« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
what we call the third Person in the Trinity, or else the Gifts of the Holy Spirit. But I shall not determine, which of the two Senses is to be pre. ferred. Because which way foever it be understood, the Apostles 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. Be. cause I have shewn, all good Christians did not even in the first Ages enjoy the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit. Wherefore some of those whom the Apostle persuades, 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 must now be all supposed to be Baptized with the Spirit or Holy Ghost. For no Man ever questioned, but that those who were endued with the Extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, were Baptized with the Spirit. And 'tis now supposed, that those who en: joy none but the Ordinary Gifts of the Spirit
, may in the Scripture sense of that phrase be properly
said to be baptized therewith. Wherefore all those took who partake of the are Spirit
, were baptized with the Holy Ghost, and since 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 Ghost.
But then, what is the consequence? 'Tis plain, this consideration of their partaking of one Spirit, that is, of their being all baptized with the Holy Ghost, is quite different and manifestly distinguished from that other consideration of their partaking of one Baptism. Nay, there are no less than three diftinét considerations mentioned between them, viz. their having one Hope, worshipping onę Lord,
and professing one Faith. . Nor can it be imagined, that the Apostle wou'd repeat this one Argument, much less at so great Distance, and after such a manner as must make us conclude it to be not the same with any of those that went before. Wherefore, since the Apostles Argument, when he mentions the one Spirit, is drawn from their being all baptized with the Holy Ghost, as (upon the supposia tion made) it must of necessity be; 'tis undeniably clear, that the one Baptism mentioned afterwards cannot possibly be Baptism with the Holy Ghoft; because then those two Considerations, which I have shewn to be really different and die ftinct, would be the very fame. So that in what sense soever Baptism with the Holy Ghost be taken, the one Baptism in this controverted place cannot be Baptism with the Holy Ghost.
I know of nothing that can be objected against what I have said, unless perchance it may be imagin. ed, that there is an instance of the Apostles repeating the very fame consideration even in this very passage, and that also at some distance. For he faies, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, &c. Now the one Lord seems 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 al worship; and the consideration of our Savior's being their common Lord, is certainly very different from the consideration of their acknowledging the same God and Father. For our Savior is Lord as God-Man, and this the Fews do not own ; and yet the Jews acknowledge the fameGod and Fatler with our felves. So that their acknowledging one God and Father; and their acknowledging one Lord, do furnish the Apostic with two Considerations really distinct,
which he proposes to persuade them to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace.
2. The Baptism mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be the Baptism with Fire. For that never was administred but once, and that to the Apostles only: whereas the Baptism mentioned and commanded in this Text, is confessed by our Adversaries to be an universal and perpetual Baptism, and such as shall in all Ages be vouchsafed to the Disciples of our blessed Lord.
3. That the Baptism mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be the Baptism with Affrictions, I need not prove. For that Opinion never was maintained, that I know of, by any perfon whatsoever.
Well then; since the Baptism mentioned and commanded in this Text, cannot be either, 1. the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, or 2. the Baptism with Fire, or 3. the Baptism with Affli&tions; therefore it must be proper Baptism, that is, Baptism with some Liquor or other. Because there is no other figurative Element of Baptism, that is, there is no other thing wherewith a Perfon
may be baptized, mentioned in all the Bible. And fince the Baptism mentioned and commanded in this Text must be proper Baptism, that is, Baptism with fome Liquor or other; 'tis very plain, that that Liquor must be Water. For wherefoever the particular Liquor is exprelly named in the Holy Scriptures, we know 'tis alwaies Water. And the Catholic Church has accordingly alwaies used Wa
Nor do our Adversaries themselves pretend, that any other Liquor ought to be used, upon Suppolition, that the Baptism is with some Liquor or other. Wherefore, since the one Baptism mentioned in this Text is a Baptism with Water ; 'tis plain
E that we are commanded to be baptized with Wa
ter; because our Adversaries do acknowledge, that we are commanded to be baptized with the one Baptism mentioned in this Text.
That God has commanded us to be baptized
with Water, proved from Matt. 28. 19. and from what tbe Scriptures attribute to Water-Baptism.
*Hirdly, Our Savior faies, Go je therefore, and
teach all Nations, baptizing them in (or rather into, for the Original is eis ónovci) the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 28. 19. Now that the Baptism here mentioned is Water-Baptism, is plain. Because,
1. The Baptism here mentioned is confessed by our Adversaries themselves to be the same with that one Baptism mentioned, Eph. 4. 5. and consem quently the Baptism here mentioned must be Water-Baptism : because I have shewn, that the Baptism mentioned, Eph. 4. 4. is Water-Baptism.
2. The Baptism here mentioned cannot be Baptism with the Spirit, that is, the Effusion of the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost. Because 'tis confessed by our Adversaries themselves, that the Baptism here mentioned is perpetual and universal; whereas I have shewn, that the Baptism with the Spirit never was univerfal, and is now wholly ceased,
But there is also another Argument, which proves, that the Baptism here mentioned cannot be Baptism with the Spirit. For the Baptism with the Spirit is not that Baptism wherewith Men are baptized in (or rather into the Name of Christ. This appears from that difference, which the Holy Scriptures make between Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and Baptifm into or in the Name of Christ. For instance, St. Luke speaking of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, that is, the Effüsion of the Extraordinary Gifts thereof, saies, that the Samaritans had not received it. For, saies he, as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesús, Acts 8. 16. in which words he plainly distinguishes the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, from the Baptism wherewith the Samaritans were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jefus. For they were actually baptized in the Name of the Lord Jefus ; and yec 'eis plain, that they were not at that time baptized with the Holy Ghost. The fame appears also from Aits 19.5,6. where we are told that the Ephesians were baptized in the Name of the Lord
Fesus; and then it follows, that after Imposition of Hands they reccived also the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, or Effusion of the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Words are these, When they heard this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his Hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they Spake with Tonguess and prophecied.
'Tis plain also, that the Baptifm-here' mentioned cannot be the Baptism with Fire. Because, as I have already said, that Baptism was never admipistred but once, and that to the Apostles only; whereas our Adversaries confess, that the Baptism