Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 7
SECT. VII.
Mr. Ms. exceptions, that Matthew 28. 19. is not the institution of baptism, that onelyonly disciples are not appointed to be baptized, that this was a rule only for a Church to be constituted, are refelled.
THere are many other exceptions against the argument from the institution Matth. 28. 19. to be considered. Mr. M. in his Sermon page 44. saith, 1. That of matth. 28. is not the institution of baptism. 2. It was instituted long before to be the seal of the Covenant. 3. Its only an inlargement of their Commission. To which in my Examen I said,
1. If this be not the first institution, yet it is an institution, and the institution of baptism to us Gentiles, and therefore the rule by which Ministers are to baptize, there being no other institution that I know of to regulate our practice by, but such as is gathered from John Baptist, the Apostles, and some preachers in the Acts of the Apostles, their practice and sayings.
2. By requiring him to shew another institution, else Paedobaptism cannot be acquitted from will-worship. To this M. M. Defence page 225. having referred me to part 3. s. 13. where he saith, all this is abundantly answered, saith, This inlargement of their Commission is very un…itly called by me an institution of baptism to us, their Commission at the same time was inlarged to preach to the Gentiles, will you call that an institution of preaching? And that the method of preaching to us Gentiles must be fetch out of this place? I know you will not.
Refut. 1. By institution I conceive is meant no other than commanding, ordaining, appointing, and I find the words used as equipollent so promiscuously in the Assemblies confession of faith chap. 27▪ 28, 29. in the larger and shorter Catechism, in the Directory about baptism, that sure Mr. M. was either very forgetful of what past in the Assembly, or very much disposed to cavil when he excepted against my speech as un fit, in calling Mat. 28. 19. the institution of baptism. The Assembly Confess of faith ch. 27. art. 3. call it the word of institution, chap. 28. art. 7. allegeth no other text to prove the ordaining and appointment of baptism by Christ, but Mat. 28. 19, 20. Mr. B. calls it page 342. the solemn institution of baptism, yea in the disputes with Papists and others about the author, minister, form, use of baptism, it is so common a thing to call this the institution of baptism, yea the regulating institution, the words therein are called the words of institution even in the Directory, that I admire Mr. M. should put in this exception had he not a mind to wrangle or to find a knot in a bulrush. I will recite Chamiers words, Panstr. Cath. tom. 1. l. 9. c. 10. s. 39. Dico hanc ipsam formam baptizandi in nomine patris & filii & spiritus sancti & solam esse & optimam constare ex Evangelio: ubi nimirum institutionis est descriptio. Nam quis ignor at quaecun que instituuntur à Christo non tantum optimè institui, sed etiam sic, ut non debeant aliter. But he tells me he knows I will not call that Matthew 28. 19. an institution of preaching, nor affirm that the method of preaching is to be fetcht out of this place. To which I reply, He is deceived, I do call it an institution of preaching, and therein follow his Collegue Mr. Rutherford Due right of Presbyteries pag. 454. That which we allege is an institution for preaching and baptizing, Matthew 28. 19, 20. and before him Pareus in his Comment. who intitles this part of the chapter, institutio ministerii, and from hence with the generality of Divines fetch the method of preaching. But saith he, This was only an inlargement of their Commission. Answ. I find that the Apostles had commission to preach, Mat. 10. 7. and that they did baptize, John 4. 1. which I doubt not they had Commission for: But be it so, yet however Mat. 28. 19. they had their Commission inlarged in the extent of the persons to whom they were to preach and baptize, and this Commission is an institution of those works: so that frivolously it is denyed to be an institution because it was an inlarged Commission, when the enlarged Commission was all one with a renewed institution, and must needs be a rule about preaching to, and baptizing of Gentiles, and therefore the institution of baptism to them. But it was instituted long before to be a seal of the Covenant. Answ. I deny not but John Baptist was appointed to baptize by God Mat. 21. 25. John 1. 6. and the Apostles by Christ: but where there is any institution of baptism so expressed as to regulate our practise afore that Mat. 28. 19. I find not, and therefore know no solemn institution by which we are to be guided in the use of it afore this. But it was long before instituted to be the Seal of the Covenant: for this he refers us to that which he had said before. Answ. What ambiguity, uncertainty, and falsity there is in Paedobaptists speeches about the Covenant, being in Covenant, seal of the Covenant, connexion between the Covenant and seal, will be shewed in that which followes. For present I know no place assigned by Mr. M. in his Defence part. 3: s. 13. wherein he shews that baptism was institu…ed long before the time of the speech Mat. 28. 19. to be the seal of the Covenant. I have read over that section, and do aver that I find it so empty of any either proofs or answers to my Examer, that his words in my apprehension are meer trifling. If it be thought I wrong a man of such repute, let any man shew me a word in all that section (in which he saith he hath answered all this abundantly) in answer to what I say that Matthew 28 19. is the institution of baptism to us Gentiles, and the rule by which ministers are to baptize, and that there is no other institution, and I will forfeit my credit. He neither in all that section, nor elsewhere, that I know, shews either any other or foregoing institution of baptism to us Gentiles, or any other but this with John Baptists, the Apostles, and some forenamed their practice and sayings for a rule of baptizing: onelyonly p. 212. he dictates thus. Sir, since it is apparent that here is no new Commission for any new method in their work, but only an enlargement of their Commission to apply their Ministery to new persons, how could they understand our Saviours meaning to proceed any other way to the Gentiles than among the Jews? &c. But to whom is it apparent? and when, either sleeping or waking? where is the old Commission that we must understand this by, so as to proceed the way to the Gentiles that was taken among the Jewes? Is it the Commission of circumcising Gen. 17? If that be it, then baptism is not a Sacrament of the New Testament onelyonly but of the old, then it is not a new administration, then the Commission of baptizing is to any parent, though no minister, to baptize, then it must be done the eighth day, to males only; were Christs words thus to be understood they had been a meer riddle: where or whence it is apparent that ever the Apostles conceived that in executing the Commission Mat. 28. 19. they were to proceed according to the Commission about circumcising? I have shewed Examen part. 3▪ sect. 14. that it rather follows to the contrary that they did and were to proceed clean otherwise. And therefore that the Apostles should understand the institution Mat. 28. 19. by the institution of circumcision Gen. 17. is so wild a conceit, that I cannot impu…e it to any thing but meer dotage in the assertor, there being no one word in the Commission or the executing of it throughout the Acts of the Apostles that doth shew that Christ had reference to it, or the Apostles so understood him. Yea if that of Circumcision Gent. 17. be an institution of baptism, by like reason that of the Passeover Exod. 12. must be an institution of the Lords Supper, and then the Lords Supper should be instituted afore the night in which Christ was betrayed, and the Lords Supper should be from Moses, and regulated by the Ordinances of the ceremoni…l Law &c. If Mr. M. mean by the foregoing institutution the manner of the Jewish Doctors in baptizing proselytes children with the parents, it shall be shewed hereafter, especially in answer to Dr. Hammond, that there is nothing therein for infant-baptism now, it being done to no Jewes or their infants many ages before Christs incarnation, and therefore not out of respect to the Covenant Gen. 17. nor as a privilege from thence, but meerly as a rite to purge them from the uncleanness of Gentilism, nor ever done to the infant posterity of the proselytes of righteousness after the first time of being made proselytes, nor ever used to proselytes of the gate. And yet had the use been such as that infants of Proselytes after their first en…rance on the Jewish profession had been baptized, yet there is no commission in Scripture for it, though Rabbins would fetch it, some from Gen. 35. 2. some from Exod. 19. 10. some from the flood, nor is there any thing in the institution of Christ, or Acts and sayings of the Apostles, that shews that Christian baptism was conformed to the Jewish baptism in this, and therefore I conclude, that there is no other institution besides Mat. 28. 19. Mark 16. 15, 16. together with the Apostles, John Baptists, and others forenamed sayings and practice, that is a rule to us about baptizing, and if infant-baptism be not here appointed, it is besides the institution, and so irregular.
But Mr. M. allegeth further, that it is not said that only disciples are to be baptized. To which I replyed Examen page 132. it is not said 1 Cor. 11. 28. Let him only eat that can examine himself, nor here only preachers in office are to baptize, nor only two to be one flesh, nor let only wine be drunk in the Euchurist, or water used in baptism, yet Divines make these speeches exclusive. M. Ball of the Covenant par. 2. c. 2. p. 252. when difference or distinction is contained in some term, the proposition is for sense exclusive no less than if it were expressly noted. Against this Mr. M. excepts Defence pag. 215. That the practice and example of Christ and John is sufficient to make a positive rule affirmative but not exclusive, and the reason is plain, they possibly might not meet with all persons and occasions, as though no proselyte of the gate were baptized till Acts 10. nor any till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance, nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warrant to baptize any, yet Peter upon the very pouring out of those gifts, without requiring any further confession either of faith or repentance, baptized Cornelius and all his Company.
Ref. 1. M. Ms. confessions are to be noted, that none till they made actual confession of their faith and repentance were baptized till Acts 10. nor any rule given that the receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost should without any other confession be a sufficient warant to baptize any, which do grant that till then there was neither rule nor practice of baptising any without actual confession of their faith and repentance, which is in effect a grant of the Minor, in my argument, denying any institution or practice in the New Testament of infant-baptism, for there is no other rule or practice of infant-baptism after Acts 10. otherwise than that before.
2. It is to be observed, that Mr. M. deals not rightly with me in that he makes me to have framed the exclusive rule from practice, whereas I joined institution with practice, and shewed neither to be for infant-baptism.
3. If the non-including of persons or things in the institution or practise of baptism be not exclusive, then the institution is not our rule, then there is no will-worship, or it is no sin to swerve from it, we may add to Gods worship infant-communion, and innumerable other things rejected may be lawful, then do preachers, especially Mr. M. unjustly urge the Parliament, and others, to reform invented ceremonies, and Protestants contend against Popish rites in baptism, mass, &c.
4. However Mr. M. conceive, yet men abler than Mr. M. do frequently assert negative arguments from institution. I will name one who hath few fellowes, Chamier Panst. cath. in the words lately by me here recited, and tom. 4. l. 5. c. 9. s. 24. Haec testimonia sunt institutionis: quae etsi non prohibent toridem verbis alios liquores: tamen eo ipso quod non ponat excludit. L. 7. c. 10. s. 38. quamquam in hoc genere rerum quae nihil sunt nisi ex institutione validissimam esse aportet argumentationem negativam si inde sumatur.
But Mr. M. saith, John the Baptist and the Apostles might not meet with all persons and occasions.
Answ. Tis true, they baptized no Emperours or Kings, because none were converted, yet they had a rule to baptize them if disciples: But this could not be the reason of their not baptizing infants, sith innumerable believers had infants in the times of the Gospel story, and Acts of the Apostles, and yet no mention of baptizingany. Do not Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists plead that the little children brought to Christ were infants of believers, and yet there's not a word of their being baptized? As for Mr. Ms. instance to prove no necessity of practice to warrant infant-baptism, though I grant if there were institution without practice it were enough, yet is it not rightly brought. It supposeth Peter baptized Cornelius and his houshold upon the very powring out of extraordinary gifts, without actual faith and repentance required; And I grant he required them not: but yet withal it is manifest he did not baptize meerly upon the powring out of extraordinary gifts without them. For the text Acts 10. 46, 47. expresly saith, they magnified God, ere he spake of their baptizing, and Acts 11. 17. that they had the like gift as themselves who believed on the Lord Jesus, and they gathered thence that the Gentiles had repentance unto life granted by God.
But it is objected by Mr. Cobbet, Just Vindic. part 2. cha. 3. sect. 2. that Mark 16. 16. none but true believers are meant, then if the term be exclusive none but such are to be baptized. 2. that those believers had signs following them, verse 17.
Answ. The rule is, disciples by profession are to be baptized, to which is equipollent [believers by profession] I say not that believers only who are such as those Mark 16. 16. are to be baptized by us: But yet comparing Mark 16. 15, 16. with Mat. 28. 19. I gather that a disciple and believer are terms equipollent, and so it helps me to understand the term [disciple] as answerable to the term [believer] And though by reason of the matter predicated Mark 16. 16. the believer there is only a true believer, yet the term often is given to believers only by profession, and we find such warrantably baptized, and that is enough for our direction: though we are to require more, yet we are not to forbear baptism till we know there is more. We acknowledge only true believers have right before God to baptism: but in the face of the Church believers by profession have right to baptism, and are to be taken by us for true believers upon their profession, till they be discovered to be otherwise. As for verse 17. it doth not say these or some of these signs shall follow every of them that believe: but they are true if they followed some of them that believe, sith the terms being indefinite in matter contingent, the Proposition is true if onelyonly particular. Indefinita propositio in materia contingenti aequipollet particulari, say Logicians.
But there is an objection ad hominem against my self, that I have said that if I knew an infant were actually sanctified, &c. I would baptize him, if so, then an infant is not excluded out of the institution.
Answ. I grant that an infant barely as an infant is not excluded out of the institution, but as ordinarily not known to be a disciple or believer. If an infant were known to be a disciple or believer, I would baptize him, as I would one who having his tongue cut out who is known to be a believer otherwaies. But then I have added that this would be upon extraordinary manifestation onelyonly, and so not according to ordinary rule, and therefore justifies onelyonly that extraordinary fact, not the ordinary practice of infant-baptism, which hath no rule ordinary or extraordinary.
But then saith Mr. M. page 215. shew us your extraordinary …ule.
Answ. When I do thus, or challenge this, I shall: in the mean time it is enough that my concession doth not infringe my argument against baptizing infants ordinarily without ordinary rule.
Mr. M. hath yet another exception in his Sermon, page 44. That no other are mentioned to be baptized but disciples, or believers, because a new Church was to be constituted, and then all were to be baptized upon profession of faith, after the children came in by their right by vertue of the Covenant.
Ref. 1. when I come to examine Mr. Ms. Conclusions I shall shew, that there is no such Covenant as to give right to believers infants to be baptized; yea that title to the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision, and therefore this is a vain pretence.
2. He assigns that for a reason why no other were baptized, which was not a reason: For in the Jewish Church which was already constituted, and which Christ did join himself to, and to whose children they say did belong the Covenant, yet while other were baptized all the time of John and Christs Ministery on earth, no one infant was appointed to be baptized, no not those infants Mark 10. which Christ blessed, and which were (if Paedobaptists say true) believers infants in Covenant.
3. It is a vain pretence, that there is no mention of baptized infants; because they had no right till their parents were converted: For neither when they were converted is there any mention of the infants baptism.
4. The institution Mat. 28. 19. expounded by the practice of John Baptist &c. is the standing rule for Churches at first planting, and after increasings, nor can any other rule be produced distinct from this, and therefore neither at first conversion, nor after settlement of Churches, are any to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they be disciples of Christ, or believers by profession.