Full text of "The novelties which disturb our peace [microform]"

THE '

NOVELTIES WHICH DISTURB OUR PEACE.

BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY

OF THE

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

BY JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D. D.,

BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT.

"Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell to-
gether in unity." Ps. 133.

PHILADELPHIA:
HERMAN HOOKER.

1844.

.
% . .
'.. *

.H78

[Entered acconling to Act of Congress, in the year 18-14, by HERMAN HOOKER, in the
Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United .States in and for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.}

GiHO.V, FjUKGHILI) &. CO., PRINTERS,

South East corner of Seventh and Market Streets.

A LETTER, &c.

RESPECTED AND BELOVED BRETHREN IN CHRIST :

The sacred office of the Episcopate is confessedly in-
vested with the most awful responsibility, even in its ordi-
nary administration. When the Church is at peace in
all her borders, and her bishops are only called upon to
oversee their respective dioceses in the regular routine of
accustomed duty, even then, how few can feel that they
have acquitted themselves of their solemn trust with en-
tire fidelity ! How ready must we all be to supplicate
forgiveness at the hands of the great Bishop and Shep-
herd of our souls, and to acknowledge the force of the
apostle's declaration, that the treasure of the gospel is in-
deed committed to earthen vessels, that the excellency of
the power might be of God, and not of us !

But far more delicate and difficult does our task be-
come, when the peace of the Church is disturbed by in-
testine agitation. Scattered at distant points over our
vast continent, meeting together only once in three years,
and then during a period quite too short for an intimate
and thorough understanding of our respective opinions,
we are deprived of the power of mutual consultation,
when those peculiar occasions arise, on which that con-
sultation would be most desirable. Meanwhile, the ir-
responsible autocracy of the Press takes hold of the op-
portunity. Error and novelty gain ground. The clergy
and the people choose their editorial leaders ; and when
at last, the sentiments of the bishops are declared, they
are merely used as' the complements of parties already
formed, and are praised or blamed, just as the prejudice
of party may dictate. The bishops, in theory, are in-
deed, the governors of the Church. In practical effect,
however, on the minds of the majority, the editorial chair
stands far above them ; and as the inconsistency, how-

ever gross, belongs to the spirit of the age, I doubt much
whether it admits of any effectual remedy.

Under such circumstances, the inquiry, What can,and
what ought to be done by each individual bishop, be-
comes a grave and serious question. The apostolic pre-
cept, JBe not partaker of other men's sins, seems, of itself,
to require our public attestation against error. And wheh
we join to this the solemn promise of our consecration vow
to banish and drive away from the. Church all erroneous
and strange doctrines contrary to God's ivord; and both
privately and openly to CALL UPON AND ENCOTJRA GE OTHERS
to do the same, it would surely be a false interpretation
that we could be justified in doing nothing. If the relaxed
discipline of these latter days allows us to exercise only
the common liberty of speech, our very silence, in times
of trouble, becomes reprehensible. And just in propor-
tion to the doubts and difficulties which involve our bre-
'thren, should be the force and distinctness of our warn-
ing voice. Whether men will hear, or whether they will
forbear, is not for us to determine ; but we cannot avoid
the responsibility of the ultimate evil result, if we see
them walking towards an unsuspected snare, without
earnestly beseeching them to pause and consider, before
it be too late.

I freely acknowledge, however, that wisdom demands
our utmost care, lest we create difficulty, by too hasty an
adoption of the cry that the CHURCH is IN DANGER. And
I am by no means disposed to sympathize in that popular
alarm, or to strengthen the fears of those who maintain
it. In one respect, indeed, the assertion may well be
granted, for the Church militant can never be free frojn
danger, until her warfare is accomplished, and the final vic-
tory is won. But I would hope that the agitation which now
pervades our communion, on both sides of the Atlantic, is
riot an argument of danger to the Church, so much as it
is a proof of her sensitive vitality, and her zealous love
for the pure and unadulterated doctrines of the gospel.
Hence arises our jealousy of the least approximation to
error. Hence our suspicions and our fears, lest the new
school of Tractarian theology should conflict with our

standards of religious truth. And hence, following the
counsel of the wise son of Sirach, to take physic when we
are well, it seems our duty to arise BEFORE the Church is
in danger, attack the appearance of disorder in its first
and lightest symptoms, and thus, so far as in us lies,
under the guidance and by the power of the divine Phy-
sician, transmit her constitution, in health and vigour,
even to the end of the world.

With these views, my respected and beloved brethren,
bishops, clergy, and laity, I beg leave to address myself
to you upon the present interesting stage of our ecclesias-
tical history. I do it under the conviction, that the
Church has a right to know the sentiments of every
bishop, upon questions which concern her principles arid
doctrine, especially at a time of agitation, which threatens
may God avert it ! to be the herald of strife. I do it in
the hope, that when all our bishops shall have spoken
distinctly, we shall find this agitation gradually subside.
I do it as a lover of peace and unity, as a friend to the
Reformation, and as an uncompromising adversary to
every form and shape of Romanism. I do it as a brother,
addressing brethren, without the fear of being misappre-
hended by those who understand, with Jerome, that
" wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or at
Eugubium, he is of the same excellency, of the same
episcopate. The power of wealth, or the lowliness of
poverty does not make a bishop either less or greater."
And I do it in this particular form, on purpose to express
the more plainly, that I hold myself under correction,
especially from each and all of my brethren in the epis-
copate, if any thing which I conceive it my duty to say,
should seem, to their better judgments, unsound or objec-
tionable.

My design is to set forth, distinctly, my own position,
as one of the college of bishops, (although, it may be,
the least,) in reference to those important topics in which
innovation is beginning to be manifest; on the admitted
maxim, Obsta principiis. The first subject which I shall
present is that of Lay Baptism, inasmuch as the novel prac-
tice of re-baptizing those who have received baptism at
1*

the hands of our non-episcopal brethren, is openly defend-
ed, and is on the increase. My motives for placing this
matter at the commencement, have arisen out of my
official sphere of duty. The public allowance of re-bapti-
zation in the case of some students of the General Semi-
nary in A. D. 1S41, has given me trouble in my own
diocese. Bound, as I conceive, by the strongest ecclesiasti-
cal arguments, to deny the law fulness of such re-baptiza-
tion, I have promised to publish my reasons; and I address
them to you with the desire, that when the next General
Convention meets together, under the favour of divine
Providence, this may be one of the points on which I
may have the counsel of my colleagues.

Another novelty which I regret to see, is the system-
atic refusal of the term Church, to the various orthodox
communities of our non-episcopal brethren, on the alleged
ground, that since Episcopacy is manifestly of divine in-
stitution, there can be no Church where there are no
bishops.

A third novelty to which I cannot assent, is the view
of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, as set forth
in the Oxford Tracts, and presented in the late sermon of
the Rev, Dr. Puse-y. In connexion with, this stands the
general scope of what is called the sacramental theolo-
gy, and the theory of priestly power.

A fourth novelty, which has produced a more serious
fermentation than all the rest, in consequence of the re-
cent ordination of Mr. Carey, is the theological notion
that the tenets of the Council of Trent may be recon-
ciled to sound Catholic (or orthodox and primitive)
doctrine. And along with this, I am compelled to
classify the apparent favour exhibited towards the
extraordinary assault of a Transatlantic periodical, the
British Critic, upon the cardinal doctrine of Justification
by faith, and the Protestant character of the Church
of England.

I have called these things 'Novelties, 1 not because the
notions themselves were never heard before, but be-
cause they have never been presented, until lately, in
such a form and under such peculiar circumstances, as

to disturb our peace by their practical influence. T-hat
in this respect they are the fruits of the Tractarian theory,
is doubted by no one. And while I entertain none but
the kindliest feelings of personal regard and affection, to-
wards the distinguished advocates of that theory, whe-
ther in our mother Church, or in our own, I have al-
ready, (in my Charge of 1842,) been obliged to dissent
from their system; and now propose to act on the same
principle, under the vast increase of responsibility, which
has arisen from the unexpected developments of the past
year. Perfectly persuaded, however, that all my brethren,
with one heart, "desire the prosperity of our holy apos-
tolic Church," and are ready, " with one mouth, to pro-
fess the faith once delivered to the saints," I cannot con-
sent to prosecute a warfare against their piety, the purity
of their motives, or the rectitude of their intentions, even
when I am compelled to oppose what I conscientiously
believe to be serious errors in judgment. For if charity,
as the apostle saith,"rejoiceth in the truth," it may be
asserted, without fear of contradiction, that truth rejoiceth
no less in charity.

On the first of the topics specified, viz., the validity of
Lay -Baptism, I must ask your indulgence to a long
array of argument and evidence, not only because it has
been made the subject of several able publications on the
other side, (the last of which, by my highly esteemed brother
and friend, Professor Ogilhy, I have not yet seen,*) but al-
so because of its great practical importance to our paro-
chial clergy. There are constant accessions to the Church
from the various Christian communities around us, and the
very first question to be settled in all such cases is, whether
the persons concerned have been already baptized or
not. It is plainly, therefore, of the most absolute neces-
sity to have fixed and definite views upon this matter;
and I have accordingly devoted considerable time and
labour, in order to exhibit what I conceive to be the doc-
trine of the Church, along with the proofs on which it is
founded.

* I have been informed by an intelligent clergyman, that the Pro-
fessor has taken the same line of argument as Waterland, whose work
I have kept chiefly before me in preparing the following pages.

To this end, I shall first consider the question as it
stands in our mother Church of England since the Refor-
mation, and in our own Church, as derived from her.
Next, I shall bring the doctrine to the test of Scripture,
and Christian antiquity; and lastly, I shall point out some
of the difficulties which encumber the contrary opinion.

It is universally known, not only that Lay-Baptism
was the prevalent practice of the whole Western Church,
in cases of extremity, but that it was expressly approved
by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation;
for the Prayer-Book established in the reign of Edward
VI., gave directions for the mode in which a layman
might perform the ordinance. The familiar maxim
in theology had long been settled, that the minister was
not of the ESSENCE, but only of the ORDER of the sacra-
ment; and therefore, although as a point of^sacred order, a
priest was required when he could be obtained,yet the es-
sence of baptism might be had under a lay-administration.

The first man of note who laid down the contrary
doctrine was the celebrated John Calvin, (1) " We judge
that baptism to be adulterated or vitiated/ 7 saith he,
"which is administered by a private man, and this teme-
rity, in a well-ordered Church, ought not to be tolerated.
But because this thing happened among you in the be-
ginning of the Reformation, before the order of the Church
was well restored, and while things were yet in confu-

(1) "Adulterinum baptismum censemus, qui administratus est a
private homine . Ac in ecclesia, recte composita, tolerabilis non esset
hsec temeritas. Sed quia id apud vos inter principia contigit, ante
restitutum Ecclesise ordinem, et rebus adhuc confusis ; non tantum
errori danda est venia, sed ferendus est qualiscunque baptismus :
modo ne in exemplum trahatur, quod semel perperam gestum est.
Narn inEcclesiEe dissipatione multaDeus condonat, quee nullo modo ad-
mittere fas esset in Ecclesiam bene ordinatarn. Olim cum vitiata esset
religio, baud dubie multis vitiis et corruptelis implicita circumcisio fait;
quam tamen iteratam fuisse non legimus, quum revocaretur populus
ad purum cultum. Ergo anxie disquirere necesse non est, ac ne ex-
pedit quidem,in omnes circumstantias, quse innumeros scrupulos gigne-
rent. Proinde quod ignovit Deus sub Papatu, nos quoque sepeliamus.
Nunc ubi de vero baptism! usu admonita fuerit Ecclesia, quod pugna-
ret cum Christi institutione, pro nihilo ducendum esset ; ac de integro
baptizandus, qui pollutusfueritprofana aspersione." Calv. Ep. p. 209.
Ed. Amstel. 1667. See App. to Bingham's Scholastic Hist, of Lay-
Baptism, 8, to which I am indebted for the passage.

sion, this error is not only to be pardoned, but any bap-
tism is to be admitted, provided the irregularity of what
was once done, be not drawn into precedent for the fu-
ture. For, in the dissipation of the Church, God pardons
many things that are not to be admitted of in a well-order-
ed Church. Heretofore, when religion was corrupted, no
doubt many faults and corruptions had crept into cir-
cumcision : yet we do not read that it was repeated,
when the people were brought back to a pure worship.
It is therefore neither necessary nor expedient to be over
anxious incur inquiries into all circumstances, which may
raise innumerable scruples. And therefore, what God
pardoned under the Papacy, let us also bury. Only now,
that the Church is instructed in the true use of baptism,
what is repugnant to Christ's institution is to be account-
ed as nothing ; and he is to be baptized again, who has
been polluted by a profane washing."

The Rubric of the Church of England, however, con-
tinued the same through the long reign of Elizabeth, not-
withstanding the influence of Calvin's authority ; nor
was it altered until the famous conference at Hampton,
Court ; and then it was done to gratify King James, who
had been educated a thorough Presbyterian. But still
there was no condemnation nor prohibition of Lay-Bap-
tism. The bishops merely consented that it should not be
enjoined, as it had been previously; while they had no idea
of adopting the rule of Calvin, by treating it as a nullity.
Nay, more than a century after this, viz. A. D. 1712,
there was a formal meeting of the archbishops with the
bishops, in consequence of Mr. Lawrence's publications
on the subject; and they unanimously resolved, that
" Lay-Baptism should be discouraged as much as possi-
ble, but if the essentials had been preserved in a baptism
by a lay hand, it ivas not to be repeated."* In full ac-
cordance with this, Bishop Fleetwood, cited as authority
in the last edition of Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, express*
ly asserts, that " Lay-Baptism, is not declared invalid by
any of the offices or rubrics, nor in any public act hath
the Church ever ordered such as have been baptized by

*See Bishop White's Memoirs of the Prot. Ep. Church, p. 280-294:
of first edition,

lay hands to be baptized by a lawful minister, though at
the time of the Restoration there were supposed to be 2
or 300,000 souls baptized by such as are called lay hands."
A glance at the chronology of this matter may aid
the force of the argument. The Book of Common Pray-
er which positively enjoined Lay-Baptism, was first pub-
lished in the reign of Edward VI., A. D. 1548, revised
and confirmed in 1552, and again revised and established
under Elizabeth, in 1559. The Hampton Court Confe-
rence which altered the rubric concerning Lay-Baptism,
at the instance of James L, took place in A. D. 1603.
The Restoration of Charles JL, after such vast numbers
had been baptized by lay hands, Independents and others,
was in A.D. 1660. The resolution of the bishops, occasion-
ed by Mr. Lawrence's book, was in 1712, and Bishop
Fleetwood, (who was probably present, since he was
consecrated to the see of St. Asaph in 1706) died in 1723,
precisely one hundred and twenty years after the Confe-
rence at Hampton Court, and sixty-three years after the
question of Lay-Baptism must have been pressed upon
the conscience of the Church of England with such pecu-
liar force, by the state of the kingdom, at the accession of
the second Charles.' Hence we see that the time and the
circumstances stamp the most absolute confirmation upon
the doctrine maintained by the ecclesiastical law of Eng-
land, viz. : that Baptism, administered by lay hands,
though irregular, and unauthorized by any express Rubric
since the year 1603, is nevertheless valid, and therefore
NOT TO BE REPEATED. That the judgment of our mo-
ther Church continues the same, has been fully proved
by the late case of Mastin vs. Escott, in which one of
her clergymen was sentenced to a suspension from the
ministry during three months, for having refused to bury
the body of a child who had been baptized by a Metho-
dist preacher, under the plea that such baptism was a
mere nullity; being performed, not by a 'lawful minister,'
but by a layman. The Ecclesiastical Court went large-
ly into the authorities, and condemned the clergyman on
the ground that Lay-Baptism, administered with water,
in the name of the Holy Trinity, was valid and sufficient
by the doctrine of the Church of England. And this

decision, after an obstinate and zealous contest, was con-
firmed, A. D. 1841, upon an appeal to the highest tribu-
nal of the English Ecclesiastical law, with the general ap-
probation of the Episcopal Bench. At least such appro-
bation must in fairness be inferred from the fact, that no
attempt has been made to alter the legal state of the
question.

Such being the clear and harmonious action of our
mother Church upon this important subject, we have
next to examine the matter as respects ourselves since
the year 1789, when our branch of the Church became
possessed of a complete and independent organization.
And here I presume that there can be but one opinion,
since it is familiar to all, that our system on the doctrine
and administration of baptism is precisely the same with
that of England. Our House of Bishops have further
adopted and recommended, as theological text-books,
those authors who expressly sustain the validity of Lay-
Baptism, such as Hooker, Burnet, and Potter. Our late
venerable Bishop White, who presided over that House
for half a century, has published his mature decision in
favour of the same views; and it is only since his de-
cease that any other doctrine has been openly advocated
amongst us: so that up to the present hour, nothing has
been done on this subject by the authority of our Church,
which changes our position one jot from that of the
Church of England. Our principles and our practice
were both derived from her, and for the first fifty years
of our ecclesiastical independence, our concord on this
point was unbroken. A few cases, indeed, of individual
dissatisfaction occurred from time to time ; but they
were disposed of in a corner, with as little publicity and
observation as possible, and were generally regarded,
not as a vindication of the doctrine of the Church, but
rather as a private and special indulgence to over-scru-
pulous minds, about which, the less that was said, the
better.

But I have now to examine the consistency of all this
with the truth of Scripture, and the doctrine of Christian
antiquity ; in order to test the allegation so confidently
made by the writers on the other side, that the Word of

God and the example of the primitive Church stand op-
posed to it.

First, then, if we turn to the Old Testament, we shall
find that those sacramental rites which were afterwards
committed to the Aaronic priesthood, were exercised
from the beginning without restriction. Thus, Abel
brought his sacrifice, the firstlings of his flock. Thus
Noah built an altar and offered sacrifices. Thus, Abra-
ham fulfilled the same sacred function ; and to him was
committed the sacramental rite of Circumcision, which
ordinance held the same place with his posterity, as Bap-
tism held with the spiritual Israel. I am well aware, in-
deed, of the distinction which the ancient fathers gene-
rally maintained, between those sacramental rites and
the proper Christian sacraments, calling the first the
types of those blessings which the latter actually con-
ferred. But in whatever light we may regard this point
of controversy, the analogy is sufficiently strong. The
strict propriety of arguing from Circumcision to Baptism,
from Sacrifices to the Eucharist, and from the Aaronic
priesthood to the apostolic ministry, is an axiom amongst
' all sound theologians, the authority of which is settled and
unquestionable.

On this very ground of analogy, it has always been
held most reasonable to cite the law which required in-
fant Circumcision, as a primary evidence in favour of
infant Baptism ; enough of itself to justify the Baptism
of infants, unless there were some prohibition in the New
Testament to prevent the application of the principle.
But assuredly, if it be right to assume this analogy in the
subjects of the two ordinances, it must be equally right to
claim the same analogy in the authority of the. adminis-
trator. And hence it becomes important to observe,
that Circumcision was instituted long before the Aaronic
priesthood ; that even women, as in the remarkable in-
stance of Zipporah, (Exod. iv. 25,) performed it in cases
of extremity, and that notwithstanding the institution of
the Levitical law of priesthood, this initiatory rite con-
tinued free to every Israelite ; although, through respect
for their office, a Levite was always employed when

practicable. Nor is this the full extent to which
the principle was applied in the Mosaic dispensation.
For, as is well observed by Isidore of Pelusium, even
sacrifice was not so strictly confined to the order of the
priesthood, but that every man was still allowed to be
a priest to himself and to his family, in the sacrifice of the
Passover ; thus verifying the declaration of the Almighty
to the very letter, that Israel was a kingdom of priests,
and a holy nation. (2.)

Now here there seems to be a fair demonstration of
the theological maxim, that the priest is not of the essence,
but only of the order of the sacraments. For the sacra-
mental rites of ancient Israel were these two, Sacrifice
and Circumcision. But although sacrifice was formally
committed to the Aaronic priesthood, yet it is most mani-
fest that this could not change its essence, since it was in
esse, or in existence, since the period of the fall. It
would be a waste of words to prove, what is evident ex
vi termini, that the essence or essential element of a
thing, must needs be that without which it cannot exist.
And therefore, as the ordinance of sacrifice was in exist-
ence from the time of Adam's expulsion from paradise,"
and continued through every variety of the patriarchal

(2) Isid, Pelus. Lib.iii. Theodosio Episcopo, 75, p. 251. "Pulcherrima
viclima est, piam mentem et camera castam habere. Non enim ad
sacerdotes solos scribens, ut ipse estimas, hoec ipsis mandabat, (sc.
apostolus) sed universal Ecclesias. Unumquemque enim ipsorum hae
in parte sacerdotem esse jussit. Quod si castitas etpudicitia subditos
sacerdotes creat, libido proculdubio ac lascivia sacerdotibus dignita-
tem abrogaf. Ut enim in Veteri Testamento sacerdotii munere fungi
exceptis sacerdotibus nemini licebat, Paschse tamen tempore omnes
sacerdotii honore afficiebantur, (unusquisque enim pecudern immola-
bat,) sic etiam in novo ac successionis experte, sejunctim quidem, ac
velut prasrogativEe nomine, incruenta? victimae sacrificium ii habent,
quibus illud offerre concessum est : at interim unusquisque corporis
sui sacerdos creatus est; non ut citra ordinationem et institutionem
subditorum imperium arripiat, sed ut vitiis imperans, corpus suum
castitatis delubrum aut templum efficiat." This beautiful idea, that
every man is created the priest of his own body, which is designed to be
a living temple of the Holy Spirit, occurs in many of the fathers ; and
it is not only important to explain the true ground of the maxim that
the instituted official priesthood is a matter of order and not of essence,
but it is of still higher value as the guard of personal piety.
2

dispensation, it is plain that the institution of the Leviti-
cal law of priesthood could not be designed to affect its
essential elements, but merely to fix, in a /higher and
more solemn form, the order of its administration.
Hence if, after this divine appointment, some Israelite
who was not of the priesthood had undertaken to offer
sacrifice, it would seem absurd to say that his act was a
nullity, and that his offering was no sacrifice at all. For
in truth, the act itself which was a real sacrifice anterior
to the priesthood of Aaron, must be a real sacrifice after-
wards ; although the offerer would now be guilty of a
sacrilege in violating the order appointed by the Almigh-
ty, and for this sin, he would of course deserve condem-
nation.

An example, fully in point, occurs in the case of Korah,
Dathan, and Abiram ; who, contumaciously setting them-
selves up against the priesthood of Aaron, claimed equal
rights for every Israelite. " Ye take too much upon you,"
said they to Moses and Aaron, (Num. xvi. 3,) " seeing
all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the
Lord is among them: luherefore then lift ye up your-
selves above the congregation of the Lord?" In reply
to this rebellious assumption, Moses charges them plainly
with seeking the priesthood ; and tells them to take cen-
sers and put fire therein, and put incense on them before
the Lord to-morrow, while Aaron should do the same ;
and then the Almighty himself would shew who were
his priests, and whom he had chosen. Korah and his
company, accordingly, amounting to two hundred and
fifty men, took their censers and offered incense, stand-
ing in the door of the tabernacle with Moses and Aaron.
And God caused Korah, Dathan and Abiram to be swal-
lowed up alive, by the earth cleaving asunder that was
under them. Nor was this awful punishment of the
ring-leaders all that the divine judgment thought neces-
sary to vindicate the priesthood. For we read further,
that there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed
the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

It is here that we meet with an important fact, directly
applicable to our subject ; because it shews that although

these bold schismatics were thus dreadfully visited for
their wilful contumacy, yet THEIR OFFERING WAS NOT
TREATED AS A NULLITY. For the Lord spake unto Mo-
ses, saying, Speak unto JSleazer the son of Maron the
priest, that he take up the censers out of the burning,
and scatter thou thefire yonder, for they are hallowed.
The censers of these sinners against their own souls, let
them make them broad plates for a covering of the altar,

FOR THEY OFFERED THEM BEFORE THE LORD, THEREFORE

THEY ARE HALLOWED. (Ib. 38.) . No language could
more distinctly prove that the condescension of the Deity
attaches a consecrated character to whatever maybe offer-
ed to his service, however rebellious the spirit of the of-
ferer. The subject of the offering is accepted as. a hallow-
ed thing, while the sacrilegious usurpers are cut off in
their iniquity.

Now if such a principle appears in the instance of those
most atrocious schismatics, Korah and his company, and
with respect to the brazen censers on which they per-
formed their act of usurpation, it would seem quite pre-
posterous to deny the application of the rule by the All-
merciful Redeemer, to the case of laymen, exercising
their ministry in good faith, though erroneously, when
the subject to be consecrated by their priestly acts is not
an insensible piece of metal, but an immortal soul, for
whom Christ died God over all, blessed for ever! If then
the offering of Korah's company had the effect of hallow-
ing the censers, notwithstanding the sinful usurpation of
the offerers, much more may we believe that the indivi-
dual offered to the Lord in Baptism, and every other sub-
ject of religious dedication, is halloived by the act, how-
ever the agents may expose themselves to the wrath
of God, by their invasion of the priesthood without
authority.

I may have occasion, however, to resume this part of
the argument, for a different purpose, hereafter; and
therefore I shall pass on to the New Testament, where
some interesting proofs occur of the same merciful prin-
ciple, that deviations from the appointed order are not
suffered to destroy the validity of the acts of men, in the

performance of religious functions. For example, our
Lord, on a certain occasion, saith to the people ; " The
Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all there-
fore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and
do ; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do
not." (Matt, xxiii. 2.) Now it is certain, that before our
Saviour's day, the succession of the high-priesthood in
the line of Aaron had been shamefully disregarded
and virtually lost. (3) Yet our Lord would have the
priesthood de facto respected notwithstanding, and even
bestowed on one of these illegal High Priests, Caiaphas,
the gift of prophecy.

Again, we read that the apostles saw a man casting out
devils in the name of Christ; and ive forbad him, saith
St. John, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said,
FORBID HIM NOT. for there is no man which shall do a
miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark
ix. 38.) Now it seems manifest that this individual
was acting schismatically, for he was not only using the
authority of the great Redeemer without permission, but
even kept himself separate from the society of our Lord
and his disciples at the very time. But the compassion-
ate Saviour could make allowances, where men could
see nothing but ground for censure. From the mere fact
that the devils were cast out by this stranger in the name
of Christ, we may be sure that the principle of faith
must have been active ; and our Lord, kindly accepting
this, overlooks his want of a regular commission, and saith,

(3) Thus Josephus expressly informs us. "Primus Antiochus Epi-
phanes earn legern violavit, pro Jesu subrogato in hoc sacerdofium
fratre ipsius Onia. Secuud6 Aristobiilus ab Hyrcano fratre eiim hono-
rem in se transtulit. Tertius Herodes Aristobulum adolescentem vivo
adhuc pontifice successorem dedit, &c. Antiquit. Jud. Lib. XV.,
Cap. III. p. 513. In the 20th Book, 8th Chapter, and 18th section, he
further gives an historical list of the high-priests from Aaron down to
the destruction of Jerusalem, towards the close of which, after advert-
ing to the murder of the youthful Aristobulus, the last of the rightful
succession, he adds, (p. 701, F.) " Neque postea ulli ex Asamonseorum
posteritate hoc sacerdotium cotnmittere voluit. Idem fecit in ordi-
nandis pontificibus Archelaus ejus filius, (sc. Herodis) et Romani,
qui post ilium potestate prcefuerunt provincise,"

FORBID HIM NOT. I confess that I have always regarded
this affecting incident as pregnant with instruction, on the
subject of unauthorized ministrations. For when we
see so many varieties of our Christian brethren, who
hold themselves aloof, not purposely, like the individual
mentioned in the gospel, but ignorantly, from the fellow-
ship of the apostolic ministry, and who yet cast out devils
in the name of Christ, by the power which attends their
preaching of his truth, it seems to me, that if I had the
power to do so, I dare not forbid them, though they fol-
low not with us. Nor can I doubt, on the strength of
the Evangelist's narrative, that the Lord accepts their
work, notwithstanding their schismatic mode of perform-
ing it. And I desire cordially to thank Him for the kind
indulgence with which He blesses the efforts of their faith,
even when accompanied by the sin of disregarding his ap-
pointed ministerial order.

Once more, I find the great apostle declaring that
some preach Christ, even of envy and strife, and some of
good will : The one, saith he, preach Christ of conten-
tion, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my
bonds : but the other of love, knowing that I am set
for the defence of the gospel. What then? Notwith-
standing, every way, ivhether in pretence or in truth,
Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and
will rejoice. (Phil. i. 15.) Assuredly, there is here an-
other exhibition of the principle, that God will give effi-
ciency to every part of his own divine system, however
defectively it may be administered by men. The apos-
tle did not rejoice on account of the unrighteousness of
these unsanctified proclaimers of the gospel, for he
knew that if they repented not, they must perish in their
sin. But he rejoiced that the gospel was proclaimed,
for that would save those who received the message of
celestial love in faith, notwithstanding the destruction of
the messenger.

It is more directly to my present purpose, however, to

speak of the rule which appears to have governed the

administration of Baptism. And here it may be well to

observe, that the ordinance of Baptism had been familiar

to the Jews under the Mosaic dispensation, and had been
long used, together with Circumcision, as a regular part
of the ceremonial, by which proselytes were admitted to
the Church of ancient Israel. For this reason, it had be-
come naturally associated in their minds with the com-
mencement of a religious course of life, in connexion with
some change of religious principle ; and therefore they
were prepared to expect it when Elias should come, and
especially when the Messiah should appear. Hence
their question to John the Baptist, Why baptizest thou
then, if thou be not the Christ, neither Elias, neither
that prophet? The peculiarity of Christian Baptism,
therefore, lay not in the application of water as marking
a new religious profession, for this had been used long
before ; but in the spiritual efficacy with which it was to
be accompanied, by virtue of our Lord's atoning sacri-
fice and infinite merits, when administered in the name
of the blessed Trinity, and in the power of a living faith.
And hence, John the Baptist stated the distinction most
accurately when he said; / have baptized you with
water unto repentance, but He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost.

It is indeed true, that the commission to administer
Baptism in this new and sublime aspect, was given to
the apostles, after our Lord's resurrection, and by his
own divine command. And therefore it is a plain and
obvious principle of apostolic order, that the regular ex-
ercise of this commission can only be found in the minis-
try which they instituted ; since none other can formally
claim the benefit of the Redeemer's promise ; " Lo, I am
with you always, even unto the end of the ivorld." Most
manifest it is, that this promise involves the necessity of
what we call THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. For as
the apostles themselves died in a few years, the oldest of
them, St. John, not having survived the close of the first
century, it seems preposterous to suppose that the Sa-
viour intended to be with them, even to the end of the
world, in any other than an official sense. As individ-
ual men, he well knew that they would soon close their
mortal career; but as the ruling and ordaining officers
Of the Kingdom of Christ, they would continue to live

in their successors ; and therefore it seems as demonstra-
bly certain that they were intended to have successors,
as it is certain that the word of Christ cannot pass away.
It is our sacred privilege to know that we stand in the
line of that apostolic succession, that we have the com-
plete and formal title to all its benefits, and that we have
a correspondent account to render for its fearful respon-
sibilities. On this topic, however, I shall not enlarge :
for my object is not so much to dwell on those familiar
truths which are zealously and constantly repeated, as to
assert and illustrate those doctrines which are less ac-
ceptable, and therefore more liable to be not simply for-
gotten, but sometimes even denied.

It belongs, therefore, to my proposed course of argu-
ment, to observe, that the commission to baptize, although
given by our Lord to his apostles, was not considered by
them as intended to be confined to their own order. For
we do not find them treating it like the higher powers of
confirmation, ordination, and government, which were
transmitted, (as in the cases of Timothy, the first bishop
of Ephesus, and Titus, the first bishop of Crete,) to cho-
sen individuals, of tried experience and high qualifica-
tions. So far is this from the facts of the Sacred History,
that on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand men
were baptized between the delivery of St. Peter's sermon
and the setting of the sun, it is demonstrably evident that
the apostles must have availed themselves of other hands
beside their own; for twelve men could not, by any phy-
sical possibility, have baptized so great a multitude in
that short interval, and at that time, there was not a dea-
con ordained to assist them. Hence Bishop Bilson, at
the famous Hampton-Court conference, cited this trans-
action as a Scriptural proof that laymen might adminis-
ter baptism, judging that the apostles must have called
in the aid of the laity on this solemn occasion.* A little

*I do not, for my own part, adopt this view of Bishop Bilson, be-
cause I prefer the idea that the seventy disciples held a permanent
commission under the apostles, and therefore that there was no such
necessity for the ministry of laymen, as he supposes, on that day.
Where there was a reasonable necessity, however, I have no doubt of
their being so employed, as must have been especially the case, for
some years, amongst the gentile churches.

further on in the Sacred History, we find the deacon
Philip preaching to the Samaritans and baptizing them ;
while two of the apostles, Peter and John, are sent from
Jerusalem to confirm these new disciples, by the laying
on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Nor
is this all. For in the epistles of St. Paul to the Corin-
thians, we see a state of things allowed, for the time
then being, which strongly reminds one of the simplicity
of the patriarchal dispensation ; every worshipper being
permitted to speak in their public assemblies, and even
to have the Eucharist administered by the hands of each
other, until the period should arrive when they could
have the regular order of the ministry established amongst
them.

To those who have -not reflected maturely upon the
subject, this idea is apt to appear extravagant; and yet
nothing seems to my mind more evident than the proof
that it must have been so, during the first years of gentile
conversion. For it is to be remembered, that the evan-
gelizing of the whole world was committed to the thir-
teen apostles ; and a specimen of their labours is record-
ed in the travels of St. Paul. From city to city, he went
in the power of the Spirit; and in every place, a com-
pany of believers, more or less numerous, gathered
around him. But how were they to be supplied with an
ordained ministry, when the apostle was driven away by
persecution, or appointed to some other sphere of effort
by his divine Master? Most manifest it is, that no
one amongst a set of newly converted heathen could
be ready to discharge the pastoral function. Men whose
minds had been, from infancy, filled with the debasing
fables of the pagan mythology who had been, but a
little time before, bowing down before stocks and
stones, and to whom the Scriptures were, as yet, an
unknown book, surely, amongst such as these, the
apostle could not, by any moral possibility, find persons
fit to be ordained, as authorized teachers, rulers, and
priests to their brethren, until some years, at least, had
been spent in a course of study and preparation. And
therefore it seems plain, that Churches must have grown

up in every quarter of the Gentile world, before there
could have been pastors ready for them ; and hence it be-
came absolutely necessary to allow Christians to meet
together, and edify and minister to one another as well
as they could, in the beginning of the work ; until, by
degrees, the ranks of the ministry could be regularly
supplied ; and then the license which necessity alone
could justify, would gradually disappear when the neces-
sity had ceased. (4)

This, therefore, must be granted to the argument of
our Congregational brethren, when viewed in the light
oi apostolic license, as a matter of reasonable necessity,
during the era of extraordinary gifts and graces, and for
the sake of building up the walls of the spiritual temple
in the desolate wastes of heathen idolatry. Unhappily,
however, they mistake a temporary license, called for by

(4) There is nothing new in the foregoing hypothesis, since it -will
be found to agree in substance with many of the fathers ; especially,
with the precise words of the early commentator on the epistles,
whose work is published along with that of Ambrose, bishop of Milan,
and is commonly set down to A. D. 355. (Ambrosii Opp. in App.
Com.inEp.adEphesios, Cap. 4, v. 12, p. 241.) "In episcopo omnes ordi-
nes sunt; quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princeps est sacerdotum,
et propheta, etevangelista, et csetera adimplenda officia EcclesiEe in
ministro fidelium. Tamen postquam in omnibus locis Ecclesise sunt con-
stitutes et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est, quam ccaperat. PKI-
Mirar enim OJCN-ES DOCEBASTTJET OJINES KjLrTizA.KA.isT:,quibuscumquediebu3
vel temporibus fuisset occasio" " Ut ergo cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur,

O.M.NTBUS IJTTEH, IJTITIA CO^CESSUM EST ET ETANGELIZAHE, ET BAPTI-

ZAHE, ET SCHIPTTJH.AS iif ECCLESIA EXPIA3TAHE. At ubi omnia loca cir-
cumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rectores, et
csetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata ; ut nullus de^ clericis auderet,
qui ordinatus non esset, prsesumere officium, quod sciret nonsibi cre-
ditum vel concessum. Et coepit alio ordine et providentia guber-
nari Ecclesia, quia si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, ut
vulgaris res, et vilissima videretur. Hinc ergo est, unde nunc neque
diaconi in populo prsedicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant, neque
quocunque die credentes tinguntur nisi ffigri, &c.

And again, the same author, (Com. in 1. Epist. ad Corinth. C.
H., v. 19, ib. p. 148) saith, "Quia adhuc rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus
locis f iterant const ituli" Many coincidences will appear in the course
of the subsequent notes, as where the fathers consider that the priest-
hood, in a certain sense, belongs to all ; and that Baptism is the priest-
hood of the laity.

necessity, for a permanent system, designed for the
Church of God to the end of time; as if the liberty allow-
ed in the erection of an edifice could furnish a rule for
its occupancy and government after it was finished and
complete. But LICENSE is one thing, and SYSTEM is an-
other : and while each may be right in its proper place,
no sound and reflecting mind can confound them to-
gether. Still, in this very license, I cannot avoid recog-
nizing the same principle which has already been proved
from the Old Testament, namely, the essence or existence
of the sacraments, without the priestly order of their ad-
ministration. For just as Sacrifice and Circumcision ex-
isted anterior to, and therefore independent upon the
Aaronic priesthood, so Baptism and the Holy Eucharist
appear to have existed in the newly converted Churches
of the Gentiles, although administered by the hands of
laymen, anterior to the period when the apostolic priest-
hood could be established among them.

How long this license continued, it would be impossible
to decide. It may have been from three or four to ten
years, before the apostles were able to set the whole sys-
tem in order. But from the Scriptural evidence furnished
by the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, we
know that the Episcopal or Apostolic form of ecclesiasti-
cal government must have been perfectly established
some time before his death ; and the uniformity of the ar-
rangement maybe considered as proved by superabundant
testimony, since it meets the student of the Scriptures in
the angels (or ^bishops) of the seven churches of Asia,
mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and appears in the
constant, statements of all ecclesiastical history. Nor
indeed is it possible to conceive how the apostles could
have set up the kingdom of Christ throughout the world,
during a ministry which averaged nearly forty years,
without having fixed upon some definite plan of eccle-
siastical government. And surely, as they were all in-
structed by the same Holy Spirit, it requires no argument
to prove, that the system of ONE must have been the sys-
tem of ALL.

It is quite evident, however, that the license given to
the laity to baptize, or even to exercise the higher func-
tions of the ministry, in the absence of the regular and or-
dained priesthood, may or may not have been engrafted
into the permanent episcopal system, in whole or in part.
Whether it was so engrafted, and to what extent, we can
only learn from the testimony of Christian antiquity. To
this, therefore, I shall next appeal, availing myself of the
Latin versions in the case of the Greek fathers and
Councils, as a matter of greater ease to readers in general,
and giving the substance in an English dress, without
confining myself, except in some particular cases, to the
stiffness of a close and literal translation.

The oldest witness upon the subject is Tertullian, who,
in his book concerning Baptism, lays down the principle
in these words : "The chief priest," saith he, "that is,
the bishop, has power to give Baptism, and next to him,
the presbyters and deacons ; but not without the authori-
ty of the bishop, on account of the honour of the Church;
which being guarded, peace is preserved. For other-
wise, it is lawful for laymen to administer it ; since
that which is rightfully received, may be rightfully
given." (5) Elsewhere the same author asserts the inhe-
rent priesthood of the laity, in general terms, and extends
it to both the sacraments ; he saith that wherever there
are three, even although they be laymen, there is the
Church; and assigns as a reason, that every one lives by
his own faith. (6)

The next early testimony involving the principle, oc-

(5) Tertul. Lib. de Baptismo, Cap. 17. Dandi quidem habet jus sum-
mus sacerdos qui est episcopus. Dehinc presbyter! etdiaconi, nontamen
sine episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesise honorem ; quo salvo, salva
pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex oequo accipitur,
ex aequo dari potest, &c.

(6) fertul.de Exhort. Cast it. VII., p. 522. Nonne et laici sacerdo-
tes sumus 1 Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et
Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit
Ecclesise auctoritas, et honor per ordinis concessum sanctificatus, adeo
ubi ecclesiastic! ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacer-
dos es solus. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici ; unusquisque
enim sua fide vivit.

curs in the famous controversy which arose about A.
D. 250, concerning the validity of heretical baptisms;
in which Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, asserted their
absolute nullity, while, on the contrary, Stephen, the bish-
op of Rome, maintained that those who had been bap-
tized by heretics and afterwards came to the Catholic
Church, should not be baptized again, but should be-re-
ceived with the imposition of hands, or, as we now call
it, Confirmation. (7) It is worthy of observation that
Stephen insisted on this as the proper course, on the
strength of apostolical tradition; which argument
Cyprian opposed by demanding plain Scriptural proof;
denying that any thing could be properly termed aposto-
lical tradition, unless it were expressly set down in the
writings of the apostles.

(7) Cypriani Epist. ad Pomp. contra Epist. Stcphani, p. 152. " Quam-
quam plene ea quas de hsereticis baptizandis dicenda sunt, complex!
sumus in epistolis, quaram ad te exempla transmisimus, frater caris-
sime, tamen quia desiderasti in notitiam tuam perferri, quse mihi ad litte-
ras nostras Stephanus frater noster rescripserit, misi tibi rescript! ejus
exemplum, quo lecto magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui hsre-
ticorum causam contra Christianos, et contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere
conatur. Nam inter csetera vel superba vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel
sibi ipsi contraria, quce imperite atque improvide scripsit, etiam illud
adjunxerit, ut diceret: Si quis ergo a quacunque hseresi venerit adnos,
nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in pozni-
tentiam .- &c. Unde est ista traditio ? Utrumne de dominica et evan-
gelica auctoritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque
epistolis veniens 1 Si ergo aut in Evangelio pracipitur, aut in apos-
tolorum epistolis, aut Actibus continetur, ut a quacumque hseresi
venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponantur in
poenitentiarn, observetur divina heec et sancta traditio. Quae ista ob-
stinatio est, quaeve prassumptio, humanam traditionem divines dispo-
sition! anteponere," &c.

It is altogether probable that Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertul-
lian -was so great, that he commonly called this writer his master, de-
rived his opinion against the validity of heretical Baptisms from the
authority of that eminent and extraordinary man. But on a careful
examination of Tertullian's language, I think it will be apparent that
he only rejected the Baptisms of those heretics who had depraved
the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and, in consequence, had adul-
terated the form of the Sacrament. And if so, his sentiments were in
accordance with the decrees which the councils passed more than a
century after his departure. His words are these : (Tertul. de Baptis-
mo, C. XV. p. 230, A. B.) " Sed circa haereticos sane quid custodien-.

The third testimony in the order of time, is that of the
Council of Elvira, in Spain, held about A. D. 313; the
thirty-eighth canon of which expressly approves the ad-
ministration of Baptism by a layman, provided it be
done in cases of necessity, and that the baptizer himself
be free from bigamy, and of pure life and conversation. (8)

The fourth evidence is of higher dignity, because it
is furnished by the great Council of Aries, at which hun-
dreds of bishops from distant quarters of the Church,
especially from Britain, assembled together at the call of
the Emperor Constantine, A. D. 314. It was here that the
old controversial question between Cyprian and Stephen
received its determination ; for the eighth canon of the
Council decreed, that if any one leaves a heresy, and re-
turns to the Church, he shall be interrogated concerning
the creed ; and if it be known that he was baptized in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, imposition of hands only shall be given him, that
he may receive the Holy Spirit, but if he does not confess
that Trinity, let him be baptized. (9) This solemn decision
was universally received, and from that early day, no
Council of the Church has delivered any other doctrine.

In A. D. 325, only eleven years later, the General
Council of Nice assembled by the command of the
same emperor, and two of the canons of this most
important of the Councils bear directly on the ques-

dum sit, digue quis retractet, ad nos enim editum est. Hreretici autem
nullum habent consortium nostra disciplinrc, quos extraneos utique
testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognos-
cere quod mihi est prceceptum, quia non idem Deus est nobiset illis, nee
tmus Christus, id est, idem, ideoque nee baptismus unus, quia non idem,
quern cumrit& non habeant, sine dubio non habent.'.

(8) Condi. Eliberitanum, Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom. 1. p. 254. "Peregre
navigantes, aut si ecclesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qai
lavacrum suum integrum habet, nee sit bigamus, baptizare in necessi-
tate infirmitatis positum Catechumenum ; ita ut si supervixerit, ad
episcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit."

(9) Condi. Arelat. Ib. p. 265. De Afris, quod propria lege sua
utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuitut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hseresi
venerit, interrogent eum symbolum ; et si perviderint eum in Patre,
et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum impo-
natur ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum.

tion. The eighth canon (10) decreed that the Noya-
lian clergy who returned to the Catholic Church should
continue to hold their official rank, without re-bapti-
zation or re-ordination. While the nineteenth canon,
(11) on the other hand, commanded that the Paulianr
ists should be rebaptized, and that their clergy should;
not retain their ministerial station/without a regular ordi-
nation by the bishop of the Catholic Church. Now these
canons evidently prove that the decision of the Council
of Aries was adopted and confirmed by the Nicene Coun-
cil. For the Paulianists had so corrupted the faith, as to
omit the name of the Trinity, even in the form of Baptism,
while the Novatians had preserved the pure doctrine of
Christ; and therefore the difference of the treatment
which their respective Baptisms and ordinations received
at the hand of the Council, is plainly to be referred to this
distinction. It is indeed insisted on the other side, that

(10) Condi. Nic. Gen. Hard- Tom. l.p. 326, Can. VIII. De hisquise
nominant Catharos, id est, mundos, si aliquando venerint ad eccle-
siam catholicam, placuit sancto et magno concilio, ut impositionem
maims accipientes, sic in clero permaneant. Haec autem prae omnibus
eos scriptis convenit profiteri, quod catholicse et apostolicae ecclesiae
dogmata suscipiant et sequantur ; id est, et bigamis se communicare,
et his qui in persecutione prolapsi sunt, erga quos et spatia constituta
sunt, et tempora definita : ita ut ecclesiae catholicss et apostolicse pla--
cita sequantur in omnibus. Ubicumque vero, sive in vicis, sive in civi-
tatibus ipsi soli reperti fuerint ordinati ; qui inveniuntur in clero, in
eodem habitu perseverent Ubi autem catholicae ecclesiae episcopo
vel presby tero constitute, quidam ex illis adveninnt, certum est quod
episcopus ecclesiss habebit episcopi dignitatem. Is autem qui nomi-
natur apud eos episcopus, honorem .presbyterii possidebit, nisi placue-
rit forte episcopo, nominis eum honore censeri. Si vero hoc ei mi-
nime placuerit, providebit ei aut chore.piscopatus, aut presbyterii lo-
cum, ut in clero prorsus esse videater; ne in una civitate duo episcopi
probentuf exsistere.

(11) 16. Can. XT7T. De Paulianistis ad ecclesiam catholicam con-
fugientibus, definitio prolata est, ut baptizentur omnimodis. Si qui
autem de his prasterito tempore fuerint in clero,. siquidem immaculati
et irreprehensibiles apparaerint, baptizati ordinentur ab episcopo ec-
clesiae catholicae. Quod si discussio incongruos eos invenerit, abji-
ci tales convenit. Similiter autem et de diaconissis, et omnino de his
qui sub regulaversantur,h33C forma servabitur. Meminimus autem.
de diaconissis, quae in eodem habitu esse probantur, quod non habeant
aliquam manus impositionem, et ideo modis omnibus eas inter laicas
deputari.

this difference was owing to quite another matter : viz.
that the Novatians had a regular episcopal ordination,,
which the Paulianists had not. But this assertion is pe-
culiarly unfortunate, being directly contrary to the facts
of history : for Novatian, the author of the Novatians,
had procured himself to be consecrated through fraud and
impiety, and was never admitted by the Church to be
any thing better than a false and counterfeit bishop.*
Whereas Paul of Samosata, the father of the Paulianists,
was an undoubted bishop of the Catholic Church, at the
time when the Council of Antioch proceeded to depose
him. The truth is, that strictly considered, neither of
these -sects had anything more than the empty form of
ordination. Novatian never had the reality by-reason of
his schism, and Paul lost what he once had, by reason of
Kis heresy. The ecclesiastical defect of the Novatians,
however, was cured by the consent of the whole Church
in the Nicene Council; the grace of the Holy Spirit being
invoked by repentance and prayer, and sealed in the act
of Confirmation.

My next reference is to the Council of Carthage, held
A. D. 348, in which the question was put to the assem-
bled bishops, Whether he who has once been baptized
with water in the name of the blessed Trinity, could be
lawfully baptized again. " And all the bishops answer-
ed ; Far, far, be it from us. We adjudge all re-baptiza-
tions to be unlawful, and hostile to the true faith, and
Catholic discipline." (12)

The well-known narrative of Ruffinus, Socrates, and
Sozomen, concerning the Baptism of some boys in play,

* This is largely proved by Bingham, in his Scholast. Hist, of Lay-
Baptism, Part 2, p. 431, 452, &c. of last English edition.

(12) Condi. Garth, in Appen. Optati MiZev.p. 201. "Ergo, si vobis
placet, consideremus prinrum titulum rebaptizationis: unde sanctitatem
vestram postulo, ut mentis vestrce placita producatis ad descendentem
in.aquam et interrogatum in Trinitate secunddm Evangelii fidem et
apostolorum doctrinam, et confessam bonam conscientiam in Deum,
de resurrectione Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem
fide, et in aqui iterum intingi. Universi episcopi dixerunt: Absit, ab-
6it Illicitas esse sancimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse alienum a sin-
cera fide et catholica disciplina.

may next be mentioned, since whatever pains Dr. Water-
land and others may have taken to ridicule it, there is no
legitimate mode of displacing.it from the authentic facts
of ecclesiastical history. (13) It seems that the celebrated
Athanasius, when a boy, engaged with a company of his
young associates in a representation of divine worship.
The part of the bishop was performed by Athanasius
himself, in the course of which he undertook to adminis-
ter Baptism to several children. The place which they
had chosen was on the sea shore, in full view of the re-
sidence of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria ; who,
happening to look towards the sea at the time, soon be-
came interested in watching their operations. He then
sent for them, examined minutely, in the presence of his
clergy, all that had been said and done ; and findingthat
every part of the sacred office had been correctly used,
and with the simplicity of good intention, both he and
his presbyters agreed that the children should not be

(13) Sozom. Hist. EccL Lib. 2, C. 17, p. 381. Publicum ac solemne
festum ingente pompa quotannis celebrant Alexandrini, eo die quo
Pelrus ipsorum olim episcopus martyriumcousummavit.. Hunc igitur
diem festtun aliquando celebrans Alexander, qui tune ipsorum erat
episcopus, peractis missarum solemnibus; (Gr. TV Mtroueji&v') expecta-
bat eos qui una cum ipso pransuri erant. Cumque solus esset, oculos
convertit ad mare. Illic visis eminus pueris, qui in littore ludentes
episcopi officium sacrosque ecclesice ritus exprimebant, quamdiu
quidem scenam illam absque periculo esse animadvertit, delectaba-
tur spectaculo, nee mediocrem ex ea re capiebat voluptatem. Post-
quam vero arcana quoque mysteria exprimere cosperunt, perlurbatus
est animo, vocatisque ad se primoribus Cleri, pueros ostendih Cum-
que eos comprehensos adduci jussisset, sciscitatus est ex iis, quisnam
lusus ipsorum esset, et quid in eo dicerent, quidve agerent. Illi metu
perculsi, initio quidem negarunt. Sed cum Alexander qusestioni ,in-
staret, confessi sunt episcopum ac preesulem fuisse ipsis Athanasium.;
etquosdam pueros qui nondum mysteriis initiati fuissent, ab illo esse
baptizatos. Hos Alexander accurate interrogavit, quidnam ipsis
dixisset fecissetve ludi illius episcopus ; et quid ipsi respondissent,
quidve edocti essent. Cumque omnia juxta ordinem ecclesiasticum
exacts in illis servata esse deprebendisset, communicate consilio cum
sacerdotibus quos circa se habebat, censuit non rebaptizandos esse
eos, qui in simplicitate divinam gratiam semel percipere meruissent.
Reliqua vero quse a solis sacerdotibus baptismum tradentibus admin-
istrari fas est, in illis supplevit. u

rebaptized, but should have the work perfected in Confir-
mation.

About A. D v 368, Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus,
complains strongly of some "audacious men, who, under
the pretext of zeal for the Catholics, having raised up a
private faction to themselves, presume to rebaptize those
who come to them from the Arians, contrary to the cus-
tom of the Church, and the decree of a General Council.-*'
(14) It is a short rebuke, but full of instruction.

I pass next to Basil, the bishop of Cesarea, A. D. 370,
whose authority, strangely enough, is claimed by Dr.
Waterland and others, although I think it sufficiently man-
ifest that it belongs, of right, to our own side. (15) "The
heretics called Encratitse," saith he, "the Saccophori
and the Apoctitas, are not under the same rule as the
.Novations, because a canon has been established con-
cerning these, while the others have been passed by in
silence. But we rebaptize those heretics. And if, with
you, rebaptization is forbidden, as it is among the Ro-
mans, by reason of a certain economy, let our argument at
least be acknowledged sound. For the heresy of these
sects is the offspring of the Marcionites, who abhor mar-
riage, and refuse wine, and say that the creature of God
is corrupt; therefore we do not admit them into the

(14) Epiph. adv. Heeres. Lib m. Tom. II. C. XHI. (p. 1095) "Alii
qui audaciores videntur, ex Catholicorum partibus, privata sibi fac-
tione conflata, praeter Ecclesise consuetudinem, ac citra generalis
Concilia decretum, eos, qui ab Arianis ad suas partes transeunt, iter-
um baptizare nihil verentur.

(15) Basil. Opp.Tom.3.p.296,Ep. 199. Can. 2. Encratitae,et Sacco-
phori, et Apotactitse non subjiciuntur eidem rationi cui et Novatiani,
quiade illis editus Canon, etsi varius; quseautem ad istos pertinent,
silentio sunt praetennissa. Nos autem una ratione tales rebaptizamus.
Quod si apud vos prohibita est rebaptizatio, sicut et apud Romanes,
eeconomiae alicujus gratia, nostra tamen ratio vim obtineat. Quoniam
enim veluti germen Marcionistarum est eomm hseresis ut qai nup-
tias abhorreant, et vinum aversentur, ac dicant Dei creaturam inqui-
natam esse, idcirco ipsos in ecclesiam non admittimus, nisi in nostrum
baptisma fuerint baptizati. Etenim ne dicant: In Patrem et Filium
et Spiritum sanctum baptizati sumus, qui videlicet Deum esse ma-
lorum effectorem existimant, exemplo Marcionis et relinquarum
haeresum."

Church until they are baptized with our Baptism. For
they cannot say, We are baptized in the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who believe that God is
the Author of evils, according to Marcion and the other
heretics." Here it is evident that Basil admitted the No-
vatians without rebaptization, on the ground of the ca-
nons, and that he rejected the heretics who had departed
from the outer form of Baptism, thus putting the differ-
ence where it ought to be placed, on the confession of the
Holy Trinity, in the sacred words dictated by our Lord
himself for its rightful administration.

But there is another passage in this author, from which
very opposite conclusions have been drawn : (16) Where

(16) Ibid. Ep. 188, Canon. Primi, Amphilochio. Tom. 3, p. 268.
"Antiqui enim illud baptisma suscipiendum putavere, quod nihil _a
fide recedit; unde alias quidem hasreses, alia sehismata, alias para-
synagogas appellarunt. Hsereses quidem eos, qui penitusresecti sunt,
et in ipsa fide abalienati ; schismata vero, eos, qui propter ecclesias-
ticas quasdam causas etquoestiones inter utramque partem non insan-
abiles dissident -, parasynagogas autem, conv.entus illos qui ab im-
morigeris presbyteris aut episcopis et a populis disciplines expertibus
fiunt: velut si quis in delicto deprehensus, a ministerio arceatur, nee
se canonibus suuimittat, sed sibi principatum et ministerium vendieet,
ac nonnulli una cum eo, relicta catholica Ecclesia, discedant ; hoc
diciturparasynagoga. Schisma autem est, de pcenitentia ab iis qui
ex Ecclesia sunt, dissentire. Visuni est ergo antiquis hEereticorum
quidem baptisma penitus rejicere, schismaticorum vero, ut adhuc ex
Ecclesia existentium, admittere ; eos tandem qui sunt in parsynagogis,
justa poanitentia et animadversione emendates rursus Ecclesise cpn-
jungere; adeo ut scepe etii qui in gradu collocati unseam rebellibus
abierant, postquam posnitentiam egerint, in eundem ordinem admit-
tantur. Cssterum anliquis visum est, Cypriano dico, et nostro Firmi-
liano,hos omnes uni calculo subjicere, Catharos, et Encratitas, et Hy-
droparastatas, propterea quod principium quidem separationis per
schisma factum fuerat : qui autem ab Ecclesia se separaverant, non
ampliushabebant in segratiam Spiritus Sancti: defecerat enim commu-
nicatio, interrupta continuatione. Qui enim primi recesserant, ordina-
ationem a patribus habebant, et per manuum eorum inpositibnem ha-
bebant donum spirituale; qui autem resecti sunt, laici efiecti, nee bapti-
zandi nee ordinandi habebant potestatem, ut qui non possent amplius
Spiritus sancti gratiam aliis preebere, a quaipsi exciderant. Quareeos,
qui ab ipsorum partibus stabant,tanquama laicis baptizatps, jusserunt
vero Ecclesiae baptismate ad Ecclesiam venientes expurgari. Sed quo-
niam nonnullis Asiaticis omnino visum est eorum baptisma, pluribuscon-
sulendi causa, suscipiendum esse, SUSCIPIATCII. Encratitarum autem

after laying down the general rule of the Church tier be in
favour. of rejecting the Baptism of Heretics, while that
schismatics and separatists was admitted, he proceeds to
speak of the opinions of Cyprian and Firmilian, and seems
to.consider that they repudiated the Baptisms of all who
were not in the Church, because such persons had lost the
grace of the Holy Spirit, had become laymen, and there-
fore could not offer to others the grace which they had
lost themselves. The writers who deny the validity of
Lay-Baptism take this passage as full proof, that the real
point of dispute between Stephen and Cyprian turned not
upon the effect of heresy and schism in annulling Baptism,
but upon the question of orders, as it affected the claims
of the clergy who are supposed to have administered the
sacrament ; and therefore they deny that the validity of
Lay-Baptism was involved either in that controversy,
or in the subsequent canons of Aries and Nice.

All this, however, seems to my mind to be nothing bet-
ter than a piece of ingenious speculation. For it cannot be
said that Basil pretends to any special or peculiar know-
ledge of the controversy between Cyprian and Stephen.
He lived one hundred and twenty years too late for that;
and as no such reasoning appears in the writings of Cy-
priari, or of Firmilian, or of any other of the fathers when
speaking of them, and as Basil does not profess to give

facinus oportet nos intelligere Existimo itaque, quoniam nihil de
illis aperti dictum est, eorum baptisma a nobis rejiciendum esse : ac
1 si quis ab eisacceperit, accedentem adEcclesiam baptizaridum. Quod
si hoc generali oaconomise impedimenta erit, rursas consuetadine
utendum est, et sequi oportet patres, qui quaB ad nos pertinent, dis-
pensaverunt. Vereor enim, ne, dum eos volumus ad baptizandum tar-
dos facere, impedimento propter sententise severitatem simus iis qui
salvantur. Quod si illi nostrum baptismum servant, hoc nos nonmo-
veat ; neque enim debemus par pari referre, sed accuratse canonum
observation! servire. Omni autem ratione statuatnr, ut ii qui ab il-
lorum baptismo veniunt, ungantur coratn fidelibus videlicet, et ita
demum ad mysteria accedant. Scio autem, fratres Izoinum et Satur-
ninum, qui erant ex illorum ordine, in episcoporum cathedram a no-
bis esse susceptos. Quare eos qui illorum ordini conjuncti sunt, nou
possumus amplius ab Ecclesia separare: qui scilicet commnnionis
cum ipsis quasi canonem quemdam, episcopos suscipiendo, edideri-
urns.

any new view of their sentiments, we can only, in com-
mon justice, suppose him to be delivering his own opin-
ion.

Now while I freely admit that he here intimates his
personal judgment, in terms favourable to the other side,
yet this only adds strength to our argument when it is ob-
served that he yields this judgment to the decision of
the Church, for he proceeds to say, in the plainest lan-
guage, that since the Asiatics thought fit to receive such
Baptisms, the canon and the cus lorn must be respected. He
then adds that although, in his opinion, the Encratitse
ought not to be received without rebaptization, being
heretics, yet even in their case he was willing to follow
the custom of the fathers, and this the more readily, in-
asmuch as two of that very sect had been admitted into
the chair of the bishops ; which admission he regarded
as a sort of canon on the subject. On the whole, there-
fore, the testimony of Basil is conclusive to prove, not,
indeed, his own individual conviction in favour of Lay-
Baptism, but, what is much more important, his resolu-
tion to abide, in action, by the custom of the Church. If
such were the disposition of all men in our own age,
there would be no inducement to revive so old a contro-
versy.

Next after Basil, the order of chronology brings us to
Optatus, the bishop of Milevi, A. D. 370, whose work
upon the schism of the Donatists, contains many positive
declarations in support of the principle, that the minister
is of -the order and not of the essence of Baptism, and
hence he insists on the unlawfulness and impiety of re-
baptization. Thus for example, (17) after quoting the

(17.) Opiat, de Schism. Donat. Lib. V. C. HI. p. 82. Sic enim ipse
Dominus prsecepit dicendo ; Ite, baptizate omnes gcntes, in nomine Pa-
iris, et Filii, et Spirilus Sancti. De hoc lavacro dixit : Qui semel lo-
tus est, non Tidbet necessitate iterum lavandi. Absit enim, ut unquam
exorcizemus sanum fidelem; absit, ut jam lotum revocemus ad fon-
tem : absit, ut in Spiritum sanctum peccemus ; cui facinori in prse-
senti et future saeculo indulgentia denegatur : absit, ut iteremus quod
semel est, aut duplicemus quod unum est : sic enim scriptum est, Apos-
tolo dicente : Unus Deus, unus Christus, una fides, una tinctio.

declaration of our Lord to the apostle Peter: He. that is
washed hath no need of being washed again, (for so it is
rendered by Optatus,) he expressly asserts that the
Saviour spake in reference to Baptism. "Far be it from
us," continues he, "that we should exorcise a true believer.
Far be it from us that he who is already washed should
be called again to the fountain. Far be it from us that we
should sin against the Holy Ghost, for which crime there
is no forgiveness, either here or hereafter. Far be it from
us to repeat what can be but once, or to reduplicate what
is alone ; for thus it is written, One God, One Christ,
one Faith, one Baptism."

Again, (18J he argues strongly against the idea that
the privilege of baptism, which is divine, can be given
by man. " God cleanses, not the minister. The* Psalmist
does not say to the Almighty, Appoint a person by
whom I may be washed, but Wash thoume. None can
cleanse away the stains of the mind, but He who cre-
ated it."

And again, (19) Optatus observes, that "the Saviour
commanded in what the nations should be baptized, but
by whom they should be baptized, he left discretionary.
He did not say to the apostles, Let no one baptize but
yourselves only. And therefore whoever baptizes in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
fulfils the work of the apostles."

(18) Ib. 84. Concedite Deo praestare qass sua sunt. Non enim
potest id munus ab homine dari, quod divinum est. Si sic putatis,
prophetarum voces, et Dei promissa inanire contenditis, quibus pro-
batur quia Deus lavat, non homo. Adest contra vos David propheta,
qui ait in Psalmo L. Lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor.- item in eodeon
psalmo : Deus lava me ab injustltia mea, el a delicto meo munda me :
Lava me, dixit ; non dixit, Elige per quern laver. -Dignamini ut vel
prophetae vos vincant, vel sic agnoscite quia non lavat homo, sed
Deus. Quamdiu dicitis : Qui non habet quod det, quomodo dat? Videte
Dominum esse datorem, videte Deum unumquemque mundare : sor-
des enim et maculas mentis lavare non potest, nisi Deus qui ejusdem
fabricator est mentis. ?

(19) Ib. 86. Nam in quo baptizarentur gentes, a Salvatore mandatum
est: per quern baptizarentur, nulla exceptione discretum est. Non
dixit apostolis : Vos facite, alii nonfaciant : quisquis in nomine Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti baptizaverit, apostolorum opus implevit.

One passage more shall close my references to this
author, in which (20) he considers St. Paul as disclaim-
ing any part in the power of baptizing, and attributing
the whole to the Lord ; where the apostle saith, So then
neither is he that planteth, anything, neither he that
watereth, but God who giveth the increase.

About the same time with Optatus, flourished Am-
brose, bishop of Milan, who clearly adopts and sanctions
the idea so often occurring amongst the fathers, that in a
certain sense, the laity are priests. Thus, in answer to
the question, (21) why David not only ate the shewr
bread himself, but also gave it to those that were with
him, (which, as our Saviour remarked, it was not lawful
to eat but for the priests alone) Ambrose saith, that "it
may have been because we ought all to imitate the life of
the priesthood, or because all the sons of the Church are
priests, since we offer ourselves to God a spiritual sa-
crifice" It is obvious to the slightest reflection, that this
idea lies at the foundation of all lay administrations, so
that he who consistently applies it can hardly doubt their
validity, however defective they may be in regularity
or order.

The year 372 is assigned as the date of the Council of
Laodicea, in which some additional specifications were
laid down upon the subject. Thus, (22) the converts

(20) Optat. de Schism. Donat. Lib. 5, Chap. VII., p. 87. Denique beatus
apostolus Paulus, ut vestram prassumptionem tumoremque compesce-
ret, ne se oestimet operarius baptismatis, aut habere dominium, aut de
tanto isto inunere particulam sibi aliquam vindicare, indicans quia
totum Dei est, sic ait : Neque qui plantat, neque qui rigat, esl aliquid ;
sed solus Deus, qui ad incrementa perducit.

(21) S. Ambrosii Expos. Evang. secundum Luc. L. 5, 33, Opp.
Tom. 1, p. 1364. Quomodo autem ille observator Legis atque defen-
sor, panes et ipse manducavit, et dedit iis qui secum erant, quos non
licebat manducare nisi tantummodo sacerdotibus, nisi ut per illam
demonstraret figuram, sacerdotalem cibum ad usum transiturum
esse populorum? Sive quod omnes vitam sacerdotalem debemus imi-
tari : sive quia omnes filii Ecclesise sacerdotes sunt, ofierentes nosme-
tipsos Deo hostias spiritales.

(22) Condi. Load. Can.7 and 8. Condi. Gen. Hard. torn. l.jB.782.Noya-
tianos vel etiam Quartodecimanos, quos Graeci Tessaradecatites appel-
lant, sed et catechumenos illorum vel fideles non recipi, priusqnam

from the Novatians and Quartodecimans are ordered to
b,e received with the acknowledgement of their error, by
the imposition of hands ; while those from the Cata-
phrygians are directed to be baptized, even though they
might have been previously reckoned among their chief
clergy. Now the two sects first mentioned were ortho-
dox in their administration of Baptism ; while the Cata-
phrygians were a multifarious tribe of heretics, who had
depraved the form of the sacrament, in obedience to the
blasphemous absurdities of Montanus and Maximilla.*
A name of high authority amongst the fathers, is that o
the celebrated Jerome, whose judgment upon the canon
of Scripture is adopted in one of the Articles of the
Church. The year currently assigned to him, is- A. D.
374. Nothing is more express than his decision upon the
doctrine of the priesthood of the laity, (23) which he con-
siders conferred, as it were, in their Baptism. He also as-
serts distinctly, the legality of laymen baptizing, in cases
of necessity, justifying it on the ground, that what a man
receives, he can give to another. (24) And he defends
elaborately the custom of the Church in admitting the
converts from heresy without rebaptization, saying that
in the controversy between Cyprian and Stephen, the
bishop of Carthage was in error. (25)

condemnerent omnem haerisim plenissime, ante omnia autem, earn in
qua detinebantur. Et nunc qui apud eos fideles dicuntur, symbolum
fidei doceantur, atque ita unctos sancto chrismate, divino Sacramento
communicate conveniet

JSjusdam Condi. Can. 8. Eos qui convertuntur ab haeresi, quae dicitur
Cataphrygarum, seque in cleros constitutes existimant, quamvis mag-
ni dicantur, hujusmodi cum omni diligentia catecbizari oportet, et
baptizari ab Ecclesise Catholicse episcopis et presbyteris.

* Epiph.de Hseres. Tom. 1, Lib. 2, p. 402.

(23) S. Hieron. adv. Lucifer. Opp. Tom. 2, p. 94. A. Sacerdotium
laici, id est, baptisma, scriptum est enim : Regnum quippe nos et sa-
cerdotesDeo Patri suo fecit: et iterum, Gentem sanctam, regale sa-
cerdotium, populum acquisitum.

(24) Ib. p. 96, D. Inde venit, ut sine chrismate et episcopi jussione,
neque presbyter, neque diaconus, jus habet baptizandi. Quod frequenter
si tamen necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim ac-
cipitquis, itaut dare potest.

(26)Ib. p. 100, D. Conatus est beatus Cyprianus contritos lacus fugere

He then proceeds to say that the custom and law of the
Church on this subject were derived from tradition. And
he connects this tradition with the apostles by referring
to the numerous heresies which already existed in their
own day, of which the Epistles and the Book of Revela-
tions bore abundant testimony; and yet there is no in-
stance in which we read of their being rebaptized. It seems
to my mind a singular instance of the force of prejudice,
that after all this, and much more evidence of Jerome's
sentiments, Dr. Waterland, following the example of his
leaders on the same side, should question the character
of his judgment, merely on account of a doubtful passage
occurring in the same part of his works. That passage
admits of two interpretations. The one, which makes
Jerome consistent with himself, explains the words as
not expressing his own opinion, but simply as opposing
the Luciferian schismatics by an argumentum ad hominem.
which proved that they were wrong, even on their own
principle. The other meaning, for which these writers
so strenuously contend, would make Jerome contradict
himself ; and therefore, especially in the case of an au-
thor so distinguished for his acuteness, this consideration
alone should be conclusive against it, with every mind
of ordinary candour.

nee bibere de aqua aliena, et idcirco hsereticorum baptisma reprobans,
ad Stephanum tune Romanse urbis episcopurn, qui a beato Petro vi-
gesimus sextos fuit, super hac re Africanam Synodum direxit ; sed co-
natus ejus frustrar fuit. Denique illi ipsi episcopi, qui rebaptizandos
hsereticos cum eo statuerant, adantiquam consuetudinemrevoluti, no-
Tum emisere decretum. Quid facimus 1 Ita et nobis majores nostri,
et illis sui tradidere majores. Sed quid de posterioribus loquar?
Apostolis adhuc in seculo superstitibus, adhuc apud Judseam Christi
sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini corpus asserebatur. Galatas ad
observationem legis traductos apostolus iterum parturit : Corinthios
resurrectionem carnis non credentes, pluribus argutnentis ad verum
iter trahere conatur, &c. Ad eos venio hasreticos, qui Evangelia lania-
verunt Saturninum quendam et Ophitas et Choitam et Carpocratem
et caeteras pestes, quorum plurimi vivente adhuc Joanne Apostolo
ruperunt, et tamen nullum eorum legimus rebaptizatum. Quo-
niam autem talis viri fecimus mentionem, de Apocalypsi quoque ejus
approbemus, hsereticis sine baptismate debere poenitentiam con-
cedi, &c.

1 pass from Jerome, however, to the celebrated Angus-
tin (26) whose authority is cited in another of our Ar-
ticles, and whose judgment in favour of the validity of he-
retical, schismatical, and lay baptism, is admitted, even
by the most determined of its adversaries, to be decided
and plain. Thus in one place he asserts, that those men
are much mistaken who accuse the Church Catholic of re-
ceiving heretics as heretics, because she does not rebaptize
them j since, in entering the Church, they become Catho-
lics. And then he lays down the maxim, that the sacra-
ments which should only be given once, cannot lawfully
be re-iterated.

Again, (27) he saith, that although it was granted that
heretics had the Baptism of Christ, yet neither heretics
nor schismatics could receive the Holy Spirit, until they
adhered to unity and charity. The same judgment he
repeats more largely in another place, where he extends
it to the Eucharist also, and with the same limita-
tion. (28)

Again, (29) Augustin maintains the validity of lay-
Baptism, even when administered without necessity, and
therefore unlawfully, and against the canons of the

(26) S. August, ad Dulcit. 4. Opp. Tom. 2, p. 583. Multumque illos
falli qui putant a notris tales istos (sc. bcereticos) suscipi, quales sunt,
quia non eos rebaptizamus. Quomodo enim tales suscipiuntur quales
sunt, cum sint hseretici, et ad nos transeundo fiant Catholic! ] Neque
enim propterea corda depravata non licet corrigi, quia sacramenta se-
mel data non licet iterari.

(27) S. August. Sermo 269, Opp. Tom. 5, p. 762, D. Nee immerito
recte intelligitur, quamvis ipsos baptismum Christi fateamur, haereti-
cos non accipere vel schismaticos Spiritum. Sanctum, nisi dum com-
pagini adhxserint unitatis per consortium caritatis.

(28) Ib. De civitat. Dei, C. 25, 2. Tom. If, p. 488. Hi sunt autem
qui hanc liberationem, nee omnibus habentibus sacramentum bap-
tismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis Catholicis, quamvis male viven-
tibus pollicentur : quia non solo, inquiunt, sacramento, sed re ipsa
manducaverunt corpus Christi, &c. Ac per hoc hseretici et schismatici,
ab hujus unitate corporis separati, possunt idem percipere sacramen-
tum, sed non sibi utile, imo vero etiam noxium, quo judicentur gra-
^jus quam vel tardius liberentur. Non sunt quippe in vinculo pacis,
quod illo exprimitur sacramento.

(29) Ib. Contra Parmen. Lib. 2, 29, Tom. 9, p. 29. Quamquam et-
si laicus aliquis pereunti dederit necessitate compulsus qtiod cam

Church. His words are these : "for although even a lay-
man should give it (Baptism) to a person in extremity, I
know not whether any one could say religiously that it
ought to be repeated. If he does it without any necessi-
ty, it is an usurpation of another's office ; but if necessi-
ty urges, it is either no fault, or a very pardonable one.
But if it be usurped without any necessity, and be given
by anyone to anyone, that which is given can never be
said not to have been given, however truly it may be
said that it was given unlawfully. The unlawful usur-
pation is corrected by recollection and repentance. If
not corrected, however, the thing given will remain to the
punishment of the usurper, either of him who unlawful-
ly gave, or of him who unlawfully received it, but it can
never be accounted as not given."

One more passage from this eminent father shall close
his testimony for the present. (30) " There is yet another
question," saith he, " viz. Whether Baptism can be given
by those who were never Christians ; nor is anything to
be rashly affirmed upon this point, without the authority
of a council sufficient to pronounce concerning so weighty
a matter. But of those who are separated from the uni-

ipse acciperet, quomodo dandum esset addidicit, nescio an pie quis-
quam dixerit esse repetendum. Nulla enim cogente necessitate
si fiat alieni muneris usurpatio est: si autem necessitas urgeat, aut
nullum, aut veniale delictum est. Sed et si nulla necessitate usurpe-
tur, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit non potest dici non
datum, quamvis rect& dici possit illicit^ datum. Illicitam autem usur-
pationem corrigit reminiscentis et poenitentis affectus. Quod si non
correxerit, manebit ad pcenam usurpatoris quod datum est, vel ejus
qui illicit^ dedit, vel ejus qui illicite accepit ; non tamen pro non dato
habebitur.

(30) Ib. 30. Et hcec quidem alia qusestio est, utrum et ab iis qui
numquam fuerunt Christiani possit baptismus dari : nee aliquid te-
mere inde affirmandum est sine auctoritate tanti concilii quantum tan-
tse rei sufficit. De iis vero qui ab Ecclesise unitate separati sunt,
nulla jam quoastio est, quin et habeant et dare possint, et quin perni-
ciose habeant perniciose que tradant extra vinculum pacis. Hoc enim
jam in ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum, consideratum, perfectum
atque firmatum est.

That Augustin agreed with Jerome in blaming the error of Cyprian,
is plain from his Book De unico Baptismo, Opp. Tom. 9, p. 359, 22.
Some other extracts from his admirable writings will be given in the
subsequent quotations from authors of a later date.

ty of the Church, there is no question but that they may
and can give it, and that they hold it and give it inju-
riously, without the bond of peace. For this has been
long discussed, considered, perfected and established,
by the unity of the whole world."

Next to the high authority of St. Augustin, I shall
mention the eminent Chrysostom, whose fame, neverthe-
less, is rather to be attributed to his oratorical powers,
than to his skill in theological casuistry, since his works,
voluminous as they are, consist, for the most part, of po-
pular sermons or Homilies, which were probably deliver-
ed extempore, and taken down by an amanuensis, as we
believe was the case with the catechetical and mystagogic
discourses of Cyril of Jerusalem, and with many other re-
lics of antiquity. This fact would account, to a conside-
rable extent, for their energy, their inartificial construction,
their lively illustrations, and their occasional extravagance;
in which respects there is much to praise, and sometimes
not a little to censure. Plainly, however, it would be un-
reasonable to look to such productions for accurate state-
ments on those points which could not conduce to popular
edification ; however the author might have been obliged
to decide, if consulted by the clergy. The writers on the
other side, claim Chrysostom notwithstanding, as if he had
unequivocally declared himself against the decisions of
the councils, and the allowance of the Church. But this
he has not done, nor can I see anything in his works
which touches the precise point, viz. whether Baptism, ad-
ministered in the proper form by a heretic or by a layman,
without absolute necessity, and therefore administered
rather against than by the authority of the Church, is so
far null and void, that it may lawfully be administered
again : or, in other words, whether the minister is of the
essence, or only of the order of the sacrament. I shall
make a few extracts to shew the general views of this
distinguished father, by which it will appear (31) that he

(31) Opp. S. Chrysost. Tom. 5, p. 333, D. Horn. LX. De sumentibus
indigne divina Hysteria. "Veriim et tu laice, cum sacerdotem videris
offerentem, nee ut sacerdotem esse putes hoc facientem, sed_Christi

maintains the following doctrines: First, that the ac-
tual administrator of the sacraments is not the visible
priest, but the invisible Deity, secondly, (32) that
as the merit of the priesthood can add nothing to the
efficacy of the sacraments, so neither can the sins of the
priesthood take anything away thirdly, (33) that it
is not the man who baptizes, but the great name in which
we are baptized, which is worthy to be enquired of; since
the efficacy of Baptism, which is the remission of sins, is of
God; and the work of preaching the gospel, so far as human
agency is concerned, is therefore a greater work than that
of Baptism, and fourthly, (34) that a repetition of Bap-
tism is utterly inadmissible, being liable to the reproach,
symbolically, of crucifying Christ a second time. Now
in all this, the sentiments of our author are in no respect
peculiar. But the last passage which I have quoted (35)
is directly hostile to the scheme of Dr. Waterland and his

manum invisibiliter extensain. Sicut. enim cum baptizaris, ipse te
non baptizat, sed Deus est qui tuum caput invisible potentia conti-
net, et nee angelus, nee archangelus, nee ullus alius accedere et tan-
gere audet ; ita nunc quoque cum Deus regenerat, ipsius est solius
donum.

(32) Ib. Tom. 4 X 334, Horn. VIII. in Epist. ad Corinth.. I. cap. ii.
Nunc autern per indignos consuevit Deus operari, et nihil propter

- sacerdotis vitam baptismatis gratia Ireditur. Hcec dico, ne quis prse-
sentium sacerdotis vitam pensiculando circa religionis nostrse doctri-
nam scandalizetur. Nihil enim homo his quse sibi proponuntur, ex se
addit : sed id omne divinse virtutis opus est, et ipse Deus, qui nos
erudit.

(33) Ib. p. 297, Horn. III. in Epist. ad Corinth. I. Cap. i. Nunquid
in nomine Pauli baptizati estis 1 Ac si diceret, Noli mihi dicere, quis
baptizavit, sed in cujus nomine. Nee enim qui baptizat, sed quern in
baptismate invocamus, inquiritur. Hie enim est qui dimittit peccata.

Et profecto magnum quiddam baptisma est, sed ejus magnitudi-

nem non qui baptizat, sed qui invocatur, in baptismate efficit. Nam
baptizare nihil est, si humanus labor consideretur, sed longe minus
quam evangelizare.

(34) Ib. p. 1536, B, Com. Chrysost.in Epist. Pauli ad Hebrseos,cap.
VI. Horn. IX. Proinde qui secundo seipsum baptizat, secundo eum
crucifigit, Sicut enim mortuus est Christus in cruce, sic et nos in
baptismate, non carni, sed peccato. Si ergo necesse est baptizare
iterum, necesse est rursum eundem ipsum mori. Baptisma enim nihil
aliud est, quam interitus ejus qui baptizatur, et resurrectio illius.

(35) Ib. Tom. 2. p. 766, In Cap. Matthxi VII. Horn. XIX. Speaking
of heretics, Chrysostom says, " Sed forte dicis, Quomodo dicere ilium
possum non esse Christiauum, quern video Christum confitentem, al-

ingenious coadjutors. For their theory requires us to be-
lieve, that the reason why the primitive Church allowed
the validity of heretical Baptisms, was because the heri-
tics had a true and regular priesthood, by succession and
ordination ; which priestly authority was indelible. And
since they claim. St. Chrysostom as a witness on their side,
it is with rather more interest than the passage would
otherwise deserve that I have transcribed the following
part of his testimony.

" Perhaps thou wilt say, How can I deny a man to be a
Christian, when I behold him confessing Christ, having an
altar, offering the sacrifice of bread and wine, baptizing,
reading the Scriptures of the saints, and having every or-
der of the priesthood? wise man ! if he does. not con-
fess Christ, his heathenism is manifest, and if thou art se-
duced by that, itwas insanity which seduced thee : but if
he does confess Christ, and yet not as Christ himself com-
manded, then it is thine own negligence if thou art se-
duced by him. For he who falls into a hidden pit, is
called negligent, because he did not look carefully before
him : while he who falls into an open pit, is not called
negligent but insane. As to what thou hast said con-
cerning the similitude of the ecclesiastical mysteries, hear
this answer. The ape has the members of a man, and
imitates man in all his actions, but wouldst thou on that
ground judge that it should be called a man'/ In like man-
ner heresy has all the members of the Church, and imi-
tates her mysteries, but they are not of the Church not-
withstanding.^

tare habentem, sacrificium panis et vini offerentem, baptizantem, scrip-
turas sanctorum legentem, omnem ordinem sacerdotii habentem ? Vir
sapiens, si non confitetur Christum, et manifesta esset gentilitas illius,
.et si seducebaris per earn, insania erat, qua seducebaris : nunc autem
qui confitetur Christum, sed non sic quemadmodum mandavit Chris-
tus, negligentia tna est, si ab eo seduceris. Qui enim in occultam
foveam cadit, negligens esse dicitur, quia non caute prospexit : qui
autem in manifestam foveam cadit, non negligens dicitur, sedinsanus.
Quod autem de similitudine ecclesiasticorum mysteriorum dixisti, hoc
audi responsum. Quoniam et simia hominis habet membra, et per
omnia hominem imitatur, nunquid propterea dicenda est homo 1 Sic
et hseresis omnia Ecclesise habet et imitatur mysteria, sed non snnt

Ecclesire.

4* i . - . -

Here, then, St. Chrysostom, expressly reckoning the
orders of the priesthood amongst the several particulars
in which the heretics resembled the Church, plainly de-
nies that there was any more identity between the priest-
hood of the one and the priesthood of the other, than
there is between the members of the ape and those of
the man. Now if this be sound doctrine, which I by no
means assert, but give it for the benefit of the other side, as
the doctrine of their own favorite witness it surely de-
stroys the whole ingenious theory by which they think
they can account for the admission of heretical Baptisms,
without being obliged to acknowledge the validity of
Lay-Baptism. For how could the ordinance derive any
additional efficacy, in the judgment of Chrysostom, from
a ministry, whose acts he held in the same esteem as the
imitations of a monkey ?

But my next witness is, on every account, much more
important. Innocent, the first bishop of Rome who bore
that name, was contemporary with Chrysostom, for his
accession is placed by Baronius in A. D. 402. And in
the passage which I shall cite, we have, not the loose
and vague language of a Homily ad populum, but a pre-
cise statement on the very point, addressed to a bishop.
In this epistle, (36) the pontiff saith, that although the lay-
men who were converts from the Arians,and other heretics
of the same kind, should be received upon a profession of

(36.) Inn. epist. XVIIL Alexandra Episcopo, Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom.
1. p. 1013. C. Anianos prseterea, ceterasque hujusmodi pestes, quia
eorum laicos converses ad Dominum, sub imagine pcenitentiae ac Sanc-
ti Spiritus sanctificatione per manus impositionem suscipimus; non
videtur, clericos eorum cum sacerdotii aut ministerii cujuspiam susci-
pi debere dignitate : quoniam quibus solum baptisma ratum esse per-
mittimus, quod utique in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti per-
ficitur, nee Spiritum Sanctum eos habere ex illo baptismate illisque
mysteriis arbitramur : quoniam cum a Catholica fide eorum auctores
desciscerent, perfectionem Spiritus quam acceperant, amiserunt. Nee
dare ejus plenitudinem possunt, quae maxime in ordmationibus oper-
atur, quam per impietatis suasperfidiampotius quam per fidem, dix-
erim, perdiderunt. Quomodo fieri potest, ut eorum profanos sacerdo-
tes, dignos Christi honoribus arbitremur, quorum laicos imperfectos,
ut dixi, ad Sancti Spiritus percipiendam gratiam, cum poenitentiae
imagine recipiamus 1

repentance, with the imposition of hands, yet it would not
follow that their clergy ought to be allowed the dignity
of any ministerial or sacerdotal power. For nothing of
theirs was admitted but their Baptism, which was ad-
ministered in the true form of the ordinance, by the in-
vocation of the sacred Trinity. Nor was their Baptism
to be supposed endowed with any spiritual grace, for
when the authors of heresy departed from the catholic
faith, they lost the perfection of the Spirit which they had
received. Hence they could not give the plenitude of
that grace which chiefly operates in ordinations, for they
had forfeited it by their perfidy. And the pontiff asks,
in conclusion, how it was possible that those profane
priests could be thought worthy of the honours of Christ,
whose imperfect laymen could not be admitted to the
grace of the Holy Spirit, without repentance? Now this
testimony directly disproves the theory on the other side;
.for it shows most clearly that instead of the ancient
Church admitting the Baptisms of heretics on the ground
that those who administered them were priests, validly
ordained, it was on the very different ground that the
sacrament had been administered in the orthodox form ;
since the Baptisms of the Arians are here expressly al-
lowed, while their ordinations are as expressly rejected.

In harmony with the same doctrine, the first Leo, who
occupied the See of Rome, A. D. 440, lays down the rule,
(37) that Baptism received from heretics must not be re-
peated; but that, since the form of the sacrament only
could be had amongst heretics, the converted penitent
must have confirmation in the catholic Church, in order
that he may receive the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

(37) Ib. p. 1771. D. Leonis Papas, \.Epistolo- Nicetae AquiL Episcopo.
VII. Nam hi qui baptismum ab hsereticis acceperunt, cum baptizati
antea non fuissent, sola invocations Spiritus sancti per impositionem
manuum confirmandi sunt, quia fonnam tantum baptismi sine sancti-
ficationis virtute sumpserunt. Et hanc regulam (ut scitis) servandam
omnibus Ecclesiis predicamus; utlavacrum semel initum nulla iter-
atione violetur; dicente Apostolo, TJnus Dominus, una fides, unum bap-
tisma. Cujus ablutio nulla iteratione temeranda est, sed (ut dirimus)
sola sanctificatio Spiritus sancti invocanda est : ut quod ab hasreticis
nemo accipit, a catholicis sacerdotibus consequatur.

The next assertion of the point occurs in the fourteenth
canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
And here it is decreed, (38) that whereas readers and
singers were allowed to marry, nevertheless they should
not be permitted to marry amongst heretics : that if, how-
ever, there were any who had children by such marri-
ages, and these children were already baptized amongst
heretics, their fathers should bring them to the commu-
nion of the Catholic Church ; but such among them as
were still unbaptized, should not be baptized amongst
heretics, nor should it be lawful thenceforth to marry a
heretic, a Jew, or a pagan.

One year after this General Council, we have the tes-
timony of the second council of Aries, in its sixteenth or
seventeenth canons, (39) where the Photinians or Paul-
ianists are ordered to be baptized, according to the de-
crees of the fathers ; while the Arians, and the Bonosia-
ci, being baptized in the name of the Trinity, are directed
to be received into the Church, with chrism and the im-
position of hands.

An interesting record upon this subject occurs in the
acts of a Roman council, held under the pontificate of
Felix III, A. D. 484 ; in consequence of the lapse of
many African clergy, whom the Vandals had prevailed
upon, by persuasion and threats, to accept Ariari Bap-
tism.* "It is a subject of general grief and lamentation,"

(38) Con. Gen. Hard. Tom. 2. p. 607. B. Quondam in quibusdam
provinciis concessum est lectoribus et psalmistis uxores ducere, sta-
tuit sancta Synodus, non licere cuiquam ex his accipere sectse alterius
uxorem. Qui vero ex hujusmodi conjugio jam filios susceperunt, si
quidera prseventi stint, ut ex se geniti apud haereticos baptizarentur;
ofierre eos Ecclesiae catholicae communioni conveniet : non baptiza-
tos autem, non posse eos ulterius apud haereticos baptizare: sed ne-
que copulari debetimptura haeretico, aut ludaeo, vel pagano, &c.

(39) Ib. p. 774. Condi. AreZat. 11, canones XVT 4- XVII. Photinia-
tos, sive Paulianistas, secundum patrum statuta, baptizari oportere.
Bonosiacos autem ex eodemerrorevenientes, quos sicut Arrianos bap-
tizari in Trinitate manifestum est, si interrogati fidem nostram ex
toto corde confessi fuerint, cum chrismate et manus impositione in
Ecclesia recipi sufficit.

* Baron. Annal. A. D. 487. 11, Tom. 6.p. 482.

saith the pontiff in his Address, (40) "that in Africa we
have known even bishops, priests, and deacons, to be
re-baptized." In the second canon of the Council it is
strongly argued (41) that no one can come a second time
to baptism without casting the grace of salvation away,
since it amounts to an open denial of Christ, and a pro-
fession that the individual had been a pagan, a sin to be
execrated in all, but much more horrible to be committed
by bishops, priests, and deacons. And therefore this ca-
non orders all such of the clergy as had been re-baptized,
to be placed in the order of penitents all their days, and
to be allowed lay-communion only at the hour of death.
Now this passage of Church history may not, indeed,
seem directly applicable to the question in which we are
concerned; since it is obvious that contempt for the Bap-
tisms of heretics and schismatics, is a very different mat-
ter from despising the Baptisms of the Church. But yet,
upon thorough examination of the theology involved in
the case, the distinction will be seen to be in degree only.
For the Church herself, as we have found by the multi-
plied decisions of her councils and doctors, had so rever-
enced Baptism as the ordinance of Christ, that she for-
bade its repetition, even when it had been administered
by her worst enemies. And therefore we must regard it,

(40) Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom. 2. p. 878. Condi. Rom. sub Felice UI.
Felix episcopus Ecclesise urbis Romse dixit: Communis dolor, et
generalis est gemitus, quod intra Africam rebaptizatos etiam episco-
pos, presbyteros diaconosque cognovimus.

(41) Ib. p. 833. Ut ergo ab Ecclesise summitatibus inchoemus, eos
quos episcopos, presbyteros, vel diaconos fuisse constiterit ; et seu op-
tantes forsitan, sen coactos lavacriillius unici salutarisque claruerit
fecisse jacturam ; et Christum, quern non solum dono regenerationis,
verum etiam gratia percepti honoris induerant, exuisse ; cum constet,
neminem ad secundam tinctionem venire potuisse, nisi se palam
Christianum negaverit, et professus fuerit se esse paganum. Quod
cum generaliter sit in omnibus exsecrandum, multo magis in episco-
pis, presbyteris, diaconibus auditu saltern dictuque probatur horren-
dum. Sed quia idem Dominus atque Salvator clementissimus est, et
neminem vult perire ; usque ad exitus sui diem, in poenitentia (si
resipiscunt,) jacere conveniet ; nee orationi non modo fidelium, sed
ne catechumenorum omnimodis interesse, quibus communio Uucatan.
turn in morte reddenda est,

I presume, according to the judgment of the great Au-
gustin, where, expostulating with a Donatist bishop for
having re-baptized a deacon, he says, (42)" To re-bap-
tize a heretic is truly a sin, but to re-baptize a Catho-
lic is a most enormous wickedness."

The fourteenth canon of the council of Ilerda, A. D.
524, follows up the subject, by decreeing, (43) that "no
religious communicant should participate, even at meals,
with those who had been re-baptized."

The third Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, next claims
attention, by taking a further step towards the suppression
of re-baptization. For in the fifteenth canon it is thus de-
creed : (44) "Whoever believes or shall believe the sacri-
legious work of re-baptizing to be good, and either per-
forms or shall perform it, let him be accursed"

The doctrine of the Church is set forth with great per-
spicuity by Isidore, the bishop of Hispala, who flourished
about this time. He states in plain terms, (45) that Bap-
tism was delivered to the priests, that even the deacons
could riot lawfully administer it without the bishops or

(42}Augustin. Opp. Tom. 2. p. 23. Epist.XKHI. Rebaptizare igitur
hsereticum hominem qui. hsec sanctitatis signa perceperit quse Chris-
tiana tradidit disciplina, omnino peccatum. est : rebaptizare autem
Catholicum, immanissimum scelus est.

(43) Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom. Z.p. 1066. Condi. Ilerdense, Can. XTV.
Cum rebaptizatis fideles religiosi, nee incibo, participent.

(44) Ib. Tom. 3. p. 475. Condi. Toletanum HI. Can. XV. Quicum-
que rebaptizandi sacrilegum opus bonum esse credit aut crediderit,
agit aut egerit, anathema sit.

(45) Isidori Hispal. Episcop. de Ojffic. Ecdesiast. Lib. II. C. XXIV.
p. 411, G. H. Unde constat baptisma solis sacerdotibus esse traditum,
cujusque mysterium nee ipsis diaconibus explere licitumabsque epis-
copis, vel presbyteris, nisi illis procul absentibus ultima languoris co-
gat necessitas ; quod et laicis fidelibus plerumque permittitur, ne quis-
quam sine remedio s&lutari de sseculo evocetur. Hseretici autem, si
tamen in Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti attestatione docentur baptis-
ma suscepisse, non iterum sunt baptizandi, sed sola chrismate et
manus impositione purgandi. Baptismus enim non est hominis meri-
tum, sed Christi : ideoque nihil interest, hsreticus an. fidelis baptizet.
Quod sacramentum tarn sanctum est, ut nee homicida ministrante pol-
luatur. Habet quidem hareticus baptismum Christi ; sed quia extra
unitatem fidei est, nihil ei prodest. At ubi ingressus fuerit, statim bap-
tisma quod habuerat foris ad perniciem, incipit illi jam prodesse ad
salutem.

the presbyters, unless when they are far away, and death
is approaching, in which case faithful laymen are gen-
erally allowed, to administer it, lest any one should de-
part without the salutary remedy. That heretics also,
provided only they baptize in the name of the Trinity,
are admitted, nor, in such case, is Baptism administered
again, but they are c.leansed by chrism and the imposition
of hands only. For Baptism is not the merit of man but
of Christ, and therefore it is of no importance whether
the faithful or the heretic baptizes. And of such sanctity
is this sacrament, that it cannot be polluted even by a
homicide. The heretic, then, has indeed the Baptism of
Christ, but because he is without the unity of the faith, it
profits him nothing. But when he has entered this unity,
immediately the Baptism which he previously had to his
hurt, begins to be profitable to his salvation."

I shall now refer, in chronological order, to the great
Council of Trullo, called the Quinisextan, held A. D. 681,
in the ninety-fifth canon of which the subject is treated
with all the exactness of detail. (46) Of those heretics who
were to be admitted without re-baptization, this canon
specifies the Arians, the Macedonians, the Novatians,
&c., while the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Sabelli-
ans, with many others, who, like them, had changed the
very form of Baptism, are directed to be re-baptized.

The year 688 brings us to the chapters of Theodore,
Archbishop of Canterbury, in the sixth of which we read
as follows : (47) "Those who have been twice baptized

(46) Hard. Con. Gen. Tom. 3. p. 1695. Condi. Quinisext. Can. XCV.
Eos qui ex hsereticis adrectam fidem accedunt, et parti eorum qui sal-
vantur, subjecta consequentia et consuetudine recipientes, Arianos
quidem et Macedonianos, et Novatianos, qui se Puros appellant, et
Aristeros, et Tessarescaidecatitas, seu Tetraditas, et Apollinaristas,
recipimus, dautes libellos, et omnem haresim anathematizantes,
sancto primum chrismate irmngentes et frontem, et oculos, et nares, et
os, et aures; consignantes aulem dicimus : Signaculum doni Spiri-
tus sancti. De Paulianis autem a Catholica Ecclesia statutum est, ut
ii omnino rebaptizentur, Eunomianos quoque, qui in unam demersio-
nem baptizant, et Montanistas, qui hie dicuntur Phryges, et Sabelli-
anos, &c.

(47) Ib. p. 1772, Theodori Cantuar. Archiepiscopi Capitula. VI. Qui

through ignorance, do not need penance ; but they can-
not be ordained according to the canons, unless under
great necessity. But those who cannot plead ignorance,
forasmuch as they have as it were crucified Christ afresh,
must do penance for seven years."

In A. D. 774, Charles the Great received an Epitome
of the various canons from the Apostles down, as a pre-
sent from pope Adrian. And it is worthy of observation
that in this collection the rule appears imperative, by
which those who had boon re-baptized should not be ad-
mitted to holy orders. (48) Those canons of the African
Church are also retained, (49) in which it was decreed
not only that the Donatist clergy should be received into
the Church in their sacerdotal order, but still further, that
the Catholic bishops should divide their dioceses with
the Donatists. True, these concessions are placed upon
the ground of expediency. Nevertheless, when we re-
member that the origin of that pernicious sect was in
schism, that'they maintained their hostile position against
the Church with the most furious obstinacy, notwithstand-
ing the decision of the great council of Aries against them,
that they indirectly encouraged and doubtless inflamed
the sanguinary cruelties of the Circumcelliones, in order
to sustain their cause by violence and blood, and that
their first bishop, being consecrated by a factious minor-
ity when the see was regularly filled, and therefore in ut-
ter contempt of the canons, was not entitled to the char-
acter of a true bishop, but was rather a wolf than a shep-
herd when all this is fully considered, those canons cf
the African church must needs be regarded as a beauti-
ful and affecting monument of her moderation and love

bis baptizati sunt ignorantes, non indigent pcsnitentia, nisi qucd se-
cundum canones non possunt ordinari, nisi pro magna necessitate.
Qui vero.non ignorant, quasi iterum Christum crucifixerunt, paenite-
ant septem annis, &c.

(48) Ib.p. 2047, A. Ne rebaptizati, clerici fiant.

(49) Ib.p. 2049. Ut clerici Donatistarum in catholicam Ecclesiam re-
cipiantur cum ordine pro tempore et necessitate. And again, p. 2051. Ut
Catholici episcopi et ex Donatistis conversi, dioceseos iJJas aequaliter
dividant, in quibus tarn Donatistse quam Catholici jam ante comman-
serant.

of peace in the days of Augustin ; and they might serve
as an edifying lesson, even now, to many a devoted ad-
mirer of Christian antiquity.

But I crave pardon for this digression, and hasten to re-
sume the direct line of my argument. And this, perhaps,
will be the place for an interesting question which is of-
ten mooted by the writers on the other side, viz. Wheth-
er the Eastern branch of the Church was equally liberal
with the Western, in the admission of heretical, schisma-
tical, and lay-Baptism. Now the answer to this might
well be considered as sufficiently given already, not only
because ^the greater Councils which I have cited were of
universal authority, bat also because there was no sep-
aration of the Church into Eastern and Western, until
after this period ; and therefore the unity of the universal
or catholic body affords the strongest presumption, at
least in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that
the doctrine of one portion was the doctrine of the whole.
It may be well, however, as a' sort of cumulative evidence,
to transcribe a very direct passage from the canons of
the Greek patriarch Nicep horns, who flourished in the
ninth century, in which it is declared, (50) that if there
be any infants unbaptized in a place where there is no
priest, it is fitting that they should be baptized notwith-
standing. And in such case, if the father himself, or
any other person who is a Christian, should administer
the ordinance, he commits no sin.

A little further on in the history of this same ninth
century, we meet with an occurence which illustrates still
mora the prevailing doctrine of the Church on the subject
of lay-Biptism. p ope Nicholas I., who attained the Pa-
mi chair, A. D. 853, was consulted by the Bulgarians
under the following circumstances. (51) A certain Greek

(50) Condi Gen ..Hard. Tom. 4. p. 1053, Nicephori Confessons ali-
quot canones. c/m. XVI. Infantes non baptizatbs oportet/si quo loco
repenatur qms, u n mm sit sacerdos, baptizari. Quod si vel pater, aut
qiulibet alms modo sir Ohristianus, baptizet, peccatmn non cominittS

(51) Con. Gen. Hird. Tom. 5, p. 359. Nicholai Papse Responsa ad Con-
t T e f f^gww X1 7" Pr * te rea indicatis, quod quidamlCcus met
tiens fateretur se presbyterum e - JS e, cum non asset, ac per hocplurimos

** 50

" ~ " * -A ,5

impostor, who had pretended to be a priest without any
just title to the office, under that assumed character had
converted and baptized a large number of men. Bis
covering the cheat, however, his former disciples became
enraged, and punished him by cutting off his nose and
ears, scourging him severely, and banishing him. The
Pope, in his answer, praises their zeal, but utterly con-
demns their cruelty. And while he admits that tl.e
Greek did wrong in feigning himself to be a priest, he
cites the apostle, who rejoiced that the gospel was preach-
ed, even although it was done by many out of envy
and strife, and not sincerely. With respect to the persons
who had received Baptism from the impostor, however,
the Pontiff replies, that if they were baptized in the name
of the Holy and undivided Trinity, they were truly Chris-
tians, and ought not to be baptized again. He then pro-
ceeds to show that the work of Baptism was Christ's, no
matter by whom administered, although even by an adul-
terer or by a thief. -And again he refers to Scripture,
where John the Baptist, pointing to the Saviour, saith,

in vestra patria baptizasset. Cum ergo vos inspiratione Dei cognovis-
seris, quod non esset presbyter, judicaveritis, ut amitteret aures et
nares, et acerrirnis verberibus CEsderetur, et ex patria vestra pelleretur.
Ecce impletum est in vobis, ignoscite nobis, quod de quibusdam Apos-
tolus clamat, quod habent zelurn Dei, sed non secundum scientiam.
Nam licet ille male fecerit, si mentitus est, vos tamen in hoc zelum
quidem pium, sed minus cautum habuistis : quoniain quamvis ipse se
sacerdotem esse simulaverit, simulatio tarnen ejus salutern plurimis
contulit. Siquidem diversifuere qui diverso modo Christum, sed non
propter Christum annuntiabant : sed sive occasione, sive quomodo-
cumque hunc annuntiarent, hos tantum non prohibebat Apostorus,
qui solum ut Christus annuntiaretur, plurimum satagebat, &c.

Ib. XV. Porro interrogatis, utrum homines illi qui hoc ab illo
baptisma receperunt, Christian! sunt, an iternm baptizari debeant.
Sed si in nomine summsE ac individuse Trinitatis baptizati fuere, Chris-
tiani profecto sunt,et eos a quocumque Christiano baptizati sunt, iterate
baptizare non convenit ; et baptismum quod procul sit ab Eccle-
sia, sive ab adultero, vel a fure fuerit datum, ad percipientem munus
pervenit illabatum ; quia vox ilia quoe sonuit per Colurnbam, omnem
maculam humanas pollutionis excludit, qua declaratur, acdicitur:
Hie est qui laptizat. Quod itaque numerosa Scripturarum testatur
instructio, et revera quia secundum famosissimum Apostolurn : Nequc
qui plantat, id est, catechizat, neque qui irrigat, id est baptizat, est alt-
quid, sed qui incrementum dat Deus.

HE shall baptize you, and quotes St. Paul saying, " Nei-
ther is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth,
but God who giveth the increase."

A similar instance occurred in France, before the close
of the ninth century, within the jurisdiction of the cele-
brated Archbishop Rabanus, who, being consulted by
one of his suffragans upon the course proper to be pur-
sued, enters largely into the whole subject, as follows :

" With respect to the man/' saith the Archbishop, (52)

(52) Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom. 5, p. 1415. Rabani Responsa Canoni-
ca, VI. De illo vero qui presbyterum se esse finxerit, cum non
esset ordinatus, et baptism! omcium exercuit, requirendum est utruni
ipse baptizans baptizatus esset, et utrum in nomine Sanctse Trinitatis.
sub trina mersione baptizaverit. Quod si ita erat, non est iterum
baptizandus, sed per irnpositionem manns episcopalis, et unctionem
saeri chrismatis, id quod factum est confirmandum. Quia quod se-
mel est in sacramento baptismatis effectum non licet iterari : quoniam
unus est Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma. Attamen ille qui prEe-
sumptuose egit, et non pro necessitate aliqua, canonica disciplina
est coercendus. Igitur ut beatus Ambrosius testator, postquam omni-
bus locis Ecclesioe sunt constitutse, et officia ordinata, aliter composite
res est quam cceperat. Primum enim omnes docebant et baptizabant, qui-
buscumque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio. At ubi omnialoca
circumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rectores, et
cetera officia Ecclesiis sunt ordinata: utnullus de clero auderet, qui or-
dinatus non esset, praesumere officiurn quod sciret non sibi creditum
vel concessurn; et ccepit alio ordine et providentia gubernari Ec-
clesia. Quod si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, et vulgaris
res' et vilissima vide retur. Hinc ergo est unde mine neque diaconi
in populo pradicj.nt, neque ceteri clerici vel laici baptizant, &c.
Quod autem unum sit Christi baptisma, et licet a diversis ministre-
tur, non debet iterari vel mutari, sacrum Evangelium ostendit, ubi
verba Johannis Baptistoe posita sunt ita dicentis : Quia vidi Spiritum
descendentem quasi Cohnnbam de ccelo, et manentem super eum, et ego ne~
sciebam. Sed qui misit me baptizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit : Supe r
quern videris Spiritum descendentem et manentem super eum, hie est qui
baptizat in Spiritu Sancto. Quam sententiam beatus Augustinus ita
exposuit. Quid ergo per Columbam didicit Johannes ; nisi quandam
proprietatem in Christo futuraml Ot quamvis multi ministri baptizatu-
ri essent, sive j'usti, sive injusti, non tribueretur sanctitas.baptismi ni-
si illi super quern descendtt Columba, de quo dictum: Hie est qui bapli-
zat in Spiritu Sancto. Petrus baptizet, hie est qui baptizat : Paulus bapti-
zet, hie est qui baptizat : Judas baptizet, hie est qui baptizat. Nam si
pro diversitate meritorum baptismus esset, quia diversa sunt merita,
diversa essent baptismata. Sed unum est baptisma, et solus est Chris-
ms, qui per diversos ministros suos baptismate baptizat in remissio-

" who pretended to be a presbyter when he was not or-
dained, and in this assumed character administered the
ordinance of Baptism, it must first be ascertained whether
he had been baptized himself, and whether he baptized
others with the trine immersion in the name of the Holy
Trinity. If this be so, the Baptisms are not to be repeat-
ed, but by the laying on of the bishop's hands, and the
anointing with holy chrism, that which has been done
must be confirmed. For that which is once effect-
ed in the sacrament of Baptism, it is not lawful to repeat,
since there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Never-
theless, he who has acted presumptuously and not by any
necessity, should be punished by canonical di


Search: Advanced Search	UploadAnonymous User (login or join us)