« AnteriorContinuar »
"PARATED from the Church." By which,
common Civilities of Hofpitality; yet he 66 [i. e. St. Cyprian] could not think of breaking Peace with them, of giving up Com66 munion with them, of Abftaining or Ex
communicating them; notwithstanding Ste$6 phen had taken upon him to excommunicate "those who oppos'd the Ratification of Here❝tical and Schifmatical Baptifms. Upon the "whole, the Perfecution of the Church by "Valerian, Anno 257. put an end to this "Controverfy. St. Cyprian NEVER alter'd "his Opinion; the Greek Churches were, for a long time after him, divided upon this "Question: The Council of Arles firft de"cided it in the Weft; St. Auftin followed its "Decifion; the Western Church has embrac'd "this Opinion; viz. That Baptifm by Here"ticks, in the Name of the Trinity, is Valid: "And tho' the Eaftern Churches have not agreed with her abfolutely in this Point, yet "they always made a Diftinction between 66 Hereticks, and differently receiv'd them.
In the Canons that are call'd Apoftolical, we have these Remarkable Canons, according to the Division of Cotelerius.
Canon 38. "We order, that a Bishop, "Prieft or Deacon, who has receiv'd Bap"tifm, c. from an Heretick, be depo
fed; or, as the Learned Author of the Clergy-man's Vade-Mecum obferves, "The Bi"Shop, Prieft or Deacon, who allows the Baptifm, &c. of Hereticks.
Canon 39: "If a Bishop or Priest do again "Baptize one who HAS REALLY receiv'd "Baptifm before; or if he do not Baptize one "that has been polluted by Wicked Men; (i. e. Baptized by Hereticks, See Canon 38.) "Let him be depos'd, as one that makes NO "DISTINCTION betwixt PRIESTS and
"In the 4th Century, St. Athanafius re"jects the Baptifm of Hereticks. Pacianus
fays, That Baptifm purifies from Sins, and "Unction brings down the Holy Spirit; and "both the One and the Other are apply'd by the "Hand and the Mouth of the Bishop. Optatus, "That the Donatifts (who, by the way, were "Schifmaticks)" committed a great Crime "in Reiterating Baptifm: (Where 'tis to be noted, That they Re-baptized the very Catholicks who came over to them.) "That 'tis not he "who gives this Sacrament of Baptifm, that
confers the Graces; but the Faith of him "that receives it, and the Virtue of the Tri"nity. We ask (fays he) if it be Lawful to repeat Baptifm given in the Name of the "Trinity? Ye maintain that it is Lawful; "We fay that it is forbidden: The People "are in Sufpence. Let us therefore fearch after "the Will of our Father, in the Gafpel; which
will inform us, That he who hath been (6 once washed, needs not to be washed a
gain; Wherefore (adds he) We do not << Re-baptize thofe who have been Baptized,
❝ when they return again to us. He proves against the Donatifts, "That the Holiness "of the Minifter does not contribute to the "Validity of the Sacrament of Baptifm; and "that, because the Effect of the Sacrament "is owing to God only; and in fhort, be"caufe the Sacraments are Holy, and do "Sanctify by themselves. Yet he feems to think, "That we ought to Re-baptize those "who were Baptized by Hereticks; but does not make the fame Determination concerning those who were Baptized by Schif maticks.
"The Council of Eliberis, Anno 305, Canon 38, declares, That a Christian who is "neither Penitent, (. e. not under Penance, nor a Bigamist, may Baptize in a "Cafe of NECESSITY, thofe who are on a
Journey, being at a great distance from a "Church, upon Condition that he prefent "him to the Bishop, if he furvive, to be "PERFECTED by Impofition of Hands.
Here it ought to be observ'd, that this Ancient Council was not a General one; and fo its Canon could not thus authorize all LayChriftians; it extended no farther than to the Subjects of thofe Bishops there affembled. And therefore our Lay-Baptizers cannot act by virtue of this Canon; efpecially confidering further, that this Canon was not made as Declarative of any Proper Inherent Right or Authority that Lay-Christians, AS SUCH, had
to Baptize: It only appointed Some to do this, who had not Authority to do it before of themfelves. Befides, it is plainly restrain❜d to fuch as were in Communion with, and Subjection to their Bishops; they were not to be under PENANCE, &c. And therefore if this had been a General Council, as it certainly was not, our Lay-Baptizers who act in Oppofition to Epifcopacy, could have receiv'd no Authority from this Canon.
"The Council of Arles, call'd by the Em<< peror Anno 314, confifting of Thirty three "Western Bishops, Canon 8. determines the
famous QUESTION about the Re bapti"zation of Hereticks, and ordains concerning "the Africans, who had ALWAYS Re-bap"tiz'd them, That if any one leave a Herefy, ❝and return to the Church, he fhall be ask'd "concerning the Creed; and if it be known "that he was Baptiz'd in the Name of the Fa
ther, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, Im"pofition of Hands only, fhall be given him, "that he may receive the Holy Spirit: But if "he does not acknowledge the Trinity," I fuppofe 'tis meant, if while a Heretick he did not acknowledge the Trinity, or if the Heretick who Baptiz'd him did not acknowledge the Trinity, (the latter is the moft likely) “ he "fhall be Re-baptiz'd.
By the way, in this Canon there is not one Word about LAY-BAPTISM: And as for the Hereticks who then Baptiz'd, they had always,