SECT. 2.-Only the Marcionites allowed Baptism to be thrice repeated.

Indeed among all the ancient heretics, we find none for a plurality of baptisms, but only the Marcionites. Which Epiphanius observes to have been an invention of Marcion, their first founder, in regard to his own conversation:1 for he having been guilty of deflowering a virgin, invented a second baptism, asserting, that it was lawful to repeat baptism three times for the remission of sins. So that if any man fell, he might receive a second baptism after the first, and a third after that, upon his repentance. Which he pretended to ground upon those sayings of our Saviour, "I have a baptism to be baptised with, and I have a cup to drink ;" which have no reference to any other baptism in water, but to his baptism in blood, that is, his death and passion. Of which the Ancients speak much, as they do of some other sorts of baptism, which are only metaphorical, as the baptism of afflictions, the baptism of tears and repentance, and the baptism of fire at the last day. But here the question is only about proper baptism by water, which the Marcionites affirmed might be repeated three times in the same way, which the Church never allowed of.

SECT. 3-What the Church did in doubtful Cases, not reckoned a Rebaptisation.

It is true indeed, there were some doubtful cases, in which it might happen accidentally that a man might be a second time baptised; but these were such cases only, in which the party was reputed not to have received any former baptism at all. As when a man could neither give any account of his own baptism, nor were there any other credible witnesses that could attest it. Which often happened to be the case of those, who were taken captives in their infancy, and made slaves by the heathen. When any such were redeemed or recovered by the Christians, the Church made no scruple to baptise them; because though they might perhaps have received a former baptism, yet no evidence of it

appeared. And so this was not reputed a rebaptisation. A decree was made to this purpose in the fifth Council of Carthage1 upon a question put by the bishops of Mauritania, who affirmed that they redeemed many such captive children from the hands of the barbarians: the Council ordered, "that in this case, as often as it happened that there were no certain witnesses found, who could give undoubted testimony of their baptism; nor were they able of themselves to affirm, by reason of their age, that they ever had received it; they should be baptised without any scruple, lest an hesitation in this case should deprive them of the purgation of the sacraments." The like determination was also given in one of the Roman Synods under Leo upon the same case where it was concluded, that in such a doubtful case, neither the baptiser nor the baptised incurred the crime of rebaptisation. And Leo resolves the matter himself after the same manner in other places. Neither was it reckoned any crime, though it afterward appeared that the party had been baptised before, because it was done in ignorance: but yet, like clinic-baptism, it was a sort of blemish to him, that deprived him of ecclesiastical promotion, except in some extraordinary case, as we learn from Theodoret's* Pœnitentiale cited by Gratian.

SECT. 4.-Nor when she baptised those, who had been unduly baptised before in Heresy or Schism.

Neither was it reckoned properly a second baptism, when

1 Con. Carthag. v. can. vi. Placuit de infantibus, ut quoties non inveniuntur certissimi testes, qui eos baptizatos esse sine dubitatione testentur, neque ipsi sint per ætatem idonei de traditis sibi sacramentis respondere, absque ullo scrupulo eos esse baptizandos, ne ista trepidatio eos faciat sacramentorum purgatione privari. Hinc enim legati Maurorum fratres nostri consuluerunt, quia multos tales à barbaris redimunt. Vid. Cod. Eccl. Afric. can. lxxv. et. Con. Trull. can. lxxxiv.

2 Leo, Ep. xxxvii. ad Leon. Raven. Non potest in iterationis crimen devenire, quod factum esse omnino nescitur. 3 Id. Ep. xcii. ad

Rustic. xv. Si nulla existant indicia inter propinquos aut familiares, nulla inter clericos aut vicinos, quibus hi, de quibus quæritur, baptizati fuisse doceantur; agendum est ut renascantur, ne manifeste pereant, in quibus quod non ostenditur gestum, ratio non sinit ut videatur iteratum.

Theodor. Pœnitent. ap. Gratian, Dist. iv. de Consecrat. cap. cxvii. Qui bis

the Church baptised any who had before been unduly baptised in heresy or schism. For then she did it only on presumption that they had received no true baptism before. Some heretics corrupted baptism by altering the necessary form, and others corrupted it by changing the matter of it into some other substance of their own appointing: and the baptisms of all such were looked upon as no baptisms, and therefore the Church ordered all those to be baptised upon their return to her communion, in the very same manner as Jews and Gentiles, as supposing their former pretence of baptism to be nothing at all, but her own baptism the first true baptism that was given them. And even the Cyprianists, who baptised all that had been baptised in any heresy or schism whatsoever without distinction, did it still only upon this supposition, that the baptism which they had received before, was no baptism at all, but a mere nullity. But if any had been baptised in the Catholic Church, and after that turned heretics or schismatics, or even apostates, Jews or Gentiles, they never gave such another baptism upon their return to the Church again.

SECT. 5.-Apostates never rebaptised in the Catholic Church.

For the Cyprianists in this agreed with the rest of the Catholic Church, that catholic baptism was never to be repeated in the greatest apostates. This doctrine is not only inculcated by St. Austin,' but even by Cyprian himself and his followers, where they plead so much for baptising those, who had been baptised in any heresy or schism; they still except those heretics who had originally been baptised in the Catholic Church; though they turned apostates, they were not to be received again by baptism, but only by repentance, as was determined in the Council of Carthage, over

ignoranter baptizati sunt, non indigent pro eo pœnitere: nisi quod secundum canones ordinari non possunt, nisi magna aliqua necessitas cogat. 1Aug. de Bapt. lib. ii. cap. i. Cont. Liter. Petil. lib. ii. cap. vii. et xlviii. Cont. Crescon. lib. ii. cap. xvi. Con. Carthag. ap. Cypr. n. viii. p. 232. Censeo omnes hæreticos et schismaticos, qui ad Catholicam Ecclesiam voluerint venire, non ante ingredi, nisi exorcisati et baptizati prius fuerint; exceptis his sane qui in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ fuerint ante baptizati, ita tamen ut per manûs impositionem in pœnitentiam Ecclesiæ reconcilientur. See the same, ibid. n. 22. And Cypr. Ep. 71. ad Quintum, p.194 Ep. 74 ad Pompeium, p.216.

which Cyprian presided. St. Austin refers us to this very passage, and thence concludes this was a point agreed upon universally in the Catholic Church, that no lapse or crime could make it necessary to give a second baptism to any, who had once been truly baptised within the pale of the Church. A longer penance indeed was imposed upon such deserters and apostates, as had been baptised in the Church, than upon those who had been baptised among heretics originally, as the Rules of Pope Innocent inform us; the one were obliged to go through a long course of penance for their apostacy, but the other were admitted immediately by imposition of hands upon their recantation: yet still the Church kept strict to her rule, that whatever way she admitted them, she would not do it by a second baptism.

SECT. 6.-What Heretics rebaptised the Catholics.

Several heretics pretended to observe the same rule: for they rebaptised the Catholics, yet they said this was not a second baptism; because the Catholics were reputed heretics with them, and therefore their baptism of no value in their account. Upon this ground the Novatians rebaptised the Catholics, as we learn from Cyprian3 and the Epistle of Pope Innocent last cited. The Donatists followed the Novatians in this sacrilegious practice, as the charge is often brought against them by St. Austin3 and many others. And the Eunomians not only rebaptised the Catholics, but all others of the Arian sects, that were not of their own particular faction, as is noted by Epiphanius in his account of them. And the other Arians, though they were at first averse to this practice, (as Papebrochius and Pagis rightly observe, in order

1 Innoc. Ep. 2. ad Victricium, cap. viii. Ut venientes à Novatia nis vel Montensibus, per manûs tantum impositionem suscipiantur. Quia quamvis ab hæreticis, tamen in Christi nomine sunt baptizati: præter eos, si qui fortè à nobis ad illos transeuntes, rebaptizati sunt: hi si repiscentes et ruinam suam cogitantes, redire maluerint, sub longâ pœnitentiæ satisfactione admittendi sunt. 2 Cypr. lxxiii. ad Jubaian. p. 198. Nec nos movet, quod in literis tuis complexus es Novatianenses rebaptizare eos, quos à nobis sollicitant. Aug. cont. 8 Fulgent. cap. vii. Da mihi aliquem sanctorum post Trinitatem rebaptizare, quod facis. It. de Hæres. c. lxix. Audent etiam rebaptizare Catholicos, &c. Vid. Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. vi. Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur. leg. iv. Honorii. Epiphan. Hær. lxxvi. Anomœor. p 992. 5 Papebroch. Vit. Constant. mai. xxi. tom. v. p. xvii.

Pagi Critic. in Baron. an. 324. n. xii.

3

to refute the story of Constantine's being baptised by Pope Sylvester, and rebaptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia; for at that time the Arians had not taken up the practice of rebaptising the Catholics :) yet afterwards they gave way to it about the time of St. Austin. For he charges it upon them more than once,' that they rebaptised the Catholics. And it appears from Victor Uticensis that they insisted stifly upon it in the time of the Vandalic persecution, and we afterwards meet with the same in the Epistles of Vigilius. Valesius* cites the Life of Fulgentius and the author of the Breviarum Fidei, published by Sirmondus, to the same purpose. By which last authors we find, that the Arians not only rebaptised the Catholics, but also made an argument of it (as some Romanists in another case have since argued against the Protestants) that their baptism was better than the Catholics, because the Catholics never rebaptised those that came over from the Arians, but reconciled them only by imposition of hands: but the Arians, whenever they could seduce any from the Catholics, always gave them a second baptism.

SECT. 7.-What Punishments were inflicted on the Baptisers, by the Laws of Church and State.

Now to prevent this petulant humour from spreading in the Church, many and severe laws were made against it, both by the ecclesiastical and the secular power. The Church by her Canons not only censured and condemned all such rebaptisations, as impious and sacrilegious, as a crucifying of Christ again, a doing despite to the Spirit, as a mockery of the Divine mysteries, and derision of holy things; but also inflicted penalties on all those, who were either actively or passively concerned in them.

The

1Aug.de Hæres. cap. xlix. Rebaptizari quoque ab his Catholicos novimus, utrum et non Catholicos nescio. It. de v. Hæres. cap. vii. Baptizato, ingerit baptismum, &c. 2 Victor de Persec. Vandal. lib. i. Bibl. Patr. tom. vii. p. 590. 3 Vigil. Ep. ii. ad Eleutherium, cap. iii. It. Con. Tolet. iii. Prœfat. Vales. Not. in Sozomen. lib. vi. cap xxvi. 5 Breviar. Fidei ad

versus Arianos. Dicere etiam solent de baptismo, quod in eo melius sit ipsorum baptismum, quam nostrum ; quia qui de illis ad nos convertuntur, noneos rebaptizamus, sed per manûs impositionem reconciliamus. Illi verò si quos de nostris seducere possint, inconsideranter rebaptizant.

Vid. Cod. Eccles. Afric. can. lii. Constit. Apost. lib. vi. cap. xv.