An Apology for the True Christian Divinity/APOLOGY/PROPOSITION XII

PROPOSITION XII.

Concerning Baptism.

As there is one Lord,  and one faith,  so there is one baptism; which is not the putting away the  filth of the  flesh, ''but the answer of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. '' And this baptism is a pure and spiritual thing, to wit, the baptism of the Spirit and Fire, by which we are buried with him, that being washed and purged from our sins, we may walk in newness of life:  of which the baptism of John was a figure, which was commanded for a time, and not to continue for ever. As to the baptism of infants,  it is a mere human tradition, for which neither precept  nor practice  is to be found in all the scripture.

§. I. I did sufficiently demonstrate, in the explanation and proof of the former proposition, how greatly the professors  of Christianity,  as well Protestants  as Papists, were degenerated in the matter of worship, and how much strangers to, and averse from, that true and acceptable worship that is performed in the Spirit of Truth,  be

cause of man's natural propensity in his fallen state to exalt his own inventions,  and to intermix his own work  and product  in the service of God: and from this root sprung all the idle worships, idolatries, and numerous superstitious inventions among the ''heathens. '' For when God, in condescension to his chosen people the Jews,  did prescribe to them by his servant Moses  many ceremonies  and observations, as types  and shadows  of the substance,  which in due time was to be revealed; which consisted for the most part in washings, outward purifications, and cleansings, which were to continue until the time of reformation,  until the spiritual worship  should be set up; and that God, by the more plentiful pouring forth of his Spirit,  and guiding of that anointing, should lead his children into all truth,  and teach them to worship him in a way more spiritual and acceptable to him, though less agreeable to the carnal and outward senses; yet, notwithstanding God's condescension  to the Jews  in such things, we see that that part in man, which delights to follow its own inventions,  could not be restrained, nor yet satisfied with all these observations,  but that oftentimes they would be either declining to the other superstitions  of the Gentiles,  or adding some new observations and ceremonies of their own; to which they were so devoted, that they were still apt to prefer them before the commands of God, and that under the notion of zeal  and ''piety.  This we see abundantly in the example of the Pharisees,  the chiefest sect among the Jews,'' whom Christ so frequently reproves for making void the commandments of God by their traditions, Matth. xv. 6, 9, &amp;c. This complaint may at this day be no less justly made as to many bearing the name of Christians,  who have introduced many things of this kind, partly borrowed from the Jews, which they more tenaciously stick to, and more earnestly contend for, than for the weightier points

of Christianity; because that self, yet alive, and ruling in them, loves their own inventions better than God's ''commands. '' But if they can by any means stretch any scripture practice, or conditional precept or permission, fitted to the weakness or capacity of some, or appropriate to some particular dispensation, to give some colour for any of these their inventions; they do then so tenaciously stick to them, and so obstinately and obstreperously plead for them, that they will not patiently hear the most solid Christian reasons against them. Which zeal, if they would but seriously examine it, they would find to be but the prejudice of education, and the love of self, more than that of God, or his pure worship. This is verified concerning those things which are called sacraments, about which they are very ignorant in religious controversies, who understand not how much debate, contention, jangling, and quarrelling there has been among those called Christians: so that I may safely say the controversy about them, to wit, about their number, nature, virtue, efficacy, administration, and other things, hath been more than about any other doctrine of Christ, whether as betwixt Papists and Protestants, or among Protestants betwixt themselves. And how great prejudice these controversies have brought to Christians is very obvious; whereas the things contended for among them are for the most part but empty shadows, and mere outside things: as I hope hereafter to make appear to the patient and unprejudicate reader.

§. II. That which comes first under observation, is the name [sacrament], which it is strange that Christians should stick to and contend so much for, since it is not to be found in all the scripture; but was borrowed from the military oaths among the heathens, from whom the Christians, when they began to apostatize, did borrow many superstitious terms and observations, that they might thereby ingratiate themselves, and the more easily gain the heathens to their religion;  which practice, though perhaps intended by them for good, yet, as being the fruit of human policy,  and not according to God's wisdom, has had very pernicious consequences. I see not how any, whether Papists or Protestants,  especially the latter, can in reason quarrel with us for denying this term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the penmen of the scriptures to leave unto us.

But if it be said, That it is not the name, but the thing they contend for;

I answer; Let the name then, as not beingscriptural,  be laid aside, and we shall see at first entrance how much benefit will redound by laying aside this traditional term, and betaking us to plainness of ''scripture-language. '' For presently the great contest about the number of them will vanish; seeing there is no term used in scripture that can be made use of, whether we call them institutions, ordinances, precepts, commandments, appointments, or laws, &amp;c. that would afford ground for such a debate; since neither will Papists  affirm, that there are only seven,  or Protestants  only two,  of any of these aforementioned.

If it be said, That this controversy arises from the definition of the thing, as well as from the name;

It will be found otherwise: for whatever way we take their definition of a sacrament,  whether as an outward visible sign, whereby inward grace is conferred, or only signified,  this definition will agree to many things, which neither Papists  nor Protestants  will acknowledge to be ''sacraments. '' If they be expressed under the name of sealing ordinances, as by some they are, I could never see, either by reason or scripture, how this title could be appropriate to there, more than to any other Christian, religious performance:  for that must needs properly be a sealing ordinance,  which makes the

persons  receiving it infallibly certain of the promise  or thing sealed to them.

If it be said, It is so to them that are faithful; 

I answer; So is praying and preaching, and doing of every good work. Seeing the partaking or performing of the one gives not to any a more certain title to heaven, yea, in some respect, not so much, there is no reason to call them so, more than the other.

Besides, we find not any thing called the seal  and pledge of our inheritance,  but the ''Spirit of God. '' It is by that we are said to be sealed, Eph. i. 14; iv. 30 which is also termed the earnest of our inheritance, 2 Cor. i. 22 and not by outward water,  or eating  and drinking;  which as the wickedest of men may partake of, so many that do, do, notwithstanding it, go to perdition. For it is not outward  washing with water  that maketh the heart clean,  by which men are fitted for heaven: and as that which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man, because it is put forth again,  and so goeth to the dunghill;  neither doth any thing which man eateth purify him, or fit him for heaven. What is said here in general may serve for an introduction, not only to this proposition, but also to the other concerning the ''supper.  Of these sacraments (so called) baptism '' is always first numbered, which is the subject of the present proposition; in whose explanation I shall first demonstrate and prove our judgment, and then answer the objections, and refute the sentiments of our opposers. As to the first part, these things following, which are briefly comprehended in the proposition, come to be proposed and proved.

§. III. First: There is but one baptism,  as well as but one Lord, one faith, &amp;c. Secondly, That this one baptism, which is the baptism of Christ, is not a washing with, or dipping in water, but a being baptized by the Spirit.

Thirdly, That the baptism of  John was but a figure of this; and therefore, as the figure, to give place to the substance; which though it be to continue, yet the ''other ceaseth. ''

As for the first, viz. That there is but one baptism,  there needs no other proof than the words of the text, Eph. iv. 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism:  where the apostle positively and plainly affirms; that as there is but one body, one Spirit, one faith, one God,  ''&amp;c.  so there is but one baptism. ''

As to what is commonly alleged by way of explanation upon the text, That the baptism of water and of the Spirit make up this one baptism, by virtue of the sacramental union; 

I answer; This exposition hath taken place, not because grounded upon the testimony of the scripture, but because it wrests the scripture to make it suit to their principle of water-baptism;  and so there needs no other reply, but to deny it, as being repugnant to the plain words of the text; which saith not, that there are two baptisms,  to wit, one of water,  the other of the Spirit,  which do make up one baptism;  but plainly, that there is one baptism,  as there is one faith,  and ''one God. '' Now as there go not two faiths,  nor two gods,  nor two spirits,  nor two bodies,  whereof the one is outward and elementary, and the other spiritual and pure, to the making up the one faith,  the one God,  the one body,  and the one Spirit;  so neither ought there to go two baptisms  to make up the ''one baptism. ''

But secondly, if it be said, The baptism is but one, whereof water is the one part, to wit, the sign; and the Spirit, the thing signifed, the other; 

I answer; This yet more confirmeth our doctrine: for if water be only the sign,  it is not the matter  of the one baptism,  (as shall further hereafter by its definition in scripture appear,) and we are to take the one baptism  for the matter  of it, not for the sign,  or figure  and type  that went before.

Even as where Christ is called the one offering in scripture, though he was typified by many sacrifices  and offerings  under the law, we understand only by the one offering,  his offering himself upon the cross; whereof though those many offerings  were signs and types, yet we say not that they go together with that offering of Christ,  to make up the one offering:  so neither, though water-baptism was a sign of Christ's baptism,  will it follow, that it goeth now to make up the ''baptism of Christ.  If any should be so absurd as to affirm, That this one'' baptism here was the baptism of water, and not of the Spirit;  that were foolishly to contradict the positive testimony of the scripture, which saith the contrary; as by what followeth will more amply appear.

Secondly, That this  one baptism, which is the  baptism of  Christ, is not a washing with water,  appears, first, from the testimony of John,  the proper and peculiar administrator of water-baptism, Mat. iii. 11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but  he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you ''with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.  Here John '' mentions two manners of baptizing,  and two different baptisms;  the one with water, and the other with the Spirit; the one whereof he was the minister of, the other whereof Christ was the minister of: and such as were baptized with the first, were not therefore baptized with the second: I indeed baptize ''you, but he shall baptize you. '' Though in the present time they were baptized with the baptism of water; yet they were not as yet, but were to be, baptized with the baptism of Christ. From all which I thus argue:

If those that were baptized with the baptism of water, were not therefore baptized with the baptism of Christ; then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ:

But the first is true;

Therefore also the last. And again,

If he, that truly and really administered the baptism of water, did notwithstanding declare, that he neither could, nor did, baptize with the baptism of Christ; then the baptism of water is not the baptism of Christ:

But the first is true;

Therefore, &amp;c.

And indeed to understand it otherwise, would make John's  words void of good sense: for if their baptisms had been all one, why should he have so precisely contra-distinguished them ? Why should he have said, that those whom he had already baptized, should yet be baptized with another baptism?

If it be urged, That baptism with water was the one part, and that with the Spirit the other part, or effect only of the former; 

I answer; This exposition contradicts the plain words of the text. For he saith not, I baptize you  with water, and he that cometh after me shall produce the effects of this my baptism in you by the Spirit,  ''&amp;c.  or he shall accomplish this baptism in you; '' but, ''He shall baptize you. '' So then, if we understand the words truly and properly, when he saith, I baptize you,  as consenting that thereby is really signified that he did baptize with the baptism of water; we must needs, unless we offer violence to the text, understand the other part of the sentence the same way; ''viz.  where he adds presently,  But'' he shall baptize you,  ''&amp;c. '' that he understood it of their being truly to be baptized with another baptism, than what he did baptize with: else it had been nonsense for him thus to have contra-distinguished them.

Secondly, This is further confirmed by the saying of Christ himself, Acts i. 4, 5. But wait for the 

promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me: for  John truly baptized with water, but ye  shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days ''hence. '' There can scarce two places of scripture run more parallel than this doth with the former, a little before mentioned; and therefore concludeth the same way as did the other. For Christ here grants fully that John  completed his baptism, as to the matter and substance of it: John,  saith he, truly baptized with water;  which is as much as if he had said, John  did truly and fully administer the baptism of water; ''But ye shall be baptized with, &amp;c. '' This showeth that they were to be baptized with some other baptism than the baptism of water; and that although they were formerly baptized with the baptism of water, yet not with that of Christ, which they were to be baptized with.

Thirdly, Peter  observes the same distinction, Acts xi. 16. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but  ''shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. '' The apostle makes this application upon the Holy Ghost's  falling upon them; whence he infers, that they were then baptized with the baptism of the Spirit. As to what is urged from his calling afterwards for water,  it shall be spoken to hereafter. From all which three sentences,  relative one to another, first of John,  secondly of Christ,  and thirdly of Peter,  it doth evidently follow, that such as were truly and really baptized with the baptism of water, were notwithstanding not baptized with the baptism of the Spirit, which is that of Christ; and such as truly and really did administer the baptisim of water, did, in so doing, not administer the baptism of Christ. So that if there be now but one baptism;  as we have already proved, we may safely conclude that it is that of the Spirit,  and not of water;  else it would follow, that the one baptism,  which now continues, were the baptism of water,  i. e. John's

baptism, and not the baptism of the Spirit,  i. e. Christ's;  which were most absurd.

If it be said further, That though the baptism of  John, before  Christ's was administered, was different from it, as being the figure only; yet now, that both it as the figure, and that of the Spirit as the substance, is necessary to make up the one baptism; 

I answer; This urgeth nothing, unless it be granted also that both of them belong to the essence of baptism;  so that baptism  is not to be accounted as truly administered, where both are not; which none of our adversaries will acknowledge: but on the contrary, account not only all those truly baptized with the baptism of Christ,  who are baptized with water,  though they be uncertain whether they be baptized with the Spirit,  or not; but they even account such truly baptized with the baptism of Christ,  because sprinkled,  or baptized with water, though it be manifest and most certain that they are not baptized with the Spirit, as being enemies thereunto in their hearts by wicked works. So here, by their own confession, baptism with water  is without the Spirit. Wherefore we may far safer conclude, that the baptism of the Spirit,  which is that of Christ,  is and may be without that of water;  as appears in that of Acts xi. where Peter  testifies of these men, that they were baptized with the Spirit,  though then not baptized ''with water. '' And indeed the controversy in this, as in most other things, stands betwixt us and our opposers, in that they oftentimes prefer the form and shadow to the power and substance; by denominating persons as inheritors and possessors of the thing, from their having the form and shadow, though really wanting the power and substance; and not admitting those to be so denominated, who have the power and substance, if they want the form and shadow. This appears evidently, in that they account those truly baptized  with the one baptism of Christ,  who are not baptized with the Spirit  (which in scripture is particularly called the baptism of Christ) if they be only baptized with water, which themselves yet confess to be but the shadow or figure. And moreover, in that they account not those who are surely baptized with the baptism of the Spirit  baptized, neither will they have them so denominated, unless they be also sprinkled  with, or dipped  in, water: but we, on the contrary, do always prefer the power to the form, the substance to the shadow; and where the substance and power is, we doubt not to denominate the person accordingly, though the form be wanting. And therefore we always seek first, and plead for the substance and power, as knowing that to be indispensably necessary, though the form sometimes may be dispensed with, and the figure or type may cease, when the substance and anti-type come to be enjoyed, as it doth in this case, which shall hereafter be made appear.

§. IV. Fourthly, That the one baptism of Christ  is not a washing with water, appears from 1 Pet. iii. 21.  The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards ''God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So plain a definition of baptism '' is not in all the bible; and therefore, seeing it is so plain, it may well be preferred to all the coined definitions of the school-men. The apostle tells us first negatively  what it is not, viz. Not a putting away of the filth of the flesh:  then surely it is not a washing  with water, since that is so. Secondly, he tells us affirmatively  what it is, viz. The answer of a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:  where he affirmatively defines it to be the answer  (or confession,  as the Syriac  version hath it) ''of a good conscience.  Now this answer '' cannot be but where the

Spirit of God hath purified the soul, and the fire of his judgments hath burned up the unrighteous nature; and those in whom this work is wrought may be truly said to be baptized with the baptism of Christ,  i. e. ''of the Spirit and of fire. '' Whatever way then we take this definition of the apostle of Christ's baptism,  it confirmeth our sentence: for if we take the first or negative part, viz. That it is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh,  then it will follow that water baptism  is not it, because that is a ''putting away of the filth of the flesh. '' If we take the second and affirmative definition, to wit, That it is the answer  or confession of a good conscience, &amp;c. then water-baptism  is not it; since, as our adversaries will not deny, water-baptism  doth not always imply it, neither is it any necessary consequence thereof. Moreover, the apostle in this place doth seem especially to guard against those that might esteem water-baptism  the true baptism of Christ;  because (lest by the comparison induced by him in the preceding verse, betwixt the souls that were saved in Noah's  ark, and us that are now saved by baptism; lest, I say, any should have thence hastily concluded, that because the former were saved by water,  this place must needs be taken to speak of water-baptism,) to prevent such a mistake, he plainly affirms, that it is not that, but another thing. He saith not that it is the water,  or the putting away of the filth of the flesh, as accompanied with the answer of a good conscience, whereof the one,  viz. water, is the sacramental element, administered by the minister; and the other, the grace or thing signified, conferred by Christ;  but plainly, That it is not the putting away,  ''&amp;c. '' than which there can be nothing more manifest to men unprejudicate and judicious. Moreover Peter  calls this here which saves &#7936;&#957;&#964;&#8055;&#964;&#965;&#960;&#959;&#957;, the anti-type,  or the thing figured;  whereas it is usually translated, as if the like figure did now save us;  thereby insinuating that as they were saved by water in the ark, so arewe now by ''water-baptism. '' But this interpretation crosseth his sense, he presently after declaring the contrary, as hath above been observed; and likewise it would contradict the opinion of all our opposers. For Protestants  deny it to be absolutely necessary to salvation; and though Papists  say, none are saved without it,  yet in this they admit an exception, as of martyrs,  ''&amp;c. '' and they will not say all that have it are saved by water-baptism;  which they ought to say, if they will understand by baptism,  (by which the apostle saith we are saved,) ''water-baptism.  For seeing we are saved by this '' baptism,  as all those that were in the ark were saved by water,  it would then follow, that all those that have this baptism  are saved by it. Now this consequence would be false, if it were understood of water-baptism;  because many, by the confession of all, are baptized  with water  that are not saved; but this consequence holds most true, if it be understood, as we do, of the baptism  of the Spirit;  since none can have this answer of a good conscience, and, abiding in it, not be saved by it.

Fifthly, That the one baptism of Christ is not a  washing with water,  as it hath been proved by the definition of the one baptism,  so it is also manifest from the necessary fruits and effects of it, which are three times particularly expressed by the apostle Paul;  as first, Rom. vi. 3, 4. where he saith, That so many of them as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death, buried with him by baptism into death, that they should walk in newness of ''life. '' Secondly, to the Galatians iii. 27. he saith positively, For as many of you as have been baptized ''into Christ, have put on Christ. '' And Thirdly, to the Colossians ii. 12. he saith, That they were buried with him in baptism,  and risen with him through the ''faith of the operation of God. '' It is to be observed here, that the apostle speaks generally, without any exclusive term,  but comprehensive  of all. He saith not, some of you that were baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,  but as many of you;  which is as much as if he had said, Every one of you that hath been ''baptized into Christ, hath put on Christ.  Whereby it is evident that this is not meant of water-baptism, '' but of the baptism  of the Spirit;  because else it would follow, that whosoever had been baptized  with water-baptism  had put on Christ,  and were risen  with him, which all acknowledge to be most absurd. Now supposing all the visible members of the churches of Rome, Galatia,  and Colosse  had been outwardly baptized with water, (I do not say they were, but our adversaries will not only readily grant it, but also contend for it,) suppose, I say, the case so, they will not say they had all put on Christ,  since divers expressions in these epistles  to them show the contrary. So that the apostle cannot mean baptism  with water;  and yet that he meaneth the baptism  of Christ,  i. e. of the Spirit,  cannot be denied; or that the baptism  wherewith these were baptized  (of whom the apostle here testifies that they had put on Christ) was the one baptism,  I think none will call in question. Now admit, as our adversaries contend, that many in these churches who had been baptized  with water  had not put on Christ,  it will follow, that notwithstanding that water-baptism,  they were not baptized into Christ,  or with the baptism of Christ,  seeing as many of them as were baptized  into Christ had put on Christ,  ''&amp;c. '' From all which I thus argue:

If the  baptism with  water were the  one baptism, i. e. the  baptism of  Christ, as many as were baptized with  water would have put on  Christ:

But the last  is false,

Therefore also the ''first. '' And again:

Since as many as are baptized into  Christ, i. e. with  the  one baptism, which is the  baptism of  Christ, have put on  Christ, then  water-baptism is not the  one baptism, ''viz. the  baptism of '' Christ.

But the first  is true,

Therefore also the ''last. ''

&#167;. V. Thirdly, Since  John's baptism was a figure,  and seeing the figure gives way to the substance, although  the thing figured remain,  to wit, the  one baptism of  Christ, yet the other ceaseth, which was the  baptism of  John.

That John's  baptism was a figure of Christ's  baptism, I judge will not readily be denied; but in case it should, it can easily be proved from the nature of it. John's  baptism was a being baptized with water,  but Christ's  is a baptizing with the Spirit; therefore John's  baptism must have been a figure of Christ's.  But further, that water-baptism was John's  baptism, will not be denied: that water-baptism is not Christ's  baptism, is already proved. &amp;gt;From which doth arise the confirmation of our proposition thus:

There is no baptism to continue now, but the one baptism  of Christ.

Therefore water-baptism  is not to continue now, because it is not the one baptism of ''Christ. ''

That John's  baptism is ceased, many of our adversaries confess; but if any should allege it is otherwise, it may be easily proved by the express words of John,  not only as being insinuated there where he contra-distinguisheth his baptism from that of Christ,  but particularly where he saith, John iii. 30. He  [Christ] must increase, but I  [John] ''must decrease. '' From whence it clearly follows, that the increasing  or taking place of Christ's  baptism is the decreasing  or abolishing of John's  baptism; so that if water-baptism was a particular part of John's  ministry, and is no part of Christ's baptism, as we have already proved, it will necessarily follow that it is not to continue.

Secondly, If  water-baptism had been to continue a perpetual ordinance of Christ in his church, he would either have practised it himself, or commanded his apostles ''so to do. ''

But that he practised it not, the scripture  plainly affirms, John iv. 2. And that he commanded his disciples to baptize  with water,  I could never yet read. As for what is alleged, that, Mat. xxviii. 19, &amp;c. where he bids them baptize,  is to be understood of water-baptism,  that is but to beg the question, and the grounds for that shall be hereafter examined.

Therefore to  baptize with  water is no perpetual ordinance of Christ to his church.

This hath had the more weight with me, because I find not any standing ordinance  or appointment  of Christ  necessary to Christians, for which we have not either Christ's own practice or command, as to obey all the commandments which comprehend both our duty towards God and man, &amp;c. and where the gospel  requires more than the law,  which is abundantly signified in the 5th and 6th chapters of Matthew,  and elsewhere. Besides, as to the duties of worship, he exhorts us to meet, promising his presence; commands to pray, preach, watch,  &amp;c. and gives precepts concerning some temporary things, as the washing  of one another's feet,  the breaking  of bread,  hereafter to be discussed; only for this one thing of baptizing  with water,  though so earnestly contended for, we find not any precept of Christ.

§. VI. But to make water-baptism a necessary institution  of the Christian religion,  which is pure and spiritual, and not carnal and ceremonial, is to derogate from the new covenant dispensation,  and set up the legal rites  and ceremonies,  of which this of baptism, or washing  with water,  was one, as ap pears from Heb. ix. 10. where the apostle speaking thereof saith, that it stood only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances, imposed ''until the time of reformation.  If then the time of reformation, or the dispensation of the gospel, '' which puts an end to the shadows, be come, then such baptisms  and carnal ordinances  are no more to be imposed. For how baptism with water  comes now to be a spiritual ordinance,  more than before in the time of the law,  doth not appear, seeing it is but water  still, and a washing of the outward man, and a putting away of the filth of the flesh still: and, as before, those that were so washed, were not thereby made perfect, as pertaining to the conscience,  neither are they at this day, as our adversaries must needs acknowledge, and experience abundantly showeth. So that the matter of it, which is a washing with water, and the effect of it. which is only an outward cleansing, being still the same, how comes water-baptism to be less a carnal ordinance now than before?

If it be said, That God confers inward grace upon  some that are now baptized; 

So no doubt he did also upon some that used those baptisms among the ''Jews. ''

Or if it be said, Because it is commanded by Christ  now, under the new covenant; 

I answer, First, That is to beg the question; of which hereafter.

But Secondly, We find that where the matter of ordinances is the same, and the end the same, they are never accounted more or less spiritual, because of their different times. Now was not God the author of the purifications  and baptisms  under the ''law? '' Was not water the matter of them, which is so now? Was not the end of them to signify an inward purifying by an outward washing? And is not that alleged to be the end still? And are the necessary effects or consequences of it any better now than before, since men are now, by the virtue of water-baptism, as a necessary consequence of it, no more than before, made inwardly clean? And if some by God's grace that are baptized with water are inwardly purified, so were some also under the law; so that this is not any necessary consequence or effect, neither of this nor that baptism. It is then plainly repugnant to right reason, as well as to the scripture testimony, to affirm that  to be a spiritual ordinance now, which was a carnal ordinance before, if it be still the same, both as to its author, matter, and end, however made to vary in some small circumstances. The spirituality of the new covenant,  and of its worship established by Christ, consisted not in such superficial alterations of circumstances, but after another manner. Therefore let our adversaries show us, if they can, without begging the question, and building upon some one or other of their own principles denied by us, where Christ ever appointed or ordained any institution or observation under the new covenant, as belonging to the nature of it, or such a necessary part of its worship as is perpetually to continue; which being one in substance and effects, (I speak of necessary, not accidental effects,) yet, because of some small difference in form or circumstance, was before carnal, notwithstanding it was commanded by God under the law,  but now is become spiritual, because commanded by Christ under the gospel. And if they cannot do this, then if water-baptism was once a carnal ordinance, as the apostle positively affirms it to have been, it remains a carnal ordinance still; and if a carnal ordinance, then no necessary part of the gospel  or new covenant dispensation;  and if no necessary part of it, then not needful to continue, nor to be practised by such as live and walk under this ''dispensation. '' But in this, as in most other things, ac

cording as we have often observed our adversaries judaize,  and renouncing the glorious and spiritual privileges of the new covenant, are sticking in and cleaving to the rudiments of the old, both in doctrine  and worship, as being more suited and agreeable to their carnal apprehensions and natural senses. But we, on the contrary, travail above all to lay hold upon and cleave unto the Light of the glorious gospel revealed unto us. And the harmony of the truth we profess in this may appear, by briefly observing how in all things we follow the spiritual gospel of Christ,  as contra-distinguished from the carnality of the legal dispensation; while our adversaries, through rejecting this gospel, are still labouring under the burden of the law; which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear.

For the law and rule of the  old covenant and Jews was outward, written in tables of stone and parchment  so also is that of our adversaries. But the law of the  new covenant is inward and perpetual, written in the heart; so is ours.

The worship of the  Jews was outward and carnal, limited to set times, places, and persons, and performed according to set prescribed forms and observations; so is that of our adversaries. But the worship of the  new covenant is neither, limited to time, place, nor person, but is performed in the Spirit and in truth; and it is not acted according to set forms and prescriptions, but as the Spirit of God immediately actuates, moves, and leads, whether it be to preach, pray, or sing;  and such is also our worship.

So likewise the Baptism among the Jews under the law was an outward washing with  outward water, only to typify an inward, purification of the soul, which did not necessarily follow upon those that were thus baptized;  but the baptism of Christ under the gospel is the baptism of the Spirit and of fire; not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God;  and such is the baptism that we labour to be baptized withal, and contend for.

§. VII. But again, If water baptism had been an ordinance of the gospel, then the apostle Paul would have been sent to administer it; but he declares positively; 1 Cor. i. 17. That Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The reason of that consequence is undeniable, because the apostle Paul's  commission was as large as that of any of them; and consequently he being in special manner the apostle of Christ to the Gentiles, if water-baptism, as our adversaries contend, be to be accounted the badge of Christianity, he had more need than any of the rest to be sent to baptize with water, that he might mark the Gentiles  converted by him with, that ''Christian sign. '' But indeed the reason holds better thus, that since Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles;  and that in his ministry he doth through all (as by his epistles appears) labour to wean them from the former Jewish ceremonies  and observations,  (though in so doing he was sometimes undeservedly judged by others of his brethren, who were unwilling to lay aside those ceremonies,) therefore his commission, though as full as to the preaching of the gospel and new covenant dispensation  as that of the other apostles, did not require of him that he should lead those converts into such Jewish observations and baptisms,  however that practice was indulged in and practised by the other apostles among their Jewish proselytes,  for which cause he thanks God that he had baptized so few:  intimating that what he did therein he did not by virtue of his apostolic commission but rather in condescension to their weakness, even as at another time he circumcised Timothy.

Our adversaries, to evade the truth of this testimony, usually allege, That by this is only to be understood, that he was not sent principally to baptize, not that he was not sent at all.

But this exposition, since it contradicts the positive words of the text, and has no better foundation than the affirmation of its assertors, is justly rejected as spurious,  until they bring some better proof for it. He saith not, I was not sent  principally to baptize,  but I was  not sent to baptize.

As for what they urge, by way of confirmation, from other places of scripture, where [not] is to be so taken, as where it is said, I will have mercy,  and not sacrifice,  which is to be understood that God requires principally mercy,  not excluding sacrifice: 

I say this place is abundantly explained by the following words, [and the knowledge of God more than burnt oferings]; by which it clearly appears that burnt-offerings,  which are one with sacrifices, are not excluded; but there is no such word added in that of Paul,  and therefore the parity is not demonstrated to be alike, and consequently the instance not sufficient, unless they can prove that it ought so to be admitted here; else we might interpret by the same rule all other places of scripture the same way, as where the apostle saith, 1 Cor. ii. 5. That your faith might not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God, it might be understood, it shall not stand principally so. How might the gospel, by this liberty of interpretation, be perverted ?

If it be said, That the abuse of this baptism among  the  Corinthians, in dividing themselves according to the persons by whom they were baptized, made the apostle speak so; but that the abuse of a thing doth not abolish it; 

I answer, It is true, it doth not, provided the thing be lawful and necessary; and that no doubt the abuse abovesaid gave the apostle occasion so to write. But let it from this be considered how the apostle excludes baptizing,  not preaching,  though the abuse [mark] proceeded from that, no less than from the other. For these Corinthians  did denominate themselves from those different persons by whose preaching  (as well as from those by whom they were baptized) they were converted, as by the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and, 8th verses of chap. iii. may appear: and yet to remove that abuse the apostle doth not say he was not sent to preach, nor yet doth he rejoice that he had only preached to a few; because preaching, being a standing ordinance in the church, is not, because of any abuse that the devil may tempt any to make of it, to be forborne by such as are called to perform it by the Spirit of God: wherefore the apostle accordingly, chap. iii. 8, 9. informs them, as to that, how to remove that abuse. But as to water-baptism, for that it was no standing ordinance of Christ, but only practised as in condescension to the Jews,  and by some apostles to some Gentiles  also, therefore, so soon as the apostle perceived the abuse of it, he let the Corinthians  understand how little stress was to be laid upon it, by showing them that he was glad that he had administered this ceremony to so few of them; and by telling them plainly that it was no part of his commission, neither that which he was sent to administer.

Some ask us, How we know that baptizing here is meant of water, and not of the  Spirit; which if it be, then it will exclude the baptism of the  Spirit, as well as of Water.

I answer, Such as ask the question, I suppose, speak it not as doubting that this was said of water-baptism, which is more than manifest. For since the apostle Paul's message was, to turn people from darkness to light,  and convert them to God;  and that as many as are thus turned and converted (so as to have the answer of a good conscience toward God, and to have put on Ghrist, and be risen with him in newness of life)  are baptized with the baptism of the Spirit. But who will say that only those few mentioned there to be baptized by Paul  were come to this? Or that to turn or bring them to this condition was not, even admitting our adversaries' interpretation, as principal a part of Paul's ministry as any other? Since then our adversaries do take this place for water-baptism,  as indeed it is, we may lawfully, taking it so also, urge it upon them. Why the word baptism  and baptizing  is used by the apostle, where that of water  and not of the Spirit  is only understood, shall hereafter be spoken to. I come now to consider the reasons alleged by such as plead for water-baptism,  which are also the objections used against the discontinuance of it.

§. VIll. First, Some object, That Christ, who had  the Spirit above measure, was notwithstanding baptized  ''with water.  As Nic. Arnoldus  against this Thesis,'' Sect. 46. of his Theological Exercitation.

I answer, So was he also circumcised;  it will not follow from thence that circumcision is  to continue for it behoved Christ to fulfil all righteousness, not only the ministry of John,  but the law  also, therefore did he observe the Jewish feasts  and rites,  and keep the ''passover. '' It will not thence follow that Christians  ought to do so now; and therefore Christ, Mat. iii. 15. gives John  this reason of his being baptized, desiring him to suffer it to be so now; whereby he sufficiently intimates that he intended not thereby to perpetuate it as an ordinance to his disciples.

Secondly, They object, Mat. xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This is the great objection, and upon which they build the whole superstructure;  whereunto the first general and sound answer  is, by granting the whole;

by those that will have water  to be here understood.

The First is a maxim yielded to by all, That we ought not to go from the literal signification of the text, except some urgent necessity force us thereunto.

But no urgent necessity in this place forceth us thereunto:

Therefore we ought not to go from it.

Secondly, That baptism which Christ commanded his apostles was the one baptism, id est,  his own baptism:

But the one baptism, which is Christ's baptism, is not with water,  as we have already proved:

Therefore the baptism commanded by Christ to his apostles was not water-baptism.

Thirdly, That baptism which Christ commanded his apostles was such, that as many as were therewith baptized did put on Christ:

But this is not true of water-baptism;

Therefore, &amp;c.

Fourthly, The baptism commanded by Christ to his apostles was not John's  baptism:

But baptism with water was John's  baptism;

Therefore, &amp;c.

But First, They allege, That Christ's baptism, though a baptism with water, did difer 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, &amp;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. For the Greek is {GREEK TEXT}, that is, of theinto 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. 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 adjoining 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,  thoroughly 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 Mat. xxviii. &amp;c.

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, Mat. 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 administerwater-baptism  without that, or only in the name of Jesus,  without mention of Father  or Spirit,  as it is expressly said they did, in the two places above-cited.

Secondly, They say, If this were not understood of  water-baptism, it would be a tautology, and all one with  teaching.

I say, Nay: Baptizing with the Spirit  is somewhat further than teaching, or informing the understanding; for it imports a reaching to,  and melting  the heart,  whereby it is turned,  as well as the ''understanding informed.  Besides, we find often in the scripture, that teaching  and instructing '' are put together, without any absurdity, or needless tautology; and yet these two have a greater affinity than teaching  and baptizing  with the ''Spirit. ''

Thirdly, They say, Baptism in this place must be  understood with  water, because it is the action of the apostles; and so cannot be the baptism of the Spirit, which ''is the work of Christ, and his grace; not of man, &amp;c. ''

I answer; Baptism with the Spirit,  though not wrought without Christ  and his grace,  is instrumentally done by men fitted of God for that purpose; and therefore no absurdity follows, that baptism  with the Spirit  should be expressed as the action of the apostles. For though it be Christ by his grace that gives spiritual gifts,  yet the apostle, Rom. i. 11. speaks of his imparting to them spiritual 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 Christ  and his grace,  not of men. To convert the heart, is properly the work of Christ; and yet the scripture oftentimes ascribes it to men, as being the instruments: and since Paul's  commission was, To turn people from darkness to light,  (though that be not done without Christ  co-operating by his grace,) so may also baptizing with the Spirit  be expressed, as performable by man as the instrument, though the work

of Christ's grace  be needful to concur thereunto. So that it is no absurdity to say, that the apostles did administer the baptism  of the ''Spirit. ''

Lastly, They say, That since Christ saith here, that he will be with his disciples to the end of the world, therefore  water-baptism ''must continue so long. ''

If he had been speaking here of water-baptism, then that might have been urged; but seeing that is denied, and proved to be false, nothing from thence can be gathered; he speaking of the baptism of the Spirit,  which we freely confess doth remain to the end of the world; yea, so long as Christ's presence abideth with his children.

§. IX. Thirdly, They object the constant practice of the apostles in the primitive church, who,  they say, did always administer  water-baptism to such as they converted to the faith of Christ; and hence also 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 used  water; ''or that in so doing they walked without a commission. ''

I answer; That it was the constant practice of the apostles,  is denied; for we have shown, 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 apostolic 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 Mat. xxviii. of water-baptism, doth not hold: for though they baptize 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.

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,  Mat. xxviii. to authorize them to baptize with  water, and accordingly practised it;

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;  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. 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, Mat. 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 &amp; nune,  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 bottomed upon some positive precept. Why doth Peter's  commanding Cornelius  and his household 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 burden less grievous.

§. X. Fourthly, They object from the signication   of the word  [baptize] which is as much as to  dip and  wash with  water; alleging thence that the very word imports a being baptized with  water.

This objection is very weak. For since baptizing with water was a rite among the Jews,  as Paulus Riccius  showeth, 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 shown. 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: for the Greek {GREEK TEXT HERE} 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]. 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. ''

Fifthly, They object John iii. 5. Except a man, be born of  water, and of the  Spirit, ''&amp;c. hence inferring'' the necessity of  water-baptism, ''as well as of the Spirit. ''

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; 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 expressly, in the place often cited, as Calvin well observes, 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.

If it be said, that [water] imports here  necessitatem prÆcepti, though not  medii;

I answer; That is first to take it for granted that outward water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have already proved. Next, water  and the Spirit  are placed here together, [Except a man be born of  water and the  Spirit,] where the necessity of the one is urged as much as of the other. Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary, so will also water; and then we must either say, that to be born of the Spirit  is not absolutely necessary, which all acknowledge to be false; or else, that water is  absolutely necessary; which, as Protestants,  we affirm, and have proved, is false: else we must confess, that water  is not here understood of outward water. For to say that when water  and the Spirit are placed here just together, and in the same manner, though there be not any difference or ground for it visible in the text, or deducible from it, That the necessity  of water is here pr&#198;cepti, 

but not medii,  but the necessity of the Spirit  is both medii  and pr&#198;cepti, is indeed confidently to affirm, but not to prove.

Sixthly and lastly; They object, That the baptism of water is a visible sign or badge to distinguish  Christians from  Infidels, even as circumcision did the Jews.

I answer; This saith nothing at all, unless it be proved to be a necessary precept,  or part of the new  covenant dispensation;  it not being lawful for us to impose outward ceremonies  and rites,  and say, they will distinguish us from ''infidels. Circumcision '' was positively commanded, and said to be a seal of the first covenant;  but as we have already proved that there is no such command for baptism, so there is not any word in all the New Testament, calling it a badge of Christianity,  or seal of the new covenant:  and therefore to conclude it is so, because circumcision was so, (unless some better proof be alleged for it,) is miserably to beg the question. The professing of faith in Christ, and a holy life answering thereunto, is a far better  badge of  Christianity than any outward washing;  which yet answers not to that of circumcision,  since that affixed a character in the flesh, which this doth not: so that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his being baptized,  especially when he was a child, unless he tell them so much: and may not the professing of faith in Christ  signify that as well? I know there are divers of those called the Fathers,  that speak much of water-baptism, calling it Characterem Christianitatis:  but so did they also of the sign of the cross,  and other such things, justly rejected by ''Protestants.  For the mystery of iniquity, '' which began to work in the apostles' days, soon spoiled the simplicity and purity of the Christian worship; insomuch that not only many Jewish rites  were retained, but many heathenish customs  and ceremonies  introduced into the Christian worship; as particularly that word [sacra 

ment]. So that it is a great folly, especially for Protestants,  to plead any thing of this from tradition  or antiquity;  for we find that neither Papists  nor Protestants  use those rites exactly as the ancients  did; who in such things, not walking by the most certain rule of God's Spirit, but doting too much upon externals, were very uncertain. For most of them all, in the primitive times, did wholly plunge  and dip those they baptized, which neither Papists,  nor most Protestants,  do: yea, several of the Fathers accused some as heretics  in their days, for holding some principles common with Protestants  concerning it; as particularly Augustine  doth the Pelagians,  for saying that ''infants dying unbaptized may be saved.  And the Manichees  were condemned, for denying that grace is universally given'' by baptism;  and Julian  the ''Pelagian. by Augustine;'' for denying exorcism and insufflation in the use of  baptism:  all which things Protestants  deny also. So that Protestants  do but foolishly to upbraid us, as if we could not show any among the ancients  that denied water-baptism;  seeing they cannot show any, whom they acknowledge not to have been heretical in several things, that used it; nor yet, who using it, did not also use the sign of the cross,  and other things with it, which they deny. There were some nevertheless in the darkest times of Popery,  who testified against ''water-baptism. '' For one Alanus,  pag. 103, 104, 107, speaks of some in his time that were burnt for the denying of it: waterbaptism, they said, That baptism had no efficacy, either in children or adult persons; and therefore men were not obliged to take baptism:  particularly ten canonics, so called, were burnt for that crime, by the order of king  Robert of  France. And P. Pith&#198;us  mentions it in his fragments  of the history  of Guienne;  which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis,  a monk, who was famous at that time, in his epistle to Oliva, abbot of the Ausonian  church; I will,  saith

he, give you to understand concerning the heresy that  was in the city of  Orleans on  Childermas day; for it was true, if ye have heard any thing, that king Robert caused to be burnt alive near fourteen of that city, of the chief of their  clergy, and the more noble of their  laics, who were hateful to God, and abominable to heaven and earth; for they did stiffly deny the grace of holy baptism, and also the consecration of the Lord's ''body and blood. '' The time of this deed is noted in these words by ''Papir. Masson,  in his annals  of France, '' lib. 3. in Hugh  and Robert, Actum AureliÆ publice anno Incarnationis Domini  1022. Regni Roberti Regis 28. Indictione  5. quando  Stephanus HÆresiarcha & Complices ejus damnati sunt & exusti ''Aurelice.  Now for their calling them Heretics  and Manichees, '' we have nothing but the testimony of their accusers, which will no more invalidate their testimony for this truth against the use of water-baptism, or give more ground to charge us, as being one with Manichees,  than because some, called by them Manichees,  do agree with Protestants  in some things, that therefore Protestants  are ,Manichees  or Heretics,  which Protestants  can no ways shun. For the question is, Whether, in what they did, they walked according to the truth testified of by the Spirit in the holy scriptures? So that the controversy is brought back again to the scriptures, according to which, I suppose, I have already discussed it.

As for the latter part of the thesis,  denying the use of infant-baptism,  it necessarily follows from what is above said. For if water-baptism be ceased, then surely baptizing of infants is  not warrantable. But those that take upon them to oppose us in this matter, will have more to do as to this latter part: for after they have done what they can to prove water-baptism, it remains for them to prove that infants  ought to be baptized. For

he that proves water-baptism ceased, proves that infant-baptism is vain: but he that should prove that water-baptism continues, has not thence proved that infant-baptism is necessary; that needs something further. And therefore it was a pitiful subterfuge of ''Nic. Arnoldus  against this, to say, That the denying of infant-baptism belonged to'' the gangrene of the  Anabaptists, without adding any further proof.