0250=234.htm0250=234.htm..\index.html..\index.html0252=236.htm0252=236.htm
[See page image]

<pb n="235"/> Page 235

by the constitution Apostolicæ curæ of 1869 is specially reserved to the pope; forfeiture of Christian burial; for clerics, deposition and degradation; for impenitent heretics, delivery to the secular arm for a variety of secular penalties. Theoretically, the Roman Catholic Church still holds to the old severe legislation, and as late as 1878 Leo XIII confirmed a ruling of the cardinal vicar based on these principles in relation to those who attended Protestant services in Rome. But the altered position of the Church in modern times permits only the imposition of ecclesiastical penalties. A number of decisions of the Congregation of the Holy Office and of local councils, it is true, still forbid absolutely any communicatio in ditvinis with heretics, such as attendance at Protestant services (for the purpose of worship), and extend as far as possible even to the avoidance of sending children to Protestant schools.

In the Evangelical Churches not a few relics of the older attitude have continued, although Luther at first was unwilling to recognize heresy as an offense; to say nothing of the burning of Servetus (q.v.), a number of the older Protestant constitutions regard heresy as a crime, with special reference to the Anabaptists, whose punishment by the severe measures of the secular government was applauded by the Reformers. But logically the Evangelical Church, which declines to force the consciences of its members, and appeals solely to Scripture for the confirmation of its doctrines, can only rebuke erroneous doctrines as erroneous, and commend to pastoral exhortation those who hold them. This does not prevent the disciplinary dismissal of a minister who in his teaching transgresses the bounds of Evangelical freedom; and on the part of a layman, a public attitude of hostility toward the Evangelical faith would properly subject him also to discipline, extending, in case of obstinate persistence, to formal exclusion from church fellowship, although in modern practise this is seldom employed. See ORTHODOXY

(P. HINSCHIUS†)

</div2><div2 type="Article" title="Heretic Baptism"> HERETIC BAPTISM

Its Validity Denied. Controversy between Cyprian and Stephen (§ 1).

The initiation into the Church was accomplished from the beginning by Baptism (q.v.), and the question naturally arose, how is the rite to be regarded if the administrant did not belong to the true communion? If the working of the Spirit was effective exclusively in the Church, a new baptism of those baptized into a heretical body seemed inevitable. Even Clement of Alexandria regarded the baptism of heretics as not genuine (Strom., i. 19). Tertullian declares with great vigor against heretic baptism (De baptismo, xv.), and in a Greek work now lost treated especially of the subject. A Carthaginian synod held under Agrippinus, between 200 and 220, declared baptism performed outside of the Church invalid (Cyprian, Epist., lxx. [lxxi.] 4). In Asia Minor, at the synods of Iconium and Synnads, the baptism of the Montanists was not recognized (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, vii. 5; Firmilian, in Epist. Cypriani, lxxiv. [lxxv.] 5). As for Rome, Hippolytus charges Calixtus (pope 217-222) with having first (hardly "especially") introduced the repetition of baptism (Philosophoumena, ix. 12). Nevertheless, Stephen (253-257) could assert as Roman tradition the reception of heretics and schismatics by mere imposition of hands. Stephen's position is not altogether clear. According to Cyprian (Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.]) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl., vii. 2), Stephen regarded the imposition of hands at the reception of all heretics as sufficient, but, some Christian form of baptism is evidently presupposed (Cyprian, Epist., lxxiv. [lxxv.] 9, 18; lxxii. [lxxiii.] 18; lxxiii. (lxxiv.] 5). Also the beginning of the controversy with Cyprian is not clear. But Cyprian's letters lxvi. and lxvii. [lxviii. and lxvii.] show that the relation between Cyprian and Stephen, who held communion with bishops who had lapsed, was not at all friendly. According to the extant sources, Cyprian opened the controversy, probably provoked by Stephen. At first Cyprian carried on the contest with the help of African councils. The synod at Carthage, in 255, declared that "no one could be baptized out of the Church" (Cyprian, Epist., lxix. [lxx.] 1), without mentioning Stephen. At the synod of 256, seventyone bishops decided in like manner (Cyprian, Epist., lxxii. [lxxiii.]), and so did the eighty-seven bishops assembled on Sept. 1 of the same year; but their