as following thereupon as distinctly described And 3. The laying on of Pauls hands and their receiving of the Holy Ghost thereupon as distinctly and differentially described as either of the former The article AND which stands between the Description of their Baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost upon the imposit on of hands being a Note here not of identity or sameness of things but of transition or passing from one thing to another or else of copulation of things really distinct but yet relative 2. This is further discernable by a collation of this passage of Scripture with others where we have the same actions in the same order described as Acts 8.16 17. where speaking of the Holy Ghost the holy Historian saith That he was fallen upon none of them to wit the believing Samaritans onely they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus then laid they their hands on them and they received the Holy Ghost Whence it plainly appears that the Disciples were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus before they received the Holy Ghost and that they did receive the Holy Ghost after their Baptism upon those prayers that were made for them hands laid on them for that end so that these were not one but two distinct actions Just so in the place under discussion though they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus yet we do not find that they received the Holy Ghost till imposition of hands was super-added thereunto 2. Whereas it is further alledged by Calvin that it is no new thing to express the gift of the visible graces of the Spirit by the name of Baptism though this is indeed true in such a sence as the Scriptures to which he refers intend it yet I do believe it is a new thing and not to be found in Scripture to express the effusion of the Spirit as divided from Baptism by water under the description of being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus the form here used in the Text under debate For both those places produced Acts 1.5 and 11.16 speak of the Fathers or Christs own immediate act of conferring the Spirit whereas to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus plainly and directly notes the Agency or Ministry of man managed in the Name of Christ the one is the Baptism of Christ ministred by himself the other is the Baptism of Christ ministred by man in his Name And so Master Calvin himself at another turn will tell you that When John said I indeed baptize with water but Christ when he shall come shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire he meant not to put difference between the one Baptism and the other but he compares his own person with the Person of Christ saying that himself was a Minister of water but that Christ was the Giver of the Holy Ghost Instit Lib. 4. Cap. 15.5.8 And the baptizing in the Name of the Lord Jesus and the pouring out of the Spirit are not the same individual thing but are clearly differenced and distinguished in respect of time order and action as I noted in part before from Acts 8.16 17. a place in this respect parallel with this in hand So that still you will find that to baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus signifies such a Baptism as is not without water But some others not liking so well this construction of the words though they be of the same mind as to the impugning of that literall sence of them which I have imbraced have thought of another way to evade this and that is by understanding these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus as the words of Paul recited by Luke declaring the Baptism of these Disciples by Iohn to be the consequent of Johns preaching to them and not the words of Luke as recording their Baptism as consequential to Pauls preaching to them and so the sence they make to be this That these Disciples when they heard John in his preaching say to them that they should believe on him that was to come after him to wit Christ Jesus then they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus by Iohn See the late Annotators upon the place for this But that neither this is the true intent and genuine sence of the words I strongly incl ne to believe upon these grounds 1. Because this Interpretation overthrowes the Grammatical sence of the words and renders them void of Common sence For it is evident that what Paul is here brought in speaking he spake it to these Disciples themselves for here is no mention of any other persons but Paul and them Now then what ever words were spoken by Paul to them must run in the second Person if you will suppose Paul to speak common sence whereas these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are spoken in the third Person and therefore cannot be the words of Paul to them but of Luke concerning them For if Paul would have declared such a thing to the Disciples as that they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus upon the hearing of Iohn then his words should have run thus When you heard this you were baptized c. and not as now we have them When they heard this they were baptized c. Besides how uncouth and harsh is it to make the people whom Iohn taught and baptized and those twelve Disciples to be the same persons and to conceive that Paul should tell them what Iohn said to the people when all the while he meant themselves both which you must suppose if you take the words in that sence which I oppose because then the people in the fourth verse unto whom Iohn spake and those in the fifth verse which are said to have heard and to have been baptized must be the same persons and consequently both of them these twelve men because as the Pronouns they and they in the fourth and fifth verse upon that supposition that both are Pauls words cannot be understood but of the same persons so also the same Pronouns they and they which relate both to the persons baptized ver 5. and to the twelve that prophesied after Paul had laid his hands on them vers 6. are undoubtedly meant of the same persons likewise And therefore that interpretation now under examination which runs us upon such rocks of absurdity and into such Solecisms of speaking as these must be rejected and consequently these words When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus must be taken as the words of Luke and not of Paul importing the Baptism of these Disciples upon the hearing of Paul and not of Iohn 2. That these words They were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus are not a Description of Iohns Baptism administred to these Disciples but of that Baptism which they received upon Pauls Preaching we have this reason further to conceive because it no
their Repentance this end and use likewise is better answered in mens Baptism who do repent then in Infants who do not 1. Because men who have begun to repent are in a good capacity to receive confirmation and establishment in their hope and confidence of receiving remission of sins from God upon their Repentance and consolation thereby whereas Infants whilest such are altogether uncapable of any such thing in respect whereof this end is made frustrate when Baptism is given to them 2. Because there is a greater appearance both of the wisdom and goodness of God in vouchsafing and applying such a means as Baptism is to strengthen mens Faith in his promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance unto such who 1. Have need of this confirmation and 2. Are capable of receiving it then there is in that application of it which is made to Infants who neither have need of it nor yet are capable of receiving it 4. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance for remission of sins because the persons who are baptized do thereby profess and declare unto the world that they look for remission of their sins from God upon their Repentance yet this end also is better answered in mens Baptism then in Infants because men are capable of making such a profession and declaration of themselves to the world in and by their Baptism when as Infants are altogether uncapable of doing any such thing 5. If it be called the Baptism of Repentance c. because it seals and confirms the Covenant or Promises of God made to men touching the remission of their sins upon their Repentance yet this end and use also is attained upon far better terms in the Administration of Baptism to Believers and to men of understanding then it is or can be when administred to Infants who have neither For if this end and use should be the reason of this denomination of Baptism yet this must be supposed That the intent of God in making Baptism a Seal of his Covenant and Promise is not to make his Covenant more sure in it self but to give it thereby a more sure stable and unquestionable Being in the minds and apprehensions of men and if so this end cannot be attained in Infants by their Baptism because they want the use and exercise of their reason judgment and understanding without which the Articles and terms of Gods Covenant will never take place or have a Being in the minds of any by way of belief 3. Another end of Baptism seems to be this viz. That such who are baptized might thereby signifie their acceptance of and consent unto the terms of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace For the Covenant of God with men does consist of certain Articles to be observed and kept by each party covenanting as Covenants amongst men generally do And as amongst men the parties covenanting are wont to signifie their mutual consent to their respective Articles by some solemn act of theirs in the presence of witnesses as by signing sealing delivering c. So God in the Covenant between him and men will have something like unto this done by men publiquely to signifie their consent to the terms of it as well as what is done by him to declare his readiness to do and perform what he hath undertaken on his part Now Faith in Christ and an obediential subjection to all his Laws and Precepts being the condition of this Covenant on mans part at what time soever he enters into Covenant with God and undertakes the performance of the condition he is to sign and seal the same in the presence of witnesses by that solemn act of his in being baptized In this respect especially I conceive it is that Baptism is called the Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins Mark 1.4 Luk. 3.3 because men are to take up that Ordinance upon their first beginning to repent in order to the remission of their sins For like reason I suppose it is called the washing of regeneration Tit. 3.5 because men upon their being born again are to be baptized according to what was practised in the Apostles times Hence it is likewise as may well be conceived that mens being born of water and of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost Tit. 3.5 are joyned together not because the Spirit works Regeneration in and by Baptism if we respect the beginning of it but because the work of Regeneration by the Spirit and the Baptism of water which is declarative thereof are neerly conjoyned in respect of time if he who is regenerate by the Spirit do but what becomes him And now why tarryest thou arise and be baptized Acts 22.16 And was baptized he and all his straightway Acts 16.33 Finally Beleeving and being baptized are conjoyned as relative to Salvation Mark 16.16 and Baptism hath its rank place or standing in Scripture next after Faith Heb. 6.1 2. Eph. 4.5 Mark 16.16 because it was one of the first fruits of Faith by which they gave account to the world that they did believe indeed and was doubtless esteemed a proof of Faith and without which they were not reckoned Disciples of Christ notwithstanding any other overtures that ways made That both Repentance and the declaration of it by Baptism is required on mans part to interess him in remission of sins and sanctification of the Spirit the things covenanted or promised on Gods part is too evident to be denyed by any but those that will not see from Acts 2.38 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost For the Promise is to you and to your children and to all that are afar off even as many as the Lord our God shall call And that God did not intend this way only for those to whom these words were then spoken or for the men and women of that generation onely but that it was to be his standing method through all generations appears in that the Apostle saith that the Promise to wit of remission of sins and gift of the Spirit which was made on condition of Repentance and Baptism was made not onely to them then and their children but to those that were further remote to those afar off even to all whom the Lord our God shall call And if this be one end and use of Baptism as you see for persons thereby to enter their publique assent and consent unto the terms of the Gospel upon their cordial embracing of it then the Baptism of Infants is voyded as to this use also in as much as they are uncapable of exerting any act of heart or mind by way of assent or consent to the terms of the Gospel or to signifie any such thing by a voluntary submission to Baptism 4. Another excellent effect and use of Baptism is thereby to justifie God
Infants Circumcision 3. Another thing by which it may appear that Infant-Baptism is not agreeable to the Gospel-Ministration is in that it differs from it in this property of it viz. as it is a Ministration of the Spirit for so it 's called 2 Cor. 3.6 It 's the Ministration of the Spirit in two respects 1. Because in and by this Ministration the Spirit is given unto men Galat. 3.2 5. 2. Because the worship and service which God receives from men under it is or ought to be more spiritual then that was under the Law in both which respects Infant-Baptism will be found disagreeable to it 1. That Baptism as an Ordinance of the New Testament and part of the Gospel Ministration when duly administred and received does contribute towards their receiving of the Spirit in respect of a greater presence and operation thereof then till then ordinarily hath been enjoyed by them who are thus baptized may appear from the promise of God made in that behalf Acts 2.38 Then Peter said unto them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost c. And that this was not particular and peculiar to those persons unto whom Peter then spake these words but that the same promise is made to all in all ages that shall repent and be baptized is evident by that which follows in the next Verse whereby the Apostle doth assure them of the remission of their sins and their reception of the Holy Ghost in case they did repent and were baptized upon this ground because the promise of God to wit upon the terms before mentioned was made to them and to their children and not to them only but also to those afar off viz. in respect of nation and generation even as many of them or their children or others afar off as whom the Lord our God should so call viz. by Repentance and Baptism And it is very like that it is because of that proximity or neerness of relation that is between this Ordinance of Baptism by water and this Baptism of the Spirit that mens being born of water and of the Spirit Joh. 3.5 and the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost are coupled together in Scripture Tit. 3.5 1 Cor. 6.11 And it is not unlike neither but that the Spirits descending upon Christ immediately upon his being baptized Mat. 3.16 might have this instruction in it to teach all those that should regularly be baptized with water as he was to expect a greater measure and presence of the Spirit then before had been vouchsafed to them But now that it is not reasonable to expect that any such effect should be produced by Infants being baptized is evident upon this ground because the gift of the Spirit is still made in Scripture to follow the act of mens beleving the Gospel of which act Infants are uncapable Joh. 7.39 Acts 15.7 8. 19.2 Gal. 3.14 Ephes 1.13 And therefore when I affirm as before That the gift of the Spirit or some greater measure of the Spirit is promised upon Baptism duly received I would not be understood as if I meant that this promise is made to any meerly and barely upon their being baptized but to their Baptism in conjunction with their believing and repenting for so it is in the forecited place Acts 2.38 Repent and be baptized c. and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost The promise of the Spirit is not made either to Repentance or Baptism singly but to both in conjunction So that although Baptism be to be received with an eye to the promise of the Spirit and under an expectation of a greater presence thereof yet by such only who are under that qualification of believing for where things are promised upon several conditions or upon condition of several things in conjunction it is not the performance of one of those conditions alone that can put a man into a due and well-grounded expectation of the promise That Infants are in no present or actual capacity of believing whil'st such is evident upon this ground because they have not the use and exercise of understanding knowledg or reason without which none can actually believe For faith supposes an actual knowledg in him who does believe of these two things 1. A notion or knowledg of the thing matter record or testimony to be believed and 2. A notion or knowledg of him who is to be believed or who is the Author of that doctrine or saying which is the subject matter of Faith as namely That he is such an one as may be credited in what he says These things are clear from these and the like Scriptures Romans 10.14 17. Joh. 9 3 6. Psal 9.10 2 Tim. 1.12 That Infants have no such knowledg as to make any Judgment upon either person or thing to be believed as touching either the goodness or badness of the one or the probability or improbability of the other appears Deut. 1.39 Your little ones which ye said should be a prey and your children which in that day had no knowledg between good and evil they shall go in c. Isai 7.16 Jonah 4.11 If Infants then be in no present capacity to believe and without believing in no capacity to receive the Spirit it follows That Infants whilest such are in no due capacity of receiving Baptism in order to their receiving the Spirit and consequently that Baptism administred to them is disagreeable to the Gospel-Ministration as it is the Ministration of the Spirit where as the Baptism of Believers is most commodiously suitable thereunto Nor can it reasonably be supposed here that such a notion as this will salve this fore viz. That Baptism may be received by Infants in order to their receiving the Spirit when they come to believe and so their Baptism be agreeable to the Gospel-Ministration as it is a Ministration of the Spirit notwithstanding it be received in Infancy Because Baptism hath no influence this way as it is a work done in which respect only Infants are capable of it but as it is done submitted to and taken up out of faith and in obedience to God as hath been already proved before in part and will be further confirmed afterwards 2. Infant-Baptism is disagreeable to the Gospel-Ministration as it is the Ministration of the Spirit in this respect also viz. as it requires all Worshippers in all acts of worship in all the Ordinances of this Ministration to worship God in Spirit with the mind in faith and fear of the Lord. That these are the terms of the Gospel-Ministration appears from Job 4.23 24. with other places cited formerly upon somewhat like occasion upon which account I may spare further insisting on them here He that makes use of a Gospel-Ordinance and does not discern in some measure the nature tendency and import of it contracts sin and guilt to
where appears that Iohn did baptize the people in the Name of the Lord Jesus Nay the truth is that Iohn saith concerning him that was to come after him which was Jesus Christ that he did not know him until the time that he baptized him Iohn 1.30 31. For he was before me and I knew him not and again ver 33. And I knew him not but he that sent me to baptize with water the same said unto me Vpon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost If Iohn then did not know Jesus either personally or by his proper name until this time then we have no reason to conceive that he had baptiz d any hitherunto in this proper Name of his and yet before this time he had dispatched the greatest part of his Ministry in as much as he was but to prepare the way for Christ who upon this Baptism of his entred into his Ministry he then coming on when Iohn was going off Acts 10.37 and 1.22 But to put the business out of doubt the Apostle Paul here in this fourth verse of Acts 19. does plainly declare that Iohn when he baptized did say unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him which Paul indeed does here interpret to these Disciples to be meant of Christ Jesus But if Iohn had baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus explicitly why had not Paul said so rather then to say that He baptized them saying unto them that they should believe on him that should come after him Or why should we conclude that if these Disciples had been baptized by Iohn into Christ Jesus expresly and by name that Paul would have made such a business of it to inform them of that of which they could not be ignorant viz. that they were baptized into Christ Jesus If there fore we will take the true scope and meaning of this passage of Scripture we must I conceive understand it thus 1. That these Disciples having been baptized unto Iohn's Baptism were baptized into one as yet to come and to be made manifest unto the world according to Iohn's accustomed manner on this behalf 2. That Paul did now open and declare to them who that was that Iohn said was to come after him and that he did declare him to them now not as one to come but as one already come for so that short expository saying of Paul here THAT IS ON CHRIST IESVS doth import as containing the subject matter of Paul's discourse then And then 3. That these Disciples hearing understanding and believing this viz. That he who is called Jesus Christ was he that was now come and had suffered death c. And was he whom the Baptism of Iohn did then point at more obscurely as one that was to come though not then personally and by name known amongst the people I say upon their hearing and believing this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus as acknowledging him to be that Messiah into the expectation of whom they had formerly been baptized And so we come to the third thing which we were to enquire into out of this Contexture of Scripture and that is why or for what reason it may be conceived that these Disciples were now bapt zed again upon the hearing of Paul when as they had been baptized unto the Baptism of Iohn formerly And the reason hereof must be either 1. Because that though these Disciples had been baptized by Iohn unto the Messias that was then to come after him yet this was not sufficient when once they came to the acknowledgment of Jesus the Son of Mary to be that Messias but that notwithstanding this they were then to be baptized into Christ Jesus as acknowledging him to be that Messiah indeed which before they did expect Or else 2. Because there was some error committed in the administration and reception of their Baptism and other reasons then these I think will not lightly present themselves to any mans mind For the former of these some indeed have conceived that such who were baptized by Iohn unto him that was to come not yet knowing him personally were afterwards baptized again when they came to acknowledge Jesus the Son of Mary to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world and truly this opinion is not altogether to be despised in as much as there is an appearance of reason both that it was so and why it should be so 1. That it was so there is this reason to induce the belief thereof because though as it should seem all the Jews generally were baptized by John yet very considerable numbers of them were baptized afterwards when they came to own Jesus for the Messiah That the Jews generally were baptized by John appears in that it is said There went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region round about Iorden and were baptized of him in Iorden confessing their sins Matth. 3.5 6. Acts 13.24 That there were very considerable numbers of the Inhabitants of these places baptized afterwards when they came to acknowledge Jesus to be the Son of God and Saviour of the world appears by Acts 2.41 where we shall find that at Ierusalem it self there were upon the hearing of Peter and their gladly receiving the word no less then about three thousand baptized in one day Now let it be considered how improbable it is that since the Inhabitants of Ierusalem and all Iudea were baptized of Iohn that these three thousand at Ierusalem only and that in one day should be converted and bap ized and yet not any one of them be of that number which Iohn had baptized before Besides whereas it is said that they that gladly received his word were baipized it must be supposed either 1. That not one of all the Iews which were baptized of Iohn formerly did now gladly receive the word Or else 2. That some of them which had been baptized by Iohn were now again baptized upon Peters preaching For when it is said They that gladly received his word were baptized we have reason to understand it of all that did so receive it for here is no exception made of such as had been baptized by Iohn as indeed there is not in any other place If then it be no wayes probable that in so great and eminent a coming in of the Iews to the Gospel as this was but that some of those who had been formerly baptized into the expectation of Christ did now gladly receive the word of the Gospel by which even Jesus stood declared to be both Lord and Christ then it cannot but be so probable that even some of them whom Iohn baptized were afterwards baptized again that there is scarce place left for any contrary thoughts 2. As there is this reason to prove that it was so so there is reason also to prove why it should be so For
For we shall find that not the baptizing of men into the expectation of Christ to come had the promise of the Spirit but the baptizing of them into the faith and acknowledgment of Christ come and of Iesus to be that Christ and so consequently that Iohns Baptism had no such promise annext to it as Christ's Baptism had on this behalf 1. That Iohns Baptism had no such promise of the Spirit appears by his own acknowledgment and assertion in which he makes this very difference between his own Baptism and the Baptism of Christ viz. that his was but a Baptism of water unto repentance but that he which should come after him should baptize with the Holy Ghost Matth. 3.11 Nay Mark hath it thus which is somewhat fuller I indeed have baptized you with water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost Mark 1.8 His manner of speaking seems to import as if he intended hereby to beat them off from any expectation of the Spirit upon the account of his Baptism now they had received it and to put them upon the expectation thereof from and by the Baptism of Christ when he should come 2. The Apostle Peter accompanied with the rest of the Apostles herein addressing himself to that great multitude that heard him preach at Ierusalem advises them in order to their reception of the Holy Ghost to repent and to be baptized and that every one of them in the Name of the Lord Iesus Acts 2.38 Consider now who these were to whom he gives this advice And we shall find that it was the multitude as they are called ver 6. that came together flocking doubtless from all parts of the City upon occasion of that miraculous wonder of fiery cloven tongues siting upon the Apostles and of their speaking with strange tongues when this was noised abroad as there it is said And can any man imagine that when as but about four years before this the Inhabitants of this City generally went out to be baptized of Iohn and now as generally came together to hear and see this wonder that yet none of them that now came together should be of that number that had been baptized by Iohn Surely such a thing will not be any mans thought or if it shall yet will not be believed amongst considering men And yet even these notwithstanding their having been baptized by John are directed and exhorted now afresh to repent and be baptized and that EVERY ONE of them in the Name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins and are thereupon assured that they shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost Their being baptized then in the Name of the Lord Jesus was necessary to render them meet to receive the Holy Ghost notwithstanding their former Baptism by Iohn 3. If things be well weighed I conceive it will be found that these twelve Disciples at Ephesus were baptized again though they had been baptized formerly unto Johns Baptism upon this very account especially and in order to this very thing viz. their receiving the Holy Ghost For 1. The manner form and import of Pauls questions or demands to them and their answers to him do imply that as it was common for the Spirit to be given upon the reception of Christs Baptism so also that it was not wont to be given upon the administration of Johns For when Paul queries Whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they had believed ver 2. And so when he again demands upon their declaring they had not Vnto what then they had been baptized it plainly implies that Paul did verily expect that they should have received the Holy Ghost upon their being baptized until he was informed that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism And not onely so but that question of his Vnto what then were ye baptized since ye have not received the Holy Ghost does also imply that Paul very well knew that there was a Baptism which was not accompanied with the giving of the Spirit and therefore the end of his question was to know Unto which Baptism they had been baptized and upon their resolution of the Case shewing that they had been baptized only unto Johns Baptism the true reason was discovered why they had not received the Holy Chost as being that which did not use to follow upon Johns Baptism the which appears hereby in that they knew Johns Baptism and the manner of it they themselves being baptized thereunto and yet they had not so much as heard that there was a Holy Ghost to wit extant in the world upon any such terms as Pauls question unto them did import of which surely they could not have been ignorant if the Holy Ghost had been wont to be vouchsafed unto men without any other Baptism save that of Iohn 2. That their re-baptizing or their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus mentioned in ver 5. of Acts 19 was in direct order to their receiving the Holy Ghost the thing first in question between Paul and them may easily be gathered from the connexion that is b tween the 5. and 6. verses and the matters therein related For that their being baptized as set forth ver 5. and their receiving the Holy Ghost ver 6. were neerly related the later having a dependance on the former the Conjunction copulative AND which knits both matters together shews For so the words run When they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Iesus AND when i.e. when this was done AND when Paul had laid his hands on them which imports as much I conceive as if he had said AND when also Paul had laid his hands on them the Holy Ghost came on them i.e. then or thereupon the Holy Ghost came on them So that their receiving of the Holy Ghost relates both to their being baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus and to the imposition of Pauls hands both which in their due order did prepare and dispose them for that reception To conclude this therefore if then men were to be baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus when they came to believe in him in order to their receiving the Spirit of God though they had been before baptized by Iohn then surely have they need to be baptized for the same end who come to the acknowledgment of the truth though they have been baptized as men call baptizing in their infancy because such their Infant-Baptism as hath been formerly evinced doth not operate towards their receiving of the Holy Ghost as true Gospel Baptism will do Come we now more briefly unto a second reason why it is not safe for any to satisfie themselves with that Baptism which they received in their Infancy the irregularity of it supposed and that is because it is none of Gods Baptism i. e. it is none of his ordaining but is the device of mans own heart As it is said of that Feast which Ieroboam ordained though in other
ends for which Baptism was ordained and in respect whereof all other men needed it yet in some other respects we see it was necessary even in Christ himself viz. as it was a thing well becoming him to fulfil all righteousness and to obey God in this as in all other his Commands and Institutions then on foot Matth. 3.15 2. It appears from the Baptism of Cornelius and his Company For though one end of Baptism is to put men into a regular capacity of receiving the Holy Ghost as hath been noted yet God preventing this end of baptism as unto them in causing the Holy Ghost to fall upon them extraordinarily while the word of the Gospel was in speaking to them and before they were baptized the Apostle Peter hereupon is so far from making this an Argument why they should not be baptized or had no need of Baptism as that he thence infers the reasonableness of the thing why they should be baptized in reference to other ends Acts 10.47 48. Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we And he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. I might also from what hath been now last mentioned Objection take occasion to answer another Objection against the continuation of Baptism in these dayes which Objection is this That experience shews that Baptism now produces no such effects as it did in the Apostles dayes for then those that were baptized with water were baptized also with the Spirit some visible effects thereof frequently ensuing But no such effects are now produced by that Baptism which men take up in our days for what have they more of the Spirit who are baptized with this new baptism as they call it then those that are not and if they have no more then to what purpose is the practise of it continued To this I answer Answer 1. That by what hath been just now observed about the baptism of Cornelius and his Company it appears that baptism is necessary for other ends then to render men capable of those extraordinary receptions of the Spirit For we there see that baptism was necessary to them though they had been prevented herewith 2. If this Objection were forcible against the being of true baptism now in the world it might be to as good purpose an objection against the being of any true believers in the world at least so far as known to us For there are no such effects as a miraculous speaking with tongues c. that follow mens believing in these dayes which yet were promised to believers and received by them in the Apostles dayes Mark 16.17 But as the ordinary and common effects of believing to wit obedience love c. do now follow mens believing as well as they did in the Apostles dayes though those extraordinary effects are ceased or at least suspended as having been vouchsafed for a certain time only by way of special dispensation designe for the confirmation of the Gospel-ministration whilest it was but yet new Mark 16.20 Heb. 2.4 So do the ordinary common and indeed most salvivical effects of baptism where duly used now remain when as those that were extraordinary and by way of extraordinary designe and of special dispensation for a time voucsafed are now ceased or at least suspended Neither were those gifts which we call extraordinary extraordinary in point of saving benefit above those which we call ordinary nor indeed equal to them for the Apostle having spoken of these extraordinary gifts 1. Cor. 12.10 concludes thus in ver last Covet earnestly the best gifts and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way And what was that more excellent way but the way of Christian love and charity of which he speaks in the following Chapter the which if wanting though otherwise a man had the tongue of men and Angels and the gift of Prophesie and faith to remove mountains yet he would be nothing but as a sounding brass or a tinkling Cymbal 1 Cor. 13.1.2 But 3. whereas it is demanded what have they more of the Spirit who are baptized then those who are not Though I believe they will not boast of their measures of the Spirit yet I dare say that if they have not a greater presence of the Spirit with them then others have to acquaint them with the things freely given them of God to mortifie the deeds of the body to lust against the deeds of the flesh to crucifie their affections and lusts to the old world to guid them in the wayes of truth to help their infirmities in prayer to strengthen them to suffer and to support them in suffering for righteousness sake and to fill them with that joy and peace which is unspeakable and full of glory it is not because these and the like blessed effects of the Spirit are not deducible from God by baptism if rightly improved but it is because they either rest in the work done or do not exercise faith about the Ordinance and the promise of God annexed to it or else do not frequently and seriously apply themselves to God for these supplyes from it not study how they may all their dayes make the best improvement of it for otherwise this Ordinance is not barren nor is that a vain word which assures men of the Spirit that obey God herein Indeed Baptism doth not procure these effects by any natural efficiency or by the work done neither indeed doth any other Ordinance of the Gospel but in a moral way If then there be that answer of a good conscience joyned with it of which Peter speaks it will doubtless give a good account of it self as touching both what and whose it is Let any mans heart but serve him to obey God in this Ordinance of his and he will find himself upon better terms of confidnce towards God to expect larger receptions from him then before he could do especially whilest he was under any jealousie of mind lest he had not as yet sought such and such grace at his hand after the due order of the Gospel I perceive also Objection that many stumble at this stone as to conceive as if Baptism were an Ordinance and Administration peculiar only unto the first times of the Gospel and not to continue longer then whilest the first Plantation of Chu ches by the Apostles was in hand Towards the removing of which stumbling block Answer laid in their way by Satan I will not say much in more then what I have said though much more might readily be produced on that account But I would demand of the consciences of such whether Baptism were ever at any time an Ordinance of the New Testament of Jesus Christ or no And whether that New Testament in which Baptism hath its place standing were not the last Will and Testament of Christ And if so as I suppose it will not be denied so to have been then whether