the Text and has no better Foundation than the Affirmation of its Assertors is justly rejected as spurious until they bring some better Proof for it He saith not I was not sent principally to baptize but I was not sent to baptize Confirm As for what they urge by way of Confirmation from other places of Scripture where not is to be so taken as where it 's said I will have Mercy and not Sacrifice which is to be understood that God requires principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifices 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 that burnt-Offerings which are one with Sacrifices are not Excluded But there is no such word added in that of Paul and therefore the Parity is not demonstrated to be alike and consequently the Instance not sufficient unless they can prove that it ought 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 1 Cor. 2. 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 stand Principally 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 the Corinthians 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. I Answer 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 excludes Baptizing not Preaching though the Abuse mark proceeded from that no less than from the other For these Corinthians did denominate themselves from those different Persons by whose Preaching as well as from those by whom they were baptized they were Converted as by the 4 5 6 7 and 8. ver of the 3d Ch. may appear and yet for 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 because preaching 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 forborn by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God wherefore the Apostle accordingly Chap. 3. 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 Condescendence to the Jews and by some Apostles to some Gentiles also there so soon as the Apostle perceived the Abuse of it he let the Corinthians understand how little stress was to be laid upon it by shewing them that he was glad that he had administred 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 of Water and not of the Spirit Which if it be then it will exclude Baptism of the Spirit as well as of Water Answ. I Answer Such as ask the Question I suppose speak it not as doubting that this was said of Water-baptism which is more than manifest For since the Apostle Paul's Message was to turn People from Darkness to Light and Convert them to God and that as many as are thus turned and converted so as to have the Answer of a good Conscience towards God and to have put on Christ and be arisen with him in Newness of Life are baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit but who will say that only these few mentioned there to be baptized by Paul were come to this or that to turn or bring them to this Condition was not even admitting our Adversaries Interpretation as principally a part of Paul's Ministry as any other Since then our Adversaries do take this place for water-Water-baptism as indeed it is we may lawfully taking it so also urge it upon them Why the Word Baptism and baptizing is used by the Apostle where that of Water and not of the Spirit is only understood shall hereafter be spoken to Part. II I come now to consider the Reasons alledged by such as plead for Water-baptism which are also the Objections used against the Discontinuance of it Obj. 1 § VIII First Some Object That Christ who had the Spirit above measure was notwithstanding baptized with Water As Nic. Arnold against this These Sect. 46. of his Theological Exercitation Answ. I Answer So was he also Circumcised it will not follow from thence that Circumcision is to Continue For it behoved Christ to fulfil all Righteousness not only the Ministry of John but the Law also therefore did he observe the Jewish Feasts and Rites and kept the Passover It will not then follow that Christians ought to do so now And therefore Christ Matth. 3. 15. gives John this reason of his being baptized desiring him to Suffer 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 Matth. 28. 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 Whole Superstructure Whereunto the first general and sound Answer is by granting the whole but putting them to prove that Water is 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 by Water which is an Addition to the Text yet I shall premise some Reasons why we do so and then consider the Reasons alledged by those that will have Water to be here understood Arg. I The First is a Maxime 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. II 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 with Water as we have already proved Therefore the Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not water-Water-baptism Arg. III 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 of water-Water-baptism Therefore c. Arg. IV Fourthly The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not John's Baptism But Baptism with Water was John's Baptism
kind partly borrowed from the Jews which they more tenaciously stick to and more earnestly contend for than for the weightier Points of Christianity because that Self yet alive and ruling in them loves their own Inventions better than God's Commands But if they can by any means stretch any Scripture-practice or Conditional precept or permission fitted to the Weakness or Capacity of some or appropriate to some particular Dispensation to give some Colour for any of these their Inventions they do then so tenaciously stick to them and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them that they will not patiently hear the most-solid Christian Reasons against them Which Zeal if they would but seriously Examine it they would find to be but the prejudice of Education and the Love of Self more than of God or his Pure Worship This is verified concerning those things which are called Sacraments about which they are very ignorant in Religious Controversies who understand not how much Debate Contention Jangling and Quarrelling there has been among those called Christians So that I may safely say the Controversie about them to wit about their Number Nature Vertue Efficacy Administration and other things hath been more than about any other Doctrine of Christ whether as betwixt Papists and Protestants or among Protestants betwixt themselves And how great prejudice these Controversies have brought to Christians is very obvious whereas the things contended for among them are for the most part but Empty Shadows and meer Out-side things as I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudicate Reader § II. That which comes first under Observation is the Name Sacrament which is strange that Christians should stick to and Contend so much for since it is not to be found in all the Scripture but was borrowed from the Military Oaths among the Heathens from whom the Christians when they began to Apostatize did borrow many superstitious Terms and Observations that they might thereby Ingratiate themselves and the more easily gain the Heathens to their Religion which practice though perhaps intended by them for good yet as being the fruit of Humane Policy and not according to God's Wisdom has had very pernicious Consequences I see not how any whether Papists or Protestants 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 Pen-men of the Scriptures to leave unto us Obj. 1 But if it be said That it is not the Name but the Thing they contend for Answ. I Answer Let the Name then as not being Scriptural 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 of Scripture-Language For presently the great Contest about the Number of them will evanish seeing there is no Term used in Scripture that can be made use of whether we call them Institutions Ordinances Precepts Commandments Appointments or Laws c. that would afford ground for such a Debate since neither Papists will affirm that there are only Seven or Protestants only Two of any of these forementioned Obj. 2 If it be said That this Controversie arises from the Definition of the Thing as well as from the Name Obj. 1 It will be found otherwise For whatever way we take their Definition of a Sacrament whether as an outward visible Sign whereby inward Grace is conferred or only signified This Definition will agree to many things which neither Papists nor Protestants will acknowledge to be Sacraments If they be expressed under the Name of Sealing Ordinances as some do I could never see neither by Reason nor Scripture how this Title could be appropriate to them more than to any other Christian Religious Performance for that must needs properly be a Sealing Ordinance which makes the Persons receiving it infallibly certain of the Promise or Thing sealed to them Obj. 3 If it be said It is so to them that are faithful Answ. I Answer 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 the Seal and Pledge of our Inheritance but the Spirit of God it is by that we are said to be sealed Eph. 1. 14. 4. 30. which is also termed the Earnest of our Inheritance 2 Cor. 1. 22. and not by outward Water or Eating and Drinking which as the Wickedest of Men may partake of so many that do do notwitstanding it go to Perdition For it is not outward Washing with Water that maketh the Heart clean by which Men are fitted for Heaven And as that which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a Man because it is put forth again and so goeth to the Dung-hill neither doth any thing which Man eateth purifie 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 the Supper Of these Sacraments so called Baptism is always first numbered which is the Subject of the present Proposition in whose Explanation 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 Prop. I § III. First That there is but One Baptism as well as but One Lord One Faith c. Secondly That this one Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is not a washing with or dipping in Water but a being baptized by the Spirit Thirdly That the Baptism of John was 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 is ceased Prop. I As for the first viz. That there is but one Baptism there needs no other Proof than the Words of the Text Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism where the Apostle positively and plainly affirms that as there is but One Body One Spirit One Faith One God c. so there is but One Baptism Obj. 1 As to what is commonly alledged by way of Explanation upon the Text That the Baptism of Water and of the Spirit make up this One Baptism by vertue of this Sacramental Union Answ. I Answer 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 of Water-Baptism and so there needs no other Reply but to deny it as being repugnant to the plain words of the Text which saith not That there are Two Baptisms to wit one of Water the other of the Spirit which
do make up the One Baptism but plainly that there is One Baptism as there is One Faith and One God Now there goeth not Two Faiths nor Two Gods nor Two Spirits nor Two Bodies whereof the one is Outward and Elementary and the other Spiritual and Pure to the making up of the One Faith the One God the One Body and the One Spirit so neither ought there to go Two Baptisms to make up the One Baptism Obj. 2 But Secondly 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. I Answer This yet more confirmeth our Doctrine For if Water be only the Sign it is not the Matter of the One Baptism as shall further hereafter by its Definition in Scripture appear and we are to take the One Baptism for the Matter of it not for the Sign or Figure and Type that went before Even as where Christ is called the One Offering in Scripture though he was Typified by many Sacrifices and Offerings under the Law we understand only by the One Offering his Offering himself upon the Cross whereof though those many Offerings were Signs and Types yet we say not that they go together with that Offering of Christ to make up the One Offering So neither though Water-Baptism was a Sign of Christ's Baptism will it follow that it goeth now to make up the Baptism of Christ. If any should be so Absurd as to affirm That this One Baptism here were 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 Proof I Secondly That this One Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water appears first from the Testimony of John the proper and peculiar Administrator of Water-Baptism Matt. 3. 11. I indeed baptize you with Water unto Repentance but he that cometh after me is mightier than I whose shooes I am not worthy to bear he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire Here John mentions two manners of Baptisings and two different Baptisms 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. I 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. II 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 make John's Words void of good sense For if their Baptisms had been all one why should he have so precisely Contradistinguished them Why should he have said that those whom he had already baptized should yet be baptized by 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. I Answer This Exposition contradicts the plain words of the Text. For he saith not I baptize you with Water and he that cometh after shall produce the Effects of this my Baptism in you by the Spirit c. or he shall accomplish this Baptism in you but he shall Baptize you So then if we understand the Word 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 that 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 Non-sense for him thus to have Contradistinguished them Proof II Secondly This is further confirmed by the Saying of Christ himself Acts 1. 4 5. But wait for the promise of the Father which saith he ye have heard of me For John truly baptized with Water but ye shall be baptized with th Holy Ghost not many days hence 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 there grants fully that John compleated 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 John did 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 III Thirdly Peter observes the same distinction Acts 11. 16. Then remembred I the word of the Lord how that he said John indeed Baptized with Water but ye shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost The Apostle makes this Application upon the Holy 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 for Water to it shall be hereafter spoken From all which Three Sentences relative one to another First of John Secondly of Christ and Thirdly of Peter 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 but One Baptism as we have already proved we may safely conclude that it is that of the Spirit and not of Water else it would follow that the One Baptism which now continues were the Baptism of Water i. e. John's Baptism and not the Baptism of the Spirit i. e. Christ's which were most Absurd Object If it be said further That though the Baptism of John before Christ'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 Answ. I Answer This urgeth nothing unless it be granted also that both of them belong to the Essence of Baptism so that Baptism is 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 the Baptism of Christ who are Baptized with Water though they be uncertain whether they be Baptized with the Spirit or not but they even account such truly Baptized with the Baptism of Christ because Sprinkled 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 Water is without the Spirit Wherefore we may far safer conclude that the Baptism of the Spirit which is that of Christ is and may be without that of Water as appears in that Acts 11. where Peter testifies of these Men that they were Baptized with the Spirit though not then Baptized with Water And indeed the Controversie in this as in most other things stands betwixt us and our Opposers in that they not only 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 truly Baptized with the One Baptism of Christ who are not baptized with the Spirit which in Scripture is particularly called the Baptism of Christ if they be only baptized with Water which themselves yet Confess to be but the Shadow or Figure And moreover in that they account not those who are surely baptized with the Baptism of the Spirit baptized neither will they have them so denominate unless they be also Sprinkled with or Dipped in Water But we on the Contrary do always prefer the 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 comes to be enjoyed as it doth in this Case which shall hereafter be made appear Proof IV § IV. Fourthly That the One Baptism of Christ is not a Washing with Water appears from 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like Figure whereunto even Baptism doth also now save us not the putting away of the filth of the Flesh but the answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So plain a definition of Baptism is not in all the Bible and therefore seeing it is so Plain it may well be preferred to all the coined definitions of the School-men The Apostle tells us first Negatively what it is not viz. Not a putting away of the filth of the Flesh then surely it is not a Washing with Water since that is so Secondly He tells us Affirmatively what it is viz. The Answer of a good Conscience towards God by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ where he Affirmatively Defines it to be the Answer or Confession as the Syriack Version hath it of a good Conscience Now this Answer cannot 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 be baptized with the Baptism of Christ i. e. of the Spirit and of Fire Whatever way then we take this Definition of the Apostle of Christ'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 that Water-Baptism is not it because that is a putting away of the filth of the Flesh. If we take the second and Affirmative Definition to wit That it is the Answer or Confession of a good Conscience c. then Water-baptism is not it since as our Adversaries will not deny Water-baptism doth 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 esteem water-Water-baptism the true Baptism of Christ because lest by the Comparison induced by him in the preceding verse betwixt the Souls that were saved in Noah's Ark and us that are now saved by Baptism lest I say any should have thence hastily concluded that because the former were saved by Water this place must needs be taken to speak of water-Water-Baptism to prevent such a mistake he plainly affirms that it is not that but another thing He saith not that it is the Water or the putting away of the filth of the Flesh as accompanied with the Answer of a good Conscience whereof the one viz. the Water is the Sacramental Element administred 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 Moreover Peter calls this here which saves the Antitypos the Anti-type or the thing figured whereas it is usually translated as if the like Figure did now save us thereby insinuating that as they were Saved by Water in the Ark so are we now by Water-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 For Protestants deny it to be absolutely necessary to Salvation And though Papists say None are saved without it yet in this they admit an Exception as of Martyrs c. and they will not say that all that have it are Saved by water-Water-baptism which they ought to say if they will understand by Baptism by which the Apostle saith we are Saved water-Water-baptism for seeing we are saved by this Baptism as those that were in the Ark were Saved by Water and that all those that were in the Ark were Saved by Water it would then follow that all those that have this Baptism are Saved by it Now this Consequence would be false if it were understood of VVater-baptism because many by the Confession of all are baptized with VVater that are not saved but this Consequence holds most true if it be understood as we do of the Baptism of the Spirit since none can have this Answer of a good Conscience and abiding in it not be Saved by it Proof V Fifthly That the One Baptism of Christ is not a VVashing with VVater as it
hath been proved by the Definition of the One Baptism so it is also manifest from the Necessary Fruits and Effects of it which are three-times particularly expressed by the Apostle Paul As first Rom. 6. 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 the Gal. 3. 27. he saith positively For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ and Thirdly to the Col. 2. 12. he faith That they were Buried with him in Baptism and Risen with him through the Faith of the operation of God It is to be observed here that the Apostle speaks generally without any Exclusive Term but Comprehensive of all he saith not Some of you that were baptized into Christ have put on Christ but As 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 of VVater-baptism but of the Baptism of the Spirit because else it would follow that whosoever had been baptized with VVater-baptism had put on Christ and were Risen with him which all acknowledge to be most Absurd Now supposing all the Visible Members of the Churches of Rome Galatia and Coloss had 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 had all put on Christ since divers Expressions in these Epistles to them shew the contrary So that the Apostle cannot mean Baptism with Water and yet that he meaneth the Baptism of Christ i. e. of the Spirit cannot be denied or that the Baptism wherewith these were baptized of whom the Apostle here testifies that they had put on Christ was the One Baptism I think none will call in question Now admit as our Adversaries Contend that many in these Churches who had been baptized with Water had not put on Christ it will follow that notwithstanding that water-Water-baptism they were not baptized into Christ or with the Baptism of Christ seeing as many of them as were baptized into Christ had put on Christ c. From all which I thus Argue Arg. I If the Baptism with Water were the One Baptism i. e. the Baptism of Christ as many as were baptized with Water would have put on Christ. But the last is false Therefore also the first And again Arg. II Since as many as are baptized into Christ i. e. with the One Baptism which is the Baptism of Christ have put on Christ Then Water-baptism is not the One Baptism viz. the Baptism of Christ. But the first is true Therefore also the last Prop. III § V. Thirdly Since John's Baptism was a Figure and seeing the Figure gives way to the Substance albeit the thing figured remain to wit the One Baptism of Christ yet the other ceaseth which was the Baptism of John That John's Baptism was a Figure of Christ'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 was a being baptized with Water but Christ's is a baptizing with the Spirit Therefore John's Baptism must have been a Figure of Christ's But further that Water-baptism was John's Baptism will not be denied That Water-baptism is not Christ's Baptism is already proved From which doth arise the Confirmation of our Proposition thus There is no Baptism to continue now but the One Baptism of Christ. Arg. Therefore Water-baptism is not to continue now because it is not the Baptism of Christ. That John's Baptism is Ceased many of our Adversaries confess but if any should alledge it otherwise it may be easily proved by the express words of John not only as being insinuated there where he Contradistinguished his Baptism from that of Christ but particularly where he saith John 3. 30. He Christ must Increase but I John must Decrease From whence it clearly follows that the Increasing or taking place of Christ's Baptism is the Decreasing or abolishing of John's Baptism so that if Water-baptism was a particular part of John's Ministry and is no part of Christ's Baptism as we have already proved it will necessarily follow that it is not to Continue Arg. If water-Water-baptism had 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 the Scripture plainly affirms John 4. 2. And that he Commanded his Disciples to baptize with Water I could never yet read As for what is alledged that Mat. 28. 19 c. where he bids them baptize is to be understood of Water-baptism that is but to beg the Question and the grounds for that shall be hereafter examined Therefore to baptize with Water is no Perpetual Ordinance of Christ to his Church This hath had the more Weight with me because I find not any standing Ordinance or Appointment of Christ necessary 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 the Gospel requires more than the Law which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th Chapters of Matthew and elsewhere Besides as to the Duties of Worship he exhorts us to Meet promising his Presence commands to Pray Preach Watch c. and gives Precepts concerning some Temporary things as the Washing of one anothers Feet the breaking of Bread hereafter to be discussed only for this one thing of baptising with Water though so earnestly contended for we find not any Precept of Christ. § VI. But to make Water-baptism a necessary Institution of the Christian Religion which is Pure and Spiritual and not Carnal and Ceremonial is to derogate from the New Covenant-Dispensation and set up the Legal Rites and Ceremonies of which this of Baptism or Washing with Water was one as appears from Heb. 9. 10. where the Apostle speaking thereof saith that it stood only 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 the Gospel which puts an end to the Shadows be come then such Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances are no more to be imposed For how Baptism with Water comes now to be a Spiritual Ordinance more than before in the time of the Law doth not appear seeing it is but Water still 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 the Conscience 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 Effects 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 That God confers inward Grace upon some that are now baptized Answ. So no doubt he did also upon some that used those Baptisms among the Jews Obj. 2 Or if it be said Because 't is commanded by Christ now under the New Covenant Answ. I Answer First That 's to beg the Question of which hereafter But Secondly 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 the Purifications and Baptisms under the Law Was not Water the Matter of them which is so now Was not the End of them to signifie an Inward Purifying by an Outward Washing And is not that alledged to be the End still And are the necessary Effects or Consequences of it any better now than before since men are now by vertue 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 nor Effect neither of this nor that Baptism It is then plainly Repugnant to Right Reason as well as to the Scripture-Testimony to affirm that to 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 the New Covenant and of its Worship established 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 wherever Christ appointed or ordained any Institution or Observation under the New Covenant as belonging to the Nature of it or such a necessary part of its Worship as 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 the Law but now is become Spiritual because commanded by Christ under the Gospel 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 the Gospel or New 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 this Dispensation But in this as in most other things according as we have often observed our Adversaries Judaize and renouncing the Glorious and Spiritual Priviledges of the New Covenant are sticking in and cleaving to the Rudiments of the Old both in Doctrine and Worship as being more suited and agreeable to their Carnal Apprehensions and Natural Senses But we on the contrary travel above all to lay hold upon and cleave unto the Light of the Glorious Gospel Revealed unto us And the Harmony of the Truth we profess in this may appear by briefly observing how in all things we follow the Spiritual Gospel of Christ as contradistinguished from the Carnality of the Legal Dispensation while our Adversaries through rejecting this Gospel are still labouring under the burthen of the Law which neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear For the Law and Rule of the Old Covenant and Jews was Outward written in Tables of Stone and Parchments So also is that of our Adversaries But the Law of the New Covenant is Inward and Perpetual written in the Heart So is ours The Worship of the Jews was 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 the New Covenant is neither limited to Time Place nor Person but is performed in the Spirit and in Truth and is not acted according to set Forms and Prescriptions but as the Spirit of God immediately acts moves and leads whether it be to Preach Pray or Sing and such is also our Worship So like wise the Baptism among the Jews under the Law was an outward Washing with outward Water only to Typisie 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 Arg. § VII But again If Water-baptism had been an Ordinance of the Gospel then the Apostle Paul would have been sent to Administer it but he declares positively 1 Cor. 1. 17. That Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel The Reason of that Consequence is undeniable because the Apostle Paul's Commission was as large as that of any of them and consequently he being in special Manner the Apostle of Christ to the Gentiles if water-Water-baptism as our Adversaries contend be to be accounted the badge of Christianity he had more need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with Water that he might Mark the Gentiles Converted by him with that Christian Sign But indeed the Reason holds better thus That since Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and that in his Ministry he doth through all as by his Epistles appears labour to wean them from the former Jewish Ceremonies and Observations though in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his Brethren who were unwilling to lay aside those Ceremonies therefore his Commission though as full as to the Preaching of the Gospel and New Covenant-Dispensation as that of the other Apostles did not require of him that he should lead those Converts into such Jewish Observations and Baptisms however that Practice was Indulged in and practised by the other Apostles among their Jewish Proselites for which cause he thanks God that he baptized so few intimating that what he did therein he did not by vertue of his Apostolick Commission but rather in Condescendence to their Weakness even as at another time he Circumcised Timothy Obj. 1 Our Adversaries to evade the Truth of this Testimony usually alledge 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
Therefore c. Allegat I But First They alledge That Christ's Baptism though a Baptism with Water did differ from John 's because John only baptized with Water unto Repentance 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 of John and that of Christ. Answ. I Answer as to that John's Baptism was unto Repentance the Difference lieth not there because so is Christ's also For our Adversaries will not deny but that Adult Persons that are baptized ought ere they be admitted to it to Repent and Confess their Sins yea and that Infants 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 to Christ's as to John's Baptism But in this our Adversaries are divided for Calvin will have Christ's and John'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 to baptize 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 admitting Water-baptism in this different Form by a bare expressing of these Words For as the Text saith no such thing neither do I see how it can be inferred from it For the Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is into the Name now the Name of the Lord is often taken in Scripture for something else than a bare sound of Words or literal Expression even for his Vertue and Power as may appear from Psalm 54. 3. Cant. 1. 3. Prov. 18. 10. and in many more Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations into this Name Vertue and Power and that they did so is evident by these Testimonies of Paul above mentioned where he saith That as many of them as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ This must have been a baptizing into the Name i. e. Power and Vertue and not a meer 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 of God's Spirit and Scriptures of Truth throughly to Consider whether there can be any thing further alledged for this Interpretation than what the prejudice of Education and influence of Tradition hath imposed Perhaps it may stumble the unwary and inconsiderate Reader as if the very Character of Christianity were abolished to tell him plainly that this Scripture is not to be understood of baptizing with Water and that this form of baptizing in the Name of Father Son and Spirit hath no warrant from Matth. 28. c. For which besides the Reason taken from the Signification of the Name as being the Vertue and Power above expressed let it be considered that if that had been a Form prescribed by Christ to his Apostles then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administring of water-Water-baptism to such as they baptized with Water but though particular mention be made in divers places of the Acts Who were baptized and how and though it be particularly expressed that they baptized such and such as Acts 2. 41 8. 12 13 38 9. 18 10. 48 16. 15 18. 8. yet there is not a Word of this Form And in two places Acts 8. 16 19. 5. it is said of some that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus by which it yet more appears that either the Author of this History hath been very defective who having so often occasion to mention this yet omitteth so substantial a part of Baptism which were to accuse the Holy Ghost by whose guidance Luke wrote it or else that the Apostles did no ways understand that Christ by his Commission Matth. 28. did injoin them such a Form of Water-baptism seeing they did not use it And therefore it is safer to conclude that what they did in administring Water-baptism they did not by vertue of that Commission else they would have so used it For our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a great Heresie to Administer Water-baptism without that or only in the Name of Jesus without mention of Father or Spirit as it is expresly said they did in the two places above cited Allegat II Secondly They say If this were not understood of Water-baptism it would be a Tautology and all one with Teaching I say Nay Baptizing with the Spirit is somewhat further than Teaching or Informing the Understanding for it imports a Reaching to and melting the Heart whereby it is turned as well as the Understanding informed Besides we find often in the Scripture that Teaching and Instructing are put together without any Absurdity or needless Tautology and yet these two have a greater Affinity than teaching and baptizing with the Spirit Allegat III Thirdly They say Baptism in this Place must be understood with Water 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. I Answer Baptism with the Spirit though not wrought without Christ and his Grace is Instrumentally done by Men fitted of God for that purpose and therefore no Absurdity follows that Baptism with the Spirit should be expressed as the Action of the Apostles For though it be Christ by his Grace that gives Spiritual Gifts yet the Apostle Rom. 1. 11. speaks of his Imparting to them Spiritual Gifts and he tells the Corinthians that he had begotten them through the Gospel 1 Cor. 4. 15. And yet to beget People unto the Faith is the work of Christ and his Grace not of Men. To Convert the Heart is properly the Work of Christ and yet the Scripture often-times ascribes it to Men as being the Instruments And since Paul's Commission was to turn People from Darkness to Light though that be not done without Christ co-operating by his Grace so may also baptizing with the Spirit be expressed as performable by Man as the Instrument tho' the Work of Christ's Grace be needful to concur thereunto So that it is no Absurdity to say that the Apostles did Administer the Baptism of the Spirit Allegat IV Lastly They say That since Christ saith here that he will be with his Disciples to the end of the World therefore Water-baptism must 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 the Spirit which we freely confess doth remain
to the End of the World yea so long as Christ's Presence abideth with his Children Obj. III § IX Thirdly They Object the Constant Practice of the Apostles in the Primitive Church who they say did always admini-water-Admini-Water-baptism to such as they Converted to the Faith of Christ And hence also they further urge that of Matth. 28. to have been meant of Water or else the Apostles did not understand it in that in baptizing they used Water or that in so doing they walked without a Commission I Answer That it was the Constant Practice of the Apostles is denied for we have shewn in the Example of Paul that it was not so since it were most absurd to judge that he Converted only those few even of the Church of Corinth whom he saith he baptized nor were it less absurd to think that that was a constant Apostolick Practice which he that was not Inferior to the Chiefest of the Apostles and who declares he laboured as much as they all rejoyceth he was so little in But further the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice of baptizing with Water to evince that they understood Matth. 28. of water-Water-baptism doth not hold For though they baptized with Water it will not follow that either they did it by vertue of that Commission or that they mistook that place nor can there be any Medium brought 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 a Permission as being in use before Christ's Death and because the People nursed up with Outward Ceremonies could not be weaned wholly from them And thus they used other things as Circumcision and legal Purifications which yet they had no Commission from Christ to do to which we shall speak more at length in the following Proposition concerning the Supper Object But if from the Sameness of the Word because Christ bids them baptize and they afterwards in the Use of Water are said to baptize it be judged probable that they did understand that Commission Matth. 28. to authorize them to baptize with Water and accordingly practised it Answ. Although it should be granted that for a season they did so far mistake it as to judge that Water belonged 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 them Go teach all Nations since some time after they judged it unlawful to Teach the Gentiles Yea Peter himself 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 as Jews and their Propensity to adhere and stick to the Jewish Religion did so far influence them that even after Christ's Resurrection and the pouring forth of the Spirit they could not receive nor admit of the Teaching of the Gentiles 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 of John and his Baptism being so much prized there among the Jews that they also took Christ's Baptism intended by him of the Spirit to be that of Water which was John'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 Else Peter would 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 much Peter's baptising Cornelius In which they press two things First That Water-baptism is used even to those that had received the Spirit Secondly That it is said positively he commanded them to be baptized Acts 10. 47 48. But neither of these doth necessarily infer Water-baptism to belong to the New Covenant-Dispensation nor yet to be a Perpetual standing Ordinance in the Church For First All that this will amount to was That Peter at that time baptized these Men but that he did it by vertue of that Commission Matth. 28. remains yet to be proved And how doth the baptising with VVater after the receiving of the Holy Ghost prove the Case more than the use of Circumcision and other Legal Rites acknowledged to have been acted by him afterwards Also no wonder if Peter that thought it so strange notwithstanding all that had been professed before and spoken by Christ that the Gentiles should be made Partakers of the Gospel and with great difficulty not without a very 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 of John the Fore-runner of Christ seemed to have greater Affinity with the Gospel than the other Jewish Ceremonies then used by the Church but that will no ways infer our Adversaries Conclusion Secondly As to these Words And he commanded them to be baptized it declareth matter of Fact not of Right and amounteth to no more than that Peter did at that time pro hic nunc Command those persons to be baptized with Water which is not denied but it saith nothing that Peter commanded 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 in matter of Fact to Particular Persons doth infer the thing commanded to be of general obligation to all if it be not other ways bottomed upon some Positive Precept Why doth Peter's Commanding Cornelius and his Houshold to be baptized at that time infer Water-baptism to Continue more than his Constraining which is more than Commanding the Gentiles in general to be Circumcised and observe the Law We find that at that time when Peter baptized Cornelius it was not determined whether the Gentiles should not be Circumcised but on the contrary it was the most general Sense of the Church that they 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 Obj. IV § X. Fourthly They Object from the Signification of the Word baptize which is as much as to Dip and Wash with Water alledging thence that the very Word imports a being baptized with Water Answ. This Objection is very weak For since baptizing with Water was a Rite among the Jews as Paulus Riccius sheweth even before the coming of John therefore that Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice as used both by the Jews and by John
Yea we find that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more Spiritual Signification Circumcision was only used and understood among the Jews to be that of the Flesh but the Apostle tells us of the Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit made without Hands So that though Baptism was used among the Jews only to signifie a Washing with Water yet both John Christ and his Apostles speak of a being baptized with the Spirit and with Fire which they make the Peculiar Baptism of Christ as contradistinguished from that of Water which was John's as is above shewn So that though Baptism among the Jews was only understood of Water yet among Christians it is very well understood of the Spirit without Water as we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand things under the Terms of what had been Shadows before Thus Christ speaking of his Body though the Jews mistook him said he would Destroy this Temple and build it again in three days and many more that might be instanced But if the Etymology of the Word should be tenaciously adhered to it would militate against most of our Adversaries as well as against us For the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Immergo to plunge and dip in and that was the proper use of Water-baptism among the Jews and also by John and the Primitive Christians who used it whereas our Adversaries for the most part only Sprinkle a little Water upon the Forehead which doth not at all answer to the Word Baptism Yea those of old among Christians that used Water-baptism thought this dipping and plunging so needful that they thus dipped Children 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 only sprinkled and not dipped should not be admitto have any Office in the Church as not being sufficiently baptized So that if our Adversaries will stick to the Word they must alter their Method of Sprinkling Obj. V Fifthly They Object John 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water and of the Spirit c. hence inferring the necessity of Water-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 therefore Protestants rightly affirm when this is urged upon them by Papists to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism that Water is not here understood of Outward Water but mystically of an Inward Cleansing and Washing Even as where Christs speaks of being baptized with Fire it is not to be understood of outward material Fire but only of Purifying by a Metonymy because to purifie is a proper Effect of Fire as to Wash and make clean is of Water Therefore the Scripture alludes to Water where it can as little be so understood As where we are said to be Saved by the Washing of Regeneration Tit. 3. 5. Yea Peter saith expresly in the place often cited as Calvin well observes That the Baptism which 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 If it be said that Water imports here Object necessitatem Praecepti though not Medii I Answer That is first to take it for Answ. granted that outward VVater is here understood the contrary whereof we have already proved Next VVater and the Spirit are placed here together Except a Man be born of VVater and the Spirit 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 that To be born of the Spirit is not absolutely necessary which all acknowledge to be false or else that Water is absolutely necessary which as Protestants we affirm and have proved is false else we must confess that Water is not here understood of outward Water For to say that when Water and the Spirit are placed here just together and in the same manner though there be not any difference or ground for it visible in the Text or deduceable from it That the necessity of Water is here Praecepti but not Medii but the necessity of the Spirit is both Medii and Praecepti is indeed confidently to affirm but not to prove Obj. VI Sixthly and lastly They Object That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge to distinguish Christians from Infidels even as Circumcision did the Jews Answ. I Answer This saith nothing at all unless it be proved to be a necessary Precept or part of the New Covenant-Dispensation it not being lawful to us to impose outward Ceremonies and Rites and say they will distinguish us from Infidels Circumcision was positively commanded and said to be a Seal of the first Covenant but as we have already proved that there is no such Command for Baptism so there is not any Word in all the New Testament calling it a Badge of Christianity or Seal of the New Covenant And therefore to conclude it is so because Circumcision was so unless some better Proof be alledged for it is miserably to beg the Question The professing of Faith in Christ and a holy Life answering thereunto is a far better Badge of Christianity than any outward Washing which yet answers not to that of Circumcision 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 being baptized especially when he was a Child unless he tell them so much And may not the Professing Faith in Christ signifie that as well I know there are divers of those called Fathers that speak much of Water-baptism calling it Character Christianitatis but so did they also of the Sign of the Cross and other such things justly rejected by Protestants For the Mystery of Iniquity which began to work even in the Apostles days soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of the Christian Worship so that not only many Jewish Rites were retained but many Heathenish Customs and Ceremonies introduced into the Christian Worship as particularly that Word Sacrament So that it is great folly especially for Protestants to plead any thing of this from Tradition or Antiquity for we find that neither Papists nor Protestants use these Rites exactly as the Ancients did who in such things not walking by the most certain Rule of God's Spirit but doting too much upon Outwards were very Uncertain For most of them all in the Primitive Time did wholly Plunge and Dip those they Baptized which neither Papists nor Protestants do Yea several of the Fathers accused some as Hereticks in their Days for holding some Principles common with Protestants concerning it as particularly Augustine doth the Pelagians for saying That Infants dying Unbaptized may be saved And the
Or Occasional Queries submitted to the Judgment of such as would enquire into the True State of Things in our Times The whole Work revised by the Author the Proofs englished and augmented with sundry Material Discourses concerning the Ministry Separation Inspiration Scriptures Humane Learning Oaths Tithes c. With a brief Apology for the Quakers that they are not Inconsistent with Magistracy The Third Edition Price Bound 15. 6 d. God's Protecting Providence Man's Surest Help and Defence in Times of the greatest Difficulty and most eminent Danger Evidenced in the Remarkable Deliverance of Robert Barrow with divers other Persons from the devouring Waves of the Sea amongst which they suffered Shipwrack And also From the cruel Devouring Jaws of the Inhumane Cannals of Florida Faithfully Related by one of the Persons concerned therein Jonathan Dickenson Price 8 d. A Collection of the Christian Writings Labours Travels and Sufferings of that Faithful and Approved Minister of Jesus Chrâ—â—t Roger Haydock To which is added an Account of his Deaâ—â— and Burial Price 2 s. The â—â—or Mechanicks Plea against the Rich Clergys Oppression Shewing Tithes are no Gospel-Ministers Maintenance 〈◊〉 a brief and plain Method how that Tithes as now paid are â—oth inconsistent with the Dispensation of the Law and Dispeâ—tion of the Gospel Also how they were brought into the Châ—â—ch many Hundred Years after Christ and testified againstly several Ancient Christians and Martyrs With several Sobeâ— Reasons against the Payment thereof By John Bockett 〈◊〉 3 d. The Univâ—â—sality of the Love of God asserted in a Testimony to the â—ree Grace in Jesus Christ. By William Rawbinson Price d. A Plain 〈◊〉 of certain Christian Experiences Labours Service and Sufferings of that Ancient Servant and Minister of 〈◊〉 Roger Hebden Containing both Warning Consolation and Instruction in Righteousness Eph. 4. 5. 1 Pet. 3. 21. Rom. 6. 4. Gal. 3. 27. Col. 2. 12. John 3. 30. 1 Cor. 1. 17. From whence Idolatries and Heathen-Superstitions did spring The Pharisees the Chiefest Sect among the Jews Many things in Christendom are borrow'd from the Jews and Gentiles Of Sacraments so many Controversies The Name of Sacrament not found in Scripture is borrow'd from the Heathens The Definition of Sacraments agrees to many other things What Sealing Ordinance doth mean That outward Washing doth not cleanse the Heart One Baptism proved Whether Two Baptisms do make up the One If Water be the Type the Substance must remain They that had John's Baptism had not therefore Christ's One Baptism is no Part nor Effect of the other Who were baptized by John were still to wait for Christ's Baptism with the Spirit The Baptism with the Holy Ghost and that with Water differ Water Baptism is not the true Baptism of Christ. The Baptism of the Spirit needeth no Sprinkling or Dipping in Water The plainest Definition of the Baptism of Christ in all the Bible Water Baptism shut out from the Baptism of Christ. The Protestants deny Water-baptism its absolute necessity to mens Salvation Altho ' the Papists say none can be sav'd without it yet grant Exceptions The Effects and Fruits of the Baptism of Christ. Which Effects Water-Baptism wants Proved John's Baptism was of Christ's a Figure II. John's Baptism is Ceas'd our Opposers confess The Gospel puts an end to Carnal Ordinances Men are no more now than before by water baptism inwardly cleansed The Law distinguisht from the Gospel The Outward Baptism Worship Law distinguisht from the Inward That Water-baptism is no Badge of Christians like Circumcision of the Jews 1 Cor. 1. 14. Paul was not sent to baptize Matth. 9. 13. Hos. 6. 6. That Preaching is a standing Ordinance and not to be forhorn That which Converts to Christ is Baptism of the Spirit Why Christ was baptized by John What Baptism Christ doth mean in Matth. 28 Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture The Baptism into the Name what it is Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of Baptism in Matth. 28. How Teaching and Baptising differ The Baptism with the Spirit â—â—scrib'd to Godly Men as Instruments How the Apostles Baptized The Apostles did scruples the Teaching the Gentils Whether Peter's Baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to the Church Baptizing signifies Dipping or Washing with Water 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Immergo Intigo to plunge and dip in Those that of old used Water-baptism were dipt and plunged and those that were only sprinkled were not admitted to any Office in the Church and why The Water that Regenerates is Mystioal and Inward In the 4th Book of his Instit. Chap. 15. Necessitas Praecepti and Medii urged Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant Water-baptism falsly called a Badge of Christianity Which is the Badge of Christianity What the Fathers say of Water-baptism and of the Sign of the Cross. Heathenish Ceremonies introduc'd into the Christian Worship Exorcism or Adjuration The Sign of the Cross. Many in former Ages testified against Water-baptism Ten Canonicks burnt at Orleans and why The Baptism of Infants an Humane Tradition 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. Joh. 6. 2 33 35. 1 Cor. 5. 18. Acts 15. 20. John 13. 14. Jam. 5. 14. The Body and Blood of Christ is Spiritual What the heavenly Seed is whereby formerly and also now Life and Salvation was and is Communicated The Origine Nature and Effects of the Body Flesh and Blood of Christ. Solid Reasons that it is Ilis Spiritual Body Christ speaks of 1 Cor. 6. 17. The Spiritual Light and Seed is as Bread to the Hungry Soul Christ's Outward and Spiritual Body distinguished The Patriarchs did eat of the Body and Flesh and Blood of Christ. Joh. 6. 60. 66. The Divine Light of Christ doth make the Saints Partakers of his Body Joh. 6. 35. and 55. The Lutherans and Calvinians Opinion of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Supper so called 2 Cor. 6. 14. How the Inward Man is nourisht Joh. 6. 53. Joh. 6. 57. Joh. 6. 56. Ver. 16. The True Spiritual Supper of the Lord. Man is not tied to the Ceremony of breaking Bread and drinking Wine which Christ did use with his Disciples This only was a Shadow What makes the Christian Religion hateful to Jews Turks and Heathens The Papists Faith of Christ his Flesh and Blood The Lutherans Faith The Calvinists Faith Inst. lib. 4. cap 17. J. Calvin's Faith of Christ his Flesh and Blood Uncertain The like the Papists Satan busies people in outward Sign Shadows and Forms whilst they neglect the Substance What hath been hurtful to the Reformation Two Errors the ground of the Contentions about the Supper Believers Souls do really feed upon the Flesh and Blood of Christ. That the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ has no special Relation to the Ceremony of breaking Bread neither by Nature nor Precept The Patriarchs and Prophets without this Ceremony's Use were true Partakers of Christ's Flesh and Blood The Paschal Lamb its End Matth. 26. 20. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. The Institution of the Supper or Narration of Christ's Practice therein The Woman of Samaria Joh. 4. 14. The Well the Loaves the Bread and Wine Christ takes occasion from to shew the Inward Feeding The Wickedest may take the outward Bread and Wine The Sacramental Union pretended is a Figment Christ's Act of Bread and Wine is not oâ—liging others The Pharisees guilt of the Blood of the Prophets Whether this Ceremony be a necessary Part of the New Covenant and Obligatory Mat. 26. 26. Mark 14. 22. Luke 22. 19. 1 Cor. 11. 23. The breaking of Bread was no singular thing but a Custom to Jews P. Riccius What it is To do this in Remembrance of Christ. Christ's Washing of Feet and its Manner related Compar'd with the Breaking of Bread The Washing one anothers Feet was left as an Example The Protestants use not Washing of Feet The breaking of Bread not used now in the same manner as Christ did The breaking of Bread was a Jewish Ceremony Contests between the Greek and Latine Churches concerning the Leaven'd and Unleaven'd Bread in the Supper Farellus The Clergy Taking Bread do bless and give it the Laity must Take and Eat not Bless it Hot Contests about the Manner of Taking it and to whom to Give it By Breaking of Bread they had all things in comman Remembring the Lord. Deacons appointed for serving at Tables At Troas the Supper till Midnight deferred They only did Eat for refreshing the Body By some called a Love-Feast The Christians began by degrees to depart from the Primitive Purity 1 Cor. 11. 17. Concerning the Supper of the Lord so called Explained Why the Custom of Supping in Common was used among Christians The Rise of that Custom That as often imports no Command of this Supper Christ's Outward and Inward Coming To Remember Christ't Death till he come To Arise in the Heart And likewise the other Oriental Versions as the Arabick and Aethiopick have it the same way To abstain from things strangled The Anointing with Oil. A Ceremony ought to Cease its Vertue failing Thus Laying on of hands The Ceremony of Bread and Wine is Ceas'd Col. 2. 'T is but a Sign and Shadow they confess And which do perish with the Using The Law was Meats and Drinks not so the Gospel The Law has Shadow the Gospel brings the Substance Their Sacraments confer not Grace Opposers claim a Power to give their Sacraments from whence do they derive it Tradition no sufficient ground for Faith The Supper they gave to Young Boys and Children Daleus Calvin's ingenuous Confession commended Eph. 5. 15. In tenderness of Conscience at Ignorance God winketh The Day is Dawn'd that God is Risen and Worshipped in Spirit
Blood here spoken of Yet it will not follow that that Well or Water had any necessary relation to the Living Water or the Living Water to it c. So Christ takes occasion from the Jews following him for the Loaves to tell them of this Spiritual Bread and Flesh of his Body which was more necessary for them to feed upon it will not therefore follow that their following him for the Loaves had any necessary relation thereunto So also Christ here being at Supper with his Disoiples takes occasion from the Bread and Wine which was before them to signifie unto them that as That Bread which he brake unto them and That Wine which he blessed and gave unto them did contribute to the preserving and nourishing of their Bodies so was he also to give his Body and shed his Blood for the Salvation of their Souls And therefore the very End proposed in this Ceremony to those that observe it is to be a Memorial of his Death But if it be said that the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. 16. Calls the Bread which he brake the Communion of the Body of Christ and the Cup the Communion of his Blood I do most willingly subscribe unto it but do deny that this is understood of the outward Bread neither can it be evinced but the Contrary is manifest from the Context For the Apostle in this Chapter speaks not one Word of that Ceremony For having in the beginning of it shewn them how the Jews of Old were made partakers of the Spiritual Food and Water which was Christ and how several of them through Disobedience and Idolatry fell from that good Condition he exhorts them by the Example of those Jews whom God destroyed of Old to flee those Evils shewing them that they to wit the Corinthians are likewise partakers of the body and blood of Christ of which Communion they would rob themselves if they did Evil because they could not drink of the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils and partake of the Lord's Table and of the Table of Devils ver 21. Which shews that he understands not here the using of outward Bread and Wine because those that do Drink the Cup of Devils and Eat of the Table of Devils yea the Wickedest of Men may partake of the outward Bread and outward Wine For there the Apostle calls the bread One ver 17. and he saith We being many are One bread and one body for we are all partakers of that One bread Now if the bread be One it cannot be the Outward or the Inward would be excluded whereas it cannot be denied but that it 's the partaking of the Inward bread and not the Outward that makes the Saints truly One body and One bread And whereas they say that the One bread here comprehendeth both the Outward and Inward by vertue of the Sacramental Union that indeed is to affirm but not to prove As for that Figment of a Sacramental Union I find not such a thing in all the Scripture especially in the New Testament Nor is there any thing can give a rise for such a thing in this Chapter where the Apostle as is above observed is not at all treating of that Ceremony but only from the Excellency of that Priviledge which the Corinthians had as believing Christians To partake of the flesh and blood of Christ dehorts them from Idolatry and partaking of the Sacrifices offered to Idols so as thereby to offend or hurt their weak Brethren Object But that which they most of all Cry out for in this matter and are always Noising is from 1 Cor. 11. where the Apostle is particularly treating of this matter and therefore from some Words here they have the greatest Appearance of Truth for their Assertion As ver 27. where he calls the Cup the Cup of the Lord and saith That they who eat of it and drink it unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord and ver 26. Eat and drink their own Damnation intimating hence that this hath an immediate or necessary relation to the body flesh and blood of Christ. Answ. Though this at first View may catch the Unwary Reader yet being well considered it doth no ways Evince the matter in Controversie As for the Corinthians being in the Use of this Ceremony why they were so and how that obliges not Christians now to the same shall be spoken of hereafter it suffices at this time to consider that they were in the Use of it Secondly That in the Use of it they were guilty of and committed divers Abuses Thirdly That the Apostle here is giving them Directions how they may do it aright in shewing them the right and proper Use and End of it These things being premised let it be observed that the very express and particular Use of it according to the Apostle is To shew forth the Lord's Death c. But to shew forth the Lord's Death and partake of the flesh and blood of Christ are different things He saith not As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye partake of the Body and Blood of Christ but Ye shew forth the Lord's Death So I acknowledge that this Ceremony by those that practise it hath an Immediate Relation to the outward Body and Death of Christ upon the Cross as being properly a Memorial of it but it doth not thence follow that it hath any inward or immediate Relation to Believers communicating or partaking of the Spiritual Body and Blood of Christ or that Spiritual Supper spoken of Rev. 3. 20. For though in a general way as every Religious Action in some respect hath a common relation to the Spiritual Communion of the Saints with God so we shall not deny but this hath a relation to others Now for his calling the Cup the Cup of the Lord and saying They are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ and eat their own Damnation in not discerning the Lord's Body c. I answer that this infers no more Necessary Relation than any other Religious Act and amounts to no more than this that since the Corinthians were in the Use of this Ceremony and so performed it as a Religious Act they ought to do it Worthily else they should bring Condemnation upon themselves Now this will not more infer the thing so practised by them to be a necessary Religious Act obligatory upon others than when Rom. 14. 6. the Apostle saith He that regardeth the Day regardeth it unto the Lord it can be thence inferred that the Days that some esteemed and observed did lay an obligation upon others to do the same But yet as he that Esteemed a Day and placed Conscience in keeping it was to regard it to the Lord and so it was to him in so far as he dedicated it unto the Lord the Lord's Day he was to do it Worthily and if he did it Unworthily he would be guilty of the Lord's Day and so keep