Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 5

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2 · Section 5

p. 81SECT. V.

The first argument from the institution, Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 16. and the practice in the New Testament against Infant baptism is urged.

MR. B. saith pag. 8. he will prove, 1. That it is the will of God that some infants should be baptized. 2. that it is the will of God that all infants of believers ordinarily should be baptized.

p. 82This latter doth better state the question, which is about the practice of those reformed Churches that baptize infants, whose doctrine is, that it is the privilege of a believers child. Yet Mr. B. and M. Baillee for some advantage chuse to undertake the proof of the former, whereas the true state of it is, as in my Examen s. 2. and Mr. Ms. Sermon, Whether the infants of believers are to be baptized with Christs baptism of Water by the lawful Minister according to ordinary rule? I hold the Negative, Mr. Marshall, Dr. Homes, Mr. Geree, Mr. Blake, Mr. Baillee, Mr. Cobbet, Mr. Baxter, &c. hold the Affirmative. My dispute is to this purpose.

The ordinary rule for baptizing is Christs institution, John the Baptists, and the Apostles appointment and practice: But neither according Christs institution, nor according to John Baptists, or the Apostles command or practice, or any other approved example in Scripture, is the baptizing of infants of believers; Therefore the baptizing of infants of believers by a lawfull Minister is not according to ordinary rule. The Major is confessed by all sorts, specially Protestants and Anti-Prelatists.M. Collings Episto the Reader before his Vind. Minst. Evang. In things relating to the worship of God it is a general rule, in which our brethren and we have long since agreed, That nothing ought to be done without an express warrant in the Gospel. Mr. Rutherford, Due right of Presbyteries, pag▪ 364. what the Apostles commanded not in Gods worship, that the Churches must not do.

Mr. Bs. words are cited by me in my Praecursor, s. 16. and the force of his reason is shewed here before s. 4. to contain this Proposition, What in baptism we have no warrant for by word or example in all the New Testament (since the solemn institution of baptism Mat. 28.) we are not to do; and much more to like purpose may be gathered from other passages of his page 302, 303. and Mr. M. in his Sermon on 2 Chron. 15. 2. is very punctuall for Gods command to be observed in his worship. The 28 Article of the Church of England against reservation of the Bread &c. hath these words, The Sacrament of the Lords Supper was not by Christs Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped, whereby it is apparent that reservation of the bread is condemned, because it is not by Christs p. 83Ordinance, though Mr. Perkins in his right way of dying well confess it to be antient. Bellarmine himself tom. 3. cont. de sacr. bapt. l. 1. c. 8. Sacramentum non pendet nisi à Divina institutione. Chamier tom. 4. panstr. cath lib. 5. cap. 14. sect. 55. …is solis baptizare competit, quibus Commissio data est baptizandi. Haec propositio per se patet: quia baptismi institutio pendet à sola voluntate instituentis: itaque ex hac sola me…enda: quomodo eucharistiae. Lib. 8. c. 2. s. 3. Quod si igitur tota sacramenti essentia est ab institutione divina, profectò hac violata, non potest sacramentum consistere. C. 8. s. 14. He cites Calvins words. Institutio enim Christi est certa regula, à qua▪ si deflect as, jam rectum non tenes. S. 21. At nos, contra hanc sceleratam audaciam ratum habemus illud Bielis in Canonem lectione 35. sacramentum irritum reputatur si contra institutionem celebretur. L. 7. c. 13. s. 17. sed non peccari in missa privata negatur; non enim aliter potest si contra institutionem admittatur: sic consentiunt omnes peccatum fuisse, cum baptizarentur mortui: quia videlicet institutio habuit doceri, baptizarique gentes: in quibus mortui nulli numerantur. Sic emendatum fuit, quod olim admittebatur, ut infantibus porrigeretur eucharistia: quoniam institutio habet, ut seipsum probet, qui de hoc pane sit esurus: similis omnino & communionis ratio; quandoquidem disertum, Accipite, edite. Mr. Selden lib. 1. de syned. Ebrae. c. 13. pag. 500. Modorum & temperamentorum ejusmodi ex arbitrio Humano accessione, ut id quod esset institutum aliquod Divinum novaretur aut ullatenus mutaretur, nunquam ritè permissum est. If all these testimonies satisfy not, the Apostle Pauls speech 1 Cor. 11. 23. yields us this truth, that the institution of Christ is that whereby an abuse in a sacrament is to be reformed, and therefore is the ordinary rule according to which the sacrament is to be administred. Whence the New Annot. on that place infer, The only way to reform any abuses in the Church, is to have recourse to the word of God and first institution. And even the Assembly itself Confession of faith chap. 20▪ make many things used by Papists, as private masses, half-communion, adoration, elevation, reservation of the bread, contrary to the nature of the Sacrament, and to the institution of Christ, and prove it only by these texts. 1 Cor. 10. 16. Mark▪ 14. 23. 1 Cor. 11▪ 25, 26, p. 8427, 28, 29. Math. 15. 9. which are no proof without this Proposition, To vary from the institution in things appointed is evil, as being an humane invention, or worshipping of God after the commands of men, contrary to Matth. 15. 9. The Minor is confessed by Mr. Cawdrey Sab. Rediv. part. 4 ch. 1. num. 59. We have not in Scripture either precept or example of children baptized. Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 35. that there is neither express command or example in the New Testament that children should be, or were baptized, and pag. 44. It is said indeed that they taught and baptized, and no express mention of any other, and a little after, both John and Christs disciples and Apostles did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of baptism: But that we may not seem to beg what is to be proved, I further argue thus. The institution and practice of the Sacrament of Christi an baptism is set down in the New Testament; But baptizing of infants of believers is neither according to the institution of Christ, nor any practice or example therein, Ergo. The Major is plain of it self: For Christian baptism being a Sacrament of the New Testament, must have its institution and example to regulate it, there or no where. It is frequently put into the definition of the Sacraments of the New Testament, that they are ordained by Christ himself, and for defect of Christs institution in the New Testament, sundry things are denyed to be Sacraments of the New Testament. The Minor is proved from the texts which speak of baptism, either of the institution or practise. From both which I argue thus. Matth. 28. 19. is Christs institution, Mr. B. calls it The solemn institution of baptism: But the baptizing of infants of believers is not according to Christs institution of baptism Matth. 28. 19. Ergo. The Minor is proved, First from the Subjects appointed to be baptized, to wit disciples of all Nations. They that are not disciples of Christ are not appointed to be baptized. Norton resp. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 34. non foreign baptizandi: Matth. 28. 19. discipulate baptizantes. But infants of believers are not disciples of Christ; Therefore they are not appointed to be baptized. That [disciples] included in the verb [foreign make disciples] as [foreign] is Rom. 4. 4. in [foreign] is the substantive to [foreign, them] is proved from the expression, John 4 1. where it is said [when the Pharisees heard that Iesus p. 85foreign, maketh disciples and baptizeth] This the Evangelist saith was done by the Disciples of Christ. Now what they did before in Judaea, they were after appointed to do among all Nations, Matth. 28. 19. Therefore no other were appointed to be baptized than were baptized before, Iohn 4. 1. (saving only with greater extent) that is, disciples made of, or among, or in all Nations. Beza annot. in Mat. 28. 19. Discipulos facite, foreign, id est discipulos mihi facite ex omnibus gentibus, Make to me disciples out of all Nations. Ursin Explic. catech. part. 2. q. 69 Verbum foreign quo Christus utitur proprie est discipulos facite, quod declaratur a Ioanne c. 4. 1. The word [foreign] which Christ useth, is properly [make disciples] which is declared by Iohn ch. 4. v. 1. Pareus Comment. in Matth. 28. 19. foreign, est idem quod foreign, discipulos facere Christo, ut explicatur Iohn 4. 1. It is the same with to make disciples to Christ, as it is explained John 4. 1. The New Annot▪ on Matthew 28. 19. of the first edition (which is now altered in the second edition, to hinder truth) teach] Greek, make disciples of, as Iohn 4. 1. all nations] not Iews alone, but Gentiles also Acts 10. 34, 35, 47. Chamier Panstr. cath. tom. 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. It was the express command of Christ, teach or make disciples in all nations. Norton resp. ad Apollon: c. 2. pag. 35. foreign is to make disciples, Joh. 4. 1. Cameron in his Lecture on Mat. 19. 3. foreign, to make a proselyte, is as Mat. 28. 19. foreign is said for [to make a disciple]. This is confirmed in that what is said of Joseph Mat. 27. 57. foreign, rendred by the vulgar Latin, Beza, our English, &c. [who also himself was Iesus disciple] is Iohn 19. 38. foreign, being disciple to Iesus. Whereby it is apparent that in both places, in Matthew the Noun [disciple] is included in the Verb, though in Matthew 28. 19. it be used actively [make disciples] in the other Matthew 27. 57. it is used passively [he was himself a Disciple] The same is to be conceived of the two other places where the word is used Matthew 13. 52. foreign made a disciple. Acts 14. 21. foreign had made many disciples. And this is further proved from the parallel place Mark 16. 15 16. where [preach the Gospel to every Creature] answers to [make disciples all nations] and [he that believeth and is baptized] answers to [baptizing them] which plainly shews the subject▪ p. 86of baptism to be disciples, and those disciples to be believers, as Chamier proves panst. cath. tom. 3. l. 12. c. 9. s. 15. But such are not infants of believers. Ergo, they are not appointed to be baptized. 2. Those only Christ appointed to be baptized to whom the Gospel was preached, and the persons taught; But such are not infants, Ergo. The Major is plain both by the words, Mat. 28. 19. make disciples, which is by teaching, and more plainly from Mark 16. 15. Go preach the Gospel to every Creature, which answers to [disciple all nations] and this is to precede baptism. This is confirmed by the Apostles practice, which shews how they understood Christs words, and how we should understand them, for they baptized none till they were taught, Ergo neither should we. Conformable hereto is the constant exposition & observation of former and later writers and Expositors, of whom as they have occurred to me I shall set down their words. Athanasius Orat. contra Arianos. Ideoque salvator non quovis modo baptizandum praecepit, sed primum dixit docete, ac deinde baptizate in nomine Patris et filii et spiritus sancti, ut ex doctrina recta fides oriretur, et cum fide baptismatis integra initiatio perficeretur. Hieron. in Mat. 28. 19. Primum docent omnes genses: deinde doctas intingunt aqua non enim potest fieri ut corpus baptismi recipiat sacramentum, nisiante anima fidei susceperit veritatem: Ordo praecipuus: jussit Apostolis ut primū docerent universas gentes: deinde fidei intingerent sacramento et post fidem ac baptisma quae essent observanda praeciperent: which words are also ascribed to Hilarius in Matthew 28. 19, 20. And the like to Beda, Anselmus, Aquinas, Paschasius, Rabanus, Lucas Brugensis, Iansenius, and many others on Matth. 28. 19. which were it necessary might be produced: whence the Ancients deduced, that persons were first to be catechized, and then to be baptized: which was constantly observed, except in case of present danger of death towards children of believers, untill some later ages. But because later Protestant writers are of more esteem with most of my Antagonists, I will adde some of them, Calvin in Matthew 28. 19. apud Marlor. Baptizari jubet Christus qui nomen Evangelio dederint, seque professi fuerint discipulos. Ursin Cat. Explic. part. 2. q. 69. Quasi dicat colligite mihi Ecclesiam per verbum, et quos feceritis mihi discipulos toto corde credentes eos omnes et solos baptizate & mihi areliquis separate. Pareus p. 87Com. in Matt. 28. 19. Colligite mihi Ecclesiam inter omnes gentes, praedicatione vestra adducentes eos ad fidem. Alsted. Theol. polem. parte 3. pag. Piscator observ. in Matth. 28. 19. Docete omnes gen…e… (nempe praedicando Evangelium, ut declarat Marcus) baptizantes eos, vult ergo ut prius constet de alicujus …ide, quam is baptizetur. Collings vin. Min. Evang pag 36. It is the first act in ministerial Commission Mat. 28. 19. first preach, then baptize.Matt 28:19251. Ut praecipitur ex cohaerentia sententiarum Matth. 28. docete omnes gentes (nempe praedicando Evangelium) baptizantes eos. Confer cum Marc. 16. Becm. Exercit. Th. 17. p. 259, 260. Doctrina praecedit, baptismus sequitur. Mr. Cotton, The way of the Churches in New England, chap. 4. sect. 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles, holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children. This later is his own addition, the rest is right and to my purpose. But sure Christ did not appoint to preach the Gospel to infants, therefore he did not appoint to baptize them. For Christ appointed his Disciples to baptize none but they who were first preached to, and consequently they do it without Commission from Christ, who baptize infants ordinarily without preaching the Gospel to them. I suppose no man will conceive Christ appointed infants of a day old to have the Gospel preached to them, it had been a ridiculous injunction; therefore neither did he appoint them to be baptized. For both commands are joined together concerning the same persons.

3. The institution is, To baptize into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, But the baptizing of infants is not into the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit; Ergo their baptism is not according to the institution. The Minor is proved from the right understanding of the meaning of the phrase of baptizing into the name of the Father, Son and holy Ghost, Beza annot. in Matthew 28. 19. Into the name] that is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being called upon. And this interpretation is confirmed from the words of Ananias to Paul Acts 22. 16. Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord, where is injoined calling on the name of the Lord with baptizing, which explaineth what Christ had appointed, Mat. p. 8828. 19. Of baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Or to be baptized into the name is to be baptized with the person baptized, his devoting himself to the Service of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit. This is gathered from the phrase 1 Cor. 1. 13. Were ye baptized into the name of Paul? Beza annot. in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari autem in ejus nomen dicimur, cui nos per baptismum dicamus ac consecramus: quamobrem recte Paulus negat sese in nomen suum quemquam baptizâsse. Or to be baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, is to be baptized with profession of that doctrine, to wit, that Jesus is the Son of God, Act. 8. 37. testifyed by the Father, Son and Spirit, Mat. 3. 17. 1 John 5. 5, 6, 7. as to be baptized into Johns baptism, Acts 19. 3. whether the same with being baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, verse 5. as those conceive that expound the words as spoken of what Iohn did, or different, yet it was with profession of doctrine, as Beza annot. in Acts 19. 3. Baptizari in Ioannis baptisma significat doctrinam quam Ioannes annunciabat, ac baptismi symbolo obsignabat, profiteri, & baptismo adhibito amplecti. I will add the words of Grotius annot. in Matth. 289. foreign] cum locutio, haec varias habeat ex Hebraismo significationes, eam his praeferendam arbitraor, quae baptismo maximè propria est. Est autem baptizari in aliquem, vel in ejus nomen, se ei auctorare at que devovere, & de ejus nomine appellari …elle. Paulus 1 Cor. 10. 2. foreign, respiciens illud Exodi 14. 31. Crediderunt in Deum & Mosen servum ejus, id est, Mosi tanquam Dei ministro cum bona siducia regendos se commisere, sic Paulus negat quenquam baptizatum in suum nomen, 1 Corinth. 1. 13, 15. hoc est, sibi velut novi dogmatis auctori mancipatum. Maimomides de bello capta foreign: baptizet eam in nomen proselytarum, id est, in eam religionem quam profitentur proselytae. Christiani igitur tres sui dogmatis auctores agnoscere jubebantur, Patrem, filium & spiritum sanctum, nihil que ut necessarium admittere, quod non ab eis esset profectum, id est, quod non à patre ortum, à filio proditum, à spiritu verò esset partim explicatum apertius, partim obsignatum. Administratur enim baptismus, ut loquitur Hilarius, in confessione, & auctoris & unigeniti & dom. But infants of believers p. 89do neither call upon the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, nor devote themselves to their service, nor profess the doctrine of Christ, Therefore they are not baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, according to Christs appointment.

Mr. M. Defence page 266. calls these petty reasonings, and saith, That baptizing into the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost should be interpreted to be invocation of Gods name, and so to make baptism and prayer all one, is strange divinity.

I reply. My words are perverted by him: I said baptizing is to be with the party baptized his invocation of the name of the Lord, not that baptism and prayer are all one, but that they should be concomitants, and together in the use of baptism after Christs appointment. And this is no strange divinity to others, however it be to Mr. M. The words of Ananias Acts 22. 16. Beza on Matthew 28. 19. shew it to be no strange or forced Divinity. Becman Exercit. Theol. 17. p. 251. hath the like, In nomen hoc est invocato nomine Christi baptizamur. The New Annot. on 1 Cor. 1. 13. The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism, wherein we make a promise to Christ, calling on also the name of the Father, and the Holy Ghost. The words of Grotius a learned man, whatever his other qualities were, shew it to be old Divinity. Annot. on Matthew 28. 19. he speaks thus. Post has ergo stipulationes at que responsiones, quas verba Sacramenti Tertullianus vocat ad militiae morem alludens, sequebatur baptismus, cui accedebant preces in quibus nominabantur Pater, Filius, & Spiritus sanctus. Orationem hanc propriè ad patrem directam indicare videtur Justinus, foreign. Deinde, foreign. Solemne ejus invocations verbum erat Abba Pater, ut not at Chrysostomus 8. ad Rom. 15. The words in Chrysostome hom. 10 foreign. That is, by which we cry Abba Father. This holy Ministers know what it is, rightly commanding to say this word first at the mystical prayer, meaning at baptism. Grotius goes on thus. His si addas id quod Acts 22. 16. refertur ab Anania dictum p. 90Paulo foreign, Videbis tum eum qui baptizabatur, tum eos qui baptismo aderant (neque enim in toto coetu exercebatur primis temporibus, quod ostendunt, &c.) solitos orare Deum patrem foreign, quomodo ipse orare nos docet, John 14. 13, 14. Ut sidem ejus qui baptizabatur, & liberam illam christianismi professionem muneraret spiritu suo sancto per gradus quosdam, quorum initium erat, foreign. Grotius notes to like purpose on Luke 3. 21. where it is said, Jesus being baptized, and praying, the Heaven was opened; which shews Christ prayed at his Baptism, and thereupon the Spirit descended; which the Ancients conceived as a Rule, and is at least recorded as an Example to be imitated.

Mr. Cobbet in his Just Vindic. pag. 182. cals this New Light, which if he mean Ironically, (as it is likely he doth) he may hereby perceive, that he is mistaken, and for what he excepts against this Exposition, that neither in the baptizing of the Samaritans, Acts 8. was that Rule observed, nor was it possible that the three thousand baptized in one day, Acts 2. should arise each of them, and call upon the Name of the Lord, as they were baptized; it proceeds upon a mistake, as if no calling on the Name of the Lord were sufficient, but that which was set and solemn before the publick Assembly, whereas neither is Baptism necessary to be administred before the publick Assembly: Grotius proves out of Justin Martyrs words, and otherwise, that it was administred not as they now do infant▪ sprinkling in the publick meeting place, but in some place without, aside from the publick Assembly, and the calling on the Name of the Lord was or might be ejaculatory, whether in the heart onelyonly, or by words, praying to the Father by Christ for the Spirit.

Mr. M. makes this inference from my words; Then it seems if the party baptized call on the Name of the Lord by prayer, that's all that is intended by baptizing into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

But this is but another of his pervertings of my words: for in the same place I joyned with it, devoting themselves to the service of, and adherence to the Father, Son, and Spirit, which I proved out of 1 Cor. 1. 13, 15. which proves plainly that to be baptized into the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, notes not a Ministers Commission p. 91from the Father, Son, and Spirit, nor a Form of words to be used by him at Baptism, whether the party baptized understand it or no, but in baptizing, engaging the party baptized to acknowledg the Father, Son, and Spirit, as Lord and Teacher, Diod. Annot. in 1 Cor. 1. 15. In mine own Name] as to binde them unto me to acknowledg me for their Head. Hence Johns Baptism is the Doctrine he preached, and the baptized by him professed, Mark 1. 4. Acts 10. 47. & 19. 3. and the Pharisees therefore were not baptized of John, Luke 7. 30. because they should have professed Johns Doctrine, which they were against, if they had been baptized of him, as their Disciples did their Doctrine, and Johns Disciples did his. Clear therefore it is, that [baptizing into the Name] doth note not onelyonly the act of the Ministers of Baptism, but also the party baptized his act of invocating, addicting, profession of Service and Doctrine, and obediently testifying it by that sign: for that is plain from the command, Acts 2. 38. Let every one of you be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ, foreign, which is the requiring of a duty from them conjoyned with repentance, and …herefore to be baptized is not meerly passive, but implies a voluntary yielding of a person to it. And it is further proved from the words to Paul, Acts 22. 16. where he is commanded, foreign, Arise, baptise, and wash, which all require voluntary action on his part, as well as ministration on Ananias his part, out of which this argument is formed: They are not baptized into Christs Name, or his Fathers, and Spirits Name, who do not perform the acts required in that expression; But infants of believers do not perform the acts required in that expression; therefore they are not baptized into Christs Name, or his Fathers, o… Spirits, according to the meaning of it in the institution. So that this argument is not a petty reasoning, but a solid reason, to prove infants baptism not such as Christ appointed. As for Mr. Ms. frivolous question, Were not the infants of the Jews devoted to God by Circumcision, though they could not actually devote themselves? Though I am not bound to answer his impertinent questions, yet I will tell him they were; yet this is nothing to the business in hand, about the meaning of the Phrase [to be baptized into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] which manifestly implies the party baptized his act, which infants cannot p. 92do. Whereas no where▪ there is such a command [Be ye circumced in the Name of Jesus Christ] nor is it all one to be circimcised, as to be baptized; which is still supposed but never proved.

4. I further urged, Christ bids the Apostles presently after Baptism, Teach them to observe what ever he commanded; But this direction could not pertain to infants, they could not be taught to observe Christs commands; therefore neither were they appointed to be baptized: Mr. M. denies that they were enjoyned presently to teach them to observe what Christ commanded. But the Text knits these together, Baptizing and Teaching, so as that they that were baptized should be taught, & that by them that baptized them; which the Apostles could not do, being to go up and down from place to place, to plant the Churches in all Nations, if they had been to baptize infants; for then they must have staid many years till they came to understanding to be taught to observe what Christ commanded. No man me thinks should imagine Christs appointment to be thus, Make infants disciples, and baptize them, and then after five, six, or ten years, when they are grown to some understanding, come again and teach them to observe what I have commanded, but that Christ did appoint them to teach them presently after Baptism, that is, in so many hours or days after that Ordinance was administred, as it could be well done. Nor doth Mr. Cobbet avoid this objection by saying, pag. 179. then they must be presently taught the whole minde of Christ, which is impossible. For [presently] is not restained to an instant, but comprehends a just latitude of time for the doing of the thing, onelyonly it notes that the beginning of it is to be not long after Baptism, but sooner by much than it could be done to infants. Mr. Baxter Plain Scripture Proof, pag. 341. argues thus, What Christ hath conjoyned, man must not separate; but Christ hath conjoyned Discipling and Baptizing, (I add, and Teaching) therefore we must not separate them.

5. The institution of Christ is best understood by the command of the Apostles, the resolution of Philip, the practice of John Baptist, the Apostles, and other men sent by God to baptize; but the Apostle Peter commanded first Repentance and then Baptism, Acts 2. 38. Philip resolved the Eunuch demanding, What hindereth p. 93me to be baptised? If thou believest with all thy heart, foreign, thou maist, it is lawfull or allowed thee, Acts 8. 36, 37. John the Baptist, the Apostles, and other holy men sent by God to baptize, baptized none but Professors of Repentance, Faith, and being Disciples of Christ, as may appear by the Texts mentioning their baptizing, Mat. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Luke 3. 10. Acts 2. 41▪ & 8. 12, 13, 38▪ & 9. 18. & 10. 47. & 11. 17, 18. & 16. 15, 31, 32, 33. & 18. 8. & 19. 5. & 22. 16. Therefore Christs institution is of baptizing onelyonly Professors of Repentance, Faith, and being Disciples of Christ, and therefore not infants of believers. The major cannot be denied by those that confess that Scripture best expounds Scripture, and that the Apostles knew Christs minde, and did observe it. The minor is manifest from the Texts alleged. And Mr. Rutherfords words are express to that purpose, Divine Right of Church▪ government, cap. 5. q. 1. pag. 257. We reade that John Baptist and the Apostles baptized none but such as confessed their sins, and professed faith in Christ Jesus.

To this Mr. M. Defence, pag. 227. says, that it would be a hard task for me to prove that John baptized none but upon profession of Repentance.

I reply, 1. It is proved already and confessed by Mr. Rutherford. 2. I did think Mr. Ms. own words, Sermon pag 44. that John did teach before he baptized, because then no other were capable of Baptism, did amount to as much, till Mr. M. to help himself, referred [then] to the time untill Parents were converted not to the time of Johns and the Apostles ministry, of which the objection was, to which in those words he answered. For the objection was, that they always taught and made them Disciples, by teaching before they baptized any; and Mr. Ms. words in his answer were, John and Christs Disciples, and the Apostles, did teach before they baptized, because then no other were capable of Baptism, which if not understood of the time of their Ministery, it was an answer besides the objection. 3. Mr. M. hath not yet shewed any other, but such baptized by them, and therefore it is probable in the highest degree of probability that no other were baptized by them. 4. I think an argument in this matter from the Evangelists relation negatively is good proof, unless we will suppose John Baptist and the Apostles were defective in their duty, or p. 94the Evangelists in their narrations of that which frequently (if it had been their duty) would have occurred, and their story lead them to mention, and it was of much concernment to the Churches of God in after Ages they should.

2. He saith, It would be hard to prove that John did impose or require confession of sin before baptism.

Reply. I think not, 1. what they did, sure was required of them, else it had not been an acceptable thing, and by John, else he had failed in his duty, Luke 1. 17. But they confessed sin afore Baptism▪ Matth. 3. 6. Mark 1. 5. Ergo. 2. He that preached repentance to them that came to be baptized, required confession of sins (which is a chief part of it) afore Baptism; But so did John, Matth. 3. 2. Ergo. 3. He that preached to them to prepare the way of the Lord, required confession of sins afore Baptism, for that was the preparing the way of the Lord by bringing persons to confess sins, and then to baptise them; But John did preach to prepare the way of the Lord, Mat. 3. 3. 4. He that preached the Baptism of repentance, required confession of sin to Baptism; But John did preach the Baptism of repentance, Mark 1. 4. Luke 3. 3. Acts 13. 24. & 19. 4.

To prevent this, saith Mr. M. It is said, he baptized them eis foreign, (unto repentance) not foreign, (in repentance) as stated in actual repentance.

But dare Mr. M. in good earnest say that John Baptist did admit persons to Baptism that were not in a state of repentance? If he should, I doubt not but to be able to prove the contrary from that which is said of those he baptized, Matth. 3. 6. They were baptized of him in Iordan, confessing their sins; and Mark 1. 5. They were all baptized of him in the River of Iordan, confessing their sins; [all] must not be understood simply, for so it were not true, but, as the matter requires, with this limitation, all that were baptized were baptized confessing of sins, which was a state of repentance, Matth. 21. 32. the different state of those that believed Iohn, and those that believed not, is expressed thus, the one repented that they might believe, and the other not. And by comparing it with Luke 7. 29, 30. it appears they onelyonly were baptized that believed Iohn, and others not. But were it not Mr. M. had been minded to wrangle, there had been no need to have proved p. 95this, His own words, That there was a new Church to be constituted of those that should receive Christ, Sermon page 44. shews none were to be baptized but penitents, unless they were to be Church members who were not in a state of repentance. Would Iohn admit manifest impenitents? Then the new Church should consist of impenitents, and so no difference between the Church and the world, them that receive Christ and them that receive him not, all should be Church-members. Iohns baptism and Christs is by Protestants asserted to be all one, saving that the one pointed at Christ to come after, Acts 19 4. the other as already manifested by name, neither did admit any but penitents, and believers in shew. As for Mr. Ms. quirk, that he baptized foreign Matthew 3. …. unto repentance, not foreign in repentance. 1. I might urge Erasmus his reading ad poenitentiam, at or upon their repentance, as the like is to be expounded Matthew 12. 41. foreign not [unto] but [at the preaching of Ionas. 2. There is no need▪ for both are true, and may be proved out of the text, that he preached repentance to be before baptism and after. That he preached repentance to be before baptism is already proved, and Pareus in his Comment. on Matthew 3. 5. disputing against Maldonate the Iesuite, who applies this confession of sins to Auricular confession, urgeth the tense foreign, it is in the present tense, referring to the time of baptism, having confessed their sins, or then confessing their sins when baptized, not confessing their sins after as in Auricular confession at the sacrament of Penance as they call it. Hereupon he urgeth, Non prius baptizabantur postea confitebantur ut in…p…e fingit Maldonatus, and concludes, that Iohn rejected the Pharisees when he saw their hypocrisy, v. 7. and infers that his auditors first in testimony of repentance confessed their sins, and then were baptized, and gathers this doctrine, To the Sacraments no impenitents are to be admitted.

Its true that he baptized them unto future repentance, that is so as that they were required and professed to repent and change their lives. Therefore he required that they should bring forth fruits meet for repentance, Luke 3. 8. and directed particularly wherin verse 11, 13, 14. Initial repentance is prerequired to baptism, and continued repentance is to follow after, and therefore Iohn p. 96Baptists calling for repentance and preaching the baptism of repentance shew not only that this was the lesson they were all to learn, but that also as Pareus proves, that they must all manifest that they repented afore he baptized them, and that all did and were tied to make confession of sins, notwithstanding Mr: Ms. saying.

Master M. sets down the judgement of very learned men who conceive their confession of sins was not because it is a necessary medium to all who should receive baptism, but to cleer his baptism from misconstruction, to thwart the opinion of justification by the works of the Law. To which I say.

1. That were this granted, yet it avoids not my argument, who bring the matter of fact onelyonly, it is enough for me at present if it appear that Iohn baptized none but penitents.

2. Yet the judgement of those very learned men is but their own saying, nor can it be right. For if the end of Iohns requiring repentance was only to clear his baptism from misconstruction, because the men who came to be baptized of Iohn, were such as had been educated in an opinion of justification by works of the Law, & so more was required of them than of others, as it is usual to require more of an heretick for his admission into the bosome of the Church, then he had required such confession of sins and repentance only of Pharisees and their Scholars, whereas he required it also of Publicans, Harlots, Souldiers, as may be seen Luke 3. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. And indeed he required it of all for both ends, that he might contradict the Pharisees doctrine, and because it was a necessary prerequisite to his baptism, because his baptism was contrary to the baptism that initiated proselytes into Iudaism, in the nature of it, that is the doctrine taught by the Baptist, and professed by the baptized, the Pharisees baptism requiring observance of the Law for righteousness, and Iohns baptism requiring repentance for remission of sins, and therefore the Pharisees rejected it, Luke 7. 29, 30. so that in truth this judgement of those learned men about the reason of Iohns baptism proves against Mr. M. that repentance is to antecede baptism, and his allegation thereof may be retorted upon him.

6. To strengthen this argument from the institution of Christ and practise Apostolical, there are many passages in the Epistles, which p. 97do prove that baptism was and ought to be with such profession and acts of the baptized, as do not nor can ordinarily be ascribed to infants of believers, and therefore they are not rightly baptized according to ordinary rule. Ro. 6. 3, 4 Know ye not, saith the Apostle, that so many of us as were baptized into Iesus Christ, were baptizd into his death; therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life, now to be baptized into death & Christs death is by baptism to engage our selves to dy with Christ to sin, with profession of purpose of newness of life and hope of resurrection. Becman. Exer. Theol. 17. pag. 257. Baptizari in mortem Christi dicimur quatenus stipulamur nos credere in Christum pro nobis mortuum & ipsius exemplo veluti en…care peccatum ne nobis dominetur. But this could not infants do therfore no insants were then baptized, and consequently ought not to be now.

1. Cor. 12. 13. For even by or in one Spirit have we been baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and have been all made drink into one Spirit, or as some copies have it, have been all made to drink or drench into one drink into one Spirit. That here baptism with water and the drinking the cup in the Lords Supper are meant, is manifest, the Apostle arguing from the end of those two rites for the union and communication between all Christians, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. he had done in the Lords Supper, and Eph. 4. 4▪ 5. he doth from baptism. And without that allusion the phrase is not intelligible. And the exception of the Antibaptists is vain, that it is Spirit-baptism not water-baptism, For it is indeed both, Spirit-baptism from the Spirit as the cause, and water-baptism together as the outward element. Now hence three Arguments arise against infant baptism.

1. All that were baptized into the body were baptized by one Spirit as the Concurrent cause as Mr. B. saith rightly in his plain Scripture proof, &c. page 342. that is together with the word, as Ephes. 5. 26: is declared, by preaching of which the Spirit was given, Gal. 3▪ 2. and this was presumed of all, as 1 Thes. 1. 2. 4. and elsewhere. And Mr. B. truly saith in the same place, That it was all that were thus baptized into the body. But I subsume, infants were not thus baptized, Ergo, no infants were then baptized, and consequently ought not to be now.

p. 982. All that were thus baptized were also made to drink, or did drink themselves, or were drencht by their own act in the receiving the cup in the Lords Supper unto one Spirit in communion and testification of one Spirit, as 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. But infants did not thus drink, Ergo infants were not then baptized.

3. All that were counted members of the body of Christ, or the Church, were thus baptized, and made to drink. But infants were not thus baptized, and made to drink, for if so, they received the Lords Supper, therefore were not then visible Church members, and consequently ought not to be so counted now.

Gal. 3. 26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Where the Apostle proving that they were all the children of God by faith in Christ, because they had put on Christ, must needs intimate that it was by faith in Christ Jesus that they had put on Christ, and then the Apostles speech is this, As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have by faith in Christ Jesus put on Christ, and consequently so many as were baptized were believers, and therefore no infants were baptized for want of faith.

Ephes. 4. 4, 5. There is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Whence I argue,

1. They that have one baptism, have also one faith; But infants had not one faith; Ergo they had not one baptism, and consequently are not to have it now.

2. One faith is placed before one baptism, therefore faith went before baptism in the Apostles daies, and consequently infants were not baptized.

3. They that were counted of one body had one faith; But infants had not one faith, therefore they were not counted of one body, that is Church-members, Mr. Bs. words p. 342. confirm this Ephes. 4. 5. As the whole Church is one body, and hath one Lord, and one faith, so hath it one common baptism,

Eph. 5. 26. That he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water by the word, whence Mr. B Plain Script. proof, p. 342. inferres, the whole Church of Christ must in duty be washed with water. Now I argue, 1. They who were washed with water, p. 99were cleansed with the washing of water by the word, which word is the word preached, as where mention is made of baptism, there mention is made of preaching of the word going before it, and [the word] doth no where signifie the covenant or promise of God taken precisely or abstractively from the narration of Christs comming and invitation to repentance, but altogether as it was preached, as may be seen in Peters speech, Acts 10. 36, 37, 38, &c. But infants were not cleansed by the word; therefore they were not cleansed by the washing of water.

2. The whole Church was cleansed with the washing of water by the word; But so were not infants; therefore they were not parts of the Church, and consequently are not now.

Col. 2. 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye have also been raised together through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead. Whence I argue. They who were buried with Christ in baptism were also therein raised together through faith, and consequently were believers; But infants were not in baptism raised together through faith; therefore they were not buried with Christ in baptism, that is, they were not baptized, and by consequence ought not to be.

Tit. 3. 5. is usually expounded of baptism, as by Mr. B. pag. 342, so by many others. But if the washing there be meant of baptism, it is such as was with regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost; therfore not of infants whose regeneration and receiving was unknown.

Heb. 6. 1, 2. Where the foundation is mentioned, this order is observed, first repentance, then faith, then baptism, then laying on of hands, then resurrection of the dead, and lastly eternal judgement, now if the Apostle kept a right order here used in teaching, and according to the event of things (as he seems to have done) then repentance and faith went before baptism: and so no infants baptized.

1 Pet. 3. 21. The baptism that saves is accompanyed with the answer of a good conscience towards God. This saith Beza in his annot. on that text alludes to the Custome of stipulating or promising at baptism by the baptised: which if right (as is probable) then it is manifest that the baptized did answer at baptism, which infants could not, and therefore were not baptized.