IN the Stating of this Questi­on it may be necessary to examine how far we disa­gree, & wher­in we concur with our Dissenting Brethren, because that will prevent much needless Discourse, and lead us to debate the matter in Dispute on­ly.

[Page 2]The Professors of the Christi­an Religion, are distinguished by certain terms, invented by their opposites, to know them by, as Prelatical, Presbyterian, Indepen­dant, Anabaptist, &c. And it were well if such names were laid a­side, and the Title of Christian Brother reassumed, because they agree in Fundamentals. Now of all these, our Controversie in the Case in hand is only with some on the last, who are (though not rightly) called Anabaptists. As for the others, their avowed Prin­ciple is, To admit none into Church-Fellowship or Commu­nion, that are Unbaptized: Yea so positive are the Papists, that they look upon all so far from be­ing qualified for Church Com­mnnion, till they are Baptized, that they say they are all damn'd that die without it; but we de­rive no Authority from their pra­ctice. the Church of England [Page 3]receives no Member into their Communion without Baptism, neither do Presbyterians, Indepen­dants, nor indeed any sort of Chri­stians that own Ordinances, ad­mit any as a Church-Member without Baptism. We shall there­fore direct this Discourse to our Dissenting Brethren, of the Bap­tized way only, who reason thus, That there being no Precept, Pre­sident nor Example in all the Scri­pture, for our excluding our Holy Brethren that differ in this Point from us, therefore we ought not to dare to do it.

Now how unsafe, unsound, and of what pernicious Consequence, such a Position in its direct ten­dency is and has been, shall ap­pear in the Chapter of Objections; to which at present we refer—Only in general we say, That if by Precept, President, or Example, is meant such, in express words, viz. such Texts of Scripture as[Page 4]prohibit Practices by name and circumstance, then Popish Purga­tory, and Monkery and ten thousand other things, as Do­ctor Owen well says, may be made Lawful by this Argument, there being not an express word in Scripture that prohibits those things by their very name, be­cause not then in being. If it be meant what may be inferred by direct and plain consequence in the true Logical Notion of it, with­out Sophistry or Quibble, I am sa­tisfied we can produce, Precept, President, and Example, that it is our Duty to withdraw from disorderly Walkers. And our Dissenting Brethren grant, that the Administration of Baptism, by Rantism or Sprinkling in In­fancy is disorderly, as being a Practice without Example or Consequent Warrant from Scri­pture, and Administred to a Sub­ject not capable, or qualified to re­ceive [Page 5]it, nor in an orderly man­ner. And therefore it is so much the more wonderful, that they a­bove any, should blame us for obeying the Solemn Command we read, 2 Thess. 3.6, viz. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw your selves from every brother that walketh disorder­ly, and not after the Tradition which ye received of us. Which last Phrase [...], &c. (the word [Paradosis] signifying not only Doctrine de­livered, Matth. 15.2,3. But also a Command, Ordinance or Insti­tution, as before, 2 Thess. 2.15.) plainly makes out that they were not only to withdraw from per­sons of disorderly Conversation, or defective in Morals, but also from such as were corrupt in Doctrine, or disorderly in their Gospel-Ad­ministrations, that being as great a violation of Gospel Order, and as pernicious of Christians as Im­morality,[Page 6]which must be granted, or else there is no Authority given to the Church to deal with Members of corrupt Princi­ples, &c.

Now this Command being Ge­neral, includes all disorders of any kind, in Manners, Doctrine, or Practice, and is a sufficient War­rant (were there no more) for our Obedience, to exclude such as dis­orderly practice the Ordinance of Baptism, from our immediate Communion at the Lords Table, though not from our Love and Affection, for we hope they walk according to their Light, and the Error being not so fundamental as to endanger their Eternal state, we esteem them Christian Brethren and Saints, for whose further il­lumination we dayly put up our Prayers.

But in regard we are convinced (1.) That it is the Duty of all Be­livers to be Baptized in Water up­on[Page 7]Confession of their Faith, &c. (2.) That none but such ought to be Baptized. (3.) That such as Practise otherwise deviate from the Rule of the Gospel, and the Precedents Recorded there. (4.) That such a Deviation is in it self disorderly, and in the Con­sequence dangerous, as bringing many unregenerate Members into the Church, &c. We conceive our selves bound by the indispen­sable Rule of our Duty, to bear our Testimony against such a Pra­ctice, and in the most Healing manner we can, to discharge our selves from being countenancers, or abettors of it, which we can do no other way (unless they will be reclaimed) then by withdraw­ing from those disorders; after the Example of the Primitive Saints, of the Ancient Waldensoe, our Modern Reformers, &c. (5.) We are satisfied that we are guilty of no Schism in that particular, for[Page 8]we separate not from any Chri­stian as such, but hold Commu­nion as far as we agree, and where we cannot agree, we dare not but obey the Command before reci­ted, though we expose our selves to worldly inconveniencies by it; The least particle of Divine Truth being more valuable than any thing the world can present: for which our, Brethren should not blame us, but rather seriously examine our Reasons and Arguments, and then judge.

The farther prosecution of this matter is referred to its proper Head: And therefore we shall propose to consideration the fol­lowing Inquiry, viz.

Question. Whether Perons Ʋn­baptized may Regularly be ad­mitted to the Communion of the Lords Supper?

[Page 9] To obviate a Cavil, which may be made, the Reader may understand that under the term [Ʋnbaptized] we comprehend all persons that either were never Baptized at all, or such as have been (as they call it) Christned or Baptized (more properly Sprink­led) in their Infancy. Now our Dissenting Brethren with whom we have to do, look upon this way to be absolutely invalid, and so no Baptism (else they would not be Baptized themselves) and consequently esteem all such as Unbaptized: so that we need not prove what is granted, and shall therefore proceed to examine the Question in the following Chap­ter.

THat persons Unbaptized may regularly be admitted to the Communion of the Lords Supper, is denied from these Reasons:

1. Because this Opinion tends to destroy the Nature, Ends, and Uses of these Gospel Ordinan­ces. The nature of Baptism is Spiritual, when rightly Admini­stred: Was it not submitted unto by the Primitive Christians? Was it not the first Act done by them, after their Conversion? Act. 2.41,42. Whereby they became visible Professors of the Gospel of Truth, which figured their Death, Burial, and Resurrection with Christ. Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. [Page 11]Is it not an Institution stampt with as Divine a Character, and as Sa­cred a Sanction as any in Scripture? All Nations taught, being to re­ceive it, and being of the same duration with Preaching, submit­ted to by Christ himself, before he entred upon his Publick Mini­stry (which is the most Illustri­ous Example in the World) wit­nessed unto by the Renowned Worthies of all Ages.

Now that this Ordinance, being of that quality, enforced by so great Authority, submitted to by such Examples, and serving for such gracious ends, (as to be the Symbol of Regeneration, in which a Believer is made a Parta­ker of those Divine Conveyances, those communications of Grace, and increasings of Faith, promised by the Lord Jesus to his sincere followers,) should be put in dan­ger of being quite abolisht, and the practise lost by an unseasona­ble[Page 12]and mistaken apprehension, and that by such persons as own Baptism to be as here represented, is a matter something strange, and 'tis to be feared, will prove in the consequence of ill Effect, not on­ly to this but the succeeding Ge­neration, if they that Espouse it should go about to propagate this new Principle: to prevent which, (if it may please the Divine Will to bless these lines) was the only end of this Essay, and that purely out of the Zeal I have to preserve (as much as in me lies) the Ordi­nances in their purity, as they were delivered to us by Christ; for we all know what a vast trouble and hazard the Reformers (and indeed many that are alive at present) had to Rescue this as well other Truths and Ordinances, from the Ridicu­lous Additions of Sanguinary Per­secuting Romanists, under whose Captivity it groaned for some Ages.

[Page 13]To enforce what is said, I shall endeavour to shew here some of the ill consequences of this Opi­nion, and the small reason our Bre­thren have to propagate it, though I still reserve much to the Chap­ter of Objections, where their Rea­sons will be more largly reply'd to.

1. This Opinion has a direct tendency to invalidate, or indeed, quite throw out of doors, and discontinue the use of a Founda­tion Ordinance, or Principle of the Gospel of Christ, Heb. 6.2. For if Unbaptized Persons may be ad­mitted to all Church Priviledges, does not such a practice plainly suppose that it is unnecessary? Supra sic per plura quod sieri potest per­p [...]ciora.for to what purpose is it to be Bapti­zed (may one Reason with him­self) if he may enjoy all Church Priviledges without it? The Bap­tists (if once such a belief pre­vails,) would be easily tempted to lay aside that reproached Practice, [Page 14](which Envious Men have un­justly derided and aspersed,) of being dipt, that is Baptized, and challenge their Church Commu­nion by vertue of their Faith only; and such as Baptized Infants would be satisfied to discontinue the practice, when one they are per­swaded, that their Children may be Regular Church-Members without it; for if it be superflu­ous, discreet and thrifty People would willingly be rid of the trou­ble of Christning-Feasts, (as they call them) and all the appurtenan­ces thereto belonging: so that in a short time we should have neither old nor young baptized, and by consequence be in a likely condi­tion to lose one of the Sacraments, which would easily make way for the loss of the other, both having an equal Sanction in Scripture; and the Arguments that disanul the one, will destroy the other, and consequently all Ordinances,[Page 15]and Modes of Worship, and last­ly, Religion it self. For if a thing expresly commanded, and practi­sed by Christ, be lookt upon as un­necessary, every man will con­clude, that 'tis all one, whether he takes or leaves it, and will, if he can choose, rather leave it, since the taking it up, is somthing trou­blesome and of no use, (as is supposed) which begets an O­pinion, That Christs Laws may be dispens'd withal by men, and so lessens that Reverence and Esteem which persons ought to have for Christ: and when such do once make a Breach in those Boundaries & Limits, which they are enjoyned not to pass, they sel­dom stop in that extravagant Ca­reer till they run beyond all Reli­gion into Atheism, or pretended Enthusiasm. So that (at best) this Opinion tends to encourage persons in the neglect or con­tempt of Religious Duty, or to [Page 16]the loss thereof quite and clean; which is, no less, than to be, not only an Accessary, but (in a great measure) the Cause of that sin.

2. This Opinion gives up a Cause and Truth that has been by judicious Pens well Defended both from Scripture and Antiqui­ty, and which these Brethren themselves are convinced to be a Gospel Truth: for if it be once admitted that it is not necessary to Church-Communion, every Man of sence will infer, That our contentions for it were frivolous, our Separation Schismatical, and our Suffering the Penalties of Humane Laws, foolish: and con­sequently, we shall be exposed to the Reproaches of such as are (without this advantage) ready enough to Revile and Persecute us.

3. This Opinion perverts or ra­ther destroys Order: & flatly con­tradicts the Practice of the Primi­tive[Page 17]Christians; It is said, Act 2.41. Then they that gladly received his Word were Baptized. Here is the right Gospel Order, First, they that gladly received the Word; that is, they that believed, and no o­ther, were immediately Baptised, (that it was immediately, appears by the Adverb then) which was the second Work, and the same day (viz. after they believed and were Baptized) there were added unto them, (that is, received into Church-Fellowship, by Faith and Baptism) about Three thousand Souls. ver. 42. And they continued stead­fastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship (that is in the same Faith and Communion,) and in break­ing of Bread and Prayers (that is in the enjoyment and Administra­tion of Church Ordinances:) Is not here a famous Instance or President of their Practice, which answers those frequent and unde­cent Clamours of such, who call[Page 18]for Scripture to justifie the Exclusi­on of our holy Brethren that have not been so Baptized. 2. Thess. 3.6. Whereas in the fore-going Pages, there is a Scripture cited, That justifies our withdrawing from disorderly walkers; and such as make this Out-cry own the practices of In­fant Baptism in that particular to be such, and therefore our Sepa­ration for that Reason (pursuant to that Express Command) lawful; which they must grant, or deny Infant Baptism to be dis­orderly; or else must say, that there be some disorderly walkers, that we may and ought to have Communion with, notwithstand­ing that solemn Prohibition of it, 2 Thess. 3.6.

And whereas it is said, That Baptism was never Ordained of God to be a Wall of Division, be­tween the holy, and the holy; the holy that are, and the holy that are not so Baptized with[Page 19]Water, as we, &c. It is Answered,

1. The Phrase [Wall of Divi­sion] is ambiguous; If it be meant of a total Exclusion of other Chri­stians from our Love, Charity, and Christian-Communion, as far as we agree; we do not look up­on Baptism to be such a Wall of Division, neither do we so practice it.

2. If it be meant, of an Exclud­ing from immediate Church-fellowship, although we meet not with this Phrase, [viz. Wall of Division] in those very words, yet we find what is equivalent in 2 Thess. 3.6. and several other Texts: and it is remarkable, that the Word Translated [...] ex a priv. & [...] Ordinatus. [...]. inordina­tus vel ex ordine, out of Order. disorderly, is a metaphor borrowed from the Custom of War, wherein every Souldier hath his Station assigned him, from which, when he swerves, he becomes disorderly, which the Apostle Elegantly uses, to denote, That every Christian is a Souldi­er [Page 20]that's Listed under the Banner of Christ, and must keep his ex­act Station appointed him, with­out the least inclining to the right or left hand, backward or for­ward, without the Word of Com­mand. Beza upon the place tells us, that Livius was wont to use this word of Soldiers, that kept not their Station: And Stephanus calls those Souldiers by this Name, who are disorderly. From this Em­phasis of the word, we may gather, That if Military Commanders ex­pect a punctual and regular Obe­dience from their Soldiers; and severely punish such as break their Array, or quit their Stations; The Lord (who is a Jealous God with respect to his Worship, and posi­tive Institutions) will call any, that presume to break the Order he has prescribed, to a severe account, as hath been, and shall be further de­monstrated.

3. This Assertion reaches any[Page 21]other Gospel-Ordinance, as well as Baptism: For if it should be said, That the Supper was never Or­dained of God to be a Wall of Division between the Holy and the Holy, that do not so receive it as we, it will as rationally fol­low with respect to this, as well as Baptism, that we should not exclude a person that doubts it, or positively asserts it to be need­less, from our Communion, which may be likewise said of any Church-Ordinance whatsoever; and consequently, the Rule of Communion must not be what we find written, but the Sanctity of the Party (whether pretended or real) that proposes himself as a Member. For I would ask those that pretend tenderness, and for that cause admit Persons to the Lords Supper that are Unbaptized, that if any person should desire to joyn to a Church, and yet de­clares, he wants Light to practice[Page 22]the Ordinance of the Supper, but in other things would be of their Communion, whether they would admit him upon those terms, he wanting Light in that Ordinance of Christ wherein the Communi­on of the Church doth chiefly consist? If they would admit him, they open so wide a gap, that any Ordinance upon the like pre­tence may be dispenced with, and two or three, yea all, as well as one, may be Cashier'd, and Church-Order may be quite turned to an Anarchy. If they would not ad­mit a person upon the said terms, then 'tis necessary to produce some Divine Law that makes the Sup­per more Essential than Baptism, or else the practice can never be justified. But that no such Autho­rity can be shewn, is undenyable; for that Divine Law that Ordain­ed the Supper, did also Establish Baptism. If it be said, Matt. 26.26. Luk. 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.[Page 23]24. Take eate, this is my Body. This do in Remembrance of me, &c. It is al­so said, Matt. 28.19. Go teach all Na­tions Baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and holy Ghost. Act. 2.38. Repent & be Bapti­zed every one of you for the Remission of Sins, &c. Act. 22.16. Arise and be Baptized, & wash away thy Sins, &c.

Do the former Scriptures Insti­tute the Supper, and Command its constant Observation? The lat­ter do as well Institute Baptism, and Command its constant Obser­vation, the very same Sanction, the same Spirit, with equal Au­thority Establishes both, giving Baptism precedency in order of time, as being the Sacrament of the Spiritual Birth, and the other of Spiritual Nourishment and Growth; and surely there is as much need of being New Born, as being Spiritually fed, that being of absolute necessity with respect to priority, in order to this.

[Page 24]Did Christ himself Celebrate this Supper, as before? Why the same Lord Jesus before he entred upon his Publick Ministry, was Baptized, Matt. 3.16,17. And Jesus when he was Baptized, went up straight-way out of the Water: and lo the Heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a Dove, and light­ing upon him; saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well plea­sed. Here the whole Trinity ap­pears, the Father by a Voice, the Son in his Body, and the Holy Ghost like a Dove: All Three make the Triumph, and Ratifie the Affair; never was any Ordinance graced with such a Presence, nor made Authentick by a more Illustrious Example.

Does the Supper shew forth the Lords Death till he come? 1 Cor- 11.26. So Baptism is a lively sym­bol of the Death, Burial, and Re­surrection of Christ, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12.

[Page 25]Does Examination go before the Supper? 1 Cor. 11.28. So Faith and Repentance, the two great Gospel Graces, with Confession of sins, are necessary Antecedents to Baptism, Act. 2.38. Act. 8.37. and all these are altogether as ne­cessary before the Supper.

Is it said John 6.54. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life? &c. So it is said Mark 16.16. He that be­lieveth and is baptized shall be sa­ved, &c. 1 Pet. 3.21. The like figure whereunto, even Baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the [...]. Stipulatio.stipulation (or answer) of a good Conscience toward God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. As the Supper is a Spiritual parti­cipation of the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith, and so (not meerly by the work done) is a means of Salvation; so Baptism Signs and Seals our Salvation to[Page 26]us, which lies in Justification and discharge of sin, &c.

By this brief Parallel we may see that Baptism is not only or­dained and ratified by the great Law-giver, as well as the Sup­per, but that it is dignified with as Spiritual Encomiums as any Gospel Ordinance can be; and if the advantage inclines to either of them, it is evident that the New Testament more frequently men­tions the Command and Practice of Baptism than of the Supper: for besides the Great Commission, Matth. 28.19. Mark 16.15,16. &c. you have frequent Precepts and Examples of it. Act. 2.38. Act. 8.38. Act. 9.18. Act. 10.48. Act. 16.15,33. Act. 18.8. &c. Nei­ther do we find any one Ordi­nance of the New Testament so made use of by the Apostle to in­cite Christians to dye to sin and live to God, as this Ordinance of Baptism, being that which [Page 27]is signified thereby is called a Bu­rial with Christ, Rom. 6.4. A put­ting on of Christ. Gal. 3.27. The signification of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ, Act. 22.16. That having an interest in Christ, and being buryed with him, We may walk in newness of life, &c. Whereas besides the In­stitution of the Lords Supper by Jesus Christ, instanced by the se­veral Evangelists, that Ordinance is but four times mentioned, viz. Act. 2.42. Act. 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. and 11.23. By all which it appears that the Ordinance of Baptism, as it has the Precedency in point of Order, so it is more frequently mentioned, and more earnestly inculcated, than the o­ther, & therefore the Obligation to preserve it, as Delivered by Christ and his Apostles, is indispensable.

4. In regard it is granted by such as hold the opinion here argued against, that Baptism and the Sup­per, [Page 28]&c. are positive Institutions It will unavoidably follow, tha [...] all the Force and Authority they have upon the Conscience in point of Practice, is to be derived from the plain express Law and Word of God, which made them Ordinances; from whence only we are to seek both a Warrant for, and the Method and manner of Practising them. The Dire­ction given to Moses was, See that thou make ALL things according to the PATTERN shewed thee in the Mount, Heb. 8.5. Exod. 25.9. to 40. And no less exact are Chri­stians to be in the Administration of Gospel Ordinances; since to deviate from the express Rule, is branded with the odious Title of Will-Worship, and humane Tradi­tion.

All Sound and Orthodox Wri­ters with one mind agree (and meer Reason teaches it) that where a Rule and express Law is [Page 29]prescribed to men, that very Pre­scription, is an express prohibiti­on of the contrary: Act. 2.38. to 42.Here we have the Order of Gospel Administra­tion, not only Commanded, but Practised. First they Preached; and such as were Converted, were Baptized; such as were Baptized, walkt in Church-Fellowship, &c. Breaking of Bread and Prayers; which being so express, what ne­cessity is there to be wise above what is written, and to clamour for Precept or Example, to prove that Baptism is a bar to Commu­nion, since we read every where, (where Gospel order is set down,) that all such as were received, were first Baptized; and not one instance in the whole Bible, that any were received without it. Nor is it rational to think that any were admitted to Church-Fellowship any other way, unless we will say that these positive Precepts were calculated for some[Page 30]only, and not for all Christians, which is not only absurd, but a­gainst the very Letter of the Scri­pture, Matth. 28.19. Teach all Na­tions Baptizing them, that is eve­ry individual that gladly receives the Word in every Nation: Take Eat, &c. Drink ye all of it, Matth. 26.26. &c. That is, every indivi­dual Member of the Church. Which Interpretation must needs stand, until the Maintainers of this new Opinion can assign to what sort of Christians these Divine Precepts are obligatory, and to what sort they are not; a thing impossible to be made out. Which I shall shut up in the words of Mr. Coxe, in his late Discourse of the Covenants, page 131. In matters of Positive Right (saith he) we can have no warrant for our practice, but from a Positive Precept: for things of this kind fall not within the compass of Common Light, or ge­neral Principles of Natural Reli­gion;[Page 31]but have their Original from a particular, distinct, and indepen­dent Will of the Law-giver. And therefore Inferences built upon Ge­neral Notions may soon lead us into mistakes about them; if upon such inferences we Form a Rule to our selves of larger extent than the ex­press words of the Institution do warrant. Which as it is a sound and excellent Truth, quite over­throws this practice of admitting Unbaptized persons to the Com­munion of the Lords Supper, there being no positive Precept to warrant it:Quere how consi­stent, &c. and therefore is que­ried how this their Opinion can be consistent, or reconciled with these expressions?

To conclude: The ends and uses of Baptism being (1.) To repre­sent to the Eye and Understanding by a visible sign or figure what hath been Preacht to the Ear and Heart. (2.) To witness Repentance, Matth. 3.6,11. Act. 2.38. Mark [Page 32]1.4. (3.) To evidence Regene­ration, called in allusion to it the washing of Regeneration, Tit. 3.5. A being born of the Water and the Spirit, John 3.5. (4.) A Symbol of our dying unto sin, and living again to Christian newness of life, Rom. 6.4. Col. 2.12. &c. It is therefore an Ordinance of very great significancy, and such as go about to lay it aside, (as this Opi­nion in its tendency and Conse­quence must needs do) deserve no thanks from the Churches of Christ, who have experienced much of the Lords presence in its Regular and Orderly Administra­tion.

TO Demonstrate this Truth we shall add some further enforcements from that Text be­fore-mentioned, viz. 1 Cor. 11.2. Now I praise you Brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the [...]. Syriack. Manda­tum, a Com­mand. In­stitutum, an Ordi­nance, Ri­vet. Prae­cepta mea tenetis, and keep my Precepts. Montanus.Ordinances as I delivered them unto you.

The Apostle having in the fore­going Chapter, verse 14. exhor­ted them to fly from Idolatry, shewing the great danger of mix­ture in the Worship of God, in verse 22. brings them to consider the danger; Do we provoke the[Page 34]Lord to [...] ad i­ram, vel ad aemu­landi stu­dium pro­voco, To provoke to wrath or jealou­sie.jealousie? Are we stronger than he? And ver. 23. to prevent all mistakes sheweth that in things of an indifferent Nature, there might be a lawful use of them provided therein all oc­casion of offence were avoided. And elsewhere (viz. Rom. 14.) he Treats largely of the duty of Saints to bear one with another, and not to with draw their Love and Affections from each other, where the matter of difference lay only in such things, as in themselves had no relation to the Worship of God.

In the beginning of this Chap­ter he exhorts them to be fol­lowers of him as he was of Christ, by which he informs them that no mans Practise or Example ought to be any further followed than they follow Christ.

In the Text he commends them for their care in keeping the Ordi­nances of Christ pure, both with[Page 35]respect to matter and form, as ap­pears by the Phrase [as they were delivered unto you] from whence we may observe,

That it is Practise praise worthy for the Churches of Jesus Christ to preserve and keep the Ordinan­ces of Christ, as they have been delivered by Christ and his Apo­stles to them. because,

1. We hereby advance the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, who hath in his House ordered all things so, to the effecting of those ends for which he hath appointed them, that there is no necessity of mans Additions, either with re­spect to the matter of them, or the Order and Method in which they are disposed. Now the Church of Christ is his House, and his Wisdom shines greatly, not only in the Food he hath pro­vided for them, but in the way by which they receive it from him, there being nothing that[Page 36]intrencheth more upon the Wis­dom of God, than that (when he hath prescribed a method in his Word) men should presume to al­ter or change the same; it being a much greater sin than the bare O­mission of any Duty, for by our O­missions we shew only our weak­ness and shortness of what we should know and do; but by Ad­ditions, we cast a blemish upon the Wisdom of Christ, as if we were wiser to order things than he.

That which occasioned so great an astonishment in the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10.4,5,8. Was the observation of the Order of Solo­mons House, which made her ad­mire his Wisdom. And surely the Wisdom of Christ is very eminently seen in the Order wherein the Ordinances of his House ought to be Practised. The Apostle, Col. 2.5. Rejoyced to be­hold not only the stedfastness of their Faith, but their Order also[Page 37]in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

2. Because the Ordinances of Christ are given by him to his people as a Trust, and therefore great care and fidelity must be used to keep them as they were delivered by him: For as in Hu­mane Affairs, the exact conscien­tious and upright management of a Trust, is a certain note of the Integrity and Honesty of the Tru­stee, so the violation of it is a high breach and violation of Sin­cerity and Faithfulness. Hence the Apostle so earnestly exhorts Timothy to keep that which was committed to his trust, [...] any thing de­posited, or credited to ones faith­fulness, and trust. 2 Tim. 6.20. Yea, the glorious Gospel it self, (of which this Holy Ordi­nance is a part) is said to be com­mitted to the Apostles Trust, 1 Tim 1.11. And so it is indeed committed to the Care and Trust of all True Churches of Christ, who are to be accountable for it, to the Great Lord and Author[Page 38]of it the Lord Jesus Christ, &c.

3. Because it preserves the Beauty of the House of God: For whatsoever is prescribed by the Lord Jesus, with respect to his Worship, is full of Beauty, Harmony, and Order, every thing answering its respective end, and what is signified there­by: and as Grace shines in its lustre in the orderly exercise thereof; so do the Ordinances of Christ: For as Regeneration is the first work of God upon the Soul, in order to the exercise of the Graces of Christ given, so hath he appointed Baptism, as that which is the first Ordinance to be Practised, which doth more particularly, than any other Ordi­dinance in the signification of it, hold out, and visibly represent our New Birth, and therefore is cal­led the Baptism of Repentance, Mark 1.4. Luk. 3.3.

[Page 39]Sutable hereunto does that Learned and Eminent Divine Mr. Daniel Rogers express him­self. ‘Treat. of the two Sacram. p. 71. Prin­ted, 1633.'Baptism then is the First Sacrament of the Gospel, consist­ing of Water, which is Sacra­mentally Christ; or wherein by Water duly applyed, not only the presented party is made a Member of the visible Church; but also Sealed up to an invisible Union with Christ, and thereby interessed in all those benefits of his, which concern the being of Regeneration.’

‘'By calling it the first Sacra­ment, I point at the Precedency and Order of Baptism. The which all those Names of Bap­tism both in Scripture, and else where do approve Its the Seed of the Church, as the other is of Food. It issued first out of the side of our Lord Jesus upon the Cross. Its the Creating Instru­ment of God to produce and form[Page 40]the Lord Jesus to a New Crea­ture, and to Regeneration in the Soul. Tit. 3.5. Its called our Union with Christ, our Marriage Ring, our Military Press-mony, our Matri­culation, Cognizance and Cha­racter of Christ, our Implanting or Ingrafting into him, and his Body, our Ship, our Ark, our Red Sea, our putting on of Christ. For as all those go be­fore our Nourishment, Commu­nion, Cohabitation, service, Fruit, Manna, or Food from Heaven, so this Sacrament must go before the other. Breeding, Begetting and bringing out of the Womb, doth not more Naturally go be­fore the feeding of the Infant by the mothers Breasts, then this Womb of the Youth of the Church goes before the Milk thereof; the Church being no Dry Nurse, but a Mother of her own, the Sons and Daughters of her own Womb—Let all who[Page 41]desire to taste of the Sealing power of the second Sacrament to Nou­rish them as Saints: First prove the Sealing power of the former Sacrament to beget and make you Saints. And a little after Pag. 72—Be­ware—lest the Lord be froward with them that fight against the God of Order: lest instead of finding Nourishment before Breeding, as they Rob God of his Order, so they meet with Wrath and Judgment, before Mercy and Salvation; yea lest God accurse their single emptyness of Christ, with such a double barrenness, as will admit no Conception or Birth.’

'And very pathetically pag. 73. after he hath shewed that Christ hath joyned Water with a kind of equal necessity with himself, Mar. 16.16. John 3.5. subjoyns ‘'Shall not he who despiseth Water (appointed to such an unsepara­ble Holy end) despise the Ordai­ner[Page 42]of Water? Exod. 20.7. shall we take his name in vain, by slighting that by which he makes himself and the power of his Word and Spirit manifest to beget the Soul to him, and be holden guiltless? Matth. 19.6. When Christ hath put both in one, shall we dare to say the one is strong, the other is base? shall we slight it, slack our haste to it, our Holy preparing of our selves to it, our abiding at it, our offer­ing up Prayers for blessing it, our making it the joynt Object of our Humiliation, Faith, Reverence, and Thanks? Far be it from us, so to abhor that Popish Hyperbo­lical esteem of it, and the merit of the work wrought of it; that we run into another Riot to disesteem it? Doubtless he that cares not for Christ in the Word, Christ in the Promise, Christ in the Minister, Christ in the Wa­ter, Christ in the Bread and Wine, Christ Sacramental; cares [Page 43]as little for Christ God, Christ Flesh, Christ Emanuel. By these he comes near. And Matth. 10.40. He that de­spiseth you, despiseth me, and him that sent me. Beware we of such contempt, even in the secretest of our thoughts and Affections: and let Christ in the Water be Honoured as Christ, for that sweet Union and Fruit which he brings to poor Souls thereby. If Jordan be precious when God will use it, for the Angels Heal­ing by it, much more this.2 Kings 5. [...]. John 5.2.’

‘'Pag. 81. The Lords Scope in Baptism is an inward Grace, but this general Priviledge is to all equal, viz. A badge of an out­ward Member: distinction from the common Rout of the World, out of the Pale of the Church. The Lord appointed Circumcisi­on as a Seal of the Righteousness of Faith chiefly: yet as an over-plus he allowed it to be the Diffe­rencer of all other Nations from[Page 44]the Jews. It was a Fence and Wall of Separation from them in all their Converse. So is Bap­tism now a mark or badge of ex­ternal Communion: whereby the Lord settles a Right upon the Per­son to his Ordinances, that he may comfortably use them as his own Priviledge, and wait for the in­ward Prerogative of Saints by them. And yet this (as much as men boast of it) is but a shell in respect of the other.’ So far he.

Again, Baptism holds out the Souls Interest in the Death, Buri­al, and Resurrection of Christ in a more special manner then any other Ordinance, it is called the Stipulation or Answer of a good Conscience, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead;1 Pet. 3.21. that is, when a Conscience ap­peased and pacified with the dis­charge of Sin, can cry Abba Father with a holy security, and speak to God himself, &c. Now this Sti­pulation[Page 45]of a good Conscience is the Effect of Baptism, and which Baptism Seals: For what it finds [...] Seals, although it doth also Ex­hibit more of the same kind. A Learned Expositor Mr. Tho. Godwin. gives his Sense of this place thus.

‘'The Answer of a good Con­science is here Attributed to Christs Resurrection, as the thing signified and represented in Bap­tism, and as the cause of that An­swer of a good Conscience, even Baptism (saith he) doth now save [us] as being the Ordinance that Seals up Salvation, not the putting away the filth of the Flesh, or the washing of the outward man; but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Christ from the Dead. (To open this, saith he) Our Conscienccs are that Princi­ple within us, which are the Seat of the guilt of all the Sins of the whole Man, unto whose Court[Page 46]they all come to accuse us, as un­to Gods Deputy, which Consci­ence is called Good or Evil, as the State of the Man is. Now in Baptism, forgiveness of Sins and Justification being Sealed up to a Believers Faith and Conscience under that lively Representation of his Communion with Christ in his Resurrection; hence this is made the fruit of Baptism, that the good Conscience of a Believer Sealed up in Baptism, hath where­withal from thence to Answer all Accusations of Sin that can or do at any time come in upon him, and is, as it is here added (by ver­tue of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ,) namely in this Respect, that his Communion with Christ in his Resurrection hath been re­presented in his Baptism as the Ground of his Faith, and of that Answer unto all Accusations.’

By all which we may (by the way) see of what necessity Faith [Page 47]is required of the Persons that are Baptized, if they will receive any benefit thereby. Also, how Bap­tism being the first Ordinance to be Administred, answers to the first Grace Received; From whence it appeareth, That as the Grace of Regeneration gives a Right to the Enjoyment of Gos­pel Institutions; so Baptism, with respect to Priority and Order, is the first Institution, without which, none may regularly par­take of other Church-Ordinan­ces.

And this further may be noted as considerable, that as there is but one Beginning of Natural Life to man; and one beginning of Spiritual of Life, which is by Re­generation, John 3.3. Ames Me­dulla The­ol. pag. 183 The Sup­per of the Lord ought of­tentimes to be Admi­nistred to the same Person, &c. So Baptism is to be but once Administred; whereas, if Baptism had the same import and signification with re­spect to the Priviledges that are to be enjoy'd at the Second Coming[Page 48]of Christ as the Supper of the Lord hath, there would be the same Reason for the frequent Admini­stration of it, as is for the Supper of the Lord.

4. It is commendable to keep the Ordinances of Christ pure, as they were delivered, because it prevents the creeping in of the In­ventions of Men in the Worship of God. For (as it was before Noted) Man is naturally apt to be medling that way, and mixing something of his own with those Sacred Institutions which God has with greatest severity pro­hibited, having not spared any, no not his own People, though what they have done therein seems not to be out of any wicked intenti­ons, but rather out of an Ignorant Zeal: Of which there are many Instances in Scripture as before re­cited; particularly, the Memora­ble Cases of Nadab and Abihu, Lev. 10.2,3. Uzzah 2 Sam. 6.6,7. &c.

[Page 49]Suitable hereto Mr. Burroughs very excellently expresses himself in his Book intituled Gospel-Wor­ship, or the Right Manner of San­ctifying the Name of God, pag 8, 9, &c.

‘—'All things in Gods Wor­ship must have a Warrant out of Gods Word, must be Comman­ded; it's not enough that 'tis not Forbidden, and what hurt is there in it? But it must be Com­manded.—When we come to Matters of Religion and the Wor­ship of God, we must either have a Command, or somewhat out of Gods Word, by some Conse­quence drawn from some Com­mand, wherein God manifests his Will; either a Direct Command, or by comparing one thing with another, or drawing Consequen­ces plainly from the words, we must have a Warrant for the Worship of God, &c.—When any Creature is raised in a Reli­gious [Page 50]way above what it hath in it by Nature, if I have not Scri­pture to warrant me, I am therein Superstitious.—We must be all Willing-Worshippers, but not Will-Worshippers, Matth. 15.9. Isa. 29.13.’

Pag. 10. ‘'—You see how se­vere God was to Nadab and Abi­hu, for but taking other Fire then that which God appointed, to offer up Incense, though there there was no direct Command­ment against it, &c.’

Page 11. ‘'In the matters of Worship God stands up little things, such things as seem to be very small and little to us, yet God stands much upon them in the matter of Worship. For there is nothing wherein the Prerogative of God doth more appear, then in Worship, as Princes stand much upon their Prerogatives.—There are—things in the Worship of God[Page 51]that are not written in our hearts, that only depend upon the will of God Revealed in his Word; which were no Duties except they were Revealed there. And these are of such a nature, as we can see no Reason for, but only this, Because God will have them.—Though men would think it a little matter whether this Fire, or that Fire, and will not this burn as well as that? [...]t God stands upon it.—When Ʋzzah did but touch the Ark, when it was ready to fall, we would think it no great matter; but one touch of the Ark cost him his life. There is not a min­nim in the Worship of God, but God stands mightily upon it.—For a man Numb. 15.32. to gather a few sticks (on the Sabbath) what great great matter was it? But God stands upon it. So when the men of Bethshemesh did but look into the Ark, it cost the Lives of[Page 52]fifty thousand and seventy men, &c.’

He further adds, page 12. That there is no Priviledges or Dignities of Man, that can secure them from Gods stroke; Instancing Nadab and Abihu's Case, Moses the man of God being their Ʋnkle, and Aaron their Father, men newly consecrated to the Priests Office, renowned men that God put much glory upon; yet if they will venture but to offend God in this little thing, his wrath breaks out up­on them, and kills them presently, &c.

This Eminent Servant of God Adds much to the same effect in the said Book which for Brevity is past over—And amongst the Rest, offers several Reasons by which he judgeth that Nadab and Abihu, were good men, and gives a plain Demonstration that they had no wicked Design, as [1] They were Young men, newly come to their Office, and might not understand[Page 53]all things, as if they had had lon­ger Experience. [2] Its observable for ver. 1. 'Tis called strange fire, which he Commanded not, that if there be not a Command for our Practice, nor such a President as the Scripture approves of, no Hu­mane pretence can excuse the trans­gressor from the Judgment of God.

Beza, In his Annotations upon the third vers. I will be sanctified, ob­serves that the meaning of it is,—I will punish them that serve me o­therwise then I have Commanded, not sparing the Cheif, that the People may fear and praise my Judgments. There is also a notable Instance, 1. Sam. 6.13,15,19. Concerning the men of Beshemesh, who being in the field reaping their Harvest, Rejoyced at its Return, ver. 13. And therefore offered Sacrifices to the Lord, ver. 15. But because they looked into the Ark, fifty thou­sand, threescore and ten men of[Page 54]them (as was said) were slain. The like instance we have (as was al­ready urged) about Ʋzzah, 2 Sam. 6.6. whom God smites dead for touching the Ark, &c.

It is concluded by all Orthodox Writers, that the Rise of Antichrist was by Degrees; first encroaching by one Invention, and then from time to time super-adding another; which is indeed no wonder, for if a Church once swerves from the Rule in one thing, a Foundation is thereby laid of doing so in ma­ny things. And for this Reason the Apostle with great Earnest­ness charges, Tim. 6.13,14. Timothy, and in him all Saints, thus, I give thee charge in the sight of God, &c. That thou keep this Commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the Ap­pearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Apostle had in this Epistle been instructing Timothy about Church-VVorship, and things re­la [...]ing to Prayer, Eldership, deal­ing[Page 55]with Members, &c. And therefore concludes, I charge thee to keep this Commandment; that is, that which he all along in the Epistle directed and pressed with so weighty Arguments: As if he had said, It is your indispensible Du­ty to be careful in this, because, as 'tis express'd vers. 15, 16. In his own time he shall shew who is the blessed and onely Potentate, &c. Jesus Christ hath given Gospel-VVor­ship to his Church, as King of his Church: The Potentates of the VVorld shew their power in no­thing more then in keeping those who are employed by them to the strict Observation of the Commis­sions given to them; So that if an Embassador goes beyond his Commission, he forfeits his Head; and therefore if any Thing be de­manded, or any Particular offered in order to a Treaty, which is not in their Commission, they usually answer, I have no Commission to [Page 56]answer or meddle with this or that point. Now saith the Apostle, Keep the Commandment blameless without Spot: Jesus Christ is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, the only Potentate, and in his time he will shew it, and Examine by what Commission from him they have done what they have done and Practiced, and will ask this great Question, Who hath Required this at your hands? what satisfactory answer can any man give, if such a thing be allowed? If you ask a Rule for Baptizing Children, may not such a Person Demand where your Rule is for Unbabtized Per­sons to Receive the Lords Supper? If you ask a Rule for signing with the Cross in Baptism, he will ask where your Rule is for Baptizing of Children, and in a word if any one thing be admitted in point of Practice, that has not the express Warrant of Gods Word, it will make way for others, because the [Page 57]same Reason or Pretence that Establishes one, may equally be Produced for another, and another, without end; and so a Deviation from Rule in any thing, though never so small, tends directly to bring in the Inventions and Tra­ditions of Men into the Worship of God.

From the whole of what hath been said, we may Infer these Co­rollaries or Inferences,

1. That God hath Prescribed a particular way and method in which he will be Worshiped.

2. That he is so tender and nice therein, that the least Variation from his own Stated Order will not be allowed by him, which ap­pears by the punishment of such as Transgressed, and the praises given to such as kept his Ordinan­ces as they were Delivered unto them, mentioned at large before.

3. That to swerve from the Lords Institutions, and Invert his Order,[Page 58]has a direct Tendency to Destroy all Modes of Worship, and conse­quently all the publick and solemn Exercise of Religion, in as much as the same Reason by which one Ordinance may be changed, or Discontinued, will equally prove the change or Discontinuance of any, yea of all at long Run.

And if the first Churches might not be Constituted without this Ordinance of Baptism, neither may those that succeed them, because the same Reason that made Bap­tism necessary to them, makes it also necessary to us. For Gospel Order setled by Apostical Autho­rity and Direction, as this was, hath not lost any of its native worth and efficacy, or obliging Vertue, by any Disuse or Discon­tinuance occasioned by any, but ought to be the same to us now, as it was to them in the begining of such Order; especially consi­dering the day wherein we live, [Page 59]many indeavouring to bring in their own Inventions into the Worship of God, which should make all Christians be more care­ful and Zealous to Cleave to the Institutions of Jesus Christ, as they were first Delivered by the holy Penmen, and the Practice of the Primitive Christians.

To conclude this head, as Bap­tism is not to be Repeated, be­cause it is the Sacrament of Re­generation, Initiation, and Incor­poration, which are not capable of Reiteration, so neither can the Seal and Sign thereof; so whatso­ever makes for the not Repeating it in the ordinary use of it, makes also for this as fully or more, that it should be the first.

If it not to be repeated because it is the Sign or Seal of Initiation, Regeneration and Incorporation, by the same Reason it must be [Page 60]first, as Initiation, Admission, Incorporation, and Regeneration, are the first Internal Acts in us, and upon us, by which we are made Christians. But of this we have said enough before.

AS for the Practice of Gospel times, it hath been evidently Demonstrated, that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, did Con­stantly Baptize such as were Con­verted, and that after they were Taught, the next thing was to Baptize them, neither durst they break that order, the Scripture Rule being, Teach all Nations, and Bap­tize them; Matth. 28.19. Make Disciples, and Baptize. Mark. 16.16. He that beleiveth and is Bapti­zed, shall be Saved—You see here the rank of Baptism immediately;[Page 62]After Teaching, after Beleiving, It holds the first place of Ordinan­ces properly Christian: Ye may see it again, in the Rule in Peters Preaching, Acts 2.38. Repent and be Baptized, which was instantly put in Pract­ice, which is a second head of Proof—namely Scripture Exam­ple, for they that gladly Received his Word were presently Baptized, to the Number of 3000. ver. 41. af­ter which they continued constant­ly—in Christian Fellowship; and in the Practice of Ordinances, as the Lords Supper, Prayer, &c. ver. 42. In the Example of the Eunuch you have the same, as soon as ever Jesus was Preach'd, and he Disco­vered water, what hinders me, saith he, to be Baptized? Nothing, saith Philip, if thou hast Faith, so he was instantly BaptizedActs 8.38. & 10.48.—The like ye have of Cornelius, who upon the first Preaching of Christ, before the Assembly was Baptized he and his.

[Page 63]The like you have of the Jaylor Act. 16. To whom at Midnight (being astonished by a Miraculous Action) the word was Preacht, and to all in his house, and he and all his Beleiving, were forthwith all of them Baptized. Here was no loss of time, and for the Order, it was after Faith, and before any o­ther Administration—There may be other Instances given, but from these and the foregoing Pages, this Conclusion necessarily follows, That Baptism in point of order and time, is the very next Ordinance to Beleiving. Not but that there ought to be fit time allowed for the Tryal of Faith, wherein to be sure the Apostles were not Negli­gent, as being an absolute Duty.

As it is certain that in the Hi­story of the Gospel or whatsoever Relation we have in the new Te­stament, as to matter of Fact or Precepts, in matter of Right, Rela­ting to the Order and Administra­tion [Page 64]of Baptism, do cleerly hold forth the Order to be after Faith, and the subject Baptized by immediate and necessary Conse­quence, an Actual Beleiver; So on the other hand it is evident, that there is not the least Tittle either in express Terms, or Rational and plain Inference, in the whole new Testament, to Countenance the Opinion we oppose. 1. There is no Precept directly or Consequenti­ally Commanding Us to Receive any Member without, 2. Nor one Instance to be produced, that ever it was done. 3. It is evident, that the Abettors or Promoters of such a Practice now, do in so much in­vert Gods Order, and lay a dange­rous Foundation for the Abolition of this great and sacred Institution of our Christian Baptism.

As for the Ages next the Apo­stles, for near 300 Years, we have Examined the Records of those times, and find that the Ordinance [Page 65]of Baptism was Retained by the Churches in the same Order and Mode of Administration as is Re­corded in the New Testament viz first they Taught and Preacht the Gospel, then they Baptized all such as were so Taught, and so immediately Received them into the Communion of the Church.

As to the Practice of the second Century we have a memorable Instance In Justin Martyrs second Apology to Autoninus Pius the Roman Emperor, as Mr. Baxter Renders it in his Saints Rest, Chap. 8. Sect 5. viz.

‘'I will declare unto you how we offer up our selves to God after that we are Renewed through Christ, those amongst us that are Instructed in the Faith and Be­leiue that which we teach is true being willing to live according to the same, we do admonish to Fast and Pray for the Forgiveness of Sins, and we also Fast and [Page 66]Pray with them and when they are brought by us unto the water and there as we were NEW BORN (that is Baptized) are they also by New Birth (viz Bap­tism) Renewed; and then calling upon God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit they are washed (that is Baptized) in water. Then we bring the person thus washed and Instructed to the Brethren (as they are called,) where the Assemblies are, that we may pray both for our selves, and the new Illuminated, that we may be found by true Doctrine and by good Works worthy ob­servers and keepers of the Com­mandements, and that we may attain Eternal Life and Salvati­on. Then Bread and Wine being brought to the Chief Brother (so they call the Chief Minister) he taketh it and offereth praise and Thanksgiving to the Father, by[Page 67]the Name of the Son and Holy Spirit, and so a while he Cele­brateth Thanksgiving. After Prayer and Thanksgiving, the whole Assembly saith, Amen.’

‘'Thanksgiving being ended by the President (or Chief Guide) and the Consent of the whole People the Deacons, as we Call them, do give unto every one Present part of the Bread and Wine, over which Thanks was given, and they also suffer them to bring it to the absent.’

‘'This Food we call the Eucha­rist, to which NO MAN is ad­mitted, but only he that Believeth in the Truth of the Doctrine, being washed in the Laver of Re­generation for Remission of Sins, and that so liveth as Christ hath Taught.’

‘'So far this Learned Father and Martyr gives a positive account of matter of Fact in his time, from whom we may plainly be [Page 68]inform'd that no Unbaptized Person was then admitted to the Lords Supper.’

‘'Dr. Cave in his Primitive Christianity pag. 296. part, 1. Chap. 10. 3. Edition Printed 1676. Says thus, Our Lord having Instituted Baptism and the Lords Supper as the two great Sacra­ments of the Christian Law, they have accordingly been ever acc­counted principal parts of pub­lick Worship in the Christian Church;—Baptism is the Door, by which Persons Enter in, and the great and Solemn Rite of our Initi­ation into the Faith of Christ, &c.’

‘'The Persons by whom this Sacrament was Administred, were the Ministers of the Gospel, the Stewards of the Misteries of Christ, Baptizing and Preaching the Gospel, being Joyned toge­ther by our Saviour in the same Commission &c.’

‘'Nor was it accounted enough[Page 69]by some in these times that Bap­tism was conferred by a Person called to the Ministry, unless he was also Orthodox in the Faith—Hence sprang that famous con­troversy between Cyprian and Stephen Bishop of Rome, Concer­ning the Rebaptizing those that had been Baptized by Here­ticks, Cyprian asserting that they ought to be Rebaptized, &c. cal­ling a Councel at Carthage of 87. Affrican Bishops, who all con­cluded for his Opinion—For they looked upon that Baptism that had been conferred by Hereticks, as null and invalid, (seing Here­ticks being out of the Church, could not give what they had not) and therefore when they Returned to the Union of the Church, they could not proper­ly be said to be Rebaptized, se­ing they did but Receive what (lawfully) they had not before &c.’

[Page 70] ‘'Then page 305. After he had Discoursed of Infant Baptism, adds that those who made up the main Body of the Baptized in those days were Adult Persons, who flocking over daily to the Faith of Christ, were Received in at this Door. Usually they were for some considerable time Catechi'sd and Train'd up in the Principle of the Christian Faith, till having given Testimo­ny of their Proficiency in know­ledge—and of a sober and Regu­lar Conversation, they then be­became Candidates for Baptism, and were accordingly taken in &c.’

‘'Page 308. Persons finding themselves at any time surprized with a dangerous or mortal sick­ness and not daring to pass into another World without this Badge of their Initiation into Christ, they presently signified their earnest desire to be Baptiz­ed, [Page 71]which was done according­ly as well as the Circumstances of a sick Bed would permit. These were called Clinici of (whom there is frequent mention in the Antient Writers of the Church) because [...].Baptized as they lay along in their Beds. This was ac­counted a less Solemn and perfect kind of Baptism, partly because 'twas not done by Immersion, but by Sprinkling &c.’

‘'Page. 333. The Persons Com­municating at this Sacrament (viz. the Lords Supper) were at first the whole Church or Bo­dy of Christians within such a space, that had Embraced the Doctrine of the Gospel, and been Baptized into the Faith of Christ, used constantly to meet together at the Lords Table. As Christi­ans Multiply'd, and a more ex­act Discipline became necessary NONE were admitted to this Ordinance, till they had arrived[Page 72]at the Degree of the faithful, for who ever were in the State of the Catechumens under Instructi­on in order to their Baptism, or by Reason of any Heinous Crime under the Censures and suspension of the Church, and not yet passed through the several Stages of the Penitents, might not Commu­municate, and were therefore commanded to Depart the Church, when the rest went to the Celebration of the Sacra­ment.’

So far this Learned enquirer in­to, and writer of Primitive Chri­stianity, from whom we may po­sitively infer that no Unbaptized person was by the Ancients ad­mitted to the Communion of the Lords Supper.

It is true that about the third Century, from a fatal mistake of John 3.5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can­not enter into the Kingdom of God. God.

[Page 73]Some began to bring in Infant Baptism, conceiving (as Cyprian and his Disciples taught them) that no person, small or great could be saved without it, and that it blotted out all sins com­mitted before its Administration. Hence Nazianzen exhorts against Infant Baptism, unless in case of apparent danger of Death. When this dismal Error once took place, how many mischiefs did follow it, as

1. The Subjects of Baptism were changed from actual Belie­vers to ignorant Babes, and the Church altered in its Primitive Constitution, viz. from persons professing the Faith, to a mixture of both Converted and Uncon­verted ones.

2. It being conceived that the old manner of Administration by Dipping, might be dangerous to Young Infants, and to the people that Superstitiously delayed their Baptism until their Death Bed [Page 74](because they believed it would take away all sin) therefore they contrived Sprinkling to serve the turn for the Infant, as well as those sick people, which were cal­led Clinici, from the Beds or Ha­mocks they lay in; upon which Mr. Rogers writes thus: ‘'He be­trays the Church to a disordered error, if he cleave not to the In­stitution, to Dip the Infant in Water, and this I so averr as thinking it (viz. Dipping) ex­ceeding material to the Ordi­nance. and no slight thing, yea which both Antiquity, con­stantly and without exception of Countrys Hot or Cold, witnes­ses unto, and especially the con­stant word of the Holy Ghost, first and last approveth, as Cau­sabon in Matth. 3.11. hath noted, &c. Treat. of Sacram. p. 77.’ which misadministration came in time to be decreed by Counsels, and imposed by fierce and severe [Page 75]Anathema's, which is all the Au­thority that can be produc'd (and which is indeed nothing at all to us that ought to have Di­vine Warrant for Practical Du­ties.)

Now as the Consequences of this error have been so fatal to the Church of Christ, and as the pre­valency of it was gradual, so Yet so forceable was Truth that they kept the Order tho they mist the Subject. it ought to be a very serious war­ning to us, to oppose all the be­ginings of error, that is to con­tend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, because when error is once admitted, it comes with a fair and specious Mask of Vizard on, to disguise its deformity, till it spreads like a Gangrene, and infects the whole.

So this Opinion comes disguis­ed with the plausible Allegation of Charity and Brotherly love, &c.

[Page 76]But was not the same pretence mainly made use of for the intro­ducing Infant Baptism, viz. Charity to the Childrens Souls, whom they judged in a state of Damnation without it, and cer­tainly of the two, the introducers of Paedo-Baptism are more ex­cusable than the bringers in of this Opinion, because, although they mist the Right Subject of Baptism, and attributed too much to it, yet they kept up a Practise of that name in its due Rank and Order in the Church, whereas these, on the other hand dispense with the total neglect of Baptism, since Baptism in Infancy is by them held for no Baptism for unan­swerable Reasons, as for instance. In Baptism the Covenant struck between God and us implies, espe­cially the consent of parties, but by Infant Baptism the Infant is not bound, for he consented not. Again, consent must be exprest, [Page 77]but the Child wants the just ripeness and formation of Or­gans inward and outward for such expressions, and so cannot will it, because he cannot under­stand it, nor can he express that which within him he hath not: Nor can he depute others to con­sent for him, nor is there any Au­thority for such a Deputation given by God, nor any Instance in the Sacred Records that it was ever Practised. Nor can such as undertake it, perform what they promise for the Child, viz. Faith and Repentance, being the two great Graces of the Gospel, and the sole Gift of God. Besides Christ looks for a Believer, which no Infant can at present be said to be, the want of which, makes the Baptism null, for if there be no Bond, no Covenant, no Obliga­tion in it (as 'tis plain there is not, and they confess it) than there is no Sealing, for a Seal[Page 78]serves but to Ratifie and Confirm a Bond and Covenant, and as there is no Sealing, so there is no exhibition or conveyance of any thing from Christ, for there are no Pipes to receive it, that is, as an Ordinance, there is no Rea­son in the use of it, no Faith, no Sense, no Receptive Faculty pro­portionable to the Ordinance in the manner of Conveying it &c. So that the Conclusion is, that Infant Baptism is as much a nullity as the Marrying or Ordination of Infants, and being really so by the grant of the Favourers of this Opinion: it will unavoidably follow that their admitting per­sons, upon pretence of that Bap­tism to the Lords Supper, is nei­ther more nor less, than an admissi­on without Baptism, and a plain Declaration that they esteem this Ordinance to be unnecessary, and consequently a direct throwing it out of the Church as was said[Page 79]before, so that Paedo-Baptism is but a perverting or an abuse of the Ordinance of Baptism, but this Opinion quite abolishes it, which is the necessary effect and Consequence of their declaring it to be needless in order to ad­mission into a Church, &c.

But to Return we can have no bet­ter Instances of the practice of An­tiquity, then what we find Recor­ded of the Cathecumeni, who were excluded not only from the Eucha­rist, but from the very Sight there­of; and therefore after the Words Holy things to Saints, they went out, not because they were with­out Faith, for there were two sorts,viz. [...]. Sancta Sanctis. Audien­tes, & com­petentes, or Electi.Hearers, and such as were competent or Elect; the first were Beginners which heard Sermons, and had a desire to Christ; the other were such as desired Baptisme, and had given up their Names for it, as Lib. de cura pro mortuis. c. 12. Austin and others mention.

[Page 80]Now these were supposed to have Faith, and waited only a fit time for the Administration of Baptism, during which time they were not at all admitted to the Lords Supper, though judged Be­lievers, but as soon as Baptized, they were admitted to the Lords Supper on the same day also.

[Page 84]This practice of Catechising, and then Baptizing, and after­wards receiving into Church-fel­lowship was so Universal among all the Christians of those times, as appears by those few Instances, and many more cited from Atha­natius, Nazianzen, Optatus Milevi­tanus, Epiphanius, Hillarius, Am­brose, Jerome, Sozomen and others, that we find no Opposition at all to it; all Candidates for Christi­anity being that way only admit­ted; the necessity of it being re­puted so great, that it became the very inlet of Poedo-baptism. So that the Conclusion is undoubted that we have got above Four hun­dred Years of Primitive Antiqui­ty, to Witness our practise.

And in the Fifth Century Au­gustine gives the Sense of that Age thus. ‘Trans [...]ant per Mare Rubrum, i.e. bapti­zentu [...], & manducent Manna, id est, Corpus, & Sangui­nem Domi­ni. Tract. 11. in Joh.'Let them (that is the Ca­thecumens) past through the Red-Sea, that is, be baptized, and let them eat Manna, that is the Body [Page 85]and Blood of the Lord.’

And in the Seventh Century, Isidorus de Officiis makes Three De­grees. The First is, ‘'Of the Ca­thecumens, who were such as were first come from Gentilism, and had a mind to believe in Christ. The Second of Competents, who desire Baptism, when they were instructed in the Doctrine of Christ. And the Third, of the Baptized, who were then Church-Members.’

Haymo says, in Century Nine,In cap. 1. ad Ephes. Catechu­meni sunt fideles quia credunt in verum De­um; sed quia non­dum bapti­zati, non sunt Sancti. ‘'That the Catechumes are the Faith­ful, because they Believe in the true God; but because they are not Baptized, they are not Ho­ly.’

But what needs any more of these Quotations, when all that know any thing of the practise of Antiquity must confess, That this Opinion we oppose, was ne­ver in the World for Sixteen hun­dred years and more. For though[Page 86]an Antichristian Darkness over­spread the greatest part of Chri­stendom for a long time, and In­fant Baptism almost crouded that true and Apostolical practise of Believers Baptism out of the Church; though Lodovicus Vives says, ‘'That the custome of Bap­tizing Adult Persons was yearly practis'd in Rome it self, even in his time.’ Yet he very Papists all along (as they do at this time) retained this as the initiating Or­dinance; All their Writings Ca­nons, Decrees, &c. cry up Bap­tism, to be not only necessary to Church-Communion, but even to Salvation.

Yea all the Reformers, whether Lutherans, Calvinists or other For­reigners, The Church of England, and all the Dissenting Congrega­tions that own Ordinances (ex­a few Persons of the Baptized way and that lately too) have owned, and do own, That Baptism is [Page 89]an Ordinance of Christ; yea, the very first, or initiating Ordinance into Church-Fellowship, without which, no man may be regularly admitted to the Supper.

So that this Opinion is not only against us, but contradictory to the Judgment and Practise of all other Christians, Ancient and Modern. Batism was of old, and not without Reason, called The Gate of Sacraments, Janua Sa­cramento­rum. and is to keep that Name and Nature still, viz. to be the first and Primitive Ordi­nance. If the timing and order of Instituted Worship be any thing, as it is of great moment, a great part of it lying in nothing else, but the right and orderly Admi­nistration of Ceremonies, and if the Scripture Rule and Example be any thing, (which is all we have to shew for any Practise,) than Baptism is to be the first Ordi­nance after Believing.

[Page 88]If the Testimony of Ancient▪ Records, and Modern Writers of all sorts, unanimously makes out that there has not been any other Practise in Fact among Christians all along, than what we here de­monstrate, though that is not brought by it self to prove the same, it is certainly a very fair Collateral in [...]orcement and illu­stration: For there is no point of Religion debated in the World, that has a more clear and Univer­sal concurrence of sixteen hun­dread years compleat, than, that no persons were received to the Communion of the Lords Supper or Church-Fellowship, unless they were first Baptised. Yea such a value had Antiquity for this Or­dinance, that such as were Bap­tised by Hereticks, as the Arians and others, that used not the name of Christ, or (otherwise) defectively performed it, were judged by the most Learned men [Page 89]of their times to be Unbaptized, and therefore were Baptised a­gain by such as were Orthodox, when they left their Heresies, which is so well known that it needs no instances,

To conclude this Chapter, we shall give a few instances of some Modern Writers besides what are given before, not so much de­riving Authority from them, (though they deserve all due re­spect) but because of the soli­dity and force of their Reaso­nings.

A very noted and Learned Au­thor now living, writes thus, (1.) ‘'If we have neither Precept nor Example in Scripture since Christ Ordained Baptism, of any other way of Admitting Visible Members, but only by Baptism, than all that must be admitted Visible Members; must be ordi­narily Baptised: But since Bap­tism was Instituted (or Esta­blished[Page 92]we have no Precept or Example of admitting Visible Members any other way (but John 4.1. Act. 2.38,41. & 8.12,13,16,36,38. & 9.18. & 10.47,48. & 16.15,33. & 18.8. & 19.3,4,5. Rom. 6.3. &c. constant Precept and Example of admitting this way:) there­fore all that must be admitted Visible Members, must be Bap­tised.’

‘'I know not what in any shew of Reason can be said to this by those that renounce not Scripture. For what man dare go in a way which hath neither Precept nor Exam­ple to warrant it, from a Way that hath a full Current of both? yet they that will admit Mem­bers into the Visible Church without Baptism, do so.’

‘2. 'Either Members must be Baptized at their Admission or else after they are stated in the Church, or else never. But the two later are false: therefore it must be the former way, viz. at their admission.’

‘(1.) 'That they should never[Page 93]be Baptised, none will affirm but the Seekers, and they that are a­bove Ordinances (that is, above obedience to God, and so Gods.)’

‘(2.) 'If they say they must be Baptised after they are stated in the Church (and that many years as they would have it) I answer (1.) Shew any Scripture for that if you can. (2.) It is contrary to all Scripture Example, Act. 2. The three thousand were present­ly Baptised, and the Jaylor at the same hour of the night, and so of all the rest. And if you could shew any that did delay it, (since Christs Command, Matth. 28.20.) It would appear to have been sinful, as through Ignorance or Negligence; so that then it must needs be done at their first Admittance according to the constant course of Scripture.’

‘3. 'It is evident also from the very Nature and end of Baptism, which is to be Christs Listing and[Page 92]Ingaging Sign; and therefore must be applyed when we enter his Army.’

‘4. 'If we were (Jews and Gen­tiles, &c.) Baptised into one Bo­dy, then we are not to delay it till we are stated in the Body: But we are all Baptised into one Body, 1 Cor. 12 13. therefore, &c. For if it be the use of Baptism to ingraft and enter us into the Body or Church (and into Christ, as Rom. 6.3.) than sure it must be used as our ingrafting and en­trance. Shall a Souldier be Listed two or three years af­ter he hath been in the Army, or at the first entrance, whe­ther?’

‘(5.) 'If all Church Members are Christs Disciples, and all Disciples must be Baptised (at their Admission) then all Church-Members must be Baptised at their Admission: but all Church-Members are Disciples, and all[Page 93]Disciples must be Baptised at their Admission, therefore all Church-Members must be Bap­tised at their Admission.’

‘1. 'That Disciples must be Baptised at their Admission is plain, Matth. 28.19,20. Disci­ple all Nations Baptising them, and by constant Example (2.) That all Church-Members are Disciples I prove thus, (1.) If it be the Church which is Christs School, than all the Mem­bers of the Church are his Scho­lars or Disciples, or Members of his School: but it is only the Church which is called Christs School; therefore all Church-Members are School-Members or Disciples, (2.) And thus if all Church-Members are Chri­stians, and all Christians are Christs Disciples, then all Church-Members are Christs Disciples: but all Church-Members are Christians, and all Christians[Page 96]are Christs Disciples: therefore all Church-Members are Christs Disciples, (1.) That all Church-Members (true ones) are Chri­stians, that is retainers to Christ, or such as belong to Christ (as his own Phrase is) is beyond doubt, (2.) That all Christians are Disciples I proved before, it being the plain words of the Ho­ly Ghost, Act. 11.26. The Disci­ples were called Christians first at Antioch; so that all Church-Members being Disciples, they must regularly be Baptised at their Admission, according to the course of Scripture, and my Text, Matth. 28.19,20.’

‘(6) 'Another Argument may be plainly fetcht from Eph. 5.26. That he might Sanctifie it, and cleanse it (his Church) by the wash­ing of Water through the Word; If the whole Church must be San­ctified by the washing of Water then all particular Members of the [Page 97]Church must be so Sanctified! but the whole Church must be so Sanctified: therefore the Indivi­dual Members.’

‘'He further writes thus, From Matt. 28.19. Go and Disciple me all Nations Baptizing them, &c. What Christ hath conjoyned, man must not separate: Cut Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Captizing, as a standing course to the end of the World. (as the next verse speaks;) there­fore we must not separate them. Though the Word [for ever] do sometimes signifie a limited time in the Old Testament, viz. till the New World under Christ; yet in the Gospel [till the end of the World can have no other then the proper Signification without plain Impudent Violence.’

‘(2) 'Argument 2. from 1. Cor. 12,13. By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body. If Bap­tism be Gods appointed ordinary [Page 96]way of ingrafting all into the Body of Christ, then it is a stand­ing Ordinance, as being of a stand­ing use: but Baptism is so, therefore, &c. the Antecedent will appear plain in the Text, if you consider, First, that it is re­al Baptism that is here mentio­ned; the Spirit being spoken of as a concurrent cause; Secondly, That it was All that were thus baptized into the body.’

‘(3) 'From Rom. 6.3. If the use of Baptism be to baptise Men into Jesus Christ, and into his Death, then it is a standing Ordinance to the Church, as be­ing of a standing use: but the for­mer is in the Text, therefore, &c.’

‘4. 'From Act. 2.38. & 22.16. If Baptism be Instituted for the Remission of sin, or the Washing away of sin (whether by signi­fying Sealing or exhibiting) then it is a standing Ordinance to the Church; (as being to a[Page 97]standing Use and End, one Age of the Church having no less need of it then another.) But the Antecedent is in the Text; therefore, &c.’

‘5. 'If the End of Baptism be our Burial and Resurrection with Christ, Col. 2.12. The Churches Salvation, 1 Pet. 3,21. If a Foundation Principle, Heb. 6.2. The Ordinary way of Initiati­or putting on Christ, Gal. 3.27. Then it is of continual use, and so a standing Ordinance: but it is so, as the Texts cited ex­presly say; therefore, &c.’

‘6. 'If Christ himself has In­stituted the Ordinance of Bap­tism in the Word, and not again Repealed it; then it is a standing Ordinance to the Church; (and no man must dare to Repeal his Laws) but Christ hath Insti­tuted; and let any man shew where he hath Repealed it that can; and till then it must be ac­knowledged[Page 98]to be still in force.’

The Learned and Reverend Dr. Ames in his Marrow of Divi­nity page 181. says, ‘'Baptism is the Sacrament of Initiation or Regeneration, representing and confirming our very ingrafting into Christ, Rom. 6.3,5. 1 Cor. 12.13. and p. 182. Baptism is but once to be Administred, because there is but one begining of Spiritual Life by Regenerati­on, as there is but one begining of Natural Life by Generation.’

Paul Bayne, that Holy Learned man, on Col. 2.11. page 280. saith, ‘'God doth unite us with Christ even by our Baptism, that is, saith he, the Believer Baptised, is by Baptism mani­fested so before the Church.’

Elton on the same place p. 291. ‘'Baptism is the Sacrament of in­cision or ingrafting into Christ, Sealing up our setting into Christ, which is only once, ne­ver [Page 99]after to be done again; for if it did not, then we should have another ingrafting into Christ, and afterward Nourished in him, therefore we often re­ceive the Ordinance of the Lords Supper.’

Dr. Owen in his Discourse of the Spirit, pag. 50. where he proving the Divine Nature, and Personality of the Holy Spirit, thus writes, viz.

Sect. 11. ‘'All things necessary to this purpose are comprised in the solemn Form of our initiati­on into Covenant with God, Matth. 28.19, Our Lord Jesus Christ Commands his Apostles to Disciple all Nations, Bap­tizing them in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost: this is the Foundation we lay of all our Obedience and Profession, which are to be re­gulated by this Initial Ingage­ment.’

[Page 100]Sect. 14. page 51. Tells us, ‘'we are Sacredly Initiated or Consecrated, or Dedicated unto the Service and Worship of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, this we took upon us in our Baptism, herein lyes the Foun­dation of our Faith and Profes­sion with that Ingagement of our selves unto God, which Constitutes our Christianity. This is the Pledge of our entring into Covenant with God, and our giving up our selves unto him in the Solemn Bond of Reli­gion.’

Mr. Strong in his Discourse of the Covenants, pag. 226. Says, ‘'Baptism is a Sacrament of Initi­ation and the Ordinance of visi­ble Admission into the Church; and that must not be done pro­miscuously, and without discri­mination; for as it is a sin to keep out those whose Right it is, so its a sin also to admit them [Page 101]that have no Right, because thereby the Ordinances of Christ are abused and misplaced, where he never intended them, and for whom he never Instituted them.’

And page 306. ‘'We are said to be Baptised into the Name of them all (viz. Father, Son and Spirit) Matth. 28.20. Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Now what is it to be Baptised into the Name of the Father; its conceived to be taken from the manner of Marriage, wherein the Wife doth Transire in Nomen, in familiam, &c. into the Name and Family of the Husband: or of Servants, who had their Masters name called upon them: and there­fore no man might be Baptised in the name of a Creature, it is that which Paul detests, that he should Baptise in his own [Page 102]name; and therefore the mean­ing is, to be Baptised in Fidem, in Cultum, into the Faith and Worship of God, and so you are unto them all, and give up your names unto them all; and there­fore unto each person we owe both Faith and Worship di­stinctly, all manner of Duty and Obedience, because we are di­stinctly Baptised into the Faith of them all, &c.’

Dr. Manton in his Excellent Sermons, on Psal. 119. ver. 8- p. 45, In the prosecution of his Doctrine, viz. ‘'That it is a great advantage to come to a Resolution in a course of Godliness, saith that it is a course God will bless, he hath appointed Ordinances to this end and purpose that we might come to this Resolution. The Promise is first implicitely made in Baptism, therefore it is called, 1 Pet. 3.21. the answer of a good Conscience towards [Page 103]God. How so? Why the Co­venant binds mutually on Gods part and on ours; and so do the Seals which belong to the Cove­nant. It doth not only Seal Par­don and Sanctification on Gods part, but there is a promise and answer on our part: an answer to what? To the demands of the Covenant. In the Covenant of Grace, God saith I will be your God, (Baptism Seals that) and we promise to be his Peo­ple. Now our Answer to this Demand of God, and to this In­terrogatory he puts to us in the Covenant, it is Sealed by us in Baptism; and it is Renewed in the Lords Supper, &c.’

Mr. Burroughs, on Hos. 8.12. Gives us this observation, ‘'That whatever is urged to us or Pra­ctised by us in matter of Wor­ship must have warrant out of the written Word of God (it was sin) and why? Because I have[Page 104]written to them (saith he) the great things of my Law, and they counted it a strange thing though that which they did had a great deal of seeming Devotion in it, yet it was other­wise than that which was writ­ten in the Law.’

‘'This Question should be put to any that tender to us any way of Worship or Doctrine of Re­ligion under any specious shew whatsoever, where is it written? Isa. 8.20. If they speak not ac­cording to the word, 'tis because they have no light in them. Oh they seem to be very judicious and wise, But if they speak not according to the word, its because there is no light in them, to the written Law and Testimony, that must be the standard at which all Doctrine and ways of Worship must be tried, many may put fair colours upon the Way, that it is for Common[Page 105]Peace, and a great deal of Good may be done by it, and the like. But is it written? Did I ever command it saith God? Policy may say 'tis fit; Reason may say 'tis comely; and Experi­ence may say 'tis useful: but what doth the written Word say it should be? Nay it is not enough to say that we cannot say 'tis forbidden; but where is it written in matters of Worship? This is a certain Rule, saith Ter­tullian. If it be said 'tis Law­ful, because the Scripture doth not forbid it, it may equally be retorted; it is therefore not law­ful, because the Scripture doth not Command it.’

And further that Reverend Au­thor, p, 86. Notes from Exod. 39. at least ten times in that Chapter, ‘'They did according to what the Lord commanded Moses, and in verse 43. Moses blessed the people. The people are blessed when in[Page 106]the matters of Worship they keep unto what is Comman­ded.’

This was the Judgment of that Famous Servant of God, al­though no man in his time (as those that knew him in his life can testifie) was of a more tender and bearing spirit to heal Differences then he; yet how Zealous and Careful was he to advise and inculcate into the minds of Christians, that they should exactly keep to the written Word in matters of Gods Institu­ted Worship.

By what is said (Christian Reader) it evidently appears what a value all Christians in all Ages, yea at this day have had for this great Ordinance of Baptism, and how Vniversally Concurrent their Testimonies are, that it is not only the Sacrament of Initia­tion, but also to be continued in the Church unto the end of the[Page 107]World. And because it would swell this small piece beyond its intended Bulk to use so great a Cloud of Witnesses, we shall add a few General and Comprehend­ing Testimonies.

1. In the Articles of Religion Published by His Majesties special Command 1642. Baptism is thus Defined. ‘'Baptism is not only a Sign of Profession, and Mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not Christned: but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New Birth, whereby as by an Instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are Grafted into the Church, the promises of the forgiveness of sin; and of our Adoption to be the Sons of God by the Holy Ghost, and visibly Signed and Sealed: Faith is confirm'd, and Grace increased by vertue of Prayer unto God, &c.’ This is the[Page 108]Judgmen of the Church of Eng­land.

‘'The Assembly of Divines in their Confession of Faith Printed One thousand six hundred fifty eight, pag. 94. Define Baptism a Sacra­ment of the New Testament Or­dained by Jesus Christ (Matt. 28.19.) not only for the solemn ad­mission of the Party baptized in­to the Visible Church, (1 Cor. 12,13.) But also to be unto him a Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace. (Col. 2.12.) Of his In­grafting into Christ. Gall. 3.17.) Of Regeneration. (Tit. 3.5.) Of Remission of Sins. (Mark 1.4.) And of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in Newness of Life. (Rom. 6.3,4.) Which Sacrament is by Christs own Appointment to continue in his Church until the end of the World, Matt. 28.19,20. This is the Judgment of the Presbyterians; suitable to which[Page 109]they Express themselves in their Larger Catechism, pag. 128. and in the Shorter Catechism, page 157.’

‘'The Congregational, (com­monly called Independent) Chur­ches, in their Confession of Faith at the Savoy, where were many of their Elders, Oct. 1658. Prin­ted 1659.’ Thus say of Baptism. Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament Ordained by Jesus Christ to be unto the Party baptized a Sign and Seal of the Covenant of Grace, of his Ingrafting into Christ, of Re­generation, of Remission of Sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in Newness of Life; which Ordinance is by Christs own appointment to be continued in his Church until the end of the World.

The Churches of hrist com­ly (though unjustly) called Ana­baptists: in their Confession of Faith; (Fourth Impression Prin­ted[Page 110]1652) ‘'Define Baptism an Ordinance of the New Testament given by Christ, to be dispensed upon Persons Professing Faith, or that are made Disciples; who up­on Profession of Faith, and desi­ring of it, ought to be Baptiz­ed, and after to partake of the Lords Supper.’

Objection, If it should be Objected, To what purpose serve all these Quo­tations since the Parties you dispute against do believe and hold, That Baptisme is an Ordinance of Christ and keep up the Practice of it.

Answer, 1. Although they hold and practise it themselves, yet in the Effect and Conse [...]uence of this their Opinion, they deny it: For whilst they alleage, That it is not requisite to Church-Com­munion, it must of necessity be understood, that they judge it not a requisite Duty for a Christian;[Page 111]and consequently. 'tis needless and therefore may be laid aside with­out danger, which is in effect a total casting of it away: which is not only contradictory to Scri­pture, but disagreeable to all other Christians in the World, as hath been fully made out.

2. If they hold Baptism to be a Christian Duty, I would ask, Whether it be the duty of all Christians, or only some? If of All, how can it be dispensed with in any? if only of some, viz. such as are convinced of it; it will equally follow, by the same Rea­son, that no Ordinance at all, is a Duty to a person that doubts ei­ther the thing it self, or the man­ner or circumstances of its practise And if it be not a duty, no man may be blamed for the nonperfor­mance of it, but indeed would Sin in doing it, and so by consequence, no Ordinance is binding to all, be­cause there is not one of them, but[Page 211]is in some respect or other cavill'd at, or at least not rightly under­stood by some persons that yet would be esteemed Godly: so that this Opinion opens a gap, not on­ty for Exclusion of Baptism, but of any Ordinance whatsoever, un­der the pretence of a large Chari­ly to a doubting Person, that is really Holy, or seems so to be. But the Lord never left his Ordi­nances upon such termes; For they are not to be dispen'd with upon any pretence whatsoever without his own special Warrant.

Suitable to what we here Write, Henry Lawrence Esq A very Ju­dicious and Learned Writer ex­presses himself, in his Book of Bap­tism, pag. 368. chap. 17. thus, that there is an order in the Worship of the New Testament: (says he) ‘'No Man will deny that hath Learned with Paul, To join be­holdeng the Order and Faith of Saints, Coll. 2.5. And now [Page 113]will acknowledg this more then they who deny themselves of some very considerable Ordinan­ces for want of coming to them in the right order, as the Lords Supper for want of Church-Fel­lowship: every thing is seasonable and beautiful in its time, out of which it is disorderly and evil, To find the Order and Time of Baptism will I conceive be the easiest thing in all this Inquiry, whether you consider Scripture Rule, Scripture Example, or Ex­ample of the Primitive Church, or indeed of all that ever was, or the reason of things; For Scri­pture Rule you have Matth. 28.19. Make Disciples and Baptise. Mark 16.16. He that believeth and is baptised shall be sa­ved. You see here the Rank of Baptism, immediately after Teaching, after Believing, it holds the first place of Ordinan­ces properly Christian, you may [Page 114]see it again in the Rule of Peters Preaching, Acts 2.38.’

‘'For the Primitive times we can have no better instances, than what we have of the Cate­chuminy, who were excluded not only from the Eucharist, but from the very sight there­of, &c.’

‘'And of this the Fathers give a Reason, viz. In all respects the Order of the Mistery is kept, that first by Remission of sins, a Medicine be prepared for their Wounds, and then the Nourish­ment of the Heavenly Table be added Ambrose, &c.’

‘'If you pass from Precept and Example of all times to Reason, there you will find that what­ever makes for the not repeating of Baptism in the ordinary use of it, makes also for this as fully, or more, that it should be the first.’

[Page 115] ‘'For, First if it be not to be repeated, because this is the Seal of Initiation, Regenerati­on, and Incorporation, then by the same Reason this must be first as Initiation, Admission, Incorporation, and Regenera­tion, are the first Internal Acts in us, and upon us, by which we are made Christians.’

‘'Secondly, if the signification, and Use of Baptism be for e­ver and of constant and per­petual Use, then this Ordinance is to lie as the bottom stone in which is to have a durable and constant influence into the whole Edifice.’

‘'Thirdly, If this be not to be repeated, because neither in Precept nor Example you find it so, and never otherwise, or if the ends of Baptism on our part, be that there shall be a formal external Contract past[Page 116]with God, by which we are vissibly Handfasted in this Mi­stical Marriage Or, 2. To distin­guish our selves by this Badge and Charecter of our Professi­on from the evil world, which we renounce with all its Works, then certainy this Piece is to be first Administred before we go further, and the Sacrament of our Spiritual Life and Birth is to be given before that of our Nourishment: in a word Bap­tism hath been called of old, and not without Reason, Sa­cramentorum janua, and is for all these considerations, which are as many as concurr to any one thing to Keep that Name and Nature still, which is to be the first and Primitive Sa­crament, in which a Converted person, man or woman, is to Communicate. Now then if the Timing and Order of Insti­tuted Worship be any thing, as[Page 117]it is of great moment, a great part of it lying in nothing else but the right and Orderly Ad­ministration of Ceremonies; and if the Scripture Rule and Example be any thing, which is all we have to show for any Practice; then Baptism is to be the first Sacrament after Be­leiving: besides the reason of the thing, that which makes it un­lawful to Baptise before Teaching is, because the Scripture hath ranked it otherwise, that says Teach and Baptise, not Baptise and Teach, as the Papists and others do, the same Reason will hold for the giving it its pre­ference in time to any other Or­dinance, because its ranked im­mediately after Teaching, and before any other thing.’ Thus far you have the Opinion and Rea­son of that Learned Gentleman.

Obj. 1. THere is no Rule, or ex­press Warrant of Scri­pture to Exclude Persons fearing God, from receiving the Lords Sup­per, who by vertue of their Faith have a Right to it.

Answ. This Objection supposes things very dangerous. As,

1. That Holiness without Bap­tism invests a Right to other Church Ordinances, which is not to be supposed, for Christ the Lamb of God was Holy in the Highest Degree, and in him was[Page 119]found no Sin, yet he was Baptized before he entred upon his Publick Ministry,Matt. 3.15,16. which is a most Illustri­ous Example, and the Pattern which the Saints followed; for in a Word, the great Apostle Paul and all those Primitive Saints Re­corded by the Spirit to be Belie­vers, and therefore Holy; were nevertheless Baptized, which might have been forborn but that it was an indispensable Duty: and whatsoever Reason may be gi­ven, why Holiness without Bap­tism may serve, the like may be produced, Why Holiness without any other Ordinance may be suffi­cient for a Believer? And unless it be less necessary now for Belie­vers to perform Gospel Duties, then for Evangelical Saints; or unless it can be made out, that Baptism was only Appointed for that Age, (as Holy an Age as ever was,) then the obligation of Practising that Duty still lies upon All Christi­ans,[Page 120]which is a Warrant and Rule for the Exclusion of such as will not submit to it.

2. It supposes, That whatsoe­ver is not forbidden in Scripture, is Lawful; and so the Receiving of Believers that are not baptized to the Supper, being not Prohibi­ted, is therefore Lawful.

Now that this is a Pernicious way of Argument, has been large­ly Demonstrated about the begin­ning, as tending to bring all Hu­mane Inventions into Gods Wor­ship, to which we refer: yet doubtless, it will be granted by all that the only Warrant we have, (as has been frequently said) for the Practice of Gospel Duties, must be the express Warrant, or Word of God; according to which we must walk: and I very well remember, That the Old Non­conformists who faithfully follow­ed the Lord▪ according to the Light they had received, rather than[Page 121]they would kneel at the Sacra­ment, thought it their Duty to for­bear the Practice of that great Or­dinance, giving this as their Rea­son: To leave (say they) the Pra­ctise of Christ and his Apostles in the manner of Receiving the Sa­crament, and to follow the Practice of Men, in a posture Invented by Men is not safe: but to kneel at the Sacrament is so, &c. there­fore not safe.

And if the Servants of God in those times were so Cautious of doing any thing that might be an Addition to the Worship of God, although but in a Circumstance: how much ought Christians Now when the Matter is about the ve­ry Order of the Practise of Ordi­nances themselves; for here in the Case in hand, is a most evident leaving the Practice of Christ and his Apostles, and following the Inventions of Men.

2. The Commission given by[Page 122]Christ Matt. 28.19. Go teach all Nations Baptizing them, &c. hath been an Argument of great weight in the minds of all that oppose In­fant Baptism; the order of the words shewing who are to be baptized, viz. Such as are taught First Teach, then Baptize: and if it be an Argument, that proves Believers baptism only, It must have its Consideration, That Bap­tism must go before the Practice of other Ordinances, as Preaching goes before Baptism.

We find Act. 1.3. that Jesus Christ was Forty days with his Disciples, speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God; and doubtless he was not wanting in giving them dire­ction concerning the order of his Worship. For as the Commissi­on Matth. 28.19. was given after his Resurrection, we may see his Apostles (as appears by their constant Administrations sutable[Page 123]thereto) did Practise no other way, as Act. 2.41,42. and several other places fully produced before. Which Practise in order to the re­ceiving or enjoying of Ordinan­ces, I take to be a constant and a standing direction for all Churches, in all times, unless any can shew a variation from it, by any of the Primitive Churches afterwards, which cannot be done; I would fain know of him that Preaches the Gospel to men, what Do­ctrine he is to Preach to them? is it any other than to Believe and be Baptised; If no other, (as I judg all will grant) than if in case the party Believing should question whether Water Baptism be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, or if he believes it, is not yet sa­tisfied it is his duty to be Baptised, but desires he may break Bread with the Church, can this with­out a manifest breach of the Rule be Admitted.

[Page 124]The Apostle tells us Gal. 3.27. That so many of you (or as some render it) all yee that are Baptised into Christ, have put on Christ, that is, they have The Verb [...] sig­nifies to put on as a Garment. Liegh Crit. Sacr.put on Christ as a Garment, and by Baptism have put on the visible Profession of Christ, plainly holding out, that none have put on the visible Profession of Christ until they be Baptized; the outward Sign, an­swering to the inward Grace, so Rom. 6.3. Know ye not that we who were Baptised into Jesus Christ, were Baptised into his Death: which Baptism is a pledge of—Can it therefore be judged upon any Reasonable pretence that any man should be Admitted to Walk in the Practise of the Ordinances of Christ, before he hath put on Christ in the visible Profession of his Name by Baptism.

From the whole of which we infer, in answer to the Objection That our Practice suitable to these[Page 25]Precepts and Examples, are a suffi­cient Rule and Warrant for our not admitting them to the Lords Supper, and to call for Scripture Precepts or Examples for refusing them, is very absurd; For we may as well call for the like to Warrant our Separation from the Church of Rome by Name, which can be pro­duced no more then this, yet it does not follow, that Communi­on with that Church, as now it is, is Lawful. Scripture Examples are matter of Fact; and there­fore, there having been no such corrupt Practice crept into the world when the Scripture was written, therefore there was no occasion for any baptized Person to disclaim Communion with the Unbaptized; there being no such Cause of which to make an Ex­ample.

Obj. 2. But we admit none to the Supper of the Lord, but those [Page 126]that think they are Baptised alrea­dy, and Judg what they received in their Infancy sufficient.

Answer. It is certain that they who believe that the only Subjects of Baptism are actual Believers, viz. such who upon a Profession of Faith received that Ordinance, and esteemed no other Baptism valid, cannot judg the Baptism received in Infancy to be Christs Baptism, they knowing that the proper Subject appointed by Christ, viz. a Believer (which is the main part of the Essence of the Ordinance) is wanting, and certainly the Ground of Churches proceedings, in admitting per­sons to the Supper cannot be built upon the imagination of the party desiring Communion, but upon the knowledg the Church hath of it, and its being tryed by the Rule which they are to Walk by. For,

[Page 127]Suppose a Person desires to sit down as a Member of the Church, as thinking he hath a true Faith, and a Right to the Priviledge in the Church, when yet he can give no satisfactory demonstrati­on of either; will any think the Church ought to receive him be­cause he hath that good persuasi­on of himself, when they them­selves are satisfied that what he declares is insufficient by the Rule, to make out his Right? Or will any judgment of Charity warrant such a proceeding? Cer­tainly no; and yet the Reason is the same for the latter, as for the former. Besides the Consequence to the party that should be so Ad­mitted to the Supper upon his conceit that he is Baptized is very dangerous, and must needs build him up in a conceit that he hath that which indeed he hath not. God of old gave this charge, that a stumbling-block must not[Page 128]be put in the way of the blind, and surely a greater stumbling-block cannot be put in such mens way to hinder their inquiry after the True Baptism of Christ then to admit of that supposition, which the Church knoweth is not true. For having now the enjoyment of all the priviledges of the House of God, they hereby are for ever careless of making any further In­quiry: and I heartily wish that this may be seriously considered by those that exercise this ground­less Charity.

Again, suppose the Child of a Baptized Person of sufficient Age, that was brought up in a Godly manner, is Converted and become a Believer, yet was never Baptized at all, should propose for Com­munion with the Church, would they admit him without Baptism, if he desires Communion so? (not being satisfied, that it is a necessa­ry Duty,) If they would, then [Page 129]it is evident, that they quite Ex­clude Baptism out of the Rank of Ordinances; If they do not admit him, then they place a suffi­ciency in Infant Baptism, because they grant a Priviledge to him that had it, and deny the same to him that had it not, (whom we do suppose to be as much a Believer, and as holy as the other) which is expresly against their own Prin­ciple, viz. to esteem Infant Bap­tism as no Baptism; and therefore if they hold to it, should place him that was so in infancy baptized, and him that was never baptized, in the same rank, with respect to the Priviledge of Church Com­munion.

Object. 3. It is said, Rom. 14.1. Him that is weak in the Faith re­ceive you, and it being but the weak­ness of such persons to judge their own Baptism Lawful, yet being such as have faith, this Scripture suffici­ently[Page 130]Warrants us to receive them.

Answ. For the right understan­ding of this Text, Two things ought to be considered, which if well weighed may give a clear An­swer to this Scripture Objecti­on.

• 1. What Weakness this is, which the Apostle here intends.
• 2. What is to be understood by Receiving such.

1. The weakness spoken of in the Text, hath Relation only to those mistakes that did attend some of them touching a liberty of eat­ing, or not eating Meats, or the keeping or not keeping of days which were things in themselves of an indifferent Nature, the doing or not doing of which, was not Sin, as the Apostle in that Chapter plainly shews; and hath no Rela­tion to the Order of Worship pre­scribed by Christ, much less to the Practice or not Practice of Ordi­nances,[Page 131]for then the meaning of the Apostle should be, if they did practice, or not practice, it was all one, there was no Sin in the matter.

2. The Receiving here cannot be meant to receive into the Church as Members, Because the Apostle Writes this Epistle to the Church, and these weak Members as a part of that Church; but the Receiving here intended is into the Affections of each other; that the differences that were amongst them should not hinder the Law of Love, which they, and every Christian ought to cherish and Exercise towards each other, let their differences be of what na­ture they will: That this must be the Sense of the Apostle, the clear Scope of the whole Chap­ter makes evident. But to bring this Text to prove a Lawfulness of receiving any that are Christians although never so ignorant of the[Page 132]Ordinances, and Instituted Wor­ship of Christ, and the order pre­scribed by him is to wring Blood out of it, and not that precious Truth that is manifested by it.

Object. 4. Whereas some infer from 1 Cor. 12.13. By one Spi­rit we are all Baptized into one Bo­dy, whether Jews or Gentiles, Bond or Free, and have been all made to Drink into one Spirit, &c. That Baptism is the Inchurching Or­dinance, the conclusion is imperti­nent, for not Water Baptism, but the Baptism of the Spirit is there meant.

Ans. That Baptism was of so con­stant and Universal use to the En­churching of all sorts Ranks and Degrees, is fairly deduced from this Text, however excepted against; and that none were Inchurched without it, unless any man can find or name some persons that [Page 133]were neither Jews nor Gentiles, Bond nor Free, which denotes plainly, that all sorts were receiv'd by Baptism: the Jews though be­fore Circumcised, yet were Bap­tized; the Gentiles, some times a People a far off were upon their believing by Baptism received. If free, as Masters, yet not admitted without it; If Bond, as Servants, yet by this Ordinance they were made equally of the same Church Priviledge by Baptism, Gal. 3.27,28.

And that Water Baptism is here meant is the Judgment of the most Learned Expositors: and the next words do make it Appear, We have been all made to Drink into one Spi­rit. By being baptized into one body and made to Drink into one Spirit. The Apostle shews the Communion which Believers have with the Holy Spirit in the Two Ordinances, Baptism and the Lords Supper. For what else can[Page 134]be intended by Drinking into one Spirit, but the Saints Communi­on in the Spirit, in, and by the Sup­per [Drinking] by a Synecdoche being put both for Eating and Drinking: And if so, why must we not as well understand the First Ordinance in its proper Sense for Water Baptism in the former part, as the Later Ordinance, the Supper in the first part of the Text.

2. If the Baptism of the Spirit had been meant, then the being Baptised into one Body, and Drinking into one Spirit, must be one and the same thing, but surely Baptising and Drinking are no more the same, than the Body and the Spirit are the same, into which they are said respectively to be Baptised, and to Drink. But it is clear the Apostle hereby intends to mind those Corinthians, how that by means of the same Spirit working upon all their Hearts, they became Members of the same [Page 135]Body by Baptism, and that being of the Body, they came to have Communion in Spirit, or with the Spirit in the Supper.

It cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit, because the Spirit is here set forth by the Apostle, as the Agent or working Cause, and Baptism as the Effect; and it is ridiculous to make both Cause and Effect the same thing. It is true the Scripture speaks else­where of a being Baptised with the Spirit, but when it doth so, it still declares either Jesus Christ, or God the Father as the Agent of Baptising with the Spirit, but ne­ver as making the Spirit both the Subject Matter wherewith, and the Agent whereby, men are Bap­tised in the same Baptism, see Matth. 3.11. Mark 1.8. Luk. 3.16. and 24.49. Act. 11.4,5,16.

We find in Scripture that when God chargeth men for sin, he tells them, They did that which he[Page 136]commanded not, neither did it en­ter in his heart. Now that this was the Order of Administration with respect to these Ordinances, viz. 1. To Teach, then Baptise, and then Admit to Church-Communion, is else where fully Evidenc'd from Precept and Example, Matth. 28.19. Act. 2.41. &c. And if that be the stated Method of God, and the Universal Practise of the Pri­mitive Christians, we may Rati­onally infer that the contrary Pra­ctise is a Deviation from the Di­vine Rule, and a thing which God Commanded not.

The Apostle according to the Rule of Christ, first at Jerusa­lem, to put this Commission in Execution, Luk. 24.47. And did Act according to it, and certainly their punctual Conformity to it, ought to be taken by us as the In­terpretation of this grand Pre­cept, and their Example a suffi­cient Pattern for succeeding Chri­stians, [Page 137]unless we will suppose them to depart from it as soon as they began to Act in pursuance of it, which supposition includes a very strange Uncharitableness, and a very unbecoming Opinion of these Holy men. For nothing can be more plain than that Ad­dition to the Church (or Church-Fellowship) followed after Bap­tism, and did not go before it: and why men now find a greater good in their own way than in his, is not to be easily resolved. Baptism in those days did certainly precede Church-Enjoyments, for it was esteem'd (as it still ought to be) a means of implanting men into Christ, or the Body of Christ the Church, Gal. 3.27. Rom. 6.3. Now let it be considered what a Planting together imports; It must be certainly the first putting of Christians together, in order to their Growing together in Christ, and yet all this was done [Page 138]by Baptism: and may we not sup­pose Trees to grow together be­fore they are Planted together, as this Spiritual Plantation of Christ, viz. the Church, or Society of Christians, who were, and should still be Planted together by Bap­tism, not into this or that parti­cular Church; but into that one Church of Christ, which is distri­buted into several parts and parti­cular Societies. Hence Baptism is called one of the Principles or begining Doctrines of Christ, and part of the Foundation, Heb. 6.1,2. Now there is no House can stand without its Principle, or can be Erected without a Foundation. See 1 Cor. 12.13. Where we have an account of all being Baptised into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, Bond or Free, which comprehended all Ranks and De­grees of Christians, as is else­where demonstrated.

[Page 139]Obj. 5. The Phrase, Rom. 6.3. and Gal. 3.27. [As many] of you as have been Baptised into Christ, &c. implies that all that were in those Churches of Rome and Gala­tia were not Baptised.

Ans. If we consult the Scri­pture with the Coherence, it will appear how weak this Objection is.

1. For that Rom. 6.3. Let it be considered to whom the Apo­stle writes: Is it not to the whole Church, and every individual of them? In verse 1, 2. When he says, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that Grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? ? If these words in the first and second Verse respect the whole Church, as they must be supposed to do, un­less we will conclude that the A­postle [Page 140]did grant a liberty to some of the Church to continue in sin, and live therein, then these words, Know ye not that as many of us as were Baptised into Jesus Christ, &c. Are Interrogatively propounded not only to the same persons, un­to whom the former words relate, but also as an Argument or Rea­son why none of them should live any longer in sin, which is the thing from which he was a dissuad­ing not only some of them, but even all of them in the foregoing verses, and which he improves in an Argumentative way through­out the greatest part of the Chap­ter, and it would not befit the Reason of any ordinary man, much less of a Great Apostle to make choice a Reason or Motive to infore his Exhortation or Per­suasion, which is of less extent in the tendency and concernment of it, then are the persons whom he doth Exhort or Dehort. Which [Page 141]yet is a piece of weakness, of which we must suppose this Apo­stle to be guilty, unless you do conclude that all those of the Church of Rome were dissuaded from continuing any longer in sin upon this ground, because they had been all Baptised into the Death of Christ, viz. a Confor­mity to his Death, as well as a belief of it. To conclude, If the whole Church had not been un­der the Motive, the whole Church could not be pressed by it as here you see they are.

As for the other Text,Gal. 3.26,27. Gal 3.26. the Apostle had assured them, viz. them to whom he now writes, To be all the children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, that is they were lookt upon as children of God by their confessing and owning of Jesus Christ, of which he gives this account, verse 27. Because they had put on Christ in Baptism You are all the children of God by[Page 142]Faith in Christ Jesus, for, or be­cause, as many of you, as have been Baptised into Christ, have put on Christ: as if he should say, if the Owning and Professing Christ does denominate men to be the Children of God, now under the Gospel, as indeed it does, then ye are all the Children of God, be­cause by being Baptised into Christ, ye have all of you put him on, that is, so to appear with him, wherever ye become, as you do appear with the Clothes you wear. But now most certain it is, they could not all of them have been denomi­nated the Children of God by Faith in Christ, upon ac­count of their being Baptised in­to Christ (which yet we see they are) unless they had been all of them Baptised into Christ indeed.

Besides in what hath been said already it does not appear that [Page 143]any in the Apostles days were in­churched without Baptism. And for any to assert that some, not all, were Baptised, is to affirm what is void of Scripture, Rea­son, and Common Sense. As for any countenance in Scripture, there is none—And it has as little in Reason: for if it should be true, it will follow that this Great Ordinance was a duty to some on­ly, and not to all, and the Reason why it should be so, will be very difficult to assign, was it because it was commanded to some only, and not others? If so, let them be instanced by some kind of Re­cord, who were obliged to the Practise, and who not: was it be­cause some only had need of it, and others not? or because those glorious mysteries represented by it, were useless to some, and not to all? Or what other Reason was it? If none can be assigned, then we may safely conclude that all[Page 144]Church-Members were then Bap­tised; and ought to be so still.

It is confessed that sometimes the Phrase [As many] has not the same Latitude of signification as the Phrase [All men] which includes every Individual, the term [As many] being restrained to matter going before being then Partitive: But here it has Relation to the whole scope of the Text, and must therefore intend all, or all of that Church to whom he wrote, to confirm which Interpretation we find other Texts [As many] must of necessity be so understood as 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many servants as are▪ under the Yoke, count their own Masters worthy of all Honour: doth he thereby sup­pose or may it be implyed that there were some servants who were not under the Yoke, or that there were some Servants who were not to count their Masters worthy of all Honour? But[Page 145]which must be supposed notwith­standing, if this form or manner of speaking (as many as) be al­ways to be understood to intend the dividing of the intire Number of Persons spoken unto; which yet to suppose must needs be ve­ry absurd.

Object. And if it be said, That this Exhortation, let as many Ser­vants as &c. doth intentionally re­spect so many Believing Servants as were under to Yoke; and that there­fore in respect of other Believers it is partitive.

Answ. If that be granted there will be more gained than other­wise: for then it may well be said, that those Texts, Rom. 6.3. Gall. 3.27. Intentionally, only respected those at Rome and Gallatia, who did Believe, and were Baptized; and therefore is partitive in respect of others, the Inhabitants of those [Page 146]places, dividing those of the Chur­ches, from others dwelling in the same places, who were not of those Churches.

Object. 6. If it be Objected from Act. 9.26. That we find not there, when Paul was presented to the Church at Jerusalem, and Assayed to joyn himself to the Disciples, that the Church made any inquiry whe­ther he was Baptized or no, in order to his Reception amongst them; or that Barnabas in giving satisfacti­on to the Apostles and the Church concerning his meetness to be admit­ted into Communion with them, so much as mentions his being Bapti­zed, but only declareth unto them, how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had Preached boldly at Damascus in the Name of Jesus.

Answ. There is no good Reason can be given, or to suppose that[Page 147] Paul was admitted to Commu­nion with the Church, until the Church had knowledg either from himself, Barnabus, or some other, of his having obey'd the Gospel in Embracing the first Principles of it; of which Baptism is one, Heb. 6.2. For how should they know him to be a Disciple of Christ and so meet for Communi­on with them, but by knowing that he had at least done the first things of a Disciple, of which we find all along the History of the Acts of the Apostles, a Being Bap­tized, to be one, and doubtless less satisfaction would not have ser­ved them concerning him, than would concerning another Disci­ple who had never appeared in that height of opposition against them, as he had done.

Again, when the Text tells us, That Barnabas declared unto them, how he had seen the Lord in the way, and had spoken to him; can [Page 148]it be thought he could say less then what it was, that the Lord had spoke to him? And if so, then how can it be thought but that the Relation of his being Bap­tized must needs come in at his Report to them? inasmuch as that Direction which the Lord gave Paul, about his going into a Straight street in order to his fur­ther Information, touching the Will of the Lord concerning him, to Rehearse the Carriage of A­nanias towards Saul; and conse­quently his baptizing of him: unless it should be supposed, that Barnabas made a broken and im­perfect Relation of the Lords deal­ing with him, which we cannot do without Judging Barnabas ei­ther weak or careless in that great business: For it cannot be thought that Barnabas used no more words in this Relation then what are here Recorded by Luke; since we have frequently, if not for the most[Page 149]part; but the brief Heads of things. Recorded that were done, and spo­ken by Christ, the Apostles, and other Disciples, John 21.25. Act. 2.40.

And we find Paul himself in making the Relation of that great Providence of the Lord towards him in his Conversion, particu­larly mention his Baptism, Act. 22.5, to 16. and that which was re­quired of him to be found in the Practice of, before he should go forth in the performance of that great Work he was Called unto, namely, to Preach the Gospel.

Object. 7. It is Objected, that this was in the Infancy of the Church, and is no binding Rule to us.

Answ. If that be no Rule to us, let it be shown where there is a­nother Rule? besides do not all men of any understanding know, that this is the great Argument[Page 150]brought to Countenance Infant Baptism: And is not this the pre­tence by which all those Traditi­ons of Men in the Worship of God are brought in? How greatly is that place, 1 Cor. 14.40. abus'd and mistaken? Let all things be done decently and in Order. From whence men take upon them to prescribe what they please, and call it Order, imposing the same upon Mens Consciences, whereas Order and Decency there, must respect that Order which he him­self had prescribed in the forego­ing Verses, wherein is shewn, what Order ought to be used in the im­provement of those several Gifts which God hath given to that Church, in the Exercise whereof the Church might receive Edifica­tion. They especially that are afraid to comply with the Inventions of men in the Worship of God in some things, should above all o­thers be careful of bringing in any[Page 151]Inventions of their own in other things, lest while they build again themselves the things they De­stroy in others; they make them­selves Transgressors, and give that advantage to others they would not willingly do.

Object. 8. A main thing built upon, is, that Ʋnion with Christ gives a Right to all the Ordinances of Christ.

Answ. It is readily granted, that Union with Christ, signifyed by a visible Profession of Faith gives a man Right to Baptism, and ha­ving this Union and being bap­tized, they have a Right to Church Fellowship, and the Lords Sup­per, &c. but that by vertue of U­nion with Christ they have a right to the Lords Supper; and accor­dingly to partake of the same be­fore they are Baptized is Deny'd from the Reasons already given,[Page 152]nor can it any where be proved.

This may be plainly illustrated by this similitude. A Child, by be­ing the Eldest Son of his Father, has a Right to his Fathers Estate as Heir thereof, as soon as his Fa­ther is dead, but yet for the actual Possession thereof, there is required his coming to Age, till which time he cannot Possess that Right; the Law requiring this as the Order by which he is to come to the en­joyment thereof. So though Uni­on with Christ gives a man a Right to all the Ordinances of Christ, yet are they to be enjoyed in that Order which the Law pre­scribeth.

Obj. 9. This is a Dividing Prin­ciple, and 'tis very censorious to judge none fit for Communion in a Church, but such as are Baptised thereby, Ʋnchristianing all other Persons that are of another mind.

[Page 153] Answ. This is no other Princi­ple but what the Scripture doth every where justifie, as hath been largely proved before. And this Objection is rather chargeable on the contrary Opinion, as be­ing that which divides the Ordi­nance from its proper use and end by putting it out of its place, where God in his Word hath set it. There being no Division made by Principle, but what is made by the ignorance of the persons that Oppose it about the Rule and Or­der by which Christians ought to walk; or by their wilful neglect of that which is required by the Lord, of those that desire Com­munion with the Church. For if the Lord of the Family pre­scribe an Order by which it should be Governed, can it be reasonable that his Rule should be broken for the sake of the Servants Ig­norance or wilfulness?

[Page 154]2. We censure none so rigidly as to take upon us to Unchristian or Unchurch them; all that we do is (in discharge of our Duty to God, and Faithfulness in our pla­ces) to labour to keep the Lords Ordinances in that Purity and Or­der the Sacred Records testifie they were left in, and in a Spirit of Love and Meekness to con­tend earnestly for the Faith once delivered to the Saints;1 Cor. 11.2. Jude 3. which we conceive to be a Duty en­joyned upon all Christians, &c.

Obj. 10. It hath been Objected from Eph. 4.4,5,6. Where under the several Heads there is in the fourth Head one Baptism. Now saith the Objector if we believe the other six things there mentioned, viz. One Body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one Hope of your Calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, &c. and are not found in the Practise of the [Page 155]fourth Head, viz. one Baptism; what Reason is there that we should be deprived of Communion in the Lords Supper, for either the neg­lect of it, and not seeing we are bound to Practise it? &c.

Answ. It doth appear from the Text that this is a Golden Chain linked together by the Spirit of God himself, the taking of one of which Links away may weaken the whole: and if the Wisdom of the Spirit hath linked or joyned them together, it seems to be great presumption in any to put them a sunder. Therefore let it be noted that the Apostle verse 3. Exhorts the Church to keep the Ʋnity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace. In the 4, 5, 6. verses he shews, wherein the Unity of the Spirit which is to be kept consists, by giving a Character of the True Apostolick Religion, epitomized under seven Heads. [Page 156]

• 1. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and in us all.
• 2. One Lord the second Adam, the man Christ Jesus; by whom, and for whom are all things, the great Mediator betwixt God and Man.
• 3. One Faith, Believing in this one God, and this one Lord Jesus the one Mediator.
• 4. One Baptism, which in all the three Editions thereof hath signified a Profession and Ingage­ment to this one God, and one Mediator by the Profession of the one Faith.
• 5. One Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, the great Teacher and Instructor of this one Body into a further Com­munion with the Father and the Son.
• 6. One Body, whereof all the Baptised are professed Mem­bers, and whereto they are[Page 157]compleatly United by that one Spirit.
• 7. One hope of their Calling, in believing the Resurrection of the Body, and Eternal Life, which God hath promised to all those that obey him.

From this we may with much Assurance infer, that we are under an indispensable Obligation to be found in the Practice of this one Baptism, which holds forth our Interest in, and Profession of this one God and Father, one Lord Jesus Christ, and one Spirit, in­to whose Name we are Comman­ded to be Baptised, Matth. 28.19. &c. The Objector supposes the bare Belief (without the visible Profession) of Baptism, is enough; which indeed is not so: because the Nature and Constitution of this Ordinance is purely Practical by vertue of a positive Precept, and no pretence of a speculative[Page 158]Belief will excuse the neglect of it; any more than the neglect of an Exercise of Faith respecting any other of the six points, which the Holy Spirit has joyned with it.The An­tients tell us the Form of Baptism when they Expound, Eph. 4.5. One Law.

Quest. Whereas it may be fur­ther Queryed. Whether one Ordi­nance gives a Right to the enjoy­ment of another?

Answ. It is answered, no; For we have before proved that all Ordinances are to be observed in that Order which the Appointer of them hath prescribed; from which we ought not to vary. For as Circumcision was the first Ordinance to be Administred be­fore they might be partakers of the Passeover although it gave not a Right to the Passeover, yet might not any partake of it (before they were Circumcised) without sin: So also in the New Testament,[Page 159]Baptism is the first Ordinance to be Administred by the direction and appointment of God, with­out which, the Supper of the Lord may not be received without Sin. All that is pleaded for by this, is the Orderly observation of the New Testament Ordinances.

Quest. But why should any be debar'd the enjoyment of those Or­dinances they have light into, be­cause they want light in others?

Answ. It deserves to be seri­ously considered, whether the neglect of the Ordinance of Bap­tism doth not more arise from the want of a heart to obey God there­in, by reason of the contempt put upon it, then for want of Light. Is any Ordinance of Jesus Christ in the New Testament more plain and clear than this? Are there not many more instances in the New Testament for the Practise [Page 160]of this then the Lords Supper? For besides the Institution of it by Jesus Christ, instanced by the several Evangelists, it is but four times mentioned, viz. Act. 2.42. & 20.7. 1 Cor. 10.16. & 11.23. Whereas we find besides the Com­mission given by Jesus Christ, Matth. 28.19. &c. that 'tis again enjoyned, Act. 2.38. & 8.38. Act. 10.48. & 16.15.33. Act. 9.18. Act. 18.8. &c. Neither do we find any one Ordinance of the Gospel so much made use of by the Apostles to incite Christians to die to sin, and live to Cod, as is largely demonstrated in the foregoing sheets, to which we refer, &c.

Obj. 11. And whereas it may be Objected that 'tis Love and not Baptism, that discovers us to be Christs Disciples; It is answered.

Answ. We do readily confess[Page 161]that we are commanded to put on love, Coll. 3.14. which is a great Character of a Disciple of Christ, and it is much to be Lamented, that there is so little seen among Saints: Yet that cannot be called Love, which is exercised in oppo­sition to the Order prescribed in the Word, by which Ordinances ought to be Administred; For as Love is a grace of the Spirit of Christ; so Ordinances are the ap­pointments of the same Spirit which works Grace in the Hearts of Christians; All true Gospel Love being Regulated by Gospel-Rule; and as all men may know the Disciples of Christ by their Love one to another: so also, it is a Character given by the same Lord, of being a Disciple when this Love is manifest in keeping his Commandements, John 14.15. If ye Love me keep my Command­ments. ver. 21. He that hath my Commandements, and keepeth them,[Page 130]he it is that loveth me, and he that loveth me, shall be beloved of my Fa­ther, and I will love him and will manifest my self to him. ver. 23. Jesus answered and said, If any man Love me, he will keep my Words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our aboad with him. ver. 24. He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings, and the Word which you hear is not mine, but the Fathers which sent me. Now of these Commandments this Or­dinance of Baptism is not the least, and it seems to savour of little Love in them that would have Men believe, it is advanced in them above their Brethren to charge them with want of Love, as the only Reason why they cannot ad­mit persons to the Supper of the Lord, that never yet Received the Baptism of Christ. Therefore,

Here we can Appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, That the true Reason is, because we dare not[Page 131]break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt, and not want of Love to them. And the Sence we have of the great Severity God hath shewed against those that have made the least Breach upon that Order which he himself hath prescribed.

These things I leave to the se­rious Consideration of those to whom this brief Essay may come, desiring they may try all thing, and hold fast that which is Good.