were drowned or drenched or overwhelmed in Misery no part free every Suffering is not the Baptism of Suffering but great and deep Afflictions suffering unto Blood and Death in opposition to a lesser degree or measure of them being dipp'd and plunged into Afflictions Mr. Wilson on the Baptism of Affliction renders it to plunge into Afflictions or Dangers as it were saith he into deep Waters so that it appears also from this Metaphorical Notion of Baptism to baptize is to dip or overwhelm or cover the Body in Water See what our last and best Annotators positively affirm on Matth. 20. 22. To be baptized is to be dipped in Water say they Metaphorically to be plunged in Aâ—flictions I am saith Christ to be baptized with Blood overwhelmed with Sufferings and Afflictions are you able so to be c. 2. We read of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire I indeed baptize you with Water saith John but he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with Fire Now the Question is What we are to understand to be meant by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost whether the sanctifying Gifts and Graces of the Spirit are intended hereby which all the Godly receive or those extraordinary Gifts or miraculous Effusions of the Holy Ghost only which many received in the Primitive Times I know some are ready to make use of the Baptism of the Spirit to justify their Rite of Sprinkling or Pouring because God is said to pour the Spirit upon his People and to sprinkle them with clean Water which we do grant does intend the Graces of the Holy Spirit But certainly if they did consider the ground and reason why Persons were said to be baptized with the Spirit they would soon perceive this Argument would utterly fail them likewise or stand them in no stead For we do affirm that every Believer who hath the Holy Spirit cannot be said to be baptized with the Spirit like as every one that is under Afflictions and Sufferings cannot be said to be baptized with Sufferings as we have shewed But in the first place it is necessary to understand the difference between the Baptism commanded and the Baptism promised the Baptism commanded is that of Water the Baptism promised was that of the Spirit Our Saviour after his Resurrection gave forth his Commission to his Disciples to teach and baptize and then being assembled together with them commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem but wait foâ— the Promise of the Father which said he ye haâ—â— heard of me Acts 1. 4. What was that why 't is exprest in the fifth Verse Ye shall be baptiz'd with the Holy Ghost not many days hence and this was made good to them on the day of Pentecost Acts 2. 1 2 3. which was no other than the Spirit in an extraordinary manner or the miraculous Gifts thereof these the Apostles and believing Jews received first and in the tenth Chapter of the Acts the same extraordinary Gifts or Baptism of the Spirit the believing Gentiles received I mean Cornelius and those with him for they spoke with Tongues and magnified God and Peter saith Chap. 11. And as I spake unto them the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the first then saith he I remembred the word c. Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost ver 15 16. Now no other Gifts of the Spirit than these great and extraordinary and miraculous Effusions of the Spirit we do conclude is or can be intended or meant by the Baptism of the Holy Ghost And that you may see we are not alone in this Opinion see what Dr. Du Veil saith on Acts 1. 4 5. shall be baptized the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says Casaubon is to dip or plunge as if it were to dye Colours in which sense saith he the Apostles might be truly said to have been baptized for the House in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost so that the Apostles might seem to have been plunged into it as in a large Fish-Pond Hence Oecumenius on Acts 2. saith a Wind fill'd the whole House that it seem'd like a Fish-pond because it was promised to the Apostles that they should be baptized with the Holy Ghost To the same effect saith another as is noted in our Book of Metaphors Baptism is put for the miraculous Effusion of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and other Believers in the Primitive Church because of the Analogical Immersion or Dipping for so Baptizo signifies for the House where the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles was so filled that they were as it were drowned in it or the reason of the Metaphor saith he may be from the great plenty and abundance of those Gifts in which they were wholly immerg'd as the Baptized are dipp'd under Water And it appears by what Mr. Delâ—un hath written and translated out of Tropical Writers that Glassius and others assert the same things And so likewise Mr. Gosnold a worthy and learned Man understood it speaking of those Scriptures We have here cited saith he these places diligently compared together evidently shew that the Baptism of the Spirit is a distinct Baptism from that of Water and hath no Reference at all to the inward sanctifying Graces of the Spirit but notes out the most extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit that ever were given to the Sons of Men therefore called the Baptism of the Spirit Object But yet this Baptism however was by a pouring forth of the Spirit and why may not Baptism be administred so Answ 'T is evident 't was not by a sprinkling or dropping of the Spirit and therefore no ways for your turn and though it was by a pouring out or a pouring forth of the Spirit yet in such sort that the House in which they were is said to be filled and so they immerg'd or baptized with it But however all confess this was but a Metaphorical Baptism and therefore your Argument from hence at best is but far fetched and signifies nothing for 't is a strange way to go to the Metaphorical Notion of a word to prove a Practice that is contrary to the literal and proper Signification thereof Moreover if this be granted which we have hinted here it may serve to detect the Error of some Men who own no other Baptism than that of the Spirit and think that the ordinary Gifts and Graces of the Spirit is the Baptism of the Spirit which there is no ground as I can see to believe nor was there any other Baptism to continue to the end of the World but that of Water without doubt sith the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was given only to the Apostles and Saints in the Primitive Time for the Confirmation of the Gospâ—l as these Scriptures shew Mark 16. 16 17 18 20. Heb. 2. 3 4. Therefore let such take care who say they have the true Baptism
given him at his Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven And having declared himself Supream Lord and Law-giver He 2. Delegates a Power to his Disciples Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make Disciples that must be by preaching the Gospel to them instructing them in the Principles of the Christian Faith teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you alway to the end of the World that 's the Promise These are the words of the great Commission which contains part of the last Will and Testament of the ever blessed Jesus the glorious Testator of the New Covenant wherein Baptism is found and expresly given forth and with as great Authority and in as solemn a manner as ever was any Precept or Ordinance that we read of in all the Book of God. Object But 't is not said baptize them in Water it may therefore intend the Baptism of the Holy Spirit Answ To which we answer As 't is not said baptize them with Water so 't is not said baptize them with the Holy Spirit They were commanded to baptize that 's evident and that it was Water our Saviour did require them to baptize with and not the Spirit we prove First Because the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was never by our Saviour or his Apostles commanded it was never injoyn'd as a Precept or Duty to be done but was always mentioned as a Promise He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire And again Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence It argues great Weakness or else Wilfulness that Men should see no better how to distinguish between a Baptism that was commanded as a Duty to be done and a Baptism promised which was never injoyned as a Duty Secondly It cannot mean the Baptism of the Holy Ghost because the Disciples of Christ nor no Man under Heaven had ever any such Power delegated or given to them as to baptize with the Holy Ghost 't is strange Persons should be so blind and bold to think much less to assert that meer Men can give the Holy Spirit or administer that Baptism as if the Holy Ghost was at the disposal of the Will of Man or that Men know whom to give it to which indeed only lies hid in the Breast of God himself who bestows it to whom and in what manner he pleaseth And therefore Thirdly We do affirm from the Authority of God's Word that to baptize with the Holy Spirit is the peculiar Prerogative Royal of Jesus Christ and that he did never impower any Disciple of his to give it He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit The Father by him and he immediately by himself in his own Person distributes or gives forth of the Spirit according to the good Pleasure of his Will without imparting with this Sovereign Prerogative or peculiar Power to any other Now since Christ's Disciples could not baptize with the Spirit and yet are commanded to baptize it follows clearly it must be Water Object Doth not the Apostle shew that Men had Power to give the Spirit what else is the meaning of these words he therefore that ministreth to you the Spirit it appears that Persons who preached ministred the Spirit Answ By the Spirit is meant the Gospel or Word of Christ as the Law is called the Letter so is the New Testament called the Ministration of the Spirit 2 Cor. 3. 6. The words that I speak unto you saith Christ are Spirit c. Doth God as if the Apostle should say concur with our Ministry and give the Spirit to those who hear it and help us to work Miracles to confirm it And is this done by our preaching the Law or by the hearing of Faith that is the Word of Faith viz. the Gospel see vers 2. or by preaching the Word of Christ Fourthly The Baptism in the Commission cannot intend that of the Holy Ghost because the Spirit 's Baptism signifies the miraculous Effusion or extraordinary Gifts thereof and not the saving Influences Graces and Operations of it which but a few and those too in the Primitive Time did partake of but the Baptism in the Commission is injoyned on all that are made Disciples in all Nations and in every Age even to the end of the World. Fifthly It must be Water-Baptism because our Saviour joyneth it with Repentance and Believing Now all along in order of Practice these two went together both before this time and also afterwards You may be sure had it been any other Baptism it would never have been thus joyned together in order of words with that Baptism that was so united in order of Practice with Repentance and Faith without the least intimation of any thing by our Saviour to the contrary Sixthly Because 't is a Baptism that is to be administred in the Name of the Father of the Son and Holy Spirit how can any with the least shadow of Reason suppose it should be meant of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit sith it is to be administred in the Name of the Holy Spirit Were any ever baptized with the Holy Spirit in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost The Spirit was that with which they were baptized and therefore not baptized in the Name of the Spirit Seventhly The only way further to remove this Objection is to observe what the practice of the Disciples was after the Ascension of Christ in the execution of this great Commission What was it they baptized with See Acts 8. 36. And they came to a certain Water and the Eunuch said See here is Water Vers. 28. They went both down into the Water and Philip baptized him Acts 10. 47 48. Can any Man forbid Water that these should not be baptized And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus That Baptism which in the Commission the Lord Jesus commanded his Disciples to baptise with was the Baptism which they after his Ascension did baptize with and that it was Water the Scriptures we have now cited do evidently shew certainly the Apostles well understood what Baptism it was their blessed Master did command them to administer Eighthly Besides were it not the Baptism of Water which was given to them in the Commission Matth. 28. 19 20. They did that in his Name i. e. by his Authority which they had no Authority to do for other Commissions they had not this being the only place where Water-baptism is mentioned as being instituted and given in Commission to them to administer and to all other Disciples and Ministers of Christ to the end of the World. Now Secondly that this Holy Ordinance of Baptism doth continue to the end of the World is evident First Because whatsoever is given forth by Jesus Christ is given forth by him as he is King and Mediator of the New Covenant and as part of his
none does the business better than the Learned Bishop Taylor For saith he the Water and Spirit in this place signifies the same thing and by Water is meant the Effects of the Spirit cleansing and purifying the Soul as it appears in its parallel place Christ's baptizing with the Holy Ghost and with Fire for although this was literally fulfilled in the day of Pentecost yet morally there is more in it for it is the sign of the Effect of the holy Spirit and his Productions upon the Soul And you may as well conclude that Infants must also pass through the Fire as through the Water And that we may not think this a trick to elude the pressure of this place Peter saith the same thing For where he saith that Baptism saves us he adds by way of Explication not the washing away of the Filth of the Flesh but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God plainly saying that it is not Water or the purifying of the Body but cleansing of the Spirit that doth that which is supposed to be the Effect of Baptism But to suppose it meant of external Baptism yet this no more infers a necessity of Infant-Baptism than the other words of Christ infer a necessity to give them the holy Communion Joh. 6. 53. Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you and yet we do not think these words a sufficient Argument to communicate with them if any Man therefore will do us Justice either let them give both Sacraments to Infunts as some Ages of the Church did or neither for the Wit of Man is not able to shew a disparity in the Sanction or in the Energy of its Expressions And therefore they were honest that understood the Obligation to be parallel and performed it accordingly and yet because we say they were deceived in one Instance and yet the Obligation all the World cannot reasonably say but is the same they are honest and reasonable that do neither and sure the Ancient Church did with an equal Opinion of necessity give them the Communion and yet now adays Men do not Why should Men be more burdened with a Prejudice and a name of Obliquity for not giving Infants one Sacrament more than you are disliked for not affording them the other Thus far Dr. Taylor If what these great Men say is not sufficient utterly to invalidate this pretended Proof of Infant-Baptism we know not what to say A third Proof they bring to prove the baptizing of Babes is taken from those places that speak of the baptizing of whole Housholds as the Jaylor and his House Lydia and her House c. Object Whole Housholds we read were baptized therefore some Children were in the Primitive Time baptized Answ To which we answer that the Consequence is not natural from the Antecedent unless you can prove there were no whole Housholds but in which were some little Babes make that appear and this is the best Argument you can bring But the contrary is very evident for how many hundred Housholds or Families are there in this City in which there are no little Children but all Adult Persons which being so how uncertain is your Inference Secondly But suppose there were Children in those Housholds for usually in Scripture by a Figure which is called Synâ—â—doche the whole is put for part or a part for the whole Hence we read Jerusalem and all Judea and all the Regions about â—ordan went out to be baptized of John that is many of those places in Jerusalem Judea and in those Regions So 't is said 1 Sam. 1. 21 22 23. That Elkanah and all his House went up to offer unto the Lord yearly Sacrifice c. yet vers 22. 't is as expresly said that Hannah and her Child went not up who were part of his House yet 't is said all his House or Houshold went up Exod. 9. 6. 't is said All the Cattle of Egypt died that is all that were in the Field see Chap. 14. 26 28. and chap. 9. 26. I could give you many other Examples of the same nature wherein the whole is taken but for part And from hence 't is that Dr. Hammond grants that no concluding Argument can be deduc'd from the baptizing whole Housholds to baptize Children and therefore in his Judgment Arguments drawn from hence are better wav'd than made use of by the Defenders of Infant-baptism And certainly the Doctor judges but rationally therein saith a worthy and Learn'd Man because a clear Word of Institution or plain Precedents ought to be the ground of the practice of all Gospel-Ordinances especially in the case of Baptism one of the great Sacraments of the New Testaments Thirdly We will see in the next place what the Holy Ghost hath left on Record concerning those whole Housholds that are said to be Baptized First The Jaylor's Houshold Acts 16. 33. He was Baptized and all his Whether he had any Children 't is a great Question his may refer to his Wife Servants and Domestick Friends and Relations c. However 't is expresly said that Paul and Silas spake unto him the Word of the Lord and to all that were in his House certainly they did not preach to little Babes And Vers 34. 't is said He rejoiced believeng in God with all his House Observe 1. he and all his House had the Gospel preached to them 2. He and all his House believed And 3. he and all his House rejoiced as well as 't is said He and all his were baptized Can there be any Reason given saith Mr. Gosnold why his vers 33. should be larger than all his House vers 32 34. these two Verses being a Key to the 33d Verse saith he and this Houshold a Key to all the other The second Houshold is that of Crispus Acts 18. 8. And Crispus the chief Ruler of the Synagogue believed in God with all his House and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized All that is said of his Houshold is that they believed besides the scope of the Text shews none were baptized but such who first believed and they we say and none but they are true Subjects of Baptism that believe The third Houshold is the Houshold of Stephanus I baptized saith Paul the Houshold of Stephanus 1 Cor. 1. 16. And he saith the House of Stephanus was the first Fruits of Acaia and that they had addicted themselves to the Ministry of the Saints which little Children were not capable to do Chap. 16. 15. The fourth Houshold is that of Lydia Acts 16. 14 15. Whether this good Woman was a Maid Widow or Wife is uncertain If she had been a married Woman 't is much there is no mention made of her Husband Besides she is reckon'd the Head of the Family her Houshold which would not have been saith Mr. Gosnold if at this time she had a Husband Grant saith
no plain Scriptures for Infant-Baptism yet it may be proved by Consequences you it appears deny direct Consequences from Scripture to be mandatory and so obliging and of Divine Authority Answ We affirm that in all positive or instituted Worship such as Baptism is which wholly depends upon the meer Will and Pleasure of the Law-giver it is absolutely necessary there should be an express Command or plain and clear Examples tho in other respects we allow of natural Deductions and Consequences from Scripture for the confirming and enforcing of Duties and for the Comfort and Instruction of God's People But as there is neither express Command nor Example for Infant-Baptism so it can't be proved by any Consequence or Inference that naturally and 〈◊〉 râ—â—s from any Scripture as we have proved nor does draw any such Consequences to prove it Object 2. But there is nothing in all the New Tâ—stament against Infant-Baptism saith 〈◊〉 Smythies If indeed our Saviour had declared that Infants should not be baptized or if we had read of the Apostles Refusal of them then c. There is no hint from any express word dropt from Christ saith Mr. Sidenham or his Apostles nor any Phrase which doth forbid such an Act. Answ We will answer with Tertullian For this is a certain Rule saith he if it be said 't is lawful because the Scripture doth not forbid it it may equally be retorted it is therefore not lawful because the Scripture doth not command it That which is done in the Worship and Service of God without any express Word dropt from Christ or his Apostles nor any Phrase which doth signify it is his Will and Mind it ought to be done is unlawful and no better than Will-worship Must Christ forbid Infant-Baptism must he declare in plain words they ought not to be baptized or else may they ought they to be baptized Is this good Divinity with Mr. Smythies Certainly this Man can't long keep out of the Romish Communion Hath our Saviour declared indeed that you shall not have Crucifixes Beads Altars and that you shall not use Salt Spittle Oil or Chrism in Baptism that ye shall not go on Pilgrimages nor pray for the Dead Hath Christ I say or his Apostles as you read forbid these things and many more of like nature Or did God forbid Nadab and Abihu to offer strange Fire who were destroyed for doing it Levit. 10. 1 2. Did God forbid Abraham to circumcise his Female Children or forbid him to circumcise his Male Children on the ninth day and might he therefore do these things because God did no where tell him he should not do so The like might be said concerning Bowing at the naming of the Name of Jesus Cross in Baptism Surplice in reading the Service Kneeling at the Sacrament set Forms of Prayer you do these things because not forbidden and why not admit of other Rites and Innovations as well as these Moreover what express word against Infants receiving the Sacraments Besides are Bells forbidden to be baptized hath Christ said indeed ye shall not baptize Bells is it therefore lawful to baptize them You will object May be that Bells are not â—it nor capable Subjects of such an Ordinance But why are they not wherein are they uncapable Can you not sprinkle a little Water upon a Bell and use the words of Institution in as solemn a manner as you do when you sprinkle a Child baptize it as you say But are they uncapable because there is no word of Institution nothing from the Mouth of Christ or his Apostles to justifie such a Practice We say the same in respect of your baptizing Children and if you say Bells are not capable of the use and end of Baptism we have proved the like concerning Infants If God had pleased he could have made them by an Institution capable of some sacred usefulness yea capable of Relative Holiness or Consecration as Aaron's Bells Nay and since we read of Bells of the Horses that should be Holiness to the Lord Zech. 14. 20. Why may not that Text be a Proof that Bells in Churches should be baptized and so made holy likewise There are those you know who plead for that Practice and have baptized them for many Ages and they say there is as much ground from Scripture to do that as there is to 〈◊〉 Children both depending as they will tell you upon the Authority of the Church Sad it is that such a Gap as this should be opened to all or any Inventions or Traditions of Men remember who it was that said Add thou not to his Word That God has in all Ages testified his Abhorrence of Will-worship and that from this very reason because he commanded them not 't is evident they have built the high places of Tophet c. which I commanded them not neither came it into my Heart For this cause God threatned Judgments upon Israel They have set their Threshold by my Thresholds and their Post by my Posts wherefore I have consumed them God discovers his severe Displeasure against them not for neglecting any part of his Worship that he had commanded them but for their Presumption in adding other things thereto calling them his Ordinances which he had not appointed nor commanded them Will-worship Sir is an horrible Sin when he who is to perform the Duty shall dare to appoint the Laws Implying a peremptory purpose of no further observance than may consist with the allowance of his own depraved Judgment and Self-Interest whereas true Obedience must be grounded on the Authority of that Power that commands not the liking or approbation of the Subject Some Men will obey so far as it consists with their Interest and alter add to or diminish from as they see good 1. This savours of horrible Pride Shall Man prescribe unto God ways how he shall be worshipped 2. Moreover this of Will-worship was that very Sin that overthrew the Nation of Israel see Isa 24. 5 〈…〉 the Ordinances c. 3. And it also is said to wound the Heart of God Ezek. 6. 9. namely their superstitious and corrupt Mixtures in his Worship And 4. This renders the Service of Men abominable when they make void the Commands of God by their Traditions and all they do to be in vain for so saith our Saviour In vain they worship me teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men. Object 3. But is it to be imagined saith Mr. Smythies that our Saviour who took little Children up in his Arms should allow no Ordinance for them by which they should be admitted into his Church Answ Must he needs baptize them because he took them up in his Arms and because he blessed them must he receive them into his Church We have proved that they are not capable Subjects of Gospel-Church-membership neither did our Saviour baptize any with his own Hands Joh. 4. 1 2. therefore not those Children he took up into his Arms nor is this