buried in Baptism and then rising out of it yet can it not be said to be so or at least but very imperfectly by the bare pouring out or sprinkling the Baptismal Water on him But therefore as there is so much the more reason to represent the Rite of immersion as the only legitimate Rite of Baptism because the only one that can answer the ends of its Institution and those things which were to be signified by it so especially if as is well known and undoubtedly of great force the general practice of the Primitive Church was agreeable thereto and the practice of the Greek Church to this very day For who can think either the one or the other would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a Rite were it not that they were well assured as they of the Primitive Church might very well be of its being the only instituted and legitimate one How to take off the force of these Arguments altogether is a thing I mean not to consider Partly because our Church (w) See the Rubrick in the Office of Baptism before the words I baptize thee c. seems to persuade such an immersion and partly because I cannot but think the forementioned Arguments to be so far of force as to evince the necessity thereof where there is not some greater necessity to occasion an alteration of it For what benefit can Men ordinarily expect from that which depends for its force upon the will of him that instituted it where there is not such a compliance at least with it and the Commands of the Instituter as may answer those ends for which he appointed it And indeed whatever may have been done to Infants which I no way doubt were more or less baptized from the beginning the first mention we find of Aspersion in the Baptism of the Elder sort was in the case of the Clinici or Men who receiv'd Baptism upon their sick Beds and that Baptism represented by S. Cyprian * Epist ad Magn. 76. In Sacramentis salutaribus necessitate cogente Deo indulgentiam suam largiente totum credentibus conferunt Divina compendia as legitimate upon the account of the necessity that compel'd it and the presumption there was of God's gracious acceptation thereof because of it By which means the lawfulness of any other Baptism than by an immersion will be found to lie in the necessity there may sometime be of another manner of Administration of it and we therefore only enquire whether the necessity of the party to be baptiz'd can justifie such an alteration and what is to be look'd upon as such a necessity And indeed though that Magnus to whom S. Cyprian directed the forementioned Letter seemed to question the lawfulness of such a Baptism and that Father as his manner is spake but modestly concerning it yet there is not otherwise any appearance of the Antient Churches disapproving the Baptism of the Clinicks because they were not loti but perfusi as S. Cyprian expresseth it For even he himself doth there intimate that they †Aut si aliquis existimat eos nibil consecutos eo quod aquâ salutari tantum perfusi sunt c. non decipiantur ut si incommoduâ— languoris evaserint convaluerint baptizentur Si autem baptizari non possunt qui jam Baptismo Ecclesiastico sanctificati sunt cur in fiâ—â— suâ Domini in dulgentiâ scandalizentur Cypr. ubi supra who liked not the Baptism of the Clinicks did not yet care to baptize them again He adds farther that they who had been so baptiz'd were known to have been delivered thereby from that unclean spirit which before possess'd them * Denique rebus ipsis experimur ut necessitate urgente in aegritudine baptizati gratiam consecuti careant immundo spiritu quo antea movebantur laudabiles ac probabiles in Ecclesiâ vivant plusque per dies singulos in augmentum coelestis gratiae per fidei Sacramentum proficiant Cypr. ibid. ,and after their recovery gave as good proof as any by their holy living of their being sanctified by that Baptism In fine that they who differ'd from him as to the rebaptization of Hereticks which was the sounder part of the Church in that particular did without any difference admit those who had been baptiz'd by Hereticks †Et tantus honor habeatur haereticis ut inde venientes non interrogentur utrumne loti sint an perfusi utrumne Clinici fint an Peripatetici Cypr. ibid. neither were scrupulous in enquiring whether they were wash'd or sprinkled Clinicks or Peripateticks Which passages alone are a sufficient proof that the generality of the Church look'd upon sprinkling as enough where there was any just necessity to constrain it But so to omit other proofs we may be satisfied even by that Canon (x) Cod. Eccl. Vniv can 57. cum not Just which was made against some of the foremention'd Clinicks The utmost that Canon pretended to do against them being the hindring them from being promoted to the Priesthood as that too not because of any unlawfulness in the manner of their Baptism but because there was sometime a presumption that that Baptism proceeded rather from necessity than choice or that they had as Tertullian (y) De Poenit. cap. 8. speaks deferr'd the receiving of it that they might in the mean time indulge to their sins as nothing doubting but their future Baptism would wipe off all There being therefore no doubt to be made so far as the judgment or practice of the Church can warrant us that necessity doth justifie a bare Aspersion in Baptism Enquire we for our farther confirmation in it what there was in the Scripture to induce them to it or establish us in the belief of it Which I conceive to be their understanding from thence (z) 1 Pet. 3.21 that though Baptism was the thing that sav'd yet it was not so much by its washing away the filth of the flesh as from that answer of a good Conscience which it did involve That though the external washing was also necessary in its kind and where it might be had in those circumstances also wherein it was instituted yet since God had declar'd * Matt. 12.7 That he would have mercy and not sacrifice there was reason enough to believe that he requir'd no farther a compliance in this particular than was consistent with the safety of Mens lives to afford especially when what was wanting in the application of the outward visible sign might be made up by the form of words wherewith it was administred and Men admonished thereby of those significations of Baptism which the visible solemnities thereof did not suggest For the several ends of Baptism being thus secur'd there was still the less reason to be scrupulous about the means or think God would be rigorous in exacting them But so they might be yet more assur'd as it appears St. Cyprian â€
one As there is as little appearance of such a threefold immersion from the account we have in the Scripture of the administration of it So it is but reasonable to think that as ancient as it was yet it was postnate to the single one and had its rise from some Men's beginning to call the Doctrine of the Trinity in question as we find by Tertullian they did very early and the better to colour their own errour as well as to overthrow the other admonishing Men from St. Paul that Baptism was peculiarly intended to baptize Men into Christ's death For beside that they who consider the primitive face of Christianity will need no other proof than that to perswade them to believe that the more simple any Rite is so much the more ancient it ought to be thought to be That Apostolick Canon †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 50. which commands the deposing of him who should not use a threefold immersion but a single one doth not so much as preferr the threefold immersion to the single one simply and absolutely considered but as opposed to that single one which was made use of to baptize Men into the death of our Lord and not into the Faith of the Trinity Thereby not only not condemning the single immersion considered in it self but also intimating the triple one to have been rather instituted at first to obviate that heretical opinion And if this were the rise of the triple Immersion as is probable enough from the premises The single one abstracting from any command of the Church to the contrary will at least be as lawful as that and nothing therefore left to us to enquire but what is to be thought of those additions which were anciently made or continue as yet in being in the outward solemnities of Baptism 4. As touching the additions which were anciently made in this particular and concerning which they who desire an account may meet with an ample one in Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity (f) Part 1. c. 10. They were either such as they thought more peculiarly warranted to them by an Apostolical Tradition of which nature till better information I must needs think the triple Immersion to have been or such as were brought into the Church by those who presided in it the more effectually to declare the intention of that Sacrament to which they were added by it Which they thought they might most assuredly do if they made use of such farther Rites as did represent yet more to their senses what that Sacrament was intended to declare And indeed as that way of Instruction was in part warranted by the Sacraments themselves because professing by sensible things to teach Men Spiritual ones As it became yet more necessary by the grosness of the Vulgar sort and that infinity of Ceremonies to which they had been before accustomed So that which afterwards made them faulty was either the exceeding multitude thereof and which experience assures us doth rather obscure yea overwhelm the thing signified by them than help toward the declaration of it or their advancing by degrees into the same repute or necessity with the signs of Christ's own Institution Which is so true that they came in fine to be represented as means and conveyers of Grace as well as significative thereof Thereby making them Sacraments rather than appendages of such and which whosoever goes about to do must necessarily usurp the place of God and Christ as to whom alone it doth belong because the only givers of Spiritual Graces to make any ceremony the conveyer of them But as that Church whose Catechism I explain hath been so far from multiplying Rites in Baptism that she hath contented her self with one single one even the Sign of the Cross So she hath so explain'd her own meaning in it both in that form of word (g) In the Office of Bapt. wherewith she appointeth it to be made and in a Canon (h) Can. 30. devised expresly for that purpose that it will not be easie for considerate Men to believe that she represents it as a Sacrament or indeed that she may not require the conformity of her Children to it Only because they who separate from the Church have made the injunction of that Ceremony one of the particular reasons of their separation and occasion may well be taken from thence to shew the ground both of that and others which are as yet retained in the Church of England I will set my self to consider the exceptions that have been made against it and return a particular answer to them Now there are three sorts of charges which are brought against this Ceremony and which therefore it will be necessary to consider It s being a Ceremony and so less agreeable to a spiritual and substantial Religion It s being an addition to the Institution of Christ and therefore implying something of imperfection in that As lastly its being a relique of Popery or giving too much countenance to the errors of it The first of these is certainly one of the most unreasonable charges that were ever advanced against our Church by the Adversaries thereof As will appear if we consider the nature of those for whose edification that and the like Ceremonies were intended The use such things are of to procure respect to those Institutions to which they are annexed And the nature of that Religion with whose Offices they are intermixed That I alledge as one ground of this and the like Ceremonies the very nature of those Men for whose edification they were intended is their being composed of Flesh as well as Spirit and consequently the need they stand in of such sensible helps to awaken their understandings to consider and their affections to embrace what they were designed to represent For being so fram'd it is not easie to believe that if there were not somewhat in all actions of moment to affect Men's sense they would intend them as they ought or be duly affected with them Of which yet if any doubt be made we have the constant practice of the World to justifie it because rarely if ever suffering that which was such though there wanted not words to express their meaning to pass without some visible solemnities Thus as Mr. Hooker (i) Eccl. Pol. li. 4. §. 1. did long since observe Abraham proceeded with his Servant because not only obliging him to take a Wife for his Son out of his Kindred but to accompany that Oath of his with the putting of his Hand (k) Gen. 24 2-9 under his Master's Thigh And thus too Israel made Joseph swear (l) 47.29 that he would not bury him in Egypt Both of them as is not unlikely from some received custom of that time because as they say (m) Vatabl. in Gen. 24.2 yet observed in some of the Eastern parts and as a token of the homage the Party swearing ow'd to those to whom they
a relation to all our past sins so it relates in particular to Original Sin and consequently tends alike to the cancelling of its Obligation Witness not only the Churches applying this sign of it to Infants as that too as was before noted for the remission of sins but S. Paul's making that quickning (d) Ephes 2.1 c. which we have by Baptism to save us as well from that wrath which we were the Children of by Nature as from our own vain conversation and the punishment thereof For other sense than that as the generality of the Latins (e) Vid. Voss Pelag. Hist li. 2. part 1 Thes 2. did not put upon the Apostles words so neither is there indeed any necessity for or all things considered any probability of Partly because the Apostle might intend to aggravate the sinfulness of Men's former estate from their natural as well as contracted pollutions even as David aggravated his (f) Psal 51.5 where he deplores his Adultery and Murther and partly because there is sufficient evidence from other Texts of Men's being sinful by their birth as well as practice and which as S. Paul's Children of wrath by Nature is more strictly agreeable to so is therefore more reasonable to be interpreted of And I have insisted so much the longer both upon this particular and the Text I have made use of to confirm it because as Original Sin is one main ground of Baptism and accordingly in this very Catechism of ours represented by our Church as such so she may seem to make use of that very Text to evidence the being of Original Sin and the efficacy of Baptism toward the removing of it Her words being that as we are by nature born in sin and the Children of wrath so we are by Baptism made the Children of Grace From the Grace of forgiveness of sin pass we to that which tends to free us from its pollution entitled by our Church a death unto it A grace which as the corruption of our Nature makes necessary to be had so cannot in the least be doubted to be signified by the outward sign of Baptism It being not only the affirmation of S. Paul that all true Christians are dead (g) Rom. 6.2 to sin but that they are buried by Baptism (h) Rom. 4 into it that they are by that means planted together into the likeness (i) Rom. 5 of Christ's death and that their Old Man even the Body of sin is crucified (k) Rom. 6. with Christ in it For as that and other such like Texts (l) Col. 2.12 of Scripture are a sufficient proof of Baptism's having a relation to our death unto sin as well as unto the death of Christ So they prove in like manner that it had the relation of a sign unto it and consequently make the former death to be one of the Graces signified by it Because not only describing the Rite of Baptism under the notion of a death and Burial which it cannot be said to be but as it is an image of one but representing it as a planting of the Baptized person into the likeness of that death of Christ which is the exemplar of the other For what is this but to say that it was intended as a sign or representation of them both and both the one and the other therefore to be look'd upon as signified by it The same is to be said upon the account of those Texts of Scripture which represent the Water of Baptism as washing (m) Acts 22.16 away the sins of Men or if that expression may not be thought to be full enough because referring also to the forgiveness of them as sanctifying and cleansing (n) Eph. 5.26 27. the Church to the end it may be holy and without blemish For as that shews the Water of Baptism to have a relation to that grace which tends to free the Church from sinful blemishes so it shews in like manner that it was intended as a sign of it and of that inward cleansing which belongs to it There being not otherwise any reason why the freeing of the Church from sin by means of the Baptismal water should have the name of cleansing but upon the account of the analogy there is between the natural property thereof and the property of that Grace to which it relates One only Grace remains of those which tend more immediately to our spiritual welfare even that which our Catechism entitles a new birth unto righteousness Concerning which I shall again shew because that will be enough to prove that it is a Grace signified by it that the Water of Baptism hath a relation to it and then that it hath the relation of a sign I alledge for the former of these S. Paul's entitling it the laver of regeneration (o) Tit. 3.5 as our Saviour's affirming (p) Joh. 3.5 before him that we are born again of that as well as of the Spirit For the latter what hath been before shewn in the general concerning its having been intended as a sign of the things to which it relates For if the Water of Baptism were intended as a sign of those things to which it relates it must consequently have bin intended as a sign of our new birth because by the former Texts as manifestly relating to it But so we shall be yet more fully perswaded if it carry in it a representation of that new birth to which it doth relate Which that it doth will need no other proof than its being an apt representation of that spiritual purity which the Soul puts on at its first conversion and wherein indeed its new birth (q) Eph. 4.24 consists For so it is in part by that cleansing quality which is natural to it and which induceth a purity in those bodies to which it is applied But especially by the use that was formerly made of it toward the washing of new-born Infants from those impurities which they contracted from the Womb This last serving to set forth the first beginnings of our spiritual purity as well as the former doth that purity it self And I shall only add that as a resurrection from the Dead is also a kind of new Birth and accordingly so represented by the Scriptures themselves witness their entituling our Saviour upon the account of his Resurrection the first-begotten (r) Col. 1.18 from the dead yea making that Resurrection of his to be a completion (Å¿) Acts 13.33 of that signal prediction of God (t) Psal 2.7 Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee So the same Scriptures do not only represent our new birth unto Righteousness under the notion of a Resurrection but sufficiently intimate that whether Birth or Resurrection to be a Grace signified by it Because not only admonishing us to look upon our selves as a live unto God by Baptism (u) Rom. 6.11 as well as dead unto sin in it but as risen (w)
as well as those who were baptiz'd out of the Church And indeed as it appears by the same Father (g) Ad Quintum Ep. 71. that those who oppos'd him and the Bishops that took part with him argued the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks from the Churches receiving those without a new one who had fallen after her Baptism into Schism or Heresie So if we will allow the Baptism of the latter we must allow the Baptism of the former or find out some other reason to overthrow it For if the rightly baptized Schismatick or Heretick were a Sheep though a wandring one notwithstanding his Schism or Heresie The Schismatick or Heretick whom that wandring Sheep ran after might as well be a Pastor though a wandring one too and consequently be in a condition following the order of the Institution to bring new Sheep to the great Shepherd and Bishop of our Souls That which I suppose occasion'd that Father's mistake for so I hope I may now have leave to call it because the Church of God hath generally done so since but that I say which occasion'd S. Cyprian's mistake was his not distinguishing between being fully and perfectly out of the Church which I should think none but Apostates can be if they also are and being only partly and imperfectly so as Schismaticks and Hereticks are For as Schismaticks and Hereticks must be suppos'd to retain so far to the Church as they do not separate from it in Communion or belief So it is but a just piece of charity to think that Christ who knows men's infirmities and prejudices will not invalidate such acts of theirs as are purely charitable ones and wherein moreover they consent with the Church of God whatever they may do as to other things and with his own blessed Institution I deny not indeed but that to be even so out of the Church as Schismaticks and Hereticks are is a very dangerous thing and doth without a special mercy of God make them liable to Damnation But as I do not therefore think that we ought to look upon it as a desperate one So there may be so much of honest simplicity of mind even in them and a readiness to embrace the truth whensoever they are convinced of it that Christ who laid down his life for the worst of men may so far at least consider them as to give his blessing to those acts of theirs which are both charitable in themselves and manag'd with a just consent to his own institution and the practice too of that Church from which in other things they have departed And this answer with a little variation will furnish one to that objection which represents Schismaticks and Hereticks as sinners before God and whom therefore we cannot suppose God will hear for the person to be baptiz'd For though I grant that such persons are sinners before God yea that whatever they do by way of separation from the Church is to be look'd upon as of the same nature and consequently that their very baptizing also may be Yet as I do not think that every thing that is sinfully done is therefore invalid for so for ought I know many true Churchmens good actions also might be So Christ may hear even such persons when they act agreeably to his own Institution both for the regard he bears to that and for that honest simplicity and good meaning which is if not in them that administer Baptism yet in those that joyn with them and whose Minister I have before said (h) Expl. of the Sacram. ingen Part. 3 the Consecratour to be in that affair One only Objection remains on the part of Hereticks and that is their depraving that Faith into which Baptism is requir'd to be made and consequently thereto as is suppos'd baptizing into a false and counterfeit one And I no way doubt that if Hereticks baptize into a false and counterfeit Faith their Baptism is null because contrary to that Institution which gives validity to all Upon which account we must look upon the Baptism of those persons as null who have baptiz'd in any other form than in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Of which sort was that of the Hereticks spoken of by Irenaeus (i) Adv. Haeres li. 1. c. 18. who instead of baptizing according to the form of the institution did baptize their Disciples into the name of the unknown Father of all things into truth the Mother of all things into him that descended into Jesus for the union and redemption and communion of powers To which others it seems added certain Hebrew names the better to amuse those that were initiated by them The like may reasonably enough be thought of the Baptism of many other of the Antient Hereticks although we have not it may be so certain grounds from Antiquity for their depraving the very form of Baptism For being as appears from their tenents Christians in name rather than in reality and beside that advancing such uncouth and monstrous ones it is not easie to think they should have such a regard to Christ or his Institution as to keep to that form which he prescrib'd Which suppos'd there is not the least difficulty in giving an account of those 46 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 47 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Canons of the Apostles which do so far reprobate the Baptism of Hereticks as to require a reiteration of it For if the Hereticks there intended were such as are before described as is not unreasonable to believe even from the words of the Canons themselves there is no doubt their Baptism was and ought to be look'd upon as null because deviating from that Institution which gives validity to all But because it appears from a passage of S. Augustine (k) Caeterum quis nesâ—it non esse Baptismum Christi si verba Evangelica quibus symbolum constat illic defuerint Sed facilius inveniuntur haeretici qui omnino non baptizant quam qui illis verbis non baptizant De Bapt. contra Donat. li. 6. c. 25. that whatever the antienter Hereticks did yet later ones or at least for the most part kept to the words of the Institution Therefore we must go on to enquire whether Hereticks may not however be presum'd to baptize into a false and counterfeit Faith even that which they themselves advance and consequently give such a Baptism as is null and void And to speak my mind freely though with submission to better judgments I conceive such Hereticks may be presum'd to do it who advance a Heresie that directly and manifestly contradicts the Faith of Baptism and particularly the Faith of the Holy Trinity Which I do in part upon the Authority of the Nicene Council (l) Can. 19. and in part also upon the Authority of Reason For though there be not the least presumption that the followers of Paulus Samosatenus made use of any other form
Baptism for that is here taken for granted to have been good and valid but upon supposition of the baptized persons either having not before receiv'd or forfeited the regeneration he acquir'd by it or fallen off altogether from that Religion into which he was baptized In which cases supposing the person to repent of his former either impiety or Apostasie it is enquir'd whether he may be baptiz'd anew or receiv'd into the Communion of the faithful without it Now though if Men would abide by the Doctrine of the Church this question would be of easie resolution S. Cyprian * Epist 71. Ad Quintum Nos autem dicimus eos qui inde veniunt non rebaptizari apud nos sed baptizari Neque enim accipiunt illic aliquid ubi nihil est sed veniunt ad nos ut hîc accipiant ubi gratia veritas omnis est quia gratia veritas una est himself who was so fierce for the rebaptizing of those who had been baptiz'd by Hereticks yet advancing not that Assertion of his upon a belief of Baptism's being to be repeated provided it were a legitimate one but on supposition of the former Baptisms being no true and genuine one Yet will it not be of so easie a resolution if that Authority be laid aside and the thing in question weigh'd rather by Arguments than suffrages For what do they differ in effect from Heathen or Infidels who either never before had or have fallen quite off from the regeneration or faith of Baptism And if they differ not at all from them why should they not if they repent and return be received as Heathen or Infidels I mean by the Sacrament of Baptism Especially when in the ordinary dispensation of God the graces of the Sacrament are annexed to the Sacrament nor can be expected without it For that suppos'd why should not these men being to begin their Christianity a-new come a second time under that Sacrament which is to enter beginners into it and give them the regeneration and remission of it Of what force these Objections are shall be afterward considered The only reason of my present mention of them is to shew that the question is not without its difficulty and that if we will satisfie our understandings so as to be able to satisfie others we must enquire into the grounds of the Churches opinion as well as be satisfied that the Church hath been so persuaded Which we shall find the more reason for because one principal Text which hath been alledged seems not to come up to it nor indeed to have any relation to that affair That I mean which suggests one Baptism †Eph. 4.5 as well as one Lord and one Faith in him For the design of the Apostle in that place being to perswade the Ephesians to unity and peace among themselves as that too among other things by there being one Lord one Faith and one Baptism cannot so reasonably be thought to mean any other than that they all had one common Lord to whom they related one common Faith in that Lord and one common Baptism or mode of initiating into it That unity as it best agrees with that one hope of their calling by which they are also prest because declared to be one †Eph. 4.4 in which they were all called So most naturally and most immediately enforcing that agreement with one another for the inculcating whereof they are all suggested I say not the same nor can of that unity of Baptism which imports only a single administration of it to one and the same person That unity though it may oblige the person to stick close to his Religion and to the profession he hath made of it in that one Baptism of his yet perswading not any adhesion to or unity with other Baptized persons than as they may be suppos'd to partake in common with him in it But it may be there is more force in what is alledged from our Saviour where he saith (a) Joh. 13.20 that he that is washed even by a more general washing needeth not save to wash his feet And so no doubt there is if by the former washing be meant the washing of Baptism as some of the Antients conceiv'd and as I have elsewhere (b) Part 2. made it probable But there is this exception against it as to the thing we are now about that it seems to suppose the more general purity procured by it to abide and mens affections or actions only to have some pollution in them Whereas those concerning whose rebaptization we intreat either never had or have forfeited their baptismal regeneration or fallen off altogether from that Religion to which it belongs Now that which in my opinion ought to have the first place in our thoughts is the no direction there is in Scripture for the repetition of Baptism where the like Apostasie or impiety hath happened but rather a direction to a contrary course And I instance for the proof thereof in Simon Peter after he had deny'd and forsworn his Master And in Simon Magus after he had proceeded to so great a degree of impiety as to offer the Apostles money for the gift of the Holy Ghost For to the former of these even S. Peter we find no other washing directed save that (c) Luk. 22.61 of penitential tears Nay we find him admonished (d) Luk. 22.22 as well as licensed after that conversion of his to set himself to the strengthning of his brethren Which in all probability he would not have been without a foregoing Baptism if our Saviour had meant for the future that nothing but a new Baptism should be able to convert such Apostates to himself His passing over so great an Apostasie in a prime disciple of his upon his bare repentance being apt to encourage other men to presume of the same unto themselves Neither will it avail to say that this instance will not reach the case because it doth not appear that S. Peter was baptiz'd before For supposing that he were not which yet as was heretofore (e) Part 2. observ'd in all probability he was the case of the Rebaptizers will not be render'd better but rather so much the worse for it For if he was not baptiz'd before there was the more reason he should be baptized now if nothing but a new Baptism generally can wash away Apostasie The instance of Simon Magus is yet more clear and unexceptionable where the regeneration of Baptism hath not been before receiv'd or forfeited after the receiving of it For that Simon Magus either never receiv'd or had now lost the Baptismal regeneration is evident from the words of S. Peter to him That holy man not only cursing him (f) Acts 8.20 for his offer of money but telling him in express terms that he had neither lot nor part in the matter (g) Acts 8.21 of Christianity and that his heart was not right in the