Two letters to the Lord Bishop of Ontario on the question is lay baptism valid?.

I begin with the exceptional cases -(r/) The case <>f heretical Baptism,The right to minister in Divine tilings was, by the early Church, (vide Igna- tius 1 Epistles, passim), held to consist not in personal, but in authoritative qualifi- cation fur the ministerial office.It was based exclusively on the Apostolical Commission.It was considered that faith and piety, although required "fall who would obtain, through Christ, grace and blessing from Clod, did not of themselves ensure Ministerial authority : else v\rry Christian man would, by his very Christianity, he also (as to all official acts) a Priest of the Church ; but that his commission, duly derived from those qualified to impart it, did convey a right of office, and qualify the recipient for the discharge of every duty, which properly fell within the compass of that office.Now, the heretics, above referred to, were not Laymen, but bishops, priests and deacons, men who had indeed lapsed into various degrees of error, and had, in some instances, seriously corrupted "the faith," but who, nevertheless, could claim and prove their right, through Episcopal consecration or ordination, to a part in the Apostolic Ministry.I mention this, because passages are often quoted from the controversies of that early day, which forbid rc-baptization ; but which, in fact, have nothing to do with the question of Lay-baptism.This may be made clear by the following syllogistic argument of S. Basil : -" 1 .Those whom a Laic baptizeth are to be re-baptized : 2 .But, those whom a Heretick baptizeth, a Laic baptizeth : 3. Therefore, such also are to be re-baptized."This Syllogism was met by denying the minor proposition : e.g.-Baptism hy Hereticks is not Lay-baptism, inasmuch as there exists in them the qualification of orders : -therefore Baptism by Hereticks, thus qualified, is not to be iterated.(Hieron.Dial, adver.Lucif.)(b) The next exceptional case is that which involves Baptism as adminis- tered by Laics, in communion with the Church, and acting (in cases of necessity) under warrant or sanction of their bishops.How far bishops, who-under Christ-are the source of all legitimate autho- rity and action to the Church, in Divine things, can act vicariously, is a question perhaps not easy to determine.Nor is it necessary to our argument that it should be here discussed.It is enough if we prove that in the solitary instance (so far as we can find) in which Lay -baptism is formally recognized in primitive days, its efficacy is made dependent-not on the good will, faith or any other inherent quality in the baptizer, but-on the sanction and authority of the Bishops.By that special sanction the Bishops assumed that it became their act.It was, in intent, an extension, under peculiar circumstances and to a specific end, of their official powers.And, by consequence, cannot be pleaded in justification of acts which are performed not only without Episcopal license, but in open defiance of it.The instance to which we refer is that afforded by the Council of Eliberis, Spain, A. D. 305.In its 38th Canon, it says, " A Christian who is not under penance, nor a bigamist, may baptize, in case of necessity, those who are on a journey, being at a great distance from a church, upon condition that he present him to the Bishop, if he survive, to ha perfected, by imposition of hands."

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.