Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 11: What Faith Is Required in the Baptism of Little Ones; and the True and False Effects 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).
Chapter 11. What Faith Is Required in the Baptism of Little Ones Is Declared, and the Errors of the Adversaries Are Refuted
The first proposition: Infants do not have actual faith. This is against Luther's first opinion. It is proved, first, because Scripture, Deuteronomy 1 and the last chapter of Jonah, affirms that infants do not know the difference between good and evil; nor does it anywhere except the time of Baptism. Wherefore Luther affirms it without the testimony of Scripture.
Second, the Fathers reject this opinion: as Nazianzen, who in the oration on the holy lights says that infants are sanctified without sense of the sanctification; and Augustine, who in letter 57 to Dardanus laughs at this opinion of Luther's, as one that does wrong to human senses; and again in letter 23, tractate 80 on John, book 4 On Baptism, chapter 24, and book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 20, he says that little ones do not have the faith which is in thought; likewise that they do not have the sense of faith; lastly that they do not have what Paul speaks of, “With the heart we believe unto justice.” From which we understand that Chemnitz, page 258, wrote altogether rashly and falsely that the opinion of Augustine and of Luther on this matter is the same. For we showed above that Luther ascribes actual faith itself to little ones, the contrary of which Augustine says in so many places. What of this, that Luther, in the book against Cochlaeus, admits that he has Augustine against him in this question? And yet the shameless Chemnitz by his lie would have an unwilling Luther agree with an unwilling Augustine.
Third, there is reason. For faith cannot arise in the mind except from divine revelation; which is either immediate, from God alone, or through the instrument of the word of God preached or read. Luther does not say that faith is given to infants in the first way, but in the second, when he says that they believe through the power of the word by which they are exorcized, with the Church's prayers helping. And besides, that first way is not ordinary but extraordinary and most rare, and granted perhaps only to prophets and apostles: “Faith cometh by hearing,” says Paul, Romans 10, speaking of the ordinary way by which faith is begotten. But if faith were revealed immediately to all infants, it would now be the ordinary way, and all infants, when they are baptized, could be called prophets. And that faith does not arise in infants in the second way is plain by manifest experience. For if the word of the exorcism begot faith, surely it would be heard and understood by the infants; and so infants would listen attentively; the contrary of which we see. Besides, the exorcism is not directed to teaching the faith, but to restraining the demons. Lastly, this is to posit a new miracle in the ears and mind of infants. Nor does what Luther brings about the prayers and faith of those offering them avail. For it sometimes happens that those offering, and the parents, and the baptizers themselves, are unbelievers, and yet Baptism is truly and profitably given to the infants, as Augustine teaches, letter 23. Nor is the power of the prayers and faith of those offering such that they obtain miracles infallibly. And lastly, if God works a miracle in the mind of the little infant so that he believes with the heart unto justice, why does he not work one in the tongue too, so that with the mouth confession is made unto salvation? Is this perhaps impossible to God? Or can it not be obtained by prayers and faith? But that it is most easy Balaam's ass testifies, which by God's will spoke wisely, Numbers 22.
Fourth, it is proved by the reason of Augustine in letter 57: because, since it is established that infants struggle against Baptism and make an uproar with their wailing and the movements of their bodies, if they truly understood what is being done (which is necessary if they are to believe), they would become guilty of a great sacrilege, and would not be washed but rather more defiled.
The second proposition: Infants, when they are baptized, do not have any new movements and inclinations like the acts of faith and love. This is against the invention of the conventicle of Wittenberg, and of Philip, Chemnitz and other Lutherans. It is proved, first, because it fights with the word of God. For these men will have these very movements of infants to be without knowledge, and to be called faith, though improperly, and in that way that infants are not justified without some faith. But in the whole of Scripture the name of faith is nowhere had in that meaning, to mark a certain movement without sense and without knowledge; but rather in the contrary sense, as is plain in Romans 10, “Faith cometh by hearing”; Hebrews 11, “By faith we understand that the world was framed by the word of God”; and so of other places.
Second, it fights with reason. For those movements and inclinations are either in the body or in the soul. If in the body, they cannot be like the acts of faith and love, which are in the soul; for bodily things are not called like spiritual ones except metaphorically and by a certain analogy. And besides, it cannot be that the movement and inclination to believe God and to love God should be bodily, since God is a spiritual and most high object, which can scarcely be reached in any way by the mind. And if they are in the soul, there is the implication of a contradiction in their being without knowledge. For what is the movement of the intellect but to understand? For the intellect cannot be moved otherwise than by understanding; as neither the eye except by seeing, nor the sense of hearing except by hearing. And how can the will be inclined except with knowledge going before, since the object of the will is nothing else than the good known?
Third, it fights with Luther himself. For Luther in the places cited before puts in little ones that faith of which he had often said that it alone justifies. And it is certain that justifying faith is not a movement without knowledge; otherwise beasts too could be justified. Luther also would have faith begotten in little ones from the hearing of the words of the exorcism; and so he did not put faith without knowledge. Besides, Luther would have faith to be in little ones before Baptism, so that it might truly be answered to the minister about to baptize that the little one believes; but the authors of this opinion say that these movements are given to little ones through Baptism. For so Philip speaks, in the place cited: “The Holy Spirit is given them through Baptism, who works in them new movements and inclinations,” and so on. And likewise Chemnitz, page 259, says that the Spirit of regeneration is poured out into infants while they are baptized, and works in them holy movements, and so on. Wherefore the same Chemnitz falsely affirms on the preceding page that Luther held the same as he himself holds.
Fourth, it fights with the teaching and the common principles of all the Lutherans. For nothing is more certain and more common among them than that a man is justified by faith alone, and that the sacraments are nothing else but instruments for stirring up or nourishing faith. But surely, if those movements of infants without true faith suffice them for justification and for receiving Baptism profitably, it is false that a man is justified by faith alone. Nor can they say that these very movements are faith. For when they speak of faith in the matter of justification they always understand by faith the laying hold of the divine mercy, which cannot be without knowledge. Besides, since these movements are stirred up immediately by God, as they themselves will, and not through the sacraments, which in the manner of a sermon provoke faith through the outward senses, surely that principle falls, that the sacraments do not justify except by stirring up faith in the manner of a sermon. And so, if anyone judges rightly, once the principles about faith alone justifying are laid down, Luther's opinion, which ascribes faith to little ones, is less absurd than that of the conventicle of Wittenberg, which grants them a movement without knowledge. For Luther falsely devised a new miracle, but, that being granted, everything holds together for him; while these men both feign a miracle and, that being granted, destroy their own principles and fight with open reason.
The third proposition: Infants are not justified without any faith. This is against the Sacramentarians, and it is proved, first, because Scripture affirms that faith is a means necessary to salvation, John 3: “He that doth not believe, is already judged.” From which place Augustine proves that baptized infants have some faith, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 33. For in that place the Lord does not speak of the precept of believing, by which little ones are without doubt not bound, but of the means to salvation. For he had said before: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.” And he added: “He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged.” As, then, to look at the brazen serpent was not so much a precept as the one remedy of salvation, so too faith is asserted in this place of the Gospel as necessary as a remedy, not as a precept.
Second, it is proved from that of Hebrews 11: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Likewise Romans 3: “We account a man to be justified by faith”; which Paul repeats and presses everywhere. How then can infants be justified and please God without any faith? But Calvin and Martyr say: “If God has predestined infants, and has promised that he will be their God, without doubt he will give them the Holy Spirit and justify them in some way known to himself, though not through faith.” I answer: Predestination is not fulfilled except through those means which are revealed to us in the Scriptures. Now the Apostle, Romans 8, explains the means clearly enough when he says, “Whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.” And the same Apostle in the same letter, chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, contends for nothing else than that justification does not happen without faith. Wherefore, to ascribe to little ones justification without faith, and before the calling, that is, before Baptism, by which alone infants can be called, what is it but to feign a new justification against the word of God?
The fourth proposition: In Baptism the habit of faith, hope and charity is infused into infants. This in the first place is certain to Catholics from the authority of the councils and the doctors. For although it was at one time disputed whether infants received, with justifying grace, the habits of these virtues, yet the more common opinion always was that these habits are infused into little ones through Baptism. For so St. Thomas, part 3, question 69, article 6; likewise Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, and almost all the others, on book 3, distinction 23. Wherefore the general Council of Vienne, as we have it in the Clementine 1, on the Supreme Trinity and the Catholic Faith, defines this opinion to be the more probable, and more in keeping with the testimonies of both ancient and recent theologians. Nor was this opinion worthless to the Council of Trent, as Chemnitz boldly lies, in part 2 of the Examination, page 261. For although the Council of Trent did not make mention of the Council of Vienne, yet it received that very opinion and defined it as certain. For in session 5, in the decree on original sin, it defines that infants are justified in Baptism, so that if they die in that state there is nothing to delay them from entering heaven. Then in session 6, chapter 7, the council defines that in Baptism, with the remission of sins, all these gifts are infused, faith, hope and charity, and that they inhere in the mind.
Second, this same opinion can be gathered from the Scriptures by which we proved above that little ones are not saved without faith. For since it is established that faith properly signifies nothing but an act or a habit, and at the same time it is established that in little ones there cannot be an act of faith, it certainly follows that there is a habit in them. Likewise from the Scriptures we proved above that infants are rightly baptized, and are justified and saved through Baptism. Likewise it is established from the Scriptures that there is no justification without faith; therefore it must be established too that infants have at least habitual faith.
Third, it is proved from the Fathers, who, although they did not mention these habits expressly, yet say the same in other words. For first all the Greeks and many Latins call Baptism an enlightening, and those who are baptized, enlightened. Hence Augustine too, tractate 44 on John, says that the man born blind who was healed by Christ became in a manner a catechumen; when he was enlightened, he was in a manner baptized. And the Fathers without doubt say this because of the faith which is received in Baptism, which is the light of the heart, as St. Thomas expounds, part 3, question 69, article 5. And the same is gathered from that of Acts 15, “Purifying their hearts by faith.” And lastly because among the theological virtues, in which the justification acquired in Baptism consists, faith alone belongs to the intellect. But the act of faith is not received in Baptism. For the act goes before in adults as a disposition; in infants there is no act of faith: therefore Baptism enlightens by reason of the habit which is infused in it. Add that Augustine, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 26, at the end, affirms that little infants through Baptism are not only cleansed but also enlightened; which, as has been said, cannot be done except through habitual faith.
Fourth, it is proved by reason. For baptized little ones are truly called, and are, faithful, as Augustine teaches, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 33, and the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 13 on Baptism. But we are not called faithful from the act but from the habit of faith; otherwise when we sleep, or even when we are awake but are not thinking about the faith, we would not be faithful. Hence Augustine, in the place cited, when he had said that little ones are faithful, adds: “For this is acquired for them through the power of the sacrament and the answer of those who offer them.” Where he signifies most openly that little ones are called faithful both from the habit, which is infused by the power of the sacrament, and from the act of another's faith.
Likewise, God dwells in us through faith and charity: Ephesians 3, “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts”; 1 John 4, “He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.” But God dwells in baptized little ones, as Augustine teaches in letter 57 to Dardanus; therefore baptized little ones too have those gifts, at least as to the habit.
Lastly, God pours his hidden grace into little ones when they are baptized, as Augustine teaches, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 9. But the grace of justification poured into hearts, by the consent of all theologians, either is charity with faith and hope, or is surely some other quality with which those three virtues are infallibly joined.
The fifth proposition: Little ones believe by act, partly in fact while they are baptized, partly by another's faith. The first part is Augustine's, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 27, where he says that for infants to be baptized is itself to believe, because it is itself in act a profession of faith. He has similar things in letter 23. As the Church too speaks of the Holy Innocents, when she says that they confessed not by speaking but by dying. Nor can there be any controversy about this matter. The latter part is against the rashness of Illyricus, Chemnitz and others, who will have it to be a papist error that little ones are baptized in the faith of the Church. And the consent of the Fathers suffices to prove this assertion. For so Justin teaches, question 56; Dionysius, On the Church Hierarchy, the last chapter; Ambrose, or whoever is the author, on Hebrews 11; Augustine, book 3 On Free Choice, chapter 23, where he says that this is the opinion of the whole Church; likewise letters 23, 57 and 105; book 4 On Baptism, chapters 24 and 25; and sermons 10 and 14 on the words of the Apostle; Prosper, On the Call of the Gentiles, book 2, chapter 8; Bernard, sermon 66 on the Song of Songs; and lastly the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 13.
But it is to be observed in this place that a twofold faith is required in Baptism. One actual, which goes before Baptism as a certain disposition; and this is what is required of those to be baptized, when they are ordered to recite the creed and are asked whether they believe. Which indeed, for the most part, in the judgment of weighty doctors, is not from the habit of faith but from a special help of God. Hence catechumens with this faith are not yet called faithful by the Fathers. The other is that which follows Baptism, and is an essential part of justification, and is not an act but a habit; and this is what those to be baptized understand when, being asked what they seek, they answer, “Faith, which bestows life everlasting,” as we have in the Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 7, and in the books that treat of the rite of Baptism. When, then, the Fathers say that little ones are baptized in the faith of the parents or of the Church, they are speaking not of the latter faith but of the former. And when we say that little ones are baptized in the faith of the parents, the sense is not that little ones are justified formally, or are faithful, by another's faith, as Chemnitz and Illyricus wrongly gather in the places cited, where they also wrongly cite that of Habakkuk 2, “The just shall live in his faith.” For no Catholic ever taught that little ones live by another's faith, but by their own habitual faith. Nor again is the sense, as Luther expounds, that the faith by which they are justified is obtained for little ones by the faith and prayers of those offering them and of the Church. For little ones have justifying faith infused ex opere operato of the sacrament, not ex opere operantis of the minister or of the Church. But the sense is that the actual faith which is required as a disposition for the sacrament is not had by little ones as their own, but as another's.
You will say: What does another's faith profit a little one? I answer: It profits very much indeed. For first it brings them to Baptism. For as adults, unless they believe, do not come to Baptism, so too, unless the parents or some others who take care of the infants believe, they would not bring them to Baptism. And so, as his own faith profits each one because it is the cause of his own Baptism, so another's faith profits the infant because it is the cause of the infant's being baptized. And on the other hand the unbelief of the father harms the infant much, because it is the cause of his not being baptized. And this usefulness Prosper sets out in the place cited. The other usefulness is that in this way they honour and worship God, while they profess the faith and renounce Satan and fulfil what belongs to the rite of Baptism, at least through another's mouth. For God holds valid this service rendered through others, since they cannot do it by themselves. And this is what Augustine often presses in the places cited.
From all of which it is gathered that another's faith is not so necessary that Baptism is not true or fruitful if it is lacking, since it is not of the essence of justification or of Baptism; yet that it is necessary for the solemnity of the rite and the ceremony, and often, as we have said, for the very giving of Baptism to little ones; because if no one had faith, no one would take care that little ones were baptized. It remains to answer their arguments, which are few and light.
Luther's first argument is against the first proposition: “If infants did not believe, the sacraments would be mocked by a sacrilegious lie when it is answered for the infant, ‘I believe.’” I answer: There is no lie there. For he who answers “I believe” does not signify that the infant believes by his own act, but by another's. For as Augustine speaks, sermon 10 on the words of the Apostle: “Mother Church lends to infants the feet of others, that they may come; the heart of others, that they may believe; the tongue of others, that they may confess.” And this not unjustly, since they are weighed down by another's sin, that is, one contracted from another, though truly inhering in them as their own.
The second argument, Matthew 18: “He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me.” Therefore little ones believe. I answer: The little ones of whom the Gospel speaks were not infants, but bigger children. For the Lord called them to himself, and said that they could be scandalized; but to come on their own feet, and to be capable of scandal, does not fit infants.
The third argument, against the second proposition: “John the Baptist leapt in the womb, Luke 1. It is no wonder, then, if infants have new movements.” I answer, first, that one example does not make a general rule, as Augustine, speaking of this very matter, testifies, letter 57. But because Chemnitz says that by this example he does not wish to prove that it is so in all infants, but only that it can be, I answer, second, that John the Baptist did not have a movement without knowledge, as these men feign. For, as Ambrose and Bede testify in their commentary on that place, John knew the presence of the Lord, and leapt for that reason. The Gospel itself too, when it says that he leapt for joy, teaches openly enough that he did not lack knowledge.
The fourth argument, against the same proposition: “Infants can be saved, as the Lord says, Mark 10: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it. Therefore infants must receive the Holy Spirit, and so some working of his. But they cannot receive faith with knowledge; therefore a new movement without knowledge.” I answer: The last consequence is worth nothing. For infants can receive, and in fact do receive, the habit of faith, which is neither faith with knowledge nor a movement without knowledge.
Chapter 12. What Are the True and What the False Effects of Baptism
There follows the seventh controversy, on the effect of Baptism. And there are two questions on this matter. One on the true effects, which the Catholics acknowledge. The other on the false effects, which the adversaries ascribe to Baptism.
The true effects among Catholics are three. For first, Baptism truly takes away and blots out all guilt and punishment. Second, it confers ex opere operato grace and the divine gifts by which a man is truly and formally justified. Third, it imprints an indelible character, because of which it cannot be repeated. To these are referred those which the Fathers enumerate, and chiefly Nazianzen, in the oration on holy Baptism, and Chrysostom, homily 1 to the newly baptized: as that it makes the soul beautiful, beloved of God, shining; that it seals it with the royal seal; that it makes one an heir of God; that it opens the kingdom of heaven; and the like. The adversaries deny the first effect; for they say that sins are not truly taken away by Baptism, but only not imputed. They deny the second too. For they will not have a man justified ex opere operato through the sacraments, but only through faith. The third they deny absolutely, and therefore cannot give a sufficient cause why Baptism is not repeated. But of the two latter effects we said enough in the disputation on the sacraments in general; here we must treat only of the first. And this will be the first question: whether Baptism truly takes away sins.
Further, the adversaries enumerate five other effects of Baptism. First, that the baptized person cannot be damned even if he wishes, unless he refuses to believe. Second, that Baptism frees from obedience to the divine law. Third, that it frees from the observance of human laws. Fourth, that it frees from all vows. Fifth, that the mere remembrance of Baptism justifies from the sins which are done after Baptism. Which surely are not so much effects of Baptism as errors of the Lutherans; and they are deservedly condemned by the Council of Trent, session 7, in as many canons, that is, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Of these effects, then, will be the other question.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XI.
DccUnahir qiiao fidca rcquiralur in liaplismo
panuloruvi. cl rcfcUuntur crrorcs adversa-
riorum.
Prima proposilio:/?i/rt»/r's von hahcnt aclualcm
/7(/o/».H;ioc osl cniitrii priiiiiim lAilliori scnloiiliam.
l»robatur Primn. (iui;i Scripliuii Dculcron. 1. ct
Jonac ull. allirinal, iiirantcs non coi^nosccre di-
slantiam boiii cl m;ili: noc usijuain cxcipil lempus
IJaplismi. Qu;iro. siiic Scriplurac lcslimonio id Lu-
Ibcras allirmal.
Sccnndo. Palrcs banc scnlcnliam n^jiciunl, ut
INazianzcnus. qiii orationo iii Siinctii luniiiiii . dicit,
inriintcs sinc scnsii siinctiilcationis sanctilicari, cl
Augustinus, qui episl. 57. ad Dardanum ridct lianc
Lulliori scnlcntiiim. ul (juac injuriam /acial liuma-
nis scnsibiis: el rnrsiis cpisl. 21$. Iracl. 80. in Joan.
lib. 4. dc Baplismo. cap. 2i. cl lib. 1. do pocca-
tor. nieritis, el rcmiss. cap.20. dicii, parvulos non
liabcrc lldcm. qii.ic csl in cogitiiti(me:ilciTi iion Iia-
bcre sensnm lidci; doniquc non liiiborc quod i'iiu-
lus dicit: Corde crcdilur adjusliUam. Ex quibus
inlelligiinns Kcmniliuin pag.2oS. omnino tomcre,
el mcndacilcr scripsissc, ciindcm esse in bac rc
Angusliiii.cl Lutlicri SiMilonliam.XiiiH supra oslon-
dimus. a Lulbero fidem ipsam actualem Iribui pnr-
vulis; ciijus contrarium tol in locis dicil Aiigusti-
nus. Quid.quod Lullicrus in lib.contra Cocblaeum
ratciur. conlra se in bac quaestione habere Aiigu-
slinum? el taincn impudons Rcranitius, invitum
Lulhcrum, cum invilo Auguslino concordare suo
mcndacio voluit.
Tertio, est ratio. Nam fidcs non potest oriri in
mcnle nisi cxdivina rcvclalione: quac quidom aiil
immcdiiilo sil a solo Dco. aut perori,'anum vcrlji
Dei praedicali. aut lccti.Primo modo non dicilLu-
Iherus dari inrantibus fidem. scd secundo, cum ait
eos credere per vim vorbi, iiuo e.Korcizanlur adju-
vanlibus Ecclcsiae prccibus. El praclerea primus
ille modus non estordingrius,sed extraordinarius,
cl rarissimus. ac solis rorle prophelis el aposlolis
conccssus: Fides enim ecccmtiim, imiuil Paulus
liom. K». loqiicns dc or linario mo(lo,qiio pl{,'nitnr
lidos.At si omnibus inliinlibus lidos iinincdial(! re-
voliiroliir. i;iiii cssot iiiodns ordiniirins. ct |)ossciit
nuiiios iiir;iiitos, (liiin b;ipti/,;iiitiir. dic.i propliolao.
Qiioil ;iiiloin Socnndo inodo iioii oriiilur in inlanli-
biis lid(>s, i)alol miiniloslo expcrimonlo. !Si (uiiin
vcrbiiin oxorcismi i;i!,ni(>rol liilom, corlo iiiidirolnr
(M iiitoliiL^orolur iib iiilantihns: |)roindo iiltonh! ;iii-
S('iill;iroiil inriinlos: ciijus contrarium videmns.Dc-
iiolo oxorcismns iioii iol'orliir ;id lidoiii (locoiidiim.
sod ad diUMnonos c(ierccndi)s. DoiiKiue lioc csl po-
ncre novnin miracnlnm iii auribns.cl mcnto, inran-
linm.Noqno valot, quod Liilhorus adlcrl dc oralio-
nibiis. ol \\(\c. onorontiiim. Nain iiliquaiido conlin-
t,nt, ut ollorontos, ct |)iirenlos, ol ipsi biipli/.aiilos
sint infidclos, ot lamcn vcrc ol iitililcr dclur inlan-
tibiis Haplismus. ul Aiignslinus doci^t, o|)ist. 2li.
Ncqnc oa vis cst oriitioninn. (;l lidci oircrenlium.
ul inlallibililer miracnla impctrcnt. Et dcnique si
Dons miracnlum racil in mcnle inrantuli, ut corde
crodal ad jusliliiiin. cnr noii faiMl cli;im in lini,ni;i.
ut ore conlitoiituf ad s;ilulciii?l''ortc lioc est imims-
sibilc Dco: aut oralionibus, el lidc impetrari nii-
quil? Al riicilliraum esse. lesliilur asin;i I{;iliiimi ,
quac Doo volcnlc loipiuta osl s;ipiontor. Kum. 22.
Quarlo, probaliir r;ilioiie .Augustini in episl. ')7.
quia cnra conslct inlanlcs, et vocis ejulatu, et mo-
tibus corporis reluclari, et obstrepcrc IJiiptismo ,
si vcre inlclligcrciil (quod necessc est, si crcdorc
debcnt) quid afjatur, rei fiereni ingenlis sacrilcgii,
nec ablucrentur, sed magis sordiilarcnlur.
Secuiida propositio: iYo?i luibentinfanlcs,dwn,
haptiz.antnr . ullos novos motus , et inclinatio-
nes similes actihiis fidei, et dilectionis. Ilaec est
conlra figmcnlum conciiiabuli wirlembcrgensis, cl
Philippi. Kcmnilii, ct aliorum Lulhcranorum. Pro-
balur Primo, quia riipugnat verbo Dei. Isli enim
volunt lios ipsos inolus inranliuin sinc cognitionc
(jsse, et dici lidom, licet improprie,et eo inodo in-
rantcs non justilicari sinc aliqua fid.^. Al in lotii
Scriplura nusquiim babetur nomen lidei in ca si-
gnificatione.uldcsigncl raolum qucmdain sine scn-
su, el sine cognitiono: scd potiiis iii conlriiriii, ut
palcl Roman. 10. Fides ex auditu.Uchr. H. Fide
inlelligimus aptata esse saecula verho Dei, et sic
de aliis locis.
Secundo. repugnat ralioni. Nam aut illi motus.
el inclinationes sunt in corporc, aut in animo. Si
in corpore.noi possunl essc similcs aclibus fidei,
et dileclionls, qui sunt in iinimo; ncc cnim corpo-
ralia dicunlur similiii spiritualibus, nisi metapho-
ricc. el pcr quandam aniilogiam. Et practcrca non
potesl fiori, ol molus el inclinalio ad credendum
Deo.cl diligendura Deum.sint corporalcs.cumDcus
sit objcclumspiriluale el aUissimum,quod vix men-
lc atlingi aliquo modo polost. Si aulein sinl in ani-
mo, esl impliciilio contradicUonis, quod sinl abs-
que cognitionc. Quid enim csl motus intcllcctus,
nisi inlelligere? non cnim alilor movcri potesl in-
tclleclus, nisi inlclligcndo; sicul nec oculus, nisi
videndo; ncc scnsus iiudicnili, nisi audicndo. Et
quomodo polcst voluntas inclinari.nisi praeceden-
lc cognilionc? cuin objcclu n voluntalis non sit
aliud, nisi bonuin cognilum.
um\ 1 lUMus
181
Tcrlio, ropugnal ipsi Lulliero.I\;im Lulhcruslo-
cis antca cilnlis. illam ndcin ponil in pnrvulis, du
qua sacpe dixcral. quod sola jusliliccl. (lcrlum au-
lcm csl, rulcm juslilicant-im lon csse raolum sinc
cof]i;nili()nc:alioqui cliam bcsli.ic juslificari posscnt.
Voluil cliam Lullicrus lidcm iu parvulis gigui cx
nudilu verborum cxorcismi; proiude non sinc co-
guilionc posuil Ddem. Praelcrca Lulherus volcbat,
{idcuj in parvulis cssi'- anle Baplismura, ul possel
vcrc rcsi)onderi minislro baplizaluro, parvulum
credcrc: al auclorcs hujus scnlcnliae dicunt, per
Baplismum dari parvulis istos molus. Sic cuim lo-
(luitur IMiilippus loco cit. SpirUiis sanclas 'per
liapUsmum eis dalw\qui efficii in eis novos mo-
tus, el inclinalioncs elc. El simililcr Rcmufiius
pag. 259. dicil, cfTundi Spirilum rogoucralionis in
infanlcs.dum baplizantur,el opcrari in illis s.mclos
raolus elc. Quarc 1'also anirmal pagina superiorc
idcm Rcmnilius, Lulhcrum idcm scnsisse, quod
ipsc senlit.
Quarto.rcpugnat doclrinae,el principiis commu-
nibus omnium Lutheranorum. INiliil enim eslapud
eos ccrtius, el communius, quam sola fide justili-
cari hominem; el sacramcnta nihil csse aliud,nisi
instrumcnla excitandae vel nulriendae fiflci. At
certe si molus illi infantium sine vera lide illis suf-
ficiunl ad juslificalioncm. cl ad Baplismum ulililer
suscipicndum; falsum csl sola fide hominem jusli-
licari. Ncque diccre possunl.hos ipsos molus essc
fidem. Nam quando loquunlur de fide in materia
juslificalionis, scmper intclligunl pcr fidem appre-
hensioncm divitiae miscricordiae, quac sine co-
gnilionc esse non polest.Praelcrca cum isti motus
immcdiate cxcilcnlur a Dco, ul ipsi vplunt, ct non
per sacraraenla. quae raore concionis provocent
lidcm per cxlcrnos sensus, ccrtc ruit illud princi-
pium, sacramenla non juslificare, nisi fidem exci-
tando more concionis.llaque si quis rcclc judicct,
posilis principiis de sola fide juslificanle, minus
absurda cst Lulheri senlenlia, quae fidcrn parvulis
Iribuit, quam conciliabuli wirlembergcnsis, quod
molum sine cognilione iisdem conceiJll. Lulherus
enim novum miraculum f.ilso excogitavit, sed eo
posito, omnia illi constant : isti aulom et mi-
raculum fingunt , cl co posilo dcslruunt sua i-
psorura principia , ct cum apcrta ratione pu-
gnanl.
Tcrlia propositio: Infanles non juslificantur
sine ullafide. Hacc est contra Sacramcnlarios: ct
probatur. Prirao,quia Scriplura affirma! fidem csse
medium ad salulem neccssarium, ionn. ^.Quinon
crediL jam judicaius est.Ex (pio loco Auguslinus
probat, infantcs baptizalos habcre aliquam fidcm,
lib. 1. dc pcccalorum mcrilis el remiss. cap. .'JS.
Nam eo loco Dominus non loquilur de pracccplo
credendi, (|uo sino dubio non lenonlur parvuli.sed
dc mcdio ad salutcra. Nain anlca dixcriil: Sicut
Moyscs cxalLavit scrpcnlcni in descrlo, ila cxal-
tari oporlcL fdium liominis, ut omnis qui credit
in eum, non percat. sed haltcatxitam aetcrnam.
El subjunxit: Qui credit in eum, nonjudicalur;
qui autem non crcdil, jam judicatus csl. Sicut
igilur aspicerc acncum scrpenlcm, non tam hiit
praccoptum, (piam rcmcdium uuicum salulis: ila
1*1 LI.AICll.M Vol. III.
et fidcs in hoc loco cvangelii asscrilur necessario,
ut rcmcdiura, non ut pracccptura.
Sccundo, probalur cx illo Hcbr. U. Sine fide
impossibilc cst placerc Deo. Itcni lloman. 3. Ar-
bilramur hominem justijicari per fidcm; quod
passim repetit, el iuculcal Paulus. Quomudo igitur
sinc ulla fide justificari el placere Deo possunl in-
fantes? At inquiuut Calvinus et Marlyr: Si Dcus
pracdcstinavit infanles, ct promisil se foro Dcum
ipsorura, sine dubio dabil illis Spiritum sanclum.
eosquo justificabil modo aliquo sibi nolo.licet noii
per fidcm. Rcspondco: Praedestinalionem non iin-
plcri, nisi pcr ea mcdia, quac iu Scripturis nobis
siint rcvclata. Porro Aposlolus Roman.8. satis pcr-
spicue explicat media. cum mV.Quos praedeslina-
vit, hos et vocavil; quos vocavit, hos et justifica-
vil; quos juslificavit. iios et magnificavit. Idem
vcro Apostolus in cadem epistola, cap. 3. 4. 5. G.
7. 8. 0. et 10. nihil aliud contendif, nisi juslifica-
tioncm non conlingere sinc fidc. Quare tribuerc
parvulis juslificalioncm sinc fidc, et antc vocatio-
nem, idcst, anle Daplismum, quo solo vocari pos-
sunl infanles, quid est aliud, nisi contra verbum
Dci fingorc novam justificationcm?
Quarla proposilio://i/a?ifi6us inBaptismo infun-
ditur habitus fidei , spci et charilalis. Ifacc in
primis cerla esl catholicis ex auctoritalc concilio-
rum. et doctorum.Nam licet aliquando disputatum
fuerit.an infaulcs rocipercnt cum gratia justificanti;
habilus harum virtulum. tamen semper fuil com-
munior scntenlia; infundi parvulis pcr I>aptismum
hos habitus. Ita enim s. Thom. 3. par. quacst. GIK
art. G. item Scotus, Durandus, Gabricl, ct caclcri
fcro omncsin 3. dist. 23,Quocirca concilium vicn-
nensc generale, ut habemus Clement. 1. desum-
ma Trinilatc el fidc calholica, dcfinit hanc senteu-
tiam esse probabiliorcm, et magis conformem tc-
stimoniis lam vcterum, quam reccnlium llicologo-
rum. Neque haec scnlenlia sorduit tridcntino con-
cilio, ut audactcr mcnlitur Rcmnilius in 2. par.
Exam. pag. 2G1. fVam licct concilium Iridonlinura
non fccorit montioncm concilii vicnncnsis: lamou
illam ipsara scntontiam rcccpit, ac dcfinivit ul cer-
tam. Nam scss. 5. in decrcto de pcccalo originis,
dofinit infantcs in Baplismo justificari.ila ut si mo-
riantur in co stalu, nihil sit, quod cos ab ingrcssu
cocli rcniorctur. Deinde scss. G. c. 7. dcfiuil con-
cilium, in Baptismo infundi cum rcmissionc ()cc-
calorum hacc omnia (Ion;i, fidcm , spcm et chari-
latcm, eaque mcnti inhaercrc.
Sccundo, potcst hacc cadcm scnlenlia colMgi ex
Scripturis, quibus supra probavimus,sine fkle par-
vulos non salvari. Cum enim constct, fidcm pro-
prio non significare, nisi actum,vcl habilum, etsi-
mul constel in parvulis aclum fidci csse non posse;
ccrto soquitur, ul in ois sit habitus. Ilcm cx Scri-
pluris supra probavimus, infantcs rccte baplizari,
et por Haplismum juslificari ct salvari. Itcm con-
slat ox Scripliiris, juslificalioncm nullam cssc siiu!
fido: igitiir conslare ctiam dcbct, infanlcs habcn;
sallom hahiliKiIom fidcm.
Tcrlio, probatur cx Patribus, qui licet non mc-
minorint cxprcsso horiim habilnum, lamcu wWm^
vcrbis idcm 'jicunl. Primum ciiim omnos Ciracci cl
182
l»K SACUAMl.MO li.VMISMl
iimlli L:»liiu iliaml. U.iplism;» rssc illmniii.ilioiuMn.
olijiii b.i|»li/..nilur.illuininiiii.riitU' eliain Aujrusliu.
ir.nUil, \\. in .lo;in. iliril, c.un-nin n;ilinu iiim :i
Clinslo rml mmu-ins, r.iclmn cssi' i|iiu.liiiimii)iU)
oalcilmiiuMium: ruin Inil illumin.ilus, fuisso qiio-
ilaimnoilo l>;iplu;ilum. M :inliMn P.iUcs siiu; dnliio
vlituul propltM- liihMn. (jmu' m l5;iplisiiio n-cipitnr,
iju.io c>l luiiuMi »-iirtli>, ul o\poml s. riionuis '.\.\u\y.
ijuaesl. iVJ. arl. ."»• Kl uitMii collijiilur e.\ illo Aclor,
1.'». Fidi' i)Hril'ir(ins ordti co/ (n;/.Kl (liMii.iuc (iui:i
.sula rulcs ail mlcllcclmn pcrlinolcx viriulibiis llu'0-
loi^icis. iu (luihn.; consi>lil jusliruMlio, quac nciiui-
rilur m Uaplismo. Al non rcci[iilm' iii r.;iplismo ;i-
clus lidci. Aclus cnim |>r;iccc(lil in ;i(lnllis. ul dis-
posilio ; in inlMiililms imlhis csl lidci ;iclus: i},Mlur
Uaplisinus illmmiKU ralioiic liabilus. (pii iii eo in-
Imulimr. Addc (juoil AuLrusliims lib. l. i\o pccca-
lormii incriiis. c[ rcnnssionc, c;i|i. 2(». in rmc. al-
lirmal inlanlulos jum- Hiplisiimm non solmn purtra-
ri, scd cli:mi illumiuari. quod, ul diclum csl, lum
nisi pcr rultMu li.M'i polcsl.
Oiiarto. iM'(>b;.lnr ralioiio. Nan p.irvnli bapiizali
vere dicunlur, clsunl ridcles,nl Auijusiiuus dociM.
lib. I. i\(' pccc;il()rum morilis. el reuiiss. c:ip. X».
cl eoncilium iridcniinuiu. scss. 7. c;m. 11». dc \>\-
|ilismo. Al ruloles non dicimurab actu, sed ab li;i-
bilu lidei: aliotjui cuin doriniinus. aul cliain cuin
vi<;iI;iinus,sod de lidi» non co!,Ml;imn.s. non cssemiis
li(i. les. Undc Ati;j;nsliims loco cil;ilo. cuiu dixissol
parvulos essc lidelcs. addil: IIoc c.nim cis acqui-
rilur per virhilcm sacrnmcnti. cl ofjcrcnlum rc-
^ponsioncm. Ubi aperiissimc signilicai parvnlos
dici lidcles, Inm ab liabilu, qui inriindilur virUilo
Siicr;iinenli, lum ab aciu fidoi ;ilicnae.
llem, Dcus in nobis li;iliit;i[ iKM-ridcm .! cliarila-
lcni, Kpbes. 3, Ciiri!<luni iiabHare pcr fidcm in
cordibusvcsliis. I. Joan. 4. Qui manet incliari-
tatc, in Dco mancl. ct Dcus in co. \l \n parvulis
biipli/.alis Dous luibilat. ul Auiriislinus (locol in e-
pisl. .'>7. ad l).ir.l;mum:ii,Mlur li;il)cnl cli;mi paivuli
l);ipliz;ili illa (iona s;iU(M1i qiiond l);ibilum.
Uciiique. Dens iiiruiidil p;irvulis snis occiiIl;iiu
iir.ilium, cuni bapl;z;miiir, ul Auimslinus docci,
lib. I. cap. D. dc peccalorum merilis. (;l rcmiss.
.>cd i^ralia jusliricaliimis Inlusa iu cordibiis. con-
>f;nsu omnium lliculugorum. aul esl cii;iril;is cmii
lide cl spc: ;iul ccrlo esl (iu;ic(l;iiii aliii (|u;i!il;)s,
cum qua mrallibililcr conjunclaii sunl ircs illac vir-
lules.
Quiula propositio:PanM4/t aclu crciunt. pdrtim
r'.'ipsa dum baptizanlur, partim aiicna iidc.\h-\-
t^»r p;irs esl Aui,Mislini lib. l.dc peccalorum iiuMitis
cl rciniss. cap. 27. ubi dicil. iiirantibus ipsum b;i-
plizari essc crcdere, ([iii;) niiuiruui i()s;i aciiu cst
lidci proressio. Simili;i Iiabcl episi. 2;j. Ouemad-
modum cli;ira dc sanclis liinoceiilibus Kcclesia lo-
«piimr. cuiu ail, eo$ mjn loquendo. sod moricndo
conrcssos csse. Neque de.hac re uiia poiest esse
coiiiroversia. Poslerior purs est coiilra temerilatein
Illyrici, Kemnilii, el aliirum, qui errurem pnpisli-
cum essp vohini. bapii;,;in parvulos in lide Eccle-
siae. Sullicit aulem ;id liimc asserlioncm prob;in-
tlam, coosensus Palrum, It;i eoim docel Justinus
quacsl. uO. Dionysius de cccles. Iiierarcli.c.ip.ull.
Vmhrosius. vid (pii( uimpio, (>sl ;uiclor. iii c;ip. II.
ad llebr. ,\uj;iislinus lili.:i.de libcn) arbilr.cap.2;{.
iibi dicil, li;mc cssc hUiiis Kcclosi;io S(Mii(Miii;iin,
licm C|)ist. IW. ."»7. el lO:;. lib.i. (h; l»aplisiiio,c;ip.
2i. el 2.J. el scnu. 10. oi 14. de vcrbis Aposh)li.
Prosper de voiMiiuno Genl. lib. 2. ca|). S. el l»cr-
lumhis sorm. (Ki. iii C,aiilic;i, el dcniipie concilium
Iridoiiliimm sess. 7. can. KJ.
Ksl auiem lioc loco observ;m(luin, dupliccm (i-
d(Mii roipiiri iii IViplismo. Aciuiilem nii;im. (piae
'pr;iccodil ll^ipiisnmm, iil dispositio (pi;iod;im: el
ca csl, qiiac e.vii^itnr a I);ipliz;iiidis. cimi juluMilur
recihirc sYmboliim, el iiitcrroi^anliir ;in crc.Iiml.
Ouae quidcm , nl pluriimmi , judicio graviiim
(lo.'loriim . iion csl c.\ luibilu rulci . scd e.\ ;iu\ilio
sp(Mi;ili Dci. Unde calechumeni cum isl;i lidt! ;id-
luic iion dicunlur lidclcs a l*;itril)iis. AIier;i est,
(luae scipiilur l>;iplismum , qmuMpic esl p;irs cs-
soiilialis ii!sliric;ilioiiis. et non cst aclus. S(mI luibi-
lus: el luinc inlelliiMmt biipliz.Tudi, (Mim inlerro-
i,';ili, qmd pehmt, xc^wwi^cuV.Fidcmvitam a.olcv-
nam pracslantcm. iit luibemus in concilio iridiMi-
iiiio scss. ('». c;ip. 7. et in libris, qui Iraclant dc
ritii r»;q)lisini. .liim i.f,Mlur, cum r;ilrcs (liciint. p;ir-
viilos l);ipli/,;iri iii lide p;ironluiii, aiil Ecciesi;ie,
lum ioquimUir dc lide |)()slcriorc, scd de priore.
Et cum diiMiims parvnlos baplizari in fide parcn-
lum.iion osl sensus.piirvnlos juslificari lormaliler,
;uil essc lideles alicn;i lido; ut perpcr;im colligunt
Kcninitius el Iliyricns locis cilatis.ubi eliam pcrpc-
ram ciliiui ilhid !l;il);ic. 2. Justus cj- fidc sua vi-
vit. Non onim ullus calbolicorom docuit unquam,
liarvulos viverc lidc alicna, sed sna iKibiluali. Nc-
qiic eliam est sciisus, ut exponil Lullierus, p;irvu-
lis impolrari rulein qua jnslilicenlur. ;i lide et pre-
cibus oii'(M'.Miliuni, et Ecclcsi;ie. Fulom eiiim jusli-
licanlem luibent parvuli inrusam e.v opere operiilo
sacramcnli, non c.\ opcrc op(M';inlis minislri, aut
!'^cclesi;ie. Scd sensus est, rulcm ;iciu;ilcm, (iuae
re(piirilur ul disposilio ad sacriiiiieiiliim, iion ba-
bcri a parvulis propriam. sed alionam.
Dices: Ouid prodest [larvulo Ijdcs ;ilieiiii? iJcs-
poiidoo: Multuin omnino prodest. Priiimm cniin
eos ad llapiisinum adducil. Ul cnim adulti, nisi
credant. ad Baplismum uon vcniunl; sic cti;iin nisi
l);irenles. aut aliqui alii. fini inliiiilium curaiii gc-
ruiil, crediiii!. non eo.s ;id Biiplismuiu dcrerciil. I-
lacpic sicut propria fides unicuique prodest, qiiia
esl cnuss;i proprii Baptismi: il;i lides alien;i pro-
dest inriinli. quia est c.iuss;i. ul iiilans baplizelur.
El conlra iufidclilas patris mullum obest inlanli,
qui;i esl causs.i ne ille baplizetur. Al(|ue hanc
ulilihilcm porscquitur Prospor loco cilido. Allcra
ulililas esl, quod lioc modo Deum lionoriml,cl co-
liiiil. dum fidein profilenlur, et Sal;m;u3 abreriuo-
ci;int, el implcnt, quae ;id rilimi iJaplismi [xmIi-
neut. sallcm per os alienum. Uabct (Miiin Deus ra-
lum Iioc obscquium per alios pr;iestilum. cuin ip-
si per se non possint. El hoc est, quod saepe in-
culciil Aiiiiusliuus locis ciialis.
K\ quibus omnibus colligitur, lidcm alienam
non esse ila necessariam, ul non sit Baplismus
verus. aut rrucluosns. si ea desit, quandoquideiii
non esl de essentia juslificalionis. vcl Baplismi;
KiliEli ['iilMLS
18:)
lamcn esse iicccssarinm nd soloninilalcm liliis, ac
caercmoniac, el sacpe, ut dixiimis, aiJ ipsum Ua-
plismum parvulis Iradcndum; quia si neino liahc-
ret fnlcm, nomo curaret parvulos baplizari. Su-
percst argumcnla ipsorum solvcre, quae pauca
sunl el lcvia.
Argumcnlum Primum Lutlieri estcontra primam
proposilioncm: Si infantes non credcrent, illiL-
derelnr sacramcntis sacrilego inendacio, duni
respondel.av pro infanle, Credo. llcspondeo: ]\ul-
lum csl ibi mendacium. Non enim qui respondct,
Credo, signilicat infantera credere, proprio actu,
sed alicno. Ut enim Auguslinus loquilur serm.lO.
de vcrbis Aposloli: Accommodat maler Ecclesia
infanlibus aliorum pcdes, ut venianl: aliorum
cor, ul credant: aliorum linguam, ut conlitean-
tur. Idquc non injuria; cum peccato alicno prac-
gravcnlur, idest, ab aiio contraclo, Jicet sibi vcrc
et proprio iiiliaercnlc.
Sccundum arguracntum, Malili. 18. Qui scan-
dalizaverit unum de jmsillis istis, qui in me cre-
dunl. Igilur pusilli credunl. ricspondco: Pusilli,
dc (}uibus Inqiiilur evangcliura, non in!'antcs, scd
pueri gradiorcs cranl. Nam vocavit cos Dominus
:id sc; ct scandalizari possc dixil: al vcnirc suis
pcdibus, et scandali capacem cssc , infantibus
non convenit.
Tertium argumcntum contra sccundam proposi-
lioncni: Joannes Baptisma exuUami in uiero,
Luc. 2. J^on igiiur mirum, si habeani infanles
novos molus. Ilespondeo Primo, exemplum unuin
non faccre regulam gcncralcm, ul Augustinus do
hac ipsa rc loquens, teslatur epist. 57. At qiiia
Kcmnitius dicit, boc excmplo non sc probarc vcl-
le, id ila cssc in omnibus infanlibus, scd tanlum
cssc possc. Uespondco Secundo, loanucm Bapli-
slain non babuissc motum sine cognitionc, ul isli
ilngunl. Nam ut Ambrosius, et Dcda in commcn-
tario cjiis loci, lijslaiilur, Joanncs cognovit Doini-
ni pracsentiam, et inde exullavit. Ipsum quoquc
cvangclium, dum ait, cxultassc illum in gaudio,
sntis apcrtc docct , illum non caruissse cogni-
lionc.
Qnartum nrgumenlum, conlra eandcm proposi-
tionem: Infanles salvari possunt, dicenic Domi-
no, Marc. 10. Nisiquis accepcrit rcgnum coclo-
rum, sicut parvulus, non inlrahit in illud. I-
(jiinr oporiet infanles recipere Spiriium sa?i-
ctum, el proinde aliquam ejus operaiionem.
At non jwssunt rccipcre fidcm cum cogniiio-
ne; ergo novum motum sine cognilione. Itc-
])ondcn: Ullima consequeiitia niliil valcl; pussiint
cniin rccipere, et rcipsa rccipiunt infaiihjs liabi-
lum lidci, (|ui ncquc csl fides cum cognitiune, iic-
(jue motussine cognitione.
CAPUT XII.
Qui sinl veri, aui falsi effeclus Jkiplismi.
Sc(|iiitur Scplima eonlrovcrsia dc cncctii llaplis-
ml.Duac su:it autciu (luuesliones dc liac rc. Una dc
veris cfTcctibus, qnos agnoscunt catholici. AUcra
dc lalsis circclibus, ([uos advcrsarii IJaplismo tri-
buunt.
Vcri effcctus apud calbolicos trcs sunt. Primo
cnim Baplismus lullil, ac dclet vcrc omnem cul-
pam et poenam. Scciindo confert ex opcre opera-
lo graliaiii cl doiia divin;i, (luibus vere et forma-
litcr jusliUcalur bomo. Tcrtio imprimit indclcbi-
lcm cliaraclcrcm, ob qucin rcitcrari non polcst.
Ad lios rcvocanUir ilii, quos Patrcs enumcranl, ct
maximc Nazianzeiuis orat. in sanctum lavacrum, et
Cbrysoslomus liomil. 1. ad ncopliytos , ut quod
faciat animam pulcliram, Doo dilcclam, splcndcn-
tcra, quod cain obsignct rcgio sigillo, quod faciat
baeredcm Dei, quod aperiat rcgnum coclorum, ct
similia. Advcrsarii Priinum cncclum negaiil; di-
cunt enim pcccala per iJaptismuiK noii vcrc lol-
ii , scd lantum norj impulari. Secundum etiam
ncgant. Nolunt cnim juslilicari liomincm cx opcrc
opcralo pbr sacramciila,scd solum pcr lidcm. Tcr-
tium absulutc iieganl, ct idcirco uoii possunt suf-
Ucicnlcm caussam re(Jderc, cur Baplismus non rc-
pctalur. Scd (b; duobiis eircclibus postcrioribus
satis multa diximus in disputationc dcsacramcn-
tis in gencre: solum de priino bic agcndum cst.
Atquc liaec erit Prima (luaestio; Aii Ilapli^mus vc-
re tollat pcccata.
Porro adversarii alios quinquc elTcclus Baptis'
nii cnumerant. Primum, quod baplizatus non pos-
sit damnari, ctiamsi velil. nisi nolil crcdcrc. Se-
cundum (juod llaplismus liiicrct al> obcdicnlia
divinac lcgis. Tcrlium. quod libcret ab buinana-
narum Icgum obscrvalionc. Quarlum, quod libc-
rcl ab omnibus votis. Quinlum; qnod sola raemo-
ria Daptismi juslilicet a pcccatis, quae liunt posl
Captisma. Oui ccrlc non lam sunt lUiptismi effc-
ctus, quam Luthcrauorum crrorcs; ac mcrito dam-
nautura concilio Iridcnlino scss. 7. tolidcm cano-
nibus, idcst, 0. 7. 8. \). ct 10. l)c his igilur cf-
fcclibus erit allera quacstio.