Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 3: On the Form of Baptism
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Baptismi, the second general controversy on the sacraments. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Although almost all at this time admit the form of Baptism as regards practice, which is a singular providence of God, lest countless infants perish, yet there have been, and are, not light errors on this matter. The first was of certain men who in the very time of the apostles baptized in the name of three without beginning, that is, of three Fathers, or in the name of three Sons, or of three Paracletes. Which error is related and condemned in canon 48, otherwise 49, of the apostles.
The second was of the Gnostics, who, by the testimony of Irenaeus, book 1, chapter 18, baptized in the name of the unknown Father, in the truth, the Mother of all, and in the name of Jesus who descended.
The third was of the Cataphrygians and the Paulianists, who did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as Innocent I testifies, in letter 22, chapter 5; and therefore they are commanded to be baptized again in the Council of Nicaea, canon 19, and of Laodicea, canon 8.
The fourth was of some Arians, who baptized in the name of the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Nicephorus relates, book 13, chapter 35, that a certain Arian bishop named Deuterius wished to baptize so, but by a divine miracle the water at once vanished. That other Arians likewise did not keep the true form of Baptism is plain from the First Council of Arles, canon 8, where the Arians, when they return to the Church, are commanded to be asked under what form of words they were baptized by their own; for they did not all baptize in the same way. Many of them too rebaptized Catholics, as Augustine testifies, book On Heresies, chapter 49.
The fifth error was of certain Eunomians, who did not baptize in the name of the three persons, but into the Lord's death, as Socrates relates, book 5, chapter 23.
The sixth was of the Greeks, who at times so clung to their form, in which they say, “The servant of Christ N. is baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” that they dared to rebaptize Latins baptized with these words, “I baptize thee,” and so on. The Lateran Council under Innocent III, chapter 4, relates and condemns this error; where the Greeks' form of baptizing is not condemned, which does not differ from ours as to the substance, as was declared in the Council of Florence, in the last session; but the error of the Greeks is condemned, who dared to condemn our form without any reason or cause.
The seventh error is of Luther, Zwingli and Brenz, who, although they teach that the customary form is to be used, yet do not think it necessary to the substance of Baptism. Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, affirms that Baptism is valid with whatever words it is conferred, provided it is given not in the name of man but in the name of the Lord. Nay, he adds that even if a wicked minister does not give it in the name of the Lord, yet it is valid if it is received in the name of the Lord. Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion, the chapter on Baptism, toward the end, openly teaches that no certain form of words is necessary in Baptism, although he says that he does not forbid our using the sacred words already received. Whence certain Zwinglians, as John Eck relates, homily 10 on Baptism, baptized in the names of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; which is manifest Arianism. For the name signifies power and authority in Scripture: Mark, the last chapter, “In my name they shall cast out devils”; John 5, “I am come in the name of my Father.” And as there is one Godhead of three persons, so one name, one power, one authority. Whence Ambrose, book 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 7, and Jerome on chapter 4 to the Ephesians note that in Baptism a threefold immersion is made, and yet it is not said “in the names,” but “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” John Brenz, in his catechism, the chapter on Baptism, writes that it is a true Baptism if the minister, after the creed of faith has been recited by the catechumen, should say thus: “I have now heard from thee the confession of thy faith, that thou believest in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; into this confession, then, I dip thee in water, that by this seal thou mayest be sure that thou art grafted into Christ; go in peace.” Yet he warns that the form customary in the Church be kept; which indeed he warned well, for otherwise the Baptism would not be valid.
Besides these errors there is a certain inconvenient opinion of many Catholics, who thought that the invocation of one divine person only, and especially of Christ, suffices for Baptism. So St. Ambrose seems to hold, book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3; Bede on chapter 10 of Acts, who cites the very words of Ambrose; Bernard, letter 340 to Henry, who teaches that a Baptism seemed valid to him which someone conferred from inexperience “in the name of God and of the holy and true cross”; likewise Hugh of St. Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 6, chapter 2; and the Master, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 3; and lastly Pope Nicholas, in the letter to the Bulgarians, as is had in the canon A quodam Judaeo, on consecration, distinction 4, who indeed defines nothing, but brings forward the authority of Ambrose and seems to approve it.
The foundations of these authors are two. The first, the authority of the apostles, who baptized in the name of Christ, as is had in Acts 8, 10 and 19. The second, because in any divine person all three are implicitly contained. For he who says the Father says at the same time the Son and the Spirit of his mouth; he who says Christ says the one anointing, that is, the Father, the one anointed, that is, the Son, and the anointing, that is, the Holy Spirit; he who says the Holy Spirit says the Father and the Son, by whom he is breathed. But the chief foundation of all the authors after Ambrose is the authority of Ambrose himself; wherefore, if perhaps Ambrose did not mean to say what his words seem to sound, the chief foundation of that opinion falls.
But whatever may be of this, it is certain that Baptism is to be repeated, either absolutely or under condition, if it is given in the name of Christ, or of any other person, without the expression of the others, as all the weightier theologians rightly teach, on book 4, distinction 3.
This, then, is the true form of Baptism: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Where the particle “I” is not of the essence; and although it ought not to be omitted, since it is prescribed by the Church, yet if it were omitted the Baptism would be whole, because the person of the minister is sufficiently expressed in the verb “I baptize.”
Further, that this is the true and necessary form of Baptism is gathered from the Gospel, but not evidently from the Gospel alone; we are compelled to have recourse to tradition and the declaration of the Church. Which is to be noted against Calvin and the other heretics, who prescribe the same form in the rite of Baptism and use it, although they will not admit tradition, but Scripture alone. In the Gospel we have only one testimony, Matthew 28: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” From which words, if they alone are considered, we are not compelled to say, “I baptize thee,” as we are not compelled, when we preach, to say, “I teach you”; but we seem to satisfy it if we baptize and teach, even if we do not express in words that we are doing it. By like reason it is not evidently gathered from this place alone that one must say, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”: for this place could be expounded either of the faith of the Trinity, that we baptize in the faith of the Trinity, or also of authority, that is, that we baptize by authority received from God, as when we read in Mark, the last chapter, “In my name they shall cast out devils,” and so on. Yet if we add to this place of the Gospel the authority of the Church, it will be most certain that all those words belong to the form of Baptism.
For, first, that one must say “I baptize,” or something of the kind by which the action of the minister is expressed, is taught by the Council of Florence, in the instruction of the Armenians; it is taught also by Pope Alexander III, in the Extravagants on Baptism and its effect, the chapter Si quis puerum; all the catechisms teach it, and the books of ritual, even the most ancient. Lastly reason too teaches it. For those words alone, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” even with the external washing itself, do not determinately signify what ought to be signified by this sacrament. For that washing could be made to cool, or to cure some disease, and for that too the help of the Holy Trinity might rightly be invoked. And so the word “I baptize” must be added, by which, from ecclesiastical usage, is signified a washing from filth not so much of the flesh as of the spirit.
Then, that another person different from the minister must be expressed, which we do by the pronoun “thee,” and so that no one can baptize himself, is taught, besides the testimonies already brought, in express words by Innocent III, in the Extravagants on Baptism and its effect, the chapter Debitum.
Lastly, that the three divine persons must be expressed is taught, besides the testimonies brought, by two supreme pontiffs, Pelagius, in the canon Si revera and the canon Multi sunt, and Zachary, in the canon In synodo, on consecration, distinction 4, who affirm that Baptism is not valid if it is given in the name of the Lord or in the name of Christ, unless the three persons are expressly named. The tradition of all the Fathers confirms the same, who affirm that Baptism must be given in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. See canon 49 of the apostles; Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 2; Justin, in Apology 2; Origen on chapter 6 to the Romans, on that, “All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus”; where he also says that Baptism in the name of Christ alone is not held valid unless the other persons are added. The same Athanasius, sermon 2 against the Arians, a little past the middle, where he says that the initiation is not perfect except in the name of the three persons; which Basil also has, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, and Didymus, book 2 On the Holy Spirit, not far from the beginning. See also Nyssen in the book On Baptism, before the middle; Chrysostom on chapter 5 to the Ephesians, on that, “Cleansing it by the laver”; Nazianzen, the oration on holy Baptism, near the end; Damascene, book 4, chapter 10; and Theophylact on the last chapter of Matthew. Moreover, of the Latins, Tertullian in the book against Praxeas and in the book On the Soldier's Crown; Cyprian in the letter to Jubaianus; Hilary in the book On the Synods, at the end; Ambrose, book 2 On the Sacraments, chapters 5 and 7, and On Those Who Are Initiated into the Mysteries, chapter 4; Jerome on chapter 4 to the Ephesians; Siricius in letter 1; Innocent, letter 22; Augustine, book 6 On Baptism, chapter 25; Leo in letter 4; Fulgentius On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, chapter 11; Gregory, book 9, letter 61.
Nor do those arguments which we set down for the opinion of those who thought Baptism valid if given in the name of Christ alone conclude anything. To the first, about the example of the apostles, some of the Scholastics answer that the apostles did it by a certain peculiar dispensation of God. But since such a dispensation is read neither in Scripture, nor in any council, nor in the Fathers, they answer more solidly who deny that the apostles baptized except in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; which is also confirmed from chapter 19 of Acts. For when some had said to Paul, “We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost,” Paul added, “In what then were you baptized?” By which words he shows that in his time too the Holy Spirit was usually named in the very form of Baptism. And since it is certain that it was never given in the name of the Holy Spirit alone, it follows that it was given in the name of the three persons. Add that since in the canons of the apostles those are condemned who baptize otherwise than in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and the most ancient Fathers, who saw either the apostles or their disciples, as Dionysius and Justin, prescribe the same form of Baptism, it is in no way credible that the apostles baptized otherwise.
And what Luke says in Acts, chapters 2, 10 and 19, that the apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, can be understood in many ways: namely that they are said to have baptized in the faith of the Lord Jesus, or by the authority of the Lord Jesus, or with the Baptism instituted by Christ, or lastly in the name of the Lord Jesus, but not alone, but with the Father and the Holy Spirit added. For perhaps, to commend the name of Christ more, they said thus: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”
And in this way Hilary, Basil and Fulgentius seem to me to have understood these places. For Hilary, in the book On the Synods, near the end, enumerates various places of Scripture which seem to fight among themselves unless they are rightly understood; and among others he places these places, that the apostles in the last chapter of Matthew were commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and yet in the Acts of the Apostles they are related to have baptized in the name of Christ. And although Hilary does not explain how these are to be understood, yet from his manner of speaking, and from the other like places that fight in appearance, it is gathered that he held that the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; otherwise, as he himself says, they would have been in crime, as transgressors of the divine rule given them; but that Luke in the Acts signified this very thing most briefly, by expressing the name of Christ and not denying the names of the other persons. Fulgentius, On the Incarnation and Grace of Christ, chapter 11, says most openly that the apostles baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that this very thing is to baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, as is said in Acts 2, or into the death of Christ, as is said in Romans 6. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 12, writes that in the name of the Son all the persons are understood, when Scripture says that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ; and so that the apostles in truth baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not in the name of Christ alone. Where St. Basil will have all understood in one person as regards the words of St. Luke in Acts, but not as regards the form of Baptism itself. And in this way too some will have Ambrose to have spoken, and Bede from him. For Ambrose seems to follow Basil, since he brings the same testimonies, and speaks of the same thing, and very often makes the opinions of Basil his own; certainly the Roman Catechism, the chapter on Baptism, joins Ambrose with Basil in this matter.
To the second argument I answer: an implicit mention of the three persons does not suffice in Baptism, both because the Lord in the Gospel, and all the Fathers, hand down an explicit one, and also because the sacraments are external and sensible signs; and so the invocation of the three persons must sound outwardly and sensibly; nor does it suffice if the invocation of one person sounds outwardly and the others are conceived in the mind alone, which is what happens when they are invoked only implicitly.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT ill.
Dc forma Baplismi.
Formam Baptismi elsi hoc lempore fere omnes
admiltant, quod ad praxim atlinet, quae est singu-
UlJEiJ PRIMUS
157
larls Dei proviJentia, no innumorabilos infantcs
percant, tanien liierunt, ot siuil non lcvcs dc liac
re erroros. Priinus fuit quorumdiiui, qui ipso tcui-
porc apostoloruui jbaplizab;inl iu nouiine Iriuin
priucipio carcnlium, idest, triuiu Palruin, vcl iu
nouiiiie Irium Filiurum. aiil Irium P.iraclcloruiu.
Qui crrur rclcrlur, cl dauiuulur can. 48. aiias 40.
apostolorum.
Secundus fuil Gnoslicorum, qui leslo Irenaeo
lih. I. Ciip. 18. baplizabant in nominc Iguoli Pa-
tris, in verilate 31dlris umnium, el in nomine de-
sceudcnlis Jesu.
Tcrtius fuit Calaphrygum, et Paulianislarum,
qui noii baplizabant in uomiue Patris. el Filii et
Spirilus sancli, ul lunoceiilius I. teslalur in cpisl.
22. cap. 5. el ideo ilcrum haplizari jul)enlur iu
concilio nicacno can. 11). et laodiccnsi can. 8.
Quarlus fuil aliquorum Ananorum, qui bapliza-
hanl in nominc Palris ptT Fiiiuin iuSpirilo saiiclo.
Refert ^iccph.lib. 13. cap. ?».>. ita baplizare voluis-
se quemdaui cpiscopum arianum nomine Dcule-
rium:sed divino miraculo continiio aquam cvauuis-
se. Alios ilcm Arianos non scrvasse vcrarn l>aplis-
mi forniam palct cx coufilio I. arelalcnsi can. 8.
ubi juhentur inlerrogari Ariani, cuui ad Eccli^siam
redcunt , suh qu.i forma verhorum a suis baplizati
sint: non enim eodem modo omnes l)aplizabant.
Mulli quoque corum calliolicos rebaplizahant, ut
Auguslinus testalur lih. de baeres. cap. 49.
Quinlus error fuit quorunilam Eunomianorum ,
qui non baplizabant in nomine trium personarum,
sed in Domini mortem, ut refert Socrales, lib. 5.
cap. 23.
Scxtus fuil Graccorum. qui aliquando ila adhae-
rcbanl suac formae, qua dicunt, Baplizelur N. scr-
vus Cliristi, in nominc Palris, et Filii el Spiritus
sancli, ut rel)a[)lizare audcrent Lali^ios baplizalos ,
iWis \'Grh\s: Ego le baplizo etc. Refert et damnat
hunc erroicm concilium laleranense sub Innoccn-
tio lil. cap. 4. ubi non damnalur forraa baptizandi
Graecorum. quac non ditTcrt a nostra, quoad sub-
slantiam, ut in concilio linrenlino sess. ull. dccla-
ratum est, sed damnalur Graecorum error, qui no-
slram formam damnare audebant sine ulla ratione,
vcl caussa.
Seplimus error est Lutheri Zwinglii ct Crenlii ,
qui licct forma usilala ulcndum esse doceant; ta-
men id non pulant neccssarium ad Daplismi sub-
stantiam.Lulherusin librode caplivilateliabylonica
cap. (IeBaf)tismo,airH'mant Baplismum csse ralum,
quihuscumque verhis collalum,uiodo non in nomi-
ne homiuis, sed in nomine Domini dclur. Immo
addit, eliamsi impius minister non dct in noininc
Domini, tamen esse ralum.si suscipiatur in noininc
Domini. Zvvinglius in lih. de vcra ot falsa rcligio-
iie cap. dc Baptismo sub finom, aporte docel, non
esse nccossariam ullum ccrlarn vci'horum formam
in Baplismo: licet dicatse non velare , quo minus
utamnr sacris vcrbis jam rcceptis.Uiulc Zwingliani
quidain, ut rcfert Joaiincs Eckius hom. 10. (le Ba-
plisino , haplizabant in nominibus Patris, etFiIii et
Spiritus sancti; qui est rnanifcslus ailanismus, No-
mcn cnim , polcslalcm ot aucloritalcin signilicat
in Scriplura, 3larci ult. InnoriUnc mco ducinonia
IU;li.irmi,m. VuI. Hl.
pjicienl. Joan. 3. Efjo vcni in nomine Patris mci.
Ul autem cst una deilas Irium porsonarum , ita u-
num nomen. una virlus, una auclorilas. Unde Am-
hrosius lib. 2. de sacrainentis cap. 7. et Ilierony-
miis in cap. 4. ad Ephcs. nolant in Baptismo tri-
nam licri mcrsioncm, el lamcii iion dici, In nomi-
nibus, sed in nomine Patris,el Filii et Spiritus san-
cli. Joannes Brcnlius in suo calecliismo cap. de Ba-
ptismo scTibit, veruin csse Baptismum, si rainisler
posl rccilalum a calecluimeuo symbolum lidei, ila
diccret : Audivi jam ax te confessionem fidei
tuae, quod credas in Deum Patrem, Filium et
Spiritum sanctum; in hanc igilur confessionem
intingo te in aquam, ul lioc signaculo cer-
tus sis te esse inserlum Chrlslo; vade in pace.
Moncl tamon, utfurma Ecclcsiae usitala servetur.
Ouod quidem benc monuit, aiioqui non esset ralus
Baptismus. ,'
Pracler hos erroros esl opinio quaedam incom-
moda mullorum catholicorum, qui pularunt sufii-
ccro ad Baplismum, invocalionem uuius personae
divinae tantum, acpraeserlim Christi. Ita videntur
senlire s. Ambrosius lih. 1. de Spiritu sancto cap.
3. Beda in cap. 10. Actor. qui ipsa vcrha Ambrosii
cilat. Bernardus cpist. 340. ad Ilenricum, qui dO'
cet. ratum sibi viileri Baptismum , quem quidam
conlulit ex imperitia. In nomine Dei , ac sanclae et
verae crucis. Ilcm Hugo de s. Yiclore lih. 2. dc?
sacramenlis par. 0. cap. 2. ct Magistcr lib, 4.senl.
dist. 3. et denique Nicolaus papa iu epist. ad Buh
garos, ut habelur can. An quodam Ju(Jaeo, de con-
secrat. dist. 4. qui nihil quidem definit, sed pro-
ferl Ambrosii auctorilatem, et eara approhare vi-
delur.
Fundamenta horum auclorumsunt duo.Primum,
aucloritas aposlolorum, qui baptizabant in nominii
Chrisli, ul habetur Aclorum 8. et 10. et lO.Secun-
dum.quia in qualibet persona divina implicile con-
tiucnlur omnes tres. Qui enim dicit Patrcm, siniul
dicit Filium etSpiritum oris ejus ; qui dicit Chri-
slum. dicit ungcnlem, idost, Palroin , unclum, id-
est, Filiuin et unclioncm, idcst, Spiritum sauclura;
qui dicit SpiriUim sanctum, dicitPatrem ctFilium.
a quibus ille spiralur. Scd fundamenlum praeci-
puum oninium auctorum post Ainbrosium , est i-
psius Ambrosii auctoritas; quare si forte Ambrosiu.^
non illud voluerit dicerc, quod verha ejus sonari'.
videntur, ruitfundamentum praecipuum illius opi-
nionis.
Sed quidquid de hoc sit, certum est,Baptismum.
aut ahsulule, aul suh conditionc repclendum , si
delur in nomino Christi, aut allcrius cujusvis pcr-
sonao, sinc oxprcssionc aliaruui , ut rcctc doccul
Iheologi omncs graviorcs in 4. dist. 3.
Esl igilurhaec vcra forma Baptismi: Ego te ha-
plizoinnomine Patris.el Filiiel Spiriius sancli.
Ubi iion est de csscutia, illa parliciila, Ego, cl li-
cclea non dcbeat onf^illi cum praoscribatur ab Ec-
clcsia,'lamcn si omitlcrcUir, Baplismus cssct inlc-
gcr, quia salis exprimilur porsona ministri in ver-
ho, Baptizo.
Porro haiic jsse veram et necessariam formam
Baplismi, colligilur cx cvangelio , scd noii eviden-
lcr cx solo evangclio , scd cogimiir rccurrcre ad
\:m
iu. s\(n\Mi'\io r;\iMisMi
Iradilionom. ol Kcolosine ileclaralioncm. Onoil rsl
.Nulamlum fonlra Calvinnm. cl iilios hacrclicos.qui
eanMcni form.im prarscnhiinl in rilu U.ipiismi, vl
eadem nlunUir. cum lamcn nolinl hMililioncm. scd
solam .^iTipliUMm aiimillcrc. In cvan^clio uiliil lia-
boinns nisi uniim losiiuumimn. Mallli. 2S. f;ini/cs,
<(ocf/f o»iH'*.s (ientcs. haptizdiitt^a cos in noniinc
Patris, el tilii c/ Sitiritns nnnrti. V.\ (lulhus vcr-
bis, si sula considercnlur. non cojjimur diccre ;
Etji) tc />(i/)/izo.sicnl non copimiir (liccrccum prac-
dicamus. Kjio vos docco; scd vidcmur siilisriccn* ,
si baplizcmus cl doceamus. cliamsi non «^\|irima-
uuis verbis nos id faccrc. Pari ralionc non cnllifii-
lur cvidcnli>r cx hoc solo loco. oporl(>re diccre :
In noniint' Vatri.^i.ct FiUi ct Spiriliis sanrli: pos-
sclenim cxponi liic locus. vcl dc (idc Trinilatis. ul
bapli/.emns in lidc Triniialis: vcl cliam de auclori-
talc, idcsl. ul l-aplizcmus aiiclonlalc a Dco accopla
(|ucmadmodum cum Marci u!l. Icgimus:/?? nominc
meo daemonia cjiciont e/c. Si tanien adjuniiainus
ad luine locum cvan^clii. Krclesiac nurloriliiif^in .
consiabil ccriissime. omnia il!a verba ad lormam
Baplismi pcrlincrc.
iNam in primis esso dicendum: Fgo haplizo. vcl
ali(]uid cjnsmodi, quo cxprimaliir aclio ininislri ,
doccl concilmm llorcnlinum in inslruclione Arme-
norura: docel cliam Aloxandcr papa III. cxlra de
Baplismo, el ojus elToclu cap..*^/ qin<i pHennn: do-
cent onuies catecliismi. cl nlualos librl, ellam an-
tiquissimi. Deniquc ctiam ratio id dncet. Kam sola
illa vcrba: In nominc Palris, cl Filii c.l Spiritus
sancti. cliam oum ipsa lotioneexlcrna. non deter-
minale signitlcant id, quod hoo sacramenlo signi-
licari debet. IVam possel lieri lolio illa ad rerrigc-
randum, aut curandiim ab ali(]iio ninrho, cl ad id
eliam rccle invocarelur aiixHium sanclaeTrinilalis.
Ilaque addendum csl verbum: Baptizo. quo ex usu
ecclesiaslico signifioalur ahlulio a sordibus non
tam carnis, quam spiritus.
DcinJe esse exprimendam aliam personam a
minislro divcrsam; quod facimus pcr pronomen
{Tc) ac, proinde non possc ullum haplizarc sci-
psum: doccl praeler tcslimonla jam allala. diser-
lis verbis Innoceniius III. extra dc Bapllsmo, el c-
jus efTcclu cap. DchUnm.
Denlque essccxiirimendas Ires divinas personas
praeler allata tesUmonia.docenl duo summi ponti-
llces, Pelagius canon. Si revcra. et canon, Mulli
sunt. 01 Zacharias canon. In synodo. de conse-
crat. disl. 1. qui aiTirmanl. Baplismum non esse
ratura.si detur in nomine Domlnl aul In nomineChri-
sii.nisi diserte exprimanlur tres personae.Idem con-
lirmal Iradilio omnium Palrum,qui afTirmanl.Bapti-
smum dari (lcberein nominePalris,elFilii el Spiri-
lus sancU. Yide canon.41).apostoIorum. Dionyslum
de ecclesiaslica hier. oap. 2. .Tiisiinum in ap('do2:ia
2. Orijienem in cnp. 0. ad liom. In illud: Quicum-
quein Ckristo Baplizatisumus. Ubi etiam dicit,
non haberi ralum hapllsmum in nomine solins
ChrlsU, nisi addantur aliae pcrsonae. Idcm Alha-
nasium serm. ^. conlra Arianos. parum a medio :
ubi (Jicit, non esse perfeclam iniliaUonem. nisi in
uomine Irium personariim: quod idom habenl Ba-
sdius libro de Spirilu sanclo cap, 12. ct Didvmus
Ilh. 2. do Spirilu sanclo. iioii prncul ah inllio.Vidc
(iiam .Nysscnum in lihro d(! naplisnio ;uite mc-
dliim. Chrysostomum In oa|». 'i. ad l''pliosios. iu il-
hid: Mund^niscam lavacro. Nazljiiizcnum orationo
in sanotum lavaorum propc finem. Damascenum
lib. i. cap. 10. el Thcophyliiolnm in caj). ull.iMal-
Ihaci- Pracloroa cx Kalinls TortulII;iniim llh. contra
Praxciim, r\ Ilh. de oorona milllis. Cyprlanum in
(^pist. ad .luhajanuin. Ililarium lib. de synodis in
lino. Ainhrosliiin llh. 2. de saoramenlis ';ap. U. ct
7. dc lis. qui inilianlur mysUTiis Ciip. i. Ilierony-
iniim in ciip. i. iid Ephcs. Siricium in cpist, l.In-
noccntium opisl. 22. Auguslinum llh.f», de Baplis-
nm cap. 2."). Loonein in cpist. i. Kulgonliuin de
inoarnatlone. ot gralia Chrisli cap. 11. Gr(!goriuni
hh. 0. oplsl. (VI.
^cque illa argumonta quac posuimus pro corum
opiniono. qul pulahiinf. Baplismnm esse riilum, si
in iiomine solius Chrlsli darclur , aliquld conclu-
donl. Ad Primum de excmplo aposlolorum, aliqui
Sclioloslicoruin rcspondiMil, Aposlolos id focissc
o\ quatlam peculiiiri Doi dispensalionc. Sed, ciun
noquo in Scriplura, neque in ullo concilio, neque
in P.ilrihn^ lcnr;iiur talis dispeiisalio,solidus respon-
dent, qui iioganl Aposlolus haptizasse , nisi in no-
inine Patris, el Filii et Spiritus sancli; id quod cl-
iam confirmnlurex cap.19. Aclor.Nam cum quidani
Paulo dixissont; AV^uc si Spiritus sanclus csl.audi-
vinuis: suhjunxU Paulus: In quo errjo baplizali e-
sfis? Quibus verbis indical eliam suo lempore in
ipsa forr.ta Bai^lismi. nominari solituin Spirilum
sanotum. Etouiii cerlum sil. numquam dalum esse
in nominesolius Spirilus sancti, seqnitur uldalus
sit in nominc Irlum personarum. Adde, quod cum
in oaiionlhus aposiolorum damnenlur, qui alilcr
haplizanl, quam in nomine Palrls, el Fllii et Spiri-
Iiis sancli. ct anliquissimi Palres, qui vel aposlolos
viderunt, vel eorum disclpulos, ul Dionysius et Ju-
sliniis. ciindem formam Baplisml praesoribiint.non
est ullo inodo credihile apostolos aliler bapUzasse.
Quod autom Lucas dicil in Actis c. 2. cl 10. et
10. haplizasse aposlolos, in nomine Domlni Jcsu :
poiosl inleliigi mullis modis, nimiruin. iil baplizas-
so dicanlur in fide Domlni Jesu, vel auctorilale Do-
mini Jesu, vel BapUsmo a Chrislo inslllulo. vel de-
uique in nomine Domini Jesu, sed non sollus, ve-
rnm adjunclo Palre el Spiritu sanclo. Fortasse e-
nim ad magis commendandura nomen Christi, ila
dicobanl: Eso te baplizo in noraine Palris, el Filii
cjus Jesu Chrisli et Spirilus Siincll.
Et hoc modo videnlur milii intellexisse haec lo-
ca, Hilarlus, Basilius et Fulgentius. Nam Hiiarius
in lihro dc synodis prope flncm , enumerat varia
loca Scriplurae, quae videnlur inler se pugnare ,
nisi recle iutolliganlur, et inter alia ponit haec lo-
ca. quod aposloli Malthaei ullimo jussi sinl bapli-
zarc, in nomine Patris, el Filli el Splritus sancU ,
el tamon in Aclis apostolorum rcferiinlur bapti-
zasse in nomino Chrisli. Et qunmvis non cxpllcet
Hllarius quomodo haec inlellisenda sint, tamen ex
modo loquondl ipsius, el ex aliis similibus locis in
speciem pugnanllbus, colligilur eum scnsisse apo-
slolos baplizasse in nomine Patris, et Filii cl Spi-
riUiS sancii : alioqui , ul ipse dicil , in crimine
LIHEK PRIWUS
15U
fuissenl, lamquam praevaricalores regulae divinae
sibi datae; sed Lucam in Aclis id ipsum brevissime
significasse, exprimcndo nomen Ciirisli , el non
negando nomina aiiarum personarum. Fulgenlius
de incarnatione, el gralia Chrisli cap. 11. aperlis-
sirac dicit: Aposlolos baplizasse, in nomine Palris,
el Filii elSpirilus sancli. el hoc ipsum esse ba-
ptizare in nomine Domini Jesu, ul dicitur Aclor.2.
vel in morte Chrisli, ut dicilur Itoman. 0. Basilius
in libro de Spirilu sanclo cap. 12. scribit in nomi-
ne Fiiii, inlelligi omnes personas , cum Scriplura
dicilrAposlolos baptizasse in nomine Christirproin-
de apostolos revera in nomine Palris, cl Filii et
Spiritus sancli baplizasse, non in noraine solius
Christi. Ubi vull s. Basilius in una persona inlolligi
omnes, quod atlinel ad verba s. Lucao iu Aclisjion
aulem quod attinel ad ipsam formam Bnptismi. Et
hoc eliam modo aliqui volunt loquutum esse Am-
brosium, el ex eo Bedam. Nam Ambrosius videtur
sequi Basilium, cum eadem testimonia adducil. et
de cadem re loqualur, el frequenlissime soleat Ba-
silii senlenlias suas faccre: certe catechisraus ro-
raanus cap. de Baplismo, conjungil in hac re Ain-
brosium cum Basilio.
Ad Secundum argumentum rcspondeo: Nun suf-
ficere in Baplismo implicilam menlionem Irium
personarum, tum ((uia Dominus in evangelio, el
omnes Patres explicitam Iradunt , tum etiam quia
sacramenta sunl signa exlerna,el sensibilia; proin-
de oporlet invocalionem Irium personaruMi exte-
rius, et sensibiliter sonaro , nec suilicil , si unius
perso!:!cie invocalio exterius sonet. aliarum autem
sola menle concipialur, quod sil, quando implicite
solum invocantur.