Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 10: What the Adversaries Hold on the Faith Required in the Baptism of Little Ones
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 remains the other question, about the faith with which little ones are baptized. On this matter there are two extreme opinions of the heretics, between which the opinion of the Catholic Church goes in the middle.
The first opinion is that of the Lutherans, who ascribe to little ones actual faith, or something like actual faith. Luther first, in the year 1520, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, when he had said, “All the sacraments were instituted to nourish faith,” and again, “The sacraments do not justify, nor profit anyone, but faith alone,” and again, “The sacraments are not fulfilled while they are done, but while they are believed,” saw that the Baptism of little ones fights against these opinions, and so objected it to himself: “Perhaps,” he says, “the Baptism of little ones will be set against what has been said, who do not grasp the promise of God, nor can have the faith of Baptism.” And he answers, and says two things. First, that infants believe. Second, that they acquire faith not by the power of the sacrament but through the prayer of the Church and the faith of those who bring the little ones to Baptism; and so he expounds what is commonly said, that little ones are helped by another's faith. And that he speaks of the actual faith of little ones, not of some habit, is plain from these words of his: “As the word of God is mighty, when it sounds, to change even the heart of the wicked, which is no less deaf and incapable than any little one, so through the prayer of the Church offering and believing, to which all things are possible, the little one too is changed, cleansed and renewed by infused faith.” So he. But surely the wicked man, when he is changed at the sound of the word of God so that he wills to be converted, is changed actually, not habitually.
Again Luther, in the book against Cochlaeus in the year 1523: “We say,” he says, “that infants believe at Baptism through the power of the word by which they are exorcized, and through the faith of the Church offering them and obtaining faith for them by her prayers. Otherwise they would be sheer and intolerable lies when he who baptizes asks the little one whether he believes, not about to baptize him unless ‘I believe’ is answered in his stead. Why does he ask whether he believes, if it is certain that they do not believe, as Cochlaeus contends? Be it that Augustine sometimes says so; but let it be enough for Cochlaeus that it was said so by a man: we want this saying proved by divine testimonies. Nay, we assert that little ones are not to be baptized at all, if it is true that they do not believe in Baptism, lest the sacrament and word of majesty be mocked. And we owe this error too, of faith denied in little ones, to the Sophists,” and so on. Where he speaks most openly of actual faith, not of habitual; for neither Cochlaeus, nor Augustine, nor the Scholastics, whom he calls Sophists, denied habitual faith in little ones. And besides, Luther will have faith to be in little ones before Baptism, while they are exorcized and questioned; and that cannot be any faith but actual, for the habitual is not infused before Baptism, but in Baptism itself. He wrote the same also in the book to the Waldenses, where he says that it is better to leave out Baptism in little ones altogether than to baptize them without faith. “For if you receive the sacrament without faith, you receive it to your great harm.” And he proves it from that of the last chapter of Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized”; which place is understood of actual faith.
This opinion seemed very hard to all the others, and brought forth three different sects. For some denied that little ones are to be baptized, since they believed absolutely that without faith Baptism profits nothing, as Luther had said, and at the same time held by the most certain experience that little ones do not believe, since they openly resist and wail when they are baptized. And these are the Anabaptists, of whom we spoke above.
Others did not deny that little ones are to be baptized, but denied that faith is required in little ones; and these are the Sacramentarians, of whom we will speak shortly, when we relate the other opinion.
Lastly others denied neither the faith nor the Baptism of little ones, but tried to soften and expound Luther's opinion. And so in the year 1536 the Lutherans came together at the conventicle of Wittenberg, whose acts are extant in Cochlaeus, book 3 of the Miscellanies, tract 8, chapter 2. In that false synod these statements are had. First, that the error of those is to be rejected who imagine that infants are saved without some action of their own. Second, that although we do not understand what that action of little ones is, yet it is certain that holy and new movements take place in them, as in John the Baptist when he leapt in the womb. Third, that although it is not to be imagined that infants understand, yet their movements and inclinations to believe and love God are like the movements of faith and love; and that this is what is to be understood when infants are said to believe.
This softening of Luther's opinion the Lutherans seem commonly to follow. Philip [Melanchthon], in the Commonplaces of the year 1558, the title on the Baptism of little ones: “Of infants it is enough to hold this: the Holy Spirit is given them through Baptism, who works in them new movements, new inclinations toward God, in their own way.” John Brenz has the same in the Apology for the Württemberg Confession, the chapter on Baptism; and David Chytraeus in his catechism, place 7, on Baptism. Likewise Illyricus with the Centuriators, Century 2, chapter 4, column 63, and Century 5, chapter 4, column 517, finds fault with Justin and Augustine because they will have infants in Baptism believe not by their own faith but by another's. Lastly (to leave out the others) Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination of the Council of Trent, on canon 13 of session 7, page 258 and following, says indeed that it is hard to understand and explain how infants believe: “Yet,” he says, “how this can be understood most simply is explained in the formula of concord between the theologians of Saxony and of Upper Germany established in the year 1536,” and so on. And he sets down briefly the sum of what we cited above from the conventicle of Wittenberg.
But here it is to be observed that Chemnitz, with wonderful fraud and craft, nay with an open lie, asserts that this opinion of the conventicle of Wittenberg agrees with the opinions of Luther cited above, and again Luther with Augustine; and on the other hand that the Synod of Trent dissents in this matter from the general Synod of Vienne, because the Synod of Vienne taught that the habits of faith, hope and charity are infused into infants in Baptism, while that decree was so worthless to the Synod of Trent that it would not even make mention of it. Which lies we will refute a little later; and so much for the first opinion.
The other opinion is at the other extreme: that no faith is necessary for infants in Baptism. Luther too seems to have taught this first. For although before the Anabaptists arose he wrote what we cited above, yet after they appeared he wrote a book against them, in the year 1528; and when he had come to this argument about the faith of infants, he said that it makes no difference whether they believe or do not believe. For Baptism is founded not on the faith of the giver or the receiver, which is most uncertain, but on God's command and institution. And he has similar things in the homilies on Baptism of the years 1537 and 1540. But yet this principle of Luther's is not solid. For even if from the fact that the sacrament does not depend on our faith but on the divine institution it follows that it is always effective in itself, yet it does not follow that it is useful and fruitful to us unless it is received with faith; otherwise those too who come with a feigned mind, or will not forsake sin, would be cleansed through Baptism. Therefore the Sacramentarians follow Luther indeed in this, that he writes that faith is not required; but they gather it from another foundation, namely from the promise made to Abraham and his seed, or at least from divine predestination.
Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 16, wished to defend Luther's first opinion, which we explained above, but did not dare. Hence he speaks so, section 18: “It would not be safe enough to take this from the Lord, that he cannot show himself to be known to them in some way”; and section 19: “Not that I would rashly affirm that they are endowed with the same faith which we experience in ourselves, or have at all a knowledge like faith.” So he. Do you see how he rejects the decree of Wittenberg? Then section 21: “Those whom the Lord has deigned to choose, if, having received the sign of regeneration, they depart from the present life before they grow up, he renews by the power of his Spirit, incomprehensible to us, in the way he alone foresees to be expedient.” Theodore Beza has similar things in his confession, chapter 4, article 48, and Peter Martyr on chapters 1 and 7 of the first to the Corinthians, where he says openly that infants neither understand nor believe, and yet are rightly baptized, because they have already been sanctified before and made members of the Church through the gift of divine election and the promise made to the parents. Nay, Wolfgang Musculus, who had been present at the conventicle of Wittenberg and afterwards became a Sacramentarian, in the Commonplaces, the title on the baptism of children, says that Luther wrote very unadvisedly that, if it is established that little ones do not believe, they are not to be baptized; and that this was the occasion of Anabaptism.
The third opinion is that of the Catholics: that infants do not have actual faith, yet are not without all faith, but have habitual faith; and besides, that they believe by another's faith, and by the very receiving of Baptism. All of which, that they may be proved in order, I will set down in the following propositions.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT X.
Quid sentianl advcrsarii de fide.quaerequirilur
in Baptismo parvulorum.
Ucstat altcra qnaeslio ()c fidc, qua parvuli ba-
ptiziintur. Sunt iiuliMU dc b;ic re duae exlremao
scnlcntiac hacrclicorum, iiilcr quas media incc-
dil scnlcntia calholicac Ecclesiae.
Prinia senlenti;i Lulh(M"anorum cst, qui fidcm a-
ctualem, aut aliquid similc iictuali fidci parvulis
tribnunt. Primus Lnlhcrus iinno 20. in lib. de ca-
plivil. Babyl. cap. dc Raplismo, cum dixisscl: 0'
rnnia sacramenta ad fideni alendam insiituta
sunl. Item; Sacramenla non justificant, uec ulU
prosunt, sed sola fides. Ilcm: Sacramenla non
implentur dum fiunl, sed dum creduntur, vidit
rcpugnare his scnlcntiis parvnlorum Baplismum,
iitquc eum sibi ipsc objccit: Opponelur, inqiiit,
forsan iis, quae dicta sunt. JiapHsvim parvulo-
runi, qui promissioneni Dei non capiant, nec fi-
dem Baptismi hohere pof^sint. llespondct au-
lom. ac duo dicil. Primo, infanles crcdcre. Sccun-
do, fidcm acquircrc, non vi sacrameiili, scd pcr
orationem Ecclosiae. ct fidcm oircrcntium parvu-
liim iid l>;iptismum: ct sic cxponil. qiiod dici so-
lct. |)arvulis fidc alicna succurri. Quod ;iulcm lo-
qinitiir de fidc aclmili parvulorura, non dc iiliquo
h;ibitu, palcl cx illis cjus vcrbis: Sicut verbuni
Dci potens est, dum sonat, etiam impii cor im-
niuiare. quodnon minus est surdum. et inca-
pax, quam ullus parvulus, ita per oralionem
JJcc.lesiae offerentis et credentis, cui omnia pos-
siliilia sunl, et parvulus fide infusa mutatur,
mundatur elrenovatur. Haec illc. At certc impi-
us cum ad vocem verbi Dei immutatur, nl velit
coiivcrti , aclualiter immutalur , non habilua-
lilcr.
llem Lulherus in lib. contra Cocblacum anno
23. Decimus, inqiiit, ad Baptismum infanles crc-
di>re per vim verbi, quo exorcizantur. et pcr (i-
dem Ecclesiac eos offerentis, et eis fidem oratio-
nibus suis impetrantis. Alioqui mera et intole-
rolrilia essent mendacia quando bajjlizans o
pirvulo quaerit, an credat, non baplizaturus,
nidvice ejus respondealur. Crcdo. Ul quid in-
lerrogal an credat. si cerlum est. eos non ere-
dcre ? ut Cochlacus contcndit. Esto . Augusli-
LIHEi; PIIIMLS 179
nus sic aliquando dlcat; sed Cochlaeo satis sil, plisino non crodcro fldc prnprin, sfiil allona. Dcni-
essd i^ic ab lioniine diclum: nos volumus hoc di- quc (iit oinillnin ciiclcros) Mnrlldus Kornuilius iii
clum dicinis lcslimoniis probari. Quin asseri- 2. ()nr. Kvinniu. lri(Joulini concilii ud cnii. i;j. 7.
mus parvulos prorsus non esse baptizandos, si sess. pni^. 2.')8, el soii. dicit quifloin csse dilTlcilc
verum esf , in Baplismo non credere , nc illu- iulcncciu, ei o\plic;ilu, (picinndiuoduu) inrnnics
datur majeslatis sacratnentum ctverbum. Debe- crcdniil: Tamen. \\\{\\u\.. (luomodo hoc simplicis-
mus autem et hunc negatae in parvulis fidei simepossit intclligi, expiicalur in l'ormnla cou-
crrorem Sophistis ctc. Ubi aperlissime loquilur cordiae intcr thcologos Saxoniae. et superioris
de. fide nclunli. non de hnbilunli: ncquc enim Co- Germaniac anno \'SMk constiluta etc. El |)oiiit
clilneus. aul Augustinus, nul Scliolnslici, quos ilie hrcvilcr summiim eorum,qune cx conveuliculo wir-
Sopliislns vocal, fidem habilunlem in pnrvulis ne- lcmbergensi suprn cilavimus.
garunl. El prneloren viilt Lutherus fidem csse in Est aulem hic obscrvnndum, Kemnitiuin mira
pnrvulis anle IJaplisinum, dum exorciznnlur, ctiii- frnude ct artificio, imino npi^rlu mciidncio assero-
l(^rrof];nnlur: illn nulem non polesl esse fides nisi rc. hanc sentoutinm conveuticuli wirteinbergcnsis
aclualis, hnbitualis enim non infundilur ante Ba- concordnre cum Lutheri senlentiis supra citalis, et
plismuiii, sed iu ipso Bnptismo. Idem etinm scri- rursum Lulheruin cum Auf^ustino; el coiilra syuo-
psit in lib. ad Waldenses, ubi ait, pracslnre pror- duin tridentmnm dissentire in hac re n synodo ge-
sus omilterc Haplismum in parvulis, qunm bnpti- nernli viennonsi, quod synodus viennensis docue-
zarc eos sine fide. Nnm si sine fide accipias sn- rit infnnlibus iii Dnplismo infundi habitus lidei,
cramonlum. mnLrno tuo mnlo accipies. Et probat spoi et charilalis: Synodo nuhsm trideniinae iln
ex illo )larc. ult. Qui trediderit et baptizatus sorduorit illud decreluin.ut ne monlionem quideui
fwrit. Qui locus de actuali fide intelligilur. ejus facerc volueril. Qiiac mendacia pnulo post re-
Hnec- sententin visn est admodum durn omnibus fcllemus; atque haoc de prima sententin.
aliis, et peporil tres scclns diversas. Quidnm enim Allcrn seuleulin in nllero exlremo: infnnlibus
negaruut pnrvulos bnplizandos, cum omnino cre- nullnin fiilem in Bnplisino essc necessariam. ILmc
derent sine fide Baptismum nihil prodesse, in Lu- videlur priinus eliam Lutherus docuisse. Nnin licet
Ihcrus dixerat: ct simul expcrimento certissimo anloquam Anabnplislne exorironlur, illn scripserit,
tenercnt, pnrvulos non crcdere, cum aperte reni- qune suprn citavimus: lamcn poslipinm illi nppa-
tautur, et ejulent cum bnptizanlur. Alque hi sunt ruoriint, scripsit Iibriim coiilra eos, nnno lo28. et
Anabnplistae, dc quibus supra diximus. ubi ad hoc nrgumimtum venissetde fidc infnnlium,
Alii noii negnrunt parvulos baptiznndos, scd nc- dixit iiihil intcr(!ssc,sivc crcdaiit.sive non crcdniil.
jrnriint lidein in parvulis requiri; et ii sunt Sncra- Bnptismum enira non fundnri super fidcm danlis,
lueulnrii, de quibus mox dicemus, dum altcram aut recipientis, quae incertissima esl, sed super
sentcnliam reiercmus. Dei mnndatum et institutionem. Et similia habel
Denique nlii neque fidem, neque Baptismum in homiliis de Bnptismo anno 37, ct 40. hnbilisila-
parvuh)rum m^garunt, sed mollire conati sunt, et mon hoc principium Lutlieri non est solidum.Nam
exponerc Lulheii sentcnliam. Itaque anno liC.con- elinmsi ex eo,quod sncrniiionlun) non pcndci n fide
venerunt Luthcrnni nd conciliabulum wirlember- rioslra, sed a divinn iustitulione, sc(iuntur illud in
jiense, cujus ncla cxstant apud Cochlaeum lib. 3. se scmper esse efficnx. non tnmen sequilur nobis
miscellnncorum tract, 8. cap. 2. In ea pseudosy- esse utile et fructuosum, nisi cum fidc accipiatur;
nodo haec pronuncintn hahentur. Primiim, rcjici- nlioqui etinrn, qni ficto nnimo accedunt, vel pecca-
cndum esse errorcni illorum, qui imaginnnlur sal- lum dcsererc nolunt, pcr Bnplismuni purgnrenlur.
vari infantes sine nliqua actione ipsorum. Secun- Idco Sacramenlarii sequuntur quidcin Lulhorum
dum. etsi nos non iutelligamus qualis sil illa nclio in eo. quod scribit non requiri lidem: sed ex nlio
parvulorum, tnmen cerlum esse in eis fieri snnctos fundnmonlo id colligunt. nimirum ex promissiono
cl novos motus, sicut in Jonnnc Baptista, qunndo fncln Abrnhne ct semini cjus, vcl certc ex divina
exullavit in utero. Tertium. licel rion sit imnginan- praedestinntionc.
Uum, quod infnntos intellignnt, tnmen motus eo- Cnlvinns lib. 4. Institiit. cnp. 16. cupicbnt pri-
rum, et incliunlionos ad credendum ct diligcndum mam Luthcri sontcnlinm.qnnm siipra oxplicaviimis,
Dcum, similes csse molibus fidei et dilectionis, didcndcrc, sed non cst ausus. Unde sic loquitur §
ct hoc csse intclligendum, cum dicuntur infantes \^. Nonsatis lulum fuerit hoc adimerc Domino.
crcdere. ncseseillisqnoquomodoexJiiberecognoscendum
Hnnc initigntionom sententiae Lutbcri, soqui vi- (juea.t: ct § II). A'o/i quod eadem esse lide praedi-
dentur communiler Luthernni. IMiilippus in locis tos teniere a[firmare velim, quam in, nobis expe-
anni ."iB. lit. dc Baplismo pnrvulorum: De infanti- rimur.aut omnino liabore noliliam fidei simitem.
bus hocsatis cst tcnere; Spiritus sanctnspcr Ha- Jfaoc illo.Vidos ()uomodo rcjicit dccretum wirtem-
ptismum eis dalur.qui ejficit in eis novos motus, I)crgoiiso? Indc § 21. Quos electione sua dignatus
novas inclinaliones ad Deumpro ipsorummodo. esl />o?um(is, si acccpto vegenerationis signo
Idem hnbcl .loaiuios Brontius iii A[)oI()g. [)ro Coii- jn-acscnti vita anle demigrcn>,(}uam adolcvcrinl;
less. Wirlembcrg. cnp. do Bnptismo; oi David Clii- c.os virtule s7Li Spiritus nolyis incomprchcns<i rc-
iraeus in suo catcchismo loco 7, de Baptismo.Ilcm wnmt, quomodo expedire solus ipseprovidct. Si-
Illyricus cuin Conturintm-ibus ccnttir. 2.cn|). i.col. milin linhct Tli(M)dorus lU/.,\ in sun confess. cnp.4.
<>3. cl contur. .">. cnp. i. col. ,)17. reprohcndit .Tu- nrt. 4S. et l'etrus lunrtyr in cn|). 1. ct 7. prioris ad
slinum ct Auguslinum, quod velint infaulcs in Ba- Coriulhios, ubi aiicrte dicit,infnntcs non inlclligc-
iso
DK SAC.UAMKMO JiA|>ilS.MI
re, iituiiu* oriMloro. ol liinioii roclc bapliznri, (luia
jain anloa sanolilicali snnl, ot mcmbra Koolosiao,
olVccli por (lomiin oloolionis (Ii\in;io, ol proniissio-
noin paronlilins raolain. Iinino Wolfanj:iis iMiisoii-
lus, tpii iiitorfuor.il ooiioili;iliii!it \\irloiiiliiTi,'onsi.
posloa Sacramonlarius raoliis.in locis comnuinilius,
lit. (lo Paodobaplismo. 'lioit ;iiliiio(liiin incoiisullc
scripsissc l.nilioruni. si coii>li't p;ir\iilos nnji oro-
ilere, baptizandos non cssc:cl hanc ruisse occasiu-
nem .\nabaplismi.
Toni;i sonlonli;i ( ;illiolicorum osl: iiir;iMles noii
baboro lidoin aolu;iloin. noo lamcn ouini liilc caro-
re: scd Imboro Hilom li;il>itnaloin; cl praclcrca crc-
(Joro lido alioiKi.ol i|^sii n;i|)lisini snsci^ptioiio.OMac
omni;i. ul (trdino pruboiitiir.ponam sotpioiilcs pro-
positioiics.