ee ae
;
4
‘
'
é
t
BY oda —2io 8
Elwin, Warwick, 1849-
The minister of baptism
THE
MINISTER OF BAPTISM
. I
PRINTED BY at
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
= A > Z
LONDON ~~
THE
SINISTER OF BAPTISM
A HISTORY OF CHURCH OPINION FROM THE
TIME OF THE APOSTLES: ESPECIALLY WITH
REFERENCE TO HERETICAL, SCHISMATICAL
AND LAY ADMINISTRATION
By REV. WARWICK ELWIN, M.A.
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET
1889
All rights reserved
archive.org/details/ministerofb T |
PREFACE
THE ministry of baptism has had a history of its own,
apart from that of the apostolic ministry as a whole.
From very early times disputes have arisen as to who
can validly baptize, to an extent quite unknown in
reference to any other sacramental ordinance. The
subject has been discussed under a variety of aspects ;
it has occasioned some considerable controversies ;
and, as opinions still widely differ, it will probably
occasion more before any universal agreement is
reached in the Church.
The matter is certainly important enough to
demand serious consideration, and one design of the
present volume is to invite more earnest attention to
it than it commonly receives. The majority of English
clergy, who are responsible for guarding the due
administration of the sacraments within their several
spheres, now generally pass it by without much
regard.
A second design is to summarise the historical
evidence on the question. No opinion on it can be
[6] PREFACE
really intelligent which is not formed in the light of the
views of former times and other parts of Christendom,
because its present position is the outcome of earlier
influences. As a rule the information given regarding
it in ordinary text books of theology is somewhat
meagre. No doubt a few special treatises already
exist, and are fairly accessible, even though some of
them are out of print. But being generally polemical,
they give undue prominence to one or other side of
the evidence, while in no case are they historically
complete. The patristic and modern English literature
on the point has been tolerably well considered, but
there has been a comparative neglect of medizval
testimony, and of that of the Eastern Churches. Both
of these afford very important contributions to the
inquiry. I have tried to do justice to the whole range
of information, so far as I have been able to collect it,
and thus to provide a handbook on the Minister of
Baptism which I trust will be found useful, at any rate
for purposes of reference.
The Rev. E. C. Baldwin, now Vicar of Harston,
Cambridgeshire, was the first to draw my particular
attention to the difficulties involved in the acceptance
of baptism administered by laymen, especially by dis-
senters. The chief results of my own study of the
matter were embodied in an article on ‘ Lay Baptism,’
contributed to the Church Quarterly Review for October,
1887. There I should have been more than content to
PREFACE [7]
have left the subject, had it not been for pressing
suggestions from the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles that
I should prepare the essay for separate publication. It
seemed to me that the only way in which I could re-
model it, so as to be of any real service, would be by
expanding it into a history of the whole question. For
this I felt that I had neither sufficient leisure nor know-
ledge at hand, even if a technical volume could be
expected to interest any sufficient number of readers,
and I therefore hesitated much before I undertook the
task. Others will be able to judge how far I have
succeeded. That I have escaped all omissions and
mistakes, in dealing with so wide and scattered a mass
of materials, is more than I can expect; but I believe
that the book will be found fairly complete and sub-
stantially reliable.
My obligations to previous writers will be best
indicated by saying that without the chief of them I
could not have undertaken the work at all. I am also
indebted to the ready courtesy of both strangers and
friends for several very useful items of information
which I could not otherwise have obtained. These I
have acknowledged in footnotes to the pages where
they occur. My more special thanks are due to the
Bishop of Argyll and to Mr. Baldwin for help of a
larger kind. With an ungrudging expenditure of time
and trouble, they have given me the benefit of constant
advice and criticism throughout, rendered particularly
[8] PREFACE
valuable by the fact that they have both been in-
dependent students of the subject.
I ought, perhaps, to add that I hold myself alone
responsible for the book as it stands, with its opinions
and conclusions. As regards these, seeing that they
concern the administration of one of the great sacra-
ments of the Gospel, it is something more than the
adoption of a customary formula, if I say that I pro-
pose them in entire submission to the judgment of the
Church.
BrckENHAM : September, 1889.
CON EE NES
pia
CHAPTER I.
THE ONE BAPTISM.
PAGE
The unity of baptism . i!
Questions as to its minister 2
Importance of the subject . 3
The saying, Pieri non debet, factum bale, 4
‘The Church’s authority to regulate the ministration . 6
Differences of opinion 7
The present essay historical 9
Suggestion for conditional baptism : 11
CHAPTER II.
THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION.
The apostolic ministry :
Recipients of the commission . : ; : : : gel,
Representative view of the ministry : : . aya 4
Difference between clerical and lay peeoed : - : Be
Sacramental character of baptism . : ; P g eta 16
Terms of the commission :
Exclusive as to the authority to baptize . : é ‘ ay ee
Authority with the persons, not with the act . : : ee
Parallel with teaching . : : : : 2 : ate
Comparison with power of the fers 3 j P F . «ee
The plea of necessity . : - - a : 2 : ~ 22
Condition of the aabapiced: : : : g ‘ , . ees
Application to other sacraments . ‘ - - . : . 24
Presumption against unauthorised baptism . E : ; a. 26
[10] CONTENTS
CHAPTER III.
THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE.
PAGE
Analogy of Jewish types:
Circumcision 3 a : ; - ; F Ae eai/
Its minister in ihe Bible : ; : ; ; : 2 NO
Its minister in rabbinical tradition , : . : 1228
Failure of parallel with baptism : 6 : . ae gale
Jewish Baptism :—
Its analogy with Christian baptism . : : 5 . 80
Its minister. ; : : : so, oul
Baptism by St. Jonas the Bane : “ : : . 32
Failure of the parallel . : : ; : - - » oe
The New Testament evidence . ; : - - : : . 33
Baptisms on the Day of Pentecost . : : : : +: fools
Baptisms by St. Philip 5 : ; 5 : : : . oa
Ananias and baptism of Saul . : : . 3 : - se
Baptism of Cornelius . ; : : : : . : . 386
Baptisms by St. Paul. ; 5 : 5 5 : : eGo
Supplementary conjectures . . : . ; : . ; . a6
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY CHURCH.—CENT. II, III.
St. Ignatius . : ; : : : : ; et
Reservation of baptism % ean : ; : 5 : «ad
Tertullian :
On lay baptism : ; : ; : : : : » he ee
On baptism by women : ; : 4 : : : . 44
On heretical baptism 5 3 - , : : : . ee
St. Clement of Alexandria . : : : ; : : : . 46
The Apostolical Canons . : . : : , : : - . 46
On heretical baptism . : : : : : : : . 48
The Apostolical Constitutions : : : : : . > a ae
On heretical baptism . : : ‘ : : ; : - el
On lay and female baptism . : ; ; : : - > Jbl
On baptism by deacons : ; : ; - : : . oe
Value of the evidence. ; 5 : : : : ) oa
CHAPTER V.
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.— CENT. III.
Eastern councils on heretical baptism :
Teonium - . 5 : ; : ; : : ; -” te
Synnada . : : : : : : . : : on fe ROD
CONTENTS 11)
African usage on heretical baptism : ee
Tts ‘custom of error’ . : . : : : : . 55
Council of Carthage, under (ae : : Peers
Disputes between Pope Stephen and the Eastern tegee : : peor
St. Cyprian’s controversy on heretical baptism :
Cyprian to Magnus : 57
Fifth Council of Carthage ints Cyprian, and | epistl to ihe
Numidian bishops - : : 7 . 58
Cyprian to Quintus . “ 59
Sixth Council of Carthage dee Cyprian, a Spietle to Pons
Stephen : . - : 5 : : 5 at)
Pope Stephen’s resentment . : : : : : Be ea!)
Cyprian to Pompey. = : : - : : 2 . 60
Cyprian to Jubaianus. : - : 5-9 (eal
Seventh Council of Carthage STs aecan : : . UL
Firmilian to Cyprian - : : - ge! Oe
Subsequent relations between eae eed hee :
Dionysius and Pope Stephen : : é : : : . 63
Dionysius and Pope Xystus . : : ‘ - : a; ) (Ga
African opinion remained unchanged . . : : : : . 64
The Eastern and African arguments:
The one baptism . : : : : f Be UP
Regeneration only in the One : : : : : «fe
Pardon only in the Church . : ; : : : 2 + «, 66
Parallel with other sacraments . : - : - : . 66
Indulgence to errors through ignorance . : : - aie sao
Bearing on schismatical and lay baptism . - : : as
The view of Pope Stephen. c : : - : - ea oO
Estimate of the controversy - - , - : ; ; aaedilt
CHAPTER VI.
THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS.—CENT. IV.
Ministry of baptism by the clergy:
Bishops and priests - : , : : : : Pe ae
Deacons 2 : - : , : - : 3) 46
Heretical baptism in ihe bah:
Councils—
Nicea, 325 ? ; : : : ‘ 5 : Baers ii¢/
Laodicea, 375 A ; : : : ‘ : : . 78
Constantinople, 381 . : : : - - - - oe
Ground of the decrees . B ; - p : : Pina’ Ke)
[12] CONTENTS
Writers—
St. Basil . ;
St. Cyril of J een 3
Didymus of Alexandria .
St. Athanasius :
St. Epiphanius
Lay baptism in the East:
Writers—
St. Basil
St. Epiphanius
St. Gregory Nazianzen
Story of St. Athanasius
Bingham’s view of the eighth Mivene Ganon
Heretical baptism in the West:
The Roman practice
Councils—
Arles I., 314.
Carthage I., 348
Writers—
Pope Siricius
St. Ambrose
St. Optatus
St. Pacian
Lay baptism in the West:
Councils—
Elvira, 324 :
Carthage IV., 398 .
Writers—
Pseudo-Ambrose .
St. Pacian
St. Optatus
St. Jerome : : ; ; -
St. Augustine . °
On heretical apeatn
Sacraments remain SReRE ate of Goa ch
Christ the Baptizer .
Permanence of holy orders .
Baptism unprofitable in schism
Except in extreme necessity :
On baptism by lay churchmen
On baptism in a play or injest .
On baptism by the unbaptized
Epistle to Fortunatus . A
Summary
- 100
. 102
. 104
. 105
- 107
. 108
- 109
- 110
“110
. 120
PAGE
81
84
84
84
86
86
87
87
87
89
90
91
92
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
97
98
99
CONTENTS
CHAPTER VII.
THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES.—CENT. V—VIII.
The Middle Ages
The ministers of public nee
Bishops
Priests .
Deacons . :
Heretical baptism in the Baia:
Timotheus Presbyter
Council in Trullo, 691
St.John Damascene . d : F
Theodore Studites .
Lay baptism in the East :
John Moscus
Council in Trullo, 691
Heretical baptism in the West :
Second Council of Arles, 452
Popes—
Innocent I.
St. Leo. :
St. Gregory the Great
Gregory II.
Zachary
Writers—
Gennadius
Fulgentius Ferrandus
St. Gregory of Tours
St. Isidore :
Venerable Bede
Canons of St. Patrick
Lay baptism in the West:
Gelasius, St. Isidore, Hildefonsus ;
In England—
Archbishop Theodore : 5 :
Archbishop Egbert : ; ; ‘
Baptism by the unbaptized
Pagan baptism
CHAPTER VIII.
THE LATER MIDDLE AGES.—CENT. IX-XV.
Heretical baptism in the East : ; :
Nicetas Chroniates
[13]
PAGE
al
2 113
. 113
. 114
ula
. 116
ime aly
5 Lily
5 daly
1 LES
FA ks)
. 120
. 120
5 PHIL
6 IAL
5 by
. 122
. 122
Fae 7)
122
. 122
- 128
. 124
. 124
. 125
. 126
127
. 129
+ 129
[14] CONTENTS
Synod at Constantinople, 1166
Matthew Blastar . :
Greek treatment of yietieee apace
Lay baptism in the East :
Canons of Nicephorus.
Georgius Hamartolus
Michael Glycas
Synod at Constantinople, 1166
Theodore Scutariota
Matthew Blastar
Simon of Thessalonica
Nicephorus the historian .
Western regular baptism :
Bishops and priests
Deacons .
Western opinion on lay val heretical fee
Popes Nicholas I., John VIII., Urban II.
Theologians, Canonists, and Schoolmen—
Ivo, Alger : : F ;
Rupert, Honorius, Hugo of St. Victor
The Decretum of Gratian
St. Bernard :
Baudinus and Peter ee
St. Raymond of Penafort
Henricus de Segusio (Hostiensis) .
St. Thomas Aquinas
Duns Scotus .
De Burgo .
Lyndwood
Councils . 5 ‘
Foreign councils, 13th to 15th con tuvies
John of Ragusa and Council of Basle, 1433
Pope Eugenius IV. and Council of Florence, 1439
England—
Lanfranc .
Councils, 13th and 14th caniaiese
Archbishop Peckham’s Constitutions
The Sarum Manual : :
Mirk’s Instructions to Parish Pease
Summary of medieval evidence .
Note to Chapter VIII.
Medieval Canons on baptism by deacons and laity
. 16L
CONTENTS [15]
CHAPTER IX.
THE REFORMATION.—CENT. XVI.
PAGE
Foreign Reformers :
Zuinglius and his followers . - ° ; : : ; kel
Calvin. : : : 2 : : 5 6 aly
Council of Trent and its Gareeeters : : 6 : : 5 eae:
England :
The protestant Reformers : : : ; : : oy ew hn
Tyndale : : . 5 ‘ - . 175
Puritan protests feria lay Dapticn : : ; 5 Ales
Cranmer and others. : : ; : : . . 176
First English Prayer Books . - . - A : eaton SLT
Intention of the compilers . : ‘ : : : S lige:
Unreformed practice in Queen Mary’s reign . : : tare To
Bonner . : : 6 - . . - : : 5 ley
Pole . : : - . : : : ‘ - a 230
Scotland :
Unreformed practice . . - . : . - : . 180
Scotch protestants . : : : . : : : 3 LOR
Knox’s Liturgy . 2 - - - : “ : 3 . 182
Protestant Sects :
The Presbyterians: The Directory . : : er ia . « 168
Reformed Church of France : - : : = ; . 183
English controversies :
Baptism by midwives . ; : . «a 18a
Correspondence with Egligecr and inne - - . : . 186
Convocation—
Petitions in 1562. . : : : : ; ev pcedisls
Articles of 1575 . . . : : : : ; . 189
Literary controversies . : : : : : : : . 190
Cartwright and pas : : A : : : a ee en
Hooker . . 5 ee : : : «ie 194
Abbott . : , . - : - - . ¢ 5 USTe
The Universities. 5 : é ; > 4 ero
Perkins . : : . : : : . 6 : 198
CHAPTER X.
THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD.—CENT. XVII.
Heretical baptism in the East :
The Greek Church—
Jeremiah II. on Western baptism . 5 : : woe
Dositheos on heretical and Western baptism ; , . 200
The Russian Church on Western baptism. é - sides oe
[16] CONTENTS
Lay baptism in the East:
Popular opinion against it ;
Decisions of authorities in its favour—
Jeremiah II. and Lutherans
Confessions of faith
Dositheos
Gabriel Severus
The ‘ heretical’ Churches of Bast 3
Roman practice on heretical and lay baptism
The ‘Ritual’ . 5
Cardinal Bellarmine . : :
Lay baptism in England:
James I. 5 :
Hampton Gonrt Bontaaie
The revision of the Prayer Book .
‘ Lawful minister ’ :
The baptismal inquiries
Rubric on conditional baptism
Office for reception .
Motive of the changes .
The Preface to Ordinal and the 23rd piers :
Prayer Book of 1661—
Change in title of Office for Bnet hanes
Office for adult baptism
Regulation of baptism by deacon
Desuetude of baptism by laity
Opinions of English divines:
Sanderson
Ussher . ‘ A : , : : :
Comber
Taylor . ; 4 : : .
Wilson . : : , : 5 ,
Casaubon . ,
Cosin ‘ ;
Thorndike
Sparrow .
Bramhall
CHAPTER XI.
DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM.—CENT. XVIII—XIX.
Character of dissenters’ baptism
Protest in Convocation, 1703
The nonjuring controversy :
Dodwell
Leslie
PAGE
201
. 202
. 203
. 208
. 204
. 204
. 205
. 205
. 207
. 208
. 209
Pp
. 211
. 212
214
215
. 215
216
217
5 aay.
. 218
. 218
. 219
. 219
. 219
. 220
. 221
. 221
. 221
. 221
. 222
. 223
. 224
. 225
. 226
« 227
CONTENTS
Laurence . :
‘Lay Baptism Paid 2 :
Attacks by Bishops Burnet, Wlesuyond and Mn tiot
Laurence’s Replies : 7 : : :
Hickes, Brett, Bennet, &e.
Bingham’s defence of lay baptism
Manifesto of bishops, and discussion in Goavueaton! 1712
Earl of Oxford’s suggestion for a Queen’s letter
Practical actions—
Case at Exeter: Bishop Blackall
Case at Manchester: Pamphlets . :
Refusal of burial office at Derby: Pamphlet
Further Essays by Laurence, Brett and Bingham
Laurence’s promotions . : :
Letters of Waterland and Kelsall.
Deacon’s Devotions .
Later treatment of dissenters’ neane
Wesley and Bishop Potter
Mr. Castleman: cael
Bishop Warburton
Society for conversion of negroes
Ordinary practice at end of 18th century
Scotland: opinion allied with nonjurors
Baptism by lay catechists
Case of Mr. Lauder at Muthill
Rejection of Presbyterian baptism
Catechisms—
Short Explanation of Catechism, 1712
Bishop Petrie’s Catechism
Bishop Skinner’s Catechism
Rebaptism of Presbyterians—
Bishop R. Forbes’ Journal
Scotch Registers :
Rey. A. Lendrum .
The Burial Cases:
Case at Gloucester, 18th century
Kemp v. Wickes .
Attacks on the renee
Pamphlets by Archdeacon sot ies 4 nel Dishop Dae ESS
The judgment ignored
Case at Exeter
Mastin v. Escott
Opinions of counsel
Sir H. Jenner’s judgment
Appeal to Privy Council: Lord Brougham’s judgment
[18] CONTENTS
Bishop Phillpotts’ Charge
Titchmarsh v. Chapman
Bearing of Cases on minister of Pepa
Notes to Chapter XI.
A. Publications on the controversy of the eighteenth century
B. Publications, chiefly on the Burial Cases .
CHAPTER XII.
THE CHURCH OF THE PRESENT DAY.
The Greek Church :
Western baptism—
Reversion to stricter rule on triple immersion
Custom of rejecting Western baptism
Dependent on form not on heresy
Lay baptism—
The permission of formularies .
Its strict interpretation .
The Russian Church :
Western baptism
Lay baptism
The Roman Church:
Treatment of baptism outside its own communion .
The English Church :
Lay Church baptism—
Unusual in England
Use in colonies.
Dissenters’ baptism—
Current acceptance
Bishop Alexander Forbes .
Canon Liddon
Blunt and Phillimore
The Church Times
Adverse opinions
The American Church :
Lay Baptism—
The American Office
Resolution of American bishops
Dissenters’ baptism—
Rebaptism of bishops, clergy and others
Bishop Whipple, of Minnesota
General opinion in America .
PAGE
. 256
. 256
. 257
. 258
. 268
CONTENTS
The Scotch Church :
Canon on Presbyterian baptism—
Of 1838
Revision in 1863
Practice and opinions—
Bishop Terrot and Bishop Dowden on its validity .
Bishop Chinnery-Haldane’s opinion and rule
Position of the controversy
CHAPTER XIII.
PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS.
Varieties of opinion and practice
Absence of explicit direction in Emelich G@harcke | ;
The remedies for irregular baptism :
Rebaptism
Confession of faith .
Penance and imposition of hands
Unction
Confirmation
Conditional baptism
Cases of irregularity as to aries of enon:
The clergy—
Bishops and priests
Deacons : 2
Heretics and -feemnae:
Lay churchmen—
Argument of reason . :
Church usage .
Duty to dying persons
Duty in colonies, &e.
Women
Heathen and einpaeed.
Dissenters—
Reasons for grave irregularity . : : :
Consequent doubts as to validity .
Cases of unremedied validity :
Bishops and clergy baptized by dissenters
Theories propounded—
Ordination of the unbaptized
Communions of the unbaptized
The mercy of God supplying lack.
Remedies for dissenters’ baptism :
Obligation for honour of God .
Confirmation
[19]
PAGE
. 283
. 284
. 285
. 286
. 288
. 290
. 291
. 292
. 292
. 293
. 294
. 295
. 296
. 298
. 299
. 299
. 800
. d01
- 802
. 804
. 304
» 305
. 306
. 808
. 312
. 313
. 313
. 314
. 316
Salt
[20]
CONTENTS
PAGE
Rites of reconciliation . : 3 ; : : - oes Le
Conditional baptism . : - : 5 : . : . 820
Opinion of Dr. Pusey 5 :
. 821
Opinion of Bishop Wor Aegon of Teaceie
. 321
Appropriateness to present position of the question in the
Church . 322
INDEX . ‘ . 825
Errata.
Page 39 footnote, for Philalethus 7ead Philalethes.
Page 89 footnote, for Judgment of Church of England read Inquiry into
practice of Primitive Church.
THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
CHAPTER I.
THE ONE BAPTISM.
The unity of baptism—Questions as to its minister—Importance of the
subject—The saying, ‘Fieri non debet, factum valet ’—The Church’s
authority to regulate its ministration—Differences of opinion—The
present essay historical—Practical result of the inquiry.
Tue Bible and the Church both affirm the unity of bap-
tism. ‘There is one baptism, says Holy Scripture.!
‘TI acknowledge one baptism,’ says the Nicene Creed.
These expressions do not simply mean that baptism
cannot be reiterated. This is clear in each case from
the context. The oneness of baptism is parallel with the
oneness of God, with the oneness of the faith, with the
oneness of the Church. The assertion therefore implies
conditions of unity. The one faith is not any kind of
faith formulated by a believer for himself, but ‘ the faith
which was once delivered to the saints;’? and the one
Church is not any sort of religious society organised
by human intelligence, but the one mystical ‘ body’
espoused by Christ to Himself, of which He is the Head
and the Saviour.* So likewise the one baptism is not
any rite of ablution to which men may please to attach
' Eph. iv. 5. * Jude 3. $ Eph. v. 23-82.
b
2 THE ONE BAPTISM cH E
the title, but that one baptism instituted by our Lord
Himself, wherein ‘by one Spirit we are all baptized
into one body.’ #
Upon some of the limitations required by the unity
of baptism there is complete consent within the catholic
Church. It is universally agreed that the only matter
with which it can be administered is water, and that
the formula of its administration must include the
naming of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. On
these points the Church recognises no doubt. They are
absolute essentials of the one true baptism.
There is not the same unanimity as to the minister
of baptism. That the ordinary and proper minister is a
bishop or a priest there is no dispute within the Church,
whatever may be the opinion of sectarians without. Con-
troversy only begins when it is inquired whether the
sacerdotal qualification is so necessary that no other
baptism can under any circumstances be accounted
valid; and whether this qualification is so sufficient of
itself that every baptism by a real priest must certainly
hold good under every possible condition. Questions
arise as to whether a deacon has authority to baptize ; as
to whether heresy or schism have any effect in dis-
annulling the power of a priest ; as to whether the per-
mission to baptize can ever be extended to laymen or to
women ; and as to whether even those who are them-
selves unbaptized or heathen can baptize others. None
of these are mere speculative propositions for curious
discussion. ‘They have all occurred in practical forms
from time to time within the Church, and sometimes
in combinations which have very much added to the
difficulty of answering them.
41 Corexiy 13:
a
CHI PRESENT IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT 3
It cannot be said that the subject is unimportant.
Baptism is ‘ generally necessary to salvation.’ ‘Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God.’° If, then, it is neces-
sary, and if it is also ‘one,’ it is of the utmost con-
sequence that there should be no room for doubt as to
whether a person has really received the one true baptism
or not. The minister’s commission is not a matter of
indifference in other sacraments, and may not be in this.
Any radical flaw may endanger the efficacy of a sacra-
ment, so as to destroy or impair the privileges attached
to it. It is of vital importance to know whether a
fault in the qualifications of the minister of baptism
constitutes such a radical flaw in its administration.
The question is of exceptional interest to the Angli-
can communion of the present day. Owing to the
frequency with which the unordained preachers of
modern dissenting sects assume that they have the
right to baptize, the Churches of England, Scotland,
and America have to deal with irregularities of admini-
stration to a greater extent probably than has ever been
the case before, unless it was in the third century, when
the dispute was upon the validity of baptism by heretics.
The consideration is the more important because there are
no exact precedents to go upon. The heretical baptisms
of the early centuries were by renegade clergy who had
at least been validly ordained. The lay baptisms of
the middle ages were usually by communicant members
of the Church. Even, then, if ancient and medieval
opinion had unanimously endorsed these irregularities
of administration, which it did not, it would but con-
tribute towards the decision of the question as it comes
> John iii. 5.
4 THE ONE BAPTISM CHI
practically before us. The whole matter needs think-
ing out anew in its relation to dissent. And now that
the Anglican communion is reasserting before the
people its true position in the kingdom of God, and by
renewed energy is calling back to the fold the children
whom she had lost, the subject pressingly demands at-
tention. It is of the gravest consequence to ascertain
the value of the rites which candidates for reconci-
liation adduce as their credentials of membership in
Christ. The clergy especially need to know accurately
what they can say with confidence to those who have
scruples about the validity of the washing they have
received from unauthorised hands, and what they ought
to say to those who have none.
Yet comparatively few seem to regard the subject
as of any practical moment. Those in modern times
who have called attention to it have, for the most part,
obtained a hearing with difficulty, and have been
regarded by not a few in the light of fanatical enthu-
siasts. The popular impression among churchmen
appears to be that, though baptism ought not to be
administered by those who have no proper commission,
yet, when uncommissioned persons attempt to admin-
ister it, the deed is just as good as the baptism of an
accredited priest. And so the question is lightly
brushed aside with the familiar saying, Fieri non debet,
factum valet, as though this was a conclusive answer to
all doubts that could be raised.
So constantly does this phrase recur in the English
essays on the minister of baptism, that it is important
to consider what it is worth in the discussion. As a
terse and epigrammatic way of summing up a conclu-
sion, the sentence may serve excellently. But it needs
CH I ‘FIERI NON DEBET, FACTUM VALET’ 5
to be remembered that it is in no sense itself an argu-
ment, and that it only holds as to certain things. As
Waterland, among others, has pointed out, ‘the
maxim is true only of errors in circumstantials, not
of errors in essentials.’ He illustrates this by the
instances of a performance of marriage rites between
a brother and sister, or the levying of soldiers by one
who has no commission to act in the Queen’s name.
‘Here,’ he says, ‘all would be null and void, and the
maxim would be false and impertinent.’® To use it
with reference to an irregular ministration of baptism
is to assume what needs to be proved, for the question
is whether anything at all has been done by the un-
authorised baptismal ceremony, not whether when
baptism has really been given it shall be accounted
valid. There are, of course, some things which, being
done illegally, nevertheless cannot, as a matter of fact,
be rendered null, because they produce a physical
and external effect which is unalterable. These must
perforce be acknowledged after a fashion. But this is
not the case with baptism, where the visible sign pro-
duces no visible effect, and the invisible grace depends
upon the act of God, who is only pledged to ratify the
outward sign when its proper conditions are observed.
There is no physical difficulty in repeating the form of
baptism any number of times upon the same person.
But, since he can only be baptized once, all but one of
these ceremonies would be empty forms. The sole
question would be which of the several ablutions had
been the real baptism. The first, if it were by an un-
qualified ministrant, might, apart from proof to the
contrary, be as little the one true baptism as a subse-
® Waterland, Letter on Lay Baptism, Works, ed. 1843, vol. vi. p. 77.
6 THE ONE BAPTISM CH I
quent process of baptizing would be to a person who
had already been actually baptized. In the latter case
the sentence, Fier? non debet, factum valet, would have
no place. So, in like manner, it has no place as to
unauthorised ministers of baptism, until it has been
proved that they can baptize. The phrase does not
belong to argument, and it is best banished altogether
from a discussion where it is liable to mislead by the
speciousness of its sound.
The real evidence on the question must be sought
in the terms of the commission by which our Lord
enjoined holy baptism, and in the interpretation of that
commission by the Church. The promise of our Lord
is, ‘ Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.’’ By this declaration He
has been pleased to bind Himself to confirm the decisions
of the Church. These, in their fullest form of universal
consent, we believe to be the inspirations of the Holy
Ghost, and so perfectly to express the will of God.
There are certain things upon which the divine seal
having thus been finally set, they are no longer open to
discussion. There are other things upon which the
voice of the Spirit has not spoken so decisively. Here
the custom and opinion of a part of Christendom, or of
the Church in any particular age, is a sufficient warrant
for our Lord’s ratification of acts, performed faithfully
in accordance with the discipline of the place or time,
so far at least as is necessary for individual grace. The
practice in such cases may possibly not be uniform.
What is valid in one locality or in one period may not
be so in another ; and a temporary or partial ruling may
7 Matt. xvi. 19.
CH I DIFFERENCES OF OPINION if
be open to a larger or a subsequent revision. God,
who is tied to no arbitrary limitations for the exercise
of His almighty power, doubtless adapts His own
administrations to whatever efforts are made to carry
out His will, so long as they do not violate a catholic
law.
Among such uncertain points must be placed the
question of the essential qualifications of the minister
of baptism. Great divergence of practice and opinion
upon this can be traced in the history of the Church ;
and no universal consent either of canon or of custom
can be pointed out as finally and conclusively laying
down an accurately defined rule. That a matter of
such importance should be open to any doubt at all
may seem surprising, till it is remembered that it by no
means stands alone. The Church is not entirely at one
upon many points connected with the sacraments.
East and West at present differ on the subject of im-
mersion, on the age of confirmation, and the use of
infant communion. Nor is there complete agreement
as to every matter belonging to the discipline of penance
and the celebration of the holy eucharist. If these
are not exactly parallel to the question of the minis-
trant of baptism, some of them are at least of sufficient
gravity to reconcile one to the possibility of entertain-
ing the latter as open to a difference of opinion. So
fully was this felt by St. Cyprian and St. Augustine, the
two greatest advocates who have entered the lists on
opposite sides in the controversy, that, while holding
strong views themselves upon some of its aspects, they
both expressed themselves as ready to tolerate opinions
which did not coincide with their own, within the limits
of what they believed the Church not to have deter-
8 THE ONE BAPTISM CHI
mined by a unanimous judgment. ‘In this matter,’
says St. Cyprian, ‘we neither do violence to any, nor
lay down a law, since each prelate hath, in the govern-
ment of the Church, his own choice and free will, here-
after to give account of his conduct to the Lord.’®
And St. Augustine writes : ‘The safe course for us is not
to advance with any rashness of judgment in setting
forth a view which has neither been started in any
provincial council of the catholic Church, nor established
in a general one; but to assert, with all the confidence
of a voice that cannot be gainsaid, what has been con-
firmed by the consent of the whole Church, under the
direction of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’ ®
St. Augustine would have extended his hesitation to
some cases upon which he spoke with confidence, had
he not erroneously attributed cecumenical authority to a
provincial council of Arles.!
It will not, however, follow that, because the Church
has not finally decided some doubtful points, the whole
question is to be treated with indifference. The consent
may be so general on some cases of ministerial qualifi-
cation or disqualification that the debatable ground
may be narrowed, while the current of evidence may
be so strong on others as to give a probability akin to
certainty. And where some degree of uncertainty re-
mains, it may be possible to devise means whereby
doubts may be satisfactorily met, without running the
risk either of attempting to iterate a real baptism, or of
leaving a person in the peril of an invalid baptism,
which is no baptism at all. Such cases must be dealt
with on some intelligible principle. The time may not
® Cyprian, Zp. Ixxii. []xxi.] 3. ® Aug. De Bapt. vu. liii. 102.
1 See post, p. 100.
CH I A LAX AND A RIGID VIEW 9
be ripe for a dogmatic decision, but they must not be
altogether left to the haphazard chance of righting
themselves.
Whenever the subject has come into prominence,
there have been two parties in the debate, one inclined
to rigidity, the other to laxity. At first the rigid ten-
dency was in the ascendant, as it stillis in great measure
in the East. The laxer opinion grew by degrees in the
West, guarded by restrictions, and never perhaps en-
tirely unchallenged, but attaining at length to very
considerable proportions. It is this Western view
which we in England inherit, stripped as a rule of all
its limiting cautions, until it seems often to be assumed
almost as a matter of course that baptism by any person
whomsoever, under any circumstances whatsoever, is
exactly the same as baptism, under the rule of the
Church, by a duly ordained priest. ‘1 confess,’ said
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, in the 17th century, while speak-
ing of the laxer doctrine, ‘the opinion hath been very
generally taken up in these last ages of the Church,
and almost with a nemine contradicente; the first ages
had more variety of opinion; and I think it may yet
be considered anew upon the old stock.’?
To consider it anew upon the old stock is the object
of the present essay. Most of the modern treatises
upon the subject have been written in controversy, to
enforce exclusively either the free or the rigid inter-
pretation of the baptismal commission. The chief items
of evidence may no doubt be gathered from these, if
leading works on the opposite sides are combined. The
evidence has been collected with assiduity, has been
pressed with earnestness and often with ability, yet
2 Office Ministerial, iv. 5, Taylor’s Works, ed. 1839, vol. xiv. p. 445.
10 THE ONE BAPTISM CH I
sometimes not without bias. The present contribution
to the discussion is intended to be historical rather than
polemical. In some respects this may seem to lead to
less decisive results than could be claimed by the
defence of a specific position. But to go quietly over
the history of the controversies, and to see how former
generations in the Church dealt with kindred questions,
may be the best way of finding a solution of the very
serious difficulties involved in the irregular baptisms of
the present day.
The history can scarcely be made attractive to
those who do not feel an independent interest in the
subject. It is complicated; it is dispersed over a very
wide range of time and circumstances; and it requires
extreme care and accuracy to estimate the precise value
of the evidence. The controversy has arisen under
various phases at different periods and in different
places. At one time it has been a question of bap-
tism by heretical priests, at another by lay church-
men, at another by schismatics of several kinds, at
another by those who are outside the pale of the Church
altogether. The testimony given with regard to one
of these cases cannot be transferred indiscriminately to
every other kind of irregular baptism. This has not
always been sufficiently remembered, and hence has
come a misapplication of evidence. In ascertaining the
opinion of authorities care is needed to avoid confusing
irregularity with invalidity, or mixing heresy, schism,
lay churchmanship, and modern dissent all in the same
category, with reference to the power of baptizing. The
value of individual opinions and of the canons of local
councils needs also very carefully to be weighed as an
evidence of the deliberate mind of the Church. An
CH I PRACTICAL RESULT OF THE INQUIRY 11
inquiry of this kind cannot escape many elements of
tediousness.
It may as well be said at once that the survey will
lead to the suggestion that baptism by an unauthorised
person is not of the same unquestionable validity as
that by a duly commissioned priest. In some cases
the doubts are not inconsiderable. The practical con-
clusion as to these will be to recommend conditional
baptism, as a rule, where it is practicable, in order to
supply the possible or probable defects of gravely
irregular administrations of the rite. This conclusion
is, however, independent of the history. If any can
reach a different result on a fair study of the evidence,
it is open for them to do so. The Church has not yet
presented any dogma on the subject to be accepted as
a matter of faith.
12 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
CHAPTER gue
THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION.
The recipients of the commission—Representative view of the ministry—
Lay and clerical priesthood—Sacramental character of baptism—Ex-
clusive terms of the commission—The parallel with teaching—Power of
the keys—The plea of necessity—Its application to other sacramental
ordinances-—Presumption against unauthorised baptism.
THE commission to baptize was given by our Lord in
the words, ‘Go ye, and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’?
The question is who were the ‘ye’ to whom He
spoke this. St. Matthew says that it was when ‘the
eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a moun-
tain where Jesus had appointed them,’ that He
bestowed the charge. One would naturally conclude
that they were there alone. This is further rendered
probable by the fact that the original direction to meet
Him in Galilee had been given apparently only to the
apostles on Maundy Thursday evening.” It was re-
peated after the Resurrection both by angels and by
the mouth of our Blessed Lord Himself to certain
7) a a ,
1 °ES66n por maca efovcia ev evereidpuny dyiv + ai idov, eyo pel’
> ca a , a =e
ovpav® kal eri yns. TlopevOévres odv tpav cit macas Tas Hnucpas ews Tis
, ) ~ me eee
padnrevoare mavra ta €Ovn, Bamri- ovvredeias Tov aiavos.—Matt. xxviii.
> ‘ > 1 mM ~ A
(ovres avrovs eis TO dvopa Tov Ilatpds 18-20.
kai Tov Yiov kal Tod “Ayiovu IIvevparos, * Matt. xxvi. 82.
; fe
didokevres adrovs tnpeiv mavta boa
CH II RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION 13
women, but in the form of a message to the ‘ disciples,’
in terms which do not seem to imply that any others
were called to go there.? It was to ‘ the eleven’ also
that our Lord appeared in Jerusalem, probably after the
interview in Galilee, and impressed on them the great-
ness of the commission, by the declaration, ‘He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.’ 4
The only difficulty about the view that the apostles
were alone when the commission was given is the
notice that ‘some doubted.’ It has been thought that
this could not be the case with the apostles, and hence
it has been conjectured that this was the appearance to
the ‘five hundred brethren,’ or at least to a general
body of disciples. But doubts are not at all inconsistent
with what we know of the apostles immediately after
the Resurrection; and it seems better to allow this
than to import the presence of persons as to whom
the narrative conveys no other hint.
If the apostles were alone, they clearly alone
actually received the baptismal commission. Even
those who think that others were there usually assume
that the words were especially addressed to the apostles.
This is hardly disputed.
The question then becomes one as to whether the
exercise of the commission is restricted to those who
first received it, and to any definite body of their
successors, or whether it is open to those who have
no special ministerial link with the apostles.
3 Matt. xxvili. 7,10; Mark xvi.7. addressed to the women them-
The words, ‘There shall ye see him, _ selves.
as he said unto you,’ are clearly * Mark xvi. 16.
part of the message, and are not SL Cor. xyn Ge
14 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION cH
Baptism might have been entrusted to them simply
as representative men on behalf of the whole body of
the Church. Such a representative view of the mini-
stry is not uncommon. Canon Westcott, in speaking
of the analogous power of remitting and retaining sins,
says, ‘The commission must be regarded properly as
the commission of the Christian society, and not as
that of the Christian ministry.’® Bishop Moberly, in
like manner, said that our Lord ‘put His Church,
represented in the apostles, into His own place upon
the earth.’ ‘The gift, which is diffused in all, is con-
centrated in them. It is in all, because it inheres
essentially in the Body of Christ, which all together
are; it is in them, because they have the separate duty
of ordained shepherds and overseers of the flock.’ But
the bishop saw that this theory must have its limita-
tions, and that ‘some’ of the sayings of the great forty
days were ‘spoken to the apostles as governors,
teachers, pastors of the Church, and belong to them
and their successors in these capacities to the end of
the world.’ Among the sayings which were thus to be
limited he included the baptismal commission.’ Indeed
a purely representative view must break down some-
where, or the apostolic ministry becomes an institution
for which there is no logical necessity at all.
There is a true sense in which the gifts to the
apostles are the common heritage of the Church.
Every member has a share in them in the same way
that every member of the physical body has a share in.
the functions of the whole. Each organ has neverthe-
less its proper office, and it would be as reasonable to
6 Speaker's Commentary on John xx. 23.
7 Moberly, Great Forty Days, 3rd ed., pp. 96-100.
CH II LAY AND CLERICAL PRIESTHOOD 15
claim for every part of the human frame all the powers
of the rest, as it is to claim for all Christians the ability
to exercise every prerogative of the ministry. ‘If the
whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If
the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But
now hath God set the members every one of them in
the body, as it hath pleased him.’* So in His Body,
the Church, Christ has distributed His gifts in such
a manner that, while all share in the one life, there are
distinct functions which belong to particular channels,
and cannot be transferred to the rest, or vaguely dif-
fused through the whole.
The distinction between what can be done by any
Christian, and what can be done only by an apostolic
minister is not difficult to draw. Every form of priest-
hood is a reflection of the priesthood of Christ. As
mediating between God and man, that priesthood has
a double direction, one upwards from man to God, the
other downwards from God to man. In the first all
Christians have a share, for all are ‘ priests unto God,’
‘to offer up spiritual sacrifices.® The office of an
ordained ministry in this respect is only to act as
leaders of the people. In the second all Christians
have not a share. They are nowhere called priests
unto men, to minister to others God’s sacramental grace.
This kind of priesthood is the special prerogative of the
apostolic ministry, commissioned to perpetuate the
ministry of Christ. These priests alone can say, ‘We
are ambassadors for Christ,’ and can ‘pray you in
Christ’s stead,’ as ‘ workers together with him.’* Any
rite which is a definite channel of grace from God to
8 1 Cor. xii. 17, 18. Wes Os
mulveved. Os v. LO; xx. 6; 1 Pet. UPA (Chore we PAS: Sis Ue
16 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
man must properly belong to the authorised ministerial
priesthood. Thus the celebration of the holy eucharist
and the giving of absolution are restricted to priests,
ordination is restricted to bishops, and so also is confir-
mation, directly in the West and indirectly in the East.
If an uncommissioned minister performs the external
ceremonies attached to these sacraments, they are
invalid, and have no pledge of sacramental efficacy,
because they lack the power of administration.
On what grounds, it may reasonably be asked, is
baptism to be put on a different footing? It is not
necessary here to discuss the precise character of
baptismal grace. But, if words have any meaning, such
expressions as, to be ‘ baptized into Christ,’ ‘ to put on
Christ,’ to be ‘buried with him in baptism, wherein
also we are risen with him,’ to be ‘baptized for the
remission of sins,’ ‘by one Spirit’ to be ‘baptized into
one body ’—‘ the body of Christ,’ and many others of
the same kind,? imply some very definite spiritual gifts,
marking out baptism as a clear sacrament of the Gospel.
If anyone can baptize, then baptism holds a remarkably
exceptional position among the sacraments, in that it
alone requires no ministerial ordination for its valid
ministration. This is not what one would naturally
expect, apart from explicit revelation.
Not only, however, is there no revelation of the kind
connected with the terms of the commission, but these
very terms seem to imply expressly that baptism belongs
to the apostolic priesthood. For our Lord says, ‘ All
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Goye
therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
2 Gal. ii. 27; Col. ii, 12; Acts un. 38; 1 Cor. xii. 18, 27> Roms wi.
1-11.
CH II EXCLUSIVE TERMS OF THE COMMISSION 17
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world.’ As God,
our Lord had divine power inherent in Himself. As
Man, He received authority from the Godhead. It
is of this received authority that He speaks when He
says that all ‘power’ has been given Him.’ And it is
just because He has received it that He charges the
apostles to go forth and baptize.* For this is the
authority which He transmitted to them when He said,
*As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.’®
They were thus constituted His representatives, in order
that He might, in the persons of His ministers, exercise
His delegated power to the end of the world. Unless
baptism is one of the things which our Lord intended
to be conferred through this special channel of ministry,
it is difficult to see why the commission is brought into
so immediate a connection with the ministerial authority,
and most difficult to give full force to its dependence
upon the power which He had received and now trans-
mitted to His apostles.
Many have pointed out how the connection of the
authority is not with the act of baptizing, but with the
persons who are to baptize. Our Lord does not say
3 Matt. xxviii. 18. The word is
e€ovaia, from é& éori, which implies
something springing and deduced
from another. The Revised Version
translates it by ‘authority,’ to dis-
tinguish it from dvvayis, original,
absolute power.
4 The ovv, after sopevdertes,
which brings out this connection
very forcibly in the A.V., is a
doubtful reading. It is found in B,
D, the Vulgate, Syriac, &c., but it is
wanting in §, A, and some other
manuscripts. Ifit is not the true
reading, the connection is clearly
implied, so that it certainly gives
the true sense.
5 John xx. 21.
18 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH IL
merely that all nations shall be baptized, but He gives
the charge of baptizing them to certain persons whom
He was particularly addressing, ‘Go ye, and make
disciples, baptizing them.’ As Laurence remarks,
‘Christ does not here say, Lo, I am with baptizing, lo, I
am with teaching alway, &c.; but, Go ye, baptizing,
teaching, and lo, [ am with you. The promise of His
presence and concurrence is to be with them, not with
the acts separate from them, but with them performing
and doing those acts.’ And he adds, ‘If he who
baptizes be not one of the you, an apostle or sent of
Christ, in a higher or lower degree, to whom the
promise was made, his act can claim no right to the
promise, and therefore will be a contradiction to this
sacred institution. ’°
The strongest thing that can be urged on the other
side, from the terms of the commission itself, is the
parallel between baptizing and teaching: ‘Go ye .
baptizing . . . teaching.’’ Bellarmine, in reply to
Calvin’s arguments against the ministration of baptism
by lay people, presses this home. He justly maintains
that all persons are permitted to instruct the ignorant,
and are especially bound to do so when their salvation
is in danger. He instances the case of Aquila and
Priscilla, expounding ‘the way of God more perfectly ’
to Apollos,’ as an example in point. Therefore, he
says, although the apostolic ministry is the proper
channel for both baptizing and teaching, if those who
® Laurence, Lay Baptism In- disciples of’ them, and therefore
valid, 3rd ed., pp. 51, 52. has no bearing on the point in
‘ It is scarcely necessary to re- question. The parallel is in the
mark that the phrase in the A.V., latter part of the sentence.
‘Teach all nations,’ is really ‘ Make 8 Acts xviii. 26.
CH II THE PARALLEL OF TEACHING 19
are not ordained may do the one in necessity, so also
they may do the other.®
This contention must be allowed to have weight as
an argument from the mere words of the commission.
But in estimating its real value it must be borne in mind
that there is a great distinction in the character of bap-
tizing and of teaching. One is the conferring of a
sacrament by a definite sacramental act, the other is an
unsacramental process made up of many combined in-
fluences. The parallel is a verbal one in the structure
of a sentence, rather than a comparison of similar
operations in the sphere of spiritual things.
Moreover, it is true that, in its highest sense, the
teaching of which our Lord spoke is the exclusive pre-
rogative of the apostles. The charge is, ‘Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have com-
manded you.’ Prebendary Sadler even deduces from
this expression a proof that it was addressed only to
the apostles. ‘These words,’ he remarks, ‘ we may say,
in passing, clearly show that the commission is given to
the apostles: for it is especially declared that He,
through the Holy Ghost, gave commandments unto the
apostles whom He had chosen.' If Christ instructs His
Church at all, He instructs it through His apostles.’? It
was the deposit of divine truth that the apostles were
to teach, and this deposit rests through all time in the
hands of their ministry to guard and to deliver. Others
may assist, but they do not teach with primary autho-
rity. Indeed the teaching of the faith, as regards its
formal enunciation, is reserved to the united voice of the
® Bellarmine De Controversvis ; ? Sadler, St. Matthew with Notes,
De Bapt. vii. on xxvill. 20.
? Acts i. 2.
20 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
episcopate in a definite and restricted way. It would
not be difficult, if the parallel is to be pressed, to make
out from it a case for a very limited exercise of the
baptismal authority. But the parallel is not a strict
and true one, and cannot legitimately be urged, apart
from the modifications required by the different cha-
racter of baptizing and teaching.
It is more to the point to compare the commission
with the other great charges of the apostles. ‘One
thing,’ says Jeremy Taylor, ‘I offer to consideration ;
that since the keys of the kingdom of heaven be most
notoriously and signally used in baptism, in which the
kingdom of heaven, the Gospel, and allits promises, are
opened to all believers, and though as certainly, yet less
principally, in reconciling penitents, and admitting them
to the communion of the faithful, it may be of ill con-
sequence to let them be usurped by hands to whom
they were not consigned. Certain it is, St. Peter used
his keys, and opened the kingdom of heaven first, when
he said,* “ Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” ’4
The office of keys is to open or close an entrance.
If their gift to St. Peter involved the extraordinary
personal privilege of admitting the first Jewish and the
first Gentile converts into the Church of Christ,® the
ordinary exercise of the power of admission falls upon
the ministry which he represented. ‘In St. Peter,’ says
St. Ambrose, ‘ all we who are priests have received the
keys of the kingdom of heaven.’® To baptize is to
3 Acts 1. 38. 6 Actsiil. 3 x:
4 Taylor, Office Ministerial, iv. * Ambrose, De Sac. Dig. i.
14, Works, vol. xiv. p. 451.
CH It POWER OF THE KEYS 21
admit into that kingdom, and the logical consequence
would seem to be that to baptize is the prerogative
of the apostolic ministry.
Further, the power of the keys is closely associated
with absolution, although perhaps less directly in Holy
Scripture than in current theological language. The
two ideas of opening and of pardoning certainly meet in
baptism, which besides being a rite of admission is also
a sacrament of cleansing. Therefore it has been com-
mon to see at least a secondary reference to baptism in
the commission to remit and retain sins.’ St. Pacian, St.
Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Chrysostom and
St. Gregory the Great, among others, include baptism
under the authority of the ordination formula to remit
and to retain.2 Nor was this the opinion of the fathers
alone. The apostles, says Barrow, on the Power of
the Keys, ‘remit sin dispensative, by consigning pardon
in administration of the sacraments, especially in con-
ferring baptism, whereby, duly administered and under-
taken, all sins are washed away, and in the absolving
of penitents, wherein grace is exhibited and ratified by
imposition of hands.’? St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian
go so far as to argue for the reservation of baptism to
catholic priests, on the express ground that they alone
by a valid ordination have received power to remit
sins. Whether this be admitted or not, the analogy is
very close between absolution and the cleansing aspect
of baptism. Therefore one would scarcely expect,
7 John xx. 23. ® Barrow, Power of the Keys,
8 Pacian, Ad Symp. Ep. i. 6; Works, ed. 1859, vol. vii. p. 365.
Ambrose, De Pen. i. viii. 836; Cyril 1 Cyprian, Ep. lxix. 10 [Ixxv.
Alex., In Joan. xii.; Chrysostom, 11]; Ixxiii. []xxii.] 7; Ixxv. 17 [Ixxiv.
De Sac. m1. v. 187, vi. 196; Greg. 16) &c-
Mag. Mor. xxviii. 18.
22 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
prima facie, that the authority to give the first pardon
in baptism should be thrown open to indiscriminate
administration, if the authority to absolve from post-
baptismal sin is reserved to the apostles and their
SUCCESSOIS.
Granting all this in theory, it is urged, in opposition
to its rigid application, that the command to baptize is
of greater obligation than the command that baptism
should be given by a peculiar ministry, and that the
ordinary rule must give way in cases of necessity.
This is, however, to assume that the qualification of the
minister affects only the regularity of baptism and not
its validity. It is not safe to rely on the difficulty of
executing a command, as a reason for interpreting it
by a gloss of which the injunction gives no suggestion.
Nor need the denial of the validity of baptism by an
unauthorised minister lead to any terrible consequences.
St. Augustine took what has seemed to many a very
hard line, when he insisted that every infant who dies
unbaptized goes to future punishment.” Even he, at
other times, admitted that this doctrine must have its
modifications, and that the want ‘is supplied invisibly
when, not the contempt of religion, but the circumstance
of necessity, has prevented the administration of bap-
tism.’* Necessary as baptism is, its necessity in any
* Quecumque autem sine gratia
mediatoris et sacramento ejus, in
qualibet corporis ztate, de corpore
exierit, et in penam futuram, et in
ultimo judicio recepturam corpus
ad penam. . . Quiero ubi contrax-
erit anima reatum quo trahitur in
condemnationem, etiam infantis
morte preventi, si ei per sacramen-
tum quo etiam parvuli baptizantur,
Christi gratia non subvenerit.—Aug.
Ad Hieron. Ep. Cuxvi. ii. 5, ii. 6.
5 Invenio non tantum passionem
pro nomine Christi id quod ex
baptismo deerat posse supplere,
sed etiam fidem conversionemque
cordis, si forte ad celebrandum
mysterium baptismi in angustiis
temporum suceurri non potest... .
Sed tune impletur inyisibiliter, cum
CH II THE PLEA OF NECESSITY 23
individual case must be limited by the opportunity of
receiving it. God prescribes rules which we are re-
sponsible for following to the utmost of our power ; but
justice, quite as much as mercy, requires that God
Himself should supply those things which He suffers it
to be impossible for men to perform. ‘The law of
Christ which maketh baptism necessary,’ says Hooker,
although not with reference to the particular point of
its minister, ‘ must be construed and understood accord-
ing to rules of naturalequity. . . . And (because equity
so teacheth) it is on all parts gladly confessed that there
may be in divers cases life by virtue of inward baptism,
even where outward is not found.’* Thus, the baptisms
of blood and of desire have always been reckoned by
the piety of the Church as sufficient for those to whom
the baptism of water has been prohibited by their cir-
cumstances.° Thoughtful men have felt that the same
principle would apply to the want of baptism for lack
of a proper minister. ‘It cannot,’ says Bishop Taylor,
‘but be a jealousy and a suspicion of God, a not
daring to trust Him, and an unreasonable proceeding
beside, that we will rather venture to dispense with
divine institution than think that God will, or that we
should pretend more care of children than God hath,
when we will break an institution, and the rule of an
ordinary ministry of God’s appointing, rather than cast
them upon God, as if God loved this ceremony better
than He loved the child; for so it must be if the child
perished for want of it.’®
ministerium baptismi non con- 4 Hooker, Ecc. Pol. v. Ix. 5.
temptus religionis, sed articulus > See Bingham, Ant. x. ii. 20, 21.
necessitatis excludit.— Aug. De 6 Taylor, Office Ministerial, iv.
Bapt. tv. xxii. 29. 12, Works, vol. xiv. p. 450.
24 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
If the valid ministration of baptism is thrown open
to all, it is difficult to see on what grounds of reason
the valid celebration of the other great sacrament can
be reserved exclusively to the priesthood. If an un-
commissioned person may baptize in urgent necessity,
why may not an uncommissioned person, in similar
necessity, celebrate the holy eucharist, in order to com-
municate one who perhaps has never received the Body
and Blood of Christ? No doubt appeal may be made
to the modern Western custom of withholding com-
munion from children, and of allowing some measure of
lay baptism, while no part of the Church has ever per-
mitted lay consecration of the eucharist. But at present
we are only concerned with the actual terms of Christ’s
commission and not with later interpretations of it. Read
by itself there is no apparent reason for reserving baptism
to the ministry less exclusively than the celebration of
the eucharist. ‘The commission,’ says Waterland,‘ is
plain and clear, and certainly leaves no more room for
lay-baptism than for lay-ordination, lay-absolution, lay-
consecration ofthe eucharist, lay-preaching and praying.”
If, therefore, we take the liberty of going from the
institution In one case, we may as reasonably do it in
all, supposing the like necessity. And yet Scripture
hath nowhere intimated that we may do it in any; but
has rather taught us by some severe examples, as in
the case of Saul and Uzza, that positive ministrations,
7 *T mean by lay-preaching, a mission. And I mean by lay-
layman’s taking upon him to preach
authoritatively in God’s name, as
God’s ambassador, and as sent by
Him, interpreting the supposed
necessity to be an extraordinary
call, and to supply the want of
praying, a layman’s taking upon
him to be a mediator and intercessor
between God and His people in
public prayer, or pretending to bless
in God’s name.’ — Waterland’s
Works, vol. vi. p. 150.
CH II APPLICATION TO OTHER SACRAMENTS 25
confined by the institution of them to certain rules or
persons, must rather be left unperformed than per-
formed irregularly.’ §
Indeed, the whole /ogical claim to the necessity of an
ordained ministry, as a channel of sacramental grace,
seems to fall to the ground if any exception is admitted.
As a matter of reason, apart from permission, it is im-
possible to draw the line at baptism. Dr. Hook saw
_ clearly what a dangerous gate was opened by allowing
the validity of lay baptism. In an article on the subject,
presumably penned by himself, in the earlier editions
of his Church Dictionary, this is forcibly pointed out.
‘If a layman should perform the external part of
ordination, confirmation, absolution, consecration of
the eucharist, &c., we agree in the conclusion that this
is null and void, because he has no power over the
internal and spiritual part of such offices. If baptism,
therefore, be anything more than an external ceremony,
the same conclusion would seem to follow, for anything
we can learn from Scripture to the contrary. .... If it
be granted that though laymen have no right to perform
priestly offices, yet, if they choose, they can perform
them, i.e. their usurped acts are ratified in heaven,
equally with those of an empowered ministry, this is to
overturn the very foundations of apostolic order, to
deprive the clergy of their divine commission, or to
effectually neutralise it, and finally, to reduce their
office, in the judgment of the world, to the low rank of
a mere literary profession or ecclesiastical employ-
ment.’ ?
8 Waterland’s Works, vol. vi. Art. ‘ Lay-Baptism,’ p. 432. In the
p. 76. 14th edition, 1887, the article has
® Hook, Church Dict., 10th ed., beenrewritten by Lord Grimthorpe
26 THE BAPTISMAL COMMISSION CH II
The terms of the commission and the nature of the
sacrament would be conclusive against the validity of
baptism except at the hands of the apostolic miistry,
if there were nothing else to go upon. Bossuet admitted
this so fully that he uses it as an argument to prove the
necessity of tradition. Tradition alone, he says, is the
authority for extending the power of baptizing to priests,
deacons, laymen and heretics, since Holy Scripture
only records the delivery of the commission to the
apostles themselves.’ It is important to lay this down
clearly at the outset. Tested solely by the light of the
charge given by our Lord to the apostles, the presump-
tion is distinctly against the validity of baptism by un-
commissioned persons.
in a contrary sense. It was due to munion, Giuvres, ed. 1836, t. ix. p
Dr. Hook’s memory to have re- 160; Défense dela Tradition sur la
corded this fact, but no indication Communion sous wne espéce, chap.
of it is given. u.; 2b2d., pp. 189, 190.
1 Bossuet, Traité de la Com-
CH III THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE 27
CE ink Ef.
THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE.
Analogy of circumcision—Jewish baptism—Baptisms on Day of Pente-
cost—St. Philip’s baptisms—Ananias and baptism of Saul—Baptism
of Cornelius—St. Paul and baptism—Supplementary conjectures.
THE baptismal commission must first be studied in the
light of other passages of Holy Scripture itself.
Some weight must be allowed to the Old Testament
analogies which often throw such remarkable light upon
Christian practice. Two rites here present themselves
as parallels,—circumcision and Jewish baptism, and the
former in particular has often been pressed into the
service of defending baptism by laymen. The evidence
on both hes partly outside the Bible, in the rabbinical
writings ; but it seems best to consider them here in
connection with Holy Scripture, taking the rabbinical
interpretations for what they are worth as indications
of the actual usages of the original Church of the Old
Covenant.
Circumcision is so far a strict parallel to holy
baptism, that it stood in the same position as a rite of
admission into the Church,’ besides that it symbolically
represented the effects of baptism in the removal of sin.
There is no indication in the Bible that the priests,
or any particular order of persons, were the sole ad-
! Gen. xvii. 9-14.
28 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH IIL
ministrators of circumcision. Indeed there is one
instance, at least, where it was performed by a woman,
when Zipporah circumcised her own son.? Calvin,
Thomas Cartwright, and other puritanic writers, main-
tained that in doing this she acted unlawfully. But
this was a contention prompted by a desire to support.
their own views. Advocates on the other side, as
Bellarmine among Romans, and Hooker and Whitgift
among Anglicans, urged the instance as illustrative of
the validity of baptism even by women.* They of
course admitted the exceptional character of the incident,
and only used it in support of female baptism in cases
of necessity. The circumstance is so unique in all its
conditions, that perhaps controversialists have spent
more labour than enough, in pressing and refuting its
bearing on the subject of irregular baptism.
Not only is there an absence of any law in the Bible
to make the validity of circumcision depend on
the status of the administrator, but there is none in the
rabbinical traditions. In later times, at any rate,
circumcision was not usually performed by a priest.
The ordinary operator, who was named a mohel, needed
only for personal qualification that he should be a man,
2 Eix.iv.25. In1Macc.i.60 we female administration. Water-
read, Kai ras yuvaikas tas meperetpn-
Kulus Ta Téxva avT@V eOavdr@oay,—
‘they put to death the women who
had circumcised their children.’
But the following verse, where it
is added that they also ‘slew them
that had circumcised them,’ makes
it clear that the English version
gives the sense correctly by trans-
lating the passage, ‘that had caused
their children to be circumcised.’
Kelsall is, therefore, probably wrong
in quoting it as an instance of
land’s Works, vol. vi. p. 105.
3 Calvin, Institutes, Iv. xv. 22.
Cartwright, Reply to Answer of
Whitgift, 1578, p. 144; Rest of the
Second Reply, 1575, p.124. Perkins,
Commentary on Gal. iii. 27.
4 Bellarmine, De SBapt. vii.,
Opera, t. ili. p. 264. Hooker, Hee.
Pol., v. lxii. 21. Whitgift, Defence
of the Answer, Tract. ix., Works,
Parker Soc. vol. ii. pp. 522, 524.
Kelsall, Waterland’s Works, vol. vi.
p. 104.
CH III ANALOGY OF CIRCUMCISION 29
an Israelite, and should have the requisite skill.
Even these conditions were perhaps not essential to
the validity of the rite, for Buxtorf asserts that though
a Christian, being himself uncircumcised, is not allowed
by modern Jews to circumcise others, yet, if he does it,
the child is considered to have been truly circumcised.®
Of course it must be taken into account that circumcision
was an operation on the body which made it absolutely
impossible to regard its irregular administration as no
circumcision at all.
Besides this physical difficulty, which has no parallel
in baptism, there are two crucial objections to pressing
the analogy of circumcision as an evidence that an
ordained ministrant is unnecessary. First, the very
points which distinguish baptism from circumcision
are the points that require the exercise of a mediatorial
priesthood. Both are initiatory rites; but one is strictly
sacramental and the other was not. Circumcision
wrought no proper change of nature; it effected no in-
corporation into Christ ; it removed no actual sin; none,
at least, in the sense of baptismal regeneration. It is
because baptism has this pledge of an inward grace
through an outward sign that it belongs to the office of
the ministry. Secondly, and no doubt for the same
reason, the commission to circumcise was not given to
the Jewish priests, as the commission to baptize was to
the apostles. The formula in the two cases is not alike.
The injunction of circumcision ran, ‘ Every man child
among you shall be circumcised.’ The injunction of
baptism was, ‘Go ye, baptizing.’ In the first, a certain
thing is commanded to be done; in the second, a certain
> Lewis, Hebrew Republic, vol. ii. p. 451.
® Buxtorf, Synag. Jud. iy.
30 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH IIE
order of persons is commanded to act. The difference
is significant.
In the scriptural mention of Jewish baptism there
is less that is analogous to that of the Christian Church
than there is in the language about circumcision.
Later tradition, however, supplies a great deal more
analogy than lies on the surface of the Biblical refer-
ences; and in the main one may suppose that this
tradition probably descends from the original institu-
tion, since it harmonises well enough with what we read
in the Old Testament.
The rabbis regarded baptism as essential to admis-
sion into the covenant of God. They held that the Jews
had originally received it, as a nation, at Mount Sinai.
Holy Scripture records the command to Moses, ‘Go
unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow,
and let them wash their clothes.“ They understood
this to mean baptism, because the word ‘sanctify’ in
the Law commonly implies the idea of purification by
water, and the washing of clothes was thought to in-
clude also a washing of the person.*®
Believing themselves to have been admitted collec-
tively to the covenant at Sinai, the Jews did not repeat
the baptism on their children, for they considered that
they inherited the fruit of that first baptism, their position
in the Church, by the mere fact of their Jewish parent-
age. But it was not so with proselytes from the Gen-
tiles. They had no such blessed inheritance; and
therefore they needed to be baptized individually as
they were received. ‘Israel, says the Talmud, ‘ does not
enter into covenant but by these three things, by cireum-
Ox. exax. 1 O:
8 See Wall, Infant Baptism, 2nd ed., vol.i. p. 10, from Maimonides, &e.
cH IIT JEWISH BAPTISM 31
cision, by baptism, and by sacrifice; and proselytes in
like manner.’ ‘ Whensoever a heathen is willing to enter
into the covenant, and gather himself under the wings
of the majesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of
the Law, he must be circumcised, and baptized, and bring
a sacrifice ; or, ifit be a woman, be baptized, and brine
asacrifice.! So essential was baptism that, when it was
disputed among the rabbis whether a man was to be
considered a proselyte if he had been only circum-
cised and not baptized, the conclusion of the wise
men was that he was no proselyte until he had been
baptized.?_ The children born of proselytes after their
reception, of course, like those of Jewish parents, needed
no baptism, since they then inherited the effects of
baptism from their birth within the covenant.’
Thus Jewish baptism was somewhat analogous to
Christian, so far as its general office of admitting into
the covenant was concerned. It is, therefore, of interest
to inquire who was permitted to administer it.
The direction of baptism belonged to the sanhedrim,
which was partly, but not exclusively, composed of
priests. The sanhedrim deputed its management to a
small body, consisting of only two persons, according
to the Babylonian Talmud, or three, according to that of
Jerusalem and Maimonides.* These had the duty of in-
structing adults, and of acting as a kind of sponsors for
children.? They were present at baptisms, but do not
appear ever to have officiated themselves. Indeed, it
is expressly ordered that women should, out of modesty,
® Tract. Repud. on Matt. ui. 6, Works, ed. 1684,
1 Tract. Isswre Bia, cap. xiii. vol. ii. p. 120.
2 Gemara, Tit. Jevamoth,cap. iv. 4 Tit. Jevamoth.
3 See Wall, Infant Baptism, In- ° Gemara Bab., Tit. Chethuboth,
trod. passim; Lightfoot, Hore Heb. cap. i.
32 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH Il
be actually baptized by some of their own sex, although
in the presence of the wise men who stood near with
averted eyes. The function of baptizing was appar-
ently in no way restrained to a commissioned adminis-
trator.
The object of placing baptism in the hands of the
sanhedrim or its consistory was not to secure its lawful
administration, but to prevent the admission of unworthy
proselytes. ‘Proselytes,’ says the Talmud, ‘ are danger-
ous to Israel, like the itch.’7 Baptism was irregular if
it was given without the sanction of the sanhedrim, but
it nevertheless held good. Sufficient evidence only was
required that it had really been performed.’ Thus
Maimonides says, ‘ The judges received no proselyte all
the days of David and Solomon. . . . Notwithstanding
there were many proselytes that in David’s and Solo-
mon’s time joined themselves in the presence of private
persons; and the judges of the great sanhedrim had a
care of them. They drove them not away, after they
were baptized, out of any place; neither took they
them near to them until their after-fruits appeared.’ ®
And again, he says, in another place, that if an Israelite
finds and baptizes a heathen infant, the child thereby
becomes a proselyte.t Any Israelite, therefore, could
give valid baptism, though apparently none but an
Israelite.?
The question addressed to St. John the Baptist,
‘Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ,
6 Tit. Jevamoth; Maimonides, cap. xiii.
In Isswre Bia, cap. xiii. * Maimonides, In Avardim, cap.
7 Tit. Jevamoth. Vili.
8 Gemara Bab., Tit. Chethuboth, * See Wall, Introd.; Lightfoot,
cap. 1. vol. ii. p. 116 seq.
® Maimonides, In Issure Bia,
coi NOT PARALLEL WITH CHRISTIAN BAPTISM 83
nor Elias, neither that prophet ?’? might appear at
first sight to suggest that there was some need of
authority in the baptizer. But the offence of St. John’s
baptism was not so much that he baptized at all, al-
though that might seem irregular, as that he baptized
those who were already within the covenant. His
baptism implied admission into a new covenant, and
this was to be expected only from the Messiah or his
forerunner. The inquiry, therefore, does not affect the
testimony of the Talmud that baptism by any Israelite
was sufficiently valid.
Supposing the rabbinical evidence to represent the
divine command under the Law, it would have some
force in reference to the question of the minister of
baptism, were it not that the same fatal objections hold
here as in the case of circumcision. Jewish baptism was
not properly sacramental, and there was no commission
with regard to it like that which was given to the
apostles. The parallel breaks down exactly at the
point where it is important that it should not, if the
argument from one to the other is to hold good. That
Jewish baptism should not require an ordained minis-
trant, and that Christian baptism should, is precisely in
accordance with what we know of the different charac-
ter of the two rites. Thus the Old Testament analogy
is no help towards interpreting the New Testament com-
mission.
Coming down to the history of the early Christian
Church in the New Testament, we find certain records
of actual baptisms: but they are not numerous, and are
inconclusive as to the persons of the administrators.
8 John i. 25.
D
34 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH It
The first occasion when Christian baptism was
given was, of course, on the day of Pentecost. ‘Then,
we are told, ‘about three thousand’ were baptized.*
At the Hampton Court Conference, Bishop Bancroft
urged that it would have been impossible for twelve men
to have baptized so many in one day, and that there-
fore some who were not apostles must have assisted.?
This argument has been repeated over and over again.
Jeremy Taylor doubted whether there was any need to
suppose that all the baptisms took place on that one
day.° It is, however, most natural to suppose that they
did. And there is no real impossibility in each apostle
having baptized two hundred and fifty persons in the
course of a day. Laurence aptly remarks that one
bishop can confirm above five hundred persons, with a
longer form of words, in less than three or four hours,
and two clergymen can administer to above five hundred
communicants, also with a longer form, in two or three
hours.’ Moreover, if reports are true, the thing has been
done more than once. St. Francis Xavier is said to have
stated that he had baptized 10,000 Indians with his
own hand in one month, which would give an average
of more than 300 a day; and even greater numbers
have sometimes been attributed to him.? In Kent, on
Christmas Day, 597, Augustine and his companions, who
can scarcely have exceeded at most a party of fifty
clerics, are related to have baptized as many as 10,000
people.’
* Acts i. 41. 5 Butler, Lives of the Saints,
5 Cardwell, Conferences, p.175. 1866, vol. xu. p. 30; Forbes, In-
® Taylor, Office Ministerial, iv. structiones Historico-Theologica,
11, Works, vol. xiv. p. 449. xX. xiii. de.
7 Laurence, Dissenters’ Baptism * Perry, History of the English
null and void, ed. 1713, p.30. Church, vol. i. p. 24.
CH III BAPTISMS ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST 35
v
The number of baptisms, then, is no proof that others
besides the apostles ministered on the occasion. If they
did, they were not altogether uncommissioned. As has
often been pointed out, the ‘ seventy,’ and perhaps others
of that first company, were not properly laymen. Or if
this is not to be taken into account, it remains that at
any rate the baptisms must have been conferred by the
special sanction and authority of the apostles, so that
there would be no parallel between this case and that
of baptism by persons who can claim no episcopal
authority whatsoever.
The next baptisms mentioned are those by St. Philip
the Deacon.’ St. Hilary explains the seeming irregu-
larity of his baptism of the Ethiopian, by saying that
the eunuch’s impatient desire led him to demand from a
deacon what properly belonged to the office of the
apostles.” Not only, however, did St. Philip baptize
the eunuch, under exceptional circumstances of urgency,
but also, apparently without any such immediate
necessity, those ‘men and women’ in Samaria who
believed his preaching. The so-called Apostolical
Constitutions, after laying down in the name of the
apostles that deacons may not baptize, explain the case
of St. Philip by saying that he was appointed to the
office of baptizing by a direct call from Christ, the great
High Priest. The Constitutions are not, however, to
be trusted as genuine transcripts of the veritable decrees
of apostles ; and, in the absence of any record of such
a callin the Book of the Acts, it may be doubted whether
Acts viii. 12, 38. cupidus, exigeret—Hilary, Comm.
* Sacramentum ipsum baptismi 7 Ps. lxvii. 13.
adeo impatientis desiderii cupiditate 3 Const. Apost. vi. 46. See
preveniens: ut a diacono minis- post, chap. iv.
terium apostolici officii, salutis sus
D2
36 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH III
this explanation is true. Maskell seems rather to be
right when he says that the sacred history relates his
baptizing as though ‘he was but exercising an usual
and lawful office of his ministry. . ... We are told, as
it were as a matter of course, that “he baptized.” 4
It may, no doubt, be surmised that the different
orders of the ministry were not at first fixed in their
later and definite forms. The original deacons may,
therefore, not have exactly corresponded. to the deacons
of subsequent days. But the habitual ministry of
baptism by St. Philip at any rate shows that the apostles
did not keep it exclusively in their own hands.
The Apostolical Constitutions in the same passage
explain the right whereby Ananias baptized St. Paul,”
by a similar call from our Blessed Lord. There may be
more probability here than in the case of St. Philip.
But there seems nothing unreasonable in the conjecture
that Ananias may already have been ordained by the
apostles. ‘I can hardly think,’ says Dr. Burton, with
reference to this very incident, ‘that at this time any
persons administered baptism except those who had
received their own commission from the apostles.’ ®
We know, however, too little about the position of
Ananias to argue anything certain from the circum-
stance in either direction.
More to the point is the baptism of Cornelius and
his family. St. Peter * commanded them to be baptized,
apparently by the ‘brethren from Joppa’ who had
accompanied him to Cesarea.‘ Some have considered
that the command of St. Peter was really that water
4 Maskell, Holy Baptism,p.177. siastical History, 1833, vol. i. p. 88.
> Acts ix. 17, 18. 7 Acts x. 23, 48.
© Burton, Lectures wpon Eccle-
CH III OTHER INSTANCES IN NEW TESTAMENT 87
should be brought to him whereby the means for the
baptism would be provided. This is, however, a
strained explanation of the words, and it must be ad-
mitted that the more natural meaning is that others per-
formed the ceremony. Hilary the Deacon, or whoever
the writer was who generally is known as the Pseudo-
Ambrose, took the instance as a clear one of lay bap-
tism.6 His date is too late to give any value to his
testimony beyond that of his own conjecture. It is at
least equally reasonable to suppose that some of the
brethren from Joppa had been ordained.? The organi-
sation of the Church had by this time passed out of quite
its elementary stage.1 At any rate the men were autho-
rised by St. Peter, and therefore acted with some kind
of episcopal authority.
St. Paul, or St. Silas, baptized Lydia and her house-
hold at Philippi, and also the gaoler and his family.”
At Corinth St. Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius and the
household of Stephanas.* Since he did not remember
baptizing any others there, the ‘many’ who were bap-
tized at the same time* must have received their
baptism from someone else, probably from St. Silas, who
was evidently ordained. St. Paul’s assertion that he
had been sent ‘not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel,’ ® cannot be understood to imply that to baptize
was not part of his apostolic office. It was only for
special reasons that he generally forbore to administer
the sacrament himself.
8 Pseud. Amb., Comm. in1 Cor. were edified ’—oixodopovpevai—i.e.
Ly. organised.
® Taylor, Office Ministerial, iv. 9, 2 Acts xvi. 15, 33.
Works, vol. xiv. p. 449 ; Waterland, * 1 Cor. 114516.
Works, vol. vi. p. 182; and others. 4 Acts xviii. 8.
1 Acts ix. 31. ‘The churches * V Corcie 2.
38 THE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE CH III
This is all the evidence that can be gathered from
the Church history of the New Testament itself. It
leaves the question pretty much where it would be if
these notices did not occur. In no instance is it quite
clear that baptism was given by an unordained person,
while in every instance it is clear that whoever adminis-
tered it did so under direct authority of some kind or
other. The most that can be said is that no special
emphasis is laid on the exclusive power of the apostolic
ministry to exercise the baptismal commission.
Even conjecture has done very little to supply the
want of information in the Bible. The Pseudo-Ambrose
asserted that at first, in order to meet the needs of the
Church, all were allowed to baptize, but as soon as the
organisation was complete and clergy were appointed
to various places, this general licence was withdrawn,
and baptism was strictly reserved to the clergy, appa-
rently including deacons. ‘This was perhaps only his
own private theory, for there is nothing to support it.
Less probable still is an ingenious idea, pro-
pounded by one of the leading nonjurors. ‘In the
early ages of Christianity,’ he says, ‘while the charis-
mata were frequent in the Church, such laymen as
were anointed by the Holy Ghost did (I question not)
® Primum enim omnes docebant,
et omnes baptizabant. . . . Ut ergo
cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur,
omnibus inter initia concessum est
evangelizare, et baptizare, et scrip-
turas in ecclesia explanare: at ubi
omnia loca cireumplexa est ecclesia,
conventicula constituta sunt, et
rectores, et cetera officia in ecclesiis
sunt ordinata ; ut nullus de clericis
auderet qui ordinatus non esset,
presumere officium, quod sciret non
sibi creditum vel concessum....
Hine ergo est, unde nune neque
diaconi in populo preedicant, neque
clerici vel laici baptizant.—Pseud.
Amb. Comm. in Ephes. iy. 11, 12.
Hoadly fell back on the same ex-
planation when he was defending
episcopal ordination against the
arguments deduced from the sup-
posed instances of lay baptism in
Holy Scripture.—Defence of Epi-
scopal Ordination, 1712, pp. 462-6.
CH III SUPPLEMENTARY CONJECTURES 39
frequently administer baptism (particularly prophets,
who notwithstanding had no imposition of hands, nor
no outward commission given them), especially in the
absence of bishops and presbyters: and no doubt of it
this they did as they were thereunto prompted or moved
by the Holy Ghost from within them: but yet even
these illuminated laymen or prophets (I presume, and I
think reasonably) did not attempt to administer baptism
unless they were such as were well known to be thus
illuminated. . . . Then, upon the general failure of the
charismata, the unilluminated, Christians by profession,
observed and took notice that several laymen in pre-
ceeding times had baptized, and not considering and
distinguishing aright how such were qualified by the
unction of the Holy Ghost for such administrations,
they imagined that mere laymen, as such, and without
the heavenly unction, had a right to baptize, at least in
what seemed to them, and was called by them, cases of
necessity. . . . This seems to me to be the original of
lay baptism.’‘ All this would be plausible enough in
itself; but, if it were true, it is incredible that there
should be no trace whatever of it in any writing of the
early fathers of the Church, where they discuss the
baptismal controversies of their days. The real position
of the question must be sought on some surer grounds
than those of clever conjecture. In other words, it
must be unravelled out of the complicated pages of the
history of the Church.
* An anonymous letter among
the nonjuring correspondence pre-
served at Trinity College, Glen-
almond, printed in Rev. G. Wil-
lams’ Orthodox Church of the
East, 1868, p. 174. Williams sur-
mises that it is by Dr. Brett. (p.
Ixvili.) But the same opinion is
put forth in a printed Letter to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, 1738,
by ‘ Philalethus,’ in terms so similar
that it is difficult to avoid the con-
clusion that the author of both was
the same. ‘ Philalethus’ certainly
was not Dr. Brett.
40 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, Ill CH IV
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY CHURCH.—CENT. I, III.
St. Ignatius—Reservation of baptism to bishops—Tertullian on lay
baptism; on female baptism; on heretical baptism—The Apostolical
Canons on heretical baptism—The Apostolical Constitutions: on
heretical baptism; on lay baptism.
TuE first sub-apostolic writer who speaks of the minister
of baptism is St. Ignatius in the very early years of
the second century. In a well-known chapter of the
Epistle to the Smyrnzans he lays down that no man is
to perform any ecclesiastical rite without the authority
and commission of the bishop. ‘It is not lawful,’ he says
particularly, ‘without the bishop, to baptize.’! This
is a distinct requirement of episcopal permission, and
apparently of ordination. Even, therefore, if a certain
amount of liberty had been allowed at first, it had soon
been repressed. It is more reasonable to suppose that
it had never existed, and that St. Ignatius simply
repeats the apostolic tradition. Into the question of the
effect of baptism administered by one who had no com-
mission from a bishop he naturally does not enter. It
was too soon, probably, for any disputes to have arisen
on such a point of discipline.
In practice, the tendency of the early Church seems
' OvK e&dv eotw xapis tod Tolro Kal TH Oe@ evdpeoror, iv’
> ’ E > ’ eS ,
emokorou ore BartiCew ovre ayanny aoades 7} Kal BeBaov nav 6 mpac-
mouiv: GAN oO ay éexeivos Soxydoy, oera.—lgn. Ad Smyrne@os, viii.
CH IV ST. IGNATIUS AND TERTULLIAN 41
to have been to keep the administration of baptism as
much as possible in the hands of the bishops themselves.
This is shown, among other things, by the custom,
already established in Tertullian’s day, the end of the
second century, of restricting the times for baptism to
Easter and Pentecost, except under sudden emergency
or special circumstances.” This not only gave solemnity
to the rite, but enabled the bishop to act as the prin-
cipal agent. If inferior ministers baptized, it was
chiefly in the capacity of his delegates and assistants.
Tertullian, about the year 200, makes a detailed
statement as to the minister of baptism, which opens
out a wider range of permission. He is at one with
Ignatius upon the proper prerogative of bishops. ‘The
right of giving it indeed,’ he says, speaking of baptism,
‘hath the chief priest, who is the bishop; then the
presbyters and deacons, yet not without the authority
of the bishops, for the honour of the Church, which
being preserved, peace is preserved.’ If he had ended
here, one would gather that, in his estimation, priests,
and deacons too, had the inherent power to baptize,
but needed the licence of a bishop in order to the
regular exercise of their ministry. But he proceeds to
enlarge the limits further even than to deacons, saying
that ‘laymen have also the right, for that which is
equally received may equally be given, unless the name
“ disciples ” denote at once bishops or priests or deacons.’
This last clause, if it is a correct translation of the
obscure original, seems to be a somewhat irrelevant
reference to the text which says ‘ Jesus himself baptized
not, but his disciples.’* Tertullian apparently would
2 Tert. De Bapt. xix. tion is from the Library of the
3 John iy. 2. ‘Theabovetransla- Fathers. In the Ante-Nicene
42 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, III CH IV
put the ministry of baptism exactly on a level with the
ministry of teaching, doubtless referring to the parallel
in the original commission, for he continues, ‘The
word of God ought not to be hidden from any ; where-
fore also baptism, which is equally derived from God,
may be administered by all.’ This was only, however,
to be done in circumstances of necessity. ‘But how
much more incumbent on laymen,’ he proceeds, ‘is the
duty of reverence and modesty. Seeing that these things
belong to those of higher estate, let them not take upon
themselves the office of the bishopric set apart for the
bishops. Emulation is the mother of divisions. A most
holy apostle hath said that “all things are lawful, but
all things are not expedient.” Let it in truth suffice
thee to use such things in thy necessities, whensoever
the circumstances of place, or time, or person compel
thee. For then is a boldness in him that aideth ad-
missible, when the case of him that is in danger is
urgent. For he will be guilty of destroying a man, if
he shall forbear to do that for him which he had free
power to do.’*
Library, it is translated, ‘unless et baptismus, eque Dei census, ab
bishops or priests or deacons be on
the spot, [ordinary] disciples are
called [to the work].’
* Dandi quidem habet jus sum-
mus sacerdos, qui est episcopus.
Dehine presbyteri et diaconi, non
tamen sine episcopi auctoritate,
propter ecclesiz honorem. Quo
salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin
etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex
equo accipitur, ex sequo dari potest,
nisi episcopi jam, aut presbyteri,
aut diaconi vocantur discentes. [or
vocantur, dicentes,] Domini sermo
non debet abscondi ab ullo. Proinde
omnibus exerceri potest: sed quanto
magis laicis disciplina verecundize
et modestiz incumbit cum ea
majoribus competat, ne sibi ad-
sumant dicatum episcopis officium
episcopatus. Admulatio schisma-
tum mater est. ‘Omnia licere,’
dixit sanctissimus apostolus, ‘sed
non omnia expedire.’ Sufficiat
scilicet in necessitatibus ut utaris ;
sicubi, aut loci, aut temporis, aut
persons conditio compellit. Tune
enim constantia succurrentis excipi-
tur, cum urget circumstantia pericli-
tantis. Quoniam reus erit perditi
CH IV TERTULLIAN ON LAY BAPTISM 43
This is a most emphatic declaration of the validity
of lay baptism. Restricted as it is by his language to
cases of necessity, there is no hint that this restriction
refers to anything more than order. The expression
that the layman has ‘ free power’ to baptize at all is a
complete acknowledgement of the principle of lay bap-
tism. It is, however, to be remembered that the whole
tone of Tertullian’s words, especially when taken in
connection with his judgment on heretical baptism, pre-
sently to be considered, shows that he was not con-
templating any other case than that of a lay churchman.
How far Tertullian was expressing the current
opinion of the Church, and how far his own private
opinion, may of course be open to question. He com-
bined so much originality and eccentricity of thought
with catholic truth, that he is rarely a simple exponent
of Church teaching. It certainly somewhat detracts
from the value of his testimony, as an evidence of com-
mon practice, that he elsewhere extends the permission
of lay ministration to the celebration of the eucharist,
where there are no clergy set apart to officiate.’ Here,
plainly, he was not expressing the orthodox view. But
this last was in his Montanist days, and may have been
only a peculiarity of his later mind.
Tertullian’s reasoning is faulty. When he defends
lay baptism on the ground that what ‘is equally re-
hominis, si supersederit prestare consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi
quod libere potuit.—Tert. De Bapt. ecclesiastici ordimis non est con-
Xvi. sessus, et offers, et tinguis, et
5 Nonne et laici sacerdotes sacerdos es tibi solus... . Igitur
sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum _ si habes jus sacerdotis in temetipso,
quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et ubinecesse est, habeas oportet etiam
Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse
ordinem et plebem constituit eccle- sit habere jus sacerdotis.—Tert.
si auctoritas, et honor per ordinis Hrhort. ad Castit. vil.
44 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, III CHI
ceived may equally be given,’ he propounds a principle
which cannot be sustained. His logic is not more satis-
factory when he argues in the Exhortation on Chastity
that, because laics are in some sense priests, therefore in
necessity they can per form all priestly acts. He seems
to confuse the priesthood of the clergy and laity to-
gether, and to regard the restraint upon lay ministra-
tions merely as a regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.
Certainly Tertullian cannot have borrowed his reasons
from catholic teaching, whatever be the case as to his
facts.
After all allowance has been made for Tertullian’s
idiosyncrasies, his statement remains an undoubted
piece of historical evidence for lay baptism. It is in-
credible that he should have propounded the matter so
explicitly if it was wholly a whim of his own. Wemay,
therefore, conclude that baptism by lay churchmen,
in necessity, was recognised by some persons at the end
of the second century, in his locality, if nowhere else.
This may have been either at Carthage or at Rome. It
is usually thought that probability is in favour of the
former, but there is no trace of such teaching at Car-
thage fifty years later when Cyprian was bishop.°®
Tertullian did not extend the permission of lay
baptism to women. He continues the passage already
quoted from the treatise on baptism, by a denunciation
of the wantonness of a woman who would venture to
baptize, as, he said, did ‘ that most monstrous woman
Quintilla.? Even if the writer of the Acts of Paul and
Thecla had not admitted that they were a forgery, it
would be incredible, he says, that the power claimed
there for Thecla to teach and baptize with St. Paul’s
° See post, chap. v. 7 Tert. De Bapt. i, xvii.
CH IV TERTULLIAN ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 45
authority could be genuine, since St. Paul forbad a
woman to teach.’ In another treatise he mentions it as a
mark of certain heretical women, perhaps referring to the
Marcionites, that they dared ‘perchance even to bap-
tize.’° And in a still later essay, written after his lapse,
he says, ‘ A woman is not permitted to baptize nor
dare she claim any single man’s, much less any priestly,
office.’ Primarily these protests would no doubt apply
to officiating in public, as the priestesses of some of the
heretical sects did ; but the whole tenor of the passages
seems to exclude women from the right which he had
claimed for Church laymen in necessity.
On one other point, which was soon to cause violent
controversy, Tertullian expresses an unqualified opinion.
This was the question of baptism by heretics. He un-
hesitatingly rejects its validity. .‘To us, in any case,’
he says, ‘ there is one baptism, as well according to the
gospel of the Lord, as the letters of the apostle: seeing
that there is one God and one baptism, one Church in
the heavens. But certainly one may well inquire what
ought to be maintained about heretics ; for this saying
was directed to ourselves. Now heretics have no
fellowship in our discipline, of whom indeed the very
privation of communion testifieth that they are aliens.
I am not bound to admit in their case that which hath
Emcor, xy. oo; 1 Tim. u. 12.
In the extant version of the Acts
® Tpse mulieres heretice quam
procaces ! que audeant docere, con-
of Paul and Thecla, there is no
clear reference to her baptizing.
Paul’s charge to her is only, ‘ Go,
and teach the word of God.’ It
is said that ‘she enlightened many
by the word of God,’ which has
been understood, perhaps improb-
ably, to mean that she baptized
them.
tendere, exorcismos agere, cura-
tiones repromittere, fortassean et
tinguere.—De Prescrip. Her. xli.
' Non permittitur mulieri in
ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec
tinguere, nec offerre, nec ullius
virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis
officii sortem sibi vindicare.—Tert.
De Virg. Vel. ix.
46 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, IIT CH IV
been taught to me, because we and they have not the
same God, nor one, that is, the same Christ. And
therefore neither have we one, because not the same
baptism with them, which, since they have it not
rightly, without doubt they have not at all, nor can
that be counted which is not there: and so also they
cannot receive it, since they have it not.’ He goes on
to say that he had written a treatise in Greek on this
subject at greater length, but the book is lost.? Other
passages in his works seem to indicate that he retained
the same opinion in his later years.°
That the general mind of the Church was then
against accepting the baptism of heretics is further
supported by Tertullian’s contemporary, St. Clement of
Alexandria, who speaks of heretical baptism as ‘not
proper and true water.’ *
The date of the Apostolical Canons is one of the
vexed questions of early Christian literature. This is
not the place to enter upon it. It is enough to say
that they cannot be taken literally as decrees passed by
the first apostles; that they certainly are older than
2 Unus omnino baptismus est
nobis, tam ex Domini evangelio,
quam ex apostoli litteris ; quoniam
unus Deus, et unum baptisma, et
una ecclesia in ccelis. Sed circa
hereticos sane quid custodiendum
sit, digne quis retractet; ad nos
enim editum est. Heretici autem
nullum habent consortium nostre
discipline, quos extraneos utique
testatur ipsa ademptio communica-
tionis. Non debeo in illis agnoscere
quod mihi est preceptum, quia non
idem Deus est nobis et illis, nee
unus Christus, id est, idem. Ideoque
nec baptismus unus, quia non idem.
Quem cum rite non habeant, sine
dubio non habent; nec capit nu-
merari, quod non habetur. Itanee
possunt accipere, quia non habent.
Sed de isto plenius jam nobis in
Greco digestum est.—De Bapt. xv.
3 Nemo ab eo illuminatur, a
quo contenebratur.—De Prescrip.
Heres. xu. Comp. De Pud. xix.
* TO Bantipa 7d aipetixiv ovk
oixetov Vdwp oyrfouevov. — Clem.
Alex. Stromata, I. xix. ad fin.
eee = a=
CH IV THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS 47
the doubtful time at which they were gathered into a
collected group; and that they are of Eastern origin.
Within these vague limits critics differ widely as to the
exact time, place, and authority of the enactments.
If they are included here under the general heading of
the evidence of the second century, it is because there
is no later period to which their testimony on baptism
can so well be attributed. It has been thought that, if
they had been in existence in the third century, they
would certainly have been explicitly quoted by St.
Cyprian and St. Firmilian, who were engaged in con-
troversies upon the very point concerning which the
Apostolical Canons would have supported their conten-
tions. That they do not quote them by name may be
conclusive against their claim to be really apostolic;
but that they refer to traditions corresponding to the bap-
tismal decrees of the Canons is in favour of their earlier
date. It is, at any rate, much easier to explain the
lack of verbatim quotation from them in the third cen-
tury writings, than it would be to account for the
absence of any record of the council which passed
them, if it was held after the subject matter of heretical
baptism had come into hot controversy.
Whatever the truth be as to the date of these
Canons, their effect upon the Eastern Church has been
that of the primary authority indicated by the title
‘apostolical. They were finally accepted into the code
of the Church by the quinisext council in Trullo, held
by the East to be general;° and are, therefore, to this
day quoted by Eastern Christendom, not only as
evidence of early opinion, but as of cecumenical force
5 "Ada piv kal rapadoberras Hutv dvopati Tay dyiav Kal evddEwv ’ ArogTo\@v
mé. Kavovas.—Cone. Trull. Can. 2.
48 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, IIT CH IV
in ruling the matters upon which they touch. They
are therefore of extreme importance as having guided
the whole of the discipline of the Kast upon the un-
orthodox ministration of baptism.
These Canons utterly and emphatically repudiate
heretical baptism. The 46th runs: ‘A bishop or priest
who has received the baptism or sacrifice of heretics,
we command to be deposed, for what concord hath
Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth
with an infidel?’® The 47th: ‘A bishop or priest,
if he baptizes anew one who has the true baptism, or if
he does not baptize one who has been defiled by the
ungodly, let him be deposed, as mocking the cross and
the death of the Lord, and not distinguishing priests
from false priests.’ A third canon, the 68th, incidentally
notes that one who has been baptized by heretics cannot
be reckoned among ‘the faithful.” How absolute was
the rejection of such baptism is shown by the fact that a
neglect to give catholic baptism to one polluted by its
heretical imitation is held to be as great an offence as the
iteration of a true baptism.
Two other canons are of moment, as throwing
light on the later judgments of the Eastern Church in
deciding the heretical character of certain kinds of
baptism. One of these, the 49th, orders a priest to be
deposed who does not baptize in the triple Name; and
the other, the 50th, if he does not perform the three
immersions. This latter, as will be seen hereafter, has
played a particular part in guiding the action of
Easterns in so often counting the baptisms of Western
Christendom as the invalid baptism of heretics.’
6 . E ;
2 Cor. vi. 15. tikov Seauévous Barticpa, } Ovciav,
F a , -
7 'Emtoxoror, i) mperBurepor, cipe- KabatpeioOac mpoordocooper, tis yap
eS See
CH IV ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 49
One or two points are to be noticed in these canons,
besides the special one of heretical baptism towards
which they are directed. Throughout, bishops and
priests are spoken of together as ministers of baptism,
without distinction. This is probably a mark of the
very early date of the canons. They seem to belong to
a period before the restrictions of the ministration had
begun, for they can hardly be placed so late as the
time when these restrictions had again been relaxed.
They therefore appear to indicate the discipline of an
age distinctly anterior to Tertullian’s time. If so, it is
of importance to observe that neither deacons nor
laymen are mentioned at all as ministers of baptism.
It is impossible to speak with certainty, but it is surely
not an unreasonable surmise from these ancient canons,
that bishops and priests of the catholic communion
tad ‘ Bal
cupgparnots Xpiot@ mpos Bediap; 7
, . cal A > ,
Tis pepls misT@ pera amriorov ;—Can.
46.
,
’"Erioxoros, 7) mpeaBurepos, Tov
SS 2/7 ” , 2N
kata aAnOevay €xovta Banticpa, eav
2 6. 4 x x Xr ,
avabev Banrion, 7 TOV penoAvopéevov
mapa Tov docBav eav py Bantion,
kabaipeicOw, @s yeh@v TOV oTavpor,
a \
kal Tov TOU Kuplov Odvaroy, Kat 7)
duaxpivey iepeas Wevdolepéov.—Can.
47.
, Xx iA
Ei tis émicxoros, 7) mpeaButepos,
A A ~ f , \
Kata THY Tov Kuplov diatagw py
, ’ tA ‘ ey Na
Barrion eis Marépa, kai Yidv, kat dytov
a cr Bal >
Ilvetpa, add’ eis rpets avdpxous, 7) els
col Cal fa
Tpeis viovs, 7) eis TpEets TmapakAnTovs,
KaOatpeio O@.—Can. 49.
El ae P x YA
itis emioKoros, 7) mpeaBurepos,
a ,
py tpia Banticpata puds punoews
2 , 2 a 3d 4 \ >
emiTehéon, adda Ev Bdrticpa, TO «els
Tov Odvatov tod Kupiov diOdpevor,
kaOaipeic Ow. Ov ydp cimev 6 Kupws,
els Tov Odvarov pou Banrioate, add
mopevbévtes padnrevoate mdvra Ta
€Ovn, Barrifovres avrovs eis TO dvopa
Tov Ilarpos, kat Tov Yiov, kat Tov dyiov
IIvevparos.—Can. 50.
Et tis emiokoros, i) mpecBvrepos,
7) Sudkovos, Sevrépav xetporoviay d€Enrat
mapd Tivos, KabaipeiaOw Kai a’tos Kal
6 xElporovnaas, et py ye dpa cvorain,
Ort Tapa aipeTiK@y exe THY XeLpoTo-
viay. Tovs yap mapa Tey TowiTev
BarricOevras 7) xepotomnbévras, ov're
mlaTovs oUTe KAnpikodse ivar Suvardv.
—Can. 68.
See IIndd\cov, a collection of
Greek canons, with some learned
modern scholia and notes. There
are editions 1800, 1841, and 1864. It
appears to be the most authoritative
work of the kind now quoted by
theologians of the orthodox Church
of the East.
BE
50 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, III CH IV
were alone acknowledged as the legitimate ministers of
baptism in the century that succeeded the death of the
first apostles.
It is natural to connect the Apostolical Constitutions
with the Canons, although they are a very different work
of very inferior importance. The Canons are almost cer-
tainly genuine, while the Constitutions contain distinct
elements of forgery. As they stand now they are
written in the first person, in the name of individual
apostles, or of the whole body collectively. This is a
false colouring intended to invest the production with
an authority that does not belong to it. What other
liberties the compiler may have taken it is impossible to
say, although the unskilful way in which manifest inter-
polations are brought in is some help in judging what
is original and what is not. A great deal is probably
ancient, incorporated bodily in large pieces with trifling
adaptations. But the contents belong to different dates,
and there is no means of apportioning them with even
approximate accuracy. The book as it now stands
belongs perhaps to the fourth or fifth century, possibly
later, and the two last books are thought not to be of
the same date as the rest. ‘The documents on which it
is based are probably, however, mainly if not entirely
ante-Nicene. They are chiefly Eastern, and may
roughly be guessed to indicate the practice of some
parts of the second and third centuries. The quini-
sext council rejected them on account of the spurious
interpolations. They are, therefore, not of authority,
but only of illustrative historical interest.
8 Conc. Trull. can. 2.
CH IV THE APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS 51
v
Upon heretical baptism their testimony exactly
agrees with that of the Canons. ‘Be ye contented with
one baptism alone, that which is into the death of the
Lord ; not that which is conferred by wicked heretics,
but that which is conferred by unblamable priests,
‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost ;” and let not that which comes from the
ungodly be received by you. . . . Those that receive
polluted baptism from the ungodly will become partners
in their opinions. For they are not priests. For God
says to them: “ Because thou hast rejected knowledge,
I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to
me.” Nor, indeed, are those that are baptized by them
initiated, but are polluted, not receiving the remission
of sins, but the bond of impiety.’ !
The Constitutions being no doubt later than the
Canons, they deal with some points untouched by the
latter. Thus, as the following extracts will show, they
explicitly forbid any to baptize except the bishops and
priests whom the Canons only tacitly assume to be the
persons who will exercise the ministry.
‘As to women’s baptizing, we let you know that
there is no small peril to those that undertake it.
Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous,
or, rather, wicked and impious. . . . Ifin the foregoing
Constitutions we have not permitted them to teach, how
will anyone allow them, contrary to nature, to perform
the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant
practices of Gentile atheism, to ordain women priests
to the female deities, not one of the constitutions of
Christ. For if baptism were to be administered by
® Hos. iv. 6. ' Const. Apost. VI. xv.
BE 2
52 THE EARLY CHURCH—CENT. II, III CH IV
women, certainly our Lord would have been baptized
by His own mother, and not by St. John; or when He
sent us to baptize, He would have sent along with us
women also for this purpose. But now He has nowhere,
either by constitution or by writing, delivered to us
any such thing ; as knowing the order of nature, and the
decency of the action; as being the creator of nature,
and the legislator of the constitution.’
‘Neither do we permit the laity to perform any of
the offices belonging to the priesthood ; as, for instance,
. . . baptism. . . . For such sacred offices are conferred
by the laying on of the hands of the bishop. But a
person to whom such an office is not committed, but he
seizes upon it for himself, he shall undergo the punish-
ment of Uzziah.’
‘Nay, further, we do not permit to other clerics to
baptize; as, for instance, neither to readers, nor
singers, nor door-keepers, nor sub-deacons, but to the
bishops and priests alone, the deacons ministering to
them therein. And those who venture upon it shall
uudergo the punishment of the companions of Corah.’
‘The priest alone is to teach, to offer, to baptize, to
bless the people ; the deacon is to minister to the bishop
and to priests, that 1s, to do the office of a deacon
(Stakovev), and not to meddle with other things.’ ”
A later book of the Constitutions repeats these in-
junctions as regards baptizing by a deacon. ‘A deacon
does not bless . . . does not baptize, does not offer. . . .
A deaconess does not bless, does not perform anything
belonging to the office of priests or deacons, but only
is to keep the doors, and to minister to the priests in
the baptizing of women, for the sake of decency.’ And
* Const, APOst, Lika, Xs, Xs, XI, KK
CH IV ON BAPTISM BY DEACONS AND LAITY 53
again: ‘It is not lawful for a deacon to offer, or baptize
or to give the blessing. . . . If some do blame Philip
our deacon, and Ananias our faithful brother, that the
one did baptize the eunuch, and the other me Paul,
these men do not understand what we say. For we
have affirmed only that no one seizes the priestly dignity
to himself, but either receives it from God, as Melchi-
zedek and Job did, or from the high priest, as Aaron
from Moses. Wherefore Philip and Ananias did not
appoint themselves, but were commissioned by Christ,
the High Priest of that God to whom no being is to be
compared.’ *
The hand of the manipulator of the original is per-
haps to be detected more than once in these passages.
The homiletic tone, with its Biblical references, is pro-
bably entirely his own; and the mention of the lower
orders of the ministry must be an interpolation to adapt
the injunctions to the elaborate ecclesiastical organisa-
tion of his own day. But there is no reason to doubt
the substantial accuracy with which he represents the
decrees upon which he based his work. The complete
prohibition to deacons to baptize suggests an early date
for them. We may be almost sure that they were very
old canons adapted, rather than falsified, to make them
bear on the questions of a later century.
The East, then, had apparently no trace as yet of
that partial allowance of lay baptism which is found in
the writings of Tertullian, while East and West alike
entirely repudiated baptism by heretics.
3 Const. Apost. VIII. xxviil., xlvi.
54 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CHV
CHAPTER V.
THE FIRST CONTROVERSY.—CENT. III.
Eastern Councils on heretical baptism—The dispute between Pope Stephen
and the Eastern and African bishops—Letters and Councils of St.
Cyprian—Subsequent relations of Rome with Africa—Summary of the
Eastern and African ‘arguments—Bearing on schismatical and lay
baptism—The Roman view—Estimate of the controversy.
Tue third century is memorable in the history of discus-
tions about the minister of baptism, for it was the period
of the most considerable controversy that has arisen on
the subject. The dispute was entirely confined to the
question of the validity of baptism administered by
heretics. |
In about the year 231, a council of Phrygian, Gala-
tian, Cilician, and other neighbouring bishops, was held
at Iconium, to resolve some doubts that had been raised
as to Montanist baptism. Firmilian, Bishop of Cesarea,
was one of the prelates who attended the synod, and he
gives an account of it in a letter written some years
after to St. Cyprian. The sense of the council was
that heretics cannot baptize, because they have sepa-
rated themselves from the Church of God, where all
grace and power resides, and where alone there is in
the priesthood the ability to minister sacramental grace.
Therefore, even if the baptizer had once been a bishop
in the catholic Church, the baptisms conferred by him
after he seceded from its communion, ipso facto, were
cHv HASTERN COUNCILS ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 55
void.t In giving this decision, Firmilian says they were
only reaffirming ‘ that which was delivered by Christ
and by His apostles. Nor, he says, ‘do we remember
that this ever had a beginning among us, since it has
ever been observed here, that we know of none but the
one Church of God, and account holy baptism to be of
none but the holy Church.’ ?
St. Dionysius of Alexandria mentions also a council
at Synnada, in Phrygia, some time in the first half
of the century, as having passed a decree similar to
that of Iconium; and he, too, bears testimony to the
antiquity of the custom of baptizing converts from
heresy.®
In Africa the rule had not been so uniformly strict.
There it had been common, at least in more recent
times, to receive heretics into communion without a
second, catholic baptism. This was the difference
between Africa and the East. The custom of the
latter, Firmilian said, had been ‘the custom of truth,’
and that of the former, ‘the custom of error.’ 4
It was at a council at Carthage, under Agrippinus,
which some place in about the year 215, and others,
illos quos hi qui prius in ecclesia
catholica episcopi fuerant, et post-
modum sibi potestatem cleric
ordinationis assumentes baptiza-
verant, pro non baptizatis habendos
judicavimus.—Ibid. 24 [22].
* Sed et ceteri quique heretici,
si se ab ecclesia Dei sciderint, nihil
habere potestatis aut gratiz possunt;
quando omnis potestas et gratia in
ecclesia constituta sit, ubi president
majores natu, qui et baptizandi et
manum imponendi et ordinandi
possident potestatem. Hvretico
enim sicut ordinare non licet, nec
manum imponere; ita nec baptizare,
nee quicquam sancte nec spiritaliter
gerere, quando alienus sit a spiritali
et deifica sanctitate—Firm. apud
Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. [lxxiv.]7. Nos etiam
2 Ibid. 20 [19].
5 Dion. Alex. ap. Euseb. vit. vii.
* Firm. ap. Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. 20
[Ixxiv. 19]. Comp. Ixxiii. 20 [Ixxii.
23]; and the judgments of the
bishops at the council of Carthage,
passim.
56 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III cH V
perhaps with less probability, as early as 186, that
Africa forsook what Firmilian calls the erroneous
custom, for the stringent discipline of the East. 8t.
Augustine persisted in treating the decision of this
council as opposed to all tradition and to the practice
of the whole world, and says that when St. Cyprian
‘sought with all his learning for an authority worth
following, he could find nothing but this solitary
council to support him.? S8t. Vincent of Lerins, like-
wise, assuming that heretical baptisms were valid,
affirms that Agrippinus, ‘the first of all mortal men,’
maintained his decree for rebaptizing, against the Bible,
the Church, the opinion of contemporary priests, and
the tradition of earlier times. But the testimony of
Firmilian, who lived in the East, not only earlier than
St. Vincent but also than St. Augustine, is conclusive
that the real tradition and the generality of practice
was on the side of the decree. It is moreover supported
by the distinct evidence of Tertullian and the Apostolical
Canons. St. Augustine makes the most of the admission
of St. Cyprian and the bishops at Carthage that heretics
had often been received in Africa without a fresh
baptism ;7 but probably this was a custom of laxity of
practice, rather than the deliberate rule of the African
Church. If the decision of Agrippinus had _ been
utterly opposed to the views of all Christendom, it
would scarcely have been accepted without demur ;
> Aug. De Bapt. 1. vil. 12,ix.14; contra sensum omnium consacer-
Wiebe cath I/F TA yalstsh oh
®’ Quoniam igitur venerabilis
memorize Agrippinus Carthaginensis
episcopus, prunus omnium morta-
lum, contra divinum canonem,
contra universalis ecclesiz regulam,
dotum, contra morem atque instituta
majorum rebaptizandum esse cense-
bat.—Vin. Lirin. Adv. Heres. vi.
7 Aug. De Bapt. mt. vy. 7; IV. Vin
83 Vail; vin. xxv. 495 ke:
cov POPE STEPHEN AND THE EASTERN BISHOPS 57
yet that it was we know from St. Cyprian, who says
that, from the time it passed, heretics gladly received
the true baptism, and that thousands had so been
received into the catholic Church.°®
Further West the acceptance of baptisms which
were not strictly orthodox had become commoner even
than in Africa, as appears from the controversy which
arose in the middle of the century. Rufinus says that
the dispute began in the time of Pope Cornelius (251-
252);° but the first distinct record of active proceed-
ings is that of an attempt on the part of Pope Stephen
(253-257) to dictate to Firmilian of Cesarea, Helenus
of Tarsus, and other Eastern bishops, that they should
cease to baptize those who came over from heresy.
The details of the communications are not preserved,
but the result was that the Eastern bishops refused to
accept his counsel, whereupon Stephen resented their
lack of subordination to himself, and wrote to break off
communion with them.!
A letter to Magnus, a layman, in about the year
254, is the first indication of St. Cyprian’s part in the
controversy. Magnus had written to ask whether
converts from Novatianism were to be included among
the heretics who ‘ought, after profane washing, to be
baptized and sanctified in the catholic Church, by the
legitimate, true, and only baptism of the Church.’
‘Concerning which matter,’ says St. Cyprian, ‘so far as
the capacity of my faith, and the sanctity and truth of
the holy Scripture suggests, I answer that no heretics
and schismatics whatsoever have any power or authority.
-... Since the Church alone hath the life-giving
8 Cyp. Ep. Ixxiii. [lxxii.] 3. 1 Kuseb. vu.5; Firm. ap. Cyp.
9 Ruf. Hist. Hce. vit. ii. | Ep. Ixxv. 26 [Ixxiv. 25].
58 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CH V
water and the power of baptizing and cleansing men,
whoso says that anyone can be baptized and sanctified
by Novatian must first show and prove that Novatian
is in the Church or presides over the Church. ? Now
Novatian had been ordained priest before his lapse,
and subsequently had been consecrated a bishop by
genuine bishops, although in schismatical rivalry to the
true Pope, Cornelius. There was no question, there-
fore, of Novatian’s actual orders. Nor would it seem
that there was any question in the mind of Magnus as
to the principle of rejecting heretical baptism. The
whole point was whether Novatian was so far a heretic
as to be without the Church. Cyprian asserts that he
was, and the invalidity of his baptism seems to follow as
amatter of course. It is important to notice this, for it
is another evidence that the rule shortly to be enacted
under St. Cyprian was not a novel one, but that which
in theory at least was accepted already in Africa.
Soon after, in 255, some Numidian bishops consulted
St. Cyprian generally on the subject of heretical and
schismatical baptism, being themselves of opinion that
it was invalid. He laid this inquiry before thirty-two
bishops assembled, under his presidency, at Carthage.
This synod is known as the fifth council of Carthage
under Cyprian, and the first on baptism. The bishops
decided that heretical baptism was entirely null. Cyprian
embodied the decision in a formal letter written in the
several names of all the bishops to their Numidian
brethren. The argument is the simple one that the
power of sacramental grace resides only in the Church,
that heretics are outside, and consequently cannot.
possess 1t.®
* Hip. dxim, fexval 5 Ep. Ixx. [Ixix.]
CH V ST. CYPRIAN AND POPE STEPHEN 59
St. Cyprian wrote a similar reply in his own name
to Quintus, a Bishop of Mauritania, who had sent at
about the same time to ask his opinion.’
Shortly after, probably early in 256, a larger council
met at Carthage, the sixth under Cyprian and the second
on baptism. It was attended by seventy-one bishops.
St. Cyprian addressed a brief letter afterwards to Pope
Stephen, in the name generally of the whole council,
enclosing with it copies of the synodical letter of the
previous council and his own epistle to Magnus. This
letter to Stephen is written in very careful and temperate
laneuage, and with a tone of respectful deference, ‘ to
confer with the gravity and wisdom’ of the Pope. But
the decision of the African bishops is in no sense sub-
mitted to the revision of Stephen as a judge. Their
mind was made up. The object of the communication
with the Pope was evidently only to put the matter in
such a form as should prevent a rupture. Therefore,
without attempting to force the same discipline on Rome,
St. Cyprian, after an over-sanguine expression of belief
that Stephen will approve, suggests that, if he does not,
they may agree to differ. ‘We know that some will not
lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change
their resolves, but keeping the bond of peace and concord
with their colleagues, retain certain practices of their
own which have been once adopted among them.’ ®
Stephen did not receive the missive in at all the
conciliatory spirit in which it was sent. The deferen-
tial tone was not enough for one who wanted to exer-
cise an autocratic rule. Either then, or later, he refused
to admit a deputation of African bishops, who had made
the journey on purpose, ‘even to the speech of an
4 Ep. |xxi. []xx.] 5 Hp. xxi. [lxxi.]
60 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CH V
ordinary conference.® He called Cyprian a false
Christ, a false apostle, a deceitful worker ;’ and»he
wrote a very angry reply, of which we only have frag-
ments referred to in the Cyprian correspondence. St.
Cyprian quotes one sentence verbatim, where the
Roman bishop attempts once more to govern his
brethren with the authority of a dictator. ‘If, then,’
he says, ‘any shall come to you from any heresy what-
soever, let there be no innovations beyond what has
been handed down, namely, that hands be laid on such
to repentance; since those who are properly heretics
do not baptize such as come to them from one another,
but only admit them to communion.’ ®
Stephen’s arrogance had no other effect on St.
Cyprian than to make him affirm the opposite opinion
with increased dignity. He sent a copy of the Pope’s
letter to Pompey, Bishop of Sabrata, who seems to have
taken a special interest in the result of the deputation ;
and, with the copy, a severe criticism of Stephen’s con-
duct, which he regarded as the outcome of a perverse
self-sufficiency. ‘It happeneth through a love of pre-
sumption and obstinacy,’ he says, ‘that men will main-
tain their own positions, though erroneous and false,
rather than yield to what is right and true, but
another’s.’ And he concludes by a simple reassertion
of the exact contrary of the Pope’s injunction. ‘ Having,
dearest brother, searched out and discovered the truth,
what we observe and maintain is this, that all, converted
to the Church from whatsoever heresy, be baptized
with the alone legitimate baptism of the Church, except
° Ep. lxxv. 26 [Ixxiv. 28]. 7 Ibid. 27 [26].
8 Ep. lxxiv. [lxxiii.] 1.
cov CYPRIAN’S LETTERS AND COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE 61
such as had been baptized before in the Church, and
then had gone over to heretics.’ ?
St. Cyprian was in correspondence also with Jubai-
anus, another bishop, who had sent him a document
arguing for the validity of baptism by heretics. Cyprian
made it the occasion for composing a letter which fully
states his complete views, and is, in fact, a little treatise
on the subject. It was written soon after the second
council on baptism, and probably before the answer
from Stephen had arrived. In many respects it is the
most interesting of the series of letters, representing as
it does the entire argument which Cyprian had at his
command, as he viewed the question under every pos-
sible aspect of Scripture, reason, custom, and policy.
The case, as he states it, 1s a strong one, allowing the
principle upon which it is built, that heretics are out-
side the Church. Jubaianus, whose mind before was
perhaps neutral, was convinced by it.?
In anticipation, no doubt, of complications with
Rome, St. Cyprian now summoned all the bishops within
reach; and eighty-seven, from Africa, Numidia and
Mauritania, met in synod at Carthage, in the presence
of several of the clergy and laity. It was, perhaps, as
yet only the autumn of 256. Possibly the Pope’s
answer had not been received, for it does not seem to
have been read to the council, although the letter which
had been written to him, and the correspondence with
Jubaianus, were formally laid before it. But, at any
rate, the peremptory tone of the Roman bishop was well
understood. It is manifestly alluded toimSt. Cyprian’s
opening address, when he says, ‘No one of us setteth
° Ep. Ixxiv. [Ixxiii.] * Cyprian’s Address to Concil.
Ep. \xxiii. [lxxii.] Carthag. VII.
62 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CH V
himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical
terror forceth his colleagues to a necessity of obeying ;
inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty
and power, has the right of forming his own judgment,
and can no more be judged by another than he can
himself judge another. On this principle, he mvited
the bishops present severally to declare their opinion,
‘judging no one, nor depriving any one of the right of
communion, if he differ from us.’ It must have been
an impressive scene when each of the eighty-seven
bishops rose in turn, and delivered his judgment. Some
expressed it by quotations from Scripture on the unity
of the Church and the ministerial commission of the
apostolate, some by brief logical reasoning, some by
trenchant denunciation of heresy, some by a bare state-
ment of opinion. But they were unanimous in rejecting
heretical baptism. St. Cyprian, with characteristic
force and gentleness, summed up his own judgment as
being ‘that, according to the testimony of the gospel
and the apostles, heretics, being called the adversaries
of Christ and antichrists, when they come to the Church,
are to be baptized with the one baptism of the Church,
that they may be made of adversaries friends, and of
antichrists Christians.’ This council is known as the
seventh under Cyprian and the third upon baptism.?
While obtaining the judgment of the bishops in his
8 The sentences of the bishops
are preserved, probably in a con-
densed form, but retaining their
Latin is also given in Routh’s Rel.
Sac. vol. iii. Nathaniel Marshall’s
Dissertation upon the case of here-
characteristic expressions, by St.
Augustine in his De Baptismo, m1.
iii—ix., vI., va. He adds his own
reply to each. They are usually
printed in St. Cyprian’s Works, The
tical and schismatical baptism,
appended to the Acts of Carthage,
in his edition of The Works of St.
Cyprian, 1717, pp. 256-278, is
excellent.
CHV THE POPE’S RUPTURE WITH AFRICA 63
own part of the world, Cyprian also sought support
from those of the East, by sending one of his deacons
to Firmilian at Ceesarea with a full account of the dis-
pute. The latter, already indignant at Stephen’s action
towards himself, wrote Cyprian a long epistle which
ranks in importance with Cyprian’s own letter to
Jubaianus.* Entirely repudiating the Pope’s claim to
universal authority, he argues the question on its own
merits with great power, and with none of the diffi-
dence which made Cyprian contemplate the possibility
that some might arrive at a different opinion. This
letter probably did not reach Carthage till after the
ereat council had dispersed, for no allusion was made
to it. The bishops may not have known how entirely
the East was with them.
The Pope, Stephen, eventually, if he had not already
done so, broke off all converse with both Churches,
and it is generally supposed that he attempted formally
to excommunicate them. Dionysius, Bishop of Alex-
andria, tried to act the part of peacemaker, and to deter
Stephen from violence, by reminding him that there
was considerable authority for the other view.’ His
efforts, however, were fruitless, and no further com-
munications seem to have passed during the short
remainder of Stephen’s pontificate.
In the days of Stephen’s successor, Xystus, Dionysius
renewed his efforts, writing to the Pope in person, and
also to two Roman priests, Dionysius and Philemon,
with whom he had already once before discussed
4 Firm. ap. Cyp. Hp. Ixxv. that he was its translator. But
{Ixxiv.] The Latin translation, in there subsist clear traces of its
which it now alone exists, is so Greek original. See Lib. of Fathers,
strongly marked by the style of St. am loc.
Cyprian, that there can be no doubt > Kuseb, Vil. iv., v.
64 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. IIT CH V
the question. His own views do not seem to have been
strongly enlisted on either side, and it was therefore as
a mediator, rather than as a partisan, that he interposed
in the quarrel. That he was not vehemently for re-
baptism is clear from a letter to Xystus, asking him how
he was to deal with a certain person who had received
heretical baptism, apparently not in the orthodox form
at all, but had long been a communicant in the Church.
Dionysius had assured him that this would cover the
irregularity; but, not beg able to satisfy the man’s
scruples, he was still afraid to baptize him without the
Pope’s consent.’ Xystus’ reply is not extant, either to
this letter or to those on the general question in its
relation to the breach between the Churches. But
Pontius, one of St. Cyprian’s deacons, who wrote his
master’s life, speaks there of Xystus as a ‘good and
pacific priest,’ from which it may probably be gathered
that at least external communion was restored.’
St. Jerome says that the African bishops after a time
rescinded their decree.2 But, as Dr. Pusey points out,
this is evidently a mistake; for, if it were true, St.
Augustine would certainly have known of it, and
would as certainly have mentioned it i support of his
own contention for the validity of heretical baptism.
Augustine does in one place suggest that Cyprian may
have changed his mind, but this is professedly only a
supposition without evidence.? It is altogether impro-
bable. Africa did yield to the Roman view in later
days, but this was when others had succeeded to the
sees of St. Cyprian and his colleagues, and when Rome
6 Buseb. vit. ix. ° Aug. Ep. xciil. 88 [xlviii.], Ad
7 See Smith and Wace’s Dict. Vincent. See Pusey, Note on
Christ. Biog.vol. iv. p. 1198. Tertullian, Lib. of Fathers, vol. i.
8 Jer. Adv. Luctf, 23. p- 294 n.
CH V THE AFRICAN ARGUMENTS 65
had accumulated greater strength as a moving power in
Christendom.
The argument of St. Cyprian and his party was
perfectly logical and consistent, and its leading features
can be summarised briefly.
They rested their case primarily on the fact that
there is but one faith and one baptism. Then they
argued that the one baptism can only be in the one
Church where the one faith exists. ‘If, says St.
Cyprian, ‘ His Church is “a garden enclosed” and “a
fountain sealed,” ! how can he who is not in the Church
enter into the same garden or drink of its fountain ?
.... As in that baptism of the world whereby its
old iniquity was cleansed, he who was not in the ark of
Noah could not be saved by water, so neither now can
he appear to be saved by baptism who has not been
baptized in the Church which is founded in the unity
of the Lord after the mystery of the one ark.’ ?
Under one of its aspects baptism is the means of
regeneration. ‘It is plain,’ says Cyprian, ‘that they
who are not in the Church of Christ are accounted
among the dead; nor can another be quickened by him
who himself liveth not, in that there is one Church
which, having obtained the grace of eternal life, both
liveth for ever, and quickeneth the people of God.’ ?
And so Firmilian: ‘If the spouse of Christ, which is the
catholic Church, is one, she it is who alone giveth birth
to sons of God. For there are not many spouses of
Christ, since the apostle says, “I have espoused you to
one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin
1 Cant. iv. 12. [Ixxii.], and Cone. Carth.vir. passim.
2 Ep. \xxiv. 14 [Ixxiii. 11]. Comp. 3 Ep. Ixxi. [lxx.] 1; comp. lxxiv.
me |ibexy.| 3, Ixx. [Ixix.], Ixxiii. 8 [Ixxiii. 6].
F
66 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. ITI CH V
to Christ.”4 . . . We see that one person is everywhere
spoken of, because the spouse also is one. But the
synagogue of heretics is not one with us, because
neither is the spouse an adulteress and harlot. Where-
fore neither can she bring forth sons to God; unless,
indeed, as Stephen seems to think, heresy brings them
forth and exposes them, and the Church takes them up
when exposed, and nourishes as her own those whom
she brought not forth; whereas she cannot be the
mother of strange children.’ °
From another aspect baptism is the pardon of sins.
‘How,’ asks St. Cyprian, ‘can he cleanse and sanctify
the water, who is himself unclean, and with whom the
Holy Spirit is not? . . . Or how can he that baptizeth
give remission of sins to another, who cannot himself
free himself from his own sins, out of the Church ?’
This is a line of argument which recurs in the epistles
and the judgments of the bishops.®
St. Cyprian saw clearly that, if baptism were allowed
to heretics, other sacraments must follow. ‘If, he
says, ‘by virtue of a perverted faith any without can
be baptized and obtain remission of sins, by virtue of
the same faith he might obtain the Holy Ghost also;
and it needeth not that, when he cometh, hands be laid
upon him that he may obtain the Holy Ghost and be
sealed.’” Nor could the concession stop here. ‘He,’
says St. Firmilian, ‘who concedes and assigns to here-
tics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church,
what else does he than hold communion with them for
whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And
4.9 Cor. xi,-2, ]xix. 10. [Ixxv. 11], Cone, Carth. vit.
5 Hp. lxxv. [lxxiv.] 14. passim.
© Hp. Ixx. [Ixix.], Txxi, fizz], 7 Ep. lxxiii. [Ixxii.] 6,
CH V ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 67
in vain doth he any longer hesitate to consent and be
partaker with them in the rest, to join in their assem-
bles, and mingle his prayers with theirs, and set up a
common altar and sacrifice.’ §
Scripture and reason, therefore, seemed to combine
with custom in dictating an absolute rejection of all
baptism but the Church’s own. It was no case with the
African and Eastern bishops of repeating a sacrament
which could only be conferred once. ‘ We,’ St. Cyprian
insisted, ‘say that such as come thence are not rebap-
tized but baptized by us. For neither do they receive
anything there where there is nothing, but they come to
us that they may receive here where is all grace and
firath.’ ?
Strongly, however, as Cyprian held this view, he
was far from driving it to any unreasonable extremes.
He freely allowed that God might be expected to extend
His indulgence to such as ignorantly believed that
heretical baptism was true. Therefore, he was quite
willing to suppose that those who had been received
from heresy without the Church’s baptism, and had
already died, would, by the mercy of the Lord, be
reckoned to have fallen asleep in the Church.’ Fir-
milian was scarcely disposed to allow so much. He
preferred to regard those who had died thus as in a
similar position to catechumens preparing for baptism.
But he, too, fully admitted that there was a vast differ-
ence between wilful and unwilful heresy, which would
be taken into account in the judgment of those who
had received heretical baptism.”
8 Ep. lxxv. 18 [Ixxiv. 17]. 1 Hp. lxxiii. 20 [Ixxii. 23].
Peeps texi. [lxx.| 1; comp. xxii. 2 Firm. ap. Cyp. Ep. lxxv. 22, 24
ft.) 1) texan. [Ixxii.| 1. [Ixxiv. 21, 22].
F 2
68 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CH V
In the discussion of the subject in Cyprian’s letters,
heresy and schism are somewhat confused. The schisms
with which he was familiar were too formidable and
antagonistic to form a class apart from heresy. Fir
milian appears to draw a distinction between those who
had been brought up in heresy, and those who had
lapsed from the true faith into schism. But the fact of
the baptism being given by one who had received
apostolic orders made no difference in his estimate of
its value if the baptizer had lapsed. ‘ We have judged,’
says he, ‘that those also are to be accounted unbap-
tized, who had been baptized by such as had before
been bishops in the catholic Church, and afterwards
assumed to themselves the powers of their clerical ordi-
nation.’? Whatever difference was recognised between
heresy and schism, the Eastern and African rule
was the same for both. The baptism was null.
Lay Church baptism is not so much as mentioned in
the letters of Cyprian or Firmilian, or in the speeches
of the bishops at Carthage. St. Basil, a century after,
asserted that both Cyprian and Firmilian held that
those who separated from the Church lost their power
to baptize, ‘because they became laymen.’* But as
there is no such statement in their extant epistles, St.
Basil, who gives no authority for it, was probably mis-
taken as to the fact. St. Cyprian says in one place that
priests who had lapsed ought only to be received back
to lay communion,’ but this is quite a different thing
from saying that they ‘ became laymen’ when they fell
3 Firm. ap. Cyp. Ep. Ixxv. 24 the sentence occurs is quoted at
[Ixxiv. 22]. length below, in the note on p. 83,
4 Ad Amphiloch.can.i. Theori- col. 2.
ginal of the whole passage in which 5 Ep. 1xxii. [lxxi.] 2.
CH V BEARING ON LAY BAPTISM 69
away. ‘There is every reason to conclude that the
subject of lay baptism never came before St. Cyprian
and the others at all. If it had, it must certainly have
been referred to, at least incidentally, as having some
bearing on the points in dispute. There is no reason
for thinking it was likely to have arisen. ‘ Even heretics
themselves, says Nathaniel Marshall, ‘had then no
notion of doing anything within their several (pretended)
Churches without the episcopal fiat: so that they
always had bishops amongst them, whenever they spread
or had any considerable number adhering to them.’ ®
Nothing can be argued either way as to what the judg-
ment of the Eastern and African bishops might have
been if they had considered lay baptism. ‘It was very
possible, says Marshall again, ‘for a man of their
opinion as to the nullity of heretical baptisms, to have
held the vahdity of baptisms administered by laymen
within the Church. . . . The question of lay baptism
am the Church is entirely distinct from the question of
heretical baptism out of it.’ 7
That the mere invocation of the Name of the Blessed
Trinity is of itself sufficient for valid baptism, inde-
pendent of other qualifications, was clearly repudiated
by St. Firmilian, although only expressly in relation to
heterodoxy. ‘ That also is unreasonable,’ he says, ‘ that
they think no inquiry is to be made who was the bap-
tizer, for that the baptized may have obtained grace
by the invocation of the Trinity, the Names of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. . . . Who is
there in the Church wise or perfect, who would either
maintain or believe this, that the mere invocation of
the Names would suffice for the remission of sins and
® Marshall, Cyprian’s Works, p. 258. 7 Ibid. pp. 256, 258.
70 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CH V
the sanctification of baptism? Whereas this assuredly
then profits when both he who baptizes has the Holy
Ghost, and the baptism itself also 1s appointed by the
Holy Ghost.’® According to this principle it is difficult
to see how Firmilian could have accepted lay baptism.
Certainly he could not have accepted it in some of the
extremer forms in which its validity has been claimed
in modern times.
The position of Stephen can only be partially
gathered from the letters of his opponents. Marshall
conjectures that he did not know of the Eastern rule,
embodied in such canons as the Apostolical; ‘ otherwise
(rash and choleric as he was) he would scarce have
borne so hard upon a practice which had such good
supports and such early precedents.’? He can scarcely,
however, have remained in ignorance after his commu-
nications with the East, though he may very likely
have underrated the weight of the Eastern tradition.
But probably he was chiefly at issue at first with the
other bishops as to the effect of heresy in separating
from the Church. The Western heresies had for the
most part been of a less deadly character than the
Eastern, and it would not have been unnatural if
heresy was not viewed in exactly the same light at Rome
as at Caesarea and Carthage. The African bishops
said that heretical baptism could only be defended on
the plea that heretics had a Church, that is, that they
had not lost communion with the catholic Church.?
Stephen would very likely have originally agreed to this
way of putting the matter. But he would have con-
8 Firm. ap. Cyp. Ep. Ixxyv. [lxxiv.] 9. 1 Cyp. Ep. 1xx. [lxix.] 2.
® Marshall, Works of Cyprian, p. 270.
CH V POSITION OF POPE STEPHEN 71
ceded fellowship in the Church to some who seemed to
the other prelates to have absolutely forfeited it.
As time went on, and the contention waxed hot, the
Pope got exasperated. Then, certainly, he carried his
arguments further, and spoke of the qualification of the
minister as if it was a matter of indifference to the
validity of baptism. This appears from the letters both
of Firmilian and Cyprian. The latter says that their
adversaries ‘attribute the effect of baptism to the
majesty of the Name, so that they who are whereso-
ever and howsoever baptized in the Name of Jesus
Christ, must be deemed to be renewed and sanctified.’ *
This statement seems to preclude limitation, especially
as St. Cyprian speaks of it as covering baptisms by
Marcion, Valentinus, and Apelles,® which would include,
in certain cases at least, the ministrations of those who
had no kind of orders. Therefore Stephen in the end
would perhaps have accepted lay baptism even when
ageravated by heresy,—any baptism, in fact, which
recited the Name of the Blessed Trinity. Yet the
formal discussion did not pass the bounds of the effect
of heresy by itself, without further complications.
Itis constantly said that the whole question con-
cerning the minister of baptism was considered and
settled in the time of St. Cyprian. Nothing can less
accurately describe the facts of the case. The whole
question was never before the disputants at all. Some
phases of it, which appeared later, would not have
suggested themselves to their minds. If Stephen in his
irritated humour laid down principles which would
have covered almost all possible cases, it was a decision
2 Ep. \xxiv. 7 [Ixxiii. 5]; comp. § Bp. lxxiil. [lxxii.] 4, lxxiy. 9
lxxy. 9, 12, 19 [Ixxiv. 9, 12, 18]. [Ixxiii. 7].
72 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CHV
arrived at in the impulse of heated argument, with-
out due consideration of all it involved. Certainly, too,
nothing was settled, as between Rome on the one part,
and Africa with the East on the other. Both empha-
tically held to their own opinion after as before.
Modern Western critics have done scant justice to
the Eastern view. It is often regarded almost as a
strange eccentricity of St. Cyprian’s, the one blot of a
glorious episcopate. This is very much St. Augustine’s
way of speaking about it, and perhaps he is responsible
for inaugurating the unjust estimate which is so
curiously current. Certainly it was no peculiarity of
St. Cyprian that he rejected heretical baptism. With
him were associated a multitude of bishops who came
from dioceses spread along the whole coast of Africa
from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. On the same side
were all the bishops of the East, so far as can be
gathered. St. Vincent of Lerins, who wrote under a
pronounced Roman bias, was constrained to admit not
only the genius of the African bishops, but also the
weight of their numbers, the great appearance of truth
in their arguments, and the force of their scriptural
quotations, which would have seemed to him invincible
if it were not for the novelty of the doctrine. But
novelty is just a charge which cannot be brought
against it. There was the entire tradition of Hastern
Christendom on its side, if the word of the Eastern
bishops is to be believed, and if the Apostolical Canons
“ Tmo vero tanta vis ingenii ad-
fuit, tanta eloquentiz flumina,
conspiratio nullo modo destrui
potuisse videatur, nisi sola tanti
tantus adsertorum numerus, tanta
veri similitudo, tanta divine legis
oracula, sed plane novo ac malo
more intellecta, ut mihi omnis ista
moliminis causa ipsa illa suscepta,
ipsa defensa, ipsa laudata novitatis
professio destituisset. — Vincent,
Lirin. Adv. Heres. vi.
CHV ESTIMATE OF THE CONTROVERSY 73
are to be taken as anything better than an impudent
forgery. Rome was the real innovator, and as yet
Rome was not strong enough to override the rest of
the Church.°
Although Africa did at a subsequent date yield to
the Roman custom, it never became that of the catholic
Church as a whole. The East consistently held its
ground in the main without change. It is to this day
committed by the quinisext council of 691,—a council
of cecumenical authority with the East—to the decrees
of the council of Carthage, and generally to the opinion
enunciated in the epistles of St. Cyprian.® The tendency
in a divided Christendom is for each great division, for-
getting the rest, to elevate its own practice into a uni-
versal rule. The long continued usage of the West, in
accepting baptism by heretical priests, seems to have
made her forget that the consent of the Hast has never
> I ought to state that a very
different view of the controversy is
taken by the Archbishop of Canter-
bury in his articles on St. Cyprian
and others, in Smith and Wace’s
Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Dr. Benson’s estimate of the African
position is not a favourable one. Its
general tenor is summed up in a
few words spoken by his Grace ina
sermon preached before the bishops
assembled for the Lambeth Con-
ference, in 1888. He there says:
‘When every petty city of Africa
had its bishop, and the doctrine
of episcopacy was strongest, the
effectiveness of the episcopate
was lowest. A Cyprian had no
difficulty in obtaming the wuna-
nimous vote, a vote contrary to
Seripture principle, Church tradi-
tion, and the subsequent ruling of
the Catholic world,—a vote that
heretical and schismatical baptism
was void.’—Sermon at Westminster
Abbey, July 2, 1888; Guardian,
July 4, 1888, p. 991.
6 "Ere pry Kal tov vmod Kumptavov
TS
"Adpov xwpas kal pdptupos, Kal THs
TOU yevouevou apxLemLoKdTroU
Kad’ avrov auvddov éxrebévra Kavova,
a ca) cat , ,
bs ev Tols TOV mpoetpnnevav mpoedpwv
: :
Toros, Kal povov, kaTa TO Tapadobev
ya > / ‘\ 8 ‘
€Oos expdtnoe, Kal pdevi
> ~ ‘ ,
efetvat Tovs mpodnwOevtas Tmapaxa-
, , a» > val » ce F
parte kavovas 7) GOereiv 7) eTepous
avurots
Tapa Tovs mpokeysevous trapadexer Oat
kavovas Wevdemtypapes urd TwWar
ouvrebéevras Tov THY aAnOevay KaTN-
Aevew Emtxeipnodvrov.—Cone. Trull.
can. 2.
74 THE FIRST CONTROVERSY—CENT. III CHV
been obtained. However much it may commend itself
to the Western mind, it must be remembered that the
East can claim a longer tradition for the opposite view.
The difference need not necessarily involve a charge of
error. The matter falls within the limits of a high
exercise of the Church’s power of binding and loosing.
Where she has never arrived at a universal agreement,
what may be bound in one place may possibly be loosed
in another. So, in studying the old controversy of the
third century, it must not be thought that either side
was flying in the face of catholic decrees, or was abso-
lutely in the wrong. Nor, since both sides stood to
their ground, can it be said that a victory was gained
by either. Africa and the East seem to have had the
best of the argument, Rome was loudest in positive
assertion. But the question remained, as it still re-
mains, unsettled by a unanimous vote of the Church.
CH V1 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS 75
CHAPTER VI.
THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS.—CENT. IV.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons—Heretical baptism in the East: Councils
of Nica, Laodicea, Constantinople; Basil, Athanasius, Epiphanius,
&e.—Lay baptism in the East: Basil, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Gregory
Nazianzen, Story of Athanasius, ke.—Heretical baptism in the West:
Councils of Arles, Carthage; Siricius, Ambrose, Optatus, Pacian—
Lay baptism in the West: Councils of Elvira, Carthage; Optatus,
Jerome—St. Augustine : baptism by heretical priests; by lay Church-
men; by the unbaptized and others—Summary.
Iy the fourth century the discussions upon the minister
of baptism covered a wide range.
On one point all were agreed, that the bishop was
the source of all baptismal authority. ‘ Without
chrism and the command of the bishop,’ says St.
Jerome, ‘neither priest nor deacon have the right to
baptize.’1 ‘Although priests do it,’ says St. Ambrose,
‘yet the fount of their ministry is from the chief
priest.” One practical evidence of the extent to which
solemn baptism was still reserved to bishops is given
by the fact that when baptisteries were built they were
generally confined to cathedrals where bishops would
officiate. They did not become common in ordinary
churches till the eighth or ninth centuries.’ It was a
1 Sine chrismate et episcopi rint, tamen exordium ministerii a
jussione, neque presbyter, neque summo est sacerdote—Amb. De
diaconus jus habeant baptizandi— Sacram. Ul. 1.
Jer. Contra Luctf. 9. 3 Martene, De Ant. Rit. 1. i. 2.
? Licet enim et presbyteri fece-
76 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS— CENT. IV cu vi
noticeable peculiarity of Rome that they existed there
at an earlier period. Marcellus, who was Pope from
307 to 309, appointed twenty-five churches in that city
for the baptism of pagans.’
The licence which priests had to baptize, under
their bishops, was sometimes extended to deacons.
This was the case even in the Kast, where baptism
regulations were always more stringent than in the
West. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in the middle of the
fourth century, speaks of persons going up for baptism
to deacons, as well as to bishops and priests.? Epiphanius,
however, at the same period, says deacons must not cele-
brate any mystery, but only assist at the celebration.®
St. Chrysostom, also, a little later speaks similarly of
baptism and the eucharist as being accomplished only
by a priest.’ But perhaps neither of them were includ-
ing cases of urgency. It may be that deacons were
considered to have the power to baptize, but were
not allowed to exercise it except in necessity.
In the West probably the restrictions were less
exact. St. Thomas Aquinas says it is recorded of St.
Laurence, that he baptized many when he was a
deacon ;® and, if he refers to the celebrated martyr,
this was in the middle of the third century. At the
council of Elvira, in Spain, in the early part of the
fourth,’ it was decreed that if a deacon in charge of a
4 Liber Pontificalis, Vit. Mar- 6° Epiph. Heres. Ixxix.
celli. 7 Chrys. De Sac. 11. v. 187.
5 Kara yap rov kaipov Tov Barriopa- 8 Th. Aquin. Summa, 1m. Ixvii. 1.
Tos, OTav mpogeAOns emt TAY eTLTKOT@Y, ® The date given in the extant
i) mperBurépor, i) Stakdvwv + dwavraxod versions of its own acta is 324,
yap 7) xdpis, Kat ev koma, kai ev Hefele and others reject this, and
moNeou erreton ovk CEGVOporayy xapis, 305, 3138, and 3835 have all been
aX’ &k Geor Ov’ dvOpareav 7n ddots, Ke. suggested as the real date. But it
Cyr. Hieros. Catechesis, xvii. 35. is not certain that 324 is wrong.
CH VI HERETICAL BAPTISM IN THE EAST 77
congregation should baptize any without a bishop or
priest, the bishop. is to perfect them by benediction.
This may mean confirmation, but certainly it was not
rebaptism. If the person died before this episcopal
benediction he was not excluded from a_ position
among the faithful departed.1. Therefore in the
Spanish portion of the Church, at least, there was no
question about the validity of baptism administered
even in health by a deacon.
The great difficulty still was the treatment of
heretical baptism. Several times in the fourth century
councils had to determine in particular cases how it
was to be dealt with, especially in the East. We have
the record of their decisions in conciliar canons, but
none of the arguments and motives which led to their
enactment.
The general council of Niceea, in 325, decreed that
the Paulianists or Samosatenes, an Eastern body of
heretics, should be rebaptized.2 Paul, their founder,
had been bishop of Antioch, and therefore the question
was not one of original ordination. If St. Athanasius
is right, that they baptized in the Name of the Trinity,®
the rejection must have been entirely because they used
the words in a heretical sense. But St. Augustine and
Pope Innocent both beheved that they mutilated the
1 Si quis diaconus regens plebem
sine episcopo vel presbytero aliquos
baptizaverit, episcopus eos per
benedictionem perficere debebit:
quod si ante de seculo recesserint,
sub fide qua quis credidit poterit esse
justus.—Cone. Elib. can. 77.
2 Tlepi trav TavAvanocdyroy, eira
mpoopuydvrav TH KaOodiKh exKAyoia,
pos exreOerra avaBanri¢erOat adrovs
e€uravtos: ef O€ Tives ev TH TapeAndrv=
Gore xpovm ev TO KANp@ eEnrda Onoar,
el ev Gwepmrorkal averriAnrrot paveiey,
avaBarriag bevtes xeiporoveto Bomar bd
Tou tis KaOohixns exkAnolas émurKd-
mov.—Cone. Nie. I. can. 19.
3 Ath. Adv. Arianos, ii. 43.
78 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vr
formula,‘ and this is most likely, since otherwise the
decreé perhaps would not have easily obtained the con-
sent of the Western prelates at the council who were
accustomed to allow the validity of heretical baptism.
Therefore the decision may have nothing to do with
the question of the minister. St. Jerome said that the
Nicene council accepted all heretics save the disciples
of Paul of Samosata ;° but it is straining the canon to
make it sanction all it does not name, especially when
only one sect is considered.
The council of Laodicea, in about the year 375,
decreed that the baptism of Novatians, Photinians, and
Quartodecimans was to be accepted, and that of the Phry-
gians or Montanists rejected.® This is perhaps sufficiently
explained by the fact that the later Montanists at any
rate changed the words of administration; but it is
uncertain whether they did so at this period,’ and it is
to be. observed that they alone, of the heretics mentioned,
did not rise in episcopacy, and so never had true priests.
The second general council at Constantinople, in 381,
4 Aug. De Heres. xliv.
xxii. Ad EHpisc. Maced. v.
> Synodus quoque Niczna omnes
hereticos suscepit, exceptis Pauli
Inn.Hp. Cone. Laod. can. 7. Tept rod rovs
> A ~
amo HS aipeoews TOY eyopevay
ra) v ~ yp > 4 > a 3 > Ul >,
pvyav emiotpeporras, ei kai ev KANP@
; 4
vopicopev@ map’ avrois Tuyyavoley, Et
Samosateni discipulis.—Jer. Cont.
Lucif. 27.
6 Tlepi tov rods €k TaY aipecewr,
Tour é¢re Navariavay irot Pareviav@v
i) Teooapeckadexatiray, emirtpepo-
pévous, ire mioTovs TOs Tap’ ekeivots,
pu) mpoabéxec Oa, mpiy avabepatricwor
aipeow, e&aipéerws de ev 7
katelyovrTo* Kal
macav
, A A
Tore Noimov Tovs
Aeyopuevous map’ avrois murTovs eKpav-
, ~ , ,
Oavovras Ta THs TictTews ovpBoda,
, ee aS. , a
XptaGevras TETH dyiw Xpiopart, oVT@
«- a , ~ co?
KoW@VEely TH pvoTHPLO TO ayio.—
kal péyiotoe heyouTo, Tovs ToLtovTOUS
peTa Taons emipedeias KaTnxeiaOai TE
kal Banrifer Oa trd Tv THs exkAnoias
ETLOKOT@V TE Kal Mpeg BuTépav.—l bid.
can. 8.
7 Athanasius says they baptized
with the true formula, Orat. ii. 43,
but this was a little earlier. Basil,
Ep. clxxxviii., and Theoph. In Lue.
xxiv. 45-58, say they altered it.
Evidently at some period there was
a change.
CH VI HERETICAL BAPTISM IN THE EAST 79
decided that the baptism of Arians, Macedonians,
Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Apollina-
rians was to be accounted valid, but not that of the
Eunomians, Montanists, Sabellians, and others.2 Of
these, all the first started in episcopacy, and none of the
last that are named except the Eunomians. A special
reason is given for refusing their baptism—that they
used only one immersion.?
Bingham thought that all the conciliar decrees were
based on the form of words used in administering
baptism. Brett as positively maintained that they
rested on the validity of the orders of the administrator.”
If valid orders weighed in the determination, it serves
to explain why some heretical baptism was accepted and
some not, which it is not easy to do by a mere com-
parison of the malignity of the heresies themselves.
But Brett’s assertion lacks confirmatory evidence, and
8 *Apevavovs pev, kal Maxedovtavovs,
kal SaBBatiavods, cat Navartiavods,
Tovs Aéyovtas éavto’s KaOapovs kal
dpiotepovs, Kal tos Teooapeckat-
Sexariras, eirovy Terpadiras, kat ’Amrol-
Awapiotas Sexducba . . . cppayigo-
, ” , a Ah
pevous Frou Xpiopévous mMpatov TO ayia
i“ > ‘ La ‘
pup®. . . . Evvouiavovs pevrot Tous
eis play Katddvow BamriComevous, Kal
Movramoras Tovs evtavéa eyopévovs
,
@pvyas, kai SaBeAavovs rods viowra-
, , Ao , \
topiav OwWdcKorras, 7) erepa Tia xaheTra
mowvvras, Kal Tas
‘ ° co
aipéoers (€emid1 modXol eiow evraida,
a\X\as waoas
A ¢ > A = -~ ,
padtora of ard ths Tadkatév xopas
epxXomevor)* mavras Tovs an’ avTav
GéXovras mpootidec Oa tH dpOo0doégia
@s “EdAnvas Seyopeba . . . Kal TOTe
avtovs Panri¢owev.—Cone. Const.
can. 7.
®* This apparently carried with
it a change in the formula: Epiph.
Heres. lxxvi.; Soc. Hist. v. xxiv.
But Greek theologians regard the
stress as being put on the single im-
mersion itself, and therefore reject
all baptism which is not given by a
triple immersion. Balsamon con-
cluded that the baptism of all who
used a single immersion was to be
regarded null: Nota autem ex
presenti canone, quod omnes una
demersione baptizati rebaptizan-
tur.—Bal. in loc. The Arians both
changed the form and immersed
only once, in later times, but not so
early as this.
1 Bingham, Lay Baptism,
Works, 1844, vol. viii. pp. 63-66.
2 Brett, Inquiry into the
Judgment of the Primitive Church
éc., 1713, p. 83,
80 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cHv1
neither his view nor Bingham’s can be regarded as correct
alone. When the form was tampered with the baptisms
would have been at once rejected, and possibly, too,
where the priesthood was wholly wanting. The question
did not certainly, however, turn exclusively on the orders
of the minister, for the tradition of the East attached
importance to heresy by itself as invalidating baptism.
The difficulty here is to understand why all the great
heresies were not put in the same category. Modern
Greeks see a departure from the strictness of the Aposto-
lical Canons in the decree of the second general council,
and explain it as a mitigation for reasons of expediency.
The Arians and Macedonians were flourishing in num-
bers and power. To reject them summarily might have
exasperated them against the catholic body, have led
to more grievous evils, and diminished the chance of
their conversion.*® Policy may seem hardly an adequate
motive to have weighed in so grave a matter with the
fathers of the great councils. But, whatever led them
to their conclusions, the result was that, by their acts,
they affirmed the authority of the Church to decide
upon the validity or invalidity of a baptism on other
erounds than the bare use of the prescribed formula.
And it is a fact, whether it was intentional or not,
that baptism was in no case allowed to a body which
had not started in episcopacy, with the possibility, there-
fore, of an ordained priesthood.
Of Eastern writers in the fourth century on the
ministry of baptism, St. Basil ranks first, because the
Church of the East has attached a value to his opinion
beyond that which attaches to his name. In 375,
shortly before the council of Constantinople, he dis-
5 See notes on Indadtov, 1864, p. 53.
CH VI ST. BASIL ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 81
cussed the question of heretical baptism in epistles
which were accepted as canonical by the council in
Trullo, in 691. This council being called general by
the Hast, these epistles have ever since been relied upon
there as an authoritative guide as to what is to be
accounted valid baptism. |
Basil divided separatism into three classes: first,
heresy, which concerned vital matters of faith ; secondly,
schism, which involved questions of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline; and, thirdly, unauthorised or rival assemblies
not under the regulation of the Church. In accordance
with ancient decrees, he absolutely rejected the baptism
of genuine heretics, such as the Valentinians, Manichees,
Marcionites, and Montanists. On the other hand he
entirely accepted that of mere unregulated bodies, insist-
ing that persons from these only needed reconciliation.
The case of schismatics was not so easy to decide with
assurance, as it is never easy to decide exactly where
the border line in matters of faith and discipline has
actually been passed. Basil’s own inclination was to-
wards strictness, and he was, therefore, in favour of
rejecting schismatical baptism, wherever the Church
had not expressly endorsed it. Thus, he would have
Novatians, Encratites, and members of other like sects,
baptized with catholic baptism when they came over to
catholic communion. He was aware that he was here
in opposition to the practice of Rome; but he main-
tained that reason was on his side, since the faith of
these schismatics in the Being of God was so far from
sound that it must imperil the validity of their baptism
in the Name of the Trinity. Nevertheless, he willinely
admitted that some of the cases might be doubtful and
open to conciliar decision in their favour, as happened
G
82 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cuvi
at Constantinople soon after with regard to the Nova-
tians. He further expressed his opinion that a rule
about schism need not necessarily be an iron one, that
where past custom or the general good of the Church
seemed to demand an acknowledgement of schismatical
baptism, it might reasonably be suffered to hold good.
Therefore, he saw no inherent difficulty in a baptism
being treated as lawful in one place and void im another.
It was a matter for Church binding and loosing. Until
a general agreement was arrived at, local jurisdiction
must decide.
St. Basil does not in so many words state that
ordination is a necessity for the minister of baptism.
But it appears to be necessarily implied in a passage
where he hazards the reason why Cyprian and, Firmilian
refused to accept the baptism of certain persons in the
previous century. That he fathers upon them a reason
which is not strictly theirs,* does not affect the bearing
of the quotation as showing his own view on lay baptism.
‘Those who are cut off,’ he says, ‘having become lay-
men, have power neither to baptize nor to lay on hands,
nor are able to give to others the grace of the Holy
Spirit which they themselves have lost; therefore they*®
ordered that those who came from them to the Church,
as being baptized by laymen, should be cleansed by the
true baptism of the Church.’ The question before
St. Basil was exclusively one of heresy, but it is impos-
sible to avoid the inference suggested by this sentence,
that he would entirely have rejected lay baptism of all
kinds.®
4 See ante, p. 68. epistles of St. Basil in influencing
> qe. Cyprian and Firmilian. Eastern opinion has been so great
6‘ The effect of the canonical that it seems right to give the
CH VI
ST. BASIL’S
‘CANONS’ 83
The other great theologians of the East at this
period do not go into the matter with so much minute-
original of the most important pas-
sages on heretical baptism, in spite
of their length. Some comments
on them will be found in Inéaduor,
pp. 55, 588, &e. The epistles are
addressed to Basil’s great friend,
Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium.
Those which contain the baptismal
passages are Epistles clxxxviii. and
excix ; but they are more often
quoted under the title, ‘Canons of
Basil,’ 1 and 47.
To pev ovv mept trois Kadapovs
Cytnpa, kal eipnrat mpdorepov kai Kada@s
dreuynpovevoas, OTe det TH COer TOV
ka@ éxaotnvy xopav emecOa, dia rod
Siapopas evexOnvac wept tov Bar-
Tig LATOS AUT@Y, TOUS TOTE Trept TOUT@V
dvadkaBovras, TO S€ Tov Iemoutnvav
ovdéva por Adyov exer Soxet, Kal
eOaipaca mas KavowKdy ovTa Tov
peyav Avovictov, mapndGev * exetvo yap
€xpwav of madatol dexeoOa Barrricpa,
TO pndev THs mlioTews trapeKBaivor.
"Obev ra pev, aipévers @vdpacay, Ta
dé oxicpara, ta d€ mapacuvaywyas.
Aipécets ev, TOUS TavTeA@s ameppny-
pévous Kal Kar avtny thy TioTw
amn\Xorpi@pevous, oxiopata Oe, Tovs
bv airias twas exkdyovactiKas kai
Cytjpatra mpos adAndous
StevexOévras, mapacuvaywyas Se, Tas
ovvagers, Tas Tapa TOY avuToTaKT@V
mpecBurépov 7) emickdre@y, Kal mapa
TOY araWevT@aY AaSY ywopevas’ oiov,
eiris ev wraio part e&eraa Geis, drerxeOn
THs Netrovpyias Kal py Uréxuipe Trois
Kavoow, GvN éavtd e&ediknoe tiv
mpoedpiav Kal tHv etrovpyiay Kal
ovvarndOov TovT@, Tes KaTeuTdvTeEs
THY KaOoXkyy exkAnolay, Tapacuva-
Syxiopa de TO rept
a7
taotpa
yoyn TO ToLovTor.
f , as ‘ \
petavotas Svapdpas exew mpos rods
ard ths exkAnolas, aipéces S€, olov
Tav Mavnyxaiwv cai Ovadevtivey Kai
Mapkiaviota@y, Kat avTay TovT@Y TeV
Ilerou(nvav* evOvs yap rept aitis ths
of A , UJ > c ,
ets Ocov miatews eat 7 Siadopa.
a+ , - > > a \ ‘
Edofe roivuy trois e& dpxns, TO pév
TOY aipeTtK@v, mavrehas aberioa, Td
dé Trav drocxirbertwr, ws ere €x THs
> Xx , y+ , ‘
exkAnolas ovrwy, mapadéEacba, rods
. 93 a na ,
dé €v tals mapacvvaywyais, peravoia
> ‘ Lod ,
a&wodoy@ kai emiatpopy BeAtiwbێvras,
ouvartec Oar mah TH exkAnoia, Sore
mod\akis kai Tovs ev Babe cuvared-
Oovras Tots avumotdkrou, érevddy
petapednOaow, eis thy aditny mapa-
déyeoOa ra&iv. Then, after men-
tioning the reason for regarding the
Pepuzians as heretics, and the
reason why Cyprian and Firmilian
rejected the baptisms of Novatians
and others, he continues: Oi pév
A ~ col
yap mp@tor avaywpyoartes, rapa Tov
RaTEpwv ExXov Tas xXEtpoTovias, Kal dud
THs embécews Tov Xelpayv adrar,
=
elxov TO Xdpiopa TO mvevpaTiKdY, of
> > A
dé droppayevres, Aaikol yevopuevor, ore
Tov Banti¢ew, ovte Tod yYetporoveiv
> > , ay 297 ,
etxov e€ovotav, ovre ndvvavro ydpev
, ¢ , <
IIvevparos Ayiov €répots mapéyety, fs
avrol exmento@xact 510 @s Tapa Naikov
Bamrti{opevous tos map aitav eéké-
Aevoray, Epxopevovs emi THY exkAnolar,
n>? a , a a >
T@ adnOwe Barricpart TO THs exkdy-
, > , >
aias avaxabaiper Oa. *Erretd1 dé 6Aws
»~ , ~ ‘ A , ,
édof€ tit Tov Kata THY ‘Aciar,
, / id a -~ -
olkovoulas €veka TOV TOAAGY, Sex Ojvat
| - A , * ,
avtoey TO Barrio pa, éor@ Sexrov. Then
concerning the Encratites he says :
Nopife roivuv, dru émeidy oddév éote
mept avtov chavepos Supyopevpevor,
pas aderetv
~ > ~ ‘
7 POONKEV QUT@V TO
g 2
84 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cHvr
ness as St. Basil; but what they do say agrees in the
main with his opinion.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem says plainly that heretics
must be rebaptized, because their first baptism was
no baptism at all.’
Didymus of Alexandria says heretics are to be bap-
tized, mentioning particularly the EHunomians and the
Phrygians; and he adds that this is not called re-
baptism, because heretical baptism is not real.®
St. Athanasius is very distinct that there must be
aright faith as well as a right form, in order to make
, oy 3s See TEN a
Barricpa, Kav Tis7 Tap avTav eiAnpos,
mpooovra TH ekkAnoia Bamricew.
Edy pevrot peAy TH KaO0A ov oiKkovopia
> t »” a , ~ »”
éurddiov ceo Oat rovTo, madi TO €Oet
cd r
Xpnoréov Kai Tois oikovounoact Ta
xa@’ as matpdow dkodovOnréov *
c ~ A ¢ < ,
ipopdpmar yap pyrore, os Bovddpeba
éxympods avtovs mept TO Bamrifew
roijoat, €nrodiaapey Tos Tolopevots
Sid TO THS MpoTacews av’otnpdv. Ei
Col , c
8 éxeivor puvddtrovot TO NpérEpov
~ c cad
Bdrricpa, rodTo pas pr Svtw@reiro*
> A > / > - c ¢
od yap dvridibovar adrois vmevduvor
‘ 4
xdpw éopev, adda Sovdevew axpiBeia
cavdvev. arti d€ Ady@ TuT@byTw,
rovs émt Tov Banriopoy exeivwv Tpoo-
, , c col
epxopévovs xplecOar Und matey
o
dyad}, Kai ovT@ mpootévat
puornpiots.—Can. 1.
lal .Y
"Eykpariratkal Saxkopopot kat ’Azro-
- x ne ' 2
Taktira, TO adT@ Urckewra hoyo, @
‘A ‘ > s
cal of Navarwavol, OTe mepl pev exelvav
7 > ‘ , A
kavav e&epovndn, ei Kat Siaopos, Ta
8€ xara TovTous dmovert@mnra. “Hyeis
Ld a Y / > , A
pév row évi Ady@ dvaBarriCoper TOUS
- Hk Sa 2) > ,
tovovtous, ei O€ map vpiv amnyopevTat
TovTo TO Tov avaBanTLa Ov, BoTEp OU
’ §
kal mapa “Pwpatois, oikovoptas Tivos
” Sh) se SER ee ' > Van sie
Eveca, GAN’ 6 HpwerEpos AOYOs LaXVY EXETM,
Tols
Ort, ered) Gowep Mapktoncrav eat
droB\dotnpa 7 Kat’ avrovs aipecis,
BdeAvocopév@y Tov ydmov, Kal azo-
oTpepouevay Tov oivov, Kal THY KTioLY
Tov Ocod pepragpéervny civac Neydvrav.
Ov dexdpeba ody adrods ets THv exkAn-
ciay eay pn BanticOdow eis TO Here
pov Bdrricua. Mn yap Neyera@oar, ore
eis Tlar€pa kat Yiov cai “Aytov Tvetdpa
Barrifovrat, ot ye Kakov trownThy vmo-
Tiéwevor Tov Oedv, ehapiidas TO
Mapkiov kal tais Aourais ainéreot,
Gore €av apéan TovTo, Set mAciovas
emlrKorrous ev TATA yeveo Oat, kal OUTwS
exOéo Oar Tov Kavova, iva Kal T@ ToUy-
cavtt TO akivOuvoy 7, Kal 6 amroKpwwo-
pevos TO akidmiotov exn ev TH mept
TOV ToLOvT@Y aoKpice.—Can. 47.
7 Eis xdptos, kal pia miotis, kai ev
Bartipa, povov yap oi aiperixot
avaBarriforrat, emesdr TO mporepov ovK
nv Banticpa.—Cyr. Hieros. Catech.
it.
8 Merepxopevot Thy
6pbodogiar, kav ruxdv daw BeBarri-
peévot, Barrigovra: pev (od yap Néyouev
avaBarrifovrat, ereidr py Exovor TO
adnbes Barrio pa).—Did. De Trin. 11.
XV1.
Tolvuy €is
CH VI ST. ATHANASIUS ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 85
baptism valid. ‘It is much to be doubted,’ he says,
‘whether the baptism administered by our adversaries
is valid. There are, indeed, the Names of the Father
and the Son in it; but this is such a Father as having
no Son of His substance, who is equal to Him in
nature; and the Son they mean is really no Son, but
only a mere creature made out of nothing. Can it be
supposed that the Blessed Trinity should ratify such a
baptism as this, in which the holy Name is not invoked
but mocked? Can God’s blessing follow a baptism of
this kind? For let the Arians say the words as they
please, they do not baptize in the Name of the Father
and of the Son, but in the name of the Creator and one
of His creatures. And, therefore, although they retain
the words of the Scripture form, yet their baptism has,
in truth, no more of Christ’s ordinance and institution
in it than there is of the nature of a creature in the
divinity of God the Son. Not every one that says,
* Lord, Lord,” administers an effectual baptism. 'The
words will not do where there is a professed denial of the
faith. . . . And this is the case with regard to many
other heresies too, where the words of the form only are
used, quite contrary to the proper sense of them. Such
baptisms as these, wanting that which is essential, the
substance of that faith or belief which the form itself
requires, are unprofitable and useless; and instead of
_ benefiting those who use them, they rather render them
more the children of wrath than they were before.’ ®
The Benedictine editor of St. Athanasius argues that he
9 Ath. Cont. Arianos, Orat. ii. 42, Bo7Onua;— Advorrees Exovot Kal ap™
43. las ov mavrehds xevov kat attrav dWopuevoyv tdwp europevov
Gdvotredes 7b map’ adtois biddpevdv evdacBeia, Sore Kal Tov pavTiCdpevov
> ‘ A) a Lod ‘ >) > cal c , cs >
€oTl, Mpooroinaw pev exov, TH O€ map’ av’tav pumaiverOar paddov ev
> , ‘ wy ‘ > / > , a a“
GAnbeia pndev exov mpds evoeBecav adoeBeia, 7 AvTpovc Ou.
86 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cHvi
only meant that heretical baptism was unprofitable so
long as the person remained in heresy ; but the whole
tenor of the passage, and, as Dr. Pusey points out, of
Eastern custom, is against such an interpretation.’
Athanasius clearly meant that the baptisms were
entirely void.
St. Epiphanius, unlike St. Athanasius, was against
rejecting Arian baptism, but only pending the decision
of a general council, whose judgment he anticipated
would be ‘the separation of such a_ blasphemous
heresy.” Therefore, the difference was not on the prin-
ciple. He merely held that private individuals had no
right to decide upon a case of heresy.
Whatever variety there may have been, then, in the
application of the rule, the rule itself was distinct in
the East, that baptism administered by those in formal
heresy was no real baptism at all.
With regard to lay baptism within the Church, there
is very little evidence indeed in the East in the fourth
century, and that little is of an indirect character.
St. Basil’s opinion, as it appears incidentally in his
canonical epistle, has already been mentioned. S8t.
Chrysostom says that baptism is ‘ accomplished only
by the holy hands of priests ;’ and he asks, ‘ How will
anyone be able without them to escape the fire of hell,
or to obtain the crowns which are in store? For it is
verily these who have been entrusted with the pains of
the spiritual birth, and have had committed to them
that nativity of ours which is by baptism.’® He is
1 Pusey, Note on Tertullian, Lib. Haxpos. Pid. Eee. xiii.
of Fathers, p. 286. 3 Chrys. De Sac. m1. vy. 187, 188.
2 Epiph. Adv. Heres. 11. il,
CH VI EASTERN OPINION ON LAY BAPTISM 87
speaking of its ordinary ministration, but no indication
occurs of any exception in cases of necessity.
St. Epiphanius counts the permission given to
women to baptize as an error of the Marcionites, Quin-
tillians and Collyridians;* but as these heretics em-
ployed women as priests, his remarks may be supposed
to apply to a recognised female ministry rather than to
urgent baptism by a woman within the Church. Still
he does not qualify his animadversion by any excep-
tion, which he probably would have done if women
were ever allowed to baptize.
Some words are quoted from Gregory of Nazianzus,
in which he says that every person is qualified to
baptize, if he is not under censure. But the context
shows that he is only speaking of the clergy. ‘ Do not
say, he writes, ‘ Let a bishop baptize me, or a metropoli-
tan... or if a priest, at least a celibate. . . . Do not
seek the excellence of the minister or baptizer. For
everyone is excellent to thee for cleansing; only let
him be one who is approved, and is not clearly under
censure, nor of another Church.’ He then compares
baptism with the impress of a seal bearing the imperial
stamp. ‘The seal itself may be of brass or it may be of
iron, but both will stamp equally well. This simile
seems to require that he who stamps shall bear the
imperial commission of holy orders, or the impress may
not be true.?
An apparent exception to the general tendency of
the Eastern evidence against lay baptism is afforded by
4 Epiph. Adv. Heres.1.xlii. [xxil.| ¢yxpirwv, kal pr) TOY mpodndos Kate-
4; 1. xlix. [xxix.] 2; m1.]xxix. [lix.]1. yvoopéver, unde ris exkAnoias addo-
° Greg. Naz. Orat. xl; In sanc- tptos. See Kelsall and Waterland,
tum baptisma. Soi de was a€wdriatos ~=Waterland’s Works, vol. vi. pp. 121,
els THY KaOapow: povoy ctw Tis Tay 188.
88 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vr
the oft quoted story of the young Athanasius. It is said
that he went through the form of baptizing some other
boys, while they were amusing themselves on the sea-
shore at Alexandria by mimicking the ceremonies
which they had witnessed in church. The Bishop
Alexander was watching them in the distance, and is
supposed to have taken serious counsel with his clergy
as to how these playful baptisms were to be regarded.
Finding that all had been done in due order according
to the rites of the Church, he is said to have decided that
they were valid. Perhaps no circumstance has done
more to impress the popular mind with the belief that
the laity can baptize than this tale of the youthful
champion of the faith,
With a child’s deep earnestness,
Showing his mates how saints baptize and bless.®
But it is difficult to think of it as other than a pictu-
resque legend. It is related first by Rufinus, and from
him it is repeated by Sozomen. Socrates, however, who
tells of the mimic games of the children, omits any
mention of baptisms in particular, or of the important
decision to which they are supposed to have led.’ It
may, therefore, be concluded that he did not believe
this part of the narrative. Rufinus was an inaccurate
and credulous historian, and even he only says that
Alexander was reputed to have decided (statwisse tra-
ditur) that the baptisms were good. Indeed, the
apocryphal character of the story 1s put almost beyond
question when it is attempted to make a sufficiently
tender age of Athanasius synchronise at all with the
episcopate of Alexander. He must have been about
®* Keble, Lyra Innocentiwm, 7 Ruf. 1. xiv.; Soz. 11. xvii.; Soc.
‘Children’s Sports.’ I. XV.
CH V1 STORY OF ATHANASIUS 89
seventeen years old when Alexander was made bishop.
No doubt the story was current when Rufinus wrote ;
but this was nearly a century later, when the fame of
Athanasius might easily have given rise to embellish-
ments of the simple record of the play at ecclesiastical
functions, so natural among children brought up amidst
the ceremonial of the Church. That Rufinus could
credit it, and that it could be credited by those who read
his history, may be evidence that lay baptism was not
regarded as unquestionably invalid at the time when he
wrote at the close of the fourth century. But this was
in the West, and therefore argues nothing for its accept-
ance in the East.®
Bingham maintained that lay baptism was admitted
by the council of Niceea, because the council accepted
the orders of the Novatian clergy. This seems to have
little enough to do with it, and it was only by a strained
areument that Bingham made it serve his cause. He
insisted that Novatian ministrations were lay for a double
reason. First, he held that Novatian had never been a
bishop because his consecration was uncanonical ; con-
sequently those whom he ordained were really no more
than laymen. Secondly, if their orders had been other-
wise valid, he urged that heresy had deleted them, and
had reduced the clergy back to the position of laity.
8 The story is of course rejected
by Brett, Judgment of Church of
England, pp. 19-380; Hickes, Letter
to author of Lay Baptism Invalid,
prefixed to 2nd ed., p. xxx.; Laurence,
Second Part of Lay Baptism Inva-
lid, pp. 62-97 ; for they were opposed
to lay baptism, and were therefore
interested in discrediting it. It is,
however, also rejected by scholars
such as Cave, Lives of the Primi-
tie Fathers, vol. ii. p. 72; Du Pin,
Nouv. Bibliothéque, Art. ‘ Atha-
nase’; Hook, Life of Athanasius ;
Bright, Dict. Christ. Biog. vol. i.
p. 179. Bingham, being on the
side of lay baptism, accepted it,
Works, vol. vill. pp. 84-37. So did
Dean Stanley, Lectures on the
Eastern Church, 1884, p. 214.
90 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vi
Hence, by accepting Novatians without any decree for
their rebaptism, the council, according to Bingham,
was committed to the principle of the validity of lay
baptism. Neither of his pleas for the emptiness of
Novatian orders will, however, hold good; and the
terms of the canon itself are conclusive against his in-
terpretation of it, for it says the clergy who come over
to the Church are to retain their orders.? They could
not retain what they never had. The obvious meaning
is that their orders were valid. The whole way in which
the canon is forced into the evidence is so unsound
that it would be unnecessary to allude to it at all, if it
had not been discussed at great length in the controversy
between Bingham and his opponents.’
In the West, in the fourth century, the tendency was
the reverse of that in the East. Both heretical and lay
baptism met with general support, although guarded by
some limitations.
An epistle attributed to Eusebius, who was Pope
for a few months in the year 310, contains the statement
that the Roman Church then reconciled those baptized
by heretics who believed in the Trinity, by imposition of
hands.? The letter, however, is said to be spurious, and
9 Tlepi trav dvopatevray ev
éavTovs Kabapovs ore, mporepxopevav
‘ cal col ‘\
d€ tH Kadoduwp Kat
exkAnota, eOo€e TH ayia Kal peyady
> rd
amoaTo\ky
cvvdd@, Sore xetporovoupévous adtovs
pévew oUTas €v T@ KAnpo.—Cone.
Nie. can. 8.
1 Bingham, Second Part of
Schol. Hist. of Lay Baptism and
Dissertation on the 8th canon of
the Council of Nice, Works, vol.
vul. Brett, Inquiry into the
Practice of the Primitive Church,
and Further Inquiry, &e. Brett
completely refuted Bingham’s
favourite theory that heresy deleted
orders, upon which he built much
of his defence of lay baptism.
? Similiter et hereticos omnes,
quicunque Dei gratia convertuntur,
et in sancte Trinitatis nomine
credentes baptizati sunt, Romane
CH VI COUNCIL OF ARLES 91
therefore its evidence is of no great value, though the
fact is probably true, for it accords in a modified form
with the rule under Stephen half a century before.
We are on surer ground when we come to the
council of Arles, in 314. The subject was discussed
there, and the Roman view prevailed, as was natural,
since the East was unrepresented, although Africa sent
‘some bishops. The decree ran thus: ‘It is resolved
concerning the Africans [or Arians], who have been
used to rebaptize according to a law of their own, that,
if any one shall come from this heresy to the Church, the
priests shall interrogate him as to the symbol of our faith.
And if they shall find him to have been baptized into
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they shall
only lay hands on him that he may receive the Holy
Ghost. But if, bemg interrogated, he does not respond
as to this Trinity, let him be baptized.’* This seems to
imply not only a correct form of words, but also a
correct faith in the Trinity. There is, therefore, still to
be traced in it the remains of the early doctrine that
fundamental heresy might invalidate a baptism accurate
in its externals. There is great divergence in the
accounts of the number of bishops who attended the
council. St. Augustine, in a passage, of which, how-
ever, the text is disputed, says there were two hundred.*
ecclesiz regulam tenentes per manus
impositionem reconciliari preci-
pimus.—Euseb. Decret. Ep. iii.
3 De Afris [or, Arianis], quod
propria lege sua utuntur ut rebapti-
zent, si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hac
heresi venerit, interrogent eum
symbolum ; et si perviderint eum in
Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto,
esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum
imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum
sanctum. Quod si interrogatus,
non responderit hance Trinitatem,
baptizetur.—Cone. Arelat. I. can. 8.
The reading ‘ Arianis’ accords best
with the words ‘hac heresi,’ and
‘ Afris ’ with the historical cireum-
stances. The latter is generally
taken as the true reading.
* Aug. Adv. Parm. I. v. 10.
92 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cuvi
The signatures of only thirty-three are recorded. As
an indication of the usage of the time, it is of much
moment whether the bishops were few or many. But
the canon has an importance independent of the numbers
of those who passed it, because it was afterwards
generally accepted in the West as laying down the law.
The African bishops at Arles no doubt yielded to
the majority, if they had so long inherited the strictness
of their predecessors. Within a hundred years of the
time when Cyprian ruled at Carthage, the African rule
gave way in the very home where the earlier decrees
had been carried. A council held at Carthage, under
Gratus, in 348, decided against rebaptizing persons
who had been baptized with water in the true faith.’
No special mention is made of heresy, but there can be
little doubt that the intention of the instruction was to
bring the Carthaginian usage into conformity with that
prescribed at Arles.
The current of Western opinion continued to run
more and more in this direction. Arians and Novatians,
baptized by their own heretical priests, were freely
admitted to catholic communion by penance and con-
firmation alone. Pope Siricius, at the end of the fourth
century, declares that this was the custom then of the
East, as well as of the West, with a disposition probably
already to generalise Western custom into that of the
5 Ergo, si vobis placet, considere-
mus primum titulum rebaptiza-
tionis. Unde sanctitatem vestram
postulo, ut mentis vestre placita
producatis ad descendentem in
aquam, et interrogatum in Trini-
tate secundum evangelii fidem
et apostolorum doctrinam et con-
fessum bonam conscientiam in
Deum de resurrectione Jesu Christi
si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem
fide et in aqua iterum intingi.
Universi episcopi dixerunt: Absit,
absit. Illicitas esse sancimus re-
baptizationes et satis esse alienum
a sincera fide et catholica disci-
plina.—Cone. Carthag. I. art. i.
cHvI WESTERN OPINION ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 93
entire Church, beyond what strict investigation would
have endorsed.°
Nevertheless some must have felt that the question
was not finally closed. St. Ambrose seems to have been
disposed to reject heretical baptism altogether. ‘The
baptism of the faithless,’ he says, ‘ does not heal, does not
cleanse, but defiles.’” Anattemptto explain this of Jewish
baptism, and not of heretical, is a Roman effort which
cannot be maintained. But Milan was an independent
Church, and Ambrose an independent bishop, so that his
views may not have coincided with those of the majority
of his time.
Yet Optatus, who was Bishop of Milevum in
Numidia, writing about the year 370, took the stricter
side, entirely rejecting the baptism both of Jews and
heretics, as polluting instead of purifying. Milevum
had sent a bishop to the council of Carthage under St.
Cyprian, and Optatus, in so expressing himself, was but
upholding the tradition handed down to him in his see.®
6 Prima itaque pagine tue
fronte signasti, baptizatos ab impiis
Arianis plurimos ad fidem catho-
licam festinare, et quosdam de
fratribus nostris eosdem denuo
baptizare velle: quod non licet,
cum hoe fieri et apostolus vetat, et
canonices contradicant, et post ces-
satum Ariminense concilium, missa
ad provincias a venerande memorize
preedecessore meo Liberio generalia
decreta prohibeant, quos nos cum
Novatianis aliisque hereticis, sicut
est in synodo constitutum, per
invocationem solam _ septiformis
Spiritus, episcopalis manus 1mposi-
tione, catholicorum conventui soci-
amus, quod etiam totus oriens
occidensque custodit: a quo tramite
vos quoque posthac minime con-
venit deviare, si non vultis a nostro
collegio synodali sententia sepa-
rari.—Siric. Ad Himerium Tarra-
conensem, Ep. i. 2. Ut venientes
a Novatianis vel Montensibus, per
manus impositionem suscipiantur,
preter eos quos rebaptizant.—ld.
Ad Episcopos Africae, Ep. v. 2.
7 Non sanat baptismus perfi-
dorum, non mundat, sed polluit.—
Amb. De Mystervis, iv. 23.
8 See Pusey’s Note on Tertul-
han, Lib. of Fathers, p. 285.
® Christi enim vox est: Qui
semel lotus est, non habet necessi-
tatem iterum lavandi, quia est
mundus totus: et de eo lavacro
pronuntiavit, quod de Trinitate
94 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV ca vi
St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona in the latter half of
the fourth century, is another who rejected heretical bap-
tism, quoting the African decisions with approval."
Lay baptism, as well as heretical, began to find a
footing in the West in the fourth century, though to a
limited extent.
Early in the fourth century, the council of Elvira
decreed that ‘when persons are on a voyage abroad, or
when no Church is at hand, one of the faithful, who has
his own baptism entire, and is not a bigamist, can bap-
tize a catechumen placed in the extremity of sickness,
so only that if he survives he bring him to the bishop
that he may be perfected by the laying on of hands.’ ”
The council was only a local one, attended by nineteen
bishops.
Quite late in the fourth century, in the year 398, a
celebrandum esse mandaverat ;
non de Judeorum aut hereticorum,
qui, dum lavant, sordidant; sed de
aqua sancta, que de trium nominum
fontibus inundat. Sic enim ipse
Dominus precipit dicendo: Ite,
baptizate omnes gentes, in nomine
Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti.
De hoe lavacro dixit: Qui semel
lotus est, non habet necessitatem
iterum lavandi.—Opt. De Schis-
mate Donatist. V. iii.
Polianus a Mileo dixit: Justum
est hereticum baptizari in ecclesia
sancta.— Cone. Carth. VII.
1 Pacian, Ad Sympron. Ep.
ies
2 Placuit f[or, Loco] peregre
navigantes, aut siecclesia in proximo
non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lava-
crum suum integrum habet, nec sit
bigamus, baptizare in necessitate
infirmitatis positum catechume-
num, ita ut si supervixerit ad
episcopum eum perducat, ut per
manus impositionem perfici possit.—
Cone. Elib. can. 38. On its date,
see ante, p. 76. It is uncertain
what is meant by the term ‘ inte-
grum.’ Bingham, followimg Vos-
sius, understood it to refer to one
who has not received clinic baptism,
which in those days incapacitated
a man for holy orders. Alba-
spineus, followed by Mansi and
Maskell, thought it meant one who
had not lapsed, and Mansi refers to
St. Cyprian and St. Pacian as both
calling unlapsed priests ‘integros.’
See Bingham, Works, vol. viii. p. 33 ;
Maskell, Holy Baptism, p. 194.
At least it implies a condition of full
communion.
CH VI WESTERN COUNCILS ON LAY BAPTISM 95
council at Carthage passed a decree forbidding women.
to baptize. Since it expresses no similar prohibition
to laymen, it might be argued that men were allowed to
baptize. But the women, whose irregular baptisms had
no doubt called forth the canon, were probably those
who acted as midwives, to whom occasions of necessity
would happen more commonly than to men. Therefore
there was no corresponding need to forbid men. So far
as it goes, the decision is against lay baptism; but it
may be observed that it says nothing about rebaptizing
any whom women might have wrongly baptized.
Therefore it is perhaps simply a canon of discipline to
restrain women as a matter of order.
The only conciliar utterance definitely on the side of
lay baptism during the first four centuries is, however,
the solitary one of the little Spanish council of Elvira,
and that restricted it to lay churchmen, under parti-
cular limitations, in special circumstances.
Ecclesiastical writers do not add much to the infor-
mation.
We have the testimony of the pseudo-Ambrose,
presumably Hilary the Deacon, that the laity were not
allowed to baptize.* St. Pacian also says that the office
of baptizing was reserved to the ministry, in very re-
strictive terms, seeming to exclude laymen absolutely.°
8 Mulier baptizare non presu-
mat.—Cone. Carthag. IV. can. 100.
Gratian adds as a gloss the words
‘nisi necessitate cogente,’ in order
to bring the canon into harmony
with later usage: Decret. 11., De
Consecr. iv. 20. Peter Lombard
quotes them as if they were part of
the original decree: Sent. Iv. vi.
They willbe found so quotedin some
other books. The addition is en-
tirely spurious, and was clearly
indicated as only a comment by
Gratian.
* Pseud. Amb. Comm. in Ephes.
iv. See ante, p. 38.
° Quoting Matt. xviii. 18, the
charge to bind and loose, he says:
An tantum hoe solis apostolis licet ?
Ergo et baptizare solis licet, et
96 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vr
A passage in St. Optatus, at about the same period,
seems at first sight to allow all baptism administered in
due form. He says there are three things neces-
sary to the sacrament. First, there is the Blessed
Trinity, without whom baptism is impossible, and he
apparently means by this that it must be administered
in the Name of the Trinity. Secondly, there is the faith
of the recipient, and this also is indispensable. Thirdly,
there is the person of the administrator, but his quali-
fication is not of equal necessity with the other two
requisites. Therefore he concluded that whatever is
done in the Name of the Blessed Trinity, with a right
faith, is valid and sufficient. This sounds tolerably
clear; but Optatus might well ask that the context
should be read before applying the argument unhesi-
Spiritum sanctum dare solis, et solis
gentium peccata purgare: quia
totum hoe non aliis quam apostolicis
imperatum est.—Pac. Ad Sym-
pron. Novatianum, Ep. i. 6. Gene-
rat Christus in ecclesia per suos
sacerdotes. ... He autem com-
pleri alias nequeunt, nisi lavacri et
chrismatis et antistitis sacramento.
Lavacro enim peccata purgantur ;
chrismate sanctus Spiritus super-
funditur; utraque vero ista, manu
et ore antistitis impetramus.—Pac.
De Bapt. vi.
® Tn hoe sacramento baptismatis
celebrando, tres esse species constat,
quas et vosnecangere, nec minuere,
nec pretermittere poteritis. Prima
species est in Trinitate; secunda,
in credente; tertia, in operante.
Sed non pari libramine ponderande
sunt singule: duas enim video
necessarias, et unam quasi neces-
sariam: principalem locum Trinitas
possidet, sine qua res ipsa non potest
geri: hance sequitur fides credentis :
jam persona operantis vicina est,
que simili auctoritate esse non
potest. Du priores permanent
semper immutabiles et immote:
Trinitas enim semper ipsa est:
fides in singulis una est : vim suam
semper retinent amb. Persona
vero operantis, intelligitur duabus
prioribus speciebus par esse non
posse, eo quod sola esse videatur
mutabilis. Inter nos et vos vultis
ejusdem persone esse distantiam ;
et sanctiores vos sestimantes, super-
biam vestram non dubitatis ante-
ponere ‘Trinitati: cum persona
operantis mutari possit, Trinitas
mutari non possit: et cum ab
accipientibus baptisma desiderari
debeat, vos desiderandos esse pro-
ponitis.—Optatus, De Schismate
Donat. v. iv.
CH VI ST. OPTATUS AND ST. JEROME 97
tatingly to lay baptism. There it appears that he is
contesting the Donatist objection to the validity of
ministrations by unholy priests. His point is that
the unworthiness of the minister does not render his
acts void. He probably had not the idea of lay minis-
tration at all before his mind; and, since he took a
strict view against heretical baptism, it is quite likely
that he would not have been lax in his opinions
about that by laymen. At the same time it may be
allowed that Laurence’s efforts to entirely explain away
the bearing of the passage on the question of lay
baptism are not altogether successful.’ The principle
laid down by Optatus might go far towards supporting
its sanction as valid.
St. Jerome’s testimony is more distinct. He wrote
a treatise against the Luciferians, episcopal schismatics
of the latter half of the fourth century, who allowed the
validity of Arian baptism, although they rejected the
Arians themselves entirely from membership in the
Church. The principle involved in this went beyond
anything hitherto recognised, unless perhaps by Pope
Stephen. St. Jerome maintained that it was not logical :
baptism and holy orders must stand or fall together.®
It might be supposed from this that he held ordination
to be a necessary qualification for the ministry of bap-
tism, if it were not that he incidentally remarks that
laymen are frequently allowed to baptize in cases of
7 Laurence, Second Part of Lay
Baptism Invalid, pp. 103-9.
8 Quamobrem oro te, ut aut
sacrificandi ei licentiam tribuas,
cujus baptisma probas, aut re-
probes ejus baptisma, quem non
existimas sacerdotem. —Jer. Adv.
Lucif. 6. Proba mihi ab Arianis
venientem laicum habere baptis-
mum, et tune ei peenitentiam non
negabo. §i Christianus non est,
si non habuerit sacerdotem quieum
faceret Christianum, quomodo aget
penitentiam homo, qui necdum
I
98 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV ca vi
necessity.’ The admission does not square well with
the general line of his argument; and the old reasoning
of Tertullian, that what a man has received he can also
give, is weak enough. The passage is not, therefore,
valuable for its logical defence of lay baptism; but it
is historical evidence that there was some degree of its
practice and acceptance in St. Jerome’s day. There was
a limit to the extent to which he allowed its validity.
He denied that one who was not a Christian could make
a Christian of others. This followed naturally from the
eround he took. A pagan, not having received baptism,
had it not to give away.
As the fourth century merged into the fifth, St.
Augustine threw the weight of his judgment into the
scale of accepting the validity of both heretical and
lay baptism. Probably no man since the days of the
apostles has so influenced theology as the great doctor
of the West has influenced it in Western Christendom.
When he became a champion of the more liberal
view of irregular baptism, its future hold upon the
West was decided.
Not only the custom under which he lived, but the
circumstances of his day, disposed Augustine towards
the Roman use. He was engaged in controversy with
the Donatists, and the Donatists, regarding themselves
as the only true Church, rebaptized converts from the
catholic communion. Augustine’s temperament led him
credit ?—Ibid. 13. There are several
passages to the same effect. Hilary,
a successor of Lucifer’s, did reject
Arian baptism as well as Arian
orders.—TIbid. 21.
’ Quod frequenter, si tamen
necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere
laicis. Ut enim accipit quis, ita et
dare potest.—Ibid. 9.
1 Novam rem asseris, ut Chris-
tianus quisquam factus sit ab eo,
qui non fuit Christianus.—Ibid. 12.
CH VI ST. AUGUSTINE'S VIEWS 99
naturally to oppose his adversaries with a vehemence of
counter opinion which now and then ran perilously near
to excess. It fitted in then with his character to launch
as an argument against Donatist rebaptism, that the
catholic Church was not wont to rebaptize converts
from heresy. Even, therefore, if the Donatists’ concep-
tion of their own churchmanship was correct, their
practice of rebaptizing was counter to the usage of
Christendom.
St. Augustine, however, admitted that the subject
had been one of acknowledged difficulty, causing much
variety of opinion.? The Donatists claimed the authority
of St. Cyprian in support of their rebaptisms. The pre-
cedent applied on the supposition that they formed the
true Church, and that the catholics were heretics. St.
Augustine does not deny this, but replies that Cyprian
was mistaken. He expresses the most glowing and un-
affected admiration for ‘the peaceful and glorious
martyr, ‘whom our pious mother Church counts among
the few rare men of surpassing excellence and grace,’
and seems never to weary of paying ardent homage to
his signal virtues.* He further allows that he would
himself have been a convert to Cyprian’s views, as
expressed in his letter to Jubaianus, if it had stood
alone in the evidence. But he conceived that an enor-
mous weight of authority lay on the other side, though
the greater part of it is entirely lost to us, if it ever
really existed.4 He even asserts that a general council
2 Aug. De Bapt. 1. vii.9; Iv. v. considerationem revocaret tanta
t;* &e: auctoritas aliorum, quos vel pares
8 Thid. vi. ii. 8, and continually gratia doctrine, vel etiam fortasse
throughout the treatise. doctiores, per tot gentes Latinas,
4 Profecto issem in eamdem Grecas, Barbaras, et ipsam He-
sententiam, nisimeaddiligentiorem bream, ecclesia toto orbe diffusa
2
100 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV ca vr
had decided the matter. It is remarkable that, though
Augustine refers a great number of times to this couneil,
he nowhere mentions its name, or its date, or anything
whereby it can absolutely be identified.? Certainly
there is no decree of a general council corresponding
with his statement. It is generally agreed that he must
allude to the council of Arles, and that he attributed to
it an cecumenical force which it did not possess. His
argument from authority is, therefore, less formidable
than he supposed, and it may be assumed that he
would have held more modified views if he had not
fallen into this mistake.
Augustine did not, however, rely solely on the
decree of this council. Having been led by its sentence
to examine the question for himself, he argues it out
on its own merits, in his treatises against the Donatists,
with accustomed prolixity, but with characteristic
vigour of reasoning.
He declares that baptism can only rightly be
received in the Church, and therefore is not rightly
received in schism. Nevertheless it is received, for ‘ it
cannot be said that that is not given which is given.’ ©
Contrary to the theory which Bingham fastened upon
the fathers, Augustine distinctly held that orders were
parere potuit, que ipsum quoque
pepererat, qui mihi nullo modo
videri potuerunt frustra noluisse
istam tenere sententiam.—De Bapt.
TIL. /2V, 10
5 Tbid. 1. vii. 9, xviii. 285 11. vii.
19, ix. 145 mm x. 145 tv.\v. 7, vi.'95
v. iv. 45 vr 1k 8) Syn. 10) vias. 12;
xiii, 21% cyin i. Ty rvs.
6 Si dicis, Non recte foris datur ;
respondemus, Sicut non recte foris
habetur, et tamen habetur; sic non
recte foris datur, sed tamen datur.
... Non tamen dici fas est, non
datum esse quod datum est.—Ibid. 1.
i, 2. Duo sunt etiam que dicimus, et
esse in catholica ecclesia baptismum,
et illic tantum recte accipi....
Item alia duo dicimus, esse apud
Donatistas baptismum, non autem
illic recte accipi.—Tbid. 1. iii. 4.
CH VI ON SCHISMATICAL BAPTISM 101
not annulled by heresy or schism; and, therefore, that
heretical baptism was valid. ‘ As the baptized person,’
he says, ‘if he depart from the unity of the Church,
does not thereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also
he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of the
Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring
baptism. For neither sacrament may be wronged. If
a sacrament necessarily becomes void in the case of the
wicked, both must be void; if it remain valid with the
wicked, this must be so with both. If, therefore, the
baptism be acknowledged which he could not lose who
severed himself from the unity of the Church, that
baptism must also be acknowledged which was admi-
nistered by one who had not by his secession lost the
sacrament of conferring baptism. For, as those who
return to the Church, if they had been baptized before
their secession, are not rebaptized, so those who return,
having been ordained before their secession, are cer-
tainly not reordained; but either they again exer-
cise their former ministry, if the interests of the Church
require it, or, if they do not exercise it, they at any
rate retain the sacrament of their ordination; and
hence it is, that when hands are laid on them to mark
their reconciliation, they are not ranked with the laity.’ ?
Here St. Augustine very emphatically rests the
claims of schismatical baptism upon the valid orders of
the administrator. And so he constantly reverts to a
parallel between priests who have sinned in faith and
those who have sinned in morals, as though the cases
were strictly alike. He argues that baptism by a
priest who is apparently without the Church, through
schism, is as good as baptism by one who is apparently
7 Aug. De Bapt. 1. 1. 2.
102 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cuHv1i
within it, but really without its proper communion
through the moral wickedness of his life. ‘ The heretic
and the catholic may have the one baptism, and yet
not have the one Church, as in the catholic Church the
innocent man and the murderer may have the one
baptism, though they have not the one Spirit.’* The
reason for this is that the sacrament is not theirs but
Christ’s. ‘We recognise in heretics,’ he says, ‘ that
baptism which belongs not to heretics but to Christ, in
such sort as in fornicators, in unclean persons or effemi-
nate, in idolaters, in poisoners, in those who are fond
of contention, in the envious, in drunkards, in revellers ;
and in men like these we hold valid the baptism which
is not theirs but Christ’s.’
This truth that Christ is the real baptizer is the
unfailing argument which he retorts on his opponents.
Petilian, like the other Donatists, and like St. Cyprian
in a measure before, urged that it would be an anomaly
if an uncleansed person were able to cleanse another.
Augustine replied that on this theory the imnocence
produced in the baptized ought to be in proportion to
the innocence of the baptizer, which is absurd.
‘When a man preaches the word of God, or adminis-
ters the sacraments of God, he does not, if he is a bad
man, preach or minister out of his own treasure.’ ?
‘Baptism can exist in an unrighteous man; and be admi-
nistered by an unrighteous man, and that no unrighteous
baptism, but such as is just and true, not because it
belongs to the unrighteous man, but because it is
8 De Bapt. v. xxi. 29; comp. vi. 247. Comp. 1. xxv. 825 III. xxxviii.
1l., Vill., Xiv., XXiv., &c. 44, &.; De Bapt. tv. iv. 5, xx. 27;
® Sic approbamus in hereticis VI., VIl., passim, on Cone. Carthag.
baptismum, non hereticorum, sed VII.; &c.
Christi.- -Aug. Adv. Petil. 11. eviil. 1 Adv. Petil. u. vi. 18.
CH VI CHRIST THE BAPTIZER 103
of God.’? ‘The baptism of Christ is to be recognised
and approved, not by the standard of their merits by
whom it is administered, but by His alone, of whom it
is said, “ The same is he which baptizeth.” ’°
If St. Augustine had accepted St. Cyprian’s premises,
he would also have accepted his conclusions. The
difference between them was mainly this: that Cyprian
regarded heresy as severing completely from the
Church, while Augustine regarded it as a sin which
did not make the breach complete. Thus, while
Cyprian was bound to disallow the acts of renegade
priests as done outside the fold, Augustine could still
see in them the exercise of Christ’s ministry. It was
not, then, their schism or heresy which generated sons
of God, but the Church, that is, Christ Himself, who
generated children by the instrumentality of their sinful
hands. ‘For,’ he says, ‘neither is it their separation
which generates, but what they have kept of the
Church ; because if they also abandoned this altogether,
they could not generate.* And so St. Augustine
writes to Vincentius: ‘When you pass over to us,
certainly you first leave what you were, so as not to
pass over to us as heretics. You will say, ‘Then
baptize me.” I would, if thou wert not baptized, or if
thou wert baptized with the baptism of Donatus or of
Rogatus, and not of Christ. . For from the catholic
Church are all the sacraments of the Lord, which so you
2 Adv. Petal. 1. xxxiii. 78.
3 De Bapt. 11. iv. 6.
4 Neque enim separatio earum
generat, sed quod secum de ista
tenuerunt; quod siet hanc dimittant,
omnino non generant. Hee itaque
in omnibus generat, cujus sacra-
menta retinentur, unde possit tale
aliquid ubicumque generari : quam-
vis non omnes quos generat ad ejus
pertineant unitatem, que usque in
finem perseverantes salvabit.—Ibid.
1.x. 14. Comp. xii. 19, xv. 238, &e.
104 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vi
hold and give as they were held and given even before
you went forth. And you donot on that account hold
them not, because you are not there, whence are what
you hold.’ ®
All this has to do with baptism by priests, and has
no reference whatever to baptism by laymen. It is
simply a question of whether a priest can be disqualified
from validly exercising his commission to baptize by
errors in his faith. St. Cyprian said, Yes. St. Augustine
said, No. St. Augustine insisted that intellectual sins
must be regarded in the same light as moral sins, and
that neither deprived a man of the power to be an in-
strument of Christ’s sacramental ministry. The mind of
the Western Church has undoubtedly endorsed St.
Augustine’s view rather than St. Cyprian’s; though it
has never commended itself equally to the Hast. Cer-
tainly it seems a safer doctrine, that the sacraments are
‘effectual because of Christ’s institution and promise,
although they be ministered by evil men,’® than that
they are in any way dependent on the accurate faith or
virtue of the agent. The external commission of holy
orders can always be secured ; the internal qualification
of the priest never. If sacraments depended on the
habes. Ex catholica enim ecclesia
sunt omnia dominica sacramenta,
que sic habetis et datis, quemad-
5 Cum autem transitis ad nos,
prius utique relinquitis quod eratis,
ne ad nos heretici transeatis.
Baptiza ergo me, inquis. Facerem,
si baptizatus non esses, aut si Donati
vel Rogati, non Christi baptismo
baptizatus esses. Non sacramenta
Christiana faciunt te hereticum,
sed prava dissensio. Non propter
malum quod processit ex te, ne-
gandum est bonum quod remansit
in te, quod malo tuo habes, si non
ibi habes unde est bonum quod
modum habebantur et dabantur,
etiam priusquam inde exiretis.
Non tamen ideo non habetis, quia
ibi non estis, unde sunt que habetis.
... Nobiscum autem estis in
baptismo, in symbolo, in cxteris
dominicis sacramentis.—Aug. Ad
Vincent. Ep. xcrm. xi. 46.
& Thirty-nine Articles, xxvi.
CH VI INDELIBILITY OF ORDERS 105
latter, nearly all sacraments would be doubtful. ‘A
_ dispenser of the word and sacrament of the gospel,’ says
St. Augustine, ‘if he is a good man, becomes a fellow
partner in the working of the gospel; but, if he is a bad
man, he does not therefore cease to be a dispenser of
the gospel.’* And again, ‘ Baptism itself, even in him
who is nothing, is not nothing. Baptism indeed is
something, aye, something great, for His sake of whom
it is said, “ This is he which baptizeth.” ’§
To apply these passages in St. Augustine’s name, as
is sometimes done,’ to baptism by laymen and modern
dissenters is a gross perversion of his own argument.
He discusses baptism by an unordained person sepa-
rately and distinctly, and therefore it is the more inex-
cusable to suppose that he confused the cases together
in his own mind. His whole reasoning against the
Donatists rests on the basis that a priest can never, as
we should now say, lose the ‘character’ of a priest;
but must, even in schism or heresy, still be an ambas-
sador of Christ. Take away his orders, and the whole
argument crumbles to the ground.
Augustine, while he insisted that a heretical priest
could administer real baptism, was very far from ad-
mitting that it was the same thing to the recipient as
baptism within the catholic communion. He drew asharp
distinction between the validity and the efficacy of the
sacrament. St. Cyprian and the bishops at Carthage
fell into error, he says, ‘from their not distinguishing
the sacrament from the effect or benefit of the sacrament ;
and, because its effect and benefit was not found among
heretics, in freeing them from their sins and setting
7 Adv. Petil. 11. lv. 67. ® E.g. Blunt, Dict. of Doct. and
® Aug. In Joan. Tract. vi. 14. Hist. Theology, pp. 405, 406.
106 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV ca vr
their hearts right, the sacrament itself was also thought
to be wanting among them.’* He, on the other hand,
believed that they ‘acquired nothing; but this as regards
salvation, not as regards the sacrament.’? The sacra-
ment was really conferred, but its grace was in abeyance
as long as the person remained in heresy. It could be
received apart from the Church’s communion, but not
with any profit.? To make it profitable there must be
reconciliation with the Church. ‘It will only then
avail for the remission of sins, when the recipient, being
reconciled to the unity of the Church, is purged from
the sacrilege of deceit, by which his sins were retained
and their remission prevented.’ 4
To Augustine’s mind the obstacle, therefore, was
not in connection with the heretical priest, so much
as in connection with the heretical subject of the
sacrament. Just as the effect of baptism is generally
considered to be in abeyance when impenitence is a bar
to its operation, so, in his view, it was also in abeyance
when the faith was in fault, because the person was in a
position outside the unity of the Church. But the sacra-
ment, being conferred by a real priest, although an evil
one, was a real sacrament. He puts it eloquently in his
Lectures on St. John. ‘Thou art anxious, it may be,
and sayest, | was baptized without; I fear, therefore,
lest I am guilty, because I was baptized without.
1 De Bapt. vi. i. 1. quod extra. unitatem inutiliter
? Nihil quidem foris consecuti
sunt, sed ad salutem, non ad sacra-
mentum. Salus enim propria est
bonis; sacramenta vero communia
et bonis et malis.—Ibid. vil. xxxiil.
65.
5 Sicut autem per unitatis re-
conciliationem incipit utiliter haberi,
habebatur : sic per eandem recon-
ciliationem incipit utile esse, quod
extra eam inutiliter datum est.—
Ibid. 1. i. 2.
4 T[bid.1. xii. 18. Similar passages
occur repeatedly throughout his
Treatises against the Donatists.
CH VI INEFFICACY OF BAPTISM IN SCHISM 107
Already thou beginnest to know what thou hast to
bewail. Thou sayest truly that thou art guilty, not
because of thy receiving, but because of thy re-
ceiving without. Keep, then, what thou hast received ;
amend thy receiving it without. Thou hast received what
is the dove’s apart from the dove. Here are two things
said to thee: Thou hast received, and, Apart from the
dove thou hast received. In that thou hast received, I
approve; that thou hast received without, I disapprove.
Keep then what thou hast received ; it is not changed
but recognised: it is the mark of my King, I will not
profane it. I will correct the deserter, not change the
mark. Boast not of thy baptism because I call it a real
baptism. Behold, I say that it is so; the whole catholic
Church says that it is so; the dove regards it, and ac-
knowledges it, and groans because thou hast it without ;
she sees therein what she may acknowledge, sees also
what she may correct. It is a real baptism; come.’?
This shows how far the great saint would have been
from endorsing schismatical baptism, with no true
priest even to administer it, as carrying with it the
effects of Church baptism to a person who is separated
from the Church’s unity.
One exception St. Augustine allowed to the unfruit-
fulness of baptism by a heretical priest. Speaking of a
dying person, he says: ‘If, indeed, extreme necessity
compelled him, where he could not find a catholic from
whom he might receive, and, having kept catholic peace
in his mind, he received from someone who was without
the catholic unity that which he was about to receive
in the catholic unity itself—if he immediately departed
this life, we should deem him no other than a catholic.
5 In Joan. Tract. vi. 16, 17.
108 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV cu vi
And if he should be delivered from bodily death, when
he has restored himself in bodily presence to the catholic
congregation from which he had never departed in
heart, not only we should not reprove what he did, but
we should even praise it most confidently and truthfully,
because he believed God to be present to his heart,
where he was keeping unity, and because he was un-
willing to depart from this life without the sacrament of
holy baptism, which, wherever he might find it, he knew
to be not of men but of God.’ ®
Of the validity and efficacy of lay baptism by a
baptized person, in circumstances of urgency, St.
Augustine’s own mind was not doubtful, though he
speaks with a shadow of uncertainty, as though it were
still an unsettled point. ‘If, he says, ‘some layman,
compelled by necessity, has given it to a dying person,
because, when he himself received it, he had learnt
how it was to be given, I do not know whether anyone
could piously say that it should be repeated. But, if he
does it, driven by no necessity, it is an usurpation of
another’s gift; yet, if necessity urges, it is either no
fault or a venial one. However, although it should be
usurped by no necessity, and is given by anyone whom-
soever to anyone whomsoever, what has been given
cannot be said not to be given, although it may rightly
be said to be given unlawfully.’ The phrase, ‘ What
6 De Bapt. 1. ii. 38. Sine sancti
baptismi sacramento, quod ubi-
cumque invenit, non hominum, sed
Dei esse cognovit, noluit ex hac
vita migrare. Comp. vil. lii. 100.
7 Quanquam etsi laicus aliquis
pereunti dederit necessitate com-
pulsus, quod cum ipse acciperet,
quomodo dandum esset addidicit,
nescio an pie quisquam 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 ne-
cessitate usurpetur, et a quolibet
cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit
non potest dici non datum, quamvis
CH VI ON BAPTISM IN PLAY, ETC. 109
has been given cannot be said to be not given,’ of course
begs the question as to validity, but it shows clearly
enough St. Augustine’s own opinion.
As to still more irregular kinds of baptism, admi-
nistered in a play, or by one who was himself unbaptized,
Augustine’s testimony is explicit that such questions
~had never been brought before a general, or even a
provincial, council. He therefore speaks uncertainly ;
but says that if he were sitting in a council where such
points were raised, his disposition would be to say
that he had no doubt that ‘those have baptism who
have received it anywhere and from any persons, con-
secrated in the words of the gospel, without dissimula-
tion, and with some degree of faith.’ But if there was
no society of believers, and no faith, or if the whole
thing were done in jest, or as a piece of acting, he said
he would suspend his judgment, and. suggest that
prayer should be made for some revelation of the will
of God, unless others could quote an authoritative
precedent.® Similarly, in his treatise against Parmenian,
recte dici possit illicite datum.—
Cont. Hpist. Parm. i. xii. 29,
8 Solet etiam queri, utrum
approbandum sit baptisma, quod
ab eo qui non accipit, accipitur, si
forte hoc curiositate aliqua didicit,
quemadmodum dandum sit: et
utrum nihil intersit, quo animo
accipiat ille cui datur, cum simula-
tione, an sine simulatione: si cum
simulatione, utrum fallens, sicut in
ecclesia, vel in ea que putatur
ecclesia ; an jocans, sicut in mimo.
.. . Verumtamen, si quis forte me
in eo concilio constitutum, ubi
talium rerum questio versaretur,
non precedentibus talibus, quorum
sententias sequi mallem, urgeret ut
dicerem quid ipse sentirem: si eo
modo affectus essem, quo eram
cum ista dictarem; nequaquam
dubitarem habere eos baptismum
qui ubicumque et a quibuscumque
illud verbis evangelicis consecra-
tum, sine sua simulatione, et cum
aliqua fide accepissent : quanquam
eis ad salutem spiritualem non
prodesset, si charitate caruissent,
qua catholic insererentur ecclesiz.
. . . Ubi autem neque societas ulla
esset ita credentium, neque ille
qui ibi acciperet, ita crederet, sed
totum ludicre et mimice et jocu-
lariter ageretur, utrum approbandus
110 THE GREAT COUNCILS AND FATHERS—CENT. IV crvr
he says, after speaking of lay Church baptism, ‘It is
another question whether baptism can also be given by
those who never were Christians ; nor should anything
be rashly affirmed concerning this, without the autho-
rity of as great a council as would be sufficient for so
great a matter.’ °
In an epistle to Fortunatus, quoted by Gratian as
Augustine’s, though perhaps only the writing of a con-
temporary, the validity of lay Church baptism, in cases
of necessity, is stated as a current belief of the time.
‘In necessity,’ says the writer, ‘when bishops or priests
or any other ministers are not to be found, and the
danger of him who seeks it is urgent, lest he should
end this life without that sacrament, we are wont to
hear that even laymen are wont to give the sacrament.’
But even then, their authority is supposed to be
derived indirectly from our Lord through the apostles.’
Thus, at the end of the fourth century, the doctrine
of the minister of baptism stood apparently in this posi-
esset baptismus qui sic daretur ;
divinum judicium per alicujus
revelationis oraculum, concordi
oratione et impensis supplici devo-
tione gemitibus implorandum esse
censerem: ita sane, ut post me
dicturos sententias, ne quid jam
exploratum et cognitum afferrent,
humiliter exspectarem.—De Bapt.
vu. liii. 101, 102.
9 Et hee quidem alia questio
est, utrum et ab lis qui nunquam
fuerunt Christiani possit baptismus
dari: nec aliquid temere inde
affirmandum est sine auctoritate
tanti concilii quantum tant rei
sufficit—Cont. Hpist. Parm. I.
xii. 30.
' In necessitate, cum episcopi,
aut presbyteri, aut quilibet minis-
trorum non inveniuntur, et urget
periculum ejus, qui petit, ne sine
isto sacramento hane vitam finiat,
etiam laicos solere dare sacra-
mentum, quod acceperunt, solemus
audire.—Ap. Grat. Decret. m1., De
Consecr. iv. 21.
In eodem sacramento sic etiam
auctoritas traditionis per Dominum
nostrum ad apostolos, per illos
autem ad episcopos, et alios
sacerdotes, vel etiam laicos Chris-
tianos ab eadem origine et stirpe
venientes.— Ibid. 36.
CH VI SUMMARY 111
tion. In the East formal heresy, at least upon the Blessed
Trinity, invalidated baptism. In the West all baptism
was accepted, if administered by priests who had
received valid ordination, even though they might have
been excommunicated, or had separated themselves
from the unity of the Church; but, according to St.
Augustine, such baptism was unprofitable until recon-
ciliation had been effected. This limitation was pro-
bably his own, rather than that of the ecclesiastics of the
time. It was prompted, no doubt, by a desire to restrain
lax tendencies of practice, without repudiating heretical
baptism. The attempt was not entirely successful.
His views upon the concurrence of validity with in-
effectiveness did not obtain universal consent, and it
must be allowed that some of his arguments are fairly
open to criticism. But, when he is quoted in evidence
of the sufficiency of irregular ministrations, it ought
not to be forgotten that he guarded the opinion by im-
portant qualifications. The acceptance of baptism by
lay churchmen in the East, in the fourth century, is
uncertain; but in the West it was probably accepted
generally, if urgency had justified it. If there was no
urgency, St. Augustine, at any rate, believed it still to
be valid. Baptism by the unbaptized, or in a play,
like that attributed to Athanasius, was still felt to be
of questionable validity.
112 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
CHAPTER VII.
THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES.—CENT. V—VIII.
Bishops, priests, and deacons—Heretical baptism in the East: Timotheus
Presbyter, Quinisext council, Theodore Studites, &e.—Lay baptism in
the East: John Moscus, Quinisext council—Heretical baptism in the
West : Council of Arles; the Popes; ecclesiastical writers—Lay baptism
in the West: abroad; in England—Baptism by the unbaptized—Baptism
by pagans.
Tuer Middle Ages is a wide term, taken by some to cover
the whole period from about the fourth or fifth century
to the Reformation. Others date its beginning from the
accession of Charlemagne. As the baptismal rules before
and after about that time did slightly differ, it will be
convenient to break the history there, and to examine
first what may be called the early middle ages, from
the fifth to the eighth century. It is a period marked
by no great controversies on the subject of the minister
of baptism. Only occasional canons and incidental
references throw some light on current usage.
Bishops still continued during this period to hold the
special prerogative of administering baptism. So strictly
was this sometimes carried out in actual practice that
the Acts of the council of Chalcedon, in 451, record a
letter from the people of Edessa, begging that Ibas,
their bishop, might return to them before Easter, that he
might attend to the teaching and baptizing of the
THE MINISTERS OF PUBLIC BAPTISM 118
CH VII
catechumens.! This, of course, would have reference
only to cases of adults. Great stringency is also shown
by a letter from some of the Italian clergy, on another
occasion, praying for the return of Dacius, Bishop of
Milan, because during his enforced absence from the
see for a period of fifteen or sixteen years, most of his
suffragans had died, and numbers of people were pass-
ing away unbaptized for want of a bishop.”
It was partly, no doubt, in order to reserve baptism
as much as possible to bishops, that the seasons for its
solemn administration were still restricted. The exi-
gencies of the Church required, however, that they
should not be confined simply to Easter and Pentecost.
In the East, the Epiphany had been added in the latter
half of the fourth century ; ° and some time later, in the
West, Christmas Day and the feasts of martyrs came to
be generally adopted in certain Churches. The popes,
however, regarded the multiplication of days with more
or less disfavour, and so did some local councils. In
circumstances of necessity any time was permissible.!
The practical working of the Church demanded that
priests should often baptize; and many, if not most, of
the bishops evidently allowed their presbyters to assist
them at the great public baptisms at Easter and other
special days. That they were too much inclined to
baptize without the due subordination to the bishop
which this ensured may be gathered not only from the
1 Cone. Chalced. Actio x.
2 See Martene, De Ant. Rit. 1.
i. 3 (2).
* Greg. Naz. Orat. xl. See
Dict. Christ. Ant. vol. i. p. 165 for
references.
4 Siric. Ad Himer. Ep. xvi.;
Leo, Ad Episc. Sicil. Ep. xvi.;
Gelas. Ad Hpisc. Lucan. Ep. ix. ;
Cone. Gerundense (Gerona), 517,
can. 4; Cone. Autissiodurense
(Auxerre), 578, can. 18; Conc.
Matisconense (Macon), 585, can.
3; &e.
114 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII -cu wm
" canons restricting baptism to solemn days, but also from
those which more directly restrained priests from a
free exercise of their baptismal commission. Thus a
council at Seville, in 618, forbad priests to enter the
baptistery, or to baptize, in the presence of a bishop ; ?
and another at Vern, in 755, prohibited them from
baptizing except by order of their bishop.° There was
no dispute as to their possessing the power to baptize.
The intention was only to prevent them from exercising
it, as a matter of discipline ; and apparently to empha-
sise the fact that, when they did baptize, it was but as
delegates of the bishop, who was the source of their
authority.
The restrictions upon deacons were greater than
upon priests. Yet their power to give the, sacrament
is nowhere denied, and the regulation of its exercise is
to be regarded chiefly as disciplinary. Therefore in
circumstances of urgency it was usually considered to
be their duty to baptize. Theodoret says so, in the
Kast, in the middle of the fifth century, supposing no
priest to be at hand.’ This, too, was the usual practice
of the West. A canon of a Roman synod, at the end of
the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, says
that no licence had ever been given to deacons to bap-
tize the sick; yet it allows that necessity had excused
their usurpation of the permission. ‘The same decree
speaks of deacons, together with priests, as baptizing at
Easter under the direction of the bishop.2 As time
5 Neque coram episcopo licere xal rijs xpetas Katerevyovons, avayKa-
presbyteris in baptisterium introire, erac kai dudkovos mpoodépew To
neque presente antistite infantem Sdeopevm 1rd Barricpa.—Theod. In 2
tingere.—Cone. Hispal. II., can. 7. Paralip. xxxiii.
* Conc. Vernense, can. 8. 8 Pasche tempore presbyter et
7 IIpecBurépov yap ov maporros, diaconus per parochias dare re-
€H VII HERETICAL BAPTISM IN THE EAST 115
went on necessity became a recognised plea for baptism
by deacons. The prohibitions of their ministry under
other circumstances, put forth from time to time, pro-
bably may be taken to imply that they were occasion-
ally over ready to baptize without sufficient warrant.°
On heretical baptism the usage of the fifth to the
eighth centuries simply followed the precedents of
earlier periods.
In the East, about the year 500, Timotheus, then
presbyter, afterwards patriarch of Constantinople, states
the rule of his day, which he says was that of the
ancient catholic Church, preserved in the patriarchates
and metropolitan Churches. He gives a long and detailed
missionem peccatorum et ministe-
rium implere consueverunt, etiam
presente episcopo ; in fontem quo-
que ipsi descendunt, illi in officio
sunt, sed episcopi nomini facti
summa conceditur. Reliquis vero
temporibus, ubi «gritudinis neces-
Sitas consequi unumquemque com-
pellit, specialiter presbytero licentia
est per salutaris aque gratiam dare
indulgentiam peccatorum, quoniam
et munus ipsi licet causa munda-
tionis offerre; diaconis vero nulla
licentia invenitur esse concessa, sed
quod semel forte contigit usurpare,
per necessitatem dicuntur excusari,
nec postea in securitate comissuri.
—Synod. Roman. ad Gallos Epi-
scopos, can. 7. The exact date is
uncertain.
® Absque episcopo vel presbytero
baptizare non audeant, nisi, pre-
dictis fortasse officis longius con-
stitutis, necessitas extrema com-
pellat.—Gelas. Ad Hpise. Lucan.
Kp. ix. 7. (492-6.)
Si diaconus aut presbyter pro
reatu suo se ab altaris communione
sub pcenitentis professione sub-
moverit, sic quoque si alii defuerint
et causa cert necessitatis exoritur,
poscentem baptismum liceat bap-
tizare.—Concilium Aurelianense I,
(Orleans), can. 12. (6511.)
Unde constat baptisma solis
sacerdotibus esse tractandum, ejus-
que mysterium nec ipsis diaconibus
explere est licitum absque episcopo
vel presbytero, nisi his procul ab-
sentibus ultima languoris cogat
necessitas.—Isid. De Eccles. Ofji-
cvis, II. xxv. 9. (d. 636.)
Patet ergo (quoting Matt. xxviii.
19, John xx. 21) solis sacerdotibus
dare baptisma esse permissum.
Cujus rei ministerium absque
episcopo vel presbytero, nec diaco-
nibus est concessum, nisi illis longe
positis ultima necessitas, vel lan-
guoris vel periculi, cogat.—Hilde-
fonsus Tolet. De Cognitione Bapt.
exvi. (d. 667.)
116 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
list of heretics, divided into three classes—those who are
to be baptized, those who are to be anointed, and those
who are only to renounce their errors, on admission
into the communion of the Church. The grounds on
which the heresies are sorted out are not always very
clear; but so far as rebaptism was concerned, the
orthodoxy of faith in the Blessed Trinity was of course
the main consideration.’ This was practically the prin-
ciple of St. Basil.
The quinisext council in Trullo, in 691, adopted
the precise words of the seventh canon of Constanti-
nople,? only interpolating an additional sentence,
directing the rebaptism of Paulianists.’ It also set its
imprimatur on the African decrees under St. Cyprian,
and on the epistles, now called canonical, of St. Basil.*
The African judgements are certainly more stringent in
tone than the seventh canon of the second general council
and the ninety-fifth of the Trullan. They can be made
to harmonise only by understanding that the council
in Trullo accepted the principle of Cyprian’s rule, that
baptism outside the Church was null, and then took the
later enumeration of various heresies as deciding which
should be considered to be thus outside her communion.
That St. Cyprian himself would probably have excluded
more separatists than these councils did, does not affect
the principle involved. There is, therefore, no incon-
sistency in the Trullan adoption of both the African and
Constantinopolitan rule. The canons of the quinisext
council are of paramount authority to this day in the
1 Tim. Presb. De Recep. H@ret., xaOoduxy éexxAnoia dpos éxréberrat, ava-
Migne, Pat. Grec. tom. Ixxxvi. pp. Banri¢erOa avrovs é& dmravtos.—
11-67. Cone. Trull. can. 95.
2 See ante, p. 79, note 8. 4 Tbid. can. 2.
3 Tlept S€ ray Tavdianorayv 17
CH VII LAY BAPTISM IN THE EAST By)
East, where it is numbered as the sixth general council
of the Church.
St. John Damascene (d. cir. 760) mentions that the
true form of words is necessary, but does not further go
into details as to the effect of heresy upon the validity
of baptism.?
Half a century later, at quite the beginning of the
ninth century, Theodore the Studite gives a list of
heresies, like that of Timothezs, but less full. He
resolves the question, so far as it concerns the ministry
of baptism, into a consideration simply of the accuracy
of the formula. Thus, on a somewhat different prin-
ciple, the East had arrived at almost the same prac-
tical rule as the West, accepting the proper words
of administration as a sufficient guarantee of accurate
faith, for the purposes of baptism, without inquiring
too minutely into the interpretation which might some-
times be put on them by the person who baptized.
Of lay baptism within the Church there is very
little more evidence in the East, during the early
middle ages, than in the previous centuries; but it
would seem that some modified form of its recognition
eradually crept in.’
John Moscus, who wrote in the latter part of the
sixth century, tells a story of some who were travelling
5 Joan. Damas. De Fide Ortho-
doxa, IV. ix.
8 Aiperixo’s 6 dmooTo\lKos Kavov
exeivous én, Tovs py eis Ovoua Llarpos
Kat Yiov Kat “Aylou IIvevparos Bantic-
Oévras kai Banri¢ovras.—Theod. Stud.
Naucratio filio, Ep. 1. xl., Migne,
Pat. Grec. tom. xcix. p. 1051.
7 Reference is sometimes made
to a canon of John the Faster, Patri-
arch of Constantinople (585-595), as
decreeing that children may be bap-
tized by others than a priest in neces-
sity; but I am unable to find it.
Probably his 24th canon is intended,
which exacts penalties on parents
who suffer a child to die unbaptized.
See Hndaduov, p. 712, with note (8).
118 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
together, when one of the party, a Jew, fell ill and
appeared likely to die. As he was unable to proceed
they felt obliged to leave him behind. He implored
them to baptize him first. ‘It is not permitted to us
to do so,’ they replied, ‘ for we are laymen, and that is
the work of priests and bishops.’ He still, however,
persisted in his request, which was the more difficult to
grant, because, as the story goes, they were in a desert
and had no water. At last one of the company ven-
tured to baptize him with sand, upon which he imme-
diately recovered, and was able to continue his journey.
Arrived at Ascalon, they reported the circumstances to
Dionysius, the bishop. He assembled his clergy to
consult as to the validity of the baptism. The discus-
sion among them seems to have turned entirely on the
question of whether sand could be validly used in
necessity, and not upon whether laymen could baptize.
The opinions being discordant, the bishop eventually
directed that he should be rebaptized in the Jordan.
The story is probably a fiction; but it is interesting in
reference to the minister of baptism, as showing that
the popular impression was that the laity could not
baptize, but that the more authoritative opinion of the
clergy would not have repudiated the baptism solely on
that ground.®
A canon of the quinisext council, in 691, has been
quoted as implying that lay baptism was allowed in
certain cases. It only says, however, ‘Let no one of
those who are set among the laity administer by him-
self the divine mysteries, when a bishop, priest, or
8 Joan. Mose. Pratum Spirttuale, Hamartolus, Chronicon, 11. eli.,
elxxvi. The story is referred to with apparent credit.
afterwards by Glycas, Hist. 111., and
CH VII HERETICAL BAPTISM IN THE WEST 119
9g
deacon is present.
build much
The terms are too general tc
upon it; but Theodore the Studite
understood it to permit lay baptism, for he says that
‘the sixth council, in the divine canons, allows that a
layman may himself give the sacrament, if a priest is
not present,’ and then goes on to apply it to a question
about baptism by one who was not in holy orders. He
says he would not be so rash as to direct such a one to
baptize ; but, so far as he was able to judge, he thought
a person was not to be condemned who did it in cir-
cumstances of necessity. He appeals to early authorities
in support of his opinion, and specially refers, without
any hint as to adoubt about its genuineness, to the story
of Alexander and Athanasius.’ His hesitation shows that
lay baptism cannot have been in common use, or under
ordinary sanction, while his interpretation of the Trullan
canon shows also that the idea was not absolutely
strange.
In the West, the baptismal formula seems to have
been the only test of orthodox baptism. Heresy, as
such, did not invalidate its ministration, if the words
were not tampered with.
Thus, the second council of Arles, in 452, decreed
that the Photinians and Paulanists were to be rebap-
tized. The council of Laodicea, in the previous cen-
tury, had accepted Photinian baptism; but the sect
9 Mndels rev ev Naikots TeTaypevov
éauvte Ociay pvotnpiav petadiddro
Tapovros emurkdrov i) mpeaBurepou j)
Svaxovov.—Cone. Trull. can. 58. Mr.
Baldwin writes to me, ‘I do not
think this can possibly refer to public
baptism, and it is impossible that
it can refer to private baptism.
Can it refer to the distribution of
the consecrated elements? The
“divine mysteries’’ is almost always
the eucharist.’
1Theod. Stud. Ad Anton.
Dyrrhachii, Ep. u. clvii.
THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
120
had degenerated, and there can be little doubt, from
its association with the Paulianists, that it had now
abandoned the proper form. That this was the ground
upon which its baptisms were rejected is clear from
the fact that the next canon allows the baptism of the
Bonosiaci, also an episcopal sect, for the express reason
that the true formula was used.”
The popes, from time to time, are found laying down
the Roman rule as dependent entirely upon the words
used in the administration.
Innocent I. (402-407) says the Novatians are to be
received only with imposition of hands, because they
are baptized in Christ’s Name.? He speaks similarly of
Arian converts, who, having obtained the form of
baptism, were not to be rebaptized. Yet, like St.
Augustine, he says that they could not have the Holy
Ghost in heresy, and therefore needed formal reconcilia-
tion to make their baptism effective.*
St. Leo (440-461) writes similarly that ‘those who
have received baptism from heretics are to be confirmed
by invocation of the Holy Spirit alone, with imposition
? Photinianos, sive Paulianistas, * Forum laicos conversos ad
secundum patrum statuta baptizari
oportere.—Cone. Arelat. IT. can. 16.
Bonosiacos autem ex eodem errore
venientes, quos sicut Arianos bap-
tizari in Trinitate manifestum est,
si interrogati fidem nostram ex toto
corde confessi fuerint, cum chris-
mate et manus impositione in
ecclesia recipi sufficit.—Can. 17.
3 Ut venientes a Novatianis vel
Montensibus per manus tantum
impositionem suscipiantur; quia,
quamvis ab hereticis, tamen in
Christi nomine sunt baptizati.—Inn.
Ad Victric. Ep. ii. 8.
Dominum, sub imagine peenitentiz
ac sancti Spiritus sanctificatione
per manus impositionem suscipi-
mus... quoniam quibus solum
baptisma ratum esse permittimus,
quod utique in nomine Patris et
Fili et Spiritus sancti perficitur,
nec sanctum Spiritum eos habere
ex illo baptismate illisque mysteriis
arbitramur : quoniam cum a catho-
lica fide eorum auctores descis-
cerent, perfectionem Spiritus, quam
acceperant, amiserunt.—Inn. Ad
Alex. Ant. Ep. xxiv. 3.
cH VII POPES ON HERETICAL BAPTISM 121
of hands, because they had received the mere form of
baptism without the virtue of sanctification.’ °
St. Gregory the Great (590-604), in answer to
Quiricus, a bishop, says that the decision of the fathers
is that those who have been baptized in the Name of the
Trinity are to be received variously, by unction, by
laying on of hands, or by an open profession of the true
faith ; and he adds that then their baptism, bestowed
ineffectually in heresy, obtains the power of cleansing.
All turned on the formula, for he insists on the necessity
of baptism for converts from sects who did not use
the true form, as the Cataphrygians, the Montanists,
and the Bonosiaci, who seem to have abandoned the
orthodox words soon after the second council of Arles.®
More than a century after, Gregory I. (715-731),
speaking expressly of unworthy priests, says that if
anyone baptizes in due form, the baptism may not be
repeated, because the grace depends entirely on the
Name of the Trinity.’
Pope Zachary, soon after (741-752), says that here-
tical baptism is valid.®
sola professione fidei ad sinum
matris ecclesie revocentur.—Greg.
° Nam hi qui baptismum ab
hereticis acceperunt, cum antea
baptizati non fuissent, sola invoca-
tione Spiritus sancti per imposi-
tionem manuum confirmandi sunt,
quia formam tantum baptismi
sine sanctificationis virtute sump-
serunt.—Leo, Ad Nicet. Ep. clix. 7.
Comp. Ad Neon. Raven. Ep. clxvi.
2; Ad Rustic, Ep. clxvii. 18.
6 Et quidem ab antiqua patrum
institutione didicimus, ut quilibet
apud heresim in Trinitatis nomine
baptizantur, cum ad sanctam eccle-
siam redeunt, aut unctione chris-
matis, aut impositione manus, aut
Ad Quiricum, Ep. x1. Ixvii. Comp.
Ad Univ. Epise. Ital. Ep. 1. exvii.
7 Tn his tua dilectio teneat anti-
quum morem ecclesiz, quia quisquis
in nomine Patris, et Fili, et Spiritus
sancti baptizatus est, rebaptizari
eum minime licet. Non enim in
nomine baptizantis, sed in nomine
Trinitatis, hujus gratiz donum
percipitur.—Greg. II. Ad Bonif.
Ep. xiv. 8.
8 Quicumque bapizatus fuerit ab
hereticis in nomine Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus sancti, nullo modo debet
122 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
The testimony of other than popes is to the same
effect.
Gennadius, at the end of the fifth century, says the
Name of the Trinity is essential and sufficient. He
gives a list of sects, some episcopal and some not, whose
baptism was void, because they did not use it; but
makes no point of the lack of ordination in those who
had no bishop. All turned on the formula.?
Fulgentius Ferrandus, deacon of Carthage, soon
after, in a digest of earlier canons, sums up the general
rule to be ‘that it is not allowable to rebaptize heretics,
baptized in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.’?
St. Gregory of Tours, late in the sixth century,
speaks several times of heretics being received by
unction, and does not hint at rebaptism.?
St. Isidore, Bishop of Seville, at the commencement
of the seventh century, gives the same rule, stating as
the reason for allowing heretical baptism, that ‘ baptism
is not of man, but of Christ; therefore it makes no
difference whether a heretic or a faithful person
baptizes.’ ?
So also, the Venerable Bede, a century later, in
England, says that baptism by a heretic, a schismatic,
rebaptizari, sed per solam manus _ attestatione docentur baptisma sus-
impositionem purgari—Zach. Ad cepisse, non iterum baptizandi, sed
Bonif. Ep. vii. solo chrismate et manus impositione
® Gennad. De Eccles. Dog. lii.; purgandi sunt. Baptismus enim
comp. De Script. Eccles. xxvii. non est hominis, sed Christi;
1 Fulgentius Ferrandus, Bre- ideoque nihil interest hereticus, an
viatio Canonum, 173-178. fidelis baptizet. . . . Habet quidem
2 Greg. Turon. Hist. ii. 31,34; hereticus baptismum Christi, sed
ivi.27, 26 $'iv.188 3 ix. 1b, quia extra unitatem fidei est, nihil
5’ Heretici autem, si tamen in ei prodest.—Isidore, De Lccles.
Patris, et Fil, et Spiritus sancti Offictis, 11. xxv. 9, 10.
cH vii WESTERN WRITERS ON HERETICAL BAPTISM = 123
or a wicked person, is not to be iterated, if it is given
in the Name of the Trinity, ‘lest the confession or
invocation of so great a Name shall seem to be an-
nulled.’ 4
To these testimonies may be added the canons
attributed to St. Patrick, which, whatever may be their
date in their present form, are a witness to the practice
of at least some period of the early middle ages. One
of these canons falls in with the general teaching of
the time, that baptism in due form was valid from all,
though it contemplates the possibility of baptizing, not
rebaptizing, in doubtful cases. Whether it refers to
heresy, or to any but baptism by priests, cannot very
easily be determined.?
As a rule, the consideration of heretical baptism
was not complicated with any question of the ordination
of the minister, because all, or nearly all, the non-
episcopal sects mutilated the formula, and this was
sufficient to invalidate the baptism without further
inquiry. Many sects whose baptism was accepted
were not indeed sound in the faith; but the evidence
shows that internal heresy, even upon the Blessed Trinity,
had ceased to influence the decision as to the validity of
a baptism, so long as external orthodoxy was main-
tained by the use of the essential form.
4 Sive enim hereticus, sive > Statuunt ne rebaptizati [sint],
schismaticus, sive facinorosus qui symboli traditionem a quo-
quisque in confessione Sancte cunque acceperunt, quia non inficit
Trinitatis baptizet, non valet ille,
qui ita baptizatus est, a bonis
catholicis rebaptizari, ne confessio
vel invocatio tanti nominis videatur
annullari.—Beda, In Joan. Evang.
Expos. cap. iii.
semen seminantis iniquitas. Sin
vero, non est rebaptizare, sed
baptizare. Non abluendos autem
lapsos a fide credamus, nisi per
impositionem manus accipiantur.—
Synod. S. Patricii, 7.
124 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
Some of the opinions just quoted may possibly cover
cases of lay, as well as heretical, baptism; but it is very
doubtful whether any baptisms which combined the
elements of lay and heretical administration at once,
had as yet received formal sanction. Baptism by lay
churchmen, however, was becoming more and more
recognised in the West, in time of necessity. Gelasius,
at the very close of the fifth century, and Isidore, a
hundred years later, after saying that deacons might
only baptize in extreme necessity, add that permission
was often conceded, in like urgency, to lay Christians.®
By saying that this was ‘ often’ allowed they may imply
that agreement was not universal. But Hildefonsus,
Bishop of Toledo, in the seventh century, says the same
thing without any qualification, and his work is chiefly
compiled from authorities antecedent to his own date.’
In England, in the seventh century, Archbishop
Theodore also states the permission to lay churchmen
unhesitatingly ; only limiting it by saying that they
were not to baptize rashly, and that anyone who did so
was to be excommunicated, and to be incapable of
ordination. Either he, or some canonist in his name,
says further, ‘It is allowed to all the faithful, when by
chance they have found those who are dying to be
unbaptized, urged by necessity, to baptize: yea, it is
commanded to snatch souls from the devil by baptism.’
Even women might baptize, but not unless the necessity
® Quod et laicis Christianis
facere plerumque conceditur.—
part of these sentences, see ante,
pdb.
Gelas. Ad Hpisc. Lucan. Ep. ix.
7. Quod etiam a laicis fidelibus
plerumque permittitur, ne quisquam
sine remedio salutari de sculo
evocetur.—Isidore, De LKccles.
Officis, 11. xxv. 9. For previous
7 Quod clericis et fidelibus laicis
fieri utcumque conceditur, ut nullus
e seculo sine vitali remedio tran-
sisse videatur.— Hildef. De Cog.
Bapt. exvi. For previous part of
sentence, see ante, p. 115.
LAY BAPTISM IN ENGLAND
CH VII 125
was most extreme. The so-called Excerptions of
Eebert, Archbishop of York, repeat the injunction that
all the faithful are bidden to baptize in necessity. They
are thought to belong to a later date than Egbert,
probably to the extreme end of the period at present
under examination.®
It does not necessarily follow, because lay Church
baptism was accepted in necessity, that it was counted
valid when there was no urgency, much less that baptism
by any layman would inevitably hold good. Yet
Egbert, in his Dialogue, a work of unquestioned genuine-
ness, discussing the effect of ministrations by an un-
ordained person who pretends to be a priest, says they
are not to be set aside unless those who use them are
aware of his disqualification. Even then, he says,
baptism should not be repeated, although other acts
seem to be less certain.’ If this is to be taken as the
8 Si quis baptizat pro temeri-
tate non ordinatus, abjiciendus
est ab ecclesia, et nunquam
ordinetur.—Theod. Penit. 1. ix. 11.
Omnibus fidelibus licet, ubi forte
morituros invenerint non bapti-
zatos, necessitate cogente, bapti-
zare; immo preceptum est animas
eripere a diabolo per baptismum.—
Mulier baptizare non presumat,
nisi cogente necessitate maxima.
The two last decrees appear not to
be given in the most accurate
versions of the Penitential of
Theodore.
® Egb. Hacerp. can. 95. They
are given as Kgbert’s in Johnson’s
English Canons, Lib. Ang. Cath.
Theol. vol. i. p. 235, and elsewhere.
But they seem to contain extracts
from the Capitularies of Charle-
magne, whereas Egbert died in 766.
See Haddan and Stubbs, vol. iii.
p. 415.
* Ministeria vero que, usurpato
nomine sacerdotis, non dicatus
ignorante populo peregit, minime
credimus abjicienda, nam male
bona ministrando ipse sibi reus,
aliis non nocuit. Scienti autem
causas minime detersas, et qui
tamen particeps factus est damnati,
quomodo tribuitur ei perfectio que
in dante non erat, quam ipse
accipere potest damnationem,
utique qui per quod habuit per
prava officia dedit, ut ejus particeps
similem sortiatur excommunica-
tionis sententiam. Sed hoe de
baptismo accipi fas non est, quod
iterari non debeat: reliqua vero
ministeria per indignum data minus
firma videntur.—Egb. Dial. y.
126 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
general view of the time, it would indicate the accept-
ance of lay baptism to a very wide extent.
Other cases began also to exercise the ingenuity of
casuists. Among these was the question of baptism by
persons who had themselves never been baptized. This
was probably far from being a mere speculative propo-
sition. The precautions which now ensure that a can-
didate for holy orders has been baptized were not
possible in days when there were no registers. It was
therefore worth inquiring what would be the effect
of the ministrations of a man who had been ordained to
the priesthood, which he was strictly incapable of re-
ceiving for want of being previously baptized. Theodore
said that, even if the omission had been through igno-
rance, the baptisms which he conferred were invalid, and
those whom he had baptized must be baptized again.?
In some versions of the Penitential of Hebert, there isa
similar direction, borrowed apparently from an earlier
work; but the writer goes on to note that the Pope of
Rome had decided differently, saying that the grace of
the Holy Spirit was not in any man, but in the gift of
baptism itself.’
The writer no doubt accurately states the Roman
rule. A council at Compiegne, in 757, lays down ‘ that
if anyone is baptized by an unbaptized priest, and the
constituit, si misse administrator
vitiosus sit, vel paganus, quod
2 §i quis ordinatus est per
ignorantiam antequam baptizetur,
debent baptizari qui ab illo gentili
baptizati fuerint, et ipse non
ordinetur.—Theod. Penit. 1. ix. 12.
Comp. U. ii. 18.
3 Quicunque presbyter, si norit
quod non sit baptizatus, baptizetur,
et omnes illi quos antea baptiza-
verat. Attamen papa Romanus
servitium Spiritus sancti esset in
dono baptismi, non tamen in
hominis alicujus.x—Egb. Penit. 1.
vii. It is given by Migne, Mansi,
and Wilkins, but is not included by
Haddan and Stubbs, who place this
portion of the Penitential earlier
than Egbert, vol. iii. p. 414.
cov WESTERN OPINION ON PAGAN BAPTISM 127
Holy Trinity was invoked in his baptism, he is baptized,
as says Sergius the Pope.’* Sergius was Bishop of
Rome from 687 to 701. The conscious divergence of the
English Penitential shows a characteristic independence
of mind, which hesitated to accept all and every irregular
ministration of baptism with the readiness which seemed
to commend itself to the papal discipline.
Some limit, perhaps, was still set, even at Rome, on
the extent to which baptism was to be accepted, when
it came to be a question of baptism by pagans. The
Decretum of Gratian, indeed, puts a passage into the
mouth of Isidore, saying that ‘the Roman pontiff does
not consider that the man who baptizes, but the Spirit
of God, supplies the grace of baptism, even if he is a
pagan who baptizes.’’ No such sentence is extant now
in the works of Isidore; but, since it agrees with the
quotation from the supposed Penitential of Hebert, it
may have been the rule of his time. Gregory II.
(731-741), however, seems to have been of a different
opinion. Answering some questions of Boniface, he says,
‘As to those whom you assert to have been baptized
by pagans, if it really is so, we command that you
baptize them again in the Name of the Trinity.’® St.
Thomas Aquinas, however, adds, as a gloss, ‘ that is, if
quest. i. 59; ur. De Consecr. iv. 238.
Comp. note on previous page.
® Kosdemque, quos a paganis
4 Quod si quis baptizatus est a
presbytero non baptizato, et Sancta
Trinitas in ipso baptismo invocata
fuerit, baptizatus est, sicut Sergius
papa dixit.—Cone. Compendiense,
can. 9.
* Romanus pontifex non homi-
nem judicat, qui baptizat, sed
Spiritum Dei subministrare gratiam
baptismi, licet paganus sit, qui
baptizat.— Decretum, 1. causa 1,
baptizatos esse asseruisti, si ita
habetur, ut denuo baptizes in
nomine Trinitatis, mandamus. —
Greg. III. Ad Bonif. Ep. i. 1. In
Gratian’s Decretwm, 1. De Con-
secr. lv. 52, the words are attributed
to Gregory II., but this is clearly
a mistake.
128 THE EARLY MIDDLE AGES—CENT. V-VIII CH VII
the form of the Church has not been observed.’?
No doubt, the manner in which Gregory expresses him-
self is capable of this interpretation. But that he be-
lieved paganism to be a bar to baptism is shown by his
adding an injunction that it is null if it is admini-
stered by a priest who has sacrificed to Jupiter or
offered meats to idols.2 Whether he is speaking of a
heathen priest, or of a Christian priest lapsed into
heathenism, the inference is the same, that a pagan
could not baptize.
7 Scilicet ecclesis forma non _ fuisse baptizatos, vel qui a presby-
servata.—Aquin. Swmma, u1.lxvii. tero Jovi mactante et carnes immo-
5. Bellarmine adopts the same latitias vescente baptizati sunt, ut
gloss, De Bapt. vii. rebaptizentur precipimus. — Greg.
® Kos etiam qui se dubitant III. Ad Bons. Ep. i. 4.
cov ‘THE LATER MIDDLE AGES.—CENT. IX-XV 129
CHAPTER VII.
THE LATER MIDDLE AGES.—CENT. IX—XV.
The Eastern Church: on heretical baptism; on lay baptism — The
Western Church: bishops and priests ; deacons—Heretical and lay
baptism in West: popes ; canonists and schoolmen, Gratian, Raymond,
Aquinas, De Burgo, Lyndwood, &c¢.—The Western councils abroad—
The English councils and rubrics—Estimate of the force of medieval
testimony on the general doctrine.
Durine the succession of centuries which form the
more proper middle ages, the records of the East on
the subject of the minister of baptism are comparatively
scanty, at any rate so far as they are commonly known
to us Westerns. They are, however, quite sufficient for
the purpose of ascertaining the common usage of the
Church.
The East was troubled less by heresies in the
later middle ages than she had been in earlier times.
Many of the more obscure sects ceased to exist alto-
gether, and the long lists of heretical bodies must
eradually have become to a very great extent obsolete.
But the old principle of the East, that a wrong faith in
the Blessed Trinity invalidated a baptism, still held its
ground.
Thus, in about the year 1200, Nicetas Chroniates
enumerates the early heresies, and follows the original
teaching as to reception in different cases by baptism
and by anointing."
' Nicetas Chroniates, Thesaurus Buiblioth. Patrum, 1618, t. xii. pars
Orthodore Fidei, ii. See La Bigne 1, pp. 543 seq.
K
130 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV CH VIII
Matthew Blastar, who wrote in the fourteenth
century, relates that in the twelfth, at a synod in Con-
stantinople under the patriarch Lucas, it was discussed
whether infants who had been baptized by Mahometans
were to be baptized, or only anointed, on reception into
the Church. The council decreed, without opposition,
that they must be baptized.2 Whatever form of words
the infidels used, the determination, on the original
Eastern principles, would have been the same.
Blastar also repeats St. Basil’s three-fold division of
those outside the orthodox communion, into heretics,
schismatics, and separatists, with his injunction that all
heretics shall be baptized on reconciliation. He applies
St. Basil’s rule to a long list of sectaries of earler and
later date, adding that the East requires all who are
baptized by schismatics with only immersion to be re-
baptized.* The reference is of course to the 7th canon
of Constantinople.’
After the division between East and West, in the
eleventh century, this matter of the one immersion had
been a constant charge of the Greeks against the Latins.
The Western practice varied. Sometimes the trine and
sometimes a single immersion was used. Gregory the
Great, about the year 600, and a council at Toledo, in
633, had defended the single immersion,’ and probably
it had become common. ‘To the Easterns it was a suf-
ficient cause for branding the Westerns promiscuously
with heresy, and for invalidating their baptisms.
Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the
middle of the eleventh century, just after the great
2 Blastar, Syntagma, B. cap. * See ante, p. 79, note 8.
iii. De infantibus Agarenorum > Greg. I. Ad Leand. Epise.
baptizatis. Ep. 1. xlii. Cone. Tolet. IV. can.
» Ibid. cap. ii. De Hereticis. 6.
cH vit GREEK. TREATMENT OF WESTERN BAPTISM 131
rupture, was already rebaptizing converts from the West,
when they had previously received only one immersion.®
Zonaras and Balsamon, the one early and the other late
in the twelfth century, without referring directly to
Western Christendom, speak of single immersion as
invalid.’ Rebaptism was, therefore, the rule. The
Westerns naturally resented this usage, which implicitly
involved a charge of vital heresy. The fourth Lateran
council at Rome, in 1215, entered its protest against it,
saying that ‘the Greeks presumed with a rash boldness
to rebaptize those who had been baptized by Latins ;
and some, as we have heard, still do not fear to do
this..® Nor did they fear to continue to do it. Half a
century later, Meletius the Confessor, an authority
among the Greeks, is found writing against the validity
of Latin baptism with one immersion.?
About this time, however, the regulation for the
rebaptism of converts from the West became partially
and temporarily relaxed. Michael Paleeologus, who en-
gaged in fruitless efforts to obtain agreement between
the Greeks and the Latins, favoured the Western
practice of baptism so far as to admit its validity. At
any rate, where the three immersions had been used, the
Easterns were willing to accept Western baptism, and
the rule, at the end of the fourteenth century, was to
receive converts thus baptized only by anointing with
oil.? Not long after, in 1438, met the council of
Florence. Mark of Ephesus, one of the representatives
of the Greeks, at its twenty-fifth session, said, ‘We are
® See Constantine Oiconomos, 8 Cone. Lat. IV. can. 43.
Ta Sw ¢opeva °ExkAnovactixa Svy- ° Constantine Oiconomos, t. i.
ypappara, Athens, 1862,tom.i.p.498. _p. 499.
7 On Cone. Const. can. 7, see 1 Thid.
ante, p. 79, note 8. * Ibid. p. 5038.
132 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV_ ca vin
separated from the Latins by nothing less than that they
are not only schismatics, but also heretics. Yet,
partly to avoid the risk of rebaptism, and partly to
encourage individuals to reconcile themselves with the
orthodox Church of the East, Mark was willing that
even those who had received only one immersion
should be accepted without rebaptism.4 Apparently
for some time it became the usual practice of the East
to be satisfied with unction alone as the rite of recon-
ciliation, although not according to any uniform rule.
This relaxation of the rigid usage brings out a
curious characteristic of Greek theologians in dealing
with the ministry of baptism, which it is necessary to
mark in order to understand what at first sight appears
to be a vacillating discipline. The Greek Church takes
its stand upon the Apostolical Canons in all their strict-
ness, as rejecting heretical baptism. But it is held that -
her rulers may modify the application of this principle
by considerations of what is called’ ‘economy’ (oixo-
vouia), a word for which our nearest equivalent is
‘policy,’ although perhaps it hardly conveys a fair
weaning of the original. It has been seen how the com-
mentators on the IIjdaduov apply it to the action of the
second general council in admitting the baptism of
Arians and Macedonians, in order to win them
over to conversion, and to hinder their turning the
ereat strength they possessed into attacks upon the
Church. Similarly, they say, the orthodox Church
modified its rule towards the West, in the medizval
centuries, ‘ because the papacy then flourished, and had
in its hands all the powers of the kings of Europe;
wherefore, necessarily, if economy had not been used,
3 [Indadvor, p. 55 note. * Constantine Oiconomos, pp. 508, 504.
cHvut GREEK TREATMENT OF WESTERN BAPTISM 133
the pope would have stirred up the Latin races against
the Eastern, bringing them into captivity, slaying them,
and doing countless other terrible things to them.’®
Without quite admitting that this does perfect justice
to her motives, it may readily be conceived that in the
period of the greatest strength of papal power the East
was not in a position to maintain a high-handed disci-
pline towards the West. The loss of Constantinople,
in 1453, left the Greek Church still further prostrate
for a time; and a synod at Constantinople, in 1484,
seeing no opening for a revival of the stringent decrees
for rebaptism, framed a formulary for the reception of
Western converts by unction and a renunciation of
errors. This continued to be the usual method for
some while after, until, seeing that the orthodox Church
was reaping harm rather than profit from the indul-
gence, her bishops reverted to the older rigour, and
began again to insist on the baptism of Latin converts.®
Thus the division of Christendom led to internal
charges of heretical baptism, producing complications
which subsist to the present day.
Lay Church baptism apparently got some footing in
the East after a while, but at a later date than in the
West, and with a constant strain of opposition against
the practice.
Controversialists have hitherto failed to discover any
trace of its acceptance earlier than two doubtful canons
ascribed to Nicephorus, who was Patriarch of Constan-
tinople at the beginning of the ninth century. These
canons allow baptism by a monk, a deacon, and even
° TInddduov, p. 56. Comp. Con- p. 493, passim. See ante, p. 80.
stantine Oiconomos, Letter, tom. i. ® Ibid. pp. 505, 506.
134 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV cH vm
by a layman, if a child is dying, and no priest is at
hand. The father himself may under such circum-
stances baptize. The only absolute restriction is that
the baptizer must be a Christian. The canons cannot
be traced with certainty to any known council. These
particular ones are not in all the copies of the canons of
Nicephorus, and are probably a later addition. They
are, however, included by Hermenopulus, in the twelfth
century, in an epitome of Greek canons, and are referred
to by Glycas in the same century. While, therefore,
they cannot be urged as reliable evidence of the usage
of the ninth century, they do show that lay baptism in
extremity had received the sanction of some Eastern
council or other before the twelfth.‘
For the rest, the evidence of the middle ages is of
the nature of a protest against lay baptism.
Georeius Hamartolus, about the middle of the ninth
century, inveighs against those who allow lay men or
women to baptize in cases of necessity. In proof of his
contention he triumphantly quotes the story told by
7 In the Indaduov they are given
among seven later canons, ap-
pended to those which are certainly
genuine. They are there quoted
as follows: Kavev s', Kara avayny
idtatns Kal
between the canons as given here,
and by Leunclavius, Jus Greco-
Romanum, 1594, lib. m1. p. 169
(quoted in Bingham, vol. vii. p.
92), and others. As they form the
only canonical reference of the
time, it may be as well to give this
other version. Kaveyr wy’. Kara repi-
otacw kal povaxyos Autos Barrier,
@oavtos Kal Sudxovos* Kai Naikds Se,
>
Kal provaxos aviepos
, / id ’ A /
Barrite: maior, 6polws Kat Oidkovos.—
ba , fo X > , Ud a
Kavév ¢'. Ta aBanticta vnmia oray
2 \ , \ \
d€v nvat mapav tepevs, mpemer va Ta
, fa , a Ni wana
Banrtitn Sows tix, Kay Kal 6 tdLos
‘ > col a AX c én a aA c 65 , , A mw
TaTnp QUT@V, 7) a Os OLODONTOTE ay~ €ayv e€Uupe 7) [res | €ls TOTOV, f1) OVTOS
Opwzos, povoy va vat Xpioteavds, Kab
dev duaprave. A note to the sixth
canon refers to Hermenopulus’
epitome, ev @ kal 6 Naikds mpooriBerat
eis TO va Barri¢n.—Undadvor, p. 733.
There is much verbal discrepancy
« , = , , ae Wa Woyr2
iep€ws.—Kavov is’. Xpi) Ta aBarticra
viru, eccv dpe Tis eis TOrrOY, j11) OVTOS
>
Ei Banrice de
‘ - ” \ x € U
[kal] 6 twos maryp, 7) oloodnmore
avOperos, povov iva éatt Xpiotiaves,
iepéws, Barrio Onvat.
OUK €oTW GpapTia.
CH VIII LAY BAPTISM IN THE EAST 1815)
Moscus of the rebaptism of the Jew; and with more
reason refers to the Apostolical Constitutions as evidence
against lay baptism. He does not allow that even
deacons may baptize, except strictly as assistants to
bishops or priests.®
Michael Glycas, an Eastern historian of the middle
of the twelfth century, also mentions the case of the Jew,
together with a version of the story of Athanasius
and Alexander, which strangely reverses its original
shape by relating the decision as if it had been that the
children were to be rebaptized. On the other side he
quotes the canons of Nicephorus. His own bias was in
the direction of rejecting lay baptism.®
In 1166, a synod in the Trullan hall at Constan-
tinople, under Lucas Chrysoberges, was consulted by
Manuel, Bishop of Heracleon, as to a case of one who
had been baptized by a layman who pretended to be in
holy orders. While admitting that there was an ele-
ment of doubt in the question, the bishops decided that
it was not fitting that uncertainty should exist as to
whether a person was baptized or not, and that the in-
dividual must therefore be baptized by a priest in order
to secure that he had valid baptism. They founded
their ruling upon the 46th and 47th Apostolical Canons ;
and, with less force, on the 26th and 46th of Laodicea,
which speak only of bishops and priests, but in a way too
indirectly connected with the ministry of baptism to be
of real weight on the point. The doubt felt by the
council was not as to whether lay baptism was properly
valid, but as to whether its inherent invalidity might be
removed where it had been received in all good faith
8 Hamart. Chronicon, ul. cli., ° Glycas, Annales, 1., Migne’s
Migne’s Pat. Grec. vol. cx. p. 547. Pat. Gree. vol. elviil. p. 459.
136 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. TX oR CH VIII
under the impression that the minister was a priest. If
he had been recognised as a layman by the recipient,
the bishops would not have had even that degree of
hesitation which led them to debate the matter.!
Theodore Scutariota, in the next century, the thir-
teenth, discusses the same question, and contests the
position that the ignorance of the recipient makes bap-
tism by a pretended priest valid, maintaining that no
layman can baptize.”
Matthew Blastar, in the fourteenth century, referring
to the council in Trullo in 1166, says that any argument
which would make baptism valid when conferred by a
feigned priest would equally make ordination valid if
conferred by a feigned bishop, and this he regards as
impossible. He was, therefore, against allowing the
validity of lay baptism under any circumstances; and
he says, if the case of Athanasius is pleaded in objection,
it is to be remembered that no isolated incident can be
taken as a safe precedent when it is contrary to the
rulings of the canons of the Church.’
Early in the fifteenth century, Simon, Archbishop
of Thessalonica, a Greek metropolitan, writes as though
none but a priest would baptize, even in urgent neces-
sity."
Nicephorus, a Greek historian of the fourteenth
1 Blastar, Syntag. B. cap. ii. et Orient., 1626, 1. xi, p. 25, and
De baptizatis ab vis qui non ordi-
nantur.
? Theod. Seut. quoted by Cote-
lerius, SS. Patrum Apost., 1698,
Note on Apost. Const., vol. i. 283.
* Blastar, Syntag. B. cap. i.
4 Sim. Thes. De Sacramentis,
Miene’s Pat. Grec. vol. elv. Arcu-
dius, De Concord. Eccles. Occid.
Taylor, Off. Minist. iv. 8, Works,
vol. xiv. p. 448, quote Simon as
saying, Ovdeis Bamri¢er ei x) Xetporo-
The whole spirit of
Simon’s dissertation is in this
strain, but I have not been able to
identify the sentence, or any words
quite so explicit.
‘ ey
viav €XEl.
cH vit WESTERN BAPTISM BY BISHOPS AND PRIESTS 137
century, declares that no one can baptize another who
is not baptized himself.’
These. references seem certainly to indicate that
cases of lay baptism occurred in the East in the middle
ages, but that whatever tendency there was to support
them was met by a considerable weight of disfavour
from those who still held to the old strict tradition of
the Eastern Church.
In the West there is much more evidence. For the
most part it is of a different character from that in the
East. |
The first point of importance was the relative posi-
tion of bishops, priests, and deacons in the ministry of
baptism. The pecuhar right of bishops was partly
maintained in the West, but to a continually decreasing
extent. Baptism became less and less reserved for
solemn seasons. Theoretically the old rule stood for a
while, and it is adopted in the Decretum of Gratian in
the twelfth century.® Traces of it are to be found in
use as late as the thirteenth century, in both France and
England ;‘ but nearly everywhere it had given way by
the tenth and eleventh centuries in the West, and indeed
also in the East. Even on the days of solemn baptism,
° He is writing against the eum pro non baptizato ab eis
Eunomeans. He says: Suaque haberi, ut qui non legitime sacra-
ipsorum arrogantia, dogma hoc mento eo initiatus est.—Niceph.
instituerunt: tum que ipsi non Hist. x1. xi. The Greek of this
acceperunt, aliis tradiderunt, quod portion of the work is missing.
sane stultum et stolidum est. Illud 6 Decretum, 11. De Consecr. iv.
enim sua etiam ipsorumconfessione 11-18.
constat, qui ipse baptismi sacris 7 Cone. lLeodiense (Liége),
initiatus non sit, eum alios baptizare 1237; Cone. Londinense (London),
non posse: qui vero traditionis 1237; Conc. Wigorniense (Wor-
eorum more baptizatus non sit, cester), 1240; «ce.
138 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV_ cH vu
bishops did not generally do more than baptize two or
three of the candidates, leaving the remainder to their
presbyters. Milan, alone among European dioceses,
peculiar in this as in much else of its ceremonial, kept
to the older way. There the bishop himself baptized
on the eves of Easter and Pentecost, not only through-
out the middle ages, but to a much later date, if not to
the present day.®
When priests became the usual administrators of
baptism, it was still sometimes only under direct sanction
from the bishop, beyond the commission of their ordi-
nation. At Rome, down to the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, even cardinals required the express permission
of the pope.’ But by this date the ministry of baptism
had generally come to be regarded as part of the ordi-
nary office of a priest. The canons of the middle ages
constantly speak of the parish priest as the natural
ministrant of the sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas, m
the thirteenth century, says it so properly belongs to
his office that a priest may baptize in the presence of
a bishop, although no deacon or other person may
baptize in the presence of a priest, since bishops and
priests alone, and in common, have received the autho-
rity to execute the baptismal commission as part of
their ecclesiastical functions.1 Lyndwood, the English
canonist of the fifteenth century, likewise asserts that
the priest baptizes by virtue of his priestly office,
eivine references to older authorities in support of the
assertion.”
8 Martene, De Antiq. Rit. 1. 1. 1 Aquin. Summa, m1. Ixvii. 4.
3; Pelliccia, Polity of Christian ? Lyndwood, Provinciale, U1.
Church, p. 11. 24, Oxf. ed., p. 241.
® Martene, I. i. 3.
CH VIII BAPTISM BY DEACONS IN THE WEST 139
The limitations placed upon deacons were strict
through the earlier centuries of this period, though
they became gradually relaxed towards the end.
Burchard, Bishop of Worms, in the eleventh century,
says that a deacon may baptize in case of danger, and
that such a baptism only needs to be perfected by the
bishop’s confirmation.®
In England several canons are found rather later,
restricting the exercise of baptism by deacons to grave
necessity. Such were passed by councils at York in
1195, at Westminster in 1200, at Salisbury in 1217, at
Durham in about 1220, at Oxford in 1222, at some un-
identified place in about 1237, at St. Andrew’s in 1242,
as well as in the Constitutions of Archbishop Edmund
in 1236. ‘Two things were generally held necessary to
justify a deacon in baptizing: first, that no priest could
be got, and, secondly, that death appeared to be immi-
nent.* The rule was not, however, always kept; for
Matthew Paris relates that a son of Henry III. was bap-
tized in 1239 by the papal legate, who was probably a
deacon, but certainly not a bishop or priest. There
were no circumstances of necessity, for the Bishop of
Carlisle was present. It was an irregularity of which
the object must have been simply to pay a compliment
to the pope.?
The schoolmen and canonists agree in asserting that
deacons may only baptize in urgent need, but there was
3 Burchard Wormatiensis, De- Alienora. . . . Carleolensis vero
cret. 20, 92. episcopus infantem catechizavit.
4 See the canons in Note at end lLegatus eumdem baptizavit, licet
of chapter. non esset sacerdos ; archiepiscopus
°> xvi. calendas Julii nocte autem Edmundus Cantuariensis
sequenti apud Westmonasterium ipsum confirmavit.—Matt. Paris,
natus est regi filius ex regina sua
Hist. Maj. ad an. 1239.
140 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV cu vit
a growing tendency to admit more and more distinctly
that, when they did baptize, it was by virtue of their
office and not by special indulgence. At first this was
not allowed. Peter Lombard, in the twelfth century,
quotes Isidore’s decision that baptism was a function for
priests, and that a deacon might only baptize by express
permission, except in necessity.® Cardinal Henricus de
Seeusio, commonly known as Hostiensis, in the next
century, states the rule in similar terms.’ Aquinas, at
about the same time, says the very name of ‘deacon,’
signifying ‘ minister,’ shows that the office of the order
is to assist, and not to take a principal part in admini-
stering sacraments. Hence it does not belong to the
office of a deacon to baptize ; yet, because of its neces-
sity, he may bestow it when a priest cannot be found,
and the urgency is great. But, a century later again,
John de Burgo, in the Pupilla Oculi, putting the
matter rather differently, says that in extreme necessity
a deacon baptizes specially, in his own right, as a priest
does ordinarily ;* and, later still, in the fifteenth
6 Lomb. Sent. Iv. vi. a. See
post, p. 144; and for Isidore, ante,
p- 115 note.
7 Hoc tamen officium ad presby-
proprio officio tradere sacramentum
baptismi, sed in collatione hujus
sacramenti et aliorum assistere et
ministrare majoribus. . . . Quia
terum tantum, vel episcopum, et
diaconum in necessitate, vel de
predictorum mandato pertinet.
Host. Swmma, 111. De Bapt.—Quis
possit vel debeat baptizare.
8 Dicuntur autem ‘ diaconi,’
quasi ministri, quia videlicet ad
diaconos non pertinet aliquod sacra-
mentum principaliter et quasi ex
proprio officio prebere, sed adhibere
ministerium aliis majoribus, in
sacramentorum exhibitione. Et sic
ad diaconum non pertinet quasi ex
baptismus est sacramentum neces-
sitatis, permittitur diaconis, neces-
sitate urgente, in absentia majorum,
baptizare. — Aquin. Swmma, Ul.
Ixvii. 1.
® Nullus debet solemniter bapti-
zare in ecclesianisisacerdos: excepto
necessitatis articulo. Potest vero
diaconus in absentia presbyteri, si
extrema necessitas imminet bapti-
zandi, de jure suo solemniter ut
sacerdotes communiter faciunt
baptizare.—Burgo, Pup. Oc. ii. 2.
CH VIII BAPTISM BY DEACONS IN THE WEST 141
century, Lyndwood says the same, with the restriction
that a deacon may never baptize in the presence of a
priest, except by his particular direction.?
The same disposition to allow the specific right of a
deacon had shown itself abroad, for Eugenius IV., at
the council of Florence, in 1439, associated deacons with
priests in one sentence, as the natural ministers of bap-
tism, in a case of necessity, somewhat distinguishing
them in this respect from the laity.” ;
The medizval ordinal, according to the use of both
Rome and Sarum, attached the ministration of baptism
to the diaconate, without restriction, saying simply that
‘it belongs to the office of a deacon to baptize.’* No
doubt, in practice, the restraint in the presence of a
priest, or under no circumstances of necessity, was
ordinarily always maintained ; but the omission of any
such cautions as occur in the canons shows that there
can be no reasonable question that the deacon of the
middle ages baptized in his own right, by virtue of his
office, however much he might be limited as to its
exercise.
Heresy, in the West, ceased to hold any independent
place in the consideration of the validity of baptism. It
1 In casu necessitatis, absente
presbytero, potest diaconus - suo
jure baptizare et corpus Christi
erogare infirmis: sed in ecclesia
presente presbytero, non potest,
etiamsi necessitas exigat, nisi jussus
a presbytero, puta, cum multi sint
qui indigent baptismo, et presbyter
non potest omnibus sufficere.—
Lynd. Provinciale, 11. 24, ed. Oxf.
p. 243.
* See Note at end of chapter.
* Diaconum oportet ministrare
ad altare et evangelium legere in
ecclesia, baptizare, et communicare
in vice presbyteri.—Pontif. Anglie.
ann. 900. Diaconum oportet mi-
nistrare ad altare, et baptizare.—
Pontif. Salisbur. ann. 600;
Pontif. Roman. See Martene, De
Ant. Rit. 1. vii. 11, ed. 1783, vol.
li. pp. 87, 52, 84.
THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV cH vm
142
was lost in the comprehensive view, which became more
and more current, that all baptism whatever was valid
if given with water in the Name of the Trinity. This
opinion, expressed by St. Augustine with diffidence and
hesitation, because no general council had determined
the point, was now put forth without hesitation by those
in authority, and no one seems to have controverted it.
Thus, the popes decided entirely in this direction.
Nicholas I., replying, in 866, to an inquiry as to what
should be done to some who had been baptized by a
person of Jewish nationality, of whom it was uncertain
whether he were a Christian or not, directed that they
must not be rebaptized.* John VIII. (872-882) says
that baptism is freely conceded to the faithful laity in
necessity, and that a father may baptize his own child
without incurring matrimonial separation.’ Urban IL.
(1088-1099) extended the permission to women.°
Some comparatively little known theologians of the
first half of the twelfth century threw in their teaching
on the same side. From the writings of Ivo, Bishop of
Chartres (d. 1115), and Alger, amonk of Cluni(d. 1131),
it may be gathered that Augustine, Gelasius, Isidore,
Nicholas, and others, had become standard authorities
for quotation in favour of the validity of baptism by
4A quodam Judo, nescitis
utrum christiano an pagano, multos
in patria vestra baptizatos asseritis,
et quid de his sit agendum, consuli-
tis. Hi profecto si in nomine
sancte ‘Trinitatis, vel tantum in
nomine Christi baptizati sunt... «
constat eos non esse denuo baptiz-
andos.—Nichol. I. Respons. ad Con-
sulta Bulgarorwm, Ep. xevii. 104.
See also 15, 16.
5 Nam baptizandi hoe opus
etiam laicis fidelibus, juxta eanoni-
cam sanctionem, si necesse fuerit,
facere libere conceditur. — Joan.
VIII. Ad Anselmum Epise. Lemo-
vicen. Ep. cexxvi.
® Super quibus consulit nos tua
dilectio, hoc videtur nobis ex sen-
tentia respondendum: ut et baptis-
mus sit, si instante necessitate
femina puerum in nomine Trini-
tatis baptizaverit.—Urban. II, Ad
Vitalem, Ep. celxxi.
cH vir WESTERN THEOLOGIANS ON LAY BAPTISM
143
irregular ministrants.’ Rupert, abbot of Deutz (d. 1135),
says that heretical baptism is not to be repeated if con-
ferred in the Name of the Trinity. Honorius of Autun
(cir. 1150) says a faithfullayman may baptize in necessity,
and the priest is not to rebaptize the child if it recovers.®
Hugo of St. Victor, however, speaks of the validity of
baptism by women as still questioned, though he con-
sidered himself that everyone had power to baptize.!
In about 1153, Gratian, a Benedictine monk, brought
out the Decretum, the first instalment of the Corpus Juris
Canonici, which is the great guide to canon law abroad.
Here, digesting the teaching of the Western Church up
to his day and ignoring that of the Eastern, he quotes
the earlier popes and others, especially St. Augustine.
The result is, therefore, a decision that, though a priest
only is the ordinary minister of baptism, yet the laity
may baptize in urgency ; and the sacrament is valid not
only at the hands of the faithful, but also if the baptizer
a is heretic or a pagan.? The importance of the
“Ivo, Decret. 1. lxii., lxiv.— rebaptizandi sint. . Juxta
Ixvil.; Panormia, 1. XxXil.-xxix. auctoritates predictas indubitanter
Divus Algerus, Can. et Scholast. dicimus quod per quemcunque
Leodiensis, De Sacramento, II. vi. ;
De Misericordiaet Justitia, t. lii., lv.
detur baptismus si ibi servata forma
fuerit sacramenti, id est in nomine
8 Rup. Tuitiensis, De Trin. et
Oper. jus, In Lev. 1. xxv.
® Si presbyter, vel quilibet de
clero non adest, a fideli laico in
nomine Trinitatis in simplici aqua
baptizetur. Si supervixerit a sacer-
dote catechizetur, oleo ungatur,
chrismetur, non denuo baptizetur,
sed ab episcopo confirmetur.—
Honor. Augustodunensis, Gemma
Anima, II. exvi.
1 De his qui a mulieribus bapti-
zantur, queritur utrum rebaptizari
debeant? Quidam dicunt quod
sancte Trinitatis traditur, non sunt
rebaptizandi, quia sacramentum
baptismatis habent. rem vero sacra-
menti non habent si errori eorum
consentiunt.—Hugo de 8. Victor,
Summa Sententiarum, v. viii.
* The following titles of chapters
indicate the line of Gratian’s evi-
dence.—19. Non nisi sacerdos bapti-
zare presumat. 20. Non presumat
mulier baptizare. 21. Etiam laicine-
cessitate cogente baptizare possunt.
23. Non reiteratur baptisma, quoda
pagano ministratur. 25. Sicut per
THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV CH VIII
144
Decretum is immense, because it became the unfailing
authority of the succeeding times.
So fully was the validity of lay baptism accepted at
this period that St. Bernard, in discussing the value of
baptism by a laic in the Name of God and the holy
cross, does not so much as hint at any possibility of its
invalidity on the score of the ministry; and this, not
because the failure to name the Blessed Trinity settled
the question independently, for strangely enough he
regarded the imperfect form as sufficient.®
Baudinus, who was apparently either the master or
the pupil of Peter Lombard, at some period of the
twelfth century, says that only priests may baptize,
unless in necessity, when deacons or any others may
do so, if they observe the proper form.* Lombard says
exactly the same, speaking of Cyprian’s view as erro-
neous.” But, as to mimic baptism, he adds, after quoting
St. Augustine’s doubt, that it has seemed to wise
men that it would not be valid, because it lacks the
real intention requisite in baptizing. At this time the
bonum, ita per malum ministrum
eeque baptisma ministratur. 28.
Non reiteratur baptisma, quod in
nomine sanctze Trinitatis minis-
tratur. 31, Anapprobetur baptisma,
quod a non baptizato prestatur.
32. Non reiteratur baptisma, quod
in fide Trinitatis ab heereticis pre-
statur. 86. Valet baptisma, etsi per
laicos ministretur. 45. Extra ec-
clesiam baptismus accipi potest, sed
non prodest. See Decretwm, 11.
De Consecr. iv. 19-52. Comp. I.
causa i. qu. (1), 84-75.
8 Raptum ex utero puerum ob
periculum mortis laicus quidam, ut
dicitis, baptizavit, communem ver-
borum formam non tenens, sed
dicens, Baptizo te in nomine Dei, et
sancte et vere crucis. Queritis,
utrumnam baptizatus sit puer; an
magis, si vivit, baptizandus? Ego
vere hune baptizatum puto; nec
sonum vocis veritati fidei et pietati
intentionis prejudicare potuisse.—
Bern. Ad Henric. Archidiac. Ep.
eccclil.
4 Magister Baudinus, Senté. ty.
Vi., Vii.
° Quicunque sit qui baptizet, si
servatur forma a Christo tradita,
verum baptismum dat; et ideo qui
illum sumit non debet rebaptizari—
Lomb. Sen#. rv. vi. 1.
° Videatur tamen sapientibus
non fuisse baptisma, ut eum aliqui
CH VIII ST. RAYMOND OF PENAFORT 145
necessity of intention in conferring sacraments began to
assume a more prominent place than in earlier theology,
and it recurs as an indispensable factor of baptism in
most of the authorities of subsequent date.
St. Raymond of Pefiafort, the canonist to whom
Gregory IX. entrusted the preparation of the second
great collection of canon law, known as the Decretals of
Gregory, gives exact and interesting testimony on the
liberal acceptance of lay baptism. In danger of death,
he says, ‘a child may be baptized by anyone, even by a
lay man or woman, whether catholic and faithful, or Jew,
pagan and unfaithful, and also by excommunicates, here-
tics or schismatics, if only they observe the right form,
and intend to do what the Church intends and does, for
otherwise it is no baptism.’ If there is a choice of
persons, one in minor orders is to be preferred to a lay-
man, aman to a woman, one of the faithful to the un-
faithful, because he who baptizes does so as the repre-
sentative of Christ, and Christ is better represented by
the greater than the less. The father or mother, how-
ever, ought only to baptize in the greatest necessity.
Baptism conferred by an uncommissioned minister, he
is careful to point out, is not given ‘ by virtue of office
and authority,’ and is only to be resorted to when there
is danger of death. Since this danger is common in
childbirth, midwives and nurses should be exactly
instructed in the baptismal formula. No one, he says,
can baptize himself (a decision also found in Gregory’s
Decretals, from Innocent II.,‘ and commonly repeated
after), on the ground that there is an inherent necessity
for a distinction between the persons of the baptizer
in balneum vel in flumenmerguntur baptizandi illud geritur.— Lomb.
im nomine Trinitatis,non est tamen Sent. Iv. vi. 5.
baptismus, quia non _ intentione * Inter baptizantem et baptiza-
L
146 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV_ cH vul
and the baptized. The growing fancy of the age of the
schoolmen for speculative questions is illustrated by the
addition of a serious discussion as to whether angels, or
the devil appearing in human form, could baptize. He
thinks angels might, but not the devil.®
Hostiensis, in the latter half of the thirteenth
century, similarly goes the whole length of allowing the
validity of baptism by heretics, heathen and excommuni-
cates, in case of necessity.”
tum debeat esse discretio. . . alius
est, qui baptizatur, et alius, qui
baptizat. Ad quod etiam desig-
nandum ipse Christus non a seipso,
sed a Joanne voluit baptizari.—
Inn. III. Ad Meton. Episc. See
Corpus Juris Canonici, Decret.
Greg. 1. tit. xl. 4.
8 Si timetur de periculo, ut quia
mors videtur propinqua, tune talis
puer potest a quocunque baptizari,
etiam a laico vel a muliere, seu sint
catholici et fideles, seu judei vel
pagani et infideles, et etiam excom-
municati, heretici, schismatici;
dummodo servent debitam formam
. . . et intendant illud facere quod
intendit seu facit ecclesia: aliter
non est baptismus. ... Si neces-
sitas immineat et vergat puer ad
mortem, dignioris persone erit
ipsum baptizare; ut, puta, presenti-
bus presbytero et clerico, clericus
non baptizabit, sed presbyter.
Similiter laico et muliere presenti-
bus solius laici erit baptizare. Et
si clericus et laicus sunt presentes,
imminenti tali necessitate, clericus
baptizabit et non laicus. In tali
etiam necessitate preferetur fidelis
infideli. Et contra faciens peccaret.
Et ratio istorum est quia ille qui
baptizat in presentia Christi bap-
tizat, et representat ejus personam,
que perfectius representatur per
fidelem quam infidelem, per virum
quam per mulierem, per promotum
quam non promotum, per tonsura-
tum quam per non tonsuratum.
. . » Ipse judeus potest baptizare,
quia eodem modo valet baptismus
collatus per malum sicut per bonum.
Baptismus enim non est ministri
conferentis sed Christi . . . et hoc
est verum si ipse intendit facere hoc
quod ecclesia intendit, et cum hoe
proferat debitam formam verborum,
et immergat puerum, et hoc tempore
necessitatis. Tamen judeus non
potest baptizare ex officio et auc-
toritate, ut probatargumentum. Et
textus iste qui dat facilitatem bap-
tizandi judeo vel infideli intelligitur
de articulo mortis, et non quoad
auctoritatem vel officium. . . . Ob-
stetrices seu mulieres, quas dicunt
sagaces, que parturientium curam
gerunt et que ex officio suo habent
pueros ex maternis uteris suscipere,
debent esse bene instruct circa
formam baptismi, et illam perfecte
scire, ut possint necessitate occur-
rente baptizare.—Raym. Summula,
I. XV.—XVIil.
® Certe ne dum sacerdos vel
diaconus, sed et hereticus et
CH VIII ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, ETC. 147
St. Thomas Aquinas, at the same time, examines
separately the case of a priest, a deacon, a Christian
layman, a woman, an unbaptized person, a Jew, and a
pagan, and in every instance decides for the validity of
the rite, if only it is accurately performed with the
Church’s intention. His argument is that baptism is a
sacrament of necessity, and therefore the qualification
of the administrator is not an essential condition of
its validity. As any water is sufficient, so also is any
person, although one who is not ordained sins if he
confers it without urgent cause. The reasoning brings
him to the somewhat eccentric illustration of two un-
baptized people baptizing one another: he holds that
such a baptism would be valid.
Scotus, equally with Aquinas and the other school-
men, lays down that baptism is valid whoever be its
minister.”
paganus et excommunicatus, dum
tamen in forma ecclesie rite confera-
tur.... Necessitate etiam instante,
quilibet et quelibet potest baptizare.
—Host. Swmma, 111. xliii. 8, Quis
possit vel debeat baptizare.
1 Aquin. Swmma, t. Ixvii. 1-5.
Inter omnia autem sacramenta,
maxime necessitatis est baptismus,
qui est regeneratio hominis in vitam
spiritualem. . . . Et ideo, ut homo
circa remedium tam necessarium
defectum pati non possit, institutum
est ut et materia baptismi sit com-
munis, scilicet aqua, que a quolibet
de facili haberi potest; et minister
baptismi etiam sit quicumque non
ordinatus, ne, propter defectum
baptismi, homo salutis sux dis-
pendium patiatur.—3. ‘In Christo
non est masculus et femina.’ Et
ideo, sicut masculus laicus potest
baptizare quasi minister Christi, ita
etiam et femina. Quia tamen
‘caput mulieris est vir, et caput
viri est Christus,’ non debet mulier
baptizare, si adsit copia viri.—4.
Per ecclesiam determinatum est
quod non baptizati, sive sint judi,
sive pagani, possunt sacramentum
baptismi conferre, dummodo in
forma ecclesie baptizent.... Et
hujus ratio est, quia, sicut ex parte
materiz, quantum ad necessitatem
sacramenti, sufficit quaecumque
aqua, ita etiam sufficit ex parte
ministri quicumque homo... . Si
vero extra articulum necessitatis
hoc fieret, uterque graviter peccaret,
scilicet baptizans et baptizatus; et
per hoc impediretur baptismi
effectus, licet non tolleretur ipsum
sacramentum.—).
2 Duns Scotus, Sent. rv. vi. 1.
Tie,
148 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV_ cH vim
De Burgo does the same, in the fourteenth century,
expressing himself in the most explicit language. ‘In
extreme necessity,’ he says, ‘any man whatever, cleric
or lay, baptized or unbaptized, heretic or infidel, Jew or
pagan, or in any way infamous, can baptize. And
baptism conferred by such is valid, if only he has a
general or special intention of baptizing, and observes
the form delivered by the Church; because not the
merit of the ministers, but the virtue of Christ, operates
in baptism. Nor is such a one to be rebaptized by
another who is a catholic.’ He adds the usual cautions
that a baptized person is to be preferred for the office
to an unbaptized, a man to a woman, and so forth, the
father and mother being a last resort, unless some im-
pediment, such as ignorance of the words to be said,
makes it advisable not to keep to the order of pre-
cedence. No room for exception was left; only that a
dumb person was excluded because he could not say the
essential form.*
One other testimony must be added, that of the
ereat English canonist William Lyndwood, whose
Provinciale was published between 1430 and 1440.
3 Item. In ardua necessitate, articulo proprios filios in forma
quilibet homo, sive clericus, sive ecclesiz baptizare. Si tamen alii
laicus; baptizatus, sive non bapti- adsint qui baptizare possint, non
zatus; hereticus, sive infidelis; debet pater vel mater proprium
judeus, sive paganus; seu quidam- filium baptizare. Item, mulieri
cumque flagitiosus potest baptizare. quamvis doctie et sancte, sicut in
Et valet baptismus a tali collatus; conventu, docere non licet, ita nee
dummodo habeat intentionem bap- aliquem nisi urgente necessitatis
tizandi generalem vel specialem, et articulo baptizare. . . . Mutus non
servet formam traditam abecclesia; potest aliquem baptizare. Quod
yula non merita ministrorum, sed ideo est, quia de essentia baptismi
virtus Christi in baptismate opera- est certa forma verborum; quam
tur. ... Item, pater et mater, mutus proferre non potest.—Burgo,
absque preejudicio copulee conjugalis, Pup. Oculi, u. ii.
possunt in extreme necessitatis
CH VIII LYNDWOOD 149
His contribution to the subject is contained in the
scattered notes of that book, in which he borrows much
from the Corpus Juris Canonici, and from the schoolmen
and canonists who preceded him, whose authority he
constantly quotes. The sum of his evidence is this:
‘Except in necessity, a priest is the only lawful minister
of baptism.’ But in necessity anyone may baptize, a
pagan, a heretic, a schismatic, a layman, whether
faithful or unfaithful, even the father of the child, or a
woman. Among circumstances of necessity he includes,
besides severe illness, any grave peril, such as war, an
incursion of robbers, or a flood. ‘One who is not a
priest sins mortally if he baptizes, except in danger of
death ; yet, if anyone who is not a priest has, as a matter
of fact, baptized without circumstances of necessity, but
with the right intention, and in the Church’s form, the
baptism holds in effect so far as that the person thus
baptized ought not to be rebaptized. And,’ he con-
tinues, ‘I say the same about one who baptizes, being
himself unbaptized ; for the goodness or sanctity of the
minister does not belong to what is necessary, but to
what is suitable, to baptism. Whence also, if the
baptizer does not believe in the sacrament of baptism,
nor that any spiritual thing is done thereby, the baptism
is valid, if only he generally intends to do what the
Church does.’ Thus, the English canonist was abreast
of his fellows, in the extent to which he allowed the
validity of baptism by irregular ministers.*
4 Lynd. Provinciale, 1. vii., x.; dos baptizans, preterquam in. ‘ii
Iu. xxiv. Oxf. ed., 1679, pp. 41, 42, culo mortis. Si tamen de facto
50, 241-4. Extracasumnecessitatis, baptizaret aliquis non sacerdos
solus sacerdos est debitus minister extra articulum necessitatis, cum
ad sacramentum baptismi. Et pec- tamen debita intentione, et in forma
caret mortaliter aliquis non sacer- ecclesiw, tenet baptismus ad effec-
150 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV CH VIII
In turning from the schoolmen and canonists to the
acts of councils, it is noticeable that the Church’s
writers seem throughout to be somewhat in advance of
the formal decrees of her synods. While the earlier of
the medieval theologians were teaching the fullest doc-
trine of the validity of lay baptism, the councils were
still for the most part silent. Indeed, where the ministry
of baptism is dealt with, during the first part of this
period, though there is no denial of lay baptism, for it
is not mentioned, the tendency of the canons is to be re-
strictive, with the view of securing that baptism should
be confined as far as possible to solemn administration
at stated times. When Gratian brought out his Decre-
tum, he had to rest his case for the validity of baptism
by laymen, heretics, and pagans almost entirely on the
isolated opinions of a few fathers and the popes. The
current practice of the Western Church may have been
in accord with them, but it had not been embodied in
conciliar decrees.
Et non solum potest esse necessi-
tas in periculo mortis, sed etiam
quia in partibus est hostilitas, vel
incursus latronum, aut inundatio
aquarum, vel quid simile in via vel
in loco, vel damnum pecuniarium ;
ut si sub poena pecuniaria esset
prohibitum, ne quis ad talem locum
tum quod sic baptizatus non debet
rebaptizari. Et idem dico de non
baptizato baptizante: quia bonitas
sive sanctitas ministri non est de
necessitate baptismi, sed de con-
gruentia. Unde et si baptizans non
credit sacramentum baptismi, nec
aliquid ibi fieri spirituale, dummodo
in genere intendat facere quod facit
ecclesia, valet baptismus.—p. 41.
Tn quo casu [necessitatis] non solum
laicus christianus, sed etiam paganus
baptizare potest.—p. 50. Quiaforsan
timetur de ejus morte imminenti,
quo casu cuilibet licet baptizare,
etiam patri. Unde et hereticus
tempore necessitatis potest bapti-
zare, dum tamen cum intentione
baptizandi servet formam ecclesiz.
accederet... . Licet presbyter bapti-
zare possit, preesente episcopo, quia
de officio suo est; tamen presente
presbytero clericus baptizare non
debet, nec laicus presente clerico,
nec mulier presente viro.—p. 241.
Etiam hereticis vel schismaticis,
fidelibus et infidelibus, dummodo
habeant intentionem baptizandi, et
servent formam ecclesix.—p. 244.
CH VIII CANONS OF FOREIGN COUNCILS 151
Whether it was due to the publication of the
Decretum, or to some other cause, a sudden change
seems to have come over the tone of the councils im-
mediately after, for the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries produced an abundance of canons, directly
sanctioning lay baptism in necessity. The statutes
nearly always take the same form. The priest is the
proper minister; but, in urgency, laity may baptize,
men in preference to women, and any rather than the
parents. ‘Then, in addition, as time progresses, there
come injunctions to instruct midwives, and congrega-
tions in general, in the right form, that everyone may be
prepared to baptize if emergency arises. All such lay
baptism is valid ; and, if the child recovers, the priest is
not to baptize it again. The councils, as a rule, confined
themselves to what was likely to be practically required,
and avoided the more speculative cases of irregular
baptism, to which the theological taste of the day was
attracted in ecclesiastical treatises.
Omitting the English councils for the present, many
instances of decrees of this kind can be found abroad.
As early as the twelfth century they occur in the Con-
stitutions of Odo, Archbishop of Paris, and in the canons
of two councils of uncertain locality. Then, in rapid
succession, they find a place in the statutes of councils at
Treves in 1227, at Rouen in 1235, at Fritzlar in Hesse
in 1246, at Le Mans in 1247, at Valencia in 1255,
at Arles in 1260, at Mayence in 1261, at Claremont
in 1268, at Treves again in 1277, at Cologne in 1280,
at Nismes, with some particularity, in 1284, and
at Liege in 1287. A French synod of Cahors, Rodez
and Tulle in 1289 adds, what is unusual in the canons,
that baptism is valid if conferred by an excommunicated
Stut
152 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV cua vim
person, a heretic or a pagan, in the form of the Church,
with the Church’s general intention. Three councils in
Cyprus—two undated, and one in 1298—a council at
Wurzburg in the same year, and a council at Bayeux
in about 1300, are to be added to the list of the thir-
teenth century. Then, for another half century, canons
of the same kind were passed at Mayence in 1310,
at Ravenna in 1311 and again in 1314, at Prague in
1346 and 1355, and, after an interval, at Rheims in
1408, and at Salzburg in 1420.°
John of Ragusa, at the council of Basle, in 1433,
while defending communion in one kind, illustrated his
contention that the Church has power to regulate such
matters, by instancing lay baptism. To the apostles
alone, he says, our Lord gave the commission, ‘Go,
baptize :’ ‘and yet, in a circumstance of necessity, men
and women, pagans, Jews and heretics can baptize, so
long as they observe the form, matter and intention
of the Church. Why is this? Certainly because the
Church has so declared and so ordained, and because it
has so pleased her that her authority shall be communi-
cated to all in circumstances of necessity.° He thus
treats the wide acceptance of any minister of baptism
as an acknowledged doctrine of the Church, though
one evolved entirely by her own discipline. When
possunt baptizare, dummodo servent
formam, materiam et intentionem
ecclesiz : unde hoc ? certe quia sic
declaravit ecclesia, sic ordinayit,
et quia sic ei placuit suam auctori-
5 See Note at end of chapter.
6 Porro nec ex doctrina Christi
et evangelii, nec etiam ex doctrina
alicujus apostolorum habetur ex-
presse, quod aliquis habeat potesta-
tem baptizandi, exceptis ecclesias-
ticis, quorum statum priefigurabant
apostoli, quibus solis dictum est,
Ite, baptizantes, etc.; et nihilominus
in necessitatis articulo mares et
foeminze, pagani, judiei et hretici
tatem omnibus communicare in
necessitatis articulo.—Oratio Joan-
nis de Ragusio, De communione
sub utraque specie: Cone. Basil.
Mansi, vol. xxix. p. 859.
CH VIII COUNCILS OF BASLE AND FLORENCE 153
Bossuet, at a later date, adopted the same line of argu-
ment on the same subject, he doubtless borrowed it
from John of Ragusa’s oration.’
The fullest form of the belief was authoritatively
pronounced in the decrees of Pope Eugenius at the
council of Florence, in 1459: ‘The minister of this
sacrament is a priest, to whom it belongs to baptize
from his office. But in a case of necessity, not only a
priest, or a deacon, but also a lay man or woman, or
even, indeed, a pagan and heretic, can baptize, if only
he observes the form of the Church, and intends to do
what the Church does.’® Yet even here there is, as in
nearly all the decrees, a reticence about lay baptism
when there is no excuse of necessity, and a careful
emphasis on the need of an intention to act on behalf
of the Church. The validity of lay baptism under other
circumstances is probably implied, but the deliberate
and express sanction to which councils were committed
was confined to the limited range of cases where urgency
left only the choice of a lay administration or no
administration at all. As Walafrid Strabo sums it up
at the end of the fifteenth century, ‘ Where inevitable
necessity demands, it is better to be baptized anywhere
and by anybody than to run the risk of perishing with-
out the remedy.’ °
In England, the question of lay baptism was as
abundantly treated in the later middle ages as it was
on the continent, and in very much the same way.
7 Bossuet, La Communion sous et a quocumque in nomine Trinita-
wne espéce. See ante, p. 26. tis, quam periclitantem sineremedio
® See Note at end of chapter. deperire.—Walaf. Strabo, De Rebus
® Ubi inevitabilis necessitas Hcclesiasticis, xxvi.
poscit, melius baptizari ubicumque
154 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV_ cH vit
Lanfranc, writing to Donatus, an Irish bishop, in
1073, tells him that ‘the canons lay down that an
infant may be baptized by a faithful layman, if imminent
death urges, and if a priest is lacking.’* Whether Lan-
franc would have extended the power to others than
to ‘ faithful’ laymen, that is, communicant churchmen,
can only be matter of conjecture. What he does say
shows that lay baptism was received in his day under
the form least open to criticism.
The same causes, whatever they were, that led to
the frequent discussion of lay baptism in the councils
abroad, operated equally in England, and at exactly the
same period, for similar canons abound during the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries.
A council at Westminster, under Archbishop Walter,
in 1200, says, ‘ If a child is baptized by a layman, which
may be done by the father or by the mother, without
prejudice to matrimony, let what follows, not what
precedes, the immersion be completed by the priest.’
The Constitutions of Bishop Poore of Salisbury in 1217,
and the identical canons of a council at Durham in
1220, say that what precedes as well as what succeeds
the immersion is to be performed by the priest. In
either case the object was to prevent the repetition of
the actual baptism itself. At Oxford, in 1222, a
council directs ‘priests frequently to teach the laity
that they ought to baptize children in necessity, even
women, and the father and mother of the child in
the greatest necessity.’ So does a Scotch council at
Aberdeen in 1225. Archbishop Edmund’s Constitutions
1 Infantem quoque non baptiza- _baptizari posse, canones precipiunt.
tum, si morte imminente urgeatur, —Lanf. Ad Don. Hib. Epise.
a fideli laico, si presbyter desit,
CH VIII ENGLISH COUNCILS 155
in 1256 direct lay baptism in necessity, and so also does
a council at Coventry in 1237, and another of uncertain
place at about the same date. The Legatine Constitu-
tions of Otho, formally accepted by a council in St. Paul’s
Cathedral in 1237, decree ‘that parish priests, diligently
learning the form of baptism, shall explain it frequently
to their parishioners, on the Lord’s day, in the vulgar
tongue; that, if a case of necessity occurs, in which it
behoves them to baptize anyone, they may know it and
be able to observe it.’ Similar directions providing for
lay baptism were given by councils at Worcester in
1240, at St. Andrew’s in 1242, at Chichester in 1246, at
Durham in 1255, and at Norwich in 1257. The
Legatine Constitutions of Othobon, received by a council
in St. Paul’s in 1268, repeat those of Otho, and impress
their teaching, saying that, ‘since none ought to die
without receiving this sacrament, it can be conferred by
anyone in case of necessity ; and, when it is administered
in the form of the Church, it avails to salvation.’ Every
archdeacon is enjoined, therefore, to make strict in-
quiry throughout his archdeaconry, as to whether the
form is frequently taught to the people; and he is to
punish severely such priests as neglect to teach it.
Archbishop Peckham’s Constitutions, in 1279, urge
the early baptism of children, without waiting for Easter
and Pentecost, especially on the ground of the danger
of sudden death, when the parents, through ignorance,
may easily make a mistake in the baptismal formula.
But, the decree proceeds, ‘if, perchance, it has happened
that children have been baptized by lay persons, on ac-
count of the danger of death, let priests take care that
they dare not repeat a baptism lawfully performed.’
Some evidently were inclined to resist the doctrine of
156 THE LATER MIDDLE AGES—CENT. IX-XV cu vit
lay baptism, and to rebaptize, for the Archbishop’s
Constitutions at Lambeth, in 1281, severely reprobate
the practice. ‘We find that some have transgressed
concerning the sacrament of baptism. For, whereas, if
children are in danger, on account of mevitable neces-
sity, it is conceded to any laymen or to women, in such
cases, thus to baptize those who are in danger, and
baptism of this kind is sufficient for salvation, if the due
form has been observed, nor ought those who are thus
baptized to be baptized again; yet since some foolish
priests rebaptize children so baptized, not without
indignity to the sacrament, we strictly forbid that this
be done any more.’ A considerable council at Exeter,
in 1287, enacted similar directions in some detail.
Since ‘the sacrament of baptism is so necessary that
without it there is no salvation,’ ‘it often happens that
a child has to be baptized by some other than a priest,
on account of the danger of death.’ Therefore ‘it is
expedient and needful that everyone should understand
and know the form of baptizing, that, when inevitable
necessity occurs, he may be able to observe it. If it is
not exactly observed, the child must be baptized afresh ;
since, of the two things necessary to baptism, that is,
the words and the matter, if either is imperfect,
nothing at all is done.’ But if these are complete the
priest may only supply what follows the immersion. A
council at Winchester, in 1308, gives the same direction,
in nearly the same words.”
Exactly conformable to the ruling of the canons was
the rubrical direction of the Sarum Manual. It orders
parish priests often to teach the baptismal formula, on
Sundays, that people may know how to baptize in
* See Note at end of chapter.
CH VIII THE SARUM MANUAL 157
emergency. ‘And if the child have been baptized ac-
cording to that form, let everyone take heed that he
baptize him not again; but if such infants recover, let
them be brought to the Church, and let the exorcisms
and questions be said for them, with unction and all the
other rites, except immersion and the baptismal formula,
which are altogether to be omitted. The Rey. A. W. C. Hallen, of
Alloa, a student of registers, informs
me that he has never met with an
instance, among the registers of the
Presbyterians in Scotland, of a
baptism by any other than their
ministers, except the following one,
1646,
in the register of Dunfermline :
‘1744 Dec... Baptized by a
sponsor a child born of Jean
Paterson (late servant in Dunferm-
line) borne the ... of December
and ...the 27 called Robert.
Witnesses Samuel Alexander and
William Wellwood Church officers.’
The lacune are in the original.
° Discipline des LEglises Reé-
formées de France, chap. xi. ean.
184 THE REFORMATION—CENT, XVI CH IX
a liberal interpretation to the term ‘vocation.’ La
Roque, in controversy with Bossuet, said it was satisfied
by ‘the appearance of vocation,—‘a vocation which,
though not perfect in all its parts, was nevertheless
sufficient for the administration of baptism.’ Hence
they could admit the validity of baptism by heretics, by
false pastors, and by papist priests, though not that by
laymen.’ That the Huguenots lost the possession of
true orders, and had pastors who themselves were really
but laymen, does not affect the principle of their con-
tention. They repeated their enactments on this point
several times. One of the articles of a synod at
Poictiers, in 1560, is this: ‘Item, the docter sina
Church may not baptize, nor administer the Lord’s
supper, unless he be ordained a minister as well as a
doctor at the same time.’® At this synod it was also
debated what was to be done if an infant had been
baptized by a private person. It was decided that ‘the
child shall be brought publicly into the Church there
to receive true baptism;’ and that, to avoid scandal,
sermons should be preached to inform people of the
nullity of baptism by private persons.? A synod at
Lyons, in 1563, sent a deputation to Geneva to ask
counsel of the ministers there on a case of conscience
submitted to them as to a baptism of this kind. The
reply was: ‘ That such baptism did not in any wise agree
with the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there-
fore consequently is of no force, power, validity, or
1. See Quick, Synodiconin Gallia 190. Synods at St. Maixant, 1609,
Reformata, 1692, p. xliv. and Vitré, 1617; see Quick, pp.
* La Roque, Réponse au liwre de 3:28, 492.
M. VEvéque de Méaux, 1683, p. 8 Art. 18, Quick, p. 15.
162; Bossuet, Traité de la Com- ® Thid. p. 18.
munion, CHuvres, t. ix. pp. 160,
CH Ix BAPTISM BY MIDWIVES IN ENGLAND 185
effect, and that the child ought to be brought to the
Church of God, there to be baptized. For to separate
the ministration of the sacraments from the pastor’s
office, it is as if one should tear out a seal to make use
of it without the commission or letters patent to which
it was affixed. And in this case we must practise that
rule of our Lord, “ What God hath joined together, let
no man put asunder.” ‘This for and in the name of all
the assembly, John Calvin.’ The nullity of ‘lay’
baptism was again endorsed by synods at Rochelle in
1571, where Beza was chosen moderator,” at Gap in
1603,° and again at Rochelle in 1607, when midwives’
baptism was rejected as ‘ wholly null and void, because
done by one who had no call unto that office.’ *
In the Church of England, whatever intention there
may have been to discourage lay baptism, it was not im-
mediately forbidden. A paper of ‘Interpretations and
further Considerations,’ drawn up by the bishops with
reference to Queen LElizabeth’s Injunctions of 1559,
and preserved among Archbishop Parker’s papers, has
this clause: ‘Item, that private baptism in necessity,
as in peril of death, be ministered either by the curate,
deacon, or reader, or some other grave and sober man,
if the time will suffer.’° The object was, no doubt,
principally to check midwives from baptizing too freely.
From the nature of the case, it had probably always
been they who had baptized with most frequency. Their
exceptional lability to find themselves in the presence
of necessity had even been officially recognised. It had
* Quick, Synodicon, pp. 50-53. 4 Ibid. p. 272.
3 Toid. p. 97. > Cardwell, Doc. Ann. vol. i. p.
3 Ibid. p. 239. 206.
186 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH Ix
become customary in England to give them an eccle-
siastical license, before receiving which they bound
themselves by oath to abstain from certain malpractices,
and this oath, under the new conditions of the English
Church, still included a promise to baptize in due form.
Thus, Strype records that, in 1567, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Parker, granted a license to Hleanor Pead,
and gives the oath administered to her, in which there
occurs the promise: ‘ Also, that in the ministration of
the sacrament of baptism in the time of necessity, I will
use apt and the accustomed words of the same sacra-
ment, that is to say, these words following, or the like
in effect; I christen thee in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and none other profane
words.’ °
This baptism by midwives was a constant topic of
complaint in the correspondence between the English
puritans and the foreign Calvinists. In a letter to
Bullinger from two Englishmen, Humphrey and Samp-
son, July 1566, it is spoken of as one of thirteen parti-
cular blemishes still attaching to the Church of England.’
It was from abroad that they had learnt their opposition
to it. Beza wrote to Bullinger, September 3, 1566,
inveighing ‘against the permission to women to baptize
in cases of necessity, as a gross error of the Anglican
Church. And to some in England, in the following
year, he wrote, that baptism by midwives ‘is not only
disliked by us, but seems also altogether intolerable ; as
arising from the ignorance of the true use of baptism
and the public ministry. Therefore, we think the
® Strype, Annals of the Reforma- 1st series, p. 164.
gion, vol. 1, part 2, p. 243. 8 Ibid. 2nd series, p.130. Comp.
7 Zurich Letters, Parker Soc. Beza, De Sac. q. 144.
CH IX CORRESPONDENCE WITH BULLINGER 187
ministers should earnestly reprove the retaining such
an abuse, but by no means allow such false baptism.’ ®
One, Percival Wiburn, in a complaint of the state of the
English Church, also enumerates among the grievances,
that baptism in private, and even by women, was per-
mitted.t ‘We entirely agree,’ wrote Bishop Grindal and
Bishop Horn, in a joint letter to Bullinger and Gualter,
February 6, 1567, ‘that women neither can nor ought
to baptize infants upon any account whatever.’* George
Withers, writing to Bullinger, August 1567, treats
this, somewhat unfairly, as a disingenuous attempt to
deny that women were allowed to baptize.* But
neither bishop meant probably to do more than express
his own disapproval of the practice. This, however,
was not absolute, for Bishop Horn, in another letter to
Bullinger, speaks of the Prayer Book as allowing
‘baptism in private houses by women in time of
necessity, which is only ministered by the woman bap-
tizing the infant who is like to die.’ Bullinger’s remark
in reply was: ‘We disapprove of baptism being ad-
ministered in private houses by midwives or women in
time of necessity, or in the prospect of death.’ *
Happily for the Church of England the power of
the foreign reformers was mainly confined to their
influence on the minds of English ecclesiastics. They
never became her dictators. To write to Bullinger was
a vent for the feelings of sympathetic protestant spirits,
but it was very little more. It did nothing material
towards bringing about a change of practice, for Ingland
did not appeal to Zurich for guidance as the French
® Strype, Life of Grindal, p. 513. 2 Ibid. 1st series, p. 178.
' Zurich Letters, 2nd series, p. 3 Ibid. 2nd series, p. 149.
361, 4 Ibid. pp. 356, 357.
188 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
sects did to Geneva. Her real reformation was from
within ; and this is as true of the efforts to check the
liberty of lay baptism as it is of any other part of the
movement. For the most part it took the legitimate
form of motions in Convocation.
In 1562 the puritans made a determined effort to
get Convocation to take up the question, among other
abuses which they thought needed reformation. The
subject had been seething beforehand, for among the
memoranda included in a paper, annotated by Arch-
bishop Parker, of ‘ General notes of matters to be moved
by the clergy in the next parliament and synod, is this :
‘That no private baptism be administered hereafter, but
only by those that be ministers of the Church.’ In the
lower house, Nowel, Dean of St. Paul’s and prolocutor,
presented a petition, signed by thirty-two members of
Convocation, which included the prayer, ‘That none
from henceforth be suffered in any wise to baptize, but
ministers only. The clergy would not agree to the
entire petition, and it eventually took the form of certain
requests to the upper house, subscribed by sixty-four
members of the lower. Among these the petition
against lay and private baptism held its place, in the
wording of Archbishop Parker’s notes. Sandys, Bishop
of Worcester, also presented a paper, of which the first
sentence ran: ‘That with her Majesty’s authority, with
the assistance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, accord-
ing to the limitations of the act provided in that behalf,
might be taken out of the Book of Common Prayer
private baptism, which hath respect unto women ; who,
by the Word of God cannot be ministers of the sacra-
ments or of any one of them.’ In spite of some sym-
° Strype, Annals, vol. i. part 1, p. 475.
Ld
CH IX PROCEEDINGS IN CONVOCATION 189
pathy with the movement among certain of the bishops,
no resolution was passed, and the subject fell through.°
In 1575 another and more successful attempt was
made to get the Convocation of Canterbury to act.
Fifteen articles passed the two houses, and the twelfth of
these was as follows: ‘Item. Where/as] some ambiguity
and doubt hath risen among divers, by what persons
private baptism is to be administered ; forasmuch as by
the Book of Common Prayer allowed by the statute, the
bishop of the diocese is authorised to expound and
resolve all such doubts as shall arise concerning the
manner how to understand, and to execute the things
contained in the said book; it is now by the said arch-
bishop and bishops expounded and resolved, and every
one of them doth expound and resolve, that the said
private baptism, in case of necessity, is only to be
ministered by a lawful minister or deacon, called to be
present for that purpose, and by none other. And that
every bishop in his diocese shall take order, that this
exposition of the said doubt shall be published in writing
before the first day of May next coming, in every parish
Church of his diocese in this province. And thereby
all other persons shall be inhibited to intermeddle with
the ministering of baptism privately, being no part of
their vocation.’ “
A great deal too much has been made of this article
as a proof that the Church of England rejected lay
baptism as invalid. In the first place, it does not
necessarily touch the question of validity at all. It is
only a disciplinary regulation, which might or might not
® Ibid. pp. 500, 508. to Archbishop Whitgift, who had
7 Strype, Life of Grindal, p. been prolocutor of the lower house
540. From MS. copy belonging of Convocation in 1575.
190 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
be based on a view of invalidity. And, yet more, it does
not seem ever to have been promulged, for it is in none
of the printed copies of the articles, although it was in-
cluded in three MS. copies known to Strype.3 Heylin,
who transcribed the articles from the Journal of Convo-
cation, says of the fifteenth, which is also missing from
the printed copies, that it was not put into type, ‘eo
quod domina nostra regina (ut dicitur) non assensit
eidem.’® He makes no remark on the twelfth; but, as
this also does not appear, it may be that the queen
objected to it as well as to the fifteenth. Anyhow
there was an obvious reason for suppressing it. In
spite of the assertions made in the Convocation debate,
that the compilers of the Prayer Book did not mean to
sanction female baptism,’ the rubrics, as they then
stood, could not rationally be made to forbid lay baptism
altogether; and to put out a decision in manifest want
of harmony with the wording of the directions in the
office would have been both unwise and_ useless.
Nothing but an alteration of the Prayer Book itself
could make lay baptism, in necessity, an unlaw(ul
practice in the Church of England. At present no
alteration was attempted.”
The subject was mooted in a more enduring form in
some of the literary controversies of the day. The
chief names which appear in the discussion are, on the
8 Strype, Life of Grindal, p. 289. ® Tbid.
He only specifies that 1t was in two
of the MSS., but as he mentions
that there were fourteen articles in
the third, it may be assumed that
the missing one was certainly the
fifteenth, and therefore that the
twelfth was ineluded.
' See ante, p. 178.
? The question about this twelfth
article was considered in some
detail in the case of Mastin v. Escott
(post, p. 254). See Curteis, Re-
port of the Case, &c. 1841, pp. 40,
O52.
CH IX CARTWRIGHT’S ATTACK ON LAY BAPTISM 191
one side, that of the well known puritan, Thomas Cart-
wright, and, on the other, the greater ones of Whiteift
and Hooker. Indeed it is to their replies that Cart-
wright entirely owes his reputation.
In 1572, there appeared the so-called ‘ Admonition ’
to Parliament, denouncing many of the doctrines and
practices of the Church of England. Cartwright was
not its sole author, but it was drawn up with his assist-
ance, and under his supervision. It was considered to
require a competent refutation, and Whiteift, then
Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was selected for
the task. In the same year he published an ‘ Answer
to the Admonition.’ Cartwright forthwith, in 1573,
retorted in a ‘Reply to the Answer,’ and Whitgift, in
1574, brought out a ‘ Defence of the Answer to the
Admonition.’ Cartwright wrote a ‘Second Reply’ in
two parts, of which the first appeared in 1575 and
the second in 1577. The most celebrated of the series
of publications is Whiteift’s ‘ Defence of the Answer.’
Baptism in private, by laymen, and by women,
figured prominently in the dispute. Cartwright, in the
coarse tone of his party, said that baptism by women
was no more a sacrament than was the ordinary daily
washing of children by their mothers.* He said the
practice had its origin in an over-literal dwelling upon
the effect attributed to ‘water’ in our Lord’s discourse
with Nicodemus, coupled with a false pressing of the
doctrine of necessity.* He allowed the validity of
baptism by heretical ministers, because they had been
ordained,° but, he urged, ‘Forasmuch as St. Paul said
that a man cannot preach which is not sent, so I cannot
3 Cartwright, Reply, p. 144. 4 Ibid. p. 148.
° Rest of Reply, p. 181.
192 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
see how a man can baptize unless that he be sent to
that end.’® There was much that was discursive and
irrelevant, some that was weak, and not a little that was
offensive, in his writing; but, from the nature of the
case, the argument as to orders was strong, if Church
tradition were to be left out of account.
Whitgift, in his reply, betrays a consciousness of
the force of Cartwright’s position. This appears espe-
cially in his endeavour to exculpate the Church from
any responsibility as to the sanction of female baptism.
He denied that women baptized with frequency, saying
that he had never known a single instance since the
beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign.’ As his own
experience had been mainly confined to the university,
this testimony does not go for much. Even if they
did baptize, he said, it did not follow that they acted
by the authority of the Prayer Book, which meant, he
thought, ‘that private baptism is rather to be minis-
tered by some minister (which in time of necessity may
soonest be come by) than by any woman.’® But he
was scarcely consistent. At least his tone varied. In
one place he says, ‘I suspend my judgment for baptiz-
ing by women.’? In another he defends its validity by
an argument which omits the bearing of ordination on
the question. ‘I say,’ he remarks, ‘that baptism minis-
tered by women is true baptism, though it be not lawful
for women to baptize, as the baptism also ministered
by heretics is true baptism, though they be usurpers of
that office! ‘So far as I can read,’ he says again, ‘the
° Cartwright, Reply, p. 144. vol, iii. p. 493.
7 Whitgift, Works, Parker Soe. ® Tbid. vol. u. p. 540.
vol. 1. p. 492. 1 Ibid. p. 582.
8 Ibid. vol. ii. pp. 493, 496, 533 ;
CH Ix WHITGIFT’S DEFENCE 193
opinion of all learned men is that the essential form,
and as it were the life of baptism, 1s to baptize in the
Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;
which form being observed, the sacrament remaineth in
full force and strength, of whomsoever it be ministered.’ ?
It is evident that Whitgift himself was satisfied with the
traditional view of the Western Church, but that he felt
the pressure of the puritans’ argument against it, and
tried here and there to conciliate them by yielding some-
what of the positiveness with which he might otherwise
have enunciated it.
When Whiteift became archbishop he was imme-
diately approached on the subject by the puritan party.
In 1583, the very year of his appointment, some of the
clergy expressed to him the scruple they felt in sub-
scribing to the Book of Common Prayer, because they
said it allowed baptism by women. Whitgift very
reasonably replied that ‘ the Book did not name women
when it spake of private baptism; and their subscrip-
tion was not required to anything which was not
expressed in the Book.’ ?
The matter was not allowed to drop. In 1584, a
puritan address was presented to the archbishop, con-
taining among other things the petition, ‘That all bap-
tizing by midwives and women (which is a cloak of
popery, and was first used by heretics, and condemned
by the ancient fathers, and likewise by the fourth
council of Carthage, afterwards notoriously corrupted
and falsified by Gratian, and other, for the maintenance
of the said unlawful act) may from henceforth be in-
hibited and declared void; and that no bishop, or any
? Ibid. p. 528. Judgment by Sir J. Nicholl, 1811,
% Daubeny, Examination of the p. 75.
0
194 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
of their officers, in the admitting of midwives, do give
them any such authority to baptize, as heretofore hath
been accustomed.’ Whiteift, in his answer, drew a
distinction between lawfulness and what he should have
called validity, admitting a doubt as to the lawfulness of
female baptism, but none as to its validity. ‘That the
baptism ministered by women is lawful* and good,
howsoever they minister it, lawfully or unlawfully (so
that the institution of Christ, touching the words and
element, be duly used), no learned man ever doubted,
until now of late some one or two who, by their singu-
larity in some points of religion, have done more harm,
and given the adversary greater advantage, than any-
thing else could do. Neither any of the fathers, nor
that council, ever condemned the baptizing of women,
in the case of necessity, and extraordinarily. But that
they should baptize ordinarily and without necessity,
the papists themselves do not allow. I never heard
that any bishops professing the gospel did give any
such authority to midwives.® Whiteift must of course
here mean that the bishops gave no authority except for
urgent occasions, for he cannot have been ignorant of
the episcopal license implied in the oath which it had
been customary to administer to midwives. ‘This reply
probably exactly expressed Whitgift’s own mind upon
the subject. Irritated by the continued pesterings of
the puritans, he speaks out in it more clearly and
decisively than in some of his other answers.
A little later Hooker was drawn into the controversy.
In the Ecclesiastical Polity, published in 1594, he com-
bated the objections to lay baptism, particularly those
to baptism by women, with some energy and warmth.
4 T.e. valid. 5 Strype, Life of Grindal, vol. iii. pp. 138, 139.
Arex HOOKER 195
He is not, however, very felicitous, either in his state-
ment of historical facts or in his reasoning. He takes
his stand on the ground, which all would admit, that ‘a
second baptism was ever abhorred by the Church as a
kind of incestuous birth.’ Then, after showing, not
without a little bias im his representation, that baptism
was accepted in the early Church at the hands of
heretics, he concludes that it is much less void, ‘ through
any other moral defect in the minister thereof.’ Treat-
ing the want of ordination as though it were a mere
‘moral defect,’ he declares that there can never be any
iteration where the due form and matter were used.
‘If baptism,’ he says, ‘ seriously be administered in the
same element and with the same form of words which
Christ’s institution teacheth, there is no other defect in
the world that can make it frustrate, or deprive it of the
nature of a true sacrament.’ This was the medieval
doctrine, but it does not follow from the early view of
heretical baptism, even had that been unanimous.
Cartwright had illustrated his objection to baptism
by women, by the simile of a seal stolen from a prince.
As this, he says, would not make a erant efficacious if
it were set to a deed by one who had no authority to
use it, so if a woman steals the seal of holy baptism, and
sets it upon anyone, the act is inefficacious because it is
usurped and unauthorised. The parallel clearly does
not hold, and Hooker says, ‘their argument from a
stolen seal may return to the place out of which they
had it, for it helpeth their cause nothing.’ But he im-
mediately falls into a much more fallacious illustration
on his own side, when he compares irregular baptism
to procreation of children in unlawful wedlock. Re-
generation is parallel with natural birth, but there is no
02?
196 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
proper analogy between the instrumentalities whereby
natural and spiritual generation are effected. Both
require human agency for their ordinary accomplish-
ment; but there does not seem to be any fair corre-
spondence between the physical conditions required in
procreation, to which God has not made marriage a
necessary physical antecedent, and the spiritual condi-
tions required for regeneration, to which, as some think,
God has made an ordained ministry necessary. In the
one case the child is visibly born; in the other the
result belongs to invisible grace, in which it is possible
to be mistaken. Moreover, if the simile holds good at
all, it suggests limitations. It is not everyone who can
equally become the instrument of procreation, apart
from age or sex or other conditions. It is a qualified
power, and helps little towards the proof of an unquali-
fied ability to baptize.
Hooker’s conclusion is, ‘We may infer that the
administration of this sacrament by private persons, be
it lawful or unlawful, appeareth not as yet to be merely
void.’ Although the weight of the reasons by which
he arrives at this result is not great, that of his own
name is so considerable in the Church of England, that
the mere fact of his having taken this view has perhaps
done more to fix the popular acceptance of irregular
ministrations of baptism than all the arguments that
have been brought to bear on the subject.®
Others followed on the same side. Abbott, after-
6 Hooker, Ecc. Pol. v. 1xi., 1x.
‘I was speaking upon the subject,’
says Mr. Baldwin, ‘to one of our
most hardworking and respected
bishops. His reply was both pain-
ful and suggestive. ‘ Well,” he
said, “I cannot say that I have
read much about the matter; but I
learned it from Hooker when I was
ordained, and I have taken it for
granted ever since !’’-—A Matter of
Life and Death, p. 438.
197
CH IX ABBOTT; THE. UNIVERSITIES
wards Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Oxford lectures,
in 1597, laid down, from authorities, that the person of
the minister belongs not to the ‘ esse,’ but to the ‘ bene
esse, of the sacrament, and therefore that lay baptism
is valid. ‘It is ill done,’ he says, ‘if by a layman;
worse, if by a woman; but it is done, and what is done
cannot be undone.’ He compares it to the violent entry
into the sheepfold by some other way than the legiti-
mate door. Therefore he was against the retention of
its permission in the English Prayer Book, which he
regarded as a concession to the weakness of the times,
unable at once to bear an alteration of the usage
which had held its way for so long a period.’
Some, however, regarded baptism by women as con-
trary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Prayer
Book. The university of Oxford, in its answer to the
Millenary Petition, in 1603, stated, ‘that the Church of
England, nor the Book of Common Prayer, doth not
prescribe that baptism should be administered by
women; though we deny it not to be baptism, if per-
chance, de facto, it be by them administered. Fieri non
debuit, factum valuit.’® The vice-chancellor and heads
of houses at Cambridge endorsed this answer with their
approval, in a formal letter to the university of Oxford,
dated October 7, 1603.°
7 Abbott, Prelectiones, cap. i.,
De Cirewmeisione et Baptismo,
Oxford, 1598, pp. 70, 98, 99. ‘ Male
igitur factum est, si laicus; pejus
factum, si foemina, rem sacrosanc-
tam hane attigerit. Sed factum
est; et quod factum est, infectum
esse non potest.’
8 Answer of University of Ox-
ford to the Petition of the Ministers
of the Church of England desiring
Reformation of Ceremonies, Oxford,
1603, p. 11.
° Answer to Exceptions against
the Bishop of Oxford’s Charge by
Mr. L. and Dr. B., London, 1718,
p. 122.
198 THE REFORMATION—CENT. XVI CH IX
Such an attitude as this of the universities was not
calculated to disarm real objections; and the puritans
continued in open hostility to every kind of lay bap-
tism. Among its uncompromising opponents, at this
time, William Perkins deserves mention, for his theo-
logical learning, and for the esteem in which he was
then held as a representative divine of that school.
He accepted the validity of baptism by wicked and
heretical priests because they were ordained, but he
entirely repudiated lay baptism, ‘for to baptize is part
of the public ministry,’ given by our Lord’s special
commission to the apostles. ‘He that must perform
any part of the public ministry, he says, ‘ must have a
calling (Rom. x. 14; Heb. v. 4), but mere private
persons have no calling to this business. And whatso-
ever is not of faith is sin. Now the administration of
baptism by private persons is without faith; for there
is neither precept, nor fit example for it, in the Word
of God.’?
Thus the Reformation left the subject in a position
somewhat unsatisfactory to more than one party in the
Church of England. The reforming mind, as a whole,
was against the practice of lay baptism, although not
uniformly against its validity. But the Prayer Book,
reasonably understood, still deliberately permitted it.
? Perkins, Commentary on Galatians, iii. 27, published posthumously
in his Works, 1613, vol. ii. p. 262.
CH X THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD 199
CHAPTER X.
THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD.—CENT. XVII.
The East: on heretical baptism; on lay baptism—Roman Catholic rule:
the Ritual; Bellarmine—Lay baptism in England—James I. and
Hampton Court Conference—The 1604 revision: its effect; lawful
minister ; the questions ; conditional baptism ; reception—The Ordinal
and Articles—Prayer Book of 1661—English Divines: Sanderson,
Ussher, Comber, Taylor, Wilson, Cosin, Thorndike, Sparrow, Bram-
hall.
THE controversies upon the ministry of baptism, which
the Reformation introduced into the Church of England,
scarcely touched the Eastern and Roman communions.
No marked change or considerable debate occurred in
either, during the century which, from the English
point of view, is the immediate post-Reformation period.
The East had been brought into communication
with one class of the reformers in the latter half of the
sixteenth century. The Lutheran divines had then
made great overtures to the Greeks, with a view to
some kind of reunion. Led > ‘ A ,
kairot eAXurn €oxnKoTes THY TioTW
tédevov €AaBov dO Bamtirpa* Fev
o” ,
Tedelay VoTEpoy THY TiaTLY KEKTNMEVOL
ovk avaBarri¢ovra.—Synodus Hiero-
* Dositheos, Touov ’Aydrns, p.
571; AwdexaBiBros, p. 525.
3 Dositheos, AwdexaBiBros, p. 854.
cHx HASTERN TREATMENT OF HERETICAL BAPTISM 201
There was variety also in the Russian communion.
In 1629, the sacred synod, under the patriarch Philaretus,
discussed the validity of Western baptism, some con-
verts having been received only with unction. The
synod decreed that proselytes from the Latins must be
baptized. In 1666, however, the subject was raised
again before a great synod at Moscow, by King Alexius ;
and, under the pressure of circumstances of the time,
the custom of indulgence was reverted to, and proselytes
were permitted to join with the ceremony of anointing
alone.
This rule held its own into the next century, so
thoroughly that in 1708, Cyprian, and in 1718, Jeremiah
Iil., both Patriarchs of Constantinople, decided that
those who came over from the Lutherans and Calvinists
were only to be anointed. The decisions were in
answer to Russian questions, and perhaps were not
meant to apply outside Russia. Here the case was
complicated, to an extent of which the patriarchs were
possibly scarcely aware, by a lack of ordination, as well
as by heresy. But they appear to have considered the
matter merely from the point of view of the form in
which baptism was administered, and it is difficult to
avoid the inference that the East at this time laid no
very essential stress on the necessity of an ordained
minister. Certainly ‘economy’ had stepped in, and
had considerably modified the strictness of early Eastern
discipline, when baptism by protestant schismatics was
accepted as sufficient.‘
Upon lay baptism, in the East, there subsisted that
divergence between private opinion and authoritative
decrees, which has already been noticed at an earlier
* See Constantine Oiconomos, Ta Sefdpeva Svyypdppara, pp. 506-509.
202 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cux
date. The private opinion was still on the stricter side,
although probably not to the same extent as formerly.
The use of lay baptism had on the whole apparently
progressed.
The objection to it seems to have held its ground
longest, as perhaps was natural among the conservative
races of the Hast, with the masses of the people. Thus,
when Arcudius, a Roman Catholic priest, wrote in 1626
on the points of agreement between the Eastern and
Western communions, he was obliged to admit that in
Greece, Russia, and all the provinces using the Greek
rites, they almost without exception ‘would rather let
their children depart this life without baptism, if a priest
was absent, than wash them with the saving water,
because they think that it is not lawful for the laity to
bestow this gift, even in necessity.’° The testimony of
Arcudius is the more unimpeachable that it made
against the community of ideas which he desired to
prove.
At the same time, however, such decisions as came
from those in authority were in favour of admitting lay
baptism in necessity. While Jeremiah IL. and the
Tubingen divines differed about triple immersion and
affusion, they were able to agree about baptism by the
laity. Unlike the other protestant sects, the Lutherans
permitted it when there was danger of death.® Jere-
5 Arcudius, De Concordia Eccle-
ste occidentalis et orientalis in
baptism may only be bestowed by a
minister of the Word, yet that bap-
septem sacramentorum adnunis-
tratione, I. xi., 1626, p. 24.
° Bingham quotes from two
Lutheran professors of divinity in
the 17th century, Brochmand of
Copenhagen, and Gerhard of Jena,
who both state that, though public
tism may be given in private by
anyone, in danger of death. Ger-
hard adds that the necessity of the
sacrament is not in respect of God,
whe can regenerate without it, but
in respect of man, who is responsible
for carrying out the divine command
On x LAY BAPTISM IN THE EAST 203
miah, in his correspondence with them, says equally that
‘in urgent necessity it is allowable for lay people to
baptize.’ He also admits the validity of baptism by an
unworthy priest, which would possibly include one who
was involved in heresy.’
In 1625, Metrophanes Critopulus, Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, put out a confession of faith, especially for
the information of the reformed bodies. In this he
says: ‘When necessity presses, the child is baptized
immediately on its birth. If a priest is not present, the
midwife does it, saying the divine words. And if the
child recovers, this baptism shall be deemed sufficient.’ ®
Another Greek confession, of the same period, says
that, while regular baptism can only be performed by a
lawful priest, yet im necessity any man or woman may
administer it, and ‘such baptism has so much power
that it is an undoubted seal of eternal salvation.’ ?
Similarly, Dositheos says of baptism, ‘It is adminis-
tered by the priest alone, though in necessity it can be
so far as lies in his power. Broch-
mand, System. Theol. tom. ii. De
Bapt. v. 3; Gerhard, Loc. Com-
mun. de Bapt. xxxiv. See Bing-
ham, vol. vill. pp. 100-108.
7 *Avaykns 6€ Katemevyovcns, Kal
tois Naikoits Bamnricfew e&eivar.—See
Bingham, vol. viii. p. 97, from
Hottinger, Hist. Hecles. tom. i.
p- 632. To Barricpa Tod avépov dv’
dvdykns ovK droBdAXera. — Jerem.
can. 7, in Arcudius, De Concord.
Eccles. p. 25.
8 *Avaykns dé Katremetyovans evOds
pera thy yévrnow Barnri¢erar TO yev-
vnOév. Kav mpecBvrepos pr mapeotiy,
7) pata TovTo mroet, Néyouca Ta dvabev
Bpédos
> La -~ > , , -
avappo0y, apkecOnoera TOUT® TH
Geia pyyara. Ei dé Td
Barriopatt.—Metroph. Crit. Con-
fessio, vil. Etperae yap, kat trv
patay Banrife ev dvayxn dvev tis
oiacovy tedetns.—xxil. See Kim-
mel, Monumenta Fidet Eccles.
Orzent., 1850, part ii. pp. 110, 201.
® Kal 7d dcareraypéevoy Banticpa
dev mperet va yiverau amo GAXov Tiva
Tapa amo Tov vopipoy tepéa* pa eis
Kaipov Twos avayKns jumopel va TO
kdun TO vaTHpLov TodTO Kal Koo pLKOY
mpocwrov avdpos 7 yuvatkos. . . . Kat
Td Towvtoy Barticpa toony Svvayw
e€xel, Grou eoT@vras Kal va py Siderar
dedrepov, civar avappiBoros odpayis
THs ToTNplas THs aiwviov.—Confesstio
Orthodoxa, i. 103; Kimmel, part
i. p. 174.
204 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
given by another person, if he is one of the orthodox,
and has the intention fitting for holy baptism.’ ?
A little later, in 1691, Gabriel Severus, Archbishop
of Philadelphia, in a little treatise on the sacraments,
says, ‘When a priest is not present, and necessity
urges . . . a Christian lay person, whether woman or
man, is able to baptize.” In support of his assertion
he quotes the canons of Nicephorus, and also, which is
curious as showing that Western influence had crept in,
he refers to the opinion of St. Augustine.
The Hast, at large, then, in the seventeenth cen-
tury, did not very materially differ from the West in its
doctrine concerning the minister of baptism. But it
does not seem to have inculcated the duty of baptizing
in necessity so industriously as the West had done; and
therefore the actual practice of lay baptism, and its
popular acceptance among the people, was certainly
much less than in other parts of Christendom which
had not fallen under the power of the Reformation
movement.
Some relics, however, of earlier and stricter custom
remained among the so-called ‘ heretical’ Churches of
the East. The Copto-Jacobites, the Syro-Jacobites, the
Nestorians, and probably the Armenians and orthodox
Syrians, apparently still rejected lay baptism altogether,
and do so to the present time.’
1
’AmoreAcirar dé Sia peovov Tod
iepéws, kal Kat’ avaykny arpopdaciotov
” ’ \ Cpetorsr2 > ,
éxet yiveo Out kal 8’ érépov avOparou,
‘ > , ‘ A a
mAyv dpO0ddEou Kat oKxordy €xovtos
Tov appodiuy TO Oeim Barriopari.—
Syn. Hieros. Conf. Dosithei, xvi.
Kimmel, part i. p. 454.
2 ‘ , « , SP
Mn mapovtos lepews, avayknys
katerecyovons, Suvarar Kal iepodiaxay
Barrier, kai Aaikds ypirtiavds, dvTe
yun, 7 wre appnv.—Gab. Sev. Sur-
Taypariov mepi Tov aylwv pvornpior,
1691, p. 58.
S Neale, History of Eastern
Church, vol. i. p. 949.
THE ROMAN ‘RITUAL’ 30
Co
CH X
Roman doctrine on the question of the minister of
baptism underwent no particular change of expression
during the period immediately succeeding the Refor-
mation. The effect of protestant opinion, where it had
any effect at all, was only to induce reiterated state-
ments on the other side; but these were simply repeti-
tions of the common medieval view.
A revision of the Roman Ritual was published in
1614, during the pontificate of Paul V. It is that
which is still in use, and it exactly states the mature
Roman teaching on the subject.
A preface to the office for baptizing adults deals
with heretical baptism. It says that heretics are to be
baptized when the form or matter of baptism has not been
used ; but ‘when the right form and matter has been
observed, only the omitted portions are to be supplied,
unless it shall seem otherwise to the bishop, for reason-
able cause.’* It is obvious that the remarkable clause
as to the bishop’s discretion leaves the widest possible
opening for the rejection of baptism by persons outside
the Roman communion, who come indiscriminately under
the class of heretics. It is not in any way defined what
is to constitute a ‘reasonable cause.’ Roman Catholics,
therefore, have every liberty, under their own rule, to
rebaptize converts from other communions, if it seems
good to the bishop. This permission is not, however,
consistent with the received view that all baptism is
valid by whomsoever administered, if only the form and
matter are correct.
‘ Heretici vero ad catholicam
ecclesiam venientes, in quorum
baptismo debita forma aut materia
servata non est, rite baptizandi
sunt: . . . ubivero debita forma, et
materia servata est, omissa tantum
suppleantur, nisi rationabili de
causa aliter episcopo videatur.—
Rit. Rom. De Bapt. Adult.
THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
206
The Ritual lays down precise directions for bap-
tism in cases of urgency. ‘The lawful minister of
baptism is, indeed, the parish priest, or some other
priest, of the parish, or delegated by the ordinary of
the place; but whenever an infant or an adult is in peril
_of life, he may be baptized without solemnity by anyone,
in any language, either by a cleric or a laic, even one
who is excommunicated, either by faithful or unfaithful,
either by a catholic or a heretic, either by a man or a
woman, observing, however, the form and intention of the
Church. But if a priest is present, he is to be preferred
to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a laic,
and a man to a woman, unless on account of modesty it
is becoming that a woman rather than a man should
baptize an infant not entirely delivered, or unless she
knows the form and manner of baptizing best. Where-
fore the parish priest ought to take care that the faith-
ful, especially midwives, observe and keep the right
form of baptizing. The father or mother ought not to
baptize their own child, except on the verge of death,
when no one else is to be found who can baptize, and
then they contract no affinity which shall hinder the
use of matrimony.’?
5 Lecitimus quidem baptismi referatur, diaconus subdiacono
5D ]
minister est parochus, vel alius
sacerdos a parocho, vel ab ordinario
loci delegatus; sed quoties infans
aut adultus versatur in vite
periculo, potest sine solemnitate
a quocumque baptizari, in qualibet
lingua, sive clerico, sive laico etiam
excommunicato, sive fideli, sive in-
fideli, sive catholico, sive heeretico,
sive viro, sive foemina, servata
tamen forma et intentione ecclesiz.
Sed si adsit sacerdos, diacono
clericus laico, et vir foeminz; nisi
pudoris gratia deceat fominam
potius, quam virum baptizare in-
fantem non omnino editum, vel
nisi melius foemina sciret formam
et modum baptizandi. Quapropter
curare debet parochus, ut fideles,
presertim obstetrices, rectum bapti-
zandi ritum probe teneant, et
servent. Pater aut mater propriam
prolem baptizare non debet, preter-
quam in mortis articulo, quando
CH X CARDINAL BELLARMINE 207
Cardinal Bellarmine may be taken as an accredited
exponent of Roman theology as it settled down under
the attacks of the Reformation. In speaking of the
minister of baptism, he lays down six clear propositions
as embodying the teaching of the catholic doctors of the
Church. 1. It is the right of bishops, and of priests in
subordination to bishops, to baptize by virtue of their
office. 2. It belongs to deacons, also by virtue of their
office, to baptize in the absence of the priest, or at his
direction.£ 38. The laity may never administer solemn
baptism, nor baptize at all in the presence of the clergy,
or ever except in necessity. 4. The baptized laity are
allowed to baptize in necessity ; ‘for of this,’ he says,
‘I find there has never been any doubt in the Church,
so that the heresy of Calvin is novel and unheard of.’
9. Unbaptized persons can baptize in necessity, though
he allows that some of the fathers questioned this, since
they based the right to baptize on the power of giving
what one has received ; but the council of Florence had
decided the matter. 6. Women may baptize in extreme
necessity. He gives authorities for all these proposi-
tions, which very fairly sum up the teaching of the
middle ages.’ In another of the same disputatory
Aquin. m1. Ixvii. 1.
7 Catholiei doctores communi
alius non reperitur, qui baptizet :
neque tune wllam contrahunt cog-
nitionem, que matrimonii usum
impediat.—Rit. Rom. De Min.
Bapt.
° To claim baptism as the right
of the office of a deacon was a point
in which the later theology was in
advance of earlier opinion. See
ante, p. 140; and Cajetan, as late as
the sixteenth century : Non spectat
autem ad diaconos predicare, aut
baptizare, ex officio.—Ad Summe
consensu sex pronunciata aftirmant.
Primo, jus baptizandi ex officio
ordinario conyenire solis sacerdo-
tibus, id est, episcopis et presby-
teris, sic tamen, ut presbyteris
conveniat cum subordinatione et
dependentia ab _ episcopis....
Secundo docent, diaconis quoque
ex officio convenire baptizare, sed
in absentia sacerdotum, aut eorum
jussu. . . . Tertio catholici docent,
THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
208
treatises he discusses the validity of sacraments given
in sport. He states it as his opinion that where there is
no intention to baptize, the act is null; but that if the
intention is to baptize, even though there is no idea of
sacramental efficacy, it must hold good. Thus, the bap-
tisms attributed to the young Athanasius were valid,
because he intended to baptize, although only in play.®
In England, the reiterated objections to the recogni-
tion of lay baptism in the Book of Common Prayer at
last took definite effect, mainly through the advocacy of
King James I. Controversialists have often argued
that he could not really have held very strong opinions
on the subject, because his own sons had been baptized
in Scotland by Presbyterians, and he never took any
steps to have them rebaptized. But this seems to be a
mistake. James was not a Presbyterian. He had him-
self been baptized by the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s,
sacramenta conferri. Uno modo,
ut qui ludunt, intendant vere sacra-
menta conferre, sed ob finem re-
creandi animum eo modo, quomodo
possent alii vere intendere sacra-
menta conferre, sed ob finem
lucrande pecunie. Et hic Iudus
nunquam licere laicis solemniter
baptizare, neque etiam privatim
presente sacerdote, aut diacono,
aut iis etiam absentibus, extra
casum necessitatis. . . . Quarto
docent, laicis baptizatis licere in
casu necessitatis baptizare....
Quinto docent, etiam non baptizatis
in casu necessitatis licere baptis-
mum dare, si sciant ritum. De
hoc tamen veteres dubii fuisse
videntur.... Ceterum res jam
definita est in concilio generali, ut
Augustinus cupiebat. Nam in
Florentino concilio habetur, etc.
. . . Sexto docent, non modo viros,
sed etiam fceminas in extrema
necessitate posse baptizare.’—
Bellarm. De Sacram. Bapt. vii.
8 Duobus modis posse per jocum
non impedit veritatem sacramenti,
quia hic jocus est extrinsecus ipsi
sacramentali actioni. Alio modo,
ut qui ludunt, intendant non vere
sacramenta conferre, sed illudere,
et decipere, quomodo qui Christum
purpura induebant, eique dicebant,
Ave, Rex Judeorum, non intende-
bant eum regem facere, sed ei
illudere. Et hice ludus impedit
veritatem sacramenti, quia hic jocus
est intrinsecus actioni.—Bellarm.
De Sacram. in Genere, I. xxvili.
cox JAMES I. AND HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE 209
‘with all ceremonies accustomed in the Roman Church,’
says Spottiswoode, ‘the spittle excepted, which the
Queen did inhibit. . . . Without the doors stood all
the noblemen professors of the reformed religion.’ ®
Charles I. was born at Dunfermline, in 1600, and ‘ the
christening was hastened because of the weakness of
the child} The rite was performed by David Lindsay,
a Presbyterian ; but Bishop Robert Forbes, in one of his
letters, states that he had ‘ found an incontestible proof’
that this man ‘was really in holy orders before his
embracing the reformation in Scotland.’? If this were
so, Charles at least was not baptized by a layman, and
the King was no doubt aware of it. The same may
have been the case with his other children. If not, it
probably was by no choice of his own that they lacked
the ministry of a priest, and his principles, though
strongly opposed to lay baptism, would have prohibited
their rebaptism afterwards by a priest.
The King had no doubt been approached on the
subject by the puritans. In a paper of Archbishop
Hutton’s, ‘ touching certain matters like to be brought in
question before the King’s most excellent majesty, at
the conference at court,’ he mentions, ‘ One chief thing
is misliked, that women, midwives, and laymen, seem
to be permitted to baptize in time of necessity.’ ? When
the Hampton Court conference met, in 1604, the King
at once introduced the topic. Dr. Montague, Dean of
the Chapel Royal, who was a member of the conference,
says: ‘For the private baptism it held three hours at
® John Spottiswoode, Hist. of the * Journals of Bishop Forbes,
Church in Scotland, 1851, vol. ii. 1886, p. 62.
p. 42. 3 Cardwell, Conferences on the
1 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 91. Book of Common Prayer, p. 155.
P
210 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD---CENT. XVII cHx
least ; the King alone disputing with the bishops, so
wisely, wittily and learnedly, with that pretty patience,
as 1 think never man living heard the like.* Dr.
Barlow, Dean of Chester, also a member of the confe-
rence, drew up a report as to it afterwards, in which he
says of the King’s view as to the persons who might
minister baptism, ‘ That any but a lawful minister might
baptize anywhere, he utterly disliked ; and in this point
his highness grew somewhat earnest against the baptiz-
ing by women and laics.’ Yet he did not dispute its
validity, for though he thought baptism ought not to be
administered except by lawfully ordained ministers, he
‘yet utterly disliked all rebaptization, although either
women or laics had baptized.’
Whitgift, now archbishop, maintained ‘that the
administration of baptism by women and lay persons
was not allowed in the practice of the Church, but
inquired of by bishops in their visitation, and cen-
sured ; neither,’ he said, ‘do the words in the book infer
any such meaning.’ The King, however, insisted very
justly that the office, as it then stood, plainly gave per-
mission to private persons to baptize. Bishop Babing-
ton, of Worcester, thought that the wording was
intentionally ambiguous; but Bishop Bancroft, of
London, and Bishop Bilson, of Winchester, both argued
that it was in accordance with Scripture and antiquity
to allow lay baptism in necessity, and that the leave
contained in the Prayer Book was in accordance with
catholic rule.’
Dr. Montague says that in the end the King won out
of the bishops, as to baptism, ‘that it should only
* Cardwell, Conferences, p. 189. » Ibid. pp. 172-176.
CH X CHANGES IN PRAYER BOOK OFFICE rata
be administered by ministers, yet in private houses, if
occasion required; and that whosoever else should
baptize should be under punishment.’® The ultimate
result was not, however, expressed in such an emphatic
form. ‘The Prayer Book was only altered by with-
drawing all mention of others than the ‘lawful’ minister,
so as to omit explicit authorisation of lay baptism.
Nothing was inserted which explicitly condemned it.
The title of the office for private baptism was expanded
by adding the words, ‘ by the minister of the parish, or
any other lawful minister that can be procured.’ In
the rubrics, the words, ‘baptize not their children at
home,’ were replaced by, ‘ procure not their children to
be baptized at home.’ For, ‘them that be present,’
was substituted, ‘the minister that be present ;’ and
the clause, ‘one of them shall name the child, and
dip him in water,’ was changed into, ‘ the child being
named by some one of them that is present, the said
lawful minister shall dip it in the water.’ The other
alterations were merely verbal, in order to bring the
whole into harmony.’
Very much has been written, and no small con-
troversy raised, as to the effect which these changes
had on the discipline of the Church of England upon lay
baptism. On the one hand, it is urged that the with-
drawal of its permission was tantamount to a rejection
of its validity ; on the other that invalidity is not to be
inferred from silence as to its approval.
Some have ventured to maintain that a ‘lawful
minister ’ does not necessarily mean one in holy orders,
and that it may include a layman, on the supposition
© Ibid. p. 139. 7 Ibid. p. 218.
Las}
bo
bo
bo
1 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
that a layman can lawfully baptize. But it is impossible
to hold this contention in the face of the history of, the
change. It is indisputable that the Hampton Court
revisers intended it to mean a bishop, priest, or deacon.
It does not, however, follow, as some would conclude,
that the Church of England rejects all other ministries
of baptism. No one else is a ‘regular’ minister of the
sacrament, but regularity and validity are not neces-
sarily synonymous terms. In the Roman office the
officiant is called ‘ sacerdos,’ as in the English he is the
‘lawful minister ;’ yet under the Roman discipline a
layman is a valid, though an irregular, administrator.
The English and Roman offices are here exactly on a
par.
There are four questions to be asked of those who
bring a privately baptized child to be received into the
congregation, before the priest is to certify that it is
‘lawfully baptized.’ The first of these is this, ‘By
whom was this child baptized?’ It is argued, with
much apparent show of force, that this question would
be meaningless if it were not material whether the bap-
tizer was properly qualified or not. It must mean, so
it is said, that. the priest is to ascertain whether he was
a ‘lawful minister’ or no. This argument, however,
loses its weight when it is remembered that the inquiry
stood in exactly the same position in the first three
English Prayer Books, where lay baptism was certainly
contemplated as valid. The purpose of the question
may, therefore, only be similar to that of the next,
‘Who was present when this child was baptized?’ It
can be of no consequence to the validity of the baptism
who happened to be present. But the information thus
elicited may contribute much to the priest’s judgment
cH X THE BAPTISMAL INQUIRIES 213
as to whether all is likely to have been done ‘ in due
order.’ Ifthe baptizer and the whole company were very
ignorant people, the liability to error would be much
ereater than if they were intelligent Church people.
The fact that the question was not new when the changes
were made prohibits a stricter pressing of its meaning,
at any rate in close argument.
In 1604, the remaining inquiries were changed so as
to run thus: ‘Because some things essential to this
sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or
haste, in such times of extremity; therefore I demand
further of you, With what matter was this child bap-
tized ? With what words was this child baptized ?’
Both questions occurred in the earlier Prayer Books,
with only the difference that the first was in the form,
‘With what thing, or what matter they did baptize the
child ?’ which no doubt is more suggestive of lay bap-
tism than the revised version of it. But the clause
which introduces these two questions was added in
1604. Why did the revisers insert it before the in-
quiries as to the ‘matter’ and ‘ words,’ and not before
the whole series of questions, including that as to the
minister? It is difficult to escape the inference that
they regarded the matter and words as ‘essential’ in a
very different degree from the need that the minister
should be an ordained person. It would almost seem
as though they purposely intended to counterbalance
the absence of permission to any but a ‘ lawful minister,’
by throwing an especial emphasis upon the examination
as to these two points. Some have urged that the very
existence of the two latter questions is a proof that lay
baptism was contemplated, because it would be absurd
to suppose that a priest would have made a mistake as
214 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
to the matter or words, even in a case of emergency ;
but, whether this be so or not, as the literal reading of
the rubric is that they are to be asked, ‘if the child
were baptized by any other lawful minister,’ it must
not be held that they cannot apply when the baptizer
had been such a ‘ lawful minister.’
Two other questions, given in the earlier Prayer
Books, disappeared in 1604. Their omission suggests
nothing with reference to the debate. One, ‘Whether
they called upon God for grace and succour in that
necessity ?’ may have been dropped because such
prayer would not be essential. ‘The other, ‘ Whether
they think the child to be lawfully and _ perfectly
baptized ?? might reasonably be thought superfluous,
and not likely to produce any answer of value.
That the intention was to indicate two absolute
essentials, and no more, is strengthened by the rubric
as to conditional baptism, added also after the Hampton
Court conference. The hypothetical form is there
ordered to be used, ‘if they which bring the infant to
the Church do make such uncertain answers to the
priest’s questions, as-that it cannot appear that the
child was baptized with water, In the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (which
are essential parts of baptism).’ Those who take a
strong view against lay baptism reply that the questions
as to the matter and form presuppose a ‘ lawful minister,’
and that the whole inquiry drops if the minister was
not ‘lawful. They point out that the water and words
are merely called ‘essential parts,’ and not the only
essentials of baptism. Yet, if the ‘lawful minister’
were equally essential, one would expect that it should
not be left to be so indirectly inferred.
CH X THE FORMULA OF RECEPTION 215
As regards the office for reception, a middle view
has been sometimes suggested, which finds much sup-
port from the letter of the Prayer Book, though it leads
to a very unsatisfactory conclusion. It is that the
service may not be used for any child baptized by a
layman. ‘The rubric,’ it is said, ‘does not grant a
federal admission or presentation into the Church, of a
child not baptized by a lawful minister.’* And certainly
the form of the certification to the people, ‘ that in this
case all is well done, and according unto due order,’
seems scarcely appropriate when perhaps ‘ due order’
appears to have been wanting. But it is to be observed
that the formula is less distinct than that which a priest
is to use when he has himself baptized the child—* ac-
cording to the due and prescribed order of the Church.’
It omits the word ‘ prescribed,’ and does not say that
the order is that ‘of the Church.’ Moreover, if the
suggested opinion is correct, it leaves the unhappy
child in an extraordinary position. Its baptism is not
to be repeated, and yet it may not be formally re-
ceived into the congregation. It is inconceivable that
the Church should willingly leave anyone in such an
anomalous condition.
The fact is that the changes of 1604 cannot be
interpreted entirely by their own light, apart from
the history of their origin. They were introduced
chiefly out of deference to the King. The bishops
would probably have preferred to leave things as they
were; at any rate they were not altogether at one in
their own views on the question. The result was
§ Hill, Compendious Speculation Remarks upon Decision in Court
upon valid and invalid Baptism, of Arches, 1811, p. 16; Bishop
1713, p. 25. See also Hutton, Dowden, Charge, 1888, pp. 18, 19.
216 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
inevitably that lay baptism was left in an ambiguous
position. It was neither permitted nor condemned.
We have King James’s own testimony that this was what
was intended. The purpose was to discourage it, and
to make it irrecular, not to declare it invalid.?
Cosin thought the alteration was well, ‘to avoid the
baptizing of midwives or others, that were no lawful
ministers ordained for that purpose.’ But he notices
a doubt as to whether the Hampton Court revision
was legal according to the Act of Uniformity. Since
Convocation afterwards accepted it, the legality of the
present form may, however, be freely granted. Cosin
also notices that some more explicit grappling with
a difficulty was requisite. ‘It is not here said,’ he ob-
serves, ‘what shall be done in this case when a lawful
minister cannot be found, or whether the child ought to
be baptized again or no, when only a midwife or some
other such hath baptized it before.’ *
Sometimes it has been sought to confirm the inter-
pretation, which would take the silence of the present
office as condemnatory of lay baptism, by appealing to
the preface to the ordinal, and to the Thirty-Nine
Articles. The preface forbids any man ‘to execute any
of the functions’ of a bishop, priest, or deacon, except
he be ordained; and the 23rd Article says, ‘It is not
lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public
preaching, or ministering the sacraments in the congre-
gation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute
® Laicorum vero baptismum, aut to Card. Perron, reported by Ca-
foeminarum, ut fieri legibus suis saubon, Hp. 838, ed. 1709, p. 496.
vetat, sic factum ex legitimaformula See also Featly, Cygnea Cantio, q.
quodammodo non improbat, baptis- 21.
mum esse pronuncians, etsi non ' Cosin, Works, Ang. Cath. Lib.,
legitime administratum.—James I. vol. v. p. 521.
CH X THE PRAYER BOOK OF 1661 217
the same.’ Unquestionably holy baptism is a sacra-
ment, the administration of which belongs to the func-
tions of an episcopal ministry. But those who draw
the passages into the service of the present controversy
forget that both the Preface to the Ordinal and the
23rd Article stood in this same shape when the Prayer
Book office expressly allowed laymen to baptize in ne-
cessity. The restriction cannot in either, therefore, be
held to apply to baptism in circumstances of urgency,
unless this exception to the rule can clearly be proved
to be forbidden elsewhere.
The final revision in 1661 did not considerably affect
the position in which the matter was left in 1604. The
words, ‘ by the minister of the parish or any other lawful
minister that can be procured, which had been added
then to the title, were removed into the third rubric,
where they were less cumbersome than in the heading.
It is difficult to find any other purpose in the change,
although there have not been wanting those who: have
imagined that it has some bearing on the controversies
as to the minister.
At the same time there was added the office for the
baptism of ‘ such as are of riper years.’ The preface to
the Prayer Book assigns as the reason for its need,
‘the growth of anabaptism.’ It has been said that if
the revisers had regarded lay and schismatical baptism
as invalid, they would have given, as a further reason,
that numbers had grown up without true baptism dur-
ing the time of the Commonwealth and the introduction
of dissent. The absence of any such remark is thought
to imply an acceptance of the irregular baptism of the
sects. But it would scarcely have been competent for
those who were revising the Book to have expressed a
218 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD-—-CENT. XVII cHx
definite judgment on so difficult a matter, requiring at
least the decision of a provincial synod. Whateyer
their own views had been, they must have abstained
from so recording them. At the same time, it is
probably true that the revisers would have allowed the
sufficiency of these baptisms, pending some decision of
the Church. Their private opinion, however, does not
bind the Church of England.
One other change was made in 1661, in the wording
of the permission given to deacons to baptize. In
1549 it ran: ‘It pertaineth to the office of a deacon . .
to baptize and preach if he be commanded by the
bishop. In 1552 and 1559, there was the slight
substitution of ‘admitted thereto’ for ‘commanded.’
Now the deacon’s duty as to baptizing was more
exactly defined as, ‘in the absence of the priest to
baptize infants.’ The restriction here implied is not
unimportant. The deacon was, according to ancient
precedent, only to baptize when the more proper
minister could not be had, and the circumstances
pressed. Now he was given no permission to baptize
adults, presumably unless in dire necessity, nor even
infants in the presence of a priest. This is the present
discipline of the English Church.
There can be no doubt that the practice of lay
baptism by midwives and laymen gradually declined
very much after the alterations in the Prayer Book,
excepting of course the schismatical baptisms among
dissenters. It is impossible, however, to obtain suf-
ficient information to trace the way in which it fell
into disuse. Even the registers of the time rarely afford
any certain guide. In that of St. Mary’s Woolchurch,
in London, there is one curious instance: ‘ 1678, Feb.
CH X SANDERSON; USSHER; COMBER ' 219
8, Baptized Robert Entry, found in Dr. Tabor’s entry.
Mr. Philips baptized it.’? Mr. Philips was the registrar.
The child was evidently a deserted infant, discovered
probably in a dying state, and taken to Mr. Philips as
a parish officer. The surname is obviously coined from
the place in which the baby was found.
The opinions of a few of the leading English
divines of the seventeenth century may be added. On
the whole their inclination was against lay baptism, but
with some exceptions.
Sanderson rejected baptism by women, saying they
would do ‘well to go teach all nations before they
baptize them.’ He speaks of the permission allowed
them to baptize as ‘the singular absurdity of the
Church of Rome.’ ?
Ussher says: ‘Baptism is a part of the public
ministry of the Church, and Christ has given warrant
and authority to none to baptize, but those whom He
has called to preach the gospel,—Go, preach and
baptize (Matt. xxvii. 19). Those only may stand in
the Name of God Himself, and ministerially set to the
seal of the covenant ; and it is a monstrous presump-
tion for women or any other private persons (who are
not called) to meddle with such high mysteries, nor
can there be any case of necessity to urge.’ *
Comber was of the same mind. ‘Our Church,’ he
says, with reference to the changed rubrics, ‘ requires
it to be done by a lawful minister. I know there are
some allegations out of antiquity which seem to allow
of a layman to baptize in cases of great necessity. But
? Hallen, Muthill Register, p.x. pp. 141.
3 Sanderson, Sermon ad populum * Ussher, Body of Dwinity, 3rd
at Grantham, Works, 1854, vol. iii. _ed., 1648, p. 412.
220 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cHx
there are others of the fathers who disallow that prac-
tice ; and certainly it is a great presumption for an
ordinary person to invade the ministerial office without
any warrant; and as to the pretence that a child may
be in danger, I suppose the salvation of the child may
be as safe upon the stock of God’s mercy without any
baptism, as with a baptism which is not commanded by
God, and to which He hath made no promises. So that
where God gives not opportunity of a person who may
do it aright, it seems better to leave it undone.’?
Jeremy Taylor, in one of his treatises, accepts
baptism by a layman or a woman, as a thing which
ought not to be done, but is valid when it is done.’ This
was only in a passing sentence, and his more mature
judgment was in favour of rejecting its validity. He
writes strongly, and at some length, upon the poimt, in
his Clerus Domini, or Office Ministerial. ‘That the
lay person,’ he says, ‘ shall convey “rem sacramenti,”
or be “the minister of sacramental grace,” is nowhere
revealed in Scripture, and is against the analogy of the
gospel; for the “‘ verbum reconciliationis ”—all the
whole ministry of reconciliation—is entrusted to the
priest, “nobis,” says St. Paul, “to us who are ambas-
sadors.” And what difference is there, if cases of
necessity be pretended in the defect of other ministries,
but that they also may be invaded, and cases of neces-
sity may, by other men, also be numbered in the other
sacrament? ... For my own particular, I wish we
would make no more necessities than God made, but
> Comber, Companion to the acknowledgment; On Book of
Temple, Office for Prw. Bap. Common Prayer, Tth ed. p. 381.
Wheatly adopts this passage of ° Taylor, Discourse of Confir-
Comber’s, almost verbatim, without mation, iv., Works, vol. xi. p. 268.
CH X TAYLOR; WILSON; COSIN; THORNDIKE 221
that we leave the administration of the sacraments to
the manner of the first institution, and the clerical
offices be kept within their cancels, that no lay hand
may pretend a reason to usurp the sacred ministry.’ 7
At quite the end of the century, Bishop Wilson says
of baptism, ‘This is one of the mysteries committed by
Christ to His ministers, and to them only.’ &
Others, however, spoke less decidedly. Casaubon,
who had much opportunity of becoming acquainted
with the religious opinions of King James’s reign, said
that laymen were forbidden by the revised Prayer Book
to baptize, but that the Church did not entirely reject
their act if they had performed it.®
Cosin, in a strange letter to a Mr. Cordel, Feb. 7,
1650, fayourmg communion with the French pro-
testants, says, ‘ As, in the case of baptism, we take just
exceptions against a layman or a woman that presumes
to give it, and may as justly punish them by the
censures of the Church wherein they live, for taking
upon them to do that office, which was never committed
unto them, yet, if once they have done it, we make not
their act and administration of baptism void, nor
presume we to iterate the sacrament after them—so
may it well be in the case of ordination, and the
ministers of the reformed congregations in France.’ }
Thorndike more than once speaks of the validity of
baptism if it is administered by a Christian. Beyond
that he was not prepared to go. ‘ Because,’ he says,
‘baptism is the gate, as well of the invisible Church as
7 Taylor, Office Ministerial, iv. 1Cor.iv.1, Works, Ang. Cath. Lib.,
8, 12, &e., Works, vol. xiv. pp. 447, vol. iil. p. 436.
449. Comp. Ductor Dubitantium, ° Casaubon, Resp. ad Epist.
m1. iv. rule xv. 2, vol. xiv. p. 50. Perron., 1612, p. 33.
8 Wilson, Ordination Sermon on 1 Cosin, Works, vol. iv. p. 402.
222 THE POST-REFORMATION PERIOD—CENT. XVII cx
of the visible, and because the occasions are many and
divers which endanger the preventing of so necessary
an office by death, in this regard the practice of the
primitive Church, alleged by Tertullian, De Laptismo,
cap. Xvil., must not be condemned, whereby baptism,
given by him who is only baptized, is not only valid
but well done. Though my intent hereby is not to say
that it may not be restrained to presbyters and deacons,
when the Church is so provided of them that there is
no appearance that baptism can be prevented for want
of one. ? Thorndike’s opinion was, however, that the
efficacy of baptism depended upon the bishop as its
source, and therefore that baptism outside the Church’s
proper communion was not profitable until reconcilia-
tion. ‘The gift of the Holy Ghost, which baptism
promiseth, dependeth upon the bishop’s blessing; be-
cause it dependeth upon the unity of the Church.
Therefore heretics and schismatics, who, by departing
from the unity of the Church, bar themselves of the
effect of their baptism, being received with the bishop’s
blessing, in the primitive Church, were justly thought
to recover their title to it. It was not necessary for
validity that ‘the ministry of the Church’ should have
passed upon them when they were baptized.’
Bishop Sparrow, commenting on the English Prayer
Book, applies to it the ancient opinion which allowed
lay baptism. He sums up the rule of the Church in
the sentence, ‘He that is baptized himself, may in a
case of necessity baptize, if there be no Church near.’
2 Thorndike, Right of the Church vii. 11, vol. iv. p. 170.
in a Christian State, iii. 28, Works, 3 Just Weights and Measwres,
Ang. Cath. Lib., vol. i. p. 474, xviii. 2, vol. v. p. 202; Laws
Comp. Covenant of Grace, xix. 12, of the Church, x. 31, vol. iv.
vol. iii. p. 841; Laws of the Church, — p. 28%.
CH X SPARROW; BRAMHALL 223
‘Nor,’ he adds, ‘can I see what can be reasonably
objected against this tender and motherly love of the
Church to her children, who chooses rather to omit
solemnities than hazard souls; which indulgence of
hers cannot be interpreted any irreverence or contempt
of that venerable sacrament, but a yielding to just
necessity (which defends what it constrains), and to
God’s own rule, “1 will have mercy and not sacri-
nee?! 4
Archbishop Bramhall, arguing upon baptism by
heretics, adopts St. Augustine’s dictum that ‘ the
catholic Church by their baptism doth beget sons and
daughters to God.’’ ‘We ought to distinguish,’ he
says, ‘between the baptism of heretics and _ heretical
baptism: if the baptism itself be good, the administra-
tion of it by heretics doth not invalidate it at all; but
if the heretic baptize after an heretical form, as without
due matter or not in the Name of the Trinity, such
baptism is heretical and naught.’ ®
* Sparrow, Rationale, Of private Works, Ang. Cath. Lib., vol. ii. p.
baptism. 80.
° Bramhall, Replication to ®& Schism Guarded, 1% iv. 8,
Bishop of Chalcedon, 1. iii. 4, Works, vol. ii. p. 618.
224 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIX CH XI
CELA PRIMER | Xl.
DISSENTERS BAPTISM.—CENT. XVIII.—XIX.
Dissenters’ Baptisms—Convocation of 1703—The nonjurors: Dodwell,
Leslie, &e.—Laurence: ‘ Lay-baptism Invalid’; attacks and replies;
Hickes, Brett, &«.—Bingham—Convocation of 1712—Rebaptisms and
refusals of burial—Publications—Laurence’s promotions—Letters of
Waterland and Kelsall—Deacon’s ‘ Devotions ’—Later opinion—Scot-
land: Petrie’s Catechism; Skinner’s Catechism; Bishop R. Forbes ;
Scotch registers—Burial disputes: Case at Gloucester; Kemp v. Wickes;
Opinions of counsel; Mastin v. Escott; Appeal to Privy Council ;
Titchmarsh v. Chapman.
THE question of the minister of baptism became one of
very serious importance to the Church of England after
the Reformation, by reason of the multiplication of
dissenting sects. Their preachers administered baptism
freely ; and, since they were not episcopally ordained,
it was lay baptism. But it was a kind of lay baptism
hitherto as good as unknown to the catholic Church,
very different from the lay baptism allowed by the
canons of medieval councils. In the Church baptism
was only bestowed by the laity in circumstances of
urgency; in the sects it was habitually given under
ordinary conditions of life. In the Church the baptizer
was usually in definite communion with the faithful; in
the sects he was in formal schism, possibly mingled -
with heresy. In the Church at any rate the act was
done under the sanction of councils and bishops; in
the sects it was not only without episcopal sanction,
CH XI PROTESTS OF CHURCHMEN
bo
Or
but more or less in open antagonism to the Church and
its episcopate. This was no fanciful flaw, because the
whole theory upon which lay baptism rested was that
the permission of the Church imparted, in necessity, to
the lay person, some sufficient measure of the apostolic
commission for the exceptional occasion. There was,
therefore, very grave reason for doubt as to the efficacy
of the heterogeneous administration of baptism among .
the dissenting bodies.
The Calvinistic divines, with no very exalted con-
ceptions of the priesthood, did not feel the pressure of
this aspect of the subject. Their opposition was to lay
baptism within the Church. Their protest was carried
on by the high churchmen of the eighteenth century, in
the form of opposition to lay baptism outside the or-
thodox limits of the Church, the baptism given by the
preachers of dissenting sects. For the most part they
met it by a repudiation of lay baptism in general, and
thus it came that the churchmen who had least in
common with the puritans were at one with them on
the question of the necessity of an apostolic ministry
for the valid bestowal of baptism.
This matter of dissenters’ baptism did not come up
prominently, as such, into controversy, until the com-
mencement of the eighteenth century. In 1703, the
clergy of the lower house of Convocation represented to
the bishops ‘that the unjustifiable use of the form of public
baptism in private houses hath lessened the reverence
due to that holy office, and in some places hath given
opportunity to persons to intrude into the administra-
tion of that holy sacrament.’ This was more definitely
urged in a special address. ‘The lower clergy beg
leave to represent to your grace and your lordships,
Q
226 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
aa
that, among many other encroachments of the dissenting
teachers upon the office and rights of the clergy, their
frequently presuming to administer the holy sacrament
of baptism in private non-licensed houses is one great
abuse of very ill consequence, no ways, as we conceive,
warranted or countenanced by the Act for exempting
protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of
England from the penalty of certain laws &c., com-
monly called the Act of Toleration. We humbly there-
fore pray that your lordships would be pleased to take
this matter into your grave and wise consideration, and
endeavour by all proper means to put a stop to such
bold intrusions upon the rules and discipline of the
Church by law established.’ Disputes, however, were
then raging between the two houses, and nothing
practical was accomplished in this session of Convo-
cation.
A few years after, a considerable controversy was
raised on the subject by the nonjurors, who warmly
opposed the validity of dissenting baptism. Burnet
says that Henry Dodwell ‘ gave the rise to this conceit.’
He had been Camden lecturer of history at Oxford
until the Revolution, when he was dismissed from the
office for refusing to take the oath of allegiance. He
was a layman, ‘one of the most learned of the non-
jurors,’ says Lathbury, ‘and indeed one of the most
learned men of that, or of any other period.’? He
held, says Burnet, ‘that none had a right to give the
sacraments, but those who were commissioned to it;
and these were the apostles, and after them bishops
and priests ordained by them; it followed upon this
1 Cardwell, Synodalia, vol. i. * Lathbury, History of the Non-
pp. 710, 717. jurors, p. 141.
cuxr THE NONJURORS; DODWELL; LAURENCE 227
that sacraments administered by others were of no
value. He pursued these notions so far, that he
asserted that the souls of men were naturally mortal,
but that the immortalising virtue was conveyed by
baptism, given by persons episcopally ordained.’ ®
Dodwell, however, was not the solitary originator
of the open repudiation of dissenters’ baptism. Charles
Leshe had quite as early expressed in print the view
that persons baptized by such as had no commission
‘received no baptism,’ and ought to seek for ‘a rebap-
tization from those who are empowered to administer
it;’ though he was willing to admit that, in cases of
ignorance, God would accept the irregular attempt to
baptize.* The opinion was current among all the non-
jurors, but it did not at first attract notice.
The member of the nonjuring party who figured most
conspicuously in this particular controversy, although
not eminent in any other respect, was Roger Laurence.
His original rank in life is vaguely indicated by his de-
scription as a ‘ book-keeper,’ that is, a merchant’s clerk.
But he was apparently a clerk of a superior kind, for
he had held some post in Spain, and he had received
a good education.’ The son of dissenting parents, he
3 Burnet, History of Own Times,
ed. 1758, vol. vi. p. 182.
4 Teslie, Discourse on Water
Baptism, [1696 ?], Works, 1882,
vol. vii. p. 87.
® Bishop White Kennet speaks of
him contemptuously as ‘a man
bred only to books of accounts, and
living properly in the service of a
‘London merchant.’ He says he
was bred to accounts in Spain, and
was ‘a book-keeper to Sir J. L.’—
Wisdom of looking backward,
1715, pp. 221, 265. A contempo-
rary MS. note, in a copy of his
work Lay Baptism Invalid, says
he was ‘ book-keeper to Mrs. Lethil-
lier, in Devonshire Street, London.’
His education is shown not only by
the character of his writing, but
also from evidence that he had
studied Euclid, and that he knew
Latin. ‘You have an advantage,’
wrote Dr. Hickes, ‘above most
others of the laity in understanding
Latin.’—Letter to the Author dc.,
Qa 2
228 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIX CH XI
had been given baptism in his infancy by a minister of
their sect. When he grew up, and probably fell among
the nonjuring leaders, he became convinced that this
baptism was of doubtful efficacy. ‘I am very well
satisfied, he wrote afterwards, in 1710, ‘that there is
but one true baptism, which ought not to be repeated
upon those who have received it: I find myself under
an impossibility to believe that this one baptism is any
other than what Christ Himself instituted just before
His ascension into heaven; I reckon an essential part
of this institution to be.the divine authority of the
administrator, as well as the water and the form of
administration. I cannot be satisfied that the person
who is said to have baptized me ever had this autho-
rity; nay, I am fully convinced of the contrary; and
also that he was actually in opposition to it; and
though his meaning were never so good, yet I cannot
think God concurred with such an usurpation, when it
was done without any necessity at all, in a Christian
country, where truly authorised ministers might have
been had with as much, if not greater, ease and speed
than he.’® Impressed with this conviction, at his own
request, he was baptized hypothetically by the Rev.
John Betts, Reader of Christ Church, Newgate Street,
‘the 31st of March, 1708, being Wednesday in Passion
Week, and therefore an holy-day, in public, immediately
after the second lesson at evening prayer, in presence of
a great congregation, the Church doors being open.’ *
p- lxvii. Bingham, too, says, 88, 246; Annals of Queen Anne,
‘ Our author, I am told, understands
Latin.’— Works, vol. viii. p. 140.
° Laurence, Lay Baptism In-
valid, 8rd ed. p. 26.
7 Ibid. p. xii. See Kennet, pp.
vol. xi. p. 377. The baptism was
administered without any previous
notice to the incumbent, or to the
bishop, who seems to have resented
the omission (Kennet, p. 228). There
cH XI LAURENCE’S ‘LAY BAPTISM INVALID’ 229
In 1710 Laurence published a treatise, entitled
‘Lay Baptism Invalid,’ under the disguise of ‘A Lay
Hand.’ It is upon this work that his reputation chiefly
rests. He says that the original draft was drawn up
merely for the information of his own judgment, and to
this may perhaps be attributed its eccentric form. He
had a fancy to work out the subject ‘in a mathematical
method of definition, axiom, and proposition.’ The book
is therefore a kind of theological imitation of Euclid ;
and the method, which suits geometrical reasoning,
sounds pedantic, and soon breaks down when he tries
to apply it to the matter he had in hand. Another fault
of his writing is excessive prolixity, though this appears
less in his first than in his later productions. He had
evidently originally approached the inquiry only by
the heht of Holy Scripture and reason, and his argument
from these is strong and logical. It was probably to
others that he subsequently owed most of his historical
information. He was intimate with Hickes and Brett,
whose learning would readily have supplied this
branch of knowledge, if he was deficient in it. Bishop
Kennet understood that Hickes ‘had assisted him with
the book, and there are passages which suggest Brett’s
promptings. The historical matter was appended in a
‘ Preliminary Discourse,’ where the mathematical method
is not attempted. The essay has transparent faults;
but when it is considered that it was the first of its
is no entry of it in the Register of
Christ Church, Newgate St., and it
has been thought there might be an
error as to the Church. But the
Salary Book of St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital shows that Mr. Betts was
a Reader at Christ Church in 1708.
The Readers were appointed by the
governors of the Hospital, indepen-
dently of the Vicar. They were,
therefore, not exactly in the position
of ordinary curates, and this may
account for any seeming irregu-
larities.
230 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIX CH XI
kind, it must be admitted that Laurence made a valuable
collection of facts and references, and that he established
a very strong argument from the Biblical point of view.
Although his style is not remarkable, it now and then
rises to a species of eloquence, as when he appeals to
the clergy to break their long silence, and to defend the
dignity of their office, and the nature of the sacraments
which are inseparably annexed to it. He wrote with
the manifest sense of a strong and earnest conviction
that he was contending for vital truth.
The book seems to have excited a good deal of
attention. It perhaps provoked Bishop Burnet into a
violent attack upon those who rejected dissenters’ bap-
tism, in a sermon preached in Salisbury cathedral,
November 7, 1710. The passage is directly levelled
at Dodwell, as ‘the corrupter of our faith and Church,
who broached this with many other monstrous errors ;’
but Burnet speaks of the notion as one which was re-
ceived by others, among whom Laurence was doubtless
at the moment one of the most conspicuous.’ Bishop
Fleetwood, of St. Asaph, wrote an anonymous reply to
the book in 1711, in which he successfully argued that
the Church of England had not by any formal act
declared lay baptism invalid. Bishop Talbot, — of
Oxford, also took the opportunity of his visitation
charge to defend the doctrine of lay baptism, printing
afterwards, in an appendix, some extracts from English
divines on the same side.
Laurence’s natural taste for controversy was imme-
diately whetted. Not content with the rapid call for a
second edition of his work before the year 1710 was
out, he published ‘Sacerdotal Powers’ in 1711, m
§ Burnet, Two Sermons, 1710, pp. 22-24.
CH XI ATTACKS AND REPLIES; BINGHAM 231
answer to Burnet; and in 1712, ‘ Dissenters’ Baptisms
null and void,’ in answer to Fleetwood, although he did
not then know the name of his opponent; and also,
‘The Bishop of Oxford’s Charge considered,’ in answer
to Talbot. These contained some fresh matter, but to
a very considerable extent they were made up of what
he had in substance already written in ‘ Lay Baptism
Invalid.’ In the same year he brought out a third and
enlarged edition of this book.
Others, too, entered into the fray. Hickes wrote a
‘Letter to the Author of Lay Baptism Invalid,’ which
Laurence prefixed to his new editions of the work.
Brett also wrote a ‘Letter, in which he specially
directed himself against Burnet’s sermon. Further
essays came from some outside the nonjuring circle,
among which Bennet’s ‘ Rights of the Clergy,’ published
in 1711, is often quoted by the writers of the period,
and is still not quite unknown.
Bingham, who was at this time engaged in writing
his ‘ Antiquities, thought the attacks upon lay baptism
so important that he broke off his work, in order to
make a separate treatise of what would otherwise have
formed a single chapter of his main work. This was
published in 1712, under the awkward title of ‘A
Scholastical History of the practice of the Church in
reference to the administration of Baptism by laymen.’
His dreary style has not even the compensation of nice
discrimination of evidence, scholarly accuracy of trans-
lation, or clear chronological arrangement. But his
industrious research brought together a mass of in-
formation, especially from the writings of the fathers,
to which every subsequent student of the subject has
been immensely indebted.
232 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIX CH XI
Bingham’s conclusion was that all lay baptism,
Church or dissenting, was valid. His name and his
testimony carried weight, and Laurence says that when
this book came out the dissenters ‘ grew extravagantly
bold, and even at Oxford carried a child in public pro-
cession to one of their meeting houses, to be pretend-
edly baptized by one of their lay teachers; a thing
never seen before in that place by any of its then
inhabitants.’* The ostentatious parade indicates the
kind of spirit which the controversy had raised.
The bishops now thought it time to interfere.
Archbishop Tenison discussed the question with twelve
other bishops at an episcopal party on Easter Tuesday,
1712. The upshot was that the archbishop and some
of the bishops drew up a resolution asserting the
validity of lay baptism. Its original draft ran thus:
‘Forasmuch as sundry persons have of late, by their
preaching, writing, and discourses, possessed the minds
of many people with doubts and scruples about the
validity of their baptism, to their great trouble and
disquiet, we, the archbishops and bishops whose names
are underwritten, have thought it incumbent on us to
declare our several opinions, in conformity with the
judgment and practice of the catholic Church, and of
the Church of England in particular, that such persons as
have already been baptized in or with water, in the
Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought not
to be baptized again. And to prevent any such prac-
tice in our respective dioceses, we do require our
several clergy, that they presume not to baptize any
adult person whatsoever, without giving us timely
notice of the same, as the rubric requires.’
® Laurence, Supplement to Lay Baptism Invalid, p. xvi.
CH XI THE BISHOPS AND CONVOCATION 233
This was communicated to Archbishop Sharp, of
York, who sympathised with the matter of the mani-
festo ; but, with the Bishops of Chester, Exeter, and St.
David’s, whom he consulted, he thought its publication
inexpedient, as giving ‘too great an encouragement to
the dissenters to go on in their way of irregular, un-
canonical baptisms.’ Therefore he refused to sign it.
The Archbishop of Canterbury had to abandon his
design of issuing it in the name of all the bishops of
England, and he only sought the express concurrence
of those of the southern province assembled in Convo-
cation. With a few dissentients, the declaration passed
the upper house on May 14, 1712, in the following
slightly modified form: ‘ Forasmuch as sundry persons
have of late, by preaching, writing, and discourses,
possessed the minds of many people in the communion
of our Church, with doubts and scruples about the
validity of their baptism, to their great trouble and
disquiet, we, the president and bishops, and . . . have
thought it incumbent on us to declare, in conformity
with the judgment and practice of the catholic Church
of Christ, and of the Church of England in particular,
that such persons as have already been baptized in
or with water, in the Name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, though their baptism was irregular for
want of a proper administrator, ought not to be
baptized again. This we do to prevent, and (to use
the words of Archbishop Whiteift* on this very point)
“not to bring confusion into the Church—for let
men take heed that they usurp not an office where-
unto they be not called, for God will call them to an
' Whitgift, Defence of Answer, Works, vol. ii. p. 529.
234 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
account for so domg—but to teach a truth, to take
a yoke of doubtfulness from men’s consciences, and to
resist an error not differing much from Donatism and
anabaptism.” ’
This was sent down to the lower house on the same
day. Judgment by Sur J. Nicholl, 68 Anti-Jacobin, Feb. 1811, vol.
by Gurney, 1810. Also Phillimore’s xxxviii. pp. 191, 207.
Reports of Cases, éc., 1827, vol. ii. 7 Hutton, Remarks on a late
pp. 264-806. decision, p. 21.
252 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIxX CH XI
“high place. Spencer Madan, Bishop of Peterborough,
in whose diocese the case occurred, allowed Dr. Hutton
to dedicate his tract to him ‘ by permission ;’ and Bishop
Burgess, of St. David’s, addressed his clergy against
the judgment,® as well as publishing some ‘ Reflections’
upon it anonymously. Lord Brougham, in a legal
judgement at a later time, remarked on the ‘ indecorous
terms’ in which it had ‘ been assailed by some reverend
persons.’ °
Lord Brougham’s remark probably referred espe-
cially to the two chief pamphlets directed against Sir
John Nicholl’s decision—the anonymous one by Bishop
Burgess, and a still longer one by Archdeacon Daubeny
with his name attached, both published in 1811.
These essays criticised the judgment with some severity
and sound argument. Neither writer absolutely denied
the validity of lay baptism. Their contention was that
dissenters’ baptism did not fall under the Prayer Book
meaning of ‘baptized.’ They insisted that the word
must be understood there in a technical sense. This
technical sense could only be, ‘baptized by a lawful
minister,’ since the Church of England officially recog-
nises no other kind of baptism in her formularies.’’ And
8 Quarterly Review, vol. vil. p.
901. Another, who in a few years
was to be a bishop, Richard Mant,
would certainly have agreed with
them, though he seems to have
taken no open part in the discussion.
Writing of baptism, he says, ‘ This
ministration belongs to no other
persons than those who are sent
with Christ’s commission.’ He ad-
mits that the Church of England had
permitted some laxity for a time,
but ‘subsequently,’ he says, ‘ fol-
lowing the judgment and example
of the early Church, she discerned
her error, and retraced her steps.’
—The Church and her Ministra-
tions, 1838, p. 244.
® Judgment of Judicial Com-
mittee in Escott against Mastin,
p. 15.
1 Daubeny, Examination of the
Judgment, pp. 23, 25; Burgess,
Reflections on the Judgment, pp.
iv., 13, 30.
CH XI ATTACKS ON SIR J. NICHOLL’S JUDGMENT 253
a dissenting minister, they argued, could not be a‘ lawful
minister, in the Prayer Book meaning of the phrase.
Even the Toleration Acts only removed disabilities from
dissenters, and did not profess to give them an eccle-
siastical status.? Both further poimted out that there
was no true parallel between ordinary baptism by dis-
senters, and the baptism by lay churchmen, in necessity,
which had been permitted in medieval times.?
Burgess, while disputing the fairness of the jude-
ment, accepted it as authoritative for the time, until it
should be overturned. He therefore advised the clergy
to give temporary adhesion to it. Afterwards, when
he was translated to Salisbury, he appended a note to
his primary charge, when it was printed in 1826, sug-
gesting that, though a clergyman might ‘ conscientiously
submit to the law so interpreted by an ecclesiastical
judge, he might ‘not less conscientiously refuse to read
the service, if he is prepared to risk the expense of
prosecution, and to make the ultimate appeal.’® Some
of the clergy exposed themselves to this chance of
prosecution, for the Rev. Walter Blunt, in a pamphlet
printed in 1840, states that, to his personal knowledge,
Nicholl’s judgment had been ignored in eight different
dioceses.® An article in the Christian Observer, April,
1840, says that the matter had been stirred in scores
and even hundreds of cases; but that, under threat of
legal proceedings, clergymen had as a rule consulted
their lawyers, and at their recommendation had come
2 Daubeny, p. 102; Burgess, pp. * Burgess, p. 1.
63, 64. ° Burgess, Charge, Salisbury,
3 Daubeny, p. 51; Burgess, p. 1826, p. 37 note.
21. Daubeny’s pamphlet was ° Blunt, Dissenters’ Baptisms
acrimoniously reviewed in the and Church Burials, p. 11.
Quarterly Review, March, 1812.
254 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVITI-XIX CH XI
to some compromise before the matter was driven to
extremities.’
In the year 1840, under the advice of the Bishop of
Exeter, the Rev. R. Tripp and the Rev. J. Wilkinson,
Exeter clergy, each refused to bury a child baptized by
a Unitarian minister in the Name of the Blessed Trinity.
The Unitarians took the opinion of Sir John Campbell,
attorney general, and of Dr. Addams. Both agreed that
the refusal was illegal ; but no prosecution followed, for
the dissenters were content with Mr. Wilkinson’s ad-
mission that he had acted illegally, on receipt of the
counsel’s opinion.®
The question, however, soon came again into court.
In December, 1839, the Rev. T. 8. Escott, Vicar of
Gedney, in Lincolnshire, had refused to allow the
Church rites of burial to Elizabeth Ann Cliff, a child
who had been baptized by a Wesleyan minister, with
water, in the Name of the Trinity. Being threatened
with prosecution, the opinion of Dr. Nicholl, Mr.
Starkie, and Mr. Matthews, as counsel, was taken.
Guided by the case of Kemp v. Wickes, they advised
Escott that his action had been illegal.” Encouraged
by lawyers’ opinions, Mr. Mastin, a farmer and Wesleyan
class teacher, prosecuted him in the Arches Court. Sir
Herbert Jenner, afterwards Jenner-Fust, was now
official principal; Sir John Dodson, Queen’s advocate,
appeared as leading counsel for Mastin, and Dr. Philli-
more for Escott. Both they and their juniors took
immense pains with the case, and it was argued at very
considerable length.
7 Christian Observer, vol. xl. p. 407-409.
221. ® Ibid. pp. 409-411.
8 Ibid. July, 1840, vol. xl. pp.
CH XI MASTIN v. ESCOTT 255
The pleadings did not follow precisely the lines
taken in Kemp v. Wickes. Nicholl had indulged in a
disquisition on the general question of the validity of
lay baptism, but this had not been the special point of
the counsel. Now, on both sides, the case was argued
entirely on this basis. Mastin’s counsel laid no claim
for a ministerial qualification on behalf of the Wesleyan
preacher, and Escott’s counsel laid but little stress on
his schismatical position. The question discussed was
almost exclusively whether the Church of England
accepted lay baptism. Jenner gave judgment on
May 8, 1841, in a long dissertation, showing much
careful and independent study. His argument was
briefly, that lay baptism had 1200 years’ use in its
favour, that such long usage could only be rescinded
by a clear prohibition, that the withdrawal of its ex-
press sanction in the Prayer Book could not be con-
strued into such formal prohibition, and that it must
therefore be held as still valid in the English communion.
Accordingly, he condemned Escott to three months’
suspension, with costs.1
That the decision would follow the precedent of
Kemp v. Wickes was almost a foregone conclusion, in
the Arches Court, in spite of the case having been
argued on somewhat different grounds. It was hoped,
however, to reverse it, on appeal to the Judicial Com-
mittee of the Privy Council. The appeal was heard
by Lord Wynford, Lord Brougham, Justice Erskine
and Dr. Lushington, ‘ an ex-lord chancellor, an ex-lord
chief justice of the court of common pleas, a puisne
judge of the same court, and the judge of the high
court of admiralty, four men,’ said Bishop Phillpotts,
1 Curteis, Pull Report of Mastin v. Escott.
256 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
‘of high character, and very high attainments, but not
exactly such as any man in the realm would have
selected to ventilate the questions which they, whether
necessarily or unnecessarily, connected with the point
they had to decide.’? As might be expected, they did
not show themselves particularly at home in the theo-
logical matters it raised, and the judgment, delivered
by Lord Brougham, on July 2, 1842, contributed no-
thing of importance to the discussion of the subject on
its own merits. It upheld the decision of the Arches
Court, Lord Brougham a little testily resenting that it
should ever have been disputed.’
The Bishop of Exeter, entirely differmg from these
decisions, devoted a considerable part of his charge in
1842 to a consideration of the subject, and a few small
publications had besides appeared on the Church side.
The judgment was not popular with the clergy, of
course; not so much because of its acceptance of lay
baptism, as because of the right it gave to dissenters to
claim Church ministrations at their hands. ‘The clergy
generally, wrote Maskell, shortly after, ‘have silently
(perhaps some sullenly ?) acquiesced; but it would be
absurd to say that they have been convinced.’ 4
One other plea remained, which was tried before
the question was allowed to rest in the law courts. The
Wesleyan minister, as Bishop Phillpotts pointed out,
had not been brought before the court as either a
schismatic or a heretic, and therefore it had not been
able to consider him assuch.’ The whole argument had
2 Phillpotts, Charge to Clergyof tical Treatise of the Laws relat-
Diocese of Exeter, 1842, p. 38. ang to the Clergy, 1848, vol. i.
3 Judgment of the Judicial Com- 4 Maskell, Holy Baptism, 2nd
mittee in Escott against Mastin, ed., p. 250.
1842, reprinted in Stephens, Prac- ® Phillpotts, Charge, 1842, p. 39.
CH XI TITCHMARSH v. CHAPMAN 257
been about lay baptism, apart from any considerations
of heresy or schism to ageravate it. A third case was,
therefore, brought into the Arches Court, in 1844, again
before Sir H. Jenner-Fust, to try whether the law would
disqualify dissenters’ baptism on the charge of heresy
and schism. The action was brought by one Titch-
marsh against the Rev. W. H. Chapman, for refusing
the Church’s offices of burial to an infant baptized by an
Independent minister. Chapman pleaded that the bap-
tism was heretical and schismatical, and therefore void.
The question turned partly upon whether a dissenter
was ipso facto ‘excommunicate, by his own act of
separation from the Church. Here the court rightly
decided that formal excommunication requires a decla-
ratory sentence, and cannot be tacitly assumed without
it. Consequently a dissenter could not be said in a
strict technical sense to be ‘excommunicate.’ Further,
the judgment laid down that ‘both lay and heretical
baptism are irregular, and contrary to the order of the
Church ; but both are valid,’ for the purposes of burial.
The judge dwelt particularly on the expression, ‘ law-
fully and sufficiently baptized, in the rubric of the
office for private baptism, and said that in his own
decision he used the word ‘sufficiently’ advisedly. ‘To
what extent the sufficiency goes,’ he added, ‘is not for
this court to determine; whether it does, or does not,
confer spiritual grace the court gives no opinion.’ ®
So far as the question of burial is concerned,
perhaps there is no cause for anyone to quarrel with
the result of these decisions, particularly expressed with
the qualifications of Sir H. Jenner-Fust’s last judgment.
Anomalous as it is that those who have lived outside
® Stephens, Practical Treatise, dc. vol. i. pp. 1238-125.
258 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
the visible communion of the catholic Church should
be committed to the grave with the same office as her
faithful children, it is an anomaly inherent in the lack
of discipline which characterises the whole of the
modern life of the Church of England. Until the
ancient discipline can be restored in more ways than
this, it is possibly better to acquiesce in allowing
dissenters this measure of the Church’s ministrations at
the grave, than to attempt to enforce a discipline in
death, out of proportion to that which is exercised in
life. Until the Church sees her way to put into
practice her power of excommunication, she must be
content to permit much which she cannot altogether
approve.
The doctrinal point of the spiritual efficacy of lay or
of dissenting baptism is of course absolutely unaffected
by these cases in the law courts. Counsel discussed it
freely, and the judges gave their opinions somewhat
dogmatically, but it lay outside, not only of their
proper jurisdiction, but also of the question which they
were called upon to decide. Nor can it be said that
they contributed any particularly valuable assistance
towards the solution of the difficulties surrounding the
controversy as to dissenters’ baptism.
NOTES TO CHAPTER XI.
A.—Publications on the Controversy of the eighteenth century.
Lay-Baptism Invalid. An Essay to prove that such baptism is null
and void, when administered in opposition to the Divine right of the
apostolical succession. Occasioned chiefly by the anti-episcopal usurpa-
tions of our English dissenting teachers. By a Lay-Hand[R. Laurence].
London, 1710.
CH XI PUBLICATIONS ON DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM 259
Lay-Baptism Invalid, éc. Second edition. Corrected and enlarged,
with anappendix. To which is prefixed a Letter by G. Hickes. London,
1710.
Two Sermons, preached in the Cathedral Church of Salisbury; the
first on 5th Noy., the second on 7th Nov., in the year 1710. By the
Right Rey. Father in God, Gilbert [Burnet], Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
London, 1710.
The White Crow; or an Inquiry into some new doctrines broached
by the Bishop of Salisbury in a pair of sermons. [London] 1710.
Sacerdotal Powers; or the necessity of confession, penance and
absolution, together with the nullity of unauthorized lay baptism, asserted
in an essay; occasioned by the publication of the B of § ’s two
sermons preached at Salisbury, the 5th and 7th of November, 1710. By
the author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. London, 1711.
Remarks on Two late Sermons preached in the Cathedral Church of
Salisbury : in a Letter to a friend, to which is added a Postscript, wherein
the charge of uncharitableness against the Church for condemning lay
baptism as invalid is more particularly considered and confuted. London,
1711.
A Letter to the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid; wherein the popish
doctrine of lay baptism taught in a sermon said to have been preached by
the B of S , the 7th of Nov. 1710, is censured and condemned by
the Greek Church, the Church of England, the Reformed abroad, and
even by our English Presbyterian sectaries. By Thomas Brett. London,
1711. [Published Sept. 8.]
The Rights of the Clergy of the Christian Church; or a Discourse
shewing that God has given and appropriated to the clergy authority to
ordain, baptize, preach, preside in Church prayers, and consecrate the
Lord’s Supper, etc. By Thomas Bennet, M.A., Rector of St. James’s,
Colchester. London, 1711.
Lay-Baptism Invalid, éc. Third edition, more correct and enlarged
than the former. In which some notice is taken of a Declaration lately
proposed to be established, &. With an Appendix: wherein the boasted
unanswerable objection of the B. of 8., and other new objections, are
answered. By a Lay-Hand. London, 1712.
The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of lay baptism
and of dissenters’ baptism: by which it appears that she hath not by any
public act of hers made or declared lay baptism to be invalid. [By
William Fleetwood, Bishop of St. Asaph.] London, 1712.
Second edition: with an additional Letter from Dr. John Cosin,
afterwards Bishop of Durham, to Mr. Cordel. London, 1712.
The Second Part of the Judgment, dc. London, 1712.
Dissenters’ and other unauthorized Baptisms null and void, by the
articles, canons, and rubrics of the Church of England. In answer to a
pamphlet called The Judgment of the Church of England in the case of
A 2
260 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
lay baptism and of dissenters’ baptism. By the Author of Lay-Baptism
Invalid. London, 1712.
The Bishop of Oaford’s Charge at his Visitation. [Talbot.] London,
1712.
The Bishop of Oxford’s Charge considered in reference to . . . the
invalidity of baptism administered by persons not episcopally ordained.
In an humble address to his lordship. By the Author of Lay-Baptism
Invalid. London, 1712.
The extent of Christ’s commission to baptize. A sermon shewing the
capacity of infants to receive, and the utter incapacity of dissenting teachers
to administer, Christian baptism. With a Preface to the Dissenters. By
Thos. Brett, Rector of Betteshanger. London, 1712.
The Previous Question to the several questions about valid and in-
valid baptism, lay baptism, &c., considered. London, 1712.
The Judgment of the Reformed in France, extracted out of the acts
of their public synods, as also that of Mr. Calvin and other Genevans con-
cerning the invalidity of lay baptism: in a Letter to the Author of Lay
Baptism Invalid. By a Priest of the Church of England, and Rector of a
Church in the city of London [Luke Milbourn]. London, 1712.
A Scholastical History of the Practice of the Church in reference to
the administration of baptism by laymen: Wherein an account is given
of the practice of the primitive Church, the practice of the modern Greek
Church, and the practice of the Churches of the Reformation. With an
Appendix, containing some remarks on the historical part of Mr. Lawrence’s
writings touching the invalidity of lay baptism ; his preliminary Discourse
of the various opinions of the fathers concerning rebaptization and invalid
baptisms ; and his Discourse of Sacerdotal Powers. London, 1712.
An Inquiry into the Judgment and Practice of the Primitwe Church
in relation to persons being baptized by laymen: wherein Mr. Bingham’s
Scholastical History is considered: with an Appendix in answer to the
Lord Bishop of Oxford’s Charge. By Thos. Brett. London, 1712.
The Second Part of Lay-Baptism Invalid: shewing that the ancient
catholic Church never had any ecclesiastical law, tradition, or custom, for
the validity of baptisms performed by persons who never were commissioned
by bishops to baptize; all proved from the Reverend Mr. Bingham’s
Scholastical History of Lay Baptism, and from other evidences not pro-
duced by that historian. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid.
London, 17138.
Dissenters’ and other Ser Oe Baptisms, éc. Second edition.
London, 1718. [A third edition was printed in 1810.]
Sacerdotal Powers, dc. The second edition, more correct than the
former. London, 1718.
An Answer to the exceptions made against the Lord Bishop of Oxford’s
Charge by Mr. L. and Dr. B., in which the reasonableness of the Bishop’s
advice to his clergy is vindicated. By aCountry Clergyman. [Said to be
Dr. John Turner, Vicar of Greenwich ; see Kennet, p. 274.| London, 1713.
CH XI PUBLICATIONS ON DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM 261
The State and Importance of the Present Controversy about the
validity of lay baptism fairly represented: in a Letter to the Author of
Lay-Baptism Invalid; in which is shewn the unreasonableness of the
clamours, and the weakness of the arguments which are brought by those
who would make all lay baptism absolutely null and void ; occasioned by
the severe reflections made in several of their writings; and particularly
in a Letter from a Priest of the Church of England, and Rector of a
Church in the city of London; and in The Bishop of Oxford’s Charge con-
sidered. By a Country Clergyman. [Same as previous one.| London,
1713.
A Compendious Speculation upon valid and invalid baptism. By
Samuel Hill, M.A., Archdeacon and Canon Residentiary of Wells.
London, 1713.
The Validity of Baptism administered by Dissenting Ministers, and
the unreasonableness of refusing burial to children so baptized ; first offered
to the consideration of a dissenting congregation at two public baptisms,
on the occasion of that new notion, denying all such to be Christians who
have been baptized by persons not episcopally ordained, and the late
agreement of some neighbouring clergymen not to bury any such. Now
published (with some alterations) for the conviction of unprejudiced
churchmen and the satisfaction of protestant dissenters. By a presbyter
of the Church of Christ [Ferdinando Shaw, a dissenting minister in
Derby|. Nottingham, 1713.
An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entituled The Validity of Baptism
administered by dissenters, in which what that author hath offered is
fully considered and refuted, and some propositions are laid down, from
which the invalidity of lay baptisms and Presbyterian ordinations may be
fairly inferred. By a Lay Man. Nottingham, 1713. [Published March
21, 1713-14. |
The Invalidity of Lay Baptisms by Dissenting Teachers, proved from
Scripture and Antiquity, and from the judgment of the Church of England,
&e. In answer to a late pamphlet compiled chiefly of collections from the
Bishop of Sarum’s writings and the Bishop of Oxford’s Charge, by Mr.
Shaw, a dissenting teacher in Derby, entitled, The Validity of Baptism
administered by Dissenting Ministers. To which is added, A vindication
of the clergy’s refusal to read the burial office over unbaptized persons,
shewing the reasonableness of such refusal. With an Appendix. By
Henry Cantrell, M.A., Vicar of St. Alkmund’s, Derby. With a Letter from
the Rev. Mr. Harris. Nottingham, 1714.
A Caveat against the new sect of anabaptists lately sprung up at Exon,
shewing the novelty and schism and absurdity and dangerous tendency of
their principles and practices, who were concerned in the rebaptizing
of Mr. Benjamin Read. In a Letter to a friend. [By Mr. Withers.] 2nd
edition. London, 1714.
A Reply to ...a Caveat, &c. Ina Letter to a friend, by Benjamin
Read. 1714.
262 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
A Defence of the Caveat against the new sect of anabaptists, in answer
to Mr. Read’s Reply. By Hubert Stogden. Exeter, 1714.
Donatus Redivivus; or a reprimand to a modern Church schismatic
for the revival of the Donatistical heresy of rebaptization, in defiance to
the judgment and practice of the catholic Church, and of the Church of
England in particular: in a letter to himself. [By Mr. O n.| London,
1714. [July 10.]
An Answer to a Scurrilous Pamphlet called Donatus Redivivus, lately
written by a dissenting teacher; occasioned by the conversion and baptism
of two young gentlewomen. By way of a letter from one of the said
gentlewomen to the Rev. Mr. L——ter, M.A., Library keeper at Manchester.
London, 1715 [1714].
The Amazon Disarmed, or the sophisms of a schismatical pamphlet
pretendedly writ by a gentlewoman, entitled, An Answer to Donatus
Redivivus, exposed and confuted, being a further vindication of the Church
of England from the scandalous imputation of Donatism or rebaptization.
In a letter to two Manchester Levites ; occasioned by their public defence
of their crime in perverting and rebaptizing two young gentlewomen.
London, 1714.
A Scholastical History of the practice of the Church in reference to
the administration of baptism by laymen. Part II., with some considera-
tions on Dr. Brett’s and Mr. Lawrence’s answers to the first part. London,
1714.
A Supplement to the first and second Parts of Lay-Baptism Invalid,
shewing that the heretical and schismatical baptisms which some ancient
Churches esteemed to have been valid, were not lay baptisms, in the
opinion of those Churches: in answer to the second part of Mr. Bing-
ham’s pretended Scholastical History of lay baptism; and proved out of
that same book, and the other writings of Mr. Bingham. By the author
of Lay-Baptism Invalid. London, 1714.
A Further Inquiry into the judgment and practice of the primitive
Church of England, in relation to persons baptized by laymen: wherein
the second part of Mr. Bingham’s Scholastical History is considered. By
Th. Brett. London, 1714.
A Dissertation wpon the Highth Canon of the Cowneil of Nice ;
proving that Novatian, the heretic, was never allowed to be a true bishop
in any part of the catholic Church; with some remarks on Mr, Lawrence’s
way of handling the controversy about lay baptism. London, 1715.
[Bingham’s three essays on the subject of lay baptism are reprinted
in vol. viil. of the 1844 edition of his Works. |
Letters on Lay Baptism between Dr. Waterland and Rev. E. Kelsall,
1713-1714 or 1715. [First printed in Van Mildert’s edition of Waterland’s
Works, 1823. ]
A Dissertation upon the case of Heretical and Schismatical Baptisms.
By Nathaniel Marshall, LL.B. [Appended to the Acts of the Council of
Carthage in Marshall’s edition of the Works of Cyprian, 1717, pp. 256-278. |
CH XI PUBLICATIONS ON THE BURIAL CASES 268
A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer, dc. By
Charles Wheatly, M.A. London, 1720. [Chap. vii. App. 1, § 2. Of the
proper minister of private baptism. |
Lay-Baptism Invalid, &e. The fourth edition, more correct than
the former ; in which some notice is taken of an ecclesiastical declaration
proposed to be established, about ten years since, in favour of such
usurpations. By R. Laurence, M.A. London, 1723. [Reprinted, to-
gether with Dissenters’ Baptisms, &e., with additions and illustrations,
by William Scott, M.A. London, 1841.]
A Letter to the most Rey. the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Dr.
John Potter] concerning the validity of lay baptism, and of the baptisms
of those who never had episcopal baptism nor ordination. [Signed Phil-
alethes.| London, 1738.
A Letter to the Rey. Mr. Castleman, Vicar of South Petherton,
Somerset, on his turning anabaptist. London, 1751.
The Validity of Lay Baptism Examined: and the arguments for and
against it fairly stated. In a Letter to a Friend; occasioned by some
passages in a book, lately published, entitled, The Rubrick in the Book
of Common Prayer, and the Canons of the Church of England considered.
[By Thomas Sharp, D.D., Archdeacon of Northumberland. London,
1753.| By James Moody, Rector of Dunton, in Bucks. London, 1755.
The Invalidity of Schismatical and Heretical Baptism, proved from
reason, scripture, councils and fathers. By Orthodoxus. London, 1768.
B.—Publications, chiefly on the Burial Cases.
The Judgment delivered Dec. 11, 1809, by the Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholl, Knt., LL.D., Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury,
upon the admission of articles exhibited in a cause of office promoted by
Kemp against Wickes, clerk, for refusing to bury an infant child of two of
his parishioners who had been baptized by a dissenting minister. Taken
in shorthand by Mr. Gurney. London, 1810. [Reprinted in Reports of
Cases argued and determined in the Ecclesiastical Courts. By Joseph
Phillimore, LL.D. London, 1827, vol. iii. pp. 264-306. |
Remarks upon a Report of the judgment delivered by the Rt. Hon.
Sir John Nicholl, Knt., LL.D., Official Principal of the Arches Court of
Canterbury, &e. London, 1810. [Against the judgment. |
A Letter to Sir John Nicholl, Official Principal of the Arches Court of
Canterbury, on his late decision in the ecclesiastical court against a clergy-
man for refusing to bury the child of a dissenter, with a Preface most
humbly addressed to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of
England. By a Clergyman. London, 1810. [Against the judgment. |
A Respectful Examination of the judgment delivered Dec. 11, 1809,
by the Rt. Hon. Sir John Nicholl, Knt., LL.D., Official Principal of the
Arches Court of Canterbury, against the Rev. John Wight Wickes, for
refusing to bury an infant child which had been baptized by a dissenting
minister. In a Letter to Sir John Nicholl, by the Rev. Charles Daubeny,,
264 DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM—CENT. XVIII-XIX CH XI
LL.D., Archdeacon of Sarum. Bath and London, 1811. [Against the
judgment. |
The Anti-Jacobin Review, Feb. 1811, vol. xxxviii. pp. 191-208. [A
Review of Daubeny’s pamphlet. Against the judgment. |
Reflections on the judgment delivered by Sir John Nicholl against the
Rev. J. W. Wickes. [By Thomas Burgess, Bishop of St. David’s.] [Car-
marthen ?] 1811. [Against the judgment. |
Remarks upon a late decision in the Court of Arches. By the Rev.
George Hutton, D.D., Vicar of Sutterton. Boston and Spilsby, 1811.
[Against the judgment. |
Quarterly Review, March 1812, vol. vii. pp. 200-223. [A Review of
Daubeny’s and Hutton’s pamphlets. For the judgment. |
Dissenters’ Baptisms and Church Burials: Strictures upon the de-
cision of the late Sir John Nicholl; with an attempt at an investigation
of the judgment of the Church of England upon the subject. By the Rev.
Walter Blunt, M.A. Exeter, 1840.
The Christian Observer, April, 1840, pp. 220-225; June, 1840, pp.
852-354; July, 1840, pp. 406-411. [Counsel’s Opinions, &c.]
Lay-Baptism Invalid, dc. By R. Laurence. With additions and
illustrations, arranged and edited by William Scott, M.A., Perpetual
Curate of Christ Church, Hoxton. London, 1841. [Scott’s Preface, pp.
vii.—li. ]
A Full Report of the case of Mastin v. Escott, clerk, for refusing to
bury an infant baptized by a Wesleyan minister, containing all the argu-
ments on both sides, and the judgment delivered by the Rt. Hon. Sir
Herbert Jenner, in the Arches Court of Canterbury, May 8, 1841; with
an appendix of documents. By W. C. Curteis, LL.D., Advocate in
Doctors’ Commons. London, 1841. ,
The indeterminateness of Unauthorized Baptism, occasioned by Sir
Herbert Jenner’s decision in the case of Mastin v. Escott. By the Rey.
C. Warren, Rector of Over, Cambs. Cambridge, 1841. [Against the
judgment. |
The Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
the case of Escott against Mastin, on appeal from the Arches Court of
Canterbury. From the shorthand notes of Mr. Gurney. London, 1842.
[Reprinted in Stephens’ Practical Treatise &c. vol. i.]
A Charge to the clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, 1842. By Henry
[Phillpotts], Bishop of Exeter. London, 1842. [Pp. 88-60. Against the
judgment. |
Holy Baptism. Matt. xxviii. 18,19; John xx, 21.
302 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
in the Prayer Book. Even when a child becomes
suddenly and dangerously ill, it is seldom the case that
a clergyman cannot be procured in time, if an effort is
made. Congregations should be taught, perhaps more
than they are, that, at any hour of the day or night, at
any amount of personal inconvenience to himself or to
others, the priest is to be summoned, rather than his
ministry dispensed with. All should be provided in
readiness, and only if he fails to arrive when the danger
has become momentarily imminent, should the layman
proceed. His hesitation must not, however, extend to
the point of risking dissolution before the baptism is
accomplished ; and his own impression of the extremity
of the peril is a sufficient justification for his action,
even if he should afterwards prove to have been mis-
taken. Nor, with the Church’s mind before him, must
he be deterred by private scruples or logical reasonings
from fulfilling this office of charity. The responsibility
is not his, but the Church’s. If there be a choice of
persons, a communicant is to be preferred to one whose
churchmanship is incomplete. Except in great extremity,
the father should not baptize, according to medizeval
canons ; but this direction had much of its origin in the
obsolete idea that baptizing established an affinity with
the child which interfered with the marriage relation,
and therefore a communicant parent would certainly
now be preferable to a non-communicant bystander.
In the event of death, the whole present opinion of
the Church is that lay Church baptism entitles the
person not only to Christian burial, but also to be
remembered among the faithful departed. If, on the
other hand, there is recovery, the Orthodox Greek
Church would rebaptize, the Russians would not, nor
CH XIII DUTY OF LAY CHURCHMEN 303
would Rome, at any rate in theory. An argument
for rebaptism may be drawn from a literal interpreta-
tion of the present wording of the English office, which
only explicitly requires the priest to supply the recep-
tion alone, when the child has been baptized by a
‘lawful minister.’ But it may be doubted whether this
is the intention, and many would hesitate to baptize where
the previous lay baptism was duly performed in urgent
danger. If any hold a different opinion, there is, how-
ever, no prohibition of a conditional baptism, and no
danger of sacrilege in bestowing it. Some feel very
strongly that this is the course which should be taken.
‘If I were a layman,’ writes the Bishop of Argyll and
the Isles, ‘I should most certainly baptize a dying
person in case of necessity. But if afterwards the
person recovered, I should not rest till I had got an
ordained minister to give conditional baptism, lest my
want of ministerial authority should have rendered my
act invalid.’® Another, deep in theological lore, John
Walter Lea, himself a layman, thought most decidedly
that this was the proper course. ‘In my earlier student
days, he wrote to Mr. Baldwin, ‘I was disposed, with
youthful impatience and intolerance of every doubt, to
reject lay baptism absolutely. Years and thought have
modified this fervour to some extent, and now my
practical conclusion is, I think, the same as yours. In
case of urgency I should essay “to baptize,” but hypo-
thetically :—“If I have the power, and if it be the will
of Almighty God, so far as it is given to me, I baptize,”
&c., always pressing the propriety of conditional bap-
tism should life continue. At the same time I cannot
see any ground on which to conclude for its validity,
° Bishop of Argyll, MS. note, Jan. 1889.
304 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
and should act solely in deference to the great current
of opinion in the Church.’ ‘
There are some, as has been seen, who would
extend the plea of necessity to the circumstances of
those in foreign lands, when they are far from any
probable prospect of the ministry of a priest. Since
this is a case not contemplated by the canons, and of
doubtful ‘ urgency,’ the recommendation of conditional
baptism, as soon as a priest may be had, will have still
ereater force than when the urgency has been the
danger of death specifically mentioned in Church
decrees as justifying lay baptism. Still more will the
advice apply when the layman’s act has not been
prompted by any sufficient degree of necessity. His
power to baptize can only be claimed to hold good so
far as the Church has formally sanctioned it. The
canonical permission is never given without the quali-
fication that only urgency calls for his interference in a
ministry which cannot ordinarily be his. Consequently,
in spite of the private opinion of St. Augustine and
others to the contrary, it may be at least safest to use
conditional baptism, when the case has been one which
seems scarcely to fall within the necessity contemplated
by the medizeval canons.
Whatever objections lie against the ministry of
baptism by lay men hold with greater force against its
ministry by women. Not only are they not ministerial
priests, but by their sex they are disqualified from ever
being such. At the same time the occasions when lay
baptism is necessary will occur more often to women
than to men, since they will chiefly arise at the moment
of childbirth. Hence arose the special permission to
7 J. W. Lea to Rev. E. C. Baldwin, June 27, 1886.
? Wie
cH xm BAPTISM BY WOMEN; BY THE UNBAPTIZED — 305
midwives, which took an exaggerated form in the
ecclesiastical licenses of the later middle ages. The
same canons which permit lay men to baptize permit
women also, if no man can perform the office. Those,
therefore, especially who assist at confinements should
know how to act in emergency, and should not fail to
baptize if they believe the peril to be urgently grave.*
The general opinion is that their baptism should be
accepted, even if the child lives. Nevertheless, as in
the case of baptism by laymen, the English office seems
to make it possible to give hypothetical baptism, with-
out contradicting the letter, or probably the spirit, of
the Prayer Book.
To allow baptism by the heathen or the unbaptized
no doubt follows logically from confining the essentials
strictly to the matter and the words. But there is
certainly something very anomalous in the idea that
one who is himself outside the divine covenant can
admit others into it. The acceptance of such baptism
is neither so early nor so common as that of lay Church
baptism. It was only as scholastic theology grew that
it became generally recognised. The occasion for it
can rarely arise in a Christian country. But in heathen
lands, where missionary stations are far apart and
priests few in number, it may well happen that a
8 The canonists and schoolmen other member received the water,
enter into minute directions about
baptizing infants during the process
of their birth. All say that a child
may not be baptized in its mother’s
womb. It may, however, be bap-
tized if it is partly born. If this
baptism was applied to the head, it
was generally agreed that it should
not be repeated, but if only some
conditional baptism was usually
advised, if the child survived long
enough for it to be conferred. This
is the present rule of the Roman
Church, carefully laid down. Rit.
Rom. De Sacram. Bapt. See also
Lyndwood, Provinciale, p. 246;
Maskell, Holy Baptism, p. 71.
x
306 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XII
catechumen, who is being prepared for baptism, may
find himself in the position of choosing between baptiz-
ing a fellow catechumen or letting him die unbaptized.
Probably, however, it would never be thought wise to
instruct people to do this, and without special instruc-
tion they would not be likely to attempt it. The ques-
tion is, therefore, almost purely a speculative one. In
the event of its actually happening, no one would con-
demn the pious intention of the baptizer. The baptism
would be entitled to the benefit of doubt as to its value.
But, supposing the person should recover, conditional
baptism at least would be used to secure the validity of
the sacrament.
Lastly, there is dissenters’ baptism, which presents
the gravest difficulties, and yet occurs with the greatest
frequency of all the kinds of irregular baptism. There
is everything in it to challenge objection. It is lay
baptism, as being administered by those who have not
received episcopal ordination ; it is schismatical bap-
tism, as being administered by those who have separated
themselves from catholic communion; it is heretical
baptism, certainly in those sects whose faith in the
Blessed Trinity is defective, and possibly in all, since
they reject the article of the creed which confesses the
‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.’ It lacks,
moreover, the sanction of the Church, which is claimed
for lay baptism in extremity and is the plea on which
its validity is justified: the dissenter baptizes in ap-
parent opposition to the Church’s laws and discipline.?
® Apart from the question of the regards Scotch Presbyterians, when
minister, there are serious doubts they sprinkle from a high pulpit
often as to the careful use of the due without any particular caution to
form and matter among dissenters. secure that the water touches the
This has already been mentioned as person at all. It is the case, with
CH XIII DISSENTERS’ BAPTISM
307
Therefore, even those who are warm in their defence
of baptism by lay churchmen have little to say for
dissenting baptism. ‘To presume to do it in ordinary
cases, says Kelsall, ‘in defiance of the Christian priest-
hood, as our schismatical lay preachers do, is what we
all readily agree, there is no more ground for in Scrip-
ture, than there is for lay ordination, lay absolution,
&c. Concerning such usurpers Mr. W[aterland] and
we are all of the same opinion: and, were there room
or leisure for it, or were it pertinent to my design, I
should willingly join with him in treating such acts of
sacrilegious impiety and presumption with all the
severity of language he can desire.’ Yet Kelsall main-
tained its external validity, treating it only, after the
manner of St. Augustine, as inefficacious outside the
Church. ‘ Whatsoever adult,’ he says, ‘shall choose to
receive baptism from such an usurper, knowing that he
is not episcopally ordained, receives only the outward
sion, not the grace of the sacrament; because his choice
of such a baptism (preferably to one that is truly
catholic and regular) puts him into a state of schism,
which state is an insuperable bar against the baptismal
grace, till it be removed by repentance and reconcilia-
tion to the Church. But such an irregular administra-
tion can be no prejudice to those who die in their
infancy, because of the innocency of that age, and their
reference to the form, in many
English sects, especially among
their less educated and responsible
preachers. Instances of baptism in
the name of Jesus, or with a mere
text, have been found where the
accuracy of the form would gene-
rally be assumed without question.
An imperfect faith in baptism, and
an imperfect discipline as to eccle-
siastical rites, leaves room for very
ereat inaccuracies. It should
scarcely ever be taken for granted
that the form and matter have been
exactly used by dissenters. Very
minute inquiry should always be
made as to these points, before
they are relied upon.
x 2
308 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
not concurring in the irregularity. Nevertheless, though
in the case of an adult so baptized the baptismal grace
be wanting, the outward administration (if with due
matter and form) is not altogether invalid. Conse-
quently I distinguish betwixt an inefficacious and invalid
administration.’ Kelsall would have thought formal
reconciliation sufficient.
Others have felt that the irregularity of dissenters’
baptism reaches a point which imperils its validity.
Mr. Baldwin, holding this view, enumerates distinctly
the inherent differences between it and baptism by a
lay churchman in necessity. ‘The layman,’ he says,
‘is himself a member of her upon whom God has put
His Name. He is himself inside the Church, and in
communion with the ministry of the Church; he might,
therefore, acting under the protection of the bishop,
and as the lawful minister’s deputy, obtain from Christ
the key of the Church for that one moment: but the
case 1s wholly and radically different when a “ minister ”
of a religious sect presumes to “ baptize.” He is not in
communion with the ministry of the Church ; he is not
acting under the protection of the bishop, but rather in
opposition to the bishop ; he does not act as the deputy
of the lawful minister; neither does he baptize because
of extreme danger of death. He takes upon himself
the office of baptizing, simply and solely because for
some reason or other he imagines himself, or is imagined
by other people, to have a kind of ministerial power
about him.’ ?
Some of these points may perhaps be open to a
logically consistent reply. The dissenter is certainly
1 Kelsall, in Waterland’s Works, * Baldwin, A Matter of Life and
vol. vi. pp. 99, 135. Death, p. 26.
CH XIII ITS IRREGULARITY 309
not in full communion with the Church; but, granting
that his own baptism is valid, his self-excommunication
cannot wholly sever his connection with the Body of
Christ. Consequently, he may be supposed to have
inherited from the mother, whom he or his forefathers
have forsaken, a measure of whatever right the laity
have to baptize, and to be handing it on with increased
irregularity, but still with a remote kind of validity.
He does not act under the bishop; and this want of
episcopal authority is justly made much of by op-
ponents of dissenters’ baptism. Dr. Brett, speaking
expressly of their‘ pretended baptism,’ says, ‘ Supposing
bishops could authorise or commission laymen to bap-
tize in cases of necessity; yet, since the power of
administering baptism is lodged solely and entirely in
the bishops, and only derivatively conveyed from them
to others, those to whom it is not derivatively conveyed
cannot baptize. Therefore, unauthorised, uncommis-
sioned laymen cannot baptize, having derived no
authority from the bishops to do so, in whom the sole
entire power of administering baptism is lodged.’? But,
then, the only proper method of authorising anybody
to administer a sacrament is by ordination. Conse-
quently, if it is conceded at all that a Church layman
can baptize by tacit permission, without direct autho-
rity, it seems but a little step further, judged merely as
a question of commission, to allow that a dissenter may
also baptize, with however much ereater irregularity.
Neither has received the commission in the only way
that it can ordinarily be received.
Something, too, may be said even for the dissenter’s
Church intention when he baptizes. He does not act
3 Brett, Inquiry, p. 8:
310 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
as the acknowledged deputy of the lawful minister.
He would repudiate any idea of mission from a bishop,
any suggestion that he was the representative of the
parish priest, and any hint of connection with the catholic
Church of the place. Yet, in a high sense, he believes
himself to be acting as the deputy of Christ. His
intention is to do that which our Lord commanded to
be done, and this might seem to satisfy a reasonable
doctrine of intention. ‘The minister of a sacrament,’
says St. Thomas Aquinas, ‘acts as the representative
of the whole Church of which he is the minister. And
the intention of the Church is expressed in the words
he uses, which is sufficient for the perfection of the
sacrament, unless the contrary is expressed outwardly
on the part of the minister, or the recipient, of the
sacrament.’* The dissenter’s intention perhaps would
not fall short of this, were it not for the essential flaw
that he lacks the orders which would make him a true
‘representative of the Church.’
The most fatal point is that the Church, when she
has admitted lay baptism, never contemplated such a
use of it as is involved in dissenters’ baptisms. It is
straining the permission, therefore, to an extreme extent,
if it is supposed to cover what no canon or decree was
intended to sanction. There is not even, usually, the
plea of urgent necessity; and that is the only plea upon
which baptism by Church laymen has ever been per-
mitted, althongh sometimes the act has been condoned
when the circumstances did not properly justify the
layman in doing it.
The sum of the matter is that serious doubts may
be raised against the validity of dissenters’ baptisms.
4 Aquinas, Swmma, m1. Ixiv. 8.
I a
——
CH XIII DOUBT AS TO ITS VALIDITY 311
Their parallel with other irregular baptisms, which have
sometimes been accepted, is sufficiently recognisable
for it to be impossible summarily to reject them as
certainly invalid. Yet it is equally impossible to de-
scribe them as certainly valid. ‘If what I have said,’
wrote one of the controversialists of the eighteenth
century, ‘may be of use to persuade any dissenter, who
has not been baptized by a lawful minister, to examine
the grounds upon which he believes his baptism valid,
and to examine them with that seriousness and imparti-
ality which an affair that so nearly concerns the eternal
salvation of his soul requires, this I dare be very
confident in; he will find more reason to doubt of his
being baptized according to the institution of Christ,
than for any other doubt whatever upon which he
separates from the established Church.’? It is doubt
only, which is laid to the charge of these improper
baptisms, but doubt of no frivolous or captious cha-
racter. ‘The whole point,’ says Mr. Baldwin, ‘seems to
be this. It cannot be denied by any person of com-
petent knowledge that there is a doubt as to the validity
of dissenting baptism. No man in his senses would say
that he is absolutely certain that dissenters’ baptism is, in
God’s sight, and the Church’s sight, of as absolutely cer-
tain validity as baptism by a priest in full communion
with the Church. But, surely, if there be but a bare possi-
bility that it may not be, in God’s sight, equal to true
baptism, piety and obedience require that that, even
remotest, possibility may be avoided. And to many
thoughtful minds there is more than a possibility, though
it may not amount to probability; while with many others
> Remarks on two late sermons preached in the Cathedral of Salis-
bury, 1711, p. 23.
312 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
it seems very likely that such baptisms are altogether
ineflicacious, and even null and void. In a word, if
there be but a chance that a person baptized by a
dissenter lacks something which a truly baptized person
has, the chance of that lack should be removed.’ ®
The difficulty that many have felt in allowing the
possibility of such a doubt as to the validity of dis-
senters’ baptism is, that the consequences of its invali-
dity appear to them to be too serious to contemplate.
For vast numbers, who have received no other kind of
baptism, are living in external communion with the
Church, and partaking at her altars, where they have
no right if they are unbaptized. Their own personal
salvation, too, would be in peril, while they themselves
are blissfully unconscious of the defect. Worse than
this, many have been ordained to the priesthood, of
which they are incapable unless their baptism is valid.
Consequently they are ministering what in truth may
be no sacraments at all at their hands. Some have
even been consecrated to the episcopate. It was said,
at the time of the nonjuring controversy, that Bishop
Burnet of Salisbury, Bishop Blackall of Exeter, Bishop
Moore of Ely, and Bishop Fowler of Gloucester, all at
the same period, had received their baptism from dissent-
ing ministers. This appears to have been the case, also,
with Bishop Butler, Archbishop Secker, Archbishop
Tait, and doubtless several others. If their baptism
was invalid, it follows, so it is urged, that they were no
true bishops, and therefore could give no valid ordina-
tion. Thus, invalid baptisms, confirmations, absolutions,
eucharists and ordinations may have been multiplied,
until such confusion and uncertainty has crept in that
® Rev. E. C. Baldwin, MS. note.
CH XIII CASES WHICH CANNOT BE REMEDIED Bis:
no one can be sure of the validity of any ministry
whatsoever.’
Laurence, Brett, and Waterland sought to escape
from this dilemma by maintaining that an unbaptized
person may hold a true commission by ordination, and
can validly administer sacraments to others, although
he himself may be outside the covenant of grace. The
theory was propounded with hesitation, and was re-
ceived with very little favour. Hickes, who was on
their side on the general question, thought it utterly
unsound.’ The Decretum of Gregory laid down, on
the authority of the fathers, that an unbaptized person
cannot receive the character of holy orders. His ordi-
nation is invalid; and when his lack of baptism is
discovered, he must be baptized and ordained afresh.?
And this certainly seems the logical view. One who is
without the fold can scarcely be a pastor of the sheep.
One who is not in communion with the Body of Christ
can scarcely be a channel of the sacraments which
proceed from Him.
Some have sought to find a solution of the difficulty
in the other great sacrament of salvation. Dionysius
of Alexandria was afraid to baptize one who had clearly
received an invalid baptism from heretics, because he
had ‘long been a partaker of the Body and Blood of
our Lord Jesus Christ.’? That is, he thought that
the holy eucharist would have supplied what had not
been given in holy baptism. As the Bishop of Argyll
7 See Abbott, De Bapt.ii.; Whit- pp. 215-226.
gift, Works, Parker Soc., vol. ii. p. ® Hickes, Letter to Author of
527. Lay Baptism Invalid, p. xxxvii.
* Laurence, Lay Baptism In- 1 Decretum, ut. tit. xliii.
valid, pp. 128-140; Brett, Inquiry, 2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vit.ix. See
p- 111; Waterland, Works, vol. vi. ante, p. 64.
314 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
expresses it: ‘It has also been suggested that persons
who, unknown to themselves, have received an invalid
or insufficient baptism, and who have subsequently
approached the sacrament of the Body and Blood of
Christ, with right dispositions, cannot by any reason-
able supposition be shut out from the benefits promised
to worthy communicants. And what do these benefits
include? Nothing less than that the worthy receivers
are “ very members incorporate” in the mystical Body
of the Son of God.’* With the conclusion that those
who are ignorant of the deficiency of their baptism are
not excluded from the benefits of communicants, there
is no reason to quarrel. But it may be questioned
whether it is safe to put it in a form which implies that
the communion of Christ’s Body and Blood in the holy
eucharist does for them that which ordinarily should
be done by baptism. Each sacrament has its own
proper gift. Regeneration is not attached to the sacra-
ment of the altar; and if the grace of regeneration
comes to one who has not been rightly baptized, it is
scarcely to be attributed to the fact that he is a
communicant.
A better explanation seems to be found in the
goodness of God. If He uses human instruments, who
are imperfect by nature, there may be the most implicit
confidence that where the accurate ministration has
failed, through ignorance or accident, He will Himself
supply in an extraordinary way what He generally
gives by ordinary methods. It would be an intolerable
doctrine that any should suffer permanent loss from an
error of misapprehension, or that the whole structure
of the ministry should be allowed to collapse through a
5 Bishop of Argyll, Charge, 1888, p. 24.
ee ee eee
CH XIII THE GOODNESS OF GOD 815
theological mistake. In such a case, God will certainly
‘devise means, that His banished be not expelled from
fim.’ 4
Even the sternest of the ancient advocates for
severity of baptismal discipline allowed this. ‘Some
will say,’ wrote St. Cyprian, ‘ What then will become of
those who in times past, coming to the Church from
heresy, were admitted without baptism? The Lord is
able of His mercy to grant pardon, and not to sever
from the gifts of His Church those who, being out of
simplicity admitted to the Church, have in the Church
fallen asleep.’° The most emphatic of the eighteenth
century controversialists said the same with regard to
dissenters’ baptism. ‘Who are they,’ asks Charles
Leslie, the nonjuror, ‘that have reason to expect God’s
extraordinary mercies out of the common methods of
salvation, and to be made partakers of the inward
without the outward baptism?’ ‘Those, he says, in
reply, ‘ who have been baptized by persons not lawfully
ordained ; and consequently they have received no
baptism, having received it from those who had no
commission to administer it, but who were guilty of
the highest sacrilege in usurping such a sacred commis-
sion, not lawfully derived to them by a successive
ordination from the apostles: but yet, through a
general corruption of the times, such baptisms are
suffered to pass; whereby the persons so baptized,
swimming down the stream, do think their baptism to
be valid, and therefore seek not for a rebaptization from
those who are empowered to administer it: I say, where
no such rebaptization is taught, and thereby the people
know nothing of it, in such case their ignorance is in
4 2 Sam. xiv. 14. > Cyp. Ep. Ixxiii. 20 [Ixxii. 23].
316 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
a manner invincible, and their sincerity and devotion in
receiving no sacraments, yet thinking them true sacra-
ments, may be accepted by God, and the inward grace
conferred, and the defects in the outward and visible
signs may be pardoned.’® Laurence himself quotes this
passage with approval; adding his own comment, that
God ‘is infinite goodness itself, and will never punish
any for what they never could help.’’ .And Hickes
agreed with him, saying, ‘We must have recourse to
equity, which, in such cases of perfect, invincible
ignorance, takes place in ecclesiastical as well as in
civil cases, in divine as well as human laws.’ ®
No uneasiness need, therefore, be felt about irregular
baptisms which are beyond reach. But this comfort-
able reflection does not the least exonerate us from
doing whatever can be done to put doubtful baptisms
which are within reach upon a secure footing. ‘ Because
there has once been error,’ says St. Cyprian, after
speaking of his confidence in God’s mercy towards
those whose false baptism could not be remedied, ‘men
need not always err; since it becometh wise men, who
fear God, gladly and unhesitatingly to obey the truth,
when laid open and plainly seen, rather than pertina-
ciously and obstinately to contend for heretics against
brethren and fellow bishops.’? Or, as the Bishop of
Argyll and the Isles says, viewing the later aspect of
the question, ‘ Though He has ordained His holy sacra-
ments as the appointed means through which He
saves and blesses us, it is evident He cannot Himself be
fettered by His own laws, with regard to their opera-
® Leslie, Discowrse on Water valid, p. 102.
Baptism, Works, 18382, vol. vii. 8 Hickes, Letter to Author, dc»
p:0ls p. XXXviil.
7 Laurence, Lay Baptism In- ® Cyp. Ep. lxxiil. 20 [Ixxii. 23],
CO Ee
CH XIII REMEDY FOR UNAUTHORISED BAPTISM 317
tion. Though we are bound, yet He is not. Let us
then ever keep this in mind. We are bound. There-
fore, let us bring to bear the utmost rigour, and the
most scrupulous exactness in all our dealings as to the
administration of the holy sacraments. Christ is not
bound. Therefore, let us confidently hope in His
mercy, should we ever fail in our efforts to remedy
what is doubtful or irregular.’ ?
We have, then, to consider what is an adequate and
sufficient remedy to apply to those who have received
the wholly unauthorised baptism of dissenting ministers.
Nathaniel Marshall maintained that the Church has
full discretionary powers as to how she will deal with
such baptism. ‘She may,’ he says, ‘confirm, ex post
facto, an irregular ministration of it. Without her
allowance it will never avail for the remission of sins ;
but when any come to her, desiring such allowance,
she may dispense with the repetition of it, though they
did not receive it originally from her hands. Whether
she should, or should not, dispense with it, seems to
have been judged a prudential point, which we find to
have been variously determined according to the different
occasions and conjunctures of place and season.’? If,
however, the Church is free so to act, and this ought
scarcely to be disputed, her action towards these
improper baptisms should be definite and distinct, so
that at least there should be some kind of formal
reconciliation, whereby she may set her seal on the
candidate for reception, and assure him of the spiritual
effects of the sacrament of baptism.
1 Bishop of Argyll, Charge, 1886, heretical baptisms, Works of St.
p. 15. Cyprian, p. 268.
* Marshall, Dissertation upon
318 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
Many have looked to confirmation as an adequate
rite for the purpose. Bishop Phillpotts, of Exeter, was
one of these. He believed that dissenters’ baptism
could not convey all the gifts of the sacrament so long
as it remained a baptism unaccepted by the Church.
But he held that a person so baptized had a right to
claim confirmation, and that when he was confirmed
the defects of his baptism entirely disappeared.? The
Rey. Charles Warren, writing in 1841 upon Sir Herbert
Jenner’s burial judgment, said, ‘As confirmation has
always followed baptism, therefore it is generally decreed
that all whose baptism was unauthorised shall be
received by imposition of hands, which will confirm a
valid baptism, or make good the invalid.’ And that he
did not use the term ‘invalid’ loosely, as equivalent
merely to ‘irregular,’ is clear ; for he proceeds, ‘ By the
catholic confirmation of the bishop, the baptism, cer-
tainly irregular and perhaps invalid, becomes ipso facto
perfect, valid, sacred and catholic.’* Laurence says
that this was the theory of some of the bishops of his
own day, who administered confirmation ‘upon this
principle, that the baptism received by the confirmed
person from the hands of dissenting teachers, who are
laics, was not good and valid before confirmation, but
made valid by confirmation.’ Laurence adds, ‘I abso-
lutely deny the principle.’ °
As a matter of argument, Laurence was right.
Where, indeed, confirmation has been given and re-
ceived in all good faith, as accomplishing the required
end, the infinite goodness of God may doubtless have
8 Phillpotts, Charge, 1842, pp. wnauthorised Baptism, pp. 15, 16.
40, 48. > Laurence, Dissenters’ Baptisms
4 Warren, Indeterminateness of null and void, p. 49.
Ee oe
CH XIII CONFIRMATION INADEQUATE 319
permitted that nothing should be left wanting. But it
has already been seen that confirmation cannot, strictly,
do anything for an invalid baptism. It can at most be
a proper remedy for mere irregularity. The point
about a dissenting ministry of baptism is, not only that
its irregularity is very gross, but that its actual validity
is not certain. Even as a correction of the irrecularity
it seems inadequate. Everyone is to be brought to
confirmation. If those baptized by a lawful priest, and
those baptized by an unlawful minister, are brought
together to the rite, without distinction, practically
dissenting baptism is put upon a level with that of the
Church. To imagine a silent operation of confirmation
to the dissenter, over and above its operation to the
churchman, is not satisfactory. Dr. Hutton, writing in
1811, said a clergyman would be acting ignorantly and
blamably if he presented a child for confirmation who
had only been baptized by a dissenter.6 In the absence
of express discipline upon the subject, such a remark
seems stronger than perhaps is warranted. But a
thoughtful consideration of the matter will certainly
lead to the conclusion that something more full and
definite than ordinary confirmation is desirable for
those who have received dissenting baptism.
Bingham himself felt this, strongly as his own
prejudices were enlisted on the side of the validity of
lay baptism. His study of history had taught him that
the Church’s wont had been to reconcile heretics and
schismatics by some formal discipline. Therefore he
felt the unseemliness, at least, of accepting dissenters
without any definite ceremony. ‘There is one thing
more, he says, ‘I would humbly beg leave to offer,
° Hutton, Remarks upon a late decision, p. 13.
320 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XII
with all due respect, to the consideration of our
superiors, legally assembled in Convocation ; that is,
whether it might not be proper to have a peculiar form
of confirmation, or imposition of hands, for such as
were baptized by heretics and schismatics, upon their
return to the unity of the Church; considering what
frequent occasion there is for such a form, by reason of
ereat multitudes that have been baptized in heresy or
schism, and are admitted into the Church upon repen-
tance and renunciation of their errors without rebapti-
zation. The ancient Church had such forms peculiar to
this occasion: for they did not think confirmation was
to be given exactly in the same way to those who were
baptized by heretics or schismatics, as they did to those
that were baptized in the Church; because though
they did not esteem the baptism of such to be simply
null and invalid, yet they looked upon it as deficient in
several respects; and therefore they appoimted proper
forms for the confirmation of such, before they ad-
mitted them to the eucharist, upon their return to the
Church.’* It may indeed be imagined that the ancient
Church would look aghast at the easy reception of the
sectarians of these days, with no species of solemn
reconciliation. Some such ceremony as that which
Bingham suggests would certainly be a step in the
right direction. Yet in itself it would not be perfectly
satisfactory. Confirmation will not bear dividing into
two kinds. It is no proper remedy to apply to a
baptism which les under any suspicion of invalidity.
A readier and more sufficient resource is to be
found in conditional baptism. Pending an authorita-
tive decision to the contrary, dissenters’ baptism is
7 Bingham, Scholastical History, Preface, Works, vel. vill. p. vil.
7 .
LL
CH XIII CONDITIONAL BAPTISM 321
quite doubtful enough to warrant its application, while
the very form in which the words are cast passes no
final judgment on their rite. Nor does there seem any
reason why it should not be legitimately used for this,
as well as for other doubts. Hypothetical baptism, says
Marshall, ‘in all cases of doubt as to matter of fact,
whether the child, or person, hath been baptized or no,
is our undisputed rule of proceeding: why, then, may
it not be so, where the matter of right is doubted, till
the doubt at least be removed by a synodical sen-
tence ?’§
Such a method has the support of weighty names.
Dr. Pusey, evidently alluding to cases which had come
within his own knowledge, says, ‘The practice now
adopted by the Scotch Church,’ and in our own, with
regard to persons baptized by such as are not only in
schism, but never received any commission to baptize
(a case to which there is no parallel in the early
Church), unites the advantages of the Latin and Greek
practice; of the Latin, in that it avoids the risk of real
rebaptizing, which the ancients regarded as a profana-
tion of the sacred Names; of the Greek, in that it does
what in us lies, to provide that none of the blessings
and grace of baptism be lost through our omission, and
is an act of piety towards God, desiring that whatever
may have hitherto been lacking, be supplied.’* Bishop
Wordsworth, of Lincoln, was of the same mind. He
wrote to Mr. Baldwin, who had asked his opinion,
March 4, 1874, ‘The Church has not condemned bap-
8 Marshall, Dissertation on here- changed into its present optional
tical baptisms, p. 268. form. See ante, pp. 283, 284.
® This was written in 1842, after 1 Pusey, Note to Tertullian, Lib.
the passing of the Scotch canon on _ of Fathers, vol. 1. p. 297.
the subject, and before this was
32% PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS CH XIII
tism administered by laymen; but I have no hesitation
in saying, that if I had been baptized by a person whose
commission to baptize was doubtful, I should desire to
be baptized with the hypothetical form by a duly
ordained minister.’ And, on one occasion, he expressed
himself willing to confirm over again, after conditional
baptism, a person who had already received the rite of
confirmation while she had only as yet been baptized
by a dissenting minister.”
Whether conditional baptism can be insisted upon,
under our present discipline, supposing the person is
unwilling to receive it, may perhaps be questioned.
But. that it is desirable that it should be administered
seems to be clear. For whatever may be said in favour
of the validity of baptism by one who is not a lawful
minister, in circumstances of urgency, it remains a fact
that the ordinary baptism practised by dissenters has
never received any sanction from the Church. It does
not stand upon an assured footing. There is, therefore,
a doubt; and where there is a doubt, conditional baptism
is the most reverent and appropriate remedy. It avoids
presumptuous dogmatism on a debatable point, which
the Church has not yet decided with authority. It is
absolutely free from any danger of the sacrilege of
iterating baptism, supposing the previous ceremony was
really and completely valid. It satisfies the obligations
2 Baldwin, A Matter of Life and
Death, p. 39. Mr. Baldwin has
kindly let me copy from the original
letter. In his book it was written
down from memory, during an
absence in Africa, and there are
some unimportant variations from
the precise wording of the letter.
3 * Wed. before Easter, 1877. If
you admit your candidate to holy
communion on Easter Day (as being
desirous to be confirmed), I think
it is of less importance that she
should be brought to confirmation ;
but I should be quite ready to con-
firm her on your certificate of her
fitness.— Bishop Wordsworth to
Rey. E. C. Baldwin.
1
i
co xurt A SUFFICIENT AND SATISFACTORY REMEDY 323
of the clergy, who have inherited the charge, ‘Go ye,
baptizing them,’ and who are therefore bound not to
acquiesce in the usurpation of their office by those who
have received no such commission. It satisfies the
needs of the person, who thereby secures the full grace
of the sacrament with a certainty which cannot be dis-
puted. It is, also, perfectly loyal to both the letter and
the spirit of the English formularies, which, if they do
not positively condemn the irregularity of baptism
administered without the Church’s permission, at least
give it no explicit sanction, and thus put it in a very
different position from that which is bestowed by her
ordained and lawful ministers.
.
»
j
)
-
}
;
- ‘
i
7 ,
A]
ABB
Axssott, Archbishop, on lay
baptism, 196; on unbaptized
bishops, 313
Aberdeen, Council of, 154, 162
Absolution, analogy of, 16, 21, 25
Addams, Dr., on burial cases, 254
Admonition to Parliament, 191
Adult baptism, 217, 218, 299
Africa, custom as to heretical
baptism, before Agrippinus, 55;
reformed by, 55; under Cyprian,
57-64 ; arguments of bishops at
Carthage, 65-69; custom after
Cyprian, 64; bishops at Arles,
91; first council of Carthage,
92; Cyprian’s decrees accepted
by Trullan council, 116
Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, 55
Alexander, Bishop, and story of
Athanasius, 88, 135
Alexandria, Council of, 293
Alexius, king, and synod at Mos-
cow, 201
Alger, monk of Cluni, 142
Amazon disarmed, pamphlet on
dissenters’ baptism, 262
Ambrose, St., on power of keys,
20, 21; on commission from
bishops, 75; on heretical bap-
tism, 93
Ambrose, Pseudo, see Hilary the
Deacon
American Church; Prayer Book
on minister, 279; declaration of
bishops, 280; dissenters’ bap-
tism, 280; rebaptism of bishops,
280, 281; general opinion on
lay and dissenters’ baptism, 282
Ananias, baptism of Saul, 36, 53
Angels, baptism by, 146
ATH
Anti-Jacobin Review on_ burial
case, 251, 264
Apollinarian baptism, 79
Apostles, character of ministry,
14; guardians of teaching, 19;
their baptisms on day of Pente-
cost, 84; their mission to bap-
tize, 87; tradition of their prac-
tice, 55. See Commission
Apostolical Canons, 46; on here-
tical baptism, 48 ; on the right-
ful minister, 49; bearing on
lay baptism, 135; authority in
East, 47, 268, 269
Apostolical Constitutions, 50; on
St. Philip and Ananias, 35, 36;
on bishops and priests, 51, 52 ;
deacons, 52; minor orders, 52;
laymen, 52, 185; women, 51;
heretics, 51
Aquinas, see Thomas, St.
Arches Court, burial cases in, 250,
254, 257
Arcudius, on Eastern views of
seventeenth century, 202
Argyll and Isles, see Chinnery-
Haldane, Bishop
Arian baptism, 79, 80, 86, 91, 92,
97, 120, 132
Arles, Councils of; I., 8, 91, 100,
293, 294; II., 119, 295 ; in 1260,
151, 165
Armenians on lay baptism, 204
Articles, Thirty-nine, on minister
of sacraments, 216; on un-
worthiness of the minister, 104,
300
Athanasius, St., story of youthful
baptisms, 88, 119, 135, 136, 208 ;
on heretical baptism, 77, 84
326 INDEX
AUG
Augustine, St., of Hippo; on
variety of views, 7, 99; future
condition of the unbaptized, 22;
on council under Agrippinus,
56; on Cyprian’s views, 64, 72,
99, 1038, 105; on Paulianist
baptism, 77; on Council of
Arles, 8, 91, 100; influence on
view as to minister, 98; bap-
tism outside the Church, 100;
Christ the baptizer, 102; cha-
racter of heretical baptism, 103;
heresy compared with evil
morals, 104; baptism ineffec-
tual without reconciliation, 105;
except in necessity, 107; re-
conciliation by imposition of
hands, 298, 294; lay baptism,
108, 304; baptism by unbap-
tized, in a play, &e., 109, 142,
144, 208; summary of views,
111; Waterland on, 239; quoted,
142, 143, 204, 223, 276
Augustine, St., of Canterbury,
baptisms by, 34
Auxerre, Council of, 113
Baxsineton, Bishop, at Hampton
Court Conference, 210
Baldwin, Rev. E. C., book, 279;
on dissenters’ baptism, 308, 311;
on Trullan canon, 119; on
Hooker, 196; letter to, from
J. W. Lea, 303; from Bishop
Wordsworth, 321, 322
Bale, on SBonner’s Visitation
articles, 180
Balsamon, on one immersion, 79,
131
Bancroft, Bishop, at Hampton
Court Conference, 34, 210
Baptism, in O. T., 80-33; of blood
and desire, 23; unity of, 1, 45,
65, 228 ; sacramental character,
16, 801; regeneration, 65; re-
mission of sins, 21, 66; parallel
with teaching, 18, 42, 44; in-
effectual outside the Church,
105-107, 120, 144, 307, 318; re-
served to special seasons, 41,
112, 118, 187,173. See Minister,
Commission, Form, Matter
Baptisteries, 75
BIS
Barlow, Dean, at Hampton Court
Conference, 210
Barrow, on power of keys, 21
Basil, St., canons of, 80-84 ; quoted
130, 268, 269,276; on Cyprian’s
opinions as to lay baptism, 68,
82, 86; on reconciliation by
unction, 294
Basle, Council of, 152
Batterson, Rey. Dr., on lay and
dissenters’ baptism in America,
280, 281
Baudinus, on minister, 144
Bayeux, Council of, 152, 169
Bede, on heretical baptism, 122
Bellarmine, Cardinal, parallel
between baptizing and teaching,
18; on Zipporah, 28; on pagan
baptism, 128 ; propositions on
minister, 207
Bennet, ‘Rights of the Clergy,’
231, 259
Benson, Archbishop, on Cyprian
controversy, 73
Bernard, St.,on irregular baptism,
144
Bethlehem, Council of, 200
Betts, Rev. J., baptizer of Lau-
rence, 228
Beza and French protestants, 183,
185; on female baptism, 186
Bilson, Bishop, at Hampton Court
Conference, 210
Binding and loosing, Church’s
power of, 6, 74, 95, 290, 301
Bingham, ‘ Scholastical History,’
part i., 231, 260; part u., 236,
262; ‘ Dissertation on Council
of Nice,’ 237, 262; on heretical
baptism, 79; on deleted orders,
89, 100; on Council of Nicza,
89; on story of Athanasius, 89;
on Laurence, 228, 287; pro-
posed form of reconciliation, 319
Bishops, the ordinary ministers,
2, 298, 299; baptism reserved
to, at great festivals, 41, 138;
the fount of authority, 40, 41,
75, 222, 298, 308, 309; Apo-
stolical Constitutions, 51; fourth
century practice, 75; early
middle ages, 112; later middle
ages, 187 ; Catechism of Council
of Trent, 173; Bellarmine, 207;
ee
INDEX 397
BLA
Roman permission to them to
decide as to rebaptism, 205;
American, on lay and dissent-
ing baptism, 280, 281; some
baptized by dissenters, 280, 312
Blackall, Bishop, and dissenters’
baptism, 235, 312
Blastar, Matthew, on heretical
baptism, 130; on laymen and
feigned priests, 136
Blunt, Rey. J. H., misapplication
of Augustine’s argument, 105;
Book of Church Law, 278
Blunt, Rev. W., on burial cases,
258, 264
Boniface, St., of Mayence, con-
ditional form, 297
Bonner, Bishop, Visitation arti-
cles, 179
Bonosiaci, baptism by, 120, 121
Bossuet, on tradition for lay bap-
tism, 26, 153
Bramhall, Archbishop, on lay
baptism, 223
Brett, Dr., anon. letter attributed
to, 39; assists Laurence, 229;
‘ Letter,’ 231,259; ‘ An Inquiry,’
89, 90, 236, 260; ‘ Further In-
quiry,’ 90, 237, 262; attack on
Bishop Talbot’s Charge, 197,
260; on heretical baptism, 79 ;
refutation of Bingham on deleted
orders, 90; on story of Athana-
sius, 89; on ordination of un-
baptized, 318; on dissenters’
baptism, 309
Brochmand, on Lutheran lay
baptism, 202
Brodie-Innes, Rev. J., on lay and
Presbyterian baptism, 284
Brougham, Lord, judgment in
burial case, 252, 255, 264
Bullinger, against lay baptism,
172; correspondence on, 186,
187
Burchard, on deacons, 139
Burgess, Bishop, on burial cases,
252, 258, 264
Burgo, see De Burgo
Burial Office, to be used for those
baptized by lay churchmen, 302;
refused to a dissenter, 236;
case at Gloucester, 250; Kemp
wv. Wickes, 250; case at Exeter,
CAR
254 5 Mastin v. Escott, 254;
Titchmarsh v. Chapman, 257;
pamphlets on cases, 263
Burnet, Bishop, on Dodwell, 226,
230; sermon on lay baptism,
230, 259; “replies, 259, 811;
baptized by dissenter, 312
Burton, Dr., on Ananias’ baptism
of Saul, 36 ;
Butler, Bishop, baptized by dis-
senter, 312
Buxtorf on circumcision by un-
circumcised, 29
Cauors, Council of, 151, 168
Calvin, on Zipporah, 28; against
lay baptism, 172, 207 ; connec-
tion with French protestants,
183, 185
Calvinists, influence of, 176, 186,
225; baptism received in
Russia, 201; Bishop Forbes on,
277
Cambridge University on lay
baptism, 197
Cameron, Rev. Allen, 248
Campbell, Bishop, 238, 240
Campbell, Sir J., on burial cases,
254
Canonists, on minister, 139-149,
305
Canons, Apostolical, see Apo-
stolical Canons
Canterbury, Archbishops of;
Augustine, 84; Theodore, 124,
126; Lanfrane, 154; Walter,
154, 161; Edmund, 1389, 154,
159, 163; Langton, 162; Peck-
ham, 155, 159, 166; Cranmer,
176; Pole, 180; Parker, 185,
186, 188; Grindal, 187; Whit-
gift, 191-194, 210,233; Bancroft,
34, 210; Abbott, 196; Tenison,
932, %35: Potter, 241, 263;
Hutton, 179; Secker, 312; Tait,
312; Benson, 73
Cantrell, Rev. H., Pamphlet, 261
Carthage, Councils of; under
Agrippinus, 55; 5th under
Cyprian, 58 ; 6th under Cyprian
59; 7th under Cyprian, 61, 93
105, 294; 1st, under Gratus.,
328 INDEX
CAR
92; fourth council, 94,193, 194,
2717
Cartwright, on Zipporah, 28;
Admonition to Parliament, 191;
controversy with Whitgift, 191 ;
Hooker’s refutation, 195
Casaubon, on opinion in James I.’s
reign, 216, 221
Castleman, Mr.; rebaptism of
dissenter, 241, 263
Cataphrygian baptism, 121
Catechism of Council of Trent,
173
Catechisms, Scotch, 244-247
Certificate of lay baptism in India,
274
Certification of valid baptism, see
Inquiries
Chalcedon, Council of, 112
Charles I.’s baptism, 209
Chichester, Council of, 155, 164
Chinnery - Haldane, Bishop, of
Argyll; Charges, 240, 287, 288;
on Waterland, 240; on Presby-
terian baptism, 288, 286 ; rule in
diocese of Argyll and the Isles,
287 ; onlay baptism in necessity,
303; on holy communion as
remedy of irregular baptism,
814; duty to seek remedy, 316
Christ, the baptizer; Augustine,
102, 105; Isidore, 122; Ray-
mond, 145; Hostiensis, 146
Christ Church, Newgate St., Read-
ers of, 228
Christian Observer on Burial
cases, 253, 254
Christmas, Baptisms at, 34, 113
Chrysostom, St.,on commission to
remit, 21; on baptism by priests,
76, 86
Church, Catholic, alone has power
to baptize, 55, 58, 60, 62, 65,
96; baptizes by schismatics,
100; has power to adjudicate
on irregular baptism, 26, 74,
152, 160, 290, 301, 317
Church Times, on lay and dis-
senting baptism, 278 ; letter in,
274
Circumcision, as parallel to bap-
tism, 27,181; not administered
by priests, 27; no analogy, 29
Claremont, Council of, 151, 165
CON
Clement St., of Alexandria, on
heretical baptism, 46
Collyridian baptism by women, 87
Cologne, Council of, 151, 166
Colonies, lay baptism in, 273, 304
Comber, Dean, on lay baptism,
219
Commission, The baptismal, 6;
given to Apostles, 12, 96, 152,
167, 172, 173, 17A TOS 219:
921, 226, 228, 244, 245, 246,
252; terms restrictive, 16; com-
pared with other charges, 20;
parallel with teaching, 18, 42,
45, 51,148, 191,219; obligation
of clergy to defend, 230, 323
Common Order, Book of, 182
Communion, Holy, as remedy for
irregular baptism, 313
Compiégne, Council of, 126
Conditional baptism; its origin,
296; medizval use, 157, 158,
164,181; English Prayer Book,
914, 297; Scotch canon, 288,
284; Diocese of Argyll and Isles,
286-288 ; Bishop of Edinburgh
on, 284, 285; Maskell on, 298;
in Roman Church, 271. Its
application to baptism by lay-
men, 303, 304, 321; by women,
305; by the unbaptized, 306;
by dissenters, 11, 320-323;
after baptism in parturition,
305
Confession of faith in reconcilia-
tion, 91, 121, 292
Confirmation; its parallel with
baptism, 16, 25; baptism pre-
ceding, 287, 295,322; as remedy
for irregular baptism, 92, 139,
148, 164, 294, 318
Constantinople, loss of, 133,
General Council of, 78, 180,
132, 294; Trullan, 47, 50, 73;
81, 116, 118, 293, 294; under
Nicephorus, 133; council in
1166, 130, 1385, 186; in 1484,
133
Constitutions, Apostolical, see
Apostolical Constitutions
Convocation, addressed by puritans
against lay baptism in 1536,
176; petition in 1562, 188;
debate in 1575, 278) (Zia;
INDEX 399
Coo
articles of 1575, 189; protest
against dissenters in 1703, 225 ;
proceedings in 1712, 233, 289
Cooper, Bishop, on reformed
Prayer Book, 178
Coptic Churches, on lay baptism,
204
Cornelius, baptism of, 36
Cornelius, Pope, and the East, 57
Corpus Juris Canonici, 143, 145,
150; quoted, 95, 110, 127, 187,
149, 313
Cosin, Bishop, on changes in
1604, 216; on lay baptism, 221;
letter to Mr. Cordel, 221, 259
Council, General, required to
decide question of minister,
289, 290
Councils and Synods referred to,
on baptism—
A.D. 215, Carthage, under Agrip-
pinus, 55
231, Iconium, 54
Cent. III., Synnada, 55
255, Carthage, V. under
Cyprian, 58
256, Carthage, VI. under
Cyprian, 59
256, Carthage, VII. under
Cyprian, 61, 65, 98, 294
814, Arles I. (Arelatense),
8, 91, 100, 298, 294
324, Elvira (Eliberitanum),
76, 94
325, Niczea, General, 77, 89,
237, 262, 2938
348, Carthage I., under
Gratus, 92
362, Alexandria, 293
c. 375, Laodicea, 78, 119,
135, 294
881, Constantinople, Gene-
ral, 78, 130, 1382, 294
398, Carthage IV., 94, 193,
194, 277
ce. 400, Rome, 114
Cent. V., synod of St.
Patrick, 123
441, Orange (Arausicanum),
295
451, Chalcedon, General,
112
452, Arles II. (Arelatense),
119, 295
COU
Councils and Synods continued—
A.D. 511, Orleans (Aurelianense),
115
517, Gerona (Gerundense),
113
578, Auxerre
durense), 113
585, Macon (Matisconense),
113
618, Seville IT. (Hispalense),
114, 293
633, Toledo (Toletanum),
130
691, Constantinople (Trul-
lan), 47, 50, 78, 81, 116,
118, 298, 294
755, Vern (Vernense), 114
757, Compiégne (Compen-
diense), 126
Cent. IX., Constantinople,
under Nicephorus, 133
1166, Constantinople, 130,
135, 136
Cent. XII., Two of uncer-
tain place (foreign), 151,
161
Cent. XII., Paris, 151, 161
1195, York (Eboracense),
139, 161
1200, Westminster (West-
monasteriense), 139, 154,
161
(Autissio-
1215, Rome (Lateran IY.),
131
ce. 1217, Salisbury (Sarum),
139, 154, 162
1220, Durham (Dunel-
mense), 139, 154, 162
1222, Oxford (Oxoniense)
139, 154, 162
1225, Aberdeen (Aberdon-
ense), 154, 162
1227, Treves (Trevirense),
151, 162
1235, Rouen (Rotoma-
gense), 151, 163
1236, Place unknown (Arch-
bishop Edmund’s Consti-
tutions), 189, 154, 163
1237, Coventry (Coventer-
ense), 155, 163
1237, London (Londinense),
137, 155, 163
1287, Liege (Leodiense), 137
0 INDEX
COU
Councils and Synods continwed—
A.D. ¢. 1237, Place unknown
(English), 139, 155, 163
1240, Worcester (Wigor-
niense), 137, 155, 163
1249, St. Andrew’s, 139,
155, 164
1246, Chichester (Cices-
trense), 155, 164
1246, Fritzlar (Fritzlari-
ense), 151, 164
1247, Le Mans (Cenoman-
ense), 151, 164
1255, Valencia, (Valentin-
ense), 151, 164
c. 1255, Durham (Dunel-
mense), 155, 165
ce. 1257, Norwich (Norwi-
cense), 155, 165
1260, Arles (Arelatense),
151, 165
1261, Mayence or Mentz
(Moguntinense), 151, 165
1268, Claremont (Claro-
montense), 151, 165
1268, London (Londinense),
155, 165
1277, Treves (Trevirense),
151, 166
1279, Reading (Reding-
ense), 155, 166
1280, Cologne (Coloniense),
151, 166
1281, Lambeth, 156, 166
1284, Nismes (Nemaus-
ense), 151, 167
1287, Exeter (Exoniense),
156, 167
1287, Liege (Leodiense),
151, 168
1289, Cahors, Rodez and
Tulle (Cadurcense, Ruth-
enense et Tutelense), 151,
168
1298, Wurzburg (Herbi-
polense), 152, 168
1298, Cyprus (Nimociense),
152, 168
Cent. XIII., Cyprus, two
(Nicociense), 152, 168
c. 1300, Bayeux (Bajo-
cense), 152, 169
1308, Winchester (Winton-
ense), 156, 169
Cie
Councils and Synods continuwed—
A.D. 1310, Mayence (Mogun-
tinence), 152, 169
1311, Ravenna II. (Raven-
nate), 152, 169
1314, Ravenna ITI., 152,170
1341, Prague (Pragense),
152, 170
1355, Prague, 152, 170
1408, Rheims (Remense),
152, 170
1420, Salzburg (Saltzburg-
ense), 152, 170
14338, Basle, 152
1438-9, Florence (Floren-
tinense), 131, 141, 1538,
170, 180, 207, 271
1484, Constantinople, 133
1547, Trent (Tridentinum),
UY Caza
1559, Edinburgh, 181
1629, Moscow, 201
1666, Moscow, 201
1672, Bethlehem, 200
1838, Edinburgh, 283
1863, Edinburgh, 284
Coventry, Council of, 155, 163
Coxe, Bishop, Baptism of dissent-
ers in America, 281
Cranmer, Archbishop, on lay bap-
tism, 176
Cruickshank, Rey. A., Incumbent
of Muthill, 249
Curteis, Dr., Report of Mastin vw.
Escott, 255, 264
Cyprian, St.; on African custom,
56; Epistle to Magnus, 57; to
Numidian bishops, 58; to
Quintus, 59; to Pope Stephen,
59; to Pompey, 60; to Jubai-
anus, 61; correspondence with
Firmilian, 63; Ist council on
baptism, 58; 2nd, 59; 3rd,
61; arguments in the contro-
versy, 65-70; bearing on the
general question, 71; on reser-
vation of baptism to priests,
21; on divergence of practice,
7, 59, 67; on duty of remedy-
ing irregular baptism, 316;
insufficiency of some rites, 294,
296 ; the goodness of God, 315;
views on lay baptism attributed
to, by St. Basil, 68, 82; Augus-
INDEX 331
CYP
tine’s criticisms, 64, 99, 108,
105; Lombard’s, 144; decrees
accepted by East, 116, 268;
quoted by Forbes, 276
Cyprian, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, 201
Cyprus, Councils of, 152, 168
Cyril, St., of Alexandria, on com-
mission to remit, 21
Cyril, St., of Jerusalem, on baptism
by deacons, 76; on heretical
baptism, 84
Cyril V., Patriarch of Constan-
tinople, on Western baptism,
266
Dactus, bishop of Milan, 113
Dakers, Canon, on Bishop Forbes,
273
Daubeny, Archdeacon, pamphlet
on Burial cases, 198, 252, 253,
263, 264.
Deacon’s Devotions, 240
Deacons; baptisms by St. Philip,
35; in Tertullian’s time, 41;
Apostolical Constitutions, 52,
5a in Ath’ cent., 75, 76; in
early middle ages, 114; canons
of Nicephorus, 183; Hamar-
tolus, 135; in West, in later
middle ages, 139-141, 146, 161—
170 passim; Catechism of
Council of Trent, 173; Roman
Ritual, 206; Bellarmine, 207;
Enelish Prayer Book, 218, 299 ;
Bishop Forbes, 277
Deaconesses, Apostolical Constitu-
tions on baptism by, 52
Death, baptism in danger of, see
Necessity
De Burgo, John; baptism by
deacons, 140; by heretics,
pagans, laity, 148
Decretals of Gregory, 145
Decretum of Gratian, 95, 110, 127,
oie, 150; 313
Devil, supposed baptism by, 146
Didymus of Alexandria, on here-
tical baptism, 84
Dionysius of Alexandria, 55; in-
tervention with Popes, 63; case
of unbaptized communicant, 64,
313
EAS
Dionysius of Rome, correspon-
dence with Dionysius of Alex-
andria, 63
Dionysius, Bishop of Ascalon, and
baptism with sand, 118
Directory of Public Worship,
183
Dissenters’ baptism, of modern
days, 3, 224; protest in Convo-
cation in 17038, 225; nonjuring
controversy on, 226-241, 258-
263; other cases and controver-
sies, 241, 242, 261-263; Burial
cases, 250-258, 2638, 264; in
Scotland, 181, 242-250, 283-288;
in America, 280-283; bishops
baptized by, 280,312; its differ-
ence from lay Church baptism,
224, 306-310; modern opinionsin
favour of validity, 275, 277, 278,
285; its doubtfulness considered,
310-312 ; remedies for irregu-
larity, 11, 313-823
Dissenting minister, position of,
under State Toleration Acts,
251, 255
Dodson, Sir J., counsel in Burial
case, 254
Dodwell, Henry, the nonjuror,
on lay baptism, 226, 230
Donatist rebaptisms, 97, 98, 99
Donatus, Irish bishop, 154
Donatus Redivivus, pamphlet and
answers, 2386, 262
Dositheos of Jerusalem, on here-
tical and Western baptism, 200;
on lay baptism, 203
Doubtful baptism, remedy for,
313-828; see Conditional form
Dowden, Bishop, Charge, 288 ; on
minister, 215; on canon of
1863, 284; on Presbyterian
baptism, 285
Dumb person cannot baptize, 148
Duns Scotus, on minister, 147
Durham, Councils of, 189, 154,
155, 162, 165
East, Church of, disposed to
rigidity, 9, 57, 80; influenced
by the Apostolical Canons, 47,
268, 269; by character of Eastern
heresy, 70; tradition of apostles,
332 INDEX
EAS
55, 72. Heretical baptism in
4th cent., 77-86, 111; in early
middle ages, 115-117; in later
middle ages, 129-133; in 17th
cent., 200; On modern times,
267, 269. In Western baptism,
in middle ages, 130-133; in
post-reformation period, 199-
201; at present day, 265-268 ;
doctrine of ‘ economy,’ 80, 182,
201; methods of reconciliation,
294; risk of rebaptizing, 321.
Baptism by deacons, 76, 114.
Lay baptism, in fourth cen-
tury, 86-90, 111; in early
middle ages, 117-119; in later
middle ages, 183-137; in post-
reformation period, 201-204; at
present day, 268, 269, 302. See
Russian Church
Easter, baptisms at, by bishops,
41, 112,113,188; not restricted
to, 155
Economy, Greek theory of, 80,
132, 201
Edessa, Church of, and baptism
by bishops, 112
Edinburgh, synods at, 181, 283,
284
Edmund Rich, Archbishop of
Canterbury, Constitutions of,
139, 154, 163
Edward VI., Prayer Books, 177,
178
Egbert, Archbishop, on lay bap-
tism, 125
Elizabeth, Queen, Prayer Book of,
178; revision of Convocation
articles of 1575, 190
Elvira, Council of, 76, 94
Encratite baptism, 81
England, Church of, seasons for
baptism, 137. Heretical bap-
tism in seventh century, 122.
Deacons, in middle ages, 139,
161-164; in English Prayer
Book, 218, 299. Lay baptism
in middle ages, 1538, 159, 161-
169, passim; at reformation,
175-198; in post-reformation
times, 208-223; in modern
times, 272-275. Dissenters’
baptism, 224-242, 250-264, 275-
279. Practical conclusions as to
FOR
remedies for irregular baptism,
290-828
Epiphanius, St., on heretical bap-
tism, 86; by women, 87, 277
Epiphany, Baptism at, 113
Erskine, Mr., Incumbent of Mut-
hill, 243
Erskine, Justice, and Burial case,
255
Erskine, Rev. C., and lay baptism,
273
Escott v. Mastin, 255
Eucharist, Celebration of, parallel
with baptism, 7, 16, 24, 25
Eugenius IV., and Council of
Florence, 141, 153, 170
Eunomian baptism, 79, 84, 137
Eusebius, Pope, on Roman prac-
tice in fourth century, 90
Eusebius, historian, quoted, 57,
63, 64, 293
Eutychian baptism, 292
Excommunicates, baptism by,
145, 146, 147, 151,168; whether
dissenters are, 257
Exeter, Council of, 156, 167; case
of rebaptism of dissenter near,
235; burial case at, 254
FAITHFUL DEPARTED, baptized by
laymen, 269, 302
Featly on James I., 216
‘Fieri non debet, factum valet,’
4, 107, 197, 278
Firmilian, on reservation of bap-
tism to priests, 21; Council of
Iconium, 54; quarrel with
Rome, 57; correspondence with
Cyprian, 54, 63; views, 65, 67,
68, 69; opinion on lay baptism
attributed to by Basil, 68, 82;
quoted, 276
Fleetwood, Bishop, on lay bap-
tism, 230, 259
Florence, Council of, 131, 141,
158, 170, 180, 207, 271
Forbes, Bishop A. P., on lay bap-
tism in colonies, 2738; on his-
torical evidence on lay baptism,
275; on the minister, 277
Forbes, Bishop Robert, rebaptism
of Presbyterians, 247
Form of baptism, necessity of, 2,
INDEX 333
FOR
UihSs) 19, 80, 122, 213, 293° 992)
opinion of insufficiency by an
unauthorised minister, 69, 71,
85, 91, 96,303, 308, 322; teaching
of its sufficiency, with matter,
120, 121, 122, 127, 141-170, pas-
eum, 117, 195, 205, 232, 238,
277, 278, 280-282, 298, 308; to
be taught to people, 145-170
passim, 180, 206; in English
Prayer Book, 177, 213; doubts
as to its accurate use among
dissenters, 306; false form ac-
cepted by St. Bernard, 144
Forrester, Rev. H., on American
opinion, 280, 282
Fortunatus, Epistle to, attributed
to Augustine, on lay baptism,
110
Fowler, Bishop, baptized by dis-
senter, 312
France, Reformed Church of,
183-185
France, days for baptism in, 137
Fritzlar, Council of, 151, 164
Fulgentius Ferrandus, on heretical
baptism, 122
GABRIEL SEVERUS, on lay baptism,
204
Gap, Protestant synod at, 185
Gelasius, on days for baptism, 113;
on deacons, 115; on lay baptism,
124; quoted, 142
Gennadius, on heretical baptism,
122
Gerhard, on lay baptism, among
Lutherans, 202
Germany, triple immersion in,
200
Gerona, Council of, 113
Glycas, on story of Moscus, 118;
on canons of Nicephorus, 134,
135 ; on lay baptism, 135
Gratian, Decretum, 143; its
sources, 148, 150; on seasons
for baptism, 137; on 4th
Council of Carthage, 95, 193;
on Epistle to Fortunatus, 110 ;
on pagan baptism, 127
Gratus, Council under, at Car-
thage, 92
Greeks, canons of, 49; modern
HER
practice, 265-271; see East,
Church of
Green, Bishop, dissenters’ bap-
tism in America, 280
Gregory Nazianzen, on seasons for
baptism, 113; on the minister,
87
Gregory I., on remitting sins, 21;
on heretical baptism, 121; on
single immersion, 130; on
reconciliation by confession of
faith, 293 ; by unction and im-
position of hands, 295
Besser II., on unworthy priests,
21
Grenoty III., on pagan baptism,
27
Gregory IX., Decretals, 145
Gregory, St., of Tours, on hereti-
cal baptism, 122
Grimthorpe, Lord, and Dr. Hook’s
Dictionary, 25
Grindal, Bishop, on female bap-
tism, 187
Hatuen, Rev. A. W.C., on regis-
ters, 183, 219, 244
Hamartolus, on story of Moscus,
118; on lay baptism, 134
Hamilton, Archbishop of St. An-
drew’s, Catechism, on heretical
and lay baptism, 180
Hampton Court Conference, 34,
209, 291
Harris, Rev. Mr., Letter on dis-
senters’ baptism, 261
Heathen baptism, see Pagan
Helvetic Confession, on female
baptism, 171
Henricus de Segusio, see Hostien-
sis
Henry III., baptism of son by a
deacon, 139
Heretical baptism; Tertullian, 45;
St. Clement, Alex., 46; Apo-
stolical Canons, 48; Apostolical
Constitutions, 51; Eastern
Councils, 8rd century, 54;
African practice, 55; rejected
by East and Africa, 57-74.
In East in 4th cent., 77-86;
in early middle ages, 115-117;
in later middle ages, 129-133 ;
334 INDEX
HER
in post-reformation period,
199-201; in modern times,
265-269. In West in 4th cent.,
90-94; Augustine’s opinion,
98-108; in early middle ages,
119-123 ; in later middle ages,
141-153, 168, 170; Roman
Ritual, 205; Catechism of
Council of Trent, 174; Modern
Roman practice, 271 ; Arch-
bishop Hamilton’s Catechism,
180; French Protestants, 184;
Hooker, 195 ; Bramhall, 223 ;
Forbes, 277 ; treatment sugges-
ted, 299 ; whether dissenters’
baptism is heretical, 306
Hermann’s Consultation, 177
Hermenopulus, canons of Nice-
phorus, 134
Heylin, on Articles of 1575, 190
Hickes, Dr., Letter to author of
‘ Lay Baptism Invalid,’ 231; on
story of Athanasius, 89; on
Laurence, 227: assists him, 229;
on ordination of unbaptized,
313; on remedy by goodness of
God, 316
Hilary, St., on baptism of eunuch,
35 ‘
Hilary, the Deacon (pseudo Am-
brose), on baptism of Cornelius,
37; on primitive lay baptism,
38 ; on lay baptism in 4th cent.,
95
Hildefonsus, on deacons, 115; on
lay baptism, 124
Hill, Rey. Samuel, Pamphlet, 215,
261
Hoadly, Bishop, on primitive lay
baptism, 38
Honorius of Autun, on lay bap-
tism, 143
Hook, Dr., on story of Athanasius,
89; on lay baptism, 25
Hooker, spiritual baptism, 23;
on Zipporah, 28; on heretical
and lay baptism, 194
Hooper, Bishop, on baptism by
midwives, 177
Horn, Bishop, on female baptism,
187
Hostiensis (Henricus de Segusio),
on deacons, 140; on lay and
heretical baptism, 146
Ivo
Howard, Rey. G. B., on lay bap-
tism in India, 274, 275
Hugo, of St. Victor, on female
baptism, 148
Huguenots, 184
Hutton, Archbishop, on English
office, 179 ; on Hampton Court
Conference, 209
Hutton, Rev. Dr., Pamphlet on
Burial case, 250, 251, 264; on
reception of dissenter, 215,
319
Hypothetical Baptism, see Con-
ditional form
Isas, Bishop of Edessa, 112
Iconium, Council of, 54
Iconoclasts, Reconciliation of, 293
Ignatius, St., on bishops’ ministry,
40
Tidefonsus, see Hildefonsus
Immersion, Triple, required in
East, 7, 79; treatment of Wes-
tern single immersion, 130-133,
199-201, 266, 267
Imposition of hands, in reconcilia-
tion, 90, 91, 93, 94, 120, 121, 122,
123, 298, 294, 318
Infidels, Baptism by, 145-149,
153, 170. See Pagan
Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth,
185
Innes, Bishop George, Forty-
Lesson Catechism, 245
Innocent I., on heretical baptism,
77, 120; on reconciliation, 293,
294
Innocent III., on baptism of self,
145
Inquiries before reception of pri-
vately baptized child, 162-165,
168, 170, 178, 212-214, 241, 297
Intention in baptizing; medieval
times, 144-170 passim; Cate-
chism of Council of Trent, 174;
Bellarmine, 208; dissenters’,
309
Trregularity and invalidity, 10
Isidore, St., on deacons, 115, 140;
on heretical baptism, 122: on
lay baptism, 124; quoted, 127,
140, 142
Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, 142
7 ae
INDEX 335
JAC
JACOBITES, Copto- and Syro-, lay
baptism, 204
James I., baptism of, 208; at
Hampton Court Conference,
209, 210, 215; opinion on lay
baptism, 210, 216
Jenner-Fust, Sir H., judgment in
Kemp v. Wickes, 254, 318; in
Titchmarsh v. Chapman, 257
Jeremiah IJ., Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, in correspondence
with Lutherans, 199, 202
Jeremiah ITI., Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, on heretical and
Calvinistic baptism, 201
Jerome, St., on African custom
after Cyprian, 64; on bishop’s
authority, 75; on Paulianist
baptism, 78: on Luciferians
and lay baptism, 97, 276
Jest or play, baptism in, 88, 109,
142, 144, 159
Jewish baptism; admission to
covenant, 80; essential, 31;
directed by Sanhedrim, 31;
not analogous as to minister,
33; passage of St. Ambrose mis-
applied to, 93
Jews, baptism by, 93, 142, 145-
148 passim, 174
John the Baptist, baptism by, 32
John Damascene, St., on heretical
baptism, 117
John the Faster, Canon of, 117,
269
John Moscus, story of lay baptism,
117, 135
John VIIT., Pope, on lay baptism,
142
John of Ragusa, at Council of
Basle, 152
Jolly, Bishop, Nine-Lesson Cate-
chism, 245
Jubaianus, Epistle of St. Cyprian
to, 61; Augustine on, 99
KesBieE, on story of Athanasius,
88
Kelsall, Letter to Waterland on
lay baptism, 238 ; on female
baptism, 28; on dissenters’
baptism, 307
Kemp v. Wickes, 250, 263, 264
LAY
Kennet, Bishop White, 227, 228,
235-237
Keys, Power of, applied to bap-
tism, 20, 21
Knox’s Liturgy, lay baptism, 182
LamMBeEtH, Council of, 156, 166
Lanfranc, on lay baptism, 154
Langton, Archbishop, Council
under, 162
Laodicea, Council of, 78, 119, 135,
294.
La Roque, on vocation, 184
Lateran Council IV., 131
Lathbury, quoted, 226, 237, 238
eee baptism, see West, Church
te)
Lauder, Mr., Baptism by, in Scot-
land, 248
Laurence, St., Baptisms by, 76
Laurence, Roger ; his history, 227,
237, 240; ‘Lay Baptism In-
valid,’ 229, 230, 237, 258, 259,
263 ; attacked by Burnet, Fleet-
wood, and Talbot, 230, 260;
‘Sacerdotal Powers,’ 230, 259;
‘ Dissenters’ Baptism null and
void,’ 231, 260; ‘ Bishop of Ox-
ford’s Charge considered,’ 231,
260; ‘Lay Baptism Invalid,’
Part I1., 236, 260; ‘ Supplement
to Lay Baptism Invalid,’ 237,
262; on baptismal commission,
18, 230; on baptisms on Day
of Pentecost, 34; on story of
Athanasius, 89; on Optatus,
97; on insufficiency of confirma-
tion for dissenters, 296, 318 ; on
ordination of unbaptized, 313 ;
on remedy by goodness of God,
316
Lawful minister, inserted in
Prayer Book, 210; its meaning,
211, 301, 303; argued in Kemp
v. Wickes, 250, 251, 252; in
American Prayer Book, 279
Lay baptism ; possible instances
in N.T., 34-38; Tertullian, 41—
44; Apostolical Constitutions,
51; opinion attributed by Basil
to Cyprian, 68, 82,86. In East °
—4th cent., 86-90; in early
middle ages, 117-119; in later
336 INDEX
LAY
middle ages, 183-137 ; in post-
reformation period, 201-204;
in modern times, 268, 269. In
West—4th cent., 94-98; Au-
eustine on, 108; misapplica-
tion of his argument to, 105;
Epistle to Fortunatus, 110; in
early middle ages, 124, 125; in
later middle ages, 142-170.
Among Protestant sects—Zuin-
glius, 171; Bullinger, 172;
Calvin, 172; Presbyterians,
182, 183; Huguenots, 183-185 ;
Lutherans, 202. In Roman
Churech—Catechism of Council
of Trent, 174; Bellarmine, 207;
modern usage, 272. In Eng-
land — Reformers, 175-177;
Prayer Book, 177, 178, 208-216,
217; Puritan opposition to, 185
194,198; Defence of by Whit-
gift, Hooker, Abbott, &c., 191—
197; Opinions of English divines
of 17th cent., 219-223; case
of in 17th cent., 218; con-
troversy of nonjurors, &c., on
lay baptism and dissenting
baptism, 226-242, 258-268 3;
Burial cases, 250-258, 263, 264 ;
in modern times, 272; in
colonies, 278-275; opinions of
theologians, 275-279. Scotland
—Hamilton’s Catechism, 181 ;
18th cent., 243; in modern
times, 283 — 288. America,
opinion in, 279-288. Practical
conclusion on lay Church bap-
tism, 800-305; on dissenters’
baptism, 306-323. See Dis-
senters’ Baptism; Women;
Midwives; East, Church of;
West, Church of; Unbaptized
Lay priesthood, 15, 800
Lea, J. W., on lay baptism, 803
Le Mans, Council of, 151, 164
Lendrum, Rev. A., on dissenters’
baptism, 249
Leo, St., on seasons for baptism,
113; on heretical baptism,
120; on reconciliation by im-
position of hands, 298, 294
Leslie, Charles, nonjuror ; on lay
baptism, 227; on remedy by
God’s goodness, 315
MAR
Leslie, Rev. J., Incumbent of
Muthill, 244
Leunclavius, on canons of Nice-
phorus, 134
Liddon, Canon, on dissenting
baptism, 277
Liége, Councils of, 187, 151, 168
Lindsay, David, baptizer of
Charles I., 209
Lombard, Peter; on 4th Council
of Carthage, 95; on deacons,
140; on laymen, 144
London, Councils of, 137, 155, 163,
165. See Lambeth, Westmin-
ster
Lucas Chrysoberges, Patriarch of
Constantinople, on Mahometan
baptism, 130
Luciferian baptism, 97
Lushington, Dr., burial case, 255
Lutheran correspondence with
Greeks, 199, 202; lay baptism,
202
Lyndwood; ‘Provinciale,’ 148,
159; on baptism by priests, 138;
deacons, 141; lay, heretical,
and pagan, 149; during birth,
805
Lyons, Protestant synod of, 184
MacEponiaN baptism, 79, 80, 132
Macon, Council of, 113
Macraius, Sergius, on Western
baptism, 266
Madan, Bishop Spencer, and
Burial case, 252
Magnus, Cyprian’s epistle to, 57
Mahometan baptism, 130
Maimonides, on Jewish baptism,
32
Manchester, case at, of baptizing
dissenter, 236
Manichee baptism, 81
Mant, Bishop, on lay baptism,
252
Manuel, Bishop of Heracleon, 135
Marcellus, Pope, and baptisteries
at Rome, 76
Marcionite baptism, 81, 87, 277
Mark of Ephesus at Council of
Florence, 131
Marriage compared with baptism,
5,195; rights of not affected by
INDEX 337
MAR
baptism of own child, 142, 148,
154, 161, 162, 169, 206, 302
Marshall, Nathaniel, on acts of
Council of Carthage, 62, 262;
on bishops in heretical sects,
69; on Pope Stephen, 70; on
Church authority to confirm
irregular baptism, 317 ; on con-
ditional baptism, 321
Martene, quoted, 75, 113, 138, 141,
298, 295, 297
Mary, Queen, Baptism in reign of,
179
Maskell, Rev. W., ‘ Holy Baptism,’
264; on St. Philip’s baptisms,
36; on burial cases, 256; on
conditional form, 298 ; on bap-
tism during birth, 305
Mastin v. Escott, 254, 264
Matter of baptism ; necessity and
sufficiency apart from minister,
2, 152, 195, 205, 232, 233, 277,
278, 280, 292, 298; directions
to use water, 158, 161-170 pas-
sim, 177, 180, 206; doubts as
to matter in Presbyterian bap-
-tism, 806. Compare Form of
baptism, Immersion
Matthew, Patriarch of Alexandria,
on Western baptism, 266
Mayence, Councils of, 151, 152,
165, 169
Meletius, the Confessor, on one
immersion, 131
Metrophanes Critopulus, Patri-
arch of Constantinople, 203
Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of
Constantinople, on Western
baptism, 130
Michael Paleologus, on one im-
mersion, 131
Midwives, baptism by; school-
men and canonists, 145-149;
medieval canons, 151-170
passim ; Protestant sects, 171,
182, 185; Puritans, 177, 185-
198; English Prayer Book,
179; Licence to, 186; Hamp-
ton Court Conference, 209, 216;
in Queen Mary’s reign, 180;
Roman Ritual, 206; modern
East, 203 ; Russia, 271
sare Baptism discipline at, 93,
13
NES
Milbourn, Luke, Pamphlet, 260
Millenary Petition, Replies to,
197
Minister of baptism; the general
subject, 2, 7, 8, 10, 290. See
East, West, Rome, England,
Scotland, America, Bishops,
Priests, Deacons, Minor orders,
Heretical, Schismatical, Lay,
Women, Midwives, Pagan, Un-
baptized
Ministry, Representative view of,
14
Minor orders, baptism by; Apo-
stolical Constitutions, 52; St.
Raymond, 145, 146; Catechism
of Council of Trent, 174; Roman
Ritual, 206 :
Mirk’s ‘ Instructions,’ on lay bap-
tism, 158
Moberly, Bishop, representative
yiew of ministry, 14
Monks, Baptism by, 133, 146
Monothelites, 293
Montague, Dean, on Hampton
Court Conference, 209, 210
Montanist baptism, 54, 78, 79, 81,
121
Moody, Rev. J., Pamphlet, 263
Moore, Bishop, baptized by dis-
senter, 312
Morinus quoted, 293, 295
Moscow, Councils of, 201
Moscus, see John Moseus
Muthill, Register of, 2438, 249
Myrk, see Mirk
Name of Blessed Trinity, in bap-
tism, see Form
Name of child, whether to be
given by lay baptizer, 164, 165,
168, 169
Necessity, Plea of, for lay bap-
tism, 22, 89, 172, 176, 194, 220;
Tertullian on, 42; Augustine
on, 107, 110; in Scotland, 243 ;
in colonies, 273; what consti-
tutes, 149, 301; duty of laymen
in, 302-305. See Lay baptism
Negroes, Society for conversion
of, on dissenters’ baptism, 242
Nestorians, on lay baptism, 204;
their own baptisms, 202
Z
338 INDEX
NEW
New Testament, instances of
baptism in, 34-37
Nica, Council of, 77, 89, 237,
262, 2938
Nicene Creed, on one baptism, 1
Nicephorus, Canons of, 183, 204,
268
Nicephorus, the historian, on bap-
tism by unbaptized, 137
Nicetas Chroniates, on heretical
baptism, 129
Nicholas I., Pope, on pagan bap-
tism, 142
Nicholl, Sir J., judgment in Kemp
v. Wickes, 250, 263; attacks on,
250, 263, 264
Nicodemus, on Greek canons, 268
Nicosia, Council of, 152, 168
Nimosia, Council of, 152, 168
Nonjurors; conjecture as to primi-
tive lay baptism, 88; Dodwell,
226; Jueshe, 227, 3155 Lau-
rence, 227, 236, 237; Hickes,
231; Brett, 231, 236; Wheatly,
220, 237; Deacon, 240; con-
troversy on baptism, 226-241
Norwich, Council of, 155, 165
Novatians, 57, 58, 78, 79, 81, 82,
89, 92, 120
Nowel, Dean, petition in Convo-
eation on lay baptism, 188
Ovo, Archbishop of Paris, Consti-
tutions of, 151, 161
Oiconomos, Constantine, quoted,
131-183, 201, 267
Old Testament analogies; cir-
cumcision, 27-30; baptism,
30-33
One baptism, the, 1, 45, 55, 62,
65, 102, 228
One immersion, see Immersion
Optatus, St., on heretical baptism,
93; on lay baptism, 96
Orange, Council of, 295
Orders, Holy ; supposed ground of
conciliar decrees, 793; indeli-
bility of, 79, 90, 101, 104, 299.
See Bishops, Priests, Deacons,
Lay Baptism
Ordinal, Roman and Sarum, on
deacons, 141; Preface to Eng-
lish, 216
PEC
Ordination, parallel to baptism,
16, 25; possibility of for un-
baptized, 313
Orleans, Council of, 115
Orthodoxus, pamphlet by, on here-
tical baptism, 263
Otho, Legatine Constitutions of,
155, 163
Othobon, Legatine Constitutions
of, 155, 165
Oxenham, Rey. F. N., on lay bap-
tism, 288
Oxford, Council of, 189, 154, 162
Oxford, Earl of, suggests Queen’s
letter on lay baptism, 235
Oxford, University of, on lay bap-
tism, 197
PactAn, St., on power of remission,
21; on heretical baptism, 94 ;
on lay baptism, 95
Pagan baptism; Jerome, 98;
Augustine, 109, 110; in early
middle ages, 127; Decretum,
148; schoolmen and canonists,
145-150 passim, 170; possibility
of now, 305. See Jews, Maho-
metan
Parents, baptism by; schoolmen
and canonists, 145-149 passim ;
medieval councils, 151-170 pas-
sum; Roman Ritual, 206; in
modern East, 268; duty in
necessity, 802
Paris, Council of, 151, 161; Pro-
testant synod at, 183
Paris, Matthew, on baptism of
Henry III.’s son, 139
Parker, Archbishop, 185, 186, 188
Parmenian, Augustine’s treatise
against, 109
Parthenius, Patriarch of Jerusa-
lem, on Western baptism, 266
Patrick, St.. canons of, 123
Paul, St., baptism by Ananias, 36;
his own baptisms, 37 ; spurious
Acis of Paul and Theela, 44
Paul V., Roman Ritual, 205
Paulianists, 77, 116, 119
Pead, Eleanor, licence to baptize,
186
Peckham, Archbishop, 155, 159,
166
INDEX 339
PED
Tindadtov, quoted, 49, 80, 117,
132-134, 268, 269
Pelliccia, quoted, 138
Penance, reconciliation by, 90, 92,
294
Pentecost, baptisms on day of, 34;
by bishops at, 41, 1138, 188; not
restricted to, 155
Pepuzians, see Montanists
Perkins, W., on Zipporah, 28; on
lay baptism, 198
Peter, St., keys used in baptism,
20; baptism of Cornelius, 36
Petilian, Augustine’s treatise
against, 102, 105
Petrie, Bishop, Nine-Lesson Cate-
chism, 245
Philalethes, Letter by, 39, 241, 263
Philaretus, Patriarch, 201
Philemon and Dionysius of Alex-
andria, 63
Philip, St., baptisms by, 35, 53
Phillimore, Dr., counsel in burial
case, 254; reports, 251, 263
Philliimore, W. G. F., Book on
Church Law, on lay baptism,
278
Phillpotts, Bishop, on burial cases,
254-256, 264; on confirmation
as remedy of irregular baptism,
318
Photinian baptism, 78, 119
Phrygian baptism, 78, 84
Plaisas, Dr., on modern Greek
practice, 269
Poictiers, Protestant synod at, 184
Pole, Cardinal, decree and Visita-
tion articles, on lay baptism,
180
Polianus, Bishop of Milevum, on
heretical baptism, 93
Pompey, Cyprian’s epistle to, 60
Pontius on Pope Xystus, 64
Poore, Bishop, synod under, 154,
162 :
Popes; Cornelius, 57; Stephen,
57-63, 66, 70, 71, 298; Xystus
II., 63; Marcellus, 76; Huse-
bius, 90; Siricius, 92, 113,
293, 294; Innocent I., 77, 120,
293, 294; Leo I., 118, 120, 293,
294; Gelasius, 113, 115, 124,
142; Gregory I., 21, 121, 1380,
298, 295; Sergius I., 127; Gre-
PRI
gory II., 121; Gregory III.,
127; Zachary, 121; Nicholas I.,
142; John VIII., 142; Urban
II., 142; Innocent III., 145;
Gregory IX.,145; Eugenius IV.,
141, 153, 170; Paul V., 205
Porteus, Bishop, 242
Potter, Bishop, rebaptism of Pres-
byterian, 241; letter to, 263
Power, delegated to apostles, 16;
not to act of baptizing, 17
Prague, Councils of, 152, 170
Prayer Book, of 1549, 177; of
1552 and 1559, 178, 179; of
1604, 208-216; of 1661, 217;
protests about in Convocation
in 1708, 225; on conditional
form, 297, 320-323. See Private
baptism, oftice for
Preaching, parallel with baptism,
see Commission
Presbyterians, on lay baptism,
182, 183; JamesI. and baptism,
208; one rebaptized by Wesley,
241; baptism of, rejected in
Scotland, 244; by Bishop R.
Forbes, 247; in later times,
248; Scotch canons on, 283,
284; Scotch bishops on, 283,
284; Bishop Chinnery-Haldane
in diocese of Argyll and Isles,
286-288 ; in America, 281
Priest, as minister of baptism, 2;
Tertullian, 40, 41; Apostolical
Constitutions, 51, 52; in 4th
cent., 75, 76, 86; in early
middle ages, 113; in later mid-
dle ages, 138, 145-170 passim ;
Council of Florence, 170; Cate-
chism of Council of Trent, 173;
Roman Ritual, 206; Bellarmine,
207; in East, 204; to be sum-
moned, 302; jurisdiction, 298;
baptism by pretended, 125, 185,
136, 235, 241, 269
Priesthood of clergy and of laity,
15, 800
Private baptism, objected to by
puritans, 176, 185, 188; office
Morey AN glTishy aksi, alee alec
discussed at Hampton Court,
209, 291
Privy Council judgment on burial
case, 205
340 INDEX
PUP.
Pupilla Oculi, see De Burgo
Puritans; objection to lay baptism,
176, 198; correspondence with
Protestant reformers, 186; ad-
dresses to Convocation, 176,
188, 189; efforts with Whitgift,
191-194; with James I., 209;
on same side as high church-
men of succeeding period, 225
Pusey, Dr., on African practice,
64; on Benedictine view of
Athanasius’ rejection of hereti-
cal baptism, 86; on St. Ambrose,
933; recommendation of con-
ditional baptism, 321
QUARTERLY REVIEW, on burial
case, 252, 264
Quartodeciman baptism, 78, 79
Quintilla, Baptism by, 44
Quintillian baptism by women, 87
Quintus, Cyprian’s epistle to, 59
RassBls, on circumcision, 28; on
baptism, 80-383
Ravenna, Councils of, 152, 169,
170
Raymond, St., on minister, 145
Read, Benjamin, Baptism of, 235,
261; pamphlets, 235, 261, 262
Readers of Christ Church, New-
gate St., 228
Reading, Council of, 155, 166
Rebaptism, by Donatists, 97-99 ;
by Greeks, of Westerns, 131—
1338, 199-201, 265-267, 321; by
Roman Church, 271; so-called,
forbidden, 123, 148, 151, 157,
LSP GG, LO wis, 179) 227
Cyprian’s denial of term for
baptizing heretics, 67 ; Hooker
on, 195 ; requisite after invalid
baptism, 123, 129, 1381, 292
Reception, Office for in Prayer
Book, 215. See Inquiries
Reconciliation, necessity for after
irregular baptism, 106, 120, 121,
817,319. See Remedies
Reformed Church of France, 183-
185
Registers, Muthill, 243, 249; Ar-
radoul, 248; St. Mary’s Wool-
SAC
church, 218; Christ Church,
Newgate St., 229
Remedies for irregular baptism ;
see Rebaptism, Confession of
Faith, Penance, Imposition of
hands, Unction, Confirmation,
Communion, Conditional bap-
tism
Rheims, Council of, 152, 170
Rich, Archbishop, 1389, 154, 159,
1638
Riley, Mr. A., on Greek view of
Western baptism, 267
Riper years, Office for baptism of,
217; who may baptize, 299
Ritual, Roman, on heretical bap-
tism, 205; on lay, 206; condi-
tional form, 297; on baptism
during birth, 805; title of mini-
ster, 212
Rochelle, Protestant synods of,
185
Rodez, Council of, 151, 168
Romanoff, on Russian Usage, 271
Rome, Councils of, 114, 181; Bap-
tisteries at, 75
Rome, Church of, lax usage in
third century, 57, 59, 73, 160;
contest with the Hast, 57-64,
70, 71, 81; in 4th cent., 90;
in early middle ages, 120, 121,
127 ; later middle ages, 158, 141,
148; Trent, 173; Ritual, 205,
206, 212, 297, 305; Modern
practice, 271, 276, 308, 3821.
See West, Church of
Rouen, Council of, 151, 163
Rufinus, on contest between Rome
and Kast, 57; on story of
Athanasius, 88
Rupert of Deutz, on heretical
baptism, 143
Russian Church; treatment of
Western baptism, 201,270; lay
baptism, 270, 302
SABBATIAN baptism, 79
Sabellian baptism, 79
Sacraments, require apostolic
ministry, 15, 24, 301; only to
be had in the Church, 58, 101,
103; all open to lay ministration
if baptism is, 25, 66, 220; bap-
INDEX 341
SAD
tism a sacrament, 16,301; each
its own grace, 314
Sadler, Rev. Preb., on apostolic
commission, 19
St. Andrew’s, Council of, 189,
155, 164
St. Maixant, Protestant synod at,
184
St. Mary’s Woolchurch, lay bap-
tism registered at, 218
Salisbury, Council of, 139, 154,
162
Salzburg, Council of, 152, 170
Samosatenes, 77
Sanctification in the Law implies
baptism, 30
Sanderson, Bishop, on female
baptism, 219
Sandys, Bishop, on female bap-
tism, 188
Sanhedrim, directed Jewish bap-
tism, 31
Sarum Offices, on deacons, 141;
on lay baptism, 156 ; foundation
of present oftice, 177
Satan, supposed baptism by, 146
Sathas, M., 266
Schismatical baptism; the Cyprian
controversy, 58, 68; St. Basil’s
canons, 81, 130; St. Augus-
tine, 101-107; schoolmen and
canonists, 145-150 passim ;
medieval councils, 152, 153;
English treatment of, 299. See
Remedies
Schoolmen, 189-149, 3805
Scotland, Church of; medieval
canons on minister, 139, 154,
155, 162, 164; Catechism of
Archbishop Hamilton, 180 ;
Treatment of Protestant bap-
tism at Reformation, 181 ;
Catechisms of 18th cent., 244—
247; lay baptism in, 243; re-
baptism of Presbyterians, 244,
247-249; canon of 1888 and
1868, 283, 284; Recent contro-
versies, 285 288
Scott, Rev. W., edition of Lau-
rence, 263, 264
Scottish Guardian, 273, 285, 287,
288
Seotus, see Duns
Seal, Simile of, 87, 195
TAL
Secker, Archbishop, baptized by
dissenter, 312
Self, baptism by, 145, 167
Sergius I., Pope, on baptism by
unbaptized, 127
Seville, Council of, 114, 293
Sharp, Archbishop, on lay baptism,
233
Sharp, Archdeacon, 263
Shaw, Ferdinando, Pamphlet, 261
Silas, St., baptisms by, 37
Simon, Bishop of Thessalonica, on
lay baptism, 136
Sinai, baptism of Jews at, 30
Siricius, Pope, on days for bap-
tism, 118; on reconciliation of
heretics, 92, 293, 294
Skinner, Bishop John, Catechism,
245
Skinner, Mr., baptized by Bishop
R. Forbes, 248
Smirnoff, Rev. E., on Russian
discipline, 271
Smith, Mr. Farquhar, on lay
baptism in Scotland, 243
Socrates, story of Athanasius, 88
Southgate, Bishop, rebaptized, 280
Sozomen, story of Athanasius, 88
Sparrow, Bishop, on English
office, 222
Sprinkling in schism, in Scotland,
248-250, 288
Stephen, Pope; quarrel with East,
57; dispute with Africa, 59-63;
approached by Dionysius, 63;
his arguments and conduct, 66,
70, 71; on reconciliation of
heretics, 293
Stephens, A. J., burial cases, 257,
264
Stogden, H., pamphlet, 235, 262
Strabo, Walafrid, on baptism in
necessity, 153
Strype, quoted, 186, 189, 190
Synnada, Council of, 55
Syrian Churches, lay baptism in,
204
Tart, Archbishop, baptized by
dissenter, 312
Talbot, Bishop, on lay baptism,
230; answered by Laurence
and Brett, 231, 260
342 INDEX
TAL
Talmud on Jewish baptism, 30-32
Taylor,Bishop Jeremy, on Western
laxity, 9; on keys to apostles,
20; on unbaptized infants, 23 ;
on baptisms on day of Pentecost,
34; on baptism of Cornelius 37 ;
on Simon of Thessalonica, 186 ;
on lay baptism, 220
Teaching, parallel with baptism,
see Commission
Tenison, Archbishop, on lay bap-
tism, 232, 235
Terrot, Bishop, on Presbyterian
baptism, 285
Tertullian, on bishops, 41} priests
and deacons, 41; laymen, 41,
3800; heretics, 45; his lost trea-
tise, 46; quoted, 222, 276
Thecla, Acts of Paul and, 44
Theodore, Archbishop, on lay
baptism, 124; on baptism by
unbaptized, 126
Theodore Scutariota, on lay bap-
tism, 136
Theodore Studites, on heretical
baptism, 117; on lay baptism,
et)
Theodoret, on deacons, 114
Thomas, St., Aquinas, on baptism
by priests, 138, 147; deacons,
76, 140, 147; pagans, 127, 147;
laymen and women, and un-
baptized, 147; on intention,
310
Thorndike, on lay baptism, 221
Timotheus, presbyter, on heretical
baptism, 115
Titchmarsh v. Chapman, 257
Toledo, Council of, 130
Torry, Bishop, on Presbyterian
baptism, 249 ; conditional bap-
tism, 287
Tradition applied to lay baptism,
26, 152, 176, 193
Trent, Council of, on baptism, 173,
271; Catechism of, on minister,
173
Treves, Councils of, 151, 162,
166
Triple immersion, see Immersion
Tripp, Rev. R., and burial case,
254
Trullo, Council in, A.p. 691, on
Apostolical Canons, &e., 47, 50,
WAL
81, 116, 118; on reconciliation,
293, 294; Council in 1166, 130,
135, 136
Tulle, Council of, 151, 168
Turner, Dr. John, pamphlets, 260,
261
Tyndale, on lay baptism, 175
UNBAPTIZED, baptism by; St.
Jerome, 98; St. Augustine, 109,
110; Council at Compiégne,
126; Nicephorus, 136; Nicholas
I., 142; Decretum, 144; Aqui-
nas, 147; De Burgo, 148; Lynd-
wood, 149; Bellarmine, 207 ;
suggested treatment, 305. Ordi-
nation of unbaptized invalid,
313; possibility of salvation of
the unbaptized, 22, 67, 172,
220
Unction, reception by, 116, 120-
122, 129-181, 148, 157, 164, 170,
200, 201, 266, 294
Unitarian baptism, 254, 281
Unity of baptism, 1, 45, 55, 62,
65, 102, 228
Unworthiness of minister, 104,
172, 299
Ussher, Archbishop, on lay bap-
tism, 219
VALENCIA, Council of, 151, 164
Valentinian baptism, 81
Validity not identical with effi-
cacy, 105; doubtful cases, 292,
300-323
Van Mildert’s publication of
Waterland’s and _ Kelsall’s
letters, 238, 240, 262
Vern, Council of, 114
Vincent of Lerins, on Agrippinus
and Council of Carthage, 56;
on Cyprian controversy, 72
Visitation articles of Bonner and
Pole, 179, 180
Vitré, Protestant synod at, 184
Watiace, Adam, tried for bap-
tizing own child, 181
Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury,
154, 161
INDEX 343
WAR
Warburton, Bishop, on baptism
by pretended priest, 241
Warren, Rey. C., on burial cases,
264; on remedy of confirma-
tion, 818
Waterland, Dr., Letters in reply to
Kelsall, 238, 240, 262; on the
saying ‘Fieri non debet, fac-
tum valet,’ 5; on lay baptism,
24; on baptism of Cornelius,
37 ; on ordination of unbaptized,
313; on Bingham and Laurence,
237
Wesley, John, rebaptizes a Pres-
byterian, 241
Wesleyan baptism, 242, 254, 256
West, Church of; disposition to
laxity, 9, 57, 76, 92 ; its heresies,
70; Western critics on Cyprian
controversy, 72. On heretical
baptism, 4th cent., 90-94;
Augustine’s views, 99-108, 111;
in early middle ages, 119-123 ;
in later middle ages, 187-153
passim. On lay baptism, 4th
cent.. 94-98; Augustine’s
views, 108-111; in early middle
ages, 124; in later middle ages,
137-170 passim. Forms of re-
conciliation, 292-823. Treat-
ment of baptism by Hast, 130-
133, 199-201, 265-268. On
baptism by bishops, priests, and
deacons, 41, 75-77, 112-115,
137-141. See also Rome, Eng-
land, Scotland, America
Westcott, Canon, on representa-
tive view of ministry, 14
Westminster, Council of, 189, 154,
161
Wheatly, Commentary on Prayer
Book, 263; borrows from Com-
ber, 220; association with
Laurence, 237
Whipple, Bishop, on lay and dis-
senters’ baptism, 280-282
White Crow, The, pamphlet, 259
Whitgift, Archbishop, on Zip-
porah, 28; MS. of articles of
1575, 189; addressed by puri-
tans, 193; controversy with
Cartwright, 191; at Hampton
Court Conference, 210; quoted
by bishops in Convocation, 233
XAV
Wiburn, on female baptism in
England, 187
Wickes, Rev. J. W., Burial case,
250
Wilkinson, Rey. J., case at Exeter,
254
Wilson, Bishop, on minister,
221
Winchester, Council of, 156, 169
Withers, on female baptism in
England, 187
Withers, Mr., Pamphlet, 261
Women, Baptism by; analogy of
Zipporah, 28; in Tertullian,
44; Apostolical Constitutions,
51, 52; Epiphanius, 87; 4th .
Council of Carthage, 94, 277.
In East, 9th cent., 134;
17th cent., 203, 204. In
West, in early middle ages,
124; in later middle ages,
schoolmen and canonists, 143—
150; medieval councils, 151—
170 passim. Protestants of
reformation, Zuinglius, 171;
Helvetie Confession, 171; Bul-
linger, 172; Calvin, 172 ; French
protestants, 185 ; Presbyterians,
182. Roman Church, Catechism
of Council of Trent, 174; Ritual,
206; Bellarmine, 207. English
Church, Reformers, 175-179;
Hamilton’s Catechism in Scot-
land, 181; controversies of
puritans, and in Convocation,
185-198 ; Hampton Court Con-
ference, 209, 210; Sanderson,
219 ; Ussher, 219; Taylor, 220;
Cosin, 221; duty at present
day, 304. See Midwives
Worcester, Council of, 187, 155,
163
Wordsworth, Bishop, of Lineoln,
on lay and dissenters’ baptism,
821; second confirmation after
Church baptism, 322
Wurzburg, Council of, 152, 168
Wynford, Lord, Burial case, 255
XantHE, Archbishop of, on West-
ern baptism, 267
Xavier, St. Francis, baptisms by,
34
344 INDEX ‘
XYS ZUI
Xystus, Pope, and Dionysius of ZacHARY, Pope, on heretical bap-
Alexandria, 63 tism, 121
Zipporah and circumcision, 28
Zonaras, on single immersion,
York, Council of, 139, 161; Ex- 131
cerptions of Egbert, 125 Zuinglius, on lay baptism, 171
(
PRINTED BY
BPO'TTISWOOPDR AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON
Date Due
. oe
a
een ae
bc aka