« AnteriorContinuar »
what we call the third Perfon in the Trinity, or elfe the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. But I fhall not determine, which of the two Senfes is to be preferred. Becaufe which way foever it be underftood, the Apoftles Argument is certainly drawn from their partaking of his Gifts. Now the Gifts there meant, and which they did all partake of, could not be the Extraordinary Gifts only. Because I have fhewn, all good Chriftians did not even in the first Ages enjoy the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit. Wherefore fome of those whom the Apoftle perfuades, by that Argument, did enjoy none but the Ordinary Gifts of the Spirit.
But, if they enjoyed either the Ordinary or Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, then they muft now be all fuppofed to be Baptized with the Spirit or Holy Ghoft. Forno Man ever questioned, but that thofe who were endued with the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, were Baptized with the Spirit. And 'tis now fuppofed, that those who enjoy none but the Ordinary Gifts of the Spirit, may in the Scripture fenfe of that phrafe be properly faid to be baptized therewith. Wherefore all thofe -Look who partake of the one Spirit, were baptized with the Holy Ghoft, and fince the Apostle's Argument for Peace and Unity, is drawn from their partaking of one Spirit; 'tis plain 'tis drawn from their being all baptized with the Holy Ghoft.
But then, what is the confequence? 'Tis plain, this confideration of their partaking of one Spirit, that is, of their being all baptized with the Holy Ghoft, is quite different and manifeftly diftinguished from that other confideration of their partaking of one Baptifm. Nay, there are no less than three diftinct confiderations mentioned between them, viz. their having one Hope, worshipping one Lord, and
and profeffing one Faith. Nor can it be imagined, that the Apostle wou'd repeat this one Argument, much less at fo great Distance, and after fuch a manner as must make us conclude it to be not the fame with any of thofe that went before. Wherefore, fince the Apoftles Argument, when he mentions the one Spirit, is drawn from their being all baptized with the Holy Ghoft, as (upon the fuppofition made) it muft of neceffity be; 'tis undenia bly clear, that the one Baptifm mentioned afterwards cannot poffibly be Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft; because then thofe two Confiderations, which I have fhewn to be really different and diftinct, would be the very fame. So that in what fense foever Baptifm with the Holy Ghost be taken, the one Baptifm in this controverted place cannot be Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft.
I know of nothing that can be objected against what I have faid, unless perchance it may be imagin ed, that there is an inftance of the Apostles repeating the very fame confideration even in this very paffage, and that alfo at fome diftance. For he faies, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptifm, one God and Father of all, &c. Now the one Lord feems to be the very fame with the one God and Father. But to this I answer, that the one Lord there fignifies our Savior, whom they did all worship; and the confideration of our Savior's being their common Lord, is certainly very different from the confideration of their acknowledging the fame God and Father. For our Savior is Lord as God-Man, and this the Jews do not own; and yet the Jews acknowledge the fame God and Father with our felves. So that their acknowledging one God and Father; and their acknowledging one Lord, do furnish the Apoftic with two Confiderations really diftinct, by which
which he propofes to perfuade them to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.
2. The Baptifm mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be the Baptifm with Fire. For that never was adminiftred but once, and that to the Apoftles only: whereas the Baptifm mentioned and commanded in this Text, is confeffed by our Adverfaries to be an univerfal and perpetual Baptifm, and fuch as fhall in all Ages be vouchfafed to the Difciples of our bleffed Lord.
3. That the Baptifm mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be the Baptifm with Affictions, I need not prove. For that Opinion never was maintained, that I know of, by any perfon whatsoever.
Well then; fince the Baptifm mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be either, 1. the Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft, or 2. the Baptifm with Fire, or 3. the Baptism with Affi&tions; therefore it must be proper Baptifm, that is, Baptifm with fome Liquor or other. Becaufe there is no other figurative Element of Baptifm, that is, there is no other thing wherewith a Perfon may be baptized, mentioned in all the Bible. And fince the Baptifm mentioned and commanded in this Text must be proper Baptifm, that is, Baptifm with fome Liquor or other; 'tis very plain, that that Liquor must be Water. For wherefoever the particular Liquor is exprefly named in the Holy Scriptures, we know 'tis alwaies Water. And the Catholic Church has accordingly alwaies ufed Water. Nor do our Adverfaries themfelves pretend, that any other Liquor ought to be used, upon Suppofition, that the Baptifm is with fome Liquor or other. Wherefore, fince the one Baptism mentioned in this Text is a Baptifm with Water; 'tis plain
that we are commanded to be baptized with Water; because our Adverfaries do acknowledge, that we are commanded to be baptized with the one Baptifm mentioned in this Text.
That God has commanded us to be baptized with Water, proved from Matt. 28. 19. and from what the Scriptures attribute to Water-Baptifm.
Hirdly, Our Savior faies, Go je therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in (or rather into, for the Original is is) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, Matt. 28. 19. Now that the Baptifm here mentioned is Water-Baptifm, is plain. Because,
1. The Baptifm here mentioned is confeffed by our Adverfaries themselves to be the fame with that one Baptifm mentioned, Eph. 4. 5. and confequently the Baptifm here mentioned must be Water-Baptifm: because I have fhewn, that the Baptifm mentioned, Eph. 4. 4. is Water-Baptifm.
2. The Baptifm here mentioned cannot be Baptifm with the Spirit, that is, the Effufion of the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft. Because 'tis confeffed by our Adverfaries themfelves, that the Baptifm here mentioned is perpetual and univerfal; whereas I have fhewn, that the Baptifm with the Spirit never was univerfal, and is now wholly ceafed.
But there is also another Argument, which proves, that the Baptifm here mentioned cannot be Baptifm with the Spirit. For the Baptism with the Spirit is not that Baptifm wherewith Men are baptized in (or rather into) the Name of Chrift. This appears from that difference, which the Holy Scriptures make between Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft, and Baptifm into or in the Name of Christ. For inftance, St. Luke fpeaking of the Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft, that is, the Effufion of the Extraordinary Gifts thereof, faies, that the Samaritans had not received it. For, faies he, as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus, Acts 8. 16. in which words he plainly diftinguishes the Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft, from the Baptifm wherewith the Samaritans were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jefus. For they were actually baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus; and yet 'tis plain, that they were not at that time baptized with the Holy Ghoft. The fame appears alfo from Acts 19.5, 6. where we are told, that the Ephefians were baptized in the Name of the Lord Fefus; and then it follows, that after Impofition of Hands they received alfo the Baptifm with the Holy Ghoft, or Effufion of the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghoft, The Words are these, When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jefus! And when Paul had laid his Hands upon them, the Holy Ghoft came on them, and they Spake with Tongues, and prophecied.
'Tis plain alfoy that the Baptifm here mentioned cannot be the Baptifm with Fire. Becaufe, as I have already faid, that Baptifm was never adminiftred but once, and that to the Apoftles only; whereas our Adverfaries confefs, that the Baptifm