tifm Chrift What bap- but putting them to prove that water is here meant, fince the text is filent of it. And though in Mat. 28. in reafon it be fufficient upon our part that we doth mean Arg. 1. Arg. 2. Arg. 3. concede the whole expreffed in the place, but deny that it is by water, which is an addition to the text, yet I fhall premife some reasons why we do fo, and then confider the reafons alledged by thofe that will have water to be here underftood. The first is a maxim yielded to by all, That we ought not to go from the literal fignification of the text, except fome urgent neceffity force us thereunto. But no urgent neceffity in this place forceth us thereunto: Therefore we ought not to go from it. Secondly, That baptifm which Chrift commanded his apoftles was the one baptifm, id eft, his own baptifm: But the one baptifin, which is Chrift's baptifm, is not with water as we have already proved: Therefore the baptifm commanded by Chrift to his apostles was not water-baptifm. Thirdly, That baptifm which Chrift commanded his apoftles was fuch, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Chrift: But this is not true of water-baptifm; Therefore, &c. Arg. 4. Fourthly, The baptifm commanded by Christ to his apoftles was not John's baptifm: But baptifin with water was John's baptism: Alle. 1. But First, They allege, That Chrift's baptifm, though a baptifm with water, did differ from John's, becaufe John only baptized with water unto repentance, but Chrift commands bis difciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost reckoning that in this form there lietb a great difference betwixt the baptifm of John and that of Chrift. I answer, I answer, In that John's baptifm was unto repentance, the difference lieth not there, because fo is Chrift's alfo; yea, our adverfaries will not deny but that adult perfons that are to be baptized ought, ere they are admitted to water-baptifm, to repent, and confess their fins and that infants also, with a respect to and confideration of their baptifm, ought to repent and confefs; fo that the difference lieth not here, fince this of repentance and confeffion agrees as well to Chrift's as to John's baptifm. But in this our adverfaries are divided; for Calvin will have Chrift's and John's to be all one, Inft. lib. cap. 15. fett. 7, 8. yet they do differ, and the differ-. ence is, that the one is by water, the other not, &c. 4. how taken Secondly, As to what Chrift faith, in commanding them to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, I confefs that ftates the difference, and it is great; but that lies not only in admitting water-baptifm in this different form, by a bare expreffing of thefe words: for as the text fays no fuch thing, neither do I fee how it can be inferred from it. For the Greek is eis To dvoue, that is, Ofthe name into the name; now the name of the Lord is often of the Lord taken in fcripture for fomething else than a bare in fcripture. found of words, or literal expreffion, even for his virtue and power, as may appear from Pfal. liv. 3. Cant. i. 3. Prov. xviii. 10. and in many more. Now that the apostles were by their miniftry to baptize the nations into this name, virtue, and power, and The bapthat they did fo, is evident by these teftimonies of tim into Paul above-mentioned, where he faith, That as what it is. many of them as were baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift; this must have been a baptizing into the name, i. e. power and virtue, and not a mere formal expreffion of words adjoining with waterbaptifm; because, as hath been above obferved, it doth not follow as a natural or neceffary confequence of it. of it. I would have those who defire to have their faith built upon no other foundation than the name, Whether than the teftimony of God's Spirit, and Scriptures of truth, thoroughly to confider whether there can be any thing further alledged for this interpretation than what the prejudice of education and influence of tradition hath impofed. Perhaps it may ftumble the unwary and inconfiderate reader, as if the very character of Chriftianity were abolished, to tell him plainly that this fcripture is not to be underftood of baptizing with water, and that this form of baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit hath no warrant from Mat. xxviii. &c. For which, besides the reafon taken from the prefcribe a fignification of [the name] as being the virtue and baptifm in power above expreffed, let it be confidered, that Mat. 28. if it had been a form prefcribed by Christ to his form of apoftles, then furely they would have made ufe of that form in the adminiftering of water-baptifm to fuch as they baptized with water; but though particular mention be made in divers places of the As who were baptized, and how; and though it be particularly expreffed that they baptized fuch and such, as Acts ii. 41. and viii. 12, 13, 38, and ix. 18. and x. 48. and xvi. 15. and xviii, 8. yet there is not a word of this form. And in two places, A&ts viii. 16. and xix. 5. it is faid of fome that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; by which it yet more appears, that either the author of this hiftory hath been very defective, who having fo often occafion to mention this, yet omitteth fo fubftantial a part of baptifm (which were to accufe the Holy Ghoft, by whofe guidance Luke wrote it) or elfe that the apoftles did no ways understand that Chrift by his commiffion, Mat. xxviii. did enjoin them fuch a form of water-baptifm, feeing they did not use it. And therefore it is fafer to conclude, that what they did in adminiftering water-baptifm, they did not by virtue of that commiffion, elfe they would have fo ufed it; for our adverfaries I fuppofe would judge it a great heresy to adminifter water of water-baptifm without that, or only in the name Jefus, without mention of Father or Spirit, as it is exprefly faid they did, in the two places above-cited. Secondly, They say, If this were not understood of Alle. 2. water-baptifm, it would be a tautology, and all one with teaching. ing and bap I fay, Nay: Baptizing with the Spirit is fome- Anfw. what further than teaching, or informing the underftanding; for it imports a reaching to, and melting the How teachbeart, whereby it is turned, as well as the understand- tizing dif ing informed. Befides, we find often in the fcrip- fer. ture, that teaching and inftructing are put together, without any abfurdity, or needlefs tautology; and yet these two have a greater affinity than teaching and baptizing with the Spirit. Thirdly, They fay, Baptifm in this place must be Alle. 3. understood with water, because it is the action of the apoftles; and fo cannot be the baptifm of the Spirit, which is the work of Chrift, and his grace; not of man, &c. the Spirit as inftru I answer; Baptifm with the Spirit, tho' not wrought Anfw. without Chrift and his grace, is inftrumentally done The bapby men fitted of God for that purpofe; and there- tifm with fore no abfurdity follows, that baptifm with the afcribed to Spirit fhould be expreffed as the action of the godly men apostles. For tho' it be Chrift by his grace that ments. gives Spiritual gifts, yet the apoftle, Rom. i. 11. fpeaks of HIS imparting to them fpiritual gifts; and he tells the Corinthians, that He had begotten them through the gospel, 1 Cor. iv. 15. And yet to beget people to the faith, is the work of Chrift and his grace, not of men. To convert the heart, is properly the work of Chrift; and yet the fcripture oftentimes afcribes it to men, as being the inftruments and fince Paul's commiffion was, To turn people from darkness to light (tho' that be not done without Chrift co-operating by his grace) fo may alfo baptizing with the Spirit be expreffed, as performable by man as the inftrument, tho' the work Ff of of Chrift's grace be needful to concur thereunto. So that it is no abfurdity to fay, that the apostles did adminifter the baptifm of the Spirit. Alle. 4. Laftly, They fay, That fince Chrift faith bere, that he will be with his difciples to the end of the world, therefore water-baptism must continue fo long. Anfw. Obj. 3. Anfw. How the apofiles baptized. If he had been speaking here of water-baptifm, then that might have been urged; but feeing that is denied, and proved to be falfe, nothing from thence can be gathered; he fpeaking of the baptifm of the Spirit, which we freely confefs doth remain to the end of the world: yea, fo long as Chrift's presence abideth with his children. §. IX. Thirdly, They object the conftant practice of the apostles in the primitive church, who, they fay, did always administer water-baptism to fuch as they converted to the faith of Chrift; and hence aljo they further urge that of Mat. xxviii. to have been meant of water; or else the apostles did not understand it, because in baptizing they, ufed water; or that in fo doing they walked without a commiffion. I anfwer; That it was the conftant practice of the apostles, is denied; for we have fhewn, in the example of Paul, that it was not fo; fince it were moit abfurd to judge that he converted only thofe few, even of the church of Corinth, whom he faith he baptized; nor were it lefs abfurd to think that that was a conftant apoftolick practice, which he, who was not inferior to the chiefeft of the apoftles, and who declares he laboured as much as they all, rejoiceth he was fo little in. But further; the conclufion inferred from the apoftles practice of baptizing with water, to evince that they understood Mat. xxviii. of water-baptifm, doth not hold: for tho' they baptized with water, it will not follow that either they did it by virtue of that commiffion, or that they miftook that place; nor can there be any medium brought, that will infer fuch a conclufion. As to the other infinuated abfurdity, That they did |