Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Baptism
Chapter 23: The Objections Are Answered
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 first argument is Calvin's, in the Antidote and in the Institutes, in the places noted above. There was the same teaching, the same rite, the same offer of grace in the baptism of John and of Christ; therefore it was the same baptism, and of the same efficacy. He proves the antecedent. For John, as regards teaching, preached that Christ is the victim for our sins, when he says, John 1, “Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world”; which surely is the sum of the whole Christian teaching. As to the rite, he baptized in water and in the name of Christ, as is plain in Acts 19. Lastly as to the offer of grace, both baptized unto penance, both unto the remission of sins; as is plain of the baptism of John, Luke 3, of the Baptism of Christ, Acts 2.
I answer: This argument is the chief foundation of the adversaries, and Chemnitz and Philip and others use it too; but yet it can be answered without difficulty. For as regards teaching, the adversaries err in two things, that is, in the antecedent and in the consequence of the argument. For we do not grant that the teaching of John and of Christ was the same, except in this sense, that John taught nothing contrary to Christ. For otherwise John taught nothing of the resurrection of Christ, nay not even expressly of the passion. For his calling him the Lamb of God could be referred to his innocence and meekness, even if he had not been a victim. Then teaching does nothing for the essence and truth of a sacrament; otherwise heretics, who have false teaching, would have false sacraments, which is the error of the Donatists, and is rejected by Calvin too and the Lutherans. As, then, difference of teaching does not make a different Baptism, so neither does likeness of teaching make Baptism one or alike.
As regards the rite, we have already shown above that there was no likeness except in the matter.
As to the offer of grace, what Calvin says is false: “Both baptized unto penance, both unto the remission of sins.” For the baptism of John is everywhere called the baptism of penance, as in Matthew 3, Mark 1, Luke 3, Acts 13 and 19. But the Baptism of Christ is nowhere called the baptism of penance, but the laver of regeneration, Titus 3. And what is objected from Acts 2 does not prove it. For Peter does not say that the Baptism of Christ is a baptism of penance, that is, one that provokes to penance, as the baptism of John did; but he says that penance is required as a disposition before Baptism itself. For so he says: “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you.” And so penance stands in a contrary way to the Baptism of Christ and to that of John: for penance follows the baptism of John as its effect; it goes before the Baptism of Christ as its disposition.
And as regards the remission of sins, it is ascribed to the Baptism of Christ as its immediate effect, Acts 2: “Be baptized every one of you for the remission of your sins.” And Ephesians 5: “Cleansing it by the laver.” And Titus 3: “He saved us by the laver,” and so on. But the remission of sins is nowhere ascribed to the baptism of John as an immediate and proximate effect; for the adversaries can bring only those words of Mark 1 and Luke 3: “Preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins.” But there the remission of sins is not ascribed to the baptism, but to the penance to which the baptism provoked.
For the sense of that place is: John preached the baptism of penance, that is, one which stirred and invited to penance; and those who did that penance as they ought would obtain the remission of sins. And so those expound it who ascribe most to the baptism of John, as Basil and Nyssen cited above. For others, as Tertullian in the book On Baptism, Augustine, book 5 against the Donatists, chapter 10, Gregory, homily 20 on the Gospels, and Bede on Luke 3, refer those words, “for the remission of sins,” to the Baptism of Christ, not of John; for they say that John baptized unto penance, and at the same time preached the Baptism of Christ to come for the remission of sins.
The second argument is Chemnitz's, page 183. The Apostle, Ephesians 4, shows by a gradation that in the New Testament, where there is one body, one Spirit, one hope of calling, one Lord, one Father, one faith, there too there is one Baptism. But all these were in the time of the preaching of John the Baptist; therefore there was then the same Baptism.
I answer: If this argument were worth anything, it would prove that in the time of Moses and of David too there was the Baptism of Christ; for then there was the same one body of the Church, the same hope, the same faith, the same God, and so on. Besides, this argument would prove that among heretics there is no true Baptism of Christ; for among them there is not one body, one Spirit, one faith, and so on. The Apostle, then, does not prove that there is the same Baptism where there is the same God, the same faith, and so on; but he proves that Christians ought to keep with all diligence the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, because they are one body, and have one Spirit, one God, one faith, one hope, one Baptism.
The third argument, which moved Chemnitz most, in the same place, page 183, is of this kind. That it is the sweetest comfort of all Christians that they have one and the same Baptism with their head, Christ. But this whole comfort perishes if the baptism of John is not the same as the Baptism of Christ: for Christ was baptized with the baptism of John, and we with the Baptism of Christ.
I answer: That is not a good comfort which either takes glory from Christ or even brings him insult and wrong; and we can scarcely ascribe the Baptism of Christ to Christ himself without wrong to him. For since it is the laver of regeneration and of the adoption of sons, if it were ascribed to Christ, he would seem to have needed regeneration and adoption; which surely is the greatest blasphemy against Christ, since he is the natural Son of God, and from his very conception was always most holy and full of grace, so that grace could not grow in him.
He will perhaps say, with his master Luther on chapter 3 to the Galatians and in the homily on Baptism, that Christ was indeed holy in himself, yet because he took up our sins he was also, by reason of those sins, a thief, a robber, a murderer, in short the greatest sinner of the whole world; and so that he needed Baptism for the remission of sins above all men, because he needed it for the sake of all men. But all these are sheer blasphemies against Christ. For although Christ took upon himself the burden of our sins, yet he cannot truly be named a thief, a robber, a murderer, a sinner, as Luther shamelessly calls him, without any example of Scripture or of the Fathers: for he is not called a thief who pays the debt which the thief owed, but he who steals another's property. By a like reason Christ cleansed our sins by the works of his virtues, not by the power of some sacrament ministered to him by another.
You will say: Christ could receive his own Baptism, not to obtain the effect of regeneration and adoption, but for some other cause, as he received circumcision, which he did not need, and the baptism of John, which was a baptism of penance, though he himself did not need penance; and lastly as he received the Eucharist, which likewise he did not need.
I answer: whatever may be of this, surely it was more glorious for Christ not to receive his Baptism than to receive it. For while he confers Baptism and does not receive it, he shows himself the commander and chief of this warfare, since he imprints his character on others. But if he received it, he would seem himself to be enrolled in the service. Nor ought it to be a lesser comfort to us that through Baptism we put on Christ, and are conformed to the likeness of his death, than if we were washed together with him.
The fourth argument, in the same place: Christ, when he was baptized by John, sanctified the waters by the touch of his flesh; and besides he willed that the presence of the Holy Spirit should be there visibly in the form of a dove, and that the voice of the grace and good pleasure of God should sound, which are present invisibly in our Baptism; therefore that baptism and ours are not different.
I answer: The Fathers brought various causes why Christ willed to be baptized by John. The first is, for an example of humility, as he himself says, Matthew 3: “Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice.” Of which cause see Augustine in the Enchiridion, chapter 49, and Bernard, sermon 4 on the Epiphany. The second is, that he might confirm the baptism of John as good and pleasing to God, as Jerome teaches on Matthew 3. The third, that he might show how much sinful servants ought to make of the Baptism of their Lord, when the Lord himself, and the just one, made so much of the baptism of his servant. So Augustine, tractates 4 and 13 on John. The fourth, that he might wash our crimes in the Jordan, as the Church sings on the day of the Epiphany; and, as Nazianzen writes in the oration on the holy lights, that he might drown the old Adam in the waters and make the new one come forth. Which indeed he did, as we said above, not by the power of the baptism received, but by the merit of his humility. The fifth, that he might in his own person figure our Baptism and the grace which we receive in it, as Augustine teaches, book 15 On the Trinity, chapter 26.
But the chief cause was that he might institute and consecrate saving Baptism. For he instituted it by sanctifying the waters by the touch of his flesh, as we showed above from Ambrose and Bede on Luke 3, from Chrysostom and Jerome on Matthew 3, and from many other Fathers; and at the same time he showed in figure the effect of his Baptism, when he willed heaven to be opened, and the Holy Spirit to come down, and the voice to be heard, and so on, as is plain from Hilary on Matthew 3. But what do these things do for Chemnitz? Nay, how do they not fight with Chemnitz? For before the Lord was baptized, the dove never appeared, nor was the voice heard from heaven, nor were the waters sanctified; and yet the baptism of John was the same as that which was afterwards. The baptism, then, which the Lord had from John was not the same as ours; for that one he received, not instituted; ours he instituted, not received.
The fifth argument, page 189. Paul says, 1 Corinthians 12, that we all are made one body through Baptism. But we are made one body not only among ourselves but also with Christ; therefore we have the same Baptism with Christ.
I answer: This is another insult to Christ, as if he had needed Baptism to become a member of the Church. It is a wonder that he did not add also that Christ had to obtain the remission of sins through faith and penance. I answer, then, that Paul speaks only of the body, not of the head. For we are made members of Christ, and so one body of Christ, through Baptism, because by this sacrament we are regenerated and grafted into Christ. But he himself was made our head not through Baptism, but through the grace of the hypostatic union. As also we are made sons of Adam, and as it were his body, through carnal generation; but he himself was not made the head of all men through carnal generation, but through creation and the singular grace of God.
The sixth argument. We are one body, not only now among ourselves, but also with those who were there while John was preaching and baptizing, before the Lord began to baptize. But we are made one body through one Baptism.
I answer: The Church was always one mystical body, yet men were not always joined to this body by the same sacrament, but sometimes through circumcision, as regards the Jews, or in another way, as regards the Gentiles; but now, after the times of Christ, through Baptism. And so in the time of John the Jews were one body through circumcision, not through the baptism of John or of Christ; and Paul speaks of his own time.
The seventh argument, against the solution of the preceding. Even in the time of Paul many were one body of Christ who yet had had only the baptism of John. For the apostles were not baptized except with the baptism of John, Paul excepted. Likewise a certain Apollo, Acts 18, knew only the baptism of John, and yet was not forced to be rebaptized. Lastly the Baptist himself too was not baptized by Christ or by his disciples.
I answer: That the apostles were baptized with the Baptism of Christ is written and proved by Tertullian in the book On Baptism, and Augustine, letter 108 to Seleucianus, and book 3 On the Origin of the Soul, chapter 9. For since the Lord, John 3, pronounced so openly that no one is to be saved without Baptism, it ought not to be doubted that all those received the Baptism of Christ who are known to have lived after those times and to have been gathered into the Church of Christ, even if it is nowhere written. Otherwise we will deny also that the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and the others to whom Paul writes, were baptized, because we nowhere read it written when and by whom they were baptized. The same can be said of Apollo, whom Chrysostom and Oecumenius, on Acts 18, affirm to have been baptized with the Baptism of Christ. Lastly, of John the Baptist, as it is not written that he was baptized by Christ, so neither is the contrary written. And it is no light conjecture that he was baptized by Christ, since he says, Matthew 3, “I ought to be baptized by thee.” But whatever may be of this, it is certain that he was baptized by Christ at least in the Spirit, as Nazianzen affirms in the oration on the holy lights, and Jerome, and the author of the Unfinished Work in Chrysostom, on Matthew 3. And if John was not baptized with water, it is no wonder, because he died before the law of the Baptism of Christ was binding.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXIII.
Solvuntur objeclioms.
Argumcntum primum cst Cnlvini in Anlidoto.el
in Inslit. locis supra nolnlis, Kadem fuit doclrina,
idcm rilus, eadcm g:iitiaft oblalio iii Baplisino Jo-
nnnis, et Chrisli: igilur idem Bnplismus eral, et
cjusdcm cfficaciac. Anlcccdens probiit. l\am Joan-
ncs, quod altinel ad doclrinam, iiraedicavil Chri-
strum essc hostiam pro peccalis noslris, cum ail
Joannis l.Ecce agnus Dci,qui iollil. peccala mun-
tZi. quae ccrtc csl summa toiius doclrinne cbristia-
nnc. Quanlum ad rilum, baplizavil in aqua, ct in
norninc Chrisli, ul patet Aclor. 19. Dcniquc quan-
lum ad oblnlioncm graliac, ulriquc in pocnilcnli-
am, utriquc in remlssioncm pcccatorum bnptiza-
ninl. ut pnlcl de Baptismo Joannis, Lucae 3. de
Biiptismo Christi, Aclor. 2.
Bcspondco; IIoc argumcnlum est fundamentum
praecipuum adversarioruiu, ct co uluntur cliam
Kcmnitius, el Philippus, cl alii: scd lamen non
(lillicullcr solvi polcst. Niim quod allincl ad doclri-
!i,im, iu duobus crrniit advcrsarii, idcst, in anle-
LinER PULMUS
20 J
ccdonlc, cl conscqucnlia nrgiimcnli. Sir|iii(iem non
vcnimosleandcm IViissc (Inclrinam Joannlscl Cliri-
sli, nisi in eo sensii. quod niiiii contrnrium docuil
JoanufS Clirislo. Alioqui enim Jonnncs niliil docuit
dc rcsurreclionc Chrisli. immo etinm neqnc ex-
presse de passione. iXam quod vocavil illum agnum
iJci, potiiil refcrri ad innorentiam cl mansueludi-
nem. eliamsi viclima non fuissct. Deinde doclrina
niliil facil ad sacramenli essenliam el verilalcm:
nlioqui liaerelici, qui habenl falsam doclrinam,ha-
berenl falsa sacramenta, qui est error Donalisla-
rum, et a Calvino eliam, et Lulheranis rejicilur.
Sicut igilur diversitas doctrinae non facit diver-
sum Baplisma: ila nec doclrinae simililudo facil
Ba|)lisma esse unum vel simile.
Ouod allinet ad rilum, jam supra oslendimus,
non fuissc simililudinem, nisi in maleria.
Ouanlum ad oblationem graliae. falsum est quod
Cafvinus dicit. Vlnquo, in poenitentiam, ulriquc
in rcinissionein 'peccalorum baplizarunt. Nam
Joannis Baplismus passim dii^itur Baplismus peni-
lenline. ut Matlhaei 3. Marci 1. Luc. '^. Acl. 13. ct
11). Al Baptismus Chrisli nusquam di('itur Baplis-
mus pocnitenliae. sed lavaerum rcgeneralionis Ti-
tul. 3. Quod aulem objicilureK Actor. 2. non con-
vincit. iVam Pelrus non dicil Baplismum Chrisli es-
sc Baplismum poenilenliae, idesl. quod ad poeni-
tenliam provocet. ut faciebal B:iplisums Joannis;
sed dicil requiri pocuilenliam. ul disposilioncm
nnte ipsum Baplismum. Sic enim ail: Pocnilenti-
am aqilc, cl baplizetur unusquisque vestrurn.
Ilat]ue pocnilcnlia conlrario modo se habelad Ba-
plismum Chrisli, et Joannis: nam Baplismum Jo-
aiinis scquilur poenilentia, ut cjus eircclus: Ba-
plismum Chrisli praccedil, ut cjus disposilio.
<^iiod autem attinet ad rcrnissioncm peccatorum,
i!la Iribuilur Baplismo Christi. ul immcdialus ejus
effeclus Act. 2. Baplizclur unusquisquc vcslrum
in remissioncm peccatorum. El Ephcs. a. Mun-
dans cam lavacro. Et Til. 3. Salvos nos fccil per
/aix/,c?'nni e/c. At Bnptismo Joannis nusquam tri-
Ijiiitur remissio peccalorum, ul cffeclus immedia-
tus, el proximus: solum enim profcrre possnnlad-
versarii illa verba Marci 1. ct Luc. 3. Praedicans
Ilaplismum pocnitcntiae in rcmissioncm pccca-
lorum. Ibi autem non tribuilur remissio pec.cato-
rum Baplismo, scd pocnilentiae, ad quam provo-
cabat Baplismus.
Est enim sensus ejus loci, Joannes praedicabat
Baplismum poenilenliae. idcst, qiuKl incitabal el
invitabat ud poenilcnliam: quam pocnitentiam qui
ngcrenl, ut oporlcrct.conseqiicrcnlur remissioncm
peccalorum.Alfnie ila exponiinl. (pii plurimuni Iri-
ijuiint Joannis Baptismo . ut Basiliiis el Nyssenus
supra cilati. Nam alii, ut Tcrtuilianus, in lib. de
Baplismo. Auj^mslinus lib. ."i.contra Oonatistas cap.
10. lircj,'()rius liomil. 20. iii cvanpcl. el Beda iii
cap. 3. Lucae illa verlja: In rcmissioncm peccato-
rniii, rcleriinl ad Baplismiim Chrisli, non Joannis:
(licuiil enirn Joannem bafitizasse in iiocnilcnliam .
clsimul pracdicasse Baplismum Cbrisli luturum in
rcjiiissionem pcccnioruin.
Secundiim argiiniciilum Kcmnilii pa^dna 1S3. A-
poslolus Ejjhcs. 1. pcr giadulioncm oslendit in no-
vo Teslamenlo, ubi unum esl corpuS, unus spiri-
tus, una spes vocalionis, unus Dominus, nnus l*a-
ler, una (ides; ibi eliam unum esse Baptisma. At
illa omnia erant lempore praedicalionis JoannisBa- •
plislae: ifiitur idem lunc erat Baplisma.
Bespondeo: Si hoc argumentum valcrct, proba-
rel eliam lempore Moysis ct Davidis fuisse Christi
Baptismum: nam tunc erat idem unum corpus Ec-
clesiac. eadem spcs, eadem fides, idcm Deus elc.
Praelcrca probarel hoc ar£;nmcntuin . apud hae-
relicos non esse \erum Cbrisli Baplisma: non e-
nim apud eos cst unum corpus, unus spiritus,una
lides etc. Non ii^itur Apostolus probal idem esse
Baplisma. ubi est idem Deus, eadem fides elc.sed
probatdebere Chrislianos servnre cum omni dili"
jTenlia unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis : quin
"sunt unum corpus: el unum spiritum , unum
Deum. uuam fidera, unam spem,unum Baplismum
habent.
Tertium argumentum, quod maxime Remniiriim
movit, ibidem pag. 183. tale est. Ouia ca esl sua-
vissima consolalio omnium Chrislianorum,quod \Jt-
num et idem Baplisma babeanl cum suo capito
Chrislo. At haec tota consolatio perit. si non esl »-
dem Baplisma Joannis cum Chrisli Baplismo:Chri-
slus enim Joannls Baptisrao baptizatus esl , nos
autem baplismo Chrisli.
Bespondeo: Non cst bona consolatio , quae vel
gloriam Christo delrahit, vel etiam contumcliam et
injuriam irrogal: Baplisraum aulcni Christi ipsi
Christo tribueVe vix possumus sine ejus injuria.
Nam cum sit Invacrum regeneralionis, cl adoplio-
nis filiorum: si is Ghrislo tribuerclur, vid(!relur in-
diguisse regeneratione, el adoptione : quae cerle
esrmaximain Chrislum blasphemia. cum sil ipsc
filius Dei naturalis, et ab ipsa conceplione sanciis-
simus semper, et plcnus gralia fucnl, ilautgra-
tia crescere in eo non polueril.
Dicet fortc cum Magistro suo Lulhcro in cap. 3.
ad Galal. el in honiil. de Bnptismo, Chrisluin fuis-
sc quidem in se sanctum,tanicn quia siisccpil pec-
cata noslra, fuissc etiam ratioiie eorum pcccato-
rum, furem, Inlrunem, homicidam, (leiii([ue maxi-
mum peccalorcm tolius mundi; ct sic indigiiissc
Baptisnio in remissionem pcccatorum prae omni-
bus liominibus, quia proptcr omnes homines. At
i<la omnin sunl mcrne l)Iaspheiniae iii Christum.
Nam ctiamsi Christiis susceperit in se onus pccca-
lorum noslromm, tamiMi nou polesl vere ipse de-
nominari fur, lalro, homicida , p(!ccalor, ut iiii[)ii-
dcnler eiim vocnl Lulherus sine ullo excmplo Scri-
plura(^, aiit Pnlrum: non enim dicilur fur, qui sol-
vit (lel)itum.(|uo(l fur dcbcbal. scd ([ui furatur rcm
alienam. Pari rntione peccala noslra Chrislus jjiir-
gavit opcribus virlnlum suirum,iion vi alicujus sa-
cramcnti ab alio sibi ministrali.
Diccs potuil Christus acciperc suum Baplisma ,
non ad elTeclum regencralionis ct adoplionis con-
sc(|uen(lum. sed rdiqua alia de caussa, (pioiiiodo
acccpil circumcisionem, qua non indig(d)at, ct Bn-
))tismuin Jonniiis,(|uo(l luit Bajitisma |iociiileiiliac,
cum (amen ipse non egerct poenilcnlia : cl d('iii-
qiie (piomodo acccpil Eucharisliam , qna ^iniilikr
iion indigcbnt.
SOi
UK SACIUMLMO liAPJlSMI
lio.spomleo: OuJililiiiil 'lo Iidc sil, ctMlo, iii;i^'is
jlloriosuiu fiiit Olirislo, noii iicriporo siiiiin H.iplis-
ii);i. tiuam iircipiTC. Dtim (•riiiii ll.ijilisimim conftMl
rl non ;icci|)il. impcr;ili)rtMn sc, cl primi()(Mn liii-
jus mililiae t)slciulil.tpiippe tjui cluir.iclcrcm smim
iii aliis iin|)riiml. Al si acciptMol. vifloicliir ('[i;im
i|)se atl imlili;im mhcrihi. n(Mii(|iie iiuijor no-
l)is CDiisolalio csse tlebol, tiiiod ptM' r>;ipiisiniim
C.lirislum imJuamus. el simililutiiiii moriis t^jus
conligurcmur , quain si cuin illo siiiiul abluore-
mur.
guarlum arpmnoiilum iliiiicm; Clirislus cum ha-
pliz;ireiur a Juannc. conlaclu carnis suac sanclili-
cavil aquas: cl praclcroa ;mIossc voluil visibililcr
pracsonliam Spiriius sancli in spccic colmnbac,
ol soiiare voccm ^raliac. el bcnophicili divini.quao
invisibililcr adsuiit in noslro IJaplismo; non igilur
tlivorsa siinl IJaplismaUi illud. cl noslrum.
Respoiidoo: Palros varias caussas allulissc, cur
Clirislus a Joannc baplizari volucril. Prima cst, ad
c.xciiiplum luimiiiNilis, ul ipsc ail, Mallli. .3. Sinc
modo, sic cnim dccclnos implere omnrmjusli-
tiam. Dc qua caussa vidc Au5„Misliiium in Knoliirid.
cap. 4'J. el Bcrnardum sorm. 4. dcEpiphania. Se-
cuiida esl, ul conlirmnrcl naptismum Joannis lain-
t|u;mi boiium, el Dco i^ratum , ul docct llierony-
musin cap. 3. .Matili. Torlia, ul oslenderct quanli
facorc dcbeant pcccaluros Baplismum Domini siii,
t|uaiido ipsc Domiiius, el justus lanli fecil I5;iplis-
imim servi sui. Ita Auguslinus Iracl. 4. ol 13. in
Joannem. Cluarla. ul lavarel noslra crimina in Jor-
tlanc; ul cnnil Kcclesia in tiie cpiphaniac ; cl ut
scribit ^azianzonus oralione in sancla lumiiia, ut
velcrem Adamum sulToc;ircl in aquis, et novum
(Miicrgere faccrct. Quod quidcm fccil, utsupra di-
\imus, non vi Uaplismi acccpti, scd mcrilo humi-
lil.ilis siiae. Quinla, ul ipse in sua [icrsona iigura-
rot Baptismum noslrum, et gratiam , quam in eo
;icci[)imus, ul docet Auguslinus lib. 15. Trinit.
ta[). 20.
Sed praecipua fuit, ut Baplismum salularem in-
stiluerel, et consecrarel. Instituit cnim sanclifi-
caiulo aquas taclu carnis suac, ul siipra ostendi-
iiius cx Ambrosio. cl Doda in cap. 3. Lucae; ex
Chrysoslomo et Hieronymo. in cap. 3. Malthaei,
ot ox aliis mullis Patribus: el simul iiguriite oslen-
ilil oircclum B;iptismi sui, dum coeluin apcriri vo-
luil, et Spiritum sanclum descendere , et vocem
audiri elc. ut patet ex Ililario in cap.3. Matth. Sed
t|uid ista faciunl proRemnilio?immo quomodo non
pugnant cuin Kemnitio? I\am antequum Dominus
baplizaretur, numquam apparuit cohimba , neque
autlila esl vox de coelo, noque sanctificalnc sunl
aquae; ct lamcn idem erat Baptismus Joannis,cum
eo, qui postca fuit. Non igilur Baplisinus , quem
hiibuil Dominus a Joanne, idem eralcum noslro ;
-\,im illud acccpit, non insliluit ; nostrum autem
iii-liiuit, non acccpil.
(Juintura argumcntum pagina 119. Paulus dicit,
1. Corinlh. 12. Nos omnes efTici unura corpus per
Ba[)lismum. At unum corpus eiricimurnon solum
inter nos, sed etiam cum Chrislo ; igilur idcm Ba-
|Ui.>nja habcmus cum Chrislo.
ric.-^pond-o : Ilaiic csse aliam conluraeliam in
Clirisliim, (^uasi ille egucril Bii|)lJsmo, ut llcret
momhrum Kcclosiac. Miruin esl. cur noii ailditleril
oii;iiii, tlobuisse Christum jier Ihlcm, et poenilen-
tiiim ;idi|)isci remissioiicm [)Ccc;iloruin. llospondeo
i:,Miur. P.uilum lotjiii sohiiii tl(> cor[)ore,non (lo c;i-
|)iit'. i\os eniin incmbra Chri.sli, et proindo untim
cor|)iis Chrisli oiruMinur piM' B.iptismum. (juia hoc
s;um;iiiumi1o rog(Mi(M-;miur, el imiioclimur Cliristo.Al
i|)st! ca[)ut noslrum fiiclum osl. non |)cr Ba|)lisinuni
sod pcr graliiim unionis hy|)osliilicae. Qucmadmo-
duin eliiim lilii Adiic. el (jiiiisi cor|)us ejus cflicimur
I)(M' ciirniilom gcneriilioncm ; i[)se autem non fuil
faclus caput oninium hominum per carnalem gcne-
ralionom, scd pcr crcationem, ct graliam Dei sin-
gularcm.
Soxlum argumcntum.Lnum corpus sumus, non
solum nunc inler nos, sed ctiam cum illis, qui e-
r;inl |)r;icdicante Joiinno . el b;iptizanle antequam
Doinimis b;ipliz;irc inci|)cret. Alqui unum corpus
cHicimur pcr unum Ba[)lisma.
Ucspondeo: Scmper Kcclesiam fuisse unum cor-
pus mysticum, non t;iniefi siMuper eodem sacra-
mcnlo ;idjungeb;inlur hoiiiinos liuic corpori,scd a-
liquaiido per circumcisioiiem , quoad Judacos, aut
alio modo, quoad genlilos; nunc autem post Chri-
sli tiMnpora, per Baplismum. Itiique temporeJoan-
niscraiit Judaei unum corpus pcrcircumcisionem,
non per B;iplismuin Jo;innis, aut Chrisli, Paulus
autoin loquitur de lempore suo.
Scplimum argumentum contra solutionem prae-
cedenlis. Etiam tempore Pauli multi erant uniim
corpus Christi, qui lamen non habuerant nisi Ba-
[)lismum Joannis. N;im apostoll non sunt haptizati,
nisi Baplismo Joannis, exceplo Paulo. Similiter
Apollo quid;iin Acl. 18. non noverat, nisi Baptisma
Joannis, et lamen non est coaclus rebaptizari. De-
ni(iue ipse etiam Baplisla non fuil a Chrislo, vel
a discipulis ejus baptiziilus.
Hespondeo: Aposlolos baplizalos Chrlsti baplis-
mo scribunl. et prubiint Teitullianus in iib. de Ba-
plismo. et Auguslinus opist. 108. ad Selcucianum,
el lib. 3. de origine aiiimae cap. 9. Kam cum Do-
minus Joan. 3. lam iiperle pronunciaverit, nemi-
iiem salvandiim sine Baplismo,non debel dubilari,
quin illi omnes Baptismum Christi acceperinl.quos
posl ea tempora vixisse , el ad ]*]cclesiam Christi
aggregalos consli>l, etiiimsi id nusquam scriptum
sil. Alioqui negabimus cliam Romiinos. Galalas ,
Ephesios, Philippenses, Timolhaeum, Titum, Phi-
lcmonem, el alios ad quos Paulus scribit , fuisse
baplizatos,qaia nusquam scriptum legimus,quando
ot a quibus baplizati fuerint. Idem dici potest dc
Apollone, quem baptiz;ilum fuisse Christi Baptismo
iiffirmanl Chrysoslomus el Oecumenius in cap. 18.
Aclor. Denique de Joannc B;iplista, sicut non scri-
plum est biiplizalum a Chrislo, ita neque conlra-
liiiin scri|)lum esl.Et conjeclura non levis est.eum
fiiisse a Chrislo baptizJitum: quoniam ail Mallh. 3.
EfjO a te dcbco haptizari.^^cd quidqiiid de hoc sit,
cerlum est eum a Chrislo sallem spirilu baptizalum,
ul afTirmant Naziiinzenus oralione in sancla lumina
ct Ilieronymus. iilque Auctor operis imperfecti a-
|)iid Chrysostomum in cap. 3. Mallh. Quod si noii
fuil baplizalus aqua Juannes , non e>t mirum,quia
l\m\ PRIMLS
m
morluiis esl, anlequam lcx de Baplismo Chrisli
oblig:u'el.