Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 18: That Sins Committed After Baptism Cannot Be Forgiven by the Mere Memory 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).
The fifth proposition: It cannot be that sins which are done after Baptism are forgiven by the mere memory and faith of the Baptism received; but the sacrament of Penance is necessary. This is had in canon 10 of the Council of Trent, and is against Luther, in the book On the Babylonian Captivity, the chapter on Baptism; Calvin, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, sections 3 and 4, and in the Antidote to the council; and Chemnitz in the censure of this canon 10.
And it is first to be noted what is their opinion and what the Church's on this matter. They, then, first teach that Baptism justifies in no other way than by setting the promise before the eyes, and in that way stirring up faith, which alone justifies. Second, they gather from this that when someone sins after Baptism he can, through the memory of Baptism, return again to the very grace of Baptism. For as Baptism itself sets the promise before the eyes, so too do the memory and thought of Baptism; and so the memory itself too stirs up faith and justifies in the same way. Which we see in other things too: for if someone, on seeing a striking image of the Crucified, is moved to love of Christ crucified, surely afterwards too, when he does not see the image, if he thinks it over in his mind and remembers that sight, he will be moved. Third, they gather again from this that the sacrament of Penance is nothing else than Baptism itself repeated by memory and faith. And as after Baptism no satisfaction remains, nor are indulgences necessary, nor purgatory after this life, so they think that after penance, that is, after the memory of Baptism, no satisfaction remains, and so on. Fourth, they gather from this that Jerome, on chapter 3 of Isaiah and in the letter to Demetrias, and before him Tertullian in the book On Penance, did not say rightly that penance is the second plank after shipwreck. For the ship of Baptism is never broken; but those who sin fall out of that ship; hence there is no need, when they come to their senses, to look for some plank, but they can return to the ship itself, which waits for them whole and unharmed. This is their opinion, and surely soft and easy enough that it could not rightly displease even Epicurus.
But the Catholics teach far otherwise. For first they affirm that by Baptism sins are forgiven ex opere operato, that is, by the power of the sacrament, as we showed before. Second, they gather from this that the efficacy of Baptism does not extend to the future but only to the past: for it forgives the sins committed before and not yet forgiven, that is, those which it finds in a man when it is in fact received. And the memory of Baptism is useful indeed for giving thanks to God, and to be as it were a bridle against sinning, but in no way suffices for justification. Third, they gather from this that the grace of Baptism, once lost, cannot be recovered again through Baptism, but that another remedy must be sought, harder and more difficult, that is, the sacrament of Penance, after which temporal punishment remains to be paid by way of satisfaction; and from this follows the usefulness of indulgences, the place of purgatory, and so on. Fourth, they gather from this that it was most rightly said by the Fathers that penance after Baptism is the second plank after shipwreck, because those who do penance do not return to the ship of Baptism, but sail with great labour, like those who, having seized a plank after shipwreck, are carried on it.
Note second that Chemnitz, in the Examination of canon 10, wrongly expounds that canon and the opinion of the Catholics. For on page 220 he says that the Catholics assert that a man cannot, even through true penance, return to the grace of Baptism and the covenant which God made with us in Baptism. But the Catholics do not say this. For we admit that a man can return through true penance to grace, to the covenant made with us in Baptism, that is, so that we are again sons of God by grace; but we deny that this is done through the same instruments of the covenant, that is, through Baptism or its memory, but through another sacrament. For although for the most part sins are not so blotted out through the sacrament of Penance that no temporal punishment remains to be paid, yet the penance can be so great that it blots out all punishment wholly, and so there is a return to a grace altogether like that which was had in Baptism.
In the same place Chemnitz says that the Catholics, when they sin after Baptism, rely on their own contrition and satisfaction to return to grace. But this too is said falsely. For we rely on the grace of God, the merits of Christ, and the power and efficacy of the sacrament, not on our own contrition; though we require contrition as a disposition; as also when we are baptized we require faith and penance, and yet we do not rely on them as causes of justification, but on the grace of God, the merits of Christ and the efficacy of the sacrament.
Then on pages 235 and 236 Chemnitz says that the council did not dare to condemn Luther's opinion expressly, because it feared the judgment of pious ears in so great a light of the Gospel; and so it distorted it, and condemned it thus distorted. And he shows that it distorted it, because the council says anathema to those who teach that sins committed after Baptism are forgiven by the mere recollection of the Baptism received; that is, to those who persevere and go on in crimes without penance, that for them, if only they remember in a perfunctory and merely historical way that they were once baptized, sins are forgiven by such a recollection; and he adds that this opinion, truly Epicurean, is condemned by his own people too with a loud voice. But good Chemnitz, while he wishes to show that Luther's opinion was distorted by the council, himself distorts the opinion of the council, and indeed by so manifest a lie that it is a wonder. For the council, in that very canon 10, which Chemnitz copied out in the same words in his Examination, does not say that among the Lutherans sins are forgiven by the mere recollection of Baptism, and that perfunctory and historical; but it says, “by the mere memory and faith of Baptism.” Where the council adds faith (which Chemnitz always leaves out when he harries the canon), and does not add “historical” or “perfunctory,” which Chemnitz added of his own. And so Chemnitz, partly by taking away and partly by adding, distorted the canon of the council. But the council, in few words, after the manner of the other canons, simply set down Luther's opinion, and condemned it plainly and openly.
Note third that the careful proof of the Catholic truth and the refutation of the error of the Lutherans does not belong to this place, but concerns the disputation on Penance; and here it is only to be proved very briefly that those who sin after Baptism cannot return to the ship of Baptism, but need another remedy.
First, then, it is proved from the Apostle, Hebrews 6: “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated to be renewed again to penance.” Where the Apostle does not mean to say that the fallen cannot return to penance in any way; for that is the error of the Novatians, which not even the adversaries approve; but he means to say that they cannot be renewed to penance in the way those are renewed who are baptized. For so Ambrose, Chrysostom and the other interpreters expound it; and Chemnitz admits the same exposition in the Examination of the following canon, page 210. And the same is plain from the words, “illuminated” and “renewed” and “crucifying again the Son of God,” which are proper to Baptism, in which we are enlightened and renewed and imitate the death of Christ.
Someone will perhaps say for Chemnitz: this place proves that Baptism cannot be repeated; but it does not prove that a man cannot return to reconciliation through the memory of Baptism. Nay, truly this place proves that above all. For the adversaries, although they will not have the sprinkling of water repeated, yet will have the efficacy of Baptism repeated, so that through Baptism the sins committed afterwards are truly forgiven, and forgiven with the same ease and the same perfection and fullness as before, so that the second reconciliation is in no way more laborious than the first. But this is the very thing the Apostle denies. For in the first place he therefore would not say, “It is impossible to be baptized again,” but, “It is impossible to be renewed again to penance,” that is, the penance of Baptism. Besides, the Apostle's purpose is to deter baptized men from sins, and he deters them by this reason, that they will not be able to be reconciled any more with the same ease. But according to the Lutherans there is the same ease, nay even greater, in the second reconciliation than in the first; for it is easier to remember and think of Baptism than to be in fact baptized.
Second, the same is proved from the testimonies of the Fathers, who always laid the heaviest labours on those who sinned after Baptism before they reconciled them; as is plain from Cyprian in the sermon On the Lapsed, and from others, whom there is no need to name, since Calvin, book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 4, section 38, says that almost all the ancients whose books are extant either slipped in this part or spoke too harshly and severely. Where he openly admits that the ancient Fathers, and indeed almost all, were not of the opinion that reconciliation was equally easy in Baptism and after Baptism.
Third, the same is plain by reason. For no fairness allows that those who sin before Baptism and those who sin after Baptism should have an equally easy way to the grace of God; since the former did not know God, the latter knew him; the former did not have grace, the latter had it. For although catechumens before Baptism know God by faith, and often even burn with charity, yet all these belong to the grace of Baptism. For both the teaching of the catechism is a disposition for Baptism, and that grace and charity which is sometimes found in catechumens proceeds from the vow of Baptism. But let us also briefly clear away their objections.
Luther's first argument is taken from that promise of the last chapter of Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” For this promise always remains and is always true. Wherefore he who by sinning has withdrawn from faith and from the covenant of Baptism, if he begins to believe again and to embrace the covenant of his Baptism, will surely be saved. Luther confirms it, because in this way in the Old Testament the Jews, when they returned to penance, in order to be reconciled to God, called to mind the going out from Egypt.
I answer: The argument concludes nothing; because although the truth of the promise is perpetual, yet it is conditional, not absolute. Otherwise all apostates would be saved; for of them it is true to say, they believed and were baptized. And so the condition is understood: if he remains in faith and in the baptismal covenant, he will be saved; and if he does not remain, he will not be saved by this remedy, but must seek another. For he who has once fallen from the covenant of Baptism through mortal sin cannot return to it again; for one does not return to the covenant of Baptism by mere thought or memory of Baptism; and to be in fact baptized again, which would truly be to return to the covenant of Baptism, is in no way lawful. And this is plain by the example of faith and of other things: for he is not said to return to faith who thinks that he once believed, but he who begins again in act to believe. And that confirmation about the going out from Egypt proves nothing either. For they did not commemorate that going out as though by that commemoration sins were cleansed, but so that, having commemorated so striking a benefit, they might reproach themselves with their ingratitude toward God, and in that way provoke themselves to penance; which benefit we do not deny that Baptism brings us too. I add that if Luther's opinion were true, the Jews ought rather to have commemorated circumcision, which for them stood in the place of Baptism, than the going out from Egypt.
Chemnitz's second argument is this. The Scriptures, when they speak of the effect of Baptism, describe it now by the past tense, now by the future, now also by the present; therefore Baptism has the power of cleansing all sins, past, present and future. He proves the antecedent. For in Titus 3 it is said in the past: “He saved us by the laver of regeneration.” In the last chapter of Mark it is said in the future: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.” In 1 Peter 3 it is said in the present: “Baptism now saveth you.” Ephesians 5: “Cleansing it by the laver of water.” Of which place Augustine speaks so, book 1 On Marriage and Concupiscence, chapter 33: “What Paul says, Cleansing it by the laver of water, is to be taken so, that by the same laver of regeneration and word of sanctification all the evils of regenerated men whatever are cleansed and healed; not only the past sins, which are all now forgiven in Baptism, but also those which are contracted afterwards by human ignorance or weakness; not that Baptism is repeated as often as one sins, but that by this very thing, that it was once given, it comes about that pardon of any sins whatever is obtained for the faithful, not only before but also afterwards.” Lastly Chemnitz adds that the whole is most clearly explained in Romans 6.
I answer: There is no place of Scripture from which it can be proved that future sins are forgiven by Baptism, or even present ones, that is, those which we commit in the present, who were baptized long ago, which can be called future in respect of Baptism. And what is objected from the last chapter of Mark, “shall be saved,” is either taken of salvation in fact, that is, of the everlasting glory itself; and that there is no doubt is future, but it is not the effect but the end of Baptism. But we are speaking of the effect; for the effect of Baptism is the remission of past sins, and its end the future blessed life, according to that of the Apostle, Romans 6: “But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.” Or it is taken of salvation in hope, that is, of the grace of justification itself; and it is certain that this follows at once upon Baptism; and so it is indeed future in respect of Baptism, but of past sins, not future ones. As he who says, “If you take such a medicine, you will be cured,” shows that the cure will follow after the medicine, but that the cure is of a sickness contracted before, not of one to be contracted afterwards.
And what is objected from 1 Peter 3, “Baptism now saveth you,” is not to the point. For Peter, when he speaks of the present time, does not compare Baptism with sins, but the time of Christ with the time of Noah, and says that as in the time of Noah the flood saved eight men through the ark, so now in the time of Christ Baptism saves believers, and so on.
What is objected from chapter 5 to the Ephesians, “cleansing it,” is easily explained. For that word, “cleansing,” is not referred to single men, but to the various men who make up one Church. For Christ cleanses the Church daily by the laver of water, because daily some are baptized; yet all, when they are baptized, are cleansed from past sins, not from future ones. And if anyone refers it to single men, then it must be said that future sins are cleansed by Baptism not immediately but mediately: because, namely, he who is baptized, through the grace which he received in Baptism, obtains pardon of the venial sins which he commits afterwards, if he asks for it; and besides, through the character of Baptism he has a right to the sacrament of Penance, by which mortal sins too are cleansed; which sacrament those who lack Baptism cannot receive. And this is what Augustine says in that place which Chemnitz cites. For Augustine says only that future sins are in some way cleansed by Baptism, because without Baptism received the other things which are done to cleanse sin, as penance, almsgiving, fasting and so on, profit nothing. “For what would it profit,” he says, “either penance before Baptism, unless Baptism followed, or after, unless it went before?” Hence the same Augustine, when he speaks of the immediate and proper effect of Baptism, writes the contrary plainly, as in letter 23 to Boniface: “A little one, having once received the grace of Christ, does not lose it except by his own impiety, if, as he grows in age, he turns out so wicked; for then he will begin to have sins of his own, which are not taken away by regeneration but healed by another cure.”
And lastly what is objected from chapter 6 to the Romans has no weight. For the Apostle in that chapter does not teach how sins are forgiven after Baptism, but how they ought to be avoided: for he says that through Baptism a man dies to sin, that he may thenceforth live to God; and so that a man once reborn in Christ ought with all diligence to beware lest he be defiled again and die. But what has this to do with the matter we are treating?
The third argument is of the same Chemnitz. God's covenant with man is perpetual: Isaiah 54, “With everlasting kindness have I had mercy on thee.” Romans 3: “Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” 2 Timothy 2: “If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he cannot deny himself.” Jeremiah 3: “But thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers: nevertheless return to me, saith the Lord.” Therefore the covenant made with us in Baptism is never so broken that we cannot return to it and renew it. And he confirms it because Paul, Galatians 3 and 1 Corinthians 12, calls back those who fell after Baptism to the promise of the grace of Baptism. Lastly he adds that the very nature of that promise shows this. For the promise of Baptism is, “That, being justified by the grace of Christ, we may be heirs of life everlasting,” Titus 3. And this is the general reason of justification, after any fall whatever; therefore we are always justified through Baptism.
I answer: Chemnitz plays with the Scriptures without any shame, and abuses their testimonies. For the place of Isaiah 54 contains an absolute promise, namely of cherishing the Church perpetually; for that promise depends on no condition. For the marriage between Christ and the Church is wholly indissoluble. Likewise the place of Romans 3 contains an absolute promise of sending the Messiah into the world. But the promise of Baptism is not absolute but conditional, as is plain, because it includes the condition of faith, of perseverance and so on. And the place of 2 Timothy 2 is for us. For when Paul says, “If we believe not, he continueth faithful, he cannot deny himself,” he signifies that God is faithful in this way, that he does what he promised, while he rewards the just and punishes the wicked. Hence he promised: “If we suffer, we shall also live with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us.” Where you see a conditional promise. The place of Jeremiah 3 teaches that God receives men to grace if they return, but does not teach that he receives them in the same way and by the same instruments by which he received them before. The place of Galatians 3 does nothing for the matter. For Paul in that place does not teach how the wicked who fell after Baptism are justified, as Chemnitz feigns, but teaches that men are not justified by circumcision and the other works of the law, but by the faith of Christ; which he proves because those who are baptized put on Christ. And the place of 1 Corinthians 12 does not bear on the present matter even in appearance. For Paul says only that we are all one body, because we were baptized in one Spirit; nor does he add anything about the justifying of the fallen after Baptism. Lastly the argument from the nature of the promise of Baptism is a foolish sophism. For although Baptism promises salvation through Christ, and whoever are justified after any fall whatever are justified through Christ, yet it does not follow from this that those who fell after Baptism are justified through Baptism. For to be justified through Christ extends more widely than to be justified in Baptism through Christ. For the sacrament of Penance too, and of the Eucharist, and the others promise salvation through Christ.
The fourth argument is Calvin's, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 3. In Baptism the purity of Christ is communicated to us. But it is always in force, nor is it overwhelmed by any stains; therefore the power of Baptism once conferred on us always remains, and we can always return to it and be justified by it. He confirms it from the Fathers, who reproved those who put off Baptism until death. For many of old, deceived by this error, that Baptism cleanses only past sins, would not be baptized except at the end of life, when they would no longer sin. But the Fathers found fault with such an error; therefore they believed that by Baptism all sins, even future ones, are cleansed.
I answer: Calvin's argument rests on a false foundation, namely that we are justified by the very justice of Christ imputed to us. For that truly is always in force, nor is it overwhelmed by any stains; but it is false that we are formally justified by it. For we are justified by our own justice, inhering in us, which plainly is not always in force, and is overwhelmed and abolished by stains when we sin. To the confirmation I answer that it makes for us. For if the Fathers had believed what Calvin believes, when they reproved those who put off Baptism they would have given this cause, that Baptism washes away future sins too; for nothing more effective could have been brought. But none of the ancients gave this cause, but certain others; as is plain from Basil in oration 13, the exhortation to Baptism, and Nazianzen in the oration on holy Baptism, and Chrysostom, homily 1 on the Acts, who exhort men not to put off Baptism, both because of the danger and uncertainty of death, and because of the many goods which Baptism brings with it.
The fifth argument is Calvin's in the same place, section 4. The power of the keys cannot be separated from Baptism; therefore those who fell after Baptism and are reconciled by the power of the keys are reconciled through Baptism. He proves the antecedent. For the power of the keys is not exercised without the preaching of the Gospel, by which we announce that the wicked are cleansed by the blood of Christ; and the sign and testimony of the blood of Christ shed is Baptism; therefore the power of the keys is not exercised without Baptism.
I answer: If the argument were worth anything, it would also prove that no one is reconciled except through the Eucharist or its memory; for the Eucharist too is a sign and testimony of the blood of Christ shed. But the argument concludes nothing, both because it is false that the power of the keys is not exercised except by the preaching of the Gospel, and also because to be cleansed from wickedness by the blood of Christ extends more widely than to be cleansed through Baptism. For it is the blood of Christ which always cleanses, but it is applied through various instruments: sometimes through Baptism, sometimes through the other sacraments, sometimes without sacraments through faith and true conversion, sometimes through martyrdom, as was said above.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVIII.
Sola. mcmoria Bnplismi non posse diniiUi
peccata, quae fiuntposL Baplismum.
Quinla proposilio: Nonpotcsl fieri, ut soUi me-
moria.ct fidc susccpli UapUsmi peccala vciiuUan-
Um\ PUIMUS 191
lur, quae jwst Baplismumfianl, sednecessarium Nola seciinJoJvomnilium in Examine canon.IO.
esl Poenilenliac sacranienium. ilaec habclur in perperam cxponcrc cuiu canoncm.elcatholicorum
10. canonc concilii tridcnlini, cstquc advorsus Lu- scntcntiam. Nuni pag. 220. dicit: Catholicos assc-
thcrum lib. dc cnptivil. Dubyl. cap. de Uaptisnio, rerc, non possc hoinincm etiam pcr veram pocni-
Calvinumlil). i. Institut. cap. Ij. § 3. el 4. ct in tenliam redire ad gratiam l{aptismi,ct focdus.quod
Anlidolo concilii, clRcmnitium in censura hujus Deus nobiscum in liaplismo pepigit. At non hoc
canon. 10. calholici dicunt: Fatemur enim posse hominem
Est aulem primo notandum, quae sit ipsoruni , rcdire per veram poenitenliam ad graliam, adlbn-
ct quae Ecchisiac senlcnlia de hac re. Illi igilur dus nobiscum initum in Baplismo, idcst, ut ilcruni
primo docent, Baptisraum non aliter justilicare , simus lilii Dci per gratiam, scd ncgamus id fieri
nisi suhjiciendo ante oculos promissionem, et eo per eadecn instrumcnta focdcris, idest. per i5ap(i-
modo cxcilando lidcm.quae sola justilicat.Secundo smum, aul cjus mcmoriam. sed per aliiid sacra-
inde colligunt, cum quis peccat posl Baptismum , mentum. Nam cliamsi,ut plurimum non ila dclean-
posse pcr memoriam Baptismi ilcrum redirc ad tur peccala per sacramenlum Pocnitenliae, ul non
graliam ipsam Bnptisnii. Nam sicut ipse Baplismus rcmancat aliqua poena temporalis lucnda, lamen
subjicil ante oculos promissionem, ila eliam faclt potest tanla essc poenitenlia , ut planc delcat o-
memoria, et cogitalio Baptismi: proinde ipsa ctiam mnem poenain, cl sic rcdilur ad gratiara omnino
memoria cxcital fidcm. et eodem modo justiiicat. similem ei, quae in Baptismo habita est.
Id quod ciiam in aliis rebus videmus: nam si quis Ibidcm Kemnitius dicit: Calholicos,cum pcccant
visa insigni imagine crucifixi,moYetur ad amorcm posl Bapiismum, nili propria contritione et satis-
Christi crucifixi, certe etiam postea cum imaginem laclione, ul redeant ad gratiam. Sed hoc cliam fal-
uon vidcl, si mentc rccogilel, et recordelur cam so dictum est. Nilimur enim gratia I)ci,Chris(i me-
speciera, movebilur. Tertio, indc rursum colligunl rilis ctvirtute, atque eriicacia sacramenti.non pro-
sacramenlem Poenitentiae nihil esse alind, nisi i- pria contritionc; licet conlrilioncm, ut dispositio-
psum Baptismum memoria, el fide rcpetilum. Et nem requirnmus: sicut cliam cum baptizamur, re-
sicut post Baplismum non remancnt ulla salisfa- quirimus fidcm et poenilentiam; et tamcn non iis
ctio. nec sunt necessariae indulgcntiae , nec pur- nitimur, ut caussis justificalionis, sed Dci gralia ,
gatorium post hanc vitam; ita existimant post poe- Chrisli mcritis ct sacramenti eflicacia.
nilenliam, idest, post mcmoriam Baplismi nullara Deinde pagina 235. et 23G.Remnilius dicil:Cou-
superesse satisfactioncm etc. Quarlo . inde colli- cilium non fuisse ausum expressedamnare Luihcri
gunt non rccte dixisse Ilicronymum in cap. 3. i- sentcntiam, quia meluebat judicium piarum au-
saiae, el in episl. ad Demetriadem, et an(e eum rium in tanla lucc evangelii, ideo eam depravasse,
Terlullianum in lib. de Pocnitcnlia , Poenitcnliam ac sic depravalara danmasse. Depravasse aulem o-
essc secundam tal)ulam post naufragiura. Nam Ba- stcndit, quia conciliura analliema dicit illis, qui
plismi navis numquam frangilur; sed qui peccant , doccnl peccata, quac post Baplisraum commitlun-
ab illa navi cxcidunl; unde non est opus, cura rc- tur, sola recordatione suscepti Baplismi dimilli;
sipiscunt, ul quacrant aliquam labulam, scd rcdire hoc cst, qui sine poeniteulia in scclcribus pcrsc-
possunt ad ipsam navim, quae integra ct incolu- verant, ct pcrgunl; illis si lantum pcrfuncloric ct
rais eos expeclat. Ilaec est ipsorum senlenlia, ct hislorice recordcntur; se aliquando baptizatos esso
ccrle salis delicata ct mollis, ut ne Epicuro qui- tali recordationo peccata dimitli:ct adilit hanc sen-
dem merilo displicere quer.t. tenliam vere Epicuroam etiam a suis sonora voce
At vero catholici longc alitcr docent. Primura damnari. Al bonus Kcmnitius dum vtill oslendero
enim affirmant Baplismo remilti peccata ex operc a concilio dcpravalam scntcnliau) Lulheri, depra-
operato, idcst, vi sacramon(i,ut antca ostondimus. vat ipsc concilii senlcnliam. ct quidcra tam mani-
Secundo, inde colliguut Baplisrai efllcaciara non fcslo mendacio, ut mirum sit. Nara conciiium in
se exlendercad futurum,scd solura ad practerilum: illo ipso 10. canonc, queni Kemnilius iisdem ver-
remi((it enira peccala anlca comraissa, et nondum bis dcscripsit in suo Examinc, non dicil, sola re-
dirnissa, idest, ca quae invenil in homine, qunndo cordatione Baptismi, oaque porfuncloria ot hislo-
roipsa suscipKur. Mcmoria au(cm Baptismi u(ilis rica din)!l(i pccca(a apud Lullicranos: scd dicil.sola
quidem esl ad agcndas Deo gratias , et ul sit quasi memoria et fide Baplisrai. Ubi concilium addil fi-
IVaonum ad non pcccandum, sed nullo modo siif- dem (quam Kcmnitius somi^or omitlil, cum cano-
licit ad juslilicalionem. Tcrtio, indc colligunt amis- nom cxagilal) ct non addit hisloricain aul j)orfuii-
sara gratiam Baplismi, non posse itcrura rccupcra- cloriam. quae dc suo Komnitius addidit. Ila(pin!
ri por Baptismum, sed quaerendum esse aliud re- Rcmnilius pardra dclrahcnio , partiin addendo ,
medium magis arduum el difficile, idcsl . sacra- dcpravavit canonem concilii.Concilium aulom pau-
monliim Pocnilciiliae. post quod rcmanct lucnda cis vcrbis pro nidrc aliorum canonum simplicilor
lemporalis pocna pro salisfactionc , et inde conse- comprcbcndit Lullicri sentenliam, canupie diserlc
(juilur ulililas indulgciiliarum.purgalorii locus ctc. et aperle damnavil.
Quarlo, indc colligunt rcctissimc dicluin osse a Nola Torlio probationcm accuratara vcritalis ca-
Patribus,Pocnilontiam posl Baplismum esse secun- tholicao.ot ndVilatioiKMU erroris Lutlicranoruin.iiou
dain labulam post naufragium, quia non redcunt , csse hujus loci, sed ad dis|)u(a(ionein dc Pocnilcn-
qni poenilenliam agiint, ad navim Ba|)tismi, scd lia spcciare.hic vero solum brovissimc probandiim
maguo cum lahore iiaviganl, ut ii, r|ui arrcfila la- ossi!, nou posse ad iiavim Baptismi rcdifc cos,(jui
bula post naulragium, in ca vchunlur. l^cccanl posl Baplismuni, scd indigcrc alio rcmc-
m
DM SACIiA.^lKMd llAPilSMI
iliD.Priimim ii,'iliir u\ prohnliir (>\ Aposloidllchr.!).
Jmiwi^sihiU' cst cos (lui siint illnininnti, itcrimi
rrnnvnri ad }>ocnilcntiinn. \ U\ Apt^sloliis iioii vull
tlirerc. non pusso liipsos redirc :iil poenilenliain
iillo moilo: islo enim esl rrrori\ov;ili;moriim.(pitMii
iu'c udvers;)rii prol);iiil: soil viill (iioor»', lum posso
ronovari jul poenilonli;im, ()uomo(lo renoviiiiliir ,
(]ui l)a|)liz;mlur. ll;i ciiim expoiuml Amlirosius,
('lirysoslomus, ol ;ilii iiilorprclos: ol c^iiulom e\po-
Miionom ;Klmiltil Komnilius in K\;imino so(iucii-
lis canonis, pnj^. 210. cl iilcm piilcl c\ vcrhis ,
JUuminati, cl rcnovati. el, crucifi(jcnli, filiutii
Jki, quac sunl propri;i r>;ii)lismi , in (juo illumi-
luimur , ol ronovanuir, cl Olirisli mortiuii imila-
iiiiir.
Diccl iiliquis forLissc pro Kcmnilio: Ilic locus
prob;iluon posso ilorari ll.iplismum: ;il non probal
non possc liomincmrcdirc ad rcconcili;ilioncm pcr
mcmoriiim I!;'.i)lismi: immo voroliic locus id polis-
simuin |)rol)al. .\am advcrsarii, clsi noliiil ropcli
nsporsioncm aquac, lamon rcpoli volunl Haplismi
ollioaciam, ila ul vcre pcr Uaplisraum rcmillnnlur
pccoala poslca niola.cl rcmill;inlur cadcm lacililato,
cl oadcm porrcolionc, ao ploniludiiic sicul ;inloa,
ut non sil ullo modo sccunda rcconcilialio labori-
osior, quam prima. At lioc ipsuiu cst, quod Apo-
slolus nogat. .\ain in primis idco noluil dicorc im-
possibile csl itorum baplizari. scd impossibilc csl
ilcriim rcnovari ad poenilcntiam, scilicct Baplis-
maloin. Practerca propositum Apostoli csl, dolor-
rorc liomincs baplizatos a pcccatis, quos ca ralio-
ne dctcrret, quia non polcrunl amplius cadom fa-
oililate rcoonciliari. At sccundum Lullioranos ea-
dcm facilitas cst, immo cliam mnjor in secunda
rcconciliationc. quam in prima: facilius cnim est
rccordari ct cogilare Daplismum, quam rcipsa ba-
ptizari.
Secundo idcm probalur ex tcslimoniis Palrum,
qui scmper peccanlibus post Baplismum, imposu-
crunt gnivissimos laborcs, anl(3(iuam cos reconci-
Harcnt, ut palet ex Cypriano iu scrmono dc lapsis,
cl cx aliis , quos nomin;ire non cst opus , cum
Calvinus lib. 3. Instilut. cap. 4. § 38. dical,omnes
forc vclcres, quorura libri cxlant, aulin hac parlc
Japsos, aut nimis aspcrc. ct durc loquutos. Ubi a-
pcrlc confilelur vetcres Palres, ct quidem ferc o-
mnes non fuisse in ea scntcntia, ul essct aeque
f;ioilis rcconcilialio in Baptismo , et post Ba-
ptismum.
Terlio idcmpnletralione. Nulla cnim acquilas
palitur, ut acquc facilcm viam habcanl ad gra-
liam Dci, qui pcccant anle Daplismum, et qui posl
Bnptismum: cum illi Deum ignorarent, isli nos-
seiil: illi non hahercnl gratiam, isli haberent. Kam
elsi catechumcni antc Baplismum Deum pcr fidcm
noverunt, sacpe otiara charitate flagrant: tamcn
haec omnia ad graliam Baptismi perlincnt. INam et
calcchismi doclrinn, disposilio ad Baptismum cst
cl gratia illa , atquc charilas quae interdum in
calcchumcms roperitur , ex volo Baplismi pro-
ccdit. bcd diluamus etiam brevitcr ipsorum ob-
jecta.
Primum argumcnlum Luthcri sumilur cx illa
promissionc, Marci ullimo: Qui credidcril, ct ba-
ptizatus fucrU, salvuscnl. llacc cnim promlssio
scmpor maiiol. ol scmpor osl vora. Qii;iro,(]ui |)oo-
cando ;i lido, ot ;i Baplismi Ibodoro roocssil, si ilc-
rum iiioipi;it crederc, cl :im|>lcoli foodus B;iplismi
sui. 0(>rlo s;ilvus eril. Coiilirm;il Lulhorus, (|ui;i
hoo iiiodo in Tost;imonlo vctori .ludaci . (pMudo
rcdil);inl ad pocnilcnliam , ut roooiioili;ir{!iitur
Dco , ad moiiiuriani rcvocabant cxitum dc Acgy-
plo.
Bospondco: Argumcnlum nihil concludcrc: (|uia
liootvcritas promissionis sil pcrpclua, laincn con-
dilionala csl, non absulut;i. Alioiiui omiics ;i])Osla-
lac s;ilv;ir(Mitur: dc illis ciiim vcrum cst diccro:
Crcdidcriinl, ct l);iptizati sunt. Itaquc intcUigilur
conditio; Si pcrmanscril in fide, cl focdcrc baplis-
m;ili. salvus crit: quod si non pcrm;inscril. non
salvahitur lioc rcmcdio , scd ;iliud quacrerc dc-
bct. Qui cnim scmcl cxcidil pcr pcccatum mort^ilo
a foedcre B;iptismi, non potcst iterum ad illud rc-
dirc: non cnim rcdilur ad focdus Baplismi pcr so-
lam cogilalioncm, scu momoriam Baplismi. Bcipsa
autoin baptiz;iri, quod esset verc redire ad focdu.s
Baplismi, nullo modo liccl. Et palct id cxcmi^Io
lidci, ct aliarum rcrum: non cnim redirc dicitur
ad fidcm, qui cogitat sc aliquando crcdidissc, scd
qui ilcrum actu incipit crcdcrc. Confirmatio aulcm
illa dc cxitu ab Accjypto, nihil ctiam probat: noa
enim commcmorab;inl cxitum illum, quasi ca com-
memoralionc peccata purgarcntur, sed ut comme-
morato tam insigni beneficio, arguercnt ipsi suam
crga Deum ingraliludinem, et co modo se ad poe-
nitcnliam provocarent : quod commodum nobis
quoque adferre Baptismum non negamus. Addo
quod si vera esset Luthcri sententia, dcbuissenl
Judaci commcmorare potius circumcisionem quae
crat iliis pro Baplismo , quam cxjlum dc Ac-
gypio-
Sccundum argumcnlum Rcmnitii est. Scriptu-
rac cum de Baptismi effcctu loquuntur, modo cum
dcscribunt per tempus practcritum, modo per fu-
turum, modo cliam per pracsens ; igitur Baplis-
mus vim habel purgandi omnia pccc;ila practcri-
ta , pracsenlia el fulura. Anlecctlons probat; Nam
lit. 3. dicilur in praeterito: Salvos nos fccit per
lavacrum regcnerationis. Marc. ult. tlicitur in
fulnro: Qui crediderit et baptizatus fucrit, sal-
vus erit. 1. Petr. 3. dicitur in praescnli: Salvos
nos facit Baplisma. Ephes. 5. Mundans eam la-
vacro aquae. De quo loco Auguslinus lib. 1. dc
nupliis et concupiscontia, cap. 33. sic loquitur:
Quod Paulus ait; Mundans eam lavacro aquae,
sic accipiendum est, ut eodem kivacro regcne-
ralionis, etverbo sanctiflcationis, omniaprorsus
mala hominum regeneratorum mundentur, at-
que }<ancntur,non solum praetcrilapeccata,quac
omnia nunc remittuntur in Baptismo, sed ctiam,
qvae poslcrius humana ignoranlia, vel infirmi-
tate conlrahuntur; non ut Baptismus, quolies
pcccatur, totics repctatur; sed quia ipso, quod
xcmcl datum cst, fU, ul non solum antca, ve-
rum etiam poslca quorumlibet pcccalorum venia
jidcUhus impetrclur. Dcniquc addit Kemnitius, id
lotiim claiissime cxplicari, Homan. (>.
Ucspondco: Nullum cssc Scripturac locum, quo
LIJ5i:U IMUMUS
iy.5
prulriri possil, Unplisnio liclori peccala riilurn; juil
!'Ji.iiM pnicscnlia, idcsl.quai; in pracsculi coiuuiil-
liuKis uos, qui jaui iluduiu l)apli/,ali suu)us, (piao
(liiiiicui rcspcclu Uaplisiui. rutuni, dici possuiil.
<)iio(i anlciii objicilur c\ Marci ulliiuo:Sati;us aril,
vVl accipilur dc salule iii rc, idcsl, dc ipsu ^doria
jiiMiipilcrua; cl caiu, uou dul)iuiu csl fuluram cssc,
scd c:i uon csl clTcclus, scd li;us Uaplisiui. Nus a-
ulcm dc cffcclQ disscrimus, cireclus cuim iiaplis-
uii csl rcmissio pcccaluruui pracleriloruiu, iiuis a-
ulem vila bcala fulura, juxla illud Aposloli lioman.
(>. Nunc vcro libcraU a pcccalo, servi aiUcni
facli Deo. habclis fruciam veslrum in samlifica-
tioncm, fincm vcro vitam aclernam: vcl accipi-
tur do salulc in spc, idesl, de ii)sa gralia juslifi-
caliouis; ct cam cerlum cst uiox couscqui ad l]a-
ptismum; proindc esse quidcm lultiram rcspectu
Haptismi^ scd pcccatorum practcrilorum, nou fu-
turorum. Qucmadmodum qui dicit: Si tale phar-
mncum acccperis, cuiabcris; iudical curatiunem
seculuram post mediciiiam, sed cam curalioncm
csse raorbi anlca contracti , non poslca conlra-
licndi.
Quod vero objicilur ex 1. Pctr. 3. Salvos facil
napdsma, non esl ad rem, nam Pclrus cum lu-
quilur dc lempore praescnli,rion comparat Uaplis-
mum cura pcccatls, scd lempus Cbrisli cum tem-
pore Noe, ac dicit, quod sicut Icmporc l\oc dilu-
vium sahos fccit oclo liomines per arcam , ila
iiunc tempore Clirisli salval Baplismus crcdcn-
lcs clc.
Quod objicitur ex cap. 3. ad Ephes. Mundans
eam, facile explicatur. Nam illud (inundans) non
rcferlur ad siugulos homincs, scd ad varios, qui
unam coiisliluunt Ecclcsiam. Chrislus cnim quo-
lidie mundat Ecclesiam lavacro aquae, quia quoli-
dic baplizaulur aliqui; omncs lameu cum baplizau-
tur, mundanlur a pcccalis praeterilis, non a lu-
turis. Quod si quis rcfcrat ad singulos humines,
lum dicendum cst, Baplismo purgari pcccata fulu-
ra, noii immcdialc, scd mcdialc; (piia vidclicct,
qui ba|)lizalus csl, pcr graliaiu, quam in l>apIisiuo
accepit, impctrat veniain pcccalurum vcuialium,
quae poslea facil, si cam pclat; el praetcrca pcr
liaplisini charactcrcui jus habct ad sacramcnlum
Puenilcnliae, quo pcccata cliam morlalia •lurgaii-
lur; quod sacramcnlum pcrcipcre non possunl,
(pii l}a|)Iisuio carcnl. Et hoc cst, quod Augusliiius
dic-il co lo(;o. (|ucm cilat Kcmuilius. Solum ciiim
Augustiniis dicil: l)a|)lismo pcccala futura purga-
ri ali(pjo modo, quia sinc pcrccpto Baplismo nibil
prusuul caclera , quac fiiiulad pcccalum purgan-
dum. ul pocnitcnlia, elccmosynac.jcjuuia clc.Quid
otim, iiiquit. prodcsscl,vel anle Jlaplismum Poc-
nilenlia, nisi liaplismus scqucrclur, vcl j^ostca
nisi pracccdcrvA? Undc idcm Augusliuus cuin lo-
(piilur dc immiMlialo ct propriu cllcclu naplisiui,
discrle conlrarium scribil. ul in cpist. 23. Ad Do-
iiifacium: Scmel acceplam parvuius Chrisli (jra-
liani, non amlUil, nisi prupria impiclalc, si (Ui-
lalis acccssii lam midus evaseril: lunc enimpro'
prie incipicl habcrc pcccala, (luac non rejjcne-
ralione aufcraniar , scd aiia curalione sa-
ncniur.
Quod dcni(pjc ubjicilur cx cap. (>. ad Homaii.
nibil momculi liabcH. l\am Apostolus in co cap.
jiuu doccl quomoilo rcmillanlur pe(;cala post Ua-
ptismum, scd quumodo caveri dcbiNiiiI: tlicit eniin
per Caplismum bomincin mori pcccato. ul dcin-
ccps vival Dco; proiudc homiiiem scincl rcnalum
iu Cbrislo dcbere omni diligculia caverc. ne ile-
ruiu inquinclur el nioriatur. Scd quid liaec ad
rcm dc qua agimus?
Tcrtium argumcnlum esl ejusdem Kcmnilii.Foe-
dus Dci cuin homine perpeluum esl, Isaiae 54. //i
misericordia sempilcrna miserlus sum lui. Uo-
man. 3. Numquid iilorum incredulilas fidem Dci
evacuavil? 2. Timol. 2. Si non crcdimus, illc fi-
drdis permanct, negare seipsum non potesl. Ilie-
rcm. 3. Ta aulem fornicala es cum amaloribus
multis,tamen reverlere ad 7ue, dicil Dominus.
Ergo foedus nubiscum initum in Baplismo num-
quam ita frangitur, quin possimus ad illud rcdirc,
illudque rcnovarc. El confirmat,(]uia l*aulus Galat.
3. et I. Cor. 12. lapsos posl Baplismum revocal
ad promissionera gratiac Baptismi. Dciiiquc addil,
ipsara naturara cjus promissionis buc oslenderc.
Nam promissio Baplismi csl: Vi justiflcaii qralia
Chrisli hacrcdes simus vilae aeteriiac. Tit. 3.
llaec autcra est generalis ratio juslificalionis, posl
queracuraque lapsura; crgo seraper juslificamur
per Baplismum.
Respondeo: Remnitiura sine uUa vcrccundia lu-
dere in Scripturis,earumque tesliinouiis abuli.IVam
locus Isaiae 54. coulinet proraissioncm absolulam,
nimirum de fovcuda perpcluo Ecclcsia; ista enim!
l)roraissio a nulla conditiouc pendcl. Esl enim
Malrimoniuin inler Chrislum cl Ecclcsiam plane
indissolubile. Simililer locus Roinan. 3. conlincl
absolulara promissionem dc millcudo Mcssia in
mundum. Al promissio Baptismi nou csl absolula,
sed cundillonala, ut palcl, quia iucludil coudilio-
ncin fidci, pcrscvcranliae etc. Locus aulcm 2. Ti-
mot. 2. pro nobis esl. Cum enim Paulus dicil: Si
non credimus, ille fidclis pcrmancl; ncqare sei-
psum non poicst.siguificat Dcum ila csse fidelcm,
quia facit quod promisit, dum juslos pracmio, iin-
pios pocna afTicil. Uude proinisit: Si sustincmus,
et convivemus; si nc(javcrimus, ilie negabil nus;
ubi vidcs promissioncm conditionalam. Locus Mic-
rcm. 3. doccl, Deum rccipci-c homines ad graliam
si rcdcant, scd non docct rccipcrc eodcm inodo,
cl pcr cadcm iuslrumcula, quibus aiilca rcccpil.
Locus Ci'l. 3. iiibil facilad rcm. Nam Paulus noii
co loco.quomodo iusliliccnlur impii lapsi posl Ba-
plismum, ul Kcmiiilius fiugil, scd docct homiucs
non juslificari (;ircuincisiouc aliisque opcribus lc-
gis, scd pcr lidcm Cbrisli; id quo<l probal.quia (pii
i),iplizantur, Cbrislum iiiduuiil. Locus aulcm 1.
Coriulh. 12. nc ulla quidcm spccic ad rcin j^rac-
scnlcin facil. Soluiu cnim Paulus dicit csse nos o-
nincs unum corpus, quia in uno spiritu baptizati
suinus:ncc aliquid addit de lapsis juslincandis posl
Baplisfuum. Dcuiipie argmncnlum c.\. ualura pio-
missiouis Baplismi. cst incplum sopbisma. Elsi c-
nim Baplisuius proraillal salutem pcr Chrislum. cl
(piiciiiuquc post (picuicuuKpic lapsiim juslilic.niur,
pcr Chrislum juslilicctur, uun lamcu indc sciiui-
VJi
l)E SACllAMKMO i;Al'llS.Mi
liir, eos jasliliciiri por n.iplisniiini, qni pdsl Haplis-
imiin lapsi sunl. Nnin hiliiis palol jnslilioari pcr
Chrisliim, (in;\in jusliliciiri in I5;i|ilisim) pcr Cliri-
slum. N;im <*liam sacranitMilum l'ociiilciili;i(' cl K-
ucli;nisliao , cl caclera promiUunl salulcm pcr
(llirislum.
Qu.irlum arpumcnlum osl C.alvini lil). 'i.liislilul.
rap. Ij. § il. In r..ii)lisino comimiiiicalur iioiiis
r.hrisli purilas. Sed ea sempcr vijjcl, nec ullis iiia-
eulis opprimilur: iizilur scmpcr iu;mcl virlus ]\,\-
l»lismi nohis scincl oollali. cl scinpcr ail ciuii rcdi-
rc possumns, el per eam jusiillcari. Conrirmal ex
Palribns, qui reprcliciuiunl eos, (jui (lilVcriiul Ha-
plismum usque ad morlcm. .Mulli ciiim ohiu lioc
errorc ilceepli, quo.l llaplismus non purgcl, iiisi
praelerila peccala. nolchanl haplizari, nisi iii liiKi
\ilae. quamlo non amplius cr;inl pccc;iluri. Sod
Patrcs arpuunl ejusmodi errorem; proiiule crede-
l»;ml IJaplismo purgari peccala omnia eliam fu-
lura.
Hcspondco: Argnmcnlum Calvini nili falso fun-
damenlo. quod vidclicel juslilicemur ipsa Chrisli
juslilia nobis imi)ui;ila. lUa enini verc senipcr vi-
uel, ncc ullis niaculis upprimilur: sed falsum esl,
ea nos juslilicari forinalilcr. iNos cnim juslinca-
mur propria. el nobis inhacrcnlc juslilia.^iuac pla-
ne non vip;et. el macnlis ol)ruilur el abolelur.cum
peccamus. Ad connrmalionem rcspondeo, eam pro
iiubis facere. ^am si P;ilres crcdidisscnl id, quod
orcdit Calvinus (luando reprehcndebanl cos qui
Uaplisma dinerebanl, islam caussam reddidisscnt,
(liu)d IJaplismus i;ivel eliam peccala fulura: nihil
fiiim poluil adfcrri (llicacius. Al nullus vclcrmn
isiam rcddidil. scd alias quasdam, ul palel cx Ba-
silio in oralion. \',\. de cxhorlalione ad 15;iplismum
el Nazianzeno oralione in sancluni lavacruiii cl
Chrysoslomo hom. 1. in Acla, qui horlanlur ad
non"dilTerenduin Baplismum, lum ob pcriculLim.el
iiiccrliludincm morlis, luni ob inulla bona, quac
scciiin adlerl Diiplismus.
Quintum argumcnlum csl Calvini ibidcm, § 4.
l>orcslas clavium non potesl scparari a l];iplismo;
crgo qui posl liaptismum lapsi. virlute clavium rc-
ooncilianlur, per liaptismum reconciliaiitur. Anlc-
oedcns probal; Nam poleslas clavium non exerce-
liir sine praedicationc cvaiigclii, qua annunciamus
luipios iiiundari Clirisli sanguinc: signum autcni
el lcslimonium sanguinis Chrisli eflusi, csl Baplis-
nuis; crgo poleslas clavium non exercclur sinc
Uapiismo.
Respondeo: Si argumcnlum aliquid valerct, ef-
liccrcl eliam nullum reconciliari, nisi per Eucha-
risliam. aut ejus memoriam: n;un Euchiirislia csl
eli;ini signum, cl lcslimoniura s;inguiiiis Christi cf-
fusi. Sed argumcnlum nihil concludil, lum quia
r.ilsum cst. clavium polcslalcm non excrceri nisi
l)r;iedicalione evangclii. tum cliam quia lalius pa-
lcl mundari iinpios Chrisli sanguinc, quain mun-
dari per Baptismum. Siquidem Chrisli sanguis esl,
qui semper mundal. sod is per varia inslrumenla
applicalur; aliquando quidcm pcr Baplismura. ali-
iiuando pcr alia sacraraenla , aliquando sincsacra-
uienlis per fidcm, cl vcram conversioncm; aliquan-
do per martyrium. ul supra dicluni esl.