that heretics must be re-baptized, because their first baptism was no true baptism at all. St. Basil, in an epistle which is of exceptionalˇimportance, since it was accepted as canonical by the Council in Trullo, goes carefully into the subject. He absolutely rejects baptism by heretics, such as the Manichees, Valentinians, &c.; would himself reject that by schismatics, such as the Cathari and the Encratites, although willing to surrender his own judgment here to the custom of many Asiatic Churches; but decides in favour of the validity of baptism by priests who were under temporary excommunication. St. Chrysostom restricts baptism to the priesthood, in terms which seem to preclude exceptions.3 St. Epiphanius protests against the re-baptism of Arians, simply because their separation from the Church had not been decreed by a general council. He mentions baptism by women as an error of Marcion and other heretics. The question of lay baptism is not dealt with by any of these Eastern writers; and the only one who even incidentally alludes to it is St. Basil, when he endorses the opinion which he fastens upon St. Cyprian, that heresy reduced priests to the rank of laymen, and therefore rendered their baptism invalid.

The Eastern councils of the same period passed canons about heretical baptism, but it is very difficult to be certain as to the grounds of their decisions. The Council of Laodicea, in or about 375, decreed that the baptism of Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans was to be accepted, but the Phrygians or Montanists were to be re-baptized. This is sufficiently explained by the fact that the Montanists changed the words of administration; but it is also to be observed that they alone of the heretics mentioned did not rise in episcopacy, and so never had true orders. The second general council at Constantinople, in 381, decreed that the baptism of Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Apollinarians was to be accepted, but not that of the Eunomians, Montanists, and Sabellians. Of these, all the first started in episcopacy, and none of the second, except the Eunomians; and the supposition that orders influenced the decision is favoured by the fact that the council gives a special reason for rejecting their baptism, that they used only

1 Cyr. Hieros. Catech. i.

2 Basil, Ep. ad Amphiloc. i.; Conc. Trull. can. 2.

3 Chrys. De Sac. III. v. 187. See Forbes, X. xiv. 8; Bingham, p. 41. 4 Epiph. Adv. Hæres. I. iii. ; xxii.; II. xxix.; III. lix.

5 Conc. Laod. can. 7, 8.

6

Basil, Ep. clxxxviii.; Theophylact. In Luc. xxiv. 45–53.

one immersion, which apparently carried with it a change of the formula. After a long interval, the Council in Trullo, held at Constantinople at the end of the seventh century, added the Nestorians, an episcopal sect, to the list of those whose baptism was to be accepted, and the Paulianists, Manichees, Valentinians, and Marcionites to those who were to be re-baptized. Of these last, the Paulianists alone. originated in episcopacy; but, as we have seen, their baptism had already been rejected at Nicæa, either for reasons of heresy or on account of a change in the form of administration. Bingham thought that these conciliar decisions were entirely based on the baptismal formula used. Brett as positively held that all the early decrees on the subject rested simply on the question of the orders of the minister.2 When read together with the writings of the Greek Fathers, the probability seems to be on Bingham's side rather than on Brett's; but, if the point of orders weighed in the determination, it serves to explain at once why some heretical baptisms were accepted and others not, which it is not easy to do by any comparison between the tenets of the several heresies themselves.

The question of lay baptism, at any rate apart from heresy, did not. come before any of these councils, nor did it arise very early in the East. Bingham could produce no definite evidence in its favour before the beginning of the ninth century, when two canons of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, are quoted as allowing lay Christians to baptize when no priest can be obtained. They cannot be traced with certainty to any council, and it is doubtful what degree of authority they had; but Hermenopulus included them in his epitome of Greek canons in about the twelfth century.3 On the other hand, a council at Constantinople, in 1166, declared baptism by one who pretended to be a priest to be invalid ; and individual writers are found against lay baptism, as Hamartolus in the ninth century, Glycas in the twelfth, Theodorus Scutariota in the thirteenth, Matthew Blastus in the fourteenth, though perhaps none of these were contemplating cases of necessity.5 Coming down later, Laurence appeals to the testimony of Arcudius, a Roman

1 Bingham, pp. 63-66.

2 Brett, Enquiry into the Judgment of the Primitive Church, p. 83. › See Bingham, pp. 92, 96, 340.

4 Conc. Const. ap. Matthew Blastus, Syntag. iii.

5 Cotelerius, Not. in Const. Apost. III. ix. See Bingham, pp. 93, 94, 96; Brett, Letter to Author of Lay Baptism Invalid, p. 5.

Catholic priest, in 1626, who says that the Easterns, as a rule, would rather let their children die unbaptized than suffer them to be baptized by a layman.' On the other side, Bingham quotes an article in a Greek confession of faith, printed in 1662, which allows any Christian man or woman to baptize in emergency.2 Dr. Neale says that the CoptoJacobites, the Syro-Jacobites, and some others still reject lay baptism absolutely, and that the Russian Church has only admitted it in comparatively recent times.3 The Constantinople rule now allows lay baptism by any orthodox person, male or female—that is, by anyone in full communion with the Eastern Church; and The Duty of Parish Priests, a manual issued by authority, directs the clergy to instruct their people how to administer the rite validly in circumstances of necessity. As regards others, Dr. Pusey says the Greek Church still accepts schismatical and rejects heretical baptism;5 but the dissenting sects of Russia are probably regarded as heretics and not as schismatics. Converts from the English or Roman branches of the Church are, we believe, always re-baptized unconditionally, for the Eastern Church has no conditional form. Therefore practically, in the East, every member of the orthodox Church receives baptism from the hands of an orthodox priest, except, to a limited extent, in the emergency of sudden death.

6

In the West, lay baptism came under consideration more definitely than in the East. St. Pacian, in the latter half of the fourth century, restricts the office of baptizing to the ministry, but he is not referring to cases of necessity; and his contemporary, St. Optatus, allows the validity of any baptism given in the due form, saying that the minister is not of equal importance with the Name of the Trinity and the faith of the receiver."7 That lax views on the matter were growing common is probable from a decree of the Council of Carthage, in 398, forbidding women to baptize, which could

1 Arcudius, De Bapt. x. See Laurence, Supplement to Lay Baptism Invalid (London, 1714), §32; Brett, Further Enquiry, &c. p. 5.

2 Bingham, p. 98, from Smith, Account of Greek Church (London, 1680), pp. 109, 118. Comp. Second Part of Lay Baptism Invalid, p. 239. 3 Neale, History of Eastern Church, Part I. p. 949.

4 Ibid. p. 948.

5 Pusey, Tertullian, p. 281.

Pacian, Ad. Sempr. Ep. i. See Waterland, p. 184.

7 Opt. Cont. Parm. v.

8 Mulier baptizare non præsumat,' Conc. Carth. can. 100.

Gratian

(De Consecr. iv.) and Peter Lombard (Sent. iv. 6) add the words 'nisi cogente necessitate'; but this was a deliberate gloss to pervert the strict meaning of the words. See Bingham, p. 48; Forbes, X. xiii. 23.

scarcely have otherwise been necessary; and the absence of any similar prohibition as to lay men may perhaps imply that it did not extend to them.

With regard to heretics, the decision of the Council of Arles was generally followed. Thus, a council at Carthage, in 348, while dealing with the Donatists, decided against rebaptizing any who had been baptized with water in the Name of the Trinity.' So also Arian and Novatian baptisms were accepted by Pope Siricius at the end of the fourth, and by Pope Innocent at the beginning of the fifth century. On the other hand, St. Ambrose was disposed to reject all heretical baptism.3 The Luciferians, an episcopal sect, which rose in the later half of the fourth century, allowed the validity of Arian baptism, although they rejected the Arians altogether from the Christian Church. St. Jerome, in opposing them, maintained that this was illogical; that baptism and holy orders rest on the same footing, and must stand or fall together. It might be concluded from this that St. Jerome held ordination to be a necessary qualification in the minister of baptism, if it were not that he incidentally remarks that laymen are frequently allowed to baptize in cases of necessity.5 This shows that lay baptism had some degree of acceptance in his day.

St. Augustine, who has influenced Western theology more than any man since the days of the Apostles, added the weight of his judgment on the side of its validity. The Donatists, regarding themselves as the only true Church, re-baptized converts from the Catholic faith, and claimed for their support the authority of St. Cyprian. Augustine wrote against them, and, with many expressions of unfeigned admiration for the great martyr bishop, yet maintained that he was mistaken in rejecting heretical baptism, and that his opinion had been overruled by a general council. Replying to the Donatists, on their own grounds, he lays down that schism does not wholly sever from the Church; that the grace of orders

7

1 Conc. Carth. can. 1. See Dict. Christ. Ant. vol. i. p. 38.

2 Siric. Ep. i. Ad Himerium Tarrcaon. i. Inn. Ep. xviii. Ad. Alex. Ant. iii. See Bingham, p. 71.

3 Amb. De Init. iv.

4

Jerome, Adv. Lucif. v. ; Athanasius, Ep. ad Antioch. i.

5 Adv. Lucif. iv. v.

6

Aug. De Bapt. I. vii. 9 ; xviii. 28; II. vii. 12; ix. 14; III. x. 14; IV. vi. 8. He nowhere mentions the name of the council, but it is generally agreed that he must mean the Council of Arles, which was not, however, a general council, and therefore its authority would be less than St. Augustine attributed to it. See Pusey, Tertullian, p. 294.

De Bapt. I. viii. 10; VII. li. 99.

remains with priests who depart from its unity, and that they can therefore baptize. When they do, it is not their particular heresy which generates sons in baptism, but the Church which generates children of God by their hands.2 To support this view, he argues that, since Christ is the real Baptizer, the ministerial agent cannot interfere with the efficacy of the baptism by his own sin.3 At the same time, he distinguishes between the validity and the efficacy of the sacrament, and regards the grace of baptism by heretical and schismatical priests as in abeyance until the person whom they have baptized is reconciled to the Church. With less certainty, showing that lay baptism was still an open question, he gives it as his own, professedly immature, opinion that 'those persons possess baptism who have received it anywhere whatsoever, and from any persons whatsoever, if it were administered in the words of the Gospel, without hypocrisy, and were received with some degree of faith.'5 But he somewhat qualifies this broad liberty by refusing to give any opinion as to whether it would be valid if administered by one who was not himself baptized; or in jest, as in a play; or received, apart from any thought of the communion of the Church, in insincerity or mockery.6

From this time the laxer view prevailed in the West almost without exception. As regards heretical baptism by priests, the second Council of Arles, in 452, re-affirmed the Nicene canon for the re-baptism of the Paulianists; but it allowed that of the Bonosiani, another episcopal sect, because they used the valid form, which implies that the Paulianists had tampered with it, and that the formula was the crucial test of validity. So also St. Leo and Gennadius in the fifth century, Gregory I. at the end of the sixth, and Gregory II. at the beginning of the eighth, all decide the question simply

1 De Bapt. I. i. 2; x. 14. Comp. Ep. xxiii. 2. 2 Ibid. I. x. 14; xii. 19; xv. 23.

3 Ibid. III. iv. 6; Cont. Pet. I. v. 6 II. ii. 5; cviii. 247. St. Augustine would seem only to be applying this to the case of priests, where it is a legitimate argument, because of ordination. In Blunt's Dict. of Doct. and Hist. Theol. pp. 405, 406, it is applied, under St. Augustine's name, to the case of lay and dissenting baptism, which is wholly different, since here there is no ministerial qualification. If true, the argument, as used here, would destroy the whole need of any ordained ministry at all. See Baldwin, p. 43.

4 De Bapt. III. x. 13; xiii. 18; IV. xiv.-xvii. ; In Joan. vi. 8–26. 5 Ibid. VII. liii. 102.

6 Ibid. See also Cont. Parm. II. xiii. xxix. ; and Aug. ap. Gratian, De Consecr. IV. xxi. xxxvi.

7 Conc. Arelat. II. can. 17.