De Baptismate [in ancient mss.]

 [English Introduction]

 ANONYMI LIBER DE REBAPTISMATE. NON DEBERE DENUO BAPTIZARI QUI SEMEL IN NOMINE DOMINI JESU CHRISTI SINT TINCTI.

 1183C I. Animadverto quaesitum apud fratres quid potius observari oportet in personam eorum qui in haeresi quidem, sed in nomine Dei nostri Jesu Chris

 II. Igitur aggredientibus tractatum salutaris et novi, hoc est spiritalis et evangelici Baptismatis, in primis occurrit notissima omnibus praedicatio

 III. Ad quae forte tu, qui novum quid inducis, continuo impatienter respondeas, ut soles, dixisse in Evangelio Dominum: Nisi quis denuo natus fuerit e

 IV. Cum ita invenitur, quid tibi, frater, videtur? Si quis non ab episcopo baptizatus, ita ut si in continenti etiam manus ei imponatur, priusquam tam

 1189A V. Quod si ita est, et potest aliquid horum eveniens salutem homini credenti non praeripere, tu quoque ipse annuis quoniam modo dimidiatum et no

 VI. Quod etiam e contrario latere tractatus hujus sunt consecuti ipsi illi discipuli Domini nostri, super quos jampridem baptizatos postremo die Pente

 VII. Nec aestimes huic tractatui contrarium esse quod dixit Dominus: Ite, docete Gentes, tinguite eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. (M

 VIII. Sed ad haec, ut soles, contradices, opponendo nobis tunc cum baptizarentur integre ac recte discipulos ac non ut hos haereticos esse baptizatos:

 IX. Quibus rebus et hujusmodi compluribus factis ad claritatem ejus pertinentibus consequens esse videbatur ut quemadmodum Judaei de Christo 1193A sen

 X. Praeterea quid dicturus es de his qui plerumque 1194C ab episcopis pessimae conversationis baptizantur: qui tamen tandem, cum Deus voluerit, in sce

 XI. Quid autem statues in personam ejus verbum audientis qui forte apprehensus in nomine Christi statim confessus, ac priusquam baptizari aqua permitt

 XII. Quapropter totus discernendus est tractatus hic, ut possit manifestior fieri. Namque invocatio nominis Jesu ideo tantum patrocinari potest, si ri

 XIII. Quodcumque enim in homine ultimum in hac specie deprehensum fuerit, in illo quis nostrum judicari necesse habebit, abolitis et obliteratis 1197D

 XIV. Et usque adeo omne illud haereticorum baptisma intercedente aliquo intervallo temporis corrigi potest, si quis supervixerit et fidem correxerit,

 XV. Et quoniam videmur omne Baptisma spiritale trifariam divisisse, veniamus etiam ad probationem 1199D narrationis propositae, ne videamur proprio 12

 XVI. Quoniam autem prima pars disputationis hujus videtur explicata, etiam sequentem ejus propter haereticos debemus attingere: quia perquam necessari

 XVII. Item si hujusmodi homo rursus ad te redeat, utique haesitabis utrum habeat Baptisma necne 1202B et tamen oportebit te huic quoque poenitentiam

 XVIII. Et hominibus quidem Spiritus perseverat hodie invisibilis, sicut Dominus dicit: Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et nescis unde veniat vel quo vadat (

 XIX. Puto nos plene exsecutos praedicationem Baptistae Joannis, unde sermonem sumus exorsi, qui dixit ad Judaeos: Ego quidem vos baptizo aqua in poeni

Introductory Notice.1    [By Dr. Wallis, as before, p. 655.]

to

Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism.

The following treatise on Re-baptism has been attributed by some authorities to the pen of one Ursinus,2    Gennadius, de Script. Eccles., cap. xxvii. a monk, who is said to have written in the fourth century.  But internal evidence seems to point to a bishop as having been the writer;3    Sec. x. and it seems very probable that it was written while the baptismal controversy was still agitating the Church, from the manner in which he refers to it. Moreover, the bitter attack contained in the first chapter was probably levelled against Cyprian, as the leader of the party in favour of the re-baptism of heretics. And this would hardly have been the case, at least the attack would not have been characterized by the same rancour, if Cyprian had already suffered martyrdom, and the controversy had lost its acrimony and intensity.

Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.

The difficulty arising to the translator from a loose and rambling style, and very involved argument, has been enhanced by a text singularly uncertain; but he ventures to think that there are points in the treatment of the subject which will not be without interest to the theological student of the present day, although its immediate purpose has passed away.

[English Introduction]