Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 19: On the Baptism of John: the Errors, and That It Was Not the Same Sacrament as Christ's
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 19. On the Baptism of John, and What the Errors Were
There follows the eighth controversy, on the comparison of the Baptism of Christ with the baptism of John, of which there is the first canon of the Council of Trent, session 7, on Baptism: “If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same force as the Baptism of Christ, let him be anathema.” There will be three parts of this controversy. First we will set out the errors and opinions. Second we will open and confirm the truth. Third we will clear away the objections.
As regards the first, there was an ancient error of Petilian the Donatist, that the Baptism of Christ and of John is one. For he distinguished three degrees of the same baptism, and said that John baptized with water, Christ with the Spirit, the Paraclete with fire; but that these three belong to one and the same Baptism. Augustine relates and refutes it, book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapters 32, 34 and 37.
In this our time Luther, at the beginning of his preaching, openly distinguished the baptism of John from the Baptism of Christ. For in the disputation on the baptism of the law, of John and of Christ, published in the year 1520, he sets three differences between these baptisms. First, that the baptism of John is not a sacrament, but Christ's is. Second, that the former does not forgive sins, but the latter does. Third, that those baptized by John had to be baptized again, but not those baptized with the Baptism of Christ.
But this opinion, because it did not hold together well with the rest of the Lutheran teaching on the sacraments, did not please Luther's disciples; for they all taught the contrary, namely that the baptism of John was a sacrament, and forgave sins, and that those baptized by him were not to be baptized again. So Melanchthon teaches in the Commonplaces of the year 1558, the title on the baptism of John: “Although,” he says, “there was a difference in this article, that John preaches Christ about to suffer, the apostles Christ having suffered and risen, yet the ministry was the same, and had the same effects in believers.” Where he openly retracts what he had written in the Commonplaces of the year 1522, the title on Baptism; for there he had taught with Luther that the baptism of John was a sign of mortification, but the Baptism of Christ a sign of justification, and that therefore those whom John had baptized had to be baptized again. The same Philip has the same, and Alesius and Lossius, Lutherans, on John 1. Likewise Martin Bucer and David Chytraeus on Matthew 3; John Brenz, homilies 21 and 29 on Luke. The Centuriators too, Century 1, chapter 4, column 150, and chapter 10, column 301. Likewise Nicholas Selnecker in part 2 of the Paedagogia, the title on Baptism. Zwingli the same, in the book On True and False Religion, the chapter on Baptism; and Calvin both in the Antidote to the council and in the Institutes, book 4, chapter 15, sections 7 and 8. Lastly Martin Chemnitz, in part 2 of the Examination, page 175 and following, agrees with the rest that the baptism of John forgave sins and was the same sacrament as the Baptism of Christ which the apostles ministered; yet he does not dare to define whether those baptized by John were to be baptized again with the Baptism of Christ. For having put the question, and reasons for both sides, he at last speaks so, page 190, at the end: “Let this question, then, be left in the middle, as one that has reasons on both sides.” In which he acted very cautiously and cleverly. For in this way he did not openly go against either the earlier opinion of Luther and Philip or the later and common opinion of the Lutherans; and besides he freed himself from a most troublesome question, in solving which others sweat much and yet do not get free: namely, how in Acts 19 those are ordered to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ who it was established had been baptized by John before.
Among Catholics too there have been two opinions on the baptism of John, of which the one is thought erroneous, the other very improbable. The first was of Peter Lombard, who, book 4, distinction 2, distinguishes two kinds of those baptized by John. One of those who were so baptized by John that they placed their hope in that baptism, and had no knowledge of the Holy Spirit; and these he admits had to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ. The other of those who were baptized by John but did not place their hope in that baptism, and had knowledge of the Holy Spirit; and these he says did not need to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ. This opinion, besides the arguments which we will bring below against the heretics, can be refuted from what the Master himself and all Catholics grant. For by the consent of all, the Baptism of Christ after its promulgation binds all men. But the baptism of John was not the Baptism of Christ, as the Master teaches in the same distinction; therefore those baptized by John were bound to receive the Baptism of Christ. Wherefore St. Thomas, part 3, question 38, the last article, writes that this opinion is altogether unreasonable.
The other opinion is that the baptism of John was a certain sacrament, such as the sacraments of the old law were. So the Master taught in the place noted, and many of the Scholastics, and St. Thomas himself too in the same place; but afterwards the same St. Thomas rightly taught the contrary, part 3, question 38, article 1. For the sacraments of the old law began with the law itself, and lasted the whole time the law itself lasted. But the baptism of John began at the end of the law, and did not last more than one year, or a little more. Hence St. Thomas rightly says that the baptism of John did not belong to the old law, but rather to the new, as a certain preparation for the Baptism of Christ.
You will say: the baptism of John was a sacrament neither of the old law nor of the new, but in the middle between the two. But this cannot be. For there cannot be a sacrament in the middle between the sacraments of two laws unless the law itself too is in the middle. And there was no law in the middle between the old and the new: for when the one was abrogated, the other at once succeeded; wherefore, if the baptism of John were a sacrament, it would be altogether of the old law or of the new. Nor does it suffice for the nature of a sacrament (which those older writers seem to have overlooked) that it signify the Baptism of Christ, or even the grace to be given through Baptism. For the flood too, 1 Peter 3, and the Red Sea, 1 Corinthians 10, signified Baptism, and the manna the Eucharist; and yet they were not sacraments, but only figures of sacraments. Leaving these, then, let us come to establishing and proving the truth against the heretics.
Chapter 20. That the Baptism of John Was Not the Same Sacrament as the Baptism of Christ
To explain and prove the truth, three propositions will have to be set down. The first proposition: The baptism of John was not the same sacrament as the Baptism of Christ. This is against Philip, Calvin, Chemnitz and the rest, who assert that the ministry of John and of the apostles was the same. It is proved, first: The baptism of John was instituted by John himself; therefore it was not a sacrament, especially of the new law. The consequence is plain, because no mere man can institute sacraments, especially of the new law, as we proved above even from the testimonies of the adversaries. The antecedent is proved, because in the Scriptures it is everywhere called the baptism of John: as Matthew 3, “Seeing many coming to his baptism”; Matthew 21, “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men?” We read likewise in Mark 11, Luke 20, Acts 1, 18 and 19. And this naming cannot signify that John was only the minister of his baptism, but also its author; otherwise the Baptism of Christ too could have been called the baptism of Peter, of Paul, of Philip and of others; which yet Scripture carefully avoided, lest they should seem the authors of Baptism, as Augustine noted, book 5 On Baptism, chapter 13, and elsewhere.
You will say: but the baptism of John seems to have been instituted by God, not by John himself. For so he himself says, John 1: “He who sent me to baptize, he said to me.” I answer with Augustine, in the place cited, chapters 9 and 13, and with Tertullian in the book On Baptism, where he treats that question put by Christ, whether the baptism of John was from heaven or from men: that the baptism of John was instituted by God, but through John himself. For God only inspired him in general, and by that inspiration commanded him to baptize; but the rite in particular with which he was to baptize John himself instituted, and did not receive it prescribed by God. Hence it is rightly called John's own baptism.
Second: in the Baptism of Christ not water alone is of the essence of the rite or sacrament, but also the invocation of the Trinity, as was proved above; nor do the adversaries disagree, at least in practice, since they too baptize so. But the baptism of John did not have the invocation of the Trinity; therefore it is not the same sacrament as the Baptism of Christ. The minor is proved, because although the Centuriators, Century 1, book 2, chapter 6, column 496, affirm that John baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, yet neither Scripture nor any tradition of the Fathers taught it. And in things of this kind we cannot, except very rashly, feign anything without the testimony of Scripture or tradition. There were indeed some who thought that John in his baptism used a certain form of words, namely, “In the name of the Messiah to come,” and this because of those words of Paul, Acts 19: “John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, saying: That they should believe in him who was to come after him.” For so Ambrose teaches, book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3; Jerome on chapter 2 of Joel; and Hugh of St. Victor, book 2 On the Sacraments, part 6, chapter 6. But these same men, especially the two latter, warn that John did not then baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that therefore it was not a perfect sacrament. Add that it is very probable that John was not accustomed to use any form of words at all. For those words of Paul do not seem to signify that John baptized in the name of the one to come, but only that he warned the people to believe in the Messiah to come. For John baptized Christ too with the same rite as the rest; and surely it would have been ridiculous to baptize Christ in the name of the one to come.
Third: the Baptism of Christ is a sacrament of the New Testament; therefore it was instituted by the author of the New Testament himself. Nor can the adversaries deny this. For Philip, in the Commonplaces of the year 1558, the title on the number of the sacraments, says that Baptism and the Lord's Supper and Absolution are sacraments instituted in the preaching of Christ, and so are sacraments properly so called. And Chemnitz, in the definition of a sacrament properly so called, set as the third condition that it be instituted and commanded in the New Testament. But the baptism of John was not instituted in the preaching of Christ, nor commanded by Christ, but by John, before the author of the New Testament began to preach; therefore it is not a sacrament of the New Testament, and much less the same as the Baptism of Christ.
Fourth: the Baptism of Christ cannot be repeated, as all at this time, Catholics and heretics, teach, except the Anabaptists. But those baptized by John were ordered by the apostles to be baptized again; therefore that was not the Baptism of Christ which John ministered. The minor of this argument Calvin and others deny; but it is proved in the third proposition.
But Chemnitz would deny the consequence, granting the minor. For he thinks, as we said above, that those whom John had baptized could be baptized with the Baptism of Christ, because although the ministry is the same as to substance, yet it differs as to signification. For Chemnitz distinguishes three things which effected the same under different signification: circumcision, the baptism of John and the Baptism of Christ; of which circumcision signified the Messiah to come, the baptism of John that the Messiah was already on the way and coming, the Baptism of Christ that the Messiah had come. From this he gathers that, as the circumcised had, when John came, to be baptized with his baptism, to profess that they believed the Messiah was now coming, although they had been justified through circumcision, so too those baptized by John had afterwards to be baptized with the Baptism of Christ, to profess that they believed the Messiah had come, although they had already been justified by the baptism of John.
But against these subtleties of Chemnitz we object, first, Augustine, who in book 5 On Baptism, chapter 9, makes that consequence which we made and which Chemnitz denies: “That those were baptized by Paul,” says Augustine, “who had already been baptized with the baptism of John, we read in the Acts of the Apostles for no other reason than that the baptism of John was not the Baptism of Christ.” Besides, if Chemnitz's reason were worth anything, we would prove also that those baptized by the apostles before the passion and resurrection of Christ had to be baptized again after the resurrection. For the Baptism of Christ before his passion signified the passion of Christ to come, but afterwards began to signify the passion of Christ past.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XIX.
Dc. IhipUsmo Joannis, quLfuerinl crrores.
.sciinilur oontrovcrsia ochiva dc comparaliono
r.,i|)tiMi)i Christi oiim l{;iptismo Joannis. de ipia esl
priimis canon concilii tridiiiilini, scss. 7.(le Baptis-
nio: S/ (]Hh di.verilJt(i})lif^minii,lo(innis luihniase
eondcinrim (uiiii liaplisino Chrisli.dnalhema siL
'Ircs erunl p;irles liiijus controversiiic.Primo expo-
iieinus crrores ct opiniones. Sccundo apcricmus,
el connrmabiinus verilalem. Tcrtio dilucraus objc-
ctiones.
Quod ad primiim allincl, fuil anliquus error Pc-
tiliiiiii Duuiilisliio, iimiin esse Baplismum Chrisli ,
et .lo;iiinis, Dislinguehat enim Ires gradus cjusdcm
l>;iptismi; iic diccbat, Joannem b;iptizassc aqua ,
Chrislum spirilu, Paraclcluin ignc;sed haec Iria ad
uniiiii, cl cundem B;iptisiTuim pcrlincrc, refcrt, et
rctcilit Augustiniis lib. 2. coiitra litcras Petiliani ,
cap. IJ2. ,'5i. ct l\7.
lloc noslro lcmpore Lidhcrns inilio paacdicatio-
nis suac aperle dislingucb;it Baptismum Joannis a
Biiptismo Christi.Nam in dispulalionc de Baplismo
lcgis. Joannis, cl Chrisli cdita anno 20. tria ponit
discrimina inlcr haec Baptismala. Primiim , quod
Baplisma Joannis non sit sacramentum, Chrisli !iu-
tem sit. Secundum, quod illud non remillal pccca-
ta, hoc autcm rcmittat, Tcrliuin, quod baplizati a
Joiinne itcrum cssent baptizandi, non aulem bapli-
zali Chrisli Baptismo.
Caelerum haec sentcntia, quia non benc cohac-
rcl cum rcliqua doclrina Lulheranorum dc sacra-
menlis, non placuit Lutheri discipulis;omnes cnim
coiilrarium docuerunl, nimiruin Baplisma Joannis
siicrainenlum fuisse, el peccala rcmisissc, ct ab eo
hiiplizatos non fuissc itcrum baplizandos. Ita docet
Midiinclilhon in locis aniii .'»8. litul. de Baptismo
Joannis: Elsi, in(|uil, differentia eral in hoc arli-
ciiJo, Jon.nnes de passuro Chrislo . aposlolide
passo, el resuscilalo praedicanl: tamen ministe-
riain fuit idem, et ejfectus eosdem halmit in cre-
d.eiilibm. Ubi aperte retraclal, quod scripscral in
loois anni 22. lilul.dc Baplisino: ibi enim cum Ln-
llicro docueriil Biiptismum Joannis signura fuissc
iiiortificationis, Chrisli vero Bapiismum , signum
justiDcalionis; ct proplcrea dcbuisse iicrum bapli-
z;iri. quos Joanncs baplizavcral. Idem liabenl,idciTi
Pliilippiis, et Alesius, cl Lossiiis Lutlicrani in cap.
1. Joannis. Itcm Marlinus Bucerus, et David Chy-
triieiis in cap. 3. Mallh. Joannes Brenlius hom, 21.
ct 29. iii Lucam. Idem cliam Cenluriatorcs, Ccn-
tnr. 1. cap. 4. col. 150. et cap. 10. ool. 301. Itcm
[\icoIaus Selneccerus in 2. Pacdagogiae titul. de
l)ii|)!ismo. Idem Zwinglius lib. de vcra el falsa
religionc cap. dc Baptismo, ct Calvinus tum in An-
tidoto concilii, luin in Inslit. lib. 4. cap. 15. § 7.
et 8. Denique Martinns Rcmnitius in 2. parl. Exa-
miiiis, pag. 175. etsequenlib. convenit cum oaetc-
ris, quod Baptisma Joannis rcmilteret peccala, ct
esset idem sacraracnlum. cum Baptismo Christi ,
i|ucm apostoli minislrabanl, taineii non audel dcfi-
nire, an bai>tizati a Joannc essent itijrum baplizau-
IIJEU PRIMUS
1i)S
ili ChrisU Bnplismo. Niim proposiln quncsliono, ol
nilioiiibus pro ulnuiuo parlc, laudem ilii loquilur
pag. 190. in linc: UcUnqualur igllur Jiacc quae-
slioinmc.dio. ut quac in ulramquc jyarlemra-
tioncs habcl. In quo valdc cautc, ct solcrlcr egit.
JVam lioc modo noii apcrlc rcpugnavil , aut priori
Luthcri ct IMiilippi ycntcntiae , aul postcriori ct
(•oinmuui scnlcntiac Lulheranorum: ct praclcrca
liberavil. sc a molcslissima quaeslionc, in quii sol-
vcnda alii mullum sud;ml, ncc tamcn se expcdiunt,
vidcliccl. quomodo Actor. 10. baplizari jubcanlur
Chrisli Biiplismo, quos conslabal a Joannc aiilca
Jjiiplizalos.
Intcr catholicos rnorunl ctiam duae opiniones dc
Biiptismo Joiuinis; quiiruin allcra ccnsclur erronoa;
allcra multum improbabilis. Prior fuit Pclri Lom-
bardi, qui lib. 4. dist. 2. dislinguit duo gcncra ba-
plizatorum a Joanne. Unum corum , qui sic bapli-
Ziibanlur a Jo;uino. ul spom poncrciU in co Ciplis-
iiio, cl non haborcnl noliliain Spirilus sancli: cl
hos lalclur baplizandos fuisse Chrisli Ijaptismo. Al-
lcrum corum, (pii baptizabantur a Joaiine, scd non
ponei»anl spcm in co Daplismo, cl habcbant noti-
tiam Spirilus s;iucli; ct hos dicit non iuissc ncccs-
sarium baptizari Chrisli Baptismo. Hiicc sonlentia
praetcr arguiuonla, quae infra adfcromus conlra
liaercticos, rofclli polosl cx his, quae 3Iagislcr ipso
et omnes calholici conccdunt. IVam conscnsu o-
mnium , Christi Diiptismus post promulgationom
suam omnos homincs obligal. At Baptismus Joan-
nis non cnil Baplismus Clirisli.ut caflem distinclio-
no docct Mngistcr: igitur biiptizali a Joannc,obliga-
biinlur ad Christi Baptismum suscipicndum. Quai'C
s. Thomas 3. part. q. .18. art. ult. scribit hanc opi-
nioncm essc penitus irralionabilom.
Altcra opinio est, Baptismum Joannis fuissc sa-
cramcntum quoddam, qualia erant sacramonla vc-
teris legis. Ila docuit Magislcr loco notato,cl mulli
Scholasticorum, atquc ipsc ctiam s. Thoinas ibi-
dcm: sed merilo postoa idem s.Thomas contrarium
docuit .3. part. qu.38. arl. 1. Nam sacramcula vo-
leris Icgis coeperunl cum ipsa lege, el duriivcrunl
loto lcmporc quo Ic\ ipsa duravit.Baplismus aulcm
Joannis cocpit in rmc lcgis, ct non duravil nisi iin-
num unum ; aut paulo amplius. Uude rcctc ait
s. Thomas Baptismum Joannis non pcrtinuissc ad
lcgcm vetorem, sod potius ad novam , utquandaui
praoparalioncin ad Christi Baplismum.
Dices: Baptismum Juanuis uon fuisse sacramen-
tiim legis vetoris, noc novae. sed mcdiuin inter u-
tramquc. Al id fiori nequit. Non cnim (;ssc polesl
sacramculum modium inlcr sacramcnla duarum le-
gum, nisi etiam lcx ipsa mcdia sit. Lcx autcm me-
dia intcr vctt;rem et iiovam nulla fuit:una ciiim ab-
rogata, altera contiuuo succcssil: quare si Baptis-
mus Joannis sacramonlum cssct, csscl omuino Ic-
gis vetcris anl novae. Neque suflioil ad ralioncni
sacramcnli (quod vclercs illos rofollisso vidolur) ut
significct Christi Baj)lisinum,vcl eliain gr:ili;i!n daii-
dam per Bii|)tismum. Nam etiam diliivium 1. Pctr.
3. et mare rubrum 1. Cor.lO. signiliciiruul B;iplis-
nmm ct manua IJucluirisliam , cl l;uu(;ii uou fuc-
riint sacramcnt;i , scd solum (igurao s;icr;iiucn-
torum. His ergo omissis vcniiimiis ad vcrilatoin
conslitucndam . el probandam conlra hacrcll-
cos.
CAPUT XX.
liaplismum Joamm no7i fuisse sacramenlum
idcm cum Baptismo Clirisli.
Ad explicandam el probandam vorilalcin, Ircs
propositiones constilucndac crunt. Prima proposi-
tio: Baplismus Joannis non fuit sacramcnlumi-
dcmcum liaytismo Cliristi. Hacc ost contni Philip-
pum, Galvinum, Kcmnilium, ct cactcros, qui idom
ministorium asserunt fuisse Joannis , el aposlolo-
rum. Probaliir primo. B;iplismus Joannis ab ipso
Joaunc inslitulus crat; nou crgo criit sacrauieutum
pr;iescrtiin novao Icgis. Conseqiiculi;i [)iilct , quiii
nuUus liomo purus sacramcnla instilucrc potcst ,
priicsortim iiovac Icgis.ul suprii ox toslimoniiscliiun
iujvcrsariorum probiivimus. Anlccodcns probiilur ,
quiii in Scripluris passim vocalur B;iplismus Joan-
nis. ul Mallh. 3. Tidcns Joannes multos vcnientes
ad Jkiptismum suum. Mallh. 21. Bnptismus Joan-
nis de coelo erat. an ex hominibus ? Similitcr lo-
gimus Marc. 11. Luc. 20. Aclor. \. 18. ol 19. Ista
aulem denomiualio non polcst signilicarc Joanncm
miuislrum tanluin hiissc cjus Baptismi, scd eliam
auclorem;aIioqui Baptisinus Chrisli poluisset ctiam
vocari, Baptismus Pclri, Pauli, Pliilippi,et aliorum;
quod tamcn Scriptura diligonlcr cavil, nc vidercu-
tur illi auctorcs B;iptismi, ut Augustiuus nolavit lib.
5. de Baplismo, cap. 13. cl alibi.
Dices; At Baplismiis Joannis a Dco, non ab ip-
so inslitutus vidotur. Sic eniiu ipso' ;iil, Jo;in. l.()(a
misit mc baptizare.itle milii dixii.Wiispondco cum
Augustino loco cilato cap. 9. cl 13. ct cuui Tcrlul-
liano libro de Baptismo, ubi tractat illiim quacslio-
nom a Christo proposilam, an Biiptismus Joaunis
csset de coclo, an cx hominibus ; Biiptisnmm Joan-
uis aOoo fuissc inslitutum,sod inodi;iiilc ipsoJoau-
nc. Dcus ciiiin solum in geiicrc iiispiravit, ct in-
spiralionc illa mandavil, ul baptizarcl; scd ritum iu
|);irliculari, quo boptizandum esset , ipse Joanncs
inslituit, uon a Deo pracscriptum acccpil. Uiide
nicrito dicilur proprius Joaiinis Baptismus.
Sccundo: lii Biiptismo Chrisli non sola a(piii cst
dc cssoiitia ritus, sou sacramoiili, sed ctinm iiivo-
catio Triuilalis, ul supra probatum cst: noc disscu-
tiunl advcrs;irii, s;iltcin iii i)raxi, cum cliiiiu ipsi
ita baptizent. Al Biiptisinus Juannis non habuit in-
vocationcm Triuitalis; nou igitur csl idoiu saciii-
UKMitum cum Baplismo Chrisli. Assumplio proba-
liir, quia licct Centurialores, Ccnl. 1. lib. 2. cap.
(>. col. i9(>. airiiinont Joanncm baplizasse in no-
mino Palris, ct Filii ct Spirilus saucli: tamcn ni'-
(|uc Sci'iptura,no(pic ull;i Patriim tr;iditio id docuil.
INon possumus aulcm in cjusmodi rcbus. nisi Viil-
do lcmcrc alitpiid ringcrc sine lestimouio Scriplu-
r;io, aut traditu^nis. Fuoruul quidcm, qui cxisti-
iiKircul Jo;iuiioiu iu suo Biiptismo usuiu forma qua-
dain vcrborum, nimirum, In nominc vcnturi Mos-
7%
l>K SACIIAMKMO I!APTlSMI
siiio. iilijuo proptcr ill.i vcrba Paiili Aclor. 1'J.Joiin-
iics liaplizavil H iplisiiio pociiileiiliac. populuiii. di-
roiis, lii riim. (pii viMiliirus csscl posl ipsuui. ul
«■rctlfrciil. Ila cnmi tloccl Aiii!)rosius.lil). I.(l(> Spi-
rilu sanclo, ciip. 3. Ilicroiiyimis iii cap. 2. .Kielis,
cl llui,'() tlc s, Viclorc lib. l. dc sacrauicnlis par.
(5. Ciip. (■). Scd isli ipsi, pracscrliiii duo puslcrio-
rc.";, moiicnl Joanncm luiii biipliziisso in iiomino
Piilris, el Filii cl Spirilus sancli, el proplcrca iiun
fuissc illud pcrlcclum sacramcnlum. Addc, cpioti
>a|tlc |)roI)al)ilc csl Jdimncm nulla omniiio Ioiiiki
vcrUorum uli consucvissc. lll;i cnim vcrbii Pauli
iioii vidcnliir sijjndiciirc Joiinncm bipllziissc in
iiomiiic vcnUiri, scd lanliim iulmonuissc po[)iiliini
(il crcderciil in vcnlurum Mcssiam. Nam ciiiiiii
('lirisluin baplixavil Joanncs co rilu,(iuo ciiclcros;
cl ccrlc ridiculum fuissct. Cdirislum l)apli/.asso iu
iiominc vcnluri.
Terlio: Baplismus Chrisli csl sacramenUim novi
Tcstiimciiii: cr<j;o inslilnlum iib ipso aucloro iiovi
Tcslamcnli. Nctpic id nc^snc possunl iidvcrsarii ;
Wain 1'liiiippiis iii locis iinni ;>8. lilul. do luimcro
Siicriimcnloriiin. dicil Biiplismuui , cl cocnnm Do-
inini. cl Ahliilioncm cssc siuriimcnla insliluiii in
pracdicaUonc ClirisU. ac proindc cssc sacraincnla
propric dictii. Kl Kcmnilius in delinitionc sacra-
mcnli |)ropric dicli, lcrliam condiliuncm posuil,ut
iii noNo Tcslamcnlo sit insUluUim cl maiulaliim.
.Vl Joiinnis UaptisiiKi noii ruit in piiicdicalioncCliri-
sli inslitulum, ncc a Clirislo maiulalum , scd a Jo-
iinno. anliMiuam incipcrct novi Tcsliimonti auclor
priicdicaro: nou igilur csl sacramentuin novi Te-
slamcnli , cl mullo minus idcm cum Baplismo
ClirisU.
Quiirlo; B;iplismus Cliristi ilcrari non polest, ut
oinncs lioc lcm|)orc catliolici, ct haerctici doccnl ,
praetcr Anabaptislas. Albiiplizati a Joanne ilorum
;d) aposlolis jussi sunl biiptizari: non igilur eral
illc Chrisli Baplismus. qucm Joanncs minislrahat.
Ilujus ari^umcnli iissum|)tionem nciianl Calvinus ,
clalii, scd ca probaUir in lcrlia proposilioue.
Cactcrum Romnitius ncgarel conse(pienU;im ad-
missa assumpiionc. Exislimat cnim ipso. ul sui)ra
diximus. poluissc bapUzari Christi BiipUsmo eos ,
quos Joimncs bapU/,avcr;il; quia liccl minislorium
sil idcm. quoad substiintiam, lamcn dillcrl quoad
sipniliciiUonom. Distinguit eniin Komnitius Iria ,
quiio idein eniciobant sub divcrsa signiricalionc ,
circumcisionom, Baplismum Joannis,et Baplismum
ChrisU; quorum circumcisio siguificabat Messiiim
venlurum, Baptismus Joannis Mcssiam ]am esse
in via, cl veniro BapUsmus Christi . Mcssiam vo-
nisso. Indc colligit. quod sicul circumcisi dcbue-
runl venicnlc Joannc baptizari cjus Baptismate, ul
profilcrcnlur se credere Messiain jam vcnirc, licct
cssenl justificati por circumcisionem : sic eliam
baplizuU a Joanno debuerunlpostea BapUsmoChri-
sli biiplizari, ut profilcrelur so crodore Mossiam
venissc, licct jani essent jusliDcaU Baptismo Joan-
nis.
At conlra has Kemniiii argutias nos objicimus
in priiiiis Auguslinum, qui lib. 5. do Baplismo ,
cap. 9. cam consotiuonUam facil, quam nos feci-
mu5, el quam Komniiius ncgal: liapLizalos, mqwi
Aiiguslinus, a PaiUo co<i, quijani Uaplifimo Jonn-
iiis bdplizdli faisscnl, lcuimns in Aclibas aposlo-
loruiii, non ab alind, iiisi (luin linplisinus Joan-
nis non fucril Clwisli Jlaplisiniis. IMii(Uor(>;i, si
i-iilio KcmniUi valcrcl.probiircmiis cliaiu biipli/,;dos
iih iiposlolis iiiih^ Chrisli piissionem (!l rcsurrcclio-
iii;m, dcliuissc ilcriim h;ipU/,;iri posl r(!surr(!ctio-
ncm. A;iiii l»a|)lismus ChrisU iinlo cjus passioncm,
>igiiilic;ibal Chrisli piissioncm luluram.postca vcro
signilicaro cocpil Chrisli passioncm practerilam.