"That fome Schifmaticks, particularly the Novatians, obferved the due Form, and "propofed the due Interrogatories in Bap"tifm: That the Efficacy of the Sacraments "did not depend on the Orthodoxy or the "Charity of the Adminiftrators; and that if "Perfons were baptiz'd in the Name of Chrift "any manner of way, it was no matter who "baptized them: But the main Argument "(as St. Auftin afterwards reckon'd it) was, "that Stephen Bishop of Rome had had it "handed down to him by conftant Tradi❝tion from St. Peter and St. Paul, Founders " of the Church of Rome; that thofe who came over from Heretical or Schifmatical

66

Communions, to the Communion of the "True Catholick Church, fhould not be re"baptized; and that all his Predeceffors, Bi"fhops of Rome, fince the Days of those Apo"ftles, had always conform'd their Practice "to fuch unqueftionable Tradition; they "had always Ratified, never Repudiated He"retical or Schifmatical Baptifm.

"The Arguments of the Cyprianifts against "the Validity of fuch Baptifms were briefly "thefe. St. Cyprian rejects the Baptisms of "Novatianus upon this very Score, that he "was not a Bishop; Cornelius was the only "True Bishop of Rome; no Valid Baptifms "could be performed in that Church but by "him, or in dependance on him: Novatia66 nus difowned all Dependance on him, fepa

B 2

"rated

"rated from him, and pretended to be Bi"fhop of Rome in Oppofition to him; his "Baptifms therefore could not be Valid, they "could not be True Chriftian Sacraments, "St. Cyprian's 69 Epift. And in the fame "Epiftle thefe Three [to fet up an Episcopal "Chair] [to affume a Primacy] [and to pre❝tend to a Sovereign or Independent Power "of Baptizing and Offering, i. e. Confecrating the Holy Eucharift] he plainly makes "Equivalent Phrafes, and by them expreffes "the one Crime of Novatianus in standing up

66

as an Anti-bishop to Cornelius: That all his "Miniftrations were of the fame Kidney with "thofe of Corah, Dathan and Abiram, which ແ were wicked, damnable and naught, because "perform'd in Opposition to the High-Priest "Aaron: That it was unaccountable in BI"SHOPS to Ratify Heretical or Schismatical

Baptifms; it was a Proftitutiou of the Ho"nour both of the Catholick Church and the "EPISCOPAL COLLEGE; it tended to "hinder People from coming over from He"refy or Schifm; it encourag'd them to think "themselves fafe and secure enough in either; "for if there they had true Baptifm, why not "likewise a true Church and true Remiffion "of Sins? To weaken the Authority of a pre"tended Custom to the contrary, he lays it "down for an undoubted Truth, That we 66 are not to be determined by any CUS"TOMS of that nature, but to examine "whether

"whether they will bear the Teft of Reason. "He affembled at Carthage a Council of 71 "Bishops, who confirmed all that had been "determined a little before in another Synod "held in the fame City, concerning the Bap"tifm of Hereticks, viz. that it was null and "void; and about the fame time, immedi"ately after this Council, he writ a long Let

66 urges

ter to Jubaianus, a Bishop who had confult"ed him about this Question, wherein he abundance of Reasons and Texts of "Scripture to fupport his own Opinion, and " answered the Objections that were brought “against it. In another Letter to Pompey Bi"fhop of Sabra, he opposes the TRUTH of "the Gofpel, and the FIRST TRADITI"ONS of the Apostles, both to the Custom "and Tradition which Stephen had alledg'd "for himself. Firmilian Bishop of Cefarea in "Cappadocia, in his Letter to St. Cyprian, 0"penly condemns the Procedure of Stephen "Bishop of Rome [who had anfwered St. Cy"prian very roughly] extols St. Cyprian's Con"duct, declares himself entirely in favour of "his Opinion, proves it by feveral Reasons, " and affures him it was the ancient Custom "of the Afiatick Churches, and that it had "been regulated many Years before in two "Numerous Synods held at Synnada and Ico"nium. The fame Firmilian answers Stephen's. "Plea of the conftant Tradition he had hand"ed down to him from St. Peter and St. Paul,

66 as before mentioned; that his, viz. Stephen's Allegation was utterly falfe, he could have 66 no fuch Tradition from thofe Apostles (i. e. "St. Peter and St. Paul) from whom he pre"tended to have it,and that for this very good "reafon,that in their Days there were no He"retical Communions, by confequence no "Heretical Baptifms, no Baptifms out of the 66 true Communion of the Church Catholick, "and that therefore he flander'd them by fa"thering fuch a Tradition on them, feeing it "was certain that they taught the quite con66 trary in their Epiftles; that St. Paul (Acts 19) re-baptized thofe who had been bapti"zed by John the Baptift, ought not we then "(fays he) to baptize thofe who come from "Herefy to the Church? Will any Man fay "that the Bishops now a-days are greater "than St. Paul was? which they must needs "be,if they are able to do that which he could "not, if they by Impofition of Hands only,can "give the Holy Ghoft to Hereticks when they

come to them." St. Cyprian in his Letter to Fubaianus reafons to this purpose against the Validity of fuch Baptifms." "Tis evident "where and by whom the REMISSION OF "SINS (which is given in Baptifm) can be given; for our Lord gave firft to Peter, &c. "that Power, that whatfoever he should loofe on Earth, fhould be loofed in Heaven; then, "after his Refurrection, he gave it to all the "Apoftles, when he said (John 20. 21, 22,

66

"23.) As my Father hath sent me, &c. Whence 66 we learn, that none have Authority to "BAPTIZE and REMIT SINS but the "BISHOPS, and those who are founded in "the Evangelical Law, and our Lord's Infti"tution, and that nothing can be bound or "loofed out of the Church, feeing there is none "there who has the Power of Binding and "Loofing. Jefus Chrift (fays Fortunatus in the "Venerable Council of Carthage, Anno 256)

our Lord and God, the Son of God the Fa"ther and Creator, built his Church upon a "Rock, and not upon Herefy, and he gave "the Power of Baptizing to BISHOPS, and not to Hereticks. Those therefore who are out of the Church, and ftand against Christ, "and fcatter his Flock, cannot baptize, being out of the Church."

66

It would be endless to mention all the Teftimonies and Arguments brought in that Age against the Validity of fuch Baptifms, I fhall therefore name but one more, which feems to be of great moment for the Discovery of what was meant by Hereticks and Schifmaticks in those Days; and that is Firmilian, who in one of his Letters fays, "That "he, and all the Bishops who met with him "in the Synod of Iconium, decreed that all "those should be holden as Unbaptized, who "were Baptized by fuch as had once been "Bishops in the Catholick Church, if they “were Baptized by them after they had SE

B 4

"PARA