WORSHIP007

                                 Worship of God

                                           E. Drapes

                                         Chapter VII

                   Answers several Objections

Objection:

Water Baptism, like John, Must Decrease

Some say, John baptized with water, but Christ with the Holy Ghost and fire; so that John says, I
must decrease, but he must increase. From whence they conclude, that water Baptism must decrease,
and He, viz., Christ, and his Baptism of the spirit, must increase, John 3:30.

Solution:

This objection is grounded upon a mere mistake, conceiving the Baptism of water to be only John's,
and not Christ's. So that when John says, I must decrease, they can understand nothing to be meant
but water Baptism: when it is not John's intention, but John shows his glory, his honor and ministry
must give way to, and be swallowed up in Christ, and decreased in this respect, that he must die and
cease. But Christ increases by his death, through which he gives new institutions. I have already
showed the difference and agreement of Christ's and John's Baptism, wherein I have proved the
Baptism of water to be the Baptism of Christ.
Objection:

Baptism in Water is No Part of the True Worship

But Christ says to the woman of Samaria, Woman believe me, the hour cometh when you shall, neither
in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father: But the hour cometh, and now is, when the
true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: which is an argument, that Baptism
of water is no part of the worship of God; for that is outward, and God will be worshipped in spirit,
John 4:22,23.
Solution:

In answer to this, I desire you to mind, that Christ does not at all destroy the Baptism of water, but
takes her off from Jerusalem and that Mountain wherein they worshipped, confining themselves to
places. Therefore, he says, Neither at Jerusalem, nor at this Mountain.

Now Christ does not simply deny the worshipping of God at Jerusalem, for we know the Churches
worshipped God in their spirits at Jerusalem after Christ's death; but prophecies of the abolishing
of that legal and ceremonial worship of the Jews, which was tied to one place above another, and
indeed the worship of God under the Old Testament, was in comparison of the worship of the Gospel;
fleshly or carnal (not sinful) whereby they were tied to many sacrifices and weary journeys, in going
up to Jerusalem to worship. But now there is great liberty and freedom, wherein they profess God in
spirit. So that to worship God in spirit and in truth, is to worship him after a spiritual manner, from
a spiritual principle, in opposition to that legal state wherefore Paul calls himself, a minister of the
spirit, and not of the letter. Neither does that place at all deny outward Baptism: for Christ says,
The hour is already come, when those that worship God worship him in spirit and truth. When you
will not deny Baptism of water to be in use, neither can a man truly worship God in any ordinance,
without he worship God in the spirit.

Objection:

Baptism in Water is a Fleshly, Outward Thing

But Baptism of water is a fleshly thing, an outward thing, which cannot be admitted into the Kingdom
of heaven: for the Apostle says, the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but righteousness, and
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 14:17.

Solution:

Consider, I pray thee, the Apostle there meddles not with Baptism, but dissuading them from
offending one another in meat and drink (for some would eat flesh, and some could not). He tells
them, The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink. For those things were not commanded to be eaten or
forbidden; so that we should sin if we do or do not eat, But righteousness, etc. Now righteousness is
the performance of all the commands of God, to which Baptism of water is a part. As Christ says,
Suffer me, for thus it becometh me to fulfill all righteousness. Christ did all things commanded, and
that, as one of the commands of God. So that this is no Argument at all, except you can prove Baptism
of water to be the meat and drink he there speaks of, which can never be made manifest. So that for
you to call Baptism of water a fleshly thing, it argues a carnal understanding of the commands of God.

Objection:

But Paul calls it, a fleshly thing. For he says, We are the Circumcision which worship God in the
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. So that Paul relinquishes all
outward things, as Baptism, and the like, as fleshly, worshipping God in the spirit, Phil. 3:3.

Solution:

This Objection is like the first, where Paul points not at all at Baptism, but at his Jewish privileges,
which he enumerates, verses 5 and 6. Which very things he tells us, be they which he means, by
flesh, and has not confidence in them. Surely were we able to see how that we are commanded to
glorify God in soul, body and spirit, we should leave such carnal reasoning, and not take Paul's arguing
against Jewish outward Ceremonies abolished by Christ's death, as a ground against Baptism of
water, which is grounded upon his death.
Objection:

Water Baptism Ceased When Spirit Baptism Ceased

But water Baptism ceased, when spirit Baptism came in, and was not to continue after that, for fire
Baptism devours water Baptism.
Solution:

Behold into how great mistakes men run, when they endeavor to vanquish the truth itself. The
Scriptures expressly tells us, Acts 10, that the apostle Peter seeing Cornelius and those that were
with him, baptized with the Holy Ghost, (for the Holy Ghost fell on them as on the Apostles, Acts
11) makes use of this as a ground to prove, nothing could hinder him from being baptized with water.
Oh the subtlety of Antichrist, who makes wise men even as it were mad, to forget their own reasons,
endeavoring to make that a ground of destroying water Baptism, which the Apostle used as an
argument for the establishment of it.

Objection:

Water Baptism Was Used Only In the Infancy of the Church

But some say, the Baptism of water was only used in the minority or infancy of the Church.
Therefore when the Church grew higher in the knowledge of God, they laid aside these things.
Therefore is it said in the Hebrews, We must leave the principles of the doctrines of Christ, and go
on unto perfection; of which principles Baptism is one, which we ought now to leave, Heb. 6:1, etc.

Solution:

Whoever you are that thus argue against Baptism, by the same argument you may leave faith toward
Christ and the resurrection of the dead. That I may clearly show you your mistake of the
Scriptures, consider the Apostle speaks to those who did own those principles, and reproved them,
not, for owning them; for chapter 5 he tells them, They had need to have them taught again: But for
not increasing in the knowledge of God. Therefore he tells them, For their time they had need to
have been teachers of others. And so from these principles he draws their thoughts higher into the
mysteries of Christ. So that the Apostle says, Leaving them we press forward; that is to say, leaving
now, or at present, to speak of them, which ye know and own already, we will go forward to speak of
higher things, which higher things destroy not the other. Which is evident, if you consider the other
to be the principles or beginnings of the doctrine of Christ. Now the building destroys not the
foundation. These beginnings and the other more perfect things are at perfect unity.
Objection:

We Must Leave and Forget Water Baptism

I, but say some, The Apostle says, He forgets those things that are behind, and reached forth to
those things that are before; so that we must not only leave them, but forget them, Phil. 3:13.

Solution:

To which I answer, the word, forgetting, is not to be taken for an absolute forgetfulness of all things
he had before done. For this Paul did not, but in reference to the glory of perfection, he had in his
eye, he did as a man in a race, running towards the prize. He does, as it were, forget all things
behind him, in respect of his continual motion. So in the things of God, we ought day by day to press
forward, till we come to the mark, to the enjoyment of perfection. So that there is no good ground
for such an Objection for the Apostle James, Commends them that are not forgetful hearers but
doers of the word.

Objection:

To Be Baptized is to Know Christ After the Flesh

But notwithstanding, surely to be baptized is to know Christ after the flesh: therefore says Paul,
Though we have known Christ himself after the flesh, yet henceforth know we no man after the flesh,
no not Christ himself, 2 Cor. 5:16.

Solution:

That we know not Christ after the flesh, is true; and yet it is as true, that to be baptized is not to
know Christ after the flesh. This Scriptures is most strangely perverted, from whence many souls
take advantage to propagate their own delusions.

What is Knowing Christ After the Flesh?

That we may a little manifest the truth of this Scriptures, we are to consider what it is to know
Christ after the flesh. If you say to know Christ after the flesh, is to know him as dying at
Jerusalem, I say, thus, we are always to know him. Neither do we know him at all truly, except we so
know him. And if you mean the knowledge of him in any Ordinance of the New Testament, that is, to
know him according to the spirit. But to know Christ after the flesh, is to know him after a carnal
manner, in a way distinction or outward privilege, by a fleshly relation. For thus Paul once knew
himself, According to the flesh to be an Israelite, circumcised the eight day, and not a sinner of the
Gentiles. Thus did they know Christ to be of the natural seed of Abraham, that went forth preaching
peculiarly to the Jews, who said, Salvation is of the Jews. But now they knew him not, after those
fleshly distinctions: for now there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, Barbarian nor
Scythian, Male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus: therefore says Paul, verse 17. If any
man be in Christ, he is a new Creature, old things are passed away; that is to say, the privileges the
Jews have by birth, and that old administration. Therefore says Paul, We serve God not in the
oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit. Not in a fleshly manner, but spiritually: so
that this Scriptures does not in the least speak against baptism, or breaking of bread, but against
the fleshly privileges that many Jews boasted of, which were done away in Christ.

Objection:

Water Baptism is a Rudiment of the World

But the Scriptures says, If ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the world; why, as though
living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to
perish with the using.) after the commandments and doctrines of men; which directly speak against
Ordinances? How then can you plead for the ordinance of water Baptism, or any other outward
Ordinances? Col. 2:21.

Solution:

If you did but consider what Ordinances he speaks against, you would have spared this objection. He
forbids the rudiments of the world, the doctrines and commands of men in the things of God. These
are not by Saints to be tasted, touched, nor handled for they perish in the using. That is to say, we
reap no benefit by them, but we suffer loss in the use of them. But I hope no man will say, we are
not to touch the doctrines, ordinances, and commandments of Christ. If they shall: not only Baptism,
but faith and spiritual worship must not be touched, for these are the doctrines of Christ and the
same Apostle, that forbids these earthly sinful commands, himself praises the Corinthians, For
keeping the Ordinances he delivered to them, 1 Cor. 11:2, which he received of Christ.

Objection:

Apostles only Practiced Baptism as an Outward Ceremony of John's Baptism

It is true, the Apostles did practice Baptism of water, but they did it only as an outward Ceremony
of John's baptism, which was not easily laid down, and so they practiced Circumcision.

Solution:

That the Apostles and Disciples did practice baptism I have already proved, and not upon John's,
but Christ's account. And I say again, they did it as a command from Christ; for if they had done it
only as a Ceremony, how comes it to pass Peter commands the Gentiles to be baptized, who were
ignorant of John's baptism, and how comes it in the Disciples Commission as I have more largely
before proved it to be. Again, if it was only practiced as a Ceremony I desire you would show me,
where, how or when this Ceremony ended, surely 'twas not by fire baptism as is most evident from
Acts 10.

All Ceremonies that Pointed at a Christ to Come Ceased When He did Come

Yea, this is evident all Ceremonies that pointed at a Christ to come, ceased in Christ, but baptism as I
have before proved, has its institution from Christ, as risen from the dead. But for a more clear and
distinct answer, I say, it is true that the Apostle did circumcise Timothy in the Gospel, yet
notwithstanding the ground or account whereupon he circumcised, is far different from the ground of
the administration of baptism, for if you consider it you will find that Paul did not circumcise
Timothy, but upon the desire of the Elders of Jerusalem, for the satisfaction of the Jews, Paul being
to go to them, that he might have the more advantage to gain upon them, did this, for if you observe
it, Timothy's mother was a Jew, and so of right he ought to be circumcised. Paul had the greater care
to do it, least they should have refused to admit him into their company. But oh, how far different
was the administration of baptism, performed by virtue of Christ's command, as I have plainly
proved before, not to please any but in obedience to Christ. Again, this was only once, and only to
one, that we read of, practiced. For afterward when they would have Titus to be circumcised, Paul
would not give way to it, no not at all, and when the Galatians pleaded for it, he expressly told them,
if they were circumcised, Christ should profit them nothing. Now do I demand of you to show me,
where the Scriptures says that baptism was administered to please man, or where you find the Lord
by the Scriptures forbidding the use of it, or disannulling the practice of it. So that for any one to
conclude baptism was used, because it was a ceremony, that ought, but could not easily be laid down,
is but a bare affirmation, which has no color of truth or proof, and if any one shall affirm it is so, I
pray him in love to give me the grounds and reasons from the Scriptures for such an assertion, to
which I here promise in the strength of the Lord to return a further answer.

Objection:

Matthew 28 is Only A Baptism of the Spirit

But some other object from Matt. 28, that the disciples are there commanded to baptize into the
name, not in the Name of the Father, etc., that is into the virtue of the Father, or into the Father
himself, which is only true in the baptism of the spirit, so that that baptism cannot be meant a
baptism of water.

Solution:

No Act of the Apostles Gave the Holy Spirit

I have already proved that the Apostles did not by any act of theirs give the Spirit, for they did
only publish to the ear, it was the Lord that spoke to the heart, they baptized with water, but Christ
with the holy Ghost, and fire. It was the work of Paul to plant, and Apollo to water, but only of the
Lord to give the blessing. So that the true understanding of these words are, that the disciples were
commanded to preach the Lord Jesus, and his name, and to baptize them into his name, that is to say,
to dip them into his profession to separate them unto the Lord. And therefore Paul says, were you
baptized into the name of Paul, that you so much boast your selves to be of him, whereby is clearly
demonstrated, that to be baptized in the name, is into the profession of their union with Christ,
whereby they are visibly clothed with Christ, it is the sole act of the Father to wash their souls and
bodies, with the Spirit of regeneration, but the disciples may and did baptize or dip their bodies in
water.

Objection:

Matthew 28 is Not the Same Baptism in Jesus' Name As in Acts

But they are commanded to baptize into the Name of Father, Son, and Spirit, which was not that
baptism of water, the Apostles practiced, for that is said to be only in the Name of the Lord Jesus.
Therefore for you to baptize with water in the Name of Father, Son, and Spirit, is contrary to the
Apostles' practice.
Solution:

What it is to Baptize in Jesus' Name

To this I say, to baptize in the Name of Father, Son, and Spirit, is to Baptize in the Name of the
Lord Jesus, and to Baptize in the Name of the Lord Jesus, is to Baptize in the Name of the Father,
Son, and Spirit. For the Father and Spirit dwell in Christ, and are not known without him.
Therefore when Philip said unto Christ, Show us the Father, Jesus answered and said, have I been so
long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,
and how sayest thou show us the Father, I am in the Father, and the Father in me, John 14:8-10.
Whereby is fully demonstrated that to do any thing in the name of Christ, is to do it in the name of
the Father, and so it is also of the Spirit, which dwells unmeasurably in the Lord Jesus. Therefore
says Christ, Though I go away, I will come to you, and I will send the Spirit the Comforter. I tell
you plainly Christ is not but as the Father and Spirit are in him. So that no man can baptize into the
name of the Lord Jesus, but he does it into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. But if you say
the Apostles used not that form of words in baptism, viz., I Baptize in the name of the Father, Son,
and holy Ghost, I say also no man is bound to use them, but ought to baptize it in that name,
expressing what he does either in those or other words.

Objection:

To Baptize does not always mean in water

But Christ says not, Go, Baptize with water, but only Baptize. Now for any one to say, he meant with
water, is to add a consequence of their own, for Scriptures, and to speak that which Christ intends
not.

Solution:

You that thus object, I pray you tell me seriously, whither you think your objection has any bottom,
if you say it has, I likewise affirm, for you to say he means the Spirit is by the same reason
altogether groundless, for he says not, be baptized with the Spirit. But know you this, God has given
us understanding to know his Will and by his Words, surely when he says baptize, he would have us
know what he means, so that we must express with what, or confess our own ignorance. I have already
proved this Baptism is the Baptism of Water. And I say again, to Baptize properly signifies to dip in
the water, and where it is otherwise used as in affliction and the Spirit, it is figuratively so used,
and not properly, for in those there is a plunging, or overwhelming the soul or body, as there is of the
body in water.

Objection:

Ephesians 4:5 is Baptism of the Spirit

The Scriptures say, Eph. 4:5, There is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, which Baptism is a
Baptism of the Spirit. Therefore, for you to say Christ has a Baptism of water, is to make two
Baptisms, whereof one of them is of your own invention. For to say Christ has two Baptisms, is to
give the Scriptures the lie.

Solution:

Hebrews 6:2 Teaches the Doctrine of Baptisms

If we shall say there are two baptisms, the word of truth will warrant us, for Heb. 6:2, we find the
doctrine of baptisms spoken of, which surely are more than one, for the word is in the plural number,
and I have proved the baptism of water, to be the Baptism of Christ. And for ought I can
understand by any man to the contrary, the Apostle means the baptism of water in this Scriptures,
for he mentions not the Spirit, nor Water, so that I might as well retort this objection, and say there
is but one Baptism, which is of Water, therefore for any to say there is a Baptism of the Spirit, they
give this Scriptures the lie, which manner of argument, be it far from me. For the meaning of the
Apostle there, is to draw the Saints into unity from the consideration of the unity of truth, There is
one Faith, he says, yet notwithstanding it is easily proved that there was then several sorts of faith,
as of miracles, which all had not, of the Gospel which every Saint had, yet one faith. So one baptism,
yet there was a baptism of water, of the Spirit, and of afflictions; which in one respect are diverse,
yet in another they are one, that is to say, in unity. The one not destroying the other, water Spirit
and afflictions accompany Saints, Spirit gives them a being in life, water manifests this being,
afflictions are sent from the Father to exercise them in this being. Yea, further the holy Ghost and
fire and the Baptism of Water are one as centering in one head, the Lord Christ, tending to unity,
viz., the advancement of the Gospel, therefore though in a sense, there are several sorts of Baptism,
yet all agree in one, the Water, the Spirit, and blood, the three Witnesses in earth, agree in one. Yet
further, there is but one true baptism of Water, not several kinds of which I judge he here speaks,
so that from this Scriptures, we cannot prove the baptism of Water, not to have being, more than we
may prove the baptism of the Spirit not to be.
Objection:

God Didn't Send Paul to Baptize

But say others what say you to that of Paul, he thanks God he had baptized none of them, but few
families. And says, he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, now if Christ had given a
Commission to them, so to do, Paul very ill observed it, that baptized few. But certainly no such
Commission was given, for if there had, how could Paul truly say, I was not sent to baptize, which
surely will not easily be answered, 1 Cor. 1.
Solution:

How We Know God Sent Paul to Baptize

I do confess at the first sight this argument appears with much strength, from which I fear many
honest hearts take advantage to strengthen them in their apprehensions against this Ordinance, but
the Scriptures, being truly weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, this observation will be sound
light. The truth whereof, that it may appear, consider the persons to whom Paul spoke, the ground of
his speaking, and the end of his speech.

The Persons to Whom He Wrote

First, the persons to whom he wrote were the Corinths, therefore he says, I thank God I baptized
none of you, from whence we may not conclude he baptized no others.

The Reason of His Writing These Words

2.          The ground whereupon he wrote these words was, the carnal owning of themselves after men,
one saying he was of Paul, another of Apollos; those persons who did baptize them, were owned by
them, in a way of distinction, calling themselves by their names.

The End of His Writing These Words

Thirdly, the end of his words which was to knit them together, which he endeavors to effect by two
arguments. First, by telling of them, they were not baptized into his name, neither was he crucified
for them, he died not for them, neither were they baptized into his death. Wherefore it was a very
carnal thing for them so to be divided, whose divisions made him to rejoice, that he had baptized no
more, for this reasons, lest they should say, they were baptized into his own name. He does not here
at the least deny the baptism of Water, but his words if you observe them are a clear proof that the
Corinthians were all baptized, though not into Paul's name, yet into Christ's name, for he says, I
baptized none of you, but such and such, implying others had baptized them, for in the Acts it is said,
many Corinthians believed and were baptized, Acts 18:8.

Some Were Making Too Much Out of Baptism

Secondly, that he might destroy their carnal reasonings in setting up baptism so much in a way of
opposition one to another and against Christ himself, he tells them Christ sent him not to baptize, but
to preach the Gospel. Which words are comparatively to be understood, for Christ did chiefly and
principally sent him to preach the Gospel, such manner of speaking we shall find usual therefore when
the Israelites rejected Samuel and would have a King, God says to Samuel, they have not rejected
thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them, which words are to be understood
that the greatest offense was committed against the Lord. Such another expression is that in
Jeremiah, where God says, I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I
brought them up out of the Land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings, or sacrifices: But this thing
commanded I them, saying, obey my voice. Now we know God did command them to offer sacrifices,
but that was not the chief thing commanded, in comparison of the obedience of the heart they were
not commanded, Jer. 7:22,23 and so Paul says 1 Cor. 3:6,7 I have planted, Apollo watered, and
yet immediately he tells them, neither he that planted, nor he that watered were any thing, that is to
say, nothing in comparison of the Lord. For otherwise they were something, for he calls himself a
wise master builder, in this we may see the wisdom of God, when any soul extols any thing beyond its
Sphere, that the Lord lays as it were low. James saw many exalting faith, and slighting works, he
prefers works, and tells them a man is justified by works. When Paul saw the Galatians advancing
works, he throws them down, and ranks them with loss and dung. So here when Paul saw the
Corinthians exalting him and others, because they were baptized by them, he reproves them for it,
and spoke after this manner, Oh ye Corinthians, you rejoice in men as if you were baptized into their
names, but you are mistaken, you were baptized into the name of Christ. You have little cause thus to
boast of me, for I for my own part baptized but few of you, neither was that my principal office or
work to baptize you, but to preach the Gospel.

Objection:

But if this be true, how did Paul fulfill that commanded of Christ, saying, Go teach and baptize, if
that baptism be meant of water, in the 28th of Matthew.

Solution:

Christ and Paul Baptized By or Through Others

To this I answer, he may be truly said to do a thing that does it by another. So is Christ said, To
make and baptize more Disciples than John, when indeed he himself baptized not, but his Disciples
did it. So the Apostles did fulfill it, baptizing some with their own hands, and in commanding others
to baptize also. The Apostles preached faith and baptism, but indeed were not able to baptize all
with their own hands, but had many brethren accompanying them to help them in that work; as is
evident in the example of Peter, preaching to Cornelius, Acts 10.

If Christ Sent Not Paul to Baptize, then Why Did He Baptize?

To conclude my answer to Paul's saying, he was not sent to baptize,

I say, in the Scriptures this is considerable, that baptism is not tied of necessity to an Apostle, that
he must with his own hands do it, for Paul was not sent so sent to do it, but Disciples may do it. So
that the substance of my answer is this, that the Apostle here shows what was his principal work or
office; to wit, preaching, hereby not destroying Baptism, which I have before demonstrated to be
Christ's command. Yet in comparison of preaching he was not at all sent to baptize, for that was not
his work more than the work of many others, but he was one of the chiefest of them that preached
Christ Jesus.

Objection:

Tis true, may some say, these were practiced in the imperfect state of the Saints, wherein they lived
under shadows, but now all shadows are done away, and that which is perfect is come, so that we are
not now to practice water Baptism, which is a shadow, an imperfect thing.

Solution:

I have in the first part of this discourse briefly handled this point of perfection, wherein I have
shown wherein Saints may be said to be perfect, and wherein not. To which shall add thus much, that
Paul had not attained that perfect state he speaks of, 1 Cor. 13:10. But says, when he should attain
it, he should know as he was known, which is only true in the resurrection, when we also acknowledge
the ending of Ordinances. And whereas you say, shadows are done away, I would feign see that
Scriptures, which says, Baptism is such a shadow which is done away. Thus I find the Jews'
Ceremonies were called shadows of Christ, and were done away in Christ: but where to find a footing
for the proof of Baptism, being as yet done away, I profess I cannot imagine, if you mean that in the
2nd of Solomon's Song, that is but a desire of the Spouse for Christ to turn to her, till they should
fly away, which state we daily long for, that We may see Jesus face to face, who see now through a
glass darkly. And whereas you say, the state of the Church was then imperfect, but now perfect:
Alas! Their estate surely was more perfect than ours, neither yet can any man make it to appear in
any one thing, wherein we transcend them, whether you mean in gifts, revelations, parts, wisdom or
knowledge. Consider Paul abounded in all, and was so wrapped up with visions, that whether in the
body or out, he could not tell; yet he cries, We see but in part, and I have not already attained, but
press forward.
Objection:

New Testament Writings Didn't Command Persons to Be Baptized

But notwithstanding all this that you have said, it seems to me, may some say, Baptism was only used in
the infancy of the Church, for we find not the Apostles pressing of it afterwards, neither to the
Romans, Corinthians, nor in any of his Epistles, which surely he would have done had it been of such
concernment.

Solution:

The Epistles were Written to the Baptized

This objection is built upon a mistake of their Epistles, for they were not written to persons
unbaptized, but already baptized. So that it was needless to urge Baptism to them. Yet we shall
find Paul in the Hebrews telling them they had need to have the principles of the doctrine of Christ
taught them again; of which Baptism is one. But if you look into the Acts of the Apostles, you will
there find Baptism to be practiced as much as any Ordinance, for there are the travels of the
Apostles, and their doctrine to unbelievers registered; where you shall find thousands baptized.
Now Baptism is part of the foundation in the house of God, which must not be laid again.

Objection:

Water Baptism Must Perish so it is no part of the Kingdom of God

But yet some are ready further to object against Baptism of water, and say nothing enters into, or
has a being in the Kingdom of God, but that which abides for ever; but water must perish, therefore
it cannot be in the Kingdom of God.

Solution:

Definition of the Kingdom of God

To which I answer, if by the Kingdom of God you mean that invisible state of the spirit living with
the Lord, I shall show you this is a mistake, for it is said, We are saved by hope, which abides not
always; for the thing hoped for being enjoyed, hope ceases.

The Visible Kingdom of God is the Church

But if you mean the Visible Kingdom of heaven, viz.: the Church of Christ, behold you are much
mistaken; for tongues and prophesies were in the Church, and shall not abide for ever: for the
Scriptures says, Prophesies shall fail, 1 Cor. 13:8.

But yet I say, though that which is visible shall fade, yet that which is represented by it, viz.: the
Father's love in Christ Jesus, shall never fail, and our obedience shall ever be recorded with the Lord.

Is Water Baptism an Indifferent Thing?

Objection:

That which you have said, is true, proves Saints may be baptized with water; but yet it is an
indifferent thing, and so it is no great matter if it be left undone.

Solution:

What Christ has Commanded is Not An Indifferent Thing

That which is neither commanded, nor yet forbidden, is left at a Saint's liberty. But know the
commands of the Lord are not of so indifferent a nature. The transgression of them, or any of them,
is sin. Now to say Baptism is such a thing, makes void those Scriptures which command it to be
preached and practiced, as I have proved from Matt. 28, Mark, the last, with other Scriptures: He
that said to the Disciples, Go preach and baptize; likewise says to believers by the mouth of his
Apostles, Repent, and be baptized.

So that I say again, whatever believer shall neglect this command, sins against the great Lawgiver,
the Lord Jesus.

Thus have I endeavored, according to my talent, to answer all those objections I have yet met withal
of any moment; hoping it will now appear to you, that Baptism of water is an Ordinance of the Lord
Jesus, and not to be so carnal as men suppose, but a spiritual Ordinance, whose author, principle
leading to it, power enabling to perform it, and true end of conformity to it, are all spiritual, which
though in a sense, viz.: as it is performed with water, may be called external or outward: yet the
spirit and life of it is like the King's Daughter, Psalm 45. All glorious within, whose clothing is
wrought gold. And surely it is no more outward than charity, which I suppose none but some old
hardhearted usurer will deny to have place in the Church of the firstborn; and why may not Baptism
be admitted likewise into the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus?

Baptism is a Part of the Yoke of Jesus Christ

Some say, Tis a yoke, and they say true. But it is Christ's yoke, whose yoke is easy, and his burden is
light. Others say, if they should submit to it, they shall be in bonds, and not have that liberty they
enjoyed before. They say true, they shall be bound, but to nothing but Christ's laws, and be
infringed of no liberty that may be truly called Gospel-liberty. True it is, they are like to be more
carefully and narrowly watched over than formerly, that so they may walk more conformable to the
true nature of Christ's flock, whose inheritance is the Kingdom of the Father. But this surely to an
honest upright heart, who fears the Lord, will be accounted as his great privilege and happiness.