Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 21: That John's Baptism Lacked the Force of Christ's; and That Christ's Had to Follow It
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 21. That the Baptism of John Did Not Have the Same Force and Efficacy as the Baptism of Christ
The second proposition: The baptism of John did not have the same force and efficacy which the Baptism of Christ has. Note that there is no question whether the baptism of John could forgive sins from the devotion and faith of those who came to it, or even from the contrition which men conceived from the sermons and baptism of John. For that could easily happen; and so some of the Fathers took those words of Mark 1, “Preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins”: as Basil, book 1 On Baptism, chapter 2, and Basil's brother Gregory of Nyssa in the oration in praise of Basil, and the author of the Questions on the New Testament, question 29, in volume 4 of the works of St. Augustine. Augustine himself too, book 5 On Baptism, chapter 10, although he thinks those words are to be taken otherwise, yet does not think one should resist contentiously those who teach that the baptism of John in some way forgave sins, provided they admit that there is a great difference between the Baptism of Christ and of John. The whole question, then, is whether the baptism of John was effective as the Baptism of Christ is; so that, if the Baptism of Christ forgives sins by its own power, or ex opere operato (as we proved above), the same is also to be ascribed to the baptism of John.
And the adversaries indeed ascribe the same efficacy and the same effect to both baptisms. But the Council of Trent, session 7, canon 1 on Baptism, laid down the contrary in these words: “If anyone shall say that the baptism of John had the same force as the Baptism of Christ, let him be anathema.” Which truth is proved first from Scripture. For in Mark 1 John the Baptist distinguishes his baptism from the Baptism of Christ, in that he himself baptizes in water, while Christ will baptize in the Spirit: “I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.”
The adversaries, Philip, Calvin and Chemnitz, in the places noted, answer to this place that John the Baptist meant in this place to distinguish the outward ministry, which belonged to him, from the inward ministry, which is Christ's alone. And so they say that in the baptism of John remission was given, but by Christ, through the ministry of John. And Chemnitz brings a like place from the first to the Corinthians, chapter 3: “I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.”
But this solution is easily refuted; because John speaks of his own ministry in the past tense, of Christ's working in the future: “I have baptized you with water; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Christ, then, did not give remission through the ministry of John; for then he would have said, “I have baptized with water, he has baptized with the Holy Ghost”; just as Paul, in the place cited by Chemnitz, did not say, “I have planted, Apollo watered, God will give the increase,” but, “God gave the increase.” Further, in the other evangelists, Matthew chapter 3 and Luke chapter 3, John speaks of himself in the present, “I baptize you with water,” of Christ always in the future: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”
Chemnitz tries to attack this solution of ours in two ways. First he says, page 191, that by the Baptism of Christ in the Holy Spirit and fire is understood the pouring out of the visible gifts which was made on the day of Pentecost. He proves it both from the word fire, and from the testimony of Christ and of Peter, who used the same phrase as John. For Christ, Acts 1, said to the apostles: “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.” And Peter, Acts 11: “I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Not, then, the baptism of John is set against the Baptism of Christ, but the baptism of water, in which the Holy Spirit is not given visibly, is set against that visible pouring out of gifts which was made without water in the primitive Church after Baptism, when the apostles laid on hands.
This first solution is not sufficient. For in the first place the word fire does not hinder John's words, “He shall baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire,” from being understood of the sacrament of Baptism. For almost all interpreters so understand them, and say that the word fire was added because after the Baptism of Christ there follows the fire of tribulation, and the fire of divine judgment, and the fire of purgatory; and in the primitive Church the Holy Spirit was given after Baptism in the visible form of fire through the laying on of the apostles' hands. See Hilary, Jerome and Chrysostom on Matthew 3, Ambrose and Bede on Luke 3. And as regards the words of Christ and of Peter, it is not certain that those words were said in the same sense by John the Baptist and by Christ. For the Lord could allude to John's words and yet utter them in another sense, as St. Bernard very often does in using the words of Scripture, as St. Paul too cited the words of Epimenides in another sense, Titus 1, when he says, “The Cretians are always liars; this testimony is true.” Wherefore the Fathers, as I said, expound John's words of the sacrament of the Baptism of Christ, while the words of Christ and of Peter cannot be expounded except of the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Then, if we grant that both John and Christ with Peter uttered those words in the same sense, then we will say that according to the Scriptures three baptisms are distinguished. One in water only, and this was John's, which in Scripture is perpetually called so, in water, that it may be distinguished against the Baptism in the Spirit. Another in the Spirit and fire alone, that is, not in water; and this is the visible sending of the Holy Spirit, which indeed contains not only that visible appearance of fiery tongues, but also the inward charity and grace infused by the Holy Spirit, which was signified by those outward symbols, as Chemnitz too admits, page 192. Hence the baptism of John in water alone is distinguished not only against the baptism of fire, that is, of the visible form of fire, but also against the baptism of the Spirit, that is, of the inward grace infused by the Holy Spirit. The third baptism is in water and the Spirit together; and this is the sacrament of the Baptism of Christ, which in John 3 is said to be of water and the Holy Ghost. And so we see that John's words, however they are understood, always distinguish the baptism of John, as outward and bodily only, from the Baptism of Christ, which is partly spiritual and partly bodily, since it consists either of the Spirit and fire or of water and the Spirit.
There is, then, Chemnitz's other solution, who, when he saw that the first was not sufficient, returns, page 193, to the common solution: that the words, “He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire,” are referred to Christ's inward working in the very baptism of John. And because the future, “He shall baptize you,” seems to go against this sense, Chemnitz tries to show that the same Scripture speaks of Christ's working in the present too, nay even in the past. And so he cites those places of John 1: “He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” Where it is said in the present, “baptizeth”; and yet he was not then baptizing by himself nor by his disciples; therefore he was baptizing through John. Likewise in the same place: “Of his fulness we all have received.” Where it is said in the past, “we have received”; therefore Christ was working by inward working even before he began to baptize through his disciples. Lastly, Matthew 3: that we might understand that the Baptist's ministry was not without efficacy, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove while he was baptizing. He adds also the words of the angel, Luke 1: “He shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.” From which he says it is clear that John's ministry was not ineffective.
But these are refuted with no trouble. For in the first place Chemnitz never gives the cause why all the evangelists said in the future, “He shall baptize,” if Christ was working inwardly at the very time at which John was working outwardly.
Then the places brought do not bear on the matter. For that, “He it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost,” does not signify that Christ was baptizing then, when John was speaking so; but signifies that Christ, when he baptizes, baptizes in the Holy Spirit, not in water alone, as John did; as Augustine rightly expounds it, tractate 13 on John, and elsewhere. Likewise too, when in the same place John says, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world,” he signified that Christ would take away the sins of the world when he was sacrificed like a lamb on the cross; not that he was taking them away then, when John was speaking. And that, “Of his fulness we all have received,” signifies that the grace with which John was endowed flowed from Christ, as also the grace of all the other saints. But what has this to do with the baptism of John? For although grace was given to all the saints for the foreseen merits of Christ, yet it was not given through the baptism of John, but by another way and through other instruments. Further, the dove which appeared while John was baptizing did not testify to the efficacy of John's ministry, as Chemnitz most shamelessly writes, out of sheer rashness. Otherwise John's ministry would have had to be effective in Christ himself; for the dove appeared only then, when Christ was being baptized. But this is impious and blasphemous. For that innocent Lamb, who takes away the sins of the world, did not need the efficacy of John's baptism, as John himself testifies. That dove, then, signified the innocence and purity of Christ, and that he was the one who would sanctify and cleanse the waters, and through water and the Spirit regenerate men.
Lastly the words of the angel, Luke 1, do not treat of Baptism, but of John's sermons. And no one denies that John preached most effectively and converted very many to God. But it is one thing to move the hearts of men by preaching the word, another to cleanse them through Baptism. So much for the first argument.
Second, it is proved by the testimonies of the Fathers. Origen, book 5 on the letter to the Romans, expounding chapter 6, teaches and proves by several arguments that the baptism of John did not forgive sins, and in this was distinguished from the Baptism of Christ. The other Greeks teach the same. Justin, question 37 to the Orthodox; Gregory Nazianzen, the oration on the holy lights; John Chrysostom, homilies 10 and 12 on Matthew, and homily 16 on John, and homilies 1 and 40 on the Acts. Likewise the author of the homilies on Mark, which are had in the second volume of Chrysostom, homily 1. Cyril of Alexandria, book 2 on John, chapter 57, where he treats this expressly, and says that the Holy Spirit foresaw that there would one day be rash men who would not distinguish the Baptism of Christ from the baptism of John, and that he therefore moved John himself to say most openly that he baptized in water only. Damascene too has the same, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 10, and Theophylact on Luke 3. Lastly St. Basil, although in book 1 On Baptism he says that the baptism of John gave remission of sins, yet in the same place speaks so: “As much as the Holy Spirit is more excellent than water, so much does he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit surpass him who baptizes in water, and the baptism itself too.” And in oration 13, which is the exhortation to Baptism, he has this: “John preached the baptism of penance, but the Lord proclaims the baptism of the adoption of sons, far more excellent. Likewise the baptism of John was a beginning, but Christ's a perfecting. That one called away from sin, this one joins with God and makes one his familiar friend.” So he. From which we understand that Basil did not ascribe the same efficacy to the Baptism of Christ and of John; nay, that he ascribed to the baptism of John no power of justifying except by reason of the penance and contrition. In which way too the words of Nyssen ought to be understood.
Now of the Latins, Tertullian in the book On Baptism: “The baptism of John,” he says, “offered nothing heavenly, but ministered to heavenly things, being set over penance.” And below: “Or it would give the Holy Spirit and remission of sins, if it were heavenly.” Where Tertullian contends that the baptism of John was not heavenly but human, because it did not give the Holy Spirit nor remission of sins. And below: “And so the baptism of penance is carried on, as a candidate for the sanctification and remission to follow in Christ.” From which we will understand how those words of the same author, at the beginning of the same book, are to be taken: “Nor does it make any difference between those whom John dipped in the Jordan and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber.” For he is not speaking of the whole Baptism, but only of the matter, and teaches that it makes no difference in what water one is baptized. The other Latins speak not unlike: Cyprian in the sermon on the Baptism of Christ; Hilary on Matthew 3; Optatus, book 5 against Parmenian; Ambrose on Luke 3, and the same Ambrose in the preface to Psalm 37 calls the Baptism of Christ the eye of graces, because it gave grace, the baptism of John the eye of punishments, because it was only a baptism of penance. Jerome in the dialogue against the Luciferians has similar things, and in letter 83 to Oceanus, and on chapter 2 of Joel. Innocent I has the same, in letter 22, chapter 5; Leo, letter 4, chapter 6; Gregory, homilies 7 and 20 on the Gospels. Lastly Augustine, letters 18 and 103; the Enchiridion, chapter 49; book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 37, and book 3, chapter 70; book 5 against the Donatists, chapters 9, 10 and 14; On the One Baptism, chapter 7; On the Unity of the Church, chapter 18; tractate 5 on John; and elsewhere.
To these places Calvin answers in no other way than, after his manner, by despising them. For so he speaks, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 7: “Wherefore let it disturb no one that the ancients strive to distinguish the one from the other; whose vote ought not to be of so much weight with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would listen to Chrysostom rather than to Luke? Nor is that subtlety of Augustine to be received, that sins were forgiven in hope by the baptism of John, in fact by the Baptism of Christ.”
But we can more rightly say: who would listen to Calvin rather than to Chrysostom and Augustine and so many other most ancient and most learned Fathers? For the question is not whether one should believe Luke or the Fathers, but whether Calvin understood Luke better than so many Fathers.
Further, Chemnitz, in the Examination in the place cited, tries through almost the whole disputation to show that this question is not necessary, and so that it matters little whether the Fathers said this or that. But the Fathers themselves do not say so.
For Jerome, in the dialogue against the Luciferians, is so far from thinking this matter light that he says that those who confuse these baptisms go off into a perverse dogma, and, while they ascribe more to the baptism of the servant than is fitting, destroy the very Baptism of the Lord. Augustine, book 2 against the letters of Petilian, chapter 37, where he had said that the baptism of John is not the Baptism of Christ, nor any part or degree of it, adds that those who think the contrary fall into an impious and sacrilegious opinion. Lastly Cyril of Alexandria, book 2 on John, chapter 57, calls those rash who think otherwise.
But leaving these, third, the truth is proved from the very person and office of John. For John was the forerunner of the Lord, and had come only to prepare his ways. For so the angel foretold, Luke 1: “He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias; that he may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, to prepare unto the Lord a perfect people.” His father foretold the same: “For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways,” Luke 1. Lastly he himself testifies the same, bringing the prophecy of Isaiah, John 1: “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord,” and so on. But surely to prepare the way for the Saviour is not to give salvation and justify, but to dispose men to receive the Saviour and salvation; otherwise he would have been the Saviour himself, not the forerunner of the Saviour. Hence his father Zachary, Luke 1, marking properly the office of the Baptist, says, “To give knowledge of salvation to his people”; he did not say, “to give salvation,” but “knowledge of salvation.” For John taught how salvation was to be found, namely by believing in Christ, when he pointed him out with his finger and said, John 1, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.”
Chapter 22. That After the Baptism of John the Baptism of Christ Had Necessarily to Be Received
The third proposition: After the baptism of John the Baptism of Christ had necessarily to be received. This is against Chemnitz, who calls it into doubt, and against Calvin and the rest, who openly deny it. It is proved, first, from the words of John, Matthew 3, Luke 3, Mark 1: “I baptize in water; he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire.” For if a comparison of the Baptism of Christ and of John is made here, we see openly that the same men whom John had baptized are said to be baptized again by Christ. And that a comparison of the two baptisms is made is the common opinion of the interpreters: as of Ambrose and Bede on Luke, of Hilary, Jerome and Chrysostom on Matthew, and of the other Fathers cited.
Second, it is proved from the history of the Gospel and of the Acts. For, as we read in Mark 1 and Matthew 3 and Luke 3, there went out to John to be baptized all Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the regions near the Jordan. And so there were very few at that time not baptized by John. But after the Lord's ascension, on the very first day of Pentecost, blessed Peter began to preach in Jerusalem the necessity of the Baptism of Christ for all men: “Do penance,” he says, “and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus”; and there were baptized on that day three thousand, then a little after five thousand, besides those whom Philip and the other disciples afterwards baptized in various places of Judea and Samaria, as we have in Acts 2, 4, 8 and elsewhere. It must be, then, that many baptized by John were baptized again by the apostles. For how is it credible that among so many thousands whom the apostles baptized in Jerusalem none had been baptized before by John, if what Mark said in chapter 1 is true, that all the people of Jerusalem were baptized by John?
Third, it is proved from the express place of Acts 19, where Paul orders twelve men to be baptized in the name of the Lord, who had confessed that they had only the baptism of John.
To this place it is incredible how many explanations, and how different, the adversaries have devised: for there are counted among them at least ten different opinions. The first is that in that chapter baptism is always taken metaphorically, both when the baptism of John is treated and when the Baptism of Christ is treated. So Zwingli, who in the book On True and False Religion, the chapter on Baptism, will have baptism in that chapter of the Acts taken for teaching, so that the sense is that those twelve men, who before had been instructed only in the teaching of John, afterwards began to be instructed in the teaching of Christ.
The second is that baptism is always taken there metaphorically, but in the first place for teaching, in the second for the gifts of the Holy Spirit which were given through the laying on of hands. So John Brenz and Luke Lossius on Acts 19.
These two expositions are refuted enough by this one argument, that they twist historical and most open words without any cause to an improper meaning. For it is not lawful, especially in histories, to feign figures at will; otherwise nothing would be certain in any Scripture.
The third exposition is that the baptism of John is taken metaphorically for teaching, the Baptism of Christ properly; and so that those twelve men were baptized only once, and that by Paul, not by John. So Henry Bullinger on Acts 19.
The fourth is the contrary of the former: that the baptism of John is taken properly, the Baptism of Christ improperly, for teaching. So Chemnitz in part 2 of the Examination, pages 198 and 199, where he also tries to draw into this opinion Ambrose, book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3, and the interlinear gloss on Acts 19.
The fifth is Calvin's, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 18: that the baptism of John is taken properly, the Baptism of Christ improperly, not for teaching, as Chemnitz says, but for the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
These three expositions, besides that they feign figures in a history at will, also admit a foul equivocation in the same chapter within a few lines. Nor is it true, what Chemnitz says, that this is the explanation of Ambrose or of the interlinear gloss. For Ambrose, on chapter 3 to the Galatians, and book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3, says openly that those twelve men were truly and properly baptized by Paul's order. Which Chemnitz too admits on the following page; who therefore within two pages fights with himself in citing Ambrose. And the interlinear gloss says only that those men were not rebaptized, because Paul's words agreed with the teaching of John. Where the gloss does not deny that those men were truly baptized by Paul's order; but denies that that was a rebaptism. For rebaptism is the repetition of the same Baptism; but they were not dipped twice with the same Baptism, but with most different ones. For they had understood from Paul's words that the baptism of John was one thing and Christ's another, and that John himself too had taught this very thing.
The sixth exposition is that in that chapter baptism is always taken properly, but that it treats only of the baptism of John. Since those words, “Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord,” are not Luke's narrating what those men did after hearing Paul's words, but are the words of the same Paul narrating what the disciples of John used to do on hearing the words of the same John preaching Christ to come: namely, they were baptized by the same John in the name of Christ to come.
Nicholas Selnecker relates this explanation and praises it as neat and pious, in part 2 of his Paedagogia. But it is indeed clever enough, but not at all pious or probable. For Paul first says that John baptized the people, and second adds that the same John, in baptizing, warned the people to believe in Christ to come. If, then, the following words (“Having heard these things, they were baptized”) belong to the people whom John was baptizing, it will follow that that people was baptized twice by John, or at least that Paul did not narrate the matter well; both of which are absurd. Then, either those twelve men were baptized with the Baptism of Christ by Paul's order, or not. If they were baptized, it is what we contend; if they were not baptized, what is the point of that narration of Paul's? Surely it seems superfluous. For Paul warned those who had been baptized with the baptism of John alone that John himself had preached Christ for no other cause than that they might understand that the Baptism of Christ was necessary besides.
The seventh exposition is that the name of baptism is taken properly in that whole chapter, and that those twelve men were baptized twice; but that this was done because they had not had the true baptism of John, but one corrupted and adulterated as to the form, namely without the name of the Holy Spirit. So the Centuriators teach, Century 1, book 2, chapter 6, column 496, and Bucer on Matthew 3. And Ambrose favours this opinion not a little. For on chapter 3 to the Galatians, and book 1 On the Holy Spirit, chapter 3, he says that those whom Paul ordered to be baptized in Acts 19 had not been baptized before with the true baptism of John, but with a certain baptism which was called John's but was not.
This exposition rests on a false foundation, namely that John baptized in the name of the Trinity, or at least in the name of Christ to come, which (as we said above) is not true. Further, Ambrose does say that those twelve men did not have the true baptism of John, but he does not say that, if they had had the true one, they would not have had to be baptized again, which the adversaries contend; nay, the contrary is gathered from his testimonies. For on Luke 3 he says openly that the baptism of John was in water only, and of penance, not of grace, and different from the Baptism of Christ, which consists of water and the Spirit and confers grace.
The eighth exposition is that the baptism of those twelve men was corrupted not by reason of the form, but by reason of those who came to it, who had not come rightly instructed in the Lord's teaching, since they did not know the Holy Spirit and the very Baptism of Christ. So Otto Brunfels teaches in the Annotations on Acts 19.
This exposition is refuted, because ignorance does not take away Baptism. And surely, as Calvin says not badly in refuting this exposition, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 18, there would not be enough water if such ignorance had to be corrected by a new Baptism.
The ninth is that those twelve men were in truth rebaptized, but wrongly and by error, and that before Paul came there. So Musculus in the Commonplaces, the title on Baptism.
But this exposition corrupts the text; for nothing in the text is clearer than that they were baptized after hearing Paul, and by his order.
The tenth is Chemnitz's, in part 2 of the Examination, pages 199 and 202, where he says that this place is most obscure, since it is expounded so variously by the doctors; and so, whatever the true exposition is, nothing certain can be gathered from it; for dogmas are not to be proved from ambiguous places.
But we set against all these distortions, first, the text itself, which, if it is expounded simply and properly and without the prejudice of some opinion conceived beforehand, will without doubt offer the sense which we defend. Second, the unanimous consent of the Fathers cited above, and especially of Augustine, who in the places cited constantly teaches that those men were baptized again; which all the ancient expositors of the Acts also hold, as Chrysostom, Bede and Oecumenius. Nor can the place be called ambiguous because the heretics do not agree in explaining it; for that ambiguity does not arise from the nature of the thing, that is, from the obscurity of the book, but from their obstinacy in defending their errors.
Otherwise the Fathers too would not agree, if the place were truly ambiguous; and if all places were to be called ambiguous in which some do not agree, nothing at all could be proved from the Scriptures: for there are no places in which one cannot disagree with another, if he wishes to act obstinately.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXI.
Baplismnm Joannis non hnhaisse eandcm vim
c.l cfficaciam, qaaniliabel liajdismus Christi.
Sccunda proposilio:7?ap/('8?7i7ts Joannis non ha-
buil candcm vim cl c(]lcaciam quam habcl ita-
plismus Chrisli. Nolii, iion css(5 (lUiUistionom . an
liiiplismus Joannis polueril rcmillore pcccala c.x
dovoUono et fidc acccdisnUum , vel ctiaiu cx
conlritionc, quiim homiiics coiuupichant cx con-
cionibus , cl B;iplismo Joanuis. Id cnim facilo
fiori polnil; cl sic acccperunl ill;i vcrba Marci 1.
Praedicans Baplisnmnipocnilcnliac in reniissio-
ncm pcccal.orum; quidiim Palrum, ul Biisilius lib.
1. de Biiptismo, cap. 2. ct friiler Basilii Gregorius
nyssonus in oratione dc laudihus Biisilii, ct au-
clor quaosUonum novi Tostamonli, quaest. 29. iu
tom. 4. op(!rum s. Augustini. Ipse eliam Augusti-
nus lib.j.do B;iplismo, cap. 10. licct exislimcl ilh(
vorba aliler accipionda,tamon non oxistimalconten-
liosc resislenduin iis, qui doccnl Baplismum Joan-
nis aliquo modo rcmisisso peccala,modo faleanlur
magnum esso discrimon iutcrBaptismum Christi et
Joannis. Tola igilur qu;iestio est: An BapUsmus Jo-
annis fuerit enicax, ut Christi Baptismus, ila utsi
Baptismus Chrisli peccata romittat vi sua, scu o.\
opisre 0|)eralo (ut nos snpra probiivimus) idcm ct-
iam tribuendum sit Biiptismo Joannis.
Ac adversarii quidom eandem oIficaciam,cl cun-
dcm effectum Iribuunt utriquo B;iptismo.Concilium
autom Tridenlinum soss. 7. can. 1. dc Baptismo,
contrarium sl;iluil,his verbis: Si quis dixcril,Ba-
plismum Jonnnis hahuissc cnndcmvim cuni Ba-
j)iisnio Chrisli, annlhenia sil. Quac quidcm vcri-
las probalur primo cx Scriplura. Nam Marci 1,
Joan. Biiplisla dislinguit suum Baplisma a Christi
BiipUsmalc, quod ipse b;iptizol in aqua,iUo in Spi-
rilu baptizaturus sil: E(jo baptiznvi vos in nqua,
ille vos hnptiznhil Spiritu sancto.
Respondenl ad hunc locum adversarii, Philip-
pus, Calvinus et Komnitius locis notatis, Joannem
Biiplislam distingucre voluisso hoc loco ministe-
riuin cxlornuin, quod sibi conveniebat ab inlerno
minislorio. quod ost solius ChrisU. Ilaquc dicunt
in BiipUsmo Joannis datam hiisso remissionem.sod
;i Chrislo p(;r minisl(M'ium Joiiunis. Kl adducil
Kpinnilius similcin locum. c\ priorc ;i(l Corinlhios
Ciip. I. Eqo planlnvi, Apollo n<jnvit,Dcus aulcm
incrcmcnlum dcdit.
LIIJER PRJMUS
197
Sed raciJo refellilur hnco soliiUo; quia Jonnnes
f)e sno minislerlo loqniliir iii |)r;ielerilo lenipdre;
(1e Clirisli openilione in lulnrt): E(jo baplizdvtvos
aqua, illc vus baplizabit SpirUu mnclo. Non igi-
lur per ininisleriuni Jonnnis ChrisUis dedil reinis-
sionern; tunc enim dixissel, E(jo baplizavi aqua,
ille baptizavil SpirUib sa?ic<o:sicul PauJus in loco
cilato a Kemnilio, non dixil, Ego plantavi.Apollo
rifjavit, Deus incrernentum dabil, sed, Deus in-
crementum dedit. Porro apud alios evangelislas,
Mallhaei cap. 3. el Lucae cap. 3.de se Joannes di-
cil in \)\'neseM[\:Ec)o baplizo vos aqua, de Clirislo
sempcr in futuro: Ille vos bajilizabit Spirita san-
cto, et igne.
Hanc noslram solulionem conalur Remnilius op-
pugnarc duobus modis. Primo dicil, pag. iOl.per
iiaptismura Chrisli in Spirilu sanclo, el igni iiilel-
ligi doriorum visibilium cffusionem. quae facla est
iif die penlecosles. Id probat lum ex vocabulo i-
gnis, tum ex teslimonio Chnsti. et Pclri,qui usur-
parunl eamlem phrasim Joannis. Chrislus enim
Acl. 1. dixit apostolis: Joannes quidem bapliza-
vit aqua,vos autem baptizabimiui Spiritu sancto
non post multos lios dies. Et Pelrns Aclor. W.lie-
cordatus sum, in^piit, verbi Domini, sicut dixit;
Joannes quidem baptizavit aqua, vos autem ba-
ptizalrimini Spiritu sancto. Non igilur opponilur
Uaplismus Joannis Daplismo Chrisli,sed naplismns
aquiie, in quo non datur visibililer Spirilus san-
ctus,opponitur illi efiusioni donorum Yisibili.quae
sinc aqua ficbat in primitiva Ecclesia posl Bapti-
smum, cum aposioli nianus imponebant.
Ilaec prima soiutio non esl suificiens. Nam in
primis vox ignis, non impedil, quo minus intelli-
ganlur verba Joannis: Illc baptizabit in Spiritu
sancto, ct igni, de Baplismi sacramento. Nam o-
mncs lerc interpretes ita intellignnl; ac dicunl ad-
diinm esse vocabulum igiiis, quia post Baptismum
Cl.risli sequitur ignis tribulationis, et ignis divini
judicii ei ignis purgatorii; el in primiliva Ecclesia
dabatur post Baptismum Spiritus sanclus in forma
visibili ignis pcr impositionem nianuum aposlolo-
rum. Yide Ililarium, Ilieronymura cl Chrysosto-
mum in cap. 3. Matlhaei, Ambrosium, et Bedam in
cap.3. Lucac.Quod autein attinet ad verba Christi
cl Petri, non est certura codem sensu illa verba
dicla luisse a Joanne Baptisla, et a Christo. Potuit
enim Doininus alludere ad verba Joani)is,el lamen
in alio sensu illa proferrc, nl frcquentissime facil
s. Bcrnardus in verbis Scriplurac usurpandis, ul
eliam s. Paulus verba Epimenidis ad Tit. 1. citavit
in aliosensu, cum ait: Orelenses semper menda-
ces; lioc testimonium verum est. Quocirca Patres,
uldixi,verba Joaunis cxponunt dc"sacramenlo Ba-
ptismi Cbristi, verba autem Christi et Petri non
possunt exponi nisi de missione Spirilus sancli.
Beinde, si admitlamus, ct Joaiinem,et Chrislum
cum Petro, eodein sensu,verba illa proluIissc:lum
dicemus secunJum Scrijjluras tria Baplismala di-
blingui. Unum, in a^iua solum,ct hoc erat Joaniiis,
quod in Scriptura p(;rpeluo ita dicitur in aipia, ul
dislingiiatur contra Baplismum in S[>irilu.AIIerum,
in Spirilu. ct igni solo, idest, non in aqna, ct liuc
csl visibilis missio Spiriliis saucli, quac (iiiidcin
iiLUAU.MI.>I Vul. lil.
non conlincl solum visibileni illam spccicm lin-
guarum igncarum, sed cliam inlernarn charilalein,
et gialiam a Spirilu ^ancto infusam, quac pcr illa
exlerna symbola signilicabalur, ul eliam admittit
Kenniilius, pag. 192. Unde Baplisma Joannis in
sola aqua non solum distinguilur conlra Bapli-
smum ignis. idest, visibilis Ibrmae ignis, sed et-
iain contra Baplismum spirilus, idesl,internac gra-
tiae a Spirilu sancto inlusae.Tertium Baplisina esl
in aqua el Spiritu simul; et hoc est sacramentum
Baplismi Christi, quod Joannis 3. dicilur esse ex
a(iua cl S{)irilu sancto. Ilaque videmus vcrba Jo-
aunis, quomodocumquc inlelligantur, semper di-
slinguere a Baplisnia Joannis lamquam exteriium
et corporale tantum a Baptismo Christi, quod esL
parlim spirituale et partirn corporale, cum con-
slet, vel ex Spiritu et igni. vel ex aqua el Spiritu.
Est igitur altera solutio Remnitii,qui cum vidis-
set prioi-em non essc suflicientem, redil pag. 103.
ad communein solulionem, quod illud: Ipse roN
baptizabit in Spiritu sanC.o, ctigni, rcferatur ad
operationem Christi internam in ipso Joannis Ba-
plisino. Et quia buic sensui vidctur repugnare il-
iiid futurum (Ipse vos baptizabit) conanlur oslen-
dere Remnilius, eandein Scripturam loqui dc ope-
ralione Chrisli etiam in praesenti,immo et in prae-
terilo tempore. Itaque cital illa loca Joan. 1. Ilic
cst qui baptizatin Spiritu sancto.Vhi in praesen-
ti dicilur, Baptizat, cl lamcn tunc non baptizabal
pcr se, nec per discipulos; ergo pcr Joannem ba-
ptizabat.Item ibidem: Dc plcnitudine ejus omnes
accepimus. Ubi in praeterito dicitur, Acccjyimus:
ergo operabatur Christus interna operalione, el-
iam anteqiiam inciperel per discipulos baptizarc.
Dcniquc Mallh. 3. ul inlelligercmus non cssc sine
efricacia Baptislac ministerium; apparuit eo bapli-
zanle Spiritus sanclus in forma columbae. Addil
eliam verba angeli, Lucae \.IfIultos liliorwn Isrd-
el converlet ad Domimm Deum ipsorum. Ex quo
perspicuum essc dicil, non luissc incflicax Joan-
nis minislerium.
Sed haccnullo negolio refutanlur. Nam in pri-
mis nunvquam reddi\ caussam Remnitius, cur in
fuluro dixerint omnes cvangelislae; Ipse baptiza-
bit, si operabalur interius Christus illo ipso lcm-
pore, quo Joannes cxlerius.
Deiiide loca allala non faciunt ad rem. Illud c-
niin: Ilic est qui baptizal in Spirilu sancto. non
signilicat, quod tunc Christus baplizarel, cum Jo-
annesila loquebalur;sed significal.quod Chrislus,
quando baptizat, in Spirilu sanclo baplizat, non in
sola aqna, ul Joannes,sicul rcclc cxponil Augusli-
nus tract. 13. in Joannein, el alibi. Simililer el-
iain. cum ihidein Joannes :;il:J?cce agnus Dci.ccce
qui toilit peccata mundi, significobat, Chrisluin
sul)laluriim peccala muudi.cum inslar agni imino-
lareluriii criice; iion aiitcm.quod luuc ea tollcrcl,
cum .loannes loquebalur. llhid auhnn: (Dc plcni-
tudinc cjus omncs acccpiuuis} signincal graliaiii
qiia praediliis eral Joainies, a Chrislo manassc;^ nl
eliam graliain omiiium aliorum sauctonim. Sed
(]iiid Imc ad Baplisuja Joannis?!N'ain etiamsi ob nu;-
rita Chrisli pracvisa dabatur gralia sanclis omni-
bus, non lamen dabalnr per IJaplisinum Joannis,
2G
198
nr. svr.iiAMKMo h.mtismi
scil \\\h\ vi;), v[ pcr .ilia iiistrumiMU,). rnrro «•oliiiu
lia. quiH' -.ippiiruil. Joiuino liJipliziiiilo.iKui l('.sl;il)ii-
liir fnioiiriiiin luinislcrii Joiiiiiiis. ul iiupruiiculissi-
nuMi i)tM" suiuiu.iiu liMurril.ihMU scrihil K(Muuirms.
Alio(iui oporliMHi liiliMi iu ipsum (llirislum luissr
ellicax Joiiuuis miiiisUM-ium: luuc ouim soliim co
lumbii app;iruil. ciiiu Clirisliis li;ipli/.;ir(iur. Al Iioc
impiiiui cl |)I:ispIuMuum (Vsl..\ou (Miim o^MiilcHic;i-
(Mii Hiiplisiui .loauuis. .\j,muis illo iuuoeous, ipii lol-
lil pocc;ilii muuili, loslo (Hidom ipso .loauuo.Sij^Mi-
liciivil i;;itiir columba illa Clirisli iunocouliaiu. ot
puriLitoiii. ot (piod i|)so ossol, ipii s;iiicliHc;irot. ot
purjjarcl ;i(|u;is, el pcr aquas cl spirituni liomiues
roj.'ouor;ir(i.
I)oui(]uo vorba anpoli I.ucno primo. nou aj:;unl
(le Haplismo. sod (ie concionihus Jo;innis. Nomo
aulom nepat. qiiin Joannos ollioaoissime praedica-
\erit. el converlorit pliirimns ad Doum. Sod ;iliud
cst |>r;iedicalione vorbi movore cord;i Iiominum,
aliud per Caplismum ea purgarc. De primo argu-
menlo salis.
Secundo probalur tostiinoniis Patruin. Oriijones
lib. j. in epistol. ad l{om;inos. exponiMis c;ip. 0.
docel. et probal aliquol arjjrumenlis Bnplismum
Joannis, non remisissc pcecala.ct in lioc disliniiui
a Ciirisli li:iplisiiio. Idem doconl alii Gracci. Jusii-
iius q. 37. ;id Urlliodoxos. Grcgorius nazianzcuus
oralione in sancla lumina. Joanncs clirysoslomus
liomil. 10. el 12. in 3I;itlIiacum. ct lioiuil. 10. in
Joannem, et lioiuil. 1. et 40. in Acla. Ilem auclor
liomiliarum in ."\Iarcuin, quao Iiabonlur in scciindo
lomo Clirysoslomi homil. 1. Cyriilus ale.xandrinus
lib. 2. in Joaunom cap..">7.ubi ex proCosso hoc. Ira-
clal. ac dicil.Spirilum sancluni praevidissc fuluros
;iliqii;indo lemer;irios Iiomines, qiii iion disceriio-
rcnt Chrisli r.;iplism;i, a Joannis B;iptismnlo: ideo-
quc impulisse ipsum Jonnnem.ul aporlissimc dice-
ret;se soluin in ;iqua bnptizare.Idom ctiain hnbonl
Damascenus lib. i. dc lide. cap. 10. et Thcophyln-
clus in cap. 3. Luc. Denique s. Basilius, ctiainsi
lib. \. dc Bnplismo dicnl. Baplismum Joanliis do-
disse remissionem pi:ccalorum, tamen ibidcm sic
loquilur: Quan/o prdcslaniior esl Spirilus sdnclus
aqua. tanto excciUl, qui baptizalin Spirihi san-
c/o. illum qui haptizat in aqiia, el ipsum adeo
Baplisma. Lt or;il. 13. quae esl oxhorlalio ad Ha-
plisinum, sic habel: Joannes poenitentiac Bapti-
smum pracdicavil, Dominus autem adoplionis
fdiorum BaptLsmum longe excelLentius annun-
riat. Ilem initialorium erat Joannis Baptisma,
Christi autcm perfectorium.. IUud a peccnlo avo-
cabat, istud cum Deo conjungit, el familiarem
reddit.]hec ille.Ex quo inlelli?imus Basilium non
iribuisse e;indem onicncinm Bnptismo Chrisli, et
Joannis: imino Bnplisino .loannis non Iribuissc ul-
Inm viin juslificandi. nisi ra!ione poenitenliae, el
conlrilionis. Quomodo cliam intelligi debentverba
]\Ysscui.
^ Jam ex Lalinis Tertullinnus in lib. de Bnplismo:
MtiiL. \n(]ii\\.praestnbat coclcstc,Baptismus Joan-
ni-<. scd coelestibus pracministrabal.poenitentiae
videlicet praepositus. Et infra: yluf daret, inquit.
Spiritum sancUim, et remissionem delictorum. si
coelcslis esset. Ubi TerluIIianus contcndil, non lu-
isso coolcst(Mii,sod liniiKinum Jo;iniiis B;ij)tismiim,
qiii;i iioii (Iab;il Spirilum s;iii( lum.uoc. rcmissioiKMn
dolii loruin. El inlVa: Aijeimtur ilaque Bapiismm
pocnilrntiac. quasi Cdndidaius s(inrlilic<iiionis el
ronissionis tndhrislo sul)scquuturac. Iv\ (pio in-
lolligemus, (luoinodo sinl accept;m(Ia illa verba
(\jiisdom aiictoris.inilio lihii ojusdom: ^cque quid-
quam rcfcrt inlcr eos, quos joanncs in Jordane,
cl quos Vclrusin Tijl^cri tinxil. W;im non lo(piilur
(lo loio H;ij)lismo, sod solum dc materiii. jio doccl
iion rtiVrro, (|im quis a(]ii;i b;iptizolur. Non dissi-
mililor loqiiunlur c;iot(Mi L;ilini. Cypriiinus iii ser-
monc (lo n;iplismo Cbrisli. llilarius in ciip. 3 31at-
lli;ioi. Ophiliis lib. ."). c()iilr;i P;irmoniaiiuin.A(nl)ro-
sius in c;i[). 3. Liioae, et idem Ambrosius iii |)r;i(>,-
lalione ps;ilm. 37.niiplismum Chrisli voc;it oculum
gr^itiariim. quia dnhiit griitiam,l{aplismum Jo;iniiis,
oiMihim stipplifMoriim. qui;i t;inlum er;it Bnplisiiia
poonilenli;io. Ilioronymus in di;iIogo conlr;i Lirci-
fiMMimos similia Iiabet, el in opislola 83. ad Ocea-
nmn. cl iii 2. caput Jiiolis. IdiMU IiabiMit InnociMi-
lios I. in opisl. 22. cap. o. Lco epislol. i. c;ip. 0.
Crcgorius hom. 7. el 20. stipor evnngeIi;i.Dcniquc
Aiigustiiius opistola 18. et 103. Enchiridii cnp. 49.
lih. 2. conlra literns Pclili;ini, cnp. 37. el lib. 3.
c;ip. 70. lil). '». conlra Donntislas cap. 9. 10. et 14.
do unico B;iplismo cap.7.de iinilale Ecclesiae c;ip.
18. traii. '». in Jo;inncm, cl alibi.
Ad haec loca iion ;ililer Calvlnus respondel, iiisi
morc siio oa contemncndo. Sic eniin loquilur lib.
4. Inslilut. cap. 15. § 7. Quare neminem pcrtur-
hct.quod allerum (Raptisma) ab altero (Baplisma-
lc) disccrnerc vctcres contendunl: quorum non
tanll cssc nobis debel calculus.ui Scriplurac ccr-
liiudinem qualcfacial. Quis enim Ckrjisostomo
palius a.u.scuHcL. quam lAicae? Ncc rccipicnda
cst illa, Auguslini argutia: in spc dimissa fuisse
pcccala Baplismo Joannis , Cliristi itaptismo rei-
psa. dimilti.
Al nos reclius dicere possumus:Oiiis Calvino po-
tiiis auscullet, qtiam Chrysoslomo et Aiigiislino, et
tot aliis nnliquissimis el (loclissimis Paliibus? I\on
onim qunestio est, an sit credcndum Luc;ie.nn P;i-
iribiis. sed an Lucam melius intellexerit Calvinus,
qu;im tot Patres.
Porro Remnilius in Examine loco citato.tola fcre
dispiitnlione conatur oslendere, qu;icstioncm istam
non cssc nccessariam, et proinde paruin rercrre,
utrum hoc, aut illud Palres dixerint.Al non ila di-
cunl ipsi Palres.
Nam Ilieronymus in dialof.ro contra Luciferianos
adoo non piilnt rem islam esse Ievem,ul dicat eos,
qui confundunl hacc Baptismala, in perversiim do-
gma abirc, ct cum Baplismo servi plus tribuunt,
qii;im p;ir csl.ipsum Bnplismum Doinini dcslruere.
Augustinus lib. 2. cont. lileras Peliliani, cap. 37.
nbi dixcrat,Baptismum Joannisnon esseBaplismum
Chrisii, neque ullam ejus parlcm aul gra(lum,sub-
iungit. eos, qui contrarium senliunl, incidere in
impinm ot sacrilegam opinionem. Dcnique Cyrii-
lus nlcxandrinus lib. 2. in Jonnnem,cap. 57.teme-
rarios vocat. qui contra sentiunl.
Sed his omissis. Tertio probatur vcritas ex ipsa
persona.et oni^io Joannis.Erat eiiim Joaan6s prae-
LinKli 1'IUMUS 19!)
ciirsor Domini, el solum ad lioc vcneral, ul para- Terlio prolxilur e,\ loco cxpresso Aclor. 11). ubi
rct vias ejus. Icl eniai praedixil angelus Luc. 1. Paulus jubel l)aplizari in nouiine Domini duodecim
Ipse pracihil ante illum in spiritu, el virtule Ile- viros, qui confessi fueranl, se non haberc nisi Jo-
liae, ul converlat corda fiUorum ad j)alres,para- annis Baplismum.
re Bomino plehem peri'eclam. Idem pracdixil pa- Ad bunc locum incredibilc est. quot cxplicalio-
ter ejus: Praet^is enim antc faciem Domini pa- nes, el quam diversas adversarii excogilaverinl:
rare vias ejus. Luc. 1. Idem deniquc ipse lestalur numeranlur enim ul minimum decem apud eos di-
«idducens vaticinum Isaiae. Joan. 1. ^go 13002 cia- vcrsac opiniones. Prima est, quod in eo capile,
mantis indeserlo.parate viam Dominietc. XI ccr- semper Baptismus sumalur metapborice, et cum
le parare vlam Salvalori non esl darc salulem, el agitur de Baplismo Joannis, et cum agilur de Ba-
juslificare, sed disponere ad recipiendum Salvalo- ptisrao Cbristi.
rcm, et salulem: alioqui ipse Salvalor, non prae- Ila Zwinglius, qui in lib.de vera et falsa religio-
cursor Salvatoris fuisset. Unde paler ejus Zacha- ne cap. de Baplismo, Baplismum in capite Acto-
rias Luc. 1. proprie designans oiriciura Baplislae: rum, accipi vult pro doclrina, ut scnsus sit, eos
Ad danddVb, inquil, scieiitiam salutis plchi ejus, duodecim viros, qui anlca solum instituti fucrant
non dixil: Ad dandam salulcm, sed scientiam sa- in doclrina Joannis, postea inslilui cocpisse in do-
lulis. Docuit cnim Joannes, quomodo esset inve- clrina Cbristi.
nienda salus, nimirum credendo in Christum, cum Sccunda est, quod sempcr ibi accipialur Bapti-
illum digito ostcndit, el ail Joan. l.Ecceagnus smus metapborice:sed primo loco pro doctrim,se-
Dei, ecce qui lollit peccata mundi. cundo loco pro donis Spirilus sancti, quae daban-
tur per manus imposilionem. Ila Joanncs Brentius
et Lucas Lossius in cap. 10. Actor.
CAPUT XXII. ' Hac duae exposiliones hoc uno argumenlo satis
refellunlur, quod verba bislorica, ct apcrtissima
sinc ulla caussa delorquenl ad impropriam sigui-
Quod post Baptismum Joarmis necessano ficationcm. Non enim licet, pracscrtun in bistoriis,
percipiendus erat Christi Baptismus. fi"Seje tropos pro arbilrio: alioqui nibil esset ccr-
tum in ulla hcnptura.
Tcrlia cxposilio est, accipi Baplismum Joannis
Tcrtia propositio:Posfl?apfts?)mmJoa7mis7ieces- metapboricc pro doctrina; Baplismum Cbrisli pro-
sario percipiendus erat Christi Baptismus. Haec prie; alquc ila illos duodecim viros tanlum semcl
cst conlra Remnilium, qui id in dubium revocat,et baplizalos, idque a Paulo, non a Joanne. Ila Hen-
conlra Calvinum, et caeteros,qui id apcrte neganl. ricus Bulliugerus in cap. 10. Aclor.
Probatur primo ex verbis Joannis, Mallh. 3. Lucae Quarta cst contraria superiori, Baptismum Joan-
3. Jlarci 1. Ego baptizo in aqua,ille vos bapliza- nis accipi proprie, Baplismum Cbrisli impropric
bitin Spiritu sancto, et igni. Si enim bic Gat col- pro doclrina. Ila Remnilius in 2. part. Examinis,
latio Baplismi Ctiristi, et Joannis, aperle videmus pag. 108. ct 100. ubi etiam Irahere conatur in hanc
eosdem, quos Joanncs baptizaveral, dici baptizan- sentenliam Ambrosium lib.l.de Spirilu sanclo cap.
dos iterum a Christo.Fieri autem collationcm duo- 3. et glossam interlincalem, in cap. 10. Aclor.
rum Baptismatum, cslcommunis inlerpretum sen- Quiuta est Calvini lib. 4. Inslitut. cap. 15. § 18.
lcnlia; ut Ambrosii, el Bedae in Lucam, Hilarii, Baplismum Joannis accipi propric . Baplismum
Hieronymi, Chrysoslorai in Mattbaeum, el aliorum Cbristi improprie,non pro doctriiia,ul dicit Rcmni-
Palrum citalorum. lius, scd pro donis Spiritus sancli.
Secundo probalnr cx hisloria evangelii et Acto- Ilaec tres exposilioncs, praeterquam quod fin-
rum. l\am ut legimus Marc. 1. et MalUi. 3. ac Lu- gunt Iropos iu bisloria pro arbilrio, admittunt cl-
cae 3. ibant ad Joannem ul baplizareulur.tota Hie- iam focdam aequivocalionem in eodcm capile inlra
rusalem, omnis Judaea, et rcgiones omnes vicinac paucas lincas. iXequevcrum est, quod Remnitius
Jordani. Itaque rari admodum erant co tcmpore dicit, essc banc explicationcm Ambrosii, aut glos-
non baptizali a Joannc. At posl Domiui ascensio- sae inlcrliucalis. Nam Ambrosius in cap.3. ad Gn-
nem ipso primo die pentecoslcs, b. Pctrus in Ilic- latas, et lib. 1. dc Spiritu sancto cap. 3. apcrte di-
rusalem praedicare cocpit neccssitatcm Baplismi cit, illos duodccim viros jussu Pauli vcre ot pro-
Christi omuibus hominibus: Poenitenliam, '\nqu'\l, pric fuisse baptizatos. Quod cliau) admitlil Rcmni-
arjite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in no- lius pagina scquenli; qui proindc in duabus pagi-
mine Jesu: et baptizati sunt eo die Iria millia, de- nis,secum ipse pugnat in Ambrosio citando.Glossa
inde paulo post quinquc millia, practcr cos, quos aulcm intcrliuealis, solum dicit non fuissc eos vi-
poslca baptizavit IMiiiippus, ct alii discipuli in va- ros rcl)aplizalos,quod congrucrent vcrba Pauli cum
riis locis Judacae, cl Saniariac, ut habcmus Acl.2. doctrina Joannis. Uhi non ncgat glossa fuissc cos
4. 8. ct aliis. Igilur ucccssc csl, ut mulli a Joannc viros jussu Pauli verc baptizalos; scd ncgat fuissc
l)aplizali,iterum ab apuslolis baptizati fucrinl.Quo- illum Anabnplismum.Anabaplismus cnim csl rcpc-
modo cnim crcdibile esl, ut iiUcr tot millia. (;uos titio cjusdcm Baplismi: illi aulcm non fucrunl co-
apostoli in Hierusalcm baplizarunt, imllus fucrit a dem Baplismo bis lincli, scd diversissimis.Inlclle-
Joanuc, anlca bapiizalus, si verum csl, quod Mar- xcraiil(!nim cx vcrbisPauli aliuin fuissc Baplismum
cus dixit cap.l.univcrsos Hicrosolymitas a Juiinnc Joauiiis,alium Cbristi,el hoc ipsum ducuissc cliam
baplizutos? Joaimcm.
im
bevla exposilio o.U.(|uotl iii »'0 ca|iilc .sempn- iic-
oipinliir r.npliMiuis propri»', scd iioii ;ij:;iliir iiisi do
l5;iptisiiio Jo:m!iis.Si(Hiiilcm ill;i v<'rl);i (llia <nuUli-<
biiplizali siinl in mnninr Dnmini) luiliinl csst* Lii-
i-ao n;irranlis,(iuiil c<,'crinl viii illi pnsl mmI);! l';mli
aiulila.scl cssc vcrb^i (\iiis.ieiii l*aiili miir.mlis.tniid
;ii;crc solcrtMil discipuli .lo;iiiiiis.;uidilis v(m liis cjus-
dcni Joaimis pnicdicanlis Clirisliim vciiliiruiii: ni-
miruui. iKiplizabanlur ab codciu Joannc in nominc
(llirisli vcnliiri.
llanc cxplicalioncm rccilal, ct laudal, ui concin-
n;un et piaiii Mcolaus Sclucccrus in 2. parl. suae
Pacd;ij;oi;i;ic. Scd csl (luidcm utciimquc ;irjj;tila. ;il
miiiimc pia. ct prob;il)ilis. .A;iui Paiilus primo dicit
J(i;iiiucm baptiz;issc popuhim, sccumlo ;iddit eun-
ileni Joanncni baptizniulo monuisse populum, ut
crcdcrcnt in riiristum vciiiurum. Si crjio vcrba sc-
(picntia [His audHis Iniplizad siiul) pcrtiiicnl ad
populum, cui bnpicbatur Joanncs: scquctur eum
|)(>|iuluni bis bn|iliz;itiim a Joanuc.aut ccilc Paulum
iion bcnc rcm il!;im nnrrassc:quoruin ulruinquc ab-
surdum csl. Dcindcvcl duodccim illi viri sunl jus-
sii Pauli b;iplizati IJaptismo Cbrisli, vcl non.Si sunl
bapliz;iti,cst id qiiod nos contcndimus:si non sunt
bapli/.ati. quorsum pcrlincl illa narratio l>auli?ccr-
le supervacanea vidctur. i\on cnim alia dc caussa
l';iuliis nionuil cos. qui baplizali eranl solo Bapli-
smo Joannis.ipsumJoannom pracdicassc Cbrislum,
nisi iit inlclli^crcnt esse necessariuni praclerca
<".brisli Baplisnium.
Scpiima e.xposilio cst. nomcn Baptismi accipl
proprie in Joto illo capitc, cl cos duodccim viros
bis baptizatos: scd idco facluni esse. quod non ha-
buisscnl illi verum Uaptisma Joannis. scd corru-
pliim el adultcralum, quoad formam.nimirum.sine
nomine Spiritus sancli. Ita doccnt Ccnlurialorcs,
Ccnlur. 1. lib. 2. cap. C. col. 496. cl Bucerus in
cap, 3. Multbaci. Favct auicm nnn panim Ambro-
sius buic scntentinc. IVam in cop. .3. ad Galalas. ct
lib, \. de Spiriiu sanclo cap. .T.dicit cos.quos Pau-
lus baptizari jussil Actor. lO.non fuisse baplizatos
;intca vero baptismo Jo;innis,scd Baplismo quodam
(pii Joannis diccrclur, sed non cssel.
Ilaec exposilio nilitur falso fundamenlo.quod ni-
mirum Joanncs tnptiznrit in nominc Trinilalis, aut
ccrtein nominc Cbristi vcnluri, quod (utsupra di-
ximus) noii est verum. Porro Ambrosius dicil qui-
dem illos duodecim viros non babuisse verum Jo-
annis Baplismum. sed non dicit, si habuisscnt vc-
rum, non fuisse ilerum bnptiznndos, quod adversa-
rii contcndunl: iramo contrarium colligilur ex te-
slimoniis Cjus. Aam in cap. 3. Lucae aperte dicit,
Baptismum Jonnnis fuisse in sola aqiia. cl poeni-
tenliae, non gratiae. et diversura a Chrisli Bapti-
smo, qui conslal aqua, el spiritu, el graliam con-
fert.
Oclava expositio est Baplismum illorum duodc-
oim virorum fuisse corruplum,non ralionc formae,
sed ralione ipsorum acccdenlium.qui non accessc-
rant rccle mslituli in doctrina Domini.cum i:inora-
rcnl Spintum sanctum. el ipsum Cbrisli Bnptisma.
Ila docct Ollio Brunfclsius in Annolationibns ad
cap. 19. Actor.
IJcfcllilur Iiaec cxpositio, quia ignoranlia non
dl: sacu.\mi:nto i;aptis.mi
iohil U;q)tiMiium. Ktsanc.ul nou in;ilc dicil C;iJvi-
niis lianc cxposilioiuMn rcfcllciis lib. i. c^ip. 1."». §
18. liistiKil. iion sunic(M-ciit IhimiiKi, si (IcIkmcuI
novo Hnplismo con-ii^n cjtismodi ii,Mior;inliiic.
.\(m;i csl. viros illos duodccim ruissc rcv(M';i r«-
b;ipliz;d()s. stMl iiinlc. ct piM" crrorcm, idtpic ;ml(i-
(pi;mi P;iulus co vcnirct. lt;i Musculus in locis, lit.
de I>;iplisino.
SimI biux cxpnsitio corrum[)it tc.\luin:niliil cnim
in tcxlu chirius, (pi;im illos P;iulo ;iii(iilo, cjusquc
jusMi b;q)liz;il()s.
Dccinui cst Kcnmilii in 2. piirl. Kxiim. piitriiui
I9I>. cl 202. libi dicil, lociiiii islum cssc obscuri.s-
simuin, cum l;im Viiric a doctoribus cxponatur: cl
propliircii (lUiiccumquo sil vcra exposilio.nihil ccr-
li indc posse colli^d. non cnim dogmata probiindu
sunl cx locis ambi^uis.
Al nos opponimiis his omnibiis depravalionibus.
Primo ipsum lexliim, qni si cxponalur simplicilcr
cl propric. et sinc priicjudicio alicujus piiiccon-
C(;pl;ic opinionis, sinc diibilatione eum sciisum of-
fcrct, qucni nos defcndimus. Sccundo, conscnsiim
unanimcm Patrum supr;i citaloriim, ac pnicscrlim
Aut^uslini. qui locis cilalis conslanlcr docel, viros
illos ilcrum biiplizntos: (piod idcin liiibcnt oiimcs
vetercs cxposilores Aclorum, ul Chrysostomus, Bc-
da cl Occumciiius, IVcquc polcst dici locus ambi-
guiis, quin haerctici non convcniunt in co cxpli-
Ciiudo; ista enim ambiguilas non orilur ex nalura
rei, idcst, ex libri obscurilalc,scd ex corum pcrli-
nacia, in suis crroribus defcndcndis.
Alioqui eliam Palres non convenircnl, si essel
locus vere ambiguus:el si ambigua diccnda esscnl
omiiia loca, in quibus ;iliqui non convcniunl,niliil
omnino cx Scripluris probari posscl: nulla cnini
sunt loca, in quibus non possil unus ab alio dis-
S(?nlirc, si vclilpcrliuacitcr agcrc.