Luciferian schismatics by an argumentum ad hominem, which proved that they were wrong, even on their own principle. The other meaning, for which these writers so strenuously contend, would make Jerome contradict himself; and therefore, especially in the case of an author so distinguished for his acuteness, this consideration alone should be conclusive against it, with every mind of ordinary candour. I pass from Jerome, however, to the celebrated Augustin," whose authority is cited in another of our Articles, and whose judgment in favour of the validity of heretical, schismatical, and lay-baptism, is admitted, even by the most determined of its adversaries, to be decided and plain. Thus in one place he asserts, that those men are much mistaken who accuse the Church Catholic of receiving heretics as heretics, because she does not rebaptize, them; since, in entering the Church, they become Catholics. And then he lays down the maxim, that the sacraments which should only be given once, cannot lawfully be reiterated. Again, he saith, that although it was granted that heretics. had the Baptism of Christ, yet neither heretics nor schismatics could receive the Holy Spirit, until they adhered to unity and charity. The same judgment he repeats more largely in another place, where he extends it to the Eucharist also, and with the same limitation.c Again, Augustin maintains the validity of Lay-Baptism, even when administered without necessity, and therefore unlawfully, and against the canons of the Church. His words are these: "For although even a layman should give it (Baptism) to a person in extremity, I know not whether any one could say religiously that it ought to be repeated. If he a S. August. ad Dulcit. § 4. Opp. Tom. 2, p. 583. does it without any necessity, it is an usurpation of another's office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or a very pardonable one. But if it be usurped without any necessity, and be given by any one to any one, that which is given can never be said not to have been given, however truly it may be said that it was given unlawfully. The unlawful usurpation is corrected by recollection and repentance. If not corrected, however, the thing given will remain to the punishment of the usurper, either of him who unlawfully gave, or of him who unlawfully received it, but it can never be accounted as not given.” One more passage from this eminent father shall close his testimony for the present. "There is yet another question," saith he, "viz. Whether Baptism can be given by those who were never Christians; nor is any thing to be rashly affirmed upon this point, without the authority of a council sufficient to pronounce concerning so weighty a matter. But of those who are separated from the unity of the Church, there is no question but that they may and can give it, and that they hold it and give it injuriously, without the bond of peace. For this has been long discussed, considered, perfected and established, by the unity of the whole world." Next to the high authority of St. Augustin, I shall mention the eminent Chrysostom, whose fame, nevertheless, is rather to be attributed to his oratorical powers, than to his skill in theological casuistry, since his works, voluminous as they are, consist, for the most part, of popular sermons or Homilies, which were probably delivered extempore, and taken down by an amanuensis, as we believe was the case with the catechetical and mystagogic discourses of Cyril of Jerusalem, • Ib. § 30. That Augustin agreed with Jerome in blaming the error of Cyprian, is plain from his Book De unico Baptismo, Opp. Tom. 9, p. 359, § 22. Some other extracts from his admirable writings will be given in the subsequent quotations from authors of a later date. and with many other relics of antiquity. This fact would account, to a considerable extent, for their energy, their inartificial construction, their lively illustrations, and their occasional extravagance; in which respects there is much to praise, and sometimes not a little to censure. Plainly, however, it would be unreasonable to look to such productions for accurate statements on those points which could not conduce to popular edification; however the author might have been obliged to decide, if consulted by the clergy. The writers on the other side, claim Chrysostom notwithstanding, as if he had unequivocally declared himself against the decisions of the councils, and the allowance of the Church. But this he has not done, nor can I see any thing in his works which touches the precise point, viz. whether Baptism, administered in the proper form by a heretic or by a layman, without absolute necessity, and therefore administered rather against than by the authority of the Church, is so far null and void, that it may lawfully be administered again: or, in other words, whether the minister is of the essence, or only of the order of the sacrament. I shall make a few extracts to show the general views of this distinguished father, by which it will appear that he maintains the following doctrines: First, that the actual administrator of the sacraments is not the visible priest, but the invisible Deity,-secondly, that as the merit of the priesthood can add nothing to the efficacy of the sacraments, so neither can the sins of the priesthood take any thing away-thirdly, that it is not the man who baptizes, but the great name in which we are baptized, which is worthy to be inquired of; since the efficacy of Baptism, which is the remission of sins, is of God; and Opp. S. Chrysost. Tom 5, p. 333, D. Hom. LX. b Ib. Tom. 4, 334, Hom. VIII. in Epist. ad Corinth. I. cap. ii. the work of preaching the gospel, so far as human agency is concerned, is therefore a greater work than that of Baptism, -and fourthly, that a repetition of Baptism is utterly inadmissible, being liable to the reproach, symbolically, of crucifying Christ a second time. Now in all this, the sentiments of our author are in no respect peculiar. But the last passage which I have quoted is directly hostile to the scheme of Dr. Waterland and his ingenious coadjutors. For their theory requires us to believe, that the reason why the primi. tive Church allowed the validity of heretical Baptisms, was because the heretics had a true and regular priesthood, by succession and ordination; which priestly authority was indelible. And since they claim St. Chrysostom as a witness on their side, it is with rather more interest than the passage would otherwise deserve that I have transcribed the following part of his testimony: Perhaps thou wilt say, How can I deny a man to be a Christian, when I behold him confessing Christ, having an altar, offering the sacrifice of bread and wine, baptizing, reading the Scriptures of the saints, and having every order of the priesthood? O wise man! if he does not confess Christ, his heathenism is manifest, and if thou art seduced by that, it was insanity which seduced thee: but if he does confess Christ, and yet not as Christ himself commanded, then, it is thine own negligence if thou art seduced by him. For he who falls into a hidden pit, is called negligent because he did not look carefully before him: while he who falls into an open pit is not called negligent but insane. As to what thou hast said concerning the similitude of the ecclesiastical mysteries, hear this answer. The ape has the members of a man, and imitates man in all his actions, * Opp. S. Chrysost. p. 1536, B. Com. Chrysost. in Epist. Pauli ad Hebræos, cap. VI. Hom. IX. b Ib. Tom. 2, p. 766, In Cap. Matthæi VII. Hom. XIX. but wouldst thou on that ground judge that it should be called a man? In like manner heresy has all the members of the Church, and imitates her mysteries, but they are not of the Church notwithstanding." Here, then, St. Chrysostom, expressly reckoning the orders of the priesthood amongst the several particulars in which the heretics resembled the Church, plainly denies that there was any more identity between the priesthood of the one and the priesthood of the other, than there is between the members of the ape and those of the man. Now if this be sound doctrine,-which I by no means assert, but give it for the benefit of the other side, as the doctrine of their own favourite witness-it surely destroys the whole ingenious theory by which they think they can account for the admission of heretical Baptisms, without being obliged to acknowledge the validity of Lay-Baptism. For how could the ordinance derive any additional efficacy, in the judgment of Chrysostom, from a ministry, whose acts he held in the same esteem as the imitations of a monkey? But my next witness is, on every account, much more important. Innocent, the first Bishop of Rome who bore that name, was contemporary with Chrysostom, for his accession is placed by Baronius in A. D. 402. And in the passage which I shall cite, we have, not the loose and vague language of a Homily ad populum, but a precise statement on the very point, addressed to a bishop. In this epistle,* the pontiff saith, that although the laymen who were converts from the Arians, and other heretics of the same kind, should be received upon a profession of repentance, with the imposition of hands, yet it would not follow that their clergy ought to be allowed the dignity of any ministerial or sacerdotal power. For nothing of theirs was admitted but their Baptism, which was administered in the true form of the * Inn. epist, XVIII. Alexandro Episcopo, Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom. 1, p. 1013, C. |