32 he says, was a præludium or foretaste of those hymns and praises which should be the employment of the life to come. But whether this means any particular psalms appointed to be sung at baptism, or the common psalmody of the church, he does not inform us. If I may be allowed to conjecture, I should conclude for the former, because the common psalmody of the church was no more than what catechumens were allowed to hear before, as being part of the missa catechumenorum, or first service, at which not only catechumens, but professed Jews and heathens might be present. Perhaps they sung the 118th Psalm, in which are these words, "This is the day which the Lord hath made, we will rejoice and be glad in it;" because St. Austin," speaking of the Easter festival, seems to refer to it, saying, This is the day which the Lord hath made, higher than all, brighter than all, in which he hath acquired to himself a new people by the Spirit of regeneration, and hath filled our minds with joy and gladness. And Paulinus speaks of singing hallelujahs upon this occasion. But in doubtful matters I will not be over-positive to determine. It is more certain, that as soon as And admitted im- the ceremonies of baptism were fincommunion of the ished, men were admitted to a participation of the eucharist. For this was the rò riλov, the perfection or consummation of a Christian, to which he was entitled by virtue of his baptism. Therefore all the ancient writers speak of this as the concluding privilege of baptism, which in those days was always immediately subjoined to it. And this was observed, not only with respect to adult persons, but children also. For proof of which custom, at present it will be sufficient to allege the testimony of Gennadius," who joins the baptism of infants, and confirmation, and the eucharist all together. And this continued to the ninth century, as appears from the rituals of that age, some of which have been produced before," and many others might be added; but these belong to another place, where it will be more proper to treat of the communion of infants among other things Sect. 9. mediately to the altar. 31 1 Aug, Serm. 163. de Tempore, t. 10. p. 332. Hic est dies, dilectissimi, quem fecit Dominus, celsior cunctis, lucidior universis, in quo sibi novam plebem, ut videtis, regenerationis Spiritu conquisivit, &c. 32 Paulin. Ep. 12. ad Sever. p. 145. Hinc senior socia congaudet turba catervæ; Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. cap. 52. Si parvuli sint, qui doctrinam non capiant, respondeant pro illis qui eos offerunt, juxta morem baptizandi: et sic manûs impositione et chrismate communiti, eucharistiæ mysteriis admittantur. Book XII. chap. 1. sect. 2. 35 Vicecom. de Ritib. Bapt. lib. 3. cap. 20. * Aug. Ep. 118. ad Januarium, p. 213. Si autem quæris, cur etiam lavandi mos ortus sit: nihil mihi de hac re cogitanti probabilius occurrit, nisi quia baptizandorum corpora per observationem quadragesima sordidata, cum offensione Sect. 10. Of the ceremony of washing the feet, churches. There was one ceremony more, used in some churches, but rejected by others, which it will not be improper retained in some to give some account of here in the close: that was the custom of washing the feet of the baptized. Vicecomes thinks, at first it was a ceremony preceding baptism, and used on Maundy Thursday, or the same day that our Saviour (from whose example it was taken) washed his disciples' feet. And this seems to be clear, he says, from St. Austin's words, who has occasion to mention it in two of his epistles. But in the former epistle, St. Austin is speaking of the custom of bathing the whole body before Easter, that the catechumens, who had neglected themselves in the observation of Lent, might not appear offensive when they came to be baptized: therefore Maundy Thursday was chosen as the day to cleanse themselves, by bathing, from the bodily filth which they had contracted. And because this was allowed to the catechumens, many others chose to bathe themselves with them on that day also, and relax their fast, because fasting and bathing would not agree together. So that this washing was not the washing of the feet, however Vicecomes came to mistake it, but the bathing of the whole body; and not used as a religious ceremony, but as a ceremony of convenience and civil decency, that they might not be offensive to the senses of others, when they came to baptism. In the other epistle he speaks particularly of washing the feet, but that was after baptism, on the third day, or the octaves, or such other time as those churches which retained the ceremony thought fit to appoint it. For many churches," he says, would never admit of this custom at all, lest it should seem to belong to the sensus ad fontem tractarentur, nisi aliqua die lavarentur. Istum autem diem potius ad hoc electum quo cœna Domini anniversarie celebratur. Et quia concessum est hoc baptismum accepturis, multi cum his lavare voluerunt, jejuniumque relaxare. 37 Aug. Ep. 119. ad Januar. cap. 18. De lavandis vero pedibus, cum Dominus hoc propter formam humilitatis, propter quam docendam venerat, commendaret, sicut ipse consequenter exposuit, quæsitum est, Quonam tempore potissimum res tanta etiam facto doceretur, et in illud tempus occurrit, quo ipsa commendatio religiosius inhæreret. Sed ne ad ipsum sacramentum baptismi videretur pertinere, multi hoc in consuetudinem recipere noluerunt. Nonnulli etiam de consuetudine auferre non dubitarunt. Aliqui autem, ut hoc sacratiore tempore commendarent, et a baptismi sacramento distinguerent, vel diem tertium octavarum, quia ternarius numerus in multis sacramentis maxime 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. I have now gone over the most material ceremonies and usages of the church, observed about the ministration of baptism, as well those that went before, as those that ac ad Sect. 11. A general reflection upon the whole preceding dis course, with relation to the practice of the present church. sacrament of baptism, when our Saviour only intended it as a lesson of humility. And other churches, for the same reason, abrogated the custom, where it had been received. And others, who retained it, that they might recommend it by fixing it to some more sacred time, and yet distinguish it from the sacrament of baptism, chose either the third day of the octaves, or the octave after baptism itself, as most convenient for this purpose. Among the churches which wholly refused, or abrogated this custom, the Spanish church is one, which in the council of Eliberis made a canon against it; forbidding at once the exacting any gift or reward for administering baptism, lest the priest should seem to sell what he freely received; (of which I have given a full account, in speak-companied the action itself, and those that followed ing of the revenues of the church ;) and also forbidding the priests," or any other of the clergy, to wash the feet of such as were baptized. Among those churches which never received this custom, we may reckon the Roman church; and among those which always received it, the church of Milan, whose practice is opposed to the Roman by St. Ambrose, or whoever was the author of the books De Sacramentis, and De iis qui Mysteriis initiantur, among his works. He says," In the church of Milan the bishop was used to wash the feet of the baptized. But the Roman church had not this custom. And he thinks they might decline it, becaase of the multitude of those that were baptized. 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 it 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. For 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 excellit, vel etiam ipsum octavum, ut hoc facerent, elegerunt. 38 Book V. chap. 4. sect. 14. 39 Conc. Eliber. can. 48. Emendari placuit, ut hi qui baptizantur (ut fieri solet) nummos in concham non mittant, ne sacerdos, quod gratis accepit, pretio distrahere videatur. Neque pedes corum lavandi sunt a sacerdotibus vel clericis. 40 Ambros. de Sacram. lib. 3. cap. 1. Succinctus summus sacerdos pedes tibi lavit.Non ignoramus, quod ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur et formam: hanc tamen consuetudinem non habet, ut pedes lavet. Vide ergo ne propter multitudinem declinarit. Sunt tamen qui dicant, et excusare conentur, quia hoc non mysterio faciendum est, non in bap after; and, as near as I could, delivered them in the same order and manner as she herself observed 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 tismate, non in regeneratione: sed quasi hospiti pedes lavandi sunt. Aliud est humilitatis, aliud sanctificationis. Denique audi, quia mysterium est, et sanctificatio. Nisi lavero tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Hoc ideo dieo, non quod alios reprehendam, sed mea officia ipse commendem. In omnibus cupio sequi ecclesiam Romanam, sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus. Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos recte custodimus. 41 Ibid. In baptismate omnis culpa diluitur. Recedit ergo culpa: sed quia Adam supplantatus a diabolo est, et venenum ei suffusum est supra pedes, ideo lavas pedes, ut in ea parte, in qua insidiatus est serpens, majus subsidium sanctificationis accedat, quo postea te supplantare non possit. He repeats this reason in his Book de Initiatis, cap. 6. 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. CHAPTER V. OF THE LAWS AGAINST REBAPTIZATION BOTH IN CHURCH AND STATE. Sect. 1. properly so called, allowed by the church. And why. To what has been said about baptism, But one 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 repetition of baptism; though Vossius thinks' their reasons are not always strictly conclusive. Some argued, that baptism was not to be repeated, because we are baptized into the death of Christ, who died but once. So St. Basil,2 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 baptism, 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 1 Voss. de Bapt. Disp. 17. n. 5. p. 210. Basil. de Spir. Sancto, cap. 15. Aug. de Vera et Falsa Pœnit. cap. 3. 5 Cyril. lib. 5. in Joan. xvii. 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 repentance by a second baptism. Others made use of those words of the apostle, Eph. iv. " One faith, one baptism." Which is the argument urged by Cyril of Jerusalem and Pope Leo against rebaptization. But this, as Vossius observes, probably was not intended as a prohibition of a second baptism, 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 rebaptization 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 rebaptize 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 rebaptized the catholics, yet they did it not under the notion of a second baptism, but as supposing they had received no true baptism before. Indeed, ainong all the ancient heretics, we find none for a plurality of baptisms, but only the Marcionites. Which Epiphanius observes to have been an invention of Marcion, their first founder, 9 Sect. 2. Only the Marcion ites allowed baptism to ed. be thrice repeat approbemus, hæreticis sine baptismate debere pœnitentiam concedi. Nunquid dixit, Rebaptizentur qui in Nicolaitarum fidem baptizati sunt? 10 Optat. lib. 1. p. 35. Quid magis dici pro nobis, et nostrum esse potest, quam quod dixisti, in comparationem baptismatis semel factum esse diluvium? Et singularem circumcisionem salubriter profecisse populo Judæorum, magis pro nobis, quasi noster locutus es. Sect. 3. did in doubtful cases, baptization. in regard to his own conversation:" for he having been guilty of deflowering 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 baptized 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 baptism 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. It is true, indeed, there were some What the church doubtful cases, in which it might hapnot reckoned a re- pen accidentally that a man might be a second time baptized; 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 baptize them; because, though they might perhaps have received a former baptism, yet no evidence of it appeared. And so this was not reputed a rebaptization. A decree was made to this purpose in the fifth council of Carthage," upon a question put by the bishops of Mauritania, who affirmed that they redeemed many such captive children from the hands of the barbarians: the council ordered, That in this case, as often as it happened, that there were no certain witnesses found, who could give undoubted testimony of their baptism; nor were they able of themselves to affirm, by reason of their age, that they ever had received it; they should be baptized without any scruple, lest a hesitation in this case should deprive them Epiphan. Hær. 42. Marcionit. n. 3. 12 Conc. Carthag. 5. can. 6. Placuit de infantibus, ut quoties non inveniuntur certissimi testes, qui eos baptizatos esse sine dubitatione testentur, neque ipsi sint per ætatem idonei de traditis sibi sacramentis respondere, absque ullo scrupulo eos esse baptizandos, ne ista trepidatio eos faciat sacramentorum purgatione privari. Hinc enim legati Maurorum fratres nostri consuluerunt, quia multos tales a barbaris redimunt. Vid. Cod. Eccl. Afric. can. 72. et Conc. Trull, can. 81. 13 Leo, Ep. 37. ad Leon. Raven. Non potest in iterationis crimen devenire, quod factum esse omnino nescitur. of the purgation of the sacraments. The like determination was also given in one of the Roman synods under Leo upon the same case, where it was concluded, That in such a doubtful case, neither the baptizer nor the baptized incurred the crime of rebaptization. And Leo resolves the matter" himself after the same manner in other places. Neither was it reckoned any crime, though it afterward appeared that the party had been baptized before, because it was done in ignorance: but yet, like clinic baptism, it was a sort of blemish to him, that deprived him of ecclesiastical promotion, except in some extraordinary case, as we learn from Theodore's" Pœnitentiale, cited by Gratian. Neither was it reckoned properly Sect. 4. a second baptism, when the church Nor when she bap baptized any who had before been un- tized before in here tized those who had been unduly tap duly baptized in heresy or schism. sy or schism. For then she did it only on presumption that they had received no true baptism before. Some heretics corrupted baptism by altering the necessary form, and others corrupted it by changing the matter of it into some other substance of their own appointing; and the baptisms of all such were looked upon as no baptisms; and therefore the church ordered all those to be baptized upon their return to her communion, in the very same manner as Jews and Gentiles, as supposing their former pretence of baptism to be nothing at all, but her own baptism the first true baptism that was given them. And even the Cyprianists, who baptized all that had been baptized in any heresy or schism whatsoever without distinction, did it still only upon this supposition, that the baptism which they had received before, was no baptism at all, but a mere nullity. But if any had been baptized in the catholic church, and after that turned heretics or schismatics, or even apostates, Jews or Gentiles, they never gave such another baptism upon their return to the church again. 14 Id. Ep. 92. ad Rustic. cap. 16. Si nulla existant indicia inter propinquos aut familiares, nulla inter clericos aut vicinos, quibus hi, de quibus quæritur, baptizati fuisse doceantur; agendum est ut renascantur, ne manifeste pereant, in quibus quod non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit ut videatur iteratum. 15 Theodor. Pœnitent. ap. Gratian, Dist. 4. de Consecrat. cap. 117. Qui bis ignoranter baptizati sunt, non indigent pro eo pœnitere: nisi quod secundum canones ordinari non possunt, nisi magna aliqua necessitas cogat. 16 Aug. de Bapt. lib. 2. cap. 1. Cont. Liter. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 7 et 48. Cont. Crescon. lib. 2. cap. 16. in any heresy or schism; they still except those | rightly observe, in order to refute the story of Conheretics who had originally been baptized in the catholic church: though they turned apostates they were not to be received again by baptism," but only by repentance, as was determined in the council of Carthage, over which Cyprian presided. St. Austin refers us to this very passage, and thence concludes this was a point agreed upon universally in the catholic church, that no lapse or crime could make it necessary to give a second baptism to any who had once been truly baptized within the pale of the church. A longer penance indeed was imposed upon such deserters and apostates as had been baptized in the church, than upon those who had been baptized among heretics originally, as the Rules of Pope Innocent's inform us; the one were obliged to go through a long course of penance for their apostacy, but the other were admitted immediately by imposition of hands upon their recantation: yet still the church kept strict to her rule, that whatever way she admitted them she would not do it by a second baptism. Sect. 6. lics. Several heretics pretended to obbaptized the catho- serve the same rule; for they rebap tized the catholics; yet they said this was not a second baptism, because the catholics were reputed heretics with them, and therefore their baptism of no value in their account. Upon this ground the Novatians rebaptized the catholics, as we learn from Cyprian," and the epistle of Pope Innocent last cited. The Donatists followed the Novatians in this sacrilegious practice, as the charge is often brought against them by St. Austin," and many others. And the Eunomians not only rebaptized the catholics, but all others of the Arian sects that were not of their own particular faction, as is noted by Epiphanius" in his account of them. And the other Arians, though they were at first averse to this practice, (as Papebrochius and Pagi" | 22 " Conc. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. 8. p. 232. Censeo omnes hæreticos et schismaticos, qui ad catholicam ecclesiam voluerint venire, non ante ingredi, nisi exorcisati et baptizati prius fuerint; exceptis his sane qui in ecclesia catholica fuerint ante baptizati, ita tamen ut per manûs impositionem in pœnitentiam ecclesiæ reconcilientur. See the same, ibid. n. 22. And Cypr. Ep. 71. ad Quintum, p. 194. Ep. 74. ad Pompeium, p. 216. 18 Innoc. Ep. 2. ad Victricium, cap. 8. Ut venientes a Novatianis vel Montensibus, per manûs tantum impositionem suscipiantur. Quia quamvis ab hæreticis, tamen in Christi nomine sunt baptizati: præter eos, si qui forte a nobis ad illos transeuntes, rebaptizati sunt: hisi resipiscentes, et ruinam suam cogitantes, redire maluerint, sub longa pœnitentiæ satisfactione admittendi sunt. 19 Cypr. Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p. 198. Nec nos movet, quod in literis tuis complexus es, Novatianenses rebaptizare eos, quos a nobis sollicitant. 20 Aug. cont. Fulgent. cap. 7. Da mihi aliquem sanctorum post Trinitatem rebaptizare, quod facis. It. de Hæres. c. 69. Audent etiam rebaptizare catholicos, &c. Vid. Cod. Theodos. lib. 16. Tit. 6. Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. 27 stantine's being baptized by Pope Sylvester, and rebaptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia; for at that time the Arians had not taken up the practice of rebaptizing the catholics,) yet afterwards they gave way to it about the time of St. Austin. For he charges it upon them more than once," that they rebaptized the catholics. And it appears from Victor Uticensis," that they insisted stiffly upon it in the time of the Vandalic persecution, and we afterwards meet with the same in the epistles of Vigilius.26 Valesius cites the Life of Fulgentius, and the author of the Breviarium Fidei, published by Sirmondus, to the same purpose. By which last author we find, that the Arians not only rebaptized the catholics, but also made an argument of it, (as some Romanists in another case have since argued against the protestants,) that their baptism was better than the catholics', because the catholics never rebaptized those that came over from the Arians, but reconciled them only by imposition of hands; but the Arians, whenever they could seduce any from the catholics, always gave them a second baptism. Sect. 7. What punishments baptizers by the laws were inflicted on re of church and state. Now, to prevent this petulant humour from spreading in the church, many and severe laws were made against it, both by the ecclesiastical and the secular power. The church by her canons not only censured and condemned all such rebaptizations, as impious and sacrilegious, as a crucifying of Christ again, a doing despite to the Spirit, as a mockery of the Divine mysteries, and derision of holy things; but also inflicted penalties on all those who were either actively or passively concerned in them. The council of Lerida forbids the faithful so much as to eat with persons that suffered themselves to be rebaptized. The canons of Pope Innocent enjoin them a long penance to |