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.
§. X.
Answ.This Objection is very weak. Baptizing signifies Dipping or Washing with Water.For since baptizing with Water was a Rite among the Jews, as Paulus Riccius sheweth, even before the Coming of John; and that the Ceremony received that Name from the Nature of the Practice, as used both by the Jews and by John; yet we find that Christ and his Apostles frequently make use of these Terms to a more spiritual Signification. Circumcision was only used and understood among the Jews to be that of the Flesh; but the Apostle tells us of the Circumcision of the Heart and Spirit made without Hands. So that though Baptism was used among the Jews only to signify a Washing with Water, yet both John, Christ, and his Apostles, speak of a being baptized with the Spirit, and with Fire; which they make the peculiar Baptism of Christ, as contra-distinguished from that of Water, which was John’s, as is above shewn. So that though Baptism among the Jews was only understood of Water, yet among Christians it is very well understood of the Spirit without Water: As we see Christ and his Apostles spiritually to understand Things, under the Terms of what had been Shadows before. Thus Christ, speaking of his Body, (though the Jews mistook him) said, Destroy this Temple, and in three Days I will raise it up; and many more that might be instanced. But if the Etymology of the Word should be tenaciously adhered to, it would militate against most of our Adversaries, as well as against us: [Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω] immergo, intingo, to plunge and dip in. For the Greek [Greek: Baptizô: Βαπτιζω] signifies immergo, that is, to plunge and dip in; and that was the proper Use of Water-baptism among the Jews, and also by John, and the primitive Christians, who used it; whereas our Adversaries, for the most Part, only sprinkle a little Water upon the Forehead, which doth not at all answer to the Word [Baptism.] Those that of old used Water-baptism were dipped and plunged, and those that were only sprinkled, were not admitted to any Office in the Church, and why.Yea, those of old among Christians that used Water-baptism, thought this Dipping or Plunging so needful, that they thus dipped Children: And forasmuch as it was judged that it might prove hurtful to some weak Constitutions, Sprinkling, to prevent that Hurt, was introduced; yet then it was likewise appointed, that such as were only sprinkled, and not dipped, should not be admitted to have any Office in the Church, as not being sufficiently baptized. So that if our Adversaries will stick to the Word, they must alter their Method of Sprinkling.
Obj. 5.Fifthly, They object, John iii. 5. Except a Man be born of Water, and of the Spirit, &c. hence inferring the Necessity of Water-baptism, as well as of the Spirit.
Answ.But if this prove any Thing, it will prove Water-baptism to be of absolute Necessity; and therefore Protestants rightly affirm, when this is urged upon them by Papists, to evince the absolute Necessity of Water-baptism, that [Water] is not here understood of outward Water; The Water that regenerates, is mystical and inward.but mystically, of an inward Cleansing and Washing. Even as where Christ speaks of being baptized with Fire, it is not to be understood 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 so understood, as where we are said to be saved by the Washing of Regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. Yea, Peter saith expresly, in the Place often cited, as Calvin well observes, [118]That the Baptism which saves, is not the putting away of the Filth of the Flesh. So that since [Water] cannot be understood of outward Water, this can serve nothing to prove Water-baptism.
[118] In the 4th Book of his Instit. C. 15.