their being baptized by Iohn unto him that was to come as the Messiah when as yet not known by them did not prove as the event declares either any effectual means by which to own and acknowledge him for such when he was come nor to distinguish them from such who did reject him which yet are two principal ends of Baptism For whereas all the Iews in Iudea and those parts did generally receive Iohns Baptism as being under great expectations of an immediate appearing of the Messiah and which they notioned to themselves as one that should come in an outward state and glory yet when he was come und they found him who was presented to them for the Messiah to be none other but him whom they called the Carpenters Son one that appeared in so mean a Garb and despecable a condition as he did contrary to their pre-received notion of him and expectation concerning him then they generally were offended at him despised and rejected him Matth. 13.55 56 57. Isay 53.2 3. That very few did own Christ Jesus when he came to be made manifest unto Israel of those very many that were baptized by John appears by that saying concerning Christ John 3.32 What he hath seen and heard that he testifieth and no man receiveth his testimony meaning that very few did Iohn 5. Christ speaking to the Iews of Iohn saith that they were willing for a season to rejoyce in his light ver 35. but speaking to the same persons concerning himself ver 38. saith For whom he viz. God hath sent him ye believe not See Isai 53.1 Iohn 12.37 38. Though all the Iews generally did look for a Christ yet but few of them did acknowledg Jesus to be the Christ If then the generality of those that were baptized by Iohn unto Christ then to come did reject him when he was come then certainly the Baptism which was received from Iohn could be no distinguishing mark or characteristical badge of the Disciples of Christ Jesus or that by which their publick and professed owning of him could be reckoned and therefore by how much it was necessary that the Disciples of Christ Jesus should be distinguished and known from those that believed not in him and should publy profess and own Jesus to be the Christ in and by Baptism which yet will be found to be none of the least ends of Baptism by so much it seems necessary that those that were baptised by Iohn should afterwards be baptized again when they came to own Iesus for the Christ of God 2. Others there are which conceive that the reason why these twelve Disciples at Ephesus were baptized again upon their hearing the Gospel from Paul notwithstanding they had been formerly baptized unto Iohns Baptism was because of some errour committed in their Baptism As 1. That they were baptized into the expectation of Christ to come after the time in which he was actually come And 2. That they had not been baptized in the Name of the Holy Ghost as they ought to have been according to the Commission of Christ on that behalf Matth. 28.19 when as they were as is supposed baptized after this Commission was on foot 1. That they were baptized unto him that was to come as they understood appears in that they were baptized unto Iohns baptism the tenour whereof was an inviting them to believe on him that was to come as Paul here asserts ver 4. 2. That they were not baptized in the Name of the Holy Ghost is gathered from their own words by which they declare that they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost ver 2. 3. That they were baptized after such time in which Christ was actually come had suffered was risen again and had delivered that Commission of baptizing in the Name of the Holy Ghost as well as the Father and Son is gathered by comparing several things together As 1. That they were Inhabitants of Ephesus and therefore probably as Iohn was never there to baptize them so neither were they ever where Iohn was to be baptized of him But that 2. In probability they were baptized unto Iohns Baptism by Apollos while he was at Ephesus which was long after the Ascension of Christ and his Commission to baptize in the Name of the Holy Ghost The probability of their being baptized by Apollos is made out by these things considered coniunctively 1. That Apollos was a man who greatly endeavoured the making of Disciples to that way which he himself professed as appears Acts 18.25 28. 1 Cor. 3.5 2. That while he was at Ephesus he being fervent in Spirit eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures taught diligently the way of the Lord only so far as was agreeable to the Baptism of Iohn until after Aquila and Priscilla had privately better instructed him Acts 18.25 26. And therefore 3. It is conceived by some as I say that he did convert these twelve Disciples unto that way which he himself so diligently taught to wit the Doctrine and Baptism of Iohn and that he did thereupon baptize them according to Iohns manner and form of baptizing Now whether you take this to be the reason of their re-baptization or whether the former it will amount much to the same as concerning that which I would gather from this example For 1. If those which were baptized by Iohn himself were afterwards baptized again when they came to own Jesus to be the Christ and that because their former Baptism was insuffient in respect of some important ends of Baptism and in particular in respect of asserting Jesus to be the Christ a principal end of Baptism then those that come actually to believe ought to be then baptized notwithstanding any Baptism they received in their infancy because such their Infant Baptism was altogether insufficient as unto several weighty ends of Baptism as hath been abundantly declared in the former part of this our discourse For where there are the same reasons of things as here there ought the same things to be done and practised I mean in things of this nature Or 2. If an erronious administration and reception of these twelve Disciples Baptism was the reason of their Re-baptization as the other opinion holds then there is like reason likewise why those who have been baptized in their infancy should notwithstanding that be baptized when they come to repent and believe because that infant-administration though not in the self same respects was deeply erronious as well as theirs as hath been formerly proved But in as much as my judgment doth much rather incline to the former opinion then this later as touching the reason why these Disciples were re-baptized I shall therefore here give this further account thereof And so far as I can perceive upon a serious consideration of things a re-baptization was necessary in those that had been baptized by Iohn Christ only excepted as a case extraordinary in order to their reception of the Holy Spirit
For we shall find that not the baptizing of men into the expectation of Christ to come had the promise of the Spirit but the baptizing of them into the faith and acknowledgment of Christ come and of Iesus to be that Christ and so consequently that Iohns Baptism had no such promise annext to it as Christ's Baptism had on this behalf 1. That Iohns Baptism had no such promise of the Spirit appears by his own acknowledgment and assertion in which he makes this very difference between his own Baptism and the Baptism of Christ viz. that his was but a Baptism of water unto repentance but that he which should come after him should baptize with the Holy Ghost Matth. 3.11 Nay Mark hath it thus which is somewhat fuller I indeed have baptized you with water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Mark 1.8 His manner of speaking seems to import as if he intended hereby to beat them off from any expectation of the Spirit upon the account of his Baptism now they had received it and to put them upon the expectation thereof from and by the Baptism of Christ when he should come 2. The Apostle Peter accompanied with the rest of the Apostles herein addressing himself to that great multitude that heard him preach at Ierusalem advises them in order to their reception of the Holy Ghost to repent and to be baptized and that every one of them in the Name of the Lord Iesus Acts 2.38 Consider now who these were to whom he gives this advice And we shall find that it was the multitude as they are called ver 6. that came together flocking doubtless from all parts of the City upon occasion of that miraculous wonder of fiery cloven tongues siting upon the Apostles and of their speaking with strange tongues when this was noised abroad as there it is said And can any man imagine that when as but about four years before this the Inhabitants of this City generally went out to be baptized of Iohn and now as generally came together to hear and see this wonder that yet none of them that now came together should be of that number that had been baptized by Iohn Surely such a thing will not be any mans thought or if it shall yet will not be believed amongst considering men And yet even these notwithstanding their having been baptized by John are directed and exhorted now afresh to repent and be baptized and that EVERY ONE of them in the Name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins and are thereupon assured that they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Their being baptized then in the Name of the Lord Jesus was necessary to render them meet to receive the Holy Ghost notwithstanding their former Baptism by Iohn 3. If things be well weighed I conceive it will be found that these twelve Disciples at Ephesus were baptized again though they had been baptized formerly unto Johns Baptism upon this very account especially and in order to this very thing viz. their receiving the Holy Ghost For 1. The manner form and import of Pauls questions or demands to them and their answers to him do imply that as it was common for the Spirit to be given upon the reception of Christs Baptism so also that it was not wont to be given upon the administration of Johns For when Paul queries Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed ver 2. And so when he again demands upon their declaring they had not Vnto what then they had been baptized it plainly implies that Paul did verily expect that they should have received the Holy Ghost upon their being baptized until he was informed that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism And not onely so but that question of his Vnto what then were ye baptized since ye have not received the Holy Ghost does also imply that Paul very well knew that there was a Baptism which was not accompanied with the giving of the Spirit and therefore the end of his question was to know Unto which Baptism they had been baptized and upon their resolution of the Case shewing that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism the true reason was discovered why they had not received the Holy Chost as being that which did not use to follow upon Johns Baptism the which appears hereby in that they knew Johns Baptism and the manner of it they themselves being baptized thereunto and yet they had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost to wit extant in the world upon any such terms as Pauls question unto them did import of which surely they could not have been ignorant if the Holy Ghost had been wont to be vouchsafed unto men without any other Baptism save that of Iohn 2. That their re-baptizing or their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus mentioned in ver 5. of Acts 19 was in direct order to their receiving the Holy Ghost the thing first in question between Paul and them may easily be gathered from the connexion that is b tween the 5. and 6. verses and the matters therein related For that their being baptized as set forth ver 5. and their receiving the Holy Ghost ver 6. were neerly related the later having a dependance on the former the Conjunction copulative AND which knits both matters together shews For so the words run When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus AND when i.e. when this was done AND when Paul had laid his hands on them which imports as much I conceive as if he had said AND when also Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them i.e. then or thereupon the Holy Ghost came on them So that their receiving of the Holy Ghost relates both to their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and to the imposition of Pauls hands both which in their due order did prepare and dispose them for that reception To conclude this therefore if then men were to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus when they came to believe in him in order to their receiving the Spirit of God though they had been before baptized by Iohn then surely have they need to be baptized for the same end who come to the acknowledgment of the truth though they have been baptized as men call baptizing in their infancy because such their Infant-Baptism as hath been formerly evinced doth not operate towards their receiving of the Holy Ghost as true Gospel Baptism will do Come we now more briefly unto a second reason why it is not safe for any to satisfie themselves with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy the irregularity of it supposed and that is because it is none of Gods Baptism i. e. it is none of his ordaining but is the device of mans own heart As it is said of that Feast which Ieroboam ordained though in other
righteousness then was in the multitude that were baptized before him and if not this what else imaginable but this viz. that his * Iesus said unto them My time is not yet come but your time is alway ready Joh. 7.6 appointed time and season of his appearing with the Gospel in the world was not till then and therefore not his time of being baptized in as much as the one was in order to the other and was to take its rise and beginning from the other And this we have further reason the rather to conceive because of that Particle NOW emphatically here used as it relates to the fulfilling of righteousness by that which was to be done Suffer it to be so NOW saith Christ to Joh. touching his being baptized For thus it becometh us to fulfil allrighteousness Mat. 3.15 Not only in being baptized of him but in being baptized of him NOW to wit at that juncture of time in which he was to be manifested to the world to be the Son of God to manifest to the world the Gospel of God NOW to be baptized viz. upon suchterms it was a thing very comely though John seemed to think otherwise in as much as that it was a fulfilling of righteousness i.e. that righteous law or institution of God given in that behalf And thus we see that the example of Christ's Personal Baptism which was intreated to bless the opinion for Infant Baptism hath contradicted it altogether The Second Part SHEWING How necessary it is for persons to be baptized after they believe their Infant-Baptism notwithstanding as also discovering the disorderly and irregular Communion of persons baptized with such as are unbaptized in Church Fellowship HAving in the former part of this Discourse laid down part of those grounds and reasons which have swayed my judgment and satisfied my conscience in the sight of God touching the unlawfulness of Infant Baptism and which I doubt not will have the like influence and operation upon the unbyassed minds of other men It remains now that I come to speak something to these two questions following 1. Whether men may not rest satisfied with that Baptism which was administred to them in their Infancy without any further reception of Baptism afterwards notwithstanding they come to understand the irregularity of their Infant Baptism 2. Whether it be necessary for such persons who have for some considerable space of time made profession of the faith though as yet unbaptized whether it be necessary for them to be baptized since the ends of Baptism seem to be anticipated by such a continued profession As touching the former of these Questions I conceive I may affirm that none may safely and without danger of sin rest satisfied with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy they coming once to understand the irregularity and sinfulness of Infant Baptism and I do assert it upon these grounds 1. Because the Apostle Paul as may reasonably be conceived did not hold it convenient or safe for certain Disciples with whom he met to rest satisfied with such a Baptism as had been formerly either erroneously administred to them or else which was deficient as touching some special ends of that Baptism which was enjoyned the Disciples of Christ but did proceed to baptize them or to cause them to be baptized afresh The Case before us is touching those certain Disciples which Paul found at Ephesus and of whom he demanded Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed Unto whom they replyed That they had not so much as heard whether there were any Holy Ghost Vnto what then said Paul were ye baptized And they said Vnto Johns Baptism Then said Paul John verily baptized with the Baptism of repentance saying unto the people that they should believe on him that was to come after him that is on Christ Jesus When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came on them c. Acts 19.1.2.3.4.5.6 In this passage of Scripture there are three things which I would have observed as to my present purpose The first is touching the Baptism which these Disciples are said formerly to have received The second is touching their later Baptism which they received upon Pauls instructing them And the third is touching the reason why they were now baptized upon Pauls preaching to them notwithstanding they had formerly been baptized unto Johns Baptism 1. That these Disciples had been formerly baptized unto Johns Baptism is that which they themselves affirm verse 3. 2. That the same Disciples were now again baptized upon Pauls preaching Christ to them I conceive fairly appears by those words ver 5. When they heard this viz. that which Paul had declared to them they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus There are indeed two other Interpretations of these words urged by some that do much differ from that sence which I have now given but are both beside the Scope and meaning of the place as I suppose I shall presently make appear 1. Some by their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as here in this place would have us to understand it not of their being baptized with water but of their being baptized with the Spirit which is Master Calvins sence upon the place and so he takes these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and those that follow in the next verse viz. And when Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied to import one and the same thing and that the later words are only an Explanation of the former shewing after what manner they were baptized and he further saith That for the visible graces of the Spirit which were given by the laying on of hands for this to be expressed by the name of Baptism is no new thing as he does alledg from Acts 1.5 and 11.16 But 1. That their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and their receiving the Holy Ghost upon the laying on of Pauls hands were not the same thing as is alledged may be discerned 1. By a due consideration both of the different nature of the actions themselves and the successive order of those different actions For the doctrine and so the practise of Baptism is one thing and that of laying on of hands is another as is apparent by that of the Apostle Heb. 6.2 where the Doctrine of Baptisms and of laying on of hands are differenced by the same note of distinction by which the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment are differenced from them both And the same thing appears from the order and suecession of these different actions as well as from the different nature of them For we have 1. Pauls teaching of these Disciples distinctly mentioned 2. The baptizing of them in Name of Christ
it be not intolerable presumption and boldness for any man to alter the last Will and Testament of the Lord and to wipe out Baptism which he hath left as part of the Legacy of his Church and people The Apostle saith Though it be but a mans testament yet if it be confirmed no man disanulleth or addeth thereto Gal. 3.15 And should vain man make more bold with his Redeemer and Soveraign Lord by whom he must be shortly judged then the most ordinary ingenuity will suffer him to do with men when they are dead and gone Or if they will say that Christ Jesus himself hath made any alteration in this behalf or that he ever did appropriate Baptism to the elder brethren viz. the primitive believers with the exclusion of the younger brethren to wit those other believers which in their successive generations have been are and shall be Partakers of like precious faith and of the same common salvation with them let them shew it before they require our belief of it But if they will believe Jesus Christ himself which is sure to be believed before them he testifies concerning such Doctrines Rules Precepts Laws and Ordinances as those Primitive and Apostolical Churches then had and did enjoy viz. that they should be HELD FAST by the Churches and continued in the Churches VNTIL HE COME viz. until he come again at the end of the world for that was his injunction which he laid upon those faithful ones of the Church of Thyatira in opposition to those who had begun to decline and degenerate into corrupt principles and doctrines Revel 2.24 25. But unto you I say and unto the rest in Thyatira as many at have not this doctrine and which have not known the depths of Satan as they speak I will put upon you none other burden but that which ye have already HOLD FAST TIL I COME See the like concerning the Church of Ephesus Revel 3.3 and the Church of Philadelphia Revel 3.11 and the Church of the Thessalonians 2 Thess 2.15 However others were looking after other doctrines then what they had been taught by Christ or by his Apostles yet says he As for you that have not this doctrine that are not yet corrupted with any new doctrine I will impose no further burden upon you then the keeping of those things which you have been already taught and have received but as for these said he Hold them fast till I come As it was the will and Command of Christ that that Church in the succession of its members should have continued a pure and uncorrupted Church until he should come again so it was his will likewise that what ever Ordinances they then had and surely Baptism was not yet extinct according to our Adversaries own opinion the Apostle John being yet alive the same were to be held fast by them in the pure use of them even until his second coming also For Gospel Ordinances among which Baptism at least in the Apostles dayes is acknowledged to be one did not die with the Apostles but as the Apostles were to teach others the same things they themselves had learned from Christ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Matth. 28.20 So those that succeeded the Apostles were to transmit and carry over the same things to others that should come after them which they themselves had learned from the Apostles And not only so but those also of the second remove from the Apostles were to hand over the same things to the next Generation to them and so from one generation to another till Christ shall come again to put an end to this Gospel ministration as at his first coming he did put a period to the Legal The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses the same commit thou to faithfull men who shall be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.2 Just as it was in Israel of old when God had first given them the Law and the Ordinances thereof by the Ministry of Moses those Ordinances did not cease when Moses ceased to be any more among them but one generation was to instruct and teach another the knowledge and observation of those Laws and Ordinances until the coming of Christ in the flesh Psal 78.5 6 7. For he established a testimony in Jacob and appointed a Law in Israel which he commanded our fathers that they should make them known to their children that the generation to come might know them even the children who should be born who should arise and declare them to their children that they might set their hope in God and not forget the works of God but keep his Commandments The Will and Testament of Christ then being ratified in his blood and confirmed by his death 1 Cor. 11.25 Heb. 9.16 17. He that shall go about to disanul or alter it to put out and put in at his pleasure and to say this part of it remains in force and that does not as touching such things as at the first were enjoyned Christians as Christians though it should be Paul himself or an Angel from Heaven that should do it the Apostles would have such an one to be esteemed accursed Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 22.18 19. And there is great reason why the Spirit of God and the Servants of God should be so severe against those alterations in the Will and Testament of Jesus Christ which perhaps some men may count matters of no great moment because by weakning the Authority of any one Ordinance of Jesus Christ in the minds of men the whole Gospel is in danger of being thereby undermined as touching its credit and authority with them For as the saying is in the civil Law He that hath wronged one hath threatned many Or rather as the Apostle James hath it Jam. 2.10 Whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all So verily they whoever they be that deny the continuation of Baptism in the Church do in effect deny all the Ordinances of the Gospel yea and the Gospel it self too as too many now a dayes have done who at first began but where those Antibaptists do begin because all the rest both Doctrine and Ordinances stand but upon the same foundation and by the same authority as Baptism it selfe does And he that thinks he may make bold to slight the one hath as much reason which is none at all duly so called to proceed to despise the other and it is a thousand to one but if the Devil be too hard for him in the one he will not leave him till he hath brought him to the other And therefore to such as are nibling and tampering with this or any other sacred Ordinance of Jesus Christ by way of questioning its authority and perpetuity my advice to such shall be in this case the same which Solomon gives in another Prov. 17.14 The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water therefore
or reason of his Exhortation to be of as large an extent as his Exhortation it self otherwise you reflect disparagement upon the wisdom of the Apostle that would use such an Argument to perswade the whole Church which concerned only but a part of them But now if you will suppose the Apostles foundation suitable to his building and such as would bear it then you must conclude that as the whole Church of Rome is perswaded to mortification upon the account of their engagement thereunto in and by their Baptism so also that the whole Church had formerly put themselves under such an engagement by their Baptism and consequently that the whole Church was baptized 3. Lastly besides all this such a supposition that these Churches did consist partly of persons unbaptized as well as of those that had been baptized does cross those other Scriptures by which we have proved that none doe duly in a visible way enter into the universal Church much less into a particular Church which is subordinate thereunto but by the door or through the water of Baptism The Apostle doth not say that some are but that all are baptized into one body i.e. into one Church body 1 Cor. 12.13 2. Others they object further thus Object 2 That such persons as have repented and do believe and which are sanctified are fit matter whereof to make a Church and accordingly are to be admitted into Church-Fellowship for the Christian Churches in the Apostles times are described to be such as are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be Saints Rom. 1.7 1 Cor. 1.2 and sometimes the faithful in Christ Jesus Ephes 1.1 and the faithful brethren in Christ Col. 1.2 And therefore in as much as many of those who though they have not been baptized since they believed yet being godly sanctified persons and in that respect fit matter whereof to make Church-members ought to be admitted into Church-Fellowship upon their desire their non-Baptism notwithstanding To this I answer by distinguishing of fitness in men to make Church-Members Answ and of their right thereunto upon that fitness There is a mediate and an immediate fitness in men for Church-Membership for though these words and phrases are not found in the Scripture yet we shall find the matter of this distinction there That which I call an immediate fitness is such a qualification which does directly dispose a man for and render him regularly capable of admission into Church-fellowship without any other thing intervening or coming between That which I call a mediate fitness is such a qualification by which a man is remotely and to a degree yea it may be in all degrees one onely excepted rendred capable of such an admission as that is of which we speak but yet so that something else some other qualification then any yet he is invested with must intervene before he be regularly compleatly and according to Gospel-order capable of that admission According to this latter acceptation or notion of fitness I do with all my heart acknowledg that very many unbaptized persons as I count unbaptized are fit to make Church Members that is they are so fit for it that there wants nothing else to make them fit but onely their Baptismal obedience to wit their subjection to that part of the Gospel which requires them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus unless it be the Imposition of hands also with prayer in order to their receiving a greater presence of the Spirit which according to the Primitive practice was wont to follow Baptism Acts 8.15 16 17. and 19.5 6. Hebr. 6.2 We may well suppose the persons we speak of to be as fit for Church Communion as those converted Jews were Acts 2. and the Eunuch the Jaylor and others were upon their repentance and belief before they were baptized But that they are immediatly fit for admission into Church fellowship by vertue of their repentance faith or sanctification without Baptism is that which hath been and is still denied there being no ruled case in Scripture to justifie such an admission Whatever the faith or holiness of any man was before yet his Baptism did still precede his Church Membership in the Primitive times as hath been before declared Let a man in all other respects imaginable be as fit as fitness it self can make him to be the husband of such or such a woman yet he may not enjoy her as a man enjoys his wife this his fitness notwithstanding untill the solemnities of Marriage are passed between them In like manner may no man regularly and in due form of Gospel proceeding be admited into Church-fellowship upon any account of fitness otherwise if this fitting and preparatory qualification of Baptism be wanting in as much as God hath as well instituted Baptism as a means to bring men into visible communion with the body of Christ which is his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.27 as he hath instituted marriage as a fitting means to bring man and woman into that civil Communion which is proper onely to man and wife And whereas those Churches to which the Scripture quotations mentioned in the Objection relate are described not by their being baptized into Christ but by their faith in him and by their Sanctification or Saintship I would to this say these three things briefly by way of answer 1. Though they are not described by their being baptized yet the persons so described were baptized as appears by other passages in those very Epistles where the said descriptions are as Rom. 6.3 1 Cor. 12.13 Col. 2.12 Eph. 4 5. and 5.26 compared with Acts 19.1.5 2. When they are said to be sanctified in Christ Jesus they are inclusively or by way of implication said to be baptized as the mentioning an effect supposes its cause so does their sanctification suppose their being baptized because their Baptism was a speciall means of their sanctification Ephes 5.26 The Apostle speaking of Christ giving himself for his Church saith he did it That he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water i.e. Baptism by the Word They Word and Baptism then were two great Instruments of their Sanctification And if you understand by their being sanctified their being separated from the rest of the world and set apart or dedicated unto God which most properly answers the notion of sanctification then their being said to be sanctifyed may be understood in respect of their Baptism in special though not that onely because by their Baptism they were visibly put into a new condition and into new relations being thereby transmitted or carried over from the fellowship of the world into the fellowship of Christ and of the Saints and solemnly set apart for the service of Christ 3. The Reason why the Apostle describes those of the Churches aforesaid rather by their sanctification then by their being baptized was not as may well be conceived because Baptism was not positively necessary as to their Church being but because