§. IX.
Answ.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, who was not inferior to the chiefest of the Apostles, and who declares he laboured as much as they all, rejoiceth he was so little in. But further; the Conclusion inferred from the Apostles Practice of baptizing with Water, to evince that they understood Matt. xxviii. of Water-baptism, doth not hold: How the Apostles baptized.For though they baptized with Water, it will not follow that either they did it by Virtue 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, Matt. xxviii. 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; The Apostles did scruple the Teaching 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, 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 baptizing 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 x. 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. Whether Peter’s baptizing some with Water makes it a standing Ordinance to 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 Virtue of that Commission, Matt. xxviii. remains yet to be proved. And how doth the Baptizing with Water, after the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, prove the Case, more than the Use of Circumcision, and other legal Rites, acknowledged to have been performed by him afterwards? Also, it is no Wonder if Peter, who 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 an 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 Forerunner 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 otherwise founded 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 at that Time, when Peter baptized Cornelius, it was not yet 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.