For

was used to wash the feet of the baptised. But the Roman Church had not this custom: and he thinks, they might decline it, because of the multitude of those that were baptised. But they of the Roman Church pleaded, "that it was not to be done by way of mystery in baptism or regeneration, but only by way of humility, as the custom of washing the feet of strangers." But on the contrary, the Church of Milan pleaded, "that this was not merely a business of humility, but of mystery and sanctification, because Christ said to Peter, except I wash thy feet, thou hast no part with me." ." "This I urge," says our author, "not to reprehend others, but to commend my own office. though we desire to follow the Roman Church, yet we are men that have our senses about us. And therefore we observe that practice which we conceive to be righter in other churches." He adds further," that this was not done to obtain remission of sins, for that was already done in baptism but because Adam was supplanted by the devil, and the serpent's poison was cast upon his feet, therefore men were washed in that part for greater sanctification, that he might have no power to supplant them any further." These were the reasons given by the Church of Milan, for their adhering to this practice: but they were not so strong as to prevail with others, and so this custom never got any great footing in the Christian Church.

SECT. 11.-A General Reflection upon the whole preceding Discourse, with Relation to the Practice of the present Church.

I have now gone over the most material ceremonies and usages of the Church observed about the administration of baptism, as well those that went before, as those that accompanied the action itself, and those that followed after; and, as near as I could, delivered them in the same order and manner as she herself observed

Ibid. in Baptismate omnis culpa diluitur. Recedit ergò culpa; sed quia Adam supplantatus à Diabolo est, et venenum ei suffusum est supra pedes, ideo lavas pedes ut in eâ parte, in quâ insidiatus est serpens, majus subsidium sanctificationis accedat, quo posteà te supplantare non possit. He repeats this reason in his Book de Initiatis, cap. vi.

them. And shall here close the discourse only with one general reflection, which may be of some use to vindicate the practice of the present Church, and give satisfaction to such sober dissenters as scruple our office of baptism, for the sake of an innocent significant ceremony or two retained in it. The candid reader may observe throughout this discourse, that not only one or two, but many significant ceremonies were observed by the Ancient Church in the administration of baptism; particularly the sign of the cross was used at least four or five times in the whole process of the action. Therefore they, who now raise objections against the present office, had they lived in the primitive times, must have had much more reason to complain of the ancient practice. And yet we do not ordinarily find objections raised against the baptism of the Church, upon the account of the ceremonies she used therein; no, not even by those who in other things differed from her. Which consideration, methinks, should a little satisfy those, who really value the peace and unity of the Church, and be an argument to them not to dissent from the practice. of the present Church, for those things which must more forcibly have obliged them to have been dissenters in all ages. I know not how far this consideration may prevail upon any, but I know how far it ought to prevail upon all that love the peace, and study the quiet of the Church, and therefore I could not but in this place here, seasonably suggest it.

CHAP. V.

Of the laws against Rebaptization both in Church and

State.

SECT. 1.-But one Baptism, properly so called, allowed by the Church: and why?

To what has been said about baptism, it will not be improper to add something about the laws made both in Church and State, against the repetition of it, when once duly performed. The Ancients generally determine against a re

petition of baptism; though Vossius thinks their reasons are not always strictly conclusive. Some argued, that

baptism was not to be repeated, because we are baptised into the death of Christ, who died but once. So St. Basil and St. Austin. But Vossius thinks there is no weight in this argument, because that which is but once done, may be often represented: as the sacrament of the eucharist is often repeated, though it also be in remembrance of the Lord's death till he come. Others prove it from those words of our Saviour, John, xiii. 10. "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit." This argument is used by Optatus, St. Austin, Fulgentius, Pacianus, and St. Ambrose. But Vossius thinks there is as little force in this reason as the former: because men may become polluted and unclean after baptisın, and so have need of a second washing, if there were no other reason against it. Others argued from those words of the Apostle, Heb. vi. 4. “It is impossible for those who are once enlightened, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance." The ancient expositors, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Primasius, Sedulius, and Haimo, understand this as a prohibition of renewing men to repentance again by a second baptism; for they do not deny absolutely the possibility of a second repentance or pardon, but only upon a second baptism. And so, Vossius says, it is also expounded by Epiphanius,* Cyril of Alexandria, St. Jerom, St. Austin, and St. Ambrose. But he thinks their exposition not so agreeable to this place, as that of others, who interpret the "falling away," either to mean the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or what St. John calls "a sin unto death," or a total apostacy from the Christian religion, for which there is no renewal of repentance. But I will not be so positive as Vossius, that any of these are better interpretations of that text, which is so unanimously urged by the Ancients against the Novatians, as a prohibition, not simply of a second repentance, but of a

5

2 Basil. de Spir. Sancto, Epiphan.

Voss. de Bapt. Disp. xvii. n. 5. p. 210. cap. xv. 8 Aug. de Ver. et Fals. Pœnit. cap. iii. Hær. lix. Novatianor. Cyril. lib. v. in Joan. xvii. cont. Jovin. lib. ii. cont. Novat. lib. ii. cap. ii.

VOL. III.

་

Aug. Com. in Rom.

4

6 Hieron.

Ambros. de Pœnit.

Ꮓ

repentance by a second baptism. Others made use of thos words of the Apostle, Eph. iv. " one faith, one baptism.' Which is the argument urged by Cyril of Jerusalem and Pope Leo, against rebaptisation. But this, as Vossius observes probably was not intended as a prohibition of a second bap tism, but only to declare the community of that baptism, which is received one and the same by all, without exception. As the Apostle calls the eucharist "one bread," not because it was only once to be received, but because it was that common bread, of which all were partakers. The true reason, Vossius thinks, why baptism is not to be repeated, is the Divine will that so appointed it. For there is no command to reiterate baptism, as there is to repeat the eucharist, in the words of institution. Neither is there any example of any rebaptisation in Scripture, though we often read of men's falling into gross and scandalous sins after baptism. To which may be added, that baptism succeeds in the room of circumcision, being the entrance and seal of the covenant, which, on God's part, is never broken: so that as circumcision was never repeated, though the passover was yearly; in like manner, men enter into the covenant by baptism, and their breaches of the covenant are not to be repaired by repeated baptisms, but by confession and repentance, which is the method prescribed by the Apostle for restoring fallen brethren. St. Jerom observes,' that though there were many heretics in the Apostles' days, as the Nicolaitans and others, yet there was no command given to rebaptise them upon their repentance. And Optatus makes the unity of circumcision a good argument for the unity of baptism, in which both the Catholics and Donatists agreed. For though the Donatists rebaptised the Catholics, yet they did it not under the notion of a second baptism, but as supposing they had received no true baptism before.

1 Hieron. cont. Lucifer. cap. viii. De Apocalypsi quoque approbemus, hæreticis sine baptismate debere pœnitentiam concedi. Nunquid dixit, Rebaptizentur, qui in Nicolaitarum fidem baptizati sunt ? 2 Optat. lib. i. p. 35.

Quid magis dici pro nobis, et nostrum esse potest, quàm quod dixisti, in cumparationem baptismatis semel factum esse diluvium? Et singularum circumcisionem salubriter profecisse populo Judæorum, magis pro nobis, quasi noster locutus es.

th

ist SECT. 2-Only the Martoonides allowed Baptism to be thrice responded Indeed among all the ancient heretics, we £nd none for a urality of baptisms, but only the Marescates. WhRA Eşe phanius observes to have beea an invention of Marcion, ther first founder, in regard to his own conversation for he having been guilty of defowering a virgin, invented a second baptism, asserting, that it was lawful to repeat baptism three times for the remission of sins. So that if any man fell, he might receive a second baptism after the first, and a third after that, upon his repentance. Which he pretended to ground upon those sayings of our Saviour, “I have a baptism to be baptised with, and I have a cup to drink;” which have no reference to any other baptism in water, but to his baptism in blood, that is, his death and passion. Of which the Ancients speak much, as they do of some other sorts of baptism, which are only metaphorical, as the baptisan of afflictions, the baptism of tears and repentance, and the baptism of fire at the last day. But here the question is only about proper baptism by water, which the Marcionites affirmed might be repeated three times in the same way, which the Church never allowed of.

SECT. 3-What the Church did in doubtful Cases, not reckoned a Rebaptisation.

It is true indeed, there were some doubtful cases, in which it might happen accidentally that a man might be a second time baptised; but these were such cases only, in which the party was reputed not to have received any former baptism at all. As when a man could neither give any account of his own baptism, nor were there any other credible witnesses that could attest it. Which often happened to be the case of those, who were taken captives in their infancy, and made slaves by the heathen. When any such were redeemed or recovered by the Christians, the Church made no scruple to baptise them; because though they might perhaps have received a former baptism, yet no evidence of it

Epiphan. Hær. 42. Marcionit. n. S.