Vindication of Baptizing Believers Infants, Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
SEventhly, Heb. 6.2.Exercitat. § 14. The Argument from Heb. 6.2. for Infant-baptiſme examined. The Apoſtle ſpeaks of the doctrine of baptiſmes, and laying on of hands; now this is not likely to be underſtood of laying on of hands in healing ſick perſons, or beſtowing the Holy Ghoſt, for theſe were extraordinary or miraculous, and therefore not to be put in the number of the principles of the oracles of God, the foundation, milke for babes; nor of impoſition of hands for ordination to ſpeciall function in the Church, for that, though ordinary, yet not likely to be put among the principles, the foundation, milk for babes, therefore it remaines, that it was the laying on of hands on children formerly baptized in infancy, which though corruptly made a Sacrament by Papiſts, and ſuperſtitiouſly abuſed, yet being freed from the abuſe were very uſefull, as being an Apoſtolicall ordinance, from this Text, and manifeſts that there was Infant-baptiſme in the Apoſtles dayes, which is confirmed, becauſe it is coupled with baptiſme, and therefore ſeemes to be a conſequent upon it.
Anſw. 1. There is great incertainty, what this impoſition of hands mentioned, Heb. 6.2. ſerved for; the reaſon …prove that it could not be either for healing, or giving the Holy Ghoſt, becauſe they were miraculous or extraordinary, is not cogent; for though they were by more then ordinary power, yet were they frequent in thoſe times, and might well be put among the elements to be in thoſe dayes firſt learned: nor is the reaſon cogent to prove it could not be the impoſition of hands in ordination, for ſpeciall function in the Church; for it is more likely that it ſhould be meant, which it is certain was ſtill in uſe, and to continue to be uſed, and therefore it was needfull to be taught younglings, as well as the doctrine of baptiſmes: then laying on of hands for confirmation of baptiſme, of which there is no certainty, though pretended examples in ſcripture, be brought to give ſome colour to it; nor is impoſition of hands in ordination unfitly coupled to baptiſme, both being ordinances for initiation, the one into the profeſſion of Chriſt, the other into ſacred function.
2. But if it were ſuppoſed, that this impoſition of hands meant Hebr. 6.2. were on the the Baptized; yet this proves not the baptiſme of Infants in the Apoſtles dayes; unleſſe it could be proved, that it was uſed after the Baptiſme of Infants onelyonly, for a confir, mation either of the Baptiſme, or baptized. On the contrary, it is apparent out of Tertul. de Corona militis. C. 3. That in the primitive times the baptized did make his confeſſion at Baptiſme, ſub manu antiſtitis, that is, the Miniſter laying hands on him. And to ſave labour in reciting teſtimonies, Chamier may be ſeen, who in his Panſ. Catholicâ, tom. 4. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 14. at large proves out of the Ancients that the impoſition of hands which after was made a diſtinct Sacrament, called Confirmation, was either a part or appendix of Baptiſme; and many paſſages he cites to ſhew, that it was when the Baptized was to confeſſe the faith, and to renounce Satan. And if HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. in his Dialogue againſt the Luciferians do aſſert that uſe of impoſition of hands from Scripture, that he alleadgeth not Hebr. 6.2. for it, but the examples of giving the Holy Ghoſt by laying on of hands, in the Acts of the Apoſtles.
To Mr T. his firſt Anſwer, Animadver.That our reaſon to prove impoſition of hands for Healing, or giving the Holy Ghost cannot be meant, Hebr. 6.2. [Becauſe thoſe were extraordinary] is not ſaith Mr T. a cogent reaſon: We reply, Firſt that Mr T. doth by and by as good as confeſſe it is a cogent reaſon: For whiles Mr T. goes about to prove that impoſition of hands here mentioned is for ordination, becauſe it was ſtill in uſe, and to continue to be uſed, he juſtifies our reaſon that Healing and giving the Holy Ghoſt were not to continue becauſe extraordinary, and ſo not put here among the principles of the foundation. 2 Will any ingenuous man weighing and pondering things, ſay that Mr T. his anſwer is cogent; namely, That thoſe miraculary things of impoſition of hands for healing, and that kinde of giving the Holy Ghoſt becauſe uſuall onelyonly in that little time of the Apoſtles, ſhould be joyned with and put among the firſt principles of Chriſtian religion, to be taught young ones to fit them for baptiſme, or to give an account of their faith after Baptiſme? Or whether that reaſon of Mr T. be cogent that little children ſhould be taught as one of the firſt elements of the chriſtian faith the impoſition of hands to ordain Miniſters? This rather ſhould belong to the going on unto perfection, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes v. 1. Nor is Mr T. his reaſon cogent that Impoſition of hands for Ordination ſhould bee joyned with Baptiſme, both being ordinances for Initiation (which likes the Papiſts well that make impoſition a Sacrament and ſee it ſo well coped and coupled with a Sacrament by Mr T.) For firſt and firſt, or Initiation in its great latitude doth not ſo aſſimilate. Baptiſme is the Initiation for all at their firſt ſolemne entrance into the Church; that impoſition for Ordination doth initiate but few, that is miniſters and that into an office, and long after they are members. We may as well couple marriage with the firſt principles of religion which being to be done by invocation upon God, and inſtruction out of the word, doth firſt initiate moſt ſingle people into the honour and authority to govern children, and families to ſerve God. Clearly enough to Mr T. his impoſition of hands and admiſſion to the Lords ſupper would better cope together, both appertaining to mature grown Chriſtians. 2 We anſwer to this firſt anſwer of Mr Tombes, that a naked honeſt explanation of the text blowes all Mr T. his miſts away and clears the text, and diſcovers that theſe anſwers of his are but ſhifts. In laying open which meaning I hope learned and pious Mr Pareus, Calvin, Bullinger, Marlorat, Hofman, which were no Independents, will weigh as much as Mr Tombes, who all tell us the ſumme of all approved antiquity, to ſave our labour of peſtering the vulgar reader with the gibberiſh of quotations. Pareus upon Hebr. 6.2. Some (ſaith he) conjoyne the two heads of Baptiſme and Impoſition of hands, becauſe as there were two rankes of Catechumeni, that is chatechiſed perſons, ſo there was a two fold initiating Ceremony.
1 Thoſe of ripe years of the Heathen, who did before their Baptiſme recite the Articles of the Creed, of the Chriſtian faith. And this is that the Apoſtle cals the catechiſing or Doctrine of Baptiſmes.
2 The Infants of Chriſtians who by the right of the promiſe being baptized in their Infancy, after they were paſt their childhood, were received into the Church by impoſition of hands, at which time they rehearſed the ſame articles of faith before the Church.
And this was the doctrine of Impoſition of hands. So Pareus. Calvin ſpeaks to the very ſame effect; whoſe words we ſet down at large in our 7. chapter of this controverſie. Mr Hofman, Marlorat, Bullinger, Calvin, ſpeake further that as Impoſition of hands was of a manifold uſe, ſo among the reſt it was a ſolemne right of praying; by which Symbol alſo they did approve the profeſſion of faith young youth made. So that the originall of Impoſition of hands came down from the Apoſtles; Thus far theſe learned men,
Ye have alſo before in the ſame 7. Chap. of this Controverſie, the words of Mr Cotton, and his reading out of Antiquity and his Reaſons, That though young children were baptized, yet were not received to the Lords Supper, and the full fruition of all Church-liberties, till being grown up they made their profeſſion of faith, and ratified their Covenant made in Baptiſme, and ſo were confirmed in their Church eſtate, by impoſition of hands: which impoſition of hands is therefore reckoned one of the ſix principles of the foundation of Chriſtian faith, Heb. 6.2. For it could not be a principle of faith; it muſt be therefore a principle of the foundation of Church-eſtate and Order. So Mr Cotton, with much more before recited, Chap. 7. Now let the world judge whether theſe mens readings and reaſons, or Mr Tombes his ſtrained gloſſes give us rightlyer the meaning of Heb. 6.2.
To Mr T. his ſecond Anſw. We reply, firſt: That the learned men afore quoted, gave us the ſum of Antiquity*Tertul, de Baptiſmo. Dehinc manus imponitur per benedictionem, &c. Cyprian, Ep. 3. & 70. Nunc quoque apud nos geritur ut qui in eccleſia baptizantur, per praepoſitos eccleſiae offerantur, & per noſtram orationem & manus impoſitionem ſpiritum ſanctum conſequantur. Auguſt. Tract. 6. in Joan. Epiſt. Nuac quidem um loqui linguis quibus imponuntur manus poſt baptiſnum, tamenrevera accipere ſpiritum ſanctum & latenter alque inviſibiliter infundi charitatem. That there was an impoſition of hands upon beleevers children, to confirm that Baptiſme they had received being Infants, upon the confeſſion of faith, when grown up, and to teſtifie the Churches receiving them now unto full memberſhip, and compleat fruition of all Church priviledges, as to partake of the Lords Supper, &c. And that this the Text here calls The Doctrine of impoſition of hands: whereas the recitall of the Articles of faith, by thoſe that were paſt Infancy (being children of Heathens) fitting them for Baptiſm, is by the Apoſtle preciſely and diſtinctly (from the other) called The Doctrine of Baptiſmes. And is not this a proof ſufficient, that the common and ordinary impoſition of hands was uſed after the Baptiſme of Infants onelyonly? 2. If Mr T. could prove out of Antiquity (for this Text of Heb. 6.2. hath it not for him) that a ceremony of impoſing hands upon the riper aged children of unbeleeving parents when the ſaid children made confeſſion of their faith, for Baptiſine, crept into the Church; this doth not overthrow other Antiquity, much leſſe the Text of Scripture; That the Doctrine of impoſition of hands, that is, that impoſing of hands, belonged to beleevers children after they had been baptized.
But thirdly to anſwer Mr Tombes his Quotation of Tertullian about this De coronâ Militis, c. 3. By the leave of Mr Tombes that doth, if not ſcorn, ſo ſcore with the nail in his examen thoſe Antiquities of the Fathers we uſually alleadge, we muſt tell the world, firſt, what a peece and place of Tertullian Mr T. hath here alleadged, viz. ſuch a one as wherein Tertullian diſputes for receiving unwritten Traditions, Quaeramus an traditio non ſcripta debeat recipi, &c. ſaith he, Let us enquire Whether unwritten tradition be not to be received? We ſhall deny it to be received, if it were not prejudged, or fore determined by the examples of other obſervations, which without the inſtrument of any Scripture, or Writing, by the title of tradition onelyonly, we from thence defend under the patronage of cuſtome. Moreover to begin with Baptiſme, when we are about to enter into the water, even there, but alſo too a little afore in the Church, under the hand of a Biſhop or Prelate we bear witneſſe, or make ſerious proteſtation, that we renounce the Devill, Pomp, and his Angels. After this we are plunged or drencht, or dipt three times, anſwering ſomething more then the Lord hath determined in the Goſpell. Then being [*Suſcepti, which alludes to God-fathers Office, Jun. Note on the place. undertaken for] we take a taſt of the compound of milke, and honey. And from that day we abſtain from waſhing in the common laver, or place of waſhing for a whole weeke. Thus far Mr Tombes his place of Tertullian. Now let the Reader weigh all the circumſtances of the place, and judge whether Turtullian here alludes to any Scripture Authority, or to any approved Antiquity.
2. Such a place of Tertullian, that doth not prove the thing Mr Tombes intends. For he well knows that ſub manu, is a phraſe that hath ſo many ſences, as it is no wayes certain that here ſub manu [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, ſaith he, in prayer, pardon; and the holy Spirit in Baptiſme, by the mouth and hand of the Antiſtes.
Touching Mr T. his quotation of Chamier Panſ. Cathol. tom. 4. l. 4. c. 11. Sect. 14. We give the world this account, that we have run over, and that twice, that 14th Section, with as many more following to the end of the Chapter, as make up that 14th to be 59. And we finde but foure Quotations touching impoſition of hands. All which ſerve little to Mr T. his purpoſe. The firſt is in Sect. 23. quoted out of Areopag. and is this [After queſtioning, and profeſſion he puts his hand upon his head and commands him being conſigned to be enrolled or numbred among the Prieſts, & after other ceremonies, puts him into a certain garment and annoints him with oyl] were this ſuppoſitions Areopagite *Mitto Arcopagiram, Hier. Eccleſ. Clementem Rom. Conſtitut. Apostol. Nee libri iſti corum ſunt quibus tribuuntur vulgo, Jo. Voſs. Theſ. Theol. & Hiſt. See alſo Perkins prepar. to dem. of the problem.an author of credit, and free from the ceremonious fooleries here mentioned: yet the Baptiſme here mentìoned is of one of ripe years (at which time unbeleevers children had the firſt ſeal) to whom this impoſition of hands was applyed rather to make him a Prieſt, as we conceive by the words, then to accompany Baptiſme.
The ſecond is of the ſame hogge-ſty, Leo the firſt, and rather againſt Mr Tombes. [If any, ſaith he, ſhall be baptized by an Heretick he is not to iterate that Sacrament, but onelyonly that to be conferred which was wanting, that by Epiſcopall impoſition of hands, he may obtain the vertue of the holy Ghoſt] Here impoſition of hands follows baptiſme at diſtance; which is for us.
The third is out of Cyprian, viz. [It were to ſmall purpoſe to impoſe hands on Hereticks to receive the holy Spirit, unleſſe they receive the Churches Baptiſme.] Here impoſition of hands preſuppoſeth precedent Baptiſme, though in men of ripe years.
The fourth is out of a falſe-named*foreign., or a forged Euſebius (as Chamier calls him) in his firſt Decretall [Know yee that thoſe that have been baptized in the faith of the ſacred Trinity, we receive or undertake for by impoſition of hands]. If this fellow be of any credit, he is for us not againſt us. Thus few doth Chamier quote touching impoſition of hands, becauſe his deſign was chiefly to purſue the diſpute of the other part of confirmation (as he calls it) namely Vnction, and to prove that neither Vnction or impoſition of hands were Sacraments, which though he proves by this argument, that they were only appendices of Sacraments; yet he doth not aſſert as from himſelfe, or from Antiquity, that impoſition of hands was to be conjoyned with Baptiſme, but rather tels us the contrary partly from himſelfe, partly from thoſe authors he quotes. As [that the rule of the Roman Church was that they gave in command that men ſhould be reconciled by impoſition of hands.] Sect. 53. That reciliation is proper to repentance. Sect. 54. That though confirmation belongs to the ſolemnities of Baptiſme, yet after a while after Baptiſme.
To Mr T. his Quotation of HIERONIMVS Tom. 2. In his Diolog. Adv. Lucif.
1. We reply that if Hieronimus doth confeſſe impoſition of hands on them that had been baptized, though he doth not alleadge all Scriptures for it, and ſo not that Heb. 6.2. the antiquity holds good, that Impoſition of hands was uſed to bee after applyed to them that have been baptized.
2. That Hieronimus in that place quotes other places then the Acts of the Apoſtles, and ſpeakes to our purpoſe thus [Orth.] Neither can it be that he that is holy in Baptiſme, can be a ſinner, &c. [Luc.] I receive a Lay penitent perſon by Impoſition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, Knowing that the Holy Spirit is not conferred by Hereticks. [Orth.] Seeing that hee that is baptized in the name of the father, ſonne and holy spirit is made the Temple of God, &c. it appeares that Baptiſme is not without the holy spirit. And to prove that that place, Acts 19.2. did ſuppoſe they had received the ſaving gifts of the Spirit in Baptiſme, he brings Math.
3. That Johns Baptiſme was a Baptiſme of Repentancè into remiſſion of ſinnes: And a little after, if John did not baptize in the Spirit; then not into remiſſion of ſinnes.
For no mans ſinnes are remitted without the ſpirit. So Hieronimus. Wherefore he ſuppoſes Impoſition of hands may be on them that had the ſpirit in Baptiſme afore. So Hieronimus with much more which we omit to avoyde tediouſneſſe. Thus far of Mr Tombes his firſt Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſme.