Bae
Sess Sacre matgeres
ieee Aiba δῇ ae i Oe ἜΡΝΟΣ gina een ᾿ ce ae stig rat yt ΠΗ 50 wets ao elias
ΤΣ
ΔΝ
Serres)
eee ΤΣ ae
τὴ
Ox
se
Seo
ἘΞ: Ἢ eee ΠΗ σε
8,
mt Ἶ Στ Agi bosiesens Sete oe lees tee we wey
TA Dees ye
τ ζ Ἐ erst ΤῊ ΤΟΥΣ At :
tes
ee
Aat i eae
a ἦν sane mn teeta Ae
a
= Si
SR eaepe aioe Η͂ parte - Ἢ ΘΝ ἘΣΎ νν ales
Na ἂν
; Seems
Sores lente
sas
SS ἊΣ ἌΤΟΠΑ ΚΣ
repos
ae Ct or
mee δὰ
τς
iyatbeies δ
i τὶ ἀπ ἀγα τ sunt my ee έν PANG dis πε ἀρ κα aaa
ΜΉΝ NEN pies ee ty ἩΜΩ͂Ν Bie PETES j 4. ¥ feats ἵ
ἃς.
"1
γος:
Ὁ THE WORKS
OF
THE REV. JOSEPH BINGHAM, M.A.
EDITED BY HIS LINEAL DESCENDANT THE REV. R. BINGHAM, ΤΌΝ. M.A.
FORMERLY OF MAGDALEN HALL, OXFORD, AND
FOR MANY YEARS CURATE OF TRINITY CHURCH, GOSPORT.
A NEW EDITION IN TEN VOLUMES.
VOSS Xs
OXFORD: AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
M. DCCC. LY,
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/worksbingO9binguoft
CONTENTS
OF THE
FIRST PART OF THE SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY OF BAPTISM BY LAYMEN.
EE ΡΠ ΟΣ
OR INTRODUCTION TO THE SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY OF BAPTISM BY LAYMEN.
CHAPTER I. An account of the practice of the ancient Church.
Secr. I. The state of the controversy about Lay-baptism, 9.—II. The commission given to the Apostles to baptize; by them communicated to others at discretion, 1o.—III. Bishops invested with the same power which the Apostles had, as their successors, 12.—IV. By what power presbyters anciently baptized in ordinary or extraordinary cases, 15.— V. Of the power granted anciently to deacons to baptize, 17.—VI. Whether the inferior clergy were allowed to baptize, 25.—VII. Laymen prohibited to baptize in ordinary cases, 26.—VIII. Yet allowed to do it sometimes in cases extraordinary. ‘This proved from the testimony of Tertullian, 27.—IX. 'The Council of Eliberis, 28.—X. The determination of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, with the consentient testimony of Ruffin, Socrates, and Sozomen, 30.—XI. Of St. Jerom, 33.—XII. Of St. Austin, 34.—XIII: Gelasius, bishop of Rome, 36.—XIV. Isidore of Seville, 36.—XYV. The objection from St. Chrysostom, Basil,and Cyprian, answered, 37.—XVI. Whether the usurped and unauthorized baptism of laymen was allowed to be valid, 39.—XVII. Of the baptism of women. Whether they had any authority to baptize, 42.— XVIII. Whether the usurped baptism of women was esteemed valid, 45.—XIX. Whether heretical and schismatical priests, and degraded clergymen, had any legal authority to baptize, 45.—XX. Whether the baptism of heretics and schismatics was valid. ‘The practice of Stephen, bishop of Rome, vindicated against the Cyprianists, and showed to be the same with that of the post-Nicene Fathers, 48.—XXI. What defects the Ancients supposed to be in the baptism of heretics and schismatics, and how those defects were supplied, 67.—X XII. Whether the baptism of heretics and schismatics and degraded clergymen be any more than the baptism of unauthorized laymen, 74.—XXIII. How the Church of
a 2
iV CONTENTS OF PART I.
England comes to have authority to baptize, though she had her bap- tism only from the heretical Church of Rome, 78.—XXIV. Of the Church of Rome’s allowing the baptism of Turks, Jews, and Infidels. This showed to be without precedent in the practice of the primitive Church, 86.
CHAPTER II.
The practice of the modern Grecks and Moscovites.
Secr. I. The practice of the modern Greek Church, 89.—II. The practice
of the Moscovites, 96. CHAPTER III.
The practice of the Churches of the Reformation.
Secr. I. The practice of the Lutherans, 97.—II. Of the Zuinglians or Helvetic Churches, too.—III. Of the Calvinists or French and Dutch Churches, 101.—IV. Of the Palatine Churches, 105.—V. Of the Church of England before the Conference at Hampton Court, and afterward, 107.
APPENDIX.
Containing some Remarks on the historical part of Mr. Lawrence’s Writ- ings, touching the Invalidity of Lay-Baptism, his Preliminary Discourse of the various Opinions of the Fathers concerning Rebaptization and In- valid-baptisms, and his Discourse of Sacerdotal Powers.
PA She
The state of the present controversy.
Secr. I. No further dispute with Dr. Brett about the modern Greek Church, 150.—II. Nor about the Churches of the Reformation, 151.— III. How far we are agreed about the Church of England, 151.—IV. How far we are agreed about the primitive writers, 153.—V. Whether St. Basil’s Canon and the Council of Trullo determine the invalidity of lay- baptism in the practice of the Church, 155.—VI. An account of the Lu- ciferian heresy: and whether St. Jerom be a witness of the Church’s annulling the baptism of laymen in ordinary cases, 161.—VII. The tes- timony of St. Chrysostom no evidence against the baptism of laymen in extraordinary cases, 186.
CHAPTER I.
That heretics, and schismatics, and degraded clerks, and excommunicated clerks, when once they are convicted and legally censured, are no longer authorized to minister baptism, or officiate as true priests and ministers of God and the Church ; but that thenceforth all their acts are unau- thorized, and done only by usurpation. This proved from the history of the first six general Councils, and their proceedings against heretics and schismatics and other delinquents.
Secor. I. How Meletius was deposed and divested of all ministerial autho- rity by the Council of Nice, 189.—II. How Arius was deposed and ana-
CONTENTS OF PART II. Vv
thematized by the same Council, 192.—III. How the Macedonians, Apollinarians, and other heretics, were degraded and anathematized in the second Council of Constantinople, 195.—IV. How the third general Council of Ephesus degraded Nestorius and his followers, 198.—V. How the Council of Chalcedon deposed Eutyches and Dioscorus and their adherents, 205.—VI. Of the condemnation of Anthimus and Se- verus in the Council of Constantinople, under Mennas, anno 536, 211. —VII. How the defenders of the Tria Capitula were degraded in the fifth general Council of Constantinople, 213.—VIII. How the sixth ge- neral Council of Constantinople deposed and anathematized the Mono- thelites, 214.—IX. How the Council of Trullo censured delinquent bi- shops and clerks, 217.
CHAPTER II.
The same assertion proved from patriarchal, national, and provincial Coun- cils ; and from the writings of private Fathers ; with several arguments drawn from their testimony. The first argument, That some heretics, whose baptism was received, never had originally any real and true ordi- nation to the ministerial office and function: consequently they could be no other than unauthorized persons. This particularly proved upon the Novatian heretics.
Secr. I. A short reference to such patriarchal, national, and provincial Councils as agree with the forementioned general Councils, 219.—II. The first argument founded upon the Novatians wanting a true ordina- tion, 222.—III. That Novatian was never a true bishop. This proved, first, because he had only a simoniacal and forced ordination, 223.— IV. Proved further, because he intruded himself into a full see, 225.
CHAPTER III.
The second argument, That heretics are not authorized ministers of God, because when they fall into open and professed heresy, they cease to be true Christian priests, and become wolves and antichrists, instead of true shepherds and governors of the flock of Christ.
Secr. 1. That a lawful ordination does not secure a man in the possession of a perpetual authorized priesthood, unless he observe the rules of the priesthood, 231.—II. This proved from Cyprian, who declares heretics to forfeit both the name and authority of priests, 232.—III. And from the Council of Aquileia under St. Ambrose, 234.—IV. And from the Council of Colonia Agrippina, 235.—V. From an Italic Council under St. Ambrose, anno 381, 235.—VI. From the Roman Council under Damasus, anno 369, 236.—VII. From the testimony of Domnus, bishop of Antioch, and John Cassian, 236.—VIII. From the Decrees of Pope Innocent, 237-—IX. And Pope Simplicius, 238.—X. And Pope Vi- gilius, 239.
vl CONTENTS OF PART II.
CHAPTER IV.
The third argument, That heretics and degraded clerks were not authorized priests, in the account of the ancient Church, because by her discipline they were reduced to the state and communion of laymen.
Secr. I. No persons who were obliged to do public penance allowed to be of the clergy, 240.—II. All degraded persons reduced, at least, to lay-communion, 241.—III. This proved from Cyprian, and his contem- poraries, Cornelius, and the Council of Carthage, 241.—IV. And from the Apostolical Canons, 244.—V. And the Council of Eliberis, 245.— VI. And the Council of Sardica, 245.—VII. And the Council of Agde, 245.—VIII. The Council of Orleans, 246.—IX. The first Council of Toledo, 246.—X. The Council of Hippo, and St. Austin, 246.—XI. The Decrees of Pope Innocent, 248.—XII. And Siricius, and St. Jerom, 248. —KXIII. And St. Basil, 248.—XIV. And the Council of Trullo, 249.
CHAPTER V.
The fourth argument, That heretics and schismatics and degraded clerks were not accounted authorized priests, because they were sometimes thrust down one degree below laymen, by being anathematized and cast out of the communion of the Church.
Secr. I. That no man is reckoned a complete layman but he that is in full communion with the Church, 250.—II. Heretics and schismatics and degraded clerks sometimes denied the privilege of lay-communion, 251.—I1I. This proved from the testimony of Cyprian, 252.—IV. And the Apostolical Canons, 252.—V. And the Council of Cologne, 253.—VI. And the Council of Sardica, 253.—VII. And the Council of Eliberis, 253-—VIII. And the Council of Rome under Felix ITI. anno 487, 254.
CHAPTER VI.
The objection taken from the notion of an indelible character imprinted in the ordination of a priest, examined and showed to be of no force against the former allegations. With an account of the first original and meaning of that term in the writings of the Church.
Secr. I. What meant by an indelible character imprinted by baptism, 255-—L1. That the indelible character of ordination is of the same nature, 255.—III. The name of indelible character not to be found in any ancient Council, 261.—IV. In what sense St. Austin owns and allows it in heretical priests, 261.—V. What the Papists mean by their indelible character, 263.—V1. How far an indelible character is allowed by Protestant writers, 265.—VII. What submission is due to the judg-
ment of the Catholic Church in such points of discipline as rebaptizing and re-ordaining, 270.
CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX. vu
CHAPTER VII.
A resolution of some difficulties concerning the communion of heretics, and their baptisms and ordinations.
Sect. I. Whether it be lawful to hold communion with heretical priests before they be degraded, 271.—II. Whether it be lawful to communi- cate with heretics when a whole Church is heretical, 274.—II1. Whether in any case it be lawful to desire the baptism of heretics, 277.—IV. Whether the ordinations of heretics and schismatics may be accepted by the Church without re-ordination, 279.
APPENDIX, OR,
REMARKS ON THE AUTHOR OF THE SECOND PART OF LAY-BAPTISM INVALID.
CHAPTER I.
A short way to end the controversy with this author about unauthorized baptism, by showing his great ignorance of the ancient discipline of the Church, whilst he supposes the ancient heretics to be true authorized priests, in actual commission, when the Church had reduced them to the state of laymen.
CHAPTER II. Remurks on our author’s Preface.
Secr. I. That unauthorized baptisms and invalid baptisms are not of the same import in the sense of the ancient Church, 300.—II. This author’s reasons for the validity of heretical baptism, very different from those of the Primitive Church, 301.—IIJ. His notions about the invalidity of heretical baptism unbaptizes the whole Church of England, 301.—IV. His exceptions against the new form of confirmation which was pro- posed to the Convocation, considered, 303.—V. He confesses his mistake in producing Lucifer as a witness against lay-baptism, 304.— VI. How he confounds valid baptism and saving baptism together against the sense of the ancient Church, 305.—VII. That heretical baptism is properly anti-episcopal, by our author’s own concessions, 306.— VIII. That our author’s charge upon his adversaries of dissolving the necessity of the Christian priesthood, equally reflects upon the principles and practice of the whole Catholic Church in all ages, 309.
vil CONTENTS OF THE APPENDIX.
CHAPTER III. Remarks on the first and second chapters of our author's Book.
Seer. I. That allowing the baptisms of usurpers, heretics, or schismatics, to be valid only so far as not to need rebaptizing, is not abetting or encouraging their usurpations, 3t1.—II. That some discretionary power was supposed to be in the hands of bishops in commissioning §per- sons to baptize, 315.—III. Whether deacons were accounted priests and the ordinary and standing ministers of baptism, 316.—IV. That inany uncommissioned baptisms were anciently confirmed by bishops without rebaptizing, 318.—V. The necessary distinction of the Ancients between an authoritative baptism and a merely valid baptism con- founded by our author, 320.
CHAPTER IV. Remarks on our author’s account of the Greek Church and the Churches of the Reformation.
Secr. I. That the ancient Greek Church had several laws before the eighth century, determining the validity of uncommissioned lay-baptism, 323.—Il. The authority of the Canons of Nicephorus vindicated from our author’s exceptions, 324.—III. His disingenuous way of answering the modern Greek writers, 326.—IV. That the reason of the Greeks’ practice was not their opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism for dying infants, 330.—V. Of the Moscovite or Russian Churches, 332-—VI. No further dispute about the Lutheran Churches, 333.— VII. Nor about Zuinglius and the Helvetian Churches, 333.—VIII. That the Calvinists do in some cases allow of the validity of lay-baptism. The conclusion, reducing the whole controversy to this single point, Whether the ancient heretics and schismatics were true authorized priests in actual commission, or only unauthorized and uncommissioned laymen, usurping the priest’s office at the time of baptizing, 334.
A DIssERTATION ON THE E1gHTrH CANON oF THE CoUNCIL OF NICE, pp. 339—381.
INpicEs or AUTHORS AND Marten, pp. 382—409.
ν
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE
TO THE
FIRST PART OF LAY-BAPTISM.
THE first design of the following discourse was only to have been a single chapter of the next volume! of my Origines Licclesiastice, where the order I have proposed to observe in that work will lead me next to pursue the several offices of the ancient liturgy and services of the Church, and among them, in the first place, the institution of the catechumens, [see Book 10,] together with the offices of baptism, [see Book 11,] and confirmation, [see Book 12.] Here the subject matter would necessarily lead me to speak of the minister of baptism and of rebaptizations, and the power granted to laymen, in some cer- tain cases, to baptize. But I quickly found, that to do justice to the present subject, especially at a time when some contro- versies had been raised about it, it would be requisite to handle it a little more largely than would consist with the usual
‘method I have observed in my Origines, where great variety
of matter obliges me to treat upon all subjects as compendiously and succinctly as possible: and therefore I have chosen to treat of this one particular subject in a separate discourse by itself, that I might have room to enlarge upon it, and give such an historical account as was proper upon the present occasion. I had observed several mistakes to be committed, in relation to this matter, by some late learned writers: and
1 [Consisting of Books το, 11, duced in the last part of the third and 12; and forming the fourth volume, and the first and second volume of the original edition, first portions of the fourth volume of this published in 1715, but now repro-_ reprint of the whole works. Ep. ]
« BINGHAM, VOL. ΙΧ, B
2 The Author's Preface to
though I love not to enter into dispute with any men, yet it was necessary for me in this discourse, with due respect and civility, to take notice of them: in which case I think no great names so venerable as to be of sufficient authority to lead others by their dictates only, especially in matters of fact and history, unless they assign just grounds and reasons for their assertions.
Upon this account I have taken the liberty to show the mistakes of the learned Dr. Forbes, in reference to the bap- tisms of deacons and laymen, and how he wrongly understands the meaning of St. Chrysostom and St. Jerom upon those subjects.
And because, in the point of rebaptization, Stephen I. bishop of Rome, [anno 255,] has been much misrepresented, as if he were for receiving the baptism of all heretics in general, without exception, I could not but do justice to his cha- racter in that respect, by setting matters in their proper light, though several great names, and Bishop Pearson’s among the rest, had given current credit and authority to the contrary opinion.
I had observed also great stress laid upon the sense of the modern Greek Church, and the practice of the Churches of the Reformation, by some late learned writers, in reference to the point of laymen’s baptizing in cases of necessity, or otherwise, to prove the invalidity of all such baptisms; and therefore I have made a particular inquiry into the judgment and practice of all those Churches, and corrected several plain mistakes committed in the accounts that have been given of them by those that have pleaded their authority in this behalf.
I have also made a particular inquiry into the sense and practice of the Church of England, from the beginning of the Reformation to this present time, and showed that she has no rule, nor was ever understood to have any, for re- baptizing those who, in time of necessity, were baptized by laymen.
And because the baptism of heretics and schismatics, and excommunicate and degraded clerks, is a matter of great con- cern, with which the Church Universal has always been exer- cised; and the Church of England in particular has a con-
the First Part of Lay-Baptism. 3
siderable interest depending upon the validity of it, I have been at some pains to inquire into the bottom of this question, and state it with exactness from the ancient writers; showing that such baptism, though given in contradiction to authority, is notwithstanding reputed valid; and though it has its defi- ciencies, yet they are such as might be supplied by the Church without rebaptization.
And because it seems a great difficulty to account for the legal authority of the Church of England to baptize, whilst it is confessed that she had her baptism from the heretical and schismatical Church of Rome, I have pointed out the true method of solving this difficulty, by showing that she regained her just authority by returning to the unity of the Holy Catholic Church at her Reformation.
And that no one might object that there were then no visible professors in the Holy Catholic Church beside those of the Church of Rome, I have showed that there was a very great and numerous body of such professors always preserved among the Albigenses or Waldenses, to the very time of the Reforma- tion; and I have vindicated their character, as I thought my- self in justice bound to do, from the misrepresentations and odious reflections which some among ourselves have unwarily, if not designedly, cast upon them.
Finally, because the writings of Mr. Lawrence?, an ingenious
2 [Roger Lawrence, or perhaps more correctly Laurence, who even- tually received holy orders, and was consecrated a bishop among the Nonjurors in 1733, ten years after my Ancestor’s death. His partizans have termed him an able and learned divine, a title of which perhaps he is not altogether undeserving.
Mr. Lawrence’s first pamphlet was published, I believe, in 1709: at any rate before the close of 1711, when the Tract on ‘ Sacerdotal ‘Powers’ appeared anonymously ‘ By the Au- thor of Lay-Baptism Invalid.’ In the same year, 1711, the pamphlet in question was republished in a third edition, with a commendatory Letter to the Author by Dr. Hickes. It was entitled, ‘ Lay-Baptism In- valid: an Essay to prove that such Baptism is null and void, when ad-
ministered in opposition to the Di- vine Right of the Apostolical Suc- cession: occasioned chiefly by the anti-episcopal usurpations of our English Dissenting Teachers.’ The copy to which I have lately had re- course is another reprint in 1712 of the improved edition of the previous year.
In answer to Lawrence my An- cestor published the First Part of his Scholastic History of Lay-Bap- tism with its Appendix, reviewing also the ‘Sacerdotal Powers,’ in 1712, just after the third volume of the Origines, which appeared in 1711.
In 1713 Mr. Lawrence brought out ‘The Second Part of Lay-Bap- tism Invalid, showing that the an- cient Catholic Church never had any ecclesiastical law, tradition, or custom, for the Validity of Bap-
B22
4 The Author's Preface to
layman, who out of a scruple of conscience desired to be rebap- tized, have made great impressions upon many, who reckon the acuteness of his reasonings and the exactness of his histo- rical accounts unanswerable, I have made such remarks upon them as came properly in my way, to show both him and the world that he has committed several great mistakes in point of ancient history ; that he also frequently confounds the terms of lay-baptism, unauthorized baptism, and invalid baptism to- gether, which yet in the history of the Church are terms of very different importance ; and that he builds his whole book upon this mistaken foundation, supposing those terms to be equivalent, which are vastly wide of one another.
3ut that which I have chiefly remarked in Mr. Lawrence’s way of handling this argument is, the fatal tendency of the notions he has advanced concerning the invalidity of heretical and schismatical baptism, which in their direct and immediate consequence do unchurch and unbaptize the whole Church of
tism performed by Persons not commissioned by Bishops. — All proved from the Reverend Mr. Bing- ham’s Scholastical History of Lay- Baptism, and from other Evidences not produced by that Historian.’ Dr. Thomas Brett had also pub- lished, in the year 1711, ‘A Letter to the Author of Lay-Baptism In- valid; wherein the Popish Doctrine (as he termed it) of Lay-Baptism, taught in a Sermon, said to have been preached by the B— of S—, the 7th of November, 1710, is cen- sured and condemned by the Greek Church, the Church of England, the Reformed abroad, and even by the Presbyterian Sectaries. Which may be added as an Appendix to a Book intituled Sacerdotal Powers.’ Also, in 1713, Dr. Brett brought out ‘An Inquiry into the Judgment and Prac- tice of the Primitive Church in rela- tion to Persons being baptized by Laymen, wherein Mr. Bingham’s Scholastical History is considered : with an Appendix in answer to the Bishop of Oxford’s Charge, 1712. In further reply chiefly to Dr. Brett, my Ancestor published in the following year, 1714, the Second Part of his Lay-Baptism, the year
before he completed the fourth vo- lume of the Origines, answering Mr. Lawrence’s second Pamphlet in the Appendix to his Second Part, which he appears to have completed before Mr. L.’s reply attracted his notice. A rejoinder followed from the pen of Mr. Lawrence, entitled ‘A Supplement to the First and Second Parts of Lay-Baptism In- valid; showing that the heretical and schismatical Baptisms, which some ancient Churches esteemed to have been valid, were not Lay- Baptisms in the opinion of those Churches. In Answer to the Second Part of Mr. Bingham’s pretended Scholastical History of Lay-Bap- tism; and proved out of that same Book and the other writings of Mr. Bingham. With a Caveat against Dr. White Kennet’s dangerous no- tion of the Power of Divine Grace, &c. To this third tract from Mr. Lawrence my Ancestor finally re- plied in his ‘ Dissertation on the Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice,’ &c., which first appeared in 1710 or 1720, and now forms the third portion of the present volume. Ep.]
the First Part of Lay-Baptism. 5
England, unless it can be showed that we had our baptism from some other Church originally than from the heretical and schismatical Church of Rome. This is a consideration so momentous, that I hope neither Mr. Lawrence, nor any others, who indiscriminately imbibe his notions, will be displeased at me for observing it, since so much of our Christianity depends upon it in these latter ages of the Church. But if any obloquy or reproach befals me for saying this, I can easily be content to receive and suffer it for the good of the Church Universal and the Church of England, whose true interests I have always been serving, by writing the Antiquities of the one and Apolo- gies? for the other; in pursuance of both which designs I have published the present discourse, not only to give an account of the practice of the ancient Church, but to vindicate the just right and power of the Church of England, when, under pre- tence of magnifying her power, such arguments and methods of reasoning are used as tend to overthrow her constitution, and leave her naked, exposed, and destitute even of true Christian baptism. Which has been the misfortune of Mr. Lawrence’s way of reasoning, if I am capable of understanding him. I can readily acknowledge my great respect for Mr. Lawrence, as a man of a sharp wit, and in many things an acute reasoner: and I can as heartily pity any man in his cir- cumstances, who out of a pure scruple of conscience, doubting of the validity of his baptism, desires leave of the Church to be rebaptized for satisfaction. For in some cases, though not exactly in his, where a man doubted whether he were baptized or not, the primitive Church allowed of a rebaptization, to take away all scruples that might arise upon that account. But when a man uses such arguments in his own defence as destroy the very power of baptizing in that Church from whom he desires to receive baptism, then it would be uncharitable to him, and unjust to the Church, not to show him his errors, and vindicate the validity of such baptisms in the Church as his arguments tend to overthrow. And with this view only I have made remarks upon him, as it became one to do, to whose province it is fallen to explain the laws and practices of the
3 [‘The French Church’s Apo- duced in the first portion of the logy for the Church of England; tenth volume of the present Edition first published in 1706, and repro- of the whole works. Ep. |
6 The Author's Preface to
ancient Church, and assert the just rights and privileges of the Church of England.
There is one thing more I would humbly beg leave to offer, with all due respect, to the consideration of our superiors le- gally assembled in Convoeation, that is, Whether it might not be proper to have a peculiar form of confirmation, or impo- sition of hands, for such as were baptized by heretics and schismatics’, upon.their return to the unity of the Church; considering what frequent occasion there is for such a form, by reason of great multitudes that have been baptized in heresy or schism, and are admitted into the Church upon re- pentance and renunciation of errors without rebaptization ? The ancient Church had such forms peculiar to this occasion : for they did not think confirmation was to be given exactly in the same way to those who were baptized by heretics or schismaties, as they did to those that were baptized in the Church ; because, though they did not esteem the baptism of such to be simply null and invalid, yet they looked upon it as deficient in several respects, of which I have given a par- ticular account in the following discourse ; and therefore they appointed particular forms for the confirmation of such, before they admitted them to the eucharist, upon their return to the Church.
One of these forms, because it will give some light in this matter, and illustrate what I am discoursing of, I shall here subjom out of De Marca>, who says, he had it from a ma- nuscript collection of an ancient writer in the French King’s library, written above eight hundred years ago. And it plainly
4 | See again afterwards, Lay-Bap- tism, Part 2, Append. ch. 2, s. 4, where he answers Mr. Lawrence’s exceptions to his proposal. Ep. ]
® Note ad Concilium Claromon- tanum, p.323.(t.4. p. 294. Ed. Bam- berg. 1788-89. 4to.) Ὃ Θεὸς ὁ Σω- τὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ βουλόμενος πάντας ἀν-
τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούσουσι, καὶ yevn- σεται μία ποίμνη, εἷς ποιμήν. Ποί- μανον αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τῆς ἀληθοῦς εἰς σὲ ἐπιγνώσεως ; κατὰ τὴν ἔκθεσιν τῶν ἁγίων σου καὶ ἐνδόξων ᾿Αποστό- λων, καὶ καταξίωσον αὐτὸν τῆς σῴρα- yidos τοῦ θείου μύρου, καὶ τῆς τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσεως, καὶ
θρώπους σωθῆναι, καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν, πρόσδεξαι τὸν δοῦ- λόν σου τόνδε, τὸν μόλις ἀνανήψαντα ἐκ τῆς πλάνης, καὶ ἐπιποθήσαντα εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἐλθεῖν τῆς σῆς ἀλη- θείας. Σὺ γὰρ εἶπας, Καὶ ἄλλα πρό- βατα ἔχω, ἅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ταύτης, κἀκεῖνά με δεῖ ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ
τῆς μεταλήψεως τοῦ τιμίου σώματος ao A > - Ν καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Καὶ > δ > ‘ , oN ΄ ἀνάδειξον αὐτὸν τέλειον δοῦλόν σου, “ ΄ od ἵνα τῇ ποίμνῃ σοι συγκαταριθμηθῇ καὶ αὐτὸς, εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον τῆς Ξ G μεγαλωσύνης σου" ὅτι σου ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις.
the First Part of Lay-Baptisin. 6
appears to be drawn in conformity to the decrees of the Se- cond General Council of Constantinople, [anno 381,] and the Council of Trullo, [anno 692,] which order some heretics to be received as mere Heathens, by new baptism, and others only by imposition of hands, with the unction of chrism or con- firmation.
The ceremony of receiving those of the latter kind is thus described. First, they are to learn the orthodox faith, and give themselves to fasting and prayer for ten or fifteen days together, being instructed and disciplined after the manner of | the catechumens. Then they are publicly to renounce and anathematize their former heresies, and make profession of the Catholic faith. After which profession, kneeling down before the priest, he lays his hands upon them and recites this prayer: “Ὁ God our Saviour, who wouldest have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth; receive this thy ser- vant, who is scarce yet thoroughly awakened out of error, but desirous to come to the knowledge of thy truth. For Thou hast said, 7 have other sheep which are not of this fold, and them I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd. Feed him with the doc- trine of thy truth, as thou hast revealed it by thy holy and glorious Apostles; vouchsafe to give him the seal of the divine unction, and the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, and make him partaker of the blessed body and blood of Christ : and consum- mate this thy servant, that he may be numbered with thy flock, to the glory and praise of thy greatness, for thine is the king- dom and the power!’
Then anointing him with the chrism, after the manner of those that are newly baptized, he uses the same form of words as is used to them; and afterwards repeats this prayer®: “Ὁ Lord our God, who hast vouchsafed to perfect and consum- mate this thy servant with the true faith in thee, and with the seal of thy holy unction, thou Lord of all things, keep and pre-
6 [Vid. ibid. (infr.) Kai χρίει av- καὶ τῆς σφραγῖδος τοῦ ἁγίου μύρου, τὸν τῷ μύρῳ. καθάπερ καὶ τοὺς νεο- σὺ, Δέσποτα τῶν ἁπάντων, τὴν εἰς φωτίστους, τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἐπίρ- σὲ ἀληθῆ πίστιν διατήρησον. αὖξον ρησιν ποιούμενος, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο πά- αὐτὸν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς λιν ἐπεύχεται: Κύριε, Ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, παρά σου χαρίσμασι κατακοσμῶν. ὁ καταξιώσας τελειῶσαι τόνδε δοῦλόν Καὶ εἶθ᾽ οὕτως κοινωνεῖ. ED. | σου διὰ τῆς εἰς σὲ ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως.
5 The Author's Preface, Sc.
serve this true faith in him, make him to increase in righteous- ness, and adorn him with all the graces of thy Spirit.’ After this he is admitted to partake of the holy eucharist.
[t is easy to observe, that this form of confirmation was not for such as were baptized in the Church, but peculiar to those who were baptized in heresy or schism: for mention is made of their errors in the very words of the prayers, [ἀνανήψαντα ἐκ τῆς πλάνης, k.T.A.,] and they are obliged to confess and ana- thematize their heresies upon their return to the Church. Since, therefore, we have no such peculiar form in our Liturgy, I leaye it to the wisdom and discretion of our superiors to con- sider, whether such a form might not be proper to be added to it, when the form of reconciling penitents, and others of: the like nature, come next under consideration. This was the way which the ancient Church took to supply the deficiencies of such baptisms as she thought fit to receive as valid, though not every way perfect, without rebaptization.
Α
SCHOLASTICAL HISTORY
OF THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH, IN REFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM BY LAY PERSONS.
Lesley des
CHAP: JI. An Account of the Practice of the Ancient Church.
1. To understand the state of the present controversy aright, it The state will be necessary, in the entrance of this discourse, to distin- eee guish these several questions from one another. 1. Whether aout Lay. the commission to baptize was so given to the Apostles. as that ee they might communicate it to any others? 2. Whether bishops
were invested with the same right which the Apostles had?
3. Whether the bishops may communicate this power only to presbyters or priests, as invested with sacerdotal powers?
4. Whether deacons may baptize either in ordinary or extraor-
dinary cases? 5. Whether the minor clergy, below deacons,
may have anything of the same power communicated to them ?
6. Whether mere laymen, who were never called to any eccle- siastical office, may promiscuously administer baptism in ordi-
nary cases? 7. Whether bishops may give them a right to do
it in extraordinary cases of extreme necessity? 8. Whether, if
they do it with or without such commission, their baptism be
wholly null and invalid? 9. Whether women may be allowed
to baptize in cases of the like necessity, and their baptism be
valid? 10. Whether heretical and schismatical priests be any
better qualified to administer baptism than Catholic laymen ?
11. Whether their baptism be either legal or valid ? 12. Lastly,
‘he com- nission iven to the \postles to aptize ;
yy them ommuni- ated to thers at liscretion.
10 The practice of
Whether baptism administered by Turks, Jews, or Infidels, be of any account in the Christian Church ?
The distinct consideration of these several questions will take in every thing that relates to this subject: and what I propose is, to give some resolution of them, so far as may be collected from the general sense and practice of the Church, both an- cient and modern; beginning first with the practice of the ancient Church; then examining the rules of the modern Greek Church, and last of all, the Churches of the Reformation.
2. To begin with the practice of the ancient Church : it is certain the commission to baptize was originally given by our Saviour+to the eleven Apostles; for so it is expressly said, (Matth. 28, 16—20.) “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. ......And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to ob- serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Now, by the tenour of this commission, it is certain they were invested with authority not only to baptize themselves, but to commu- nieate this power to others: for the commission and power of baptizing was not to die with them, but to continue to the end of the world. But then two questions arise from hence: Whom they actually authorized to baptize? and, To whom they gave commission to authorize others to baptize? For both these things were necessary to preserve the Church according to the order of Christ, at least in future ages.
As to the first question, it is evident from the Apostolical history, that they gave commission to bishops, presbyters, and deacons to baptize: for Philip, who was but a deacon, baptized the Eunuch, as we read in Acts 8, 38. But still it remains a question, whether they extended this commission to any others, either in ordinary or ext saordinary cases ?
The ancient author, under the name of St. Ambrose!, was of
1 In Eph. 4. vv.11, 12. p.948.(t. gelizare et baptizare et Scripturas in 2. append. p. 241 6. ) Ut ergo cresce- ecclesia explanare. At ubi autem ret plebs et multiplicaretur, omnibus omnia loco circumplexa est eccle- inter initia concessum est et evan- sia, conventicula constituta sunt, et
τ
the ancient Church. 11
opinion, ‘that the Apostles first found it necessary, for the augmentation and increase of the Church, to grant a general commission to all Christians both to teach and baptize; but as soon as that necessity was over, as soon as the world was generally converted, and churches erected, governors and other officers were appointed in all Churches; and then this general commission was withdrawn; so that none, even among the clergy, was to presume to meddle with any office to which he was not appointed. ... Hence it came to pass, that neither dea- cons were allowed to preach, nor the inferior clergy nor lay- men to baptize.’ This author seems to have been of opinion, that the commission which our Saviour left with his Apostles was a discretionary power to authorize such others to baptize, as they in their wisdom, under the direction of the Holy Ghost, should think proper, to answer the present necessities and emergent occasions of the Church: and that therefore, as no one can have a power of baptizing but he that receives, some way or other, a commission from them; so when the necessities of the Church required it, they had power to au- thorize others, besides the standing ministers, to baptize; which power they both might and did recall again, as soon as those necessities of the Church were over. And upon this principle it was chiefly, that the ancient bishops of the Church allowed deacons, and sometimes laymen in extraordinary cases, to baptize: for they looked upon themselves as invested with the same commission and power that the Apostles had, as their successors; that is, as has been said, not only a power to bap- tize themselves, but to authorize others to baptize, either in or-
'dinary or extraordinary cases. By virtue of which they made
presbyters their assistants in ordinary cases, and used their discretionary power sometimes to grant authority also to dea- cons to minister baptism in ordinary cases, and sometimes to restrain them wholly from it, and confine them only to extra- ordinary cases, and great necessities of the Church, allowing them no other power than what in the like cases they allowed
rectores et cetera officia in ec- vel concessum....Hine ergo est, clesiis sunt ordinata, ut nullus de unde nunc neque diaconi in populo elero [8]. clericis] auderet, qui ordi- preedicant, neque clerici vel laici natus ‘non esset, presumere ofh- baptizant.
cium, quod sciret non sibi creditum
Bishops invested with the same power which the Apostles had as their successors.
12 The practice of
to laymen. For though no other writer among the Ancients has so plainly expressed his mind upon this point, as this au- thor, under the name of St. Ambrose; yet it is plain, all of them, who maintained the power of bishops to authorize dea- cons and laymen to baptize, or, at their discretion, to restrain them from it, must needs go upon the same principle, viz. that such a power was lodged in the hands of the bishops of the Church, as the Apostles’ successors, to authorize what men should baptize, and in what cases, according as they should think necessary in their wisdom and discretion, for the greater or lesser exigencies of the Church. For without this principle it will be impossible to account for the practice of the ancient bishops, who sometimes restrained deacons from baptizing as well as laymen, and sometimes granted authority to them both.
3. That thus the matter was in fact, is very evident from many passages of the ancient writers, where they speak of the original power of administering baptism, as lodged solely and entirely in the hands of the bishops, as the Apostles’ immediate successors, and derivatively conveyed from them to others, whom they authorized to be either the standing and ordinary ministers of baptism, or else only the occasional and extraordi- nary ministers of it in times of absolute necessity, and great exigencies of the Church. Hence it was, that anciently in many small dioceses, bishops were the usual and ordinary ministers of baptism themselves. There was but one baptistery belonging to a city or a diocese, and that at the cathedral or mother-church, where the bishop resided, and whither all per- sons came at the two solemn festivals, Easter and Pentecost, for baptism. In larger cities and dioceses, where more bap- tisteries were necessary, they were still erected by the bishop’s appointment, and only such persons allowed to officiate in them as had his consent and authority, that nothing might be done in opposition or contradiction to him, but in a due subordina- tion to him as their superior. Thus it is remarked by the au- thor of the Pontifical, in the Life of Marcellus2, that, while he was bishop of Rome, ‘he appointed five and twenty churches,
eo CC. t.1. p.204. (ap. baptismum et peenitentiam multo- aabb. CC. t. τ. p.946 ic. MAIC ΤΕ . rum, qui convertebantur ex Paganis, vigintl quinque titulos in urbe Roma οἱ propter sepulturas martyrum.
constituit, quasi diceceses, propter
the ancient Church. 13
as so many little dioceses, for the convenience of baptizing Pagans upon their conversion, and an equal number of presby- ters to minister in them.’ But still all these were subordinate to that one bishop, and acted by the authority and commission which they received from him. So that, as one of the Roman Councils? expresses it, ‘though both presbyters and deacons, at some solemn times, were allowed to baptize at Rome in the bishop’s presence, yet they were but officials to him, and what they did was reckoned his act, and went in his name.’ It is pe- culiarly remarked to this purpose by one of the bishops present at the Council of Carthage, under Cyprian?, ἡ that Christ gave the commission to his Apostles, and to them alone, the power which was given him by his Father; and that bishops were the Apostles’ successors, in governing the Church with the same power, and granting baptism to believers®.’
Hence it became a general standing rule in the Church, ‘that presbyters and deacons were to perform no offices without the authority and consent of their bishop, because the Lord’s people were committed to his trust, and he was to answer for their souls. This was particularly specified im the office of baptism by most of the ancient writers. The rule was as old as Ignatius, who delivers himself after this manner in relation to this point®: ‘It is not lawful either to baptize or celebrate the eucharist without the bishop; but that which he allows is well-pleasing to God.’ He does not say, that no one beside the bishop might administer baptism, but that it was not regularly done without his commission or delegation: he being the chief minister of baptism, as well as all other offices in the Church.
3 C. Rom. c. 7. ap. Cotelerii Not. in Constit. Apost. 1.3. c.g. (Cotel. v.I. p. 282. n. 72.) Pasche tempore presbyter et diaconus per parochias dare remissionem peccatorum, et ministerium implere consueverunt, etiam presente episcopo: in fontem quoque ipsi descendunt, illi in ofh- cio sunt: sed illius nomini facti summa conceditur.
4N.79. p. 241. (p. 166.) Mani- festa est sententia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Apostolos suos mit- tentis, et ipsis solis potestatem a Patre sibi datam permittentis; qui- bus nos successimus, eadem po-
testate ecclesiam Domini guber- nantes et credentium fidem bapti- zantes.
5 Vid. Can. Apost. 39. al. 4o. al. 38. (Cotel. [e. 32.} V. I. Ρ..443:) Oi πρεσβύτεροι καὶ οἱ διάκονοι ἄνευ γνώ- Ens τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ἐπιτελείτω- cay" αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν 6 πεπιστευμένος τὸν λαὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ τὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν λόγον ἀπαιτηθησόμενος.
6 Ἐρ. 8ὰ Smyrn. n. 8. (Cotel. .
Ρ- 37: ) Οὐκ ἐξόν ἐστιν χωρὶς τοῦ ἐπι- σκόπου, οὔτε βαπτίζειν, οὔτε ἀγάπην ποιεῖν. GAN ὃ ἂν ἐκεῖνος δοκιμάσῃ; τοῦτο καὶ τῷ Θεῷ εὐάρεστον.
14 The practice of
In like manner, Tertullian? asserts the bishop’s original right as chief priest, independent of any other; and then the right of presbyters and deacons to baptize; but this in dependence of their bishop: for they are not to do it without his authority, for the honour of the Church, in the preservation of which peace is preserved. St. Cyprian’ and another bishop, one of his contemporaries, who writes of the Baptism of Heretics 9, speak of themselves as the prime ministers of baptism; who only had power to give it, with all the ceremonies and solemni- ties belonging to it: and when it was given by the inferior clergy, in cases of necessity, as to the clinics upon a sick bed, the want of those ceremonies was either supplied by the bishop in confirmation, upon the party’s recovery, or by God himself, in calling them to the state of martyrdom. This shows that they thought baptism chiefly to be the bishop’s office, and when it was done by others, it was still done by his authority, and reputed as his act, which he also ratified as occasion re- quired, by adding what was wanting in the circumstances of the solemnity, in a subsequent confirmation. The same is also asserted by St. Ambrose’, ‘ that though presbyters do baptize, yet they derive the authority of their ministry from the chief priest;’ that is, the bishop. And the author of the Comments upon St. Paul’s Epistles, under the name of St. Ambrose?!, says in general, ‘ none of the clergy were to meddle with any office to which they were not appointed.’ But no one expresses him- self more fully or plainly upon this head than St. Jerom!?:
7 De Baptismo, c. 17. (p. 230 c.)
Je Ba ¢ aut suppleatur a nobis aut a Domino Dandi quidem jus habet summus
supplendum reservetur.
sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehinc presbyteri et diaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ec- clesiz honorem, quo salvo salva pax est.
8 De Exhortat. Martyr. in Preefat. p. 168. (p. 118.) Nos tantum, qui Domino permittente primum bap- tisma credentibus dedimus, ad aliad quoque singulos preparemus.
’ Anonymus, ad caleem Cypriani, p. 26. (p. 24.) Siquidem per nos bap- tisma tradetur, integre et solemniter et per omnia que scripta sunt as- signetur, atque sine ulla ullius rei separatione tradatur: aut si a mi- nore clero per necessitatem tradi- tum fuerit, eventum expectemus, ut
10 De Sacrament. 1]. 3. 6. 1. (t. 2. p- 362 ἢ. n. 4.) Licet.... presbyteri fecerint, tamen exordium ministeril a summo est sacerdote.
11 In Eph. 4. p. Ρ. 948. fore, s.2, n. 1, preceding.
12 Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. [al. 0.} (t. 2. p.182 a.).... Rectoresiet ceetera officia, &c. Ecclesiz salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet [8]. ac veneratione consistit]: cul si non exsors quedam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in eccle- 5115. efficientur schismata, quot sa- cerdotes. Inde ideo venit ut sine chrismate et jussione episcopi, neque presbyter neque diaconus jus habe- ant baptizandi.
See be-
3. 4: the ancient Church. 15
‘The welfare of the Church,’ says he, ‘ depends upon the dig- nity and veneration of the chief priest; on whom, if there was not some extraordinary and eminent power conferred, there would be as many schisms in the Church as there are priests. Hence it is, that neither presbyters nor deacons have any right to baptize without the chrism and command of their bishop.’
So that this point was clear among the Ancients beyond all dispute, that presbyters had only a derivative and subordinate power to baptize as well as others; and so long as they kept to this rule their baptisms were regular and lawful, as done in conformity to the established rules and orders of the Church : but if they set themselves in opposition to their bishop, and either acted without or against his consent, as absolute and in- dependent of him, then their baptisms and all their other offices and ministrations were irregular and unlawful, because done in a schismatical way, and in a professed contempt of authority, and all the standing rules and laws of the Church.
4. Yet though such baptisms were very sinful and irregular By what in respect of the persons ministering, they were not esteemed fife bn
byters an- to be utterly void and null in respect of the persons baptized. ciently bap-
Whence it follows that a plain distinction must needs have ἜΝ been made always between the irregularity and the invalidity aes of any baptism; since the want of a lawful commission and authority would render the act of administration sinful and irregular, but not absolutely invalid. It is therefore here very material to inquire into this,—How it came to pass that baptism ministered by a presbyter illegally and without commission was nevertheless esteemed valid, notwithstanding the sinfulness of the act of ministration ?
It is resolved by some into the indelible character and power of the priesthood, which is given to a presbyter at his ordina- tion, by which they think all his ministerial acts stand good, though done in an irregular manner, against the laws and canons of the Church; and that a priest cannot be divested of this power after he is once legally ordained to it. But this could not be the ground upon which the Ancients went, for several reasons. 1. Because they did not suppose baptism founded wholly upon sacerdotal powers, nor tied so absolutely to the office of a priest but that it might in ordinary cases also
10 The practice of
be administered by deacons, if they had the bishop’s commis- sion; and by laymen, in extraordinary cases of pressing neces- sity, if they had the bishop’s license and authority to do it, as we shall see hereafter. 2. The indelible character of a priest does not authorize or qualify him to act contrary to the com- mission of his bishop: for then his baptizing would be both authorized and unauthorized, regular and irregular, lawful and unlawful at the same time, and in the very same act and respect, which is a manifest contradiction. Then also a priest could never be deposed from his office, or have his commission recalled, or his function legally taken from him, be his crimes never so great and deserving ecclesiastical censure: once a priest he would be always a priest, and they who gave him his commission would have no authority to withdraw his commis- sion and reduce him to the state of a layman, in the most urgent and necessary case that could be conceived: which is contrary to the whole tenour of ecclesiastical discipline, and quite cuts the sinews of episcopal power in the Church. For these reasons it is evident the Ancients could not think the legal power of baptizing belonged to a man barely as he was a priest, but as he was a man invested with such power by his legal superior, whether he was priest or deacon ; and that power subject to certain laws, which if he did not observe his acts were irregular and unlawful: and if he persisted obsti- nately to contradict such rules, the same superior who gave him his legal authority to baptize had a legal power to with- draw it again, and exclude him from the ordinary exercise of any office of the ecclesiastical function. Whence it follows that the irregular baptisms of such priests being esteemed valid, so as not to be repeated, though irregularly and unlawfully given, could not be thought valid upon the notion of their being once ordained priests, and having an indelible character of the priesthood upon them; but upon some other notion and founda- tion, which equally extended to deacons as well as priests, and made the baptism of a deacon, though irregularly and unlaw- fully performed, as valid as that of a priest in the same cir- cumstances : and that must be upon one of these two grounds, either that baptism, by whatever Christian performed, was valid and not to be repeated, provided it was done with due matter and form; or else that the bishops of the Church, as
the ancient Church. Τὴ
chief ministers of baptism, had power to receive and confirm those baptisms, which were otherwise irregularly and in oppo- sition to their authority and commission performed in the Church. But however it was this is certain, that the validity of an irregular priest’s baptism was not owing to his indelible character ; since the baptism of deacons and laymen, who had not the character of priests, was sometimes authorized and allowed as valid; which is evident from plain matters of fact, which I now proceed to give a further account of.
5. Deacons, by some ancient canons, are invested with the Of the power of baptizing in ordinary cases as well as priests. It is ped ad plain Tertullian so understood it: for he puts presbyters and Heer deacons together’! as the ordinary ministers of baptism next baptize. after the bishop, and under his direction: he makes no distine- tion in the power given to those two orders; for the one had as much power to baptize as the other, and they both alike subordinately acted under the bishop, in whom, as chief priest, the original power of baptizing was lodged, and from whose authority they received their power. St. Jerom was of the same mind; for he says!>, ‘without the commission of the bishop neither presbyter nor deacon had any right to baptize τ᾿ which implies, that by his commission they had each of them the ordinary power.
Thus it was in the Churches of Spain at the time of the Council of Eliberis, in one of whose canons? there is a provi- sion made, ‘that if a deacon, who presides over a people, shall baptize any persons without a bishop or presbyter, the bishop in that case shall perfect what was wanting in the ceremony by his benediction.’ It is not said, he shall rebaptize them, because they were only baptized by a deacon; but, he shall ratify the baptism by his consummating act, which was his imposition of hands in confirmation. From whence it is evident that deacons in Spain were then allowed to be the ordinary ministers of
" Tertul. de Bapt. c.17. See per presbyteros et diaconos bapti- before, s. 3. n.7, preceding. zati, &c.
15. Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. [al. 16 C.77. (t.1. p.978 6.) Si quis g.] (t.2. p.182 a.)... Sine... jus- diaconus, regens plebem, sine epi- sione episcopi neque presbyter ne- scopo vel presbytero aliquos baptiza- que diaconus jus habeant baptizandi. vent, episcopus eos per benedictio- —Ibid. (p. 181 e.) In villulis, aut in nem perficere debebit. castellis, aut in remotioribus locis,
BINGHAM, VOL. IX. Cc
18 The practice of
The same appears from St. Cyril's Catechetical Discourses!7 to have been the custom of the Churches in for he tells his catechumens, when the time of baptism came, ‘ they might go either to bishops, or presbyters, or deacons; for the grace of God was to be had in villages as well as cities, and came upon the unlearned as well as learned, upon bond as well as free; seeing that grace was not from men, but a gift of God by the hand of men.’ This denotes that deacons in country villages had the ordinary power of baptizing.
And so we find, in the first Council of Orleans!8, a decree implying that the same power was allowed them in the French Churches. For in one of the canons of that Council deacons and presbyters are joined together as ministers of baptism, both in ordinary and extraordinary cases: for it is said, ‘ that if a deacon or a presbyter shall, for any private guilt, have with- drawn himself from the communion of the altar under the pro- fession of a penitent, yet even in that case such a deacon or presbyter, if there happen a case of evident necessity, and no others can be had, may baptize any man that desires baptism.’ Certainly they, who authorized deacons in such singular cir- cumstances and disadvantages to baptize, even when they were under a sort of discipline and penance, must needs allow them the same privilege as presbyters had to baptize in all other ordinary cases. Yet some other ancient rules seem absolutely to forbid deacons to minister baptism in ordinary cases, con- fining the office only to bishops and presbyters.
Among those called the Apostolical Canons there are four that speak of the ministers of baptism, and those are there only bishops and presbyters, but no mention is made of deacons. One canon’? says, ‘If a bishop or presbyter receives the bap-
baptism.
Palestine :
17 Catech. 17. n. τη: (al. 35:1 (.
pro reatu suo se ab altaris commu- 281.) Kara yap τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ βαπ-
nione sub peenitentis professione
τίσματος, ὅταν προσέλθῃς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἢ πρεσβυτέρων, ἢ ἢ, διακόνων" ἀπανταχοῦ γὰρ ἡ χάρις, καὶ ἐν κώμαις, καὶ ἐν πόλεσι, καὶ ἐπὶ ἰδιωτῶν καὶ ἐλλογίμων, καὶ ἐπὶ δούλων καὶ ἐλευ- θέρων" ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων 7 χάρις, GAN ἐκ Θεοῦ SC ἀνθρώπων ἡ δόσις. 18 C. Aurelian. 1. c. 14. (t. 4
1407 a.) Si diaconus vel nenebytat
submoverit; sic quoque, si alii de- fuerint, et causa certe necessitatis exoritur poscentem baptismum li- ceat baptizare.
19 Ὁ. 46. (Cotel. [c. 38.] v. 1. p- 444. CC. [ς. 45.] t.1. p. 36 6.) Ἔ- πίσκοπον, ἢ πρεσβύτερον αἱρετικῶν δεξάμενον βάπτισμα, ἢ θυσίαν, καθαι- ρεῖσθαι προστάσσομεν.
19
the ancient Church.
tism of heretics, he is to be deposed.’ Another?° says, ‘If a bishop or presbyter rebaptizes one that has been truly baptized before, or does not baptize again one that has been profanely polluted in baptism by the impious, he shall be deposed, as one that derides the cross and death of Christ, and makes no dif- ference between true and false priests.’ Another canon?! says, ‘If any bishop or presbyter observe not the form of baptism prescribed by our Lord, In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but baptizes in the name of three Unoriginated Principles, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts, he shall be deposed.’ And a fourth canon 2? also pronounces the same cen- sure against any bishops or presbyters, ‘who did not use three immersions in the sacred mystery.’ In all these canons there is not the least mention of deacons, because by them only bishops and priests are supposed to be the ordinary ministers of bap- tism, and not deacons.
So likewise in the Constitutions, under the name of the Apostles, all the inferior clergy, among which the deacons are comprehended, are prohibited to minister baptism. ‘ We do not permit,’ say they23, ‘the rest of the clergy ‘to baptize, as readers, singers, doorkeepers, subdeacons, but only bishops and presbyters, to whom the deacons are to minister. And they that presume to act otherwise shall bear the judgment of Corah and his company.’ The deacons are here wholly excluded from the office of baptism, as well as the rest of the inferior clergy; and in some ancient copies they were excluded by name; for in Georgius Hamartolus’s citation of this passage, as Cotelerius has observed2+, the prohibition names deacons expressly among the rest that are forbidden to baptize; and if
20 C. 47. (Cotel. [c. 39.] ibid. CC. [c.46. | ibid. c.d.)’Exioxoros ἢ πρεσ- Burepos Tov κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντα βάπτισμα, ἐὰν ἄνωθεν βαπτίσῃ, ἢ ἢ τὸν μεμολυσμένον παρὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν ἐὰν μὴ βαστίσῃ. καθαιρείσθω.
21 C. 49. (Cotel. [c. 41.] ibid. CC. [e. 49.] ibid. e.) Ei ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσ- βύτερος. κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Κυρίου διάταξιν μὴ βαπτίσῃ εἰς Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν, καὶ “Aytov Πνεῦμα, ἀλλὰ εἰς τρεῖς ᾿Ανάρ- xous, ἢ εἰς τρεῖς Yiovs, ἢ εἰς τρεῖς Παρακλήτους, καθαιρείσθω.
22 C. 50. (Cotel. [e. 42. Jp ibid. CC. [e. 48.] ibid. d.) Et τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ
πρεσβύτερος, μὴ τρία βαπτίσματα μιᾶς μυήσεως ἐπιτελέσῃ, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν βάπ- τισμα, τὸ εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου διδόμενον, καθαιρείσθω.
23 1. 3: 0.ττ- (Cotel. ν. 1. p.284.) ᾿Αλλ᾽ οὔτε τοῖς λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς € ἐπι- τρέπομεν βαπτίζειν' οἷον ἀναγνώσταις, ἢ ψάλταις, ἢ πυλωροῖς, ἢ ὑπηρέταις, ἢ (leg. ἀλλ᾽ ἢ) μόνοις ἐπισκόποις καὶ πρεσβυτέροις, ἐξυπρετουμένων αὐτοῖς τῶν διακόνων᾽ οἱ δὲ τολμῶντες τοῦτο τῶν ἹΚοριτῶν ὑποίσουσι τὴν δίκην.
24 Not. in Constit. Apost. 1. 3. 6. 2. (v. I. p. 282. n.72.) Baptizare sa- cerdotale esse officium, &c.
(Ὁ: 9)
20 The practice of
they had not been excepted by name, yet it were so to be un- derstood: for he that confines baptism only to the office of bishops and presbyters, must be supposed thereby to exclude deacons; unless it be pretended that deacons are of the same order either with bishops or presbyters; which the Constitu- tions are so far from asserting, that they make deacons only ministers to the other two orders. But in another place, the Constitutions speak yet more expressly against deacons’ bap- tizing ; for they thus distinguished the eres of presbyter and deacon from each other 25s ‘A presbyter is to teach, to offer the eucharist, to baptize, and to give the blessing to the people; but a deacon is only to minister to the bishop and the presby- ters, and not to perform the rest.’ And again26: ‘A deacon does not give the blessing but receive it from the bishop or the presbyter; he does not baptize; he does not offer the eucharist; but when the bishop or presbyter has offered, he distributes it to the people, not as a priest, but as one that ministers to the priests.’ Yet, notwithstanding this, it is asserted by the same
author 57, that a deacon may baptize, if he has a commission
and iene from his bishop to do it, as he supposes Philip
the deacon and Ananias to have had a special call from God.
‘If any one,’ says he, ‘shall plead the example of Philip the deacon, and Ananias the faithful brother; the one of which baptized the Eunuch, and the other me Paul; they understand not what we say: for we say, that no man takes to himself the dignity of the priesthood, but either he is called of God, as Melchisedec and Job; or he receives it from the chief priest, as Aaron trom Moses. Therefore Philip and Ananias did not
25 L.3. c. 20. (Cotel. ibid. p. 201.) 27 Ibid. ο.46. (Cotel. ibid. Ρ. 423.) Tov μὲν πρεσβύτερον διδάσκειν, a ava- Ei δὲ Φίλιππον τὸν διάκονον ἡ ἡμῶν καὶ φέρειν, βαπτίζειν, εὐλογεῖν τὸν λαόν ᾿Δνανίαν τὸν πιστὸν “ἀδελφὸν αἰτιῶν- τὸν δὲ διάκονον ἐξυπηρετεῖσθαι τῷ ταί τινες, ὅτι 6 μὲν τὸν εὐνοῦχον ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις" ἐβάπτισεν, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ Παῦλον, ἀγνοοῦ- τουτέστι, διακονεῖν. οὐ μὴν καὶ τὰ σιν αὐτοὶ, ὃ λέγομεν ἡ ἡμεῖς. Εἴπομεν λοιπὰ διενεργεῖν. γὰρ, ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις ἁρπάζει τὸ
261,8. 6.28. (Cotel. ibid. p. 411.) ἱερατικὸν ἀξίωμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ παρὰ τοῦ Διάκονος οὐκ εὐλογεῖ" οὐ δίδωσιν εὐ- Θεοῦ λαμβάνει, ὡς Μελχισεδὲκ καὶ λογίαν᾽ λαμβάνει δὲ παρὰ ἐπισκόπου ᾿Ιώβ' ἢ παρὰ ἀρχιερέως, ὡς ᾿Ααρὼν καὶ πρεσβυτέρου" οὐ βαπτίζει" οὐ παρὰ Μωσέως" οὐκοῦν καὶ Φίλιππος προσφέρει: τοῦ δὲ ἐπισκόπου προσ- καὶ ᾿Ανανίας οὐχ ἑαυτοὺς προείλοντο, ενεγκόντος ἢ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου, αὐτὸς ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προεχειρίσθη-
ἐπιδίδωσι τῷ λαῷ, οὐχ ὡς ἱερεὺς, ἀλλ᾽ σαν τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τοῦ ἀσυγκρίτου ὡς διακονούμενος ἱ ἱερεῦσιν. Θεοῦ.
a
the ancient Church. 91]
appoint themselves, but were chosen by Christ the chief priest, the incomparable God.’
St. Chrysostom seems to have been of the same opinion, that the ordinary office of baptizing belonged only to priests, and not to deacons, though deacons, in cases of necessity, might do it. In his Discourses of the Priesthood?’ he thus argues for and magnifies the power of the priest: ‘It is plain madness to despise so great a power, without which we cannot obtain sal- vation, or the good things that are promised us. For if no one can enter into the kingdom of heaven, except he be born of water and the Holy Ghost; and he that eateth not the flesh of the Lord, and drinketh not his blood, is deprived of eternal life; and all these things are performed by no other but those sacred hands, I mean the hands of the priest; how can any one, without these, either escape the fire of hell, or obtain the crown that is laid up in heaven?’ It is certain St. Chrysostom, in these words, excludes deacons from the ordinary power of baptizing, as much as he does laymen. Which the learned Dr. Forbes?9, who first produced this passage against lay-baptism, was so sensible of, that he equally concludes the baptism of deacons to be invalid, as well as that of laymen. But he mis- takes St. Chrysostom’s meaning: for he did not intend so to confine baptism to the hands of a priest, as to make it simply and absolutely unlawful, in any case whatsoever, for a deacon to administer it : for, in case of necessity, he not only permits, but positively enjoms deacons to baptize: for says he®°, ‘if there be a necessity, and a child be found unbaptized, and ready to die, it is lawful for a deacon to baptize it... Which that he only made priests the ordinary ministers of and that it was the contempt of their ministry only,
shows, baptism ;
τις τούτων ἐκτὸς ἢ TO τῆς γεέννης ἐκ-
eM Ὁ. Ἐς: (0 1- ΡΣ 384.) Μανία φυγεῖν δυνήσεται πῦρ, ἢ τῶν ἀποκει-
γὰρ περιφανὴς ὑπερορᾶν τοσαύτης
ἀρχῆς, ἧς ἄνευ οὔτε σωτηρίας, οὔτε τῶν ἐπηγγελμένων ἡμῖν ἔστι τυχεῖν ἀγαθῶν. Ei γὰρ οὐ δύναταί τις εἰσελ- θεῖν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐὰν μὴ Ov ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος ἀνα- γεννηθῇ" καὶ ὁ μὴ τρώγων τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ πίνων ἐκβέβληται τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς" πάντα δὲ ταῦτα δι᾿ ἑτέρου μὲν οὐδενὸς, μόνον δὲ διὰ τῶν ἁγίων ἐκείνων ἐπιτελεῖται χειρῶν, τῶν τοῦ ἱερέως λέγω πῶς ἄν
μένων στεφάνων τυχεῖν ;
29 Instruct. Histor. Theolog. 1. το. c.14. nn. 8 et 12. (Amstel. 1645. pp. 527 et 528.) Chrysostomus, non eb- stante necessitate, ministerium bap- tismi solis vindicat sacerdotibus, &c.
30 Hom. 61. t.7. p.420. Ed.Savil. (t, το. int. Spuria. Ρ. 842 ἃ.) Ἐὰν γένηται ἀνάγκη, καὶ εὑρεθῇ παιδίον ἀβαπτιστὸν, καὶ μέλλῃ τελευτᾷν, ἐξὸν τὸν διάκονον βαπτίσαι.
22 The practice of
when it might be had, which he so inveighs against, and not the bare want of it, when it could not be had in cases extraor- dinary and of extreme necessity, in which it might be supplied by adeacon. And this must be the meaning of Epiphanius??, when he says, ‘that deacons are not permitted to celebrate any mystery or sacrament in the church, but only to minister in the celebration ;’ that is, they were not to do it in ordinary cases, when a priest was at hand, but only to assist the priest, as the principal agent, in the performance of it. St. Hilary *? was of the same mind: for he reckons baptism a part of the apostolical office and ministry, and that it was therefore only an extraordinary exigence that made Philip the Deacon bap- tize the Eunuch, who had such an impatient desire of baptism, that he could not stay to be baptized by an Apostle.
The canons of the Church are many times peremptory against deacons’ baptizing in ordinary cases, but they always except the case of necessity, the time of sickness, and disability or want of other ministers. Among the decrees of Gelasius this is one33: ‘ Let not a deacon presume to baptize without the bishop or presbyter, unless they be far absent, and an ex- treme necessity compel him: in which cases it is sometimes al- lowed to lay-Christians to do it” Cotelerius34 and Sirmond®> give us a canon out of one of the Roman Councils, which for-
81 Her. 79. Collyrid. n. 4. (t. 1. p- 1061 a.) Καὶ yap οὔτε διάκονοι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησιαστικῇ τάξει ἐπιστεύθησάν τι μυστήριον ἐπιτελεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνον διακονεῖν τὰ ἐπιτελούμενα.
32 Vid. Comment. in Ps. 67. p. 242 (t.I. p.237¢. n.33.)....Sa- cramentum ipsum baptismi adeo impatientis desiderii cupiditate pree- veniens, ut a diacono ministerium apostolici officii, salutis suze cupidus, exigeret,
%3 Ep. 9, ad Episc. Lucan. ce. 9. [al.7.] (CC. τ. 4. p, 1190 b.) Absque episcopo vel presbytero baptizare non presumat diaconus; nisi pre- dictis fortasse officiis longius con- stitutis, necessitas extrema compel- Jat: quod et laicis Christianis facere plerumque conceditur.
34 Ὁ, Rom. Ὁ. 7. ap. Not. in Con- stit. Apost. 1.3. c.9. (v.1. p. 282. ἢ, 72.) Paschee tempore presbyter et
diaconus per parochias dare remis- sionem peccatorum, et ministerium implere consueverunt, etiam pre- sente episcopo: in fontem quoque ipsi descendunt, illi in officio sunt : sed illius nomini facti summa con- ceditur. Reliquis vero temporibus, ubi egritudinis necessitas consequi unumquemque compellit, specialiter presbytero licentia est per salutaris aque gratiam dare indulgentiam peccatorum, quoniam et munus ipsi licet, causa mundationis, offerre: diaconis vero nulla licentia invenitur esse concessa ; sed quod semel forte contigit usurpare, per necessitatem dicuntur excusati, &c.
8° [ Citing the Canones Synodi Ro- manorum ad Gallos episcopos, in the time of Pope Innocent I. about the year 402. (See Labbe, t. 2. pp. 1319, 1320.) Pasche tempore,&c, See the preceding note. Ep. |
the ancient Church. 93
bids deacons to baptize at any other time beside Easter : but at that time deacons, as well as presbyters, are allowed to grant remission of sins; that is, to baptize in the parish-churches: at other times, even in case of sickness, none but a presbyter 15 authorized to do it, because he only had power to offer the ob- lation. The reason of this difference in the Roman Church seems to have been this: that in a great and populous city, where there were many churches and many presbyters, and but seven deacons®°, there could never scarce any such case of necessity happen by the sickness of a catechumen, but that a presbyter might be had, rather than a deacon, to give him baptism; but at the solemn time of Easter such multitudes came together at once to be baptized, that the bishop and all his presbyters were hardly sufficient to perform the whole ministry, and therefore deacons, in that exigence, were taken in to be their assistants. Where we may observe two things: first, that they did this by the bishop’s license and authority ; and, secondly, that only in a time of great exigence, when a ease of necessity required it. Isidore of Seville, who wrote a con- siderable time after this, observes the like of deacons minister- ing baptism in the age he lived in. ‘ It is evident,’ says he*®, ‘that the ministry of baptism belongs only to priests; nor is it lawful for deacons themselves to perform the mystery without the bishop or a presbyter; unless in their absence, when the extreme necessity of sickness requires and compels them to do it: in which case it is often permitted to faithful laymen.’
And thus it continued for many ages after in the English Church, as appears from the Canons of the Council of York, held in the year 1195 and the Council of London®®, in the year
35 [Vid. Cornel. Ep. ad Fab. ap. Euseb. 1.6. c.43. See before, Anti- quities, b. 2. ch. 20. s.19. v. I. p.269. n. 35. Ep.]
36 De Offic. Eccles. 1. 2. c. 24. (p. 411 g.) Constat baptisma solis sa- cerdotibus esse traditum [al. trac- tandum ], ejusque mysterium nec ip- sis diaconis explere est licitum abs- que episcopo vel presbytero [al. e- piscopis vel presbyteris]: (See sect. 14. p.42. n.1I.) nisi his procul ab- sentibus, ultima languoris necessitas cogat. Quod et laicis fidelibus ple-
rumque permittitur, &c.
37 C. Eborac. c.5. ap. Rog. Hove- den. Hist. an. 1195. (CC. [c. 4.] t. Io. p. 1792 e.).... Diaconus non baptizet, nec corpus Christi cui- quam eroget, nisi gravi necessitate urgente.
38 C, Londin. δ. 3. (t.11. p.14 e.) Ut non liceat diaconibus baptizare, vel peenitentias dare, nisi duplici ne- cessitate, videlicet quia sacerdos non potest, vel absens, vel stulte non vult, et mors imminet puero vel egro.
94 The practice of
1200; and the Canons of St. Edmund, in the year 1236, men- tioned in Lyndwood’s Provincial?9. In all which, ‘deacons are forbidden to baptize, except upon urgent necessity, when the priest cannot, or is absent, or through folly and indiscretion will not, and a child or a sick person is in imminent danger of death.’ And so it was in some parts of the Greek Churches in former ages, as is clear from St. Chrysostom’s testimony al- leged before ‘°; and from Theodoret*!, who says, ‘ when a pres- byter was not at hand, if a pressing necessity required, even a deacon was compelled to give baptism to any one that wanted it.’ He might not then do it ordinarily, but only in cases of necessity, when a presbyter or priest could not be found to do it. And so it continued to be the rule of the Church of Constanti- nople for several ages after; as we learn from the Canons of Nicephorus*? the Patriarch, in the ninth century, where, in extraordinary cases of necessity, a simple monk and a deacon are equally qualified to baptize: which implies, that neither of them were qualified to do it in ordinary cases; for the simple monks were not in holy orders, but properly laymen, being op- posed to those whom the Greeks called ἱερομοναχοὶ, or monks in sacred orders, who pertained to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and function; as I have more fully showed in another place #3. Now then, since deacons, being joined with simple monks, could not be supposed to be the ordinary ministers of baptism, but only qualified to do it in extraordinary cases, it is most evident, that so many of the Ancients as excluded deacons from the ordinary ministration of baptism, did it upon this sup- position, that the ordinary ministration of baptism was the proper office of the priests or presbyters alone, who were a superior order above deacons; but yet that in cases of extreme necessity it was lawful for others, besides priests,
39 L. 3. tit. 24. de Bapt. (juxt. Ed. Oxon. 1644. 8vo.) Preecipimus quod diaconi baptizare non presu- tant, nisi in his casibus, cum sacer- dos non potest, vel absens est, vel stultevel indiscrete non vult, et mors imminet puero vel zgroto.
_ * Hom. 61. See ἢ. 30, preced- ing.
Ἢ In 2 Paralipom., c. 29. q.1. p. 389. (t. 1. part. 1. p.596.) Πρεσβυ-
τέρου ov παρόντος, Kal τῆς χρείας κατεπειγούσης, ἀναγκάζεται καὶ διά- κονος προσφέρειν τῷ δεομένῳ τὸ βάπ- τισμα.
12 C.13. ap. Leunclavii Jus Grec. Rom. (t.1. 1.3. p. 196.) Kara περί- στασιν καὶ μοναχὸς λιτὸς βαπτίζει" ὡσαύτως καὶ διάκονος κατὰ περίστα- σιν βαπτίζει.
43 Antiquities, b. 7. ch. 2. 8:7: V. 2. Ρ. 334.
5: 6. the ancient Church. 25
to minister baptism by the bishop’s authority; and upon this ground, in such cases, it was esteemed also the office of deacons.
So necessary, we see, was this distinction between ordinary and extraordinary cases, to adjust matters in the practice of the primitive Church, whilst, on the one hand, the honour and dignity of the priesthood was to be preserved, and yet deacons allowed, on the other hand, to minister baptism in some cases, though they were not priests in the strict sense, in the opinion of those who allowed them to do it.
6. The next question is concerning subdeacons, and the rest Whether of the inferior orders, who went by the name of the minor Gee aes clergy in the primitive Church. These were not properly of allowed to divine, but only of ecclesiastical institution, for helps to the su- ee perior clergy in their ministration, as has been fully proved against the Romanists in another Book+4. Now the question about these at present is, Whether in any cases they had power to baptize? That they had no power in ordinary cases, is evi- dent from what has been before discoursed of deacons: for if deacons themselves had not generally such a power allowed them, it would be absurd to think that the inferior orders below them should have it. The author of the Apostolical Constitutions+? excludes them all by name from this office, readers, singers, doorkeepers, subdeacons, threatening them with the punishment of Corah if they presumed to invade it.
But this is to be understood of the ordinary ministration of baptism, from which deacons also were excluded. The question then runs out further, Whether in any extraordinary cases they were allowed to give it? But there are few among the Ancients that have, in direct terms, decided this question ; so we must Judge only by parity of reason what they thought upon it.
The ancient author of the Book concerning the Bap- tism of Heretics, published by Rigaltius?® and Bishop Fell 17, among the works of St. Cyprian#s, seems to say, that the minor
44 Antiquities, b. 3. ch. 1. s. 1. v. 46 | Vid. Ed. Paris. 1684. fol. Ep. |
Tap. 3OX. 47 | Vid. Ed. Oxon. 1682. fol. p. ἘΠ [55 Ὁ εἰ [Seeybetore,sagamy 20. ΒΡ ἡ
23, preceding.—Conf. Ambros. in 48 Ad calcem Cypriani. (Ed. Ant-
Eph. 4. vv. 11, 12. (t. 2. append. p. werp.1700. p. 24.) Sia minore clero
241 f.) Neque clerici vel laici bapti- per necessitatem traditum fuerit, &c.
zant. See the next note.
Laymen prohibited to baptize in ordinary cases.
26 The practice of
clergy, in cases of necessity, might baptize. But learned men are not agreed what that author means by the minor clergy. Cotelerius49 and Valesius®° are of opinion, that it signifies all the inferior clergy below bishops and presbyters. And, if so, it were a plain proof indeed that the inferior clergy, in cases of necessity, might baptize. But Rigaltius and Bishop Fell, in their Notes*! upon the place, think the minor clergy only means presbyters and deacons, who were called so in respect of the bishop their superior, who commonly administered bap- tism himself; and when he could not do it in person, gave his commission to presbyters and deacons in his stead. I will not venture to decide so nice a controversy between these learned men: but I think the main question may easily be decided an- other way; for if the Ancients granted liberty to mere monks and laymen to baptize, in extraordinary cases, it will readily follow, that they would never scruple to grant the same power to the inferior clergy, who were, at least, one degree above monks and laymen. We cannot therefore better deter- mine this question, than by proceeding to that other, con- cerning the power granted to laymen in reference to the ad- ministration of baptism, which is the grand question in this whole affair.
7. Now here first of all it is certain, that laymen were always debarred from meddling with the administration of baptism in all ordinary cases. All the former allegations, which make it the proper office of bishops and presbyters, even to the ex- clusion of deacons, are certainly of much greater force against
49 In Constit. Apost. 1.3. c.9. (ν.1. p.282. n.72.) ... Notabilia sunt pre ceteris verba Scriptoris Anonymi de non denuo baptizandis, qui semel in nomine Christi tincti fuerint, in
a Domino supplendum reservetur.
50 In Euseb. 1. 6. c. 43. (p. 314- n. 4.) Idem scriptor clerum distin- guit in majorem et minorem. Et minorem quidem clerum appellat
observationibus Nicolai Rigaltii ad S. Cyprianum, p. 134: Et ideo cum salus nostra in baptismate Spiritus, quod plerumque cum baptismate aque conjunctum est, sit constituta ; siqui- dem per nos baptisma tradetur, in- tegre et solemniter et per omnia, que scripta sunt, assignetur, atque sine ulla ullius rei separatione tradatur : aut sia minore clero per necessita- tem traditum fuerit, eventum exspec- temus, ut aut suppleatur a nobis, aut
diaconos et reliquos inferiores ordi- nes: ut cum dicit, p.129, Aut si, δ. Et multo clarius, p. 134, Et ideo cum salus nostra, §c. (See the pre- ceding note.) Ubi vides presbyteros ab hominibus minoris cleri aperte distingui. Ait enim minoris cleri homines, ingruente tantum necessi- tate, baptismum conferre: quod pres- byteris nequaquam convenit.
51 [See the places in the respective editions as cited just before. Ep. |
7, ὃ. the ancient Church.
Q7
the usurpations of laymen. Besides, they are sometimes pro- hibited in particular by name: as in the Apostolical Constitu- tions*? three times at least: ‘ We do not permit laymen to per- form any sacerdotal office, as the sacrifice of the eucharist, or baptism, or imposition of hands, or the lesser or the greater benediction: for no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God. This dignity is given only by the laying on of the bishop’s hands; but he that takes it to himself without commission shall sustain the punishment of Uzzias.’ The author under the name of St. Ambrose *? says therefore, ‘that from the time of the Apostles, the inferior clergy and laymen were prohibited to baptize. Which at least must be understood of a prohibition to usurp the office, and do it in or- dinary cases.
8. But still the grand question remains, Whether they were Yet allowed ever allowed to do it in extraordinary cases of extreme neces- pads sity, when no public minister could be procured to do it? and in cases ex- this must be resolved in the affirmative as to the general prac- edt tice of the Church, though there are some exceptions of par- ticular Churches to the contrary.
Tertullian, I think, is the first writer that speaks directly to this point, and he delivers himself thus upon the matter,
[in his Treatise of Baptism] °+: ‘ The chief priest, who is the
52 L. 3. 6.10. (Cotel. v1. Ρ- 284.)
est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. "ANN οὔτε λαϊκοῖς ἐ ἐπιτρέπομεν ποιεῖν
Quod enim ex «quo accipitur, ex
τί τῶν ἱερατικῶν ἔργων" οἷον θυσίαν,
ἢ βάπτισμα, ἢ χειροθεσίαν, ἢ εὐλο- sat μικρὰν, Ν μεγάλην. Οὐκ ἑαυτῷ γάρ τις λάμβανει τὴν τιμὴν, ἀλλὰ ὁ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ ἐπισκόπου δίδοται ἡ τοιαύτη ἀξία" ὁ δὲ μὴ ἐγ- χειρισθεὶς ταύτην, ἀλλ᾽ ἁρπάσας av- THY ἑαυτῷ, τὴν τιμωρίαν τοῦ ᾿Οζία ὑποστήσεται.---Ἐ(οηξ. 1. 2. c. 27. et 185 ¢. 46:
53 In Eph. 4. vv. 11, 12. p. 948. (t. 2. append. p. 241 f.) Hine ergo est, unde nunc neque diaconi in po- pulo predicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant.
54 De Bapt. c. 17. (p. 231 a.) Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehine presbyteri et diaconi; non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ec- clesie honorem, quo salvo salva pax
equo dari potest; nisi episcopi jam aut presbyteri aut diaconi vocantur, dicentes, Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo. Proinde et bap- tismus eque Dei census, ab omnibus exercerl potest: sed quanto magis laicis disciplina verecundie et mo- destize incumbit, cum ea majoribus competat, ne sibi assumant dica- tum episcopis officium episcopatus ὃ imulatio schismatum mater est. Omnia licere, dixit sanctissimus A- postolus, sed non omnia expedire. Sufficiat scilicet, in necessitatibus ut utaris ; sicubi aut loci, aut temporis, aut persone conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipi- tur, cum urget circumstantia peri- clitantis. Quoniam reus erit perditi hominis, si supersederit prestare quod libere potuit.
The testi- mony of the Council of Eliberis.
28 The practice of
bishop, has power to give baptism, and after him presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the honour of the Church, in the preservation of which peace is preserved. In another respect laymen have also a right to give it; for what is received in common may be given in com- mon. Baptism is God’s peculiar, and may be conferred by all. But laymen are in a much greater degree obliged by the rules of modesty in the use of their power, since they who are superior to them are obliged not to assume to themselves the office which belongs to the bishop only. Emulation is the mother of strife. “All things are lawful,” says the holy Apostle, “but all things are not expedient.” Therefore it ought to suffice them to use this power in necessities, when the condition of the place, or time, or person, requires it: for then their charitable assistance is accepted, when the circumstance of one in danger presses them to it. And in this case he would be guilty of a man’s destruction that omitted to do what he lawfully might.’ Mr. Dodwell** and some others except against this passage of Tertullian, as expressing only his own private opinion, and not the common practice of the Church. But no learned man before ever thought so, as Mr. Dodwell himself con- fesses, and acknowledges his own opinion to be a paradox. And there is this prejudice against it from the coherence of Tertul- han’s discourse: that in the former part of it he is certainly speaking of the practice of the Church, when he says, ‘ pres- byters and deacons act by the bishop’s authority when they administer baptism in ordinary cases.’ It would be strange then if he should invert his discourse immediately in the next words and not mean the practice of the Church, when he comes to speak of laymen. But however this be, Tertullian’s sense was in the next age confirmed by some public acts of the Church.
9. About an hundred years after Tertullian, the Spanish bishops assembled in the Council of Eliberis made a public decree 6 about this matter : they there appointed, ‘That when
Ὁ De Jure Laicorum Sacerdotali, navigantes, aut si ecclesia in proximo c.2.n.2.(p.51.) Ego Tertullianum non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lava- ita intelligo, &e.—Ibid. (p.52.) Sie crum suum integrum habet, nec sit propria erit Tertulliani heec senten- bigamus, baptizare in necessitate in- tia, non ecclesiz, &c. firmitatis positum catechumenum.
6 C, 28. (t. 1. p.974 6.) Peregre
the ancient Church. 29
men were upon a voyage at sea, or in any place where no church was near at hand, if a catechumen happened to be extremely sick, and at the point of death, that then any Chris- tian, who had his own baptism entire and was no bigamist, might baptize him.’ This authority was not given to all Christians in all cases, but with several limitations and restric- tions. 1. It must be a case of absolute necessity, when bap- tism could not otherwise be had. 2. The person baptizing must have his own baptism entire: which Albaspiny®” under- stands of not lapsing after baptism. Vossius®’, with better reason, supposes it to be opposed to clinic baptism, which was a less solemn and imperfect baptism, which made a man in- capable of holy orders ever after, as I have shown elsewhere 59 from the ancient laws of the Church. And it was very often attended with another defect, which was the want of confirma- tion and the gift of the Holy Ghost by imposition of the hands of the bishop, which was not ordinarily sought for by clinics, who were baptized in haste upon a deathbed. For this reason these Spanish bishops denied such the privilege of baptizing in any case, whilst they allowed it to others. 3. They require also that the man must be no bigamist, because that also un- qualified a person for sacred orders. And it was their intent, when a priest could not be had to administer baptism, only to authorize such laymen to do it as had those proper qualifica- tions that were requisite to obtain orders, and so bring them as near priests as they could.
This is the most probable account 1 can give at present of these limitations; however, in the main, the matter is indis- putable that they plainly intended in some extraordinary cases to give laymen a license and authority to administer baptism, which could not then be said to be unauthorized in Spain, since it had the best authority the Church could give it, which
57 Not. in l.c. (ibid. 999 d.) Pu- tarim ista verba id indicare, qui post lavacrum non peccarit, neque pceni- tentiam ullam subierit: quod, pec- cato post baptismum commisso, om- nium, ut ita loquar, gratiarum et be- neficiorum, que acceperat, jacturam faceret: ideoque baptismum ejus, qui deliquisset, non integrum aut incorruptum videri amplius ; quod ex illo divine gratic, qua instructus
erat, quasi gradu excidisset, &c.
36) De sBapt: disput. (i ἢ 4° (Oper. 6. p. 295.)... Hi vero exci- piant tum illos, qui non perceperint integrum baptismum; ubi intelligi censeo, in morbo aspersos, de quibus etiam dubitatum fuit, utrum fieri possint episcopi; tum illos, qui bi- gami forent, &c.
59 Antiquities, b. 4. ch. 3. 5.11. V. 2. p. 49.
Of the Church of Alexandria.
30 The practice of
is the determination and authority of a Council. It will not here be material for any one to object that this was but the determination of a private national Council; for we are not now inquiring what obligation any other Church is under to follow this rule, but only what was matter of fact, and the practice of the ancient Church. The Church of Rome varied from the rule of this Council many ages ago; for they allowed bigamists to baptize, as Auxilius® informs us, though that was forbidden by the determination of this Spanish Council. But I proceed.
10. Whilst this matter was thus determined in the West, there happened another famous transaction in the East, which drew on a like determination in the Church of Alexandria, if we may give credit to any of the ancient historians, Socrates, Sozomen, and Ruffin, who all relate it. Ruffin says, he had the story from the mouth of those who lived and conversed with Athanasius; and the account of it, according to his rela- tion®, is this: ‘ Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, on a certain day, being the festival of Peter the Martyr, after the solemn service of the Church was over, was entertaining himself with a prospect toward the sea, whilst he expected his clergy to come and dine with him. In his prospect, at some distance
60 De Ordinatione Formosi, ad caleem Morini de Ordinationibus, ο. το. (Antwerp. 1695. p. 299.) Bap- tizati bigami, si necessitas incumbit, baptizare possunt; sacrum vero or- dinem canonice accipere nequeunt.
Gi Hist. Eecles.: 1. τ (al: mo. {ie 14. (p. 230 a. 14.) Tempore, quo apud Alexandriam Petri martyris diem Alexander episcopus agebat, cum post expleta solemnia conven- turos ad convivium suum clericos exspectaret in loco mari vicino; vi- det eminus puerorum supra oram maris ludum imitantium, ut fieri solet, episcopum, atque ea que in ecclesia geri mos est. Sed cum in- tentius diutine pueros inspectaret, videt ab his geri quaedam etiam se- cretiora et mystica. Perturbatus illico vocari ad se clericos jubet, at- que eis, quid eminus ipse videret, ostendit. Tum abire eos et compre- hensos ad se perducere omnes pueros imperat. Cumque adessent, quis
eis ludus, et quid egissent, vel quo- modo, percunctatur. Illi, ut talis habet tas, pavidi, negare primo, deinde rem gestam per ordinem pan- dunt, et baptizatos a se esse quosdam catechumenos confitentur per Atha- nasium, qui ludi illius puerilis epi- scopus fuerat simulatus. Tum ille diligenter inquirens ab his, qui bap- tizati dicebantur, quid interrogati fu- erint, quidve responderint, simul et ab eo qui interrogaverat, ubi videt secundum religionis nostre ritum cuncta constare, collocutus cum con- cilio clericorum statuisse traditur, illis, quibus integris interrogationi- bus et responsionibus aqua fuerat infusa, iterari baptismum non de- bere, sed adimpleri ea que a sacer- dotibus mos est. Athanasium vero atque eos, quos ludus ille vel pres- byteros habere visus fuerat, vel ministros, convocatis parentibus, sub Dei obtestatione tradit ecclesiz suze nutriendos.
P10.
the ancient Church. 31
upon the sea-shore, he beheld a number of youths at play, acting the part of a bishop, and doing all things which were used to be done in the church; and, viewing them intently for some time, he at last saw them come to the secret and mystical rites of religion. Upon which being somewhat perplexed, he sent immediately for his clergy, and showed them what he himself had seen; ordering them withal to go and bring the boys before him. Who being asked, what play they were at? and what they had done? and after what manner? they at first denied all the whole matter, as children used to do through fear; but afterward they told every thing in order as it was done, confessing that they had baptized certain catechumens by the hands of Athanasius, who acted the part of the bishop in the play. Then examining further of those who were said to be baptized, what questions they were asked? and what answers they made? and being likewise informed by him who had been the chief actor, when he found that all things had been done according to the rites of our religion, after he had conferred with a council of his clergy, he is said to have deter- mined that the baptism of those on whom water had been poured, with the proper interrogatories and responses, ought not to be repeated, but only have those things added which the priests were used to perform.’ Socrates® and Sozomen 68 have the same story, and the author of the Life of Athanasius in Photius, with Johannes Moschus®, and many others. They who find themselves pressed with this relation take several ways to evade the force of it. Michael Glycas®, a Greek historian, plainly inverts the bishop’s determination, and says, he ordered them to be rebaptized. Which is so manifest a prevarication and affront to the faith of all the old historians, that it deserves no other answer but to give it its true name of a bold falsification and imposture. Others incline to eall in question the whole story, and tell us that learned men now
ΣΝ ΠΤ Ὁ Ly." ( Ve 2: D> 442 22) 66 [Annal. part.3. Ed. Paris. p. Μεταταῦτα δὲ, κ.τ.λ. 244. (ap. Byzant. Hist. Scriptor. 63 L. 2. c.17. (ibid. p. 67. 3.) Venet. 1729. t.11. p. 189 a.) ‘O γοῦν AnpoteAn, K.T.A. τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων πόλως ἐπίσκοπος 64 Biblioth. cod. 258. (p. 1429. ᾿Αλέξανδρος παρ᾽ αἰγιαλὸν παρερχό- 10.) ‘O τῆς ἑορτῆς καιρὸς, κ. τ.Ὰ. μενος, καὶ ταῦτα ἰδὼν καὶ θαυμάσας, δῦ Prat. Spirit. ὁ. 197. (ap. t.2. ἐπιχρίει αὐτοὺς, καὶ τελειοῖ διὰ τοῦ Biblioth. Patr. Gr. Lat. sive Auctar. βαπτίσματος. Ep.] Ducean. Paris. 1624. fol.)
32 The practice of
generally also incline to reject it as a fiction. I know Span- heim®7? and some few others do so; but the generality of learned men are not of that opinion. Archbishop Whitgift, Abbot, Cotelerius, Pagi, and many others that might be named, men of character in their age, have appeared in its behalf, and defended it as a genuine piece of history. And it 15 some con- firmation that Ruffin says®, ‘he had it from the mouth of those who conversed with Athanasius.’ And Nicephorus Cal- listus, who also relates the story ©, gives a parallel instance of another fact much like this, which happened in his own time at Constantinople. Which shows it not to be altogether so sin- gular and incredible a case as some are apt to imagine.
But admit it were a fabulous report, yet we must charitably believe of the ancient historians, both Greek and Latin, that they believed themselves, at least, what they reported; that such a fact had happened at Alexandria; and if it had been contrary to the general sense and practice of the Church in their times, they would hardly have related it so plausibly, without passing some censure and reflection on it; as some modern Greeks have done, who like not the thing and there- fore censure it, not as a fabulous story, but an irregular action: which the ancient historians having not done, it may reasonably be concluded that, at least, they thought the determination of Alexander and his council to be agreeable to the general sense and practice of the Church.
But there is another exception made to this case by Mat- thew Blastares, a modern Greek canonist, who [ flourished about the year 1330]: he says7°, ‘it was only a single example, and done against canon.’ Which is an answer that has more modesty, and in one part of it seems to carry more weight in it than either of the former. For I believe
67 [See the Summa Historie Ec- clesiastice ad Sec. τό. Lugdun. Batav. 1689. 8vo. Ep.]
68 [Ubi supra, (a. 14.) ... Sicuti ab his, qui cum ipso [Athanasio] vitam duxerant, accepimus. Ep. ]
69 Hist. Eccles. 1.3. ¢. 37. (t. 1. p- 277 Ὁ. 6.) Χριστιανῶν παισὶν Ἕ- βραίων παῖς συνόμιλος ἦν, κ. τ.λ.
70. Syntagma Canonum, ap. Beve- reg. Pandect. t. 2. part. 2. (p. 43 b.) Ὥσπερ οἱ τῶν ᾿Αγαρηνῶν βαπτιζόμενοι
΄ n > παῖδες τῷ μὴ δυσωδίας ἀπόζειν Χρισ- τιανοὶ οὐ λογίζονται, οὕτως οὐδὲ οἱ
’ col μύρῳ χριόμενοι πρὸς τῶν ἀνιέρων" ὅτι μὴ δέδοται τοῖς τοιούτοις ἁγιασ-
~ a ’ > ‘ pod τινος ὅλως μεταδιδόναι. Ei δὲ τις ἀνθυποφέρει τὸ παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ᾿Αθανασίου ἔτι παιδὸς ὄντος γεγονὸς, > , A , A ἐνθυμηθήτω τὸν θεσπίζοντα πολιτικὸν νόμον, ὅτι τὸ παρὰ κανόνας οὐχ ἕλκε- ται εἰς ὑπόδειγμα" καὶ οὐ νόμος ἐκκλη- σίας τὸ σπάνιον.
[Ὁ ΤΊΣ the ancient Church. 33
there is no canon that does antecedently authorize one youth without necessity to baptize another. But then he a little mistakes the question, which is not about the fact of Athana- sius, but the determination of Alexander upon it: for as to the fact of Athanasius, any one will readily own that there was neither canon nor precedent, perhaps, to warrant the doing of it; and it would be strange if any such canon should be made in the Church. But for the determination of Alexander,—that a baptism given in due form, though irregularly by the hand of a layman, may be so valid as not to need repeating,—I be- lieve it will not be so easy a matter as Blastares imagined to produce an ancient canon directly to confront it, by declaring that such irregular baptisms are utterly null and void, though they have the postnate allowance of the Church where they are done: which was the peculiar circumstance of the present ease. For there seem to be two ways of allowmg any act, either by an antecedent authority given to a man to perform it, or by a subsequent confirmation of the thing when done irregularly and without authority, which is ex post facto an allowance of it. And thus, it is plain, the baptisms given by Athanasius were allowed and confirmed by Alexander in the Church.
11. In the latter end of the fourth century lived St. Jerom of st. and St. Austin, who have both spoken very plainly of the prac- pee: 81. tice of the Church, as to what concerns the allowance of lay- baptism in some certain cases.
St. Jerom, as has been observed before7!, derives the power of presbyters and deacons to baptize from the original power ot the bishop: yet in cases of necessity, he says72, it was also allowed frequently to laymen: for in such cases he that had received baptism might give it to others. This testimony of St. Jerom is so full and plain that I have often wondered how so learned and acute a man as Dr. Forbes’, and the ingenious
71 See the next note. 73 Instruct. Hist. Theolog. 1. ro.
72 Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. [al. 9.7 (t. 1. p. 182 a.) Inde venit ut sine chrismate et episcopi jussione neque Ul ad neque diaconus jus ha-
eant baptizandi. Quod frequenter, 81 tamen necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim accipit quis, ita et dare potest.
BINGHAM, VOL. IX.
c.14. n. 5. (p.527-) Usque adeo au- tem apud orthodoxos etiam post Nicenum Concilium major ille pro- positio [Quos baptizavit laicus, ii sunt denuo baptizandi, ἢ. 4.1 infir- mitatem obtinuit, ut ea, tanquam indubitato principio, errorem Luci- feri confutarint.
D
Of St. Austin, [anno398].
94 The practice of
Mr. Reeves74, could run into such a mistake as to say, ‘ that after the Council of Nice this proposition, that those whom a laic baptizeth are to be rebaptized, was looked upon to be so true, that it was the undoubted principle whereby the Orthodox confuted the Luciferians.’. Who that reads these words in these learned writers, and looks no further, would not at first sight be tempted to think that the Council of Nice had somewhere made an order that persons baptized by laymen should be re- baptized ; and that the Catholics generally made use of this as an undoubted principle to confute the Luciferians? And yet in fact there was no such thing. The Council of Nice never made any decree about the rebaptization of persons bap- tized by laymen, but only by heretical priests. Nor did the Catholics use that proposition as an undoubted principle against the Luciferians. St. Jerom wrote against the Luciferians ; but he is so far from asserting universally that those whom a laic baptizeth are to be rebaptized, that he expressly maintains the contrary, that, if necessity required, laymen had lberty granted them to baptize.
Mr. Reeves has once done me the honour to Jet my opinion and judgment be of some esteem with him7°, and I believe, when he considers this matter again, he will see reason to alter his opinion in this particular, being as ingenuous as he is learned; and the rather, because the world is apt to be led into error by persons of note and authority, and to take things upon trust when delivered to them by men of a supe- rior character. If there had not been this fear, I could not have prevailed with myself to have noted this mistake in a person for whose useful labours I have so great a veneration.
12. St. Austin was contemporary with St. Jerom, and of the same opinion with him in this matter. In his Epistle to For- tunatus, which is preserved in Gratian7®, he says, ‘ In time of
74 Note on Vincentius Lirinensis, (p. 263 of the Notes at the end of v.2 of the Apologies.) Nay after the Council of Nice, &c.
75 (Mr. Reeves, the author of the English versions of the Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix, with Prefatory Dis- sertations, &c., Lond. 1709. 8vo.,
may probably have received some advice or assistance from my Ances- tor: but I have no means of dis- covering the precise circumstance to which he alludes. Ep. |
76 De Consecrat. distinct. 4. 6.21. (t. 1. p. 1983. 45.) In necessitate, cum episcopi aut presbyteri aut qui- libet ministrorum non inveniuntur,
the ancient Church. 35
necessity, when a bishop, or a presbyter, or other minister could not be found, and a man desired baptism who was in danger of death, in that case laymen were used to give him that sacrament which they had received, rather than he should end his life without it. And this custom he founds upon authority descended by bishops from the Apostles: for in the same Epistle’? he says, ‘ Baptism is holy in itself, if it be given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and there is in this sacrament the authority of the commission which our Saviour gave to the Apostles, and by them to bishops and other priests, and even to laymen, descending from the same stock and original.’ He there also relates a story of a certain catechumen, who being at sea and in danger of being cast away in a storm, was baptized by a penitent, because there was no other Christian in the ship with them: and he concludes upon it7%, ‘that though such a fact had not happened, yet it was a case that every one must own might happen: and then no one could say that in such a case a man who desired bap- tism in imminent danger of death was to be deserted and left unbaptized.’
But if any one thinks these passages doubtful, because they are only related by Gratian, he may read the same in St. Austin’s undoubted works. In his Books against Parmenian the Donatist79 he uses this argument to prove that the baptism of heretics ought not to be repeated: ‘ Because, though it be but a layman that gives baptism to a man in extreme necessity, when he is ready to perish, he cannot think any one can piously
say that it ought to be repeated. If it be done without neces-
et urget periculum ejus qui petit, ne sine isto sacramento hance vitam fi- Niat, etiam laicos solere dare sacra- mentum, quod acceperunt, solemus audire.
77 hid. c. 36. (p. 1990. 73.) Sanc- tum est baptisma per seipsum, quod datum est in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti: ita ut in eodem sacramento sit etiam auctoritas tra- ditionis per Dominum nostrum ad Apostolos, per illos autem ad episco- pos, et alios sacerdotes, vel etiam laicos Christianos ab eadem origine et stirpe venientes.
78 Ibid. c. 36. (p. 1991. 54.) Non
enim potest quisquam dicere relin- quendum esse illum, qui morte im- minente baptizari desiderat. Quem baptizatum a peenitente quisquis non credat contigisse, oportet ut credat posse contingere.
79 Cont. Ep. Parmenian. 1. 2. c. 13. (t.9. p. 29 f.) Et si laicus aliquis pereunti dederit, necessitate compul- sus, quod, cum ipse acciperet, dan- dum esse addidicit, nescio an pie quisquam dixerit esse repetendum. Nulla enim necessitate si fiat, alieni muneris usurpatio est: siautem ne- cessitas urgeat, aut nullum, aut ve- niale delictum est.
D2
36 The practice of
sity, it is indeed an usurpation of another man’s office ; but if he be compelled by necessity, it is either no fault at all, or but a very light one.’
OfGelasius, 13. The next writer after St. Austin who has said any thing
anne 49?- of this matter is Gelasius, bishop of Rome, who, in his Epistle to the bishops of Lucania, Brutia, and Sicily 8°, restrains the office of baptizing in ordinary cases to bishops and presbyters only; excluding deacons from it, except in cases of extreme necessity, when the superior ministers were absent; in which cases it was often allowed to lay Christians to perform it. So that laymen had as much authority to perform it in the absence of deacons, as deacons had to do it in the absence of the pres- byters and bishop.
14. Isidore, bishop of Seville, lived about an hundred years oe of after Gelasius, and he delivers himself to the same effect ®!: anno s9s. ‘That it is unlawful either for private men or the inferior
clergy to baptize; for the office belongs only to priests. We read in the Gospel that it was given by commission to no other but the Apostles, Jesus, after his resurrection, saying unto them, “ As my Father hath sent me, so send I you. And when he had said this he breathed on them, saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained.” And in another place, “ Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Whence it is manifest that the ministry of baptism was committed only to priests; nor is it lawful for deacons themselves to perform the mystery without a bishop or a pres- byter: except in their absence the extreme necessity of sick- ness compel them to do it; in which case also lay Christians
Of Isidore,
tinueritis, retenta erunt. Et in alie
80 Ep.g. ad Episc. Lucan. c. 9. See before, s.5, ἢ. 33, preceding.
81 De Offic. Eccles. 1.2. c. 24. (Ρ. 4τι g.) Quod nec privatis, nec clericis sine gradu, baptizare liceat, nisi tantum sacerdotibus: in Evan- gelio legimus, Apostolis tantum per- missum, Jesu post resurrectionem dicente; Sicut misit me Pater, et ego mitto vos. Et hoc cum dixisset, in- sufflavit et ait eis, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum ; quorum remiseritis pec- cata, remittentur eis ; et quorum re-
loco, Ite, docete omnes gentes, bapti- zantes eos in nomine Patris et Filit et Spiritus Sancti. Unde constat baptisma solis sacerdotibus esse tra- ditum ; ejusque mysterium nec ipsis diaconibus explere est licitum absque episcopis vel presbyteris: nisi, illis absentibus, ultima languoris cogat necessitas: quod et laicis fidelibus plerumque permittitur; ne quisquam sine remedio salutari de szeculo evo- cetur.
5 ΤΠ 15. the ancient Church. Si
are often permitted to do it; lest any one should be called out of the world without the remedy or means of salvation.’
Thus we have seen for six hundred years the general sense and practice of the ancient Church, grounded, as they suppose, upon the commission given to the Apostles; whereby bishops. as the Apostles’ successors, are qualified first to give baptism themselves, and then to grant a commission to others to bap- tize; and that either to presbyters and deacons, or to presby- ters alone in ordinary cases; and in cases extraordinary and of extreme necessity, to deacons and laymen.
15. To this general consent of antiquity Dr. Forbes®? and The objec-
tion from
some others ἘΠῚ follow him have opposed the testimony of St. Chryso- Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. Cyprian ; whose evidence, if it ee a were entirely on the objector’s side, would not weigh very prian, an- much, because it would be only their private sense and not the S¥red- practice of the Church, which is the subject of the present in- quiry. But I have showed before, in the fifth section, that St. Chrysostom’s meaning is utterly mistaken by Dr. Forbes. For when Chrysostom confines the office of baptism to the hands of a priest, he only means in ordinary cases ; otherwise deacons, who are no priests, would be absolutely excluded from it in all cases whatsoever, as well as laymen: and yet Chrysostom allows deacons to baptize in cases of necessity ; which makes it evident that his discourse only relates to the ministration of baptism in ordinary cases. I do not here repeat St. Chryso- stom’s words, because the reader may find them alleged above 5", in speaking of the power of deacons.
As to St. Basil, it will be readily owned that he had some- what of a singular opinion in this matter: for he was for re- baptizing all persons that were only baptized by laymen, as he was also for rebaptizing all that were baptized by heretical and schismatical priests; for he brings in Cyprian, and Firmilian, his predecessor in the see of Caesarea, arguing after this man- ner®4+; ‘Heretics and schismatics are broken off from the Church and become laymen, and therefore have no power to
82 Instruct. Hist. Theolog. 1. ro. 83 See 5.5» n. 28, preceding. c. 14. n.8. (p. 527.) Chrysostomus, 84 pe Canonic. 1. 6.1. (ap. Labb. non obstante necessitate, ministe- CC. t. 2. p. 1717 8.) Oi δὲ ἀπορρα- rium baptismi solis vindicat sacer- γέντες, λαϊκοὶ γενόμενοι, οὔτε τοῦ βαπ- dotibus..... Manifesta, inquit, de- τίζειν, οὔτε τοῦ χειροτονεῖν εἶχον ἐξου. - mentia est, &c. olay, οὐκέτι δυνάμενοι χάριν Πνεύμα-
38 The practice of
baptize, or to ordain, being no longer able to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to others which they have lost themselves. Therefore such as are baptized by them, when they return to the Church, are to be rebaptized with the true baptism of the Church, as being only baptized by laymen.’
If it were not for St. Basil’s testimony, I should doubt whether Cyprian had ever made use of such an argument as this. 1. Because no such argument that I know of is to be found in his works. 2. Because Tertullian, whom Cyprian commonly called his master, made a great distinction between the baptism of heretics and the baptism of Catholic laymen, at least in cases of necessity, as we have seen before. For he was against rebaptizing those that were so baptized by laymen, though he was as much for rebaptizing those that were bap- tized by heretics*> as Cyprian himself. 3. Cyprian always paid a far greater deference to Catholic laymen than he did to heretical priests; as esteeming the one members of the Church, and the other quite cut off from it: he admitted the one into his councils, and did nothing without their consent in many ecclesiastical causes: but the other he abandoned and abhorred, as men that had abandoned the faith, and renounced their Christianity by their heretical doctrine. These are probable arguments to incline a man to think that Cyprian was of the same mind with his master Tertullian as to the point of lay- baptism, had not St. Basil’s authority been against them.
But however this matter was, St. Basil was not so stiff to this opinion, and the particular practice of his own Church, as to unchristian those that were baptized by schismaties, or break the communion of the Church upon it: for he gives his advice in the words immediately following, ‘that men should quietly comply with the rules and practice of their own Church where they lived.” ‘But forasmuch,’ says he®®, ‘as some of the Asiatic Churches think otherwise, that the baptism of such, by
« , ΕΣ ΄ ce > ‘ Tos Aytou ετεροις παρέχειν, ἧς AUTOL ε
ἢ s. 20. n. 6, following. εκπεπτώκασι. Διὸ ὡς παρὰ λαϊκῶν
86 Ep. Canonic. 1. 6. 1. (ap. Labb.
βαπτιζομένους τοὺς map αὐτῶν ἐκέ- λευσαν ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τῷ ἀληθινῷ βαπτίσματι, τῷ τῆς ἐκκλη- σίας, ἀνακαθαίρεσθαι.
85. De Bapt. ς. 15. (Ρ. 220 a.) Sed circa hereticos, ὅζο. See afterwards,
CC. t.2. Ρ. 1717 6.) ᾿Επειδὰν [al. » A ‘ or + ΄ ~ 4A ἐπειδὴ) δὲ ὅλως ἔδοξέ τισι τῶν κατὰ τὴν ᾿Ασίαν, οἰκονομίας ἕνεκα τῶν πολ- λῶν, δεχθῆναι αὐτῶν τὸ βάπτισμα. ἔστω δεκτόν.
puis, 16. the ancient Church. 39
way of dispensation for the sake of great multitudes, ought to be received, let it be received.’ Whence I think it may be in- ferred, that though St. Basil, in his own opinion, did not ap- prove of the baptism either of schismatics or laymen, yet he thought it might stand good if the Church thought fit to receive and confirm it: and this he seems to assert upon the common principle of the Ancients, that a latitude of power was left with the rulers and governors of the Church to ratify such baptisms, - when they found it necessary for the benefit and edification of the Church. But, if otherwise, St. Basil’s opinion or St. Cy- prian’s cannot prejudice the contrary doctrine, or be thrown into the balance against the common consent and practice of the Church. And yet it may be observed, that St. Basil speaks perhaps not of lay-baptism in cases of necessity, but of usurping the office, as heretics did in ordinary cases: which makes a wide difference in the case, and belongs to a more difficult question, that is, Whether unauthorized baptisms were ever ratified and made good by the subsequent confirmation and reception of the Church? Which is the next point that comes now in order to be considered.
16. This question, as I said, has much more difficulty than Whether the former: because a great many of the authors who have sean a justified the lawfulness a lay-baptism i in cases of necessity, are thorized wholly silent upon this point: for neither Tertullian, nor the eee ne Council of Eliberis, nor St: Jerom, nor Gelasius, nor Isidore, allowed to have said any thing upon it; they only considered the case of am necessity and no other. And the author of the Apostolical Constitutions seems to pronounce severely of usurped and un- authorized actions, as utterly null and void. He has a whole chapter with this title, That it is an horrible thing for a man to thrust himself into the priest's dignity or office, as the Corah- ites, and Saul, and Uzzias did, and he thus expresses himself upon 1057: ‘ As it was not lawful for a stranger, that was not of the tribe of Levi, to offer any thing, or approach the altar
841 28 Ὁ 27. (ΘΟ ΘΙ ν τὸ Pp. 240. ) Ὅτι φρικῶδες ἄνθρωπον σαυτὸν ἐπιρ- ρίπτειν ἀξιώματί τινι ἱερατικῷ" ὡς οἱ Κορεῖται, ὡς Σαοὺλ, ὡς ᾽Οζίας. ‘Os οὖν οὐκὴν ἐξὸν ἀλλογενῆ, μὴ ὄντα Aev- irny, προσενέγκαί, τι, ἢ προσελθεῖν εἰς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, ἄνευ τοῦ ἱερέως, οὕτω
καὶ ὑμεῖς ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν ποιεῖτε. Εἰ δέ τις ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ποιεῖ τι, εἰς μάτην ποιεῖ αὐτό; οὐ γὰρ αὐτῷ εἰς ἔργον λογισθήσεται. “Qs γὰρ ὁ Σαοὺλ ἄνευ τοῦ Σαμουὴλ προσ- eveykas, ἤκουσεν ὅτι Μεματαίωταί σοι" οὕτω καὶ πᾶς λαϊκὸς ἄνευ τοῦ ἱερέως
40 The practice of
without a priest ; so do ye nothing without the bishop. For if any man does any thing without the bishop, he does it in vain:
it shall be not reputed to him as any service. As Saul, when he had offered sacrifice without Samuel, was told that he had done vainly; so whatever layman does any thing without a priest he labours in vain. And as King Uzzias, when he had invaded the priest’s office, was smitten with leprosy for his transgression, so every layman shall bear his punishment that contemns God, and insults his priests, and takes honour to himself, not imitating Christ, who glorified not himself, but stayed till his Father said, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’ Now this discourse, when applied to baptism, will amount to this,—that every one who usurps the office of baptizing, which belongs not to him, is a great trans- gressor in the sight of God; and all his acts are vain, as to what concerns himself; for they shall never be accounted to him as acceptable service, worthy of a reward, but rather inevitably make him hable to wrath and punishment.
But still the question remains, Whether such acts, though yain in respect of the administrator, be utterly vain and void in respect of the receiver also? And as this author has not precisely determined this point, so I will not pretend to deter- mine it from him. On the other hand, the determination that was given by Alexander and the Church of Alexandria is plain, ‘that such baptisms, though unauthorized and very irregular in the administrator, are not wholly null and void as to the effect in the party baptized.’ Athanasius, it is certain, could have no law of the Church to authorize him to baptize in that case and manner in which he performed 1085: and yet Alexander would not suffer those to be rebaptized, who had been so baptized by him.
St. Austin was of the same judgment: he freely owns, that when baptism is performed by a layman, without necessity, it
> ΄ ἐπιτελῶν Tl, μάταια πονεῖ" καὶ ὡς
age γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερεὺς [leg. ἀρχι- ’O¢ias ὁ βασιλεὺς οὐκ dv ἱερεὺς τὰ i ‘PX " eae
ερέα], ἀλλὰ περιέμεινεν ἀκοῦσαι τοῦ
τῶν ἱερέων ἐπιτελῶν ἐλεπρώθη διὰ παρανομίαν, οὕτω καὶ πᾶς λαϊκὸς οὐκ ἀτιμώρητος ἔσται, καταφρονήσας Θεοῦ, καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ καταμανεὶς͵ ἱερέων, καὶ τὴν τιμὴν ἁρπάσας ἑαυτῷ, μὴ μιμη- σάμενος Χριστὸν, ὃς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξ-
Πατρὸς," Ὥμοσε Κύριος, καὶ οὐ μετα- μεληθήσεται, Σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ.
88 See before, 8. 10. n. 61, pre- ceding.
the ancient Church. 41
is an usurpation of another man’s office: but yet he thinks it is not wholly null and void as to the receiver, but a true baptism, which ought not to be repeated: his words are these 89: ‘Though it be usurped without necessity, and given by any man to another. that which is given cannot be said not to be given, though it may be truly said to be unlawfully given. Therefore the unlawful usurpation is to be corrected by a sincere and affectionate repentance. And if it be not corrected, that which is given will remain to the punish- ment of the usurper, as well of him who gave it unlawfully as of him who received it unlawfully: but yet it cannot be accounted as not given. No devout soldier ever violates the royal stamp, though it be usurped by private men: for though some by stealth and in a clandestine way set the ‘royal stamp, not to the public money, but their own; yet the money so stamped, when they are either punished or pardoned for their offence, having the royal standard upon it, it is not defaced, but brought into the king’s treasury.’ Whence it is plain he thought, that baptism given by laymen in ordinary cases, which was an usurpation of the priest’s office, was not to be repeated. And this he asserts in another place against the Donatists®, yet not as the determination of any General Council, but as his own opinion; for he says, ‘that if he were a member of such a synod, wherein this question was debated, he should not scruple to assert all those to have baptism, wheresoever or by whomsoever baptized, that had
89 Cont. Ep. Parmenian. 1. 2.c. 13. (t.9. Ρ. 44 f.) Sed et si nulla neces- sitate usurpetur, et a quolibet cui- libet detur; quod datum fuerit, non potest dici non datum, quamvis recte dici potest illicite datum. II- licitam ergo [al. autem] usurpatio- nem corrigit reminiscentis et poeni- tentis affectus. Quod si non cor- rexerit, manebit ad poeenam usurpa- toris, quod datum est, vel ejus qui illicite dedit, vel ejus qui illicite ac- cepit: non tamen pro non dato habetur [al. habebitur]. Neque ullo modo per devotum militem, quod a privatis usurpatum est, signum re- gale violabitur. Si enim aliqui furtim et extraordinarie, non in monetis publicis aurum vel argentum sed zs percutiendo signaverint ; cum fuerit
deprehensum, nonne, illis punitis aut indulgentia liberatis, cognitum re- gale signum thesauris_ regalibus cogetur inferri?—[The Benedictine edition reads extra ordinem ; it omits the non and reads vel for sed; it omits inferri and reads congeretur for cogetur, according to the Vatican MSS. See Ed. Bened. in loc. Ep. ]
9 De Bapt. 1. 7. c. 53. (ibid. p. 202 c.)... Nequaquam dubitarem habere eos baptismum, qui ubicun- que et a quibuscunque illud verbis evangelicis consecratum, sine sua simulatione et cum aliqua fide, acce- pissent: quanquam eis ad salutem spiritualem non prodesset, si caritate caruissent, qua Catholic insereren- tur ecclesiz.
Of the bap- tism of women, whether they had any autho- rity to bap- tize.
42 The practice of
received it in faith, and without dissimulation, in that form of words which is prescribed by the Gospel: though, if they wanted charity, and were out of the Catholic Church, it would not profit them to salvation, or any other spiritual concerns.’
Optatus was plainly of the same opinion ; he thought that Christ gave a commission to his Apostles to baptize, but yet not such an one as peremptorily annulled and evacuated all baptisms that were performed by any other. * Our Saviour,’ says he%, ‘gave commandment in whose name the nations should be baptized: but he did not determine without excep- tion by whom they should be baptized. He said not to his disciples, this shall ye do, and no other shall do it. For who- ever baptizes in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, fulfils the work of the Apostles.’ Then he alleges that saying of St. John the Apostle in the Gospel%”, “ Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.” To which Christ replied, “ Forbid him not, for he that is not against you is for you.” Upon which he concludes, that it was the name of the Trinity, and not the agent, that sanctifies the mystery, and that the ministers of baptism were only labourers, and not lords of the action. And upon this ground he allows the baptism of schismatics, and such heretics also as baptized in the faith of the Trinity, to be valid, though they were not every way legally authorized and qualified, as the true ministers of the Church, to perform it: of which more hereafter in its proper place.
17. The next question is concerning the baptism of women, Whether they had any authority, or were ever allowed in any case to baptize in the Church? As to ordinary cases, it is agreed on all hands, that they were absolutely forbidden to meddle with any ecclesiastical office, and baptism in particular. This was the controversy between the Church and several ancient heresies, whether women might be priests, and baptize as well as men. The Marcionites affirmed it to be lawful; so did the
91 Cont. Parmenian. 1. 5. p. 90. Filii, et Spiritus Sancti baptizaverit, (p.107.)....In quo baptizarentur Apostolorum opus implevit... Ergo gentes, a Salvatore mandatum est: nomen est quod sanctificat, non per quem baptizentur, nulla excep- opus. tione discretum est. Non dixit 92 Mark 9, 38 and 39. Luke 9, Apostolis, Vos facite, alii non fa- 49 and 50. ciant, Quisquis in nomine Patris,
7.
the ancient Church. 43
Collyridians, and the Pepuzians, and Cataphrygians, which were a branch of the Montanists. But the Catholics with great vehemence always opposed this, as an illegal and un- christian practice, as I have had occasion to show more at large in another work%, where I discourse of the office of the deaconesses in the ancient Church, to which I refer the reader. The Lutherans and the Romanists, who defend the baptism of women in cases of extreme necessity, do not deny this, but say their adversaries do them wrong to charge them with the practice of the Marcionites and Montanists, which they utterly disavow. Therefore the stress of the question lies in this, Whether the ancient Church allowed women to baptize in extraordinary cases of extreme necessity, as she did laymen? And here, I think, with submission to better judgments, she did not: for Tertullian, in the very same place where he grants it may lawfully be done by men, forbids it absolutely to be done by women; and he goes upon this principle, ‘ that men were called to the sacerdotal office, but not women; and therefore when any exigency required, the one might perform it, but not the other.’ He calls it ‘petulancy in women to usurp the power of baptizing®! : and, whereas some defended it by the example of Tecla, and urged the authority of that ancient writing, which was called the Acts of Paul and Tecla?5, and was supposed to be written by the Apostle himself; he gives them to understand ‘that it was no such thing, but that it was written by a presbyter in Asia under the name of St. Paul; and that the presbyter was convict of the matter, and confessed the thing, that he did it out of love to St. Paul; but he was deposed notwithstanding for his forgery. For it
93 Antiquities, b. 2. ch. 22. s. 7. Ve Ep. 202.
94 De Bapt. c. 17. (p. 231 a.) Pe- tulantia autem mulierum [8]. muli- eris], que usurpavit docere, utique non etiam tingendi jus sibi pariet ; nisi si que nova bestia evenerit similis pristine ; ut quemadmodum illa baptismum auferebat, ita aliqua per se eum conferat. Quod si que Pauli perperam scripta legunt, ex- emplum Tecle ad licentiam muli- erum docendi, tingendique, defen- dunt: sciant in Asia presbyterum, quieam scripturam construxit, quasi
titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, con- victum atque confessum, id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco decessisse. Quam enim fidei proximum videretur, ut is docendi et tinguendi daret foemine potestatem, qui ne discere [al. do- cere | quidem constanter mulieri per- misit! {Docere is surely the correct reading. See 1 Tim. 2, 11 and 12, with 1 Cor. 4, 34 and 35. Compare also 'Tertull. de Virgin. Veland. c. 9, as in note 95 overleaf. Ep. |
% [Or Thecla. See Grabe’s Spi- cileg. v. 1. p. 81. p.g5. p. 120. Ep.]
44 The practice of
was utterly improbable that the Apostle should grant women a power to teach and baptize, who did not so much as allow them to ask questions for learning’s sake in a public assembly.’ In another place? he says, ‘It was not permitted to women to speak in the church; but neither might they teach, nor baptize, nor offer the eblation, nor assume to themselves any office belonging to men, much less those that appertained to the priests only.’ Whence it seems pretty plain, that he did not allow the same power and authority to women to baptize in cases of necessity, as he did to men, since he makes an ex- ception in the one case, but none in the other.
And so in the fourth Council of Carthage%, women are absolutely forbidden to baptize, without any exception. For though Gratian and Peter Lombard add the words, Nisi necessitate cogente, Hacept necessity require, to the ancient body of that canon; yet this is either an interpretation of their own, or else a plain fraud; for there is no such reading now in any tome of the Councils; and as Vossius observes 97, it is otherwise cited by Walafridus Strabo 95, some ages before them 99, which is an argument, that the former is the genuine reading, and that the canon originally had no such exception. Nor does St. Jerom, nor St. Austin, nor Gelasius, nor Isidore, grant any authority to women to baptize, as they do to men: whence it may be inferred from their silence that they did not think their cases to be parallel. And it may be concluded further, that the practice and rules of the modern Greek Church, and Romanists, and Lutherans, which allow midwives or any other women to baptize in cases of necessity, whatever other grounds they may have to go upon, are not to be justified
% De Virgin. Veland. δ. 9. (p. 178 b.) Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui: sed nec docere, nec tingere, nec offerre, nec ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare.
% C. 100. (f. 2. p.1207 d.) Mu- lier baptizare non presumat.
97. De Bapt. disput. 11. n. 15. p. 148. (t. 6. p. 296.) At juniores δρηρύνεν ρόδν et Gratianus | heec ver- a adjungunt, nisi necessitate co- gente. Unde Pamelius ad Tertul- lianum Libro de Baptismo, cap. 17, jam olim sic lectum fuisse concludit.
Sed cum, uti dixi, nec Walafridus ea legerit verba, nec hodie ea lectio in ullis reperiatur Conciliorum libris ; magis sit verisimile, Lombardum illa ac Gratianum adjecisse, tam- quam canonis interpretamentum.
98 De Reb. Eccles. 26. (ap. Bibl. Max. t. 15. p. 196 f. 7.) In hoc et similibus non tribuitur quibuscun- que baptizandi indiscreta licentia, cum Concilio Carthaginensi mu- lieres prohibeantur baptizare.
99 [Strabo’s era was 842; Gra- tian’s, 1131; Peter Lombard’s, 1141. Ep. |
the ancient Church. 45
ἘΠ; 18, 19.
from the rules and canons of the ancient Church, since there are no such to authorize the practice.
18. But it will be demanded further. Whether, if women Whether usurped the authority of baptizing, either in ordinary cases, ee as the heretical priestesses did, or in extraordinary cases of women was necessity, as perhaps some might do in the Catholic Church, Scene’ though against law, was their baptism repeated as null and void, or received as valid by the Church? This question con- sisting of several parts, I cannot give the same distinct and positive answer to each part of it. But I think there is no doubt to be made, but that, first, all such Churches as rejected the baptism of heretical men must needs be supposed to have rejected the baptism of heretical women, whether in ordinary or extraordinary cases. Therefore Tertullian 1, Cyprian, and Firmilian? are plain in the case, that all such baptisms are invalid. I think it also probable, that they who received the baptism of heretical men out of the Church as valid, and the baptism of Catholic laymen in the Church, as not only valid, but authorized too, did yet reject the baptism of women in both cases, because they are so peremptory in prohibiting women universally to meddle with the ministerial offices, and this always without exception of any cases whatsoever. But as I remember no ancient author that has spoken directly and closely to this part of the question; and there are some reasons to incline a man to believe St. Austin to have been of a different opinion; so I leave this to the judgment of others, and further inquiry.
19. The next thing in debate is, concerning baptism ad- Whether ministered by heretical and schismatical bishops, priests, and reece deacons, and such of the Catholic clergy as are legally de- matical graded or deposed by the authority of the Church, for trans- Tae : gressing the rules of their function. The particular stating clergymen and examination of this matter is a thing of great weight and ieee
thority to baptize.
1 De Virgin. Veland. c. 9. See N. 95, preceding.
2 Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian. pp. 217, seqq. (pp. 319, seqq.) Accipimus, &c. [The author refers to that part of Firmilian’s Epistle to Cyprian, in which (Ed. Oxon. pp. 222-3.) he gives a brief history of a female
energumen, who had been adminis- tering the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist, and argues against the validity of such services: Pot- est credi aut remissio peccatorum data, aut lavacri salutari regeneratio rite perfecta, &c.? Ed.]
46 The practice of
moment; because it is such a practical case as the Church has always been much more concerned in than in that of the baptism of mere laymen: and the whole Church of England, and all the Churches of the Reformation have the very essence and being of their baptism and Christianity depending on it. For they all received their baptism from the heretical and schismatical Church of Rome: according therefore as heretical and schismatical baptism is determined to be valid or not valid, such must be the fate of these Churches, either to have re- ceived true and valid baptism, or else to want yet all of them to be rebaptized.
Now that I may speak the sense of the ancient Church upon this grand poimt with clearness and distinction, it will be necessary to treat separately of these four questions: 1. Whe- ther heretics and schismatics have any legal authority from the Church to baptize? 2. Whether, supposing them to have no legal authority, their baptism be notwithstanding true and valid baptism? 3. What privileges are conferred by such baptism, what are its defects, and how those deficiencies were supplied upon men’s returning to the unity of the holy Catholie Church? 4. Whether heretics, and schismatics, and degraded clergymen act in that capacity as clergymen or laymen? The distinct consideration of these several questions will be of great use; for nothing has more embroiled the Church, or con- founded men in this dispute, than the not distinguishing authorized baptism from that which is merely valid; and the privileges and perfections of the one from the deficiencies and imperfections of the other. It was the not attending to these things distinctly, that led Cyprian and all his associates into the error of rebaptization: they thought no baptism could be valid, unless both the administrator was an authorized person, and his baptism could also exhibit all those spiritual graces, which are ordinarily the effects of Catholic baptism; but both these things were wanting in the baptism of hereties, viz. both authority and spiritual graces; and therefore they concluded their baptism to be invalid. It is the same want of attending to the distinction between unauthorized baptism and invalid baptism, which leads many into a mistake at this day. They always confound these two things together, which yet are of very different consideration from each other; for all the bap-
10.
the ancient Church. 47
tisms of heretics, schismatics, and degraded ministers, are un- authorized; and yet it will not be safe to conclude immediately that they are therefore absolutely invalid, otherwise the Ca- tholic Church and the Church of England were in an ill case, as will appear by the sequel of this discourse.
For, first of all, it was agreed on all hands that heretics and schismatics and degraded clergymen had not any legal autho- rity from the Church to baptize. This was not only asserted by Cyprian and his followers, who maintained the invalidity of such baptisms, but also by St. Austin, and all the rest that stood up for the validity of them against the necessity of rebap- tizng. And they went upon this ground, that they who deserted and opposed the Church were thenceforth destitute of her lawful call, and therefore acted not only without her authority but against her authority in all their ministrations. They were so far from having the Church’s authority to bap- tize in such cases, that they incurred her severest censures and anathemas for doing it, although their baptisms were received as valid under such an irregular and unlawful administration. Nothing can be plainer than that canon of the second Council of Carthage? to this purpose, which says, ‘that if a presbyter, who is under the censure of excommunication of his own bishop, would have any redress, he must apply himself to the neigh- bouring bishops, and have his cause heard by them, in order to be reconciled to his bishop. But if he refuses to do this, and, proudly withdrawing himself from the communion of his bishop, he sets up a separate and schismatical meeting to offer sacrifice to God, let him be anathema and lose his place: If such a schismatical presbyter makes himself an anathema for ministering the sacrament in a separate meeting, however valid in themselves his sacraments may be, yet certainly he acts against the authority of the Church, and all his ministrations are sinful and unlawful in such a separation.
This is what we have heard
3 C.8. (t.2. p.1161 d.) Si quis presbyter a preposito suo excom- municatus vel correptus fuerit, debet utique apud vicinos episcopos con- queri, ut ab ipsis ejus causa possit audiri, ac per Ipsos suo episcopo re- conciliari. Quod nisi fecerit, sed superbia, quod absit, inflatus, secer-
Ignatius declare before 4, ‘ that
nendum se ab episcopi sui commu- nione duxerit, ac, separatim cum ali- quibus schisma faciens, sacrificium Deo obtulerit, anathema habeatur ac locum amittat.
4 Ep. ad Smyrn. n. 8. fore, 8-3. p: 15 1. 6.
See be-
Whether the baptism of heretics and schis- matics was valid.
48 The practice of
it is not lawful either to baptize or celebrate the eucharist without the bishop, but what he allows is well-pleasing to God.’ Now what should make it sinful and displeasing to God for a presbyter to baptize without his bishop, but only that in so doing he acts without and against the authority of his bishop, and in opposition to him whom God has made the chief governor of the Church? This is also what we have heard St. Jerom say before®, ‘that neither presbyters nor deacons have any right to baptize without the order or authority of their bishop, because he is the chief minister of the Church.’ But enough has been said already upon this point, in speaking of the bishop’s original power, and of the power of presbyters and deacons, as only derivative from them, to show that none can have any lawful authority or regular power to baptize, but only as they act in subordination to them, according to the standing laws and rules of the Catholic Church. Only here we must observe a distinction which St. Austin makes about the word power, which either signifies that regular authority and power of administering baptism in a lawful way, which we have been speaking of: or else, such a power as may be in men to give a baptism that shall stand valid and firm, though they were not regularly qualified to perform it, but did it by contra- diction to known rules and in manifest usurpation. In which sense he allows heretics. and schismatics, and contumacious or degraded bishops or priests to have still a power to baptize : but then this was not the true regular authorized baptism of the Church, but an usurped power, and invasion of an office which regularly belonged to others. So that there was no dispute among the Ancients upon this point; for they all agreed in this, that taking power only for regular power and
just and lawful authority, heretics and schismatics and de-
graded priests had not lawful authority to baptize; but what they did was done, properly speaking, by an unauthorized, criminal, anti-episcopal usurpation, because contrary to the known rules and orders of the true governing part of the Catholic Church.
20. But now, notwithstanding their agreement upon this point, that the baptism of heretics and schismatics was un- authorized and unlawful, they were divided upon the next
Ὁ Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c. 4. [al.9.] See before, 5.11, n.72, preceding.
the ancient Church. 49
question,—about the validity of such baptisms. Tertullian, though he allowed the lawfulness and validity of the baptism of laymen in cases of necessity, yet he utterly rejected the baptism of heretics, simply and universally, as altogether null and void: for he says®, ‘There is but one baptism delivered to us, either in the Gospel of Christ, or the writings of the Apostles; be- cause there is but one Lord, and one baptism, and one Church in heaven. Upon which account it is proper to consider what is to be observed in relation to heretics. For the thing is only given in command to us. But heretics have no part or fellow- ship in our discipline, their very breach of communion testifies them to be foreigners: therefore I ought not to acknowledge that in them which is only commanded to me ; because we and they have not the same God nor the same Christ, and conse- quently not one and the same baptism: which seeing they have not rightfully they have it not at all. That which is not cannot come into any account; nor can they be said to receive that which they have not.’ He says also he wrote a book in Greek particularly to this purpose. And he touches upon it in his Book of Prescriptions against Heretics7, where he says, ‘No man can be edified by him by whom he is destroyed: no man can be illuminated by him of whom he is led into darkness.’ And in another Book® he tells us more expressly, ‘ that here- tics were received again by baptism in the same manner as Heathens were.’
Some think Tertullian here speaks of the school of Montanus, because he wrote his Book De Pudicitia when he was a Mon- tanist: but his other books were written by him whilst he was a Catholic; and therefore I rather think he spake the sense of
6 De Bapt.c.15. (p. 220 4.) Unus baptismus unus, quia non idem,
omnino baptismus est nobis, tam ex Domini Evangelio, quam ex Apostoli Literis; quoniam unus Dominus [4]. Deus] et unum baptisma, et una ecclesia in ceelis. Sed circa hereti- cos sane quid custodiendum sit, digne quis retractet. Ad nos enim editum est. Heeretici autem nullum habent consortium nostre disci- pline ; quos extraneos utique testa- tur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognoscere, quod mihi est preeceptum ; quia non idem Deus est nobis et illis; nec unus Christus, id est, idem: ideoque nec BINGHAM, VOL, IX.
quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent: nec capit nume- rari, quod non habetur: ita nec pos- sunt accipere, quia non habent. Sed de isto plenius jam nobis in Greco digestum est.
7 De Prescript. c. 12. (p. 206 c.) Nemo inde strui [al. instrui] potest, unde destruitur: nemo ab eo illumi- natur, a quo contenebratur.
8 De Pudicit. c. 19. (p. 581 b.)... Apud nos ut ethnico par, immo et super ethnicum, hzreticus etiam per baptisma veritatis utroque homine purgatus admittitur.
E
50 The practice of
the Church of Carthage, and perhaps the whole African Church in those days. For Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, with a synod of the provinces of Africa and Numidia, not long after confirmed the same thing, as we learn from Cyprian’s Epistles? : and the opinion of Cyprian!° and the several Councils of Car- thage!! in his time are so well known that I need not insist upon them. Firmilian!? also bishop of Casarea in Cappa- docia, joined with Cyprian, and wrote a long Epistle to him in defence of the same opinion, where he also mentions the decree of the Synod of Iconium to the same purpose. Dionysius also, bishop of Alexandria, maintained the same doctrine!3, and in one of his Epistles! he alleges the decrees of the Councils of Iconium and Synada for confirmation of it. On the other hand, Stephen, bishop of Rome, and the Churches under him, stood up in defence of the contrary opinion. They asserted, that all who were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity were to be received only with imposition of hands without re-
9 Ep. 71. ad Quint. p. 196. (p. 302.) Retulit ad me, frater carissime, Lucianus, compresbyter noster, te desiderasse, ut significaremus tibi, quid sentiamus de his, qui apud hereticos et schismaticos baptizati videntur. De qua re quid nuper in concilio plurimi coépiscopi cum com- presbyteris qui aderant, censueri- mus, ut scires; ejusdem epistole exemplum [10] misi. Nescio etenim, qua presumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris, ut putent eos, qui apud heereticos tincti sunt, quando ad nos venerint, baptizari non opor- tere, eo quod dicant unum baptisina esse, quod unum scilicet in ecclesia Catholica est. Que ecclesia si una est, esse baptisma extra ecclesiam non potest. Nam cum duo baptis- mata esse non possunt, si heretici vere baptizant, ipsi habent baptisma. Et, qui hoc illis patrocinium de auc- toritate sua prestat, cedit illis et consentit, ut hostes et adversarii Christi habere videantur abluendi et purificandi et sanctificandi ho- minis potestatem. Nos autem dici- mus eos, qui inde veniunt, non re- baptizari apud nos, sed baptizari. Neque enim accipiunt illic aliquid, ubi nihil est; sed veniunt ad nos, ut hic accipiant, ubi et gratia et veritas
omnis est; quia et gratia et veritas una est, &c.—Ep. 73. ad Jubaian. p- 198. (p. 306.) Seripsisti mihi, fra- ter carissime, desiderans significari tibi motum animi nostri, quid nobis videatur de hereticorum baptismo, qui, foris positi et extra ecclesiam constituti, vindicant sibi rem nec juris sui nec potestatis, quod nos nec ratum possumus, nec legitimum ju- dicare, quando hoc apud eos esse constet illicitum, &c.
10 Vidi, Epp. G9, 70, 71, 725 73; ἄς.
11 Ap. Cyprian. p. 229. (pp. 158. seqq.)—Conf. Ep. 7o. ad Januar. (pp. 300. seqq.) :
12 Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian. p. 221. See n. 15, following.
19. Ap., Kuseb. 15: 6.7. {γε το ρὲ 327. 4.) Τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν “Hpaxda παρέλαβον᾽ τοὺς γὰρ προσίοντας ἀπὸ τῶν αἱρέσεων, κ.τ.λ.
14 (Ep. 4. ad Philemon. Eccles. Roman. presbyt. Vid. ap. Euseb. ibid. (p. 328 h.) Μεμάθηκα καὶ τοῦτο" ὅτι μὴ νῦν οἱ ἐν ᾿Αφρικῇ μόνον τοῦτο παρεισήγαγον, ἀλλὰ... .. καὶ ταῖς συν- ὄδοις τῶν ἀθελφῶν ἐν ᾿Ικονίῳ καὶ Συνάδοις, καὶ παρὰ πολλοῖς τοῦτο
ἔδοξεν" k.T. A. En.]
the ancient Church. 51
baptizing, whatever heresies or schisms they came over from to the Catholic Church: for so Firmilian, in his Epistle to Cyprian!>, delivers their opinion with exactness and candour. I know indeed a great many learned persons, and among them Vossius, Blondel, and Bishop Pearson!®, are of opinion that Stephen, bishop of Rome, in opposition to Cyprian’s doc- trine, fell inconsiderately into the contrary extreme, and as- serted that all persons baptized by heretics, whether in the name of the Trinity or otherwise, were to be received without distinction. But a great many things are said by the learned Pagi'7 to clear Stephen of this imputation, and I think with justice and reason: for this one passage of Firmilian, which yet has escaped the observation of learned men on both sides, does abundantly vindicate him from the charge; for it shows plainly he was not for receiving the baptism of all heretics whatsoever, but such only as kept to the form of the Church, and baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. And if there be any expressions in Stephen’s letter to Cyprian which seem to import more, they are candidly to be interpreted with this restriction and limitation. Which I observe for the sake of some late ingenious writers, who, depending upon the venerable authority of Bishop Pearson, have unwarily slid themselves and led others into the same mistaken opinion about Stephen, bishop of Rome: whereas Vincentius Lirinensis!® fully vindi-
15 Ep. 75. ap. Cyprian. p. 221. debet: que Blondelli, immo et ali-
(p. 322.) Non putant querendum esse, quis sit ille qui baptizaverit, eo quod qui baptizatus sit, gratiam con- sequi potuerit invocata Trinitate no- minum Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.
16 Annal. Cyprian. an. 256. n. 3. p-54- (Ρ. 42.) Si Stephanum spec- tes, &c.
17 Critic. in Baron. an. 256. n. 4. ({. 1. p.261.) Pearsonius.. . existi- mat, Cypriani et Stephani Papz sen- tentiam universali propositione con- stasse: Si Stephanum spectes, om- nes ab heereticis quibuscunque bap- tizati, reversi ab heeresi, in ecclesia recipi debent sine legitimo baptismo: si Cyprianum spectes, nullus in ali- qua heresi aut schismate primo bap- tizatus, ab heresi aut schismate re- versus, sine baptismo legitimo recipi
quorum Catholicorum, sententia fuit. Existimarunt enim, Stephanum, damnando morem Cypriani et Afri- canorum antistitum, nec non Fir- miliani et Orientalium de rebapti- zandis heereticis, in extremum erro- rem lapsum esse, ac decrevisse, quo- rumcunque hereticorum baptisma, etiamsi consueta et solemni ecclesize forma et ritu collatum non esset, ratum esse ac legitimum, proinde- que non iterandum. Verum hec opinio improbabilis. Si enizn in eum errorem lapsus fuisset Stephanus, universa ecclesia his temporibus ver- sata esset in errore: omnes quippe episcopi vel Cypriani vel Stephani sententiam tuebantur; et utraque secundum Blondelii hypothesin er- ronea erat. ;
18 Commonitor. c. 6.
E 2
(p- 306.)
δῷ The practice of
cates his doctrine from the charge of novelty, and reckons it the true ancient Catholic opinion; nor do I know any ancient writer that has passed any harder censure on him for it except such as were professed abettors of Cyprian’s opinions, however they might dislike his fierce and immoderate temper.
Thus, then, the controversy stood at first, about the rebap- tization of heretics and schismatics. In the next age the dis- pute was resumed again, and the doctrine of Stephen, with a little variation, was generally received, whilst the doctrine of Cyprian was condemned in the Donatists, who pretended to be followers of his opinion. Now a distinction was made between hereties and schismatics, and then again between the several sorts of heretics: for some baptized in the name of the Trinity, according to the form of the Church. and others did not; and of those who baptized in the name of the Trinity, some were heterodox as to the true faith of the Trinity; others were orthodox in that point, but heretical in other opinions. And according to these distinctions, a difference was made in the reception of their baptisms. The baptism of schismatics was generally received as valid, without any distinction; the bap- tism of such heretics as did not baptize in the name of the Trinity and the form of the Church was as generally rejected. But about the baptism of those who gave baptism in the name of the Trinity, and yet did not believe the true faith of the Trinity, as the Arians and some such others, there was still some question remaining: for Athanasius, and Optatus, and some few others, thought it was not only necessary that men
Agrippinus Carthaginensis episco- pus, primus omnium mortalium, contra divinum canonem, contra universalis ecclesiz regulam, contra sensum omnium consacerdotum,
Denique in epistola, que tune ad Africam missa est, idem his verbis sanxit, Nihil novandum, nisi quod traditum est. Intelligebat etenim vir sanctus et prudens, nihil aliud
contra morem ac instituta majorum, rebaptizandum esse censebat...... Cum ergo undique ad novitatem rei cuncti reclamarent, atque omnes quaquaversum sacerdotes, pro suo quisque studio, reniterentur, tunc beatee memorize Papa Stephanus, apostolic sedis antistes, cum czte- ris quidem collegis suis, sed tamen pre ceteris, restitit: dignum, ut opinor, existimans, si reliquos omnes tantum fidei devotione vinceret, quantum loci auctoritate superabat.
rationem pletatis admittere, nisi ut omnia, qua fide a patribus suscepta forent, eadem fide filiis consignaren- tur: nosque religionem, non qua vellemus ducere, sed potius qua illa duceret, sequi oportere: idque esse proprium Christiane modestie et gravitatis, non sua posteris tradere, sed a majoribus accepta servare. Quis ergo tune univers! negotii exi- tus? Quis utique nisi usitatus et solitus? Retenta est scilicet anti- quitas, et explosa novitas.
20.
the ancient Church. 53
should be baptized in the name of the Trinity, but also in the true faith of the Trinity; and therefore they rejected the baptism of the Arians, because, though they observed the form of baptizing in the name of the Trinity, as it was used in the Church, yet they did not baptize into the true faith of the Trinity, because they denied the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost; and therefore they thought their baptism was not good, and ought to be repeated. But the generality of the Church were of another mind, and therefore they received the baptism of the Arians also, because they gave baptism in the name of the Trinity, though their faith was not right about ite This was the true state of this matter in the fourth century, when upon occasion of the schism of the Donatists it came exactly to be considered. And of the truth of all this the reader may satisfy himself from the testimonies I shall lay before him. The first decree that was made in this matter was in the great Council of Arles, anno 314, at which St. Austin says 19, near two hundred of the Western bishops were present, though few of their subscriptions are now remaining. In this Council?° the dispute about heretical baptisms was thus determined, according to the new edition of Sirmond2!: ‘We make this decree concerning the Africans, who have been used to re-
19 Cont. Ep. Parmenian. 1. 1. 6. Gy (Ὁ Ὁ ps 17 ¢.).... Usque adeo dementes sunt homines, ut ducentos
propria sua lege utuntur, ut rebap- tizentur, placuit, &c. And so it is alleged in Gratian de Consecrat.
judices, apud quos victi sunt, victis litigatoribus credant esse postpo- nendos. [Such is the reading of the Louvain Edition, which the Benedictine thus corrects,— Ut con- trajudices, apud quos victi sunt, victis litigationibus credant ? See the Be- nedictine note on the place. Ep. |
20 C. Arelatens. 1. c. 8. (ap. Labb. t. 1. p.1428 a.) De Afris, qui (al. quod} propria sua lege utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuit, si ad ecclesiam aliqui de hac heeresi venerint, inter- rogent eos [nostre fidei sacerdotes | Symbolum, et, si perviderint in Pa- tre et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto eos baptizatos, manus eis tantum im- ponatur, ut accipiant Spiritum Sanc- tum. Quod si interrogati non re- sponderint hance Trinitatem, bapti- zentur.—The old editions read this canon otherwise: De Arianis, qui
distinct. 4. 6. 19. [According, I presume, to the older Roman edi- tion of 1582; for I do not find the place noticed in that of Lyons, LO7E (see, 1 τ Ρ' τὸῦἍῦϑ! TOs) nor is it noticed at Decret. Prim. Pars. distinct. 93. c. 13. Dia- conos propriam, &c. (ibid. ant. p. 443.) In Merlin’s edition of Coun- cils, (Colon. 1530. t. 1. fol. 89.) the reading is thus: De Arianis, qui propria lege sua utuntur, ut rebap- tizentur placuit. Si ad ecclesiam aliqui de hac heeresi venerint, inter- rogent eos, &c. So also according Crabbe, t. 1. p. 287. Ep.]
21 [Antiqua Concilia Galliz in Tres ‘Tomos digesta. Paris. 1629. fol. Repeated verbatim in Labbe’s edition, as referred to in the pre- ceding note. Ep. ]
54 The practice of
baptize according to a peculiar law of their own; if any one return from his heresy to the Church, let the Catholic priests question him about the Creed: and if they perceive that he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, only imposition of hands shall be given him, that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if upon examination he answers not the Trinity, that is, (that he was not baptized in the name of the Trinity.) let him be rebaptized.’ All that is here re- quired is only that a man be baptized in the name of the Trinity, or at most in the faith of the Trinity, to make heretical baptism valid. And no more is required in the great Council of Nice, which has two canons to this purpose; the first 22 of which orders the Novatian schismatics to be admitted upon their return, even to the same degrees among the clergy which they enjoyed before, without any other ceremony than imposition of hands. But the other 2° requires the Paulianists or Samosatenian heretics to be rebaptized. Hence it became a general rule, that schismatics were to be admitted universally without rebaptizing: but heretics with some exception; for they who were in the condition and capacity of the Samosa- tenians were to be rebaptized.
But the question may be, Upon what account the Paulianists are ordered to be rebaptized more than other heretics? Was it because they did not baptize in the name of the Trinity, or because they rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, though they kept to the form of the Church ?
Athanasius seems to have been of opinion that it was upon the latter account ; for he rejects the baptism of the Arians, though they baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; because though they used the same form of baptism as was used in the Church, yet they did not believe as the Church believed of the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. This I take to be the meaning of that famous passage in his Third Oration against the Arians 24, where he says, ‘they did 22 CAST (tae. 240 c.) Περὶ τῶν τῶν Παυλιανισάντων, εἶτα προσφυγόν- ὀνομαζόντων μὲν ἑαυτοὺς Καθαρούς των τῇ Καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, 6, ὅρος ἐκτέ-
ποτε, προσερχομένων δὲ τῇ Καθολικῇ θειται, ἀναβαπτίζεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐξά- ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ παντος.
συνόδῳ, ὥστε χειροτονουμένους αὐτοὺς 24 Orate3. [4]. 2.] adv. Arian. t. ov ὑπ μένειν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ. ᾿ I. Ρ. 413. (t. τ. Ρ. 403 d. a) Ov yap Ci χὸς: (ibid. Ῥ. 245 a.) Περὶ εἰς τὸν Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν διδόασιν οἱ
the ancient Church. 55 not baptize men into the faith of the F ather and the Son, but into the faith of a creator and a creature, a being made and the maker of it.’ By which he did not mean, as some mistake him, that the Arians had changed the form of baptism, which they never did till the time of Eunomius; but that though they baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet they did not understand by those names what the Church understood, but believed the Son and Holy Ghost to be mere creatures; and therefore he thought their baptism to be of no effect, because, though they baptized in the form of the Church, yet not into the faith of the Holy Trinity. And he concludes the same of the Manichees, and Montanists, and Samosatenians, who, he thinks, used the Catholic form of words, but rejected the true sense and meaning of them. Whence it is plain Athanasius was one of those who neither universally received nor universally rejected heretical baptisms; but such as were given in the Catholic form of words, and in the true faith of the Trinity, those only he admitted, refusing all others as invalid, where either the form or the faith was wanting.
Optatus?5 was of the same opinion, that the baptism of schismatics was to be received as valid, without any distinction, because they were baptized both in the name and the faith of the Trinity; and therefore he tells the Donatists they never made any scruple about their baptism, nor ever pretended to wash them over again; for as long as the faith was the same, the baptism was the same 36, and the Donatists were rather to be blamed for rebaptizing those who had been baptized in the faith of the Trinity before. But as to the heretics he made a distinction: for some baptized neither in the name nor the faith of the Trinity; and the baptism of such heretics he calls sacrilegious and profane 27, and will not allow it to be the same
with the one baptism of the Church.
᾿Αρειανοὶ, GAN εἰς κτιστὴν Kal κτίσμα, καὶ εἰς ποίημα καὶ ποιητήν.
25 Cont. Parmenian. 1. 5. p. 85. (p. τοι.) Quia quicquid in 'Trinitate factum fuerit, bene est: inde est, quod simpliciter a vobis venientes excipimus, cum dicit, non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi.
26 Ibid. 86. (p. 102.) Si datis al-
The reasons of making
terum baptisma, date alteram fidem : si datis alteram fidem, date alterum Christum: si datis alterum Chris- tum, date altercum Deum.
27 Tbid. p. 86. (p. 102.) Per quod unum est, ab hzreticorum profanis et sacrilegis baptismatibus separe- tur.
The practice of
such distinctions he assigns in the next words when he says 38, ‘There are three things concur in baptism; first, the name of the Trinity ; secondly, the faith of the receiver; thirdly, the administrator or baptizer. But these three are not all of equal weight and necessity. The Trinity has the principal place in the action, without which baptism cannot be performed : after this comes the faith of the believer; and then the person of the administrator, but that is not of equal authority with the two former.’ Whence he concludes, ‘that baptism administered in the name and in the faith of the Trinity, whatever the quality of the administrator might be, was not to be repeated.’
St. Basil delivers his opinion of these baptisms much after the same manner. He thinks that as to the Novatians, and such other schismatics as did not err in faith, the custom of the Church in every country was to be complied with, whether it was to baptize or not to baptize them again. But as to the Pepuzians or Montanists, he thinks much otherwise29, and wonders how the great Dionysius could pass them over. For the Ancients decreed that that baptism only should be received which did not recede from the faith. Upon which account, he says, they distinguished betwixt heresies and schisms, and παρασυναγωγαὶ, unlawful assemblies. Heresies denoted such as departed from the faith; schisms, such as contended only about questions of ecclesiastical discipline; and unlawful assem- bhes were such as were held by presbyters or bishops that were refractory, and would not submit to the laws or rules of the Church; but when they were censured for their crimes, and suspended from officiating, would yet, notwithstanding the canons, pretend to govern or minister as before, and draw people after them out of the Catholic Church. Now, he says,
8 Ibid. (p. 102.) In hoe sacra- mento baptismatis celebrando, tres esse species constat, quas et vos nec augere, nec minuere, nec preter- mittere poteritis. Prima species est in Trinitate, secunda in credente, tertia in operante. Sed non pari libramine ponderande sunt singule. Duas enim video necessarias, et u- nam quasi necessariam. Principa- lem locum Trinitas possidet, sine qua res ipsa non potest geri: hanc
sequitur fides credentis: jam per-
sona operantis vicina est, que simili auctoritate esse non potest. Due priores permanent semper immuta- biles et immote [al. juncte]: Tri- nitas enim semper ipsa est: fides in singulis una est; vim suam semper retinent ambe. Persona vero ope- rantis intelligitur duabus prioribus speciebus par esse non posse eo quod sola esse videatur mutabilis, &e.
29 Ep. Canonic. τ. ad Amphiloch. c.I. See before, s. 15. p. 38. ἢ. 86.
§ 20.
the ancient Church. aii
the Ancients thought the baptism of heretics, such as the Manichees, Valentinians, Marcionites, and Pepuzians, was to be wholly disannulled, because they were dissenters about the faith of God: but the baptism of schismatics, as being yet of the Church, was to be received; and such as were baptized in unlawful assemblies, being corrected by true repentance and conversion, were to be admitted again into the Church; as those clergy also, who went off with their refractory leaders, were to be restored to their station again upon their true repentance. Hence he concludes, that the Pepuzians were to be rejected as heretics, because they blasphemed the Holy Ghost, attributing his title to Montanus and Priscilla, and did not baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost, but in the name of Father, Son, and Montanus, or Priscilla. And though Dio- nysius had allowed their baptism, yet we were not to follow him in that mistaken practice. As to the Novatians, he says, Cyprian and Firmilian rejected their baptisms, together with that of the Encratite, Hydroparastate, and Apotactici, seeing they were broken off from the Church by their separation, and so neither had the Spirit themselves, nor could they give it to others, but were mere laymen, who had no power either to baptize or ordain; and therefore they ordered all such as were baptized by them to be rebaptized, as persons baptized only by laymen. This was the practice of Cyprian and Firmilian: but forasmuch as many Churches in Asia received the baptism of such by way of dispensation, his advice is, to permit it to be received, ἔστω δεκτὸν, only upon their return they must receive the unction of chrism or confirmation. Whence itis plain, St. Basil was not so rigid as Cyprian in the baptism of schismatics; but for heretics, who made a breach upon the faith, he rejected their baptism universally without exception.
But the more general and prevailing interpretation of the Nicene Canon was, that the baptism of all heretics and schis- matics, who did not reject the Catholic form of baptizing in the name of the Trinity, was to be received, however they might be heterodox in their faith and opinions. For they supposed the Paulianists were therefore to be rebaptized, because they used another form of baptism. This was certainly the sense of the
58 The practice of
Council of Laodicea, and the second General Council of Con- stantinople, and the second Council of Arles and Trullo; as also of St. Austin, St. Jerom, Gennadius, Ursinus Afer, Siricius, Leo, Innocentius, the author under the name of Justin Martyr, and the generality of the ancient writers.
The Council of Laodicea has two canons to this purpose; in the former of which®°, ‘all such as had been baptized by the Noyatians, the Photinians, and Quartadecimans,’ are ordered ‘ to be received to a participation of the holy mysteries, only first anathematizing their heresies, learning the Catholic creed, and being anointed with the holy chrism.’ Here is no mention of a new baptism, but only confirmation upon their return to the Church. But in the next canon?!, ‘such as return from the
heresy of the Cataphrygians or Montanists, though they had_
been ordained among their clergy, and dignified with the title of Maximi, are appointed both to be catechized and baptized by the bishops and presbyters of the Church.’ Now, what should be the reason of making such a difference between the baptism of the Photinians and the Montanists, since the Pho- tinians were certainly as erroneous in their opinions about the Trinity as the Montanists could be, but only this, that the Photinians, though they did not believe the divinity of Christ, yet they still kept to the words and form of the Catholic baptism. But the Montanists, some think, changed the form ; for they did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Maxi- milla, or Montanus, as Theophylact32, and the learned Sui-
30 C.7 (t. I. p. 1497 a. ) Περὶ τοῦ,
’ μέγιστοι λέγοιντο᾽ τοὺς τοιούτους τοὺς any τῶν αἱρέσεων, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι,
μετὰ πάσης ἐπιμελείας κατηχεῖσθαί τε
Ναυατιανῶν, ἤτοι Φωτεινιανῶν, ἢ Τεσ- σαρεσκαιδεκατιτῶν, ἐπιστρεφομένους, ἦτε πιστοὺς τοὺς παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις, μὴ προσδέχεσθαι, πρὶν ἀναθεματίσωσι πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ ἐ ἐν ἡ κα- τείχοντο" καὶ τότε λοιπὸν τοὺς λεγο- μένους παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς πιστοὺς, ἐκμαν- θάνοντας τὰ τῆς πίστεως σύμβολα, χρισθέντας τε τῷ ἁγίῳ χρίσματι, οὕτω κοινωνεῖν τῷ μυστηρίῳ τῷ ἁγίφ.
ὅ1΄ Ὁ. 8. (ibid. b.) Τοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς αἱρέσεως τῶν λεγομένων Φρυγῶν ἐπι- στρέφοντας, εἰ καὶ ἐν κλήρῳ νομιζο- μένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς τυγχάνοιεν, εἰ καὶ
καὶ βαπτίζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς ἐκκλη- σίας ἐπισκόπων τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρων.
92 1 Το: 22. ({1| 200. ΠΟ 6 7 Ποῦ λοιπὸν αἱ βορβορώδεις γλῶσσαι τῶν βαπτιζόντων εἰς Μοντανὸν, καὶ Πρίσκιλλαν, καὶ Μαξιμίλλαν ; ἀληθῶς οὐδεμία οὕτω τοῖς βαπτιζομένοις ἄφε- σις, ἀλλὰ καὶ προσθήκη ἁμαρτιῶν ἐπι- yiverau.—Conf. Basil. Ep. Canonic. 1. c. 1. (ap. Labb. CC. 2. p. 1717 c.) Τίνα οὖν λόγον ἔχει τὸ τούτων βάπ- τισμα ἐγκριθῆναι, τῶν βαπτιζόντων εἰς Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ Μοντανὸν ἢ Πρίσκιλλαν ;
- pete
ὅθ
the ancient Church.
cerus53, and others have observed from him: or else by their errors they destroyed the very essence of baptism 55.
The like difference was made by the second General Council of Constantinople, anno 381, between the baptism of the Arians and Macedonians on the one hand, and that of the Eunomians, Montanists, and Sabellians on the other35. The Arians and Macedonians are joined with the Sabbatians, and Novatians, and Quartadecimans, and Apollinarians; all which are to be received only by consignation or unction of the holy chrism, wherewith they are to be anointed on the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears, with this form of words, ‘ The seal of ene gift of the Holy Spirit’ But for the Eunomians, Montanists, and Sabellians, and such other heretics, they are to be received in the same manner as Heathens; which was by going through all the stations of the catechumens, in order as they are there mentioned, being the first day made Christians at large, the second day catechumens, the third day exorcised, then cate- chized, and trained up to the discipline of the Church, and at last baptized. Now here it is to be observed, that the Arians and Eunomians are but branches of the same heresy, and yet the one are ordered to be rebaptized and the other not: the reason of which was evidently this, that the one observed the same form of baptizing as was used in the Church, but the other had introduced a new form of their own inventing. For it is particularly noted of Eunomius, that he made a great
33 Thes. Eccles. (t. 1. Theophylactus in cap. &e.
34 See this matter fully discussed by the learned author of the late
p- 638 ¢.) 24. Luce,
TE μέτωπον, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς, καὶ τὰς ῥῖνας, καὶ τὸ στόμα, καὶ τὰ ὦτα. Καὶ σφραγίζοντες αὐτοὺς λέγομεν" Σφραγὶς δωρεᾶς Πνεύματος ᾿γίου. Εὐνομιανοὺς μέντοι, τοὺς εἰς μίαν
curious History of Montanism, Art. 13. p. 168.—| Francis Lee, M.D. The tract forms the first of two dis- courses published by Dr. Hickes, Lond. 1709, with his own Sermon on 1 Cor. 12, 4, entitled, The Spirit of Enthusiasm Exorcised. Ep. |
5° Constant. 1. [Gen. 2. eee 7 (t.2. Ρ. 951 a.) ᾿Αρειανοὺς μὲν καὶ Μακεδονιανοὺς, καὶ Σαββατιανοὺς.,.. καὶ τοὺς Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατίτας, εἴτουν Τετραδίτας, καὶ ᾿Απολλιναριστὰς, δε- χύμεθα.. : σφραγιζομένους, ἢ τοι χριομένους πρῶτον τῷ ἁγίῳ μυ ρῳ τό,
κατάδυσιν βαπτιζομένους, καὶ Μον- τανιστὰς, τοὺς ἐνταῦθα λεγομένους Φρύγας, καὶ Σαβελλιανοὺς, OS: “Ἕλληνας δεχόμεθα. Καὶ τὴν πρώτην ἡμέραν ποιοῦμεν αὐτοὺς Χριστιανούς" τὴν δὲ δευτέραν κατηχουμένους" εἶτα τὴν τρίτην ἐξορκίζομεν αὐτοὺς, μετὰ τοῦ ἐμφυσᾶν Tpit ov εἰς TO πρόσωπον καὶ εἰς τὰ ὦτα αὐτῶν. Καὶ οὕτως κατηχοῦμεν. αὐτοὺς, καὶ ποιοῦμεν αὐὖ- τοὺς χρονίζειν εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ ἀκροᾶσθαι τῶν Τραφῶν' καὶ τότε αὐτοὺς βαπτίζομεν.
00 The practice of
many innovations in this matter: he baptized but with one im- mersion, as is noted in this canon; and Socrates®® says, that was not in the name of the Trinity, but into the death of Christ. Epiphanius®? also observes ‘ how they rejected the form of the Trinity, and baptized in the name of the Uncreated God, and the name of the Created God, and the name of the Sanctifying Spirit, created by the Created Son.’ And Gregory Nyssen?®, who wrote against Eunomius, brings a like charge against him. So that there was a plain reason for the Council’s ordering the Eunomians to be rebaptized, whilst they decreed otherwise about the Arians; for the Arians, properly so called, had made no such innovation, which was peculiar to the followers of Eunomius.
The second Council of Arles made two decrees about heretics with the like distincton. In one canon39 the Photinians or Paulianists are ordered ‘to be rebaptized, according to the de- erees of the fathers;’ meaning, no doubt, the decree of the Nicene fathers made in that behalf. But the Bonosiaci, though they maintained the same errors, yet because they baptized in the name of the Trinity, as the Arians did, are ordered in the next canon? to be received only with chrism and imposition of hands,’ as sufficient without a new baptism.
The Council of Trullo*! treads in the steps of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, as to the rebaptization of the Paulianists, the EKunomians, the Montanists, and the Sabellians ; to which they add the Manichees, Valentinians, and Marcionites, and all such like heretics. But the Arians, Macedonians, Quarta-
36 LL. 5. 6. 24. (v.2. p. 301. 42.) μόνον Πατέρα φησὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς,
Πλὴν 6 ὅτι τὸ [ἢ παρέχάραξαν' οὐ yap εἰς τὴν Τριάδα, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ βαπτίζουσι θάνατον.
37 Her. 76. Anomeor. (t. τ. Ρ-
992 b.) ᾿Αναβαπτίζει δὲ αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄνομα Θεοῦ ἀκτίστου, καὶ εἰς ὄνομα Υἱοῦ κεκτισμένου, καὶ εἰς ὄνομα Πνεύ- ματος ἁγιαστικοῦ, καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κεκτισ- μένου Ὑἱοῦ κτισθέντος.
38 Adv. Sunom. Orat. 11. (. 2. p- 706 ς .) Μὴ eis Πατέρα τε καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ Aytoy Πνεῦμα, τὸ βάπτισμα γί- νεσθαι" καθὼς ἐνετείλατο τοῖς μαθη- ταῖς, παραδιδοὺς τὸ μυστήριον" ἀλλὰ εἰς Δημιουργὸν καὶ Κτίστην, καὶ οὐ
ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν.
39 C. τό. (0.4. p.1013 b.) Photinia- nos sive Paulianistas, secundum Pa- trum statuta, baptizari oportet.
40 C. 17. (ibid. b.) Bonosiacos au- tem ex eodem errore venientes, quos, sicut Arianos, baptizari in Trinitate manifestum est, dum interrogati fi- dem nostram ex toto corde confessi fuerint, chrismate et manus imposi- tione in ecclesia recipi sufficit.
aL Ὁ, 95. al. οὔ. (t.6. p. 1182 d.) ᾿Αρειανοὺς μὲν, κι τ. A. See also n. 35, preceding, citing C. Constant. Lacie
§ 20.
61
the ancient Church.
decimans, Noyatians, Apollinarians, and, as they add, the Nes- torians, might be received only by chrism, without a new baptism.
St. Austin delivers his sense of the Nicene canon about the Paulhianists after the same manner: he tells us#2, in his opinion, the reason why the Council appointed them to be rebaptized was, ‘ because they did not observe the form or rule of baptism, which many other heretics. when they left the Church, carried along with them, and continued still to observe it.’ ‘So that,’ as he says in another place 138, ‘one might easier find heretics that did not baptize at all, than such as did not baptize in that form of evangelical words, of which the Creed consists, without which it was not the baptism of Christ.’ Forasmuch then as they baptized generally in this form, their baptism was ad- mitted as a complete sacrament, though their faith was erro- neous. And he makes no scruple to say *4, ‘ that even the bap- tism of Marcion himself would be true baptism, if it were ministered in that form of evangelical words, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though his belief under those words was not the true faith of the Catholic Church, but cor- rupted with false and fabulous doctrines.’ He also assigns the grounds and reasons of this practice, why the Catholic Church did not repeat their baptism !°: “ Because the baptism given by heretics was not, properly speaking, their baptism, but the bap-
tism of Christ; which they that once had could never lose by
going out of the Church, and consequently were not to be ad- mitted into the Church again by rebaptization, but repentance.’
42 De Heeres. c. 44. (t.8. p. 13d.) Istos sane Paulianos baptizandos esse in ecclesia Catholica Niceno Concilio constitutum est. Unde cre- dendum est eos regulam baptismatis non tenere, quam secum multi he- reticl, cum de Catholica discederent, abstulerunt, eamque custodiunt.
45. De Βαρὺ: ΠΟ C255 (tO. p: 176 d.) Quia nescit [al. nesciet] non esse baptismum Christi, si verba evangelica, quibus Symbolum con- stat, illic defuerint? Sed facilius in- veniuntur heretici, qui omnino non baptizant, quam qui illis verbis non baptizant. [Ed. Bened. baptizent in both places. |
= We Rapti 9.6.15. (ἰ- Ὁ ἢ.
115 g.) Quamobrem si evangelicis verbis, in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Marcion baptismum consecrabat, integrum erat sacra- mentum, quamvis ejus fides sub ejus- dem verbis aliud opinantis, quam Catholica veritas docet, non esset integra, sed fabulosis falsitatibus in- quinata.
ἘΣΤΙ 1.5 1c He. (petro) 0.) ie Catholica vero propterea non debet iterare baptismum, qui apud here- ticos datus est, ne judicare videatur ipsorum esse quod Christi est; aut eos non habere, quod intus cum ac- ceperint, amittere utique foras ex- eundo non possunt, ἕο.
62 The practice of
‘The Church corrected the errors of their understanding 10 upon their return, but did not violate the sacrament of God.’ And he challenges the Donatists'7 ‘ to show him any instance of any man that was ever rebaptized by the Catholics, after he had been once baptized in the name of the Trinity,’ as the Do- natists did. Which shows that this was the peculiar practice of the Donatists, and not of the Catholic Church.
St. Jerom argues upon the same foot against Hilary, the deacon, whom he styles Deucalion Orbis, the Rebaptizer of the World, because he was for rebaptizing all those that had been baptized by the Arian heretics. Hilary it seems had gone one step further than his master Lucifer, and the rest of the Luci- ferians; for they allowed the baptism of the Arians?’, though they did not allow their orders, nor grant them in any sense to be Christians, but said they were of the synagogue of Satan. Yet they received such as were baptized by the Arians, not by giving them a new baptism, but only by admitting them toa state of repentance: so they allowed the baptism of those whom they did not allow to be priests, nor so much as Christian lay- men. But Hilary here deserted his leaders, and carried the matter one degree further: he said‘!9, the Arian priests were not only to be deposed, but their laics also to be rebaptized ; against whom St. Jerom urges °° not only the contrary conces- sions and practice of his master Lucifer, but also the testimony of Scripture, proving from the Revelations, that such as were baptized by heretics might be received upon their repentance,
46 De Unico Baptismo, cont. Peti- poenitentem....Aio laicum ab Ari-
lian. c. 3. (ibid. p. 529 c.) Si denique de ipsa etiam Trinitatis unitate dis- sentientem hzereticum invenio, et ta- men evangelica et ecclesiastica re- gula baptizatum, intellectum homi- nis corrigo, non Dei violo sacramen- tum.
47 Ady. Fulgent. c. 7. (ibid. ap- pend. p. 6c.) Da mihi aliquem sanc- torum post Trinitatem rebaptizare, quod facis.
48 Dialog. cont. Lucifer. c.1. [al.3.] (t. 2. p.172¢.) Orthodox. Si Ariani, ut dicis, Gentiles sunt, et Arianorum conventicula castra sunt Diaboli; quomodo in castris Diaboli baptiza- tum recipis? Lucifer. Recipio, sed
anis venientem recipi debere pceni- tentem, clericum vero non debere. Ibid. το ἘΣ] τα iGaeS she) eases Orthod. Kadem ratione a nobis epi- scopum recipi, qua laicus a vobis re- cipitur.
49 Ibid. c.8. [al. 21.] (p. 194 ©.) .... Edisseras quid adversum Hila- rium dicendum sit, qui nec baptiza- tos quidem recipiat ab Arianis.
50 Ibid. c. 8. [al. 24.] (p. 198 a.) ... De Apocalypsi quoque approbe- mus heereticis sine baptismate de- bere poenitentiam concedi.... Num- quid dixit, Rebaptizentur, qui in Ni- colaitarum fidem [al. fide| baptizati sunt ?
) 20.
the ancient Church. 63
without rebaptizing : for the Nicolaitans were heretics, and yet here was no command given, that they who were baptized by them should be baptized again. Then he proves the same from the constant practice of the Roman Church, where Hilary him- self was baptized, who could be no Christian if his own doctrine were true: for he was baptized in a Church which had always received baptism from heretics. Nay, he himself*!, whilst he was deacon of that Church, had received the baptism of the Manichees and Ebionites: but as soon as Arius arose, he was all on a sudden displeased with himself, and opened a new bap- tistery against the Church. ‘ He that was born in the bosom of the Church, he that was nourished with the milk of her breasts, lift up his sword against her, calling her harlot; and yet that harlot must be his mother, else he could not prove himself a Christian.’ Finally, he concludes both against Hilary and his master Lucifer, from the authority of the Council of Nice, which received all heretics, except the Samosatenians, and not only admitted the baptism of the Novatians, but allowed their clergy to continue their station in the Church.
In lke manner Gennadius *2 tells us, ‘all such as were baptized by heretics in the name or confession of the Trinity were received as truly baptized, when they came over to the Church. And then if they consented to profess the true faith, they were confirmed by imposition of hands, and so ad- mitted to the participation of the Eucharist.’
The same author 53 mentions a book of one Ursinus Afer,
51 Ibid. c.g. [al. 25.] (p. 199 e.) Si enim heretici baptisma non ha- bent, et ideo rebaptizandi ab ecclesia sunt, quia in ecclesia non fuerunt, ipse quoque Hilarius non est Christi- anus. In ea quippe ecclesia baptiza- tus est, que semper ab hereticis baptismum recepit. Antequam Ari- minensis synodus fieret; antequam Lucifer exsularet, Hilarius Romanze ecclesiz diaconus ab heereticis veni- entes in eo, quod prius acceperant, baptismate suscipiebat. ... Diaconus eras, o Hilari, et a Manicheis bapti- zatos recipiebas. Diaconus eras, et Ebionis baptisma comprobabas. Re- pente, postquam exortus est Arius, totus tibi displicere coepisti. Segre- gas te cum tuis vernulis, et novum
balneum aperis.—Ibid. (p. 200 e.) Synodus quoque Nicena.... omnes hereticos suscepit, exceptis Pauli Samosateni discipulis. Et quod his majus est, episcopo Novatianorum, si conversus fuerit, presbyteril gra- dum servat.
52 De Eccles. Dogmat. c. 52. (int. Oper. Augustin. t. 8. append. p. 78 a.) Si qui apud illos hereticos bap- tizati sunt, qui in Sanctze Trinitatis confessione baptizant, et veniunt ad nos, recipiantur quidem ut baptizati. ....Et si consentiunt credere, vel acquiescunt confiteri, purgati jam fidei integritate, confirmentur manus impositione, &c.
°3 De Scriptor. Eccles. c. 27. (int. Oper. Hieron. t. 2. p. 965.) Ur-
64 The practice of
written on purpose against those who were for rebaptizing all heretics, wherein he proved, ‘ that such as were either baptized in the name of Christ, or in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, were not to be rebaptized, though they understood the words in an heterodox sense: but when they made con- fession of the Trinity, the bishop’s confirmation by imposition of hands was sufficient for their salvation.’
About this time lived the author of the Questions and Responses which go under the name of Justin Martyr. Among other questions he proposes this for one, ‘If the baptism administered by heretics be adulterated and vain, why then do not the orthodox rebaptize an heretic when he comes over to the Catholic faith, but allow his adulterated baptism, as well as that which is true?’ To which he answers, ‘When an heretic comes over to the Catholic faith, the fault of his heterodoxy is corrected by the change of his opinion: and the faultiness of his baptism by the unetion of the holy chrism.’ Here we see, he does not deny but that the baptism of heretics is very faulty ; nay, adulterated, spurious, and vain, as to any spiritual effects, whilst they continue heretics; and yet when they come over to the Catholic Church, their baptism is not to be repeated, as simply null and invalid, but to be corrected, amended, and completed in its deficiences by the ministry of confirmation, which the Greeks call chrism or the holy unetion. And thus we are to understand the word μάταιος, vain, as it is used by Ignatius, and the author of the Constitutions, and other Greek writers, when they speak of the baptism of heretics and schismatics, not as denoting simply the nullity and in- validity of it, but the sinfulness of the action in giving baptism out of the Church, and the inefficacy of it as to salvation, or
sinus Monachus scripsit adversus eos, qui rebaptizandos hzereticos de- cernunt, docens nec legitimum esse nec Deo dignum rebaptizari illos, qui in nomine [vel] simpliciter
309 6.) Ei ἐψευσμένον τυγχάνει καὶ μάταιον τὸ ὑπὸ τῶν αἱρετικῶν διδόμε- νον βάπτισμα, διὰ τί οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι τὸν προσφεύγοντα τῇ ὀρθοδοξίᾳ αἱρετικὸν
> , > ? c ’ 3 ἵν, ~ ov βαπτίζουσι, ἀλλ᾽ ws ἐν ἀληθεῖ TO
Christi, vel in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, quamvis pravo sensu, baptizentur: iis autem post Sancte [al. sed post] Trinitatis et Christi simplicem confessionem, suf- ficere ad salutem manus impositio- nem Catholici sacerdotis.
51 Quest. 14. ad Orthodox. (p.
νόθῳ ἑῶσι βαπτίσματι.
5° 1014. (d.) Τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν ὀρθοδοξίαν ἐρχομένου τὸ σφάλμα δι- ορθοῦται, τῆς μὲν κακοδοξίας, τῇ μετα- θέσει τοῦ φρονήματος" τοῦ δὲ βαπ- τίσματος τῇ ἐπιχρίσει τοῦ ἁγίου μύρου.
Ase
20.
the ancient Church. 65 any other spiritual effects till men return from their heresies and schisms to the unity of the Church again.
Pope Leo denies the spiritual efficacy of heretical baptism as much as any man; and yet he was utterly against rebap- tizing: for he gives this direction to Nicetius°®, bishop of Aquileia, “ that such as received baptism from heretics, having not been baptized before, were to be received only by invoca- tion of the Holy Spirit and imposition of hands, and that because they had before only received the form of baptism without the sanctifying power of it.’ He gives a like resolution to the question of Rusticus Narbonensis 57: ‘Those that know they have been baptized in the form of the Church, but know not what faith they were of that baptized them, are not to be rebaptized ; but by imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, whose grace they could not have from heretics, are to be united to the communion of Catholics.’
And this he learned from the practice of his predecessors, {nnocentius and Siricius; whereof the one 55. says, ‘It was their custom to receive Arians into the communion of Catho- lics, as well as Novatians and other heretics, only by invoca- tion of the seven graces of the Spirit, with imposition of the bishop’s hands, as it had been decreed in council :—meaning the decree which the Council of Nice, or the Council of Arles, had made to this purpose. And this, he says, was then observed both in the Eastern and Western Churches.
ὅ6 Ep. a al. 79. ad Nieet. c. 7. (CC. t. 3. Ρ. 1372 e.) Hi, qui bap- tismum ab heereticis acceperunt, cum baptizati antea non fuissent, sola invocatione Spiritus Sancti per impo- sitionem manuum confirmandi sunt, quia formam tantum baptismi sine sanctificationis virtute sumpsere.
87 Ep.g2. [al.go.| ad Rustic. c. τό. (ibid. p. 1408 e.) Qui se baptizatos sciunt, [al. Non isti, qui se baptiza- tos nesciunt], sed cujus fidei fuerint, qui se [8]. 605] baptizavere, se ne- scire profitentur, [unde ] quolibet mo- do formam baptismatis acceperint, rebaptizandi [al. baptizandi| non sunt: sed per manus impositionem, invocata virtute Spiritus Sancti, quam ab hereticis accipere non po- tuerunt, Catholicis copulandi sunt.—
BINGHAM, VOL. IX.
Conf. Ep. 37. ad Leon. Ravennat. c. 2. (ibid. p. 1316 c.) Quod si ab heereticis baptizatum quempiam fu- isse constiterit, erga hunc nullatenus sacramentum regenerationis itere- tur: sed hoc tantum, quod ibi de- fuit, conferatur, ut per episcopalem manus impositionem virtutem Sanc- ti Spiritus consequatur.
ὅ8 Siric. Ep. 1. ad Himerium Tarracon. c.1. (CC. t. 2. p. 1018 a.)
ον Quos [Arianos] nos cum No- vatianis aliisque heereticis, sicut est in synodo constitutum, per invoca- tionem solam Septiformis Spiritus, episcopalis manus impositione, Ca- tholicorum conventui sociamus. Quod etiam totus Oriens Occidens- que custodit.
F
66 The practice of
His other predecessor, Innocentius °9, affirms the same, ‘ that the baptism of the Arians was allowed as valid: and when they were conyerted they were received by penance and imposition of hands, which was the means of procuring for them the sanc- tification of the Holy Spirit. And so for the Novatians and Donatists he determines ©, that those who came over from them should be received only by imposition of hands; because, though they were baptized by heretics, yet they were baptized in the name of Christ.’ In another place he explains the reason why the Council of Nice allowed the baptism of the Noyatians, but not the Paulianists: ‘ Because the Paulianists did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which the Novatians did, who, in the pomt of the divine power of the Trinity, always maintained the orthodox faith. Such, therefore, as came over from heresies of the like kind with the Noyatians, it was the custom of the Church of Rome ® to receive with imposition of hands to lay-com- munion, but not to allow them orders, he says: which was a matter of discipline in which the Church used a liberty to extend or relax her censures, as she thought proper in her own wisdom and discretion.
It were easy to add many other testimonies of the lke nature; but I suppose these are abundantly sufficient both to evince and explain the general sense of the Church upon this head, that they allowed as valid the baptism of all heretics that baptized in the name of the Trinity ; though some few required
59 Ep. 18. ad Alexandr. Antioch. c. 3. (ibid. p. 1269 d.) Arianos pre- terea ceeterasque hujusmodi pestes, quia eorum laicos conversos ad Do- minum sub imagine peenitentize ac Sancti Spiritus sanctificatione per manus impositionem suscipimus, non videtur clericos eorum cum sa- cerdotii. .. cujuspiam suscipi debere dignitate ; quoniam iis solum bap- tisma ratum esse permittimus, quod utique in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti perficitur.
60 Ep. 1. ad Victricium, ec. 8. ibid. p- 1251 c.) Ut venientes a Nova- tianis vel Montensibus per manus tantum impositionem suscipiantur : quia quamvis ab hereticis, tamen in
Christi nomine sunt baptizati.
61 Ep. 22.adEpise. Macedon. c. 5. (ibid. p. 1275 b.) Quod idcirco dis- tinctum esse ipsis duabus heresibus ratio manifesta declarat: quia Paul- janistze in nomine Patris, ΕἾ], et Spiritus Sancti minime baptizant : et Novatiani iisdem tremendis ve- nerandisque nominibus baptizant.
62 Ep. 22. c. 4. (ibid. p. 1274 b.) Nostrz vero lex est ecclesize, venien- tibus ab hereticis, qui tamen illic baptizati sunt, per manus imposi- tionem laicam tantum tribuere com- munionem, nec ex his aliquem in clericatus honorem vel exiguum sur- rogare.
iT 20; 21. the ancient Church. 67
they should be baptized in the true faith, as well as the true form, to make their baptism effectual.
21. But now, though the baptism of heretics and schismatics What de- and degraded or excommunicated clerks was reputed valid, so cts tere as it needed not to be repeated; yet it was not esteemed so baptism of
perfect to all intents and purposes as the regular and authorized oer ea baptism of the Church, because both on the part of the re- sen ceiver and on the part of the giver there were some deficiencies fects are in it. We must therefore inquire, in the next place, What the Pplied. Ancients supposed such baptism could give ? Then, What were its deficiencies, and what it could not give? and, How those deficiencies were supplied ?
For the resolution of these questions, St. Austin®, who has considered this matter most exactly, often inculeates a known distinction between the external or visible sacrament, and the invisible or spiritual grace; the former of which is common both to good and bad men in the Church; but the latter is peculiar only to those that are good. Now he supposes such as are baptized by heretics and schismatics, to be much in the same state as bad men in the Church; they re- ceive the outward visible sacrament, but not the invisible, internal, and sanctifying grace of the Spirit. So that it cannot be said that they received nothing at all; for they receive as much, almost, as wicked men in the Church; of whom it may be truly said, that they have received the sacrament of baptism, and need not upen any occasion to be rebaptized again: and further, that they are hereby made partakers of all such privileges as the receiving the outward and visible sacra- ment of baptism can give to such as debar themselves, by some obstacle of their own, from the invisible and spiritual grace of it. Their baptism makes them something more than mere Heathens, who need baptism before they can come into the Church : it gives them a title to be members of the visible Church at large, though they are not true members of the in- visible and spiritual Church, because they are not yet sanctified by the Spirit of Christ: it qualifies them for pardon upon their
63 Cont. Lit. Petilian. 1. 2. c. 104. premium, istis [al. illis] ad judicium, {t. 9. p. 293 f.) Discerne ergo visibile ab invisibili unctione caritatis, que sanctum sacramentum, quod esse et propria bonerum est. in bonis et in malis potest, illis ad
Ε 2
68 The practice of
repentance, whenever they return from their vicious practices, and takes away those bars and obstacles that hindered the descent of the Spirit at their first admission ; nay, though they turn heretics or schismatics, or become lapsers, or excommuni- cate, or even apostates, they need not a new baptism, but only repentance and absolution, to return to the Church again; the seal and character of their baptism remaining in this respect for ever indelible upon them, so as to qualify them to be admitted ever after to pardon and forgiveness upon a true repentance. These are privileges that a wicked man has, by virtue of his having received the outward form of baptism, or the visible sacrament in the Church, though all the time, by his own fault, he be destitute of pardon of sins, and all the in- visible graces and operations of the Holy Spirit. As the baptism of Simon Magus was a true baptism, though he was an unworthy, and therefore an unprofitable receiver of it: and as the sacrament of the eucharist is a true sacrament, though many men eat it not to their soul’s health, but to their own damnation, because they are unworthy receivers of it.
Now as the case was with the wicked men, who thus received baptism in the Church, that they gained hereby some privi- leges, but not all, nor the chief of those that belonged to it: so the Ancients supposed the case of those to be, who were baptized in an uncharitable opposition and contempt of autho- rity, by heretics, or schismaties, or excommunicate and degraded clergymen. Their baptism, if done in due form, entitled them to some privileges, but not all that might be expected from it in the Church: it was the visible sacrament of baptism, and therefore made them something more than Heathens, and qualified them for some, if not all, of the forementioned privi- leges; so that upon their repentance and return to the Church, they needed not to be received as mere Heathens, by having their baptism repeated again. But then it wanted the internal and invisible grace, particularly the grace of unity and charity, which completes all other graces, and which heretics and schismatics were not supposed qualified to give, nor they who desired baptism at their hands qualified to receive, till they returned with repentance and charity to the unity of the Church again: and then the Church by imposition of hands, and invocation of the Holy Spirit, might obtain for them those
ra
δ: 21.
69
the ancient Church.
blessings and graces, which might have been had in baptism, if they themselves had not been the obstacle, and put in a bar against them.
This I take to be the true state of this matter, as generally delivered by such of the Ancients as defended the validity of heretical baptism. For as to those who pleaded against it, and stood up for rebaptization, they argued upon a quite con- trary and mistaken notion, that the visible sacrament and the invisible grace must necessarily be united together to make a true sacrament; and that neither could the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Which was the chief argument used by Nemesianus a Tubunis, in the famous Council of Carthage, for rebaptization under Cyprian : to which St. Austin returns a very satisfactory answer, upon Cyprian’s own principles, only by distinguishing a double notion of the Spirit®: ‘For if the presence of the Spirit be necessary to every true baptism, it must be only in such a sense as Simon Magus, or any other wicked wretch, who is baptized in the Church, may be said to be born again of water and of the Spirit, who yet shall never enter into the kingdom of heaven, and the case of heretics may be such, that is, to be born of water and the Spirit without salvation. But if by the Spirit be meant only the spirit of true conversion, then all those who renounce the world in words and not in deeds are not born of the Spirit, but of water alone, who yet in Cyprian’s opinion are truly baptized in the Church. For one of these two things must needs be granted: either those who falla- ciously renounce the world are born of the Spirit, though to
64 De Βορὺ 1 ὁ. “6 12. {{- 9.
renuntiant, non utique de Spiritu, p-168f.) Aliud est enim, Omnis, qui
sed ex aqua sola nascuntur; qui
entrabit in regnum celorum, prius re- nascitur ex aqua et Spiritu, quia nist renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, non intrabit in regnum celorum ; quod Dominus dixit, et verumest. Aliud autem, Omnis, qui nascitur ex aqua et Spiritu, intrabit in regnum celo- rum ; quod utique falsum est. Nam et Simon ille Magus natus erat ex aqua et Spiritu, et tamen non intra- vit in regnum celorum. Sic fieri potest, ut hereticis etiam contingat. Aut si non nascitur ex Spiritu, nisi qui veraci conversione mutatur, om- nes, qui seculo verbis et non factis
tamen et intus, teste Cypriano, sunt. Necesse est enim, ut unum de duo- bus concedatur : aut illi, qui fallaciter seculo renuntiant, nascuntur de Spiritu, quamvis ad perniciem, non ad salutem, atque ita possunt et he- reticl: aut, si illud quod scriptum est, Sanctus enim Spiritus discipline effugiet fictum, etiam ad hoc valet, ut fallaciter seeculo renuntiantes non nascantur de Spiritu. Potest quis baptizari aqua, et non nasci de Spiritu; et frustra Nemesianus ait, Neque Spiritus sine aqua operari potest, nec aqua sine Spiritu.
70 The practice of
their destruction, not salvation ; and then heretics may be so too: or else, if that saying of the Book of Wisdom®, “‘ The Holy Spirit of discipline will not dwell in an hypocrite,” be taken to signify, that they who fallaciously renounce the world are not born of the Spirit; then a man may be born of water alone and not of the Spirit, and Nemesianus disputed to no purpose, when he said, ‘that the Spirit cannot operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit.’ It is plain from this discourse of St. Austin, that the great deficiency of heretical baptism was, that either it did not minister the Spirit at all, or else at least not to such a degree as was effectual to sanctification and salvation. And this deficiency was therefore necessary to be supplied upon their return to the Catholic Church. There was but one case, he thinks, in which heretical baptism could avail any man to salvation, and that was, when it was such a case of necessity as that a man could not have baptism from any other 56, and ‘then the man, in heart, was still united to the Catholic Church. But in all other cases their baptism was unprofitably received ; and to make it other- wise it was necessary for men to forsake their heresy or schism, and join themselves to the Catholic Church. Even as they, who were in the Church by the communion of the sacraments, but out of it by the diversity of their morals, were obliged to reform their lives in order to make their baptism profitable, which before was of little advantage to them.’ Therefore St. Austin says, he had no dispute with Cyprian upon this point; he agreed entirely with him thus far®, ‘that heretics
65 [Authorised Version, ch. 1. v. 5. For the Holy Spirit of discipline will flee deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without under- standing, and will not abide when unrighteousness cometh in.—See Septuagint, Ed. Lamb. Bos. (Frane- quer. 1709. p. 1183.) “Aytov yap Πνεῦμα παιδείας φεύξεται δόλον, x.T.A. Juxta MS. Alexandr. σοφίας pro παιδείας. Ep. |
6 Tid: 19 ἘΣ 92. (pidor@)ae 4: Illi vero, qui sic sunt in magna domo tamquam vasa in contumeliam.... neque omnino utiliter habent [bap- tismum]; neque ab eis utiliter acci- pitur, nisi forte accipiendi necessitas
urgeat, et accipientis animus ab uni- tatis vinculo non recedat. amen et habent, quanquam inutiliter habe- ant, et accipitur ab eis, etiam cum inutile est accipientibus: quod ut fiat utile, ab hzeresi vel schismate recedendum est, et illi domui cohe- rendum. Quod non solum heretici et schismatici, sed etiam illi facere debent, qui sic in domo per com- munionem sacramentorum, ut extra domum sint per diversitatem mo- rum; sic enim et ipsis utile incipit esse sacramentum, quod aliter im- utile est.
67 Ibid. 1 &. δ: 22. \(p. τοῦ Db.) Proinde consentimus Cypriano, he-
§ 21.
the ancient Church. 71
could not grant remission of sins: this was the deficiency of their baptism, which both in the giver and receiver was only to destruction, because they misused so great a gift of God. But then the same deficiency was many times in the baptism of those who were baptized in the Church, because they were baptized in enmity and hatred of their brethren, and in that state could not have forgiveness of sins: yet this deficiency was not supplied by a new baptism, but by repentance and true conversion, whereby that pardon was obtained which they had not merited, nor were qualified to receive before.’ Nor was this the singular opinion of St. Austin about the deficiency of heretical baptism, but the general sense of the Church: for which reason they appointed that imposition of hands should be given to such as returned to the Church, in order to obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost for them by prayer, which they wanted before, as having received baptism from those who had no power to give the Holy Ghost. For thus Innocent °°, bishop of Rome, who was contemporary with St. Austin, says of the baptism of the Arians, ‘that their ministration was defective in this, that they could not give the Holy Ghost; and therefore such as were baptized by them were imperfect, and were to be received with imposition of hands, that they might thereby obtain the grace of the Holy Ghost.’ Pope Leo © says, ‘ they had only the form of baptism, without the grace of sanctification: and therefore when they came over to the Catholic Church, though the form of baptism was not to be repeated, yet what was wanting in it was to be
reticos remissionem dare non posse ; baptismum autem dare posse, quod quidem illis et dantibus et accipi- entibus valeat ad perniciem, tam- quam tanto munere Dei male uten- tibus.... Quanto magis fieri non potest, ut eis peccata dimittantur, qui fratres a quibus diliguntur ode- runt, et in ipso odio baptizantur : quibus tamen postea correctis non rursus baptismus datur, sed ipsa venia, quam tunc accipere non me- ruerunt, in vera conversione pre- Sstatur.
68 Ep. 18. ad Alexandr. Antio- ἘΠΡ ΟἹ 5. (CC. ἢ 2: ἢ τύ d:)..;
Nec Spiritum Sanctum eos habere ex illo baptismate, illisque mysteriis arbitramur: quoniam cum a Catho- lica fide eorum auctores desciscerent, perfectionem Spiritus, quam acce- perant, amiserunt.... Horum laicos imperfectos, ut dixi, ad Sancti Spi- ritus percipiendam gratiam cum pee- nitentiz imagine recipimus [al. re- cipiamus }.
69 Ep. 79. ad Nicet. c. 7. Ep. 92. ad Rustic. c. 16. Ep. 37. ad Leon. Ravennat. c. 2. All cited in the last section. See before, nn. 56 and 57, preceding.
72 The practice of supplied, that by imposition of the bishop’s hands they might receive the grace of the Holy Ghost.’
And that this was the true and only method of supplying the defects of heretical baptism, is evident from all the passages that have been alleged in the last section, which speak of the use of the sacred unction, which was joined with imposition of hands and prayer to implore the grace of remission of sins, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, which were wanting before. To all which I shall only add these two observations further, to show the necessity of supplying the defects of heretical and schismatical baptism by confirmation, or imposi- tion of hands and prayer upon men’s reconciliation and return- ing to the Catholic Church.
The first is, that imposition of hands or confirmation was thought so necessary in this case, that though it was ordinarily only the office of the bishop to perform it, yet in cases of extreme necessity, when one who had been baptized by heretics was in danger of death, and could not come to the bishop, a presbyter in that exigency was authorized te give him that solemn imposition of hands used in the prayer of confirmation and invocation of the Holy Spirit, rather than he should die without it. This is evident from the first Council of Orange, which made this decree 7°, ‘ that if any heretics at the point of death desire to be received as Catholics, in the absence of the bishop, the presbyters shall give them the consignation of chrism and the benediction.’ And so in the Council of Epone a like order 71 was made, ‘ that if any heretics, who lay desperately sick upon their beds, desired suddenly to be converted, in that case, for the salvation of their souls, which was heartily desired, a presbyter is permitted to give them the consolation of chrism; for which those that were in health were to go to the bishop at their conversion.’ Here we may take notice, that this con- firmation, or solemn invocation of the Holy Spirit, was thought
70 C. τ. (t. 3. p. 1447 Ὁ.) Heereti- cos in mortis discrimine positos, si Catholici esse desiderent, si desit episcopus, a presbyteris cum chris- mate et benedictione consignari pla- cet.
71 C. 16. (t. 4. p.18478 b.) Pres- bytero, propter salutem animarum,
quam in cunctis optamus desperatis et in lecto decumbentibus hereticis, si conversionem subitam petant, chrismate subvenire permittimus. Quod etiam omnes conversuri, si sani sunt, ab episcopo noverint ex- petendum.
[2
the ancient Church. 13;
more necessary for such as were baptized by heretics and schismatics, upon their return to the Church, than for those that were baptized in the Church: for many of those who were baptized in the Church, in country-towns and villages, died, as St. Jerom observes 72, before the bishop could come to give them confirmation; and yet no such rule was made in that case for presbyters to confirm them: the reason of which was, that they had received the grace of the Holy Spirit in their baptism, which heretics had not, and therefore there was no such absolute necessity of confirming them in order to die in peace and safety: but heretics could not die securely without it; and therefore the Church, in compassion to dying heretics, authorized even presbyters in cases of extreme necessity to give them confirmation, which in other cases was the ordinary office of the episcopal function.
The other observation I would make in relation to this matter is, that imposition of hands was thought so necessary for heretics upon their return, that even those who had received it before in their heretical baptism, received it again when they were reconciled to the Church. The reason of which was, because heretics and schismatics, during their separation, were supposed neither qualified to give nor receive the Holy Ghost, either by baptism or imposition of hands, or the consignation of chrism: for some heretics ministered all these, and yet imposition of hands was given them again, when they returned to the Church. This is plain in the case