Object.If it be said, That [Water] imports here necessitatem præcepti, though not medii;
Answ.I answer, That is first to take it for granted that outward Water is here understood; the contrary whereof we have already proved. Necessitas præcepti and medii urged.Next, Water and the Spirit are placed here together, [Except a Man be born of Water and the Spirit] where the Necessity of the one is urged as much as of the other. Now if the Spirit be absolutely necessary, so will also Water; and then we must either say, that to be born of the Spirit is not absolutely necessary, which all acknowledge to be false; or else, that Water is absolutely necessary; which, as Protestants, we affirm, and have proved, is false: Else we must confess, that Water is not here understood of outward Water. For to say that when Water and the Spirit are placed here just together, and in the same Manner, though there be not any Difference or Ground for it visible in the Text, or deducible from it, That the Necessity of Water is here præcepti, but not medii, but the Necessity of the Spirit is both medii and præcepti, is indeed confidently to affirm, but not to prove.
Obj. 6.Sixthly and lastly, They object, That the Baptism of Water is a visible Sign or Badge to distinguish Christians from Infidels, even as Circumcision did the Jews.
Answ.I answer, This saith nothing at all, unless it be proved to be a necessary Precept, or Part of the New Covenant Dispensation; it not being lawful for us to impose outward Ceremonies and Rites, and say, They will distinguish us from Infidels. Circumcision a Seal of the first Covenant.Circumcision was positively commanded, and said to be a Seal of the first Covenant; but as we have already proved that there is no such Command for Baptism, Water-baptism falsely called a Badge of Christianity.so there is not any Word in all the New Testament, calling it a Badge of Christianity, or Seal of the New Covenant: And therefore to conclude it is so, because Circumcision was so, (unless some better Proof be alleged for it) is miserably to beg the Question. Which is the Badge of Christianity.The Professing of Faith in Christ, and a holy Life answering thereunto, is a far better Badge of Christianity than any outward Washing; which yet answers not to that of Circumcision, since that affixed a Character in the Flesh, which this doth not: So that a Christian is not known to be a Christian by his being baptized, especially when he was a Child, unless he tell them so much: What the Fathers say of Water-baptism, and of the Sign of the Cross.And may not the Professing of Faith in Christ signify that as well? I know there are divers of those called the Fathers, that speak much of Water-baptism, calling it Characterem Christianitatis: But so did they also of the Sign of the Cross, and other such Things, justly rejected by Protestants. Heathenish Ceremonies introduced into the Christian Worship.For the Mystery of Iniquity, which began to work in the Apostles Days, soon spoiled the Simplicity and Purity of the Christian Worship; insomuch that not only many Jewish Rites were retained, but many Heathenish Customs and Ceremonies introduced into the Christian Worship; as particularly that Word [Sacrament.] So that it is a great Folly, especially for Protestants, to plead any Thing of this from Tradition or Antiquity; For we find that neither Papists nor Protestants use those Rites exactly as the Ancients did; who in such Things, not walking by the most certain Rule of God’s Spirit, but doting too much upon Externals, were very uncertain. For most of them all, in the primitive Times, did wholly plunge and dip those they baptized, which neither Papists, nor most Protestants, do: Yea, several of the Fathers accused some as Hereticks in their Days, for holding some Principles common with Protestants concerning it; as particularly Augustine doth the Pelagians, for saying that Infants dying unbaptized may be saved. And the Manichees were condemned, for denying that Grace is Universally given by Baptism; and Julian the Pelagian by Augustine, for denying Exorcism and Insufflation in the Use of Baptism: Exorcism or Adjuration.All which Things Protestants deny also. So that Protestants do but foolishly to upbraid us, as if we could not shew any among the Ancients that denied Water-baptism; seeing they cannot shew any, whom they acknowledge not to have been heretical in several Things, that used it; The Sign of the Cross.nor yet, who using it, did not also use the Sign of the Cross, and other Things with it, which they deny. Many in former Ages testified against Water-baptism.There were some nevertheless in the darkest Times of Popery, who testified against Water-baptism. For one Alanus, Page 103, 104. 107. speaks of some in his Time that were burnt for the denying of it: For they said, That Baptism had no Efficacy, either in Children or adult Persons; and therefore Men were not obliged to take Baptism: Particularly ten Canonicks, so called, were burnt for that Crime, by the Order of King Robert of France. And P. Pithœus mentions it in his Fragments of the History of Guienne, which is also confirmed by one Johannes Floracensis, a Monk, who was famous at that Time, in his Epistle to Oliva, Abbot of the Ausonian Church: “I will, saith he, give you to understand concerning the Heresy that was in the City of Orleans on Childermas-day; Ten Canonicks burnt at Orleans, and why.for it was true, if ye have heard any Thing, that King Robert caused to be burnt alive near fourteen of that City, of the chief of their Clergy, and the more noble of their Laicks, who were hateful to God, and abominable to Heaven and Earth; for they did stifly deny the Grace of holy Baptism, and also the Consecration of the Lord’s Body and Blood.” The Time of this Deed is noted in these Words by Papir. Masson, in his Annals of France, Lib. 3. in Hugh and Robert, Actum Aureliæ publicè anno Incarnationis Domini 1022. Regni Roberti Regis 28, Indictione 5. quando Stephanus Hæresiarcha & Complices ejus damnati sunt et exusti Aureliæ.
Now for their calling them Hereticks and Manichees, we have nothing but the Testimony of their Accusers, which will no more invalidate their Testimony for this Truth against the Use of Water-baptism, or give more Ground to charge us, as being one with Manichees, than because some, called by them Manichees, do agree with Protestants in some Things, that therefore Protestants are Manichees or Hereticks, which Protestants can no Ways shun. For the Question is, Whether, in what they did, they walked according to the Truth testified of by the Spirit in the Holy Scriptures? So that the Controversy is brought back again to the Scriptures, according to which, I suppose, I have already discussed it.
The Baptism of Infants an Human Tradition.As for the latter Part of the Thesis, denying the Use of Infant-baptism, it necessarily follows from what is above said. For if Water-baptism be ceased, then surely Baptizing of Infants is not warrantable. But those that take upon them to oppose us in this Matter, will have more to do as to this latter Part: For after they have done what they can to prove Water-baptism, it remains for them to prove that Infants ought to be baptized. For he that proves Water-baptism ceased, proves that Infant-baptism is vain: But he that should prove that Water-baptism continues, has not thence proved that Infant-baptism is necessary; that needs something further. And therefore it was a pitiful Subterfuge of Nic. Arnoldus against this, to say, That the Denying of Infant-baptism belonged to the Gangrene of the Anabaptists, without adding any further Proof.
PROPOSITION XIII.
Concerning the Communion, or Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ.