Aarons Rod Blossoming, Book 3 · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI. An Argument of Erastus (drawn from the Baptism of John) …gainst the excluding of scandalous sinners from the Lords Supper, …xamined.
THe strongest Arguments of Erastus drawn from the Old Testament, I have before discussed. Another Argument of his which deserveth an Answer (for I take him in his greatest strength) is this. Iohn Baptist (saith he) did baptize all, none excepted, who came to him to be baptized; yea, even the Pharisees and Sadduces, whom yet he called a generation of Vipers.
Answer. 1. They that were baptized by Iohn, did confesse their sins, and professe Repentance; andlPag. 12. Erastus himself brings in Iohn Baptist speaking to those Pharisees on this manner. I do not see into your hearts, but he that cometh after me, hath his fan in his hand, and will separate the chaff from the wheat: so that though ye may deceive me with a feigned repentance, yet you cannot deceive him. Hereupon Erastus concludeth, that the Ministers of the Gospel ought not to deny the Sacraments to those that professe repentance, and ought not take upon them to judge of mens hearts whether they do truely and unfeignedly repent.mMedina in tertiam partem, quaest. 38. Verum cum non sit idem, agnoscere se peccatorem, & con…iteri peccata sua, recte intelligimus cos sua peccata saltem majora indicasse, & confessos esse D. Johanni, sic…t & Act. 19. multi creden…ium dicuntur venisse ad Paulum confitentes & annuntiantes actus suos. Now all this maketh for the suspension from the Sacrament of all such as do not confesse their sins, nor professe repentance for the same: The drunkard that will not confesse his drunkennesse, the unclean person that will not confesse his uncleannesse, the Sabbath-breaker that will not confesse his breach of the Sabbath, are by this ground to be excluded; and so of other scandalous persons. We are not to judge of mens hearts▪, but we are to judge of the external sign…s of repentance, whether sin be confessed, and repentance declared by some hopeful signes or not.
2. Neither doth his argument fully reach admission to the Lords Table, where some further and more exact proof must be had of ones fitnesse and qualification for the communion of Saints. Even those that are of age when they are baptized are but Incipientes: when they come to the Lords Table they are proficientes: There is some more required in proficients, then in Novices and beginners: as there is more required to fit one for strong meat th…n for milk.
3. It is also a question whether those Pharisees that came to the baptisme of Iohn were indeed baptized of himnIn Matth. 3. quaest. 64. So Salmeron▪ Tom. 4 Part. 1. Tract. 5. Narrantur venisse ad Jo…annem & ad baptis…um su…m. Non …onstat autem an baptisati su…rint: n…m Luc.▪ 7. dicuntur sprevisse consilium Dei in seme… ipsos, non baptisati a Johanne. Tostatus tells us some think they were not baptized, and they prove it from Luk. 7. 29 30. And all the People that heard him and the Publicans justifie… God, being baptized with the Baptisme of John. But the Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsel of God against thems…lves, being not baptized of him. There is a controversie whether th…se be the words of our Saviour Christ, or of the Evangelist Luke. But there can be no controversie of this, that the Pharisees and Lawye…s were not baptized of Iohn, but the people and the pu…licans were. Which may very well be extended to those Pharisees of whom we read Matth. 3. 7. For the holy Ghost having said of the people, that they were baptized of Iohn in Iordan, confessing their sins, he saith no such thing of the Pharisees, but onelyonly that they came to his Baptisme (whether to see the fashion and the new Ceremony, or whether with an intention to be baptized) after which we read no more but that Iohn gave them a most sharp admonition, and called them a generation of vipers, and told them that they should not glory in being Abrahams children: Whereupon it may seem they went away displeased and unbaptized. But when I compare the Evangelists together, that which appears to me to be meant Matth. 3. 7. concerning many of the Pharisees comming to the Baptisme of Iohn, is that they were sent from Ierusalem with a message to ask Iohn, Who art thou? For they who were sent upon that message were of the Pharisees, Iohn 1. 24. and they were sent to Bethabara beyond Iordan where Iohn was baptizing, Iohn 1. 28. and a part of Iohns answer to them was, I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you whom ye know not: &c. Iohn 1. 26. In both passages Iohn speaks of him that was to come after him, whom he preferreth before himself. In both, he professeth that he could do no more but baptize with Water or Ministerially. In both, he saith he was not worthy to unloose the latchet of Christs shoe. So that many of the circumstances do agree with the story, Matth. 3. and the other circumstances are not inconsistent. In the other Evangelists it is, I baptize you with water: But that proves not that the Pharisees who were sent to Iohn, were baptized, for Luke doth plainly apply those words to the people Luke 3. 15. 16. 18. But when the Pharisees asked Iohn, Why baptizest thou &c. the answer to them was not I baptize you with Water, but I baptize with Water. oCent. 1. lib. 1. cap. 10.The Centurists think that the Pharisees who were sent from Ierusalem to Iohn to ask him Who art thou? John 1. were not sent from any good esteem which was had of Iohn, but from malice, and an intent to quarrel with him. This they prove because Iohn saith to them O Generation of Vipers, who hath forewarned you to flee from the wrath to come? Which insinuateth a coincidency of these two stories related Matth. 3. and Iohn 1. pTom. 4. part. 1. Tract. 15.Salmeron thinks that message was sent to Iohn out of honour and respect to him, and he endeavours to confute the Centurists, but among all his answers he doth not averre (which had been his best reply, if he had thought it probable) that those words O Generation of Vipers, were not spoken to the Pharisees that were sent from Ierusalem to Iohn. Yea qIbid. Tract. 6.Salmeron himself doth in another place observe divers coincidencies between the story of that which passed between Iohn, and the Pharisees that came to his baptism; and the story of that which passed between Iohn and the Pharisees that were sent to him from Ierusalem.
4. Erastus argueth from the admission of a generation of Vipers to Baptisme, to prove the lawfulnesse of admitting a generation of Vipers to the Lords Supper. But I argue contrariwise. Such persons as desire to be received into the Church by Baptisme, if they be prophane and scandal us persons, ought not to be baptized but refused baptisme, as Augustine proveth in his Book De Fide & Operibus. Therefore prophane and scandalous persons ought much lesse be admitted unto the Lords Supper. Of which Argument more before. I conclude with the rCent. 1. Lib. 1. Cap. 10. Nequaquam margaritas anie porcos proi…cit: non quoslibet temere ad Baptismum admisit, sed consitentes peccata sua, hoc est, exploratos, & agentes poenitentiam tantum: con…umacos vere, ac defensores suarum impietatum aut scelerum, reprobavit.Centurists. Iohn did not cast pearls before swine: he did not admit rashly any that would to Baptisme, but such as confessed their sins, that is, onelyonly such as were tryed and did repent, but the contumacious and the defenders of their impieties or crimes he did reject.