But this is not true of Water-baptism:
Therefore, &c.
Arg. 4.Fourthly, The Baptism commanded by Christ to his Apostles was not John’s Baptism:
But Baptism with Water was John’s Baptism:
Therefore, &c.
Alleg. 1.But First, They allege, 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.
I answer, In that John’s Baptism was unto Repentance, the Difference lieth not there, because so is Christ’s also; yea, our Adversaries will not deny but that adult Persons that are to be baptized ought, ere they are admitted to Water-baptism, to repent, and confess their Sins: And that Infants also, 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 says no such Thing, neither do I see how it can be inferred from it. Of the Name of the Lord how taken in Scripture.For the Greek is [Greek: eis to onoma: εις το ονομα], 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 Virtue and Power, as may appear from Psal. liv. 3. Cant. i. 3. Prov. xviii. 10. and in many more. The Baptism into the Name, what it is.Now that the Apostles were by their Ministry to baptize the Nations into this Name, Virtue, 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 Virtue, and not a mere 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 alleged 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 the Father, Son, and Spirit, hath no Warrant from Matt. xxviii. &c.
Whether Christ did prescribe a Form of Baptism in Matt. 28.For which, besides the Reason taken from the Signification of [the Name] as being the Virtue and Power above expressed, let it be considered, that if it had been a Form prescribed by Christ to his Apostles, then surely they would have made use of that Form in the administering of 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 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, Acts viii. 16. and xix. 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, Matt. xxviii. did enjoin 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 administering Water-baptism, they did not by Virtue of that Commission, else they would have so used it; for our Adversaries I suppose would judge it a great Heresy 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.