scended by the Holy Ghost into Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla; and made Montanus, who was an eunuch, and but half a man, have that plenitude of prophecy, which Paul himself could not pretend to have." From this account of St. Jerom, it is evident the Montanists in point of doctrine were really Sabellians, and believed but one person in the Godhead under different appearances, or manifestations of himself, which they called рóownα, persons, in an equivocal sense; whereby they imposed upon many Catholics, and among the rest upon Theodoret,1 to make them believe them sound and orthodox men, when yet they asserted three persons in no other sense, than Simon Magus, and Praxeas, and Noetus, and Sabellius, and all the Patripassians had done before them. Now it is very probable the Sabellians had introduced a new form of baptism, correspondent to their principles, for which reason all the councils that mention them order them to be rebaptized: and the Montanists, following the doctrine of Sabellius, were liable to the same censure: so that upon all accounts it must be concluded, they had made innovations upon the form of baptism received in the Catholic Church.

SECT. 8.-Fifthly, by the Marcosians.

Another very strange form was conceived by the Marcosians, or Marcites, so called from one Marcus, a sorcerer, who taught his disciples to baptize in the name of the unknown Father of all things, in the name of Truth, the mother of all things, and in Jesus, who descended (or as Eusebius* reads it, in him who descended into Jesus) for the union, and redemption, and communion of the principalities or powers; or in the union and redemption and communion of these powers: for it may be so understood, as if the names of these powers were taken into their form of baptism. But Irenæus, and Epiphanius from him, tell

1 Theod. Hæret. Fab. lib. iii. c. 2. can. 7. Con. Trull. can. 95.

2 Vid. Con. Constant. 1.

8 Theodor. Hæret. Fab. lib. i. c. 9.

Εἰς ὄνομα ἀγνώςε πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων, εἰς ἀλήθειαν μητέρα πάντων, εἰς τὸν κατελθόντα, Ἰησῶν, εἰς ἕνωσιν καὶ ἀπολύτρωσιν κ, κοινωνίαν τῶν δυνάνεων. So also in Irenæus, lib.i. c. 18; and in Epiphanins Hæres. 34. lib. iv. c. ll. has it, εἰς τὸν κατελθόντὰ εἰς τὸν Ἰησᾶν.

+ Euseb.

us, they had several forms of baptism, and some of them added certain hard Hebrew names to astonish their catechumens and converts, which the inquisitive reader may find in those writers. And some of them wholly rejected baptism as useless, because the mysteries of the ineffable and invisible power were not to be performed by visible and corruptible creatures, nor intellectual and incorporeal things by those that are sensible and corporeal; but the knowledge of the ineffable greatness was a perfect redemption: and in this they agreed with the Ascodrutæ, of whom we have spoken in the last Chapter.

SECT. 9.-Sixthly, by the Paulianists.

The Paulianists, or followers of Paulus Samosatensis, bishop of Antioch, who denied the divinity of Christ, seem also to have been guilty of introducing a new form of baptism, though I do not remember any ancient writer, that tells us particularly what it was. But St. Austin concludes it must be so, because the council of Nice made an order to receive them only by a new baptism into the Church: which he takes to be an argument, that the Paulianists had not kept to the form or rule of baptism, which many other heretics when they left the Church took along with them, and continued still to observe. Pope Innocent2 likewise assigns this for the reason, why the council of Nice allowed the baptism of the Novatians, but not the Paulianists; because the Paulianists did not baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but the Novatians in their baptism always made use of those venerable names, as being in point of the divine power of the Holy Trinity, always asserters of the Catholic faith.

1 Aug. de Hæres. c. 44. Istos sanè Paulianos baptizandos esse in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ Nicæno Concilio constitutum est. Unde credendum est, eos regulam baptismatis non tenere, quam secum multi hæretici, cùm de Catholicâ discederent, abstulerunt, eamque custodiunt. 2 Innocent. Ep. 22. ad Episcopos Macedon. cap. 5. Idcircò distinctum esse ipsis duabus hæresibus ratio manifesta declarat: Quia Paulianistæ in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritûs Sancti, minimè baptizant: et Novatiani iisdem tremendis venerandisque nominibus baptizant, &c.

VOL. III.

L

SECT. 10.-Seventhly, by the Eunomians and others, who baptized into the Death of Christ.

Another sort of heretics there were, who instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," used this form, " I. baptize thee into the death of Christ." Among the Apostolical Canons, there is one that particularly reflects upon this as an unlawful practice: "If any bishop or presbyter use not three immersions in the celebration of baptism, but one only given in the death of Christ, let him be deposed; for our Lord did not say, Baptize into my death: bat, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost."" St. Paul indeed sometimes speaks of being baptized into the death of Christ; but then, as Origen has rightly observed, this does not denote any new form of baptism; for no other form of baptism was ever thought lawful, beside that which was given in the name of the Trinity, according to the command of Christ and the Apostle is not speaking of the manner of baptizing, but of Christ's death, and our conforming to it, as signified in baptism; where it would not have been convenient to have said, "as many of us as have been baptized in the name of the Father, or of the Holy Ghost, have been baptized into his death:" and therefore the Apostle in prudence omitted them in that place, because it was not proper to mention either Father or Holy Ghost, where he was speaking of death, which did not belong to them, but only to Christ incarnate. Notwithstanding this just observation of Origen's, Eunomius, the Arian, revived this irregular practice of those ancient heretics, and cast off the old form of baptism, to make way for others more agreeable to his damnable errors and opinions. For, because he denied the divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost, he would no longer use the trine immersion, nor baptize in the name of the Trinity, but only into the death of Christ, as Socrates gives an account of his practice. Epiphanius

1 Canon. Apost. c. 50. Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος μὴ τρια βαπτίσματα μιᾶς μυήσεως ἐπιτελέση, αλλὰ ἓν βάπτισμα, τὸ εἰς τὸν θάνατον το Κυρίε διδόμενον, καθαιρείσθω, &c. 2 Orig. Com. in Rom. vi. p. 540. Cùm

utique non habeatur legitimum baptisma nisi sub nomine Trinitatis, &c. Epiph. Hær. 76. Anomoan. p. 992.

Soerat. lib. v. c. 24.

4

observes of the Anomoans, who were the peculiar followers of Eunomius, that they baptized also in another form, in the name of the uncreated God, and the name of the created God, and the name of the sanctifying Spirit, created by the created Son. And so stiff were they to this form of their own inventing, that they baptized not only the Catholics, but all other sects, and even the Arians themselves, who had been otherwise baptized before them. And Gregory Nyssen tells us from Eunomius's own books, that he perverted the law of Christ, the law or tradition of the divine institution, and taught, that baptism was not to be given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as Christ commanded his disciples when he first delivered the mystery, but"in the name of the Creator and Maker, and not Father only, but God of the Only-begotten." Upon which he charges him with adding to the word of God, and corrupting it, because no such words as Creator or Maker of the Onlybegotten, or the Son's being a creature, or the servant of God, were to be found in the words of the first institution.

SECT. 11. Whether all the Arians were guilty of the same Innovation. But now this innovation was peculiar to the disciples of Eunomius, though Baronius and some other learned men, bring the charge against the Arians in general, upon the mistaken authority of Athanasius and St. Jerom. Athanasius says they baptized "in a Creator and a creature ;" and St. Jerom," that they believed in the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ the Saviour and a creature, and in the Holy Ghost, the servant of them both." But they do not say, that the Arians used this form of baptism; but only that their baptism, though it was given in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, was in effect, no more than if

1

Nyssen. cont. Eunom. lib. xi. tom. ii. p. 706. My siç Пarépa тe "Ayıov Πνεῦμα καθὼς ἐνετείλατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς παραδιδὲς τὸ μυςήριον, αλλ ̓ εἰς δημιεργὸν καὶ κτισὴν, και ε μόνον πατέρα τῇ μονογενῆς, ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν. 2 Baron. an. 325. n. 88. 8 Athanas. Orat. 3. cont. Arian. tom. i.

p. 413. Εἰς κτιςὴν καὶ κτίσμα, κ, εἰς ποίημα και ποιητήν. 4 Hieron. Dial. adv. Lucifer. c. 4. Arrianus cùm nihil aliud crediderit-nisi in Patre solo, vero Deo, et in Jesu Christo, salvatore, creatura, et in Spiritu Sancto, utriusque servo: quomodò Spiritum Sanctum ab Ecclesiâ recipiet, qui necdum peccatorum remissionem consecutus est?

true reason,

it had been given in the name of a creature, because they believed the Son and Holy Ghost to be no more than creatures. The Arians corrupted the faith, but they still retained the Catholic form of baptism, till Euromius brought in another form among them. And that is the why both the first general-council of Constantinople,' and the council of Trullo ordered the Eunomians to be rebaptized, at the same time that they appointed the other Arians to be received by imposition of hands only, without a new baptism. And the second council of Arles made a like decree concerning the Bonosiaci, or followers of Bonosus, bishop of Sardica, who were a branch of the Arians, "that because they retained baptism in the Catholic form, as they there say the other Arians did, therefore it should be sufficient, after the confession of a true faith, to receive them with chrism and imposition of hands without a new baptism.' Which is demonstration, that neither the ancient Arians before Eunomius, nor the Bonosians after him, had made any alteration in this matter; but though they had corrupted the faith, yet they retained the ancient form of baptizing used in the Catholic Church. For had it been otherwise, there is no question to be made, but that, as Suicerus out of Vossius has rightly observed, the ancient councils would have rejected their baptism, as they did the Eunomians, and ordered them to have been rebaptized upon their return to the Catholic Church. For the observation of the form of baptism was always esteemed so necessary a part of the institution, and so essential to the sacrament, that where it was wanting, the baptism was reputed an imperfect and void baptism, and to be repeated by all the rules made against heretics in the Catholic Church.

5

SECT. 12. Whether any Additions were made to the Form of Baptism in the Catholic Church.

There is one question more relating to the form of bap

2 Con. Trull. can. 95.

Con. Const. 1, can. 7. 8 Con. Arelat. 2. can. 17. Bonosiacos autem ex eodem errore venientes (quos, sicut Arianos, baptazari in Trinitate manifestum est) dum interrogati fidem nostram ex toto corde confessi fuerint, Chrismate et manûs impositione in Ecclesiâ recipi sufficit. Suicer. Thesau. Eccles. tom. i. p. 638. 5 Voss.

de. Bapt. Disp. 2. p. 54.