it without a commission; it is none at all: for they might have done it by a permiffion, as being in use before Chrift's death; and because the people, nurfed up with outward ceremonies, could not be weaned wholly from them. And thus they used other things, as circumcifion and legal purifications, which yet they had no commiffion from Chrift to do: to which we fhall speak more at length in the following propofition concerning the supper.

But if from the fameness of the word, because Object. Chrift bids them baptize, and they afterwards in the ufe of water are faid to baptize, it be judged probable that they did understand that commiffion, Mat. xxviii. to authorize them to baptize with water, and accordingly practised it;

Gentiles,

Although it fhould be granted, that for a season Answ. they did fo far mistake it, as to judge that water belonged to that baptifm, (which however I find no neceffity of granting) yet I fee not any great abfurdity would thence follow. For it is plain they did mistake that commiffion, as to a main part of it, for a feafon; as where he bids them Go, teach all nations; fince fome time after they judged it unlawful to teach the Gentiles; yea, Peter The apoftles did fcruple himself fcrupled it, until by a vifion constrained the teach thereunto; for which, after he had done it, he ing the was for a feafon (until they were better informed) judged by the reft of his brethren. Now, if the education of the apoftles as Jews, and their propenfity to adhere and ftick to the Jewish religion, did fo far influence them, that even after Chrift's refurrection, and the pouring forth of the Spirit, they could not receive nor admit of the teaching of the Gentiles, though Chrift, in his commiffion to them, commanded them to preach to them; what further abfurdity were it to fuppofe, that, through the like mistake, the chiefeft of them having been the difciples of John, and his baptifm being fo much prized there among the Jews, they alfo Ff 2 took

makes it a

standing or

the church.

took Chrift's baptifm, intended by him of the Spirit, to be that of water, which was John's, and accordingly practifed it for a feafon? It fuffices us, that, if they were so mistaken, (though I say not that they were fo) they did not always remain under that mistake: elfe Peter would not have said of the baptifm which now faves, that it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, which certainly waterbaptifm is.

But further, They urge much Peter's baptizing Cornelius; in which they prefs two things, First, That water-baptifm is used, even to those that had received the Spirit. Secondly, That it is faid pofitively, be commanded them to be baptized, Acts x. 47, 48.

But neither of thefe doth neceffarily infer waterbaptifm to belong to the new covenant difpenfation, nor yet to be a perpetual standing ordinance in the Whether church. For firft, all that this will amount to, Peter's baptizing fome was, that Peter at that time baptized these men; with water but that he did it by virtue of that commiffion, Mat. xxviii. remains yet to be proved. And how dinance to doth the baptizing with water, after the receiving of the Holy Ghoft, prove the cafe, more than the ufe of circumcifion, and other legal rites, acknowledged to have been performed by him afterwards? Alfo, it is no wonder if Peter, who thought it fo ftrange (notwithstanding all that had been profeffed before, and spoken by Chrift) that the Gentiles fhould be made partakers of the gospel, and with great difficulty, not without an extraordinary impulfe 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 difpenfation of John, the forerunner of Chrift, feemed to have greater affinity with the gospel, than the other Jewish ceremonies then used by the church; but that will no ways infer our adverfaries conclufion. Secondly, As to these words, And he commanded them to be baptized; it declareth matter of

fact,

fact, not of right, and amounteth to no more, than that Peter did at that tine, pro hic & nunc, command thofe perfons to be baptized with water, which is not denied: but it faith nothing that Peter commanded water-baptifm to be a standing and perpetual ordinance to the church; neither can any man of found reafon fay, if he heed what he fays, that a command in matter of fact to particular perfons, doth infer the thing commanded to be of general obligation to all, if it be not otherwife bottomed upon fome pofitive precept. Why doth Peter's commanding Cornelius and his houfhold to be baptized at that time infer water-baptifm to continue, more than his conftraining (which is more than commanding) the Gentiles in general to be circumcifed, and obferve the law? We find at that time, when Peter baptized Cornelius, it was not yet determined whether the Gentiles fhould not be circumcifed; but on the contrary, it was the moft general fenfe of the church that they fhould: and therefore no wonder if they thought it needful at that time that they should be baptized; which had more affinity with the gofpel, and was a burthen lefs grievous.

§. X. Fourthly, They object from the fignifica- Obj. 4. tion 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.

fignifies

This objection is very weak. For fince bap- Anfw. tizing with water was a rite among the Jews, as Paulus Riccius fheweth, even before the coming of Baptizing John; and that the ceremony received that name dipping or from the nature of the practice, as ufed both by washing the Jews and by John; yet we find that Chrift and with water his apoftles frequently make ufe of thefe terms to a more fpiritual fignification. Circumcifion was only ufed and underftood among the Jews to be that of the flesh; but the apoftle tells us of the circumcifion of the heart and Spirit made without hands. So

Ff3

that

that tho' baptifm was used among the Jews only to fignify a washing with water, yet both John, Chrift, and his apoftles, fpeak of a being baptized with the Spirit, and with fire; which they make the peculiar baptifin of Chriit, as contra-diftinguished from that of water, which was John's, as is above fhewn. So that though baptifm among the Jews. was only understood of water, yet among Chriftians it is very well understood of the Spirit without water: as we fee Chrift and his apostles fpiritually to understand things, under the terms of what had been fbadows before. Thus Chrift, fpeaking of his body, (though the Jews mistook him) faid, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up; and many more that might be inftanced. But if the etymology of the word fhould be tenaciously adhered to, it would militate against most of our adverfaries, as well as against us: for the Greek Ramlila Barli fignifies immergo, that is, to plunge and immergo, dip in; and that was the proper ufe of water-bapplunge and tifm among the Jews, and alfo by John, and the primitive Chriftians, who used it; whereas our adverfaries, for the most part, only sprinkle a little water upon the forehead, which doth not at all Thofe that, anfwer to the word [baptifm.] Yea, thofe of old water-bap- among Chriftians that ufed water-baptifm, thought this dipping or plunging so needful, that they thus plunged; dipped children: and forafmuch as it was judged that it might prove hurtful to fome weak conftitutions, Sprinkling, to prevent that hurt, was introduced; yet then it was likewise appointed, that fuch as were only Sprinkled, and not dipped, should office in the not be admitted to have any office in the church, as not being fufficiently baptized. So that if our adverfaries will stick to the word, they must alter their method of Sprinkling.

intingo, to

dip in.

of old ufed

tifm were

dipped and

and those that were

only fprink

led, were not admit

ted to any

church, and

why P

Obj. 5.

Fifthly, They object Jobn iii. 5. Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, &t. bence inferring the neceffity of water-baptifm, as well as of the Spirit,

But

rates, is

But if this prove any thing, it will prove water- Anfw. baptifm to be of abfolute neceffity; and therefore Proteftants rightly affirm, when this is urged upon The water them by Papifts, to evince the abfolute neceffity of that regene water-baptifm, that [water] is not here understood mystical and of outward water; but myftically, of an inward inward. cleanfing and washing. Even as where Christ speaks of being baptized with fire, it is not to be underftood of outward material fire, but only of purifying, by a metonymy; because to purify is a proper effect of fire, as to wash and make clean is of water; where it can as little be fo understood, as where we are faid to be faved by the washing of regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. Yea, Peter faith exprefly, in the place often cited, as Calvin well obferves, In the 4th That the baptifm which faves, is not the putting away Inflit.c. 15 of the filth of the flesh. So that fince [water] cannot be understood of outward water, this can serve nothing to prove water-baptifm.

book of his

If it be faid, that [water] imports here neceffitatem Object. præcepti, though not medii;

and medii

I anfwer; That is firft to take it for granted Anfw. that outward water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have already proved, Next, water and the Spirit are placed here together, [Ex- Neceffitas cept a man be born of water and the Spirit] where præcepti the neceffity of the one is urged as much as of the urged. other. Now if the Spirit be abfolutely neceffary, fo will also water; and then we must either fay, that to be born of the Spirit is not abfolutely neceffary, which all acknowledge to be false; or elfe, that water is abfolutely neceffary; which, as Proteftants, we affirm, and have proved, is falfe: elfe we must confefs, that water is not here understood of outward water. For to fay, that when water and the Spirit are placed here just together, and in the fame manner, tho' there be not any difference or ground for it visible in the text, or deducible from it, That the neceffity of water is here præcepti,

Ff 4

but