Anti-Paedobaptism Part 2, Section 23
SECT. XXIII.
Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes their conjecture from Hebr. 6. 2. to prove infant-baptism is refelled.
THere is another Text, to wit, Hebr. 6. 2. from which Dr. Homes Animad. on my Exercit. pag. 58. and after cap. 10. would prove infant-baptism, and with him Mr. John Brinsley Doctrine and Practice of Poedob. pag. 76. &c. which if their arguing were good, would not onelyonly prove the practice of infantbaptism, but also that it is a principle of Christianity, and part of the foundation.
The arguing is to this effect, If the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms cannot be expounded of any other than the laying on of hands for confirming the baptized in infancy than the Doctrine of laying on of hands put after the Doctrine of baptisms presupposeth infant-baptism. But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, the Consequent. The Antecedent is proved by parts, 1. It cannot be understood of laying on of hands for healing or miraculous gifts of the Spirit. For then the knowledg of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit should be put among the Principles of Christian knowledg, which is absurd.
To which I answered in my Exercit. pag. 22. that it is no absurdity to put that among the Principles of Christian knowledg, those gifts being though by extraordinary power, yet frequent in those days, and necessary to be known to confirm young Christians, that Jesus is the Christ, because the Spirit thus given was the great witness concerning Christ, that he was the Son of God, and shewed that he was gone up to the Father, else the Spirit had not descended, it was it by which the world was rebuked, and the Saints established.
To this sayth Dr. Homes, that I by and by as good as confess it a eogent reason, because I go about to prove that imposition of hands here mentioned is for Ordination, because it was still in use, and to continue to be used.
Answ. The Doctor misallegeth my words: for I do not say positively as he cites them, but comparatively thus; for it is more likely that imposition of hands for Ordination, which was still in use, and to continue to be used, should be there meant, than laying on of hands for confirmation after baptism of infants, which hath no Rule nor Example in Scripture.
2. Saith Dr. Homes, Those gifts usual onelyonly in that little time of the Apostles were not to be joyned with, and put among the first Principles of Christian Religion to be taught young ones to fit them for baptism, or to give an account of their faith after baptism.
Answ. Those Principles Heb. 6. 1, 2. are not sayd to be taught to little ones in age, but in knowledg of Christian Religion, nor are they sayd to be taught to fit them for baptism, or to give account of their faith after baptism: they may be principles and a foundation, though they were taught them after baptism, and to establish themselves rather than to give account to others. Now for what reason the knowledg of these might be a part of the beginnings of the Doctrine of Christ to young Christians is given above. And there is in the Text that which may induce us to conceive the giving the spirit by laying on of hands meant, because v. 4. they that were enlightned, which many even of the Ancients understood of baptism, commonly called by the Greeks [inlightning] are sayd, to have tasted of the heavenly gift and to be partakers of the Holy Ghost, which seems to be meant in respect of these gifts, and Paul Acts 19. 2. propounded this as a Catechism question to certain Disciples at Ephesus, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? But I rested not on it, because the other of laying on of hands for Ordination seemed to me more likely then.
2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley, Its not likely to be meant of laying on of hands for Ordination, 1. Because that's not fit to be taught younglings, children, novices, as milk, Heb. 5. 12. If this be milk, viz. the Doctrine of Church-discipline, Church-officers, Church-goverment, &c. what shall we call o… count strong meat?
To this was answered, that however all the Doctrine about Church-discipline might be unfit to be taught novices, yet laying on hands for Ordination being an outward ri…e of continued use, it might be needfull to be taught younglings in Christian profession.
To this Dr. Homes replies, that no ingenuous man we…ghing and pondering things will think that little children should be taught, as one of the first elements of Christian faith the imposition of hands to ordain Ministers.
To which I say, many even of later Writers, whom me thinks the Doctor should not deny to be ingenuous men do refer the laying on of hands, Heb. 6. 2. to Ordination, Dicson on Heb. 6. 2. Ames Bell. Ener. tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 1. th. 8. Cartwright Answ. to Rh. Annot. in locum. Thomas Hooker Survey part. 1. cap. 1. pag. 7. Noyes the Temple measured, pag. 70. Hudson Essence and Unity of the Church, pag. 9. and Vindic. pag. 22. Dr. Hammond of the Keys cap. 4. sect. 28. Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4, cap. 10. sect. 38. recites the opinions of Papists, as differing, some referring to Confirmation, some to Ordination, some to giving the Holy Ghost. The New Annot. Diodati, speak as uncertain, to which to refer it, Grotius refers it to all rites besides baptism▪ and the Lords Supper, in Confirmation, Ordination, curing the sick, reconciling penitents, blessing the married: and therefore whether little children were taught the Doctrine thereof or no, many ingenuous men conceive it meant, Heb. 6. 2. 2. Though it might be conceived unfit for little children in age to be taught, yet it may nevertheless be fit to be taught younglings in Christianity meant, Heb. 5. 12. It seems to me to be as fit to be taught little children as the Doctrine of Confirmation, and may be as easily learned by them as the points about the Resurrection of the Dead, and eternal Judgment.
2. Sayth Mr. Brinsley, The very putting these two together [baptisms and laying on of hands] seems in Calvins judgment to import some relation that the one should have to the other, as in the other Principles which are by pairs.
To this I answered, that baptism and imposition of hands might be fitly coupled, being both Ordinances for initiation, the one into the profession of Christianity, the other into sacred function.
To this Dr. Homes replies, that imposition of hands initi…te… but few, and that long after they are Church members, and that Marriage might better be coupled with baptism or imposition of hands and the Lords Supper.
Answ. If all this were granted, yet the answer stands good, that the joyning proves not Mr. Brinsleys sense necessary, which is enough for my purpose to shew the insufficiency of his Argument.
But Dr. Homes thinks to blow away all by avouching his and Mr. Brinsleys interpretation, which he cals a naked and honest explication of the Text. And that is, that the Doctrine of baptisms is the Doctrine which the catechized of the heathens recited afore their baptism, and the Doctrine of laying on of hands was the Doctrine which infants of believers before baptized in their infancy, after they were past childhood, rehearsed before the Church, upon which they were received into the Church by imposition of hands.
Answ: He may well call it a naked interpretation, because it is brought into the world without proof, there being nothing in the Text for it, and all the shew of proof is onelyonly the opinion of some late writers mistaken about the practise of antiquity. Yea me thinks if the Doctor with his brethren of the congregational way, as it is called, did believe this interpretation to be genuine, they should admit their infant-sprinkled members by laying on of hands, which yet I hear not that they do. But against this interpretation are these reasons. 1. In it is supposed that the Doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands is not the Doctrine concerning those rites, but the Doctrine recited when those rites were used. But the Doctrine then recited being the Doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, and the profession of repentance from dead works and faith towards God, if the Doctrine of baptisms and the laying on of hands be the Doctrine recited by the baptized, and confirmed at the use of those rites, it will be the same with the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, repentance from dead works and faith towards God, and so those several principles will be confounded. 2. The Doctrine of baptisms was that which in those to whom the Apostles wrote was layd before, which is intimated in the words v. 1. not laying again. But they were Hebrews, therefore not, as the Doctor, Heathens that recited it at baptism. 3. There's no distinction in the Text as if some recited the Doctrine at baptism, and others who had been baptized in infancy recited it at laying on of hands, but the same persons had the Doctrine of both layd in them. 4. There's not a word of reciting the Doctrine at the several rites by the taught, but the laying of the foundation of the Doctrine of those rites by the Teachers. 5. The Doctrine of baptisms whether by them be meant those of John and Christ, or other, and of laying on of hands is more likely and more generally conceived to be concerning the use of baptism and laying on of hands. But the Doctrine of the use of these was not recited by either sort of catechized persons, though both sorts were taught both doctrines. 6. The placing the words [the Doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands] in the middle between faith and resurrection of the dead, is against the Doctors sense, sith the Doctrine of baptisms, being joyned by apposition to faith and repentance, the sense must be, that repentance and faith were the Doctrine recited at baptism, not the resurection of the dead, which comes after, if the Doctors sense were right. 7. This order leads us to conceive, that the writer of that Epistle did orderly place the elements of Christianity in which Christians were instructed, to wit, repentance and faith before baptism, then the baptism of water, and the laying on of hands for the obtaining the Spirit by prayer after baptism, and then the declaration of what they were to expect, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement, wherein sentence should pass on them concerning their everlasting state. 8. The terms [of repentance, of faith, of the doctrine, of the resurrection, of judgement] are all governed of [foreign, the foundation] as if they were possessed of it (as the Grammarians speak) the word [Doctrine] is not joyned by apposition to [faith] as if the sense were [which is the Doctrine of baptisms] which must be the sense if the Doctors interpretation be right. 9. Those interpreters which are brought as giving us that sense which Dr. Homes and Mr. Brinsley all…ge are but late writers, and such as speak onelyonly by ghess without proving the antiquity of the use they mention out of ancient writers, or alleging any ancient writer expounding the Text Heb. 6. 2. …s referring to that use, Dr. Homes recites p. 59, 60. the words of Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, Hofman, Theophylact, Mr. Cotton, of all which there is none afore the 16. Century but Theophylact placed by Dr. Usher at the year 10 70. and his words with the words of Hofman, and Marlorat do not at all speak of the use of laying hands on children of believers baptized in infancy, and Bullingers words apply the laying on of hands to the ordination of Pastors. So heedlesly did Dr. Homes write his Anima…versions that his own authors he allegeth are not for him, or else against him. And for Mr. Cotton he sayth onelyonly, There be that conceive and that not improbable there was such an use, and that some judicious Divines have conceived that use to be the reason of reckoning the laying on of hands among the Principles, Heb. 6. 2. and he brings it to prove that then Elders were not without laying on of hands, for all Church-members had hands layd on them, and so might more freely lay hands on others: which speech if true, and the inference be good, then women who were Church-members had hands layd on them, and might more freely lay hands on others. But the New England Elders, of whom I think Mr. Cotton was one, if not the very Penner of those answers, in the Answer to the 32. Question pag. 69. say, If it were not so, then one of these would follow, either that the Officers must minister without any Ordination at all, which is against 1 Tim. 4. 16. Heb. 6. 2. So that there it is referred to the same laying on of hands which is mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. which is indeed a very common exposition of interpreters. It is true Calvin and Pareus refer it to the use Mr. Brinsley mentions: yet Chamier tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 10. sect. 39. allegeth with Salmeron, Justinian, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Piscator, concerning the initial laying on of hands upon the catechized to prepare them to receive baptism, (for which use Dr. Hammond in his letter of resolut. pag. 195. brings some places of the ancients) and Calvin in his institutions l. 4. cap. 19. sect. 4. disallows Hieroms judgment, conceiving that the laying on of hands for confirmation was an Apostolical Ordinance. Beza saith, that the Doctrine Heb. 6. 1, 2. was delivered when they met either to baptize, or lay on hands on infants or adult persons; so that he speaks as one not fully resolved. And indeed interpreters, as is shewed above, are not agreed whether to refer it to laying on hands on the baptized or the ordained, yet very few of the Protestants refer it to the laying on of hands for confirmation of them that were baptized in infancy, and the 25. Article of the Church of England makes Confirmation one of those things which have grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles.
I sayd in my Exercit. sect. 14. that if Hierom. tom. 2▪ in his Dialogue against the Luciferians do assert that use of imposition of hands from Scripture, yet he allegeth not Heb. 6. 2. for it, but the Examples of giving the Holy Ghost by laying on of hands in the Acts of the Apostles.
To this Dr. Homes replies, 1. That however the antiquity holds good, that imposition of hands was used to be after applied to them that have been baptized.
To which I say, This being granted, yet as I shew there and here the use of baptizing infants is not proved thereby, nor doth Hierom confirm Mr. Brinsleys Exposition.
2. Sayth Dr. Homes, In that place he quotes other places than the Acts of the Apostles, and speaks to our purpose thus, and then reciting some words of Hierom, adds, so Hieronymus. Wherefore he supposeth imposition of hands may be on them that had the Spirit in baptism before: which is not denied by me, nor do I see what that is to Dr. Homes his purpose to prove that the laying on of hands Heb. 6. 2. is meant of believers infants before baptized, and then upon their own profession received into the Church by imposition of hands. Yet Chamier. tom. 4. Panstr. Cath. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 41. allegeth Hierom, as referring the imposition of hands to the time of baptism, not some years after.
I sayd in my Exercit. pag. 23. but if it were supposed, that this imposition of hands meant Heb. 6. 2. were on the baptized; yet this proves not the baptism of infants in the Apostles days, unless it could be proved, that it was used after the baptism of infants onelyonly for a confirmation either of the baptism or the baptized. On the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertullian de corona militis, cap. 3. that in the primitive times the baptized did make his confession sub man… antisti…is, the Minister laying hands on him.
To this Dr. Homes says, 1. That the learned men before quoted gave us the sum of Antiquity. But how little to the purpose their words are, or how destitute of proof is shewed above. 2. He cites in the Margin Tertul. de bapt. Cyprian. Ep. 3. & 70. August. Tract. 6. on Johns Epist. But none of the passages he cites prove the use of laying on hands after the baptism of infants, which is many years after baptism, but of laying hands presently after baptism. 3. He excepts against my allegation out of Tertullian, that he there disputes for receiving unwritten traditions, that he alludes to no Scripture authority, or to any approved Antiquity: Which doth no whit infringe my allegation: For notwithstanding these things his testimony is valid for the practice of what was done at baptism in his time, of which no doubt he was often a spectator.
4. Saith he, [Sub manu] is a Phrase that hath so many senses as it is no ways certain, that here [Sub mann] [under the hand] signifies imposition of hands. Haply it may rather signifie the Ministers lifting up of his hand in prayer: as Pacianus hath it, We obtain, sayth he, in Prayer pardon, and the Holy Spirit in baptism by the mouth and hand of the Antistes.
Answ. The most likely sense is, the Bishop laying on his hand, as being nearest the use of the phrase. Dr. Homes his sense is not likely, 1. Because that which is sayd was done under the hand of the Bishop, to wit, the protestation of the baptized, intimates that the Bishop did not then lift up his hand in prayer, but hold his hand on the head of the Protestant. Nor is it likely he would then be praying when he should attend to his confession. 2. Dr. Homes shews not the phrase to be used elsewhere in his sense. For that which he cites out of Pacianus is a different expression, by the hand, is not all one with under the hand. And yet Chamier. Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 28. refers that obtaining by the hand to the imposition of hands at baptism.
I added further. And to save labour in reciting testimonies Chamier may be seen, who in his Panstr. Cath. tom. 4. lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 14. &c. at large proves out of the Ancients, that the imposition of hands, which was after made a distinct Sacrament called Cofirmation, was either a part or Appendix of baptism, and cites many passages to shew, that it was when the baptized was to confess the fai…h, and renounce Satan.
Against th…s Dr. Homes excepts, that Chamier quotes but few, and those not of credit. But though the Books some of them be not the Authors works whose names they bear, yet many of them are of credit, yea all for what they are brought, and for the purpose for which they are alleged however Dr. Homes scorn or score with his nails those Fathers▪ if I may use his own words of my doing which is more justly to be charged on himself. Dr. Homes grants there imposition of hands presupposeth baptism, precedent, though in men of ripe years, but he should have added at the same solemnity joyned with it. The other testimonies are sufficient to shew the practice in the Age in which the Writers of them lived. But for Dr. Homes to say, that Chamier doth not assert as from himself or from antiquity, that imposition of hands was to be conjoyned with baptism, when he doth at large undertake to prove, it was a part or appendix of baptism, is too much boldness in the Doctor, much more to say, But rather tels us the contrary, partly from himself, partly from the Authors he quotes, as that men were reconciled in pen…nce by imposition of hand…, Sect. 53. which is nothing to the business. For though imposition of hands in reconciliation might be unconjoyned to baptism, yet what Chamier says stands good, that imposition of hands for Confirmation was a part or appendix of baptism. And what the Doctor adds, Sect. 54. that though Confirmation belongs to the solemnities of baptism, yet after a while after baptism, is a plain confession of what I allege as averred by Chamier, that that imposition of hands which after was made a distinct Sacrament long after baptism, did formerly belong to the solemnity of baptism: which shews how little regard the Doctor had to his own allegations. But it is not Chamier alone who avers that anciently baptism and laying on of hands were together; Salmasius also a man of very accurate study in Antiquity in his Apparatus ad librum de Primatu Papae, pag. 84. speaks thus, Discat igitur in Aegypto & in Graecia & in toto Oriente confirmationem quae separata est à baptismo non fuisse notam. Unus idem que Presbyter in omnibus Orientis Ecclesiis simul & semel in baptismo conferendo etiam Chrismationem cum manuum imposition… ac signaculo Dominico dabat egressis è piscin… sive baptisterio: which he proves there▪ out of Severus Alexand…. Cyr…llus Hierosolymitanus, and refers to more testimonies in his Treatise De Chrismate. And he says, p. 1…4. Primis temporibus in Occidente Chrismatio & manuum impositio sequebantur post baptismum, posteaquam à baptismo separata est confirmatio aliquando in sola Chrismatione constitit, pag. 182. he proves in Tertisllians, Cyprians, and others times, that Haetres erant baptismi hoc est unius Sacramenti partes, lotio, unctio, & impositio manuum. Out of all which I conclude, that the laying on of hands for the confirmation of children of believers baptized in infancy, when they came to years, and professed the faith, was altogether unknown in the Eastern Churches anciently, and in the Western onelyonly in the declining times, and therefore notwithstanding Calvin and Pareus his conceits there was no such thing meant, Heb. 6. 2. as baptism of infants, and their receiving into the Church, many years after by laying on of hands, there being no such things known in the days of that Writer, nor some hundred of years after, and therefore Mr. Brinsley and Dr. Homes Argument from thence for infant-baptism is of no weight. I go on.