compelled the Christian clergy, that were under their dominion, to baptize their children before they would circumcise them; because they conceived this would contribute toward the prevention of those distempers and noisomenesses, which are occasioned by circumcision. Upon this case a question was made in the council of Constantinople under Lucas Chrysoberges, whether such persons, when they came over to the Christian faith, were to be rebaptized, or only anointed with chrism? and it was resolved, that they ought, without controversy, to be rebaptized, since the baptism with which they were washed, was not received with any pious intent, but only as an amulet or charm. These instances make the account, which Euthymius gives of the Paulicians, seem very probable, that though they had no regard for baptism as a Christian sacrament, yet they might sometimes make use of it, as the Saracens did, as an enchantment or a sort of magical spell; which appears to be the only use they ever made of it, and that not in their own assemblies, where they had no sacraments at all, neither baptism nor the eucharist, but fraudulently receiving it in the Church at the hands of the Christian Catholic priests. The reader may observe by the way, that these Paulicians were not the followers of Paulus Samosatensis, bishop of Antioch, who are commonly called Paulianists and Samosatenians, though Balsamon confounds them together; but they had their denomination from another Paulus Samosatensis and one Johannes, who revived and enlarged the heresy of the Manichees, as appears plainly from Euthymius. And Justellus1 and Vossius" have observed the same out of Cedrenus, Theophanes, Matthew Blastares, Nicephorus, and other modern Greeks, with which it would be needless in this place to trouble the reader.

SECT. 5.—What Opinion the Messalians or Euchites had of Baptism. Some add to the forementioned sects, who rejected baptism, the heresy of the Messalians, or Euchites, who were so called from the Greek word, 'Evxn, prayer, and Messalians from

1 Justel. Not. in Can. 19. Codicis Eccl. Universæ. Baptismo, Disp. 20. p. 241.

VOL. III.

K

? Voss. de

the Syriae word, Metsalah, which is much of the same signification, because they resolved all religion into prayer. But it does not appear, that they wholly rejected the sacrament of baptism: for then the Church would have ordered them upon their return to have been baptized as Jews or Pagans; which she never did, but only obliged them to anathematize their errors, in order to be admitted to communion; as may be collected from the decree of the general-council of Ephesus,' made with relation to such of the clergy or laity as returned from them. But their error was in denying the principal part of the spiritual efficacy of baptism: they said indeed it granted remission of sins that were past, but added no strength or ability from the Spirit to withstand sin for the future. This we learn from Theodoret, who, comparing the doctrine of the Catholic Church and that of the Messalians upon this point together, delivers himself to this purpose:

66

Baptism," says he," is not like a razor only, as the Messalian enthusiasts call it, which takes away sins that are past, though it has this effect among many others; for if this were the only work of baptism, for what reason should we baptize infants, who have never yet tasted of sin? for the sacrament does not only promise this effect, but greater and more perfect things than that. It is the earnest of future good, the type of the resurrection to come hereafter, the communication of our Lord's passion, the participation of our Lord's resurrection, the garment of salvation, the clothing of joy, and the robe of light, or rather light itself." So that we must allow Theodoret to be his own interpreter, when he seems to give a more harsh account of these Messalians in another place, describing them as men who taught," that no manner of advantage accrued from divine baptism, to those who received it, but that it was only fervent prayer that expelled the indwelling devil out of men's minds." For this is to be understood with the forementioned exception, that they

Con. Ephes. tom. iii. p. 809. sive de Fabul. Hæret. lib. v. cap. 18.

3

2 Theod. Epitom. Divin. Decret.

3 Theod. Hæret. Fab. lib. iv.c. 10

Μηδεμίαν ἐκ τῶ θείε βαπτίσματος ὠφέλειαν τοῖς ἀξιομένοις γίνεσθαι μόνην δὲ τὴν σπεδαίαν εὐχὴν τὸν δαίμονα τὸν ἔνοικον ἕξελαύνειν

2

allowed baptism so far to be useful, as to wash away all former sins, but not to grant any further perfection. And so Harmenopulus represents their doctrine, as teaching, that neither baptism nor participation of the eucharist could give a man the perfection of a Christian, but only such prayer as they pretended to. In like manner Euthymius describes them as maintaining, that baptism did not eradicate sin. They did not deny that it purged away former sins, but they would not allow any efficacy of the Spirit to be joined with it to resist or overcome sin for the future. Against which doctrine Euthymius thus argues: "Our Lord Jesus Christ said, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Now the Holy Ghost is a divine fire; for he descended in the form of fiery tongues upon the disciples, and the forerunner of Christ spake of this to the multitude, when he testified of the excellency of Christ, He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' As therefore material fire, when it catches a wood, burns all things upon the surface of the earth, dries up the roots, and purges the place from filth: so the Holy Spirit does, and much more; for it is a fire consuming the iniquity of those who are baptized: and it not only purges and obliterates the spots, and scars, and filth of the soul, but also illuminates and endows it with many gifts, as the Apostles, and especially St. Paul, teach us, where they speak of the distribution of the graces of the Holy Spirit, which are conferred on those who are baptized." From this account of the Messalians it appears, that they were neither Anabaptists, nor Quakers; they neither rejected the baptism of adult persons nor infants. For the true state of the controversy between them and the Church, was not about the use of the outward element of water in baptism, but about the internal and spiritual effects of it, which the Messalians confined to remission of sins, but the Church extended to many other

1 Harmenop. de Sectis, c. 18. Bibl. Patr. Gr. Lat. tom.i. p. 536. Tò βάπτισμα μὴ τελεῖν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, μηδὲ τὴν μετάλῆψιν, ἀλλὰ μόνην τὴν παρ' αὐτοῖς εὐχήν. 2 Euthym. Panopl. part ii. tit. 22. p. 55. Negant divinum baptismum posse radices evellere peccatorum, &c.

་

noble benefits, which were the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit. Upon which account, the Church never rebaptized the Messalians, that we read of, as she did the Manichees and such other heretics, who rejected the use of water, which was the outward element which Christ had appointed. If this was either neglected, or any other element used instead of it, the baptism was esteemed not only irregular, but null, as wanting one necessary and essential part, which could not be supplied but by a new baptism. And therefore when a certain Jew had been baptized in sand, for want of water in the wilderness, Dionysius, bishop of Ascalon, ordered him to be rebaptized, as Johannes Moschusi tells the story: and this was done, not because he was baptized by a layman in extreme necessity, but as Archbishop Whitgift after the Centuriators has observed," because the baptism wanted water." Such was the Church's opinion of the necessity of water-baptism, that where it might be had, she never thought fit to dispense with the neglect or contempt of it; and therefore she urged the necessity of it against those ancient heretics who de spised it, even whilst she judged favourably of such cate chumens as died without baptism, not through contempt, but unavoidable necessity: of which I have given a particular account in the last Book, chap. ii. sect. 20, &c.

2

Indeed there is one exception against this in some collections of the canon law. For there we have a decree under the name of Pope Siricius which says, that if an infant is baptized in wine instead of water, in case of necessity, it is no crime, and the baptism shall stand good. But as Antonius Augustinus, and Baluzius have observed, this was no decree of Siricius, but of Stephen II. about the eighth century. So that it cannot be pleaded as a competent

'Moschus, Pratum Spirituale, c. 176. 2 Whitgift's Defence, tract. ix. p.519. 8 Centur. Magdeburg. cent. ii. c. 6. p. 82. • Antonius Augustinus cites it out of a Spanish Collection of Canons, and Baluzius from one in France, under the name of Siricius. Presbyter qui in vino baptizat proximâ necessitate, ut æger non periclitetur, pro tali re nulla ei culpa adscribatur. Si verò aqua aderat, et necessitas talis non urgebat, hic communione privetur. Infans verò ille, si in Sanctâ Trinitate baptizatus est, in eo baptismo permaneat. Vid. Anton. August. de Emendat. Gratiani, p. 200. et Baluz. Not. in Anton. p. 431.

authority to show what was the ancient practice of the Church. Antonius Augustinus is very positive, that the primitive Church had never any such custom and it seems pretty evident from that saying of St. Ambrose,' that if we take away water, the sacrament of baptism cannot stand. But among the Moderns, Beza and some of the Schoolmen, Tolet and Valentia, determine otherwise; against whose resolution I am not concerned to dispute, but only to declare what I take to have been the more current and received opinion of the primitive writers of the Church,

CHAP. III.

Of the Ancient Form of Baptism, and of such Heretics, as altered or corrupted it.

SECT. 1.-The usual Form of Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

NEXT to the matter of baptism, it will be proper to consider the form of words in which it was anciently administered. And this was generally such a form of words as made express mention of every person of the blessed Trinity, according as our Saviour did at the first institution, when he commanded his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This the ancient author of the Recognitions3 means, when he says, " men were baptized under the appellation of the triple mystery." And again,* "by invocating the name of the blessed Trinity." Tertullian refers this to the institution of Christ: "The law of baptizing was imposed, and the form prescribed, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of

Ambros. De iis qui initiantur, c. 4. Nec iterum sine aquâ regenerationis mysterium est. 2 Beza, Ep. 2. ad Tillium. 8 Clem. Rom. Recognit. lib. vi, c. 9. Baptizantur sub appellatione triplicis sacramenti, Id. lib. iii. c. 67. Baptizabitur unusquisque vestrûm in aquis perennibus, nomine Trinæ Beatitudinis invocato super se. Tertul. de Bapt. c. 13. Lex tinguendi imposita est, et forma præscripta, 'Ite,' inquit, docete nationes, tinguentes eas in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritûs Sancti.'