Christianismus primitivus, or, The ancient Christian religion, in its nature, certainty, excellency, and beauty, (internal and external) particularly considered, asserted, and vindicated from the many abuses which have invaded that sacred profession, by humane innovation, or pretended revelation comprehending likewise the general duties of mankind, in their respective relations : and particularly the obedience of all Christians to magistrates, and the necessity of Christian-moderation about things dispensible in matters of religion : with divers cases of conscience discussed and resolved / by Thomas Grantham ...

SECT. III. Nothing to be proposed, more apt then Baptism, to be a rule of vi∣sible Church-membership.

AND because the Author last named hath made ready certain dis∣courses to my hand, in Vindication of the Separation maintained by the Baptized Churches, from the Paedobaptists, I shall insist upon them with very little alteration, save that I shall take occasion to reckon with some Objections elsewhere found in the same Author, as they shall occur in due place. And certainly should we make any thing else (so as to exclude Baptism) the rule of this judgment, we should find our selves at a strange loss to give judgment herein. For example, Should we make a mans profession of the Christian Religion in general this rule; then the Question will be, Whether every profession of the Christian Religion does render a Man reputatively a member of the universal Church? If not (as I suppose it will not be asserted that it doth) then the Question will be, To what a degree a Man must profess, before he be worthy of that denomination? And who is able to give the rule to his Brother in this case? yea, or unto himself either? but that he will be in danger of making it too high or too low, too narrow or too wide. But now if we take the rule which God hath fitted to our hands (Baptism of Repentance I mean) we shall then find our selves delivered from those uncertainties, difficulties and dissatisfactions; yea, from that ungospel-like arbitrari∣ness in the things of God (which leaves every Man to form his own me∣thods in forming of Churches) which will otherwise of necessity befall

us herein. For according to Scripture rule, all they, and only they, are to be esteemed of the visible Church, who so far profess Repentance from dead Works, Faith towards God, and the rest of the foundation-Principles; as thereupon to submit to the Ordinance of Baptism, as in∣gaging themselves thereby to be no longer the servants of Sin, but thence forth the servants of Jesus Christ.

Object. It is here Objected, That in probability the 120 Disciples, Act. 1. were not under Laying on of hands, nor yet the first Church of the Gentiles, Act. 10. For the first, The holy Ghost was not given to them till the day of Pente∣cost: and for the second, They received the holy Ghost before they were Ba∣ptized, and consequently had no need of Laying on of Hands, and so that part of the foundation was wanting in both these Churches, yet they were com∣municable Churches: and then why may not such as are defective in the case of Baptism be looked upon as communicable also?

Answ. 1. I Answer, to the last instance, in the first place, That the ground of this Objection is faulty in two respects; first, for that it supposeth, that if the end of an Ordinance be obtained, the Ordinance ceaseth; which supposition is fully confuted in this very place, Act. 10. for Baptism it self, in Gods ordinary way, goes before the pouring out of the gifts of the holy Ghost, Act. 2. 38. and yet we see it is here given before Baptism. Nevertheless the Apostle shews, that this gave no Man power to forbid Water; and commands these very Persons to be Baptized. 2. This Objection supposes, there could be no more blessings of the Spirit given to those that received it, whiles Peter was Preaching to them, which is a great mistake; for the best of Gods Children, do always find cause to beg more of his holy Spirit; yea Paul desires the prayers of others for him in that behalf, Ephes. 6. 18, 19. And how should any Man forbid Prayer that these should not yet receive the continual supplies of Wis∣dom and Grace, to use those gifts which they had already received; and if no Man can forbid Prayer for such, why they should forbid impo∣sition of hands, no reason can be shewed.

Answ. 2. To the first instance, I Answer, That seeing the 120 Disciples, Act. 1. continued purposely together in Prayer and Supplication, and that in continual expectation of receiving the promised Spirit; and sith the Apostles received their instructions how to order the affairs of the Go∣spel, during the time that Christ was with them; why is it not more ra∣tional to believe, that as they Prayed and waited for the promised Spi∣rit (as Christ directed) even so they might Pray for the promise of the Father, with the putting on of hands too; and much more safe it is thus to conjecture (for there is but conjecture on both sides) seeing we find Laying on of Hands a Principle in which the Hebrew Church had been instructed, Heb. 6. 2. without the least intimation that any one of them were ignorant of it. 2. There must be some time for every truth to take its being in the Church of God. If then Christ had ordered the Apostles not to use this service till after the holy Ghost was given to them, accor∣ding to his Promise, then they were not to observe it till after that time, and so this instance is not at all to the purpose. But if they had order to Pray with putting on of hands before the day of Pentecost without

doubt they were faithful and did wait for the promise of the Father, in the very way wherein they were directed: So that let the Adversary take which hand he please there is no weight in this Objection.

Answ. 3. Now whether some Christians neglect of the Imposition of Hands, Heb. 6. 2. will not as well render them Incommunicable, as the neglect of Baptism by others will justifie our Separation from them; or whe∣ther both may not be alike communicable with true Churches? (which is the import of the Objection) is, I confess, a case I delight not to dis∣cuss. Nevertheless, I say, as we ought to prefer all Men in point of Christianity, according as they excel others in their approaches to the simplicity thereof; so there is a vast difference between a Baptized Be∣liever, and such an one as does not only reject the Counsel of God in that particular, but also sets up that Innovation of Paedobaptism in stead thereof. And though it is true, Baptism and laying on of Hands, are indifferently called Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, yet we know that by Baptism they are Incorporate with the universal Church, 1 Cor. 12. By one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body. And there∣fore to Separate from such, as no members of the Body, cannot be War∣rantable. We are all the Sons of God by Faith in Christ Jesus. And as many as are Baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Hence all Baptized Believers must be deemed as persons in Christ; born of Water and of the Spirit, and called by (or Baptized into the Name of) the Father, Son and holy Spirit, and must therefore be received as Brethren and as Members of the visible Church, considered as universal. Howbeit they are not in a better capacity (in respect of the Order of their Christian-state) then the Samaritans were, Act. 8. 12, 13, 14. before Peter and John came to them; or the Disciples at Ephesus, Act. 19. 1, 2. And are therefore to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. And as we have good reason to believe, that had the Christians at either of these Cities rejected the Apostles, in their Ministery of Prayer and laying on of Hands, they would not on∣ly have rendred themselves thereby less perfect in the Constitution of their particular Church-states, but also have been distinguished from those Churches which had received their Doctrine intirely. And if so, it cannot be evil for those who bring the same Doctrine, to use the same method in these days, not because they are not Churches, but because they refuse to serve the Lord in due Order.