Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 15: That Men Are Not Freed by Baptism from Keeping the Law of God
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 next proposition, on the second effect of Baptism: Baptism does not bring it about that a man is a debtor to faith alone, and not to fulfilling the whole law of Christ. This is had in canon 7 of the Council of Trent. And it is to be observed, first, that a baptized man can be understood to be called free from keeping the divine law in two ways. In one way, so that to act against that law is not unjust nor a sin, as if the law were abrogated. And this the adversaries do not teach, since they will have all the works of the just to be sins, because they never fulfil the law as they ought. And in this sense Chemnitz admits, in part 2 of the Examination, page 210, that the canon of the council was rightly laid down, and that the contrary opinion is a blasphemy against Baptism itself. And so there is no controversy about this sense.
In the other way it can be understood so that to act against the law is indeed a sin, yet it is not imputed to those who have faith, nor does justification or salvation depend on the fulfilling of the law, but on mercy alone, which is laid hold of through faith. And in this sense all the Lutherans teach (though some speak more timidly, others more freely) that Christians are not bound to the divine law, but only to faith; nay, in this they place the sum of evangelical liberty; as is plain from Luther's book On Monastic Vows, where he says that the liberty of the Gospel consists in this, that the pious conscience is free from all works, not indeed from doing them (for they will have them done as the fruits of faith), but from works accusing and defending: because no works are so evil that they can accuse and damn a believer, none so good that they can defend and justify him. Likewise in the commentary on chapter 2 to the Galatians he sets up this dialogue: “If conscience says, You have sinned, answer, I have sinned. Then God will punish and damn you? No. But the law of God says this? But I have nothing to do with the law. Why? Because I have liberty.” John Calvin teaches the same openly enough, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 19, sections 2, 4 and 7.
Note second what the adversaries think of the council's canon. Calvin, in the Antidote to the council, recognises that canon 7 of the council was laid down against his own opinion and that of his followers, and openly professes the contrary.
But Chemnitz, in the Examination of the same canon, dealing deceitfully in his usual way, passes over that sense in which they themselves usually deny that we are bound to fulfil the law, and wrongly expounds the opinion of the council, so as both to overthrow it and to defend that of Luther. And so he says two things. First, that Luther did not teach that Christians are free from obedience to God's law, but only this: that the grace of Baptism and justification does not depend on the condition of keeping the law, as if no one were justified except one who had first merited it by the whole keeping of the law, but that it is given freely through faith. Second he says that the council meant to define that justification, which is made in Baptism, depends on the condition of the law to be fulfilled. And because the council does not say this openly, he gathers it himself in this way: the council imitates from chapter 5 to the Galatians that phrase, “He that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law.” But Paul did not say those words from his own mind, but from the mind and abuse of the false apostles, who thought that the whole law must be fulfilled in order that the circumcised might obtain the grace of God. Therefore the Fathers of the council too hold the same of the grace of Baptism, namely that it depends on the condition of the law of Christ fulfilled. Then he feigns also two sophisms of the council for this dogma, which he also answers. The first is that we renounce Satan in Baptism and profess that we will serve God. From this the council gathers that the grace of Baptism does not depend on faith alone, but also on the condition of the law. The second, that we are not baptized into Moses but into Christ, that is, not into the law but into the Gospel. The Fathers of the council put law in place of the name of Gospel, to show that the grace of Baptism depends on obedience to the law.
But both statements of Chemnitz are full of lies. And first, Luther's opinion is expressed so plainly by Luther himself that it can in no way be excused. For so he speaks in the book On Christian Liberty: “A Christian man needs no work, no law, since through faith he is free from every law.” Likewise in the argument of the letter to the Galatians: “The highest art and wisdom of a Christian,” he says, “is not to know the law, to be ignorant of works and of the whole active justice.” And below: “The law has nothing to do with the new man.” He teaches like things everywhere in the commentary on the letter to the Galatians, in the book On Monastic Vows, and elsewhere. Lastly they are forced to say this, willing or unwilling. For since they think that the law is impossible, and that all works even of the holiest men are sins, surely if salvation depended on the condition of keeping the law, none at all would be saved according to their opinion.
However much, then, Chemnitz twists and turns and lies, he is compelled to admit, unless he wishes to become a papist, that Christians are not so bound to keep the law that salvation depends on keeping it. And this is the very thing which the council condemns and anathematizes. For it is a lie (to come to the second statement of Chemnitz) that the opinion of the council is that the grace of Baptism depends on the condition of the law kept. For the council does not say this, nor hint it by a single word, but asserts the contrary in express words in countless places, and especially in session 6, chapter 8, where it says that none of our merits go before the grace of justification. And in canon 7 on Baptism itself the council says most clearly that from Baptism itself is born the debt of keeping the law of Christ; from which it is manifestly gathered that there is required for obtaining the grace of Baptism not the condition of the law kept, but only the purpose of keeping it after Baptism. Which the Second Council of Orange too had taught long before, canon 25.
To Chemnitz's conjecture from the phrase taken from the letter to the Galatians I answer, first: the Council of Trent did not cite or name the letter to the Galatians. Second I say: in the letter to the Galatians, whether Paul speaks from his own mind or from the mind of others, it is not had that the law must be kept before circumcision, but after circumcision. For so the words sound: “I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” I add third that what Chemnitz says, that Paul speaks from the abuse of the false apostles, which Calvin too has in the Antidote to the council on this canon 7, is a manifest corruption of Scripture. For Paul testifies in earnest that it is as he says: “I testify,” he says, “to every man,” and so on. And so, if that was false, as Calvin and Chemnitz will have it, the apostle Paul was a false witness.
Further, those two sophisms which Chemnitz objected to himself in the council's name are the dreams of a man raving. For if he had been awake and sane, he would at least have feigned arguments which had some appearance of argument. But these have no appearance at all. For from the fact that we renounce Satan in Baptism and promise God that we will serve him from then on, it can in no way be gathered that the grace of Baptism depends on the condition of the law fulfilled; since on the contrary we profess by that renunciation and that promise that before Baptism we served Satan and not God. And the council named the law of Christ, not the Gospel, on purpose, to condemn the error of the Lutherans, who will have the Gospel to be only the promise of grace, not also the promulgation of the new law; although Christ himself said, the last chapter of Matthew: “Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Hence Paul too calls it the law of Christ, 1 Corinthians 9: “Whereas I was not without the law of God, but was in the law of Christ.” And Romans 7: “With the mind I serve the law of God.”
Note third that the error which is condemned in canon 7 of the council, namely that Christians are not so debtors to the law that salvation depends on obedience to it, is to be refuted in the disputation on justification, as in its proper place. Yet meanwhile the clearest testimonies of the Scriptures can be brought. For in Matthew 19 it is said: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Romans 8: “We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live.” 2 Corinthians 5: “We must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.” Galatians 6: “Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap.” Lastly nothing does Scripture cry out more often than that God will give to every one according to his works.
But altogether notable is Luther's answer to these and like places, in the commentary on chapter 3 to the Galatians: “When they ensnare you,” he says, “with arguments taken from the Scriptures in defence of good works, you must answer simply: Here Christ is with me, there with you the testimonies of Scripture for works. But Christ is the Lord of Scripture and of good works.” Likewise: “Answer simply: You press the servant, that is, Scripture, which I leave to you; I press the Lord, who is the king of Scripture.”
A fine solution indeed, as if Christ and Scripture were contrary, and Christ did not rather speak to us through Scripture! Not to mention that this is that Luther who, in the book On Abolishing the Mass and in almost all his writings, relying on Scripture alone, despises all the Fathers, all the councils, all the custom of the Church and of the whole world. Doubtless he wished to attain this, that he alone should be held not only in place of all the Fathers and councils, but also in place of all the divine letters.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV.
Per Baplismum non libcrarihomines a
servanda lege Dei.
Scquilur allcra proposilio dc sccundo cffcclu
I»ap!ismi: Baplismus non id e/ficit, ut homo soli-
us fidei debilor sit,non autem implendae univer-
sacle()is Chrisli. Ilaec habclur in 7. can. concilii
tridcnt. (']sl.aulcm obscrvandum primo duobus mo-
dis intclligi possc homiiicm baplizalum dici libc-
rum a lcgc divina scrvaiida. Uno modo, ul faccrc
conlra cam lcgem non sit iniuslum.ncc peccalum,
quasi lcx abrogala cssct.Et hoc non doccnt advcr-
sarii.quippc qui volunl omnia opera justorum csso
pcccala, quia nuraquam iinplent lcgcm, uloporlc-
rcl. El in hoc scnsu falclur Kcmnituis iii 2. [)artc
Exam. pag. 210. reclc positum cssc concilii cano-
ncm. ct coulrariain scntcnliam cssc blasphcmani
in ipsum liaptismura. Ilaquc dc hoc scusu non cst
controvcrsia.
Allcro modo inlclligi potcst, ul faccrc conlra ic-
gcm sit quidcni pcccatuin, tamcn non impulctur
iis, qui fidem habcnl, nec pendcal justificalio, aut
salus ab implclione legis, scd a sola miscricordia,
quac pcr fidcm apprchcnditur. Elin hoc scnsu Lu-
tlicrani omnes doccnl (licct alii timidius, alii libe-
rius loquantur) non obligari Chrislianos ad legcn»
divinam. scd solum ad fiilem; imino in hoc consti-
liiul suinmam libertatis evangcliciie ; ul patct ex
lib. Luthcri de volis monasticis, ubi in huc dicit
cousi^lcrc libcrtalcm cvangclii,quod pia conscicn-
tia sil bbcra ab omnibus opcribus, iioii quidem la-
cicndis (volunl cnim ca ficri, ul fructus fidei) scd
accusanlibus, et defcndcnlibus: quia nulla opcra
suiit laiii uiiilii, quac crcdenlcm accusiirc vidciml,
cl diiinuan.': nullii tam bou;i, ([uac cuiii ([uciinl dc-
lcndcre ct juslificiirc. Itcin in commcnt. 2. cap.
;id Galal. instituit hunc diiilogiim. Si conscienlia
diclat. Peccasli: respon.de, Peccavi. Enjo Deus
puniet. et damnabit: non. At lex Dei hoc dicil;
sed nihil mihi cum lerje. Quarc?quia liabeo liber-
lalem. Iihjm satis ;ipcrtc docct .loiiii. Calvinus,iib.
;>. Inslitut. cap. I!). § i. i. ct 7.
Nola siicumio. (|uid ii(lvcrs;irii dc concilil cano-
nc scntiant. Ciilvinus in Antidolo coiicilii agno-
scii c;m(incm 7. coiicilii, contni suam ct suorum
scnlcnliam cssc |)osiluin;ct apcrte conlriirium pro-
filclur..
Ai ivemniliiis in E\;imine cjusdcm ciiiionis frau-
dulcnlcr ;igcns. morc suo, pr;ictcrniittil cuni scn-
suiii, iii ([110 i[)si ncgiire solcnt, obligari ;i(l lcgciii
im|)lcndam: ct [)Crpcrain cxponil liun concilii sen-
lcntiiun: ul Ciim iclclhil, ([uam Lulhcri, ut caiu dc-
fcndal. Itaquc duo dicit. l*rimo: Lulhcrum nun do-
culssc Christianos liberos essc ab obcdicntia lcgis
tss
i)i: SA('.u\Mi:\T() i:\prisMi
bci, scil itl solum, pniliinii IJ.iplismi. d jiislilic;i-
rioiK'111 non |nM)ii(MO ;i (•(Miililiuiic oI)S(M"v;iI;ii' icj^is,
(liuisi iKMih) jiisliliccliir, iiisi (lui aiilc.i 'u\ iiuMiieril
l»or iiiUYMMin l(*i,'is ol)srrv;ilioncm: scd {:;i;ilis d;iri
pcr tidcm. Sccundo dicil: r.onciliiiiii dcliiiiro vo-
liiissc |iciidcrc jiislilic;ili()niMn,(|ii.ic lil iii l^iplisiiio,
;i condilionc Ic^ms iaiidcliic. Kl (|iii;i coiiciliiiin id
non ;ipcrlc dicil.c(dli};ii ipsc, lioc inodo; cuncilinin
imitu;dnr c\ c;ip. ."». ;id (I;d;it, iil;uii pln-;isiin: Qui
circnmcidilur, dcbitor c^t uniicrt^nc lc(jis fdci-
cndnc. Illa ;iulciii vcrba l\uilus non dixil cx |)ro-
pria mcnle. scd c\ mcnlc. cl alnisn psciulo;ipo.slo-
loruMi.ciui pul;d);iiU univcrsain Ic^mmh cssc impl(Mi-
dam. ad lioc iil circMincisi i^rali;iin Dci uliliiuM-iMU.
Kr^ro oliam Palrcs concilii idcm scnliunl dc jjratia
I>aplismi, nimirum qiiod pciidc;it a conditionc iin-
plct;ic lci^is Cliristi.l)iMnd(! liiii^it cli;mi duo sojilii-
smala concilii pro islo dojimatc. quac cl solvil.lMi-
muni csl. quia rcnuiiciamus in l);iplismo S;it;mae,
c\ i)roritciiuir nos Dco scrviliiros. Indc concilium
ii)llij:it [iraliam l^iplismi. non pciulcrc a sola lidc,
sed etiam a conditionc lcj^is. Sccuuuum, quia non
baptizamur in Moyscm. scd in Clirisliim. idcst,
non in lcjicm. scd in cv^iniiclium. Coiicilii IMilrcs
pro iiominc cvanjiclii, \c^cm posucrunt. ul iiulica-
ront ponderc a lc^is obcdicnlia £:rali;im l);iplismi.
Scd utriinupic proniiiicinluin Kcinnilii mcndacio
plcnum csl. .Ac piimuin Lullicri scnlcnlia lam di-
scrlc ab ipsoinet Lutlicro cxprcssa esl. ul nullo
inodo cxcusiiri possit. Sic, ciiiin loquitur in lib. de
libcrtalc cbristiana: yullo opcre, nullalcjie.clin-
s^iano liomini opus csl, cum pcr fideni liber sil
ab omni lcge. Itcm in ;iriiuincnto cpisl. ad Galat.
Summa. iiuiuil. ars. cl sapiodia clirisliana est
ncscire lccjeni. itjnorare opera.cl lolavi jnsliliam
aclivam, Et infra: Jti noviim homincm niliil pcr-
tinel lex. Similia passim docel in commcntario e-
pisl. ad Galal. in lib. de votis nionasticis. el alibi.
Dcniquc cogunlur. vclinl, nolinl lioc diccrc. j\am
cum ipsi cxislimenl lciicm esse impossibilcm. ct
oninia opcra eti;im s;iiiclissimoruin bomlnnm csse
pcccata. ccrlc si saUis pcndcrct a coiulilionc ser-
v;itac lcgis.nulli salvarcnlur omnino ex coruin scn-
lcnlia.
Qiiantumlibct igitur Kemnilius lcrciivcrselur. et
nicntiatur. confilcii c(»t:iliir, nisi l>;i|)i>la fK^ri vclit,
non ila obligari Cbrislianos ad leirem servandam,
ut ;ib cjiis obs(M'v;itionc pendeal siilus. Alquc boc
ipsum csl. (piod concilium daiiuuit, ct aii;ilbcmati-
zat. Nam mcndacium cst (ut ad s(!cundum diclum
Kemnitii veni:imus) concilii scnlenliam essc, pen-
dcrc cratiam B;iplismi ;i condilione lcgis scrv;ilae.
Conciliiun cniiii lioc noii di(Ml, nec ullo vcrbo insi-
nuat, sed contrarium disertis verbis in infiniiis lo-
cis asscruit, ac praoscrlim sess. G. cap. 8. ubi di-
cil nulla nostra mcrila essc anle gratiam justificn-
tionis. El in ipso canone 7. dc Daplismo perspiime
conciliuin dicit. ab ipso Raptismo nasci dcbilum
serv;:ndiie Cbrisli Ie;:is:ex quo manifcsle coliip;itur
non requiri ad graliam Baptismi consequentlam,
condilioncm lcgis servatae, sed solum proposilum
servandae posl Baplismum.Quod eliam mullo anlc
docueral concilium II. arausicanum, canon. 2.'i.
Ad conjcclurara KcnmiUi ex pbrasi dcsumplaex
cpislobi ;id Gabilas rcspondeo rriino: Concilium
lrid(Miliniiiii iion cil;iss(Mi(M- noiiiiii;issc cpislolani
;id (;;il;il.Sc(Mindo dico: In cpislola ad G;il;iliis,sive
l';udus lotiualur ex mente siia. sivc c\ inciiti! ;ilio-
riim: iion liabcri, aiilc circumcisioncm serviindam
lc-^MMii ftiissc, scd post circiimcisioiiciii. M (>iiini
soiKiiil ill;i v(mI);i: Tcslificor onini lioniini circuui-
cidcnli se.quod debilor esl univcrsac letjis faci.cn-
dac. Addo l(M'lio, (piod Kcmnitiiis dicil^loipii l»;iu-
liiiii c\ ;iI)usu psciid();iposloloium: (juod cliiiin li;i-
bct Calvinus in Antidolo coiicilii ;id buiic 7. cano-
ncin. csse miinifcslam Scripturae dcpriivalioncm.
[\';im I*:iulus scrio lcsbilur il:i cssc, iil dicil. 7'cs/i-
ficor, iiKiuil. onini homini e/c.lt:iquc si id falsuni
cral, ul Calviniis el Kemnitius voluiit, falsus tesUs
Uiit apostolus P:iulus.
Porro duo ill:i sopbismala, qu;ie nominc concilii
Kcmniliiis sibi ipse objecil, somnia siinl deliran-
lis. Si enim vigilans. el sanus l'iiisset,saliem argu-
menta finxissct, qu:ie babcrcnl aliqu:im spccicm
argumenli. llla aulcm nullam prorsus spcciciii li;i-
bcnt. Ex co enim. quod renunciiimus in Biiplismo
Sidanaccl promillimiis Dco iios dcinccps scrvilu-
ros,nulIo modo colligi polcsl pendcre graliam Ba-
plismi a conditione iiiii)Ietac Icifis;*cuni e conlr;i-
rio profil(;aiiiur ill;i abrcnunciiilioue.el illa proniis-
sionc.nos anle Haplismum scrvisse Salanac,et non
Deo. Lcgein aulem Cliristi non evangclium, conci-
lium nominavil dedila opera, ul damnaret errorem
Lutbcranorum. qui cv;mgclium sobini proniissio-
nem griiliae cssc volunl.non etiam legis novac pro-
muIgationcm:cum tamen Cbrislus ipsc dixerit Mat-
lli. ultimo: Docete omnes genles, baplizanles, in
nonmie Palris, el Filii el Spiriius sancli.doccnr
ies cos scrvare omnia. quaccumque mandn.vi i;o-
bis. Unde el Paulus Chrisli legcm vocal.l.Coriiilli.
9. Cum cqo sine lcfje non cssem, sed in lecje es-
sem Christi. El Koman. 7. Mcnlcscrvio legi Dci.
INota tertio, crrorcm, qui iii 7. canonc concilii
damnatur,quod vidclicel non sinl Cbrisliiini ita de-
bilorcs lcgis, ut ab cjus obedicntia pcndeat salus,
refcUcndum essc in dispuliilione de jiistificalione.
lamquam in proprio loco. Inlcrim liimcn adicrri
posse apcrlissima Scripturaruin tesUmonia. l\'ain
3Ialtb. 10. dicitur: Si vis advilam inqredi. serva
mandata. Roman. fi.Debilorcs sumus non carni,
ul secundum earnem vivamus.Si enim secundum
carncm vixcritis moriemini; si aulem spirilu fa-
ctacarnismortificaveritis, vivetis. 2. Corinlb. 3.
(hnnes nos manifeslari oportel anle tribunal
Christi.ul refcrat unusquisquc propria corporis,
sicut fjesseril. sive honum, sive malum. Giilat. 0,
I^olite errare, Dcus non irridelur; quae semina-
verit homo, hacc ct metet. Denique nibil saepius
Scriplura clamat, quam Deum unicuique daturum
seciindum opora sua.
Scd insignis omnino Lulbcri responsio est ad
bacc ct similia loca in comment. 3. capilis ad Ga-
liitas: Cum illaqucant, inquit, te argumentis ex
Scripturis pro defensione bonorum operum de-
sumptis, simplicitei' rcspondendam esl: llic nie-
cum est Christus, illic vobiscum, Scripturae te-
stimonia pro operibus. Chrifdus aulem Dominus
esl Scriplurac, et bonorum operum.Uem respon-
i\m\ ruiMus
189
dc simpliciter: Tu ^irgos scrvum, idest, Scripln-
ram, quam relinqiio libi; crgo urgco Dominum,
qui rcx csl Scriplurac.
Egrcgia sane solulio, qnasi Clirislus, cl Scriplu-
ra conlraria sint, ct non polius Ciirislus por Scri-
l)lurani nos alloqualur. Ul omillam, quod hic ille
csl Lulhcrus, qui in lib. de abroganda missa. clin
omnibus fere scriplis suis, sola Scriplura frclus
conlemnit omncs Palres, omnia concilia, omnem
Efclcsiac, et tolius orbis terrae consueludincm.
Kimirum illud assequi voluit,ul ipse unus uou so-
lum pro omnibus Palribus et conciliis, sed eliam
pro omnibus divinis lileris haberclur.