efficacious as operative in respect of all the main ends of Baptism the Baptism I mean intended by Christ as theirs is or can be yea in respect of some of these ends if not all it hath the preheminency For 1. It doth as solemnly with as much authority and power with as express a signification to the understandings and apprehensions of the world about us testifie and declare us the profesed Disciples and followers of Jesus Christ as that Baptism practized by them can do Nay in this which is one of the most considerable ends of Baptism it is of the two more efficacious then theirs For their Baptism is comparatively a kind of Barbarian to the world nor do the generality of men interpret or look upon it as any thing more significative or assertive of their owning the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ then our Baptism which was also theirs untill they renounced it by substituting another in the place of it Yea the sence of the world and of the generality of persons amongst whom they live is so far from being either that by their Infant-Baptism they stood insufficiently declared the professed Disciples of Christ or that by their new Baptism they make any materiall addition unto that their Declaration that it inclines rather to this viz. That they betake themselves to a Re-baptism more to disobliege themselves from what their Infant-Baptism ingaged them unto then to strengthen or make valid that ingagement which at least as they apprehend cannot receive any addition of strength or validitie by any further Baptism but they are jealous that it may be disinabled or at least disadvantaged by such an after-Baptism Of which apprehension I wish they had not and yet much more that they may not in time have too just a ground But however nothing can be more evident then that that Baptism is most serviceable and efficacious to testifie or demonstrate a person man or woman to be a professor of and to own the Name and Faith of Jesus Christ in the sight of the world whose signification and import in this behalf is best known unto the world If so then is our Baptism as valid as efficacious in respect of this great end of Baptism as our Brethrens new Baptism can be and consequently is far from being a nullity 2. Our Baptism is altogether as operative as bearing as ingaging upon our judgments and Consciences to become the reall loyall and true Disciples of Jesus Christ as theirs can be upon theirs or could be upon ours should we come under it For out of the sence and conscience we have that we have been Baptized and still own and stand by that our Baptism we expect no other but the severest judgment and condemnation which belong to Covenant-breakers with their God from his hand if we shall be found unfaithfull under this our Baptismall ingagement And certain I am that our Brethrens new-Baptism can have no richer no fuller no more vigorous or potent an influence upon their judgements and conscience in this kind then so I wish that theirs may hold weight with ours in this ballance If our Baptism whilst it was theirs also had not the same weight of engagement upon their consciences which it hath upon ours have they reason to judge us for it and not rather themselves Therefore in respect of this great end also of Baptism ours is no whit more a nullitie then theirs 3. And lastly nor can we or they reasonably and upon ground judge that our Baptism as we call Baptism is less edifying strengthening comforting to the inner man then theirs Our souls through the grace and goodness of our good God unto us have prospered as much under that Baptism which we own and by means of it as far as we are able to compute as we can upon consultation had with al Oracles that are like to inform us in the point expect they would or should have done under that Baptism whose threshold our Brethren place so neer the threshold of Christ himself I beleeve there are thousands yet abiding under our Baptism who would not willingly exchange spirituall estates with the best of those who to better their estates in this kind have sought security under the wing and shelter of a new Baptism yea I make very little question but that if our Brethren of this new Baptism at least many of them would deal ingeniously and freely and what is this but Christianly with us in the point they would acknowledge and confess that they carried far the greater part of that spirituall treasure of which they are at present possest from under that Baptism which they forsook unto that which they have taken in exchange for it Yea I heartily wish for the sake of some of them whom I know that their New Baptism doth not help to diminish their Old grace Therefore in respect of this great end also and benefit of Baptism the building up of the inner man in Grace and peace our Baptism is no whit behind theirs but if experience will be allowed to umpire much before it I know no other end of Baptism but what is easily reduceable to one of these three Set them then to judg as the Apostle speaketh in another case who are least esteemed in the Church whether that Baptism be like to be a nullity which acts and performs and this with authority and power all the ends services purposes and intents of Baptism yea and in most of them if not in all quits it self at a more worthy rate of efficacy and success then that which pretends to the honour of being the sole reality and truth CONSIDERATION XVII It is no where to be found in Scripture that any Church of Christ or imbodied society of Beleevers was commanded by God or Christ or his Apostles to be Dipped nor yet threatened or reproved by any of them for the non-practise of Dipping If this be denyed let the Scriptures one or more be produced for as yet none have been for the justification of such a Denyal Is it not then presumption in the Highest and an assuming of an Anti christian power to impose Laws upon Christian Societies which the Lord Christ never imposed yea and to censure and scandalize them with the odious and reproachful terms of anti-Anti-christian and unclean only for the transgressions of their own Laws Nor will it serve the turn to pretend that it is to be found in Scripture that particular members of Churches or

imbodied societies of Saints are commanded to be dipped and by consequence that Churches or whole Churches ought to be so likewise For besides that this is contrary to the avouched principles of those who are like thus to pretend who affirm that the Scripture no where reports or makes any person a member of a Church but only such who were dipped before they entred that relation and consequently could have no such command imposed on them being now members it followeth not that because some particular members of a body were required to be dipped therefore the whole body was commanded to be dipped likewise especially not upon such terms that unless it would be thus wholy universally and in all its members dipt it should be unclean in the sight of God and men and all communion with it sinful Therefore they who impose such a Law as this upon Christian Churches or Societies and make them heynous transgressors for the breach of it punishing and censuring them accordingly are usurpers of the high Prerogative of God and of Christ claiming and exercising a Lordship over the Faith and consciences of men CONSIDERATION XVIII Yea I beleeve it is more then the greatest Oracle of Baptismal Dipping under Heaven will ever be able to prove to the satisfaction of a conscience Christianly considerate that there is any precept or command of Christ in the Scriptures whereby it is made sinful for any person whatsoever not only not to be diped but to be not so much as baptized in one form or other For first certain it is that it is no sin unto any person whatsoever to be un-dipt whilest there is no person to be found sufficiently authorized by Christ to administer dipping unto him And however the camel be swallowed whole either by the largness of the consciences or by the scantness of the understandings of our Metropolitan Dippers yet is it not so easie for them to justifie the authentiqueness or validity of that commission by which they act without fear or trembling the parts of dippers But of this elswhere Secondly that precept of Christ Mat. 28. 19. which as far as I understand they make their cheif treasure to support them in their wars against their Brethren doth at no hand make those transgressors who are not dip-wise baptized no nor yet those who are not baptized either so or otherwise For first here is no precept charge or command given unto any person one or more but unto the Apostles only Go ye therefore i. e. ye Apostles and teach all Nations baptizing them c. Now as a Law imposed upon a Magistrate for the discharge of his office doth not make a subject guilty by his non-performance of it nay he the subject should be more guilty in case he should observe it so neither doth a charge layd by Christ upon his Apostles in reference to their special office ministry oblige any other sort of men to the observation of it * Secondly in these words baptizing them it cannot reasonably be conceived that they were injoyned to baptize any person or persons against their wills or whether they would or no No nor is it a matter of easie resolution what is the Antecedent or Substantive to this Relative pronoun them or whom or what persons they are whom our Saviour here authorizeth his Apostles to baptize Therefore Thirdly Here being no command layd upon any person to be baptized or to desire Baptism of the Apostles it clearly follows that the Apostles are here injoyned only to baptize such persons who shall freely and voluntarily require the same at their hand Nor Fourthly Can it be proved from these words teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded them that the Apostles did teach Saints beleevers or others to require Baptism of them unless it were first proved that this was one particular of those things which Christ commanded his Apostles to teach the Nations to observe But I beleeve there is no day in the year auspicious for our new Baptists to undertake the proof of this Nor Fifthly do we find that the Apostles in the course of their ministry did ever teach either Church or person to demand or seek Baptism at their hand much less threaten them or charge them with disobedience unto Christ for not seeking it Sixthly in case it should be granted that the Apostles by the tenor and vertue of their commission might and did teach Beleevers to observe the Law of requiring Baptism at their hands yet it followeth not from hence that by vertue of this commission they had power also given them to make it a standing Law for all Pastors and teachers to the worlds end who were to succeed them in the preaching the Gospel to impose the observation of the same Law upon all Beleevers considering 1. That water-Baptism as appears partly by the express intentions of God about it in the first setting it on foot in the world Ioh. 1. 31. partly also in that there is never mention made of any administration of Baptism in any place but only upon the first coming or preaching of the Gospel therein although there were never so many converted to the Faith in the same place afterwards I mean upon a second publication of the Gospel in this place Acts. 2. 41. compared with Acts. 4. 4 5. 14 9. 42 and 19. 3. with vers. 18. by these two considerations I say it fully appears that water-Baptism was never intended by God but either only or chiefly for an Introductory or planting Ordinance i. e. to attend the Gospel for a time at its first coming unto and reception by a People Citty or Nation until it should get some considerable rooting and Interest amongst them not for a staple or standing ordinance in one and the same place whereof good reason might be given but that we are now upon a pin of brevity Secondly That wheresoever either the work and office of Pastors and Teachers or their qualifications are described or the Intentions of God in and about the erections of them in the Church declared there is not the least mention made either of any charge given them to baptize nor of any qualifications requisite in those who should baptize nor of any intent of God or of Christ that they should baptize See and compare 1 Tim. 3. 1 2 4 c. 2 Tim. 4. 1 2. Tit. 1. 7 8. Ephes. 4. 11 12 13 14. Thirdly When the Apostle Paul directeth Timothy to commit unto Faithful men the things which he had heard of him among many witnesses the end why he thus directeth him is signified in these words who be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2. 2. plainly intimating that what is deriveable from the Apostles unto standing Pastors and Teachers respects cheifly if not only their abilities to teach or preach the Gospel Seventhly Concerning these words And lo I am with you to the end of the World neither do these necessarily prove that a

examples of that nature in the Acts of the Apostles do declare how loud an untruth is it There is not so much as any one example throughout the Acts of the Apostles of a person baptized barely or meerly upon his hearing of the Gospel preached unto him But how impertinently this piece of Scripture is alledged either to prove who or what kind of person is the proper and adequate subject of Baptism or a necessitie that all beleevers to the Worlds end should be baptized or otherwise be guilty of Sin hath been argued in the preceding Considerations 2. How little truth or pertinency there is in his second Proof of the aforesaid Position sufficiently appears by the examination of the first For though the Apostles did put the said Commission of Christ into execution according to his Command i. e. did both teach and baptize yet it doth not follow from hence either 1. That they baptized all that they taught the contrary hereunto is evident from the Story Act. 2. 41 43. and 5. 33. and other places Therefore the Teaching mentioned in their Commission was not the Rule of their Baptizing Nor 2. Doth it follow that because upon their first preaching of the Gospel in Jerusalem they baptized those who gladly received their Word and beleeved therefore they baptized in like manner all those or any of those who were converted to the Faith by their after-preaching in the same place We read of no such thing as this in any place of the Acts or elsewhere as we formerly observed Nor did the tenor of their Commission impose this upon them For he that is simply and only commanded to Teach and to Baptize as he is not hereby commanded to teach continually so neither is he commanded to baptize always when he teacheth But whereas he demandeth What is more plain then that the Commission of Christ to them was to teach and baptize first and to admit into Church-fellowship thereupon as is visible in that prime example of theirs Acts 2. 41 42. I answer This is much more plain viz. that they were not commissioned in that Commission we speak of to admit into Church-fellowship either upon terms of Baptism or any other there being not so much as the least mention or hint here about admission into Church-fellowship Nor is it said Acts 2. 41 42. either that the Apostles admitted any into Church-fellowship or 3. That any were admitted into Church-fellowship much less that they were admitted into this fellowship because they had been baptized But all that is here said as to the point now in hand is Then they that gladly received his Word were baptized and the same day {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. there were added or added to not to them as our Antagonist emphaseth or to the Church but rather to the Lord as it is Acts 15. 24 about three thousand Souls Neither is the addition here spoken of ascribed to the Apostles it is not said that they or any of them added so much as one Soul But if we will entitle him unto the addition here spoken of to whom the Holy Ghost ascribeth it vers. 47. we must say that it was made by the Lord And the Lord added unto the Church dayly such as should be saved Here where there is express mention made of adding to the Church there is no mention made of Baptism 3. His third and last Proof is as irrelative to his purpose as both the former For Christians are not said Rom. 65. to be planted together in it is not into as our Anti-querist takes a most unworthy liberty both here and elsewhere more then once or twice to mis-cite his Scriptures the likeness of Christs death by reason or means of their Water-Baptism for then it would follow from the latter clause of the Verse {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that all who are thus baptized should be everlastingly Partakers of his Resurrection but we are said to be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} complanted with Christ in through or by means of a likeness of his death when we are truly and really mortified and become dead unto sin and to the world Which is a kind of death holding some analogy with and carrying in it some resemblance of that death which Christ suffered upon the Cross And the Apostle informs us that by such a death as this we become planted together with Christ i. e. interested with him in that most stable fixed and unchangeable Councel and Purpose of God wherein he hath decreed the immortal Glory and Blessedness of all those that shall obey him This sence of the place considered how frivolous and impertinent is this supercilious Interrogatory which he builds upon it And may you not therefore as well suppose trees to grow together before they are planted together as to suppose Christians to grow together before they are planted together Yes surely as well the latter as the former but the mischief of the impertinency is that Christians may be planted together in Christ by a work of mortification and so grow together whether they be baptized or no and they may be baptized together and so be planted together as far as water can plant them and yet not grow together but some wither and dye whilest others grow and prosper Or however such a plantation which is by Baptism only is no way or means of growth unto any man And yet of the two it is a broader impertinency to make this demand in stead of a Proof that a Church cannot stand but upon Baptism And what house stands without its principles or is built without a foundation only upon occasion of this admonition of the Apostle to the Hebrews Leaving the Word of the beginning of Christ let us advance towards perfection and his making not the practise but the Doctrine not of any one Baptism determinately but of Baptisms plurally a part of the foundation i. e. of the body or systeme of that Doctrine which young beginners in the School of Christ were wont to learn in the first place as in building a foundation is first to be layd in order to a superstruction But what is there in this passage to prove that one Baptism or one kind of Baptism is the foundation of a Church more then another or that any kind of Baptism more then imposition of hands or that either imposition of hands or Baptism in one kind or other more then repentance from dead works or Faith towards God especially considering that these two are named in the first place as the principal parts of the Foundation he speaks of and first to be layd Yea supposing that the Hebrews to whom he writes were a constituted Church and that he had taught them the Doctrine of Baptisms under this Constitution it evidently follows either that they were a Church before they were baptized or that they had been baptized before they had been instructed in the Doctrine of Baptism I

beleeve it is much harder for the Anti-querist to escape goaring as he calls it by one or other of the horns of this Dilemma then we found it to make an escape from both the horns of that Dilemma which was prepared by him to do the mischief 12. Concerning the Text 1 Cor. 12. 13. where the Apostle saith not as our Anti-querist citeth the words shorter by the head that they were all baptized into one Body but BY ONE SPIRIT they were all baptized c. this Scripture I say we argued somewhat at large in the last of our Considerations and found war in the heart of it against Church-constitution by Water-Baptism And running is no posture for repetitions Only whereas my Friend the Anti-querist challengeth me that some while since I interpreted this Scripture comportingly with his notion the truth is that I do not find such a line in any fragment of the history of my life extant at present in my memory yet because I dayly find so little stedfastness in my memory as I do I had rather in the business trust my Friend and his memory then mine own But this I well remember that long since I learned this Christian Principle from an Heathen Philosopher {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} A man must be content to sacrifice even his own sayings and opinions upon the service of the Truth This kind of sacrifice I have oft offered and if my Antagonist and some others could be perswaded to consecrate themselves Priests of this Order with me the water of Baptism would be no longer a fire to divide between Friends and Friends But they rather chuse to be Priests of that Order whose Hierourgy or Priestly Function mainly stands in sacrificing the body upon the service of the rayment or the substance upon the service of the shadow 13. Whereas he demands Ought not that which was a reason to them he means the Apostles in the primitive times not to admit Church-members into Church fellowship we pardon the impropriety without Baptism to be a reason unto us likewise to steere the same cou●se c. doth he not very impertinently and groundlesly suppose that they had a reason not to admit the admission he speaks of He hath not hitherto so much as intimated unto us any reason at all of such a non-admission in the Apostles as that now mentioned If that should be granted him which he will never be able to prove viz. that the Apostles did not admit into Church-fellowship without Baptism yet it will not follow from hence that therefore they had a reason to admit none without it especially if the case were so as the Anti querist seems to suppose it viz. that no unbaptized person ever desired such admission of them And suppose for argument sake that they had de facto admited into Church-communion only unbaptized persons it would not follow from hence that therefore they had reason to exclude all others as all that were baptized in case they had desired it If all who desired Church-fellowship and consequently all who were admitted unto it were baptized is this any argument or proof that therefore in case others had desired it they must needs have been rejected If a man should go a fishing upon the Seas and should catch only of one sort of Fish as suppose Whiteings would it follow that therefore he had reason to catch no other 14. How importune and impertinent are these words also If so then farewel all Gospel obligations For if we may take liberty to cast away one Law of Gospel Order and Worship then why not two and so three and in the end all c. For doth he not here suppose that separating from Churches or persons unbaptized though esteemed in the world and by all but himself and his baptized is or was a Law of Gospel Order binding Christians of the first age Surely this Law is written on the back-side of some of Pauls Epistles where no man did ever read it And they that take liberty to cast away this Law are more like to bid all Gospel obligations welcome then to bid them farewel Secondly he supposeth that those rules by which the Apostles ordered themselves in their times were binding to Christians of that age which is broadly importune and truthless For the truth is that no rule whatsoever by which the Apostles ordered themselves as Apostles and certainly they ordered themselves by many such rules as these was binding unto any other Christian of that age but unto themselves only Thirdly and lastly he supposeth it a grand absurdity and tending to a dissolution of all Gospel Order to imagin that there were any Gospel rules binding only to Christians of the first age of the Gospel Doth he think that when Christians of the age he speaks of sold their possessions lands and houses and brought the prices of them and laid them down at the Apostles feet they did this irregularly or without rule or without a rule binding unto them If this latter then it follows that either Christ himself or his Apostles prescribed some rules which were not binding no not unto Christians of this first age Or doth he think that that rule by which those Christians acted in the case specified is binding unto us now Yet that Rule respected charity and self-denial and so in reason should be more binding unto us now then rules respecting only an outward rite or ceremony Again it was a rule binding unto those Christians he speaks of that their women praying or prophesying should have their head covered and that men on the contrary should have their heads uncovered Doth he judge this rule binding unto us now Or do all men sin who Prophesy i. e. joyn with him that preahcheth the Word in the act of hearing with their heads covered I beleeve there are many who should sin much more if they should Prophecy with their heads uncovered viz. all those who by reason of weakness or tenderness are like to suffer in their healths if they should sit uncovered for an hour or two together in a cold place and cold season There is the same confideration of a frosty-dipping to persons that are valetudinary of a crazy and infirm constitution though it were supposed that there was a rule binding Christians of that age and of those warm Countries to dip at all times immediately upon their beleeving Instance might be given in several other Gospel rules which were binding unto Christians of the first age at least unto those particular Christians to whom they were prescribed and yet are not so unto us now The rule which prescribed the Holy kiss which prescribed the speaking in an unknown tongue by two or at the most by three 1 Cor. 14. 27. which prescribed the holding of the peace to him that was speaking in the Church in case any thing were revealed unto another 1 Cor. 14. 30. which prescribed abstaining from meat offered to Idols and from blood c. were

binding unto those Christians of the first age to whom they were given but are they all binding unto us now Or in case they were all now binding but one or more of them not so apprehended by Christians now and upon this account not observed by them doth it follow from hence that they must needs bid farewell to all Gospel Obligations If my Anti-querist not seeing or minding a Friend of his passing by him in the street should omit the salutations accustomed between Friends doth this tend to the abolishing or casting away all friendly commerce or expressions between them otherwise Or in case a man gathering his Apples overlooks one that is more covered with leaves or boughs then the rest and so leaveth it ungathered doth he hereby either dispose tempt or encourage either himself or others never to gather Apple more What frivolous and empty reasonings are these Let me here observe this one thing more The Apostles were not so uniform in imposing Ordinances upon Churches in their days but that what upon occasion they imposed upon one sometimes they relaxed unto another They imposed abstinence from meats offered to Idols and so from blood upon the Church at Antioch simply and indefinitely Act. 15. 29. whereas the Apostle Paul enjoyneth the former abstinence unto the Church of Corinth only in the case of scandal unto weak Brethren and of encouragement to Idolaters 1 Cor. 8 7 9 10. compared with Chap. 10. 23 27 28 c. and concerning the latter he seemeth to relax it unto the generality of Christians those haply excepted to whom it had been enjoyned together with others lying under the like circumstantial obligations thereunto in that passage to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 1 2 3 4. where he saith that every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving yea and which is more considerable maketh it a character of men giving heed to seducing spirits and speaking lyes in hypocrisie to command to abstain from meats which God created to be received with thanksgiving c. 15. Whereas he saith that it is said in effect in 1 Cor. 12. 13 and the like Scriptures lately quoted by him that all of all sorts ranks and degrees that were of the Body were baptized into the Body c. it is indeed said as we heard that they were all by one Spirit baptized into one Body But how impertinent yea and voyd of truth is it to ascribe that unto Water-Baptism which is so expresly attributed by the Apostle to a baptizing in or with the Spirit But this Scripture hath been argued more at large 16. And lastly for this Answer He saith that the same ground which did satisfie Beleevers then in the Apostles days in not joyning in Church fellowship with persons unbaptized though they did beleeve will serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of the same practise which is the will and appointment of Jesus Christ that so it should be c. But to how little purpose is this said For 1. He hath not yet proved nor I beleeve ever will that baptized Beleevers in the Apostles days did not joyn in Church-fellowship with persons un-baptized though Beleevers And how impertinent is it in arguing to suppose that without proof which a man knoweth is denyed by his adversary 2. In case he had proved or could prove such a thing I mean that baptized Beleevers did not joyn in Church-fellowship with unbaptized Beleevers yet would it not follow from hence that therefore they did not thus joyn with such upon any such ground as this viz. because it was the will and appointment of Iesus Christ that so it should be Christians in these times as in all other did and especially did not many things upon other grounds then this as viz because they have no occasion opportunity or necessity to do them They did not joyn themselves in a Team with Horses or after the manner of Horses to draw Carts or Wains they did not at least many of them did not joyn with Merchants where they lived in their Adventures by Sea Did they omit the doing of these things and twenty more like unto them upon this ground or motive because it was the will and appointment of Iesus Christ that so it should be How uncouth sapless and without savor are such conceits and reasonments as these The baptized Beleevers he speaks of might possibly not joyn in Church-fellowship with unbaptized Beleevers only upon this ground viz. because no such desired this fellowship with them But will this ground serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of such a practise when as there are Beleevers whom they call unbaptized who desire this fellowship with them But it is no great marvel that the Carver though a good Artist can make no better a Mercury the wood he hath to work upon is not for it 3. And lastly The nonjoyning of baptized Beleevers in Church-fellowship with Beleevers unbaptized could it be proved would serve to satisfie baptized Beleevers now touching the lawfulness of the same practise But not to joyn and to break off or separate after joyning are two very different practises That ground which would satisfie a beleeving man or woman for their not joyning in marriagewith an Infidel or Unbeleever will not serve to satisfie them touching the lawfulness of the practise of separation from him or her after marriage Therefore my Anti-querist doth not argue pertinently at this turn neither He pleads another Cause in stead of his own For a cloze to what at present I reply to his Answer given unto my first Query it is very observable that he doth not at all his long Answer throughout so much as touch upon one thing which the said Query asketh after with as great a desire of satisfaction as after any thing besides The Query thus saluteth him Whether is there any Precept or Example in the Gospel of any person how duly soever baptized who disclaimed Christian Communion either in Church-fellowship or in any the Ordinances of the Gospel with those whom he judged true Beleevers upon an account only of their not having been baptized ESPECIALLY AFTER SUCH A MANNER AS HE JUDGED IT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO HAVE BEEN These last words especially after such a manner c. which are as emphatical as any other in all the Query and with which he found his Cause harder pinched then with any thing besides he prudently dissembles in his Answer as if they were not To give a just and competent Answer to the Query he should not only have attempted to prove that there are examples in theGospel of baptized persons who disclaimed Church communion with Beleevers upon the only account of their not having been baptized which indeed he hath attempted though successlesly but also that they disclaimed this Communion with them upon the account only of their not having been baptized after such or such a particular mode as they