« PoprzedniaDalej »
ways, or at least most commonly, received Ora dination from the Hands of some CATHO. LICK BISHOP or other ; nay, generally the HERETICAL BISHOPS were Consecrated before they fell into Heresy, by CATHOLICK BISHOPS, or else afterwards by some Trick or other, got private Consecration from them, that so their Heresies might go down the better with the People: And the same we find concerning Schismaticks in those Days.
I desire that this may be more particularly taken notice of; because it effe&tually silences all Objections brought from this Councils allowing of the Validity of Heretical and Schifmatical Baptisms. For such their Allowance is no ways favourable to the Baptisms we are now disputing against; for they are not only Lay, but Anti-Episcopal Baptifres; which were not the Subject of this Council.
The Council of Nice, Anno 325, consisting of about 300 Bishops, Canon 19, ordains, “ That the Paulianists (who, by the way, did not Baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost)" shall be Re-baptiz’d who
return to the Church.
After the Council of Nice; It was a Prevailing Principle, “ That those whom a Leick “ Baptizeth are to be Re-baptized; for it wres " the undoubted Principle whereby the Orthodox
confuted the Luciferians, who began their
Schism, upon occasion of the Council of 6 « Alexandria's allowing the Ordination of the
“ Arian Bishops:” For thus the Orthodox argued against those Schismaticks: Those whom a Laick Baptizeth are to be Re-baptiz'd; but those whom an Arian Priest Baptizeth, are not to be Re-baptiz'd; therefore an Arian Priest is not a Laick. And even Lucifer himself, the Author of that Schism, granted the Major Proposition to be true.
In the Council of Carthage, Anno 348, before they proceeded to make Canons, the Prefident advis'd thus : “ We must have such re“ gard to this time of Peace, that we neither “ weaken the Obligation of the Laws, nor
yet prejudice the present Unity by TOO 6 MUCH SEVERITY. Then the first Head
propos'd was about Re-baptization; he 6 ask'd whether that Man ought to be Re“ baptiz’d who at his Baptism made Professi
on of believing the Trinity. The BISHOPS " answered, God forbid; We declare that “ this Re-baptization is unlawful, contrary " to the Orthodox Faith, and the Ecclesiasti6 cal Discipline.
St. Bafil Bishop of Cæfarea Anno 369, says, « Those whom a Laick Baptizeth are to be Re
baptiz’d; he also maintains, that the Anci“ ents were persuaded that the Baptism of 6 Hereticks was ABSOLUTELY void : As “ for Schismaticks, he likes well enough St.
Cyprian and Firmilian's subjecting them to “ the SAME LAW; because being SEPA“ RATE from the Church, they had not the
“ holy Spirit, and so could not give it; but “ says, he would not hinder the allowing of “ the Baptisms of Schismaticks, since the Bi
shops of Asia had thought it convenient to " admit them: But tho' the Encratites were
Schismaticks, he declares that their Bap"tifm ought not to be approved, and that “ those ought to be re-baptized to whom " they had given Baptism, because they gave " it with Precipitation, on purpose to HIN“ DER the receiving of it from the Church; “ nevertheless, if the contrary Custom [of al" lowing the Baptism of Hereticks and Schisma. “ ticks] were established, he confesses it ought
to be followed.”
The Council of Laodicea, between Anno 360 and
370, Canon 8. says, “ That they must be 6 wholly Baptized anew who come from the # Sect of the Montanists."
The third Council of Constantinople, Anno 383, in the last Canon, concerning the Manner of receiving Hereticks, who offer themselves to return into the Bosom of the Churchi, it is ordained, “That the Arians, Macedonians,
Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimani, Te“ tratites and Apollinarists, Thall be received
after they have made Profession of their
Faith, and anathematiz’d their Errors, by " the Unction of the holy Spirit, and the " Chrism wherewith they shall be anointed
on the Forehead, the Eyes, the Hands, the Mouth, the Ears, at the pronouncing of
“ thele Words, This is the Seal of the holy Spi“ rit. As to the Eunomians, the Mortanifts, “ the Sabellians, and all the other Hereticks, “ the Council ordains that they shall be reo ceived like Pagans, &c. and at laft they « shall be Baptized.”
“, The Council of Capua, Anno 390, decla
red, That it was not lawful to ufe Re-bap« tization, RE-ORDINATION, and the 66 TRANSLATION of BISHOPS. The second Council of Carthage, Anno
390, in the 8th Canon declares, “ That if a Priest " Excommunicated by his own Bishop, un6 dertake to offer up the Sacrifices in private, 6 and to set up ALTAR against ALTAR, “ thereby making a SCHISM, he ought to “ be anathematiz'd, because there is but « ONE CHURCH, ONE FAITH, and “. ONE BAPTISM.” My Remark upon this Canon is, That this ONE BAPTISM cannot be suppos’d to be out of this ONE CHURCH, and therefore is only in it.
The third Council of Carthage, Anno 398, Canon 100, says, “ That a Woman ought not to take
upon her to baptize." “St. Chryfoftom Archbishop of Constantinople, “ Anno 398, is express for the Invalidity of
Lay-Baptism, and that it can be no more « administred by a Laick than the Eucharist. « (says he) But all these are Things which
can be administred BY NO OTHER MAN LIVING but by those SACRED HANDS
“ ALONE, the Hands I say of the PRIEST, Chryf. Lib. III. de Sacerd. C. 5.
"In the 5th Century Aourish'd St. Augustin,
Bishop of Hipo in Africa; he argued vigor" ously against the Donatifts, who began their “ SCHISM by a Separation of some African
Bishops, and proceeded so far as to reckon “ all other Churches as unclean, and indeed
to be no Churches at all ; and consequently when
Catholick came over to their Party, they would not admit him without Re" baptization, making use of St. Cyprian and “his Collegues Authority, who taught, That
Baptism administred by Hereticks and « Schismaticks could not be valid, because
they were out of the Church ; and the
Donatifts esteemed tlie Catholicks to be no u better than fuch.” St. Augustin, in Opposition to them, under
“ That tho' his Party were “ not the Church, yet the Donatifts were noť
to baptize them a second time; he confelses, that Baptism performed without na
ming the TRINITY, is Null; but affirms, " That if it be administred in the Name of " the TRINITY, it is Valid, WHOSOEVER “ he be that administers it, and ought not to “ be repeated : That neither the Minister's
FAITH as to Religion, nor his Sanctity, "avail any thing to the Validity of Baptism: That it is God, and not the Minister, who
takes to prove,