PL 5 · cols. 47–80

H. Dodwell, Dissertatio tertia de secundo martyrum baptismo

Editors' preface

PL 5:47

DISSERTATIO TERTIA

THIRD DISSERTATION

DE SECUNDO MARTYRII BAPTISMO,

ON THE SECOND BAPTISM, OF MARTYRDOM,

AUCTORE DODWELLO.

BY DODWELL.

§ 1. — Cur singularem huic argumento dicemus dissertationem. — § 2. Ab antiquissimis usque Ecclesiae temporibus ad nostra haec descendit opinio. — § 3. Baptismus aqueus et unio externa cum Ecclesia praerequisita ad sanguineum martyrii baptismum. — § 4. Baptismum sanguineum aqueo praetulerunt veteres. — §§ 5, 6. Explicatur, hac in causa, locus Cypriani. — § 7. Defenditur haec veterum sententia. — § 8. E quibus Scripturae locis illam collegerint.

§ 1. — Why we shall devote a separate dissertation to this subject. — § 2. This opinion has come down to our own times from the most ancient times of the Church. — § 3. Baptism of water and outward union with the Church are prerequisite to the bloody baptism of martyrdom. — § 4. The ancients preferred the baptism of blood to that of water. — §§ 5, 6. A passage of Cyprian on this matter is explained. — § 7. This opinion of the ancients is defended. — § 8. From which passages of Scripture they gathered it.

Editors' notes and page, col. 47

Page

running head: 47 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO CY[cut off at image edge]
marginal letters: A piendis observarint etiam Ecclesiae; B tudine, spectabat, ut quo quisque; C enim in ita exceptis nullum esset; D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: The column begins with the fragment "piendis" (excipiendis, from col. 46). It ends mid-word with "occur-" (continued as "rit mentio" in col. 48). In "cre⟨d⟩erent" the d is damaged type. "(Ibid. IV, 10)": the printed reference looks like IV, but it may be a verse mark (v. 10). It means Acts 28:10, and the English renders it so. "eorum" is printed with a damaged e and looks like "corum". In the synopsis, "§ 3" has damaged type that looks like 5; it is set as 3 by sequence. Full-width lines not set: a rule, then the title "DISSERTATIO TERTIA / DE SECUNDO MARTYRII BAPTISMO, / AUCTORE DODWELLO." (read across both page halves, cols 47/48), printed across both columns below § 20. Synopsis set (it may be the author's or the editors' matter): "§ 1. — Cur singularem huic argumento". Its left half belongs to this column, and it continues in col. 48.
other: a full-width band stands across cols 47/48 in mid-page: the 1 paragraph(s) above it in col 48 are set here, after the 2 above it in col 47 (reading order, moved on receipt); the band itself (its title lines) is not set by the volunteer page: set it here, at the move, with full_width
other: the column opens with the end of the previous work (another unit); not set here: the unit begins at § 1. — Cur singularem huic argumento
running head: 47 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 48
marginal letters: A ‹piendis observarint etiam Ecclesiae›; B ‹tudine, spectabat, ut quo›; C ‹enim in ita exceptis nullum›; D (none seen) — A, B, C stand beside the end of the previous dissertation, which is not set
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the text above the rule (end of the previous dissertation, from "piendis observarint" to "rarior occur-") is not set, per the driver. The full-width title band and the left half of the italic synopsis are set here; the synopsis continues in c48. "§ 3." read as 3 (the face's 3 resembles 5; sequence confirms).

PL 5:48

— § 9. Observ. primo e factis Domini legitimam procedere argumentationem, praecipue id genus factis qualia adhibuerunt, hac in causa, veteres. — §§ 10, 11. Obs. secundo, non e factis modo, sed ex ipsis Domini verbis, constat pro baptismo habendum esse martyrium. — § 12. Obs. tertio, non verborum esse dumtaxat, sed rerum etiam ipsarum baptismi atque martyrii affinitatem. Locorum occasionem, in quibus de baptismo sanguinis agi crediderunt veteres,

— § 9. Observe, first, that a legitimate argument proceeds from the deeds of the Lord, especially from deeds of the kind which the ancients adduced in this matter. — §§ 10, 11. Observe, secondly, that not from His deeds only but from the very words of the Lord it is established that martyrdom is to be held as baptism. — § 12. Observe, thirdly, that the affinity of baptism and martyrdom is not of words alone, but of the things themselves as well. The occasion of the passages in which the ancients believed the baptism of blood to be treated,

Editors' notes and page, col. 48

Page

running head: [DI]SSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 48 (left of head cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A rit mentio, episcoporum; B etiam, in Ecclesiae administratione; C dona infidelium causa; D (none)
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with word fragment "rit" broken from previous column; full-width heading "DISSERTATIO TERTIA / DE SECUNDO MARTYRII BAPTISMO, / AUCTORE DODWELLO." stands across both columns between the two text blocks, not set (read whole across the two halves of the page, Q3: left half "DISSERTAT… / DE SECUNDO MA… / AUCTORE", right half "…ATIO TERTIA / …O MARTYRII BAPTISMO, / …AUCTORE DODWELLO."); italic synopsis (§ 9 – § 12, "Observ. primo e factis Domini") set as summary, its earlier part being in the left column; "hac in causa" printed nearly run together ("hacin"), set as two words, UNSURE; Greek συνεργοί accent unclear in print; "expectabimus" set as printed
other: the 1 paragraph(s) of this column above the full-width band are set under col 47 (reading order, moved on receipt)
running head: 47 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 48
marginal letters: A ‹rit mentio, episcoporum videlicet›; B ‹etiam, in Ecclesiae administratione›; C ‹dona infidelium causa, potius›; D (none seen) — A, B, C stand beside the end of the previous dissertation, which is not set
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the text above the rule (end of the previous dissertation, from "rit mentio" to "usos esse apostolos.") is not set, per the driver. This file holds the right half of the italic synopsis, which runs on mid-sentence into the next page. Printed "hacin causa" (run together by spacing) set as "hac in causa".

PL 5:49

fuisse martyrium. Domini baptismus ejusdem erat martyrium, idque sensu Ecclesiastico. — §§ 13, 14, 15, 16. Haeretici apostolis coaevi martyrium negabant. Horum pseudo-Christos refellebat S. Joannes argumento a veri Messiae adventu per aquam et sanguinem. Explicatur tota illa argumentatio.— § 17. Observ. quarto, in ipso illo initiationis expiationisque ritu, cui peccatorum purgationem tribuebant veteres, tam frequentem fuisse apud illos sanguinis quam aquae usum : et quidem sanguinis initiatorum proprii. — § 18. Nec id modo in initiationibus, sed et in pactis obtinebat, pro moribus veterum antiquissimis. — § 19. Ut sanguini, in hoc expiationis negotio partes concedebant facile primarias, ita humani sanguinis, prae aliis etiam sanguinibus, vim longe maximam agnoverunt. — § 20. Obs. quinto, ad ipsum baptismi sacramentum pertinere sanguineum hunc baptismum, et quidem ita pertinere ut partem ejus praecipuam consummet. — § 21. Primo pactum baptismale pro illis (qui apud veteres obtinebant) pactorum esse moribus explicandum. — § 22. Secundo ut in aliis pactis, ita et in nostro quoque baptismali, duo esse a se invicem distinguenda diversarum partium officia, Dei alia, alia nostra. — § 23. Tertio, jus illnd legale omne, quod pacti beneficio obtinemus, ad Dei promissiones, ex officii nostri praestatione esse deducendum. — § 24. Quarto, quae nobis incumbunt in hoc pacto baptismali conditiones a nostra parte praestandae e symbolorum solemnium significatione colligendum. — § 25. Quinto, in symbolis baptismi nostri sacramentalis solemnibus, non aquae solius baptismus denotatur, sed etiam ille sanguinis; et quidem ita denotatur ut ad unum eumdemque baptismum uterque pertinere intelligatur. — § 26. Ita se habet de facto. — §§ 27, 28. Redditur facti ratio. — §§ 29, 30. Sexto, ita adumbratur in ipso aquei baptismi symbolo baptismus sanguineus, ut plane innuatur nullam esse aquei baptismi efficaciam nisi ad sanguineum baptismum referatur. — §§ 31, 32. Infertur septimo, non modo ex pacti baptismalis lege, sed vero ex ejusdem etiam aequitate, vindicari posse in sanguineo baptismo omnia beneficia a Christo, pro sua pacti baptismalis parte, praestanda. — §§ 33, 34. Infertur octavo plenam omnium peccatorum praecedentium indulgentiam tam esse martyrio, quam baptismo, concedendam. — § 35. Nihil esse alienum a baptismi natura quod temporis intervallo sejungantur a se invicem baptismus aqueus atque sanguineus. — § 36. — Nono martyrum sanguinem pro Christi sanguine habuisse veteres. — § 37. Decimo praecipue si, pro Christi exemplo, publica animarum causa fuisset effusus. — § 38. Defenduntur veteres. — § 39. Martyrium in altero etiam eucharistiae sacramento spondemus. — § 40. In martyrio jus ad beneficia baptismi tam privativa, quam etiam positiva, consequimur.

was martyrdom. The Lord's baptism was His martyrdom, and that in the ecclesiastical sense. — §§ 13, 14, 15, 16. Heretics contemporary with the apostles denied martyrdom. St John refuted their pseudo-Christs by an argument from the coming of the true Messiah through water and blood. That whole line of argument is explained. — § 17. Observe fourthly that in that very rite of initiation and expiation, to which the ancients attributed the cleansing of sins, the use of blood was as frequent among them as that of water: and indeed of the initiates' own blood. — § 18. Nor did this hold only in initiations, but also in covenants, according to the most ancient customs of the ancients. — § 19. As they readily granted to blood the principal part in this business of expiation, so they acknowledged in human blood, above other kinds of blood too, by far the greatest power. — § 20. Observe fifthly that this baptism of blood belongs to the very sacrament of baptism, and indeed belongs to it in such a way that it completes its principal part. — § 21. First, that the baptismal covenant is to be explained according to the customs of those covenants (which obtained among the ancients). — § 22. Secondly, that, as in other covenants, so also in our baptismal one, there are two offices of the different parties to be distinguished from each other, some God's, others ours. — § 23. Thirdly, that all that legal right which we obtain by the benefit of the covenant is to be traced back to God's promises, upon the performance of our duty. — § 24. Fourthly, that the conditions which are incumbent on us in this baptismal covenant, to be performed on our part, are to be gathered from the meaning of the solemn symbols. — § 25. Fifthly, that in the solemn symbols of our sacramental baptism not the baptism of water alone is signified, but also that of blood; and indeed it is so signified that both are understood to belong to one and the same baptism. — § 26. That this is so in fact. — §§ 27, 28. The reason for the fact is given. — §§ 29, 30. Sixthly, that the baptism of blood is so foreshadowed in the very symbol of water baptism that it is plainly intimated that water baptism has no efficacy unless it is referred to the baptism of blood. — §§ 31, 32. It is inferred seventhly that, not only from the law of the baptismal covenant but indeed also from its equity, all the benefits to be furnished by Christ for His part of the baptismal covenant can be claimed in the baptism of blood. — §§ 33, 34. It is inferred eighthly that a full pardon of all preceding sins is to be granted to martyrdom as much as to baptism. — § 35. That it is nothing foreign to the nature of baptism that the baptism of water and that of blood are separated from each other by an interval of time. — § 36. — Ninthly, that the ancients held the blood of the martyrs to be the blood of Christ. — § 37. Tenthly, especially if it had been shed, after the example of Christ, in the public cause of souls. — § 38. The ancients are defended. — § 39. In the other sacrament too, that of the eucharist, we pledge martyrdom. — § 40. In martyrdom we obtain a right to the benefits of baptism, privative as well as positive.

§ 1. — Diximus, superiori dissertatione, in primorum

§ 1. — We said, in the preceding dissertation, that in the first

Editors' notes and page, col. 49

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: superiori dissertatione› · call in col 49

Cui titulus : De primorum martyrum insigni fortitudine, ejusque causis. Nobis erat primum in mente illam in hoc tomo inserere; multa vero propter male sonantia omittenda fuit.

Its title: On the Remarkable Fortitude of the First Martyrs, and Its Causes. It was our first intention to insert it in this volume; but because of its many ill-sounding statements it had to be left out.

(printed under page 29)

Page

running head: 49 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A fuisse martyrium. Domini baptismus; B mam agnoverunt. — § 20; C tismi nostri sacramentalis solemnibus; D concedendam. — § 35. Nihil
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:50

temporum martyriis, locum ab auxilio divino primarium obtinuisse recepta illius ecclesiae primaevae de martyrii dignitate dogmata, illud inprimis quo secundi baptismi vicem atque beneficia martyrio vindicabant. Hoc, quia alienum scio a recentiorum placitis qui suas sacrarum litterarum interpretationes, utcumque infirmas, nec certo aliquo ratiocinio nitentes, veterum tamen ratiociniis anteponunt; et quia tota haec mysticae argumentationis ratio, quae mysticarum omnino scripturarum, hujusque adeo de sacramentis argumenti, est, suo quodam jure propria, contempta tamen vel neglecta est a celeberrimis plerisque nostrorum temporum interpretibus; et quia qui hanc veterum sententiam tuentur hodie scriptores pontificii, unam veterum auctoritatem tamen obtendunt, plane de eorum ratiociniis securi, rectene tam e Scripturis, et pro primaevae christianitatis captu (cui tamen soli Spiritum S. in Scripturarum concinnatione consuluisse alibi probavimus (in Prolegom. ad Dom. Stearn., de Obstinat.), atque adeo solide, collegerint: proinde consultissimum duximus si tam jucundo utilique argumento, propriam suam singularemque dissertationem assignaremus.

times' martyrdoms, the doctrines received by that primitive church about the dignity of martyrdom held the foremost place after divine aid, above all the one by which they claimed for martyrdom the role and benefits of a second baptism. This, because I know it to be foreign to the views of more recent writers, who nevertheless set their own interpretations of the sacred Scriptures, however weak and resting on no sure reasoning, above the reasonings of the ancients; and because this whole method of mystical argumentation, which by a certain right of its own is proper to wholly mystical Scriptures, and so to this argument concerning the sacraments, has nevertheless been despised or neglected by most of the most celebrated interpreters of our times; and because the papal writers who today defend this opinion of the ancients nevertheless put forward only the authority of the ancients, quite unconcerned about their reasonings, whether they gathered them rightly both from the Scriptures and according to the capacity of primitive Christianity (to which alone, however, we have proved elsewhere that the Holy Spirit had regard in the composition of the Scriptures (in the Prolegomena to Mr Stearne, On Obstinacy)), and thus solidly: we have therefore thought it most advisable to assign to so pleasant and useful a subject a dissertation proper and peculiar to itself.

§ 2. — Ab antiquissimis itaque temporibus Ecclesiae, recentissimaque apostolorum memoria, deducta haec est de secundo martyrii baptismo sententia, et in Ecclesia vulgariter recepta. De Felicitate ita auctor Actorum (Act. Perpet. et Felic., p. 29, 30, edit. Oxon.): « Item Felicitas salvam se peperisse gaudens, ut ad bestias pugnaret, sanguine ab obstetrice ad retiarium lotura post partum baptismo secundo. » Eodem spectat etiam gentilium de Saturo acclamatio cum uno leopardi morsu totus suo sanguine perfunderetur, salvum lotum! salvum lotum! quod ita interpretatur Actorum auctor, ut ad secundam martyrii lotionem facta esset vel a nescientibus turbis allusio. Ita jam obtinuerat apud christianos ea loquendi ratio qua quis etiam martyrii pariter ac aquae baptismo lotus diceretur. Secundae porro intinctionis voce usus est de martyrio Tertullianus (Tertull., de Patient., c. 13, de Bapt., c. 16), quod et alibi secundi Lavacri, sanguinis nimirum baptismi, nomine designat. Nec aliter Origenes qui ex eo ipso baptismi officio colligit recte, martyrium baptismi nomine, meritoque, insigniri posse, quod peccatorum remissionem praestet pariter ac baptismus, ne solius nominis hic haberi rationem suspicentur adversarii (Origen., in Matth., p. 416, edit. Huetii): καθὸ, inquit, ἄφεσιν λαμβάνει ἁμαρτημάτων ὁ ὑπομείνας. βάπτισμά ἐστιν· εἰ γὰρ τὸ βάπτισμα ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων ἐπαγγέλλεται, καθὼς παρειλήφαμεν περὶ τοῦ ἐν ὕδατι καὶ πνεύματι βαπτίσματος, ἄφεσιν δὲ λαμβάνει ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ ὁ τὸ τοῦ μαρτυρίου ὑπομείνας βάπτισμα, βάπτισμα τὸ μαρτύριον εὐλόγως λέγοιτ' ἄν, etc. Idem et in aliis locis saepe habet idem Adamantius (Origen., in lib. Judic., hom 7 et in Joan., tom. VIII, p. 133, edit. Huetii). Idem saepe noster Cyprianus, (Cyprian., Ep. LIV, de Orat. Domin. Exhort.

§ 2. — From the most ancient times of the Church, then, and from the most recent memory of the apostles, this opinion about the second baptism of martyrdom has been handed down, and commonly received in the Church. Thus the author of the Acts speaks of Felicity (Acts of Perpetua and Felicity, pp. 29, 30, Oxford edition): « Likewise Felicity, rejoicing that she had given birth safely, so that she might fight with the beasts, about to wash with blood, from the midwife to the net-fighter, after childbirth in a second baptism. » To the same point tends also the acclamation of the heathen concerning Saturus, when with one bite of a leopard he was drenched all over in his own blood: well washed! well washed! which the author of the Acts interprets thus, that an allusion to the second washing of martyrdom had been made even by crowds who did not know it. So prevalent among Christians had that manner of speaking already become, by which someone was said to be washed by the baptism of martyrdom as well as by that of water. Tertullian, moreover, used the expression of a second dipping concerning martyrdom (Tertullian, On Patience, ch. 13; On Baptism, ch. 16), which elsewhere also he designates by the name of a second Washing, namely the baptism of blood. Not otherwise Origen, who from that very function of baptism rightly infers that martyrdom can be distinguished by the name of baptism, and deservedly, because it grants remission of sins just as baptism does, lest opponents should suspect that account is taken here of the name only (Origen, On Matthew, p. 416, Huet's edition): Inasmuch, he says, as he who has endured receives remission of sins, it is a baptism; for if baptism promises remission of sins, as we have received concerning the baptism in water and the Spirit, and he who has endured the baptism of martyrdom also receives remission of sins, martyrdom might reasonably be called a baptism, etc. The same Adamantius often says the same in other places too (Origen, On the Book of Judges, Homily 7, and On John, vol. 8, p. 133, Huet's edition). Our Cyprian often says the same, (Cyprian, Letter 54, On the Lord's Prayer, Exhortation

Editors' notes and page, col. 50

Page

running head: DO MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. 50 (running head cut at the left edge of the image; presumably DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM BAPTISMO.)
marginal letters: A ‹morum temporum martyriis›; B ‹obtendunt, plane de eorum›; C ‹rium lotura post partum›; D ‹ac baptismus, ne solius›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:51

Martyr. Ep. LXXIII), et recentiores alii Cypriano Patres quamplurimi, quos taedet in hoc loco sigillatim recensere. Inde enim consentientibu⟨s⟩ Graecorum Latinorumque suffragiis comprobata haec opinio ad nostra usque tempora descendit.

to Martyrdom, Ep. 73), and very many other Fathers more recent than Cyprian, whom it is tedious to review one by one in this place. For from that point this opinion, approved by the concurring votes of Greeks and Latins, has come down even to our own times.

§ 3. — Est porro illud animadversione dignum, ita inter se duos hosce aquae atque sanguinis baptismos contendisse Veteres, ut nonnunquam postponant secundum hunc sanguinis baptismum aquae illi primo, et vice versa nonnunquam anteferant, diverso id nimirum respectu atque consideratione. Quod quidem ad illud spectat aquei baptismi officium quo unimur Christo atque Ecclesiae, quamquam superiori jam dissertatione ostenderimus suam quoque vim in hac ipsa quoque unione augenda saltem atque promovenda concessisse Veteres: ita tamen illam concesserunt ut vim interim ejus nullam agnoverint ad eorum unionem promovendam qui nondum essent praevio aliquo atque inchoato saltem unitionis vinculo Ecclesiae conglutinati, seu communionis in officio eucharistico, seu baptismi reipsa suscepti, vel in voto saltem expetiti, quae causa erat competentium Catechumenorum; vim rursus nullam ad martyrii beneficia nondum unitis impetranda. Nec enim martyrio beneficium aliquod tribuunt si quis extra unitatem passus fuerit; sed nec illud ejus beneficium agnoscunt, ut ea ipsa ratione quis unitus Invisibili aliqua unitate censeatur si martyrium passus fuerit. Proinde haereticorum schismaticorumque martyria, illorum videlicet, qui aliquo vel actu suo, vel Ecclesiae, ab unitate abscissi essent, nec unitorum fuisse crediderunt, nec adeo ullius apud Deum pretii. Catechumenorum causam favorabiliorem censuerunt, qui non tam essent ab unitate sejuncti, quam eam ipsam unitatem nondum consecuti; quibus ita vitio non esset vertendum quod nondum essent uniti, ut contra laudi potius esset quod ecclesiasticae disciplinae leges observassent. Hi certe voto tam suo, quam Ecclesiae, uniti jam erant; et cum se legibus ecclesiasticis subjecissent, eo ipso se politicae unitatis membra professi sunt, quod mysticam illam unitatem, quantovis eam haberent in pretio, arripere tamen non auderent; expectarent interim, dum, per leges ecclesiasticae politiae eam rite adipisci liceret. Illis igitur aequum erat concedi unitatis beneficia, qui jam ea essent, quae legitima esset, unitate conjuncti; nec ulla sua culpa impedirentur quominus illam quoque consecuti essent quae nondum esset legitima. Erat autem martyrii fructus inter unitatis beneficia, pro illorum saeculorum sententia, censendus. Hanc catechumenorum causam agit in epistola ad Jubaianum noster Cyprianus (Epist. LXXIII). Damnasse autem haereticorum schismaticorumque martyria notius est quam ut ulla probatione indigeat. Nec solum fuisse in hac causa Cyprianum, sed Ecclesia pariter universa suffragante, damnasse, ex ipso S. Augustino liquet, qui cum nostro martyri, in causa baptismi haereticorum sese strenuissime opponit, hanc tamen ejus de haereticorum schismaticorumque martyriis censuram ubique

§ 3. — It is further worthy of notice that the Ancients so compared these two baptisms, of water and of blood, with each other that sometimes they place this second baptism, of blood, after that first one, of water, and conversely sometimes they put it before, namely in a different respect and consideration. As regards that office of the baptism of water by which we are united to Christ and the Church, although we have shown in the preceding dissertation that the Ancients granted to [martyrdom] also its own power in at least increasing and advancing this very union, yet they granted it in such a way that they meanwhile acknowledged no power in it to advance the union of those who were not yet bound fast to the Church by some prior and at least incipient bond of union, whether of communion in the eucharistic office, or of baptism actually received, or at least sought in desire, which was the case of the Catechumens who were competents; and again no power to obtain the benefits of martyrdom for those not yet united. For they do not attribute any benefit to martyrdom if someone has suffered outside the unity; nor indeed do they acknowledge this benefit of it, that by that very reason someone should be reckoned united by some invisible unity if he has suffered martyrdom. Accordingly the martyrdoms of heretics and schismatics, that is, of those who had been cut off from the unity by some act either their own or the Church's, they believed to be neither martyrdoms of the united nor, therefore, of any worth before God. The case of the Catechumens they judged more favourable, since they were not so much separated from the unity as not yet having attained that very unity; so that it was not to be imputed to them as a fault that they were not yet united, but rather, on the contrary, it was to their praise that they had observed the laws of ecclesiastical discipline. These certainly were already united by desire, their own as much as the Church's; and since they had subjected themselves to the ecclesiastical laws, by that very fact they professed themselves members of the political unity, in that they did not dare to seize that mystical unity, however highly they valued it, but waited meanwhile until it should be permitted to obtain it duly through the laws of ecclesiastical polity. It was therefore fair that the benefits of unity should be granted to those who were already joined by that unity which was lawful [for them], and who were not hindered by any fault of their own from having attained that other also which was not yet lawful. Now the fruit of martyrdom was, according to the judgement of those ages, to be reckoned among the benefits of unity. This case of the catechumens our Cyprian pleads in the letter to Jubaianus (Ep. 73). That he condemned the martyrdoms of heretics and schismatics, however, is too well known to need any proof. And that Cyprian was not alone in this cause, but that he condemned them with the whole Church equally voting with him, is clear from St Augustine himself, who, while he opposes himself most strenuously to our martyr in the question of the baptism of heretics, yet this censure of his on the martyrdoms of heretics and schismatics everywhere

Editors' notes and page, col. 51

Page

running head: 51 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A Martyr. Ep. LXXIII), et recentiores; B movenda concessisse Veteres; C abscissi essent, nec unitorum; D quae legitima esset, unitate conjuncti
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: consentientibu⟨s⟩: final s obscured by an ink blot; "Invisibili" appears printed with a capital I, set as seen (unsure); last word ubi- is hyphenated across the column break (ubique); text is Dodwell's dissertation (Dissertatio Cyprianica), set in full: editors' matter: "Martyr. Ep. LXXIII), et recentiores"

PL 5:52

comprobat; ex ipsa etiam Ecclesiae catholicae praxi liquet, quae cum verorum martyrum semper fuerit observantissima, numquam tamen illis haereticos schismaticosve accensuerit, nulla eorum nomina in fastos suos admiserit, nullam instituerit eorum solemnem commemorationem.

confirms; it is clear also from the very practice of the Catholic Church, which, although it has always been most observant of true martyrs, has nevertheless never numbered heretics or schismatics among them, has admitted none of their names into its calendars, and has instituted no solemn commemoration of them.

§ 4. — Quamquam ergo ad subjecti dispositionem necessarius sit prior ille aquae baptismus, ut quis sanguinei baptismi possit fructum percipere; si tamen recte hanc comparationem instituere velimus, et de utriusque baptismi beneficio judicare, id porro quaerendum utrius baptismi magis sit beneficium in subjecto rite disposito? Et quidem hujus beneficii respectu sanguineum baptismum aqueo praetulerunt Origenes et noster Cyprianus. « Baptisma sanguinis, inquit Origines (Origen., in Judic. homil. 7), solum est quod nos puriores reddat, quam aquae baptismus reddidit. » Quod, paucis interpositis, ita explicat: « Vereor ne istud baptismi eminentius sit isto baptismate quod per aquam traditur. Illo enim accepto, valde pauci sunt ita beati, qui id immaculatum usque ad exitum vitae servare potuerint. Hoc vero baptismo qui baptizatus fuerit, peccare jam ultro non potest. Et si temerarium non est in rebus talibus audere aliquid, possumus dicere quod per illud baptisma praeterita peccata purgantur, per istud vero etiam futura perimuntur. Ibi peccata dimissa sunt, hic exclusa. » In eamdem plane sententiam gloriosissimum hunc et maximum sanguinis baptismum appellat noster martyr, quod nempe gloriosiora sint et majora sanguinei baptismi beneficia quam sint ea quae per aqueum sunt baptismum a subjecto rite disposito expectanda. Ita enim scribit ille in sua ad martyrium exhortatione: « Nos tantum, inquit, qui Domino permittente primum baptisma credentibus dedimus, ad aliud quoque singulos praeparemus, insinuantes et docentes hoc esse baptisma in gratia majus, in potestate sublimius, in honore pretiosius: baptisma in quo angeli baptizant, baptisma in quo Deus et Christus ejus exultant, baptisma post quod nemo jam peccat, baptisma quod fidei nostrae incrementa consummat, baptisma quod nos de mundo recedentes statim Deo copulat. In aquae baptismo accipitur peccatorum remissa; in sanguinis corona virtutum. Amplectenda res est et optanda, et omnibus postulationum nostrarum precibus expetenda, ut qui servi Dei sumus, simus et amici. » Multa hic habemus in hoc Cypriani nostri testimonio cum Origeniano illo communia, quaeque tam communi assertioni, quam sibi invicem, lucem vicissim foenerentur.

§ 4. — Although, therefore, that prior baptism of water is necessary for the disposition of the subject, so that one may be able to receive the fruit of the baptism of blood, yet if we wish to make this comparison rightly and to judge of the benefit of each baptism, it must further be asked: of which baptism is the benefit greater in a subject duly disposed? And indeed, in respect of this benefit, Origen and our Cyprian preferred the baptism of blood to that of water. "The baptism of blood," says Origen (Origen, Homily 7 on Judges), "is the only thing that renders us purer than the baptism of water rendered us." This, after a few words interposed, he explains thus: "I fear lest this [kind] of baptism be more eminent than that baptism which is given through water. For when that has been received, very few are so blessed as to be able to keep it unstained right up to the end of life. But whoever has been baptized with this baptism can no longer sin any further. And if it is not rash to venture something in such matters, we may say that through that baptism past sins are purged, but through this one future sins also are destroyed. There sins have been forgiven, here they have been shut out." To exactly the same effect our martyr calls this baptism of blood most glorious and greatest, namely because the benefits of the baptism of blood are more glorious and greater than those which are to be expected through the baptism of water by a subject duly disposed. For thus he writes in his exhortation to martyrdom: "Let us only," he says, "who by the Lord's permission have given the first baptism to believers, prepare each one also for the other, suggesting and teaching that this is a baptism greater in grace, more sublime in power, more precious in honour: a baptism in which angels baptize, a baptism in which God and His Christ exult, a baptism after which no one any longer sins, a baptism which completes the increase of our faith, a baptism which joins us to God at once as we depart from the world. In the baptism of water the remission of sins is received; in that of blood the crown of virtues. It is a thing to be embraced and desired, and to be sought with all the prayers of our petitions, that we who are servants of God may also be friends." We have here in this testimony of our Cyprian many things in common with that passage of Origen, which lend light in turn both to the common assertion and to each other.

§ 5. — Gratiae inprimis magnitudinem inde aestimat quod, cum post aquae baptismum peccamus iterum, baptizalemque gratiam amittimus, in baptismo sanguinis nullus supersit metus futurorum peccatorum, ut proinde per illum tam futurorum securi reddimur quam praeteritorum, cum praeterita dumtaxat in aqueo baptismo expientur, quod etiam ante Cyprianum observaverat Origenes, et post Cyprianum nostrum sanctissima martyr Pelagia apud Ambrosium, lib. III, de

§ 5. — He estimates the greatness of the grace above all from this, that whereas after the baptism of water we sin again and lose baptismal grace, in the baptism of blood no fear of future sins remains, so that consequently through it we are rendered secure as much about future sins as about past ones, since in the baptism of water only past sins are expiated; which Origen too had observed before Cyprian, and after our Cyprian the most holy martyr Pelagia in Ambrose, book 3, On

Editors' notes and page, col. 52

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA
marginal letters: A ‹que comprobat; ex ipsa etiam›; B ‹inquit Origines (Origen., in Judic.›; C ‹baptismi beneficia quam sint ea›; D ‹expetenda, ut qui servi Dei sumus›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "que" of a word broken from the previous column (likely atque or similar); column ends mid-sentence at "de". Running head reads DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA, and the content is an editors' dissertation on Cyprian, which does not match the PL 5 contents listed; please verify that the column and volume are correct. Editors' matter set: the whole column (‹que comprobat; ex ipsa etiam›). The scan's worn type often prints i like l (etlam, sil, possil); these are set as etiam, sit, possit. "remissa" (Cyprian's form) and "expectanda" are set as printed. No full-width line.

PL 5:53

Virginib. Tum ad gratiae quoque magnitudinem illud pertinere censet, quod, cum ad ἀρχῆς λόγον et θεμέλιον aqueum illum baptismum retulerit Apostolus (Hebr., VI, 1, 2). Sanguinis hic baptismus ad fidei nostrae incrementa consummanda pertineat; quod, cum in aqueo baptismo renuntiantes mundo fruitionem Dei non nisi e longinquo tamen expectemus, per sanguineum statim Deo copulemur; quod, cum ibi peccatorum remissionem consequamur, hic praemium etiam coronamque expectare possimus; illic servos Dei nos, vel saltem ἀπελευθέρους profiteamur, hic etiam amici Dei agnoscamur. Porro potestate sublimiorem dicit hunc sanguinis baptismum, quod hominem ministrum ad aquae baptismum adhibeamus, in sanguineo angelorum ministerio initiemur. Ut enim invisibilis plane est martyrum ille baptismus, saltem quod ad illam partem attinet quae Deum ipsum spectat, ita certe invisibilem illam λειτουργίαν ad Deum ipsum diximus, pro mysticae philosophiae principiis, fuisse referendam. Ut autem in mystico sacerdotio duo erant officia visibili sacerdotio adamussim respondentia, superius aliud, quod βελτιωτικὸν sive τελειωτικὸν appellarunt, Christi proculdubio ipsius in hac mystica λειτουργίᾳ proprium; inferius aliud sive ὑπηρετικόν, quod angelorum etiam fuisse proprium nihil est quod dubitemus: ita certe baptismi munus ad inferius illud ministerium pertinuisse, alibi est a nobis, nisi fallimur, probatum. In externo enim aquei baptismi munere inferioris generis ministris usi sunt ut plurimum apostoli. Ut proinde idem sit de invisibili quoque illo mysticoque baptismo statuendum, ut exteriori baptismo adamussim respondeat, hic quoque ὑπηρετῶν fuisse usum, qui non alii esse potuerint, pro veterum illorum captu, quam angeli. Divinae enim praesentiae symbolum (Schechinam appellant Judaei) angelis tribuunt scriptores veteres tam Judaei, quam ecclesiastici, quam sacri et canonici; et quam Deo tribuunt nonnunquam apparitionem, eamdem alibi angelis assignant. Deus in rubo Moysi apparuisse legitur, quem tamen angelum appellat S. Stephanus (Act., VII, 35). Deus in monte Sinai decalogum edidit, quam tamen eamdem legem ab angelis editam ait Apostolus (Hebr., II, 2). Et vero in hoc coelestium mysteriorum universo negotio, quod praestatur in visibilis ecclesiasticae hierarchiae mysteriis, officium ab ordinariis Ecclesiae ministris, tam βελτιωτικόν illud, quod dixi, quam etiam ὑπηρετικὸν idem angelis officium assignat Clemens Alexandrinus: ταύτας inquit (Clem. Alex., Strom., VII, init.), ἄμφω τὰς διακονίας ἄγγελοι τε ὑπηρετοῦνται τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τὴν τῶν περιγείων οἰκονομίαν, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ γνωστικός, etc. Sed redeamus ad nostrum Cyprianum.

Virgins. Then he holds that this too pertains to the greatness of the grace: that, whereas the Apostle referred that watery baptism to the word of the beginning and the foundation (Heb. 6:1–2), this baptism of blood pertains to the completing of the increments of our faith; that, whereas in watery baptism, renouncing the world, we nevertheless await the enjoyment of God only from afar, through the baptism of blood we are at once joined to God; that, whereas there we obtain the remission of sins, here we may also expect a reward and a crown; that there we profess ourselves servants of God, or at least freedmen, here we are acknowledged even as friends of God. Further, he calls this baptism of blood more exalted in power, because, whereas for the baptism of water we employ a man as minister, in that of blood we are initiated by the ministry of angels. For just as that baptism of the martyrs is plainly invisible, at least as regards that part which concerns God Himself, so certainly we have said that that invisible liturgy was to be referred to God Himself, according to the principles of the mystical philosophy. And as in the mystical priesthood there were two offices corresponding exactly to the visible priesthood, the one higher, which they called the bettering or perfecting [office], doubtless proper to Christ Himself in this mystical liturgy, the other lower, or the ministering [office], which there is no reason for us to doubt was proper to the angels also: so certainly the office of baptism belonged to that lower ministry, as has been proved by us elsewhere, unless we are mistaken. For in the external office of watery baptism the apostles for the most part used ministers of an inferior kind. So that accordingly the same is to be determined also of that invisible and mystical baptism, so that it may correspond exactly to the exterior baptism: that here too use was made of ministers, who, according to the understanding of those ancients, could have been none other than angels. For the symbol of the divine presence (the Jews call it the Shechinah) is attributed to angels by the ancient writers, Jewish as well as ecclesiastical as well as sacred and canonical; and the apparition which they sometimes attribute to God, they elsewhere assign to angels. God is read to have appeared to Moses in the bush, Whom nevertheless St Stephen calls an angel (Acts 7:35). God gave the Decalogue on Mount Sinai, which same law, however, the Apostle says was given by angels (Heb. 2:2). And indeed in this whole business of the heavenly mysteries, which is performed in the mysteries of the visible ecclesiastical hierarchy, Clement of Alexandria assigns to the angels the same office as that performed by the ordinary ministers of the Church, both that bettering [office] which I mentioned and also the ministering one: 'Both these ministries,' he says (Clem. Alex., Strom. 7, init.), 'the angels perform in service to God according to the economy of earthly things, and the gnostic himself,' etc. But let us return to our Cyprian.

§ 6. — Idem denique addit mysticum hunc sanguinis baptismum in honore esse pretiosiorem. Quae verba ad illa fortasse referenda sunt, quod cum in aqueo baptismo servi dumtaxat conscribimur, hic in sanguineo baptismo amicorum titulo longe honoratiori exornemur. Forte etiam ad externam divini hujus agonis pompam atque apparatum, quod nempe in eo Deus

§ 6. — Finally, he likewise adds that this mystical baptism of blood is more precious in honour. These words are perhaps to be referred to this: that, whereas in watery baptism we are enrolled merely as servants, here in the baptism of blood we are adorned with the far more honourable title of friends. Perhaps also to the external pomp and apparatus of this divine contest, namely that in it God

Editors' notes and page, col. 53

Page

running head: DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM B[APTISMO] (cut off at the image edge), column number 53
marginal letters: A Virginib. Tum ad gratiae quoque; B martyrum ille baptismus; C baptismo statuendum, ut exteriori; D ministris, tam βελτιωτικόν
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: the dissertation on the second baptism of the martyrs, continuing from the previous column ("Virginib." is the tail of a reference begun there, left untranslated). The period after "(Hebr., VI, 1, 2)" is set as printed although the sentence runs on. UNSURE: the verse in "(Act., VII, 35)", which may be printed 55 or 33. UNSURE: "Forte", whose type looks like "Foric" and is read as damaged type. Some Greek accents are hard to make out in the image.

PL 5:54

et Christus ejus exultent. Docet Dominus exultationem in coelo esse in conversione peccatoris. Hanc conversionem illi ad baptismum aqueum fortasse retulerint, et exultationem in coelo illam de angelorum exultatione intellexerint. Opponitur enim Deo coelum (S. Luc., XV, 21). Et coelum cum τοῖς κατοικοῦσι conjungitur (Apocal., XII, 12), quod certe de Trin-uno Deo ita commode intelligi nequit. Ita igitur Deum hujus sanguinei baptismi praesidem crediderunt, quod, cum martyrium agonibus, sive ludis theatralibus, contulissent, Deum Agonothetam fecerint, et quasi consulem in Orchestra spectatorem. Ipsa spectaculi voce a theatris desumpta usus hac in causa est Octavius (Minut. Fel. Octav., p. 358). «Quam pulchrum (inquit) spectaculum Deo, cum christianus cum dolore congreditur. etc., ». Et noster Cyprianus (Ep. LVI): «Spectat militem suum Christus ubique pugnantem.» Et postea: «Ecce agon sublimis et magnus, et coronae coelestis praemio gloriosus, ut spectet nos certantes Deus. Praeliantes nos et fidei congressione pugnantes spectat Deus, spectant angeli ejus, spectat et Christus.» Et alibi (Ep. IX): «O quale illud fuit spectaculum Domino, quam sublime, quam magnum, quam Dei oculis sacramento ac devotione militis ejus acceptum, etc.» Nec mirum hac eadem similitudine usos esse toties christianos, quam et ipsam eamdem adhibuerant ipsi etiam philosophi, Seneca (Senec., de Prov., c. 3) et Epictetus (Epist. ad Arrian.). Quamquam etiam altius repetitam fuisse verisimile est, a visionibus nimirum illis quibus Deus praesens laborantibus apparuerat. Ita S. Stephano Christus (Act., VII, 55). Et in certamine Polycarpi vocem coelitus emissam memorant Smyrnenses, ἴσχυε Πολύκαρπε, καὶ ἀνδρίζου (Ep. ad Philom. ap. Euseb., Hist. eccl., IV, 15). Et merito sane illi Dei hanc faventis praesentiam maximi honoris loco duxerunt. In eo autem praetulerint fortasse sanguinei hujus baptismi apparatum, quod, cum in coelo gaudium esse memorant sacrae Litterae in conversione peccatoris (aqueo nimirum baptismo expiati), coeli nomine coelestes creaturas, angelos nimirum, intellexerint; hic Deum ipsum ejusque Christum plaudentes introduxerint.

and His Christ may exult. The Lord teaches that there is exultation in heaven at the conversion of a sinner. This conversion they perhaps referred to the baptism of water, and understood that exultation in heaven of the exultation of the angels. For heaven is set over against God (Luke 15:21). And heaven is joined with "those who dwell [in it]" (Rev. 12:12), which certainly cannot so suitably be understood of the Three-in-One God. Thus, then, they believed God to be the presiding judge of this baptism of blood, in that, having compared martyrdom to contests, or theatrical games, they made God the Agonothete, and as it were a consul watching in the Orchestra. Octavius used, in this matter, the very word "spectacle" taken from the theatres (Minucius Felix, Octavius, p. 358): "How fair a spectacle (he says) for God, when a Christian engages in combat with pain, etc." And our Cyprian (Ep. 56): "Christ watches His soldier fighting everywhere." And afterwards: "Behold a contest sublime and great, and glorious with the reward of a heavenly crown, that God may watch us as we strive. As we do battle and fight in the encounter of faith, God watches, His angels watch, and Christ watches." And elsewhere (Ep. 9): "O what a spectacle that was for the Lord, how sublime, how great, how acceptable in the eyes of God by the oath and devotion of His soldier, etc." Nor is it surprising that Christians so often used this same comparison, since the philosophers themselves had also employed this very same one, Seneca (Seneca, On Providence, ch. 3) and Epictetus (Letter to Arrian). And yet it is likely that it was drawn from a higher source as well, namely from those visions in which God had appeared present to those in their labours. Thus Christ [appeared] to St Stephen (Acts 7:55). And in the contest of Polycarp the Smyrnaeans record a voice sent from heaven, "Be strong, Polycarp, and play the man" (Letter to Philomelium, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.15). And rightly indeed did they count this presence of a favouring God as the highest honour. In this, moreover, they perhaps preferred the apparatus of this baptism of blood, that, whereas the sacred Scriptures record that there is joy in heaven at the conversion of a sinner (expiated, namely, by the baptism of water), they understood by the name of heaven the heavenly creatures, namely the angels; but here they introduced God Himself and His Christ applauding.

§ 7.—Non me latet antiquitatis contemptores quam illi haec veterum christianorum ratiocinia nullo sint in loco habituri. Quod martyrium baptismi secundi titulo insignierint; nec nudo dumtaxat titulo, sed praeterea omnia prioris baptismi beneficia eidem attribuerint; nec eo ipso contenti, superiorem etiam eo ipso baptismo fecerint qui a Deo fuerat institutus: pro nudis illi proculdubio habituri sunt martyrum deliriis atque commentis. Indignabuntur porro, nec ferendam audaciam esse clamitabunt, tantum illos inventis suis tribuere ut commentitium suum baptismum baptismo a Christo instituto vel conferre audeant, nedum anteferre. Quaeramus igitur meritone, an secus, in ea veteres fuerint sententia? Rogo interim atque obsecro, ut tantisper seponant affectus dum rationem reddimus cur ita senserint primaevi christiani. Ita fiet ut et nobis aequiores sint, et sibi ipsis optime

§ 7.—It does not escape me that the despisers of antiquity will hold these reasonings of the ancient Christians in no esteem at all. That they distinguished martyrdom with the title of a second baptism; and not merely with a bare title, but moreover attributed to it all the benefits of the former baptism; and, not content with that, made it superior even to that very baptism which had been instituted by God: these things they will doubtless hold to be mere ravings and fictions of the martyrs. They will moreover be indignant, and will cry out that it is an intolerable audacity that those men should ascribe so much to their own inventions as to dare even to compare their fictitious baptism with the baptism instituted by Christ, much less to set it above it. Let us inquire, then, whether rightly or otherwise the ancients held this opinion. Meanwhile I ask and beseech them to set aside their feelings for a while, until we give the reason why the earliest Christians thought thus. So it will come about both that they will be fairer to us and that for themselves they will best

Editors' notes and page, col. 54

Page

running head: MARTYRUM BAPTISMO.
marginal letters: A ‹et Christus ejus exultent›; B ‹greditur. etc.›; C ‹apparuerat. Ita S. Stephano›; D ‹titulo insignierint›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence ("illud" before marginal A belongs to the left column 53); "Praeliantes": the first ligature is unclear in the image (could be œ, Proeliantes); "Epist. ad Arrian." punctuation is read from the image; "contemptores quam illi" is set as printed; the column ends mid-sentence at "optime"

PL 5:55

consulant, si non sint in heroas illos, Christo proculdubio charissimos, censores temerarii. Videamus itaque inprimis unde veteres secundum hunc baptismum collegerint. Inde intelligemus an proba fuerit et solida illa collectio. Inde num et illa quoque solida quae de eorum inter se commissione prioribus illis principiis datis superstruxerint.

consult their own interests, if they are not rash censors of those heroes, who were without doubt most dear to Christ. Let us therefore see first of all whence the ancients inferred this second baptism. From that we shall understand whether that inference was sound and solid. From that, too, whether those things also are solid which they built upon those earlier principles once granted, concerning the comparison of the two with each other.

§ 8.—Et quidem recentiores ab antiquioribus illum accepisse manifestum est. Non sunt igitur in hunc nostrum censum recipiendi. Huc retulit martyr noster (S. Luc., XII, 50). De quo, inquit, et Dominus dicebat habere se aliud baptisma baptizari (Ep. LXXIII, ad Jubaian). Retulit etiam Origenes. Locupletior est in eo probando Tertullianus: « Est quidem nobis etiam secundum lavacrum, unum et ipsum, sanguinis scilicet, de quo Dominus, Habeo, inquit, baptismo tingui, cum jam tinctus fuisset. Venerat enim per aquam et sanguinem, sicut Joannes scripsit, ut aqua tingueretur, sanguine glorificaretur. Proinde ut nos faceret aqua vocatos, sanguine electos, hos duos baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit. Quia qui in sanguinem ejus crederent, aqua lavarentur: qui aqua lavissent, etiam sanguinem potarent. Hic est baptimus qui lavacrum et non acceptum repraesentat, et perditum reddit (Tertull., de Bapt., c. 16). » Quod itaque Dominus passionem suam baptismum alium appellaverit; quod venerit in aqua et sanguine; quod cum aqua sanguinem in cruce e vulnere perfossi lateris emiserit: hinc colligunt Domini duplicem fuisse baptismum. Nec tamen Domini proprium fuisse e S. Matth., XX, 22, colligere poterant, in quo loco apostolorum passio baptismi nomine etiam intelligenda est. Videamus ergo rectene haecatque legitime procedat argumentatio.

§ 8. And indeed it is evident that the more recent writers received it from the more ancient. They are therefore not to be admitted into this reckoning of ours. Our martyr referred to this passage (Luke 12:50). Of which, he says, the Lord also said that He had another baptism to be baptized with (Ep. 73, to Jubaianus). Origen too referred to it. Tertullian is fuller in proving it: "We have indeed also a second washing, it too one only, namely that of blood, of which the Lord says, I have a baptism to be dipped in, when He had already been dipped. For He had come through water and blood, as John wrote, that He might be dipped in water and glorified in blood. Accordingly, to make us called by water and chosen by blood, He sent forth these two baptisms from the wound of His pierced side. For those who believed in His blood were to be washed with water; those who had been washed with water were also to drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in place of the washing when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost (Tertullian, On Baptism, ch. 16)." Because, then, the Lord called His passion another baptism; because He came in water and blood; because on the cross He sent forth blood with water from the wound of His pierced side: from this they infer that the Lord's baptism was twofold. Yet they could not infer from St Matthew 20:22 that it was proper to the Lord alone, in which place the passion of the apostles also is to be understood under the name of baptism. Let us see, then, whether this argument proceeds rightly and legitimately.

§ 9.— Recolendum itaque inprimis quod superius etiam observavimus, non dicta modo Domini nostri, sed et facta, quae quidem scriptis habemus hodie mandata, prophetica esse, et in perpetuum Ecclesiae usum conscripta, ut proinde ex id genus factis non sit futilis, ut putant vulgo, sed solida, argumentatio. Recte itaque concludit Tertullianus ex eo quod Dominus tam per sanguinem, quam per aquam venerit, christianis etiam tam sanguinem, quam aquam, esse proficuum. Recte iterum ex eo quod sanguinem pariter ac aquam e vulnere lateris emiserit, sanguinem quoque illum ex usu fore Ecclesiae. Ne vero nimia permittatur in hoc genus argumentationibus licentia, observetur imprimis ea quae hic protulerat Tertullianus Domini exempla non extraordinaria fuisse, sed ordinaria. In ordinariis facile admittent adversarii vitam Domini exemplum esse christianorum. Quod autem per sanguinem pariter ac aquam venerit, id nemo dubitet quin tale sit in quo eum imitari possimus, quod ipsum nos ordinarii voce intelligimus; quod porro etiam cum sanguine aqua e vulnere lateris emanarit,

§ 9. It must therefore be recalled first of all, as we have also observed above, that not only the sayings of our Lord but also His deeds, those at least which we have today committed to writing, are prophetic, and were written down for the perpetual use of the Church, so that consequently argument from deeds of that kind is not futile, as is commonly thought, but solid. Rightly, therefore, does Tertullian conclude, from the fact that the Lord came through blood as well as through water, that blood as well as water is profitable to Christians also. Rightly again, from the fact that He sent forth blood equally with water from the wound in His side, that this blood too would be for the use of the Church. But lest too much licence be allowed in arguments of this kind, let it be observed first of all that the examples of the Lord which Tertullian had brought forward here were not extraordinary but ordinary. In ordinary matters our opponents will readily admit that the life of the Lord is an example for Christians. And that He came through blood equally with water, no one would doubt that this is such a thing as we can imitate Him in, which is the very thing we understand by the word "ordinary"; that, moreover, water also flowed with the blood from the wound in His side,

Editors' notes and page, col. 55

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: etiam observavimus› · call in col 55

In Dissert. cui titulus : De Unitatis principio, etc., quam nec decuit praesenti adjungere volumini.

In the dissertation entitled De Unitatis principio (On the Principle of Unity), etc., which it was not fitting to add to the present volume either.

(printed under page 32)

Page

running head: 55 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO
marginal letters: A ‹consulant, si non sint›; B ‹licet, de quo Dominus›; C ‹e S. Matth., xx, 22›; D ‹emiserit, sanguinem quoque›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:56

id quoque concedent medici extraordinarium non fuisse si de aqua pericardii sit intelligendum. Observetur porro secundo christianam vitam ita in Novo Testamento describi quasi quod a Christo ad litteram gestum sit, id nos mystice gerere debeamus. Ita cum eo mori debemus, cum eo crucifigi, cum eo ignominiam ferre, cum eo sepeliri, resurgere et ascendere in coelum. Notetur tertio, haec de Christi passionibus esse vel primario intelligenda, ut quamquam gesta sint ab eo nonnulla imitationem nostram fortasse superantia; at quae passus est, nos eadem pati debeamus. Notetur quarto, ita optime de sensu prophetiae judicari posse si typus propheticus ad rem notam alludat in praxi Ecclesiae ab eo repraesentatam. Ut enim in propheticis repraesentationibus id certum est, non sui gratia typum, sed antitypi ab eo repraesentari a Deo esse designatum, ita id quoque certum est non alibi, quam in Ecclesia, illud antitypum esse quaerendum. Ut proinde quoties aptum occurrit in Ecclesia antitypum quod typo examussim respondeat, nec de alio quaestio est, an ab eo magis ad vivum exprimatur, ita dubitari non possit quin id ipsum Deus designare voluerit; nec est in hac argumentationis methodo quippiam quod lascivientibus ingeniis permittatur. Est id sane veterum omnibus moribus omnino consentaneum, quicumque sunt in propheticorum symbolorum interpretatione versati. Id cum ob oculos haberent Novi Testamenti scriptores Novi Testamenti universam oeconomiam antitypam esse, quae fuerit in universa itidem Veteris Testamenti oeconomia adumbrata: proinde cum quid in utraque oeconomia simile repererint, id una etiam admittunt, quod alibi nuspiam, ut in id genus similitudinibus a similitudine prototypa ad antitypam solidam agnoscant et legitimam argumentationem. Et quidem ea certitudine certam agnoscebant hujusmodi argumentationem quae cum ea obscuritate conciliari posset quae styli symbolici et prophetici fere genuina est, ita saltem certam ut locum interim relinquat libero hominum arbitrio, ita certam ut hominibus cordatis abunde sufficiat ad praxim prudenter instituendam. Ita quibuscumque Veteris Testamenti locis aliquam habemus aquae mentionem, ea omnia referunt etiam sacri scriptores ad Novi Testamenti aquam baptismalem, et quae sint in nostro baptismo officia observanda inde colligunt. Ita et in illo Atheniensium de muris ligneis oraculo Themistocles, cum Atheniensium causa editum perpenderet, inde prudentissime colligebat ex Atheniensium proinde moribus esse intelligendum. Et cum oracula Loxiae, Delphici nimirum Apollinis, pariter ac Judaeorum prophetiae, non essent ad litteram, sed symbolice, potius exponenda; id porro quaerendum duxit, ecquid esset in jam constituta Atheniensium Rep. quod cum muris ligneis aliquid haberet affine (nec enim in muros noviter exstruendos ipsum innuebat oraculum) et vero nihil erat quod in urbe quae viribus floreret commerciisque maritimis, de quo muri illi aptius possent, quam de navibus intelligi. Nec vero

physicians too will grant that this was not extraordinary, if it is to be understood of the water of the pericardium. Let it further be observed, secondly, that the Christian life is so described in the New Testament as though what was done by Christ according to the letter, that we ought to do mystically. Thus we ought to die with Him, to be crucified with Him, to bear ignominy with Him, to be buried with Him, to rise again and to ascend into heaven. Let it be noted, thirdly, that these things are to be understood even primarily of the sufferings of Christ, so that, although some things were done by Him which perhaps surpass our imitation, yet what He suffered, those same things we ought to suffer. Let it be noted, fourthly, that one can best judge of the sense of a prophecy if the prophetic type alludes to a known thing represented by it in the practice of the Church. For as in prophetic representations it is certain that the type was designed by God not for its own sake, but in order that the antitype might be represented by it, so it is also certain that that antitype is to be sought nowhere else than in the Church. So that, accordingly, whenever a fitting antitype occurs in the Church which corresponds exactly to the type, and there is no question of any other, whether it be more vividly expressed by it, it cannot be doubted that God willed to designate that very thing; nor is there anything in this method of argumentation which is permitted to wanton wits. This is indeed wholly consonant with all the customs of the ancients, whoever were versed in the interpretation of prophetic symbols. Since the writers of the New Testament had this before their eyes, that the whole economy of the New Testament is the antitype, which had likewise been foreshadowed in the whole economy of the Old Testament: accordingly, when they found anything similar in both economies, they also admit at the same time, what they admit nowhere else, that in similitudes of that kind they acknowledge from the likeness of the prototype to the antitype a solid and legitimate argumentation. And indeed they acknowledged argumentation of this kind as certain with such certainty as could be reconciled with that obscurity which is almost native to the symbolic and prophetic style, certain at least in such a way that it leaves room meanwhile for the free choice of men, certain in such a way that it amply suffices for men of good sense for ordering their practice prudently. Thus, in whatever places of the Old Testament we have any mention of water, the sacred writers refer all of them also to the baptismal water of the New Testament, and from them gather what duties are to be observed in our baptism. Thus too, in that oracle of the Athenians about the wooden walls, Themistocles, when he weighed that it had been given on account of the Athenians, most prudently gathered from this that it was accordingly to be understood from the customs of the Athenians. And since the oracles of Loxias, that is, of the Delphic Apollo, like the prophecies of the Jews, were to be expounded not according to the letter but rather symbolically, he thought it further to be inquired whether there was anything in the already established commonwealth of the Athenians which had some affinity with wooden walls (for the oracle was not hinting at walls to be newly built), and indeed there was nothing in a city which flourished in strength and in maritime commerce of which those walls could more fittingly be understood than of ships. Nor indeed

Editors' notes and page, col. 56

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 56
marginal letters: A id quoque concedent medici; B est, non sui gratia typum; C menti oeconomia adumbrata; D observanda inde colligunt
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: column is a continuous piece of the Dissertatio Cyprianica (‹id quoque concedent medici›), set in full; column begins mid-sentence and ends mid-sentence (Nec vero); column number in head printed indistinctly (looks like 50), read as 56; "referunt" damaged in print (looks like referm.t), read as referunt, UNSURE; "repraesentatam" partly damaged; "Novi Testamenti scriptores Novi Testamenti" repetition set as printed; no paragraph breaks visible within the column

PL 5:57

aliquid opponi in contrarium potest de hujus argumentationis incertitudine, quod non sit omnium fere prophetiarum oraculorumque commune ab ipsis usque utrorumque exordiis.

can anything be objected to the contrary concerning the uncertainty of this argumentation which is not common to almost all prophecies and oracles, from the very beginnings of both.

§ 10. — Haec itaque omnia validissime procedent, si quinto id quoque supponatur, res ita a propheticis typis repraesentatas ad perpetuum attinuisse Ecclesiae usum. Quae enim ita perpetua futura sunt, ea Deo curae esse certissimum est, ea maxime necessaria ut certo aliquo decreto stabilirentur; ea ad primarium Dei in propheticis symbolis consilium pertinuisse censenda sunt. In his itaque cum quid accuratissime quadrat, non fortuito id casui, sed certissimo Providentiae consilio tribuendum est. Cum ergo quae de Domini adventu legimus per aquam et sanguinem, de aqua etiam et sanguine e lateris vulnere profluentibus, pro styli prophetici idiomate, symbolorum vicem obtinuerint; cum ea in utrumque hunc Ecclesiae baptismum aptissime conveniant; cum nihil sit quod dubitemus quin perpetuus uterque futurus sit: plane sequitur, ita esse Dominum commodissime intelligendum. Praesertim sexto si id quoque observetur, ni huc typos Domini referamus ut praenuntiarent quem ille voluit Ecclesiae statum atque constitutionem, nihil certe esse quo aliunde constet Ecclesiae disciplinam ab eo esse constitutam. Nec enim de ea disertis verbis a Domino alicubi cautum legimus. Quid quod haec per symbola tradendi methodus ita est a Domino probata, ut multitudini omnia, discipulis etiam pleraque per symbola tradiderit; et quidem, pro veterum de se prophetiarum fide, ita erat traditurus. Tunc vero maxime idonea erat ea tradendi ratio cum res futurae traderentur quibus nondum maturus esset auditorum captus. Cum enim talia traderet Salvator, etiam discipulos per symbola instituit, dedita nimirum opera, ne antea intelligerentur quam eorum fidem eventus comprobasset. Atqui Spiritus baptismus, quae quidem sacramenti pars erat praecipua, non tamen ante resurrectionem erat communicatus, ut proinde illum quoque non disertis verbis, sed aquae symbolo, praediceret (S. Joan., VII, 38, 39). Quod si baptismum Spiritus, qui ad gloriam ejus tantopere faciebat, obscuris tamen aenigmatibus involvendum duxerit, multo certe potiori ratione occultandus erat sanguinis illi atque martyrii quem modum possent omnino capere. Nec enim ad hunc ipsum Dominum eo sanguinis baptismo fungi oportere crediderant, in infidelitatem fere relapsi, cum id verum, praeter expectationem suam, revera comperissent (S. Luc., XXIV, 21), gravius omnino passuri scandalum si sibi quoque eumdem subeundum nondum maturi didicissent. Proinde quamvis eorum, quae sua causa passuri erant discipuli, meminerit aliquoties Dominus, ne cum evenissent, eum latuisse, aut praeter illius consilium evenisse, suspicarentur; id tamen caute admodum, et pro infirmorum captu fecit, ne dum ut baptismum sanguinis, qui status erat patiendi, perspicue commemoraret.

§ 10. — All these things, then, will proceed most validly if, fifthly, this too is supposed: that the things thus represented by the prophetic types pertained to the perpetual use of the Church. For it is most certain that things which are to be thus perpetual are a concern to God, that they are especially necessary, so that they should be established by some fixed decree; they must be judged to have pertained to God's primary purpose in the prophetic symbols. Among these, therefore, when something fits most exactly, it is to be attributed not to fortuitous chance but to a most certain purpose of Providence. Since, then, what we read of the Lord's coming by water and blood, and also of the water and blood flowing from the wound in His side, have held the place of symbols, in keeping with the idiom of the prophetic style; since they suit most aptly this twofold baptism of the Church; since there is nothing to make us doubt that each is to be perpetual: it plainly follows that the Lord is most fittingly to be understood thus. Especially if, sixthly, this too is observed: that unless we refer the Lord's types to this end, that they foretold the state and constitution of the Church which He willed, there is certainly nothing from which it may otherwise be established that the discipline of the Church was constituted by Him. For nowhere do we read that anything was provided concerning it by the Lord in express words. What of the fact that this method of delivering things through symbols was so approved by the Lord that He delivered everything to the multitude, and most things even to the disciples, through symbols; and indeed, in keeping with the faith of the ancient prophecies about Him, He was to deliver them thus. And that manner of delivering was most suitable at the time when future things were being delivered for which the understanding of the hearers was not yet ripe. For when the Saviour delivered such things, He instructed even the disciples through symbols, clearly of set purpose, so that they should not be understood before the event had confirmed their faith. Yet the baptism of the Spirit, which was indeed the chief part of the sacrament, was nevertheless not communicated before the resurrection, so that accordingly He foretold it too not in express words but by the symbol of water (John 7:38–39). But if He thought that the baptism of the Spirit, which contributed so greatly to His glory, should nevertheless be wrapped in obscure enigmas, with much stronger reason was that of blood and martyrdom to be hidden from them, in whatever measure they could at all grasp it. For they had not believed that the Lord Himself must undergo that baptism of blood, and they almost relapsed into unbelief when they actually found it true, contrary to their expectation (Luke 24:21); they would have suffered a far graver scandal if, not yet ripe, they had learned that the same was to be undergone by themselves too. Accordingly, although the Lord several times mentioned the things which the disciples were to suffer for His sake, lest, when they had come to pass, they should suspect that they had escaped His notice or had come to pass contrary to His purpose, He did this nevertheless very cautiously and according to the capacity of the weak, much less did He plainly mention the baptism of blood, which was a state of suffering.

Editors' notes and page, col. 57

Page

running head: 57 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM [cut off at image edge]
marginal letters: A aliquid opponi in contrarium; B aquam et sanguinem, de aqua etiam; C per symbola tradiderit; et quidem; D occultandus erat sanguinis illi
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence (aliquid) and ends at a sentence end (commemoraret.); text is dissertation prose on the second baptism of the martyrs, set as text; "quem modum possent omnino capere" construed uncertainly (perhaps intended quam ut); "quae quidem sacramenti pars" (quae agreeing with pars) left as printed; page number printed with damaged type (:57); right-hand column cut off, not set

PL 5:58

§ 11. — Observandum itaque secundo, id quoque negari non posse, passionem suam baptismum appellasse Salvatorem: et quod apostoli pro ejus nomine passuri essent, tantumdem apud illum valere ac baptizari eo baptismo quo esset ipse baptizatus (S. Matth., XX, 22). Ita enim in graeco habemus, et in aliis vetustissimis versionibus, desunt tamen ea verba in latino interprete vulgato, suffragantibus etiam Hilario Ambrosio (Hilar., can. 30 in Matth.), Hieronymo (Hieron., lib. III. Comm. in Matth. XX), ipsoque, quicquid innuat in contrarium Grotius, Origene (Orig., in Matth., tom. XVI, p. 415, Ed. Huetianae). Convenit tamen cum graecis codicibus vetustissimus interpres Syrus, et ut hic expungenda esse fateremur, quin tamen apud S. Marcum legenda sint (cap. X, 38, 39), nemo est qui dubitet, ut proinde nihil sit quod de argumento metuamus. Sed aliam hic significationem hujus vocis intelligent adversarii quam qua utimur cum de sacramento loquimur. Ostendant igitur aliam in illius aevi auctoribus quam quae ad expiationem sanctificationemque pertinet. Eo certe spectabant, qui tum obtinebant baptismi, ut opinor, omnes, non hominum modo quibus in pharisaeorum aut Joannis disciplinam adscriberentur, sed et vasorum quoque illi sacrorumque utensilium. Quando igitur notae significationis vocem Dominus tribuit martyrio, id illum voluisse necesse est, idem fore a martyrio, quod a baptismis illis expectandum, ut nimirum tam sanguine a suis impuritatibus quam aqua, purgarentur atque expiarentur. Quod si dicant nuspiam indicasse Dominum hos esse fructus a martyrio expectandos, iidem observare poterant ne de baptismi quidem sacramento id umquam docuisse Salvatorem. Nulla certe mentio peccatorum expiandorum in ejus apud S. Matthaeum institutione, nulla in ejus usu apud S. Joannem. Et tamen hunc baptismi sacramentalis fructum nos alibi ex apostolorum scriptis probavimus. Quod ergo ita docuerint apostoli, id ex nota illa, quam dixi, tunc temporis significatione vocis, et rei ipsius apud illos, a quibus illam Christiani, usu illos deduxisse est sane verisimillimum, nisi ad novam potius apostolorum revelationem hic, sine ulla prorsus necessitate, confugiendum putent adversarii. Quod si apostoli ex nota illa vocis significatione collegerint baptismo sacramentali vim illam peccatorum expiatricem esse tribuendam; quidni et nos, ex ejusdem vocis significatione itidem colligamus, sanguineo quoque baptismo vim eamdem purgatricem esse pariter tribuendam?

§ 11. — It is to be observed, therefore, secondly, that this too cannot be denied: that the Saviour called His passion a baptism, and that for the apostles to be about to suffer for His name was worth just as much in His sight as to be baptized with the baptism with which He Himself was baptized (Matt. 20:22). For so we have it in the Greek and in other very ancient versions; those words are, however, missing in the common Latin translator, with the support also of Hilary [and] Ambrose (Hilary, canon 30 on Matthew), Jerome (Jerome, book 3 of the Commentary on Matthew, ch. 20), and, whatever Grotius may hint to the contrary, Origen himself (Origen, on Matthew, vol. 16, p. 415, Huet's edition). Yet the very ancient Syriac translator agrees with the Greek manuscripts; and even if we were to admit that they must be struck out here, no one doubts that they are to be read in St Mark (ch. 10:38–39), so that there is nothing for us to fear for the argument. But our adversaries will understand here a different meaning of this word from the one we use when we speak of the sacrament. Let them then show, in the authors of that age, another meaning than that which pertains to expiation and sanctification. To this certainly all the baptisms then in use looked, in my opinion: not only those of men, by which they were enrolled in the discipline of the Pharisees or of John, but also those of their vessels and sacred utensils. When therefore the Lord gave to martyrdom a word of known meaning, He must have meant that the same thing was to be expected from martyrdom as from those baptisms, namely that men would be purged and expiated of their impurities as much by blood as by water. But if they say that the Lord nowhere indicated that these are the fruits to be expected from martyrdom, the same men could have observed that the Saviour never taught this even concerning the sacrament of baptism. There is certainly no mention of sins to be expiated in its institution in St Matthew, none in its use in St John. And yet we have proved this fruit of sacramental baptism elsewhere from the writings of the apostles. That the apostles taught it so, then, it is surely most likely that they derived from that meaning of the word, known at that time, as I have said, and from the practice of the thing itself among those from whom Christians took it, unless our adversaries think that recourse must here be had, without any necessity at all, rather to a new revelation given to the apostles. But if the apostles inferred from that known meaning of the word that that power of expiating sins is to be attributed to sacramental baptism, why should we not likewise infer, from the meaning of the same word, that the same purifying power is equally to be attributed to the baptism of blood also?

§ 12. — Ne quis autem putet unicum nostrum praesidium in vocis ipsa significatione esse positum; age, videamus, annon ex re ipsa constet recte hic a veteribus acceptum esse Salvatorem? Observandum itaque tertio, verisimillimam horum locorum occasionem, in quibus de baptismo sanguinis agi crediderunt veteres, fuisse martyrium. Alium illum baptismum, quo se dixit Dominus fore baptizandum, de passione ejus in cruce intelligendum

§ 12. — But lest anyone think that our only defence lies in the meaning of the word itself, come, let us see whether it is not clear from the matter itself that the Saviour was rightly understood here by the ancients. It is to be observed, therefore, thirdly, that the most likely occasion of these passages, in which the ancients believed the baptism of blood to be treated, was martyrdom. That that other baptism, with which the Lord said He was to be baptized, is to be understood of His passion on the cross

Editors' notes and page, col. 58

Page

running head: …DO MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. (left part cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A § 11. — Observandum itaque secundo; B (cap. x, 38, 39), nemo est qui dubitet; C Quod si dicant nuspiam indicasse; D sacramentali vim illam peccatorum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: running head cut off at left, only its end visible; "Hilario Ambrosio" printed without comma between the names; column ends mid-sentence at "intelligendum"; prose is a dissertation (§ 11–12) on the baptism of martyrs, set as printed

PL 5:59

esse nemo dubitet. Ea autem ipsa passio, pro more etiam scriptorum sacrorum, martyrium appellatur. Inde et ipse Dominus μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς καὶ ἀληθινὸς (Apocal., I, 5; III, 14) dicitur et μαρτυρῆσαι ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν (I Tim., VI, 13). Quae verba omnia martyrium, pro primaevae Ecclesiae idiomate, designant. Nequid autem hic ab ecclesiasticis confictum arbitremur, etiam ipsam martyrii vocem significatione ecclesiastica usurpant sacrae litterae. Ita μάρτυς Stephanus (Act., XXII, 20), et μάρτυς ὁ πιστὸς Antipas (Apocal., II, 13), quae eadem Domino antea tribuerat, ut vidimus, auctor Apocalypseos, ne quis hic miretur martyris vocem etiam Domino tributam, sensu ecclesiastico, intellectam esse a veteribus. Ita certe alienam non crediderunt a Domino hanc hujus vocis significationem, ut propriam etiam fere Domino fecerint ipsi martyres nonnulli apud Eusebium (Euseb., Hist. eccl., V, 2). Quod si Domini passio martyrium, eademque sit baptismi quoque nomine insignienda, ecquid novum alienumve dicimus si etiam de martyribus ecclesiasticis idem affirmemus?

let no one doubt. And that very passion, after the custom also of the sacred writers, is called martyrdom. Hence the Lord Himself too is called "the faithful and true witness" (Rev. 1:5; 3:14) and is said "to have witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate" (1 Tim. 6:13). All these words signify martyrdom, according to the idiom of the primitive Church. And lest we should think that something was here invented by churchmen, the sacred writings themselves use the very word "martyrdom" in its ecclesiastical sense. Thus Stephen is a "martyr" (Acts 22:20), and Antipas is "the faithful martyr" (Rev. 2:13), the same words which the author of the Apocalypse had earlier applied to the Lord, as we have seen, so that no one should be surprised here that the word "martyr" applied also to the Lord was understood by the ancients in the ecclesiastical sense. Certainly they did not think this meaning of the word foreign to the Lord, so much so that certain martyrs themselves, in Eusebius (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.2), made it almost the Lord's own. But if the passion of the Lord is martyrdom, and is likewise to be distinguished by the name of baptism as well, do we say anything new or strange if we affirm the same also of the martyrs of the Church?

§ 13.— Sed et aliorum locorum occasionem eodem collimare est sane verisimillimum. Cum scriberet apostolus S. Joannes, jam orti videntur haeretici valentinianis quidem antiquiores, eorum tamen parentes atque origines, nec enim prorsus novum erat valentinianorum institutum, sed priorum haereticorum inventa πρὸς ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα μεθήρμωσε, inquit de Valentino Irenaeus (Iren., lib. I, c. 5) cujusdam veteris opinionis semina natus est, teste Tertulliano (Tert., adv. Valent., c. 4). Ut igitur Jesum a Christo diviserunt valentiniani, ad antiquiorum haereticorum exemplum Apostolo coaevorum, quorum occasione tam est in eo ipso argumento multus in prima sua epistola Apostolus; ita et martyria cum iisdem valentinianis eosdem etiam Apostolo coaevos haereticos sustulisse probabile est. In illam certe sententiam optime quadrabunt Apostoli argumenta, ut ante nos noster observavit Hammondus. Antichristi erant hi haeretici seu, quod apud Apostolum tantumdem valet, pseudo-christi, quod Christi Judaeis promissi personam ipsi in se susciperent. Proinde illud innuit Apostolus totius Evangelii sui fuisse consilium, ut crederent Jesum fuisse filium Dei (Joan., XX, 31), (quem nempe titulum Messiae suo e Ps. II, 7, illius saeculi Judaei asserebant), non autem illos haereticorum antesignanos. Quare inter caetera argumenta quibus falsum illum de Christo praetextum refellit Apostolus, illo quoque usus est de veri Christi adventu per aquam et sanguinem. Hic est, inquit (I Joan., V, 6), qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Jesus Christus; non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. A signis nimirum veri Messiae argumentatus est de quibus inter Judaeos, vel saltem illius aevi christianos, convenerat, tam ut Jesum nostrum verum Messiam comprobaret, quam ut pseudo-christos illos vel eo ipso baptismi nomine improbaret. Venit, inquit, per aquam et sanguinem:

§ 13.— But it is indeed most probable that the occasion of other passages also aims at the same point. When the apostle St John was writing, heretics seem already to have arisen, older indeed than the Valentinians, yet their parents and origins; for the system of the Valentinians was not altogether new, but "he adapted the inventions of earlier heretics to his own stamp", says Irenaeus of Valentinus (Irenaeus, book 1, ch. 5); he was born of the seeds of a certain old opinion, as Tertullian witnesses (Tertullian, Against the Valentinians, ch. 4). As, therefore, the Valentinians divided Jesus from Christ, after the example of older heretics contemporary with the Apostle, on whose account the Apostle dwells so much on this very argument in his first epistle; so it is probable that, together with these same Valentinians, those same heretics contemporary with the Apostle also did away with martyrdoms. Certainly the Apostle's arguments will fit that view excellently, as our Hammond observed before us. These heretics were antichrists, or, what amounts to the same thing in the Apostle, pseudo-christs, because they took upon themselves the person of the Christ promised to the Jews. Accordingly the Apostle intimates that the purpose of his whole Gospel had been that they should believe that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31) (which title, namely, the Jews of that age claimed for their Messiah from Ps. 2:7), but not those forerunners of the heretics. Wherefore, among the other arguments by which the Apostle refuted that false pretext concerning Christ, he also used this one, concerning the coming of the true Christ through water and blood. "This is He," he says (1 John 5:6), "Who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ; not in water only, but in water and blood." He argued, that is, from the signs of the true Messiah on which there had been agreement among the Jews, or at least among the Christians of that age, both in order to prove our Jesus the true Messiah, and to disprove those pseudo-christs even by that very name of baptism. "He came," he says, "through water and blood":

Editors' notes and page, col. 59

Page

running head: 59 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO C[...] (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹esse nemo dubitet›; B ‹hujus vocis significationem›; C ‹jusdam veteris opinionis›; D ‹(Joan., xx, 31), (quem nempe›
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:60

Nempe inter alios Messiae titulos, quibus illum designatum intellexerant in Scripturis, erat vel praecipuus ille Ερχομένου. Ita habemus in S. Luc., VII, 19, 20 et alibi. Illum fortasse e celeberrimo illo loco, Gen., XLIX, 10, vel Ps. L. 3; XCIV, 13; XCVIII, 9, collegerint, aliisve similibus Scripturae locis quibus Messias venturus dicitur. Quare cum Messias venturus appellaretur, tantumdem valent signa Messiae ac signa adventus. Ita de vero Messia discipuli ejus; Quod signum adventus tui? (S. Matth.) et de falso Messia Apostolus: Cujus est adventus secundum operationem Satanae in omni virtute et signis, etc. (II Thess., II, 9). Venire itaque per aquam et sanguinem idem valet ac per aquam et sanguinem se verum Messiam comprobare.

For among the other titles of the Messiah by which they had understood Him to be designated in the Scriptures, that of the Coming One (Ἐρχομένου) was perhaps the chief. So we have it in St Luke (Luke 7:19, 20) and elsewhere. They may perhaps have gathered it from that most celebrated passage, Gen. 49:10, or Ps. 50:3; 94:13; 98:9, or from other similar places of Scripture in which the Messiah is said to be about to come. Therefore, since the Messiah was called the One Who was to come, the signs of the Messiah and the signs of the coming mean just the same. So His disciples say of the true Messiah: What is the sign of Your coming? (St Matthew), and the Apostle says of the false Messiah: Whose coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and signs, etc. (2 Thess. 2:9). To come, therefore, through water and blood means the same as to prove oneself the true Messiah through water and blood.

§ 14.—Nempe qui venturus erat in mundum is idem erat a patre mittendus atque sanctificandus (S. Joan., X, 36). Ea autem sanctificatio qualis intelligeretur, e sanctissimo Judaeorum officio, summo nimirum sacerdotio, optime colligemus. In illius itaque sanctificatione tam aquam quam etiam sanguinem locum habuisse constat; aquam equidem Exod., XXIX, 4; Lev., VIII, 6; sanguinem autem Exod., XXIX, 20, 21; Lev., VIII, 23, 24. Ad Messiam enim tamquam mysticum evangelici foederis sacerdotem, retulit in hac ipsa causa Apostolus Judaei pontificis exemplum, quod ille etiam passione sua esset sanctificandus. Τελειώσεος voce usus est apostolus (Hebr., II, 10, 11; V, 8; 9), mystica nimirum illa, et sacrae mysteriorum praefecturae propria. Ita tamen Christi hoc sacerdotium cum Judaeorum sacerdotio contendit Apostolus, ut, cum in utriusque consecratione sanguinis usum adhibitum probasset, in eo eminuerit Christi sacerdotium quod suo dumtaxat sanguine consecratus fuisset Christus cum externo dumtaxat pecudum sanguine usi essent in sacerdotum suorum consecratione Judaei, Hebr., IX, 25, 26. Idem et alibi saepius inculcat, cum non taurorum hircorumve, sed vero proprio dumtaxat, sanguine Christum docet initiatum. Ergo cum Judaeis in eo convenerat Apostolus, ad quorum principia suam hic aptavit argumentationem, ut pontificem fore Christum a summo nimirum Judaeorum pontifice adumbratum, ita qui verus futurus esset Messias, sanguine pariter ac aqua tam ipsum fore lustrandum (vel, ut evangelica voce utamur, baptizandum) quam alios iisdem esse lustrandum. De aquae baptismo id fuisse receptum constat ex ipsa illa pharisaeorum interrogatione qua Joannem, ipsene se pro Messia venditaret, explorandum censuerunt: Quid ergo baptizas, si tu non es Christus neque Elias, neque propheta? (S. Joan., I, 25). Idem de sanguinis baptismo innuunt illa Domini ad discipulos: O stulti et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quae locuti sunt prophetae! Nonne haec oportuit pati Christum, et ita intrare in gloriam suam (S. Luc., XXIV, 25, 26)? Hoc scilicet ex illis collegit Scripturis quarum sensum postea discipulis explicuit, cum eorum intellectus aperuisset ut Scripturas intelligerent, illis nimirum quae vel ex illorum saeculorum concessis, vel certis

§ 14.—For He Who was to come into the world was the same Who was to be sent and sanctified by the Father (John 10:36). And what kind of sanctification was understood by this we shall best gather from the most holy office of the Jews, namely the high priesthood. It is established, then, that in its sanctification both water and also blood had a place: water, indeed, in Exod. 29:4; Lev. 8:6; and blood in Exod. 29:20, 21; Lev. 8:23, 24. For in this very matter the Apostle applied the example of the Jewish high priest to the Messiah as the mystical priest of the evangelical covenant, in that He too was to be sanctified by His passion. The Apostle used the word τελείωσις (Heb. 2:10, 11; 5:8; 9), a mystical word, namely, and one proper to the sacred presidency over the mysteries. Yet the Apostle so compares this priesthood of Christ with the priesthood of the Jews that, having proved that the use of blood was employed in the consecration of both, the priesthood of Christ excelled in this, that Christ had been consecrated with nothing but His own blood, whereas the Jews had used nothing but the external blood of cattle in the consecration of their priests (Heb. 9:25, 26). The same he also inculcates rather often elsewhere, when he teaches that Christ was initiated not with the blood of bulls or goats, but truly with His own blood alone. Therefore the Apostle had agreed with the Jews, to whose principles he here adapted his argument, on this point: that, just as Christ was to be a high priest foreshadowed, namely, by the high priest of the Jews, so he who was to be the true Messiah was both to be purified himself with blood as well as water (or, to use the evangelical word, baptized) and to purify others with the same. That this was accepted concerning the baptism of water is established from that very questioning of the Pharisees, by which they resolved to examine John whether he was passing himself off as the Messiah: Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet? (John 1:25). The same concerning the baptism of blood is hinted at by those words of the Lord to the disciples: O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all things that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into His glory (Luke 24:25, 26)? This, namely, He gathered from those Scriptures whose sense He afterwards explained to the disciples, when He had opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures, from those, namely, which either from the concessions of those ages, or from certain

Editors' notes and page, col. 60

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 60
marginal letters: A Nempe inter alios Messiae titulos; B § 14.—Nempe qui venturus; C tium cum Judaeorum sacerdotio; D zandum) quam alios iisdem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: Greek Ερχομένου printed without visible breathing, set as printed. Psalm references (Ps. L. 3; XCIV, 13; XCVIII, 9) appear to follow Hebrew/English numbering and were kept as printed in the English rather than converted; XCIV may stand for XCVI, UNSURE. "utriusque" is printed with a damaged i (looks like utrlusque). "ipsene se" is set as printed. "alios iisdem esse lustrandum" is set as printed (lustrandos might be expected). The column ends mid-sentence at "certis". The left column visible in the images is not set. No full-width line. No editors' matter.

PL 5:61

quibusdam illius saeculi ratiociniis, de Messia intelligendae erant, quaeque futuram commemorarent Messiae passionem, quales proferunt quamplurimas non Novi modo Testamenti scriptores, sed et sequentium saeculorum patres quorum extant hodie disputationes adversus Judaeos, Justinus, Tertullianus, Eusebius, etc.

particular reasonings of that age, were to be understood of the Messiah, and which recalled the future passion of the Messiah, such as are adduced in very great number not only by the writers of the New Testament but also by the fathers of the following ages whose disputations against the Jews are extant today: Justin, Tertullian, Eusebius, etc.

§ 15. — Illae ergo Scripturae quae, pro illius saeculi captu, de Messiae passione intellectae sunt, argumenti vicem obtinere poterant apud illos, qui, ut ab orthodoxis discrepabant in eo quod Jesum esse Christum negarint, ita et in eo vicissim a Judaeis, quod Christum qualemcumque illum finxissent, venisse tamen crediderint. Ita ergo Jesum Apostolus Christum fuisse confirmavit, quod tam per sanguinem quam per aquam venerit, in eo nempe ponens emphasin atque argumenti vim, quod non in aqua solum venerit, sed in aqua et sanguine, quod nimirum illum de adventu in aqua praetextum nec pseudochristi quidem abjecissent, sanguinem dumtaxat inter adventus sui signa non adhibuissent (cùm nec ipsi antichristi patiendi, seu exemplum, seu etiam institutionem, discipulis edidissent), qua ipsa ratione illos probat a Christi esse nomine excludendos, qui utrumque signum adhibere debuerit.

§ 15. — Those Scriptures, therefore, which, according to the understanding of that age, were understood of the passion of the Messiah could serve in place of an argument with those who, just as they differed from the orthodox in denying that Jesus was the Christ, so also differed in turn from the Jews in believing that the Christ, whatever sort of Christ they had imagined Him to be, had nevertheless come. Thus, then, the Apostle confirmed that Jesus was the Christ, because He came as much by blood as by water, placing the emphasis and the force of the argument precisely in this, that He came not in water only but in water and blood; namely because not even the pseudo-christs had cast aside that pretext of a coming in water, but they had not employed blood among the signs of their coming (since not even the antichrists themselves had given their disciples either an example or even an institution of suffering); and by this very reasoning he proves that they are to be excluded from the name of Christ, Who was bound to employ both signs.

§ 16. — Nec alio referendum existimo quod, in Evangelio, signum illud de aqua et sanguine e lateris vulnere in cruce manantibus tantopere confirmandum crediderit Apostolus, quasi de eo fuisset maximopere dubitatum. Et qui vidit, inquit, testimonium perhibuit, et verum est testimonium ejus. Et ille scit quia vera dicit, ut et vos credatis (S. Joan., XIX, 35). Ni quaestio fuisset inter aemulos Christi, ea, qua dixi, ratiocinatione terminanda, alia profecto Domini miracula abunde ejus a patre missionem confirmassent. Eorum tamen miraculorum testes nullos protulit, nedum tanta illa, qua hic usus est, asseveratione. Quid quod verba illa, ut et vos, emphasin quamdam habeant eximiam, reliqua nimirum miracula infidelium causa fuisse tam edita, quam scriptis etiam consignata; hoc unum aliis omnino adversariis fuisse destinatum illis nimirum quorum gratia scriptum fuisset Evangelium, antichristorum aemulorum assertoribus. Recte itaque hanc sanguinis pariter ac aquae e Christi latere emissionem, atque duplicem hunc aquae sanguinisque baptismum, eodem retulit Tertullianus. Quod enim adversus eosdem adversarios conscripta essent ab Apostolo, inde sane verisimile est eodem esse referenda. Et quia cum aquae et Spiritus baptismis ita sanguis ab Apostolo (I Joan., V, 8) confertur, ut ipse ternarium cum illis numerum conficiat; plane sequitur baptismi etiam rationem sanguini cum aqua fuisse communem. Quia etiam et aquae et sanguinis emissione ita antichristos refutat in Evangelio ut in epistola refutarat per adventum in aqua et sanguine: sequitur praeterea, si in epistola per sanguinem baptismus sanguinis intelligendus sit, in emissione etiam illa aquae et sanguinis, quae in Evangelio memoratur, aquae etiam

§ 16. — Nor do I think it is to be referred to anything else that in the Gospel the Apostle believed that sign of the water and blood flowing from the wound of the side on the cross needed to be confirmed so emphatically, as if it had been very greatly doubted. And he who saw, he says, has borne witness, and his witness is true. And he knows that he speaks true things, that you also may believe (John 19:35). Unless there had been a question among the rivals of Christ, to be settled by the reasoning I have stated, the Lord's other miracles would surely have abundantly confirmed His mission from the Father. Yet for those miracles he brought forward no witnesses, still less with that great asseveration which he has used here. What of the fact that those words, that you also, carry a certain exceptional emphasis, namely that the other miracles were both performed and also recorded in writing for the sake of unbelievers, while this one alone was intended for quite other adversaries, namely those for whose sake the Gospel had been written, the champions of the antichrists, [Christ's] rivals? Rightly, therefore, did Tertullian refer to the same thing this issuing of blood and likewise of water from the side of Christ, and this twofold baptism of water and of blood. For since these things had been written by the Apostle against the same adversaries, it is indeed likely on that account that they are to be referred to the same thing. And since blood is so compared by the Apostle (1 John 5:8) with the baptisms of water and of the Spirit that it makes up with them the number three, it plainly follows that the character of baptism also was common to blood with water. Since, moreover, he refutes the antichrists in the Gospel by the issuing of both water and blood just as he had refuted them in the epistle by the coming in water and blood, it follows further that, if in the epistle the baptism of blood is to be understood by blood, then also in that issuing of water and blood which is recorded in the Gospel, of water also

Editors' notes and page, col. 61

Page

running head: 61 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A quibusdam illius saeculi ratiociniis; B aquam venerit, in eo nempe ponens; C ille scit quia vera dicit; D hunc aquae sanguinisque baptismum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence (quibusdam) and ends mid-sentence (etiam), no word split at either break; column number in head is damaged and looks like 81, taken as 61; cùm set with its accent as printed; (1 Joan., v, 8) set as (I Joan., V, 8) from small capitals; editors' matter: the whole column is the dissertation De secundo martyrum baptismo, from ‹quibusdam illius saeculi ratiociniis›; no full-width line

PL 5:62

sanguinisque baptismos esse similiter intelligendos. Ita itaque ex locorum occasione in quibus aquae sanguinisque mentionem retulit huc Tertullianus, et cum Tertulliano vetus illa proculdubio Ecclesia, colligimus, non alium utique sanguinem quam baptismalem esse intelligendum.

and of blood, baptisms are likewise to be understood. Thus, then, from the occasion of the passages in which Tertullian here made mention of water and of blood, and with Tertullian that ancient Church beyond doubt, we gather that no other blood at all is to be understood than baptismal.

§ 17.— At aequivoce, inquies, communis erat baptismi illa ratio aquae, sanguini atque Spiritui, ut proinde non sit quod ex communi hac baptismi ratione inferamus sanguinei atque aquei baptismi fructus eosdem esse expectandos. Id ne dicatur, observamus praeterea quarto in ipso illo initiationis expiationisque ritu, cui peccatorum illam purgationem tribuebant veteres, tam frequentem fuisse apud illos sanguinis quam aquae, usum. In utraque illa tam Judaeorum, quam Gentilium, initiatione sacrificiorum usum intercessisse nemo est quin facile concedat. Nota est apud Judaeos etiam rabbinorum illa observatio qua tria dicunt in proselytismo esse observanda, circumcisionem, sacrificium atque baptismum. Et vero sacrificii vicem sustinuisse, ex veterum sententia, martyrium jam probavimus. Porro praeter sacrificiorum sanguinem, ne id quidem erat a communi initiationum usu alienum ut suum quoque sanguinem ad sui expiationem adhiberent. Clarum illud est in circumcisione apud Judaeos exemplum. Sed et in Bellonae initiis sanguinem emissum esse discimus ex Tertulliano (Apologet., c. 8): Hodie, inquit, istic Bellonae sacratus sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus suis datur signatis. Ejusdem ritus meminerunt et alii. Cum tamen ita scribat in Commodo suo Lampridius, « Bellonae servientes vere exsecare brachium praecepit, » colligit Casaubonus plerumque ficta et simulata tantum fuisse vulnera Bellonariorum. Eo venerunt fortasse mollioribus suis interpretatiunculis fanatici recentiores. Sed verum fuisse sanguinis emissionem quae ab antiquioribus introducta est, et verum illam quae a militibus observata est Bellonae initiatis, e supradicto Tertulliani loco colligimus atque Vegetii, aliorumque plerorumque qui hujus ritus meminerunt. Et vero vetustissimum fuisse illum lustrationis morem per sanguinis emissionem e quamplurimis constat Scripturae locis: Lev., XIX, 28; Deut., XIV, 1; I Reg., XVIII, 28; Jer., XVI, 6. Ita nempe Baalitae, ita Galli (quorum diem sacrum IX kal. april. quem et sanguinis diem appellabant, memorat in D. Claudio Trebellius Pollio, perperam enim ea ad Bellonam retulit Casaubonus, quae ad magnam matrem ipse retulit Trebellius), ita Isiaci et Luperci flagris sese pectorumve tunsionibus male ad sanguinis missionem usque mulctantes. Eodem scilicet exemplo quo sua quoque cum daemonibus foedera Veneficae etiam sanguine dicuntur hodie sancire.

§ 17.— But, you will say, that principle of baptism was common to water, to blood and to the Spirit only equivocally, so that there is accordingly no ground for inferring from this common principle of baptism that the fruits of the baptism of blood and of the baptism of water are to be expected to be the same. Lest this be said, we observe besides, fourthly, that in that very rite of initiation and expiation to which the ancients attributed that cleansing of sins, the use of blood was as frequent among them as that of water. That in both those initiations, of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles, the use of sacrifices had a place, there is no one who would not readily grant. Well known also among the Jews is that observation of the rabbis by which they say that three things are to be observed in proselytism: circumcision, sacrifice and baptism. And indeed that martyrdom took the place of sacrifice, in the judgement of the ancients, we have already proved. Further, besides the blood of sacrifices, not even this was foreign to the common usage of initiations, that they should apply their own blood also to their own expiation. Clear is that example among the Jews in circumcision. But in the initiations of Bellona too we learn that blood was let, from Tertullian (Apology, ch. 8): Today, he says, the blood consecrated to Bellona, drawn from a gashed thigh and caught in the palm of the hand, is given to her sealed ones. Others too have mentioned the same rite. Since, however, Lampridius writes thus in his Commodus, 'He commanded the servants of Bellona to cut their arm in earnest', Casaubon gathers that for the most part the wounds of the Bellonarii were only feigned and simulated. To this the more recent fanatics perhaps came with their softer little interpretations. But that the letting of blood which was introduced by the more ancient ones was real, and that the one observed by soldiers initiated to Bellona was real, we gather from the aforesaid passage of Tertullian, and from that of Vegetius and of most others who have mentioned this rite. And indeed that this custom of lustration by the letting of blood was very ancient is established from very many passages of Scripture: Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; 1 Kgs 18:28; Jer. 16:6. So indeed the Baalites, so the Galli (whose sacred day, the ninth day before the Kalends of April, which they also called the day of blood, Trebellius Pollio records in his Divus Claudius; for Casaubon wrongly referred to Bellona those things which Trebellius himself referred to the Great Mother), so the votaries of Isis and the Luperci, punishing themselves cruelly with scourges or with beatings of the breast even to the drawing of blood. On the same pattern, that is, as that by which witches too are said today to ratify their own pacts with demons with blood.

§ 18.— Neque vero initiorum duntaxat vicem supplebat baptismus, pacti etiam illam obtinebat. At paciscentium quoque mos erat suo invicem sanguine foedera sancire. Ita circumcisionem suam intelligebant Judaei. Unde etiam qui pacto mosaico per sanguinem initiatus fuisset, eum, pro receptis Judaeorum

§ 18.— Nor indeed did baptism fill the place of initiations only; it held also that of a pact. And it was also the custom of those making a pact to ratify covenants with each other's blood. So the Jews understood their circumcision. Whence also whoever had been initiated into the Mosaic pact through blood, him, according to the Jews' received

Editors' notes and page, col. 62

Page

running head: [DE] MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. 62 (start of head cut off at the left edge of the image)
marginal letters: A sanguinisque baptismos esse; B daeorum, quam Gentilium; C tus meminerunt et alii; D IX kal. april. quem
old-edition numerals: (none)

PL 5:63

moribus, חתן דמים appellatum ad Exod., IV, 26, observarunt Medus atque Gregorius, et ante illos in Lexico suo Schindlerus. Idem in gentilium quoque pactis obtinuit, quorum equidem memoriam aliquam hodie retinemus, antiquissimis. De Medis atque Lydis auctor est in Clio Herodotus, ὅρκια δὲ ποιέεται ταῦτα τὰ ἔθνεα τάπερτε Ελληνες· καὶ πρὸς τού τοισι ἐπεὰν τοὺς βραχίονας ἐπιτάμωνται, ες τὴν ὁμοχροΐην τὸ αἷμα ἀναλείχουσι ἀλλήλων. De Scythis in Melpomene: ὅρκια δὲ ποιοῦνται Σκύθαι ὧδε, πρὸς τούς ἂν ποιέωνται· ἐς κύλικα μεγάλην κεραμίνην οἶνον ἐγχέαντες, αἷμα συμμίσγουσι τῶν τὰ ὅρκια ταμνομένων. De iisdem Scythis atque Medis ita Solinus: « Haustu mutui sanguinis foedus sanciunt, non suo tantum more, sed Medorum quoque usurpata disciplina. » (Polyhist., c. 20.) Et vero aliorum barbarorum, quorum haec recepta fuerit consuetudo, meminerunt historici etiam recentiores. Quamquam et in illis quoque brutorum sacrificiis idem intellexisse gentiles ostenderunt nostri adversus socinianos, hominum vicem gessisse illas brutorum mactationes similia sibi imprecantium si fidem fefellissent. Ergo ille quoque sacrificiorum sanguis humani tamen erat sanguinis vicarius, eodemque erat loco censendus ac si homo ipse sanguinem proprium oppignorasset. Cumque duplex esset haec, quam dixi, tam apud Judaeos quam gentiles, aquae atque sanguinis, peccatorum expiandorum gratia, recepta lustratio; major tamen credita est, sanguinis, quam aquae, efficacia. Leviora enim erant illa quae aquae aspersione expianda crederentur. Graviora quaeque quae piacula sive ἄγη habebantur, sanguine purganda erant. Homicidium inter piacula numerabant veteres, quod nimirum ipsi terrae maculam inureret nullo, praeterquam sanguinis, lavacro eluendam. Ejus autem, si notus fuisset auctor, proprio ejus sanguine piaculum expiabant; sin latuisset, vaccae sanguine in loco immolandae. Neque vero caedes sola, sed et impuritas illa legalis e morticiniis contactu contrahenda vaccae rufae cineribus purganda erat. Quinetiam totius populi israelitici peccata in hircum emissarium (Lev., XVI) imprecatione conjecta sunt, ejusdem ut Rabbini volunt, morte luenda. Nec alia Graecorum erat de suis quoque καθάρμασι sententia, ut ex Aristophanis scholiaste discimus (Arist., schol. in Plut.). Tamque erat universalis haec peccatorum per sanguinem purgatio, ut nullam hic exceptionem adhibeat Apostolus: Sine sanguinis, inquit, effusione non fit remissio (Hebr., IX, 22). Ita consentaneum erat illorum temporum dogmatibus, ut cum utramque tam sanguinis, quam aquae expiationem pro baptismo haberent, majorem tamen sanguinei baptismi, quam aquei, virtutem agnoscerent.

customs, called "bridegroom of blood" (חתן דמים) at Exod. 4:26, as Mede and Gregory have observed, and before them Schindler in his Lexicon. The same held also in the compacts of the Gentiles, the most ancient of those of which we retain any memory today. Of the Medes and Lydians Herodotus is the authority in Clio: "These nations make oaths just as the Greeks do; and besides this, when they cut their arms on the surface of the skin, they lick up each other's blood." Of the Scythians, in Melpomene: "The Scythians make oaths thus, with whomever they make them: having poured wine into a large earthenware cup, they mix into it the blood of those who are swearing the oaths." Of the same Scythians and Medes Solinus speaks thus: "They ratify a treaty by drinking each other's blood, not only by their own custom, but also by a practice adopted from the Medes." (Polyhist., ch. 20.) And indeed more recent historians too have recorded other barbarians among whom this custom was received. Yet even in those sacrifices of brute animals the Gentiles understood the same thing, as our writers against the Socinians have shown: that those slaughterings of brute animals took the place of the men, who called down similar things upon themselves if they should break faith. Therefore that blood of the sacrifices too was nevertheless a substitute for human blood, and was to be reckoned in the same position as if the man himself had pledged his own blood. And since this twofold purification of which I have spoken, of water and of blood, was received among the Jews as well as among the Gentiles for the sake of expiating sins, yet greater efficacy was believed to belong to blood than to water. For lighter were those things which were believed to be expiable by the sprinkling of water. All the graver offences, which were held to be piacula or ἄγη, were to be purged with blood. The ancients counted homicide among the piacula, because, namely, it branded on the very earth a stain to be washed away by no washing other than that of blood. If its perpetrator was known, they expiated the pollution with his own blood; if he lay hidden, with the blood of a cow to be sacrificed on the spot. And not slaughter alone, but also that legal impurity contracted from contact with carcasses was to be purged by the ashes of the red cow. Moreover, the sins of the whole Israelite people were cast by imprecation upon the scapegoat (Lev. 16), to be atoned for, as the Rabbis hold, by its death. Nor was the opinion of the Greeks otherwise about their own καθάρματα too, as we learn from the scholiast of Aristophanes (Arist., schol. on Plut.). And so universal was this purgation of sins through blood that the Apostle admits no exception here: Without shedding of blood, he says, there is no remission (Heb. 9:22). So it was consistent with the doctrines of those times that, while they held the expiation both of blood and of water to be a baptism, they nevertheless acknowledged a greater power in the baptism of blood than in that of water.

§ 19. — Et ut sanguini in hoc expiationis negotio, partes concedebant facile primarias; ita humani sanguinis, prae aliis etiam sanguinibus, vim longe maximam agnoverunt. Inde ortum duxit immanis illa, quae apud veteres invaluit, ἀνθρωποθυσία, quod dedelictis hominum expiandis humanus sauguis aptissimus videretur. Cum gravior aliqua immineret ab

§ 19. — And as in this business of expiation they readily conceded the primary role to blood, so they acknowledged in human blood, above other kinds of blood too, by far the greatest power. Hence arose that monstrous ἀνθρωποθυσία [human sacrifice] which prevailed among the ancients, because human blood seemed most fitting for expiating the offences of men. When some graver one threatened from

Editors' notes and page, col. 63

Page

running head: 63 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO C (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A moribus, חתן דמים appellatum; B vero aliorum barbarorum; C piacula sive ἄγη; D purgatio, ut nullam hic exceptionem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: editors' matter: Dodwell's dissertation (preliminary dissertation), the column begins mid-sentence "moribus" and ends mid-sentence "immineret ab"; Hebrew set in logical order (חתן דמים); Greek "τού τοισι" (for τούτοισι), "τάπερτε", unaccented "ες" and "Ελληνες" set as printed; "sanciunt" partly blotted but legible; "dedelictis" arises from "de-/delictis" across the line end; no full-width lines

PL 5:64

irato numine patriae calamitas quae multorum exitium epidemicum minaretur, multorum vitae paucorum erant sanguine redimendae, sive is sacrificio esset, sive alio aliquo modo hauriendus. Eam ἀνθρωποθυσίας, apud Phoenicas rationem reddidit (Ap. Euseb., Praep. evang., I, 10; IV, 16; Porphyr., de Abst., II, 56), apud Philonem Byblium, Pseudo Sanchoniathon auctor, ut vulgo creditur, vetustissimus. Eamdem dicunt rationem mythologi cur Phryrus et Helle sacrificio destinarentur, cum terrae sterilitas (ita enim Athamanti persuasit Ino) famem minaretur. Eamdem cur Leonis filiae, cur Andromeda, cur etiam, apud recentiores Romanos, Curtius et duo Decii se, patriae servandae augendaeve gratia, exitio devoverint. Exercitus salutem voluit Agamemnon Iphigenia filia sua; voluit et hoste Polyxena, immolanda servare. Multa sunt eodem spectantia exempla quae plenam fidem faciant quantum in humanis criminibus expiandis humano sanguini tribuerint, quantum etiam aqueis illum lustrationibus praetulerint. Apud Judaeos ipsa circumcisio sanguineae omnino expiationis (sive baptismum cum Domino appellare malis) vicem sustinebat, et quidem humano ipsius initiati sanguine faciendae. Cum itaque id unum ad baptismi rationem proprie spectet ut in eo peccata expianda sint; cum etiam, in ea expiationis ratione, exempla habuerit Dominus tam Judaeorum, quam gentilium, qui sanguini beneficium illud, pariter ac aquae tribuissent, qui humano etiam ipsius initiati sanguini, qui majorem quoque efficaciam sanguineae lustrationi, quam vel aqueae concessissent: Non erat sane consentaneum ut quam expiandi majorem in sanguine quam in aqua virtutem alii apud se fuisse gloriarentur, ea soli christiani destituerentur. Praesertim cum in eo versari, jam diximus, universam fere Novi Testamenti argumentationem, ut quaecumque essent, sive apud Judaeos, sive gentiles, privilegia de quibus gloriarentur, ea christianis potiori praestantiorique ratione convenire probarentur. Non erat consentaneum ut, cum in eadem hac causa baptismi vocem adhiberent tam ipse Dominus quam Novi Testamenti scriptores, aliam tamen significationem intelligerent quam expiandi illam omnium notissimam receptissimamque. Non erat consentaneum ut, qui ita sensissent, aliter tamen loquerentur quam martyrem nostrum jam locutum observavimus, ut nimirum sanguinei baptismi vim etiam expiatricem aquei baptismi illi longe anteferendam existimarent. Tantum abest ut duram hanc, et a sacramentorum dignitate, et Domini mente alienam censere debeamus loquendi rationem, ut putant illam alienam adversarii.

an angered deity, a calamity of the fatherland which menaced an epidemic destruction of many, the lives of many were to be redeemed by the blood of a few, whether that blood was to be shed in sacrifice or in some other way. This reason for human sacrifices among the Phoenicians was given (in Euseb., Praep. evang. 1.10; 4.16; Porphyr., de Abst. 2.56), in Philo of Byblos, by Pseudo-Sanchuniathon, an author, as is commonly believed, most ancient. The mythographers give the same reason why Phrixus and Helle were destined for sacrifice, when the barrenness of the land (for so Ino persuaded Athamas) threatened famine. The same reason is given why the daughters of Leos, why Andromeda, why also, among the more recent Romans, Curtius and the two Decii devoted themselves to death for the sake of preserving or enlarging their fatherland. Agamemnon wished to preserve the safety of the army by the sacrifice of his daughter Iphigenia; he wished also to preserve it by the sacrifice of an enemy, Polyxena. There are many examples tending to the same point, which give full proof how much they attributed to human blood in expiating human crimes, and how far they also preferred it to lustrations with water. Among the Jews circumcision itself took the place of an expiation wholly by blood (or, if you prefer to call it with the Lord, a baptism), and indeed of one to be performed with the human blood of the initiate himself. Since, therefore, this one thing properly pertains to the nature of baptism, that in it sins are to be expiated; since, moreover, in that manner of expiation the Lord had examples both of Jews and of gentiles, who had attributed that benefit to blood just as to water, who had attributed it even to the human blood of the initiate himself, who had granted a greater efficacy also to a lustration by blood than to one by water: it was surely not fitting that, while others boasted that among them there had been a greater power of expiating in blood than in water, Christians alone should be deprived of it. Especially since, as we have already said, almost the whole argumentation of the New Testament turns on this, that whatever privileges there were, whether among the Jews or among the gentiles, of which they boasted, these were proved to belong to Christians in a better and more excellent manner. It was not fitting that, when both the Lord Himself and the writers of the New Testament used the word baptism in this same matter, they should nevertheless understand another meaning than that of expiating, the best known and most widely received of all. It was not fitting that those who had thought thus should nevertheless speak otherwise than we have observed our martyr to have spoken already, namely that they judged the expiatory power of the baptism of blood to be far preferable to that of the baptism of water. So far is it from being the case that we ought to judge this manner of speaking harsh, and foreign both to the dignity of the sacraments and to the mind of the Lord, as our opponents think it foreign.

§20. — Ita itaque ostendimus, quam hic omnia apte inter se congrueque, pro illius aetatis dogmatibus cohaereant, si ita Dominum ipsum, ita ejus apostolos, intelligamus. Inde sequitur pro hoc esse potius sensu praejudicandum, vel, si vocem malimus tertullianeam, praescribendum, ni clara occurrant in reipsa argumenta cur sit aliter intelligenda. Atqui

§20. — Thus, then, we have shown how all things here cohere aptly and harmoniously with one another, according to the doctrines of that age, if we so understand the Lord Himself and so His apostles. Hence it follows that judgement should rather be given beforehand in favour of this sense, or, if we prefer a Tertullianic word, that it should be prescribed, unless clear arguments occur in the matter itself why it should be understood otherwise. But

Editors' notes and page, col. 64

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 64 (initial D cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A irato numine patriae; B voluit et hoste Polyxena; C vel aqueae concessissent; D strum jam locutum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence; "Sanchonia thon" printed with a wide space, set as one word; "sit aliter intelligenda" feminine as printed; Greek ἀνθρωποθυσίας hyphenated at line end and joined; text is a dissertation on Cyprian (Dodwell-type discussion of the baptism of blood), not one of the PL 5 authors listed, set in full as printed; no full-width line visible

PL 5:65

tantum abest ut in reipsa contraria habeamus argumenta, ut nihil magis faciat ad nostrae sententiae confirmationem quam si rem ipsam penitius examinemus. Animadvertendum itaque quinto ad ipsum baptismi sacramentum pertinere, sanguineum hunc baptismum, et quidem ita pertinere ut partem ejus praecipuam consummet. Hoc ubi probatum dederimus, nemo erit, opinor, quin facile concedat praecipuum baptismi fructum ab eo esse jure meritoque expectandum. Nec alio spectat, ut puto, Apostoli illa comparatio qua aquam, sanguinem et Spiritum in unum ita contulit, ut, quemadmodum Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus unum sunt, ita aqua, Spiritus et sanguis sint in unum, quod nempe unum idemque praestent omnes compleantque officium. De baptismali aqua et Spiritu intelligendum observavimus, ut proinde baptismum illum sacramentalem supplere debeat sanguineus hic baptismus. Idque ipsum observavit ante nos Origenes, ne quis veterum dogmatibus minus consentaneam suspicetur nostram hanc interpretationem. Neque vero pugnat quod sanguineum hunc baptismum secundum appellarint iidem veteres. Ita enim intelligendi sunt, quod, cum renovari denuo non possit sacramentalis ille baptismus, in martyrio tamen ejus beneficia sint de novo, sine ejus tamen ipsius renovatione expectanda, et quod nova fidelium adultorum peccata, quae quidem in aqueo baptismo remissa non essent, hic plene penitusque et pro baptismalis remissionis modo mensuraque remittatur. Quae cum secunda sit remissio, non erit utique mirum si secundo etiam baptismo tribuenda videatur. Sed, misso Apostoli testimonio, age rem ipsam, ex propria hujus sacramentalis baptismi natura explicemus.

so far is it from being the case that we have arguments to the contrary in the matter itself, that nothing does more towards the confirmation of our opinion than if we examine the matter itself more thoroughly. It is to be observed, therefore, in the fifth place, that this baptism of blood pertains to the very sacrament of baptism, and indeed pertains to it in such a way that it completes its principal part. When we have given this as proved, there will be no one, I think, who would not readily grant that the principal fruit of baptism is rightly and deservedly to be expected from it. Nor, as I think, does that comparison of the Apostle aim at anything else, by which he so brought together water, blood and the Spirit into one that, just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, so the water, the Spirit and the blood are into one, namely because they all perform and fulfil one and the same office. We have observed that it is to be understood of the baptismal water and Spirit, so that this baptism of blood must accordingly supply that sacramental baptism. And Origen observed this very thing before us, lest anyone should suspect this interpretation of ours to be less consonant with the teachings of the ancients. Nor indeed does it conflict that these same ancients called this baptism of blood a second one. For they are to be understood thus: that, since that sacramental baptism cannot be renewed again, its benefits are nevertheless to be expected anew in martyrdom, yet without the renewal of the baptism itself; and that the new sins of adult believers, which indeed had not been remitted in the baptism of water, are here remitted fully and thoroughly and after the manner and measure of baptismal remission. And since this is a second remission, it will certainly not be surprising if it seems attributable to a second baptism also. But, setting aside the testimony of the Apostle, come, let us explain the matter itself from the proper nature of this sacramental baptism.

§ 21. — Recolamus itaque inprimis omne hoc baptismi negotium pactum esse quoddam fidelium cum Deo, nec aliunde rectius quam e receptis pactorum moribus explicandum. Esse enim Evangelii καινὴν διαθήκην ab illa scilicet diversam quae Judaeorum fuerat atque legis mosaicae; esse etiam sub Evangelio non Testamentum modo, sed et pactum, eamque duplicem διαθήκης significationem evangelicis etiam temporibus convenire; esse etiam sub mystico israelitismo eadem omnino pacti beneficia quae propria olim fuerant israelitismi litteralis, ut nobis Deus summus in proprium ascribatur Deum, nos illi vicissim in proprium ascribamur populum; nec illud modo, sed externam esse hanc nostram cum Deo confoederationem, ita nempe intelligendam, ut externum aliquod intercedat unionis politicae vinculum tam nobis invicem, quam Deo etiam nobiscum commune, quo nos ipsi profiteamur Deo foederatos, et ab aliis etiam foederati agnoscamur, ad eumdem plane modum quo et Israel secundum carnem pro foederato Dei populo, prae universi orbis gentibus, olim poterat agnosci: haec, inquam, ita sunt ex Novi Testamenti ratiociniis manifesta, ut mirum sit esse hodie qui de nostra assertione dubitent. Haec enim si vera agnoscamus: plane sequitur externa ea solemnia quibus

§ 21. — Let us recall, therefore, first of all, that this whole business of baptism is a certain pact of believers with God, and is to be explained from no other source more correctly than from the received customs of pacts. For [we recall] that there is a new covenant of the Gospel, different, namely, from that which had belonged to the Jews and to the Mosaic law; that under the Gospel too there is not only a testament but also a pact, and that this twofold signification of the word covenant fits evangelical times as well; that under the mystical Israelitism, too, there are altogether the same benefits of the pact which were formerly proper to the literal Israelitism, namely that the supreme God should be ascribed to us as our own God, and we in turn be ascribed to Him as His own people; and not only that, but that this confederation of ours with God is external, to be understood, namely, in such a way that some external bond of political union intervenes, common as much to us with one another as to God also with us, by which we ourselves profess ourselves confederated with God and are also acknowledged by others as confederated, in plainly the same way in which Israel according to the flesh could formerly be acknowledged as the confederated people of God, before the nations of the whole world: these things, I say, are so manifest from the reasonings of the New Testament that it is surprising that there are people today who doubt our assertion. For if we acknowledge these things to be true, it plainly follows that those external solemnities by which

Editors' notes and page, col. 65

Page

running head: 65 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM B (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A tantum abest ut in reipsa; B aqua et Spiritu intelligendum observavimus; C videatur. Sed, misso Apostoli; D cissim in proprium ascribamur populum
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column ends mid-word "qui-" (quibus?) split at the column break; Greek καινὴν διαθήκην and διαθήκης poorly printed, read as such, UNSURE of accents; "sententiae" and "Evangelii" show damaged type but are legible; no full-width lines; no editors' matter in this column

PL 5:66

in societatem christianorum politicam ascribimur, ea foederis esse solemnia. Quis autem illud dubitet baptismi esse proprium officium ut per illum sacris christianorum initiemur, et in propriam ascribamur christianorum societatem? Convenit praeterea quod qui confertur in christianorum baptismo Spiritus, is ἀῤῥαβὼν (quae et arrha est scriptoribus romanis) in Novo Testamento appelletur. Erat enim in jure romano arrha pactorum propria, praecipue nuptialium. Nempe mysticam cum Ecclesia unitatem matrimoniali unitati respondere V ad Eph. innuit Apostolus. Propria porro arrha est illius temporis quo primo foedus inimus. Inde sequitur ut de alia Spiritus collatione, praeterquam baptismali, nequeat intelligi. Conveniunt denique et baptismi illae in Ecclesia primaeva formae, Credis? Credo, Abrenuntias? Abrenuntio. Sunt enim et illae ad romanorum pactorum formas expressae, rursus praecipue nuptialium, Das? Do; Spondes? Spondeo. Unde illud saltem necessario colligitur, pro pacto baptismum primaevos saltem habuisse christianos.

we are enrolled into the civil society of Christians, those are the solemn formalities of a covenant. But who would doubt that this is the proper office of baptism, that through it we are initiated into the sacred rites of Christians and enrolled into the proper society of Christians? It agrees, moreover, that the Spirit Who is conferred in the baptism of Christians is called in the New Testament ἀῤῥαβών (which is also arrha in the Roman writers). For in Roman law the arrha was proper to pacts, especially nuptial ones. Indeed, in Ephesians 5 the Apostle intimates that the mystical unity with the Church corresponds to matrimonial unity. Moreover, the arrha properly belongs to that time at which we first enter into the covenant. Hence it follows that it cannot be understood of any other conferral of the Spirit than the baptismal. Finally, those forms of baptism in the primitive Church also agree: Do you believe? I believe; Do you renounce? I renounce. For those too are modelled on the forms of Roman pacts, again especially nuptial ones: Do you give? I give; Do you pledge? I pledge. Whence this at least is necessarily inferred, that the earliest Christians at least held baptism to be a pact.

§ 22. — Hinc sequitur secundo ut in aliis pactis, ita et in nostro pacto quoque baptismali, duo esse a se invicem distinguenda diversarum partium officia, Dei alia, alia nostra. Ad Deum spectant promissiones quibus cavetur de praestandis baptismi beneficiis, tam illae quae de praesenti praestandae sunt, peccatorum omnium expiatio, Spiritus sancti donatio, mystica cum Christo unio, saltem externa, etc., quam quae de futuris adhibentur officii nostri praemiis. Ad nos spectant quae a nobis vicissim spondentur pro nostra pacti baptismalis parte praestanda. Quamquam enim promissiones fateamur extra pacta factas, sine alterius partis obligatione satis commode intelligi posse; at quae alteram pacti partem constituunt, illae mutua omnino utriusque partis exigunt officia. Ipsa hoc pacti ratio necessario supponit. Datae enim fortasse, non certe pactae, illae promissiones dicerentur quae nulla supponerent officia sibi ex adversa parte respondentia.

§ 22. — Hence it follows, secondly, that as in other pacts, so also in our baptismal pact, two sets of duties belonging to different parties must be distinguished from one another, some God's, others ours. To God belong the promises by which the bestowal of the benefits of baptism is guaranteed, both those which are to be bestowed in the present, the expiation of all sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, mystical union with Christ, at least external, etc., and those which are employed concerning the future rewards of our duty. To us belong the things which are pledged by us in return, to be performed for our part of the baptismal pact. For although we may grant that promises made outside pacts can quite readily be understood without obligation on the other party, yet those which constitute one part of a pact altogether require mutual duties of both parties. The very nature of a pact necessarily presupposes this. For promises which presupposed no duties answering to them from the opposite party might perhaps be called given, but certainly not covenanted.

§ 23. — Sequitur tertio jus illud legale omne, quod pacti beneficio obtinemus, ad Dei promissiones, ex officii nostri praestatione esse deducendum. Est enim illud omnium pactorum commune ut quae habentur in illis promissiones eae conditionatae intelligantur, nec antea debitae quam praestitae fuerint, ex altera parte, promissionum conditiones. Sed in id genus pactis quae, ex altera parte, sola includunt beneficia aliis praestanda, nulla vicissim ab aliis recipienda, qualia sint pacta necesse est quae Deo sunt hominibusque communia, nemo est quin aequum fateatur nullum esse posse jus ad beneficia, ni praecesserint conditiones ex altera parte praestandae. Nos tamen de jure legali impraesentiarum agimus, non de sola aequitate. Et ut aequitas aliqua fortasse esse possit, ut qui conditionem implere voluerit, conditionis beneficium nonnumquam impetret, licet illam de facto nondum impleverit, cum nulla sua culpa a conditione etiam de facto praestanda impeditur; at legali saltem jure

§ 23. — It follows, thirdly, that all that legal right to God's promises which we obtain by benefit of the pact must be derived from the performance of our duty. For this is common to all pacts, that the promises contained in them are understood as conditional, and are not owed before the conditions of the promises have been performed on the other side. But in pacts of the kind which on one side include only benefits to be bestowed on others, none to be received from others in return, such as pacts common to God and men must necessarily be, there is no one who would not admit it fair that there can be no right to the benefits unless the conditions to be performed on the other side have gone before. We, however, are dealing at present with legal right, not with equity alone. And granted that there may perhaps be some equity in this, that one who has been willing to fulfil a condition should sometimes obtain the benefit of the condition, although he has not yet fulfilled it in fact, when through no fault of his own he is prevented from performing the condition in fact as well; yet at least by legal right

Editors' notes and page, col. 66

Page

running head: O MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. (cut off at the left edge of the image; column number 66)
marginal letters: A bus in societatem christianorum; B clesia primaeva formae; C tur pro nostra pacti; D parte, promissionum conditiones
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the word fragment "bus" broken from column 65; "ea foederis" in line 2 is unsure, as the type may read "en"; "v ad Eph." is printed in small capitals and set as "V"; the treatise (De martyrum baptismo) is set as running text, and its authorship is not shown in this column; no full-width line

PL 5:67

carere qui conditionem de facto non praestiterit, quocumque tandem rerum eventu fuerit impeditus, est omnino certissimum. In illis praesertim pactis adhuc validius procedit argumentum quorum conditiones non sunt conditiones dumtaxat ad arbitrium imponentis requisitae, sed etiam dispositiones ex parte subjecti necessariae. Cum itaque nullum hujus pacti redundet in Deum beneficium, sequitur quaecumque Deus a nobis postulat, ea nostri esse causa necessaria, ut proinde ni postulata praestemus, ipsis promissionem beneficiis obtinendis inepti reddamur atque indispositi.

he is deprived [of it] who has not in fact fulfilled the condition, by whatever turn of events he may in the end have been hindered: this is altogether most certain. The argument proceeds still more strongly in those covenants especially whose conditions are not merely conditions required at the will of the one imposing them, but also dispositions necessary on the part of the subject. Since therefore no benefit of this covenant redounds to God, it follows that whatever God demands of us is necessary for our own sake, so that accordingly, unless we fulfil what is demanded, we are rendered unfit and indisposed for obtaining the very benefits of the promises.

§ 24.—Quarto itaque ut intelligamus quae nobis incumbant in hoc baptismali pacto conditiones a nobis pro nostra pacti parte praestandae, attendendum est quae symbola sint a nobis in ipsis pacti solemnibus adhibenda, et quid illa symbola, ex ipso Dei instituto significant, et pro legibus significationis symbolicae quae illa saltem aetate vigebant. Quae enim symbola in pacti solemnibus usurpantur ea non significandi dumtaxat; sed obligandi etiam gratia instituta sunt. Ut enim sacramenta omnia, sive mysteria, pro sacris hominum cum Deo pactis intelligenda sunt, ita et id sacri omnis commercii genuinum est ut symbolice potius quam ad litteram, intelligenda sint, nec ita verbis, quam rebus, rerum tamen aliarum symbolis, officia illa repraesententur quae partium inter se transigentium habentur obligatoria. Quae itaque symbolis baptismalibus significantur ea nos spondere a nobis deinde praestanda virtute pacti baptismalis existimamur, ea a nobis praestita jus inde nobis faciunt ut promissa divina ejusdem pacti evangelici virtute vindicemus.

§ 24.—Fourthly, therefore, so that we may understand which conditions, to be fulfilled by us for our part of the covenant, are incumbent upon us in this baptismal covenant, attention must be paid to which symbols are to be employed by us in the very solemnities of the covenant, and what those symbols signify by the very institution of God, and according to the laws of symbolic signification which were in force at least in that age. For the symbols which are used in the solemnities of a covenant were instituted not only for the sake of signifying, but also for the sake of binding. For just as all sacraments, or mysteries, are to be understood as sacred covenants of men with God, so too it is proper to all sacred intercourse that they are to be understood symbolically rather than literally, and that those duties which are held to be binding on the parties transacting with one another are represented not so much by words as by things, yet by symbols of other things. Therefore we are considered to pledge the things which are signified by the baptismal symbols, as things to be fulfilled by us thereafter by virtue of the baptismal covenant; these, once fulfilled by us, thereby give us the right to claim the divine promises by virtue of the same evangelical covenant.

§ 25. — Quinto in symbolis baptismi nostri sacramentalis solemnibus, non aquae solius baptismus denotatur, sed etiam ille sanguinis, verum ita denotetur ut uno eodemque symbolo, uno eodemque denotetur elemento, ut proinde ad unum, ut diximus, eumdemque baptismum pertinere intelligantur. Ut enim, cum aqua adhibetur, peccatorum desertionem pollicemur, futuramque vitae sanctimoniam quae externo aquae symbolo satis apte repraesentatur: ita cum in aquam descendimus et vicissim ex eadem emergimus, Christi mortem, sepulturam resurrectionemque repraesentamus, nosque etiam spondemus horum omnium participes, paratos nimirum ut quaecumque ille nobis immiserit, ea nos, illius causa ad mortem usque toleraturos. Eodem symbolo, qua Christum respicit, intelligimus Christum sibi passiones nostras imputaturum, et quam mercedem ipse a Patre, pro suo cum Patre foedere vindicat, eadem nostras quoque passiones esse remuneraturum. Ita constabit quo jure sibi baptismi nomen vindicent nostrae passiones, cum ad ipsam baptismi sacramentalis rationem spectent consummandam. Constabit etiam quo porro jure ejusdem sibi vindicent baptismi beneficia, cum illis etiam symbolis repraesententur quae a Deo instituta sunt, et quae hoc ipso consilio instituta sunt ut passiones nostras repraesentent atque spondeant, et quae Dei etiam nobiscum paciscentis sunt quoque symbola

§ 25. — Fifthly, in the solemn symbols of our sacramental baptism, not the baptism of water alone is denoted, but also that of blood, yet it is denoted in such a way that it is denoted by one and the same symbol, by one and the same element, so that accordingly they are understood to belong, as we have said, to one and the same baptism. For just as, when water is applied, we promise the abandonment of sins and a future holiness of life, which is represented quite fittingly by the outward symbol of water, so, when we go down into the water and in turn come up out of it, we represent the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and we also pledge ourselves partakers of all these, ready, namely, to endure for His sake, even unto death, whatever He may send upon us. By the same symbol, in so far as it regards Christ, we understand that Christ will impute our sufferings to Himself, and that with the same reward which He Himself claims from the Father in accordance with His covenant with the Father He will recompense our sufferings also. Thus it will be clear by what right our sufferings claim for themselves the name of baptism, since they look to the completing of the very nature of sacramental baptism. It will also be clear by what right, further, they claim for themselves the benefits of the same baptism, since they too are represented by those symbols which were instituted by God, and which were instituted for this very purpose, that they should represent and pledge our sufferings, and which, of God also covenanting with us, are also symbols

Editors' notes and page, col. 67

Page

running head: 67 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO
marginal letters: A carere qui conditionem de facto; B quae symbola sint a nobis in ipsis pacti solemnibus; C ea a nobis praestita jus inde nobis faciunt; D nobis immiserit, ea nos, illius causa ad mortem usque
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column set as main text, Dodwell's dissertation (carere qui conditionem); column ends mid-word "sym-" (symbola), English ends "sym-" accordingly; section numeral "§ 24" slightly damaged in print but legible; no full-width line on the page

PL 5:68

sponsoria, ipsum praeterea, pro mutuo pacti jure, ad praestanda ea quae symbolis repraesentantur obligantia, se quoque nostras passiones pro suis agniturum, et suo merito, sua mercede compensaturum.

of a sponsorial kind, binding Him Himself moreover, by the mutual right of the compact, to the performance of those things which are represented by the symbols, [and pledging] that He too will acknowledge our sufferings as His own, and will recompense them by His merit, by His reward.

§ 26. — Et vero accuratissime, pro Domini nostri mente atque principiis conceptam hanc omnem fuisse argumentationem facile constabit si diversa diversarum Scripturarum asserta in unum colligamus quasi fasciculum. Repraesentari inprimis nostram in baptismo cum Christo passionem atque mortem, nec repraesentari modo, verum etiam ita repraesentari, ut cum Christi passione nostras uniat quodammodo et communes utriusque faciat, sexto ad Romanos capite satis aperte docet Apostolus. Unam esse nostram Christique passionem ex illis ejus verbis constat: Mortui sumus cum Christo, v. 8; Vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, v. 6. Consepulti sumus cum eo, v. 4. Et quidem repraesentatione quadam ad vivum totam hanc transigi unionem illa innuunt: Complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis ejus, v. 5. Nec alio quam baptismi officio: An ignoratis quia quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus? Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem, v. 3, 4. Neque vero unio sola et mera haec habenda est, et quae tota in hominum imaginatione atque aestimatione constituta est. Eam diximus symboli sponsorii esse naturam ut una inferat legalem quamdam obligationem qua partes inter se paciscentes praestare id tenentur quod symbolis repraesentarint. Inde fit ut, quod sola similitudine fieri non potuit, nobis tamen ex hac ipsa repraesentatione jus quoddam ad rem ipsam proveniat, quo unionem ipsam internam et mysticam vindicare possumus, ejusque beneficia. Eo ipso principio nituntur id genus ratiocinia: Si enim complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis ejus; simul et resurrectionis erimus v. 5; si autem mortui sumus cum Christo, credimus quia simul etiam vivemus cum Christo, v. 6. Nec enim de alia morte hic agi quam typica hac atque symbolica in baptismo repraesentata jam ostendimus. Ea morte symbolica constabat jam defunctos esse apud quos ita argumentatur Apostolus qui mortis nimirum symbolis in baptismo usi fuerant. Inde tamquam e principio notorio legitima procedebat argumentatio si et illud subintelligamus symbola inter paciscendum usurpata esse etiam et ipsa sponsoria. Nec alia, ut existimo, hypothesi illud nititur etiam ejusdem Apostoli, alio tamen in loco ratiocinium: Igitur, si consurrexistis, inquit, cum Christo, quae sursum sunt quaerite, etc. (Col. III, 1). Mortificate ergo membra vestra, etc. (v. 5). Quod illos jam supponat consurrexisse, ad illud referri non potest quam ad emersionem illam ex aqua baptismali quae resurrectionis erat symbolum, ut nimirum forensi pactorum idiomate tunc resurrexisse existimarentur cum usurparent resurrectionis symbolum. Inde recte colligit Colossensium officia, ea modo supponantur quae jam ostendimus necessario esse supponenda. Cum enim mortis illo symbolo, immersione nimirum, sponderent se membrorum

§ 26. — And indeed it will readily be established that this whole argument was conceived most accurately, according to the mind and principles of our Lord, if we gather the various assertions of the various Scriptures into one, as into a bundle. First, that our suffering and death with Christ is represented in baptism, and not merely represented, but so represented as in some manner to unite ours with the suffering of Christ and to make them common to both, the Apostle teaches clearly enough in the sixth chapter to the Romans. That our suffering and Christ's are one is established from these words of his: We have died with Christ, v. 8; Our old man has been crucified together [with Him], v. 6. We have been buried together with Him, v. 4. And indeed those words intimate that this whole union is transacted by a certain lifelike representation: We have been made planted together in the likeness of His death, v. 5. And by no other office than that of baptism: Do you not know that whoever of us have been baptized in Christ Jesus have been baptized in His death? For we have been buried together with Him through baptism into death, v. 3, 4. Nor yet is this to be held a union bare and mere, and one that is wholly constituted in the imagination and estimation of men. We have said that it is the nature of a sponsorial symbol that it at the same time brings in a certain legal obligation, by which the parties covenanting with one another are bound to perform that which they have represented by the symbols. Hence it comes about that, although this could not be done by likeness alone, there nevertheless accrues to us from this very representation a certain right to the thing itself, by which we can lay claim to the internal and mystical union itself and to its benefits. On this very principle rest reasonings of this kind: For if we have been made planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be [in the likeness] of His resurrection, v. 5; but if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ, v. 6. For we have already shown that no other death is treated here than this typical and symbolic one represented in baptism. It was established that those had already died by this symbolic death with whom the Apostle argues thus, namely those who had used the symbols of death in baptism. Hence, as from a notorious principle, the argument proceeded legitimately, if we also understand this: that the symbols used in covenanting were themselves also sponsorial. Nor, as I judge, does that reasoning also of the same Apostle, though in another place, rest on any other hypothesis: Therefore, if you have risen together, he says, with Christ, seek the things which are above, etc. (Col. 3:1). Mortify therefore your members, etc. (v. 5). That he supposes them to have already risen together cannot be referred to anything other than that emersion from the baptismal water which was the symbol of the resurrection, so that, namely, in the forensic idiom of compacts they were reckoned to have risen again at the time when they used the symbol of the resurrection. Hence he rightly infers the duties of the Colossians, provided only those things are supposed which we have now shown must necessarily be supposed. For since by that symbol of death, namely immersion, they pledged that they, as regards the members

Editors' notes and page, col. 68

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 68
marginal letters: A bola sponsoria, ipsum praeterea; B sumus cum Christo, v. 8; C potuit, nobis tamen ex hac; D usurpata esse etiam et ipsa
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with "bola", the rest of "symbola" broken from column 67; last word "mem-" broken at column end (membra); "praeterea" may carry an accent on the final a, set without it; "si autem mortui sumus cum Christo... v. 6" is Rom. 6:8 in the Vulgate, set as printed; the text is a scholar's Dissertatio Cyprianica (§ 26), not one of the PL 5 items listed, so check that this is the right column; English of the first paragraph begins mid-word to mirror the Latin

PL 5:69

suorum mortificationem curaturos ; et resurrectionis symbolo id quoque spopondissent, ad novam se coelestemque vitam esse resurrecturos : inde nemo non videt quam ille solide prudenterque argumentetur, cum e pacto promissoque illos hortatur ne officio deessent, fidemve fallerent. Infirmae autem admodum et jejunae forent id genus sequelae si ex inani mortis resurrectionisque symbolo ad mysticam illos mortem resurrectionemque hortaretur.

of their own, would attend to their mortification; and since by the symbol of the resurrection they had also pledged that they would rise again to a new and heavenly life: hence no one fails to see how soundly and prudently he argues, when on the ground of the covenant and the promise he exhorts them not to fail in their duty or break their faith. But consequences of that kind would be very weak and meagre if he exhorted them to a mystical death and resurrection on the ground of an empty symbol of death and resurrection.

§ 27.—Ita nimirum constat de facto, ex ipsa aquei baptismi institutione baptismum sanguinis excludi non posse, nec etiam e pacti baptismalis beneficio. Si porro facti rationem quaerimus, ea est, ni fallor, altius e duobus praesertim principiis deducenda : quod scilicet Christi mors ea sit beatae resurrectionis mercede coronanda ; quod etiam illud sit in praecipuis baptismi beneficiis numerandum ut nimirum baptismi virtute illud consequamur ut nostra quoque mors sit Christo imputanda. Quod Christo, eo ipso mortis nomine, ea deberetur, quam dixi, resurrectionis merces, é Veteri quoque Testamento jam superius ostendimus. Ex illo nimirum antiquiori pacto quo de toto redemptionis negotio incarnationisque cum Patre transegit. Quod enim Christi resurrectio, non tam propriae ejus et nativae Deitati, quam Patri tribuitur ; quod etiam Pater non Patris tamen in hac causa personam egerit, sed judicis ; nec suae in filium στοργῆς rationem habuerit, sed Christi potius in passione meriti : quod etiam Christus non pro sua hic aequalitate cum Patre, sed plane quasi subditus, sit considerandus, et obedientiae merito praemium exaltationis a Patre reputarit ; plane, inquam, haec omnia arguunt non suam hic, sed vero alienam, et quidem a sua longe diversissimam a Christo susceptam esse personam. Et vero ipsa personae, quam sustinuit, ratio pactum aliquod omnino postulat, et mutuum cum Patre consensum. Nec enim Christi nomine una aliqua, ut scholae loquuntur, individua persona intelligitur, sed politica et publica quae suo ambitu omnes omnium saeculorum locorumque omnium fideles complectatur. His enim omnibus convenire intelliguntur hujus beneficia. Poterant fortasse Christi merita praemium aliquod ex aequitatis jure sibi i⟨m⟩petrare. Quod vero non ex aequo dumtaxat, sed pro justitiae debito illud vindiceat ; quod non sibi modo, sed suis omnibus illud a Patre debeatur, sine pacto prorsus intelligi non potest quo Pater etiam personae politicae illam constitutionem acceptaret. Erat enim hoc antecedenter ad pactum ita arbitrarium, ut nulla Patrem, ni ita convenisset, vel aequitas obligaret, ut pro Christi meritis mercedem fidelibus persolveret, cum praesertim et ipsi Christo, in propria etiam persona persolvisset. Et quidem admodum consentaneum erat platonicis illius aevi dogmatibus, ut huic αἰωνίῳ Evangelii διαθήκῃ, quae tamen erat terrestris, alia etiam responderet προαιώνιος in coelis cujus virtuti sit etiam tribuenda terrestris διαθήκης efficacia. Ita probatum dedimus hoc pactum, quod licet asserant etiam recentiores, neutiquam tamen probant, nec

§ 27.—Thus, then, it is established as a matter of fact that the baptism of blood cannot be excluded on the ground of the very institution of the baptism of water, nor yet from the benefit of the baptismal covenant. If, further, we ask the reason for the fact, it must, unless I am mistaken, be derived from a deeper source, chiefly from two principles: namely, that the death of Christ is to be crowned with the reward of a blessed resurrection; and that this too is to be numbered among the chief benefits of baptism, namely that by the power of baptism we obtain this, that our death also is to be imputed to Christ. That this reward of resurrection, as I have called it, was owed to Christ on the very ground of His death, we have already shown above from the Old Testament as well. It was owed, that is, from that more ancient covenant by which He settled with the Father the whole business of the redemption and of the incarnation. For the fact that the resurrection of Christ is ascribed not so much to His own proper and native Deity as to the Father; that the Father too in this matter played the part not of a Father but of a judge, and took account not of His affection towards the Son but rather of the merit of Christ in His passion; that Christ too is to be regarded here not according to His equality with the Father but plainly as one subject to Him, and reckoned the reward of exaltation from the Father as due to the merit of His obedience: all these things, I say, plainly show that Christ took on here not His own person but indeed another's, and one very far different from His own. And indeed the very nature of the person which He bore altogether requires some covenant, and a mutual agreement with the Father. For by the name of Christ is understood not some single individual person, as the schools put it, but a political and public person, which embraces within its compass all the faithful of all ages and of all places. For it is understood that His benefits belong to all of these. Perhaps the merits of Christ could obtain some reward for themselves by right of equity. But that they should claim it not merely in equity but as a debt of justice, and that it should be owed by the Father not to Himself alone but to all His own, cannot be understood at all without a covenant by which the Father accepted that arrangement for a political person as well. For prior to the covenant this was so much a matter of free choice that, had He not so agreed, no equity would have bound the Father to pay the reward for the merits of Christ to the faithful, especially as He had already paid it to Christ Himself in His own person too. And indeed it was quite in keeping with the Platonic doctrines of that age that to this eternal covenant of the Gospel, which was nevertheless earthly, there should also correspond another, existing before the ages in the heavens, to whose power the efficacy of the earthly covenant is also to be ascribed. Thus we have given proof of this covenant, which, though more recent writers also assert it, they nevertheless in no way prove, nor

Editors' notes and page, col. 69

Page

running head: 69 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM (rest of the running head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹brorum suorum mortificationem curaturos›; B ‹cede coronanda ; quod etiam illud sit›; C ‹considerandus, et obedientiae merito praemium›; D ‹bus illud a Patre debeatur, sine pacto›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins with the fragment "brorum" (membrorum) broken from the previous column; "é Veteri" set with the accent as printed; "i⟨m⟩petrare": the m looks damaged (reads like "iupetrare"); "merita" in "Christi merita praemium" is partly blurred; Greek words are partly smudged (στοργῆς, διαθήκῃ, διαθήκης); the running head suggests a dissertation on the second baptism of martyrs (Dodwell-type matter) rather than a patristic text, so attribution within PL 5 is unsure; no full-width line seen

PL 5:70

probare umquam poterunt qui nullam nisi ex disertis Scripturarum testimoniis probationem admittunt.

will they ever be able to prove, who admit no proof except from the express testimonies of the Scriptures.

§ 28.—Huic itaque coelesti pacto duo illa tribuenda erant: primo ut jure etiam legali Christo praemium pro suis meritis deberetur; secundo etiam ut fideles universi unam in lege cum Christo personam constituerent. Nec enim de utrovis horum quicquam in terrestri pacto cautum legimus. Nondum tamen ad singulos homines descendit hoc pactum, ut intelligi possit quinam ad hanc politicam Christi personam homines pertineant ut sibi possint illius coelestis pacti beneficia vindicare. Proinde praeter hoc Patris cum Christo coeleste pactum; aliud praeterea necessarium erat, Christi cum hominibus, et quidem pro captu humano externum, externisque symbolis celebrandum, ut constet quinam illi sint qui a Christo pro suis agnoscantur. Hoc autem pactum ut ad sacramenta spectat in genere, ita propius et praecipue ad baptismum quod unicum initiationis sacramentum omnes agnoscunt. Illud enim proprie pactum appellamus quo jus pacti ejusdemque beneficia primum consequimur, non quo consecuti jus idem augemus atque consummamus. Qua itaque ratione ad baptismi consummationem ostendimus pertinere martyrium, eadem et ad pactum evangelicum pactique beneficia pertinere censebitur, ne quis nominis solius, non item rei per nomen significatae, hanc baptismi cum martyrio communicationem interpretetur.

§ 28.—To this heavenly covenant, therefore, those two things had to be assigned: first, that by legal right also a reward should be owed to Christ for His merits; second, that all the faithful should constitute one person in law with Christ. For we do not read that anything concerning either of these was provided for in the earthly covenant. Yet this covenant does not yet descend to individual men, so that it could be understood which men belong to this corporate person of Christ, so as to be able to claim for themselves the benefits of that heavenly covenant. Accordingly, besides this heavenly covenant of the Father with Christ, another was moreover necessary, of Christ with men, and that indeed external, suited to human capacity, and to be solemnized with external symbols, so that it may be established who those are whom Christ acknowledges as His own. Now this covenant, as it concerns the sacraments in general, so more nearly and especially concerns baptism, which all acknowledge as the one sacrament of initiation. For we properly call that the covenant by which we first obtain the right of the covenant and its benefits, not that by which, having obtained it, we increase and consummate the same right. In whatever way, therefore, we have shown that martyrdom pertains to the consummation of baptism, in the same way it will be judged to pertain also to the evangelical covenant and the benefits of the covenant, lest anyone should interpret this communication of baptism with martyrdom as one of the name alone, and not likewise of the thing signified by the name.

§ 29.—Observandum enim sexto, non ea tantum generali ratione adumbrari in baptismo martyrium, qua et reliqua omnia baptizati officia adumbrantur; sed quod ipsum aquei baptismi symbolum ita nostrum, quem diximus, sanguineum baptismum repraesentet, ut plane nulla sit aquei baptismi efficacia, nisi ad sanguineum baptismum referatur. Qua enim immersio in aquam vitae animalis mortificationem, denotat, qua emersio ex eadem novae etiam spiritualisque vitae sponsionem, ea, qua dixi, sponsarii symboli significatione repraesentat; fateor nullum esse christianae vitae officium quin ad horum alterutrum referatur, cum κάθαρσιν omnia aut τελείωσιν spectent, ut loquamur cum pythagoraeis, haec ad novam mysticamque vitam, ad novam illa mysticamque mortem, similiter referenda. Nec tamen propterea novi baptismi beneficia quibuslibet vitae christianae officiis, sed ne omnibus quidem simul collectis, asserimus. Cum enim illud dixerimus praecipuum baptismi fuisse consilium ut Christi morientis resurgentisque imaginem ad vivum repraesentemus, inde etiam beneficii baptismalis spem omnem ab ea ipsa repraesentatione arcessamus; sequitur proinde ut qua vita atque morte Christum accuratissime exprimimus, in illis primarium baptismi consilium constituendum sit, ab iisdem baptismi etiam beneficia sint praecipue expectanda. Atqui corporeae erant illae Christi tam mors quam resurrectio, quibus nos profitemur in baptismo conformes, et quarum nos ibidem portemus imagines, ut in corporeae resurrectionis causa (I Cor., XV) loquitur etiam Apostolus. Mystica enim resurrectio si

§ 29.—For it must be observed, sixthly, that martyrdom is foreshadowed in baptism not only in that general way in which all the other duties of the baptized are also foreshadowed; but that the very symbol of water baptism so represents our blood baptism, as we have called it, that there is plainly no efficacy of water baptism unless it is referred to blood baptism. For inasmuch as immersion in water denotes the mortification of the animal life, and emergence from it the pledge also of a new and spiritual life, it represents these by the signification, as I have said, of a symbol of pledging; I admit that there is no duty of the Christian life which is not referred to one or other of these, since all things look either to purification or to perfection, to speak with the Pythagoreans, the latter to be referred likewise to the new and mystical life, the former to the new and mystical death. Yet we do not on that account ascribe the benefits of the new baptism to any duties whatever of the Christian life, nor even to all of them gathered together. For since we have said that the chief design of baptism was that we should represent to the life the image of Christ dying and rising again, and thence also derive all hope of the baptismal benefit from that very representation, it follows accordingly that in whatever life and death we express Christ most exactly, in these the primary design of baptism is to be placed, and from these the benefits of baptism also are chiefly to be expected. But those, the death as well as the resurrection of Christ, were bodily, to which we profess ourselves conformed in baptism, and whose images we bear there, as the Apostle too says in the matter of bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15). For if the mystical resurrection

Editors' notes and page, col. 70

Page

running head: [D]E MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. 70 (left edge cut off)
marginal letters: A probare umquam poterunt; B dum, ut constet quinam; C qua et reliqua omnia; D sed ne omnibus quidem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column is from a dissertation "de martyrum baptismo" (editors'/appended matter; first words here: probare umquam poterunt); "pro suis" in § 28 partly damaged, read as suis; "ostendimus" print is blurred; Greek κάθαρσιν and τελείωσιν read from a blurred print, accents unsure; "novi baptismi" set as printed; no full-width line

PL 5:71

sola in baptismo sponderetur, tota illa Apostoli argumentatio concideret. Est quidem verisimillimum inde ortum esso resurrectionem negantium errorem quod resurrectionem illam baptismi symbolicam de solius animae mystica resurrectione, non item corporis intelligerent. Cum autem ex universa illa apostoli disputatione manifestum sit, illud fuisse praecipuum baptismi consilium ut, de quo praecipue illius aetatis fides vacillaret, de eo interponerentur promissiones in pacto baptismali omnium certissimae; plane sequitur Christi resurrectionem, non aliam quam corpoream in baptismo exhiberi, cui et nostra respondeat resurrectio praecipue corporea. Quod vero ad mortem resurrectionemque mysticas attinet, tantum abest ut per illas possimus Christi φορεῖν εἰκόνα, ut ne vere quidem Christus co sensu sit umquam mortuus aut resurrexerit. Mori ille peccato non potuit qui nunquam ei vixerat. Mortificare carnem non opus habuit qui nullam umquam sensit carnis rebellionem. Nec resurrexit ille ad novam spiritualemque vitam qui praeterquam spiritualem vitam aliam nullam unquam duxerat. Mystica ergo mors atque resurrectio secundarias fuisse oportet, non primariae in baptismo repraesentationis, quatenus et illae, quamquam nullam cum Christo conformitatem ipsae denotent, disponant saltem ad illam animarum nostrarum cum Christo conformitatem, quam et ipsam Christo fateor esse gratissimam.

alone were promised in baptism, that whole argumentation of the Apostle would collapse. It is indeed most likely that the error of those who denied the resurrection arose from this, that they understood that symbolic resurrection of baptism of the mystical resurrection of the soul alone, and not likewise of the body. But since it is manifest from that whole disputation of the apostle that this was the chief purpose of baptism, that concerning the very thing about which the faith of that age chiefly wavered, the most certain promises of all should be interposed in the baptismal covenant, it plainly follows that the resurrection of Christ which is exhibited in baptism is none other than a bodily one, to which our resurrection also, chiefly a bodily one, corresponds. But as regards the mystical death and resurrection, so far is it from being the case that through them we can bear the image of Christ, that Christ was never even truly dead or risen in that sense. He could not die to sin Who had never lived to it. He had no need to mortify the flesh Who never felt any rebellion of the flesh. Nor did He rise to a new and spiritual life Who had never led any life other than a spiritual one. The mystical death and resurrection, therefore, must have belonged to the secondary, not to the primary, representation in baptism, inasmuch as they too, although they themselves denote no conformity with Christ, at least dispose [us] towards that conformity of our souls with Christ which I confess is itself also most pleasing to Christ.

§ 30. — Cum itaque mortis haec resurrectionisque in baptismo repraesentatio ad corpora nostra primo referenda esse probaverimus : sequitur primarium baptismi consilium esse ut corpora nostra Christo devoveamus, nosque promptos spondeamus paratosque ut Christi causa mortem oppetamus, corporum videlicet. Inde reliquorum baptismi beneficiorum spem concipimus accipimusque omnium certissimam. Imprimis de beata resurrectione corporis nimirum illa, quae corporis passionibus accuratissime respondet. Quaeque ut praecipua erat plerisque ratio christianitatis, ea praesertim aetate, recipiendae, ita credita erat omnium difficillima, ut proinde consentaneum esset eam commendari argumentis omnino certissimis. Tum et mysticam quoque illam mortem resurrectionemque pollicemur, quae secundaria immersionis nostrae emersionisque in baptismo significatione denotantur : et quatenus haec eadem symbola pro Christi etiam parte adhibentur, is una spondet ne suam quidem operam nobis defuturam. Ita constat martyrium in primaria baptismi significatione contineri. Constat deinde ita a nobis interpositam hanc martyrii sponsionem, ut sit conditio ex nostra parte praestanda unde pendeant reliqua baptismi beneficia. Ita sequitur ex pacti hujus jure, martyrio saltem in voto deberi omnia baptismi beneficia. Sequitur ita ad baptismi consummationem spectare martyrium ut martyrium de facto praestitum spectat ad consummationem martyrii dumtaxat in voto.

§ 30. — Since, therefore, we have proved that this representation of death and resurrection in baptism is to be referred in the first place to our bodies, it follows that the primary purpose of baptism is that we devote our bodies to Christ, and promise ourselves ready and prepared to meet death for Christ's sake, that is, the death of the body. From this we conceive and receive the most certain hope of all of the remaining benefits of baptism. First of all, of the blessed resurrection of the body, namely that resurrection which corresponds most exactly to the sufferings of the body. And as this was for most people the chief reason for embracing Christianity, especially in that age, so it was believed to be the most difficult of all, so that it was accordingly fitting that it should be commended by entirely the most certain arguments. Then we also promise that mystical death and resurrection, which are denoted by the secondary signification of our immersion and emersion in baptism; and inasmuch as these same symbols are also employed on Christ's part, He at the same time promises that His own help likewise will not be wanting to us. Thus it is established that martyrdom is contained in the primary signification of baptism. It is established, further, that this promise of martyrdom has been interposed by us in such a way that it is a condition to be fulfilled on our part, upon which the remaining benefits of baptism depend. Thus it follows by the right of this covenant that all the benefits of baptism are due to martyrdom, at least in intention. It follows thus that martyrdom looks to the consummation of baptism in the same way as martyrdom actually performed looks to the consummation of martyrdom that is only in intention.

§ 31. — Ne vero nimius videar in captandis baptismalis pacti minutiis, colligo septimo non modo ex

§ 31. — But lest I seem excessive in seizing upon the minutiae of the baptismal covenant, I gather, seventhly, not only from

Editors' notes and page, col. 71

Page

running head: 71 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO C (cut off at image edge)
marginal letters: A sola in baptismo sponderetur; B ne vere quidem Christus; C referenda esse probaverimus; D denotantur : et quatenus
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: text is Dodwell's dissertation (left column of page); set as the text block's author prose. "credita" printed with a blurred final letter that looks like "creditu"; read as credita, UNSURE. "promissiones", "corporum", "conditio" printed with damaged/broken letters, read as normal. "secundarias" (parallel to "primariae ... repraesentationis") taken as a misprint, UNSURE. Right column of the page is cut off at the image edge and not set. No full-width line.

PL 5:72

illius pacti lege, sed vero ex ejusdem etiam aequitate, vindicari posse in sanguineo baptismo omnia beneficia a Christo pro sua pacti baptismalis parte praestanda, ne quid superesse videatur, cur dubitemus rectene haec et pro Christi mente veteres collegerint. Cum enim jam ostenderimus conditionem a nobis praestandam, qua jus illud consequamur ad promissa Christi beneficia, hanc ipsam esse corporis nostri pro Christo devotionem; quod nihilominus recens baptizatis incruenta morte sublatis concedat tamen Christus baptismi beneficia, ratio non est quod conditionem illam praestiterint cui debentur ex pacti aequitate ejusdem beneficia, sed quod prima pacti beneficia gratis concedantur et sine ulla prorsus conditione, praesertim illis qui nondum actuali obligationi aut conditioni de facto praestandae obnoxii essent, propter incapacitatem subjecti. Adultorum alia est omnino ratio. Quam enim conditionem nondum praestare possunt, eam velle saltem poterant, ut facti loco apud Deum habeatur illud ipsum votum. Sunt autem inter se admodum diversae illae aequitatis rationes qua quis excusatur a praestanda pacti conditione, et qua quis eamdem legis conditionem censetur implevisse, si minus ad litteram legis, at pro legislatoris sententia, si aequus modo adhibeatur legis interpres. Ita igitur martyrium in voto cum sit pro legis littera reipsa aliud, idem tamen censebitur cum martyrio de facto pro interpretationis aequitate. Ita fiet ut omnia baptismi beneficia soli debeantur martyrio, saltem in voto. Quod si etiam in baptizatis non martyribus, soli tamen martyrio in voto debeatur jus illud omne quod consecuti in baptismo sunt ad baptismi beneficia; quis est qui non videat potiori ratione tribuendum esse martyrio actuali? Est enim haec legis ipsa conditio, non autem aliud quid quod aequo egeat legis interprete ut pro ipsa conditione censeatur. Quamquam igitur nusquam aliunde constaret, disertis evangelicae legis verbis martyrio deberi baptismi beneficia; id tamen facile ex ipsa ejusdem ratiocinii sequela colligeremus.

the law of that covenant, but indeed also from its equity, that all the benefits to be furnished by Christ for His part of the baptismal covenant can be claimed in the baptism of blood, so that nothing may seem to remain that should make us doubt whether the ancients gathered these things rightly and in accordance with the mind of Christ. For since we have already shown that the condition to be furnished by us, by which we may obtain that right to the promised benefits of Christ, is this very devotion of our body for Christ; that Christ nevertheless grants the benefits of baptism to the newly baptized who are taken away by a bloodless death, the reason is not that they have furnished that condition to which the same benefits are owed by the equity of the covenant, but that the first benefits of the covenant are granted freely and without any condition whatever, especially to those who were not yet liable to an actual obligation or to a condition to be furnished in fact, on account of the incapacity of the subject. The case of adults is altogether different. For the condition which they cannot yet furnish, they could at least will, so that that very vow is held before God in place of the deed. Yet those principles of equity are very different from one another, by which someone is excused from furnishing the condition of a covenant, and by which someone is deemed to have fulfilled the same condition of the law, if not according to the letter of the law, yet according to the intent of the legislator, provided only that an equitable interpreter of the law is employed. Thus therefore, although martyrdom in vow is in reality something different according to the letter of the law, it will nevertheless be deemed the same as martyrdom in deed according to the equity of interpretation. Thus it will come about that all the benefits of baptism are owed to martyrdom alone, at least in vow. But if even in the baptized who are not martyrs, all that right to the benefits of baptism which they obtained in baptism is nevertheless owed to martyrdom in vow alone, who is there who does not see that it must with stronger reason be attributed to actual martyrdom? For this is the very condition of the law, and not something else that needs an equitable interpreter of the law in order to be deemed to stand for the condition itself. Therefore, even if it were established from nowhere else, by express words of the evangelical law, that the benefits of baptism are owed to martyrdom, we would nevertheless easily gather it from the very consequence of the same reasoning.

§ 32. — Est enim ea in omni, humana quoque, legumlatione probata argumentatio qua legum casibus omissis e ratiocinii paritate prospicimus. Illis nempe canonibus generalibus oriunda, quod causis omnibus consultum cuperent legumlatores; quod rationem ubique ducem sequi vellent; quod denique quam rationem in una causa probassent, eamdem essent et in aliis similiter probaturi. Inde contingit ut quae ita constituta fuerint, non pro prudentium modo consiliis habeantur, sed legum etiam vim obtineant. Inde sequitur, si vel pro legum humanarum exemplo divina etiam legislatio esset instituenda, rationis paritatem pro divina esse lege intelligendam. Atqui major certe est ratio cur valere in divina legislatione debeat haec argumentatio quam in humana. Falluntur enim in suis ratiociniis humani etiam legislatores, nec sequelas omnes praevident, etiam legitimas; ut proinde etiam cum recte argumentamur ex eorum principiis, adhuc tamen dubitare liceat essentne

§ 32. — For in all lawmaking, human lawmaking too, that argumentation is approved by which we provide for cases omitted by the laws from parity of reasoning. It arises, namely, from those general canons: that legislators wished all cases to be provided for; that they wished to follow reason as their guide everywhere; finally, that whatever reason they had approved in one case, they would likewise approve in others too. Hence it comes about that things so established are held not merely as the counsels of prudent men, but also obtain the force of laws. Hence it follows that, even if divine legislation too were to be framed after the example of human laws, parity of reason must be understood to hold for the divine law. But there is certainly greater reason why this argumentation ought to hold in divine legislation than in human. For human legislators too are deceived in their reasonings, and do not foresee all consequences, even legitimate ones; so that consequently, even when we argue rightly from their principles, it may still be permissible to doubt whether they would

Editors' notes and page, col. 72

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 72 (initial D cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A ‹illius pacti lege›; B ‹gationi aut conditioni›; C ‹baptizatis non martyribus›; D ‹ubique ducem sequi›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: running head reads Dissertatio Cyprianica, which does not match the PL 5 contents listed in the brief; set as the author's text, not as editors' matter. "aequo egeat": the initial ligature is damaged or blurred, read as ae. "poterant" kept as printed (possibly meant poterunt; unsure). "essentne" ends the column unhyphenated. Left-hand column fragments (col. 71) not set.

PL 5:73

tamen illi nostras sequelas probaturi. Deus tamen nec in principiis hallucinari, nec in sequelis, potest. Ita certum erit quam rationem in una causa probarit, in aliis etiam esse agniturum. Certum erit, si martyrii causa tanta beneficia in baptismo concedat, ipsi martyrio longe potiori ratione concessurum. Certum si martyrii vel votum tanta tamen et tam copiosa mercede compenset, nihil esse quod metuamus soluto voto eamdem mercedem esse negaturum. Certum denique proinde, si plenam numerisque suis omnibus absolutam peccatorum remissionem consequantur baptizati, fore omnino ut eamdem consequantur martyres.

nevertheless approve our consequences. Yet God can err neither in principles nor in consequences. So it will be certain that the reasoning He has approved in one case He will acknowledge to hold in others as well. It will be certain that, if for the sake of martyrdom He grants such great benefits in baptism, He will grant them with far better reason to martyrdom itself. It is certain that, if He recompenses even the vow of martyrdom with so great and so abundant a reward, there is nothing for us to fear that He will deny the same reward once the vow has been discharged. Certain, finally, and accordingly, that if the baptized obtain a full remission of sins, complete in all its parts, it will altogether come about that martyrs obtain the same.

§ 33.—Addo enim octavo non ita esse intelligendum hoc commune baptismi jus atque martyrii, ut in baptismo remittantur peccata virtute quidem illius in voto martyrii quod profitemur in baptismo, sola tamen illa quae baptismum praecesserint, non item ea quae inter baptismum admissa fuerint atque martyrium. Aliter veteres hoc etiam ipso paria facere censuerunt cum baptismo martyrium, quod ut in baptismo peccata omnia remittuntur, ipsum nempe baptismum praecedentia, non originale duntaxat, verumetiam actualia, idem sit de martyrio quoque sentiendum, delere scilicet universae vitae flagitia, nihil ut praeterea supersit expiandum. Recte quidem illi e principiis modo explicatis. Si enim propter illud martyrii votum concedatur peccatorum praeteritorum plena indulgentia; parem utique indulgentiam potius, ut dixi, expectabimus, eodem voto jam soluto. At par illa indulgentia esse nequit si quocumque tandem tempore susceptus baptismus peccata tamen praeterita universa deleat, nec tamen alia in martyrio deleantur quam quae baptismum praecesserint, tanto utique intervallo a se dissitum, cui et intervallo peccatorum nondum remissorum copia necessario responderit. Pro pacti certe aequitate, quo magis conditiones praestamus pro nostra pacti parte praestandas, eo consequitur accrescitque nobis jus ad mercedem a Deo praestandam validius; eo et vicissim major erit ipsius Dei ad mercedem, quam pollicitus est, praestandam, obligatio; eo etiam favorem Dei possumus, pro pacti ratione, ampliorem nobis vendicare. Quin et, missa pacti consideratione, favorem saltem, quem dixi, Dei illum tanto majori cum fiducia possumus expectare, quanto nostram versus Deum benevolentiam luculentius testatum facimus. Qui autem sanguinem suum pro Deo profuderit, hunc nemo dubitet longe certe testatiorem fecisse suam versus Deum benevolentiam, quam qui prompto fuerit duntaxat expeditoque ad profundendum animo. Et cum gratiae speciali tribuamus si quis pro facto voluntatem fuerit interpretatus, signum est profecto factum ipsum ad justitiae rationem propius accedere, longe certe adhuc propius siquando pacti etiam consideratio intercesserit. Est itaque naturae pacti, est et rectae rationi, prorsus consentaneum, ut quam peccatorum indulgentiam

§ 33.—For I add, eighthly, that this common right of baptism and martyrdom is not to be understood in such a way that in baptism sins are remitted, by virtue indeed of that vow of martyrdom which we profess in baptism, but only those which preceded baptism, not likewise those which were committed between baptism and martyrdom. The ancients judged otherwise, holding that martyrdom is on a par with baptism in this very respect also, that, as in baptism all sins are remitted, namely those preceding baptism itself, not original sin only but actual sins as well, the same is to be held of martyrdom too, namely that it blots out the misdeeds of the whole life, so that nothing besides remains to be expiated. Rightly indeed did they [judge], from the principles just explained. For if on account of that vow of martyrdom a full pardon of past sins is granted, we shall surely expect, as I have said, an equal pardon rather, once that same vow has been discharged. But that pardon cannot be equal if baptism, received at whatever time it may be, nevertheless blots out all past sins, and yet no others are blotted out in martyrdom than those which preceded baptism, separated as it surely is from it by so great an interval, to which interval an abundance of sins not yet remitted must necessarily have corresponded. Certainly, by the equity of a compact, the more we fulfil the conditions to be fulfilled on our part of the compact, the stronger is the right to the reward to be bestowed by God that follows and accrues to us; the greater in turn will be the obligation of God Himself to bestow the reward which He has promised; and the fuller too the favour of God that we can claim for ourselves according to the nature of the compact. Nay more, setting aside the consideration of the compact, we can expect at least that favour of God of which I spoke with so much the greater confidence, the more clearly we make our goodwill towards God attested. But let no one doubt that he who has poured out his blood for God has certainly made his goodwill towards God far more fully attested than he who was merely of a mind ready and prompt to pour it out. And since we ascribe it to special grace if anyone has taken the will for the deed, it is surely a sign that the deed itself comes nearer to the standard of justice, and certainly far nearer still whenever the consideration of a compact has also intervened. It is therefore altogether in keeping with the nature of a compact, and with right reason too, that whatever pardon of sins

Editors' notes and page, col. 73

Page

running head: 73 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM [cut off at the image edge]
marginal letters: A ‹tamen illi nostras sequelas probaturi›; B ‹baptismo remittantur peccata virtute quidem illius›; C ‹soluto. At par illa indulgentia esse nequit›; D ‹cum fiducia possumus expectare, quanto nostram›
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: the column begins and ends mid-sentence; several words at the left of the last dozen lines are heavily over-inked (prompto, profundendum, si quis pro, signum est, rationem propius, siquando, itaque naturae, consentaneum) but are legible from context; testatum facimus and vendicare are set as printed; no full-width line; the page-foot signature PATROL. V. is not set; this is the continuous text of the dissertation De secundo martyrum baptismo, so no separate editors' matter appears in this column

PL 5:74

plenariam baptismo concedimus, eam nec martyrio negandam existimemus.

we grant in full to baptism, we should judge that it is not to be denied to martyrdom either.

§ 34.—Quid quod illud etiam, pro receptis pactorum moribus, omnes aequum agnoscant, ut siquando stipulatione primum interposita nonnullae praemii primitiae stipulatori in manus tradantur; at certe fidem stipulationis liberatam, praestitamque pacti conditionem maneat praemii plenitudo, eo copiosior quo et illae fuerint ampliores. Arrham tradunt in manus pacta nuptialia, at nondum dotem nisi consummato matrimonio. Idem et in aliis quae ad bona passionesque spectant pactis solet obtinere. Verum hoc in illis praecipue pactis elucet quae nondum adultorum nomine stipulantur tutores. Inchoato quodam jure vestit ipsa illa inchoata stipulatio. Donec tamen adulti fuerint, et ad annos conditionum praestandarum capaces provecti, pactumque suo quoque proprio nomine consummandum, nondum pleno jure atque consummato quae jam consecuti sunt possidere censentur, nedum ut jus habeant tam firmum ad futura pacti praemia. Quorsum illud ni majori in pretio haberentur conditiones jam praestitae, quam susceptae duntaxat et fide quantumcumque firma praestandae? Ita igitur consummati in martyrio baptismi pleniorem fore quam inchoati indulgentiam consentaneum est. Ut proinde, si peccata praeterita eluantur in baptismo aqueo, nihil sit cur dubitemus fore etiam eluenda in baptismo sanguineo.

§ 34.—What of the fact that all, in accordance with the received customs of compacts, acknowledge this also to be fair: that if ever, a stipulation having first been made, some first-fruits of the reward are handed over into the hands of the stipulator, yet certainly, once the pledge of the stipulation has been discharged and the condition of the compact fulfilled, the fullness of the reward awaits him, the more abundant as those [first-fruits] were the larger. Marriage compacts hand over the earnest into the hands, but not yet the dowry, except when the marriage has been consummated. The same usually holds also in other compacts which concern goods and passions. But this shines out especially in those compacts which guardians stipulate in the name of those not yet adult. That begun stipulation itself invests them with a certain begun right. Yet until they have become adults, and have advanced to the years capable of fulfilling the conditions, and [have] the compact to be consummated in their own proper name as well, they are not judged to possess by full and consummated right what they have already obtained, much less to have so firm a right to the future rewards of the compact. To what end would that be, unless conditions already fulfilled were held at a greater value than those merely undertaken and to be fulfilled by a faith however firm? Thus, therefore, it is consistent that the indulgence of baptism consummated in martyrdom will be fuller than that of [baptism] begun. So that accordingly, if past sins are washed away in the baptism of water, there is no reason why we should doubt that they will also be washed away in the baptism of blood.

§ 35.—Quod enim spatio temporis interposito baptismum aqueum sequatur sanguineus, non est utique quod a baptismi natura alienum censeamus. Distinxit, ut vidimus, Apostolus tres baptismi partes, aquam, Spiritum et sanguinem. Nec tamen qui baptismo aqueo lustrarentur, semper tamen uno eodemque tempore spiritum etiam accipiebant baptismalem, ut alibi probavimus. Apostoli aqueo baptismo, superstite adhuc Domino perfusi sunt, cum tamen Spiritum nemo, nisi post ejusdem resurrectionem acciperet. Samaritanos aqua expiavit Philippus diaconus; Spiritum nemo poterat iisdem conferre praeter apostolos. Quid igitur, aquaene soli tribuemus vim illam peccatorum praeteritorum expiatricem? Ita fieret ut nova opus esset expiatione peccatorum aqueum baptismum consecutorum. Sicut enim in gentilium mysteriis elementa καθαρτικὰ viam τελειώσει parare credebantur, nequid superesset impurum cum sanctiora commercia ambirent; ita Spiritui proculdubio inserviebat aquea illa lustratio nequa vasis impuritas obstaret quo minus posset pro dignitate sua recipi. Prorsus itaque alienum erat ab ejus sanctitate ut quis illum impurus acciperet. Proinde necessarium erat ut ipse Spiritus vicem aquae suppleret pro peccatorum expiatione baptismo aqueo recentiorum. Quod si Spiritui vim illam concedamus, non erit utique cur a sanguine alienum censeamus. Pro pacti ratione a sanguine potius expectanda erat, quod ille ad officium nostrum dispositionemque spectat quorum major haberi solet in pactorum jure ratio quam donorum Dei gratuitorum. Favet porro

§ 35.—For that the baptism of blood should follow the baptism of water after an interval of time is assuredly nothing that we should judge foreign to the nature of baptism. The Apostle, as we have seen, distinguished three parts of baptism: water, Spirit and blood. And yet those who were purified by the baptism of water did not, for all that, always receive the baptismal spirit also at one and the same time, as we have proved elsewhere. The apostles were drenched with the baptism of water while the Lord was still alive, whereas none received the Spirit except after His resurrection. Philip the deacon expiated the Samaritans with water; none could confer the Spirit on them except the apostles. What then, shall we attribute to water alone that power expiatory of past sins? Thus it would come about that there would be need of a new expiation for the sins of those who had obtained the baptism of water. For just as in the mysteries of the gentiles the cathartic elements were believed to prepare the way for initiation, so that nothing impure might remain when they sought holier communion, so that purification by water without doubt served the Spirit, that no impurity of the vessel might prevent Him from being received according to His dignity. It was therefore utterly foreign to His holiness that anyone should receive Him while impure. Accordingly it was necessary that the Spirit Himself should take the place of water for the expiation of sins more recent than the baptism of water. But if we grant that power to the Spirit, there will assuredly be no reason why we should judge it foreign to blood. In accordance with the nature of the compact it was rather to be expected from blood, because that pertains to our duty and disposition, of which greater account is usually taken in the law of compacts than of the free gifts of God. Moreover there favours

Editors' notes and page, col. 74

Page

running head: DO MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. 74 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A plenariam baptismo concedimus; B adulti fuerint, et ad annos; C quod a baptismi natura alienum; D parare credebantur, nequid
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column begins mid-sentence (plenariam) and ends mid-sentence (Favet porro); editors' matter: plenariam baptismo concedimus (continuation of the dissertation on the baptism of martyrs, §§ 34-35), set as text; "bona passionesque" set as printed, sense uncertain (possibly for pactiones or possessiones); "Nec tamen ... semper tamen" set as printed; printer's signature 3 at foot omitted

PL 5:75

quod pro illius aevi dogmatibus platonicis (e quibus omnis haec theologia symbolica omnino explicanda est) cum a prototypis omnis illa symbolorum sive antityporum virtus deducenda crederetur; ita tamen symbolorum efficaciam explicabant, ut quidem ipsa per se nihil ad effectum conferrent, indicarent duntaxat cui prototyporum illa nativa virtus esset applicanda, ita ut ab ipsis prototypis omnis illa virtus, seu naturalis illa esset, seu juris etiam legalis, esset expectanda. Et cum aequa esse debeat paciscentium conditio qua juris illo conjunguntur inter se commercio; congruum profecto est ut quam vim symbolis divinis pro Dei obligatione concedimus, eamdem nostris pro nostra obligatione vicissim concedamus; et quo pacti jure Deus delinquentes afficit supplicio, eodem jure teneatur ad mercedem illis, qui conditionem praestiterint, retribuendam. Si itaque martyrii vel professio, martyrii absentis virtute remissionem peccatorum praestet, eamdem certe necessario oportet, ipsum, quando adest, praestare martyrium. Convenitque accuratissime, quod superius huc retulimus, cum stolas suas martyres in Agni sanguino lavisse narrantur. Nec enim id de baptismi lavacro ita commode poterat intelligi, quod omnium fidelium commune fuerat, sed de lavacro patientium proprio; nec de illorum duntaxat peccatorum expiatione quae tantam illam tribulationem antecesserant, in baptismo scilicet aqueo expiata, sed illorum quoque quae in ipsa illa tribulatione essent expianda.

the fact that, according to the Platonic doctrines of that age (from which this whole symbolic theology is to be explained entirely), since all that power of the symbols or antitypes was believed to be derived from the prototypes, they nevertheless explained the efficacy of the symbols in such a way that the symbols themselves contributed nothing of themselves to the effect, but only indicated to whom that native power of the prototypes was to be applied, so that all that power, whether it were natural or even of legal right, was to be expected from the prototypes themselves. And since the condition of the contracting parties ought to be equal, by which they are joined to one another in that commerce of right, it is surely fitting that whatever force we grant to the divine symbols for the obligation of God, we should in turn grant the same to ours for our obligation; and that by whatever right of covenant God visits punishment on offenders, by the same right He should be bound to render a reward to those who have fulfilled the condition. If therefore even the profession of martyrdom, by virtue of the martyrdom that is absent, grants remission of sins, then martyrdom itself, when it is present, must certainly of necessity grant the same. And this agrees most exactly with what we referred to above, when the martyrs are said to have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. For this could not so fittingly be understood of the washing of baptism, which had been common to all the faithful, but of the washing proper to those who suffer; nor of the expiation only of those sins which had preceded that great tribulation, sins expiated, namely, in the baptism of water, but also of those which were to be expiated in that very tribulation.

§ 36.—Neque vero erit quod miremur tantam veteres baptismo martyrum sanguineo vim assignasse, si et illud recolamus nono martyrum illum sanguinem Christo ipsi a veteribus fuisse attributum: et quidem ita Christo ut ne martyrum fuisse crederetur, nec in martyrum propria duntaxat commoda cessisse, sed vero in Ecclesiae potius universae. Haec e veterum sententia alibi probavimus, et illud pariter ostendimus quam non essent a Scripturis sacrorumque Scriptorum principiis abhorrentia. Haec itaque si concedantur, jam intelligemus quam solide illi prudenterque omnem hanc baptismi sanguinei efficaciam e Scriptura collegerint. Christi enim sanguini nemo dubitat convenire hanc peccatorum expiationem. Christi autem nomen pro universo Christi corpore mystico saepissime intelligitur. Quidni igitur vim illam peccatorum purgatricem Christo ita intellecto asseramus? Nihil est profecto, cur quoties Christi sanguinem peccata nostra lavare atque purgare tradunt sacrae Litterae, de personali ejus sanguine illas duntaxat intelligamus. Et vero nominis ratio suadet potius ut sit virtus haec Christo cum ejusdem mystico corpore, communis. Quod enim nomen suum nobiscum communicet, id illo nempe consilio fecit ut et jura nomini respondentia intelligantur esse communia. Ut in matrimoniali unitate (quam hic adhibet Apostolus ad Christi mysticam cum Ecclesia unitatem explicandam) commune viro atque foeminae nomen communia etiam utriusque in lege jura facit. Ita et cum martyrum sanguis pro Christi sanguine

§ 36.—Nor indeed will there be reason for us to wonder that the ancients assigned so great a power to the bloody baptism of the martyrs, if we also recall this: that that blood was attributed by the ancients not as the martyrs' but to Christ Himself, and indeed attributed to Christ in such a way that it was not believed to have been the martyrs' own, nor to have gone to the private benefit of the martyrs alone, but rather to that of the universal Church. These things we have proved elsewhere from the opinion of the ancients, and we have likewise shown how far they were from being at variance with the Scriptures and with the principles of the sacred writers. If, therefore, these things are granted, we shall now understand how soundly and prudently they gathered all this efficacy of the baptism of blood from Scripture. For no one doubts that this expiation of sins belongs to the blood of Christ. But the name of Christ is very often understood for the whole mystical body of Christ. Why then should we not ascribe that sin-cleansing power to Christ so understood? There is surely no reason why, whenever the sacred Scriptures teach that the blood of Christ washes and cleanses our sins, we should understand them only of His personal blood. And indeed the reason of the name rather urges that this power be common to Christ together with His mystical body. For in that He shares His name with us, He did so with this purpose, namely, that the rights corresponding to the name should also be understood to be common. As in the unity of marriage (which the Apostle here employs to explain the mystical unity of Christ with the Church) the name common to husband and wife makes the rights of both in law common also. So too when the blood of the martyrs for the blood of Christ

Editors' notes and page, col. 75

Page

running head: 75 DODWELLI DISSERTATIO C (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A quod pro illius aevi dogmatibus; B eodem jure teneatur ad mercedem; C res baptismo martyrum sanguineo; D lam peccatorum purgatricem
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column is from Dodwell's dissertation (running head DODWELLI DISSERTATIO, cut off), set as the text block; "vicissim" prints with a weak first i that looks like l, set as vicissim (UNSURE); "sanguino" (in Agni sanguino) set as printed, possibly a filled-in e (UNSURE); section numeral read as § 36 (the next column shows § 37); column ends mid-sentence at "sanguine"

PL 5:76

habetur, consentaneum est id idcirco fieri ut et jura utriusque sanguinis fiant invicem communia. Nihil autem est quod dubitemus quodvis Christi symbolum a vero tamen ejusdem atque originali sanguine superari. Eodem tamen rediturum diximus seu martyrum sanguiuem pro suo Christus agnoverit; seu per mysticam utriusque sanguinis unionem proprii etiam sanguinis virtutem per martyrium applicuerit. Illa certe ipsa vel applicatio tanto efficacior esse debuit quo Christi sanguinem propius attingit, magisque viva repraesentatione exhibet.

is held, it is consistent that it should for that reason come about that the rights of both bloods also become common to each other. There is, however, no reason for us to doubt that any symbol of Christ whatever is nevertheless surpassed by His true and original blood. Yet we have said that it comes back to the same thing whether Christ acknowledged the blood of the martyrs as His own, or whether through the mystical union of both bloods He applied the virtue of His own blood also through martyrdom. Certainly that very application must have been the more efficacious the more closely it touches the blood of Christ and the more vivid the representation in which it displays it.

§ 37.—Estque adhuc eo magis consentaneum recte veteres, et pro causae aequitate hic esse argumentatos, Quod 10° non quibuslibet fidelium seu passionibus, seu mortibus tantam virtutem assignarint, sed illis duntaxat quibus ad Christi mortis exemplum propius accessissent, cum nempe publica Ecclesiae fratrumque causa sese obtulissent. Est quidem sanctorum omnium in conspectu Domini mors quaelibet pretiosa. Est et adhuc pretiosior innocentium, eorum scilicet quos vis oppressit iniquorum hominum. Sed et illam Deo charam esse nihil est quod dubitemus qua occumbunt ii quibus officia sua quaelibet vita sunt ipsa chariora, qui mortem prae peccato eligunt. Estque etiam haec ipsa mors baptismali officio affinis, ne ab illius praemiis privilegiisque, putetur prorsus aliena. Nec illa proculdubio Deo ingrata mors, quam tantis ethnici efferunt praeconiis, qua quis patriae vitam suam impendit, multorumque mortes una morte redimit, nec illa etiam a Christi exemplo aliena. Longe tamen omnium proxime ad Christi illud illustrissimum accedit exemplum, si et animarum causa quis, et communi quidem illa multorum, vel etiam omnium ubicumque fidelium, mortem oppetat; Si quis pro communi fide, pro communi fidelium corpore, pro communi unitate unitatisque communi vinculo, ut corpus Christi mysticum in sua integritate conservet, et nova insuper resipiscentium accessione locupletet. Hoc est ferri τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων, hoc est Christi, et quidem patientis, εἰκόνα portare; hoc est supplere quae deerant Christi pro Ecclesia passionibus; hoc cum eo mori, crucifigi, sepeliri, cum et eadem patimur, et eadem etiam de causa, cum et passionem et passionis causam habemus cum Christo communem. Plane innuunt haec omnia esse mysticam quamdam, in hac ipsa passionum causa communem nobis cum Christo unitatem, ut proinde ad unam utraeque eamdemque passionum collectionem pertinere censeantur. In his autem de unitate mystica ratiociniis id genus canones, et quidem universales illos, agnoscit Apostolus: Quod capiti convenit, id et membris esse commune; quod primitiis, id et massae universae. Ni universales fuissent illi, quos diximus, canones, omnino subjungere debuit Apostolus cur in illa potius quam in alia qualibet causa essent agnoscendi. Argumentantis enim personam hic sustinuit Apostolus, non autem illius qui pro sua duntaxat auctoritate dictaret. Ita igitur quae peccatorum expiatio capiti, eadem et membris; quae hujus sanguinis primitiis, eadem et massae conveniet.

§ 37.—And it is all the more consistent that the ancients argued rightly, and here in accordance with the equity of the case, That, tenthly, they assigned so great a virtue not to any sufferings or deaths of the faithful whatever, but only to those by which they had come nearer to the example of Christ's death, namely when they had offered themselves up for the public cause of the Church and of the brethren. The death of all the saints, of whatever kind, is indeed precious in the sight of the Lord. Still more precious is that of the innocent, namely of those whom the violence of wicked men has oppressed. But neither is there any reason for us to doubt that that death too is dear to God by which those fall to whom their duties are dearer than life itself, whatever it be, who choose death before sin. And this very death too is akin to the baptismal office, so that it should not be thought wholly foreign to its rewards and privileges. Nor, beyond doubt, is that death unwelcome to God which the heathen extol with such great praises, by which someone spends his life for his country and redeems the deaths of many by one death; nor is that either foreign to the example of Christ. Yet by far the nearest of all does one approach that most illustrious example of Christ if one meets death for the sake of souls too, and indeed in that common cause of many, or even of all the faithful everywhere; if one dies for the common faith, for the common body of the faithful, for the common unity and the common bond of unity, that he may preserve the mystical body of Christ in its integrity and enrich it besides with a new accession of the penitent. This is to bear the very same sufferings, this is to carry the image of Christ, and indeed of Christ suffering; this is to fill up what was lacking of the sufferings of Christ for the Church; this is to die, to be crucified, to be buried with Him, when we both suffer the same things and also for the same cause, when we have both the suffering and the cause of the suffering in common with Christ. Plainly all these things intimate that there is a certain mystical unity, common to us with Christ in this very cause of sufferings, so that accordingly both are deemed to belong to one and the same collection of sufferings. Now in these reasonings concerning mystical unity the Apostle acknowledges canons of that kind, and indeed universal ones: What befits the head is common to the members also; what befits the firstfruits, to the whole lump also. Had those canons of which we have spoken not been universal, the Apostle ought by all means to have added why they were to be acknowledged in that cause rather than in any other. For here the Apostle sustained the character of one arguing, not of one who would dictate on his own authority alone. Thus therefore the expiation of sins that belongs to the head will belong also to the members; that which belongs to the firstfruits of this blood will belong also to the lump.

Editors' notes and page, col. 76

Page

running head: DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA 76
marginal letters: A habetur, consentaneum est; B duntaxat quibus ad Christi; C me ad Christi illud; D num causa communem nobis
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: column is the text of a dissertation (running head DISSERTATIO CYPRIANICA), set in full as printed; "sanguiuem" printed with turned n, kept as misprint; "Hoc est ferri" printed so, perhaps for ferre, rendered "to bear", UNSURE; accent on εἰκόνα faint, UNSURE; "Quod 10°" kept as printed; last word "con-" broken at the column break (English ends at "lump"); left-column fragments from col. 75 not set

PL 5:77

Ita scilicet nos incitare voluit Dominus ad mortem pro fratribus lubenti animo constantique obeuudam, ut in hac ipsa etiam causa ipsum imitaremur, ut sicut ipse pro nobis vitam posuit, et nos pro fratribus vitam poneremus I S. Joan., III, 16. Ita vitam pro Apostolo ponere parati erant discipuli, ipse vicissim pro discipulis. Ita Ignatius ἀντίψυχος eorum esse voluit qui episcopis adhaererent, quod scilicet eorum ψυχὰς ψυχῇ sua, vitas nempe vita, redimere voluerit. Inde tantus ille christianorum in se invicem amor quo illustres illos et conspicuos fuisse sua etiam aetate memorat Tertullianus. Damonis et Pythiae Historia apud pythagoraeos longe celeberrima est. Hos aemulati judaeorum sunt esseni, illos christiani, quos tamen omnes longo intervallo superarunt. Ita conveniebat adamussim cum hisce principiis praxis etiam primaevorum christianorum. Ita praxim illam generosissimam prudentissimis etiam principiis fulcivit Dominus legislator omnium longe peritissimus.

Thus, namely, the Lord wished to spur us on to meet death for the brethren with a willing and steadfast mind, so that in this very cause too we might imitate Him, so that, just as He laid down His life for us, we also should lay down our life for the brethren, 1 John 3:16. Thus the disciples were ready to lay down their life for the Apostle, and he in turn for the disciples. Thus Ignatius wished to be the soul-in-exchange (antipsychos) of those who adhered to the bishops, because, namely, he would have wished to redeem their souls with his own soul, that is, their lives with his life. Hence that great love of Christians for one another, by which Tertullian records that they were illustrious and conspicuous even in his own age. The story of Damon and Pythias is by far the most celebrated among the Pythagoreans. The Essenes of the Jews emulated the latter, the Christians the former, who nevertheless surpassed them all by a long interval. Thus the practice of the earliest Christians also agreed exactly with these principles. Thus the Lord, the lawgiver by far the most skilled of all, supported that most generous practice with most prudent principles as well.

§ 38.—Quae cum ita se habeant, jam facile intelligimus nihil esse cur male audiant, hac in causa, primaevi christiani. Baptismi titulo martyrium insignierunt. Nec temere id, nec pro suo duntaxat arbitrio. Christum nimirum ipsum habuerunt quem sequerentur auctorem. Sed cum titulo jura etiam baptismi martyrio tribuerunt, et quidem sacramentalis baptismi a Deo ipso instituti. Immane proculdubio facinus, si quae a Deo essent in pacto sacramentali praestanda, ea suis adinventis assererent, nullo tamen nixi Dei promisso, nullo Dei legitimo vicario qui Dei personam agere saltem posset, et Dei nomine ea polliceri quae Deus ipse, propter legitimam delegationem praestare teneretur. Sed longe aberant ab eo scelere veteres ut Dei nomen, sine divina tamen auctoritate, suis institutis praetexerent. At impium profecto non fuit si conditiones a Deo ipso praestandas expectarent in pacto baptismali ab ipso instituto. Impium non fuit e baptismi sacramentalis consilio colligere si quid porro in pacto baptismali videretur inclusum. Impium non fuit hoc ipsum de martyrio colligere si qua possent legitima sacramentorumque propria argumentatione. Impium denique non fuit, si et martyrio, ubi id probassent, et jura quoque baptismalia assererent. Atqui baptismo martyrium non conferunt modo, sed etiam anteferunt. Male quidem id, si jam constitisset sua nimirum humana instituta cum divinis ausos esse contendere. Sed vero aliter se rem habere ex dictis constat. Cum in pacto baptismali includi martyrium probarint veteres, immerito sane martyrium humanis institutis accensent adversarii. Jam non humana cum divinis instituta contendunt, sed divina cum divinis, vel unam fortasse potius divini instituti partem cum alia ejusdem instituti parte. Nihil autem vetat quo minus divinorum institutorum alterum altero possit esse praestantius: quin id potius necesse est quoties ad eumdem finem referuntur, cum aliqua tamen subordinatione. Quod enim finem illum propius attingit, id necessario erit, in

§ 38.—Since these things are so, we now easily understand that there is no reason why the primitive Christians should be ill spoken of in this matter. They adorned martyrdom with the title of baptism. Nor did they do this rashly, nor merely at their own discretion. They had, namely, Christ Himself as the author whom they followed. But together with the title they also attributed to martyrdom the rights of baptism, and indeed of sacramental baptism instituted by God Himself. It would doubtless be a monstrous crime if they were to claim for their own inventions the things which were to be performed by God in the sacramental covenant, while relying on no promise of God, on no lawful vicar of God who could at least act in God's person and promise in God's name those things which God Himself, by reason of the lawful delegation, would be bound to perform. But the ancients were far removed from that wickedness of cloaking their own institutions with the name of God without divine authority. But it was certainly not impious if they expected the conditions to be performed by God Himself in the baptismal covenant instituted by Him. It was not impious to infer from the purpose of sacramental baptism whether anything further seemed to be included in the baptismal covenant. It was not impious to infer this very thing concerning martyrdom, if they could in any way, by lawful argumentation proper to the sacraments. Finally, it was not impious if they also claimed for martyrdom, once they had proved it, the baptismal rights as well. But they not only compare martyrdom with baptism, but even prefer it. That would indeed be wrong, if it had already been established that they had dared to set their own, that is, human institutions against divine ones. But in truth it is clear from what has been said that the matter stands otherwise. Since the ancients proved that martyrdom is included in the baptismal covenant, the adversaries quite undeservedly reckon martyrdom among human institutions. Now they do not set human institutions against divine ones, but divine against divine, or rather perhaps one part of a divine institution against another part of the same institution. Moreover, nothing prevents one of two divine institutions from being able to be more excellent than the other: indeed this is rather necessary whenever they are referred to the same end, yet with some subordination. For that which attains that end more nearly will necessarily be, in

Editors' notes and page, col. 77

Page

running head: 77 DE SECUNDO MARTYRUM (cut off at the image edge)
marginal letters: A veniet. Ita scilicet nos incitare; B superarunt. Ita conveniebat adamussim; C nixi Dei promisso, nullo Dei legitimo; D modo, sed etiam anteferunt
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: "nixi" read from blurred type that looks like "nixl"; "essent" printed with a damaged first letter (looks like "cssent"), set as essent; scripture reference "I S. Joan., III, 16" printed without parentheses, set as printed; the text is the dissertation on the second baptism of martyrs, which is not otherwise flagged as editors' matter; the column ends mid-sentence at "in"

PL 5:78

medii ratione, praestantius. At a pactis symbolicis (qualia sacramenta esse omnes agnoscunt) sejungi nequit istiusmodi subordinatio. Cum enim symbola adhibeantur ad alia tamen officia a symbolis diversissima repraesentanda, ipsaque adeo illa repraesentatione spondenda, ut proinde mediorum utraque vicem impleant; constat tamen officii quam symboli longe potiorem esse rationem, jusque ad mercedem à Deo promissam conferre longe auctius atque validius. Dici tamen denique potest tam symbolum nostrae in baptismo professionis, quam conditionem quam eo symbolo spondemus a nostra pacti baptismalis parte praestandam, quamquam in pacto a Deo quidem instituto adhibeantur, ad humana tamen officia, partemque pacti illam quae homines spectat, attinere. Ita non cum humanis divina conferentur, sed cum humanis officiis alia officia et illa quoque pariter humana, ut alia aliis meliora habeantur, et Deo gratiora. Fateor equidem horum officiorum jus ad mercedem pacto institutionique divinae totum acceptum esse referendum. Id tamen ita verum est ut quamquam non propter opera Deus mercedem retribuat, at secundum opera fiat illa retributio, ut proinde in officiis nostris quo sunt quaeque in se praestantiora et Deo gratiora eo exigantur a Deo paciscente diligentius, et mercede copiosiori coronentur.

respect of a means, more excellent. But a subordination of this kind cannot be separated from symbolic covenants (such as all acknowledge the sacraments to be). For since symbols are employed to represent other duties, though ones most different from the symbols, and to promise them by that very representation, so that accordingly both fulfil the role of means; it is nevertheless agreed that the account of the duty is far weightier than that of the symbol, and that it confers a right to the reward promised by God far more amply and more firmly. Yet it can finally be said that both the symbol of our profession in baptism and the condition which by that symbol we promise to perform on our part of the baptismal covenant, although they are employed in a covenant instituted indeed by God, nevertheless pertain to human duties, and to that part of the covenant which concerns men. Thus divine things will not be compared with human ones, but with human duties other duties, and those too likewise human, so that some may be held better than others, and more pleasing to God. I confess indeed that the right of these duties to a reward is to be credited wholly to the divine covenant and institution. Yet this is true in such a way that, although God does not repay a reward on account of works, yet that repayment is made according to works, so that accordingly among our duties, the more excellent and more pleasing to God each one is in itself, the more diligently it is required by God Who makes the covenant, and the more abundant the reward with which it is crowned.

§ 39.—Quamquam autem baptismi solius rationem in hac nostra dissertatione habuerimus; quod tamen de baptismo asseruimus, idem de altero Eucharistiae sacramento asserere poteramus, repraesentare nimirum hic, atque adeo sponderi, nostrum pro Christo martyrium, ut proinde hujus etiam Eucharistia pacti praemia possint a martyribus vendicari. Nec enim aliter in pane Eucharistico fracto repraesentatur corpus Domini quam ut passum, fractum, crucifixum; nec aliter in effuso vino sanguis quam ut ipse etiam effusus. Quis est qui non videat quam sint haec manifesto ad passiones Christi referenda? Cum itaque per unum illum panem unum nos cum Christo corpus profiteamur, I Cor., X, 17, id plane pro symbolico spondendi ritu, spondemus, non in corpore modo nos, sed in ipsis quoque corporis passionibus cum Christo fore communicaturos, ut et ipsi nos paratos praestemus ut cum eo patiamur atque crucifigamur. Cum etiam dicitur hic sanguis pro multis effusus, id porro pollicemur, nos etiam, pro Christi exemplo, eo promptiori animo ad patiendum accessuros quo plurium salutem intelligimus nostra fore morte promovendam. Ita enim fore ut Christi patientis exemplum magis ad vivum repraesentemus. Proinde verisimilia sunt, et divino consilio prorsus consentanea, quae de martyrii praemiis hucusque disputavimus, cum eo utrisque sacramenti pacta collineare videamus.

§ 39.—But although in this our dissertation we have taken account of baptism alone, yet what we have asserted of baptism we could likewise have asserted of the other sacrament, that of the Eucharist: namely, that here too our martyrdom for Christ is represented, and so promised, so that accordingly the rewards of this covenant of the Eucharist also may be claimed by martyrs. For the body of the Lord is represented in the broken Eucharistic bread in no other way than as having suffered, broken, crucified; nor the blood in the poured-out wine otherwise than as itself also poured out. Who is there who does not see how plainly these things are to be referred to the sufferings of Christ? Since therefore through that one bread we profess ourselves one body with Christ, 1 Cor. 10:17, by that, plainly as by a symbolic rite of promising, we promise that we shall share with Christ not only in the body but also in the very sufferings of the body, so that we too may show ourselves ready to suffer and be crucified with Him. When also this blood is said to be poured out for many, we further promise by it that we too, after the example of Christ, will approach suffering with a readier mind the more we understand that the salvation of many will be furthered by our death. For thus it will come about that we represent the example of the suffering Christ more to the life. Accordingly the things we have argued thus far about the rewards of martyrdom are probable, and wholly consonant with the divine counsel, since we see that the covenants of both sacraments aim at that same end.

§ 40.—Quamquam etiam unicum illud hactenus tractaverimus baptismi beneficium (quod etiam ipsum privativum est) peccatorum scilicet remissionem, unde etiam sequitur impunitas, et ipsa etiam privativa; non est tamen inde ut propterea negemus jus esse

§ 40.—Although also we have hitherto treated only that one benefit of baptism (which itself too is privative), namely the remission of sins, from which there also follows impunity, itself likewise privative; it does not, however, follow from this that we should therefore deny that there is a right

Editors' notes and page, col. 78

Page

running head: [cut off at left edge] O MARTYRUM BAPTISMO. 78
marginal letters: A medii ratione, praestantius; B re. Ita non cum humanis; C rum hic, atque adeo sponderi; D pollicemur, nos etiam
old-edition numerals: (none)
other: running head cut off at the left edge of the image, only its end visible; the left column (col. 77) partly visible in all three images and not set; column begins with a whole word and ends mid-sentence at "jus esse"; "conferentur" set as printed, possibly for "conferuntur" (unsure); "à Deo" printed with accent and set so; scripture reference printed without parentheses, set as printed with X for the small-capital numeral; the text is a dissertation on the baptism of martyrs printed in the text block and set in full; whether it counts as editors' matter is unsure (editors' matter?: medii ratione, praestantius)

PL 5:79

martyribus ad positiva baptismi beneficia. Si enim cum Christo patimur, cum eodem etiam regnabimus. Ita argumentatur Apostolus e canone harum mysticarum argumentationum proprio. Ita etiam et veteres cum primarium martyribus, ut ostendimus, in regno Christi, consessum assererent. Et merito quidem illi. Si enim Christo passuro merces proposita est; debebatur certe illi, praestita pacti conditione, tanta illa merces. Si et nos eamdem Christi patientis personam in nostra quoque passione sustineamus, et quidem eo

to the martyrs for the positive benefits of baptism. For if we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with Him. Thus the Apostle argues, from the canon proper to these mystical arguments. Thus also the ancients, when they asserted for the martyrs, as we have shown, a foremost seat in the kingdom of Christ. And rightly indeed did they. For if a reward was set before Christ when He was about to suffer, that great reward was certainly owed to Him once the condition of the covenant had been fulfilled. If we too sustain the same person of the suffering Christ in our own passion as well, and indeed with that

ipso sustineamus consilio ut quae jura Christo patienti pro pacto divino accrescebant, et nobis quoque similiter patientibus accrescerent; sequitur et nobis patientibus ingentem illam repositam esse mercedem, tantam scilicet quanta Christo, pro hujus pacti jure debebatur, et quidem ex ejusdem pacti eodem etiam jure. Ita fiet ut universa baptismi beneficia, tam negativa, quam etiam positiva, martyribus debeantur.

very purpose sustain it, so that the rights which accrued to Christ in His suffering by the divine covenant should likewise accrue to us also when we suffer, it follows that for us too, when we suffer, that immense reward is laid up, namely as great a one as was owed to Christ by the right of this covenant, and indeed by the same right of the same covenant. Thus it will come about that all the benefits of baptism, the negative as well as the positive, are owed to martyrs.

Editors' notes and page, col. 79

Footnotes

(printed under page 44)

(1) ‹anchor: eidem adscribit› · call in col 79

Euseb., in Chron., p. 752; Euseb., Hist. eccles., lib. VII, cap. 27.

Eusebius, Chronicle, p. 752; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 27.

(printed under page 44)

(2) ‹anchor: Sixto concedunt› · call in col 79

Anastas. Biblioth., t. I.

Anastasius Bibliothecarius, vol. I.

(printed under page 44)

(3) ‹anchor: Cypriano teste› · call in col 79

Cyprian., ep. LXXX.

Cyprian, Letter 80.

(printed under page 44)

(4) ‹anchor: plurimi … demonstrant› · call in col 79

Pag., in Crit. ad annum 257, num. 2, et ad ann. 258, num. 5; Tillemont., Mémoires, tom. IV, pag. 16; Coutant., Epistolar. rom. pontificum., tom. I, pag. 258; Mansi, in not. ad Annales Baronii ad ann. 261, pag. 92; Basnage, ad ann. 258, num. 6; Pearson., ad ann. 257.

Pagi, Critica, at the year 257, no. 2, and at the year 258, no. 5; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. IV, p. 16; Coustant, Epistolae Romanorum pontificum, vol. I, p. 258; Mansi, in his notes to Baronius's Annales at the year 261, p. 92; Basnage, at the year 258, no. 6; Pearson, at the year 257.

(printed under page 44)

(5) ‹anchor: chronologia errasse› · call in col 79

Euseb., Hist. eccles., lib. VII, cap. 5.

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VII, chapter 5.

(printed under page 44)

Footnotes

(1) ‹anchor: Dionysii› · call in col 80

Apud Euseb., loco cit., cap. 9.

In Eusebius, at the place cited, chapter 9.

(printed under page 44)

(2) ‹anchor: colligunt eruditi› · call in col 80

Tillemont., loc. cit., Sandini vitae Rom. Pontificum. p. 47. edit. in-4°.

Tillemont, at the place cited; Sandini, Vitae Romanorum Pontificum, p. 47, quarto edition.

(printed under page 44)

(3) ‹anchor: recitat Eusebius› · call in col 80

Euseb., loco cit., cap. 5 et 9.

Eusebius, at the place cited, chapters 5 and 9.

(printed under page 44)

(4) ‹anchor: Pontii Diaconi› · call in col 80

Pont., in Vita S. Cypriani.

Pontius, in the Life of St Cyprian.

(printed under page 44)

(5) ‹anchor: perdoctus Tillemontius› · call in col 80

Tillemont., loc. cit.

Tillemont, at the place cited.

(printed under page 44)

(6) ‹anchor: tradit Pearsonius› · call in col 80

Pearson., Annal. Cyprianic., ad ann. 258, § 2.

Pearson, Annales Cyprianici, at the year 258, § 2.

(printed under page 44)

(7) ‹anchor: tutius haberi possent› · call in col 80

Stationem arbitratur Petavius in notis ad Epiphanium, pag. 356, religiosum illud officium, quo fideles statis diebus ad synaxim accedentes, ad nonam usque perseverabant : unde et pro multitudine ipsa, conventuque nonnumquam solet accipi. Stationem Du Cangius coetum, sive conventum fidelium, maxime eum fuisse dicit, qui dominica fiebat die : judicat autem stationem dictam a metaphora, petita a militibus, qui, dum praesidium certo loco collocant, stationem facere dicuntur.

By statio Petavius, in his notes on Epiphanius, p. 356, understands that religious observance in which the faithful, coming to the synaxis on fixed days, continued until the ninth hour; hence the word is also sometimes taken for the crowd itself and the assembly. Du Cange says a statio was a gathering or assembly of the faithful, above all the one held on the Lord's day; and he judges that statio is a metaphor taken from soldiers, who are said to "make a station" (stationem facere) when they post a guard in a fixed place.

(printed under page 44)