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 Eunomius brought in another form among them. And that is the true reason, .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.

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. I. can. 7. 3 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.

tism, which it may not be improper to resolve in this place; that is, whether any additions were ever allowed to be made to the form of baptism in the Catholic Church? Some learned persons are of opinion, that such additions, when they were only by way of explication, and greater illustratration, to confirm the truth against heretics, were used in the form of baptism, as well as in the Creed. But I think Vossius, upon better grounds of reason and authority, more judiciously determines the contrary. Two authors are commonly alleged in favour of their assertion, viz. Justin Martyr and the author of the Constitutions, but neither of them comes fully up to the thing intended. For Justin Martyr, as Vossius observes,' is only giving a paraphrastical explication of the words used in baptism for the instruction of the heathens, to whom he is writing, when he tells them how the Christians baptized in the name of the Father of all things, who was Lord and God, and in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Ghost. And the Author of the Constitutions is yet more plain: for first of all, he tells every bishop and presbyter, that they ought to baptize precisely in that form of words which our Lord enjoined us, when he said, "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you." And then he goes on to explain the several names of the three persons concerned, viz." that the Father is the person who sent, Christ the person who came, and the Paraclete or Comforter the person who bears witness." So that this was plainly an explication or paraphrase of the form of baptism only, and not the very form that was then in use. Nor can it be made appear, that ever the Catholic Church varied from the form delivered by our Saviour, though Vossius thinks a form

1 Justin. Apol. 2. n. 80. p. 107. Εν ὀνόματι τῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων κα δεσπότε θεῖ, καὶ τὸ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χρισῦ Ἰησᾶ, και Πνεύματος 'Αγιο, το έν ὕδατι τότε λετρον ποιένται. Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 22. Ourw βαπτίσεις, ὡς ὁ Κύριος διετάξατο ἡμιν, λέγων, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίσαντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, κα τοῦ ̔Αγίου Πνεύματος- τοῦ ἀποτείλαντος Πατρὸς, τοῦ ἐλθόντος Χριστοῦ, τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος Παρακλήτου,

with such an orthodox addition would not destroy the essence of baptism, as those heretical forms certainly do, which corrupt the truth of the Catholic faith.

CHAP. IV.

Of the Subjects of Baptism, or an Account of what Persons were anciently allowed to be baptized. Where particularly of Infant-Baptism.

SECT. 1.-Why the Question about the Administrators of Baptism is here omitted.

HAVING spoken of the matter and form of baptism, I should now have considered the persons by whom this sacrament was anciently administered; but because I have lately had occasion to handle this subject fully in a scholastical way in two distinct discourses,' it will be sufficient in this place to give this summary account of the matter. There I have showed, that bishops, as the Apostles' successors, were the persons chiefly entrusted with this power; that they granted power to presbyters to baptize in ordinary cases; to deacons sometimes in ordinary, and sometimes only in extraordinary cases; to laymen only in extraordinary cases of extreme necessity; that the usurped baptism of laymen was allowed to be valid, so far as not to need repeating, though given irregularly; that the baptism of women was wholly prohibited; that the baptism of Jews and Infidels was never allowed, though now accepted in the Church of Rome; that the baptism of heretics and schismatics was disannulled by the Cyprianists, and some few others, who required a true faith, as well as a true form, to make a complete baptism; but that this opinion was rejected by the great body of the Catholic Church, who thought the defects of heretical baptism might be supplied by imposition of hands without rebaptizing; that yet it was agreed, both by the Cyprianists and all others whatsoever, that heretics and schismatics had

Scholastical History of Lay-Baptism, 1st and 2d Part, 1712 and 1714. To be republished at the end of this work.

not the power of priests, because some of them, as the Novatians, never had a just and legal call to the priesthood; and others were deprived of their power by the lawful authority of the Church, which first committed that power to them; that thenceforward they were reputed, not true Christian priests, but wolves and Anti-christs, instead of true shepherds and governors of the flock of Christ; that the Church had power, not only to suspend the execution of their office, but to cancel their commission, and wholly take away the power and authority of the priesthood from them; and then they were reduced to the state and condition of laymen; and sometimes they were not only degraded from the priesthood, but thrust down one degree below laymen, by being anathematized and cast out of the communion of the Church: and yet, notwithstanding all this, the Church did not think fit to cancel or wholly disannul the baptisms given by such men, though given by usurpation and without any authority of the priesthood, so long as it appeared, they were given in due form, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. All which things being abundantly proved in the two foresaid discourses, I think it not proper to repeat or insist any longer upon them; but shall now proceed, as the order of the discourse requires, to consider the persons on whom baptism was anciently conferred.

SECT. 2.-Who were anciently reckoned the proper Subjects of Baptism. Where of the corrupt Custom of baptizing inanimate Things, as Bells in the Roman Church.

And here first of all, it is certain, that none but living persons, whether adult or infants, and that in their own personal capacity, were ever reckoned subjects capable of baptism in the primitive Church. The Ancients knew nothing of that profane custom of giving baptism to inanimate things, as bells and the like, by a superstitious consecration of them. The first notice we have of this is in the Capitulars of Charles the Great,' where it is only mentioned to be censured: but afterward it crept into the

' Capitular. Caroli Magni, cited by Durantus de Ritib. Eccl. lib. i, c. 22. n. 2. Ut Clocas non baptizent.

Roman offices by degrees, (as I have noted in another place' out of Baronius, Cardinal Bona, and Menardus,) till at last it grew to that superstitious height, as to be thought proper to be complained of in the Centum Gravamina of the German nation, drawn up in the public diet of the empire held at Norimberg, Anno 1518; where, after having described the ceremony of baptizing a bell with godfathers, who make responses, as in baptism, and give it a name, and clothe it with a new garment, as Christians were used to be clothed, and all this to make it capable of driving away tempests and devils they conclude against it, as not only a superstitious practice, but contrary to the Christian religion, and a mere seduction of the simple people, and an exaction upon them: for which reason, they declare, so wicked and unlawful a custom ought to be abolished. He that would see more of this, may consult Hospinian, or Wolfius, or Sleidan, who describe the ceremony at large out of the old Romish Pontifical; for I must return to the primitive Church.

SECT. 3. Baptism not to be given to the Dead.

And here we meet with a practice a little more ancient, but not less superstitious than the former: which was a custom, that began to prevail among some weak people in Afric, of giving baptism to the dead. The third council of Carthage speaks of it, as a thing that ignorant Christians were a little fond of, and therefore gives a seasonable caution against it, to discourage the practice: and this is again repeated in the African Code. Gregory Nazianzen also takes notice of the same superstitious opinion

2 Centum

1 See Origin. vol. iii, book viii. chap. vii. p. 240. Gravam. n. 51. in Fasciculo Rer. Expetend. tom. i. p. 366. Quæ res non solum superstitiosa, sed etiam Christianæ religioni contraria, ac simpliciorum seductio, et mera est exactio.-Res igitur tam nefanda et illicita meritò aboleri debet. Hospin. de Templis. lib. iv. c. 9. p. 113. 4 Wolfius, Lection. Memorabil. Centur. 16. an. 1550. Commentar. lib. xxi. p. 388.

5 Sleidan, 6 Con. Carth. iii, can. 6. Cavendum, ne mortuos baptizari posse fratrum infirmitas credat. "Cod. Eccles. Afr. can. 18. Μὴ τὸς ἤδη τελευτῶντας βαπτισθῆναι ποιήσῃ ἡ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἄγνοια. Naz. Orat. 40. de Bapt. p. 648. "H ǹ où piveig verpÒC λεθῆναι; ἐ μᾶλλον ἐλεύμενος ἢ μισέμενος.