PROPOSITION XII.ConcerningBaptism.[113]As there isone Lord, andone Faith, so there is oneBaptism;which is not the putting away theFilthof theFlesh,but the Answer of a good Conscience before God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this Baptism is a pure and spiritual Thing, to wit, the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire, by which we are buried with him, that being washed and purged from our Sins, we maywalk in newness of Life: Of which the Baptism ofJohnwas a Figure, which was commanded for a Time, and not to continue for ever. As to the Baptism ofInfants, it is a mere human Tradition, for which neitherPreceptnorPracticeis to be found in all the Scripture.[113]Ephes. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 6. 4. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 12. John 3. 30. 1 Cor. 1. 17.§. I.I did sufficiently demonstrate, in the Explanation and Proof of the former Proposition, how greatly theProfessorsofChristianity, as wellProtestantsasPapists, were degenerated in the Matter ofWorship, and how much Strangers to, and averse from that true and acceptableWorshipthat is performed in theSpirit of Truth, because of Man’s natural Propensity in his fallen State to exalt his ownInventions, and to intermix his ownWorkandProductin the Service of God:From whence Idolatries and Heathen Superstitions did spring.And from this Root sprung all the idle Worships, Idolatries, and numerous superstitious Inventions among theHeathens. For when God, in Condescension to his chosen People theJews, did prescribe to them by his ServantMosesmanyCeremoniesandObservations, asTypesandShadowsof theSubstance, which in due Time was to be revealed; which consisted for the most Part in Washings, outward Purifications and Cleansings, which were to continue until the Time ofReformation, until thespiritual Worshipshould be set up;and that God, by the more plentiful pouring forth of hisSpirit, and guiding of thatAnointing, should lead hisChildren into all Truth, and teach them to worship him in a Way more spiritual and acceptable to him, though less agreeable to the carnal and outward Senses; yet, notwithstandingGod’s Condescensionto theJewsin such Things, we see that that Part in Man, which delights to follow its ownInventions, could not be restrained, nor yet satisfied with all theseObservations, but that oftentimes they would be either declining to the otherSuperstitionsof theGentiles, or adding some new Observations and Ceremonies of their own; to which they were so devoted, that they were still apt to prefer them before the Commands of God, and that under the Notion ofZealandPiety.ThePhariseesthechiefestamong theJews.This we see abundantly in the Example of thePharisees, the chief Sect among theJews, whom Christ so frequently reproves,For making void the Commandments of God by their Traditions, Matt. xv. 6. 9.&c.This Complaint may at this Day be no less justly made as to many bearing theNameofChristians, who have introduced many Things of this Kind, partly borrowed from theJews, which they more tenaciously stick to, and more earnestly contend for, than for the weightier Points ofChristianity;Many Things in Christendom are borrowed from theJewsandGentiles.because thatSelf, yet alive, and ruling in them, loves their ownInventionsbetter than God’sCommands. But if they can by any Means stretch anyScripture Practice, orconditional PreceptorPermission, fitted to the Weakness or Capacity of some, or appropriate to some particular Dispensation, to give some Colour for any of these theirInventions; they do then so tenaciously stick to them, and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them, that they will not patiently hear the most solidChristianReasons against them. Which Zeal, if they would but seriously examine it, they would find to be but the Prejudice ofEducation, and the Love ofSelf, more than that ofGod, or hispure Worship.OfSacramentsso manyControversies.This is verified concerning those Things which are calledSacraments, about which they are very ignorant inReligious Controversies, who understand not how much Debate, Contention, Jangling, and Quarrelling there has been among those calledChristians: So that I may safely say theControversyabout them, to wit, about theirNumber,Nature,Virtue,Efficacy,Administration, and other Things, hath been more than about any otherDoctrineofChrist, whether as betwixtPapistsandProtestants, or amongProtestantsbetwixt themselves. And how great Prejudice theseControversieshave brought toChristiansis very obvious; whereas the Things contended for among them are for the most Part but empty Shadows, and mere outside Things: As I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudiced Reader.§. II.The Name ofSacrament(not found inScripture) is borrowed from theHeathen.That which comes first under Observation, is the Name [Sacrament] which it is strange thatChristiansshould stick to and contend so much for, since it is not to be found in all theScripture; but was borrowed from themilitary Oathsamong theHeathens, from whom theChristians, when they began toapostatize, did borrow manysuperstitious TermsandObservations, that they might thereby ingratiate themselves, and the more easily gain theHeathensto theirReligion; which Practice, though perhaps intended by them for Good, yet, as being the Fruit ofhuman Policy, and not according toGod’s Wisdom, has had very pernicious Consequences. I see not how any, whetherPapistsorProtestants, especially the latter, can in Reason quarrel with us for denying this Term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the Penmen of the Scriptures to leave unto us.Obj. 1.But if it be said, Thatit is not the Name, but the Thing they contend for;Answ.Ianswer; Let the Name then, as not beingscriptural, be laid aside, and we shall see at first Entrance how much Benefit will redound by laying aside this traditional Term, and betaking us to Plainness ofScripture Language. For presently the great Contest about the Number of them will vanish; seeing there is no Term used in Scripture that can be made use of, whether we call themInstitutions,Ordinances,Precepts,Commandments,Appointments, orLaws, &c. that would affordGround for such a Debate; since neither willPapistsaffirm, that there are onlyseven, orProtestantsonlytwo, of any of these aforementioned.Obj. 2.If it be said, That thisControversy arises from the Definition of the Thing, as well as from the Name.Answ.TheDefinitionofSacramentagrees to many other Things.It will be found otherwise: For whatever Way we take their Definition of aSacrament, whether as anoutward visible Sign, whereby inward Grace is conferred, or only signified, this Definition will agree to many Things, which neitherPapistsnorProtestantswill acknowledge to beSacraments. If they be expressed under the Name ofsealing Ordinances, as by some they are, I could never see, either by Reason or Scripture, how this Title could be appropriate to them, more than to any otherChristian,religious Performance:Whatsealing Ordinancedoth mean.For that must needs properly be asealing Ordinance, which makes thePersonsreceiving itinfallibly certain of the Promiseor Thingsealed to them.Obj. 3.If it be said,It is so to them that are faithful;Answ.Ianswer; So is Praying and Preaching, and doing of every good Work. Seeing the Partaking or Performing of the one gives not to any a more certain Title to Heaven, yea, in some Respect, not so much, there is no Reason to call them so, more than the other.Besides, we find not any Thing called theSealandPledgeof ourInheritance, but theSpiritofGod. It is by that we are said to be sealed, Ephes. i. 14. and iv. 30. which is also termed theEarnest of our Inheritance, 2 Cor. i. 22. and not byoutward Water, orEatingandDrinking; which as the wickedest of Men may partake of, so many that do, do, notwithstanding it, go to Perdition.Thatoutward Washingdoth not cleanse theHeart.For it is notoutward Washing with Waterthat maketh theHeart clean, by which Men are fitted for Heaven: And as thatwhich goeth into the Mouth doth not defile a Man, because it is put forth again, and so goeth to theDunghill; neither doth any Thing which Man eateth purify him, or fit him for Heaven. What is said here in general may serve for an Introduction, not only to this Proposition, but also to the other concerning theSupper. Of theseSacraments(so called)Baptismis always first numbered, which is the Subject of the presentProposition; in the Explanation of which I shall first demonstrate and prove our Judgment, and then answer the Objections, and refute the Sentiments of our Opposers.Part I.As to the first Part, these Things following, which are briefly comprehended in the Proposition, come to be proposed and proved.§. III.Prop. I.First,There is but one Baptism, as well as butone Lord, one Faith, &c.Prop. II.Secondly,That this one Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, is not a Washing with, or Dipping in Water, but a being baptised by the Spirit.Prop. III.Thirdly,That the Baptism ofJohnwas but a Figure of this; and therefore, as the Figure, to give Place to the Substance; which though it be to continue, yet the other ceaseth.Prop. I.One Baptism proved.As for the First, viz.That there is but one Baptism, there needs no other Proof than the Words of the Text,Ephes.iv. 5.One Lord,one Faith,one Baptism: Where the Apostle positively and plainly affirms, that as there is butone Body,one Spirit,one Faith,one God, &c. so there is butone Baptism.Obj. 1.As to what is commonly alleged by Way of Explanation upon the Text,That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this one Baptism, by Virtue of the sacramental Union;Answ.Ianswer; This Exposition hath taken Place, not because grounded upon the Testimony of the Scripture, but because it wrests the Scripture to make it suit to their Principle ofWater-baptism; and so there needs no other Reply, but to deny it, as being repugnant to the plain Words of the Text;Whethertwo Baptismsmake up theOne.which saith not,That there are two Baptisms, to wit, one ofWater, the other of theSpirit, which do make upone Baptism; but plainly,that there is one Baptism, as there isone Faith, andone God. Now as there go nottwo Faiths, nortwo Gods, nortwo Spirits, nor twoBodies, whereof the one is outward and elementary, and the other spiritual and pure, to the making up theone Faith, theone God, theone Body, and theone Spirit; so neither ought there to gotwo Baptismsto make up theone Baptism.Obj. 2.ButSecondly, if it be said,The Baptism is but one, whereof Water is the one Part, to wit, the Sign; and the Spirit, the Thing signified, the other;Answ.IfWaterbe the Type, the Substance must remain.Ianswer; This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine: For if Water be only theSign, it is not theMatterof theone Baptism(as shall further hereafter by its Definition in Scripture appear) and we are to take theone Baptismfor theMatterof it, not for theSign, orFigureandTypethat went before. Even as where Christ is called theone Offeringin Scripture, though he was typified by manySacrificesandOfferingsunder the Law, we understand only by theone Offering, his offering himself upon the Cross; whereof though those manyOfferingswere Signs and Types, yet we say not that they go together with thatOffering of Christ, to make up theone Offering: So neither, thoughWater-baptismwas a Sign of Christ’sBaptism, will it follow, that it goeth now to make up theBaptism of Christ. If any should be so absurd as to affirm,That this one Baptism here was the Baptism of Water, and not of the Spirit; that were foolishly to contradict the positive Testimony of the Scripture, which saith the contrary; as by what followeth will more amply appear.Prop. II.Secondly, That thisone Baptism, which is theBaptismofChrist, is not a Washing with Water, appears,Proof 1.The Difference betweenJohn’s Baptism andChrist’s.First, From the Testimony ofJohn, the proper and peculiar Administrator of Water-baptism,Matt.iii. 11.I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose Shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. HereJohnmentions two Manners ofbaptizing, and two differentBaptisms; the one with Water, and the other with the Spirit; the one whereof he was the Minister of; the other whereof Christ was the Minister of: And such as were baptized with the first, were not therefore baptized with the second:I indeed baptize you, but he shall baptize you. Though in the present Time they were baptized with the Baptism of Water; yet they were not as yet, but were to be, baptized with the Baptism of Christ. From all which I thus argue:Arg. 1.If those that were baptized with the Baptism of Water, were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of Christ; then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ:But the First is true: Therefore also the Last.And again,Arg. 2.If he, that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water, did notwithstanding declare, that he neither could, nor did, baptize with the Baptism of Christ; then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ:But the First is true: Therefore,&c.And indeed to understand it otherwise, would makeJohn’s Words void of good Sense: For if their Baptisms had been all one, why should he have so precisely contra-distinguished them? Why should he have said, That those whom he had already baptized, should yet be baptized with another Baptism?Object.If it be urged,That Baptism with Water was the one Part, and that with the Spirit the other Part, or Effect only of the former;Answ.Ianswer; This Exposition contradicts the plain Words of the Text.OneBaptismis no Part nor Effect of the other.For he saith not,I baptize you with Water, and he that cometh after me shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit, &c. orhe shall accomplish this Baptism in you; but,He shall baptize you. So then, if we understand the Words truly and properly, when he saith,I baptize you, as consenting that thereby is really signified that he did baptize with the Baptism of Water; we must needs, unless we offer Violence to the Text, understand the other Part of the Sentence the same Way;viz.where he adds presently,But he shall baptize you, &c. that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another Baptism, than what he did baptize with: Else it had been Nonsense for him thus to have contra-distinguished them.Proof 2.Secondly, This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself,Actsi. 4, 5.But wait for the Promise of the Father, which, saith he,ye have heard of me: ForJohntruly baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many Days hence.Who were baptized byJohnwere still to wait forChrist’sBaptismwith the Spirit.There can scarce two Places of Scripture run more parallel than this doth with the former, a little before-mentioned; and therefore concludeth the same Way as did the other. For Christ here grants fully thatJohncompleated his Baptism, as to the Matter and Substance of it:John, saith he,truly baptized with Water; which is as much as if he had said,Johndid truly and fully administer the Baptism of Water;But ye shall be baptized with, &c. This sheweth that they were to be baptized with some other Baptism than the Baptism of Water; and that although they were formerly baptized with the Baptism of Water, yet not with that of Christ, which they were to be baptized with.Proof 3.The Baptism with theHoly Ghostand that withWaterdiffer.Thirdly,Peterobserves the same Distinction,Actsxi. 16.Then remembered I the Word of the Lord, how that he said,Johnindeed baptized with Water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.The Apostle makes this Application upon theHoly Ghost’s Falling upon them; whence he infers, that they were then baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit. As to what is urged from his calling afterwards forWater, it shall be spoken to hereafter. From all whichthree Sentences, relative one to another, first ofJohn, secondly ofChrist, and thirdly ofPeter, it doth evidently follow, that such as were truly and really baptized with the Baptism of Water, were notwithstanding not baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit, which is that of Christ; and such as truly and really did administer the Baptism of Water, did, in so doing, not administer the Baptism of Christ. So that if there be now butone Baptism, as we have already proved, we may safely conclude that it is that of theSpirit, and not ofWater; else it would follow, that theone Baptism, which now continues, were theBaptism of Water, i. e.John’s Baptism, and not theBaptism of the Spirit, i. e.Christ’s; which were most absurd.Object.If it be said further,That though the Baptism ofJohn, beforeChrist’s was administred, was different from it, as being the Figure only; yet now,that both it as the Figure, and that of the Spirit as the Substance, is necessary to make up the one Baptism;Ianswer; This urgeth nothing, unless it be granted also that both of them belong to the Essence ofBaptism; so thatBaptismis not to be accounted as truly administred, where both are not; which none of our Adversaries will acknowledge: But on the contrary, account not only all those truly baptized with theBaptism of Christ,Water-baptism is not the true Baptism ofChrist.who are baptized withWater, though they be uncertain whether they be baptized with theSpirit, or not; but they even account such truly baptized with theBaptism of Christ, becausesprinkled, or baptized with Water, though it be manifest and most certain that they are not baptized with the Spirit, as being Enemies thereunto in their Hearts by wicked Works. So here, by their own Confession,Baptism with Wateris without the Spirit. Wherefore we may far safer conclude, that theBaptism of the Spirit, which is that ofChrist, is and may be without that ofWater; as appears in that ofActsxi. wherePetertestifies of these Men, thatthey were baptized with the Spirit, though then notbaptized with Water. And indeed the Controversy in this, as in most other Things, stands betwixt us and our Opposers, in that they oftentimes prefer the Form and Shadow to the Power and Substance; by denominating Persons as Inheritors and Possessors of the Thing, from their having the Form and Shadow, though really wanting the Power and Substance; and not admitting those to be so denominated, who have the Power and Substance, if they want the Form and Shadow. This appears evidently, in that they account those trulybaptizedwith theone Baptism of Christ, who are not baptized with theSpirit(which in Scripture is particularly called theBaptism of Christ) if they be only baptized with Water, which themselves yet confess to be but the Shadow or Figure.The Baptism of the Spirit needeth no Sprinkling or Dipping in Water.And moreover, in that they account not those who are surely baptized with theBaptism of the Spiritbaptized, neither will they have them so denominated, unless they be alsosprinkledwith, ordippedin Water: But we, on the contrary, do always preferthe Power to the Form, the Substance to the Shadow; and where the Substance and Power is, we doubt not to denominate the Person accordingly, though the Form be wanting. And therefore we always seek First, and plead for the Substance and Power, as knowing that to be indispensibly necessary, though the Form sometimes may be dispensed with, and the Figure or Type may cease, when the Substance and Anti-type come to be enjoyed, as it doth in this Case, which shall hereafter be made appear.§. IV.Proof 4.Fourthly, That theone Baptism of Christis not a Washing with Water, appears from 1Pet.iii. 21.The like Figure[114]whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us (not the puttingaway of theFilth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a Definition ofBaptismis not in all the Bible; and therefore, seeing it is so plain, it may well be preferred to all the coined Definitions of theSchool-men.The plainest Definition of the Baptism of Christ in all the Bible.The Apostle tells us, firstnegatively, what it is not, viz.Not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh: Then surely it is not aWashingwith Water, since that is so.Secondly, He tells usaffirmativelywhat it is, viz.The Answer of a good Conscience towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; where he affirmatively defines it to be theAnswer(orConfession, as theSyriackVersion hath it)of a good Conscience. Now thisAnswercannot be but where the Spirit of God hath purified the Soul, and the Fire of his Judgment hath burned up the unrighteous Nature; and those in whom this Work is wrought may be truly said to bebaptized with the Baptism of Christ, i. e.of the Spirit and of Fire. Whatever Way then we take this Definition of the Apostle ofChrist’s Baptism, it confirmeth our Sentence: For if we take the first or negative Part, viz.That it is not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, then it will follow thatWater-baptismis not it, because thatis a puttingaway of theFilth of the Flesh.Water-baptism shut out from the Baptism of Christ.If we take the second and affirmative Definition, to wit,That it is the Answeror Confessionof a good Conscience, &c. thenWater-baptismis not it; since, as our Adversaries will not deny,Water-baptismdoth not always imply it, neither is it any necessary Consequence thereof.Moreover, the Apostle in this Place doth seem especially to guard against those that might esteemWater-baptismthe trueBaptism of Christ; because (lest by the Comparison induced by him in the preceding Verse, betwixt the Souls that were saved inNoah’s Ark, and us that are now saved byBaptism; lest, I say, any should have thence hastily concluded, that because the Former were saved byWater, this Place must needs be taken to speak ofWater-baptism) to prevent such a Mistake, he plainly affirms, that it is not that, but another Thing. He saith not that it is theWater, orthe putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, as accompanied with the Answer of a good Conscience, whereof the one, viz.Water, is the sacramental Element, administered by the Minister; and the other, the Grace or Thing signified, conferred by Christ; but plainly,That it is not the putting away, &c. than which there can be nothing more manifest to Men unprejudicate and judicious. MoreoverPetercalls this here which saves [Greek: antitypon: αντιτυπον], theAnti-type, or theThing figured; whereas it is usually translated, as ifthe like Figure did now save us; thereby insinuating that as they were saved by Water in the Ark, so are we now byWater-baptism. But this Interpretation crosseth his Sense, he presently after declaring the contrary, as hath above been observed; and likewise it would contradict the Opinion of all our Opposers.TheProtestantsdenyingWater-baptismits absolute Necessity toMen’s Salvation; although thePapistssay,None can be saved without it, yet grant Exceptions.ForProtestantsdeny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation; and thoughPapistssay,none are saved without it, yet in this they admit an Exception, as ofMartyrs, &c. and they will not say that all that have it are saved byWater-baptism; which they ought to say, if they will understand byBaptism(by which the Apostle saith we are saved)Water-baptism. For seeing we are savedby this Baptism, as all those that were in the Arkwere saved by Water, it would then follow, that all those that have thisBaptismare saved by it. Now this Consequence would be false, if it were understood ofWater-baptism; because many, by the Confession of all, arebaptizedwithWaterthat are not saved; but this Consequence holds most true, if it be understood as we do, of theBaptismof theSpirit; since none can have this Answer of a good Conscience, and, abiding in it, not be saved by it.[114]Or, as it should be translated,Whose Model Baptism does also now save us.Proof 5.Fifthly,That the one Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water, as it hath been proved by the Definition of theone Baptism, so it is also manifest from the necessary Fruits and Effects of it, which are three Times particularly expressed by the ApostlePaul;The Effects and Fruits of the Baptism ofChrist.as first,Rom.vi. 3, 4. where he saith,That so many of them as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his Death, buried with him by Baptism into Death, that they should walk in Newness of Life. Secondly, to theGalatiansiii. 27. he saith positively,For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And thirdly, to theColossiansii. 12. he saith, That they wereburied with him in Baptism, and risenwith him through the Faith of the Operation of God. It is to be observed here, that the Apostle speaks generally, without anyexclusive Term, butcomprehensiveof all. He saith not,Some of you that were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, butas many of you; which is as much as if he had said,Every one of you that hath been baptized into Christ, hath put on Christ. Whereby it is evident that this is not meant ofWater-baptism, but of theBaptismof theSpirit;Which EffectsWater-baptismwants.because else it would follow, that whosoever had beenbaptizedwithWater-baptismhad put onChrist, and wererisenwith him, which all acknowledge to be most absurd. Now supposing all the visible Members of the Churches ofRome,Galatia, andColossehad been outwardly baptized with Water (I do not say they were, but our Adversaries will not only readily grant it, but also contend for it) suppose, I say, the Case so, they will not say they hadall put on Christ, since divers Expressions in theseEpistlesto them shew the contrary. So that the Apostle cannot meanBaptismwithWater; and yet that he meaneth theBaptismofChrist, i. e.of the Spirit, cannot be denied; or that theBaptismwherewith these werebaptized(of whom the Apostle here testifies that they hadput on Christ) was theone Baptism, I think none will call in Question. Now admit, as our Adversaries contend, that many in these Churches who had beenbaptizedwithWaterhad notput on Christ, it will follow, that notwithstanding thatWater-baptism, they were not baptizedinto Christ, or with theBaptism ofChrist, seeingas many of them as were baptizedintoChrist had put on Christ, &c. From all which I thus argue:Arg. 1.If theBaptismwithWaterwere the oneBaptism,i. e.theBaptismofChrist, as many as were baptized withWaterwould have put on Christ:But the Last is false: Therefore also the First.And again:Arg. 2.Since as many as are baptized intoChrist, i. e.with theone Baptism,which is theBaptismofChrist,have put onChrist,thenWater-baptismis not the oneBaptism,viz. theBaptismofChrist:But the First is true: Therefore also the Last.§. V.Prop. III.Proved.Thirdly,SinceJohn’s Baptismwas a Figure, and seeing the Figure gives Way to the Substance, although the Thing figured remain, to wit, theone BaptismofChrist,yet the other ceaseth, which was theBaptismofJohn.I.John’s Baptism was a Figure ofChrist’s.ThatJohn’s Baptism was a Figure ofChrist’s Baptism, I judge will not readily be denied; but in Case it should, it can easily be proved from the Nature of it.John’s Baptism wasa being baptized with Water, butChrist’s isa Baptizing with the Spirit; thereforeJohn’s Baptism must have been a Figure ofChrist’s. But further, that Water-Baptism wasJohn’s Baptism, will not be denied: That Water-baptism is notChrist’s Baptism, is already proved. From which doth arise the Confirmation of our Proposition thus:There is no Baptism to continue now, but theone Baptismof Christ:ThereforeWater-baptismis not to continue now, because it is not the one Baptism ofChrist.II.John’s Baptism is ceased our Opposers confess.ThatJohn’s Baptism is ceased, many of our Adversaries confess; but if any should allege it is otherwise, it may be easily proved by the express Words ofJohn, not only as being insinuated there, where he contra-distinguisheth his Baptism from that ofChrist, but particularly where he saith,Johniii. 30.He[Christ]must increase, but I[John]must decrease. From whence it clearly follows, that theIncreasingor taking Place ofChrist’s Baptism is theDecreasingor Abolishing ofJohn’s Baptism; so that if Water-baptism was a particular Part ofJohn’s Ministry, and is no Part ofChrist’s Baptism, as we have already proved, it will necessarily follow that it is not to continue.Arg.Secondly,ifWater-baptismhad been to continue a perpetual Ordinance of Christ in his Church, he would either have practised it himself, or commanded his Apostles so to do.But that he practised it not, theScriptureplainly affirms,Johniv. 2. And that he commanded his Disciples tobaptizewithWater, I could never yet read. As for what is alleged, that,Matt.xxviii. 19. &c. where he bids thembaptize, is to be understood ofWater-baptism, that is but to beg the Question, and the Grounds for that shall be hereafter examined.Therefore tobaptizewithWateris no perpetual Ordinance of Christ to his Church.This hath had the more Weight with me, because I find not any standingOrdinance or AppointmentofChristnecessary to Christians, for which we have not either Christ’s own Practice or Command, as to obey all the Commandments which comprehend both our Duty towards God and Man,&c.and where theGospelrequires more than theLaw, which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th Chapters ofMatthew, and elsewhere. Besides, as to the Duties of Worship, he exhorts us to meet, promising his Presence; commands topray,preach,watch, &c. and gives Precepts concerning some temporary Things, as theWashingofone another’s Feet, theBreakingofBread, hereafter to be discussed; only for this one Thing ofBaptizingwithWater, though so earnestly contended for, we find not any Precept of Christ.§. VI.III.TheGospelputs an End tocarnal Ordinances.But to make Water-baptism a necessaryInstitutionof theChristian Religion, which is pure and spiritual, and not carnal and ceremonial, is to derogate from theNew Covenant Dispensation, and set up thelegal RitesandCeremonies, of which this ofBaptism, orWashingwithWater, was one, as appears fromHeb.ix. 10. wherethe Apostle speaking thereof saith, that it stoodonly in Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms, and carnal Ordinances, imposed until the Time of Reformation. If then the Time of Reformation, or the Dispensation of theGospel, which puts an End to the Shadows, be come, then suchBaptismsand carnalOrdinancesare no more to be imposed. For how Baptism withWatercomes now to be aSpiritual Ordinance, more than before in the Time of theLaw, doth not appear, seeing it is butWaterstill, and a Washing of the outward Man, and a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh still: And as before, those that were so washed, were not thereby made perfect, as pertaining to theConscience, neither are they at this Day, as our Adversaries must needs acknowledge, and Experience abundantly sheweth. So that the Matter of it, which is a Washing with Water, and the Effect of it, which is only an outward Cleansing, being still the same, how comes Water-baptism to be less a carnal Ordinance now than before?Obj. 1.If it be said, ThatGod confers inward Grace upon some that are now baptized;Answ.So no Doubt he did also upon some that used those Baptisms among theJews.Obj. 2.Or if it be said,Because it is commanded by Christ now, under the New Covenant;Answ.I answer,First, That is to beg the Question; of which hereafter.ButSecondly, We find that where the Matter of Ordinances is the same, and the End the same, they are never accounted more or less spiritual, because of their different Times. Now was not God the Author of thePurificationsandBaptismsunder theLaw? Was not Water the Matter of them, which is so now? Was not the End of them to signify an inward Purifying by an outward Washing? And is not that alleged to be the End still?Men are no morenowthanbeforebyWater-baptisminwardly cleansed.And are the necessary Effects or Consequences of it any better now than before, since Men are now by the Virtue of Water-baptism, as a necessary Consequence of it, no more than before made inwardly clean? And if some by God’s Grace that are baptized with Water are inwardly purified, so were some also under the Law; so that this is not any necessary Consequence or Effect, neither of this nor that Baptism. It is then plainly repugnant to right Reason, as well as to the Scripture Testimony, to affirmthatto be a spiritual Ordinance now, which was a carnal Ordinance before, if it be still the same, both as to its Author, Matter, and End, however made to vary in some small Circumstances. The Spirituality of theNew Covenantand of itsWorshipestablished by Christ, consisted not in such superficial Alterations of Circumstances, but after another Manner. Therefore let our Adversaries shew us, if they can, without begging the Question, and building upon some one or other of their own Principles denied by us,whereverChrist appointed or ordained any Institution or Observation under theNew Covenant, as belonging to the Nature of it, or such a necessary Part of itsWorshipas is perpetually to continue; which being one in Substance and Effects (I speak of necessary, not accidental Effects) yet, because of some small Difference in Form or Circumstance, was before carnal, notwithstanding it was commanded by God under theLaw, but now is become spiritual, because commanded by Christ under theGospel? And if they cannot do this, then if Water-baptism was once a carnal Ordinance, as the Apostle positively affirms it to have been, it remains a carnal Ordinance still; and if a carnal Ordinance, then no necessary Part of theGospelorNew Covenant Dispensation; and if no necessary Part of it, then not needful to continue, nor to be practised by such as live and walk under thisDispensation. But in this, as in most other Things, according as we have often observed, our Adversariesjudaize, and renouncing thegloriousandspiritual Privilegesof the New Covenant, are sticking in and cleaving to the Rudiments of the Old, both inDoctrineandWorship, as being more suited and agreeable to their carnal Apprehensions and natural Senses.TheLawdistinguished from theGospel.But we, on the contrary, travail above all to lay hold upon and cleave unto theLightof theglorious Gospelrevealed unto us. And the Harmony of the Truth we professin this may appear, by briefly observing how in all Things we follow thespiritual Gospel of Christ, as contra-distinguished from the Carnality of thelegal Dispensation; while our Adversaries, through rejecting thisGospel, are still labouring under the Burden of theLaw, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear.The outwardBaptism,Worship,Law, distinguished from the inward.For the Law and Rule of theOld CovenantandJewswas outward, written in Tables of Stone and Parchment;so also is that of our Adversaries. But the Law of theNew Covenantis inward and perpetual, written in the Heart;so is ours.The Worship of theJewswas outward and carnal, limited to set Times, Places, and Persons, and performed according to set prescribed Forms and Observations;so is that of our Adversaries. But the Worship of theNew Covenantis neither limited to Time, Place, nor Person, but is performed in the Spirit and in Truth; and it is not acted according to set Forms and Prescriptions, but as the Spirit of God immediately actuates, moves, and leads, whether it be to preach, pray, or sing;and such is also our Worship.So likewise theBaptismamong theJewsunder the Law was anoutward Washingwithoutward Water, only to typify an inward Purification of the Soul, which did not necessarily follow upon those that were thus baptized; but the Baptism of Christ under the Gospel is the Baptism of the Spirit and of Fire;not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God; and such is the Baptism that we labour to be baptized withal, and contend for.§. VII.Arg.But again, If Water-baptism had been an Ordinance of the Gospel, then the ApostlePaulwould have been sent to administer it; but he declares positively, 1Cor.i. 17.That Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. The Reason of that Consequence is undeniable, because the ApostlePaul’s Commission was as large as that of any of them; and consequently he being in special Manner the Apostle of Christ to theGentiles,IV.ThatWater-baptismis no Badge ofChristians, likeCircumcisionof theJews.if Water-baptism, as our Adversaries contend, be to be accounted theBadge of Christianity, he had more Need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water, that he might mark theGentilesconverted by himwith thatChristian Sign. But indeed the Reason holds better thus, that sincePaulwas the Apostle of theGentiles, and that in his Ministry he doth through all (as by hisEpistlesappears) labour to wean them from the formerJewish CeremoniesandObservations(though in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his Brethren, who were unwilling to lay aside thoseCeremonies) therefore his Commission, though as full as to the Preaching of theGospelandNew Covenant Dispensationas that of the other Apostles, did not require of him that he should lead those Converts into suchJewish ObservationsandBaptisms, however that Practice was indulged in and practised by the other Apostles among theirJewish Proselytes; for which Cause[115]he thanks God that he had baptized so few: Intimating that what he did therein he did not by Virtue of his Apostolick Commission,Paulwas not sent to baptize.but rather in Condescension to their Weakness, even as at another Time he circumcisedTimothy.[115]1 Cor. i. 14.Obj. 1.Our Adversaries, to evade the Truth of this Testimony, usually allege,That by this is only to be understood, that he was not sent principally to baptize, not that he was not sent at all.Answ.But this Exposition, since it contradicts the positive Words of the Text, and has no better Foundation than the Affirmation of its Assertors, is justly rejected asspurious, until they bring some better Proof for it. He saith not,I was not sentprincipallyto baptize, butI wasnotsent to baptize.Confir.As for what they urge, by Way of Confirmation, from other Places of Scripture, where [not] is to be so taken, as where it is said,[116]I will have Mercy, andnotSacrifice, which is to be understood that God requires principallyMercy, not excludingSacrifice:[116]Matt. 9. 15. Hos. 6. 6.Refut.I say this Place is abundantly explained by the following Words [and the Knowledge of God more than Burnt-offerings;] by which it clearly appears thatBurnt-offerings, which are one withSacrifices, are not excluded; but there is no such Word added in that ofPaul, and therefore the Parity is not demonstrated to be alike, and consequently the Instance not sufficient, unless they can prove that itought so to be admitted here; else we might interpret by the same Rule all other Places of Scripture the same Way, as where the Apostle saith, 1Cor.ii. 5.That your Faith might not stand in the Wisdom of Men, but in the Power of God, it might be understood, it shall not standprincipally so. How might the Gospel, by this Liberty of Interpretation, be perverted?Obj. 2.If it be said,That the Abuse of this Baptism among theCorinthians, in dividing themselves according to the Persons by whom they were baptized, made the Apostle speak so; but that the Abuse of a Thing doth not abolish it;Answ.Ianswer, It is true, it doth not, provided the Thing be lawful and necessary; and that no Doubt the Abuse abovesaid gave the Apostle Occasion so to write. But let it from this be considered how the Apostle excludesBaptizing, notPreaching, though the Abuse [mark] proceeded from that, no less than from the other. For theseCorinthiansdid denominate themselves from those different Persons by whosePreaching(as well as from those by whom they werebaptized) they were converted, as by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Verses of Chap. iii. may appear:ThatPreachingis a standing Ordinance, and not to be forborne.And yet to remove that Abuse the Apostle doth not say, He was not sent to preach, nor yet doth he rejoice that he had only preached to a few; becausePreaching, being a standing Ordinance in the Church, is not, because of any Abuse that the Devil may tempt any to make of it, to be forborne by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God: Wherefore the Apostle accordingly,Chap.iii. 8, 9. informs them, as to that, how to remove that Abuse. But as to Water-baptism, for that it was no standing Ordinance of Christ, but only practised as in Condescension to theJews, and by some Apostles to someGentilesalso, therefore, so soon as the Apostle perceived the Abuse of it, he let theCorinthiansunderstand how little Stress was to be laid upon it, by shewing them that he was glad that he had administered this Ceremony to so few of them; and by telling them plainly that it was no Part of his Commission, neither that which he was sent to administer.Query.Some ask us,How we know that baptizing here is meant ofWater, and not of theSpirit; which if it be, then it will exclude Baptism of theSpirit, as well as ofWater?Answ.Ianswer, Such as ask the Question, I suppose, speak it not as doubting that this was said of Water-baptism, which is more than manifest.That which converts toChristis the Baptism of the Spirit.For since the ApostlePaul’s Message was,To turn People from Darkness to Light, andconvert them to God; and that as many as are thus turned and converted, (so as to have the Answer of a good Conscience toward God, and to have put on Christ, and be risen with him in Newness of Life) are baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit. But who will say that only those few mentioned there to be baptized byPaulwere come to this? Or that to turn or bring them to this Condition was not, even admitting our Adversaries Interpretation, as principal a Part ofPaul’s Ministry as any other? Since then our Adversaries do take this Place forWater-baptism, as indeed it is, we may lawfully, taking it so also, urge it upon them. Why the WordBaptismandBaptizingis used by the Apostle, where that ofWaterand not of theSpiritis only understood, shall hereafter be spoken to.Part 2.I come now to consider the Reasons alleged by such as plead forWater-baptism, which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it.§. VIII.Obj. 1.First, Some object,[117]That Christ, who had the Spirit above Measure, was notwithstanding baptized with Water. AsNic. Arnoldusagainst thisThesis, Sect. 46. of hisTheological Exercitation.[117]John 3. 34.Answ.Ianswer, So was he alsocircumcised; it will not follow from thence thatCircumcisionis to continue:WhyChristwasbaptizedbyJohn.For it behoved Christ to fulfil all Righteousness, not only the Ministry ofJohn, but theLawalso, therefore did he observe theJewish FeastsandRites, and keep thePassover. It will not thence follow thatChristiansought to do so now; and therefore Christ,Matt.iii. 15. givesJohnthis Reason of his being baptized, desiring him tosuffer it to be so now; whereby he sufficiently intimates that he intended not thereby to perpetuate it as an Ordinance to his Disciples.Obj. 2.Secondly, They object,Matt.xxviii. 19.Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.Answ.This is the great Objection, and upon which they build the wholeSuperstructure; whereunto the first general and soundAnsweris, by granting the whole;What BaptismChristdoth mean inMat. 28.but putting them to prove thatWateris here meant, since the Text is silent of it. And though in Reason it be sufficient upon our Part that we concede the whole expressed in the Place, but deny that it is byWater, which is an Addition to the Text, yet I shall premise some Reasons why we do so, and then consider the Reasons alleged by those that will haveWaterto be here understood.Arg. 1.TheFirstis a Maxim yielded to by all,That we ought not to go from the literal Signification of the Text, except some urgent Necessity force us thereunto.But no urgent Necessity in this Place forceth us thereunto:Therefore we ought not to go from it.Arg. 2.Secondly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was the one Baptism,id est, his own Baptism:But the one Baptism, which is Christ’s Baptism, is not withWater, as we have already proved:Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was notWater-baptism.Arg. 3.Thirdly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was such, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Christ:But this is not true ofWater-baptism:Therefore,&c.Arg. 4.Fourthly, The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was notJohn’s Baptism:But Baptism with Water wasJohn’s Baptism:Therefore,&c.Alleg.1.ButFirst, They allege,That Christ’s Baptism, though a Baptism with Water, did differ fromJohn’s, becauseJohnonly baptized with Water untoRepentance, but Christ commands his Disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; reckoning that in this Form there lieth a great Difference betwixt the Baptism ofJohnand that ofChrist.Ianswer, In thatJohn’s Baptism was unto Repentance, the Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ’s also; yea, our Adversaries will not deny but thatadult Personsthat are to be baptized ought, ere they are admitted toWater-baptism, to repent, and confess their Sins: And thatInfantsalso, with a Respect to and Consideration of their Baptism, ought to repent and confess; so that the Difference lieth not here, since this of Repentance and Confession agrees as well toChrist’s as toJohn’s Baptism. But in this ourAdversariesare divided; forCalvinwill haveChrist’s andJohn’s to be all one,Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Sect. 7, 8.yet they do differ, and the Difference is, in that the one is by Water, the other not,&c.Secondly, As to what Christ saith, in commanding them tobaptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, I confess that states the Difference, and it is great; but that lies not only in admittingWater-baptismin this different Form, by a bare Expressing of these Words: For as the Text says no such Thing, neither do I see how it can be inferred from it.Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture.For the Greek is [Greek: eis to onoma: εις το ονομα], that is,into the Name; now theNameof theLordis often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare Sound of Words, or literal Expression, even for hisVirtueandPower, as may appear fromPsal.liv. 3.Cant.i. 3.Prov.xviii. 10. and in many more.TheBaptisminto theName, what it is.Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nationsinto this Name,Virtue, andPower, and that they did so, is evident by these Testimonies ofPaulabove-mentioned, where he saith,That as many of them as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; this must have been aBaptizing into the Name, i. e.PowerandVirtue, and not a mere formal Expression of Words adjoined with Water-baptism; because, as hath been above observed, it doth not follow as a natural or necessary Consequence of it. I would have those who desire to have their Faith built upon no other Foundation than the Testimony ofGod’s Spirit, andScripturesofTruth, throughly to consider whether there can be any Thing further alleged for this Interpretation than what the Prejudice of Education and Influence of Tradition hath imposed. Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderateReader, as if the very Character ofChristianitywere abolished, to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood ofbaptizing with Water, and that this Form ofBaptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, hath no Warrant fromMatt.xxviii.&c.Whether Christ did prescribe a Form ofBaptisminMatt. 28.For which, besides the Reason taken from the Signification of [the Name] as being theVirtueandPowerabove expressed, let it be considered, that if it had been aFormprescribed by Christ to his Apostles, then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administering ofWater-baptismto such as they baptized with Water; but though particular Mention be made in divers Places of theActswho were baptized, and how; and though it be particularly expressed that theybaptizedsuch and such, asActsii. 41. and viii. 12, 13. 38. and ix. 18. and x. 48. and xvi. 15. and xviii. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form. And in two Places,Actsviii. 16. and xix. 5. it is said of some that they werebaptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus; by which it yet more appears, that either the Author of thisHistoryhath been very defective, who having so often Occasion to mention this, yet omitteth so substantial a Part ofBaptism(which were to accuse theHoly Ghost, by whose GuidanceLukewrote it) or else that the Apostles did no Ways understand thatChristby his Commission,Matt.xxviii. did enjoin them such a Form ofWater-baptism, seeing they did not use it. And therefore it is safer to conclude, that what they did in administeringWater-baptism, they did not by Virtue of that Commission, else they would have so used it; for our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a greatHeresyto administerWater-baptismwithout that, or only in theName of Jesus, without Mention ofFather, orSpirit, as it is expresly said they did, in the two Places above-cited.Alleg. 2.Secondly, They say,If this were not understood ofWater-baptism,it would be a Tautology, and all one withTeaching.Answ.I say,Nay: Baptizing with the Spiritis somewhat further than teaching, or informing the Understanding;How Teaching and Baptizing differ.for it imports aReaching to, andmelting the Heart, whereby it isturned, as well as theUnderstanding informed. Besides, we find often in the Scripture, thatTeachingandInstructingare put together, without any Absurdity, or needless Tautology; and yet these two have a greater Affinity thanTeachingandBaptizingwith theSpirit.Alleg. 3.Thirdly, They say,Baptism in this Place must be understood withWater, because it is the Action of the Apostles; and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit, which is the Work of Christ, and his Grace; not of Man, &c.Answ.The Baptism with theSpiritascribed to godly Men as Instruments.I answer;Baptism with the Spirit, though not wrought withoutChristand hisGrace, is instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that Purpose; and therefore no Absurdity follows, thatBaptismwith theSpiritshould be expressed as the Action of the Apostles. For though it be Christ by his Grace that givesspiritual Gifts, yet the Apostle,Rom.i. 11. speaks ofHISimparting to them spiritual Gifts; and he tells theCorinthians, thatHEhadbegotten them through the Gospel, 1 Cor. iv. 15. And yet to beget People to theFaith, is the Work ofChristand hisGrace, not of Men. To convert the Heart, is properly the Work of Christ; and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it to Men, as being the Instruments: And sincePaul’s Commission was,To turn People from Darkness to Light(though that be not done withoutChristco-operating by his Grace) so may alsoBaptizing with the Spiritbe expressed, as performable by Man as the Instrument, though the Work ofChrist’sGracebe needful to concur thereunto. So that it is no Absurdity to say, That the Apostles did administer theBaptismof theSpirit.Alleg. 4.Lastly, They say,That since Christ saith here, that he will be with his Disciples to the End of the World, thereforeWater-baptismmust continue so long.Answ.If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism, then that might have been urged; but seeing that is denied, and proved to be false, nothing from thence can be gathered: He speaking of the Baptism of theSpirit, which we freely confess doth remain to the End of the World; yea, so long as Christ’s Presence abideth with his Children.§. IX.Obj. 3.Thirdly, They objectthe constant Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church, who, they say,did always administerWater-baptismto such as they converted to the Faith of Christ; and hence also they further urge that ofMatt. xxviii.to have been meant ofWater; or else the Apostles did not understand it, because inbaptizingthey usedWater; or that in so doing they walked without a Commission.Answ.Ianswer, That it was theconstant Practice of the Apostles, is denied; for we have shewn, in the Example ofPaul, that it was not so; since it were most absurd to judge that he converted only those few, even of the Church ofCorinth, whom he saith he baptized; nor were it less absurd to think that that was aconstant apostolick Practice, which he, who was not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles, and who declares he laboured as much as they all, rejoiceth he was so little in. But further; the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice ofbaptizing with Water, to evince that they understoodMatt.xxviii. of Water-baptism, doth not hold:How theApostlesbaptized.For though they baptized with Water, it will not follow that either they did it by Virtue of that Commission, or that they mistook that Place; nor can there be anyMediumbrought, that will infer such a Conclusion. As to the other insinuated Absurdity,That they did it without a Commission; it is none at all: For they might have done it by aPermission, as being in use beforeChrist’s Death; and because the People, nursed up with outward Ceremonies, could not be weaned wholly from them. And thus they used other Things, asCircumcision, andlegal Purifications, which yet they had no Commission from Christ to do: To which we shall speak more at Length in the followingProposition, concerning theSupper.Object.But if from theSamenessof the Word, because Christ bids thembaptize, and they afterwards in the Use of Water are said tobaptize, it be judged probablethat they did understand that Commission, Matt. xxviii.to authorize them to baptize withWater,and accordingly practised it;Answ.Although it should be granted, that for a Season they did so far mistake it, as to judge thatWaterbelonged to that Baptism, (which however I find no Necessity of granting) yet I see not any great Absurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that Commission, as to a main Part of it, for a Season; as where he bids themGo, teach all Nations; since some Time after they judged it unlawful to teach theGentiles;The Apostles did scruple the Teaching theGentiles.yea,Peterhimself scrupled it, until by a Vision constrained thereunto; for which, after he had done it, he was for a Season (until they were better informed) judged by the rest of his Brethren. Now, if the Education of the Apostles asJews, and their Propensity to adhere and stick to theJewish Religion, did so far influence them, that even after Christ’sResurrection, and thePouring forthof theSpirit, they could not receive nor admit of the Teaching of theGentiles, though Christ, in his Commission to them, commanded them to preach to them; what further Absurdity were it to suppose, that, through the like Mistake, the chiefest of them having been the Disciples ofJohn, and his Baptism being so much prized there among theJews, they also took Christ’s Baptism, intended by him of the Spirit, to be that of Water, which wasJohn’s, and accordingly practised it for a Season? It suffices us, that if they were so mistaken, (though I say not that they were so) they did not always remain under that Mistake: ElsePeterwould not have said of the Baptism which now saves,That it is not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, which certainly Water-baptism is.But further, They urge muchPeter’s baptizingCornelius; in which they press two Things, First,That Water-baptism is used, even to thosethat had received the Spirit. Secondly,That it is said positively, He commanded them to be baptized, Acts x. 47, 48.But neither of these doth necessarily infer Water-baptism to belong to theNew Covenant Dispensation, nor yet to be a perpetual standingOrdinancein the Church.WhetherPeter’s baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church.ForFirst, All that this will amount to, was, ThatPeterat that Time baptized these Men; but that he did it by Virtue of that Commission,Matt.xxviii. remains yet to be proved. And how doth the Baptizing with Water, after the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, prove the Case, more than the Use ofCircumcision, and otherlegal Rites, acknowledged to have been performed by him afterwards? Also, it is no Wonder ifPeter, who thought it so strange (notwithstanding all that had been professed before, and spoken by Christ) that theGentilesshould be made Partakers of the Gospel, and with great Difficulty, not without an extraordinary Impulse thereunto, was brought to come to them, and eat with them, was apt to put this Ceremony upon them; which being, as it were, the particular Dispensation ofJohn, theForerunnerof Christ, seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel, than the otherJewish Ceremoniesthen used by theChurch; but that will no ways infer our Adversaries Conclusion.Secondly, As to these Words,And he commanded them to be baptized; it declareth Matter ofFact, not ofRight, and amounteth to no more, than thatPeterdid at that Time,pro hic & nunc, command those Persons to bebaptized with Water, which is not denied: But it saith nothing thatPetercommanded Water-baptism to be a standing and perpetual Ordinance to the Church; neither can any Man of sound Reason say, if he heed what he says, That a Command inMatter of Factto particular Persons, doth infer theThing commandedto be of general Obligation to all, if it be not otherwise founded upon some positive Precept. Why dothPeter’s commandingCorneliusand his Houshold to be baptized at that Time inferWater-baptismto continue, more than his constraining (which is more thancommanding) theGentilesin General to becircumcised, and observe theLaw? We find at that Time, whenPeterbaptizedCornelius, it was not yet determined whether theGentilesshould not becircumcised; but on the contrary, it was the most general Sense of theChurchthatthey should: And therefore no Wonder if they thought it needful at that Time that they should be baptized; which had more Affinity with the Gospel, and was a Burthen less grievous.§. X.Obj. 4.Fourthly, They objectfrom the Signification of the Word[baptize]which is as much as todipandwashwithWater; alleging thence that the very Word imports a being baptized withWater.Answ.This Objection is very weak.Baptizingsignifies Dipping or Washing with Water.For sincebaptizingwith Water was a Rite among theJews, asPaulus Ricciussheweth, even before the Coming ofJohn; and that the Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice, as used both by theJewsand byJohn; yet we find that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more spiritual Signification.Circumcisionwas only used and understood among theJewsto bethat of the Flesh; but the Apostle tells us of theCircumcision of the Heart and Spirit made without Hands. So that though Baptism was used among theJewsonly to signify aWashing with Water, yet bothJohn, Christ, and his Apostles, speak of a beingbaptized with the Spirit, and with Fire; which they make the peculiar Baptism of Christ, as contra-distinguished from that ofWater, which wasJohn’s, as is above shewn. So that though Baptism among theJewswas only understood ofWater, yet amongChristiansit is very well understood of theSpiritwithoutWater: As we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand Things, under the Terms of what had beenShadowsbefore. Thus Christ, speaking of hisBody, (though theJewsmistook him) said,Destroy this Temple, and in three Days I will raise it up; and many more that might be instanced. But if theEtymologyof the Word should be tenaciously adhered to, it would militate against most of our Adversaries, as well as against us:[Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω]immergo,intingo, to plunge and dip in.For the Greek [Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω] signifiesimmergo, that is, toplungeanddip in; and that was the proper Use of Water-baptism among theJews, and also byJohn, and the primitive Christians, who used it; whereas our Adversaries, for the most Part, onlysprinklea little Water upon the Forehead, which doth not at all answer to the Word [Baptism.]Those that of old usedWater-baptismweredippedandplunged, and those that were onlysprinkled, were not admitted to any Office in the Church,and why.Yea, those of old among Christians that used Water-baptism, thought thisDippingorPlungingso needful, that they thusdippedChildren: And forasmuch as it was judged that it might prove hurtful to some weak Constitutions,Sprinkling, to prevent that Hurt, was introduced; yet then it was likewise appointed, that such as were onlysprinkled, and notdipped, should not be admitted to have any Office in the Church, as not being sufficientlybaptized. So that if our Adversaries will stick to the Word, they must alter their Method ofSprinkling.Obj. 5.Fifthly, They object,Johniii. 5.Except a Man be born ofWater, and of theSpirit, &c. hence inferring the Necessity ofWater-baptism, as well as of the Spirit.Answ.But if this prove any Thing, it will prove Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity; and thereforeProtestantsrightly affirm, when this is urged upon them byPapists, to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism, that [Water] is not here understood of outward Water;The Water that regenerates, is mystical and inward.but mystically, of an inward Cleansing and Washing. Even as where Christ speaks of beingbaptized with Fire, it is not to be understood of outward material Fire, but only of purifying, by aMetonymy; because topurifyis a proper Effect of Fire, as towashandmake cleanis of Water; where it can as little be so understood, as where we are said to besaved by the Washing of Regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. Yea,Petersaith expresly, in the Place often cited, asCalvinwell observes,[118]That theBaptismwhich saves, is not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh. So that since [Water] cannot be understood of outward Water, this can serve nothing to prove Water-baptism.[118]In the 4th Book of hisInstit.C. 15.Object.If it be said, That [Water]imports herenecessitatem præcepti,though notmedii;Answ.Ianswer, That is first to take it for granted that outward Water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have already proved.Necessitas præceptiandmediiurged.Next,Waterand theSpiritare placed here together, [Except a Man be born ofWaterand theSpirit] where the Necessity of the one is urged as much as of the other. Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary, so will also Water; and then we must either say, thatto be born of the Spiritis not absolutely necessary, which all acknowledge to be false; or else, thatWateris absolutely necessary; which, asProtestants, we affirm, and have proved, is false: Else we must confess, thatWateris not here understood of outward Water. For to say that whenWaterand theSpiritare placed here just together, and in the same Manner, though there be not any Difference or Ground for it visible in the Text, or deducible from it, That theNecessityofWateris herepræcepti, but notmedii, but theNecessityof theSpiritis bothmediiandpræcepti, is indeed confidently to affirm, but not to prove.Obj. 6.Sixthlyandlastly, They object,That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge to distinguishChristiansfromInfidels,even as Circumcision did theJews.Answ.Ianswer, This saith nothing at all, unless it be proved to be anecessary Precept, or Part of theNew Covenant Dispensation; it not being lawful for us to impose outwardCeremoniesandRites, and say, They will distinguish us fromInfidels.Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant.Circumcisionwas positively commanded, and said to be aSeal of the first Covenant; but as we have already proved that there is no such Command for Baptism,Water-baptism falsely called aBadgeof Christianity.so there is not any Word in all the New Testament, calling it aBadge of Christianity, orSeal of the New Covenant: And therefore to conclude it is so, becauseCircumcisionwas so, (unless some better Proof be alleged for it) is miserably to beg the Question.Which is theBadgeof Christianity.The Professing of Faith in Christ, and a holy Life answering thereunto, is a far betterBadgeofChristianitythan any outward Washing; which yet answers not tothat ofCircumcision, since that affixed a Character in the Flesh, which this doth not: So that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his beingbaptized, especially when he was a Child, unless he tell them so much:What theFatherssay of Water-baptism, and of the Sign of the Cross.And may not the Professing ofFaith in Christsignify that as well? I know there are divers of those called theFathers, that speak much of Water-baptism, calling itCharacterem Christianitatis: But so did they also of the Sign of theCross, and other such Things, justly rejected byProtestants.HeathenishCeremonies introduced into the Christian Worship.For theMystery of Iniquity, which began to work in the Apostles Days, soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of the Christian Worship; insomuch that not only manyJewish Riteswere retained, but manyHeathenish CustomsandCeremoniesintroduced into the Christian Worship; as particularly that Word [Sacrament.] So that it is a great Folly, especially forProtestants, to plead any Thing of this fromTraditionorAntiquity; For we find that neitherPapistsnorProtestantsuse those Rites exactly as theAncientsdid; who in such Things, not walking by the most certain Rule of God’s Spirit, but doting too much upon Externals, were very uncertain. For most of them all, in the primitive Times, did whollyplungeanddipthose they baptized, which neitherPapists, nor mostProtestants, do: Yea, several of theFathersaccused some asHereticksin their Days, for holding some Principles common withProtestantsconcerning it; as particularlyAugustinedoth thePelagians, for saying thatInfants dying unbaptized may be saved. And theManicheeswere condemned, for denying thatGrace is Universally given by Baptism; andJulianthePelagianbyAugustine, for denyingExorcism and Insufflation in the Use of Baptism:Exorcism or Adjuration.All which ThingsProtestantsdeny also. So thatProtestantsdo but foolishly to upbraid us, as if we could not shew any among theAncientsthat deniedWater-baptism; seeing they cannot shew any, whom they acknowledge not to have been heretical in several Things, that used it;The Sign of the Cross.nor yet, who using it, did not also use theSign of the Cross, and other Things with it, which they deny.Many informer Agestestified againstWater-baptism.There were some nevertheless in the darkest Times ofPopery, who testified againstWater-baptism. ForoneAlanus, Page 103, 104. 107. speaks of some in his Time that were burnt for the denying of it: For they said, ThatBaptism had no Efficacy, either in Children or adult Persons; and therefore Men were not obliged to take Baptism:Particularlyten Canonicks, so called,were burnt for that Crime, by the Order of KingRobertofFrance. AndP. Pithœusmentions it in hisFragmentsof theHistoryofGuienne, which is also confirmed by oneJohannes Floracensis, aMonk, who was famous at that Time, in his Epistle toOliva, Abbot of theAusonianChurch: “I will, saith he, give you to understand concerning the Heresy that was in the City ofOrleansonChildermas-day;Ten Canonicks burnt atOrleans, and why.for it was true, if ye have heard any Thing, that KingRobertcaused to be burnt alive near fourteen of that City, of the chief of theirClergy, and the more noble of theirLaicks, who were hateful to God, and abominable to Heaven and Earth; for they did stifly deny the Grace of holy Baptism, and also the Consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood.” The Time of this Deed is noted in these Words byPapir. Masson, in hisAnnalsofFrance, Lib. 3. inHughandRobert,Actum Aureliæ publicè anno Incarnationis Domini 1022. RegniRobertiRegis 28, Indictione 5. quandoStephanusHæresiarcha & Complices ejus damnati sunt et exusti Aureliæ.Now for their calling themHereticksandManichees, we have nothing but the Testimony of their Accusers, which will no more invalidate their Testimony for this Truth against the Use of Water-baptism, or give more Ground to charge us, as being one withManichees, than because some, called by themManichees, do agree withProtestantsin some Things, that thereforeProtestantsareManicheesorHereticks, whichProtestantscan no Ways shun. For the Question is, Whether, in what they did, they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures? So that the Controversy is brought back again to the Scriptures, according to which, I suppose, I have already discussed it.TheBaptismofInfantsan Human Tradition.As for the latter Part of theThesis, denying the Use ofInfant-baptism, it necessarily follows from what is above said. For if Water-baptismbe ceased, then surelyBaptizing of Infantsis not warrantable. But those that take upon them to oppose us in this Matter, will have more to do as to this latter Part: For after they have done what they can to prove Water-baptism, it remains for them to prove thatInfantsought to be baptized. For he that proves Water-baptism ceased, proves that Infant-baptism is vain: But he that should prove that Water-baptism continues, has not thence proved that Infant-baptism is necessary; that needs something further. And therefore it was a pitiful Subterfuge ofNic. Arnoldusagainst this, to say, Thatthe Denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the Gangrene of theAnabaptists, without adding any further Proof.
ConcerningBaptism.
[113]As there isone Lord, andone Faith, so there is oneBaptism;which is not the putting away theFilthof theFlesh,but the Answer of a good Conscience before God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. And this Baptism is a pure and spiritual Thing, to wit, the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire, by which we are buried with him, that being washed and purged from our Sins, we maywalk in newness of Life: Of which the Baptism ofJohnwas a Figure, which was commanded for a Time, and not to continue for ever. As to the Baptism ofInfants, it is a mere human Tradition, for which neitherPreceptnorPracticeis to be found in all the Scripture.
[113]Ephes. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 6. 4. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 12. John 3. 30. 1 Cor. 1. 17.
[113]Ephes. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 6. 4. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 12. John 3. 30. 1 Cor. 1. 17.
§. I.I did sufficiently demonstrate, in the Explanation and Proof of the former Proposition, how greatly theProfessorsofChristianity, as wellProtestantsasPapists, were degenerated in the Matter ofWorship, and how much Strangers to, and averse from that true and acceptableWorshipthat is performed in theSpirit of Truth, because of Man’s natural Propensity in his fallen State to exalt his ownInventions, and to intermix his ownWorkandProductin the Service of God:From whence Idolatries and Heathen Superstitions did spring.And from this Root sprung all the idle Worships, Idolatries, and numerous superstitious Inventions among theHeathens. For when God, in Condescension to his chosen People theJews, did prescribe to them by his ServantMosesmanyCeremoniesandObservations, asTypesandShadowsof theSubstance, which in due Time was to be revealed; which consisted for the most Part in Washings, outward Purifications and Cleansings, which were to continue until the Time ofReformation, until thespiritual Worshipshould be set up;and that God, by the more plentiful pouring forth of hisSpirit, and guiding of thatAnointing, should lead hisChildren into all Truth, and teach them to worship him in a Way more spiritual and acceptable to him, though less agreeable to the carnal and outward Senses; yet, notwithstandingGod’s Condescensionto theJewsin such Things, we see that that Part in Man, which delights to follow its ownInventions, could not be restrained, nor yet satisfied with all theseObservations, but that oftentimes they would be either declining to the otherSuperstitionsof theGentiles, or adding some new Observations and Ceremonies of their own; to which they were so devoted, that they were still apt to prefer them before the Commands of God, and that under the Notion ofZealandPiety.ThePhariseesthechiefestamong theJews.This we see abundantly in the Example of thePharisees, the chief Sect among theJews, whom Christ so frequently reproves,For making void the Commandments of God by their Traditions, Matt. xv. 6. 9.&c.This Complaint may at this Day be no less justly made as to many bearing theNameofChristians, who have introduced many Things of this Kind, partly borrowed from theJews, which they more tenaciously stick to, and more earnestly contend for, than for the weightier Points ofChristianity;Many Things in Christendom are borrowed from theJewsandGentiles.because thatSelf, yet alive, and ruling in them, loves their ownInventionsbetter than God’sCommands. But if they can by any Means stretch anyScripture Practice, orconditional PreceptorPermission, fitted to the Weakness or Capacity of some, or appropriate to some particular Dispensation, to give some Colour for any of these theirInventions; they do then so tenaciously stick to them, and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them, that they will not patiently hear the most solidChristianReasons against them. Which Zeal, if they would but seriously examine it, they would find to be but the Prejudice ofEducation, and the Love ofSelf, more than that ofGod, or hispure Worship.OfSacramentsso manyControversies.This is verified concerning those Things which are calledSacraments, about which they are very ignorant inReligious Controversies, who understand not how much Debate, Contention, Jangling, and Quarrelling there has been among those calledChristians: So that I may safely say theControversyabout them, to wit, about theirNumber,Nature,Virtue,Efficacy,Administration, and other Things, hath been more than about any otherDoctrineofChrist, whether as betwixtPapistsandProtestants, or amongProtestantsbetwixt themselves. And how great Prejudice theseControversieshave brought toChristiansis very obvious; whereas the Things contended for among them are for the most Part but empty Shadows, and mere outside Things: As I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudiced Reader.
§. II.The Name ofSacrament(not found inScripture) is borrowed from theHeathen.That which comes first under Observation, is the Name [Sacrament] which it is strange thatChristiansshould stick to and contend so much for, since it is not to be found in all theScripture; but was borrowed from themilitary Oathsamong theHeathens, from whom theChristians, when they began toapostatize, did borrow manysuperstitious TermsandObservations, that they might thereby ingratiate themselves, and the more easily gain theHeathensto theirReligion; which Practice, though perhaps intended by them for Good, yet, as being the Fruit ofhuman Policy, and not according toGod’s Wisdom, has had very pernicious Consequences. I see not how any, whetherPapistsorProtestants, especially the latter, can in Reason quarrel with us for denying this Term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the Penmen of the Scriptures to leave unto us.
Obj. 1.But if it be said, Thatit is not the Name, but the Thing they contend for;
Answ.Ianswer; Let the Name then, as not beingscriptural, be laid aside, and we shall see at first Entrance how much Benefit will redound by laying aside this traditional Term, and betaking us to Plainness ofScripture Language. For presently the great Contest about the Number of them will vanish; seeing there is no Term used in Scripture that can be made use of, whether we call themInstitutions,Ordinances,Precepts,Commandments,Appointments, orLaws, &c. that would affordGround for such a Debate; since neither willPapistsaffirm, that there are onlyseven, orProtestantsonlytwo, of any of these aforementioned.
Obj. 2.If it be said, That thisControversy arises from the Definition of the Thing, as well as from the Name.
Answ.TheDefinitionofSacramentagrees to many other Things.It will be found otherwise: For whatever Way we take their Definition of aSacrament, whether as anoutward visible Sign, whereby inward Grace is conferred, or only signified, this Definition will agree to many Things, which neitherPapistsnorProtestantswill acknowledge to beSacraments. If they be expressed under the Name ofsealing Ordinances, as by some they are, I could never see, either by Reason or Scripture, how this Title could be appropriate to them, more than to any otherChristian,religious Performance:Whatsealing Ordinancedoth mean.For that must needs properly be asealing Ordinance, which makes thePersonsreceiving itinfallibly certain of the Promiseor Thingsealed to them.
Obj. 3.If it be said,It is so to them that are faithful;
Answ.Ianswer; So is Praying and Preaching, and doing of every good Work. Seeing the Partaking or Performing of the one gives not to any a more certain Title to Heaven, yea, in some Respect, not so much, there is no Reason to call them so, more than the other.
Besides, we find not any Thing called theSealandPledgeof ourInheritance, but theSpiritofGod. It is by that we are said to be sealed, Ephes. i. 14. and iv. 30. which is also termed theEarnest of our Inheritance, 2 Cor. i. 22. and not byoutward Water, orEatingandDrinking; which as the wickedest of Men may partake of, so many that do, do, notwithstanding it, go to Perdition.Thatoutward Washingdoth not cleanse theHeart.For it is notoutward Washing with Waterthat maketh theHeart clean, by which Men are fitted for Heaven: And as thatwhich goeth into the Mouth doth not defile a Man, because it is put forth again, and so goeth to theDunghill; neither doth any Thing which Man eateth purify him, or fit him for Heaven. What is said here in general may serve for an Introduction, not only to this Proposition, but also to the other concerning theSupper. Of theseSacraments(so called)Baptismis always first numbered, which is the Subject of the presentProposition; in the Explanation of which I shall first demonstrate and prove our Judgment, and then answer the Objections, and refute the Sentiments of our Opposers.Part I.As to the first Part, these Things following, which are briefly comprehended in the Proposition, come to be proposed and proved.
§. III.Prop. I.First,There is but one Baptism, as well as butone Lord, one Faith, &c.
Prop. II.Secondly,That this one Baptism, which is the Baptism of Christ, is not a Washing with, or Dipping in Water, but a being baptised by the Spirit.
Prop. III.Thirdly,That the Baptism ofJohnwas but a Figure of this; and therefore, as the Figure, to give Place to the Substance; which though it be to continue, yet the other ceaseth.
Prop. I.One Baptism proved.As for the First, viz.That there is but one Baptism, there needs no other Proof than the Words of the Text,Ephes.iv. 5.One Lord,one Faith,one Baptism: Where the Apostle positively and plainly affirms, that as there is butone Body,one Spirit,one Faith,one God, &c. so there is butone Baptism.
Obj. 1.As to what is commonly alleged by Way of Explanation upon the Text,That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this one Baptism, by Virtue of the sacramental Union;
Answ.Ianswer; This Exposition hath taken Place, not because grounded upon the Testimony of the Scripture, but because it wrests the Scripture to make it suit to their Principle ofWater-baptism; and so there needs no other Reply, but to deny it, as being repugnant to the plain Words of the Text;Whethertwo Baptismsmake up theOne.which saith not,That there are two Baptisms, to wit, one ofWater, the other of theSpirit, which do make upone Baptism; but plainly,that there is one Baptism, as there isone Faith, andone God. Now as there go nottwo Faiths, nortwo Gods, nortwo Spirits, nor twoBodies, whereof the one is outward and elementary, and the other spiritual and pure, to the making up theone Faith, theone God, theone Body, and theone Spirit; so neither ought there to gotwo Baptismsto make up theone Baptism.
Obj. 2.ButSecondly, if it be said,The Baptism is but one, whereof Water is the one Part, to wit, the Sign; and the Spirit, the Thing signified, the other;
Answ.IfWaterbe the Type, the Substance must remain.Ianswer; This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine: For if Water be only theSign, it is not theMatterof theone Baptism(as shall further hereafter by its Definition in Scripture appear) and we are to take theone Baptismfor theMatterof it, not for theSign, orFigureandTypethat went before. Even as where Christ is called theone Offeringin Scripture, though he was typified by manySacrificesandOfferingsunder the Law, we understand only by theone Offering, his offering himself upon the Cross; whereof though those manyOfferingswere Signs and Types, yet we say not that they go together with thatOffering of Christ, to make up theone Offering: So neither, thoughWater-baptismwas a Sign of Christ’sBaptism, will it follow, that it goeth now to make up theBaptism of Christ. If any should be so absurd as to affirm,That this one Baptism here was the Baptism of Water, and not of the Spirit; that were foolishly to contradict the positive Testimony of the Scripture, which saith the contrary; as by what followeth will more amply appear.
Prop. II.Secondly, That thisone Baptism, which is theBaptismofChrist, is not a Washing with Water, appears,Proof 1.The Difference betweenJohn’s Baptism andChrist’s.First, From the Testimony ofJohn, the proper and peculiar Administrator of Water-baptism,Matt.iii. 11.I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose Shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with Fire. HereJohnmentions two Manners ofbaptizing, and two differentBaptisms; the one with Water, and the other with the Spirit; the one whereof he was the Minister of; the other whereof Christ was the Minister of: And such as were baptized with the first, were not therefore baptized with the second:I indeed baptize you, but he shall baptize you. Though in the present Time they were baptized with the Baptism of Water; yet they were not as yet, but were to be, baptized with the Baptism of Christ. From all which I thus argue:
Arg. 1.If those that were baptized with the Baptism of Water, were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of Christ; then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ:
But the First is true: Therefore also the Last.
And again,
Arg. 2.If he, that truly and really administred the Baptism of Water, did notwithstanding declare, that he neither could, nor did, baptize with the Baptism of Christ; then the Baptism of Water is not the Baptism of Christ:
But the First is true: Therefore,&c.
And indeed to understand it otherwise, would makeJohn’s Words void of good Sense: For if their Baptisms had been all one, why should he have so precisely contra-distinguished them? Why should he have said, That those whom he had already baptized, should yet be baptized with another Baptism?
Object.If it be urged,That Baptism with Water was the one Part, and that with the Spirit the other Part, or Effect only of the former;
Answ.Ianswer; This Exposition contradicts the plain Words of the Text.OneBaptismis no Part nor Effect of the other.For he saith not,I baptize you with Water, and he that cometh after me shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit, &c. orhe shall accomplish this Baptism in you; but,He shall baptize you. So then, if we understand the Words truly and properly, when he saith,I baptize you, as consenting that thereby is really signified that he did baptize with the Baptism of Water; we must needs, unless we offer Violence to the Text, understand the other Part of the Sentence the same Way;viz.where he adds presently,But he shall baptize you, &c. that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another Baptism, than what he did baptize with: Else it had been Nonsense for him thus to have contra-distinguished them.
Proof 2.Secondly, This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself,Actsi. 4, 5.But wait for the Promise of the Father, which, saith he,ye have heard of me: ForJohntruly baptized with Water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many Days hence.Who were baptized byJohnwere still to wait forChrist’sBaptismwith the Spirit.There can scarce two Places of Scripture run more parallel than this doth with the former, a little before-mentioned; and therefore concludeth the same Way as did the other. For Christ here grants fully thatJohncompleated his Baptism, as to the Matter and Substance of it:John, saith he,truly baptized with Water; which is as much as if he had said,Johndid truly and fully administer the Baptism of Water;But ye shall be baptized with, &c. This sheweth that they were to be baptized with some other Baptism than the Baptism of Water; and that although they were formerly baptized with the Baptism of Water, yet not with that of Christ, which they were to be baptized with.
Proof 3.The Baptism with theHoly Ghostand that withWaterdiffer.Thirdly,Peterobserves the same Distinction,Actsxi. 16.Then remembered I the Word of the Lord, how that he said,Johnindeed baptized with Water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.The Apostle makes this Application upon theHoly Ghost’s Falling upon them; whence he infers, that they were then baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit. As to what is urged from his calling afterwards forWater, it shall be spoken to hereafter. From all whichthree Sentences, relative one to another, first ofJohn, secondly ofChrist, and thirdly ofPeter, it doth evidently follow, that such as were truly and really baptized with the Baptism of Water, were notwithstanding not baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit, which is that of Christ; and such as truly and really did administer the Baptism of Water, did, in so doing, not administer the Baptism of Christ. So that if there be now butone Baptism, as we have already proved, we may safely conclude that it is that of theSpirit, and not ofWater; else it would follow, that theone Baptism, which now continues, were theBaptism of Water, i. e.John’s Baptism, and not theBaptism of the Spirit, i. e.Christ’s; which were most absurd.
Object.If it be said further,That though the Baptism ofJohn, beforeChrist’s was administred, was different from it, as being the Figure only; yet now,that both it as the Figure, and that of the Spirit as the Substance, is necessary to make up the one Baptism;
Ianswer; This urgeth nothing, unless it be granted also that both of them belong to the Essence ofBaptism; so thatBaptismis not to be accounted as truly administred, where both are not; which none of our Adversaries will acknowledge: But on the contrary, account not only all those truly baptized with theBaptism of Christ,Water-baptism is not the true Baptism ofChrist.who are baptized withWater, though they be uncertain whether they be baptized with theSpirit, or not; but they even account such truly baptized with theBaptism of Christ, becausesprinkled, or baptized with Water, though it be manifest and most certain that they are not baptized with the Spirit, as being Enemies thereunto in their Hearts by wicked Works. So here, by their own Confession,Baptism with Wateris without the Spirit. Wherefore we may far safer conclude, that theBaptism of the Spirit, which is that ofChrist, is and may be without that ofWater; as appears in that ofActsxi. wherePetertestifies of these Men, thatthey were baptized with the Spirit, though then notbaptized with Water. And indeed the Controversy in this, as in most other Things, stands betwixt us and our Opposers, in that they oftentimes prefer the Form and Shadow to the Power and Substance; by denominating Persons as Inheritors and Possessors of the Thing, from their having the Form and Shadow, though really wanting the Power and Substance; and not admitting those to be so denominated, who have the Power and Substance, if they want the Form and Shadow. This appears evidently, in that they account those trulybaptizedwith theone Baptism of Christ, who are not baptized with theSpirit(which in Scripture is particularly called theBaptism of Christ) if they be only baptized with Water, which themselves yet confess to be but the Shadow or Figure.The Baptism of the Spirit needeth no Sprinkling or Dipping in Water.And moreover, in that they account not those who are surely baptized with theBaptism of the Spiritbaptized, neither will they have them so denominated, unless they be alsosprinkledwith, ordippedin Water: But we, on the contrary, do always preferthe Power to the Form, the Substance to the Shadow; and where the Substance and Power is, we doubt not to denominate the Person accordingly, though the Form be wanting. And therefore we always seek First, and plead for the Substance and Power, as knowing that to be indispensibly necessary, though the Form sometimes may be dispensed with, and the Figure or Type may cease, when the Substance and Anti-type come to be enjoyed, as it doth in this Case, which shall hereafter be made appear.
§. IV.Proof 4.Fourthly, That theone Baptism of Christis not a Washing with Water, appears from 1Pet.iii. 21.The like Figure[114]whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us (not the puttingaway of theFilth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God) by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a Definition ofBaptismis not in all the Bible; and therefore, seeing it is so plain, it may well be preferred to all the coined Definitions of theSchool-men.The plainest Definition of the Baptism of Christ in all the Bible.The Apostle tells us, firstnegatively, what it is not, viz.Not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh: Then surely it is not aWashingwith Water, since that is so.Secondly, He tells usaffirmativelywhat it is, viz.The Answer of a good Conscience towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ; where he affirmatively defines it to be theAnswer(orConfession, as theSyriackVersion hath it)of a good Conscience. Now thisAnswercannot be but where the Spirit of God hath purified the Soul, and the Fire of his Judgment hath burned up the unrighteous Nature; and those in whom this Work is wrought may be truly said to bebaptized with the Baptism of Christ, i. e.of the Spirit and of Fire. Whatever Way then we take this Definition of the Apostle ofChrist’s Baptism, it confirmeth our Sentence: For if we take the first or negative Part, viz.That it is not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, then it will follow thatWater-baptismis not it, because thatis a puttingaway of theFilth of the Flesh.Water-baptism shut out from the Baptism of Christ.If we take the second and affirmative Definition, to wit,That it is the Answeror Confessionof a good Conscience, &c. thenWater-baptismis not it; since, as our Adversaries will not deny,Water-baptismdoth not always imply it, neither is it any necessary Consequence thereof.Moreover, the Apostle in this Place doth seem especially to guard against those that might esteemWater-baptismthe trueBaptism of Christ; because (lest by the Comparison induced by him in the preceding Verse, betwixt the Souls that were saved inNoah’s Ark, and us that are now saved byBaptism; lest, I say, any should have thence hastily concluded, that because the Former were saved byWater, this Place must needs be taken to speak ofWater-baptism) to prevent such a Mistake, he plainly affirms, that it is not that, but another Thing. He saith not that it is theWater, orthe putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, as accompanied with the Answer of a good Conscience, whereof the one, viz.Water, is the sacramental Element, administered by the Minister; and the other, the Grace or Thing signified, conferred by Christ; but plainly,That it is not the putting away, &c. than which there can be nothing more manifest to Men unprejudicate and judicious. MoreoverPetercalls this here which saves [Greek: antitypon: αντιτυπον], theAnti-type, or theThing figured; whereas it is usually translated, as ifthe like Figure did now save us; thereby insinuating that as they were saved by Water in the Ark, so are we now byWater-baptism. But this Interpretation crosseth his Sense, he presently after declaring the contrary, as hath above been observed; and likewise it would contradict the Opinion of all our Opposers.TheProtestantsdenyingWater-baptismits absolute Necessity toMen’s Salvation; although thePapistssay,None can be saved without it, yet grant Exceptions.ForProtestantsdeny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation; and thoughPapistssay,none are saved without it, yet in this they admit an Exception, as ofMartyrs, &c. and they will not say that all that have it are saved byWater-baptism; which they ought to say, if they will understand byBaptism(by which the Apostle saith we are saved)Water-baptism. For seeing we are savedby this Baptism, as all those that were in the Arkwere saved by Water, it would then follow, that all those that have thisBaptismare saved by it. Now this Consequence would be false, if it were understood ofWater-baptism; because many, by the Confession of all, arebaptizedwithWaterthat are not saved; but this Consequence holds most true, if it be understood as we do, of theBaptismof theSpirit; since none can have this Answer of a good Conscience, and, abiding in it, not be saved by it.
[114]Or, as it should be translated,Whose Model Baptism does also now save us.
[114]Or, as it should be translated,Whose Model Baptism does also now save us.
Proof 5.Fifthly,That the one Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water, as it hath been proved by the Definition of theone Baptism, so it is also manifest from the necessary Fruits and Effects of it, which are three Times particularly expressed by the ApostlePaul;The Effects and Fruits of the Baptism ofChrist.as first,Rom.vi. 3, 4. where he saith,That so many of them as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his Death, buried with him by Baptism into Death, that they should walk in Newness of Life. Secondly, to theGalatiansiii. 27. he saith positively,For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. And thirdly, to theColossiansii. 12. he saith, That they wereburied with him in Baptism, and risenwith him through the Faith of the Operation of God. It is to be observed here, that the Apostle speaks generally, without anyexclusive Term, butcomprehensiveof all. He saith not,Some of you that were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, butas many of you; which is as much as if he had said,Every one of you that hath been baptized into Christ, hath put on Christ. Whereby it is evident that this is not meant ofWater-baptism, but of theBaptismof theSpirit;Which EffectsWater-baptismwants.because else it would follow, that whosoever had beenbaptizedwithWater-baptismhad put onChrist, and wererisenwith him, which all acknowledge to be most absurd. Now supposing all the visible Members of the Churches ofRome,Galatia, andColossehad been outwardly baptized with Water (I do not say they were, but our Adversaries will not only readily grant it, but also contend for it) suppose, I say, the Case so, they will not say they hadall put on Christ, since divers Expressions in theseEpistlesto them shew the contrary. So that the Apostle cannot meanBaptismwithWater; and yet that he meaneth theBaptismofChrist, i. e.of the Spirit, cannot be denied; or that theBaptismwherewith these werebaptized(of whom the Apostle here testifies that they hadput on Christ) was theone Baptism, I think none will call in Question. Now admit, as our Adversaries contend, that many in these Churches who had beenbaptizedwithWaterhad notput on Christ, it will follow, that notwithstanding thatWater-baptism, they were not baptizedinto Christ, or with theBaptism ofChrist, seeingas many of them as were baptizedintoChrist had put on Christ, &c. From all which I thus argue:
Arg. 1.If theBaptismwithWaterwere the oneBaptism,i. e.theBaptismofChrist, as many as were baptized withWaterwould have put on Christ:
But the Last is false: Therefore also the First.
And again:
Arg. 2.Since as many as are baptized intoChrist, i. e.with theone Baptism,which is theBaptismofChrist,have put onChrist,thenWater-baptismis not the oneBaptism,viz. theBaptismofChrist:
But the First is true: Therefore also the Last.
§. V.Prop. III.Proved.Thirdly,SinceJohn’s Baptismwas a Figure, and seeing the Figure gives Way to the Substance, although the Thing figured remain, to wit, theone BaptismofChrist,yet the other ceaseth, which was theBaptismofJohn.
I.John’s Baptism was a Figure ofChrist’s.ThatJohn’s Baptism was a Figure ofChrist’s Baptism, I judge will not readily be denied; but in Case it should, it can easily be proved from the Nature of it.John’s Baptism wasa being baptized with Water, butChrist’s isa Baptizing with the Spirit; thereforeJohn’s Baptism must have been a Figure ofChrist’s. But further, that Water-Baptism wasJohn’s Baptism, will not be denied: That Water-baptism is notChrist’s Baptism, is already proved. From which doth arise the Confirmation of our Proposition thus:
There is no Baptism to continue now, but theone Baptismof Christ:
ThereforeWater-baptismis not to continue now, because it is not the one Baptism ofChrist.
II.John’s Baptism is ceased our Opposers confess.ThatJohn’s Baptism is ceased, many of our Adversaries confess; but if any should allege it is otherwise, it may be easily proved by the express Words ofJohn, not only as being insinuated there, where he contra-distinguisheth his Baptism from that ofChrist, but particularly where he saith,Johniii. 30.He[Christ]must increase, but I[John]must decrease. From whence it clearly follows, that theIncreasingor taking Place ofChrist’s Baptism is theDecreasingor Abolishing ofJohn’s Baptism; so that if Water-baptism was a particular Part ofJohn’s Ministry, and is no Part ofChrist’s Baptism, as we have already proved, it will necessarily follow that it is not to continue.
Arg.Secondly,ifWater-baptismhad been to continue a perpetual Ordinance of Christ in his Church, he would either have practised it himself, or commanded his Apostles so to do.
But that he practised it not, theScriptureplainly affirms,Johniv. 2. And that he commanded his Disciples tobaptizewithWater, I could never yet read. As for what is alleged, that,Matt.xxviii. 19. &c. where he bids thembaptize, is to be understood ofWater-baptism, that is but to beg the Question, and the Grounds for that shall be hereafter examined.
Therefore tobaptizewithWateris no perpetual Ordinance of Christ to his Church.
This hath had the more Weight with me, because I find not any standingOrdinance or AppointmentofChristnecessary to Christians, for which we have not either Christ’s own Practice or Command, as to obey all the Commandments which comprehend both our Duty towards God and Man,&c.and where theGospelrequires more than theLaw, which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th Chapters ofMatthew, and elsewhere. Besides, as to the Duties of Worship, he exhorts us to meet, promising his Presence; commands topray,preach,watch, &c. and gives Precepts concerning some temporary Things, as theWashingofone another’s Feet, theBreakingofBread, hereafter to be discussed; only for this one Thing ofBaptizingwithWater, though so earnestly contended for, we find not any Precept of Christ.
§. VI.III.TheGospelputs an End tocarnal Ordinances.But to make Water-baptism a necessaryInstitutionof theChristian Religion, which is pure and spiritual, and not carnal and ceremonial, is to derogate from theNew Covenant Dispensation, and set up thelegal RitesandCeremonies, of which this ofBaptism, orWashingwithWater, was one, as appears fromHeb.ix. 10. wherethe Apostle speaking thereof saith, that it stoodonly in Meats and Drinks, and divers Baptisms, and carnal Ordinances, imposed until the Time of Reformation. If then the Time of Reformation, or the Dispensation of theGospel, which puts an End to the Shadows, be come, then suchBaptismsand carnalOrdinancesare no more to be imposed. For how Baptism withWatercomes now to be aSpiritual Ordinance, more than before in the Time of theLaw, doth not appear, seeing it is butWaterstill, and a Washing of the outward Man, and a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh still: And as before, those that were so washed, were not thereby made perfect, as pertaining to theConscience, neither are they at this Day, as our Adversaries must needs acknowledge, and Experience abundantly sheweth. So that the Matter of it, which is a Washing with Water, and the Effect of it, which is only an outward Cleansing, being still the same, how comes Water-baptism to be less a carnal Ordinance now than before?
Obj. 1.If it be said, ThatGod confers inward Grace upon some that are now baptized;
Answ.So no Doubt he did also upon some that used those Baptisms among theJews.
Obj. 2.Or if it be said,Because it is commanded by Christ now, under the New Covenant;
Answ.I answer,First, That is to beg the Question; of which hereafter.
ButSecondly, We find that where the Matter of Ordinances is the same, and the End the same, they are never accounted more or less spiritual, because of their different Times. Now was not God the Author of thePurificationsandBaptismsunder theLaw? Was not Water the Matter of them, which is so now? Was not the End of them to signify an inward Purifying by an outward Washing? And is not that alleged to be the End still?Men are no morenowthanbeforebyWater-baptisminwardly cleansed.And are the necessary Effects or Consequences of it any better now than before, since Men are now by the Virtue of Water-baptism, as a necessary Consequence of it, no more than before made inwardly clean? And if some by God’s Grace that are baptized with Water are inwardly purified, so were some also under the Law; so that this is not any necessary Consequence or Effect, neither of this nor that Baptism. It is then plainly repugnant to right Reason, as well as to the Scripture Testimony, to affirmthatto be a spiritual Ordinance now, which was a carnal Ordinance before, if it be still the same, both as to its Author, Matter, and End, however made to vary in some small Circumstances. The Spirituality of theNew Covenantand of itsWorshipestablished by Christ, consisted not in such superficial Alterations of Circumstances, but after another Manner. Therefore let our Adversaries shew us, if they can, without begging the Question, and building upon some one or other of their own Principles denied by us,whereverChrist appointed or ordained any Institution or Observation under theNew Covenant, as belonging to the Nature of it, or such a necessary Part of itsWorshipas is perpetually to continue; which being one in Substance and Effects (I speak of necessary, not accidental Effects) yet, because of some small Difference in Form or Circumstance, was before carnal, notwithstanding it was commanded by God under theLaw, but now is become spiritual, because commanded by Christ under theGospel? And if they cannot do this, then if Water-baptism was once a carnal Ordinance, as the Apostle positively affirms it to have been, it remains a carnal Ordinance still; and if a carnal Ordinance, then no necessary Part of theGospelorNew Covenant Dispensation; and if no necessary Part of it, then not needful to continue, nor to be practised by such as live and walk under thisDispensation. But in this, as in most other Things, according as we have often observed, our Adversariesjudaize, and renouncing thegloriousandspiritual Privilegesof the New Covenant, are sticking in and cleaving to the Rudiments of the Old, both inDoctrineandWorship, as being more suited and agreeable to their carnal Apprehensions and natural Senses.TheLawdistinguished from theGospel.But we, on the contrary, travail above all to lay hold upon and cleave unto theLightof theglorious Gospelrevealed unto us. And the Harmony of the Truth we professin this may appear, by briefly observing how in all Things we follow thespiritual Gospel of Christ, as contra-distinguished from the Carnality of thelegal Dispensation; while our Adversaries, through rejecting thisGospel, are still labouring under the Burden of theLaw, which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear.
The outwardBaptism,Worship,Law, distinguished from the inward.For the Law and Rule of theOld CovenantandJewswas outward, written in Tables of Stone and Parchment;so also is that of our Adversaries. But the Law of theNew Covenantis inward and perpetual, written in the Heart;so is ours.
The Worship of theJewswas outward and carnal, limited to set Times, Places, and Persons, and performed according to set prescribed Forms and Observations;so is that of our Adversaries. But the Worship of theNew Covenantis neither limited to Time, Place, nor Person, but is performed in the Spirit and in Truth; and it is not acted according to set Forms and Prescriptions, but as the Spirit of God immediately actuates, moves, and leads, whether it be to preach, pray, or sing;and such is also our Worship.
So likewise theBaptismamong theJewsunder the Law was anoutward Washingwithoutward Water, only to typify an inward Purification of the Soul, which did not necessarily follow upon those that were thus baptized; but the Baptism of Christ under the Gospel is the Baptism of the Spirit and of Fire;not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God; and such is the Baptism that we labour to be baptized withal, and contend for.
§. VII.Arg.But again, If Water-baptism had been an Ordinance of the Gospel, then the ApostlePaulwould have been sent to administer it; but he declares positively, 1Cor.i. 17.That Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. The Reason of that Consequence is undeniable, because the ApostlePaul’s Commission was as large as that of any of them; and consequently he being in special Manner the Apostle of Christ to theGentiles,IV.ThatWater-baptismis no Badge ofChristians, likeCircumcisionof theJews.if Water-baptism, as our Adversaries contend, be to be accounted theBadge of Christianity, he had more Need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water, that he might mark theGentilesconverted by himwith thatChristian Sign. But indeed the Reason holds better thus, that sincePaulwas the Apostle of theGentiles, and that in his Ministry he doth through all (as by hisEpistlesappears) labour to wean them from the formerJewish CeremoniesandObservations(though in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his Brethren, who were unwilling to lay aside thoseCeremonies) therefore his Commission, though as full as to the Preaching of theGospelandNew Covenant Dispensationas that of the other Apostles, did not require of him that he should lead those Converts into suchJewish ObservationsandBaptisms, however that Practice was indulged in and practised by the other Apostles among theirJewish Proselytes; for which Cause[115]he thanks God that he had baptized so few: Intimating that what he did therein he did not by Virtue of his Apostolick Commission,Paulwas not sent to baptize.but rather in Condescension to their Weakness, even as at another Time he circumcisedTimothy.
[115]1 Cor. i. 14.
[115]1 Cor. i. 14.
Obj. 1.Our Adversaries, to evade the Truth of this Testimony, usually allege,That by this is only to be understood, that he was not sent principally to baptize, not that he was not sent at all.
Answ.But this Exposition, since it contradicts the positive Words of the Text, and has no better Foundation than the Affirmation of its Assertors, is justly rejected asspurious, until they bring some better Proof for it. He saith not,I was not sentprincipallyto baptize, butI wasnotsent to baptize.
Confir.As for what they urge, by Way of Confirmation, from other Places of Scripture, where [not] is to be so taken, as where it is said,[116]I will have Mercy, andnotSacrifice, which is to be understood that God requires principallyMercy, not excludingSacrifice:
[116]Matt. 9. 15. Hos. 6. 6.
[116]Matt. 9. 15. Hos. 6. 6.
Refut.I say this Place is abundantly explained by the following Words [and the Knowledge of God more than Burnt-offerings;] by which it clearly appears thatBurnt-offerings, which are one withSacrifices, are not excluded; but there is no such Word added in that ofPaul, and therefore the Parity is not demonstrated to be alike, and consequently the Instance not sufficient, unless they can prove that itought so to be admitted here; else we might interpret by the same Rule all other Places of Scripture the same Way, as where the Apostle saith, 1Cor.ii. 5.That your Faith might not stand in the Wisdom of Men, but in the Power of God, it might be understood, it shall not standprincipally so. How might the Gospel, by this Liberty of Interpretation, be perverted?
Obj. 2.If it be said,That the Abuse of this Baptism among theCorinthians, in dividing themselves according to the Persons by whom they were baptized, made the Apostle speak so; but that the Abuse of a Thing doth not abolish it;
Answ.Ianswer, It is true, it doth not, provided the Thing be lawful and necessary; and that no Doubt the Abuse abovesaid gave the Apostle Occasion so to write. But let it from this be considered how the Apostle excludesBaptizing, notPreaching, though the Abuse [mark] proceeded from that, no less than from the other. For theseCorinthiansdid denominate themselves from those different Persons by whosePreaching(as well as from those by whom they werebaptized) they were converted, as by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Verses of Chap. iii. may appear:ThatPreachingis a standing Ordinance, and not to be forborne.And yet to remove that Abuse the Apostle doth not say, He was not sent to preach, nor yet doth he rejoice that he had only preached to a few; becausePreaching, being a standing Ordinance in the Church, is not, because of any Abuse that the Devil may tempt any to make of it, to be forborne by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God: Wherefore the Apostle accordingly,Chap.iii. 8, 9. informs them, as to that, how to remove that Abuse. But as to Water-baptism, for that it was no standing Ordinance of Christ, but only practised as in Condescension to theJews, and by some Apostles to someGentilesalso, therefore, so soon as the Apostle perceived the Abuse of it, he let theCorinthiansunderstand how little Stress was to be laid upon it, by shewing them that he was glad that he had administered this Ceremony to so few of them; and by telling them plainly that it was no Part of his Commission, neither that which he was sent to administer.
Query.Some ask us,How we know that baptizing here is meant ofWater, and not of theSpirit; which if it be, then it will exclude Baptism of theSpirit, as well as ofWater?
Answ.Ianswer, Such as ask the Question, I suppose, speak it not as doubting that this was said of Water-baptism, which is more than manifest.That which converts toChristis the Baptism of the Spirit.For since the ApostlePaul’s Message was,To turn People from Darkness to Light, andconvert them to God; and that as many as are thus turned and converted, (so as to have the Answer of a good Conscience toward God, and to have put on Christ, and be risen with him in Newness of Life) are baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit. But who will say that only those few mentioned there to be baptized byPaulwere come to this? Or that to turn or bring them to this Condition was not, even admitting our Adversaries Interpretation, as principal a Part ofPaul’s Ministry as any other? Since then our Adversaries do take this Place forWater-baptism, as indeed it is, we may lawfully, taking it so also, urge it upon them. Why the WordBaptismandBaptizingis used by the Apostle, where that ofWaterand not of theSpiritis only understood, shall hereafter be spoken to.Part 2.I come now to consider the Reasons alleged by such as plead forWater-baptism, which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it.
§. VIII.Obj. 1.First, Some object,[117]That Christ, who had the Spirit above Measure, was notwithstanding baptized with Water. AsNic. Arnoldusagainst thisThesis, Sect. 46. of hisTheological Exercitation.
[117]John 3. 34.
[117]John 3. 34.
Answ.Ianswer, So was he alsocircumcised; it will not follow from thence thatCircumcisionis to continue:WhyChristwasbaptizedbyJohn.For it behoved Christ to fulfil all Righteousness, not only the Ministry ofJohn, but theLawalso, therefore did he observe theJewish FeastsandRites, and keep thePassover. It will not thence follow thatChristiansought to do so now; and therefore Christ,Matt.iii. 15. givesJohnthis Reason of his being baptized, desiring him tosuffer it to be so now; whereby he sufficiently intimates that he intended not thereby to perpetuate it as an Ordinance to his Disciples.
Obj. 2.Secondly, They object,Matt.xxviii. 19.Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Answ.This is the great Objection, and upon which they build the wholeSuperstructure; whereunto the first general and soundAnsweris, by granting the whole;What BaptismChristdoth mean inMat. 28.but putting them to prove thatWateris here meant, since the Text is silent of it. And though in Reason it be sufficient upon our Part that we concede the whole expressed in the Place, but deny that it is byWater, which is an Addition to the Text, yet I shall premise some Reasons why we do so, and then consider the Reasons alleged by those that will haveWaterto be here understood.
Arg. 1.TheFirstis a Maxim yielded to by all,That we ought not to go from the literal Signification of the Text, except some urgent Necessity force us thereunto.
But no urgent Necessity in this Place forceth us thereunto:
Therefore we ought not to go from it.
Arg. 2.Secondly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was the one Baptism,id est, his own Baptism:
But the one Baptism, which is Christ’s Baptism, is not withWater, as we have already proved:
Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was notWater-baptism.
Arg. 3.Thirdly, That Baptism which Christ commanded his Apostles was such, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Christ:
But this is not true ofWater-baptism:
Therefore,&c.
Arg. 4.Fourthly, The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was notJohn’s Baptism:
But Baptism with Water wasJohn’s Baptism:
Therefore,&c.
Alleg.1.ButFirst, They allege,That Christ’s Baptism, though a Baptism with Water, did differ fromJohn’s, becauseJohnonly baptized with Water untoRepentance, but Christ commands his Disciples to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; reckoning that in this Form there lieth a great Difference betwixt the Baptism ofJohnand that ofChrist.
Ianswer, In thatJohn’s Baptism was unto Repentance, the Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ’s also; yea, our Adversaries will not deny but thatadult Personsthat are to be baptized ought, ere they are admitted toWater-baptism, to repent, and confess their Sins: And thatInfantsalso, with a Respect to and Consideration of their Baptism, ought to repent and confess; so that the Difference lieth not here, since this of Repentance and Confession agrees as well toChrist’s as toJohn’s Baptism. But in this ourAdversariesare divided; forCalvinwill haveChrist’s andJohn’s to be all one,Inst. Lib. 4. Cap. 15. Sect. 7, 8.yet they do differ, and the Difference is, in that the one is by Water, the other not,&c.
Secondly, As to what Christ saith, in commanding them tobaptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, I confess that states the Difference, and it is great; but that lies not only in admittingWater-baptismin this different Form, by a bare Expressing of these Words: For as the Text says no such Thing, neither do I see how it can be inferred from it.Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture.For the Greek is [Greek: eis to onoma: εις το ονομα], that is,into the Name; now theNameof theLordis often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare Sound of Words, or literal Expression, even for hisVirtueandPower, as may appear fromPsal.liv. 3.Cant.i. 3.Prov.xviii. 10. and in many more.TheBaptisminto theName, what it is.Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nationsinto this Name,Virtue, andPower, and that they did so, is evident by these Testimonies ofPaulabove-mentioned, where he saith,That as many of them as were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; this must have been aBaptizing into the Name, i. e.PowerandVirtue, and not a mere formal Expression of Words adjoined with Water-baptism; because, as hath been above observed, it doth not follow as a natural or necessary Consequence of it. I would have those who desire to have their Faith built upon no other Foundation than the Testimony ofGod’s Spirit, andScripturesofTruth, throughly to consider whether there can be any Thing further alleged for this Interpretation than what the Prejudice of Education and Influence of Tradition hath imposed. Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderateReader, as if the very Character ofChristianitywere abolished, to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood ofbaptizing with Water, and that this Form ofBaptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, hath no Warrant fromMatt.xxviii.&c.
Whether Christ did prescribe a Form ofBaptisminMatt. 28.For which, besides the Reason taken from the Signification of [the Name] as being theVirtueandPowerabove expressed, let it be considered, that if it had been aFormprescribed by Christ to his Apostles, then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administering ofWater-baptismto such as they baptized with Water; but though particular Mention be made in divers Places of theActswho were baptized, and how; and though it be particularly expressed that theybaptizedsuch and such, asActsii. 41. and viii. 12, 13. 38. and ix. 18. and x. 48. and xvi. 15. and xviii. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form. And in two Places,Actsviii. 16. and xix. 5. it is said of some that they werebaptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus; by which it yet more appears, that either the Author of thisHistoryhath been very defective, who having so often Occasion to mention this, yet omitteth so substantial a Part ofBaptism(which were to accuse theHoly Ghost, by whose GuidanceLukewrote it) or else that the Apostles did no Ways understand thatChristby his Commission,Matt.xxviii. did enjoin them such a Form ofWater-baptism, seeing they did not use it. And therefore it is safer to conclude, that what they did in administeringWater-baptism, they did not by Virtue of that Commission, else they would have so used it; for our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a greatHeresyto administerWater-baptismwithout that, or only in theName of Jesus, without Mention ofFather, orSpirit, as it is expresly said they did, in the two Places above-cited.
Alleg. 2.Secondly, They say,If this were not understood ofWater-baptism,it would be a Tautology, and all one withTeaching.
Answ.I say,Nay: Baptizing with the Spiritis somewhat further than teaching, or informing the Understanding;How Teaching and Baptizing differ.for it imports aReaching to, andmelting the Heart, whereby it isturned, as well as theUnderstanding informed. Besides, we find often in the Scripture, thatTeachingandInstructingare put together, without any Absurdity, or needless Tautology; and yet these two have a greater Affinity thanTeachingandBaptizingwith theSpirit.
Alleg. 3.Thirdly, They say,Baptism in this Place must be understood withWater, because it is the Action of the Apostles; and so cannot be the Baptism of the Spirit, which is the Work of Christ, and his Grace; not of Man, &c.
Answ.The Baptism with theSpiritascribed to godly Men as Instruments.I answer;Baptism with the Spirit, though not wrought withoutChristand hisGrace, is instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that Purpose; and therefore no Absurdity follows, thatBaptismwith theSpiritshould be expressed as the Action of the Apostles. For though it be Christ by his Grace that givesspiritual Gifts, yet the Apostle,Rom.i. 11. speaks ofHISimparting to them spiritual Gifts; and he tells theCorinthians, thatHEhadbegotten them through the Gospel, 1 Cor. iv. 15. And yet to beget People to theFaith, is the Work ofChristand hisGrace, not of Men. To convert the Heart, is properly the Work of Christ; and yet the Scripture oftentimes ascribes it to Men, as being the Instruments: And sincePaul’s Commission was,To turn People from Darkness to Light(though that be not done withoutChristco-operating by his Grace) so may alsoBaptizing with the Spiritbe expressed, as performable by Man as the Instrument, though the Work ofChrist’sGracebe needful to concur thereunto. So that it is no Absurdity to say, That the Apostles did administer theBaptismof theSpirit.
Alleg. 4.Lastly, They say,That since Christ saith here, that he will be with his Disciples to the End of the World, thereforeWater-baptismmust continue so long.
Answ.If he had been speaking here of Water-baptism, then that might have been urged; but seeing that is denied, and proved to be false, nothing from thence can be gathered: He speaking of the Baptism of theSpirit, which we freely confess doth remain to the End of the World; yea, so long as Christ’s Presence abideth with his Children.
§. IX.Obj. 3.Thirdly, They objectthe constant Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church, who, they say,did always administerWater-baptismto such as they converted to the Faith of Christ; and hence also they further urge that ofMatt. xxviii.to have been meant ofWater; or else the Apostles did not understand it, because inbaptizingthey usedWater; or that in so doing they walked without a Commission.
Answ.Ianswer, That it was theconstant Practice of the Apostles, is denied; for we have shewn, in the Example ofPaul, that it was not so; since it were most absurd to judge that he converted only those few, even of the Church ofCorinth, whom he saith he baptized; nor were it less absurd to think that that was aconstant apostolick Practice, which he, who was not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles, and who declares he laboured as much as they all, rejoiceth he was so little in. But further; the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice ofbaptizing with Water, to evince that they understoodMatt.xxviii. of Water-baptism, doth not hold:How theApostlesbaptized.For though they baptized with Water, it will not follow that either they did it by Virtue of that Commission, or that they mistook that Place; nor can there be anyMediumbrought, that will infer such a Conclusion. As to the other insinuated Absurdity,That they did it without a Commission; it is none at all: For they might have done it by aPermission, as being in use beforeChrist’s Death; and because the People, nursed up with outward Ceremonies, could not be weaned wholly from them. And thus they used other Things, asCircumcision, andlegal Purifications, which yet they had no Commission from Christ to do: To which we shall speak more at Length in the followingProposition, concerning theSupper.
Object.But if from theSamenessof the Word, because Christ bids thembaptize, and they afterwards in the Use of Water are said tobaptize, it be judged probablethat they did understand that Commission, Matt. xxviii.to authorize them to baptize withWater,and accordingly practised it;
Answ.Although it should be granted, that for a Season they did so far mistake it, as to judge thatWaterbelonged to that Baptism, (which however I find no Necessity of granting) yet I see not any great Absurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that Commission, as to a main Part of it, for a Season; as where he bids themGo, teach all Nations; since some Time after they judged it unlawful to teach theGentiles;The Apostles did scruple the Teaching theGentiles.yea,Peterhimself scrupled it, until by a Vision constrained thereunto; for which, after he had done it, he was for a Season (until they were better informed) judged by the rest of his Brethren. Now, if the Education of the Apostles asJews, and their Propensity to adhere and stick to theJewish Religion, did so far influence them, that even after Christ’sResurrection, and thePouring forthof theSpirit, they could not receive nor admit of the Teaching of theGentiles, though Christ, in his Commission to them, commanded them to preach to them; what further Absurdity were it to suppose, that, through the like Mistake, the chiefest of them having been the Disciples ofJohn, and his Baptism being so much prized there among theJews, they also took Christ’s Baptism, intended by him of the Spirit, to be that of Water, which wasJohn’s, and accordingly practised it for a Season? It suffices us, that if they were so mistaken, (though I say not that they were so) they did not always remain under that Mistake: ElsePeterwould not have said of the Baptism which now saves,That it is not a putting away of the Filth of the Flesh, which certainly Water-baptism is.
But further, They urge muchPeter’s baptizingCornelius; in which they press two Things, First,That Water-baptism is used, even to thosethat had received the Spirit. Secondly,That it is said positively, He commanded them to be baptized, Acts x. 47, 48.
But neither of these doth necessarily infer Water-baptism to belong to theNew Covenant Dispensation, nor yet to be a perpetual standingOrdinancein the Church.WhetherPeter’s baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church.ForFirst, All that this will amount to, was, ThatPeterat that Time baptized these Men; but that he did it by Virtue of that Commission,Matt.xxviii. remains yet to be proved. And how doth the Baptizing with Water, after the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, prove the Case, more than the Use ofCircumcision, and otherlegal Rites, acknowledged to have been performed by him afterwards? Also, it is no Wonder ifPeter, who thought it so strange (notwithstanding all that had been professed before, and spoken by Christ) that theGentilesshould be made Partakers of the Gospel, and with great Difficulty, not without an extraordinary Impulse thereunto, was brought to come to them, and eat with them, was apt to put this Ceremony upon them; which being, as it were, the particular Dispensation ofJohn, theForerunnerof Christ, seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel, than the otherJewish Ceremoniesthen used by theChurch; but that will no ways infer our Adversaries Conclusion.Secondly, As to these Words,And he commanded them to be baptized; it declareth Matter ofFact, not ofRight, and amounteth to no more, than thatPeterdid at that Time,pro hic & nunc, command those Persons to bebaptized with Water, which is not denied: But it saith nothing thatPetercommanded Water-baptism to be a standing and perpetual Ordinance to the Church; neither can any Man of sound Reason say, if he heed what he says, That a Command inMatter of Factto particular Persons, doth infer theThing commandedto be of general Obligation to all, if it be not otherwise founded upon some positive Precept. Why dothPeter’s commandingCorneliusand his Houshold to be baptized at that Time inferWater-baptismto continue, more than his constraining (which is more thancommanding) theGentilesin General to becircumcised, and observe theLaw? We find at that Time, whenPeterbaptizedCornelius, it was not yet determined whether theGentilesshould not becircumcised; but on the contrary, it was the most general Sense of theChurchthatthey should: And therefore no Wonder if they thought it needful at that Time that they should be baptized; which had more Affinity with the Gospel, and was a Burthen less grievous.
§. X.Obj. 4.Fourthly, They objectfrom the Signification of the Word[baptize]which is as much as todipandwashwithWater; alleging thence that the very Word imports a being baptized withWater.
Answ.This Objection is very weak.Baptizingsignifies Dipping or Washing with Water.For sincebaptizingwith Water was a Rite among theJews, asPaulus Ricciussheweth, even before the Coming ofJohn; and that the Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice, as used both by theJewsand byJohn; yet we find that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more spiritual Signification.Circumcisionwas only used and understood among theJewsto bethat of the Flesh; but the Apostle tells us of theCircumcision of the Heart and Spirit made without Hands. So that though Baptism was used among theJewsonly to signify aWashing with Water, yet bothJohn, Christ, and his Apostles, speak of a beingbaptized with the Spirit, and with Fire; which they make the peculiar Baptism of Christ, as contra-distinguished from that ofWater, which wasJohn’s, as is above shewn. So that though Baptism among theJewswas only understood ofWater, yet amongChristiansit is very well understood of theSpiritwithoutWater: As we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand Things, under the Terms of what had beenShadowsbefore. Thus Christ, speaking of hisBody, (though theJewsmistook him) said,Destroy this Temple, and in three Days I will raise it up; and many more that might be instanced. But if theEtymologyof the Word should be tenaciously adhered to, it would militate against most of our Adversaries, as well as against us:[Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω]immergo,intingo, to plunge and dip in.For the Greek [Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω] signifiesimmergo, that is, toplungeanddip in; and that was the proper Use of Water-baptism among theJews, and also byJohn, and the primitive Christians, who used it; whereas our Adversaries, for the most Part, onlysprinklea little Water upon the Forehead, which doth not at all answer to the Word [Baptism.]Those that of old usedWater-baptismweredippedandplunged, and those that were onlysprinkled, were not admitted to any Office in the Church,and why.Yea, those of old among Christians that used Water-baptism, thought thisDippingorPlungingso needful, that they thusdippedChildren: And forasmuch as it was judged that it might prove hurtful to some weak Constitutions,Sprinkling, to prevent that Hurt, was introduced; yet then it was likewise appointed, that such as were onlysprinkled, and notdipped, should not be admitted to have any Office in the Church, as not being sufficientlybaptized. So that if our Adversaries will stick to the Word, they must alter their Method ofSprinkling.
Obj. 5.Fifthly, They object,Johniii. 5.Except a Man be born ofWater, and of theSpirit, &c. hence inferring the Necessity ofWater-baptism, as well as of the Spirit.
Answ.But if this prove any Thing, it will prove Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity; and thereforeProtestantsrightly affirm, when this is urged upon them byPapists, to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism, that [Water] is not here understood of outward Water;The Water that regenerates, is mystical and inward.but mystically, of an inward Cleansing and Washing. Even as where Christ speaks of beingbaptized with Fire, it is not to be understood of outward material Fire, but only of purifying, by aMetonymy; because topurifyis a proper Effect of Fire, as towashandmake cleanis of Water; where it can as little be so understood, as where we are said to besaved by the Washing of Regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. Yea,Petersaith expresly, in the Place often cited, asCalvinwell observes,[118]That theBaptismwhich saves, is not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh. So that since [Water] cannot be understood of outward Water, this can serve nothing to prove Water-baptism.
[118]In the 4th Book of hisInstit.C. 15.
[118]In the 4th Book of hisInstit.C. 15.
Object.If it be said, That [Water]imports herenecessitatem præcepti,though notmedii;
Answ.Ianswer, That is first to take it for granted that outward Water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have already proved.Necessitas præceptiandmediiurged.Next,Waterand theSpiritare placed here together, [Except a Man be born ofWaterand theSpirit] where the Necessity of the one is urged as much as of the other. Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary, so will also Water; and then we must either say, thatto be born of the Spiritis not absolutely necessary, which all acknowledge to be false; or else, thatWateris absolutely necessary; which, asProtestants, we affirm, and have proved, is false: Else we must confess, thatWateris not here understood of outward Water. For to say that whenWaterand theSpiritare placed here just together, and in the same Manner, though there be not any Difference or Ground for it visible in the Text, or deducible from it, That theNecessityofWateris herepræcepti, but notmedii, but theNecessityof theSpiritis bothmediiandpræcepti, is indeed confidently to affirm, but not to prove.
Obj. 6.Sixthlyandlastly, They object,That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge to distinguishChristiansfromInfidels,even as Circumcision did theJews.
Answ.Ianswer, This saith nothing at all, unless it be proved to be anecessary Precept, or Part of theNew Covenant Dispensation; it not being lawful for us to impose outwardCeremoniesandRites, and say, They will distinguish us fromInfidels.Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant.Circumcisionwas positively commanded, and said to be aSeal of the first Covenant; but as we have already proved that there is no such Command for Baptism,Water-baptism falsely called aBadgeof Christianity.so there is not any Word in all the New Testament, calling it aBadge of Christianity, orSeal of the New Covenant: And therefore to conclude it is so, becauseCircumcisionwas so, (unless some better Proof be alleged for it) is miserably to beg the Question.Which is theBadgeof Christianity.The Professing of Faith in Christ, and a holy Life answering thereunto, is a far betterBadgeofChristianitythan any outward Washing; which yet answers not tothat ofCircumcision, since that affixed a Character in the Flesh, which this doth not: So that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his beingbaptized, especially when he was a Child, unless he tell them so much:What theFatherssay of Water-baptism, and of the Sign of the Cross.And may not the Professing ofFaith in Christsignify that as well? I know there are divers of those called theFathers, that speak much of Water-baptism, calling itCharacterem Christianitatis: But so did they also of the Sign of theCross, and other such Things, justly rejected byProtestants.HeathenishCeremonies introduced into the Christian Worship.For theMystery of Iniquity, which began to work in the Apostles Days, soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of the Christian Worship; insomuch that not only manyJewish Riteswere retained, but manyHeathenish CustomsandCeremoniesintroduced into the Christian Worship; as particularly that Word [Sacrament.] So that it is a great Folly, especially forProtestants, to plead any Thing of this fromTraditionorAntiquity; For we find that neitherPapistsnorProtestantsuse those Rites exactly as theAncientsdid; who in such Things, not walking by the most certain Rule of God’s Spirit, but doting too much upon Externals, were very uncertain. For most of them all, in the primitive Times, did whollyplungeanddipthose they baptized, which neitherPapists, nor mostProtestants, do: Yea, several of theFathersaccused some asHereticksin their Days, for holding some Principles common withProtestantsconcerning it; as particularlyAugustinedoth thePelagians, for saying thatInfants dying unbaptized may be saved. And theManicheeswere condemned, for denying thatGrace is Universally given by Baptism; andJulianthePelagianbyAugustine, for denyingExorcism and Insufflation in the Use of Baptism:Exorcism or Adjuration.All which ThingsProtestantsdeny also. So thatProtestantsdo but foolishly to upbraid us, as if we could not shew any among theAncientsthat deniedWater-baptism; seeing they cannot shew any, whom they acknowledge not to have been heretical in several Things, that used it;The Sign of the Cross.nor yet, who using it, did not also use theSign of the Cross, and other Things with it, which they deny.Many informer Agestestified againstWater-baptism.There were some nevertheless in the darkest Times ofPopery, who testified againstWater-baptism. ForoneAlanus, Page 103, 104. 107. speaks of some in his Time that were burnt for the denying of it: For they said, ThatBaptism had no Efficacy, either in Children or adult Persons; and therefore Men were not obliged to take Baptism:Particularlyten Canonicks, so called,were burnt for that Crime, by the Order of KingRobertofFrance. AndP. Pithœusmentions it in hisFragmentsof theHistoryofGuienne, which is also confirmed by oneJohannes Floracensis, aMonk, who was famous at that Time, in his Epistle toOliva, Abbot of theAusonianChurch: “I will, saith he, give you to understand concerning the Heresy that was in the City ofOrleansonChildermas-day;Ten Canonicks burnt atOrleans, and why.for it was true, if ye have heard any Thing, that KingRobertcaused to be burnt alive near fourteen of that City, of the chief of theirClergy, and the more noble of theirLaicks, who were hateful to God, and abominable to Heaven and Earth; for they did stifly deny the Grace of holy Baptism, and also the Consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood.” The Time of this Deed is noted in these Words byPapir. Masson, in hisAnnalsofFrance, Lib. 3. inHughandRobert,Actum Aureliæ publicè anno Incarnationis Domini 1022. RegniRobertiRegis 28, Indictione 5. quandoStephanusHæresiarcha & Complices ejus damnati sunt et exusti Aureliæ.
Now for their calling themHereticksandManichees, we have nothing but the Testimony of their Accusers, which will no more invalidate their Testimony for this Truth against the Use of Water-baptism, or give more Ground to charge us, as being one withManichees, than because some, called by themManichees, do agree withProtestantsin some Things, that thereforeProtestantsareManicheesorHereticks, whichProtestantscan no Ways shun. For the Question is, Whether, in what they did, they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures? So that the Controversy is brought back again to the Scriptures, according to which, I suppose, I have already discussed it.
TheBaptismofInfantsan Human Tradition.As for the latter Part of theThesis, denying the Use ofInfant-baptism, it necessarily follows from what is above said. For if Water-baptismbe ceased, then surelyBaptizing of Infantsis not warrantable. But those that take upon them to oppose us in this Matter, will have more to do as to this latter Part: For after they have done what they can to prove Water-baptism, it remains for them to prove thatInfantsought to be baptized. For he that proves Water-baptism ceased, proves that Infant-baptism is vain: But he that should prove that Water-baptism continues, has not thence proved that Infant-baptism is necessary; that needs something further. And therefore it was a pitiful Subterfuge ofNic. Arnoldusagainst this, to say, Thatthe Denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the Gangrene of theAnabaptists, without adding any further Proof.