5 
 
 020 
 
 24J 
 
 *usey House Occasional Papers 
 No. 9 
 
 o ARE MEMBERS OF 
 THE CHURCH? 
 
 STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN CRITICISM OF 
 
 SENTENCE IN THE APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN 
 
 :OPLE MADE BY THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE 
 
 1920, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL THE 
 
 PROPOSITIONS OF THAT APPEAL 
 
 DARWELL STONE, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF PUSSY HOUSB 
 
 AND 
 
 F. W. PULLER, M.A. 
 
 OK THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NE\V YORK. 
 
 'MB I ; AMI MADRAS
 
 Pusey House Occasional Papers 
 No. 9 
 
 WHO ARE MEMBERS OF 
 THE CHURCH? 
 
 A STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN CRITICISM OF 
 A SENTENCE IN THE APPEAL TO ALL CHRISTIAN 
 PEOPLE MADE BY THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE 
 OF 1920, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ALL THE 
 PROPOSITIONS OF THAT APPEAL 
 
 BY 
 
 DARWELL STONE, D.D. 
 
 PRINCIPAL OF PUSEY HOUSE 
 
 AND 
 
 F. W. PULLER, M.A. 
 
 OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 FOURTH AVENUE & a&rtt STREET, NEW YORK 
 
 BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 
 
 1921 
 
 A II rights reserved
 
 WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHORS 
 
 BY DARWELL STONE, D.D. 
 
 HOLY BAPTISM. (Oxford Library of Practical 
 Theology.) 
 
 THE HOLY COMMUNION. (Oxford Library 
 
 of Practical Theology.) 
 
 OUTLINES OF CHRISTIAN DOGMA. 
 
 THE LAW OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE, 
 ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO THE DE- 
 CEASED WIFE'S SISTER'S MARRIAGE ACT. 
 (Pusey House Occasional Papers.) 
 
 A HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
 THE HOLY EUCHARIST. Two volumes. 
 
 THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. New 
 
 and enlarged edition. 
 
 EPISCOPACY AND VALID ORDERS IN 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. (Pusey House 
 Occasional Papers.) 
 
 DIVORCE AND RE-MARRIAGE. (Pusey 
 House Occasional Papers.) 
 
 THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 (Modern Oxford Tracts.) 
 
 BY F. W. PULLER, M.A. 
 
 THE PRIMITIVE SAINTS AND THE 
 SEE OF ROME. 
 
 THE RELATION OF THE ENGLISH 
 CHURCH TO THE MONARCHICAL CLAIMS 
 OF THE ROMAN SEE. (Modern Oxford Tracts.) 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE STATEMENT AS TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH 
 
 MADj; BY THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE .... 7 
 
 ITS FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTER 7 
 
 THE QUESTION PROPOSED, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF 
 
 THE VISIBLE CHURCH ? 9 
 
 I. THE QUESTION AS TO PERSONS BAPTIZED IN COM- 
 MUNION WITH THE LEGITIMATE RULERS OF THE 
 
 CHURCH BUT EXCOMMUNICATE 10 
 
 1. THE NEW TESTAMENT: 
 
 St. Matt, xviii. 15-17 10 
 
 I Cor. v. 1-5, 13 II 
 
 I Tim. i. 19, 20, 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18 II 
 
 I Cor. v. 12, 13 II 
 
 Tit. iii. 10 12 
 
 i St. John ii. 19 13 
 
 Valid Baptism, administered within the Church, 
 
 doesnot ensure perpetuity of Church-membership 14 
 
 2. THE FATHERS : 
 
 The case of Marcion . 15 
 
 The case of Noetus ..'....... 15 
 
 Origen 15 
 
 St. Cyprian 15 
 
 St. Gregory Thaumaturgus 15 
 
 St. Athanasius 15 
 
 Council of Antioch (A.D. 341) 16 
 
 St. Hilary of Poitiers 16 
 
 The Apostolic Canons . 16 
 
 St. Chrysostom 16 
 
 St. Jerome 16 
 
 St. Augustine 16 
 
 iii 
 
 1026683
 
 iv Contents 
 
 FACE 
 
 3. LATER INSTANCES : 
 
 Article xxxiii 17 
 
 Bingham ............ 17 
 
 Morinus 17 
 
 Van Espen 17 
 
 II. THE QUESTION AS TO PERSONS VALIDLY BAPTIZED IN 
 
 SCHISMATIC BODIES 17 
 
 i. THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT PERSONS BAPTIZED IN 
 SCHISM : 
 
 St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian 18 
 
 Pope Stephen and the author of De Rebaptismate 18 
 Both parties agreed that adults baptized in schism 
 did not become members of the Church . . 19 
 
 2. THE FATHERS: 
 
 De Rebaptismate 19 
 
 Council of Aries (A.D. 314) 19 
 
 Council of Nicaea (A. D. 325) 19 
 
 Pope Siricius 20 
 
 St. Ambrose ... 20 
 
 St. Jerome 20 
 
 Optatus 20 
 
 St. Augustine 20 
 
 St. Leo the Great 22 
 
 St. Gregory the Great 22 
 
 3. LATER WRITERS : 
 
 Rupert of Deutz 22 
 
 Morinus . ... 22 
 
 III. CONCLUSION 23 
 
 1. THE LAMBETH STATEMENT CONTRARY TO HOLY 
 SCRIPTURE, THE FATHERS, AND THE THIRTY- 
 NINE ARTICLES 23 
 
 2. APPEAL TO THE SYNODS OF THE CHURCH . . 25
 
 Contents v 
 
 PACK 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 FULL TEXT OF THE PASSAGES REFERRED TO WITH A 
 DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THEM 
 
 I PASSAGES RELATING TO PERSONS BAPTIZED WITHIN 
 THE CHURCH BUT EXCOMMUNICATE : 
 
 1. St. Epiphanius 27 
 
 2. St. Hippolytus and St. Epiphanius ... 28 
 
 3. Origen 28 
 
 4. St. Cyprian 28 
 
 5. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus 29 
 
 6. St. Athanasius 29 
 
 7. Council of Antioch(A.D. 341) 30 
 
 8. St. Hilary of Poitiers 30 
 
 9. Apostolic Canons 30 
 
 10. St. Chrysostom 31 
 
 11. St. Jerome 31 
 
 12. St. Augustine 32 
 
 13. Article xxxiii 32 
 
 14. Bingham 33 
 
 15. Morinus 33 
 
 16. Van Espen 34 
 
 II. PASSAGES RELATING TO PERSONS BAPTIZED OUTSIDE 
 THE CHURCH : 
 
 17. De Rebaptismate 34 
 
 18. Council of Aries (A. D. 314) 36 
 
 19. Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) 37 
 
 20. Pope Siricius , 42 
 
 21. St. Ambrose 43 
 
 22. Optatus 43 
 
 23. St. Augustine 46 
 
 24. St. Leo 56 
 
 25. St. Gregory the Great 57 
 
 26. Rupert of Deutz 57 
 
 27. Morinus 58 
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES 
 
 I. CARDINAL BELLARMINE 60 
 
 II. CARDINAL FRANZELIN i
 
 vi Contents 
 
 FACE 
 
 III. CARDINAL MAZZELLA 62 
 
 IV. OFFICIAL BOOKS : 
 
 1. The Pontifical 62 
 
 2. The Missal 63 
 
 3. The New Code of the Canon Law .... 63 
 
 APPENDIX III 
 
 TRANSMISSION OF GRACE THROUGH APOSTOLIC SUC- 
 CESSION 
 
 I. RECENT DENIAL OF TRANSMISSION 64 
 
 II. TRANSMISSION ASSERTED: 
 
 1. In regard to the gift of truth by St. Irenaeus . 65 
 
 2. In regard to the whole life and work of the 
 
 Church by Tertullian 67 
 
 3. In regard to the gifts of grace by : 
 
 St. Hippolytus 69 
 
 St. Firmilian 69 
 
 St. Ambrose 70 
 
 St. Pacian 70 
 
 Ambrosiaster 70 
 
 St. Epiphanius 71 
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 SOME CRITICISMS ON CANON LACEY's DEFENCE OF THE 
 LAMBETH CONFERENCE 
 
 I. DISCUSSION OF CANON LACEY'S ARGUMENTS . . . 73 
 
 IT. CONCLUDING CONSIDERATIONS : 
 
 1. That others possess much in common with 
 
 Catholics does not show that they are 
 members of the Church 85 
 
 2. Impossibility of two Churches 86 
 
 3. Significance of the failure of the attempt to 
 
 justify the Lambeth statement .... 87
 
 WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE 
 CHURCH ? 
 
 OUR object in this paper is to criticize one particular 
 sentence in the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference of 
 1920. In publishing the paper we are acting with a strong 
 sense of serious responsibility. The sentence in question 
 seems to us so fundamental in the Lambeth " Appeal to all 
 Christian people " and so erroneous that we, both of us, 
 have deemed it our duty to use any opportunities which we 
 have had of declaring our dissent from it and such 
 declarations of dissent as we have frequently made seem 
 to demand a somewhat full and detailed statement of the 
 reasons on which that dissent is based. 
 
 The Lambeth Appeal begins with a definition of those 
 qualifications which give a right of claiming to share mem- 
 bership in the Church. In this definition it is said 
 
 "We acknowledge all those who believe in our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and have been baptized into the name of the 
 Holy Trinity, as sharing with us membership in the uni- 
 versal Church of Christ, which is His Body." 
 
 This definition is evidently fundamental to the whole 
 Appeal to all Christian people, and to all the resolutions 
 concerning reunion. Its fundamental character is shown 
 by its position as the starting-point of the Appeal on which 
 all that follows is based, and the close connexion with 
 it in which the following sections are placed ; and is illus- 
 trated by some words of the Primate of All Ireland which 
 have the importance derived not only from his great in- 
 tellectual gifts and high official post in the Church but also
 
 8 Who are Members of the Church ? 
 
 from his prominent position in the Lambeth Conference 
 and his membership of the Sub-Committee which drew up 
 the Appeal. Writing about the Appeal the Archbishop 
 mentioned as its first leading principle the following : 
 
 " i. The Appeal begins with a statement about the 
 nature of the Church, which is fundamental to all its pro- 
 positions. ' We acknowledge,' say the Bishops, ' all those 
 who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and have been bap- 
 tized into the name of the Holy Trinity, as sharing with us 
 membership in the universal Church of Christ, which is His 
 Body.' The Church includes all believers who have re- 
 ceived Christian baptism. It is therefore not to be identified 
 exclusively with any one organized communion or group 
 of communions, nor with the whole company of true 
 believers who are known only to God. The conception 
 is neither the old familiar institutional one nor that of the 
 < Invisible Church.' " * 
 
 According to this fundamental statement, then, the 
 Appeal put forth by the Lambeth Conference requires 
 the fulfilment of only two conditions to ensure membership 
 in the Church, which is Christ's Body. The first is belief in 
 our Lord, by which expression open profession of belief 
 in our Lord evidently must be meant. The Church, which 
 
 1 See the letter from the Archbishop of Armagh (Dr. C. F. d'Arcy) 
 in the Spectator for March 26, 1921, p. 391. The Archbishop of 
 Armagh was a member of the committee of the Lambeth Conference 
 on Reunion and also of the sub-committee on Relation to and Reunion 
 with Non-Episcopal Churches. The report of that sub-committee 
 which it presented to the committee was "specially based upon the 
 Appeal to all Christian people, and repeatedly refers to it" (Lambeth 
 Conference Report, p. 139). The sub-committee speaks of " the appeal 
 which we have asked the Conference to issue" (Report, p. 141). It is 
 called ' ' our appeal " more than once. Apparently the sub-committee 
 drew up the Appeal before it drew up its report. This report of this 
 sub-committee was embodied in the report of the whole committee, 
 and in the introductory paragraphs of Part I. of the report of the whole 
 committee this whole committee first mentions and then recommends 
 for adoption and publication the Appeal which had been drawn up by 
 its sub-committee (Report, pp. 132, 133). The Archbishop of Armagh 
 must, therefore, as a member of the sub-committee, have had a share 
 in drawing up the Appeal ; and it cannot be doubted that his eminent 
 position as Primate of All Ireland and his great ability gave him a 
 very important share in that work.
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 9 
 
 is the Body of Christ, is a visible body, and one of the 
 conditions which ensure membership in it cannot be a 
 merely secret belief in Christ. With the mouth those who 
 are addressed in the Appeal must make confession unto 
 salvation, if they are to be recognized by the Lambeth 
 Fathers as sharing with them membership in the Church 
 of Christ, which is His Body. The only other condition 
 of membership which is mentioned is to have "been 
 baptized into the name of the Holy Trinity." 
 
 Before proceeding to our criticisms on the statement in 
 regard to the Church, which was accepted by the Lambeth 
 Conference, it may be well for us to mention explicitly 
 what is the point which we have in view. It is the ques- 
 tion, Who are the members of the visible Church which 
 is the Body of Christ on earth ? It is the question, Who 
 are those who, while they are here on earth, belong to 
 the Church Militant? We are not considering whether 
 and to what extent God in His mercy may bestow sanctify- 
 ing gifts on persons living in all good faith outside the 
 Church and striving to serve Him. Nor are we consider- 
 ing whether God has designed restorative processes to be 
 applied to such persons after they have passed into the 
 unseen world. Nor, again, are we considering what degree 
 of moral righteousness and power may be attained by 
 baptized persons who are estranged from the legitimate 
 ministry; or by those who reject the Sacraments, as the 
 Society of Friends ; or by pagans who respond to such light 
 as they possess. God in His love has provided certain 
 covenanted channels of grace and a covenanted sphere of 
 grace. Those who know about these covenanted provisions 
 and are within reach of them are bound to use them. But 
 God Himself is not bound. 1 There may be great hopes of 
 
 1 Cf. e.g. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III. Ixviii. 2, 
 " cuius potentia sacramentis uisibilibus non alligatur " ; Selected Letters 
 of William Bright, D.D., edited by Dr. B. J. Kidd, p. 354, "In 
 sacraments one is dealing with a personal Lord who is greater than 
 His own consecrated instruments, and can, at His will, exuberantly 
 supply outside them the grace which they ordinarily convey." See also
 
 io Who are Members of the Church'? 
 
 uncovenanted operations by the Holy Ghost outside the 
 sphere of the covenant. Such matters as those mentioned 
 above are of very high importance ; but they are different 
 from the specific subject of the present enquiry, namely, 
 Who are members of the Church Militant, which is that 
 part of the mystical Body of Christ which at any particular 
 time is carrying on its warfare here on earth ? 
 
 The subject to be discussed will be considered under 
 two principal heads. There is, first, the case of those who 
 have been baptized in communion with the legitimate 
 rulers of the historic Church but are now excommunicated ; 
 and there is, secondly, the case of those validly baptized 
 apart from such rulers, who, having come to years of dis- 
 cretion, have deliberately adhered to some schismatic body. 
 According to the Lambeth statement all these, provided 
 they believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, share membership 
 in the Church. 
 
 The first case is that of a person who has been baptized 
 in communion with the legitimate rulers of the Church and 
 has been excommunicated. In regard to this case the 
 Lambeth statement appears to us to contravene the teach- 
 ing both of Holy Scripture and of the historic Church. 
 According to that statement the baptized brother who has 
 sinned, and after admonitions in private has had his sin 
 brought before the Church, and has refused to hear the 
 Church, is to be regarded as still a member of the Church. 
 This is in sharp conflict with the teaching of our Lord and 
 of St. Paul. Our Lord decreed that one thus guilty of 
 obstinate sin and contumacy is to be regarded as a heathen 
 man and a publican, 1 or in other words as an alien from 
 the commonwealth of the Israel of God. St. Paul enjoined 
 
 Salvian of Marseilles, De gubernat. Dei, v. 2, writing of the Arian 
 Vandals and Visigoths, " Qualiter ... in die iudicii puniendi sint, 
 nullus potest scire nisi ludex " ; St. Aug. De Bapt. c. Don. i. 26, " De 
 nullo tamen desperandum est, siue qui intus talis apparet siue qui foris 
 manifestius aduersatur." 
 1 St. Matt, xviii. 15-17.
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 1 1 
 
 on the Church of Corinth to " put away from among them- 
 selves " the baptized member of the Church, who by incest 
 with his father's wife had committed an awful sin and 
 presumably was impenitent in it ; and St. Paul himself in 
 the exercise of his apostolic office delivered him unto 
 Satan. 1 Further, when at Ephesus Hymenseus had " made 
 shipwreck concerning the faith " and had taught that " the 
 resurrection was past already," St. Paul delivered him unto 
 Satan that he might be taught not to blaspheme. 2 As at 
 his Baptism Hymenseus had been delivered out of the power 
 of darkness, and translated into the kingdom of the Son of 
 God's love, so by his excommunication and delivery to 
 Satan he was cast out of Christ's kingdom and cast back 
 into the power of darkness. It is very difficult to suppose 
 that St. Paul, after pronouncing such a sentence on these 
 persons, would have assured them that they shared with 
 himself membership in the Church and the Body of Christ. 
 This power of casting baptized believers in Christ out 
 of the Church was not a power exclusively reserved to the 
 Apostles. In the instance already mentioned St. Paul 
 attributes to the Corinthian Church the power of expelling 
 impenitent sinners from its membership. He says, " What 
 have I to do with judging them that are without [i.e. non- 
 Christians 3 ] ? Do not ye judge them that are within, 
 whereas them that are without God judgeth? Put away 
 the wicked man from among yourselves (e^a/Dare TOV irovrjpov 
 e V/AWV auTwv)." 4 St. Paul in this passage is adopting a 
 Deuteronomic formula which occurs seven times in the 
 Septuagint version of that book. 5 There is a slight change 
 
 1 i Cor. v. 1-5, 13. 
 
 2 I Tim. i. 19, 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. 
 
 3 We say " non-Christians," because, at the time when St. Paul 
 wrote this epistle, there do not appear to have been any organized 
 bodies of Christian heretics or schismatics. 
 
 4 I Cor. v. 12, 13. 
 
 5 Deut. xiii. 5, xvii. 7, xix. 19, xxi. 21, xxii. 21, 24, xxiv. 7 ; in 
 xiii. 5 the verb is aQaviels ; in the other passages it is e|ape?s : the 
 Hebrew is ITHJ?? in each place ; cf. xvii. 12, xxii. 22, and also xix. 13, 
 xxi. 9.
 
 1 2 Who are Members of the Church ? 
 
 occasioned by the Apostle putting the verb into the im- 
 perative mood. In Deuteronomy the formula always 
 implies that capital punishment is to be inflicted on the 
 sinner. 1 For example, in Deut. xxii. 23, 24 it is enacted 
 that in certain circumstances a man and a woman, who 
 have together committed a sin against chastity, are to be 
 stoned with stones " that they die," and the passage ends 
 with the words, " So shalt thou put away the wicked person 
 from among you." Thus capital punishment under the law 
 answers to excommunication under the Gospel. Under 
 both dispensations there is the power to inflict the extreme 
 penalty on those whose offences call for it. Under both 
 dispensations there is to be a complete excision of the 
 offender from the ranks of the covenanted people of 
 God. St. Augustine draws attention to the fact that St. 
 Paul adopts the Deuteronomic formula when he directs 
 the Corinthian Church to excommunicate the incestuous 
 brother; and he explains that formula as we have done. 
 He says, " For excommunication accomplishes in the 
 Church now what was then [under the old dispensation] 
 accomplished by putting to death (Hoc enim nunc agit in 
 ecclesia excommunicatio quod agebat tune interfectio)." 2 
 
 Returning to the point that the power of expelling 
 baptized believers in Christ out of the Church was not a 
 power exclusively reserved to the Apostles, we refer to 
 St. Paul's words in Titus iii. 10 : "A man that is heretical, 
 after a first and second admonition reject 3 (irapairov) ; 
 knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, being 
 self-condemned." In the immediately preceding verse St. 
 
 1 Deut. xix. 19 is hardly an exception. 
 
 * Quaest. in Heptateuch, v. 39. 
 
 3 The Revisers' rendering of irapairov by " refuse " is not happy. 
 To " refuse " a heretic in such a context conveys no clear meaning. 
 Plutarch, a younger contemporary of St. Paul, uses irapatTovffBai with 
 yvvaiKa in the sense of divorcing a wife. Diogenes Laertius, at the 
 end of the next century, uses irapairovffdcu with olxtr-riv in the sense of 
 dismissing a slave. Lucian, earlier in the same century, speaks of 
 KapaiTovaQai nvb. TT/S OJKIOJ in the sense of turning some one out of the 
 house : see Liddell and Scott, s.v. These instances justify " reject " 
 in the sense of " expel."
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 13 
 
 Paul had told Titus to shun foolish questionings as unpro- 
 fitable and vain ; but now he gives him directions as to how 
 he, the chief ruler for the time being of all the Churches in 
 Crete, is to deal with the far more serious matter of heresy. 
 Titus is to proceed at first cautiously and gently on the 
 general lines laid down by our Lord in St. Matt, xviii. 15, 
 securing at least two private interviews with the culprit, and 
 thus obtaining opportunities for fatherly admonition and 
 expostulation. If these admonitions produce no good 
 result, he is to proceed to the formal act of excommunica- 
 tion, casting the heretic out of the Church, on the ground 
 that such a one is perverted and living in sin, being self- 
 condemned. Some kinds of sinners are ashamed of their 
 sin, and the fact of their having committed it has to be 
 proved, and it is often difficult to secure adequate proof; 
 but a teacher of heresy 1 usually glories in his false teach- 
 ing, and is therefore self-condemned, and Titus can proceed 
 at once to purge the Church of the poisonous contagion 
 arising from the man's Church-membership, and to accom- 
 plish this by his authoritative sentence. 
 
 In i St. John ii. 19 there is an instance of heretics 
 voluntarily separating themselves from the Church. St. 
 John, speaking of certain precursors of the great Antichrist, 
 who denied the Father and the Son (cf. i St. John ii. 22), 
 says : " They went out from us, but they were not of us ; 
 for, if they had been of us, they would have continued 
 with us." 2 
 
 The upshot of the preceding discussion is to show that, ac- 
 cording to the teaching of the New Testament, valid Baptism, 
 
 1 It is sometimes said that in the New Testament afye<ns and 
 aipfrnc6s do not mean " heresy " and " heretical," but only " factious- 
 ness " and " factious." This may be the case in some passages, but 
 not here. Observe that the Revisers have "heretical" in their text, 
 though placing " factious " in their margin ; and compare Dr. C. Bigg's 
 remarks in his commentary on St. Peter and St. Jude in the Inter- 
 national Critical Commentary (pp. 271, 272), in the course of which he 
 deals with this passage. 
 
 2 See A. E. Brooke's commentary on the Epistles of St. John in 
 the International Critical Commentary, p. 53.
 
 14 Who are Members of the Church? 
 
 even when it is administered within the Church, does 
 not ensure perpetuity of Church-membership to professing 
 Christians. As the late Bishop Lightfoot truly said, " The 
 Church is an external society, an external brotherhood, an 
 external kingdom, constituted by a divine order. It has 
 its laws, it has its officers." 1 Now every society, even if 
 of merely human origin, has the power of expelling members 
 who refuse to obey its laws, or who reject and oppose the 
 objects for the promotion of which the society was founded, 
 or of their own accord leave the society, and perhaps start 
 rival societies of their own founding. These powers would 
 therefore belong to the Church, even if it were a society of 
 merely human origin ; 2 but in fact it is a society which was 
 founded by the Incarnate Son of God, and is, as Bishop 
 Lightfoot says, "constituted by a divine order," and the 
 New Testament shows that the Church has received power 
 from on high to expel from its precincts baptized members 
 who flagrantly break the moral laws of which it is the 
 guardian, or who contumaciously corrupt the faith which 
 was once for all delivered to the Church to keep and 
 propagate, or who refuse to hear its voice, when it has 
 given the final decision on some disputed question, or 
 a fortiori who break away from its fellowship, and in some 
 cases set up rival bodies external to its communion. 
 Nothing could be more contrary to the whole conception 
 of the Church presented in the New Testament than a 
 theory that those who have been separated from it, or have 
 separated themselves from it, are nevertheless still members 
 of the Church. 
 
 This teaching of our Lord and His Apostles, recorded 
 in the New Testament, has been handed on and put in 
 practice by the Catholic and Apostolic Church during the 
 ages which have elapsed since the time of the Apostles; 
 and the writings of the Fathers show that the Church has 
 
 1 Ordination Addresses, pp. 35, 36. 
 
 * See Dr. E. C. S. Gibson, Bishop of Gloucester, The Thirty-nine 
 Articles of the Church of England, third edition, 1902, pp. 705, 706.
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 1 5 
 
 always claimed and exercised the power of expelling from 
 its ranks contumacious heretics, and persons who have 
 fallen into grave sin and refused to repent, and persons 
 who break away from its fellowship, and either start some 
 new sect or join some sect which has already been estab- 
 lished. The constant language of the Fathers is incon- 
 sistent with a supposition that such persons remain members 
 of the Church. 
 
 About A.D. 142 Marcion was guilty of gross immorality. 
 His father, the Bishop of Sinope, in consequence expelled 
 him from the Church. Marcion fled to Rome, and tried 
 to obtain reconciliation from the authorities there. They 
 refused to entertain his petition, since the unity of the faith 
 and concord of the Church forbade them to do this without 
 the permission of the Bishop of Sinope. Marcion then 
 devised a heresy, boasting that he would thereby split the 
 Church, with the result, however, not that he split the 
 Church but that he and his followers were split from it. 1 
 Some fifty or sixty years later the heretic Noetus was tried 
 before a council, and it is said of him also that " they 
 expelled him from the Church." 2 
 
 Origen, writing soon after the persecution under the 
 Emperor Maximin, whose reign lasted from July 235 to 
 May 238, says that those who are excommunicated " are 
 separated from the body of Christ " and are " expelled from 
 the Church." 3 
 
 St. Cyprian, writing to a layman named Magnus in 
 A.D. 255, speaks of those who have " obtained grace in the 
 Church and departed and gone out from the Church," and 
 of the heretic who " of his own accord has fled from the 
 Church." * 
 
 St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, about A.D. 258, speaks of 
 certain sinners as " cast out of the Church of God." 5 
 
 St. Athanasius, writing from Rome in A.D. 339 to 
 
 1 See note I on p. 27 " See note 2 on p. 28. 
 
 3 See note 3 on p. 28. 4 See note 4 on p. 28. 
 
 5 See note 5 on p. 29.
 
 1 6 Who are Members of the Church ? 
 
 Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, and enclosing with the letter 
 the Festal Epistle announcing the date of Easter 340, 
 denies that the Meletian schismatics, most of whom must 
 have been baptized in the Church, could be " reckoned in 
 the Catholic Church." 1 
 
 In the fourth canon of the Council of Antioch of the 
 year 341, the Dedication Council, it is laid down that, if 
 either a Bishop who has been deposed by a synod or a 
 priest or deacon deposed by his own Bishop should dare to 
 carry on any function of his sacred ministry, all who com- 
 municate with such an offender shall be " cast out of the 
 Church." The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) ordered 
 this canon to be read in the course of its Fourth Action, 
 and treated it as authoritative; and Gratian embodied it 
 in his Dec^im? 
 
 St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing between A.D. 361 and 
 A.D. 367, describes the excommunicate as "ejected from 
 the Church, which is the body of Christ." 3 
 
 The twenty-seventh and fiftieth of the so-called "Apos- 
 tolic Canons," which as a collection are not later than 
 A.D. 375, and in these canons probably incorporate con- 
 siderably earlier enactments, use the phrases " wholly cut 
 off from the Church " and " cast out of the Church " for 
 the excommunicate. 4 
 
 St. Chrysostom, writing between A.D. 392 and A.D. 397, 
 speaks of the penalty authorized by our Lord in St. Matt, 
 xviii. 17, 1 8 as " the expulsion from the Church." 6 < 
 
 St. Jerome, writing in the last decade of the fourth 
 century, describes schismatics as " those who separate the 
 deluded multitude from the Church of God," sinners as 
 being " expelled from the Church," heretics as " departing 
 from the Church," and schismatics as being " separated 
 from the Church." 
 St. Augustine speaks of the excommunicate as " cut off 
 
 1 See note 6 on p. 29. - See note 7 on p. 30. 
 
 8 See note 8 on p. 30. * See note 9 on p. 30. 
 
 5 See note 10 on p. 31. " See note II on p. 31.
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 1 7 
 
 from the body of the Church/' and " excluded from the 
 Church." i 
 
 It is unnecessary to add to these quotations any from 
 later Fathers ; but we may notice that the same phraseology 
 has survived in writers very different from one another in 
 the sixteenth and later centuries. For instance, the Thirty- 
 third Article of Religion speaks of the excommunicated 
 person being " cut off from the unity of the Church," and 
 of the need of his being " received into the Church " when 
 he is reconciled; 2 the ; great Anglican scholar, Joseph 
 Bingham, says that by the greater excommunication men 
 were " wholly cast out of the Church " ; 3 the Oratorian 
 Morinus describes the effect of the greater excommunica- 
 tion as being a complete cutting off from the Church; 4 
 and the canonist Van Espen maintains that the greater 
 excommunication separates from the body of the Church 
 and from the body of Christ. 5 
 
 Even if at this point we were to bring our remarks to 
 a conclusion, we should have said enough to show that the 
 Lambeth Conference, in the opening sentence of its Appeal 
 to all Christian people, has accepted a principle which 
 contradicts the teaching of Holy Scripture, the immemorial 
 belief of the Catholic Church, and a declaration of the 
 English Articles of Religion. 
 
 II 
 
 The second division of our subject concerns the case of 
 those who have been validly baptized as adults in schismatic 
 bodies, whether these bodies explicitly teach heretical doc- 
 trines or not, and also those who, having been validly 
 baptized in such schismatic bodies when they were infants, 
 have deliberately adhered to bodies in schism, when they 
 have reached years of discretion. We give here a selection 
 
 1 See note 12 on p. 32. * See note 13 on p. 32. 
 
 3 See note 14 on p. 33. 4 See note 15 on p. 33. 
 
 5 See note 16 on p. 34.
 
 1 8 Who are Members of the Church ? 
 
 of passages from the Fathers which show clearly that the 
 Church has been accustomed to regard all such persons as 
 external to the Church. We limit ourselves to the con- 
 sideration of the case of adults partly because patristic 
 discussions and statements bearing on this matter very 
 rarely deal explicitly with the case of infants, and partly 
 because the Appeal of the Lambeth Conference to all 
 Christian people is evidently addressed not to infants but 
 to persons of riper years. 
 
 It would be easy to quote passages from the Fathers of 
 the second century, such as St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus, 
 on the grievousness of the sin of schism ; but we have not 
 found any passages in writers of that age which deal ex- 
 pressly with the relation to the Church of persons baptized 
 in schism. It was not until the middle of the third century 
 that a controversy arose as to how persons baptized in 
 schism, and who afterwards wished to be reconciled to the 
 Church, were to have their reconciliation accomplished. 
 Some, like St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Firmilian of the 
 Cappadocian Caesarea, absolutely denied the validity of all 
 Baptisms administered outside the Church, and received 
 into the Church converts, who before their conversion had 
 been baptized in schism, by re-baptizing them. It requires 
 no proof that all who held St. Cyprian's views regarded 
 adults who had received schismatic Baptism, whether in 
 infancy or later, as persons altogether external to the 
 Church, until as converts they received the Church's Bap- 
 tism. Others, like Stephen of Rome and the anonymous 
 Latin-speaking Bishop who wrote the treatise De Rebap- 
 tismate, held that Baptism administered by schismatics was 
 valid, and ought not to be repeated, when any one so 
 baptized sought to be reconciled to the Church. They 
 were to be reconciled by the Laying-on-of-hands in Spiritum 
 Sanctum! But the point which is of importance here is 
 
 1 There has been at different times much disputing among theo- 
 logians as to whether this Laying-on-of-hands was an administration of 
 the Sacrament of Confirmation or of the Sacrament of Penance. The 
 words which accompanied this Laying-on-of-hands were precisely the 1
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 1 9 
 
 that those who sided with St. Cyprian and those who sided 
 with Stephen, however much they differed as to the validity 
 of schismatic Baptism, were entirely agreed that adults 
 baptized in schism did not become members of the Church, 
 and even did not receive the sanctifying and saving effects 
 of Baptism, unless and until at some future time they broke 
 away from their schism and were joined to the Church 
 either by an iteration of Baptism, if those who received 
 them followed the Carthaginian custom, or by the Laying- 
 on-of-hands in Spiritum Sanctum, if they were reconciled 
 to the Church according to the Roman custom. 
 
 We may begin our statement of evidence by referring 
 to the treatise De Rebaptismate, which was written about 
 A.D. 257. The author of this treatise regards the Baptism 
 of those who have been baptized in a heretical sect as 
 having been administered outside the Church ; he describes 
 their path of repentance as fleeing to the Church of God 
 and as an appeal to the Church for the help of salvation ; 
 and he considers the position in regard to the Church to 
 be the same in the case of those baptized in any schism as 
 in the case of those baptized in a heretical sect. 1 
 
 The eighth canon of the Council of Aries (A.D. 314), in 
 laying down the mode by which those who have been bap- 
 tized in heresy are to be reconciled, speaks of them as 
 coming to the Church, thereby implying that before their 
 reconciliation they were outside the Church. 2 
 
 The eighth canon of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), 
 referring to certain Novatianist clergymen who were coming 
 over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, decides that 
 they are to receive the Laying-on-of-hands (probably 
 re-ordination) and may then remain among the clergy. 
 
 same as those used in Confirmation, and they differed entirely from 
 those used in Absolution. But it is not necessary for our present 
 purpose to pronounce a decision. There is a discussion on the subject 
 in e.g. Morinus, De Paenit. IX. vii.-xii. For convenience, however, 
 we shall sometimes use the term "Confirmation," which will include 
 both the Western Laying-on-of-hands and the Eastern Chrismation. 
 
 1 See note 17 on p. 34. 
 
 9 See note 18 on p. 36.
 
 2O Who are Members of the Church ? 
 
 Evidently these Novatianist clergymen, before they came 
 over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, were regarded 
 as outside that Church. 1 
 
 Pope Siricius, in a letter to Himerius, the Metropolitan 
 Bishop of Tarragona in Spain, written A.D. 385, treats of 
 the question how persons baptized by Arians and now 
 hastening to accept the Catholic faith are to be admitted 
 into the society of Catholics, evidently assuming that 
 before their reconciliation they are not in that society. 2 
 
 St. Ambrose of Milan says explicitly that " all heretics 
 and schismatics " are " separated from the kingdom of God 
 and from the Church." 3 
 
 The letter of St. Jerome, describing schismatic propa- 
 gandists as " those who separate the deluded multitude 
 from the Church of God," has already been mentioned. 
 If Catholics by yielding to the persuasion of these propa- 
 gandists became separated from the Church, a fortiori the 
 schismatic propagandists themselves, many of whom must 
 have been baptized in schism, were separate from the 
 Church.* 
 
 About A.D. 370 Optatus, Bishop of Mileum in Numidia, 
 agrees with the Donatist Parmenian that the Church 
 " cannot be amongst all the heretics and schismatics," 
 describes schism as the "supreme evil," and says that 
 those who remain in schism " desert their Catholic mother, 
 and separate themselves from the root of their mother, the 
 Church," and that the schismatical Donatists were " cut off 
 from the Holy Church." 5 
 
 A much greater theologian than Optatus was St. Augus- 
 tine. Of all the Fathers, he was, perhaps, the one who was 
 most desirous of making all allowances that could possibly 
 be made without disloyalty to revealed truth, when he was 
 dealing with Christians who belonged to bodies not in 
 
 1 See note 19 on p. 37. 
 1 See note 2O on p. 42. 
 
 3 See note 21 on p. 43. 
 
 4 Seep. 20, above, and note XX on p. 31. 
 * See note 22 on p. 43.
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 21 
 
 communion with the Catholic Church. One great part of 
 his work was his defence of the validity of Baptisms ad- 
 ministered in schism. Yet he is emphatic that those so 
 baptized were not members of the Church until they were 
 reconciled. About A.D. 400 he taught that valid Baptism 
 administered by schismatics outside the Church does not 
 impart the remission of sins, but that, when persons bap- 
 tized outside come to the peace of the Church, their 
 schismatically administered Baptism then avails for the 
 remission of sins, so that there is salvation instead of death. 
 About A.D. 417 he taught that the Donatists were outside 
 the Church, and outside the unity of the body of Christ, 
 and without the gift of the Holy Ghost. About A.D. 420 
 he said that the Baptism administered by the Donatists 
 was not theirs but belonged to the Catholic Church ; they 
 carried it off with them when they broke away from the 
 Church not for their salvation but for their destruction. 
 About the same time he taught that schismatic Baptism 
 does indeed effect a birth from the Seed of Christ, but that 
 such a birth takes place outside the Church, and that a 
 completely valid Baptism received [outside the Church is 
 not of avail for salvation until the person so baptized quits 
 his schism and is incorporated into the Church. 1 The 
 passages here referred to and some others are quoted in 
 our note ; they are representative of many others, reference 
 to which would be impossible within the limits of our space. 
 It is obvious that his teaching is in the most definite and 
 explicit opposition to a theory that baptized persons out of 
 communion with the legitimate ministry share membership 
 in the Church. As summing up the conclusions rightly to 
 be drawn from his voluminous writings which bear on this 
 subject we may quote two sentences recently written by 
 patristic scholars of the highest distinction. Dr. C. H. 
 Turner has said : " St. Augustine, with all his tenderness 
 towards the mass of unthinking schismatics of his day, was 
 just as clear as St. Irenaeus or St. Cyprian that some essential 
 1 See note 23 on p, 46.
 
 22 Who are Members of the Church? 
 
 grace was lacking to those who were definitely outside the 
 Church." ! Monseigneur Pierre Batiffol has said in de- 
 scription of the teaching of St. Augustine : " Hors de 
 1'Eglise sont en outre les baptises qui par leur faute sont 
 separe's d'elle, here'tiques, schismatiques, excommunies. . . . 
 Ni les here'tiques ni les schismatiques n'appartiennent plus 
 a la Catholica. . . . L'excommunie' est lui aussi hors de 
 1'Eglise. ... II est, en ddpit de son bapteme, arrachd 
 a compage corporis" 2 
 
 It is unnecessary to carry this statement of authorities 
 further to any detailed extent. Four passages from later 
 writers may be briefly mentioned for special reasons. St. 
 Leo the Great, writing in A.D. 458, says that those who 
 have been baptized by heretics, when they come to be 
 reconciled, must be confirmed "because they have been 
 given only the form of Baptism without its sanctifying 
 power," so that " what no one receives from heretics may 
 be obtained from Catholic Bishops." 3 St. Gregory the 
 Great " Gregory our father," who " sent us Baptism " 4 
 in his letter to Quiricus and other Iberian Bishops (written 
 in A.D. 601), speaks of the Arians, who after conversion 
 are reconciled, as entering the Holy Catholic Church, and 
 becoming united to the bowels of the holy and universal 
 Church. 5 About A.D. 1120 Rupert, Abbot of Deutz on the 
 Rhine, describes persons validly baptized by heretics as 
 subsequently coming back to the Catholic Church, and re- 
 ceiving the Holy Ghost, whom they could not receive 
 outside. 6 Morinus, the learned Oratorian of the seven- 
 teenth century, referring to the discipline of the Church 
 as set forth in the writings of the Fathers, speaks of those 
 
 1 The Early History oj the Church and the Ministry, p. 195. 
 
 2 Le Catholicisme de saint Augustin, pp. 240-243. Cf. the full 
 treatment in J. Specht, Die Lehre von tier Kirche nach dem h, Augustw, 
 pp. 94-104. 
 
 3 See note 24 on p. 56. 
 
 4 See W. Bright, Chapters of English Church History, p. 40, 
 quoting the Council of Clovesho and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. 
 
 * See note 25 on p. 57. 
 6 See note 26 on p. 57.
 
 W 'ho are Members of the Church? 23 
 
 who have received Baptism from heretics as outside the 
 Church.i 
 
 III 
 
 The Lambeth statement may be understood in one of 
 two ways. It may be understood to mean either that the 
 organized bodies of baptized believers who believe in our 
 Lord and are in schism are parts of the Church, or that, 
 while these as bodies are outside the Church, the members 
 of them as individuals are members of the Church. 2 In 
 either case the statement is contrary to that consensus of 
 patristic teaching of which we have given some instances. 
 For both the separated bodies as such and the individual 
 members of them are regarded by the Fathers as outside 
 the Church. 
 
 It is instructive to compare the statement of the 
 Lambeth Conference with the definition of the visible 
 Church in the nineteenth Article of Religion. The 
 "visible Church of Christ" is there defined as "a con- 
 gregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of 
 God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered, 
 according to Christ's ordinance in all things that of 
 
 1 See note 27 on p. 58. In this section of our enquiry we have not 
 thought it necessary to quote any Eastern authorities because all 
 representative Anglican theologians accept the Western view of the 
 validity of heretical Baptism, and the Augustinian view of the validity 
 of heretical Orders. So far as the East differs from the West the 
 opening sentence of the Lambeth Appeal would be even more disliked 
 by the East than by the West. A representative Eastern passage is St. 
 Basil, Ep. clxxxviii. canon I. 
 
 2 It is in this latter sense that the statement was accepted by the 
 Bishop of Nassau, who has written in regard to it : " We could not 
 echo the language of the Mansfield Conference in saying that these 
 non-episcopal Christian bodies are each corporately within the One 
 Church of Jesus Christ ; we cannot say that it is possible to remain 
 within the Church as a corporate group, after breaking from the Unity 
 in Faith and Sacraments ordered and maintained through a Ministry 
 commissioned right down the ages from the Apostles. Yet we eagerly 
 affirm our belief that each baptized member of these various denomi- 
 nations is individually, by virtue of his Baptism, a member of the One 
 Catholic Church " (see The Quarterly Mission Paper of the Diocese of 
 JVassau, September 1920, p. 42).
 
 24 Who are Members of the Church P 
 
 necessity are requisite to the same." Here both orthodoxy 
 and the due administration of the Sacraments as to essen- 
 tials enter into the definition of the Church. These two 
 points of vital importance are entirely absent from the 
 statement in the Lambeth Appeal. The words in the 
 Appeal "who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ" do not 
 safeguard orthodoxy, "the pure word of God." For 
 example, Arians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, and Mono- 
 physites would all assert that they were believers in our 
 Lord. The Sacraments are not " duly ministered accord- 
 ing to Christ's ordinance in all things that of necessity are 
 requisite to the same" among those who are apart from 
 the legitimate ministry. The Lambeth statement can be 
 brought into harmony with the nineteenth Article only by 
 the desperate shift that by " the universal Church of Christ, 
 which is His body," something else is meant than the 
 visible Church of Christ, a desperate shift because there 
 cannot be two Churches capable of being described as 
 " the universal Church of Christ, which is His Body," and 
 because such a distinction would involve the rejection of 
 the doctrine of the visible Church itself, as being that part 
 of the mystical body of Christ which is on earth. 
 
 The abandonment by the Lambeth Conference of what 
 the Archbishop of Armagh called " the old familiar insti- 
 tutional" conception of the Church is contrary to far more 
 than a local Article of Religion. So far as can be judged 
 from the writings of the Fathers, the whole Catholic Church 
 of the third and following centuries would unanimously have 
 rejected the statement concerning membership in the Church 
 set forth in the opening sentence of the Lambeth Appeal. 
 If this be a true assertion, as we believe it to be, those 
 responsible for the Appeal have brought about a very 
 serious situation. For there does not appear to be any 
 reason for supposing that the universally accepted belief 
 of the third and following centuries was a newly devised 
 opinion. On the contrary, we have shown that the teach- 
 ing of the Fathers was based on the teaching of our Lord
 
 Who are Members of the Church ? 25 
 
 and of His Apostles, so that it represents the teaching 
 divinely entrusted to the guardianship of the Church, which 
 has, in fact, been held " everywhere, always, and by all." 
 
 To be in harmony with the historic tradition of the 
 Church, which is based on Holy Scripture, it would be 
 necessary to define the Church in stricter terms than those 
 used by the Lambeth Conference. For the Church Militant 
 is a society consisting of all those who believe in Christ, 
 and have been validly baptized, and are in fellowship with 
 one or other of those organized groups of Christians which 
 possess a legitimately appointed Ministry deriving its autho- 
 rity through an unbroken series of successive episcopal 
 Ordinations from the Apostles, 1 and profess the truth once 
 for all delivered to the Saints ; which faith is summed up, 
 so far as its most important articles are concerned, in the 
 Creeds, and is guarded from certain heretical corruptions 
 by the dogmatic definitions of the accepted (Ecumenical 
 Councils. 
 
 The Lambeth Conference is a Conference, and not a 
 Synod or Council of the Church. Its resolutions are 
 entitled to the respectful consideration of all Anglicans. 
 They bind no one. It is of the highest importance that 
 the Synods of the Anglican Church should not commit 
 themselves to the principle which the Lambeth Conference 
 most deplorably has accepted in the opening sentence of 
 its Appeal to all Christian people. 
 
 1 On the subject of the transmission of the grace of Orders, see 
 Appendix III. pp. 64-72, below; also Dr. C. Gore's The Church and 
 the Ministry, new edition (1919), revised by Dr. C. H. Turner, and an 
 article by Father Puller on " The Grace of Orders and Apostolic 
 Succession " in The Church Quarterly Review, vol. Ixxvii. pp. 38-95. 
 In what we have said above and in our Appendix I. we have made no 
 reference to the fact that in many of the existing Christian bodies 
 external to the Church there has been a break in the transmission of 
 ministerial authority from the Apostles. The Fathers did not lay stress 
 on this point in their controversies with schismatics and heretics, 
 because the schismatical and heretical bodies with which they had to 
 do had carried away with them when they left the Church and had 
 preserved an uninterrupted succession of bishops reaching back to the 
 Apostles.
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 FULL TEXT CF THE PASSAGES REFERRED TO IN THE FORE- 
 GOING STATEMENT TOGETHER WITH A DISCUSSION OF 
 SOME OF THEM 
 
 PASSAGES RELATING TO PERSONS BAPTIZED WITHIN THE 
 CHURCH BUT EXCOMMUNICATE 
 
 I. St. Epiphanius, Adit. Haer. xlii. i, 2 (see above, 
 
 VTTO TOV iSiov Trarpos 
 . . . Taiv Sc XeyovTwv OTI Ou 
 vva/ie$a avev rJJs eTrirpOTT^s 
 TOW TI/U'OU irarpos <rov TOVTO 
 7roi^o-ai, /wa yap eoriv fj TTIOTIS 
 Kai /itia o/iovota Kai ou 
 
 roupyw irarpl 8e o-w, 
 XOITTOV Kai eis /icyav d 
 
 TO 
 
 epyct^erai 6 TOIOVTOS 
 eaurw T^V aipco-iv 
 
 Kai eiTTciv, 'Eya> 
 KXr^criav vfji,S>v KCII /JaXoi 
 ev avr^ s TOV aiaiva. 
 /ia, e/3aXcv 
 ov /iiKpov ou Tiyv fKK\r)arLav 
 dXX' eavrov Kai TOVS 
 
 "Marcion . . . was ex- 
 pelled from the Church by 
 his own father. . . . And 
 when they [/>. the authorities 
 at Rome] said, We cannot do 
 this [*>. restore to Com- 
 munion] without the per- 
 mission of your venerable 
 father, for one is the faith 
 and there is one concord, 
 and we cannot act in 
 opposition to our noble 
 colleague your father, then 
 this fellow in a rage and 
 stirred up to great wrath and 
 pride makes a schism, 
 and sets up for himself a 
 heresy, and said, I will split 
 your Church and set up in it 
 a lasting schism. In reality 
 he set up no small schism, 
 but he did not split the 
 Church; rather it was him- 
 self and his followers that he 
 split off."
 
 28 
 
 Appendix I 
 
 2. St. Hippolytus, C. Haer. Noet. i (see above, p. 15) : 
 
 TOT TOVTOV t Xcy^avTcs " Then having convicted 
 
 e^eoxrav -rijs eKKAiycn'as. him [i.e. Noetus] they [i.e. 
 
 the authorities in the coun- 
 cil] expelled him from the 
 Church." 
 
 Cf. St. Epiphanius, Adu. Haer. Ivii. i. St. Hippolytus 
 wrote shortly after the condemnation of Noetus. 
 
 3. Origen, in lud. horn. ii. 
 
 " Vides ergo quia non 
 solum per apostolos suos 
 Deus tradidit delinquentes 
 in manus inimicorum sed et 
 per eos qui ecclesiae praesi- 
 dent et potestatem habent 
 non solum soluendi sed et 
 ligandi traduntur pecca- 
 tores in interitum carnis 
 cum pro delictis suis a 
 Christi corpore separantur. 
 . . . cum delictum eius 
 manifestum fit ecclesiae et 
 per sacerdotes de ecclesia 
 pellitur." i 
 
 5 (see above, p. 15) : 
 
 " You see, then, that not 
 only by His Apostles did 
 God deliver sinners into the 
 hands of hostile [demons], 
 but also by those who rule 
 the Church and have power 
 not only of loosing but also 
 of binding, sinners are de- 
 livered over for the destruc- 
 tion of the flesh when they 
 for their sins are separated 
 from the body of Christ. . . . 
 When his crime is made 
 known to the Church, and 
 by the Bishops he is ex- 
 pelled from the Church." 
 
 4. St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixix. 4, mystically interpreting the 
 incident in Josh. ii. 18, 19, vi. 23, when Rahab gathered her 
 kindred into her house that they might be saved from 
 destruction (see above, p. 15) : 
 
 " Quo Sacramento de- 
 claratur in unam domum 
 solam id est in ecclesiam 
 uicturos et ab interitu mundi 
 euasuros colligi oportere, 
 quisque autem de collectis 
 foras exierit, id est si quis 
 quamuis in ecclesia gratiam 
 
 "By which mystery is 
 declared that they who are 
 to live and to escape the 
 destruction of the world 
 must be gathered together 
 into one house only, that is, 
 into the Church, and who- 
 ever from those so gathered 
 
 1 The original Greek text of these homilies on the Book of Judges 
 is not known. The passage quoted above is taken from the translation 
 of Rufinus.
 
 Appendix I 29 
 
 consecutus recesserit et ab shall go out, that is, if any 
 ecclesia exierit, reum fu- one who has received grace 
 turum, id est ipsum sibi quod in the Church shall depart 
 pereat imputaturum. . . . and go out from the Church, 
 Hie est enim qui reus sibi he will be guilty, that is, to 
 erit non ab episcopo eiectus himself he must impute it 
 sed sponte de ecclesia pro- that he perishes .... For 
 fugus haeretica praesumtione this [Tit. iii. 10] is he who is 
 a semet ipso damnatus." guilty of his own destruction, 
 
 he who is not cast out by the 
 Bishop but is of his own 
 accord a renegade from the 
 Church, condemned by him- 
 self through his heretical 
 presumption." 
 
 5. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Ep, Canon, can. 2 (Coleti, 
 i. 860; Hard. i. 192) (see above, 
 
 Hag TOIOVTOS eK/o/pvK-ros " Every one of this kind 
 
 fKK\r)<ria<s Ocov. is cast out from the Church 
 
 of God." 
 
 6. St. Athanasius, Festal Epistles, xii. i (Select Works 
 and Letters^ edited by Dr. Archibald Robertson, formerly 
 Bishop of Exeter, p. 538) (see above, p. 15) : 
 
 " Because some Meletians, being come from Syria, have 
 boasted that they had received what does not belong to 
 them, I mean that they also were reckoned in the Catholic 
 Church ; on this account I have sent to you a copy of one 
 letter of our fellow-ministers who are of Palestine, that, when 
 it reaches you, you may know the fraud of the pretenders 
 in this matter. ... I know that, when they are convicted 
 in this matter, they will incur perfect odium at the hands of 
 all men." i 
 
 1 This letter is known only from a Syriac version of the original 
 Greek. The Syriac text was first printed by Canon W. Cureton in his 
 book The Festal Letters of Athanashts ( 1848), in which work there is an 
 English translation (preface, p. xlix). The Syriac text and a Latin 
 translation are in Cardinal Mai's Noua Patrum Bibliotheca, vi. 114 
 (1853). There is an English translation by Dr. Henry Burgess in the 
 Oxford A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (1854) ; and 
 this translation was revised by Mrs. Margoliouth for Dr. Robertson's 
 edition quoted above,
 
 Appendix I 
 
 7. Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, can. 4 (Coleti, Venice, 
 1728, ii. 588 ; Hard. Paris, 1715, i. 595) (see above, p. 16) : 
 
 " If a Bishop is deposed 
 by a synod, or a priest or 
 deacon by his Bishop, and 
 he presume to perform any 
 office in the Church as be- 
 fore, whether as Bishop or 
 deacon, he may no longer 
 hope to be restored by 
 another synod nor for per- 
 mission to defend himself, 
 but all those who communi- 
 cate with him shall be cast 
 out of the Church." 
 
 Cf. Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, Act. iv. (Coleti iv. 
 1429; Hard. ii. 433) (see above, p. 16). See also Gratian, 
 Decretuni) II. xi. 3 (6). 
 
 8. St. Hilary of Poitiers, Tract, in cxviii. Ps. xvi. Ain, 5 
 (see above, p. 16) : 
 
 " Qui enim ab ecclesiae 
 corpore respuuntur, quae 
 Christi est corpus, tamquam 
 
 Et TIS cTrwr/ccwros VTO 
 <rvv68ov Ka.0aipe@fi<s f) irpfcr- 
 y3vTcpos 17 Sta/covos VTTO TOU 
 
 tSlbu tTTKT/COTTOi; ToX/A^(TtCV Tl 
 
 7rpaai T^S XetTOu/rytas em 6 
 eVtV/coTTOS KaTarrjv Trpoayovcrav 
 crwri6e.ia.v CITI o ota/covos, 
 /j.r)KfTL lov etvai auTw fjt,rj8' Iv 
 Irepq. <rwo8a> eXTrtiSa diroKara- 
 CTTCttrccos jtx-^rc aTroXoytas X^P av 
 f\iv aXXa.Sc TOvsKOtvwvovtras 
 avT<3 TravTas 
 
 peregrini et alieni a Dei 
 corpore, dominatui diaboli 
 traduntur." 
 
 9. Apostolic Canons, can. 
 
 Et TIS eTTUTKOTTOS 
 
 r) SIUKOVOS 
 
 a\J/a<r6ai riys TTOTC 
 avrw Xcirovp- 
 ytas, ovros TravraTracrtv CKKO- 
 eKK\rj(ria<s. 
 
 Can. 50 (al. 51): 
 
 E? TIS CTTttTKOTrOS l) 7T/DCCT- 
 /?UT/30S ^ SlttKOVOS . . . T} 
 
 " For those who are 
 ejected from the body of 
 the Church, which is the 
 body of Christ, as strangers 
 and aliens from the body of 
 God, are delivered to the 
 domination of the devil." 
 
 27 (al. 29) (see above, p. 16) : 
 
 " If any Bishop or priest 
 or deacon has been justly 
 deposed on clearly proved 
 accusations, and he dares to 
 touch the ministry formerly 
 committed to him, he is to 
 be wholly cut off from the 
 Church." 
 
 or 
 
 " If any Bishop or priest 
 deacon . . . either let
 
 Appendix I 
 
 3 1 
 
 Su>p0oifrr0o> 
 
 &O-OVTWS 
 
 Ka0euper0o> <" him be corrected, or let him 
 diroj8aXX6r0- be deposed and cast out of 
 XaiK<Js. the Church ; and a layman 
 
 is to receive similar treat- 
 ment." 
 
 10. St. Chrysostom, In Matt. horn. Ix. 2 (see above, 
 16): 
 
 irs avrov SiTrXats 
 [al. 
 
 <Wy/<ais KU 
 
 /cat TT} eicct KoAacm ; 
 
 vo? jca 
 KO.I 
 
 8i 
 
 0-vfj.paivy aXXa. <o/3ou>e- 
 AvtX^v [al. om. 
 
 xa 
 
 eKK\.r]<ria<; eK(3o\T]v KOI TOV 
 CXTTO 8co-/xov KivSwov KOI TO cv 
 ovpavots SeSeV^a 
 
 II. St. Jerome, in AMOS, 
 16): 
 
 " Schismaticos . . . qui 
 separant quidem deceptam 
 multitudinem ab ecclesia 
 Dei et rudes animas, quae 
 nuper Christi concepere 
 sermonem, abrumpunt et 
 diuidunt." 
 
 " Seest thou how He has 
 sentenced [al. bound] him 
 [i.e. the brother who has 
 trespassed, St. Matt, xviii. 
 17, 18] to the pressure of a 
 twofold compulsion, both the 
 punishment here and the 
 chastisement hereafter ? But 
 these things He threatened 
 in order that they may not 
 take place, but that, alarmed 
 at the threatening and [al. 
 om. alarmed at the threaten- 
 ing and] fearing the expulsion 
 from the Church and the 
 danger from the bond and 
 the being bound in heaven, 
 his obduracy might be 
 softened." 
 
 on i. 14, 15 (see above, p. 
 
 "Schismatics . . . who 
 separate the deluded multi- 
 tude from the Church of 
 God, and split off and 
 divide ignorant souls which 
 lately have received the word 
 of Christ." 
 
 St. Jerome, in Tit. on iii. 10, n (see above, p. 16) : 
 
 " Propterea uero a semet- 
 ipso dicitur esse damnatus 
 quia fornicator, adulter, 
 homicida, et cetera uitia per 
 sacerdotes de ecclesia pro- 
 
 " He [the heretic in Tit. 
 iii. 10, n] is said to be self- 
 condemned because a forni- 
 cator, an adulterer, a mur- 
 derer, and those guilty of
 
 Appendix I 
 
 pelluntur. Haeretici autem 
 in semetipsos sententiam 
 ferunt suo arbitrio de ec- 
 clesia recedentes." 
 
 the other vices are expelled 
 from the Church by the 
 Bishops. But heretics pass 
 sentence on themselves de- 
 parting from the Church by 
 their own will." 
 
 12. St. Augustine, Ep. clvii. 22, speaking of certain 
 members of the Church of Carthage, who were adopting 
 the heretical opinions of Pelagius (see above, p. 16) : 
 
 " Nos tamen malumus 
 eos in ecclesiae com page 
 sanari quam ex illius corpore 
 uelut insanabilia membra 
 resecari, si tamen hoc per- 
 mittit ipsa necessitas. Ti- 
 mendum est enim ne plura 
 putrescant dum putribus 
 parcitur." 
 
 "Yet we would rather 
 that these persons should be 
 restored to health within the 
 framework of the Church 
 than that as incurable mem- 
 bers they should be cut off 
 from the body of the Church, 
 always supposing that the 
 gravity of the situation allows 
 of the first-mentioned course ; 
 for one cannot help fearing 
 that, if we refrain from 
 cutting off rotten members, 
 more will become rotten." 
 
 " For there have been 
 those who said that for 
 certain sins penance must 
 not be allowed; and these 
 were expelled from the 
 Church and became here- 
 tics." 
 
 13. 'Articles of Religion, Article 33 (see above, p. 17) : 
 
 "That person which by open denunciation of the 
 Church is rightly (rite) cut off from the unity of the Church, 
 and excommunicated, ought to be taken of the whole 
 multitude of the faithful as an heathen and publican until 
 he be openly reconciled by penance, and received into the 
 Church by a judge that hath authority thereto." 
 
 Cf. the rubic forbidding the Order for the Burial of the 
 Dead to be used for any who are excommunicate. 
 
 Serm. ccclii. 9 : 
 
 " Fuerunt enim qui di- 
 cerent quibusdam peccatis 
 non esse dandam paeni- 
 tentiam; et exclusi sunt de 
 ecclesia et haeretici facti 
 sunt."
 
 Appendix I 33 
 
 Dr. E. C. S. Gibson, Bishop of Gloucester, The Thirty- 
 nine Articles of the Church of England, pp. 705, 706, on 
 Article 33 : 
 
 " The object of the Article is to assert the right of the 
 Church to exercise discipline, and to exclude unworthy 
 members from the body. Such a right is inherent in a 
 visible society such as the Church claims to be. Indeed 
 the very notion of a definite society, with its rules and 
 officers, implies the existence of a power to'decide upon 
 the terms of membership, and to expel disloyal and 
 improper persons." 
 
 14. Joseph Bingham, The Antiquities of the Christian 
 Church, XVI. ii. 8 (see above, p. 17) : 
 
 "The greater excommunication was when men were 
 totally expelled the Church, and separated from all com- 
 munion in holy offices with her. Whence in the ancient 
 canons, it is distinguished by the names of iravrcX^s 
 a0o/jioy>s, the total separation, and anathema, the curse, 
 it being the greatest curse that could be laid upon man. 
 It is frequently also signified by the several terms and 
 phrases Of a.ircipy<rOa.t r^s cx/cX^cria?, aTronXfieaOai and 
 p 1 7TT(r$ai rrj<s tV/cA^cnas, CKTOS etvcu, fKK-rjpvrTfO'Oai rrjs crwoSou, 
 u7rei/>ai T^S d/cpca'crews, etc. All which denote men's being 
 wholly cast out of the Church." 
 
 15- I. Morinus, De Paenitentia, IV. iii. i (see above, 
 p. 17): 
 
 " Censura quae ad paeni- " The censure which can- 
 
 tentiae stationes pertinere not belong to the stations of 
 non potest ea est qua penance [i.e. in the Apostolic 
 grauissimorum peccatorum Canons] is that whereby 
 rei uel minus grauium sed those guilty of the gravest 
 contumaces ab ecclesia per- sins, or of less grave sins 
 celluntur, ab ecclesia scilicet but who are obstinate, are 
 expulsio, cum quis ab ec- thrown out from the Church, 
 clesia omnino abscinditur." that is, the expulsion from 
 
 the Church when one is 
 wholly cut off from the 
 Church."
 
 34 
 
 Appendix I 
 
 16. Z. B. van Espen, Inr. EccL Uniu. III. xi. 4 {i) 
 (see above, p. 17) : 
 
 " Per excommunica- 
 tionem maiorem, quae olim 
 mortalis et uulgo anathema 
 dicebatur, excommunicatum 
 a corpore Christi, quod est 
 ecclesia, separari et abici 
 . . . manifeste significant 
 uerba Christi . . . quasi 
 diceretur ita abscindatur a 
 corpore ecclesiae tanquam si 
 esset ethnicus et publicanus." 
 
 "The words of Christ 
 [St. Matt, xviii. 17] plainly 
 show that by the greater 
 excommunication, which 
 formerly was called mortal 
 and commonly anathema, 
 the excommunicated person 
 is separated and thrown out 
 from the body of Christ, 
 which is the Church ... as 
 if it should be said that he is 
 so cut off from the body of 
 the Church as if he were a 
 heathen or a publican." 
 
 II 
 
 PASSAGES RELATING TO PERSONS BAPTIZED OUTSIDE THE 
 CHURCH 
 
 17. De Rebaptismate> i (see above, p. 19): 
 
 " Animaduerto quaesitum 
 apud fratres quid potius 
 obseruari oporteret in per- 
 sonam eorum qui in haeresi 
 quidem sed in nomine Dei 
 nostri lesu Christi sint tincti 
 postmodum inde digressi et 
 suppliciter ad ecclesiam Dei 
 aduolantes totis praecordiis 
 paenitentiam agerent et er- 
 roris sui damnationem nunc 
 demum intellegentes auxi- 
 lium salutis ab ea implo- 
 rarent, utrum uetustissima 
 consuetudine ac traditione 
 ecclesiastica post ilium quod 
 foris quidem sed in nomine 
 lesu Christi domini nostri 
 
 "I observe that it has 
 been discussed among the 
 brethren what course ought 
 preferably to be adopted to- 
 ward the persons who, though 
 they were baptized in heresy, 
 yet were baptized in the Name 
 of our God Jesus Christ, and 
 subsequently departing [i.e. 
 from their heresy] and flee- 
 ing as supplicants to the 
 Church of God, should re- 
 pent with their whole hearts, 
 and only now realizing the 
 damnable character of their 
 error, should appeal to the 
 Church for the help of salva- 
 tion. The question under
 
 Appendix I 
 
 35 
 
 acceperunt baptisma tantum- 
 modo imponi eis manum ab 
 episcopo ad accipiendum 
 Spiritum Sanctum sufficeret 
 et haec manus impositio 
 signum fidei iteratum atque 
 consummatum eis praestaret, 
 an uero etiam iteratum bap- 
 tisma his necessarium esset 
 tamquam nihil habituris, si 
 hoc quoque adepti ex integro 
 non fuissent perinde ac si 
 numquam baptizati in 
 nomine lesu Christ forent." 
 
 discussion is whether accord- 
 ing to the most ancient 
 custom and ecclesiastical 
 tradition it would suffice, 
 after that Baptism which they 
 have received outside [i.e. 
 outside the Church] indeed 
 but still in the Name of Jesus 
 Christ our Lord, that only 
 the hand should be laid upon 
 them by the Bishop for their 
 reception of the Holy Ghost, 
 and whether this laying-on- 
 of-the-hand would bestow on 
 them the renewed and per- 
 fected seal of faith, or 
 whether an iteration of Bap- 
 tism would be necessary for 
 them, as if they should have 
 nothing unless they should 
 receive a complete repetition 
 of their Baptism just as if 
 they had never been baptized 
 in the Name of Jesus Christ." 
 
 Cf. 6. This treatise was evidently written before St. 
 Cyprian's martyrdom and during his controversy with 
 Stephen. The controversy chiefly turned on the question 
 whether those baptized by Novatianists should or should 
 not be re-baptized. St. Basil would have called the 
 Novatianist body schismatic rather than heretical. Else- 
 where in this treatise the position of those who are in 
 schism is referred to : 
 
 De Rebaptismate, 10. 
 
 "Si uero ab alienis 
 traditum fuerit, ut potest hoc 
 negotium et ut admittit 
 corrigatur, quia Spiritus 
 Sanctus extra ecclesiam non 
 sit, fides quoque non solum 
 apud haereticos uerum etiam 
 
 "But if this [i.e. Bap- 
 tism] has been bestowed by 
 those estranged [i.e. from 
 the Church] let the fault be 
 put right, as may be possible 
 and admissible, because the 
 Holy Ghost is not outside
 
 36 Appendix I 
 
 apud eos qui in schismate the Church, and faith cannot 
 constituti sunt sana esse non be whole not only among 
 possit." heretics but also among 
 
 those who are in schism." 
 
 If the account of Pope Stephen's teaching given by St. 
 Firmilian {Ep. inter Cyprianicas^ Ixxv. 12-14, 16) could be 
 supposed to be correct, one would have to admit that 
 Stephen attributed fuller spiritual effects to schismatical 
 Baptism than either the writer of DC Rebaptismate or 
 Stephen's own successors in the Roman see, such as 
 Innocent I., Leo I., and Gregory I. In that case it would 
 seem that Stephen stood alone in his views on this matter, 
 both among the occupants of his own see and in the whole 
 West. Such a conclusion seems highly improbable ; and it 
 is easier to suppose that St. Firmilian, who was undoubtedly 
 very angry with Stephen for having separated him from his 
 communion, fell into the very common mistake of at- 
 tributing to his adversary all the deductions which seemed 
 to him to follow from that adversary's admitted principles. 
 In any case there is no trace of Stephen having held that 
 those baptized in schism were members of the Church. 
 
 18. Council of Aries (A.D. 314), can. 8 (see above, 
 p. 19) : 
 
 " De Afris quod propria " As concerning the Afri- 
 
 lege sua utuntur ut rebap- cans, because in accordance 
 
 tizent, placuit ut si ad with a peculiar law of their 
 
 ecclesiam aliquis de haeresi own they are accustomed to 
 
 uenerit interrogent eum sym- re-baptize, it has seemed 
 
 bolum ; et si peruiderint eum good to order that, if any 
 
 in Patre et Filio et Spiritu one comes to the Church 
 
 Sancto esse baptizatum, from a sect, he must be 
 
 manus ei tantum imponatur interrogated concerning his 
 
 ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum, creed, and if it shall be 
 
 Quod si interrogatus non ascertained that he was bap- 
 
 responderit hanc Trinitatem tized in the Father and the 
 
 baptizetur." Son and the Holy Ghost, he 
 
 shall receive only the laying 
 on of hands, that he may be
 
 Appendix I 37 
 
 partaker of the Holy Ghost. 
 But if, on being interrogated, 
 he does not reply in these 
 terms of the Trinity, then let 
 him be baptized." 
 
 The aim of the Council of Aries was, in view of the 
 divergence of custom concerning those who had received 
 Baptism outside the Church, to put an end to the divergence 
 and unify the West. 
 
 Ip. Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), can. 8 (see above, 
 p. 19): 
 
 ! r<ov ovo/*ao'wa>v ^\ v " With regard to those 
 
 Katfapovs TTOTC, irpoa- who at one time used to call 
 Se T-Q KafioXtKy K<U themselves Cathari, but are 
 lKK\r)(ria 'c8oe now coming to the Catholic 
 ayia KCU fuyaA.0 erwoSa*, and Apostolic Church, the 
 f.ipoO(.rov^vov<i avrov-s holy and great Council de- 
 ovrws f.v TU> cX^pa). crees that they should re- 
 
 ceive the laying-on-of-hands, 
 and thus remain among the 
 clergy." 
 
 It is obvious that in this canon the Novatianists referred 
 to were regarded as outside the Church. Otherwise they 
 could not have been spoken of as coming to the Catholic 
 and Apostolic Church. If they had already been members 
 of the Church, they could not have come to it. All the old 
 Latin translations of the eighth canon assign the meaning 
 '' come to " to Trpocrcpxo/x.eVwj'. The Interpretatio Caeciliani 
 Carthaginensis renders the word "si ueniant ad." The 
 Interpretatio Attici Constantinopolitani renders it " accedenti- 
 bus ad." The Interpretatio quae didtur Prisca renders it 
 " si quis ex his ueniat ad." The Interpretatio codicis Ingil- 
 rami Teatini renders it " si quis ueniat ad." * 
 
 1 See Dr. C. H. Turner's Ecclesiae Occidentals' Monumenta Juris 
 Antiqrdssitna, I. i. 2, pp. 122, 123. That Trpjo-ep^etrflat is a very 
 natural term to describe conversion from one religious body to another 
 is illustrated by the fact that TrpoertjXvros, which means a proselyte or 
 convert, is derived from irpoa^KvQov the aorist of irpo<rfpxofj.ai.
 
 38 Appendix I 
 
 A suggestion has been made that the phrase " remain 
 among the clergy" implies that the Novatianists were 
 regarded as members of the Church. That this is not the 
 case is shown by a comparison of the nineteenth canon of 
 the Council concerning the Paulianists. This canon is as 
 follows : 
 
 llepi Tuiv 
 
 v TT) *a- 
 opos eKTe'- 
 
 QCITO.I, a.va/?a7m'ecr$a. O.UTOUS 
 ea7ravTos* el Sc rives e'v r<3 
 
 f /xev 
 
 ava/3a7m<r$eVres 
 pOTOveicr$ux7av VTTO rov 
 
 ei Se 17 ava/cpicris 
 
 aurous eupuTKOi, KaOat.pei(r$ai 
 
 " Concerning those who 
 were adherents of the sect 
 founded by Paul of Samosata, 
 and who then fled for refuge 
 to the Catholic Church, a 
 decree has been made that 
 these persons' Baptisms are 
 to be wholly repeated. But, 
 if any of them should be 
 found after investigation to 
 have belonged in past time 
 to the clergy, and if such 
 persons should appear to be 
 blameless and not open to 
 censure, let them, after being 
 re-baptized, be ordained by 
 the Bishop of the [local] 
 Catholic Church ; but, if the 
 investigation should make it 
 clear that they are not fit 
 persons to be ordained, it is 
 proper that they should be 
 deposed." 
 
 In this nineteenth canon both the Baptisms and the 
 Ordinations of these heretics were regarded as invalid, and 
 all of them had to be (in the language of the canon) 
 re-baptized, and those of the clergy, who were regarded as 
 fit to be admitted into the Catholic ministry, had to be 
 re-ordained. But nevertheless the Paulianist priests and 
 deacons, even before they were re-baptized, are spoken of 
 in the canon as ev T<3 KX^pw. This throws light on the 
 meaning of the same expression eV T<2 KX^pw as applied to 
 the Novatianist clergy in the eighth canon of Nicaea. It is
 
 Appendix I 39 
 
 evident that this expression does not necessarily imply that 
 the Nicene Fathers regarded the Novatianists as members 
 of the Catholic Church. It is also to be noticed that in the 
 nineteenth canon those of the Paulianist clergy who had 
 come over to the Church, but were not found suitable for 
 re-ordination, were to be deposed. It might at first seem 
 as if their Paulianist Orders were recognized ; otherwise the 
 question would suggest itself, From what were they to be 
 deposed ? But such a notion is obviously impossible. The 
 Church regarded the Paulianists as unbaptized persons, and 
 a fortiori would regard their Orders as invalid. Still, 
 though their Orders were invalid, one result of their 
 Paulianist Ordination was to give them the dignity and status 
 of belonging to a clergy of some sort, and by refusing them 
 re-ordination the Church, in the eyes of the un-theological 
 world, deposed them from that dignity and status. The 
 Council, when it used the expressions h T<3 xXifpu and 
 KaOaipfWai, was wording its canon in popular rather than 
 scientific language. The convert-clergymen who were not 
 re-ordained were deposed from the clerical dignity which 
 they had enjoyed before. On the other hand, the convert- 
 clergymen who were re-ordained were in the eyes of the 
 world not deposed. They remained ev T<3 KX^pw. 
 
 It follows from what has been said about the wording 
 of the nineteenth canon that there is good reason for 
 thinking that in the eighth canon the words /xeVetv ev r<3 
 KXtjpw may rightly be understood to have a meaning of the 
 same popular kind as the cV r<3 KXrjpu and the KaOaipeia-dai 
 of the nineteenth canon. In the nineteenth canon no one 
 would suppose that the use of these expressions implied 
 that the Paulianists before their conversion were members 
 of the Catholic Church. Quite the reverse. They had to 
 " fly for refuge " to the Church. And similarly, so far as 
 the words ju,e'vv cv TW K\ijpw are concerned, there is no 
 reason to suppose that the Novatianists mentioned in the 
 eighth canon were regarded as members of the Catholic 
 and Apostolic Church before their conversion. On the
 
 4O Appendix I 
 
 contrary, they, like the Paulianists, had to " come to " the 
 Catholic and Apostolic Church, evidently with a view to 
 enter it. 
 
 There remains to be considered in the eighth canon the 
 meaning of xpo0eTou/Vovs and the force of ovrws. There 
 is no question that at the time of the holding of the Nicene 
 Council the word x CL P^ T ^i when used in connexion with 
 returning heretics or schismatics, might mean the laying-on- 
 of-hands in the reconciliatory Confirmation which was used 
 at Rome and in the West generally ; or it might mean, in 
 the case of those who had belonged in the past to the 
 clergy of the sect which they were now leaving, re- 
 ordination. In other contexts the word might mean the 
 laying- on-of-hands in Absolution after Penance. But there 
 is no shadow of evidence that in the fourth century persons 
 validly baptized in heresy or schism were ever reconciled to 
 the Church by Penance and Absolution. It may perhaps 
 be suggested that the word xctpotfeTou/xevovs may refer to the 
 Novatianist Ordination, which these convert-clergymen had 
 received in their sect before their conversion. The word 
 OVTCJS qualifying /iemv excludes the possibility of this being 
 the true interpretation of the words of the Council. OIT<DS 
 implies that \fipo6eTovfj.fvov<s expresses some action which 
 will enable the convert-clergymen to retain the dignity and 
 honour of still belonging to the Christian ministry. The 
 meaning of xpo0eTov/Aevous has been much discussed. But 
 there is no trace that at any rate during the first thousand 
 years of our era any weighty authority ever upheld the view 
 that it refers to the Novatianist Ordination. It must there- 
 fore mean reconciliatory Confirmation or re-ordination. 
 For our purpose it does not matter which of these meanings 
 is considered to be the best. Both of them imply that the 
 Novatianist sect was external to the Church, and con- 
 sequently was a body which did not possess the covenanted 
 presence and grace of the Holy Ghost. But, if the com- 
 position of the Council is considered, it is probable that the 
 Nicene Fathers meant re-ordination. Nearly all of them
 
 Appendix I 41 
 
 were Easterns, and there does not appear to be any 
 instance of schismatics being reconciled in the East by the 
 laying-on-of-hands in Confirmation. The Eastern method 
 is to confirm by chrismation, and that method seems to 
 have already become the usage in the time of Origen. It 
 may, however, be said that, while the great majority of the 
 Council were Easterns, the presidents, Hosius of Cordova 
 and the two Roman legates Victor and Vincentius, were 
 from the West. This is true. But the Western provenance 
 of the presidents did not prevent the Council from ordering 
 in the nineteenth canon that the Paulianists, who baptized 
 in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
 Ghost, 1 should be re-baptized because, though they used 
 the right form, they were heretical on the subject of the 
 Holy : Trinity. Such a proceeding would never have been 
 allowed at Rome. Moreover, at Rome heretical and 
 schismatic clergymen coming over to the Church were in 
 those times always reduced to lay communion. 2 It may, 
 then, be concluded that the eighth canon was not pressed 
 on the Council by the Western presidents, but emanated 
 from the great mass of the Council, which was Eastern. 
 For all these reasons it would seem that xeipofleTou/ieVovs 
 means that the convert-clergymen coming from the Nova- 
 tianists were to be re-ordained and "thus," "then," "on 
 that condition " (ovrws) were to remain in the clergy. 
 
 For the use of \tipoOtTeo) in the fourth century to mean 
 ordain, see the Epistle of the Nicene Council to the Church 
 of Alexandria in Socrates, H.E. I. ix. 5, 6, and the Council 
 of Neocaesarea (about A.D. 315), canon n. The word 
 Xfipo6ccria is used for the Ordination of Bishops at the 
 Council of Antioch (A.D. 341), canon 10, and for Ordination 
 even as late as the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), 
 canon 6. Dr. C. H. Turner has shown (Essays on the 
 Early History of the Church and the Ministry, p. 209) that 
 " the Western canonists of the fourth and fifth centuries are 
 
 1 See St. Athanasius, Or. c. Ar. ii. 43. 
 
 2 See Pope Innocent I., Ep. xxii. 4.
 
 42 Appendix I 
 
 all but unanimous " in interpreting the word as meaning 
 " ordained " in the eighth Nicene canon. He adds {op. cit. 
 p. 210) : " If it were clear that xpo0eTov/Avovs did not mean 
 'ordained,' I should then interpret it 'confirmed.'" He 
 gives a paraphrase of the meaning which the canon would 
 then have as follows : " As to Novatianists we recognize 
 their Baptism (but of course it must be completed by 
 Confirmation) and we are willing to let them stand in their 
 original rank in the clergy." Dr. Turner then adds : " This 
 would presumably imply re-ordination " (see second edition, 
 1921). See also Dr. W. Bright, The Canons of the First 
 Fotir General Councils, pp. 29-32, 78, 79. 
 
 20. Pope Siricius, Ep. i. i (see above, p. 20) : 
 
 " Prima itaque paginae 
 tuae fronte signasti baptizatos 
 ab impiis Arianis plurimos 
 ad fidem catholicam festinare 
 et quosdam de fratribus 
 nostris eosdem denuo bapti- 
 zare uelle : quod non licet, 
 cum hoc fieri et apostolus 
 uetet et canones contra- 
 dicant, et post cassatum 
 Ariminense concilium, missa 
 ad prouincias a uenerandae 
 memoriae praedecessore meo 
 Liberio generalia decreta 
 prohibeant, quos nos cum 
 Nouatianis aliisque haere- 
 ticis, sicut est in synodo con- 
 stitutum, per inuocationem 
 solam septiformis Spiritus, 
 episcopalis manus imposi- 
 tione, Catholicorum con- 
 uentui sociamus, quod etiam 
 totus Oriens Occidensque 
 custodit." 
 
 " In the very beginning 
 of your letter you have in- 
 timated that very many 
 persons baptized by the im- 
 pious Arians are hastening 
 to return to the Catholic 
 faith, and that certain of our 
 brothers wish to re-baptize 
 them. Now this is not law- 
 ful, since the Apostle forbids 
 it to be done (Eph. iv. 5), 
 and the canons pronounce 
 against it, and the general 
 decrees sent after the quash- 
 ing of the Council of Arimi- 
 num to the provinces by 
 Liberius, my predecessor of 
 venerable memory, prohibit 
 it. Our custom is to admit 
 to the society of Catholics 
 such persons along with the 
 Novatianists and other 
 heretics, as it was decreed 
 by the Council [Cone. Nic., 
 canon 8], by the laying-on- 
 of-the-hand of the Bishop 
 together with the invocation
 
 Appendix I 
 
 43 
 
 of the Sevenfold Spirit, and 
 using no other rite ; and 
 this custom is observed by 
 the whole of the East and of 
 the West." 
 
 21. St. Ambrose, Expos. Euang. sec. Lite. vii. 95 (see 
 
 above, p. 20) : 
 
 " Unde omnes quoque 
 haereticos et schismaticos a 
 regno Dei et ab ecclesia 
 intellege separates." 
 
 " Wherefore understand 
 that all heretics also [i.e. as 
 well as the Jews] and 
 schismatics are separated 
 from the kingdom of God 
 and from the Church." 
 
 22. Optatus, Bishop of Mileum (see above, p. 20) : 
 De schism. Don. ii. i. 
 
 " Demonstrare iam proxi- 
 mum est . . . quae sit una 
 ecclesia, quam columbam et 
 sponsam suam Christus 
 appellat. Ergo ecclesia una 
 est. . . . Haec apud omnes 
 haereticos et schismaticos 
 esse non potest." 
 
 i. 21 : 
 
 " Schisma summum ma- 
 lum esse et uos negare 
 minime poteritis. Et tamen 
 Dathan et Abiron et Core, 
 perditos magistros uestros, 
 sine trepidatione estis imitati, 
 nee ponere ante oculos 
 uoluistis hoc malum et uerbis 
 Dei esse prohibitum et ad- 
 missum grauiter uindicatum." 
 
 " It is now our next 
 business to show . . . which 
 is the one Church, which 
 Christ calls His dove and 
 His bride. The Church, 
 then, is one. . . . This [one 
 Church] cannot be amongst 
 all the heretics and schis- 
 matics." 
 
 " Even you will not be 
 able to deny that schism is 
 the supreme evil. And yet 
 without fear you have imi- 
 tated Dathan and Abiram 
 and Korah, your abandoned 
 masters, and you have been 
 unwilling to keep before 
 your eyes the fact that this 
 evil has been explicitly for- 
 bidden by God, and has 
 been severely punished by 
 Him when it has been com- 
 mitted."
 
 44 Appendix I 
 
 i. ii : 
 
 " Deserta matre catholica " Deserting their Catholic 
 
 impii filii dum foras exeunt mother, her unfilial sons [i.e. 
 et se separant, ut uos fecistis, schismatics], while they go 
 a radice matris ecclesiae, forth outside and separate 
 invidiae falcibus amputati, themselves, as you have 
 errando rebelles abscedunt." done, from the root of their 
 
 mother the Church, cut off 
 [from that root] by the shears 
 of their jealousy, depart in 
 rebellion and wander away." 
 vi. 3 = 
 
 Optatus here points out that the Catholics in North 
 Africa were in communion with the whole world, being in 
 fellowship with those who live in the East, where Christ 
 according to His manhood was born, where also is the 
 ecclesia septiformis> that is, the seven Churches of Asia, from 
 whom the Donatists rejoice to have been cut off; and 
 that similarly the Catholics were in communion with the 
 Corinthians and the Galatians and the Thessalonians, 
 whereas the Donatists had the audacity to read the Epistles 
 to those Churches, while they were not in communion with 
 them, and he then goes on to say : 
 
 " Cum haec omnia ita " Since it is clear that 
 
 esse constet, intellegite uos all these things are so, under- 
 
 ab ecclesia sancta esse stand that you have been cut 
 
 concisos." off from the Holy Church." 
 
 The view of the horrible wickedness of schism, expressed 
 here and in other passages by Optatus and found also in 
 St. Augustine and in the Fathers generally, is of great im- 
 portance because it affords part of the explanation of their 
 view that schismatic Baptism, though valid, conveyed no 
 sanctifying or saving effects, at any rate to adults who by 
 adhering to the schism after receiving Baptism through 
 schismatic ministration separated themselves ipso facto from 
 the Church. 
 
 Yet Optatus justifies his calling the Donatists " brothers " 
 in i. 3.
 
 Appendix I 45 
 
 " Nemo miretur eos me " Let no one be surprised 
 
 appellare fratres qui non that I call them brothers, 
 
 possunt non esse fratres. We and they indeed have 
 
 Est quidem nobis et rllis one spiritual birth, but our 
 
 spiritalis una natiuitas, sed actions are different." 
 diuersi sunt actus." 
 
 By this phraseology it is obvious that Optatus meant 
 that the Donatist and himself had both been sealed with the 
 baptismal character, and that this character had been im- 
 parted to the Donatist by the Catholic Church, to whom 
 alone Baptism has been entrusted. It is the Catholic 
 Church which really baptizes even when Baptism is ad- 
 ministered by persons who are external to it. We may 
 compare what St. Thomas says about the way in which a 
 valid Baptism, which at the time produces no saving effects, 
 nevertheless is consistent with what St. Paul says about 
 Baptism in Gal. iii. 27 (Summa Theol. III. Ixix. 9, ad i). 
 For a fruitless Baptism does do something at once. It 
 suffices to effect a certain consecration of the baptized 
 person to God, which imparts to the soul a capacity for 
 receiving validly, though unfruitfully, other Sacraments; 
 moreover it imprints on the soul as a permanent effect of 
 this consecration the brand of the Lord's mark, the 
 baptismal character, which, though it is of no profit so long 
 as the recipient of it remains outside the Catholic Church, 
 is capable of reviviscence, if and when at some later time 
 the person baptized in schism is truly converted and 
 petitions for admission into the Church. Then, and not till 
 then, it conveys to the soul eternal life and all the other 
 sanctifying and saving effects of Catholic Baptism. This 
 summary of the effects of schismatic Baptism, as expounded 
 by Optatus, with whom St. Augustine substantially agrees, 
 throws light on the meaning of his words about the 
 " spiritalis una natiuitas " which he and the Donatist 
 Parmenian had in common. But these words were never 
 intended to imply that he regarded Parmenian as a member 
 of the Catholic Church, as is shown by the passages quoted
 
 46 Appendix I 
 
 above. We might ourselves call a believing Quaker 
 " brother " on account of our common faith in Christ, and 
 a fortiori we might call a Presbyterian or Wesleyan believer 
 " brother " because of our common faith and our common 
 baptismal character. But in neither case could we regard 
 these persons, whether unbaptized or baptized, as members 
 of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Too much importance should not be attached to any 
 statement by Optatus in which he is not supported by other 
 Fathers. He was an eccentric and not always well-informed 
 theologian. He was never regarded as a great theologian, 
 and is hardly ever mentioned by the Fathers except by his 
 fellow-countrymen St. Augustine and St. Fulgentius, who, 
 like him, wrote against the Donatists, but carefully avoided 
 mistakes which he made. He was not canonized until 1200 
 years after his death, when Baronius inserted his name in 
 the Roman Martyrology. 
 
 23. St. Augustine (see above, p. 20) : 
 De Bapt. c. Don. iii. 18 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 " Si autem, quamuis apud " If the Baptism is still 
 
 haereticos uel schismaticos the same Baptism of Christ 
 
 idem sit baptismus Christi, althoughadministeredamong 
 
 non tamen ibi operatur re- heretics or schismatics, yet 
 
 missionem peccatorum prop- it does not there produce 
 
 ter eamdem discordiae remission of sins because 
 
 foeditatem et dissensionis of the same foulness of dis- 
 
 iniquitatem : tune incipit cord and iniquity of dissen- 
 
 ualere idem baptismus ad sion. The same Baptism 
 
 dimittenda peccata cum ad begins to avail for the for- 
 
 ecclesiae pacem uenerit; ut giveness of sins when the 
 
 iam uere dimissa non re- baptized person comes to 
 
 tineantur, non ut ille l bap- the peace of the Church, 
 
 tismus quasi alienus aut alius that the sins now really for- 
 
 1 The Benedictine text has "non ut iam uere dimissa non retineantur 
 neque ut ille " ; but this does not seem to make sense, and the Bene- 
 dictine editors add a note, " Hie particula negans [i.e. non before utiani\ 
 omittitur in editione Amerb. Abest a pluribus etiam MSS. qui postea 
 loco neque et Hit habent non nt ille." In Petschenig's text in the Vienna 
 Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum the words are " ut uere 
 dimissa non retineantur neque ut ille.' :
 
 Appendix I 
 
 47 
 
 improbetur, ut alter tradatur, 
 sed ut idem ipse qui propter 
 discordiam foris operabatur 
 mortem propter pacem intus 
 operetur salutem." 
 
 given may not be retained, 
 not that the former Baptism 
 is rejected as alien or 
 different, so that another 
 should be conferred, but 
 that the very same Baptism 
 which wrought death out- 
 side [the Church] on account 
 of the discord should work 
 salvation within [the Church] 
 on account of the peace." 
 
 Ep. clxxxv. 47 (about A.D. 417) : 
 
 " Damnato uno quodam 
 Donate qui auctor schismatis 
 fuisse manifestus est, ceteros 
 correctos, etiamsi extra 
 ecclesiam ordinati essent, 
 in suis honoribus suscipi- 
 endos esse censuerunt, non 
 quod \al. quo] etiam foris 
 ab unitate corporis Christi 
 possent habere Spiritum 
 Sanctum, sed maxime propter 
 eos quos foris positi possent 
 decipere et a susceptione 
 illius muneris impedire." 
 
 " One man, a certain 
 Donatus, who clearly was 
 the originator of the schism, 
 having been condemned, 
 they \i.e. those at the 
 Council held at Rome in 
 A.D. 313 under Pope Mil- 
 tiades l ] determined that the 
 rest, when they had been 
 corrected, even if they had 
 been ordained outside the 
 Church, should be received 
 in their own honourable 
 positions, not because even 
 
 1 In 313 the Donatist schism was less than two years old ; and this 
 may account for the treatment of those ordained by the schismatics 
 during these two years, a treatment which was exceptional in a Roman 
 council : see above, p. 41. Cf. St. Basil, Ep. clxxxviii. canon I. Cf. 
 Dr. J. J. I. von Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, p. 134, translated 
 as follows in the English translation by Dr. Alfred Plummer, p. 124, 
 "When a dispute and a bewilderment arises suddenly in a Church, and 
 in consequence of this a separation into two congregations, it would 
 show want of tact and judgement to apply principles usually enforced 
 against heretics to the separatists who showed an inclination to return ; 
 for this would tend to make the schism permanent : rather one ought to 
 build a bridge for them and receive them with open arms. Thus 
 Callistus acted ; and just so did Pope Cornelius afterwards deal with the 
 confessors seduced by Novatian, one of whom, the Presbyter Maximus, 
 he even readmitted to his priestly rank ; and in the same way the 
 Catholic bishops in Africa made the return to unity easier for the 
 Donatists."
 
 48 
 
 Appendix I 
 
 when they were apart from 
 the unity of the body of 
 Christ they could have the 
 Holy Ghost, but chiefly on 
 account of those whom, if 
 placed outside [the Church], 
 they could deceive and 
 hinder from the reception of 
 that gift." 
 
 C. Gaudent. ii. 1 1 (about A.D. 420) : 
 
 " Nee uobis blandiamini 
 quod baptismum non re- 
 scindimus uestrum. Non 
 est hoc uestrum sed 
 Catholicae ecclesiae quam 
 tenemus, unde ilium quando 
 discessistis non quidem ad 
 salutem sed ad perniciem 
 uestram uobiscum tulistis." 
 
 " Do not flatter your- 
 selves because we do not 
 annul your Baptism. That 
 Baptism is not yours, but 
 belongs to the Catholic 
 Church which we hold, and 
 from the Catholic Church 
 you carried it off with you 
 when you departed, not in- 
 deed for your salvation but 
 for your destruction." 
 
 De Bapt. c. Don. iv. 5 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 " Quomodo accipienti 
 non prodest baptismus ei 
 qui saeculo uerbis non factis 
 renuntiat, sic non prodest ei 
 qui in haeresi uel schismate 
 baptizatur ; utrique autem 
 correcto prodesse incipit 
 quod ante non proderat sed 
 tamen inerat." 
 
 "Just as Baptism is of 
 no profit to the man who 
 renounces the world in words 
 and not in deeds, so it is 
 of no profit to him who is 
 baptized in heresy or schism ; 
 but each of them, when he 
 amends his ways, begins to 
 receive profit from that 
 which before was not pro- 
 fitable but yet was already in 
 him." 
 
 C. Ep. Parmen. i. 7 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 "Sacrilegium schismatis "The sacrilege of schism, 
 
 quod omnia scelera super- which is greater than all 
 graditur." crimes."
 
 Appendix I 
 De Bapt. c. Don. iv. 28 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 49 
 
 " Non est improbandum 
 euangelicum baptism! sacra- 
 mentum etiam si extra ec- 
 clesiam fuerit acceptum, 
 quod tamen . . . non proficit 
 ad salutem nisi ille qui habet 
 integritatem baptismi sua 
 quoque prauitate correcta 
 incorporetur ecclesiae." 
 
 IC The Gospel Sacrament 
 of Baptism is not to be re- 
 jected even if it has been 
 received outside the Church, 
 which, however, is of no avail 
 for salvation unless he who 
 has received a completely 
 valid Baptism has amended 
 his perverseness and has 
 been incorporated into the 
 Church." 
 
 De Bapt. c. Don. iii. 21 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 "Since then the Sacra- 
 ment [i.e. the outward part 
 of the Sacrament] is one 
 thing, which even Simon 
 Magus could receive, another 
 thing the operation of the 
 Spirit, which often is even in 
 bad men, as Saul had pro- 
 phecy [i Sam. x. 6, 10], 
 another thing the operation 
 of the same Spirit which only 
 the good can have. . . . 
 Whatever heretics and 
 schismatics receive, the love 
 which covers a multitude of 
 sins is the special gift of 
 Catholic unity and peace." 
 
 This passage shows St. Augustine's belief that among 
 the effects of Baptism there was at least one which the bad 
 could receive as well as the good. By the bad he meant 
 impenitent persons who were baptized within the Church, 
 and also heretics and schismatics who were validly baptized 
 outside the Church. There were other effects of Baptism 
 which could only be received by penitent believers within 
 the Church. The effect of Baptism which could be received 
 by the bad as well as by the good has been commonly 
 
 "Cum ergo sit aliud 
 sacramentum, quod habere 
 eliam Simon Magus potuit; 
 aliud operatic Spiritus, quae 
 in malis etiam hominibus 
 fieri solet, sicut Saul habuit 
 prophetiam; aliud operatio 
 eiusdem Spiritus, quam nisi 
 boni habere non possunt. 
 . . . Quodlibet haeretici et 
 schismatici accipiant, chari- 
 tas quae co-operit multitu- 
 dinem peccatorum proprium 
 donum est catholicae uni- 
 tatis et pads."
 
 Appendix I 
 
 called the baptismal character. 1 It is a certain spiritual 
 signacuhim invisibly impressed on the soul by the Holy 
 Ghost, which is believed to be indelible. Probably it 
 should be identified with the baptismal o-<payts, concerning 
 which the early Fathers have much to say. Tertullian uses 
 the word signaculum as equivalent either to Baptism 
 generally, or to some leading aspect or effect of Baptism : 
 see his De speetaculis, 4, 24. For the baptismal o-^payt's 
 see Hermas, Sim. VIII. vi. 3, IX. xvi. 3, 4, 5, 7, xvii. 4 ; 
 Pseudo-Clem. Rom. 7 ; Clem. Alex. QMS diu. salu. 39, 42 ; 
 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Procat. 16, 17, Cat. i. 2, 3, iii. 3, 4, 
 12, iv. 1 6, v. 6, xvi. 24, xvii. 35, 36.2 
 
 De Bapt. c. Don. v. 34 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 " Induunt autem homines 
 Christum, aliquando usque 
 ad sacramenti perceptionem, 
 aliquando et usque ad uitae 
 sanctificationem ; atque illud 
 primum et bonis et malis 
 potest esse commune, hoc 
 autem alterum proprium est 
 bonorum et piorum." 
 
 Ep. xcviii. 5 (about A.D. 
 
 " Christiani baptismi 
 sacramentum, quando unum 
 atque idipsum est, etiam 
 apud haereticos ualet et 
 sufficit ad consecrationem, 
 quamuis ad uitae aeternae 
 participationem non sufficiat; 
 quae consecratio reum qui- 
 
 "Men put on Christ 
 [Gal. iii. 27], sometimes only 
 so far as the reception of the 
 Sacrament, sometimes also 
 as far as sanctification of life ; 
 and the first of these can be 
 common to both good and 
 bad, but the second of them 
 is peculiar to the good and 
 holy." 
 
 408): 
 
 " The Sacrament of 
 Christian Baptism, since it 
 is one and the same thing 
 [wherever it may be ad- 
 ministered], is valid even 
 among heretics, and suffices 
 to effect consecration, though 
 it does not suffice to effect 
 
 1 See e.g. St. Augustine, Ep. xcviii. 5, quoted below, p. 51. 
 
 2 St. Cyril of Jerusalem in Procat. 16 (A.D. 347), speaking of the 
 principal effects of Baptism, mentions among them <r<t>pay'is ayia d/ca- 
 rd\vros, " the holy indissoluble seal " ; and in 17, speaking of God, he 
 says, irvtv/jMTOs aylov fftypay'iSa, SUTJ dvfd.\fnrrov els rovs aluvas, " May 
 He give to you the eternally indelible seal of the Holy Ghost."
 
 Appendix I 
 
 dem facit haereticum extra 
 Domini gregem habentem 
 dominicum characterem, cor- 
 rigendum tamen admonet 
 sana doctrina, non iterum 
 similiter consecrandum." 
 
 the baptized person's partici- 
 pation in eternal life; and 
 this consecration, while it 
 renders [doubly] guilty a 
 heretic who outside the 
 Lord's flock carries about 
 on him the brand of the 
 Lord's mark, yet it reminds 
 us at the same time that such 
 a one is to be brought back 
 into the right way by sound 
 teaching, and not re-conse- 
 crated by a repetition of 
 Baptism." 
 
 In this passage St. Augustine connects the indelible 
 effect of Baptism, which is received and retained by the bad 
 as well as by the good, with the consecrating effect of this 
 Sacrament, as distinguished from its cleansing and re- 
 generating and other sanctifying effects. On the fact that 
 consecration to God " does not assert moral qualifications 
 as a fact in the " consecrated persons, though " it implies 
 them as a duty," see Bishop Lightfoot's comment on 
 Phil. i. i. 
 
 De Bapt. c. Hon. vi. 14 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 " Ad ea quae Felix a 
 Migirpa dixit haec dicimus : 
 Si ' non ' esset ' baptisma 
 unum et uerum nisi in 
 ecclesia,' 1 non utique esset 
 in eis qui ab unitate disce- 
 dunt. Est autem in eis; 
 nam non id recipiunt re- 
 deuntes non ob aliud nisi 
 quia non amiserant rece- 
 dentes. Quod autem ait, 
 ' Nam quae foris exercentur 
 nullum habent salutis 
 
 " As to what Felix of 
 Migirpa said [that is, at the 
 Council held under St. 
 Cyprian in A.D. 256], we 
 say as follows : If there 
 were ' not the one true Bap- 
 tism except in the Church,' 
 undoubtedly it would not 
 exist in those who depart 
 from unity. But it does 
 exist in them; because, 
 when such persons return 
 to the Church, they are not 
 
 1 For the words of Felix of Migirpa, see Sent. Episc. (nf. opera Cyp. ) 
 2, "cum non sit baptisma nisi in ecclesia unum et uerum."
 
 Appendix I 
 
 effectum,' l consentio, et 
 omnino uerum esse credo. 
 Aliud est enim non ibi esse, 
 aliud nullum habere salutis 
 effectum. Venientibus enim 
 ad catholicam pacem pro- 
 desse incipiunt quae foris 
 inerant sed non proderant." 
 
 re-baptized, and the only 
 reason for their being thus 
 treated is that, when they 
 withdrew from the Church, 
 they did not lose their 
 Baptism. But as regards 
 the statement made by Felix 
 that 'the things which are 
 done outside [the Church] 
 have no power to effect 
 salvation,' I agree with him, 
 and I believe that this state- 
 ment is absolutely correct. 
 For it is one thing to say 
 that Baptism does not exist 
 outside, and it is another 
 thing to say that [outside] it 
 has no power to effect salva- 
 tion. For when men come 
 to the peace of the Catholic 
 Church, the things which 
 were in them but did not 
 profit them when outside 
 [the Church] begin at once 
 to profit them." 
 
 In this passage St. Augustine states that those who have 
 been baptized in the Church and afterwards withdraw from 
 the Church do not lose their Baptism. Here he means by 
 the word Baptism the indelible " character," or o-^payt's, 
 which persons lapsing into schism carry away with them. 
 The outward sign of Baptism, the water and the words and 
 the act of immersion or affusion, are transitory things. As he 
 says in another place : " Aqua et omnis ilia actio corporalis, 
 quae agitur cum baptizamus, et fit et transit," " The water 
 and all that bodily action which takes place when we baptize 
 both comes to be and passes away " (C. Faust. Manich. xix. 
 1 6). But the indelible baptismal " character" remains im- 
 pressed on the soul eternally, so that even those who fall 
 
 1 In Sent. Episc. 2 the words of Felix are given exactly as quoted 
 by St. Augustine above.
 
 Appendix I 53 
 
 into the awful sin of schism carry it away with them, to their 
 grievous loss if they abide in their schism, but with the 
 glorious possibility of reviviscence with all its train of 
 sanctifying and saving effects if in penitence they return and 
 are reconciled to the Church. 
 
 St. Augustine accepts in the most absolute terms the 
 proposition laid down by Felix that " the things which are 
 done outside the Church have no power to effect salvation." 
 As the proposition stands, it implies that even infants, 
 baptized validly outside the Church, receive only the 
 baptismal character, and not the saving grace of the 
 Sacrament. And there is no doubt that in some parts of 
 the early Church, possibly everywhere, it was the custom 
 that, when families hitherto living in schism returned to the 
 Church, the infants validly baptized in schism were re- 
 conciled individually as well as the older members of the 
 family : see the Liber sine definitio ecclesictsticorum dogmatum, 
 21, a treatise commonly and in all probability rightly 
 attributed to Gennadius of Marseilles, of which a revised 
 text was published by Dr. C. H. Turner in the Journal of 
 Theological Studies, vii. 89-99 (see also viii. no, m). 
 When infants were thus reconciled, their sponsors renounced 
 in their name the schism or heresy in which they had been 
 baptized, and they were then admitted into the Church by 
 being confirmed, after which they were communicated. In 
 the Gelasian Sacramentary (ed. H. A. Wilson, p. 132) there 
 are forms for reconciling infants who had been originally 
 baptized in the Church but had afterwards been re-baptized 
 by heretics. This reference to the case of infants is merely 
 made in passing on account of its interest. We make no 
 attempt to discuss it fully, because our subject is the Appeal 
 put forth by the Lambeth Conference of 1920, and this 
 Appeal certainly is not addressed to infants. 
 
 Ep. xciii. 46 (about A.D. 408), an Epistle addressed to 
 Vincent, a Bishop of the Rogatists, one of the Donatist sects: 
 
 " Nobiscum autem estis " You are with us in 
 
 in baptismo, in symbolo, in Baptism, in the creed, in the
 
 54 Appendix I 
 
 ceteris dominicis sacra- other Sacraments of the 
 
 mentis. In spiritu autem Lord. But in the spirit of 
 
 unitatis et uinculo pacis, in unity, and in the bond of 
 
 ipsa denique catholica peace, finally in the Catholic 
 
 ecclesia, nobiscum non Church itself, you are not 
 
 estis." with us." 
 
 De Bapt. c. Don. i. 3 (about A.D. 400) : 
 
 " Non eis itaque dicimus, " We do not therefore 
 
 Nolite dare ; sed, Nolite in say, Abstain from adminis- 
 schismate dare. Nee eis tering Baptism, but Abstain 
 quos uidentur baptizaturi from administering it in 
 dicimus, Nolite accipere, sed, schism. Nor do we say to 
 Nolite in schismate acci- those whom we see them to 
 pere." be on the point of baptizing, 
 
 Do not receive the Baptism, 
 but Do not receive it in 
 schism." 
 
 Here, as in a number of other places, St. Augustine 
 implies that it was a sin either to administer Baptism in 
 schism or to receive it in schism. He regarded the Baptism 
 so administered as unquestionably valid, but as sacrilegious 
 because it involved the unlawful administration of a very 
 holy thing. 
 
 St. Augustine, like Optatus, was accustomed, when 
 writing to Donatists, to call them his brothers. So, for 
 example, in the salutation of his letter to the Rogatist 
 Bishop Vincent (Ep. xciii., about A.D. 408) he writes : 
 " Dilectissimo fratri Vincentio." But the word " brother " 
 does not imply that he held the view that Vincent and his 
 followers shared with him membership in the Catholic 
 Church. On the contrary, he said to Vincent in this very 
 letter : " In the Catholic Church you are not with us " : see 
 this page, above. At the Collation of Carthage (A.D. 411), 
 St. Augustine was pressed by the Donatists to say whether 
 he recognized the well-known Catholic Bishop of Carthage, 
 Caecilian, as his father. In his answers St. Augustine care- 
 fully explains the different meanings which he attaches to
 
 Appendix I 55 
 
 the word " frater " according as he uses it of a Catholic or a 
 schismatic. He says : " Caecilianus non est pater metis. 
 Si bonus est, frater meus est bonus ; si malus est, frater est 
 malus. Tamen propter sacramenta frater est siue bonus 
 sine malus," " Caecilianus is not my father. If he is good, 
 he is my good brother ; if he is bad, he is my bad brother. 
 Nevertheless on account of the Sacraments he is a brother, 
 whether good or bad " (Gesta Collat. Carth. iii. 233, Coleti, 
 Venice, 1728, iii. 295 ; Hard., Paris, 1715,!. 1177)- In his 
 next answer St. Augustine repeats his former statement, 
 substituting, however, " propter communia sacramenta " for 
 "propter sacramenta" (235). Shortly afterwards, in the 
 course of the same discussion, St. Augustine says : 
 11 Quotidie etiam quibusdam non nobiscum in una ecclesia 
 nee in iisdem sacramentis constitutis dicimus Frater," 
 " Daily to some who are not with us in the one Church or 
 in the same Sacraments we say, Brother " (242). Optatus 
 justified his application of the word " frater " to Donatists 
 on account of the "spiritalis una natiuitas" which was 
 common to him and to them. Both he and they had 
 received a valid Christian Baptism. St. Augustine also 
 recognized that schismatic Baptism did effect a birth, but it 
 was a birth which took place outside the Church. St. 
 Augustine had undoubtedly studied the work of Optatus ; 
 but he does not always follow his sentiments (cf. p. 46, 
 above). Here he gives a different explanation of the 
 application of the word " frater " to Donatists, and he 
 emphasizes the fact that they were not " in iisdem sacra- 
 mentis constituti," whereas he called Caecilianus " frater " 
 " propter communia sacramenta." He would not identify 
 the fruitless, though valid, Baptism of the Donatists with the 
 saving Baptism of the Catholic Church. In fact, St. Augustine 
 was ready to apply the word " frater " to a heathen man. 
 Writing to a heathen citizen of Calama named Nectarius, he 
 addresses him : " Domino eximio meritoque honorabili 
 fratri Nectario " (Ep. xci. ; cf. Ep. civ.). 
 
 It has been said that the fact that Catholics were
 
 56 Appendix I 
 
 accustomed to call the Donatist faction "pars Donati" 
 shows that they recognized the Donatists as forming " part " 
 of the Church. This certainly was not St. Augustine's 
 view. At the Collation of Carthage he justifies the reserva- 
 tion of the title " Catholic " to those who were in communion 
 with the Church spread over the whole world, and in the 
 course of this justification he says : " Qui autem a toto 
 separatus est, partemque defendit ab uniuerso praecisam, 
 non sibi usurpethoc nomen sed nobiscum teneat ueritatem," 
 " He who is separated from the whole and defends a part 
 cut off from the whole, let him not seize on this name [that 
 is, the name Catholic], but let him embrace the truth with 
 us" (Gesta Collat. Carth. iii. 101 ; Coleti, iii. 274; Hard. i. 
 1159). According to St. Augustine, the ' f pars Donati" is 
 a part cut off from the whole Church, and therefore it is not 
 a part of that Church. And indeed the phrase " pars 
 Donati " simply means the party or faction of Donatus. 
 24. St. Leo, Ep. clix. 7 (A.D. 458) (see above, p. 22) : 
 
 " Nam hi qui baptismum " For those who have 
 
 ab haereticis acceperunt, cum received Baptism from here- 
 
 antea baptizati non fuissent, tics, not having been pre- 
 
 sola inuocatione Spiritus viously baptized, are simply 
 
 Sancti per impositionem to be confirmed by the in- 
 
 manuum confirmandi sunt, vocation of the Holy Ghost 
 
 quiaformamtantumbaptismi and the laying-on-of-hands, 
 
 sine sanctificationis uirtute because they have been given 
 
 sumpserunt. Et hanc regu- only the form of Baptism 
 
 lam, ut scitis, seruandam in without its sanctifying power, 
 
 omnibus ecclesiis praedica- And, as you know, we teach 
 
 mus, ut lauacrum semel that this rule is to be ob- 
 
 initum nulla iteratione uiole- served in all the churches, 
 
 tur, dicente apostolo, ' Unus namely, that the laver having 
 
 dominus, una fides, unum been once entered is to be 
 
 baptisma.' Cuius ablutio polluted by no iteration, for 
 
 nulla iteratione temeranda the Apostle says : f One 
 
 est, sed, ut diximus, sola Lord, one faith, one Baptism.' 
 
 sanctificatio Spiritus Sancti And this washing is to be 
 
 inuocanda est, ut quod ab profaned by no repetition, 
 
 haereticis nemo accipit a but, as we have said, only
 
 Appendix I 
 
 57 
 
 the sanctification of the Holy 
 Ghost is to be invoked, that 
 what no one receives from 
 heretics may be obtained 
 from Catholic Bishops." 
 
 Epp. lib. xi. ep. 67 (A.D. 601) 
 
 " As for the Arians, at 
 their entrance into the Holy 
 Catholic Church, the West 
 reconciles them by the lay- 
 ing -on-of-hands, and the East 
 by anointing them with the 
 holy chrism. But the 
 Monophysites and other 
 heretics are received [with- 
 out Confirmation, and] solely 
 in virtue of their confessing 
 the true faith, because the 
 Holy Baptism, which they 
 received in their several 
 heretical sects, then in them 
 receives the power of cleans- 
 ing them when either those 
 receive the Holy Ghost by 
 the laying-on-of-the-hand [t.e. 
 the laying-on-of-hands or 
 anointing] or these by the 
 profession of the true faith 
 become united to the bowels 
 of the holy and universal 
 Church." 
 
 26. Rupert Abbot of Deutz, De diuin. offic. x. 25 (about 
 A.D. 1120) (see above, p. 22) : 
 
 " Cum baptizati a talibus " When those who have 
 
 ad catholicam reuertuntur been baptized by such [that 
 
 ecclesiam, non quidem is, by heretics outside the 
 
 repetitur in illis lauacrum Church] return to the 
 
 carnis, siquidem baptizati Catholic Church, the wash- 
 
 sunt in nomine Patris et ing of the flesh is not re- 
 
 Filii et Spiritus Sancti . . . peated, if at least they were 
 
 catholicis sacerdotibus con- 
 sequetur." 
 
 25. St. Gregory the Great, 
 (see above, p. 22) : 
 
 " Unde Arianos per im- 
 positionem manus Occidens, 
 per unctionem uero sancti 
 chrismatis ad ingressum 
 sanctae ecclesiae Catholicae 
 Oriens reformat. Mono- 
 physitas uero et alios ex sola 
 uera confessione recipit, quia 
 sanctum baptisma, quod sunt 
 apud haereticos consecuti, 
 tune in eis uires emundationis 
 recipit cum uel illi per im- 
 positionem manus Spiritum 
 Sanctum acceperint, uel isti 
 propter professionem uerae 
 fidei sanctae et uniuersalis 
 ecclesiae uisceribus fuerint 
 uniti."
 
 Appendix I 
 
 sed per impositionem 
 manuum accipiunt Spiritum 
 Sanctum quern foris . . . 
 accipere non peterant." 
 
 baptized in the Name of the 
 Father and of the Son and 
 of the Holy Ghost. . . . 
 But by the laying-on-of- 
 hands they receive the Holy 
 Ghost, whom . . . they could 
 not receive outside." 
 
 27. I. Morinus, De Paenitentia^ IX. xiii. 5 (see above, 
 p. 22) : 
 
 " Praeterea lectorem 
 considerare uelim hoc discri- 
 mem perpetuum quod est 
 inter baptismum in ecclesia 
 datum et eundem ab haere- 
 ticis collatum. Baptismus 
 in ecclesia datus praesumitur 
 semper non modo ualidus, 
 hoc enim illi commune est 
 cum haereticorum baptismo, 
 sed etiam salutaris et 
 efficax. . . . Contra uero 
 haereticorum baptismus 
 semper praesumitur inefficax 
 propter publicum haeresis 
 obicem. . . . Haereticos . . . 
 extra ecclesiam ualide bapti- 
 zatos, quorum baptismus 
 efficax esse nunquam potuit, 
 . . . per solam fidei pro- 
 fessionem aut etiam manuum 
 in Spiritum Sanctum imposi- 
 tionem ad communionem 
 suam admiserunt." 
 
 " I would have the reader 
 consider the constant dis- 
 tinction between Baptism 
 given in the Church and 
 that conferred by heretics. 
 Baptism given in the Church 
 is always assumed to be not 
 only valid, for validity is 
 common to it and to the 
 Baptism of heretics, but also 
 healthgiving and effective. . . . 
 On the other hand the Bap- 
 tism of heretics is always 
 assumed to be ineffective 
 because of the public bar of 
 heresy. . . . Heretics validly 
 baptized outside the Church, 
 whose Baptism could not be 
 effective, . . . they admitted 
 to their communion . . . 
 simply by a profession of 
 faith or also by the laying- 
 on-of-hands for the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 With this passage of Morinus, cf. Dr. J. J. I. von 
 Dollinger, Hippolytus und Kallistus, p. 132, translated as 
 follows in the English translation by Dr. A. Plummer, 
 p. 122 : " Persons who turned to the Catholic Church from 
 an heretical sect or a schismatical community were either 
 from the outset (i.e. by birth or by their first conversion
 
 Appendix I 59 
 
 from Paganism) members of such a sect, or they had left 
 the Catholic Church and wished now to return to it again. 
 The Church was always wont to make a great distinction 
 between these two classes ; the latter had been renegades, 
 the former for the most part were only unwillingly astray."
 
 APPENDIX II 
 
 SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES 
 
 IT is sometimes asserted that, although the Fathers 
 unanimously deny that baptized members of heretical and 
 schismatical bodies are members also of the Catholic 
 Church, yet the theologians of the Roman Communion 
 take a different view of this question. Even if this state- 
 ment were true, it would not provide any excuse for us, if 
 we were to desert the universally accepted belief of the 
 undivided Church in favour of a new theory, having no 
 roots in tradition. But without venturing to assert that 
 there are, or have been, no such modernizing theologians 
 in the Roman Communion, it will be sufficient to refer to 
 three distinguished post-Tridentine divines, all of them 
 Cardinals, who in their writings take the ordinary Catholic 
 view on this matter. 1 It is believed that their consenting 
 witness represents the general belief of their Church. 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmine devotes a whole chapter 2 to the 
 disproof of the theory that baptized heretics and apostates 
 are members of the Church. It will be enough to quote 
 the opening sentence of the chapter. Bellarmine says : 
 " Alphonso de Castro in his treatise, De lusta Haereticorum 
 Punitione (lib. ii. cap. 24), teaches that baptized heretics 
 
 1 In this following the Decretum fro Jacobinis, issued by Pope 
 Eugenius IV. at the Council of Florence (A.D. 1441), in which heretics 
 and schismatics, as well as pagans and Jews, were spoken of as "intra 
 catholicam ecclesiam non existentes" (Coleti, xviii. 1225; Hard. ix. 
 1026). 
 
 2 De Ecclesia Militante, lib. iii. cap. iv. ; Opp. ed. Venet., 1721. 
 om. ii. pp. 54-56.
 
 Appendix II 61 
 
 and apostates are members of the Church, even if they 
 openly profess false doctrine, which opinion, as it is on the 
 face of it false, so also it can be most easily refuted." 
 
 In the following chapter l Bellarmine refutes, by argu- 
 ments taken from Holy Scripture and from the tradition of 
 the Fathers, a similar assertion made by Alphonso de 
 Castro about schismatics. 
 
 When Clement VIII. made Bellarmine a Cardinal he 
 assigned as his reason for doing so "that the Church of 
 God did not possess his equal in learning." Bellarmine 
 died in 1621. 
 
 II 
 
 Cardinal Franzelin in his Theses de Ecclesia Chris ti* 
 discusses the subject of "The conditions necessary 
 for being in a state of union with the Church, the non- 
 fulfilment of which excludes from being reckoned among 
 the members of the Church." Franzelin's thesis on this 
 subject runs thus : " Although according to the expressed 
 antecedent will of God (noluntate Dei legifera et antecedente) 
 all men be called to salvation, and therefore to the know- 
 ledge of the truth and to the Church; 3 yet for actual 
 union with the Church the necessary conditions are 
 (i) Soundness of faith together with the sacrament of 
 faith which is baptism ; (ii) recognition of the authority 
 of the hierarchy (pbedientia hierarchical) (iii) freedom from 
 excommunication (jus permanent communionis ecclesiasticae). 
 Wherefore neither heretics, nor catechumens, nor schismatics, 
 nor excommunicate persons are members of the Chitrch and 
 in the Church? 
 
 Franzelin was Professor of Theology in the Collegium 
 Romanum for more than eighteen years (1858-1876), and 
 was perhaps the most influential theologian employed in 
 
 1 Op. at., cap. v. pp. 56, 57 ; see also below, pp. 80, 81. 
 a Theses de Ecclesia Christi, thesis xxii, edit. Rom., 1887, pp. 379- 
 401. 
 
 3 Franzelin is doubtless referring to I Tim. ii. 3, 4.
 
 62 Appendix II 
 
 the work that had to be done in preparation for the 
 Vatican Council, and during the progress of its sessions. 
 In 1876 Pius IX. made him a Cardinal, and he died in 
 Rome ten years after his elevation to that dignity. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Cardinal Mazzelk in one of his theological treatises l 
 discusses the question whether Haeretici publici (a category 
 which would certainly include all persons belonging to a 
 heretical body) are or are not members of the Church. 
 He states his conclusion at the very outset of his discussion, 
 and he words it thus : " Public heretics are certainly not 
 members of the Church." In the same treatise (nn. 607- 
 610, pp. 472-475) he discusses a similar question about 
 schismatics. He asserts, and then proceeds to prove, that 
 "as for schismatics, no one doubts that they are not 
 members of the Church." 
 
 Cardinal Mazzella was Professor of Theology and 
 Prefect of studies in the Pontifical Gregorian University 
 at Rome. He was appointed by Leo XIII. to preside 
 over the preparatory Commission on Anglican Ordinations, 
 which was held in Rome during the spring of the year 
 1896.2 
 
 IV 
 
 To the witness of these three distinguished theologians 
 of the Roman Communion it may be well to add extracts 
 from three of the officially authorized books of the Roman 
 Church. 
 
 i. In the third part of the Roman Pontifical there is 
 an Ordo ad Reconciliandum Apostatam, Schismaticum, uel 
 Haereticum. At a certain point in the service the officiating 
 Bishop is directed to stand up and to lay his right hand 
 
 1 De Religions et Ecclesia, disp. iii. art. 1 1, I, nn. 600-603, edit. 
 4to, Rom., 1892, pp. 468-470. 
 
 2 See also statements of Morinus and Van Espen quoted above, 
 PP 33. 34-
 
 Appendix II 63 
 
 on the head of the person who is being reconciled, and 
 to say : 
 
 " Oremus 
 
 Domine Deus omnipotens, Pater Domini nostri Jesu 
 Christi, qui dignatus es hunc famulum tuum a men- 
 dacio haereticae prauitatis [siue, &c.] clementer eruere, 
 et ad Ecclesiam tuam sanctam reuocare ; tu, Domine, 
 emitte in eum Spiritum Sanctum Paraclitum de caelis. 
 ^?. Amen. 
 
 Spiritum sapientiae et intellectus. 1$. Amen. 
 Spiritum consilii et fortitudinis. fy Amen. 
 Spiritum scientiae et pietatis. ]$. Amen. 
 Adimple eum lumine splendoris tui, et in nomine 
 eiusdem Domini nostri lesu Christi signetur signo 
 Cru^cis in uitam aeternam. ty. Amen." 
 
 This prayer closely follows those in the Gelasian Sacra- 
 mentary (pages 130, 131, ed. H. A. Wilson) for reconciling 
 various heretics (ad sanctam ecclesiam catholicam reuocare) , 
 and for reconciling Arians (ad ecclesiam tuam sanctam 
 catholicam eos perdiicere). 
 
 2. In the Roman Missal, on Good Friday after the 
 Gospel, nine solemn intercessory prayers are directed to 
 be said by the Officiant, each prayer being preceded by 
 a solemn invitation or bidding to prayer, in which the 
 purpose of the prayer is succinctly stated. The bidding 
 formula which precedes the seventh of these prayers runs 
 thus : 
 
 " Oremus et pro haereticis et schismaticis : ut Deus et 
 Dominus noster eruat eos ab erroribus uniuersis et ad 
 sanctam matrem Ecclesiam Catholicam atque Apostolicam 
 reuocare dignetur" 
 
 3. The Roman canon law, as given in the new Codex 
 iuris canonici (1917), canon 731, section 2, has the words 
 "Vetitum est Sacramenta Ecclesiae ministrare haereticis 
 aut schismaticis, etiam bona fide errantibus eaque peten- 
 tibus, nisi prius, erroribus reiectis, Ecclesiae reconciliati 
 fuerint"
 
 APPENDIX III 
 
 TRANSMISSION OF GRACE THROUGH APOSTOLIC SUC- 
 CESSION (see above, p. 25) 
 
 THE question who are members of the Church is very 
 closely connected with the fact of the succession from the 
 Apostles in the Catholic Church. Consequently, we are 
 adding in this Appendix some passages from early writers 
 which, in our judgement, have not received sufficient atten- 
 tion in recent discussions. To take an instance from a very 
 able book, which has deservedly gained a high reputation, 
 in Dr. Headlam's Bampton Lectures on TJu Doctrine of the 
 Church and Christian Reunion a very positive assertion is 
 made several times that there is no support at all in the 
 writers of the early Church for a doctrine of the succession 
 of Bishops from the Apostles by means of Ordination. For 
 instance, he says : 
 
 " I have, I think, read everything from the Fathers 
 which is quoted in favour of Apostolic Succession, and I 
 do not know any passage which speaks of succession by 
 ordination in this sense. [The sense denned by Bishop 
 Gore in TJie Church and the Ministry ', p. 59, ed. 1919; 
 p. 65, ed. 1900.] If this statement be correct, the argu- 
 ment from silence becomes, I think, conclusive, because 
 we are not dealing with periods about which we have little 
 information. We have very full knowledge " (p. 128). 
 
 " The modern teaching of succession by ordination 
 finds no support in the teaching of the early Church " 
 (p. 172). 
 
 " The early Church quite definitely held that the Bishops 
 were the successors of the Apostles, but there is no evidence 
 at all to show that it considered that they held this position 
 because they had received grace by transmission from the 
 Apostles" (p. 265).
 
 Appendix III 65 
 
 Now there is, ef course, a sense of the word trans- 
 mission in which it is not affirmed by any theologian. No 
 theologian supposes^that the consecrating or ordaining Bishop 
 is the source of grace : the source of grace is God. No 
 theologian supposes that there is some physical or material 
 thing which the consecrating or ordaining Bishop takes out 
 of himself and gives to another. But there is very good 
 historical reason for asserting transmission in the sense that 
 by means of the action of the Bishop in the laying-on-of- 
 hands with prayer the ordained or consecrated person 
 receives from God the grace of the Order which is con- 
 ferred on him. 
 
 This transmission of grace is spoken of in the Fathers 
 under different aspects, of which the following are in- 
 stances : 
 
 i. In regard to the gift of truth to be preserved in the 
 Church. St. Irenaeus (Gaul, about A.D. 180), Adu. Haer. 
 III. iii. i : 
 
 " Traditionem itaque 
 apostolorum in toto mundo 
 manifestatam in omni eccle- 
 sia adest perspicere omni- 
 bus que uera uelint uidere, 
 et habemus annumerare eos 
 qui ab apostolis instituti 
 sunt episcopi in ecclesiis et 
 successiones [al. successores] 
 eorum usque ad nos qui nihil 
 tale docuerunt neque cog- 
 nouerunt quale ab his de- 
 liratur." 
 
 IV. xxvi. 2 : 
 
 " Quapropter eis qui in 
 ecclesia sunt presbyteris 
 obaudire oportet, his qui 
 successionem habentab apos- 
 tolis sicut ostendimus, qui 
 cum episcopatus successione 
 
 " All who wish to see the 
 truth can perceive through- 
 out all the world the tradi- 
 tion of the Apostles mani- 
 fested in every Church, and 
 we can enumerate those who 
 by the Apostles were ap- 
 pointed Bishops in the 
 Churches, and the succes- 
 sions \al. successors] of them 
 even to our own time who 
 neither taught nor knew any 
 such thing as these madly 
 imagine." 
 
 " It is necessary to obey 
 those presbyters who are in 
 the Church, who have suc- 
 cession from the Apostles, as 
 we have shown, who, to- 
 gether with the succession 
 c
 
 66 
 
 Appendix III 
 
 in the episcopate, have re- 
 ceived the certain gift of 
 truth according to the will 
 of the Father ; but as for the 
 rest who depart from the 
 primitive succession, and 
 hold meetings in any place 
 whatever, we must regard 
 them with suspicion either 
 as heretics and evil-minded, 
 or as making division and 
 proud and self-pleasing, or, 
 again, as hypocrites so acting 
 for the sake of gain and 
 vain-glory." 
 
 " True knowledge is the 
 teaching of the Apostles, and 
 the original condition of the 
 Church in the whole world, 
 and the mark of the body 
 of Christ according to the 
 successions of the Bishops, 
 to whom they committed 
 that Church which is in 
 every place." 
 
 There is an important comment on the teaching of 
 St. Irenaeus in an article by Dr. C. H. Turner in the Church 
 Quarterly Review for July 1920, p. 336 : 
 
 " It does not seem to me open to question that St. 
 Irenaeus, for instance, meant to imply a succession of 
 Bishops from the Apostles in such sense that the Bishops 
 inherited not only the Apostles' teaching chair, but also the 
 right to confer the same sacramental gifts as in the first age 
 the Apostles had conferred." 
 
 Also, in the Essays on the Early History of the Church 
 and the Ministry \ edited by Dr. Swete, pp. 107, 108, 
 Dr. Turner wrote : 
 
 " It was certain from the first that any claim to be a 
 Bishop in the successions from the Apostles meant on the 
 
 charisma ueritatis certum 
 secundum placitum Patris 
 acceperunt : reliquos uero 
 qui absistunt a principali 
 successione et quocunque 
 loco colliguntur suspectos 
 habere vel quasi haereticos 
 et malae sententiae vel quasi 
 scindentes et elatos et sibi 
 placentes aut rursus ut hy- 
 pocritus quaestus gratia et 
 uanae gloriae hoc ope- 
 rantes." 
 
 IV. xxxiii. 8 : 
 
 " Agnitio uera est aposto- 
 lorum doctrina et antiquus 
 ecclesiae status in uniuerso 
 mundo et character corporis 
 Christi secundum succes- 
 siones episcoporum quibus 
 illi earn quae in unoquoque 
 loco est ecclesiam tradid- 
 erunt."
 
 Appendix HI 67 
 
 part of the claimant the satisfaction of two conditions a 
 right relation to the local Church, of which he claimed to 
 have been constituted the head, and a right relation to the 
 whole Church, of the episcopate of which he claimed to 
 have been constituted a member. If he had not received 
 by ordination the charisma of the episcopal office, he had 
 no right to govern, or bind or loose, or impart the gifts of 
 office, because without this charisma of his ordination he 
 and his community had nothing to stand upon but their 
 own basis ; with it they possessed the whole fellowship and 
 life and virtue of the Church catholic and apostolic." 
 
 See also pp. 60, 61 of Dr. Gore's The Church and the 
 Ministry (ed. 1919), which were re- written by Dr. Turner 
 (see Preface, p. v), and Dr. Turner's preface to the second 
 edition (1921) of Essays on the Early History of the Church 
 and the Ministry, pp. xxvii-xxxii. In his article on 
 "Apostolic Succession" in The Prayer Book Dictionary 
 (1912), p. 41, Dr. Headlam seemed to allow that St. 
 Irenaeus held more than a mere succession in the sees. 
 He says : 
 
 " They are not only the successors of the Apostles, but 
 with the succession they have received the charisma ueritatis, 
 and the charismata Domini are associated with those who 
 have the Church's succession from the Apostles." 
 
 2. In regard to the whole life and work of the Church, 
 though introduced with reference to the preservation of true 
 doctrine. 
 
 Tertullian, De praescript. haeret. (Africa, about A.D. 199, 
 written when he was still a member of the Church), 20 : 
 
 " Et perinde ecclesias " They [i.e. the Apostles] 
 
 apud unamquamque ciuita- founded Churches in every 
 
 tern condiderunt a quibus city, from which all the other 
 
 traducem fidei et semina Churches derived and daily 
 
 doctrinae ceterae exinde derive the layer of the faith 
 
 ecclesiae mutuatae sunt et and the seeds of doctrine, 
 
 quotidie mutuantur, ut that they may become 
 
 ecclesiae fiant. Ac per hoc Churches. And it is in this 
 
 et ipsae apostolicae deputa- way that they themselves
 
 68 
 
 Appendix HI 
 
 will be thought to be 
 apostolic, as being the off- 
 spring of apostolic Churches." 
 
 " If any heresies dare to 
 connect themselves with the 
 apostolic age that they may 
 appear to have descended 
 from the Apostles because 
 they have been under the 
 rule of the Apostles, we can 
 say, Let them declare the 
 origins of their Churches, 
 let them unfold the succes- 
 sion of their Bishops, so 
 coming down from the be- 
 ginning with continuous steps 
 that the much venerated first 
 Bishop may have had as his 
 consecrator and predecessor 
 one of the Apostles or of 
 apostolic men who moreover 
 remained in communion 
 with the Apostles. For in 
 this way the apostolic 
 Churches give an account of 
 their beginnings, 1 as the 
 Church of the Smyrnaeans 
 goes back to Polycarp, who 
 was appointed by John, and 
 as the Church of the Romans 
 to Clement, who was conse- 
 crated by Peter. In exactly 
 the same way also the other 
 Churches show their foun- 
 ders, whom, as having been 
 appointed to the episcopate 
 by Apostles, they regard as 
 transmitting the apostolic 
 seed." 
 
 1 For the rendering of census by " beginning," see the note on De 
 Corona, 13, by F. Oehler in his edition of Tertullian (Lipsiae, 1853), {.452. 
 
 buntur ut suboles aposto- 
 licarum ecclesiarum." 
 
 " Ceterum si quae audent 
 interserere se aetati apos- 
 tolicae ut ideo uideantur ab 
 apostolis traditae quia sub 
 apostolis fuerunt possumus 
 dicere : edant ergo origines 
 ecclesiarum suarum, euol- 
 uant ordinem episcoporum 
 suorum ita per successiones 
 ab initio decurrentum ut pri- 
 mus ille episcopus aliquem 
 ex apostolis uel apostolicis 
 uiris qui tamen cum apos- 
 tolis perseuerauerit habuerit 
 auctorem et antecessorem. 
 Hoc enim modo ecclesiae 
 apostolicae census suos de- 
 ferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum 
 ecclesia Polycarpum ab 
 loanne collocatum refert, 
 sicut Romanorum Clemen- 
 tern a Petro ordinatum. Iti- 
 dem proinde utiqueet ceterae 
 exhibent quos ab apostolis 
 in episcopatum constitutes 
 apostolici seminis traduces 
 habeant."
 
 Appendix III 69 
 
 3. In regard to the gifts of grace. 
 St. Hippolytus (Rome, early in the third century), 
 Refutatio omnium haeresium^ i prooemium : 
 
 " These [heretical tenets] 
 none will refute save the 
 Holy Ghost who has been 
 transmitted in the Church, 
 whom the Apostles first re- 
 ceived and then conferred on 
 the right believers, whose 
 successors we are and there- 
 by share in the same grace 
 and high - priesthood and 
 teaching office, and have 
 been accounted guardians 
 of the Church, "i 
 
 St. Firmilian (Caesarea in Cappadocia, A.D. 256), Ep. 
 inter Cyprianicas^ Ixxv. 16 : 
 
 Tavra Se Ircpo? OVK e Aey a 
 $) TO iv CKK\f)<Tia 7rapaSo0V 
 ayiov irvfvp.a, o5 
 irporepoi OL aTroaroXoi 
 Socrav rot? 
 <TIV' u>v 
 
 VOVTC? rs re aurs 
 /ACTC'XOVTCS dp^teparctas re KCU 
 SiSacTKaAias fat (f>povpol T^S 
 
 " In solos apostolos in- 
 sufflauit Christus dicens : 
 Accipite Spiritum Sanc- 
 tum. . . . Potestas ergo 
 peccatorum remittendorum 
 apostolis data est et ecclesiis 
 quas illi a Christo missi 
 constituerunt et episcopis 
 qui eis ordinatione uicaria 
 successerunt." 
 
 " On the Apostles alone 
 Chiist breathed, saying, Re- 
 ceive ye the Holy Ghost. . . . 
 Therefore the authority for 
 forgiving sins was given to 
 the Apostles, and to the 
 Churches which they, having 
 been sent by Christ, founded, 
 and to the Bishops who suc- 
 ceeded them by ordination 
 in their room." 
 
 With the phrase "qui eis ordinatione uicaria succes- 
 serunt " cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. Ixvi. 4, " omnes praepositos qui 
 apostolis uicaria ordinatione succedunt." 
 
 1 This passage is quoted by Dr. Headlam on p. 126 in regard to 
 succession in general, but he does not seem to have appreciated its 
 significance in regard to "transmission." In his article on " Apostolic 
 Succession" in The Prayer Book Dictionary (1912), p. 41, however, he 
 says : " With the possible exception of the passage of Hippolytus . . . 
 it {i.e. the idea of transmission] does not seem to be held at all in the 
 Patristic period."
 
 ;o 
 
 Appendix III 
 
 St. Ambrose (Milan, late in the fourth century), De 
 Paenitentia^ ii. 12 : 
 
 " Impossibile uidebatur 
 per paenitentiam peccata 
 dimitti : concessit hoc 
 Christus apostolis suis quod 
 ab apostolis ad sacerdotum 
 officia transmissum est." 
 
 " It seemed impossible 
 for sins to be remitted by 
 means of penance : this 
 Christ granted to His 
 Apostles, which from the 
 Apostles has been trans- 
 mitted to the Order of 
 Bishops." 
 
 St. Pacian (Spain, late in the fourth century), Ep. i. 6 : 
 
 " Si uno in loco et 
 resolutio uinculorum et 
 sacramenti potestas datur, 
 aut totum ad nos ex aposto- 
 lorum forma et potestate 
 deductum est aut nee illud 
 ex decretis relaxatum est. . . . 
 Si ergo et lauacri et chrisma- 
 tis potestas maiorum longe 
 charismatum ad episcopos 
 inde descendit, et ligandi 
 quoque ius adfuit atque 
 soluendi." 
 
 " If in one place both the 
 loosening of bonds and the 
 authority of the sacrament 
 are given, either the whole 
 has been derived to us from 
 the formal authority of the 
 Apostles or not even this 
 relaxation has been made 
 from the decree. ... If then 
 the authority of the laver 
 and the anointing, gifts far 
 greater, has descended thence 
 [that is, from the Apostles] 
 to Bishops, then the right to 
 bind and to loose also has 
 remained theirs." 
 
 Quaestiones ueteris et noiii testamenti by the author known 
 as Ambrosiaster (Italian, about A.D. 380), xcii. 2 : 
 
 " Illud autem quod in- 
 sufflasse in discipulos 
 dominus legitur post dies 
 paucos resurrectionis suae et 
 dixisse : Accipite Spiritum 
 Sanctum, ecclesiastics po- 
 testas intellegitur esse ; quia 
 enim omnia in traditione 
 dominica per Spiritum 
 Sanctum aguntur, idcirco, 
 cum regula eis et forma 
 
 " That which the Lord is 
 said to have breathed on 
 His disciples a few days 
 after His resurrection and to 
 have said : Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost, is understood 
 to be the ecclesiastical 
 authority. For, because all 
 things in the bestowing of 
 the Lord are done by means 
 of the Holy Ghost, therefore,
 
 Appendix III 
 
 traditur huius modi disci- 
 plinae, dicitur eis: Accipite 
 Spiritum Sanctum, et quia 
 uere ad ius ecclesiasticum 
 pertinet, statim subiecit 
 dicens : Cuius tenueritis 
 peccata, tenebuntur ; si cuius 
 remiseritis, remittentur eis. 
 Inspiratio ergo haec gratia 
 quaedam est quae per tradi- 
 tionem infunditur ordinatis, 
 per quam commendatiores 
 habeantur." 
 
 ex. 7 : 
 
 "Ordinem ab apostolo 
 Petro coeptum et usque ad 
 hoc tempus per traducem 
 succedentium episcoporum 
 seruatum." 
 
 St. Epiphanius (Cyprus, 
 Adu. Haer. Ixxv. 4 : 
 
 Kcu OTI /uev a<f>po<rvvi]<; 
 ecm TO irav c/ATrXewv TOIS 
 cruvecriv KCK-ny/x.ei'ois TOVTO 
 8r]\ov TO Xcyeiv avrov ciri<r- 
 KOTTOV Kai TrpecrySi/rcpov i<rov 
 
 efvai. Kttl TTWS COTCU TOVTO 
 
 Svvarov; ^ jw-ev yap rri 
 TraTcpwv yewrjTiKr) reins' TraTe- 
 pas yap yevva rfi iKKXrjaria' 17 
 8c Trarepa? /U.T) Svva.fJi.fvr) ytvvav 
 Sta T^S TOU XovTpou TraXty- 
 yevcai'as TCKVOL ycwa TTJ 
 o-t'a ov /M^V Trarepas 
 
 when the rule and essence 
 of discipline of this kind is 
 bestowed on them, it is said 
 to them : Receive ye the 
 Holy Ghost; and because 
 this really pertains to the 
 law of the Church, He at 
 once added saying : Whose 
 sins ye retain, they will be 
 retained ; and whose sins ye 
 remit, they will be remitted 
 to them. Therefore this 
 breathing is a kind of grace 
 which through the bestowal 
 is poured into the ordained, 
 by means of which they are 
 made more approved." 
 
 "The Order begun from 
 the Apostle Peter and pre- 
 served even to the present 
 time by means of the trans- 
 mission of succeeding 
 Bishops." 
 
 late in the fourth century), 
 
 "To men of sense it is 
 clear that it is the height of 
 folly to say that Bishop and 
 presbyter are equal. How 
 could this be ? For the one 
 is the Order that begets 
 fathers, for it begets fathers 
 to the Church, while the 
 other is unable to beget 
 fathers and begets to the 
 Church through the laver of 
 regeneration children not 
 fathers or teachers."
 
 72 Appendix III 
 
 In the first and second sections of this Appendix III we 
 have quoted some passages which refer to the apostolic 
 succession but not directly to the transmission of grace and 
 authority through Ordination. The passages quoted in the 
 third section all, in our judgement, refer to such transmission. 
 They are taken from writers representing different parts of 
 the Church ; and they show that the " silence " about trans- 
 mission of grace by means of Ordination is less complete 
 than Dr. Headlam appears to think.
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 SOME CRITICISMS ON CANON LACEY'S DEFENCE OF THE 
 LAMBETH CONFERENCE 
 
 SINCE the foregoing paper and appendices were written 
 and sent to the printer a small book has been published 
 by Canon Lacey entitled The Universal Church: A Study 
 in the Lambeth Call to Union. This book is a discussion 
 of the particular sentence in the Lambeth Appeal which 
 we have criticized, and Canon Lacey has written for the 
 purpose of defending the very statement which it is the 
 object of our paper to refute. 
 
 Canon Lacey sees with characteristic clearness that, if 
 the fundamental statement in the Lambeth Appeal is to 
 be justified, it is necessary in the first place to affirm a 
 distinction between " the Catholic Church " and " the 
 Universal Church of Christ which is His Body " ; and in 
 the second place to assert that heretics and schismatics, if 
 they have been validly baptized and believe in our Lord, 
 share membership in the Body of Christ. He is prepared 
 on his part so to maintain. On the other hand, it is our 
 conviction that in the foregoing pages we have shown this 
 distinction and this assertion to be contrary to the New 
 Testament and the Fathers of the Church. 
 
 Canon Lacey, without entering into details, admits that 
 the general tradition of the Church has been as we our- 
 selves understand it. Apparently he would not dispute 
 that the great majority of the passages which we have 
 quoted are rightly understood as we have understood them. 
 Such a position as we have maintained he describes as " a 
 commonplace of theology," as entitled to' claim "general 
 
 C 2
 
 74 Appendix IV 
 
 agreement of the Fathers," as being a "constant tradi- 
 tion " and " common ground to all Christians " in the early 
 Church (pp. 9, 10). 
 
 So far, then, Canon Lacey and we do not disagree. 
 He holds, as we hold, that the fundamental statement of 
 the Lambeth Appeal is contrary to the ordinary and general 
 expression of the Christian tradition. But, having allowed 
 so much, Canon Lacey goes on to a contention in which 
 we cannot agree. He maintains that in the language of 
 the Fathers and the practice of the early Church there are 
 certain elements which tend towards justifying the Lambeth 
 statement (pp. 10-27), and he suggests that the Lambeth 
 Conference, like the Council of Constance, under the 
 influence of "a movement of the Spirit driving men to 
 concord," "broke the bonds "of a theory which was 
 strangling the Church, and adherence to which would make 
 reunion impossible" (p. 53). 
 
 It has been our purpose in this paper to set out evidence. 
 It is our wish that the whole question should receive, in the 
 light of history, a consideration which we do not think was 
 at all adequately given to it in the Lambeth Conference. 
 It falls within our purpose, then, that in this Appendix we 
 should examine the fragments of evidence from the early 
 Church to which Canon Lacey refers as affording some 
 degree of justification for the Lambeth statement. 
 
 In his discussion of the language of the Fathers, the 
 first writer whom Canon Lacey mentions is Optatus of 
 Mileum. His argument is that the application of the term 
 " brother " to Donatists, the statement that Donatists and 
 Catholics have "one spiritual birth," and a metaphorical 
 passage describing the rending brought about by the Dona- 
 tists as making strips which hung together in rags, afford 
 sufficient reason for supposing that, when Optatus explicitly 
 asserted that the Donatists were " cut off from the Holy 
 Church," the significance of such an assertion is neutralized 
 by these other passages (pp. 11-15). In our note 22 on 
 pp. 43-46 we have dealt somewhat fully with the teaching
 
 Appendix IV 75 
 
 of Optatus. We have there explained what we think the 
 terms " brother " and " one spiritual birth " to mean. The 
 passage about the rags (de schism. Don. iii. 9) does not 
 suggest more than that the original Donatists before their 
 secession had been in the unity of the Church by virtue of 
 their Baptism. Our previous treatment of Optatus in the 
 note to which we have referred in our judgement supplies 
 by anticipation the refutation of what Canon Lacey has 
 now written. And, even if there were some passages in 
 Optatus contrary to the general tradition, which on this 
 point does not appear to us to be the case, his testimony 
 by itself, as we have already mentioned (p. 46, above), 
 would not be important. 
 
 Canon Lacey (p. 19) next cites the eighth canon of the 
 Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). In our note 19 on pp. 
 37-42 we have quoted the canon and have discussed its 
 meaning with a fulness which, we think, makes it un- 
 necessary that we should say more now than that, in our 
 judgement, the two sentences which Canon Lacey has 
 written about the canon do not produce any argument at all 
 against what in our note we have at some length maintained. 
 
 The case of heretics who, having been baptized in the 
 Church, left it, and were afterwards restored to it by 
 Penance, is cited by Canon Lacey as a proof that such 
 persons were regarded as " members of the Church " while 
 still in schism (pp. 19-21). As a matter of fact, this cir- 
 cumstance only shows that, since these had been baptized 
 in the Church, their former Baptism afforded ground for 
 reconciliation by Penance when in repentance they sought 
 to be restored. On pp. 10-17, above, we have shown 
 that those who were excommunicated for heresy, or had 
 broken away from the Church to join a heretical sect, were 
 universally regarded as external to the Church; and that 
 this was the teaching of Holy Scripture and of tradition. 
 That St. Athanasius and the Council at Alexandria in 
 A.D. 362 urged the Bishops at Antioch "to receive into 
 communion repentant Arians who should confess the Nicene
 
 76 Appendix IV 
 
 faith and anathematize its opponents, without imposing any 
 other terms" (p. 21), is an illustration of this principle, and 
 at the same time an instance of that gentle treatment of 
 those who recently or by mistake, or through the influence 
 of others, had become schismatical or heretical, about 
 another instance of which we have written on p. 47, 
 above. It should be remembered that the great majority 
 of the Bishops, whom St. Athanasius had in view, had been 
 cajoled into signing either the definition of Ariminum or 
 that of Seleucia only three years before. 
 
 No weight can, we think, be attached to the attempt 
 (pp. 21, 22) to make the phrase "company of Catholics" 
 in the letter of Pope Siricius, which we have quoted in our 
 note 20 on pp. 42, 43, above, mean something else than 
 the Church. Such an interpretation as Canon Lacey 
 suggests is distinctly contrary to the practice of the Roman 
 Church in its treatment of heretics. 
 
 Canon Lacey next mentions that " the Second Nicene 
 Council, after applauding the sentiment that heresy cuts a 
 man off from the Church, allowed a number of Iconoclast 
 Bishops, on the strength of a satisfactory confession of 
 faith and a simple renunciation of their errors, to continue 
 in their respective sees," and draws an inference that 
 " strong words about exclusion from the Church must not 
 be taken too literally, or pressed to absolute conclusions " 
 (p. 22). The admission to the Second Council of Nicaea 
 (A.D. 787) of those Bishops who had opposed the venera- 
 tion of images was allowed by the Council with much 
 consideration and care. During the opening proceedings 
 of the Council these Bishops were kept waiting outside. 
 Then three of them, Basil of Ancyra, Theodore of Myra, 
 and Theodosius of Amorium, were brought in, and allowed 
 to make their defence. They asked for forgiveness, and 
 read a confession of faith and a renunciation of their 
 error ; and were at once allowed to take their places in the 
 Council as Bishops of their sees. Seven other Bishops, 
 Hypatius of Nicaea, Leo of Rhodes, Gregory of Pessinus,
 
 Appendix IV 77 
 
 Leo of Iconium, George of Pisidia, Nicolas of Hierapolis, 
 and Leo of Carpathus, were then brought in. After a long 
 discussion, and an examination of the traditional practice 
 of the Church in regard to those who had obtained Ordina- 
 tion from heretics, it was decided that these seven Bishops 
 also might be admitted, though the actual admission was 
 for the time deferred. At the second session of the Council, 
 another Bishop, Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, was brought in, 
 and was at first received with some harshness, and was 
 then required to prepare a written statement to be pro- 
 duced at the third session. At the third session Gregory 
 of Neo-Caesarea presented and read his declaration, and 
 after a severe examination was at length allowed to take 
 his place in the Council (Coleti, viii. 700-808 ; Hard. iv. 
 40-129). There are several points to notice here. In the 
 first place, the position of these Bishops, who in the con- 
 troversies of the time had opposed the veneration of images, 
 is not in the slightest degree parallel to that of schismatics 
 or of heretics who in modern times are apart from the 
 Church. Secondly, these Bishops themselves acknowledged, 
 and the Council asserted, that even their position made 
 their reconciliation necessary. The Bishops express the 
 desire to be " united to the Catholic Church " (Coleti, viii. 
 700, 704; Hard. iv. 40. 44). The Council uses of them 
 the phrase " coming to the Catholic Church " (Coleti, viii. 
 740, 741; Hard. iv. 73, 76). Thirdly, the whole attitude 
 of the Council towards them confirms the statement of 
 John of Antioch, which was assented to by the Council, 
 that " heresy separates any man from the Church " (Coleti, 
 viii. 713; Hard. iv. 52). These considerations, in our 
 judgement, show, the falsity of Canon Lacey's argument 
 (p. 22} that the admission of the Iconoclast Bishops is a 
 proof that the assertion of John of Antioch and the Council 
 is not to be literally understood. 
 
 The other witness from the early Church cited by Canon 
 Lacey is St. Cyprian. In our opinion, St. Cyprian's doctrine 
 of the invalidity of any Baptism administered outside the
 
 7 8 Appendix IV 
 
 visible Church and the communion of lawful pastors is 
 incompatible with a claim that support may be found in his 
 writings for the statement of the Lambeth Conference 
 (see pp. 18, 19, above); but it is necessary for us to 
 notice the theory which Canon Lacey has formulated 
 that, according to St. Cyprian, those who had been 
 baptized in the Church, and had gone out from it, were 
 still members of the Church. " Those," Canon Lacey says, 
 " who had gone out, like Novatian, from the Catholic 
 Church were still sheep of the flock and had only to be 
 restored to the fold. Some heretics, then, are in the flock, 
 though others are not ; no heretic is in the fold. Here we 
 find the very distinction from which we set out ; the dis- 
 tinction between the Church Catholic extensive, which is the 
 flock, and the Church Catholic intensive^ which is the fold " 
 (p. 25). " Such a man," Canon Lacey says again, " was 
 already a sheep of Christ's flock, though stolen or astray ; it 
 was necessary only to bring him within the fold" (p. 23). 
 We do not think that this interpretation of St. Cyprian's 
 words can derive any support from the passage which Canon 
 Lacey quotes (Ep. Ixxi. 2). It is as follows : 
 
 " Quod nos quoque hodie " This, too, we also at 
 
 obseruamus ut quos constet this day observe, so that in 
 hie baptizatos esse et a nobis the case of any about whom 
 ad haereticos transisse, si it is known that they were 
 postmodum peccato suo cog- baptized among us and from 
 nito et errore digesto ad us have gone to heretics, if 
 ueritatem et matricem re- afterwards they recognize 
 deant, satis sit in paenitentia their sin and lay aside their 
 manum inponere, ut quia error and return to the truth 
 ouis iam fuerat, hanc ouem and the womb from which 
 abigeatam et errabundam in they were born, it is suffi- 
 ouile suum pastor recipiat." cient to lay the hand on 
 
 them in Penance, so that, 
 because it had been a sheep 
 some time ago, the Shepherd 
 may receive back this stolen 
 and wandering sheep into 
 His fold."
 
 Appendix IV 79 
 
 This passage, even taken by itself, does not support 
 Canon Lacey's contention. St. Cyprian is speaking of those 
 who before had been baptized in the Church but had joined 
 heretics, whom, on their return to the Church, there was no 
 need to baptize. Because such a one had been a sheep, 
 St. Cyprian says, the Shepherd may receive back this stolen 
 and wandering sheep into His fold. When such were 
 scattered, they were not sheep of the flock. They rejoin 
 the flock when they are received back into the fold. There 
 is no distinction between flock and fold, as if the flock were 
 greater than the fold. The wandering sheep rejoins the 
 flock when it is received back into the fold. This would be 
 the natural meaning of the passage even taken by itself. 
 The impossibility of Canon Lacey's interpretation is further 
 shown by comparing two other passages from St. Cyprian's 
 Epistles : * 
 
 Ep. Ixviii. 3 : 
 
 " Si quis ex collegio " If any of our College 
 
 nostro haeresim facere et should attempt to introduce 
 
 gregem Christi lacerare et heresy, and to rend and lay 
 
 uastare temptauerit, sub- waste the flock of Christ, the 
 
 ueniant ceteri, qua pastores rest may come in aid and, 
 
 utiles et misericordes, oues as good and merciful shep- 
 
 dominicas in gregem colli- herds, gather the Lord's 
 
 gant." sheep into the flock." 
 
 Here St. Cyprian plainly says that, after the flock of 
 Christ has been laid waste, the sheep cease to be in the 
 flock, though they still belong to the Lord, but they need to 
 be gathered by good shepherds into the flock. 
 
 Ep. Ixix. 5 : 
 
 " Dominus insinuans " The Lord intimating to 
 nobis unitatem de diuina us that unity comes of divine 
 
 auctoritate uenientem ponit authority, declares and says, 
 
 et dicit : Ego et Pater unum I and My Father are one. 
 
 sumus. Ad quam unitatem To which unity bringing His 
 
 redigens ecclesiam suam Church He further says, 
 
 denuo dicit : et erit unus There shall be one flock and 
 1 All three Epistles were written well on in A.D. 255.
 
 8o Appendix IV 
 
 grex et unus pastor. Si one Shepherd. But, if there 
 
 autem grex unus est, quo- is one flock, how can he be 
 
 modo potest gregi adnume- numbered as of the flock, 
 
 rari qui in numero gregis who is not in the number of 
 
 non est ? " the flock ? " 
 
 Here, again, the flock is not distinguished from the fold. 
 St. Cyprian denies that Novatian, who, according to Canon 
 Lacey's interpretation, would be in the flock though not in 
 the fold, is in the flock. These two passages, which are in 
 complete harmony with the rest of St. Cyprian's teaching 
 elsewhere, strongly support our opinion that the obvious 
 interpretation of the passage cited by Canon Lacey, and not 
 the subtle modification of its meaning which Canon Lacey 
 places on it, is the right interpretation. The phrase " sheep 
 of the flock," which Canon Lacey applies to Novatian in 
 his representation of St. Cyprian is exactly what St. Cyprian 
 does not say : " ouem abigeatam et errabundam " is a sheep 
 which has gone astray out of the flock. 
 
 In dealing with the later practice of the Church, Canon 
 Lacey lays some stress on the fact that Western theologians 
 have regarded the excommunicated and non-Catholics " as 
 within the ambit of spiritual jurisdiction," and he draws the 
 inference that this involves that they are " members of the 
 Church " (pp. 28-40). It is, perhaps, sufficient to reply 
 that the very writers who assert that such persons are 
 " subjects " of the Church as clearly deny that they are 
 " members " of the Church. For instance, Cardinal Bellar- 
 mine, in answering an objector who argued that, since the 
 Church can judge and punish heretics, they are within the 
 Church, says (De Ecclesia Militante, III. iv. 3, Opp. Omn. 
 Venet. 1721, torn. ii. p. 56) : 
 
 " Respondeo haereticos, " I reply that heretics, 
 
 licet non sint de ecclesia, notwithstanding that they 
 
 tamen debere esse, et proinde be not members of the 
 
 ad earn pertinere, ut oues ad Church, nevertheless ought 
 
 ouile, unde fugerunt. Sicut to be, and therefore belong 
 
 solet dici, ista ouis est illius to it, as sheep belong to the
 
 Appendix IV 
 
 81 
 
 fold whence they have fled. 
 As it is often said that a 
 sheep is of a fold when 
 nevertheless it is wandering 
 outside the fold. Now the 
 Church can judge in the 
 case of those who actually 
 are within [/.<?. Catholics] or 
 at any rate ought to be [/.<?. 
 heretics] as a shepherd can 
 compel to return to the fold 
 a sheep which wanders about 
 the mountains outside the 
 fold, and a general can 
 forcibly compel to return to 
 his camp or even execute a 
 deserter who has fled to the 
 camp of the enemy." 
 
 So, too, Cardinal Mazzella clearly distinguishes that 
 heretics, though the " subjects " of the Church, are not 
 " members " of the Church. His words are (De Religione 
 et Ecclesia, disp. iii. art. x. i, n. 567, 2, fourth edition, 
 Rome, 1892, p. 449) : 
 
 ouilis, quando tamen uaga- 
 tur extra ouile. Potest autem 
 ecclesia judicare de iis qui 
 reipsa intus sunt uel certe 
 esse debent, sicut pastor 
 reuera potest ouem, quae 
 extra ouile errat per monies, 
 cogere iterum ad ouile, et 
 imperator potest desertorem 
 militiae, qui transfugit ad 
 castra hostium, ui cogere 
 ad sua castra aut etiam sus- 
 pendere." 
 
 " Quoad haereticos recte 
 docet Bellarminus eos non 
 esse de ecclesia sed ad 
 ecclesiam pertinere, seu non 
 esse membra ecclesiae sed 
 esse ecclesiae subditos. . . . 
 Quisque reuera ecclesiae 
 subiicitur per baptismum, qui 
 utique in haereticis perseue- 
 rat; nee quia in crimen 
 haeresis incidunt, ab eccle- 
 siae subiectione subtra- 
 huntur." 
 
 " As to heretics Bellar- 
 mine teaches rightly that 
 they are not of the Church 
 but belong to the Church, or 
 that they are not members 
 of the Church but are sub- 
 jects of the Church. ... All 
 who are baptized are made 
 subjects of the Church by 
 Baptism, even one who per- 
 sists in heresy ; and it does 
 not result that, because men 
 fall into the sin of heresy, 
 they are withdrawn from the 
 rule of the Church." 
 
 Like teaching is expressed by the great Jesuit theologian
 
 82 Appendix IV 
 
 Suarez (De Legibus> IV. xix., Opp. Venet. 1740, torn, 
 v. p. 233). See also our Appendix II., pp. 60-63, above. 
 
 We have referred to these passages of the Latin theo- 
 logians, Bellarmine, Mazzella, and Suarez simply for the 
 purpose of showing that they did not suppose, as Canon 
 Lacey seems to argue, that an acknowledgment that any 
 are " subjects " of the Church would imply that they are 
 "members" of the Church. Our point is simply that 
 Canon Lacey is wrong in the deduction which he, unlike 
 the great Latin theologians themselves, deduces from their 
 teaching. For our own part, we are disposed to hold that 
 the Eastern theologians are right in their belief that 
 baptized heretics not only are not members" of the Church, 
 but also are altogether outside the jurisdiction of the 
 Church. 1 
 
 Nor is Canon Lacey more fortunate in the use which he 
 attempts to make of the new code of the Roman Canon 
 Law. He attempts to deduce from the penalties which by 
 these canons may be inflicted on" heretics and schismatics, 
 that they, though deprived of certain privileges of member- 
 ship, are not deprived of Church-membership itself (pp. 33, 
 34). But apparently he has failed to notice that these 
 penalties are applicable to " all apostates from the Christian 
 faith " (" omnes a Christiana fide apostatae ") as well as to 
 heretics and schismatics (canon 2314); so that, if his argu- 
 ment were sound, all renegades from Christianity, even 
 Julian the Apostate himself, would be members of the 
 Church, a conclusion which goes a good deal further than 
 anything which even the Lambeth Appeal requires. 
 
 At the conclusion of his chapter on the patristic Church 
 Canon Lacey quotes somewhat triumphantly the well-known 
 passage by Richard Hooker, in which Hooker says : 
 
 " We must acknowledge even heretics themselves to be, 
 though a maimed part, yet a part of the visible Church. . . . 
 If the Fathers do anywhere, as oftentimes they do, make 
 the true visible Church of Christ and heretical companies 
 
 1 Compare what Canon Lacey writes on pp. 36, 37.
 
 ^ Appendix IV 83 
 
 opposite ; they are to be construed as separating heretics, 
 not altogether from the company of believers, but from the 
 fellowship of sound believers. . . . Being Christians in 
 regard to the general truth of Christ which they openly 
 profess, yet they are by the Fathers everywhere spoken of 
 as men clean excluded out of the right believing Church, 
 by reason of their particular errors, for which all that are 
 of a sound belief must needs condemn them" (Laws of 
 Ecclesiastical Polity, III. i. n). 
 
 On this quotation we would remark, in the first place, 
 that Hooker's paraphrase of the Fathers, that heretics are 
 " clean excluded out of the right believing Church " is not 
 what the Fathers say. The Fathers, in fact, as we have 
 shown, and as Canon Lacey hknself admits, so far as their 
 general teaching is concerned, clean exclude heretics from 
 the Church without any qualification, and do not in the 
 least suggest that the separation is from " the right believing 
 Church" as something other than the Church. The 
 Fathers regarded the Church as the " one Body," which 
 held the " one faith " and worshipped the " one God " and 
 the " one Lord," and to which was committed the " one 
 Baptism," and in which tabernacled the "one Spirit " j and 
 in this followed the theology of St. Paul (see e.g. Eph. iv. 
 1-6). And, secondly, the greatest respect for Hooker's 
 genius and his high authority in many matters cannot dispose 
 us towards accepting his theory of the Church. Hooker 
 believed the general theory of the middle ages, namely, 
 that Church and State form one society. According to 
 him, " there is not any man of the Church of England but 
 the same man is also a member of the commonwealth ; nor 
 any man a member of the commonwealth which is not also 
 of the Church of England " (op. cit. VIII. i. 2 : see the 
 whole passage ; and compare Dr. Figgis's Churches in the 
 Modern State, pp. 205-214, and From Gerson to Groiius, 
 pp. 49, 62, 77, 230). Hooker also believed that the 
 Church, which is properly termed the mystical Body of 
 Christ, is always to be understood to be the invisible
 
 84 Appendix IV 
 
 Church (op. tit. III. i. 2). In Dr. Figgis's words, "The 
 invisibility of the Church is, in fact, to Luther the condition 
 and the counterpart of the visibility of the State " (From 
 Gerson to Grotius, p. 77); and on this particular point 
 Hooker must be regarded as a disciple of Luther. It 
 follows that Hooker, since he held views about the Church 
 which are fundamentally unsound, and which hardly any 
 one would hold at the present day, cannot safely be taken 
 as a guide when he lays down principles about membership 
 in the Church, especially when these principles differ in toto 
 from the teaching of Holy Scripture and from the universal 
 tradition of the Fathers. Happily, many of the great 
 English divines did not follow Hooker's mistake about 
 the Church. For example, Bishop Pearson, after referring 
 to the exclusion from the Church by excommunication, 
 continues as follows : 
 
 " There is a power within the Church to cast those out 
 which do belong to it ... Again, a man may not only 
 passively and involuntarily be ejected, but also may by an 
 act of his own cast out or eject himself, not only by plain 
 and complete apostasy, but by a defection from the unity of 
 truth, falling into some damnable heresy, or by an active 
 separation, deserting all which are in communion with the 
 Catholic Church, and falling into an irrecoverable schism " 
 (An Exposition of the Creed, Art. 9, " The Holy Catholic 
 Church," ad fin.). 
 
 Here Bishop Pearson makes it clear that membership in 
 the One Holy Catholic Church, which to him was the Uni- 
 versal Church which is the Body of Christ, does not depend 
 only on professing belief in our Lord Jesus Christ and on 
 having been validly baptized, because it is possible to cast 
 oneself out of the Church or to be ejected from it. This 
 loss of membership, in some cases voluntary and in other 
 cases involuntary, may be caused by scandalous offences, or 
 by apostasy, or by heresy, or by schism. This Scriptural 
 and Catholic teaching supplies a necessary antidote to 
 Hooker's mistake, and at the same time illustrates the
 
 Appendix IV 85 
 
 misleading character of the opening sentence in the Appeal 
 to all Christian people sent forth by the Lambeth Conference 
 of 1920. 
 
 In the last chapter of his book Canon Lacey uses the 
 great division between East and West from the eleventh 
 century onwards, and the " Great Schism of the West " in 
 the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, to support his position 
 (pp. 41-53). Neither of the instances is of value for this 
 purpose. The " Great Schism " might be thought to be the 
 nearer of the two. It is not in the least parallel to the 
 state of affairs with which Canon Lacey compares it. In it 
 the two, and finally the three, separated bodies retained an 
 episcopal ministry in succession from the Apostles ; each of 
 them retained a complete system of valid Sacraments ; each 
 of them had good reason for supposing that it was adhering 
 to its legitimate pastors; and there was no divergence 
 between them as to matters of faith. 
 
 Canon Lacey's book is the only serious attempt which 
 we have seen to present a theological and historical defence 
 of the Lambeth statement. This fact, coupled with his 
 great ability and the attention naturally paid to anything 
 which he writes, has led us to examine his arguments in 
 detail ; and in our judgement we have been able to show 
 that they are not weighty. In conclusion, we would point 
 out three considerations : 
 
 i. While the Fathers make no difficulty about admitting 
 that heretics and schismatics, who have been validly 
 baptized, have many things in common with Catholics, they 
 never allow that they are members of the Church. On the 
 contrary, they explicitly deny such membership. We can 
 admit that unbaptized Quakers have much in common with 
 us; yet even the Lambeth Appeal does not suggest that 
 Quakers are members of the Church. Moreover, we can 
 admit that Jews and Moslems have far more in common 
 with us than polytheistic idolaters have ; yet no one would 
 suggest that Jews and Moslems, though they agree with us 
 in believing the unity of the Godhead, are members of the
 
 86 Appendix IV 
 
 Church. Membership in the Church cannot be proved by 
 the fact that many Christian sects have many things in 
 common with us. Even the possession of valid Sacra- 
 ments does not by itself prove membership. The ministry 
 and Sacraments must be not only valid but also legiti- 
 mate if those who possess them are to be within the 
 Church. 
 
 2. There cannot be two Churches, the one Catholic and 
 the other Universal. It is an article of faith that there is 
 only one Catholic and Apostolic Church here on earth, and 
 this Church is the Body of Christ. Excommunicated 
 persons and heretics and schismatics do not belong to it. 
 The only Universal Church is the Catholic Church. Canon 
 Lacey's acceptance of the Lambeth notion that the 
 Catholic Church is smaller than the Universal Church, that 
 it is a bit of the Body of Christ, that it does not yet exist 
 (pp. 1-6), is incompatible with the obligatory doctrine of 
 the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ; it departs 
 from that conception of the Catholic Church familiar in the 
 writings of St. Ignatius as the Church throughout the world 
 in communion with the episcopate, so that apart from the 
 authorized apostolic ministry there is not even the name of 
 a Church (compare ad Trail. 3 with ad Smyrn. 8) ; it is 
 contrary to the famous description of the Catholic Church 
 in the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem ac- 
 cording to which one object of the definition of the Church 
 is to distinguish it from the companies of heretics and 
 schismatics (compare Cat. xviii. 26 with xviii. 23). The 
 truth on this subject was well expressed in the year 1915 
 by the late Dr. Swete in the following words : 
 
 "The position occupied by these separatist bodies 
 [the non-episcopal denominations in England] is not that 
 of the Churches described in the New Testament, and 
 would not have been recognized as legitimate by the 
 Christian commonwealth of primitive days. They are 
 voluntary associations of baptized Christians, religious 
 societies which have shown themselves capable of doing
 
 Appendix IV 87 
 
 much admirable work ; but they lack the note of unity 
 which characterizes the historical Church. ' Churches,' in 
 the strict and Scriptural sense, they are not " (H. B. Swete, 
 The Holy Catholic Church^ p. 19). 
 
 " That individuals even (if it be so) the majority of 
 individuals in a community bear the fruit of the Spirit is 
 no proof that the community as such is a ' Church ' in 
 the New Testament sense of the word " (op. cit. p. 19, 
 note). 
 
 " The title ' Catholic ' must be vindicated for all Churches 
 that retain the great Sacraments, the doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, and the succession of the historical Episcopate ; 
 and it must be denied to bodies which, however great their 
 spiritual efficiency, do not fulfil these necessary conditions 
 of genuine catholicity" (op. cit. p. 41). 
 
 There may be internal separations within the Catholic 
 Church, when local Churches or groups of local Churches 
 have withdrawn their communion from other local Churches 
 or groups of local Churches, while each side holds the 
 Catholic faith, and possesses a ministry which is both valid 
 and legitimate. 1 Such separations have existed not in- 
 frequently during the long history of the Catholic Church. 
 Some of these separations have come to an end. Others 
 exist to this day. The existence of them does not supply 
 any argument to support a contention that those who are 
 apart from " the great Sacraments, the doctrine of the 
 Catholic Church, and the succession of the historical 
 Episcopate " can be members of the Church. 
 
 3. Finally, it is important to emphasize that, even if 
 Canon Lacey were right in any detail of his defence of the 
 Lambeth statement, which we believe we have shown not to 
 be the case, it would still remain that the whole general 
 stream of Catholic tradition has been as we have maintained, 
 and that this stream of Catholic tradition goes back to the 
 earliest evidence outside the New Testament, and to the 
 New Testament itself. In Canon Lacey the Lambeth 
 
 1 Cf. a letter by Dr. Liddon in Dr. J. O, Johnston's Life and Letters 
 of Henry Parry Liddon, p. 338.
 
 88 Appendix IV 
 
 Appeal has found a defender of great experience in con- 
 troversy, of almost unequalled ingenuity, of intellectual 
 power, and of solid learning. If it is true, as we believe it 
 to be true, that he has failed to show that the fundamental 
 statement in the Lambeth Appeal can be justified at the 
 bar of Holy Scripture and Catholic history and doctrine, 
 then the failure is significant indeed. 
 
 THE END 
 
 PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, UECCLES.