Anonymous Treatise on Re-baptism.

 to

 A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer. That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized

 1. I observe that it has been asked among the brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized i

 2. To such, then, as approach to a discussion of saving and modern, that is, of spiritual and evangelical baptism, there occurs first of all the annou

 3. And to these things thou perchance, who art bringing in some novelty, mayest immediately and impatiently reply, as thou art wont, that the Lord sai

 4. And this being found to be so, what thinkest thou, my brother? If a man be not baptized by a bishop, so as even at once to have the imposition of h

 5. And if this be so, and the occurrence of any of these things cannot deprive a man who believes, of salvation, thou thyself also affirmest that the

 6. And this also,—looking at it from the opposite side of this discussion,—those disciples of our Lord themselves attained, upon whom, being previousl

 7. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations baptize them in the name of the Father,

 8. But these things thou wilt, as thou art wont, contradict, by objecting to us, that when they baptized, the disciples were baptized perfectly, and r

 9. By which things, and by many deeds of this kind tending to His glory, it appeared to follow as a consequence, that in whatever manner the Jews thin

 10. Besides, what wilt thou say of those who are in many cases baptized by bishops of very bad character, who yet at length, when God so wills it, con

 11. And what wilt thou determine against the person of him who hears the word, and haply taken up in the name of Christ, has at once confessed, and ha

 12. Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be considered, that it may be made clearer. For the invocation of the name of Jesus can only be an adv

 13. For any one of us will hold it necessary, that whatever is the last thing to be found in a man in this respect, is that whereby he must be judged,

 14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive a

 15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we ma

 16. But since the first part of this argument seems to be unfolded, we ought to touch on its subsequent part, on account of the heretics because it i

 17. Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to thee, thou wilt assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no and yet it will behov

 18. And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, “The Spirit breathes where He will and thou knowest not whence

 19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, “I indeed b

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]