Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 7: On the Minister 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).
There follows the fifth controversy, on the ministerial efficient cause; on which matter there is only one question, namely whether lay people can baptize. For Calvin devised a new heresy, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, sections 20, 21 and 22, where he teaches that not even in extreme necessity is it lawful to baptize for those who are not ordinary ministers of the Church, called and ordained for this very thing; which he also repeats in the Antidote to the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 10, on the sacraments in general. But whether he thinks Baptism is not valid if it is given by a layman, or only that lay people cannot baptize without sin, he does not explain clearly enough.
Now the Catholic doctors by common consent affirm six statements. First, that the right of baptizing by ordinary office belongs to priests alone, that is, to bishops and presbyters; yet so that it belongs to presbyters with subordination to and dependence on the bishops. For as the power of absolving from sins is given to presbyters in their ordination, and yet, because absolving from sins is an act of jurisdiction, which is proper to bishops, presbyters cannot use that power except so far as the bishops grant it to them, so too must one think of the power of baptizing. From this certain testimonies of authors can be reconciled which might otherwise seem contrary. For some affirm simply that the office of baptizing belongs to presbyters, as Isidore, book 2 On the Church's Offices, chapter 24. Others say that presbyters cannot baptize without the bishop's leave, as Tertullian in the book On Baptism and Jerome in the dialogue against the Luciferians.
Second they teach that it belongs to deacons too by office to baptize, but in the absence of the priests or at their command. So the same authors teach, Tertullian and Jerome. Nor are Ignatius, in the letter to Hero, and Epiphanius, heresy 79, against these, who deny that the office of baptizing belongs to deacons and say that it is proper to priests. For Epiphanius and Ignatius speak of the ordinary office, Tertullian and Jerome of the extraordinary, and both speak rightly: for ordinarily it belongs to priests alone to baptize, extraordinarily to deacons also. Which Gelasius also has, in letter 1, and it is expressed in the very ordination of deacons.
Third, the Catholics teach that it is never lawful for lay people to baptize solemnly, nor even privately when a priest or deacon is present, or even when they are absent, outside the case of necessity. Augustine teaches this, book 2 against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 13, and gives the reason, because it is lawful for no one to usurp another's office.
Fourth they teach that it is lawful for baptized lay people to baptize in case of necessity. For I find that this was never doubted in the Church; hence Calvin's heresy is new and unheard of.
Fifth they teach also that it is lawful for the unbaptized to give Baptism in case of necessity, if they know the rite. Of this, however, the ancients seem to have been in doubt. For Tertullian, in the book On Baptism, gives the cause why it is lawful for lay people to baptize: “Because,” he says, “what is received equally by all can be given equally by all.” And Jerome, in the dialogue against the Luciferians, imitating Tertullian, says: “We know that it is lawful even for lay people; for as a man receives, so too can he give.” And the Council of Elvira, canon 38, says that lay people can baptize provided they are themselves baptized and not twice married. Augustine was likewise in doubt. For in book 2 against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 13, he puts the question whether an unbaptized person can baptize, and says that he does not dare to settle the matter, since it has been defined in no general council. He has the same in book 7 On Baptism, chapter 53. Lastly Gregory II, in the letter to Boniface, which is had also in Gratian, the canon Quos a paganis, on consecration, distinction 4, orders those baptized by pagans to be rebaptized.
But the matter has now been defined in a general council, as Augustine desired. For in the Council of Florence it is had that in case of necessity it is lawful for a lay person, whether man or woman, whether Christian or pagan, to baptize, provided the due matter, form and intention are present. Which same thing Pope Nicholas had laid down long before, as is had in the canon A quodam Judaeo, on consecration, distinction 4; and the same is had in the same place, the canon Romanus. And reason urges the same. For since neither faith, nor uprightness, nor ordination is required in the minister of Baptism, as is well known, there is no reason why that should not be true Baptism which is conferred by a pagan or a Jew, if those things are present which are necessary to the essence of Baptism.
Add that none of the testimonies brought against it proves that it is not lawful to receive Baptism from one unbaptized. For Gregory II is believed to have ordered those baptized by a pagan to be rebaptized not so much because of the fault of the minister as because of the fault in the sacramental form, which those pagans, being perhaps unskilled, did not keep. And Augustine, though he was in doubt, was yet ready to rest in a general council. And besides, in book 7 On Baptism, chapter 53, he says openly that, if his own opinion were asked, he would answer that Baptism is valid by whomever and wherever it is given, provided it is consecrated with the words of the Gospel. The Council of Elvira asserted what was certain, that a baptized layman lawfully baptizes; but it did not expressly deny the contrary, but left it in doubt. Lastly Tertullian and Jerome perhaps meant only to say that Baptism can be given by all as it is received by all; that is, because it is a sacrament necessary to all, therefore it can be received by all, and likewise can be given by all; not that he who gives it must first have received it. I persuade myself of this both because the words can bear this sense, and because if they make another sense they contain an absurd reason. For it is not a good argument: this man has Baptism, therefore he can give it; otherwise a presbyter too could ordain presbyters, and a deacon deacons, because the one has the presbyterate and the other the diaconate. Nor is it a good argument if we reason negatively: this man does not have Baptism, therefore he cannot give it; otherwise a wicked minister could not justify others through the words and sacraments, because he himself lacks justice and piety. It is not required, then, that he who is to be the minister have Baptism in himself formally; but it is enough if he has it virtually and ministerially, in the way all have it who have the use of reason, of tongue and of hands, so that they can with intention utter the words and pour the water.
Sixth they teach that not only men but also women can baptize in extreme necessity. The Council of Florence has this expressly; likewise the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 100, as we will cite below; and Urban II, in the letter to Vitalis, which is had in cause 30, question 3, the canon Super his; and lastly the custom of the Church has the same, and the manifest reason which was given above for the unbaptized.
These things being so established, it remains only that we prove against Calvin that it is lawful in case of necessity for those to baptize who are not ministers of the Church. It is proved, then, first by the example of the Old Testament. For in Exodus 4 Sephora, the wife of Moses, circumcised her son, and in that way freed her husband from the danger of death. But circumcision was a figure of Baptism, and according to Calvin effected altogether the same as Baptism now does; therefore it will be lawful for women too to baptize in case of necessity.
In Calvin, in the place noted, book 4, chapter 15, section 22, this example stirred up the most violent bile. For he says that Sephora was a foolish and rash woman: “It is ignorant,” he says, “to be drawn to imitate what a foolish woman did.” And below: “I would have readers take notice that nothing was less Sephora's purpose than to render this service to God. Seeing her son in danger, she frets, she grumbles, and not without indignation throws the foreskin on the ground; she so rails at her husband that she is angry with God too. In short, it is plain that all this proceeded from want of self-control, because she complains against God and her husband that she is forced to shed her son's blood. Add that even if she had behaved well in all other respects, yet this is inexcusable rashness, that in her husband's presence she circumcised her son; not some private man, but Moses himself, the chief prophet of God, than whom none greater ever arose in Israel; which was no more lawful for her than it is today for women under the eyes of a bishop.” So he.
But Calvin, who accuses Sephora of rashness and want of self-control, does not notice that he does this from sheer want of self-control and a lust for detraction, with incredible rashness. For, to begin with the last: Sephora did not sin in circumcising her son in her husband's presence; for she did it compelled by Moses himself, or rather by God. For although Moses was present, yet he could not do it himself, since he was in the greatest straits and almost lifeless. For what Scripture says, “The Lord met him, and would have killed him,” signifies either, as Rabbi Aben Ezra expounds not badly, that a most grievous sickness was sent upon Moses by God; or, as ours expound, that an angel appeared to him with a drawn sword, who harried him without ceasing and did not let him rest until Sephora circumcised her son; for then at last the angel let Moses go. And so it cannot be doubted that Moses, if he could, would have circumcised his son himself; but because he could not, he made a sign to his wife that she should do it. Which Calvin himself too, not knowing what he says and fighting with himself, indicated when he says, “She complains against God and her husband that she is forced to shed her son's blood.” For if she was forced by God and by her husband, she did not then rashly take it on herself to circumcise her son in the presence of Moses. Where, then, is Sephora's rashness, which Calvin says is inexcusable?
And what Calvin says, that Sephora circumcised her son without the purpose of obeying God, and threw the foreskin on the ground, and grumbled against God and against her husband, are sheer lies without any foundation, and proceeding from a mere lust for detraction; for Scripture says nothing of the kind. There is one little word which perhaps deceived Calvin, joined with the exposition of Lyra. For where Scripture says, “And he let him go, after she had said, A bloody spouse art thou to me,” Lyra expounds it as if Sephora had let Moses go and withdrawn from him, indignant at the circumcision of her son.
But Lyra is mistaken, and whoever expounds it so. For those words, “And he let him go,” cannot be referred to Sephora, but to the angel, who let Moses go, that is, ceased to harry him, when Sephora, the circumcision being done, said, “A bloody spouse art thou to me.” For the Hebrew word, vayyireph, is of the masculine gender, and so cannot fit Sephora; nor does it properly signify to let go in the way one person withdraws from another, but signifies to be slack or relaxed, that is, no longer to pursue and harry; which properly fits the angel, who, appeased by the circumcision, ceased from harrying Moses. Hence the Greek edition adds the name of the angel. From this it is also gathered that Sephora's deed pleased God, and was therefore right and good, since he was at once appeased by it.
But Calvin answers this consequence of ours: “Because the angel of God was appeased after she took a stone and circumcised her son, it is wrongly gathered from this that her deed was approved by God. Otherwise one would have to say that the worship which the nations brought over from Assyria set up pleased God.” So he. But what likeness is there between these? For those nations brought over from Assyria were torn by lions because they set up a false worship, 4 Kings 17; but Sephora, by circumcising her son, freed Moses from the danger of death. If perhaps Calvin answers that he is speaking not of the time at which those nations worshipped their idols and were torn by lions, but of the later time at which they worshipped God together with the idols and were free from the lions, I object on the other side that those nations were freed from the lions because they worshipped the true God with the true rite, having been taught, namely, by an Israelite priest, as is said in the same place; and not because they worshipped idols at the same time, or because they used some rite devised by themselves. For although those nations did not please God, nor could merit anything with God, since they worshipped God and idols together, yet God willed to show how great a difference there is between the worship instituted by himself and the impious superstitions of the Gentiles; and so he sent lions among those nations when they worshipped idols only, and held the lions back when they began to honour the true God with true worship.
Second, the same truth is proved from the place from which Calvin takes his chief argument, namely the last chapter of Matthew: “Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them,” and so on. “These things are said to the apostles alone, who were appointed by Christ ministers of the word and the sacraments; therefore it is not lawful for others to usurp this office.” So Calvin. But from this very thing we argue: although the ministry of the word is proper to the apostles and the bishops who succeed them, yet it is lawful for all; nay, all are bound, in a moment of necessity, to teach and instruct the ignorant, especially in danger of eternal salvation. We have an example in Acts 18, of Aquila and his wife Priscilla, who, seeing a certain Apollo preaching when he did not rightly hold the faith of the Lord, instructed him diligently.
In the same way, therefore, although the office of baptizing is proper to priests, yet in necessity it will be lawful for lay people and women too to baptize; nay, it will be lawful with greater reason, since it is more proper to the apostles and bishops to preach than to baptize. “For Christ sent me not to baptize,” says Paul, 1 Corinthians 1, “but to preach.”
Third, it is proved by examples of Scripture. In Acts 8 Philip the deacon baptized; who, though he was not a layman, yet was not an apostle, nor a bishop or priest; and yet according to Calvin the apostles alone received from Christ the power of baptizing. For so he speaks, section 20: “For Christ did not command either women or any men whatever to baptize; but those whom he had appointed apostles, to them he gave this command.” Besides, in Acts 9 Ananias baptizes Paul, who was neither an apostle nor even a deacon, but plainly a layman. For this was done in the first year after the Lord's passion, at which time no bishops or priests had yet been ordained besides the apostles, nor were there any deacons besides the seven. Likewise in Acts 10 Peter ordered Cornelius and his household to be baptized by the brethren who had come with him; which brethren it is surely most probable were not apostles, nor deacons, but simple disciples. Lastly in Acts 2, before any bishops, presbyters or deacons were ordained, on the very first day of Pentecost, three thousand men were baptized; which surely could not conveniently be done by the apostles alone; it was needful, then, that others too should baptize, who were lay people. For the seventy-two disciples too were lay people at that time; for the Lord did not ordain priests except at the last supper, where the apostles alone were present.
Fourth, it is proved by the testimonies and examples of the Fathers. Tertullian, in the book On Baptism, where he had said that the right of baptizing belongs properly to bishops and presbyters, and also to deacons if the bishop orders it, adds: “Otherwise lay people too have the right of baptizing. For what is received equally can be given equally.” Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, with his whole Church, held valid the Baptism which Athanasius, while still a boy and a layman, had conferred on other boys, as Rufinus testifies, book 10 of the History, chapter 14. The Council of Nicaea, as Jerome testifies in the book against the Luciferians, laid down that the Baptism of heretics is valid, provided it is given according to the form of the Church. Which Pope Stephen, martyr, had defined before, as Cyprian relates in the letter to Pompey. But Stephen and the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea could not be ignorant that among some heresies there was no true priesthood, and therefore that it was lay people who baptized, though perhaps they were called priests. The Council of Elvira, celebrated about this same time, canon 38, teaches that faithful lay people can baptize when the Church is far off and some catechumen is near death. Ambrose, or the author of the Commentaries on the letters of Paul which are ascribed to Ambrose, on Ephesians 4, says that in the primitive Church it was lawful for all to preach and baptize because of the fewness of ministers; but now, church matters being settled in their order, it is not lawful for clerics and lay people to preach or baptize. But surely, what was lawful in the primitive Church because of the fewness of ministers ought by the same reason to be lawful at any time whatever in extreme necessity. Jerome, in the dialogue against the Luciferians: “To baptize,” he says, “if necessity compels, we know is lawful even for lay people.” Augustine, book 2 against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 13, has the same; and the Fourth Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, canon 100: “Let a woman not presume to baptize,” it says, “unless necessity compels.” For although that exception, “unless necessity compels,” is not had in the volumes of the councils, yet Peter Lombard so cites this canon, book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 6, and Gratian, the canon Mulier, on consecration, distinction 4. Lastly the same is taught of lay people baptizing by Gelasius, letter 1; Isidore, book 2 On the Church's Offices, chapter 24; and the Master with the whole School, book 4, distinction 6; and lastly the Council of Florence.
To this argument Calvin answers in his usual way: “But that for many ages past, and even almost from the very beginning of the Church, it was received by use that lay people should baptize in danger of death if a minister was not present in time, I do not see by what firm reason it can be defended.” So he. But this itself is the weightiest reason; since in matters of this kind what greater thing can we have than the consent of the whole Church, and that most ancient, and brought down to us even from the very beginning of the Church? But let us now see what he brings against it.
First, he objects Christ's command, the last chapter of Matthew, “Going, teach,” and so on, which indeed belongs to the apostles alone. I answer first that it is not certain whether these things were said to the apostles alone. For although Matthew makes mention only of the eleven apostles, yet it is probable that many more were then present. For those words seem to have been said on the day of the ascension, on which day five hundred brethren were present with the apostles, as the Apostle testifies, 1 Corinthians 15. Then, second, it can be answered that the deeds of the apostles expounded that command. For since the apostles held it valid that Stephen, who was not an apostle, should preach; that Philip, who also was not an apostle, should preach and baptize; and that many others should do the same who were neither apostles nor deacons, as Ananias and others, they declared openly that when necessity presses that is lawful for all which otherwise belongs to a certain special office. And as then the necessity of spreading the Church pressed, since there were very few ministers ordained for this, so now necessity sometimes presses, when someone is in danger of life and the priests are absent.
Second, he objects that even the ancients themselves were not sure whether it was rightly done that lay people should baptize in necessity, although they themselves too held or permitted this custom. And he proves it from Augustine, who speaks so, book 2 against the letter of Parmenian, chapter 13: “And if a layman compelled by necessity has given Baptism, I do not know whether anyone would piously say that the Baptism is to be repeated. For if it is done with no necessity compelling, it is a usurping of another's office; but if necessity presses, it is either no fault or a venial one.” I answer: there is no doubt of Augustine's here. For the former words contain indeed an orator's turn of phrase, but one plainly asserting. For it is the same to say, “I do not know whether anyone would piously say this,” as, “This cannot be affirmed except impiously.” The latter words signify that it is a venial sin when lay people do not use all diligence to find a priest to baptize; but that it is no sin when, diligence having been used and no priest found, they baptize themselves.
Third, he objects the Fourth Council of Carthage, canon 100, where women are forbidden to baptize. I answer that the council itself excepts the case of necessity, as we showed above from Peter Lombard and Gratian. Besides, even if the council did not expressly except it, yet one would have to understand that case to be excepted; as when the Apostle forbids a woman to speak, 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2, the case of necessity is understood to be excepted. And what Calvin answers here, that there is no necessity of Baptism, was already refuted in the preceding controversy.
Fourth, he objects Tertullian and Epiphanius; of whom the former, in the book On the Veiling of Virgins, says: “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the church, nor yet to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer,” and so on. And in the book On Baptism: “The wanton woman who has usurped the right to teach will surely not bring forth for herself the right to baptize too.” And Epiphanius, heresy 42, which is of Marcion: “He permits even women,” he says, “to give Baptism,” and so on; and in heresy 79 he says that it was not given even to the most holy mother of Christ herself to baptize; otherwise she rather than John would have baptized Christ. I answer: these Fathers speak of the public ministry, not of the private one in case of necessity. For Tertullian says that it is not lawful for a woman to speak, teach, baptize and so on in the church; and besides he joins the office of giving Baptism with the office of sacrificing; and sacrifice is always public. As, then, it is not lawful for a woman to sacrifice, because that office is public, so neither is it lawful for her to baptize publicly. Epiphanius too indicates openly that he speaks of the ordinary and public ministry; because in heresy 79, where he says that it is not lawful for a woman to give Baptism, he says in the same place that this same thing is not lawful for deacons either; and yet it is established from the Scriptures that it is lawful for deacons, at least extraordinarily.
Nor does Calvin's answer avail, that Epiphanius declared it a mockery to give women leave to baptize, and did not except any case. For by this very thing, that he calls it a mockery, he shows that he speaks of the public ministry. For that would truly be a mockery and a disgrace, if a woman baptized in the temple with men present. Nor is it any wonder if he did not add the exception of necessity; for neither did he add it when he denied that deacons can baptize, because it was certain that it could be understood of itself.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
OAPUT VII.
De minislro Baptismi.
SequiUir quinla conlrovcrsia dc cnussa ciricicnlo
ministcriali; dc qua rc, una solum ([uacslio cst ,
ulrum sciliccl laici possinl i)aplizarc. Kovam enim
liaeresim Calviuus excoijiilavil. lib. i. Inslit. cap.
15. v3 20. 21. ct 22. ubi doccl. ncc in cxlvcma qui-
dcin neccssiUUc liccrc baplizarc iis. (|ui uon sunt
ordinarii Ecclcsiae minislri ad hoc ipsum vocali
et ordinati: quod cliam rcpctit in Anlidolo coiici-
lii IridciUini, scss. 7. can. 10. dc sacrainculis in
genere. Utrum aulera cxislimct Baptismum non
essc ratum, si a laico detur, an lanlum uon licerG
sine peccalo laicis baptizare, non salis aperlc cx-
plicat.
Porro calliolici doclorcs communi conscnsu ,
sex pronunciala alTirmaul. Primo , jus baplizandi
ex ollicio ordina-rio convenirc solis saccriiolibus ,
Kdcsl, episcopis ct prcsbylcris, sic lamen , ul pre-
sbyleris convcniat cnm subordinatione et depcn-
denliaab cpiscopis. Qucmadmodum cnim poteslas
absolvcndi a peccalis dalur presbylcris, in sua or-
dinalione, el tamcn, quia absolvcre a pcccalis cst
aclus jurisdiclionis, quac csl cpiscoporum propria,
itleo prcsbyleri non possunt uti ca polcslalc , nisi
quantum cis episcopi concedunhila quocpie do po-
leslate baplizandi senlicndum est. Ilinc coneiliari
possunt teslimonia qoacdam auctorum. quac alio-
qui conlraria videri possunl. Quidam cnim simpli-
crler afilrmant ofncium baplizandi ad prcsbyleros
porlinorc, ut Isidorus lib. 2. de oinc. divin. cap.
2i-. Alii dicunl prcsbyteros baptizarc non ptissc si-
Jie episcopi facullatc,ut Tcrlullianus lib.dc IJaplis-
11)0. el Ilicronymus iu dialotjo conlra Lucilcriauos.
Seciindo doccnl: Diacunis quoque ex oITicio con-
veiiirc baptizare, sed iii abscnlia sacerdotum. aut
coruin jussu. Ila doccnl iidem auctores, Tcrtullia-
nus et llieronymus. i\cquc Iiis repugnant Ignalius
in cpislol. ad Ilcronem. cl Epiplianius Iiacresi 70.
ijui nc^'anl diaconis convcnire munus baptizandi ,
el proprium id essc dicunt sacerdolum. Kam lo-
(juunlur Epipiianius cl Ignalius dc ordinario offi-
cio. rcrlulliauus cl llicronymus tlc c\lraordina-
rio, ct utriijuc rcc,tc dicuiit: onlinaric sitjuiilcm ad
solos saccrtlotcs pcrtinct baplizarc, cxtraordinario
cliaiii atl diatMUios. Quod ctiaiii liabcl (lclasius iii
(>pislid. I. (M[). 0- ct c.\[)niuilur iu i|)sa ordiiiationc
dia(M)iii)ruiu.
TiMlio calholici doccnl . numqiiaiu lic(M"c jnicis
soliMuuitcr ba|itizar(\ ucquc ctiaiu |)rivaliiii |)rac-
sciUc sac(M"(lolc autdiacouo, aut iis (Uiam abscuti-
biis, cxtra casuin ncccssilalis. Docct boc Auj^usti-
nus lib. 2. coiilra cpistol. Parmcniau. (;a|). i;j. (>t
rationcm rcddil, (juia ncmini liccl usur[)arc allc-
rius ollicium.
Quarto (Io^mmU, laicis baplizatis Iic(M'C in casu
ncccssilalis ba|)tizarc. Dc lioc cnim numquain iu
Ecclcsia dubitatuiu iuvcnio; undc nova csl, cl in-
audila Calvini liacrcsis.
Quinto doccnl ctiain. non baplizalis in casii ne-
ccssilalis liccrc Haplisiuuui dare , si sciant ri-
tuui. Dc hoc tamen vetcrcs dubii fuisse vidcn-
tur. Nam TcrluIIiauus in lib. de IJaplismo rcd-
ditcaussam, cur liccat laicis baplizare. Qiiia,\n-
quil, (/uo'icx aequo ab omnihiis accipitur, ex-
aequo ab omnibus dari potesl. El llicronyfniis
in dialogo conlrr. Luciferi.aiios , TcrtuUianuin i-
initalus, inquil , Scimus, etiam licerc laicis, ut
enim accipit quis ^ ita et darepotest. El con-
cilium clibcrtinum , can. ."iS. dicit , laicos |)os-
sc baptizarc modo sint ipsi baplizali , ct non bi-
gami. Augustinus simililer dubius luil. Nam Iib.2.
contra e[)ist. Parmcniaui cap. 13. proponil quae-
slioncm, an non baplizatus possit baplizare, ct di-
cil se uon auderc rcm dcterminarc, cum in nullo
gencrali coucilio res dcfinita sit, Idcm eiiam ha-
bct lib. 7. de Baplisrao cap. 5:>. Dcnicpic Gregori-
us II. in cpist. ad Bouifacium, cl bnbctur etiam a-
pud Graliauum can. Quos a paganis, de conscc.
dist. 4. jubel rcpablizari a paganis baptizatos.
Caclcruin rcs jain defiiiita csl in concilio gene-
rali, ut Auguslinus cupiebal. Kam iu ' florcntino
concilio habotur, in casu necessitatis licere laico,
scu viro, scu focminac, scu Clirisliano, seu paga-
no baplizare, modo adsint malcria , forraa ct in-
timlio dcbita. Quod idem multo aiUca stalucrat Ni-
colaus papa, ut habclur can. A quodam Judaco,
dc consccrat. dist. 4. el idem habctur ibidem,can.
Iiomanus. Et ralio idiMU suadcl. IVain cura non re-
quiralur in ministro Baptismi fides, aut probilas,
aut ordinalio, ul notum cst, nulla est ralio, cur
non sil vcrum Baptisma, quod a Pagano aut Ju-
(laco conlcrlur, si adsinl ca, quac nccessaria sunl
ad Baplismi esseiUiam.
Addc, quod nulluiu tcstimoniorum conlra pro-
lalorum couvincit, uou liccrc Baplismum a iK)n
baplizato accipcrc. Nani Gregoiius Jl.non tam cre-
ditur jussisse rcbaplizari a pagano ba[)tizalos,pro-
ptcr vilium miuistri, quaiu |)ropler vilium formae
sacramcnlahs, quam ilii pagaiii, cl imperiti forte
non tencbanl. Auguslinus uutem elsi dubius fuil,
taraen paralus crat gencriili concilio acquicscere.
VA praclcrca lib. 7. de Baplismo cap. ,13. aperle
dicit, si scnlenlia ipsius quaeralur, se responsu-
rum, Baplismum cssc ratuin a quocumque, ctubi-
cumquc tradilum, modo vcrbis cvangelicis consc-
I.IIJER PIUMUS
ltJ9
eniliun. Klibcrliimm coiicilium iisscniil, quod criit
cerlum. laicum l)aplizalum licilc bapliznre: non a-
iil(!in iiepaYil c.\prcss(5 coiitrarinm. snd reliquil
sid) diibui. Deniquc Terlidlianiis el Hicronymus
i(i sulum forle dicere voluerunt Baplisdia ab o-
niiiibvis posse dari. iil ab oiiinibus accipilur.idesl,
(piia est saiM-amciiUun oiiiuii)us nocessarium, ideo
ab omnilius posse acc.ipi. el simililcr ab omnibus
possc dari, non quod oporleal cuui, qui dal priiis
accepissc. Id mihi persuadeo,Uim quia verba bunc
sensum ferrc possuid, tum quia si abum scnsum
faciaut, absurdam ralionem conlinent. Non cnim
esl bonum argumenlum; Ilic bal)et baplismum.er-
go polest darc: aboqui possct eliam presbyter or-
diiiare presbyleros, el diaconus diaconos. quia ha-
bcl ilie prcsbylcriuni, el bic diaconalum. Neque
ost bonum artiumenliim, si negative raliocincmur;
Non iiabct isle Baptismum. ergo nou polest dare;
alioqui non posset miiiister impius, per verba el
sacramenta alios jusliiir.ire, quia nimirum caret
ipse justitia et pielale. Non igilur requirilur, ut
liabcat in se Baplismum formaliler, qui est fulurus
ininisler, sed satis esl, si babeat virluaHler et mi-
nisterialiter, quomodo onmes habenl, qui babenl
nsum ralionis . linguae ct nianuum, ut possint
e.v iuteulionc verba profcrre ct aquam spar-
gere.
Se.xlo docent, noH modo viros, sed etiam foe-
minas in exlrema nccessilale posse baplizare. Id
babet e.vpresse conciliuTn norentinum , item con-
cilium carlbaginense IV. can. i({0. ut iulra cila-
bimus. et Urbanus II. in epislol. ad Yitalem, et
liabelur 30. q. .*>. can. Su[)er his, et denique idem
babel consueludo Ecclesiae, et ralio manifesta,
qiiae supra facla esl pro noii baptizalis.
Ilis ergo ila conslilulis. superest solum, ut con-
Ira Calvinum probemus, iicere in casu necessila-
■ lis baptizare iis,qui ministri ecclesiaslici non sunt.
Probatur igilur primo, cxcmplo Teslamenti vele-
ris. Nam Exod. 4. Sephora uxor Moysis fdium
suum circumcidit. cl eo modo virum suuni a mor-
lis [)ericulo liberavit. Al circumcisio figura erat
Baptismi, cl secundurn Calvinuru idcm omnino cf-
liciebat, quod nunc facit Baptismus: igilur lice-
bil cliain in casu necessitalis nmlieribus bapti-
zarc.
Calvino, loco nolato, lib. 4. cap. l.-j. § 22. mo-
vil hoc cxemplum bilem vehementissimam; dicil
eniin Seplioram stultam mulierem et tcmerariam
fuissc: IiiscLle. iiujuil, ad imUaUonem iraliUur,
<luod(ifjU sliiUa viiuUc.r. Etinfra: Lccinres aUim-
dere vcUm, nUiil minus Scpliorac fuisse propo'
siium, qnam id Dc.o ininislcrium praeslarel. Fl-
UuvL porieUlari videns, fremU, obmurmural. nec
sine indifjnalione praepulium in lerram proji-
eit, marUo sio eonmcuUur, ul J)eo quoque suc-
cenxeat. Deniquc hoc lolumab animi iinpotenlia,
profecluni esse paUim csl : quia Dco et niarilo
obslrepit, qiiod fLUi sawjuinem fundere cofjiUir.
Adde, quod siin aUis omnUius probc se fjessis-
sel. Iiaec lainen esl ine.xcnsfUyUis lemcrUas.qund
jyraesentc marilo circumfAdU [Uium, non privcUo
quopiam liominc, sed ifloijsc priimLrio Dei pro-
ylmla, quo nuUus unquam nuijor in Israele sur-
rexU. quodnihilo marjis ei Ucchal, quom Iwdie
muUeribus sub cpiscopi ocuUs. Haec, ille.
Scd Calvinus, qui arguit Se|)horam tiMneritalis
et impoleiiliae auimi non advertit se cx mera im-
potenlia animi et libidiue detrahemli iiicredibili
lemcrilale id tacere. Nam ut ab utliino incipiam;
non peccavit Sephora, qiiod praesente viro liliura
circumciderit: id enim fecit coacta ab ipso 31oysc,
vel polius a Deo. Licet enim .lloyses. esset prae-
sens. lamen non poleral ipsc per se id facere.cum
esset in augusliis maximis oi p(;ne exanimatus.
Quodenim scriptura dicil: Occurrit ei Dominus,
el volebfU occidere eum. vel siguifical.ut non ina-
le exponit Rabbi .\benczra, immissiim fuisse Moy-
si divinilus gravissimum morbum. vid, ul nostri
exponunl, apparuisse ei angidum nudalo gladio,
qui eum conlinuo vexavil el quiescer'', non |)ermi-
Sit, douec Sephora lilium circmncidit; tunc enitn
demum angelus Moysem dimisil. Itaque non po-
lest dubitari, quin Moyses, si potuissiM, filium ip-
se circumcidisset; sed quia non [lolcral. signifi-
cavit uxori ut ipsa id faceret. Id quod ipse etiaiu
Calvinus nescicns quid loqiialur, et secum pu-
gnans, indicavit, cum ail: Dco et marUo obslre-
pit; quod fdii sanguinem funderc cofjilur. Naiii
si coacla est a Deo ct a marito, non, igitur teme-
re id sibi sunipsil, utpraesenlc Moyse iiliura cir-
cumcideret. Ubi est ergo teinerilas Seplu^rae.quara
Calvinus inexcusabilem esse dicil?
Quod autem Cahinus dici!, Seplioram circumci-
disse filiuiu sine proposilo obscqucndi Deo, cl
projecisse praepntium iii lerram. et obuiurmu-
rasse contra Dcum, etconlra maritum, sunt, mera
mendacia sine. uUo' fundamcnlo, et e\ mera libi-
dine dctrahendi profeda; Scriptura ciiiiu iiiliil I.t-
le dicit. Unum est verbulum, (jiiod lorle Calvinuni
decepit adjuncla Lyrani e>:|>osiliom>. Onod cnini
Scri|)tura dicit: Ei diinisU eum, poslqnaiu dixe-
rat: Sponsus sanfjiLinum tumihi cs, Lyraiuis ita
exponit quasi Sepliora dimiscrit Moy.MMu, el re-
cesserit ab eo indignala ob filii circumcisio-
nom.
Scd fallilur Lyranus, ct quicumque ita cxponil.
Illa cnim verba: EtfUmisU cum, non |)ossuul re-
ferri ad Sephoram. sed ad augelum, qni dimisit
Moysem, idest, diistitit cum vcxarc, quando Se-
plKira pcracla circumcisione dixit: Sj^onsus san-
fiuinum lumihics. N;im vux hebraea estmascii-
iini generis 31>"1 , |)roiu(l(i non polesl conv(;ui-
rc Sephorae , nec signilicat HSI dimillero pro-
prie, (|noiuo(lo cum uiuis ab alio recedit, sed si--
gnifical lcnem esse, seu remissum,idesl, non am-
plins pcrsequi . et vexare quod [^roprie coiivciiit
angelo. ([ui placaliis ob circumcisiunem, dcslitil
a Moyscvexando. Unde graeca (^ditio addil nomeu
angcli./.al a--/j}33v a.-o d-j-oij b rrpiilc:: .]']\ i\\\o cl-
iam colligilur, Sc|)horae faclum Dco [ilaciiisse:
proinih! fuisse reclum el bonum, quaiidoquu.bn)
liO conlinuo |)lacalus (;sl.
Scd rcs[)ondcl Calvinus ad banc nostram cons(!-
(|ueiiliaiu: Qiiod, jdaealus, \ui[u\\, fiiU Dci amje-
lus poslqnamiUa arrepto Uipide fUium cire^Lin-
cidU, indc perpcram eoUiijUur facUiin ■ilUus
probalum fuisse Dco. AUoqui diccndam cssri,
17U
Uli SACHAMK.^N 1 U liAPilSMI
pUicuiss^e />(*o, quoni Gcnlcs nh As.^iirin Iradu-
cUic crcxcrantcuHuui. II.u-c illt\ Seii qiiao esl
iiiler isla siiiiililiitln? Naiii Geiiles illae ab Assyria
Irailuclae, quia f.ilsuin eiilluiu inslilueruiil, tliMcr-
pebaiilur a leouibus, i. \W<^. 17. SiplKUM auliMu
Circuineideiulo iiliuin, liberavil .Muyseiu a iiiorlis
jierieulo. Si forlo respoude.il (laivinus, uoii se lo-
qui (le eo leinpore, (]U(i eolchanl idola sua (leules
illae, el a leoiiibus diseerpebanlur: scd de lcuipo-
le posleriore, (juo Douin siuiul eum idoiis eoie-
baul, el a leonibus iuiinunes eranl : eonlra ol)ji-
ii.iiii, ("leiUes illas a ieonibus Id^cralas. (piia
Dcuin vcrum vero rilu eolebaul, edoclac nimirum
a saecrdole isriieiila. ul eodein ioeo dleilur: iioii
aulein quia iihda siimil eolebanl. vei quia rilu a<
lupio a se e\co^'ilalo ulebaulur. Licol cuim Gcn-
les illae Deo non piacereiil. nec apud Dcuin aii-
quid mereri possenl . eum Deum simui cl idola
eolerenl: Deus lamen iiulicarc voliiil, quaulmn iu-
lcressel iiiler cuilum a sc inslilulum, cl impias
Gciilium superslilioucs; el idco leones immisil iii
eas Genlcs quamlo idola lanlum colcbanl cl Ico-
iies rcprcssil, quando Dcum vcrum vcro cuilu iio-
norare coepcrunl.
Secundo, probalur cadem vcrit.ns cx co loco un-
(lc Galviiuis sumil praccipuum argumeulum, nimi-
rum. .Mallli. uU. Eunlcs docelc omnos Gcnlcs, ba-
plizantcs cos clc. Hacc dicunlur solis aposlolis,
qui a Cliristo instituti sunl niinistri Ycrbi ci sa-
cramenloruniy iSon ergo liccl aliis id viunus ti-
surparc. Ila Calvinus. Sed cx boc ipso uos argu-
ineiUamur, licel miuislcrium Verbi sil proprium
aposlidorum el cpiscoponim, (piis eis succcdunl,
lamcii omnibus licel;im!no omncs lcnenlur in arli-
culo neccssilalis doccrc el inslruere iguoranlcs,
pracscrlim in i)ericuIo aciernac salulis. iilxompluui
liabcmus. •V.clor. 18. dc .Vijuila, el iixorc cjus Pri-
scilla, qui videnles Appolliuera quendam praedi-
c.irc, cum non bcno lciierel fidem Domiui, in-
slruxcruiU cum diligcnlcr.
Ergo eodcm modo, licet muuus baplizandi sil
proprium saccrdolum, lamen in neccssilalc lice-
idl eliam laicis cl rocminis I)aplizaro: immo majo-
ri ralionc id liccbil,cum sil magis propiium aposlo-
loruin cl cpiscoporum praodicare, quam bapliza-
re: .Yo/i7>it.-5i7 7/ie Do/ut/ius. inquil Pauius, 1. Co-
riiilb. 1. buptizare, sedpraedicarc.
Terlio probalur cxomplis Scripturac, A.ct. 8.
IMiiiippus diaconus bapliziivit. ()u\ riuidcin iicet
iiDU fucrit iaicus, tamen non orat apostolus, nec
episcopus, aul saccrdos: ct lamcn sccundum Cal-
viiium soii aposloli acccpcrunl a Chrislo baplizan-
(li |iolcslalcm. sic cnim loquiliir. v^ 20. Ncquc e-
nini aul mulicribm, aul lioniinibus quibuslibel
mandavil Clirislus, ul bapiizarcnt. scd quos a-
puslolos ccnslilucrat, iis mandaiam hoc dedii.
Draelerea, Act. 0. Ananias Pauium baptizal; ([ui
iioquc aposlolus, ncquc oliam diaconus crat, sed
plaiie laicus. Id enim factum esl primo anno a
passionc Domini, quo lompore nondum crant or-
dinali ulli episcopi, aut sacerdoles , praeter apo-
slolos nequo cranl ulli diaconi. praclcr seplem.
llcin .Vctor. 10. Pclrus Corncliura, ct cjus famili-
a:n baplizari jussil a fratribus, qui secum vcnc-
rant: (pios ccrlc rralrcs probabiiissimum cst uon
fuisse aposlolos, iicc diaconos,sed simpiicos di-
scii)uios. Dcui(pio Aclor. 2. aiUcquam ulli oidina-
rciiUir episcopi, prcsbylcri, aul (iiaconi, ipso dii;
piimo peiUcco^lcs ba|)tizala suiU tria liominum
iniliia; quod certc non poluil commodo licri per
solo> aposloios; oporluil iij;ilur, ut eliain alii i)a-
|)lizarciil, ipii iaici eraiU. i\ain eliam 72. disci[)uli
co lcmpore laici crant: non cniin Doniiiius sacer-
dotcs ordinavil, nisi in ullima cocua, ubi soli c-
raiit aposloli.
(,>iiarlo, probalur loslimoniis, ct cxcmplis Pa-
Irum. Tertuiliauus iib. dc Diiptismo, ubi dixcrat
jiis baplizandi proprii; couvonirc episcopis cl
prcsbylcris, nocnou ctiam diaconis, si cpiscopus
iiiboat, subiungil: Alioqui ei laicis jus esl bapH-
zaiidi. Quod enini ex acqno aGcipilur, ex aequo
dari potesi. Alcxandcr opiscopus alcxandrinus,
cuin uiiivcrsa sua Ecclcsia. ralum liabiiit IJaptis-
mura: qucm Albanasius adliiic pucr, ct iaicus aliis
poeris contulcral, testo Unirmo lib- 10. hist. cap.
14. Goiiciliiim uicaonum, lcslo ilicronymo in lib.
conlra Lucilcriaiios, slaliiil D.iptisma haerclicorum
csse ralum, modo dctur sijcuudum 1'ormam Ecclc-
siac.Quod antca dcfinicrnt Stcplianus papa cl mar-
tyr, ut Cyprianus rcrcrt in cpisloia ad Pompejum,
At non poleranl igiiorare Steplianus et Patrcs
conciiii nicacni apud aliquas bacrescs non csse
vcruni saccr.lolium, proiiidc laicos csse, ({ui ba-
ptizarcnt , licct forlasso diccrcutur saccrdoles.
Concilium clibortiuurn, cirea hoc idem lempus cc-
lcbralura can. 158. doccl fidcios laicos posse bapti-
zaro, cura Ecclcsi.i procui abesl, et aliquis Catc-
chumenus vicinus esl morli. Ambrosius, scu au-
clor Commcntariorura in cpislolas Pauli,quae Am-
brosio tribuunlur in cap. 4. ad Ephes. dicit, in
priinitiva Ecclcsia omnibus licuisse pracdicare el
baplizare, ob minislrorum paucitatem; nunc autem
robus ccclcsiasticis suo ordinc conslitulis, non
liccre clcricis, ct laicis pracdicare, vol baptizare.
Al certe, quod licuit in primitiva Ecciosia ob mi-
nislrorum paucilatom. eadein ralionc licere debet
quocuraquc lcmporc in cxtrema neccssitate. Ilie-
ronyraus in diaiogo contra Lucilerianos: Bapliza-
re, inqmi, sinecGssitas co(jal,scimus eiiam licc-
rc laicis. Augustinus iib. 2. contra epislol. Par-
mouiani cap. 13. idom habct cl conciliuin cartba-
ginonse IV. cui Auguslinus intcrfuit, can, 100.
'Miilier, inquit, bapiizarG non praesumal, nisi
nccessiiale cogQnie. Quaravis enim non liabeatur
in lomis conciliorum illa cxceplio: ISisi necessi-
lale coqenie, tamcn ila canonera hunccital Petrus
Loinbardus lib. 4. scnlcntiar. dist. G. ct Gratianus
can. Blulicr, de conscc. dist. 4. Deniquc idom d(j-
cenl dc laicis baptizantibus, Gelasius cpist. l.Isi-
(lorus lib. 2. de oiric. divin. cap. 24. ci 31agislcr
ciiin universa Schola lib. 4. dislinct. G. cl poslro-
mo florcnlinum conciliurn,
.\d hoc argumentura morc suo ila Calvinns re-
spondet:0MO(i auiem muliis ah hinc sacculis ad-
eoquG ah ipso fcre Ecclesiae exordio usu rece-
plum fuii, ui in pericnlo morii laici bapiizarent,
si minisicr in icmyjore non adessel, non video
q aam firmaralionGdefcndi queat. llnGa iilc. Al
LlBliR PUIMUS
171
liacc Ipsa csl gravissima ralio; si quidem in rcbus
liiijusmocli, quid ranjus haberc possumus lolius
Ecclcsiae consensu, "coque anliquissimo alquc a-
dco ab ipso cxordio Ecclesiae ad nos dcduclo?Scd
vidcamus nuuc quid iilc conlra adlcral.
Primo, objicil Cliristi mandalum.Mallh. ullim.Z:;-
unles docete elc. Quod quidem ad solos aposlolos
perlinct. Rcspondeo primum. non esse cerlum, an
liaecdicla siulsolis apostolis.LicetenimMallhacus
mcutionem faciat lantura undecim apostolorum;ta-
men probabile cst, 1'uisse lunc pracsenles multo
plures.Yidenlur cnim dicta illa verba in di(! asccn-
sionis, quo dic adcrant cum aposlolis quingciiti
fralrcs, ul Apostolus lestatur, 1. Corinth. '1j. De-
inde secundo responderi potest, apostolica facta
mandatum istud c\])osuissc.Cum enim apostoli ra-
lum habiicrinl, ul Siephanus, qui non crat aposlo-
lus, concionarctur: Pliilippus, qui etiam non criit
apostolus . concionarelur cl baptizarct; cl idcm
multi alii faccrciit, qui neque apostoli, ncque dia-
coni erant, ul Ananias, et alii apertc dcclararunt,
urgenle ncccssilato liccre omnibus,id quod alioqui
ad qudriindam speciale ofTicium pertinet.Ul autcm
liincurgcbat necessilaspropagandacEcclesia3,cum
paucissimi cssent ministri ad hoc ordina!i;ita nunc
aliquando urget necessilas, cum quis csl in peri-
culo vitae absentibus sacerdolibus.
Secundo objicit: Quod ipsis eliam vetcribus non
conslabal, an rccte licret, ut laici in necessitate
baptizarent, licct hunc morem ipsi qiioqne leiu;-
rciil. vcl pcrniillcrcnl. I''l probat cx Augiislmojiui
sic loquitur lib. 2. conlra cpist. Parnicn. cap. 1.3,
Et si laicus necessUalc compulsus Baplismum
dederil, nescio an pie quisquam dixcril, Bapli-
smum essc rcpelendum. Nulla enim corjente ne-
cessilate sifiat. alieni muneris usurpatio est. si
autem necessitas urqeat, aut riullum, aut venia-
le delictum cs^Rcspondco: Nullam hic essc Augu-
stini dubitalioncm. Nam priora verba conlincnt
(luidem oraluriam phrasim, sed plane assertivam.
Idcm cnim esl diccic: Wcscio an aliquis pie hoc
di.xcril, ac: Nonnisi impie id afTirmari polcsl. Po-
slcriora vcrba signilicant pcccatum csse vcniale,
cum laici non adhibcnl omnem diligenliam, ut sa-
ccrdotem invcniant, qi:i baptizei: nullum aulein
esse peccalum, cum adhibila diligcnlia et saccr-
dote minimc invento, ipsi baplizanl.
Tcrtio: Objicit cnncilium IV.carthagincnsc, can.
100. ubi proliibenlnr mulieres baplizarc. l^ispon-
dco, ipsum concilium exeipil casum ncccssilaiis,
ul ex Pctro Lombardo, el Gratiano supra demon-
slravimus. Praetcrca licet concilium non exprcssc
cxoipcret, oportcret iaraen intelligcrc eum casum
esse cxceptnm:quemadmo(lum cnm Apostolus pro-
hibcl mulicrcm loqui, 1. Cor. 14. el 1. Tim. 2.in-
telligitur exccptus casus ncccssitatis. Onod aiilem
Calvinus hic rcspond(!l. nullam csse Baplismi ne-
ccssilalem , jain superiore controversia rcfuta-
lum esl.
(,)uarlo.objicit Terlullianum cl Epi|)hanium,quo-
ruin illc in lib. de Virginibus vclandis: Non pcr-
vriititur. inquit, mulieri in Ecclcsia lo^iui, sed,
iw.c doccre, ncc tiiujerc. ncc offcrre ctc.VA in lib.
dc Baptisino: Petulans, iiuiu\[,mulicr,qmc usur-
pavit docerc. non ulique et tinqcndijus sibi pa-
riet. Epipliaiiins aulcin haeres. 12. (pnn; est Mar-
cionis: Permillit, inquit.e/irnji viulicribiis.ul dent
Baptisma elc. et hacr(!s. 79. dicil, ne ipsi quidcm
sanelis.simac Christi matri daluin e-^se, ui bapliza-
ret. alioqui ipsa polius, quam Joanncs (Ilirislum
baptizasset. Ilcspondeo: Loqnunlnr isli P.iires de
publico minislerio. non (lc i)rivalo in easu iieces-
sitatis. i^ain Tertullianns dicil, in Ecclcsia non li-
cere mulieri loqui, docere. lingc-re, ctc. cl i^raele-
rea conjungit oiriciufn dandi Baptismi, cum ollicio
Siicrilicandi; sacrilicium autcm semper cslpubli-
cnin. Sicnt igilur non licct inulicri sacrificare,quia
id mnnns publicnm est.ila nec licet publice bapli-
zare.Epiphanius quoquc a|)crlc indicat sc loqui de
ordinario cl pnblico ministerio, (pjia liaercs. 79.
ubi dicil. malieri non licerc Baplismum dare, ibi-
dcm dicit. idipsum ctiam* diaconis non licer*^,: et
lamen conslal ex Seripturis id diaconis liccrc, sal-
lcm cxlraordinarie.
l\ec valet Calvini responsio,quod Epiphanius lu-
dibrium esse pronunciaveril dare foeminis licen-
tiam baplizandi: neque ullnni casnm cxceperit.
Naui hoc ipso, quod vocat ludibrium.iiidicat se lo-
qiii de publico minislerio.Id cniin vere ludibrium
et probrum esset, si in lemplo viris pracsiuitibus
mnlier baptizaret. Nec mirum si noii addidil cxcc-
ptioriemuecessilalis:Nam nec a(ldidil,cum ncgavil,
diaconos posse baplizare, qnia certum erat, cam
per se intclligi poluisse.