Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 4: On the Necessity and Institution 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).
We have spoken of the material and formal cause; now we must speak of the necessity, which seems to belong to the final cause. And first there is no question that Baptism is necessary to salvation by the divine command of Christ. For even Calvin admits this, in the Antidote to the council, session 7, canon 5. But the controversy is whether it is necessary as a means to salvation, so that if anyone is not baptized he perishes, even if perhaps through ignorance he is excused from the transgression of the precept. And the controversy has its place chiefly in little ones, who are not capable of a precept. There are three questions. The first, whether Baptism is necessary. The second, when it began to be necessary. The third, whether it can be supplied by martyrdom or by penance, which are called baptisms, the one of blood, the other of the Spirit.
On the first question there was of old the heresy of the Pelagians, that Baptism is not necessary for the remission of original sin, but only for gaining the kingdom of heaven, as Augustine testifies, book On Heresies, chapter 88.
But our heretics, much bolder than the Pelagians, deny that Baptism is necessary not only for the remission of sin, but even for the kingdom of heaven. John Wyclif first denied it, as Thomas Waldensis testifies, volume 2, chapter 90. Then Zwingli, in the book On True and False Religion, denies openly enough that Baptism is necessary to salvation, because it is nothing but an outward symbol. Martin Bucer, on chapter 3 of Matthew, teaches the same, but from another foundation, namely because predestined children are saved even without Baptism, while those not predestined are damned even with Baptism. John Calvin, in the Antidote to the council, on session 6, chapter 5, and in book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 16, sections 24 and 25, teaches that the little children of the faithful are holy and members of the Church even without Baptism, and are saved if they die. His foundation is that he thinks original sin is not imputed to the children of the faithful, and this by force of the covenant God made with Abraham, Genesis 17: “To be a God to thee, and to thy seed.” For we have succeeded through Christ into the posterity of Abraham. Peter Martyr has the same on 1 Corinthians 7, on those words, “Otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” Where he says openly that the children of the faithful are saved without Baptism, and brings the same arguments as Calvin. Henry Bullinger too, Zwingli's successor in the congregation of Zurich, has the same on the same place, 1 Corinthians 7. Yet there seems to be this difference between Bullinger and Calvin, that Calvin makes holy before Baptism only those who are born of faithful parents, while Bullinger, in the book On the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God, teaches that it is enough if the parents were once faithful, though they are not so when the children are born to them. Nay, he even seems to say that it is enough if the ancestors were faithful, though the immediate parents are not. From which it follows, on this man's opinion, that all children will be saved; for there are few who have not had someone faithful among their ancestors.
Against these errors the Council of Trent set down, session 7, canon 2 [on Baptism]: “If anyone shall say that Baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be anathema.” This truth is proved, first, from the express word of God, John 3: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Which words sound not a precept but a means, as Augustine shows, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 30, where he weighs this place carefully. And it is plain also from the reason that is given: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and, “You must be born again.” For the Lord points out that men are born carnal and sinners, and so slaves of sin; and therefore that a remedy against these evils is necessary, which remedy will henceforth be Baptism. The same is most openly proved from the figure of the brazen serpent, which the Lord sets down in the same place. For he wills that to be born again through faith and his Baptism be a remedy against eternal death, as the brazen serpent was once the only remedy against the bite of the serpents. And so that saying, “Unless a man be born again,” and so on, is like one saying, “Unless you eat, you will not live,” or, “Unless you take the medicine, you will not recover.” For these signify not so much a precept as a necessary means. Nor do the adversaries dispute about this; but they try by various expositions so to twist this place that it cannot be gathered from it that water is necessary.
Calvin, in the Antidote in the place noted, says two things. First, that according to some Fathers water is taken for mortification; which Chemnitz also has, in the Examination, part 2, session 7, and he names Basil, who by water understands mortification. But this is false. For Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, chapter 15, does not explain what the word water signifies to the letter in John 3; but, presupposing that it signifies true and natural water, he asks why water is joined to the Spirit in Baptism, and gives the cause: that water signifies the mortification of sins, and the Spirit the resurrection of life.
Second, Calvin says that water in this place is an epithet of the Spirit, and that the sense is, “You must be born of the Spirit, who cleanses in the manner of water.” But we refuted this exposition above, book 2 On the Sacraments, chapter 3, where we brought fifteen testimonies of Fathers who understand this place of the water of Baptism; and besides we confirmed the same by some reasons.
Peter Martyr, on 1 Corinthians 7, besides this explanation of Calvin, which he does not reject, brings another: that no weight is to be laid on that copulative, “of water and the Spirit.” For it is enough if men are reborn of the Spirit; as in Romans 10 it is said, “With the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation,” where the same copulative particle “and” is had, and yet faith of the heart and confession of the mouth are not of the same necessity. But this too is a wretched shift. For in the first place confession of the mouth and faith of the heart are not referred to the same end or effect: faith of the heart is necessary for gaining justice, confession of the mouth for not losing salvation. But in Baptism, the Spirit and the water belong to the same regeneration; wherefore those places are not alike. Besides, if no weight is to be laid on the copulative, it will surely be equivalent to a disjunctive; and from this it will follow that it is enough to be reborn of water without the Spirit, which is most absurd. For what Martyr says, that Christ wills that we be reborn of the Spirit, he says without ground. For if the particle “and” is taken as joining, both are necessary; if as dividing, either one suffices, whichever it is.
Zwingli, on Mark 1, expounds Baptism as preaching. John Brenz, on Matthew 3, expounds the whole place of the Gospel, “Unless a man be born again,” of penance, so that the sense is, “Unless a man do penance, he will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Lastly John Wyclif, as Thomas Waldensis testifies, volume 2, chapter 101, understands by water in that place of the Gospel of John 3 the water which flowed from the side of Christ, so that the sense is, “Unless a man be born again of the water which will flow from my side,” that is, from my passion, and so on.
But these and like dreams are easily refuted. First, from the common consent of the Fathers cited above. For since this place is expounded so variously by the men of this and the preceding age, prudent men can do nothing more rightly, even if they were not Christians, than appeal to the judgment of the ancients, who expounded this place before our quarrels.
Second, they are refuted from the common axiom of the theologians, by which we are taught to understand Scripture according to the proper sense of the words where we are not forced by an evident absurdity; otherwise we could twist all places, even the clearest, if it were lawful to feign new senses at will. Now the adversaries show no absurdity that follows if in this place we understand water by water, except that their heresy is refuted by it.
Third, because if in this place we do not understand water by water, it will be hard to establish that the sacrament of Baptism consists of water; which yet all at this time, both Catholics and heretics, affirm. For the other places of Scripture where mention of water is made in Baptism, as Acts 8 and Ephesians 5, prove indeed that men can be baptized with water, but do not prove that they cannot be baptized with other liquids too. And besides, those places could be twisted to metaphors no less than this one. Rightly, then, does the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 2, say anathema to all who twist this place of the Gospel to metaphors and do not understand it of true and natural water, as the words sound.
Second, the same truth is proved from the tradition of the Church and of the Fathers. For the Church has always believed that infants perish if they depart this life without Baptism. And first we have the testimonies of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, in Augustine, letters 90 and 92, in which the opinion of those who think little ones are saved without Baptism is expressly condemned. With which the Council of Trent agrees, session 5, canon 3, and session 7, canon 5.
Second, we have the testimonies of the popes: of Siricius, in letter 1 to Himerius, chapter 2, and of Innocent I, letter 26 to the Council of Milevis, who teach that little ones altogether perish if they depart without Baptism. Likewise of Leo I, letter 80, otherwise 78, to the bishops of Campania, where he says that in danger of life men are to be baptized at any time whatever, lest they lack the necessary deliverance.
Third, we have the testimonies of almost all the Fathers, who teach the same: as of Irenaeus, book 3, chapter 19; Origen on Romans 6; Nazianzen, the oration on holy Baptism; Basil, oration 13, the exhortation to Baptism. Likewise of Cyprian, book 3, letter 8, to Fidus; Ambrose, book 2 On Abraham, the last chapter; Jerome, book 3 against the Pelagians; Augustine, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapters 10, 23, 24 and 27, and letter 28, and book 2 On the Origin of the Soul, chapter 12, and book 3, chapter 9; Prosper, book 2 On the Call of the Gentiles, chapter 8; Fulgentius, the book On the Faith, to Peter, chapter 30; Bernard, sermon 66 on the Song of Songs; and Peter of Cluny, in the letter against the Petrobrusians, who treats this expressly. But let us hear one or two testimonies of Augustine in the name of the others, book 3 On the Origin of the Soul, chapter 9: “Do not believe,” he says, “do not say, do not teach, that infants overtaken by death before they are baptized can come to the pardon of original sins, if you wish to be a Catholic.” And in letter 28 to Jerome: “Whoever shall say that even little ones who depart this life without participation in his sacrament will be made alive in Christ, this man surely comes against the apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church, where there is haste and running with little ones to be baptized for this reason, that without doubt it is believed that otherwise they cannot at all be made alive in Christ.”
Third, it is proved by a reason drawn from the adversaries' own foundations. For their foundation is that the children of Christians are born free from the guilt of original sin; not indeed that they do not have the sin, but because it is not imputed to them, since they are children of saints. This foundation can easily be overthrown. First, because Jacob and Esau were sons of a most excellent father, Isaac, and yet God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they had done any good or evil, Romans 9. Children of saints, then, are not born holy.
Peter Martyr answers, on 1 Corinthians 7, that the children of saints are born holy when they are predestined; but because we do not know who are predestined, we therefore hope well of all the children of saints, until by evil works they betray their reprobation. An absurd answer. For if the matter is so, it will be irrelevant to be born of a believer or an unbeliever, and one must hope well of all infants; for it very often happens that children of the faithful are reprobate and children of unbelievers predestined. Besides, if children of the faithful who are not predestined are not born holy, Peter Martyr wrongly alleges Calvin, who followed that promise of Genesis 17, “I will be thy God, and of thy seed.”
Martyr answers that that promise is not universal, but has place only in the predestined. But this is said without ground. For the words of Scripture are absolute, nor is any mention made of predestination in that whole chapter. And in the end that promise is made empty if the condition of predestination is to be added; for neither parents nor children can take any comfort from it, since they do not know whether they are predestined. It is as if a king said to someone, “I give thee this city, for thee and thy posterity, if yet it shall please me to grant it to thy posterity.”
Second, David was the son of a faithful man, and yet he said, Psalm 50, “I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.” And the Apostle was a son of saints, as he himself affirms, 2 Corinthians 11, and yet he says, Ephesians 2, “We also were by nature children of wrath.”
They answer that these things are said of the corruption of nature and of the sin which truly is present, not of the guilt, which is not in the children of the faithful, since the sin is not imputed to them. But surely, to be a child of wrath most openly sounds guilt. For a child of wrath is none but he who is liable to punishment and vengeance; and he is not liable to punishment to whom sin is not imputed. Hence Paul does not say, “We are children of wrath,” but, “We were”; and yet according to the adversaries sin always remains even after Baptism.
Third, the places of the apostle Paul on original sin are general: Romans 5, “In whom all have sinned”; and 2 Corinthians 5, “If one died for all, then all were dead.” Nor can these places be expounded of the defect of nature and not of the guilt; otherwise no one would have guilt. Nor can it be said that the children of the faithful contract original sin but that it is forgiven them at once, before they are born. For if the children of the faithful are sanctified for this reason, that they are children of the faithful, they begin to be holy at the same moment at which they begin to be children of the faithful; and they begin to be children of the faithful at the same moment at which they begin to be at all; therefore they never have original sin, which is against Paul and against the adversaries themselves, who admit original sin and do not notice that they say things that fight one another.
Fourth, the adversaries' foundation fights with the axiom of all the Fathers, nay of all Christians, which is that Christians are not born but made, as Jerome says, letter 7 to Laeta, Tertullian in the Apology, chapter 18, at the end, and others everywhere. For now according to Calvin and Martyr Christians are born, not made.
But let us see their arguments. First they object that of Genesis 17: “I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Which indeed was said to Abraham and his posterity; but we through Christ have succeeded into the posterity of Abraham. For Christ has broken down the middle wall which separated us from the people of God.
I answer: That promise, as we showed above in the question on the difference of the sacraments of the new and old law, was to the letter not a promise of the remission of sins, but of peculiar protection and government, and of earthly happiness; yet in a certain mystical sense there were also spiritual promises, both of the remission of sins and of eternal life, and they belong to us; but they come down to us not through the carnal generation of parents, but through the spiritual regeneration of Christ. For the Apostle, Romans 4 and 9, and Galatians 3 and 4, openly teaches that those are the true sons of Abraham, not who are sons of the flesh, but who are sons of faith, that is, who imitate the faith of Abraham. Then, according to the Apostle, we begin to be sons of Abraham when we begin to be faithful; which little ones do not do except when they are baptized; for to them to be baptized is to believe, as Augustine says, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 27. And besides, reason teaches the same. For by carnal generation we cannot become sons of Abraham, since our parents do not descend from Abraham; but because Christ was truly a son of Abraham, we too begin to be sons of Abraham when we begin to be sons or brothers of Christ. And it is certain that this is not done except through Baptism. Hence John 1: “Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And John 3: “You must be born again.” See Augustine, letter 200 to Asellicus.
Second, they object that of the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 7: “Otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.”
I answer with Augustine, book 3 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 12, that whatever is signified by this holiness of the children, it cannot in any way be understood as the adversaries will, that the children are made holy without Baptism. For in the same place Paul says that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing one; and yet it would be most foolish to believe that an unbelieving spouse, without conversion to God and the Baptism of Christ, can come to the remission of sins by this alone, that he cleaves to a believing spouse.
Now there are three expositions of this place by the Fathers. One is that the children are here called holy with a certain civil holiness, namely that they are legitimate, not spurious. So the commentary which is ascribed to Ambrose, and St. Thomas and Anselm on this place.
Martyr refutes this exposition, because the children would be legitimate even if both spouses were unbelievers; and yet the Apostle says that the children are born holy of one believing spouse and the other unbelieving, because the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer; therefore another holiness is to be recognised in this place. But this exposition is wrongly found fault with. For the case of a marriage between two unbelievers is one thing, and between a believer and an unbeliever another. For when both spouses are unbelievers, the marriage is without doubt legitimate, as a certain civil contract; nor could there be doubt about it, as there cannot be doubt either when both are believers. But when one is a believer and the other an unbeliever, it could be doubted whether the marriage was legitimate because of the difference of religion; for the believer seems to be defiled by living with the unbeliever. Therefore the Apostle warns Christians that even then the marriage is legitimate, and that the believer is not defiled by living with the unbeliever, but on the contrary the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer; for the power of faith is greater than that of unbelief. And that even in such a difference of religion the marriage is legitimate, he proves from this, that their children are not reckoned unclean, that is, infamous and spurious, but holy, that is, legitimate and free from civil disgrace.
The second exposition is that the children of these spouses are called holy because they are consecrated to God by the believing spouse, and through Baptism become Christians, and are brought up in the fear of God. For the Apostle exhorts Christian spouses not to depart from unbelieving spouses if the unbelievers themselves wish to remain with the believers; and he gives the reason, that the unbeliever is sanctified by the believer, that is, is either converted to the faith, or is at least a candidate for the faith, since he does not shrink from the company of a believing spouse; and from this it follows that the children are holy, that is, become Christians. Which surely would not happen if the unbeliever would not live with the believer, or if the unbeliever were not sanctified by the believer; for then the children would follow the unbelieving parent, and so would be unclean and unbelievers. So Tertullian expounded it, book 2 To His Wife, and from him St. Jerome, book 1 against Jovinian, and in letter 153 to Paulinus; and Augustine, book 2 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 26, and book 3, chapter 12, and book 1 On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, chapter 27.
Peter Martyr also carps at this exposition, so that he may be able to establish his heresy from this place of the Apostle. For it often happens that one who has taken up children from fornication takes care that they become Christians and brings them up in the fear of God, as Augustine himself did with his son Adeodatus; and yet no one would prove from this that union with a harlot is holy. But Paul proves that the marriage even of an unbeliever with a believer is holy, because holy children are born of it. But Martyr finds fault with this exposition unjustly. For union with a harlot is a thing evil in itself, and so it cannot be made holy by the union of a believer, nor can it become praiseworthy and to be kept, even if children are born of it who become Christians. For evils are not to be done that goods may come, Romans 3. But the marriage even of unbelievers is a good thing, and so it can become better if one of them is converted to the faith; and perseverance in such a marriage can be commended and urged because of the good that follows from it, that the children become Christians.
The third exposition is of others, as Augustine and Anselm relate in the places cited, who said that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believer because he learns to keep the laws of marriage, and not to abuse marriage. For unbelievers who do not know God, even if they are lawfully joined, yet often abuse marriage, and do not abstain from the marriage act in the time of menstruation, nor always keep the natural manner; from which the marriage is defiled and the children are born unclean. From this defilement both parents and children are freed by this, that the unbeliever consents to live with the believer, and so to keep the laws of chaste marriage.
Calvin's third argument: Baptism is profaned when it is given to one who does not belong to Christ, as the king's seal is profaned when a false charter is sealed with it.
I answer: Baptism is not profaned when it is given to the unclean, but on the contrary rather sanctifies and cleanses the unclean. For it is not a seal of grace received, as Calvin dreams, but an instrument conferring grace, and a sign of the grace which is then given.
The fourth argument: The infants of the Jews who died before the eighth day could not be circumcised, and yet it is not likely that they perished; therefore they were saved without circumcision. But the case of Baptism among Christians and of circumcision among Jews is the same.
I answer that the whole argument consists of uncertain things. For in the first place many of the ancients (as we said above) deny that circumcision was given as a remedy against sin. Then we do not know whether before the eighth day the infants of the Jews had some remedy, and what it was. Lastly the case of Christians and of Jews is not the same. For now a certain remedy has been fixed by Christ, and indeed a most common and most easy one, besides which it is not lawful to feign another; but what was done then cannot be known for certain, since Scripture says nothing. This one thing we know for certain from the divine letters: that all men are born sinners, and are not saved except through the passion of Christ applied by certain means, as Augustine teaches at length in the three books On the Merits and Remission of Sin and in the four books On the Origin of the Soul.
The fifth argument: If Baptism is necessary, countless infants will perish without their own fault, which seems foreign to the mercy of God. This argument of Peter Martyr was also that of certain Catholics, as Cajetan, Gabriel and others, who do not indeed teach that the children of Christians are born holy, but yet try to find other remedies for little ones besides Baptism.
But we answer with Augustine, book 2 On the Gift of Perseverance, chapter 12, and Prosper, book 2 On the Call of the Gentiles, chapter 8, that the judgments of God, why some little ones perish and others do not, are hidden, yet most just. For although little ones are not baptized without their own fault, yet they do not perish without their own fault, since they have original sin. And those who feign another remedy besides Baptism fight most openly with the Gospel, the councils, the Fathers, and the consent of the universal Church. For, as Augustine says, letter 28, for no other cause is there haste and running in the Church with infants in danger to Baptism, except because it is established that there is no other remedy. And those who feign these things seem not to consider that the care of infants belongs more to God than to themselves; and that Christ, when he declared Baptism necessary, John 3, knew well that many would be deprived of that remedy without their own fault, and that it would be most easy for God, if he willed, to provide Baptism for all infants, as in fact he provides it for all the elect.
For what Bucer and Martyr say, that predestined infants are saved even without Baptism, is said most absurdly, as Augustine shows, book 3 On the Origin of the Soul, chapter 10. For those whom God has predestined, he has most effectively provided with the remedies for salvation. And so all who die in infancy, if they are predestined, are without doubt baptized; and on the contrary, if they are reprobate, they are not baptized.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT IV.
De nccessilale ct inslUulione Baplismi.
Diximus de caussa materiali el formali, nunc de
necessilale dicendum quae ad caussam fmalpm
pertincrc videlur. Ac primum nulla quaeslio esl ,
quin Baplismus sit necessarius ad salulem exdi-
vino Chrisli mandalo. M enim etiam Calvinus fale-
lur in Antidoto concilii sess. 7. canon. '>. Scd con-
troversia esl,an sil nccessarius^ut mcdium ad salu-
tem.ila ut si quis non baptizelur,pereal,etiamsi forte
ob ignoranliam excuselur a prevaricatione praecc-
pli. Ac praecipue habel iocum controvcrsia in par-
vulis, qui non suntcapaces praecepli. Tres aulem
sunl quaestiones. Prima,an Baptismus sit necessa-
rius. Sccunda, quando coeperit esse necessarius.
Tertia, an possil suppleri per martyriuui, aul poe-
nilenliara, quae dicunlur Baptismata, illud sangui-
nis, hoc llaminis.
De Prima quaeslione fuil olim haercsis Pelagia-
norum,Baptisnmm non esse necessariuin ad rcrais-
sionem peccati originalis,sed solum ad assequulio-
nem regni coelorum, leste Auguslino lib. de hae-
resibus cap. (;♦>.
Scd noslri hacretici Pclagianis mullo audaciorcs,
non solum ad remissionem peccali. sed etiara ad
regnum cocloruiu negant Biiptisraum esse necessa-
rium. Id iu primis uegavit Joan. Wiclef, ut lestatur
Thomas Waldensis lom. 2. cap. 90. Deinde Zwin-
glius libro de vera el falsa religione s:Uis aperlc
negat, Baptisraum esse necessarium ad salulcm;
quod nihil sil nisi exlernum symbolum. Marlinus
Bucerus in cap. 3. Malth. idem docct, sed ex alio
fundamenlo, nimirum. quia pueri praedeslinati e-
tiam sine Baptismo salvantur,non praedestinali au-
tem, eliain cum Baplisrao dauinantur.Joannes Cal-
vinus iu Antidolo concilii ad 0. sess.cap. .^.ellib.
4. Institul. cap. 16. § 24. el 2j. docct, parvulos ti-
deliuin eliam sine Baptismo esse sanclos el mein-
bra Ecclesiae, el si raoriantur salvari. Fundamen-
lum ejus est, quia pulat liliis lidelium non imputa-
li peccalum onginis, idque ex vi feederis Dei facti
cum Abrahain, Gentss. 17. Ero Dcms tuus, o.l se-
minis lui. Nos enim successimus pcr Chrislum in
Abrahae posterilalem. Idera habel Pclrus marlyr
in cap. 7. 1. ad Corinlh. in '\l\ai verha: Alioquiii
filii vcstri iinmundi essent, nunc aulem sancti
sunt. Ubi aperte dicil, filios fidelium salvari sine
Baptismo, et proferl eadem argumenla,quae Calvi-
nus. Idem quoque habel Henricus Bullingerus
Zwinglii successor in Tigurina synagoga in eun-
dem locum, 1. Corinth. 7. IIoc lamen vidctur in-
teresse inler Bullingerum el Calvinuin;quod Calvi-
nus solos eos facit sanclos, ante Baptisraum, qui
nascunlur ex parentibus fidelibus: Bullingerus au-
tem in lib. (ie Testaraenlo , scu foedere Dei unico
el aelerno, docet, salis esse. si parentes aliquando
fuerint fldeliis, licet tunc nou sinl, quando lilii eis
nascunlur. Immo etiain videtur diccre, salis esse,
si majorcs fuerint fideles, licet immediali parenles
non sint Odeles. Ex quo sequilur secumlum opi-
nionem hujus hominis s;iivari fore omnes [)ueros:
rari enim sunt, qui non liabuerinl aliipicin ex ma-
joribus suis fidelem.
Conlra hos errores posuit concilium tridentinum
sess. 7. caii. 2. Si quis dixerit, Baptisnium non
esse necessariuin ad, saluto.m, analliema sit. Pro-
balur hacc veritas. Primo ex Dci verbo expresso,
Joan. 3. I\isi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spi-
rilu sancto, non potest introire in regnuni Dei.
Quae verba non sonanl praeceplum, sed medium,
ul Auguslinus demonstral lib. 1. de peccaloruin
merilis et remiss. cap. 30. ubi hunc locum accu-
rate expendit. Et patcl eliam ex ralione, quae red-
dilur: Quod natum est ex carne, caro cst, et, o-
portet vos nasci denuo. Indical enira Dominus ho-
inincs nasci carnah^s cl peccatores , alque adeo
servos peccali; et proinde necessarium esse reme-
dium conlra haec mala, quod remedium deinccps
erit Baptismus. Idem aperlissime convincilur ex
figura aenei serpcntis, quam ibidem Dominus po-
nit. Vull enim ita esse rcmedium contra mortcm
aelernain renasci perfidem,el Baptismum suum,
ut olim fiiil serpens aeneus reraedium unicuin ('oii-
Ira morsum serpentium.Itaque illud: ISisi quis re-
natus fuerit etc. simile est, ac si quis diceret:[Visi
comedas, non vivcs. Vei nisi pharmacum sumas,
non convalesces. Isla enim non lam pracceptum.
quam incdium necessarium signilicanl. i>'equc de
liiO
UL. SALRA.MKMO IlArilSMI
lioc advi^rsarii tlispnhml; sod iiilimUir viinis v\\n>-
silionibds ita «lopravare lumc liXMun, iil noii possil
ux «0 colli^i n^pnm iiccossariam ossc
(lalvimis iii Anlidolo loco iiolalo «liio dicit. Pii-
mo, secimdiim aliqiios Palrcs a<|oam accipi |)ro
morliiioalionu: quod idom liahcl Kcmmliiis in K\a-
mino, fiin. 2. soss. 7.ol iiniiiiiiiil I5iisiliiim,(|ni por
atpiam inlclli^^it morliliciilioiuiii. At lioc viiuiiu
csl. i\um Uiisiluis libro dc Spiriln siincto ciio. 1.'>.
non cxplical (joid iid lilcram si^niiicol a(|iiii(^ vocii-
bulum, Joan. ."{. sod pr;iesupponcns sijjnilicaro vo-
raiii, ol naluralom a^piam. (piacrit onraipia iuljim-
t;aliir Spirilui in r>.i|)lisino, el caussam reddit, ut
aqua sii:nilicct mortilicalionom po( oalormn, spiri-
lus aulom rosurroclioiiom vulnliim.
Secuiido Calviiuis <licil, acpiiim Imc loco cssc c-
pithclmn Spiriliis, o[ sonsiim ossc. Oporloro nasci
c\ Spiritu, ipii piirjjiil ad iiiodum atiuao. Scd lianc
exposilioncm roriiliiviimis siipra lib. 2. do sacra-
mcntis cap.3. ubi atlulimus quindocim leslimonia
l*alrum.qui luinc locuin iiitollii^iint dc aqna J»apli-
smi: ol praclcrea idem conlirmavimus uiiquol ra-
lionibus.
Petrus .Marlyr in cap. 7. 1. ad Corinlh. praolcr
banc Calvini c.xpliealioncm. (piam non improbal,
adrort aliam, (piod videbcel non sil vis fiicicnda in
illa copulativa: Ex aqua ct Spirilu.&Mis cniin cst,
si cx Spiritu homines riMiascanUir. cpiomodo Kom.
10. dieitur: Corde credilur ab jusliliam, et ore
coufessio sil acl saluleuiXui babelur cadcin copu-
lativa particula, et. el lainen non esl ojiisdcm nc-
cessitiilis lidcs cordis ct confcssio oris.Al boc cl-
iam miscrum csl ejlogium, Nam iii primis eonfcs-
sio oris et Gdes cordis non referuntur ad cundcm
fincm, seu cfTectum: lidos ciiim cordis necessnria
esl ad juslitiiim aequircndiim; coiifessio oris ad Sii-
lulem non amillendam. At in Baplismo, Spirilus el
aqua ad eandem rcgcneialionem perlinenl: quare
loea illa non sunl similia. Praelcrea si non ost vis
facienda in copubitiva, ccrle aequivalebit disjun-
tlivae: inde aulcm scquelur salis esse renasei ex
aqua sine Spirilu. quod nlisurdissimum esl. Quod
enim .Marlyr dieit, CbrisUim vclle, ul rcnascamur
ex Spirilu, gralis dicil. Si enim parlicula. et, co-
pulative accipilur. ulrumquc esl neccssarium; sin
disjunctivc, alteruUum suilicit, quodcumque il-
hid sil.
Zwinglius in cap.1.3Iarc.cxponilper Baplismura
concionem. Joan. Brenlius in cap. 3. .llaUh.toIum
loeiim evangelii: ISisi quis reuatus fuerit: cxponit
de poenitentia, ut sensus sit: Msi quis poeniten-
liani cfjerit. non intrabit in rconuni coelorum.
Denique Joannes Wielof. leste Thoma Waldensi
lom. 2. cap.lOl.peraquam in loco cvancclii Joan.
3. inlelligil aquam illam. quae fluxit ex Chrisli la-
lere, ut scnsus sil: N'isi quis rcnatus fueril ex a-
qua. quae lluel ex mco lalere, idest, ex passione
mea eic.
Scd iiaoc el similia somnia facile refulanlur.Pri-
mo.ex communi conscnsu Palrum sopra cilalorum,
Com eiiim bic locus tam varie cxponalur ab liomi-
nibus Imjus, et superioris aelalis, nihil rectius fa-
cere possunt homincs prudenlcs, etiamsi Chrislia-
lu iion essenl, quara appellare ad judiciura anti-
quoriim, ipii anle noslras lilcs bunc locum e\po-
suoriml.
Si'cuii(lo.r(4o!liinliir cx <'omnuini ii\ioiiiiii(» iheo-
logonim. qno docoiuiir ScripluiMiii iiit(d|igcr(^ se-
cumliim voiborum proprieliitciii, uhi noii cogimur
cviilciili iibsurdo; iilioipii possonms dopravare o-
miiia loca. oliam cliirissima, si liconl pro iirbilrio
rm^^cro iiovos sonsus. Porro advcrsiuii iiullum ab-
sunlum oslondunl, qiiod soqiialiir. si hoc loco per
iKpiiiiii iiilelligiimos aqiiam, iii>i (piiii hiuc refelli-
tiir ipsonim liiicr(>sis.
Tcrlio, (piiii si lioc loco per aquam non inlelligi-
mus aqiiam, dinicile erit stiiluere, sacramenluin
IJiiplismi consliire o\ aqiia: qiiod tamen iilTiniinnt
lioc tcmporc omnos lum ciilliolici, liim hacrctici.
iViim caelera loca Scriplur.ie. nbi lit mentio aquao
in liaplismo, ut Aclor. S. el Kphcs.a. probanlqui-
dcm possc homiiies bapli7,iiii aipia, sed iion pro-
bant non posse Biipliziiri aliis otiiim liquoribus. El
praelcrea polerunt ea loca dctorqucri ad melapho-
ras. non miniis. qiiam isle. Heete igilur conciliiim
Iridonlinum scss. 7. canon. 2. analhema dicit o-
mnibiis, qiii luinc locum cvangclii delorquenl ad
moliiphoras, et non inlclligunl de vera et nalurali
aqua. ut verba sonant.
Socundo, i^robiilur eadom vcritas ex tradilione
Ecclcsiac et Palrum: scmper enim Ecclesia crcdi-
dit, infanlcs perirc, si absqiic Dnplismo dc liac vila
reecdiinl.Ac Primum habcmus leslimonia coiicilio-
rum carlhnginonsis ct milevilani ajiud Augiislinum
episl. 90. et 92. in quibus cx professo damnalur
senlonlia corum, qiii pulanl piirvulos salvari sinc
Baptismo. Quibus consonat Iridenlinum concilium
sess. r>. can. 3. et sess. 7. caii. 5.
Socundo, haborniis lcslimoiiia pontificum. Siricii
in o|)isl. 1. ad Ilimoricum cap. 2. cl Innocenlii I.
opislol. 20. ad concilium niilevilaniim. qui docent
parvulos omnino perire, si abs(pio Baplisnm dece-
danl. Iicm Lconis I. opist. S(f. aliiis 78. ad cpisco-
pos Ciunpaniae,ubi dicil,in periculo vilae quocum-
qne temporo esse homines l)aplizandos,ne careant
necossaria libcriitionc.
Terlio.liabcmus Icslimonia omniiim fcre Patrum,
qui idem docenl, nl Ironaei lib. 3. cap.l^. Orige-
nis in cap. 0. ad Rom. Nazianzcni oral.in sanctum
lavacrnm. Basilii oral. 13. dc cxliorlatione Bapli-
smi. Ilcm Cypriani lib. 3. epist. 8. ad Fidum.Am-
brosii lib. 2. de Abraham cap. ull. Hieronymi lib.
3, conlra Pelngianos. Auguslini lib. 1. de peccato-
rum morilis, el remiss. cap. 10. 23. 24. el 27. et
opist. 28. lib. 2. de origine animae cap. 12. cL lib.
3. cap. 9. Pro.speri lib. 2. de vocatione Genlium
cap. 8. Folgenlii lib. de lide ad Polriim cap. ,30.
Bcrnardi serm. 00. in Canlic. et Pclri clunincensis
in episl.conlra Pelrobrusianos.qui ex professo hoc
trnclal. Sod andiamus uniim. aul iilleruin Augusli-
ni loslimonium nomine aliorum lib. 3. de origine
animae cap. 9. Noli. inqiiil, credere, nolidicere,
noli docere.infanles antequam baptizentur nior-
te praeventos.pervenire posse ad orifjinalium in-
dulgentiam peccatoruni, si vis esse catholicus.
Et in episl. 20. ad Ilioronymum: ()m\s(/ias dixerii,
quod in Cliristo vivificabuntur eliam parvuli.qui
sine sacramcnti cjus participatione de vita exe-
LII5KU TRIMUS
m
unt. hic profeclo. el conlra aposlolicam praedi- milll eis, anleqiinm nasCcinlnr.IVam si fiiii fidelinm
cationemvenit. et totam condcmnat Ecclesiam: idno snnclilicanliir, qiiia sunl filii fKlcliniu, eodera
vbi propterea cum haptizandis parvutis festina- mnmcnlo incipiimt snncli csse. quo incipinnl esse
tur et curritur . quia sine dubio creditur aliter (llii fKlelinra: nt eodera momenlo incipiiinl t>sse fi-
eosinCkristo omninovivificarinonposse. lii fidelinm. qno incipiunl esse simplicilcr; ergo
Terlio.prnbalnr rnlioncdcprompln ex rimdarnen- nnmquam hnbent peccntnra oritiinale.qiiod estcon-
lis ndvcrsarionim.Nara fundaraenlum ipsoruin est,
quia filii Clirislianornm nascunlur liberi a reatii
peccati oriij;inalis. non quidem. quod non liabennl
peccalum, sed qiiia eis non impulnlur. cuin sinlfi-
iii sanctnrum.Hoc eniin fundamentum facile potest
evcrli. Primo, quia Jacob et Esnu , filii eranl opti-
mi pairis Isaac, cl tnmen Deus Jacob dilcxit, Esaii
autem odio liabuit. antequam aliqiiid boni vel mnli
ejjissent. Kom. 8.Non ergo lilii sanctorum nnscun-
lur snncti.
Respondet Petrus marlyr in commenlario 1. Co-
rinth. 7. fdios sanclorum iiasci sanclos. quando
tra Pnulum, cl coiitra ipsos adversnrios, qui admil-
tnnt peccalum originale, et non advertunl se pu-
gnnnlia dicerc.
Ouarto, fundamenlum adversnriorum. pugnant
cum a\iomale oraniura Palrura, immo eliam orani-
nm Christianornm, quod est, Christianos non na-
sci, scd ficri; nt Ilieronymus ail episl. 7. ad Lae-
tam. Terlullianus in Apologelico cap. 17. in fine,
el nlii pnssira. Jam enitn secundum Calvinum, et
Martyrem Chrisiiani nascnnlur. non fiunt.
Sed nrgumenla ipsornm videamus. Priinoobji-
cinnl illud Genes. 17. Ero Deus tuus, et seminis
sunt praedeslinnti: quia tamen nos ignoramus, qui tuipost te. Quod quidem dictum csl A.brahae, ct
sint praedeslinali,ideo bene speramus de omnibus cjus poslerilali:sed nos per Christura snccessimus
filiis sanclorum,donec illi per mala opera non pro- in poslerilate Abrnbne. Chrislus enim solvil mace-
dant suam reprobalionem. Inepta responsio; Nam rinra, quae nos separabal a populo Dei.
si res ila se habel.impertinens eril nasci ex fideli Respondeo: Promissioncm illara.ut supra oslen-
vcl infidcli.el bene sperandum cril de omnibus in-
fantibus; saepissime enim contingil. ut iilii fideli-
UiTi sint reprobi. et filii infideliuiu praedestinati.
Praeterea si filii fidelium non praedeslinali.non na-
scunlur sancli, male nllegat Pelrus marlyr Calvi-
nura, sequulus illam promissionemGenes.n. Ero
Deus tuus elseminis tui.
dimus in quaeslione de differentia sncraincntorum
novae et vcleris legis,ad lileram non fuisse promis-
sionem remissionis pcccalorum.sed peculiaris pro-
teclionis el gubernalionis,et lerrenac fclicitalis: In-
raen sensu quodnm mystico.fuisseelinm spiriluales
promissiones, et remissionis peccalorufn. ac vilae
aeternae. et ad nos perlinere: sed ad nos desceu-
Respondet Marlyr,illnm promissionera non esse dere non per carnalem gencrationern parenlum
universalem, sed solura habere locum in praede- sed pcr spirilualcni regenernlionein Christi. IXarn
slinalis. At hoc grntis dicitur; Verba enim Scriplu- Aposlolus Rnm. 4. el 0. el Galal.3. et 4. apcrle do-
rae absoluta sunt, ne(pie ulla fil in tolo illo capite cet eos esse veros Abrahne filios, non qui sunt filii
menlio prncdestinalionis.Et denique promissio illa cnrnis, sed qiii sunt filii fidei, idest. qui imilantiir
inanis rcdditur.si ndjungenda esl condilio praede-
slinalionis: nullam enim consolalionein inde cape-
re possunt, vel pnrentes. vel filii. cura ignorentnn
sinl praedestinali. Similc esl si rex dicerel alicui:
Do tibi hanc urbem pro te et posleris. si lamen
mihi placuerit posleris luis illam concedere.
Secundo: David erat filins hominis fidelis, et ta-
raen psnlm..')0.dicebnt:/?i iniquitatibus conceptus
fidem Abrahne. Tiinc ergo incipiinus secunduin A-
poslolura esse filii Abrahne. cum incipimus esse fi-
delcs: quod parvnli non faciiinl, nisi cum bnpli-
znntur: illis enira bnplizari esl credere,iil dicil Aii-
giislinus lib. 1. de peccatorum meritis. el remiss.
cnp. 27. Et praelerea ratio idem docel. Nam per
carnalem generalionem nnn possumns fieri filii A-
braliac. cum parenles nostri ab Abrnhniu non de-
sum, ctin pcccatis concepit me matcr mea. FA scendnnt,sed quia Christus vere fuilfilius Abrabae;
Aposlolus crnt filius sancloruin, ut ipse nffirraat 2. tunc el nns incipiraiis esse filii Abrahae, cum inci-
Corinth. 12. et tamen ait Ephcs.2. Eramus et nos pjmus esse Chrisli filii, vel fratrcs. Id auicm ccr-
natura filii irae. I„m cst non fieri nisi pcr Raplisinum. Unde Joan.l.
Respondenl: Ilnec clici dc corruplione nalurne, Qui non cxsa.nquinibus.neque exroluntatc cur-
cl de peccnto qnod revcrn inesl, non dc renlii, rpii rii^.ncque oxvotuntnte viri.sedox Deo nali siint.
non esl in liliis fidelium, cum eis iieccaluin non Ki Joan. .3. Opor/c/ ros 'nascM/c7mo. Vide Augu-
imputetur. Sed cerle, esse filium irae, apertissimc
souiil rcnlura. Filius enini irae non esl.nisi ({iii osl
obnoxids poenae et vindictae. Non nuiem esl ob-
noxius poenae, cni peccalura non itnpulatur.Undo
Panlus non ail: Sumus filii irac, sed: Eramus, cl
lamcn sccundiini ndvcrsnrios, pcccalum scmper
manet elinm posl Biiplismiim.
Terlio. loca apostoli Pauli de peccalo originali
creneralia sunt.r«om..')./n quo omnes pcccaveruut.
El 1. Corinlh. 1."). Cliristus pro omnH)US mortuus
osl. erqo omncs mortui sunt. Nec possniil liaec
loca exponi de vilio nalurac, nnn de rcatu: alioqiii
neiuo haberel realum. N(!c iiotcst dici, (ilios lh\(\-
lium conlrahcre peccalum originale, scd mox di-
stinum cpist. 2(H). nd Asellicnm.
Secundo (d)iiciuiit illiHl AposKdi 1. Corinlh. 7.
Filii veslri immundi esscnt, nunc aulem sancti
sunt?
Respondeo cuni Augustino lib.3. de pcccalornra
racril. cl rcmiss. cap. t2.quidqiiid significclur per
hancfilioruin snnclilatcin.iinn posse ullo modo in-
lelligi, qiiodadversnrii vohiut, filios lieri snnclos
sinoBnplismo. Nnin ibidcin Paulus dicil, snndifi-
cari cnnjiigem infidelem per lldclem.el tamcn slul-
lissimum esscl credcre. conjugcm iiilidclcm. sine
conversione ad Deum, et Raplismo Chrisli posse
pervenire ad rcinissioncm peccalorura lioc solo ,
quod adhaerel conjugi lideli.
|«| DL SACKAiMliM 0 ItAPilSMI
l*orro Ircs siinl liujus loci P.ilriiin exposilMMxvs. !>;im nou sunl rncicncJa mala, ul vcnianl Ijona.Uom.
l'n;i ••sl, saoclos hic vocuri lilios sanclil.ilc (lua- '.\. Al conju^'iuni e.liain inlidoliuui rcs esl bona, el
• l.iin civili, (luoil vidcliccl Ii';;iliini. noii .s|>iiiii sinl. IiIim) polcsl licri iiiclior. si ;iltcr coniin coiivcrliiliir
llii coinmciiiarius, t]ui Iribiiiliir Aiiilirosio,cl s.Tlio- inl rulciii, el polesl coiiiuiciKliiri cl suadcri pcrse-
inas, et Aiisclmus In liuuc locuiii. vcriiulia iu lali conju{,MO, oh honum, quod inde sc-
liofellil .Miirlyr li;mc exposilioiicm, quia lllii es- (luiliir. ul lilii rdirisliiiiii li.iiil.
sonl lc;.Mtiiiii. ctiiimsi iiltM(]uc coiijuiix cssel iiilidc!- TiMliii (>\posilio esl alioriiiii, ul refcniiil Aujrii-
lis: cl laiiicii Apo>lolus dicil. lilms iiiisci Siiiiclos stiiius cl Aiisclmiis locis ciliitis, qiii d!ccl);iul,s;in-
o.x uno conju;;e lidcli. allcro inlideli: (|uia saiuli- ctilicari coiijii{][cm iiirulclem per li(lclem,qiiia disec-
licaUir inlidclis pcr lidchMu: iiliqiiii i^ilor iilia s;iii- biit siMViirc lciic.s co.ijiijiii. Cl iioii iihuli Hl;itrimo-
clilas lioc loco iijiiiosccndii csl.v^cd niiilc rcprclwMi- nio. liilidelcs eiiim (jui ijjiioriiiil Dtuiiu. (;ti;imsi le-
dilur liaec c\|)osilio..Nam alia ralio csl couju^i^Mi iii- }j;itimc conjuucli sinl. tamcii sacpc aliulunlur Ma-
lcr iliios inlidclcs, aliii iiilcr lidclcm cl inrKJcIiMii. Irimonio, iieipic, abstiiieiil se a cojmla conjugali
.Nam (Mim ut(T(]uc cocjunx cst iiilidclis. coiijii^ium t(Miiporc. iiKMislrui, iKMpic sem|)(M- ii;iliir;ilcm ino-
siiie ilubio esl lc^ilimimi. ul civilis (]ui(l;iiii c()utr;i- diim scrv;iiil: iiuh; ;iulem i^oliiiitur conjiij^ium, el
clus: noque de po dubilari |iolcr;il : ul ctiaiii non lilii nasouulur iiiimuudi; ;i (|iui polliiliouo libcraii-
polesl diibilari cuni uI(M-(]uc csI lidclis. Al cuiii ;il- lur cl piircntcs el filii. [ler lioc. qiiod infidelis con-
lcr li.lclis csl. allcr iiilidclis dubilari |)olcr;il. aii seutiL liabitare cuiii lideli, el proindc servare lcgcs
conjuiiium esscl lcjiilimum jirojilcr rcligioiiis dispa- casti conjugii.
rilalem: vidcUir cnini lidclis polliii ob coliabilalio- Terliuin argumcnlum Calvjni: Proplianalur Ba-
nem cum inlidpli. Mco Aiiostolus monol Cliristi;i- plismus ciim diitur ci. qui ad Clirisliiin non pcrli-
nos. ctiiiin tum Mairimonium cssc legitimuiii , ne- ncL, quomodo i)ropli;in;iliir sigillum rcgium, cum
que pollui fidelcm ob coliabilalionem cuin iiirKlcli. co signalur f;ilsiini diiiloma.
scil e contrario saiiclificari inrKlelcm por fidelem : Respondco: B;iplisnium non prophanari , cum
niiijor enini vis esl fidci. quam inridclitalis. Esse datur immundis, scd coiiLra [lolius sanclificare, et
;iutcin eliam in lali disparilalc religionis, legili- purgare immundos. Non enim est sigillum, ut Cal-
muin conjugium, probal cx eo, quod filii corum vinus somniat, acceptacgratiac, sed csl inslrumcn-
noii ccnsenlur imnuHuli. idcst. infiimcs el spurii . lum conrcreiis gniLiam , ct signum graliae, quaci
sed sancli, idesl, legilimi cl libcri a civili igiio- luuc dalur.
minia. Quarlum argumcnlura: Infanles Judaeorum, qui
.Allcra expositio csl. filios horum conjugum dici ante oclavum diem moriebaiilur, non poteranl cir-
saiictos, quia consccr;uitur Dco ab iillcro coiijiige cumcidi, et lamcii noii csL vcrisimile eos pcriisse ;
li.ieli. el pcr H.iptisnuim Clirisliaui liuiil, el in Dei igitursine circumcisione salvabanlur. At eadem
liinore educanlur. Ilortatur cnim Aposloliis con- riilio est Baplismi ;ipud Christianos , et circumci-
iii;;cs Chrislianos, ot lu n disccdanl a eoiijugibus sionis apud Judaeos.
iniidelibus. si ipsi infidclcs vcIinL cum fidiilibus licspondoo: Totum Rrgumentum constare ex re-
|tcrmanere: el raliont ni reddit. qui;i sanclificiitur bus incerlis. Nam in primis multi veterum (ul su-
iiilidelis per fidelcm. idcsl, vel convorliliir ad fi- pra diximus) neganl circumcisionem dalain in re-
(iein. vel cerle est camrKhilosfidei.cum non abhor- medium conLra peccalum. Deinde non sciraus an
reat a consueludine coiijugis Gdelis:inde autem se- ante octavum diem haherent infantes Judaeorura a-
quitur, ut filii sancli sinl,^idesl, Chrisliani fiant. liquod reraedium. eL quod illud esset. Denique non
Quod cerle non fieret. si nollet infidolis cum fidoli esL eadem ratio Christianorum cl Judaeorum.lXunc
habitare. vel non sanctificarelur infidclis por fide- eiiim delerminalum csl a Christocertum rcmedium
lem; lunc enim filii sequercntur parenlom infido- et quidem communissimum, ct facillimum, praeler
lem, el proinde immundi et infideles essenl. Ila qood non licot fingere aliudj lunc antem quid fie-
cxposuiL Tcrlullianus lib. 2. ad uxorem , ol ex oo rcL, cerLo sciri non poLest, com Scriptura niliil di-
s. Mieronymus lib. 1. in .Toviniiiimm , ol in episL. cat. Illud unum cerlo scimus ex divinis literis ,
I.IS. ad Piiiiliiium, ct Augustinus lib. 2. de pecca- omneshomines nasci pcccafores, nec salvari, nisi
lonim meritis ct rciiiiss.'c;ip. 20. ct lib. 3. cap.l2. per Chrisli passionem ccrlis mediis applicalam.ut
cl lib. 1. de serm. Domini in monle cap. 27. Auguslinus fuse doceL in Lribus libris de peccaLo-
Carpil eliam hanc exposilioncm Petrus martyr , rum merilis eL remissione, et libris qualuor de o-
ut suam haercsim cx lioc loco Aposloli sliibilire rigine animae.
possit. .\ani sappc accidit, ul qui ex scortalione fi- OuinLum arguraenlum: Si BapLismus cst neces-
lios sus( opit, eos Chrislianos fieri curct, ot in ti- sarius, peribunt sine sua culpa infinili infanies ,
niore Dci enulrial, ut Auguslinus ipse fecit cum quod alienum videtur a Dei misericordia. Hoc ar-
filio suo Adoodalo. ot lamen nemo inde probarel gumeuLum Petri marlyris , fuit eliain quorundam
sanclam esse conjunclionem ciim scorLo. Paulus ciilholicorum, ul Cajet;iiii, Gabrielis, el aliorum ,
auipm probal sancliim esse coujugium eliam infi- qui non quidem docent, filios Chrislianorum nasci
(lelis cuni fideli. quia indc nascunlur fiiii sancli.At sanclos, sed lamen conalur invenire alia remedia
iniincrilo reprehcndit Jhirlyr hanc exposilioiicm. pro parvulis, praeler Caplismum.
Nam conjunclio cuiii scorlo. res esL pcr se mala , Sed rcspondemus cum Auguslino lib. 2.de bono
cl ideo non polesl fieri sancla pcr conjnnclionem perseveranLiae cap. 12. cl Prospero lib. 2.(ie voca-
fidelis. nec polesl fieri laudabilis, ot relinenda , lione Genlium cap.8. Doi judicia csse occulla, cur
etiamsi iudc nasci.nlur filii, qui Chrislicmi fianl. lijl parvulos perire binai:iiilerim lamen essc justis-
LIBLIU PRIMUS
m
sima. Nam ellnmsi parvuli sine sua culpa non ba-
pliziiiilur, non lumen sine sua culpa pereunl, cura
liiibeanl originalc pecciitdm. Qui aulera lingiinl a-
liud remcdium praeler Baplismum,aperlissime pu-
gnant cuni evangelio, conciliis. Palribus, alque Ec-
clesiae universac conscnsu. Nam ut Augustmus
ail epist. 28.non alia de caussa in Ecclesia feslma-
lur, etourrilur t:um inlantibus periclitantibus ad
Baptismum. nisi quia conslat nullum esse aliud
remcdium. Videnlur aulem, qui isla fingunt, non
cogitarecuram iidantium magis ad Deum, quam ad
se pertinere-.bt Cluistum cum Baptismum neressa-
rmm asseruil, Joan. i. bene scivisse, mullos eo
remedio sine sua culpa privandos , et facillimum
€sse Deo, si vellet, providere infantibus omnibus
Baplismum, sicul reipsa providct omnibus electis.
Quod enim Bucerus , el Marlyr dicunl , inlantes
praedesliniitos eliam sine Baplismo salvarijnoplis-
sime dicilur, ut Augustinus oslendit lib. 3. de ori-
ginc animae cap. 10. Quos enim Dcus praedesti-
riavil, iis remedia ad salulcm elTicacissime provi-
dil. Proinde omnes, qui in infantia moriuntur, si
praedeslinali sint, siiie dubio baptizantur, et con-
tra si rcprobi sml, non baplizantur.