Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 16: That Men Are Not Freed by Baptism from the Obligation of Church Law
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).
The third proposition: Baptism does not free men from the obligation of church law. This is had in canon 8 of the council, and was laid down against Luther, who, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism, and everywhere elsewhere, teaches that neither the pope nor any man can lay down one syllable by which the consciences of baptized men are bound.
Where it is to be observed that the faithful are freed by the adversaries from obedience to the divine laws in one way, and from obedience to human laws in another. For the divine laws, they affirm, bind in conscience, so that it is a sin to break them; but yet they add that such transgressions are pardoned to the faithful, or not imputed, and by this it is the same as if they were free from keeping those laws. But human laws, whether of the Church or of the state, they affirm do not bind in conscience except by reason of scandal or contempt, which are forbidden by the divine law. And so to transgress a human law, even on purpose, is not only not imputed as sin, but is no sin at all among the adversaries. Wherefore both Chemnitz and Calvin, the one in his Examination, the other in his Antidote, simply reject this canon 8, and openly defend Luther's opinion.
But since we have carefully refuted this error in the disputation on the Supreme Pontiff, and briefly in book 2 On the Sacraments in General, chapter 31, on ceremonies, it will be enough in this place to show that the obligation of human law does not fight with Baptism. Which will be done by answering their objection, which is of this kind: “Through Baptism we are given over to the service of God; therefore we are freed from all other bonds. And this is what the Scriptures teach everywhere. The last chapter of Matthew: 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. 1 Corinthians 7: You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. Colossians 2: If you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you yet decree as though living in the world, according to the precepts and doctrines of men? Ezekiel 20: Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers. Matthew 15: In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men.” And these indeed Chemnitz brings forward; but he adds one, which alone was enough for Calvin: “There is one lawgiver, says James, chapter 4, that is able to destroy and to deliver. When they have shown this to be false,” says Calvin, “we will not refuse to let them bind us by their laws.”
But there is no need to show that what James says is false, since it is most true; but that from that truth, not well understood, something false and pernicious and contrary to the word of God was wrongly gathered by Calvin. For James speaks of the supreme lawgiver, who so gives laws to others that he receives none from another, and who can so destroy and save those whom he has condemned or absolved that he needs no one's help and can be hindered by no one; and such a lawgiver, we admit, is not the pope, nor the emperor, but God one and alone. But it is not well gathered from this that there are not also certain men who are truly lawgivers, though set under God the supreme lawgiver; so that as they give laws to inferiors, so they themselves too receive them from a superior, that is, from God.
And that this is the sense of James is plain, first, from the context itself. For James wished to prove that men ought not to detract from other men. He proves it because the law of God forbids it: “For he,” he says, “that detracteth his brother, detracteth the law,” as if the law were not good. And he proves that one must not detract from the law because: “He that judgeth the law, is not a doer of the law, but a judge.” And he proves that there ought to be no judge of the divine law because: “There is one lawgiver,” that is, there is one alone who gives the law to all, and all without exception, that one excepted, are subject to the law. This argument of St. James, well understood, proves nothing else than that there is no such lawgiver besides God, who does not receive the law from another. Second, the same is plain because the Scriptures, which surely do not fight with themselves, not rarely give the name of lawgiver and judge to men: as Proverbs 8, “By me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things”; Psalm 2, “Receive instruction, you that judge the earth.” And it is confirmed from like places: Matthew 23, “One is your Father, who is in heaven”; likewise, “One is your master, Christ.” And yet the Apostle calls himself a father, 1 Corinthians 4, and a teacher, 2 Timothy 1.
To the other places, which are Chemnitz's alone, I answer: Through Baptism we are given over to God in service, and so are freed from the contrary service. But the contrary service is not the obedience and service which is rendered to men, but the service of the devil and of sin; for that alone hinders us from serving God, while this rather helps than hinders. Hence in Romans 6 it is said: “Being made free from sin” (not from men), “and become servants to God.” And the same Apostle everywhere commands that after Baptism servants obey their masters, children their parents, private persons the magistrates, both civil and ecclesiastical: Ephesians 6, Colossians 3, Romans 13, Hebrews 13, and elsewhere.
To the first place, from the last chapter of Matthew: if Chemnitz knew the method of making an argument, he ought to argue so: the Lord orders that the baptized be taught to keep all his precepts. But one of his precepts is that we obey the laws of our superiors, Luke 10: “He that heareth you, heareth me.” Therefore it fights with the word of the Lord, and with the whole profession of Baptism, to refuse to be bound to keep the laws of the Church. For although the Lord in the last chapter of Matthew did not expressly and by name order the laws of the Church to be kept, yet he commanded it generally and implicitly.
To the second, from 1 Corinthians 7: The Apostle does not forbid human service absolutely; for in the same place he approves it as useful for humility; but only in so far as it would be contrary to the service of God; which would happen if one served a man in those things which are against God, or if one served a man chiefly for the man's sake, since one must serve even a man for the sake of the Lord, whose servants we chiefly are. Which sense the Apostle expressed more clearly, Colossians 3, where he orders servants to serve their masters as Christ, so that in the man whom they serve they consider not so much the man as Christ, for love of whom they willingly subject themselves to a man.
To the other places we have answered in the last chapter of book 2 On the Sacraments in General.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI.
Pcr liaptismum non liberari homincs ab
obligalione lcgis ccclcsiaslicac.
Tcrlia propositio: Non libcrat Ba.piismus liomi-
nes ab obligaiione ecrlcsiaslicac legis. Ilacc habc-
lur in 8. canon. conoilii, estque posila adversus
LuUicrum, qui in libro de caplivilalc Babylonica,
cap. de Baplismo, ct alibi passiiu doccl, uon pos-
se papam, aut ullum hominum unam syllabam sta-
luere,qua obligentur couscientiae hominum bapli-
zatorum.
Ubi illud observandum, alio modo ab adversa-
riis liberari fideles ab obcdienlia legum divinarum,
cl alio modo ab obedientia legum humanarum.Nara
divinas leges alTirmant obligare in conscicnlia. ila
ul sit peccafum eas violarc:sed lamen addunt fide-
libus indulgeri ejusmodi praevaricationcs,seu non
imputari; ac pcr boc idem esse, ac si liberi essent
ab earum lcgum obscrvalionc. At leges humanas,
sive ecclesiasticas, sive polilicas alTn-manl non o-
bligare in conscienlia, nisi rationc scandali, aul
contcmplus; quac sunl proiiibita lcge divina. Ita-
que Iransgredi Icgem humanam ctiam sludiose,
non modo non iuiputatur ad peccatum, sed neque
est ullum pcccatum apud advcrsarios. Quare tam
Kemnitius, quam Calvinus, ille in suo cxamine,
isle in suo Antidolo canoncm istum 8. simplicitcr
rcjiciunl, ac Lulheri scnlcnliam apcrtc dcfcn-
dunl.
Scd quoniam hunc errorem nos accuratc rcfuta-
vimus in dispulalione dc summo pontiHcc, cl bre-
viter in lib. 2. de sacramentis in gencrc, cap. ."il.
de caeremoniis, satis crit hoc loco oslcndcrc obli-
galionem Icgis humanae non pugnare cum IJapli-
smo. Id quod ficl solvcndo ipsorum objcctioncm,
quac est hujusmodi: Per Jtaplism.um addicAm.ur
divinae scrvituli,ergo liberamur ab omnibus ali-
is vinculis . Atqm lioc esl, quod Scripturac pas-
simdocent. Matth. ultimo: Baptizanles eon in no-
mine Patris, cl Fiiii ct Spirilus sancti, docenles
cos servarc quaccumquc mandavi volns. 1. Co-
rinlh. 7. Prctio empticstis, nolitc fieri servi lio-
minum.. Coloss. I.Simorlni esiis cum Clirislo ab
clemcnlisliu/jus mund:i,quidadhuc decrctis mun-
i!M.m;Mi.M. Vol. III.
di tcnemini juxla mandala, et doctrinas homi-
num/* l']/.ech. 20. In p^racccplis patrum veslrorum
nolitc ambulare. Matth. 15. Fruslra colunt mc
mandaiis liominum.VA hacc qnidcm profcrt Keni-
nilius: addil vcro nnum, quod solum Calvino salis
fuil: Etunus est legistator, inquit Jacobus cap. i.
qui polcst perdere, ct salvare. Vbi hoc falswn
essc, inquit Calviims, demonsiraverint,nonrccu-
sabimus, quin suis nos legibus adstringanl.
At non opuscst demonsiiarc id cssc falsum,quo(i
Jacobus dicit. cum sit verissimum, sed ex illo vcro
non bene inlellecto falsum aliquid elpcrniciosum,
el verbo Dci repugnans a Calvino perperam cssc
collcclum.Jaoobus enim de summo legislalorc lo-
quilur; qui ita fcrt aliis lcgcs, ut nullas ab alio ac-
cipial, quique ila potest pcirdcrc et salvarc, quos
damnaverit, aul absoIvcrit,ut nullius opeindigeai.
el a nuUo impediri qucat:talem autem lcgislatorcm
fatemur non csse papam, ncque imperatorem, sed
unum el solum Dcum. Scd non indc bcnc colligi-
lur non esse ctiam homincs quosdamverc lcgisla-
lorcs,licet sub Deo summo lcgislatore constitulos;
ila ut sicut inferioribus danl leges, ita eliam acci-
piant ipsi a supcriorc, idest a Deo.
Esse aulcm cum scnsum Jacobi patct, primo cs.
ipso conlcxtu. Kiim probare volebat Jacobus non
dcbcre homincs aliis hominibus detrahcrc.Id pro-
bat, quia lex Dci id prohibct: Qui enim, inquit,
detrahitfratri, dctrahil legi, quasi lcx bona noii
cssel. Non esse autcm delrahendum legi probat,
quia: Qui detrahit legi, judical legem; qui aulcni
judical legcm, non esl factor legis, scd judex.
Wullum auicm esse debere judiccm legis divinae,
probat. quia: Vnus est legislalor, idest, unus so-
lus cst, qui dat omnibus Iegem,et omncs omnino,
illo uno cxccplo, subjccti sunt legi.lloc argumen-
lum s. Jacobi bcne inlellectum, nihil aliud probal,
nisi nullum cssc praetcr Dcum;talcm legislalorcm,
qui non ab alio lcgcm accipiat. Secundo idcm pa-
let, quia Scriplurae, quac ccrle secum non pu-
gnant, iion raro nomcit Icgislatoris et judicis tri-
buunl hominibus, ul Provcrb. 8. Pcr mc rcgesrc-
gnant.ct legum conditorcsjusta cZeccrnmif.Psalm.
2. Erudimini qui judicalis terram. Et conlirma-
lur cx similibus. niallh. 2.3. Vnns cst Paler vesler,
qui cst in coelis. Dem: Magister vester, unus cst
Christus. Et lamcn Aposlolus vocal se Palrcm 1.
Cor. \. ct Magistrum. 2. Timol. 1.
Ad alia, quae sunt solius KiMnnitii. Respondco:
Pcr Baplismum nos Dco addici iu servitutcm, ac
proindc libcrari a scrvitule conlraria.Contraria au-
tcm servilus, non cst obcdicnlia, ct scrvilus, (|uac
l^racslalur hominibus, scd scrvitus diaboli, cl pco-
cati; illa cnim sola impcdil nc scrviamus Dco, isla
aulcm juvat polius, quam impcdit. Unde Uoman.O.
dicilur: iiberali <i'pccc(Uo uon ab hominil)us;,sf;r-
vi aiilem facli Dco. El idcm Aposlolus passiiu iin-
pcrat; ul obcdianl posl nnplismum scrvi dominis ,
lilii parcnlibiis.privali magislralibus, lum polilicis,
lum cliam ccclcsiaslicis, l;plics. C». Coloss. '.\. Uo-
man. 1.'). Slchr. i:». ct alibi.
.\il primum locum cx iMallhaei ultimo. Si Kem-
iiirms nossct rationcm argumcnla coiificicnili, ila
argumcntari dcbcrct: Domiiuis jubcl, iil doccim-
ll'0
l)K SACIUMKNTO IJAPTISMI
liir l);i|)li/.nli sorv;in> omnia ipsiiis pr.KM-cpla. Sod
uiuiin ex ojus praccoplis osl, iil ohsiMvtMim-^ lcucs
pr.iolaloriiin. I.nr. 10. (Jiu ro^ (UnUt mc innlil: oi-
^.'o |)Uj;ii;il cnin viMbo Dninini , cl onni pruressioiio
Uaplisini, nollo oblijjari ail logcs ccclosiaslicas oh-
scrvandas. Klsi oniin Doniinus .Mallli. nll. non
ovprcssc. ol ni)inin;iliin jnssoril scrviu-i li'};os Kf-
(•lesi;ie , lainon gonor.ilmi , ol implifilo id iii;in-
(lavil.
Ail sconniluin ov 1. Oorinlh. 7. Xon proliilx^t A-
poslolus sorviliiliMii linmanain ahsolnlo : n;iin (mu-
«loin ibiiloni :ippruhal l;inii]nani nliloni . ;iil hinni-
lil;iUMn; soil suluin (|uatonus oonlr;iria ossol divino
ohsoiiuiu: (luod liorot, si ipiis lioinini sorvirol in
iis, t]u;io siiiil oontra Dcnin. vol si liomiui scrvirol
praccipuo pro|>ter honiincm, oiiin scrvicndum sil
cliain iiumiiii jiroi^lor i>omii. ouins praooipno sorvi
sunius. Qucm sonsum ox|)rossit .Apostoliis oiarins
Coloss. i. nhi jnhct sorvis.nt dominis snis scrvi;int
lanitiu;im Christo . ita ut in homino cni scrvinnt .
non lam homincm oonsiiioronl. (]nnin {'hrislnm.uh
cujns ainorcm litHMitcr suhjiciuntnr liomini.
.\d aha loca respondimus in ullimo capitc Jiliri
sccundi de sacramcnlis in ircnere.