Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacrament of Penance · Book I: On the Kind and the Parts of the Sacrament of Penance
Chapter 12: Whether the Sacrament of Penance Is Different from the Sacrament of Baptism; and the Truth Is Proved
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramento Poenitentiae, Book I, the fourth 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 heretics who have removed the sacrament of Penance out of the way have fallen from this error into another. For since they did not think it should be denied that sinners after Baptism can be reconciled to God, and did not believe that this reconciliation takes place without some sacrament, it came into their minds to say that Baptism itself can be called, and is, the sacrament of Penance. So they said that those fallen after Baptism are reconciled through Baptism, repeated in memory, but not in fact. From this new dogma the adversaries have deduced three things. First, that the covenant which God made with the sinner in reconciliation after Baptism is not harder than before Baptism, but equally easy, or rather altogether the same; and hence they inveigh most gravely against those who say that Penance is the plank of a shipwreck, as if it were not lawful to return again to the ship of Baptism itself. Secondly, that a man is renewed no less entirely in reconciliation after Baptism than before Baptism; and as in the regeneration which takes place in Baptism all sins are remitted as to guilt and punishment, so they hold it to happen in the reconciliation which takes place after Baptism. Thirdly, that after Baptism no external symbol divinely instituted is to be sought by which the merits of Christ are applied, since Baptism, apprehended and repeated in memory (as we said), performs this well enough.
The first author of this error, as of almost all the others which are current at this time among the Lutherans, was Luther; for so he writes in the book on the Babylonian Captivity, chapter on Baptism: “Occasion to these opinions was given by that dangerous saying of Saint Jerome, whether badly set down or badly understood, in which he calls Penance the second plank after shipwreck; as if Baptism were not Penance. For hence, when they have fallen into sin, despairing of the first plank or ship, as if lost, they begin to lean and trust only on the second plank, that is, Penance.” And in the same book, near the end: “The sacrament of Penance,” he says, “lacks a visible and divinely instituted sign; and I have said that it is nothing else than a way and return to Baptism.” So he; in which words the wonderful inconstancy of Luther is to be observed in passing. For at the beginning of the same book he wrote in express words that there are three sacraments, Baptism, Penance and the Bread; or rather one sacrament and three sacramental signs; and so most openly placed in the sacrament of Penance a sacramental sign distinct from the sign of Baptism and the Eucharist. But at the end of the pamphlet, having changed his opinion, or rather forgetting what he had written a little before, he equally openly denies a sacramental sign in the sacrament of Penance distinct from the sign of Baptism. Philipp Melanchthon, in the Commonplaces published in the year 1521, under the title of Penance, following Luther, wrote that the sign of Penance is Baptism. Calvin has the same, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 4, where he says that the power of the keys depends on Baptism, and that the force of Baptism extends to all the sins of the whole life, and that from ignorance of this fact was born the fictitious sacrament of Penance. And chapter 19, section 17, he censures Jerome’s saying about the plank of a shipwreck: “But it is a saying,” he says, “of Jerome. Whosesoever it is, since it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused, if it is expounded in their sense; as if indeed Baptism were blotted out by sin, and were not rather to be recalled to memory by the sinner as often as he thinks of the remission of sins, that from there he may collect himself, recover his mind and confirm his faith,” and so on. And below: “Most aptly, therefore, you would speak, if you called Baptism the sacrament of Penance, since it was given for the confirmation of grace and as a seal of confidence to those who meditate Penance.” Martin Chemnitz, in the second part of the Examination, pages 929, 930, 931 and 932, does indeed confess that Penance is one thing and Baptism another, and that there is a greater struggle of conscience in those who must be converted from sin committed after Baptism than in those who are converted from sin committed before Baptism; yet, following Luther and Calvin, he censures the comparison of the plank of a shipwreck, and holds the covenant of Baptism to be perpetual, so that we either persevere in it, or, if perhaps we have committed sin, return to it. He censures also the Council of Trent for holding that the method of reconciliation in Baptism is different from that which is in Penance, and that the latter is much more difficult and harder than the former. But with most impudent lies he twists the council’s opinion to that understanding of which the Fathers of the council never thought, or rather which they condemned in express words with anathema, namely that in the sacrament of Penance we rely not on the satisfaction and merit of Christ but on our own works; of which lies we have spoken above, though they could have been spoken of in this place.
Against this new error, then, the Council of Trent, session 14, canon 2, wrote thus: “If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism itself is the sacrament of Penance, as if these two sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck, let him be anathema.” Which truth is to be confirmed by three arguments: the testimony of Scripture, the tradition of the ancients, and reason.
Chapter XIII. The truth is proved
As regards the first: we have first of all examples, or rather types and figures, of the Old Testament. It is beyond controversy that circumcision was given to the Jews as a figure of the sacrament of Baptism; whence also Baptism is called by the Apostle, Colossians 2, a spiritual circumcision not made by hand. And if anyone diligently turns over the old Scripture, he will nowhere find the memory of circumcision prescribed as a remedy for sins committed after circumcision, but sacrifices, expiations, confession of sins, as can be gathered from chapters 4, 5 and 6 of Leviticus. In the same way, then, in the New Testament it is not to be thought that the memory of Baptism has been instituted as a remedy for purging those sins which are committed after Baptism, but the sacrifice of the New Testament, and expiation through confession and absolution. We have next the testimony of the Apostle John in the first letter, chapter 1, where the same Apostle, speaking of the remedy for the sins which the baptised commit daily, does not say, “If we recall Baptism to memory,” but, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.” We have thirdly the testimony of the blessed Apostle Paul, in the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 6: “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.” For in this place the Apostle does not deny that those fallen after Baptism can be reconciled to God through the Church, as even our adversaries concede the Novatians falsely thought. For how would Paul deny that those fallen after Baptism can be reconciled, who permitted the Corinthian, defiled after Baptism with a most grievous crime, to be reconciled? But he denies that they can be renewed through Baptism; for so Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Ambrose and others understand this passage in their commentary on it; and besides Ambrose, book 2 On Penance, chapter 2, where he shows this copiously, refuting the Novatians. The same Augustine also teaches most openly in the unfinished exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, near the end, where he notes that those who fall after Baptism can be cured through Penance, but not renewed, which is proper to Baptism. The author of the book On True and False Penance, chapter 3, which book is found in the fourth volume of the works of Saint Augustine, has the same. Next, the circumstances of the passage scarcely allow the Apostle’s words to be taken otherwise. For at the beginning of the chapter the Apostle admonishes the Hebrews not to look back again to the beginnings of Baptism and faith, and of that Penance which precedes Baptism and is as it were the foundation of the spiritual building: “Wherefore,” he says, “leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement.” Speaking of these words of Paul, Augustine, in the book On Faith and Works, chapter 11: “That all these things,” he says, “pertain to the beginnings of neophytes, Scripture testifies plainly enough.” And in the following words the Apostle gives the reason why one ought not to look back to those beginnings, when he says, “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated,” and so on; as if he said more openly: because that renewal which is had through Baptism happens only once. And that Baptism is described by illumination cannot be doubted; for hence all the ancients, and especially the Greeks, call being baptised being illuminated, and call Baptism the sacrament of light. Since, then, we have from the Apostle that it is impossible to be renewed again through that Penance which is joined with Baptism, it is altogether necessary either to deny reconciliation with the Novatians, or with the Catholics to admit a new sacrament distinct from Baptism, by which the remission of sins is bestowed. Nor can the adversaries say that Paul means only that the action of Baptism ought not to be repeated; for Paul speaks not of the ceremony, but of its effect, that is, of renewal. Wherefore if we cannot have the effect of Baptism again, certainly we ought to seek another rite, another sacrament. Add that, although we read in Scripture examples of those who fell after Baptism, as of Simon, Acts 8, and of the incestuous Corinthian, 1 Corinthians 5, we nowhere read that they were sent back to the memory of Baptism. And it would indeed be strange that the only remedy in the whole of life should be the memory of Baptism, and yet that in Scripture no mention should be made of this remedy.
Let there now be added the tradition of the ancient Fathers, who indeed with the highest consent teach that which the adversaries censure in the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 2, namely that not without great tears and labours can those who do Penance after Baptism arrive at that wholeness of reconciliation at which they had before arrived by an easy business through Baptism. Tertullian, in the book On Penance, calls Penance a plank after shipwreck, and a second door which will lie open to those who knock, the door of forgiveness and the bolt of Baptism having been blocked by sin. Likewise he calls it after Baptism a second hope and second aids; and in the same place shows that through many labours one arrives at remission after Baptism, whereas before Baptism the approach to forgiveness is most easy. Clement of Alexandria, in Eusebius, book 3 of the History, chapter 17, otherwise 24, calls Penance a Baptism of tears; and in the same place signifies that there is need of many prayers and fasts for the remission which takes place after Baptism. Cyprian, in sermon 5, which is On the Lapsed, does nothing else than show that if anyone falls into sin after Baptism, it is necessary for him to wash away his fault with many tears and fasts; and in book 3, letters 15 and 16, he gravely censures those who gave absolution to penitents before they had done just Penance. Ambrose has similar things in the book to a Fallen Virgin, chapter 8, where he compares Penance to the plank of a shipwreck. Likewise Gregory Nazianzen, in the oration on the holy lights, where he distinguishes the Baptism of water, which is easy, from the laborious Baptism of tears, which is proper to those who do Penance after Baptism. The same is held, and the same comparison of a shipwreck used, by Pacian in letter 1 to Sympronian, and by Jerome on Isaiah, chapter 3, and in the letter to Demetrias, and in another to Sabinian. Epiphanius, heresy 59, which is that of the Cathari, writes that those who fall into sins after Baptism cannot any longer flee to Baptism, but another remedy is to be sought, namely Penance. Augustine, in letter 23 to Boniface: “If an infant,” he says, “after Baptism begins to have sins of his own, they are not taken away by regeneration, but are healed by another cure.” And book 2 On Adulterous Marriages, chapter 16: “If a murder was done by a catechumen, it is washed away by Baptism; if by one baptised, it is healed by Penance and reconciliation.” And homily 50 of the book of Fifty Homilies, he distinguishes three actions of Penance: one which is done before Baptism; another daily and perpetual for venial sins, for which we continually say, Forgive us our debts; the third for mortal sins which are committed after Baptism; and of this third he speaks thus, chapter 9: “In this Penance each ought to exercise a greater severity on himself, that being judged by himself he may not be judged by God.” Chrysostom, book 3 On the Priesthood, and Cyril, book 12 on John, chapter 56, openly distinguish the manner of forgiving sins through Baptism and through another sacrament; which certainly they would not say if by Baptism all sins, past and future, were blotted out. Theodoret, in the Epitome of the Divine Decrees, chapter on Penance, writes that the wounds which are received after Baptism can indeed be cured, but not, as before, by an easy business through the laver of regeneration, but through many tears and laborious works. Finally John Damascene, to omit the more recent writers, book 4 On the Faith, chapter 10, repeats Nazianzen’s opinion on the distinction of the Baptism of water from the laborious Baptism of tears. Truly, then, the sacrament of Penance is a kind of Baptism, but a Baptism, as all the Fathers testify, of labour and tears.
Let reasons, lastly, also be added. First, no reason allows that God should pardon with the same ease those who have sinned ignorantly and those who have sinned knowingly. For true is the sentence of the Lord: “That servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few,” Luke 12; with which sentence agrees what the Apostle says of himself: “I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief,” 1 Timothy 1. But if the opinion of the adversaries were true, not with the same, but, what is far more absurd, with greater ease would those arrive at pardon who had sinned knowingly after faith and Baptism, than those who had sinned ignorantly in unbelief; for it is easier to recall to memory a Baptism once received than to be in fact baptised again. And this is what the adversaries hold: that sins committed before Baptism are blotted out through Baptism received in fact, but those contracted after Baptism through Baptism indeed, but repeated in memory and thought. And if these things are absurd, as no one of sound mind can deny they really are, this is established, that the covenant of Baptism is different from the covenant of reconciliation after Baptism; and so the sacrament also different. Secondly, the rites of Baptism and of Penance have a different matter and form; therefore they are to be thought different sacraments. As regards the matter, it will have to be proved below in its place that the matter of the sacrament of Penance is the actions of the penitent himself; and that the matter of Baptism is the sprinkling of water, no one denies. The form of Baptism all admit to be contained in those words of the Lord: “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” For that reconciliation which takes place after Baptism no one says, “I baptise thee,” but, “I absolve thee”; and this absolution, even private, Chemnitz and Calvin acknowledge, and confess that it is rightly taught from the word of God, as we showed above. But to this argument Calvin answers, book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 15, section 4, that the power of the keys, which is exercised in absolution, cannot be separated from Baptism; for the power of the keys is not exercised without the preaching of the Gospel, by which we announce that the impious are cleansed by the blood of Christ; and the sign and testimony of that washing is nothing else than Baptism; so that the sign of both words, that is, both of that one, “I baptise thee,” and of this one, “I absolve thee,” is one and the same, and not one thing and another. But the refutation of this answer is easy. For whatever may be true of the material sign, certainly that the word is one thing in Baptism and another in the reconciliation of penitents Calvin could not deny. And since the word is the chief part of a sacrament, it necessarily follows that Baptism and the reconciliation of penitents, which consist of different words, are different sacraments. What of this, that different words also require different material signs? For the material sign is as it were a visible word, and ought to offer to the senses the same thing that the word offers; nor do the adversaries deny this. Now the word “I baptise,” which sounds a washing, rightly has joined to it the rite of Baptism through water; for the action of washing offers to the eyes the same thing that the word of baptising offers to the ears. But to the word “I absolve,” which is derived from loosing chains, not from washing away filth, the rite of washing is not congruous. Wherefore Baptism cannot be the external sign of the reconciliation of penitents, since the word and the element ought to contain and express the same likeness. And although all our justification depends on the virtue of the blood of Christ, yet the same blood of Christ is called both a laver, and a price, and also a cup; and therefore through various signs its effect can be represented and its virtue applied: through Baptism as a laver, through absolution as a price, through the Eucharist as a cup. And as the Eucharist is not reckoned by the adversaries the same sacrament as Baptism, so neither ought the rite of absolution to be confounded with the rite of Baptism, although all these signs and testimonies are of the blood of Christ shed for us, by whose virtue we are washed, loosed, given to drink. By which Calvin’s argument is plainly emptied. For we confess that we are justified by the blood of Christ, whether when we are baptised, or when we are reconciled, or when we drink; but that through different external signs, and so sacraments, the virtue of that blood is so applied to us that we are said now to be cleansed, now to be loosed, now to drink. Thirdly, the diversity of the minister testifies that the sacraments are different. For it is certain that Baptism is valid even if it is bestowed by one not a priest; for in Acts 8 Philip the deacon baptised; in Acts 9 Ananias, who was not even a deacon but merely a layman, baptised the Apostle Paul. For that happened in the first year after the Lord’s passion, at which time there were only the seven deacons ordained by the Apostles, of whose number Ananias was not. And Rufinus, book 10 of the History, chapter 14, writes that the Baptism was held true and valid which Athanasius, a layman and a boy, had once conferred on certain other boys. But the reconciliation of penitents we know to have always been so proper to bishops and priests that if a layman presumed to do it under any necessity whatever, no one would doubt that the reconciliation was void. Of which matter it will be treated in its place. Fourthly, if Baptism were the sacrament of Penance, and repeated through thought and memory sealed, as the adversaries speak, the promise of reconciliation at whatever time there was need, this would be effected, that only adults ought to be baptised, as we see done by the Anabaptists, whom the Lutherans too and the Calvinists censure. For otherwise justification would be most uncertain, as depending on the testimony of men; for those who are baptised as infants, when they have afterwards grown up, cannot remember that they were baptised, but are compelled to believe the words of others, not their own eyes. How, then, do these things cohere, that they say the sacraments are received so that men may be made certain of their own justification, and yet they compel them to be uncertain whether they have received the sacrament, since they baptise infants? Fifthly, if Baptism avails for blotting out sins, not only past but also future, I ask at what time it blots out future sins: whether then, when it is first received, or afterwards, when it is recalled to memory. For if, when it is first received, it blots out all sins, even future ones, to the end of life, an incredible absurdity will follow, namely that sins are blotted out before they are done, and that no sins committed even after Baptism can harm a baptised man; and at last that all the baptised, and therefore all, both Catholics and heretics, provided they have received Baptism, must necessarily be saved; for that the Baptism which infants receive among us is true and saving the Lutherans and Calvinists do not deny. And if perhaps they say that sins committed after Baptism are not blotted out before they are done, but are purged only then, when through faith and Penance one returns in mind and thought to the sign and covenant of Baptism, a double absurdity will follow. For both justification will be uncertain, as we said a little before, since it depends on the testimony of men; and by the same reasoning the frequenting of the Eucharist will be taken away, since the memory of spiritual food once tasted could suffice in the same way as the memory of a laver once received suffices. Or if it is ridiculous that the memory of food should profit for satiety as food itself profits, why is it not also ridiculous that the memory of a laver should contribute to washing away stains as the washing itself contributes?
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XII.
An Pocniteniiae sacramentum a sacramcnto
Baplismi diversum sit.
naerelici,qui sacramcnlum Pocnilcnliae de me-
dio suslulerunl, ex hoc crrore in iilium prolapsi
sunt: quia euim negandum cssc non putabaiit.pcc-
catorcs post Biiplismum posse Deo reconciliari,
ncque reconciliiitionem istain sine siicramenlo ali-
quo lieri crcdiibant, id eis in nunitem venit, utdi-
cercnl, Baplismum ipsinu dici possc al(|ue essc
Pocniteiitiiie Siicramcntum. Ila(pj(; hipsos post Ba-
ptismum, rcconciliiiri dixerunt pcr Uiiplisuujiii,
mcmoria. non autein reipsa, rcpcliliim.
IvK (pio iiovo dogniiih^ tria (pi;icd;im iulvcrsarii
dcduxcrunt. Primo, non cssc durius |)actum.(iuo(l
Dcus cum pecciitore fccit in reconciliatione post
Baplismuin, qinim unlc Baplismum. sed essc ac-
qiK^ facile, vcl polius prorsus idcin, ct indc gra-
vissiiiK; iiivcliiiiilur iii cos, ipii dicunt Pocnitcn-
tiam essc tabulam naiifragii, (juaii uon Iicc;il ;id
CIO
DK i'oi;.Mii:.\iiA
ip::;iin nnvini iKiplismi amplias roiliro. Socundo,
nun niinu< inloi,MO riMiovari iioininiMu in roconci-
iialiono posl Bnplisniuni, quani anlo naplisnuun:
ol sicul \n rojrtMioraUono. (juao (U in Haplisiuo, di-
uiillunltir oiiMiia poooala tiuoad (Mdpain cl |U)0-
nain: siniilitor ficri voluiil in rocoiuMlialione, (|uae
lit posl llaptisinuui. Toilio, non esse (]uaeronduiu
posl Haptisinum.synilxduni oxtornum divinilus iii-
stilulum, (juo Cliristi morila a|iplio(Milur, cum id
salis comniode praeslel Baptismus, momoria (ul
diximus) approlionsus cl ropolilus.
Priimis auotor liujus orroris. iit oliam aliorum
ferme omnium. qui lioc toii^pore inlor I.uliuMMnos
versanlur, Lutlicrus fuil: sic enim scribil in iib.de
capliv. babylou. oap. do I>a|)lisino: Pracbuit liis
opinionibus occasionani vcrbam illud periculo-
suvi d. Flieronymi, sive male posilum. sivc malc
intcllcchtm. quo PocnilcnUam appcllat secun-
dam tabuhim post naufraniuni. quasi liaptismus
non sil Pocnilcniia. Ilinc cnim ubi in pcccatuili
kipsi fucrint. dc prinia tabula scu navi de-
spcrantcs . vclul amissa. sccundae lantum in-
cipiunl niti ct fidcre tabulae. idcst , Poenitcn-
tiae. El in eodem lib. propo exlremo : Poeni-
tcntiae sacramenlum , inquit, signo visibili, et
divinitus instituto caret : ct aliud non esse di-
xi , quam viam ac redilum ad Baptismum.
llaec ille: in quibus verbis obiler obscrvanda est
mira Lullicri inconslanlia. Nam in ejusdcm libri
priucipio discrlis verbis soripsit, Iria esse saora-
menta, Baptismum, Poenileuliam et Pancm: scu
potius unum sacramcntum,ct Iria signa sacramen-
tale apertissime iu Pocnitenliae sacramcnto posuit
(iislinclum a siguo Baptismi ol Eucharistiae. Scd
in (inc libclli, opinione mutata, vcl polius oblilus
oorum quae paulo anle scripsit. aoque apcrle ne-
i;at signuni sacramenialc in Pocnitcnliac sacra-
nuMito distinctum a sijiuo Baptismi.
Pliilippus 3Ielanolitlion in locis edilis anuo 21,
lilul. do Pocnitenlia, Lutlicrum soquulus, scripsil
si^num Poonitenliae esse Baptismum. Idcm liabct
Calvinus lib. 4. Instilut. cap. 13. § 4. ubi dieit a
Diplismo pondore claviuui poleslalem, et vim Ba-
|)lismi ad omnia peccata tolius vitae se exlenderc,
01 cx hujus rei ignoralione natum esse commcnti-
lium Pocnitcnliae sacramcnlum. El cap. 10. § 17.
reprehendil llieronymi diclum de tabula naufragii:
Sed dictam, inquit, cst Hioronynii. Cujuscunique
sit, quinplaneimpium sit, excusari nequit, si
cx eorum scnsu exponitur:quasi vcro perpecca-
lum dclcatur Jiaptismus.et non potius in memo-
riam revocandus sit peccatori. quolies de remis-
sione peccatoreni cogital, ut illinc sese colligat,
animumque recipiat. elfidem confirmet etc. El
infra: Aplissime, itaque dixcris. si Baptisnium
vocaveris Poenitcntiae sacramentum , cum in
confirmationem graliae et fiduciae sigillum, iis
dalus sit, qui Poenilentiam meditanlur.
iMarlinus Kemnitius in 2. par. examinis. pag.
i)2y. 0.30. 031. et032. fatetur quidem aliud esse
Poenitentiam, aliud Baptismum: et majorem lu-
c.lam coiiscientiao esse iis. qui coaverti debent a
peocato post Baptismum commisso, quain in iis,
qui converluntur a peccato commisso unte Baptis-
mniu: lamon Luthcrum ol Calvinum soquuliis. re-
l)rolioiidil simililudiuom de tabula iiaulra^Mi.ot foo-
dus Baplismi vult esso perpeluum: ila ut vol iii eo
|)orsover(Mnus, vcl si forte |)oooatum admiscrimus,
ad illod revorlamur. Koprohondit eliaiu ooiu;ilium
trid(Miliniiin. ipiod velit divorsam ossi; ralionom
reoonoiliatiouis in Ba|)tismo ab ea, quae est iii
PooniliMilia: ot haiio quidom miillo dinioiliorom ao
duriorom esse, (luam illani. Dolonpiol auteni iin-
pudculissimis mondaoiis oonoilii seutentiam ad
eam intelligontiam, do qua iiunuiuam Patres ooii-
cilii cogilarunt, vel potius (luam disertis verbis a-
natlicmalo daimiarunt, nimirum, quod iu saora-
mento PoeuiloiUiae non nilamur Chrisli satisla-
clione et morilo, sod propriis nostris operibus; de
quibus mciulaciis supra diximus, quac lioc loco
dici poluisseiit.
Jgilur adversus huno novum errorcm Iridenli-
nuin conoilium soss. 14. oanon. 2, ita soripsit: Si
quis sacramcnta ccnfundens, ipsum Baptisnvum
Poenitcntiae sacramcntum esse dixerit, quasi
hacc duo sacramcnta distincta non sint, atque
ideo Pocnitentiam non recte secundam post na-
ufragium tabulam appellari, anathema sif. Quae
verilas trihus arguiuoiUis oonlirmauda esl;testimo-
nio Scriplurae, tradilione vetcrum et ralione.
CAPUT XIII.
Probaiur veritas.
Quod altinct ad Primum: liabemus in primis c-
xempla; vel potius lypos el figuras Testan "1)011 ve-
tcris. Extra controvorsiam cst.ciroumcisionem da-
tam Judacis in figuram sacramenli Baplismi: unde
etiam Baplismus ab Apostolo Coloss. 2.dicilur cir-
cumoisio spiritualis et nou manufacta. Si quis au-
tem diligentcr evolvat Scripluram velerem, nus-
quain inveniet meraoriain circuracisionis praesori-
bi tamquam remedium peccatorum posl oircumci-
sionera perpelratorum; sed sacrificia, expiationes,
confessioncm peccatorum, ul ex cap. 4. 5. et G.
Levitici colligi polesl. Eodem igilur modo in Te-
slamento novo exislimaudura non est, Baptismi
mcmorian:i remedium esse ad ea pcccata purganda
iuslitulura, quae post Baptismum commUtuntur,
sed sacrificium novi Teslamenti, et expiationem
per confessionem et absolulionem.
Ilabemus Deinde testimonium apostoli JoaQnis
in epist. 1. cap. 1. ubi loquens idem Aposlolus de j
reraedio peccatorum, quae baptizati indies coiu-
mittunt, non ait: Si Baptismum ad mcmoriam rc-
vocaverimus; sed:Si confit.eamur ^jeccaia nostra,
fidclis est el justus,ut rcmittat nobis peccala no-
stra, et eniundet nos ab omni iniquitate.
Ilabemus Tertio b. Pauli aposloli testimonium,
in opist. ad Hebr. cap. 6. Impossibilc esteos, qui
seniel sunt illuminati, gustaverunt etiam donum
cocleste, et parlicipes facti sunl Spiritus sancli,
et proLapsi sunl; rursus renovari ad Pocnilenli-
ani, rursus crucifigenles sibinictip&is Filium Dei,
Liiiiiu rniMus
€11
el oslentui habenlcs. IIoc enim loco non negal A-
l>osloliis, posse liipsns posl Baplismum Deo per '
Ecclesiam reconciliari, ul falso ^ovalianos sensis-
se. etiam advefsarii noslri conccdunl. Ouomodo
enim Paiiliis negaret. lapsos posl Baplismum re-
conciliari posse. qiii Corinltiium post Bapiismum
gravissimo scelcre inquinalum.rernnciliari permi-
sil? Sed nectat posse renovari pcr Baplismum: sic
enim Imnc locum inlelli-fTunl, Clirysostomus, Tlie-
odorelus, Oecumenius. Tlieophyhiclus.Amhrosius,
el alii in commcntario hujus loci:et praetiM-ca Am-
brosius lib. 2. dt; Poenitenlia. cap. 2. ubi copiose
hoc oslendit, Novalianos refellens. Idem eiiam a-
perlissimc docel Aui?iistinus in exposil. epist. ad
Bom. inchoala, prope finem, ubi nolal, eos qui
posl Baplismum labunlur, curari possc per Poeni-
lenliam, non aulem renovari, quod esl proprium
Baplismi. Idem habet eliam auclor libri de vera el
lalsa Poenileniia. cap. 3. qui liber habelur in 4.
tomo operum s. Auguslini.
Deinde circumslantiae loci vix patiuntur aliler
nccipi verha Aposloli. Nam inilio capilis monet A-
posiolus Ilebraeos, ul non respiciaul iteruin ad
l^rimordia Baptismi cl Ddei, el ejus Pocnitenliae,
quae Baplismum praecedit, eslque veluli fiinda-
nienlum aedificii spirilualis: Qmprnp(ei\ inquit,
inlermillenles inchoalionis Chrisli sermoncm.ad
yerfcclionem feramur.non rursna jacientcs fun-
damcntum Poenilentiac ab nperibus mortuis, et
fuioi in Dcum, BUplismalum doclrinae. imposi-
tionis quoquc manuum ac rcsurrcctionis mor-
luorum el jndicii exlremi. De quibus Pauli ver-
bis loqueiis Augiisliniis lib. de fidi! ct operibns,
«:ap. II. Uacc, iiiquil. omnia pcrtiaere ad inil.ia
^eopliytorum,salis aperleque Scriplura lestatur.
Kcddil aulem in seqiientibus verbis Aposlolus ra-
lioncm, cur non oporleat respicere ad illa primor-
dia, cum aii: Impossibile est enim eos, qui semcl
sunt illuminali elc. ac si apertius dicerel: Quia
non conlingit nisi seinel, ea renovatio quae liabe-
liir [ler Baptismum. Describi vero Ba{)tismum per
illumiualionem, dubitari non polest: inde cnim o-
iuncs vcteres, ao. maxime Graeoi, bapliz;iri illumi-
nari dicunt, et Baptismurn sacramcntum luminis
appellant.
Cum ergo cx Apostolo haheamus, impossibile
csse itenim rcnovari per cam Pocnilenliam, quae
cum Biiplismo coiijiiiicla est: necesse eslomiiino,
aiil iiegare cuin Nuvalianis reconcilialioMcm, aut
cum catholicis admitlcre iiovum sacramentum a
Bai)tisirio dislin(;liim, quo peccatorum rcmissio tii-
bualur. iXequc diccre possuiit advcrsarii, Paulum
lanliiiii vclle, non deherc ilcrum repeli action(!in
Baplismi; non eiiim Piiulus dc caoremonia.sed dc.
cjus eircclii. idcst,(h; rcnovatioiic loiiiiitur. Ouare
si Biiptismi effectum iterum haberc non possumus,
cerlc aliurn rilum, aliud sacramcntum quacrere
(lehemus.
Addc: Quod cum in Scriplura logamus exempla
eorum.qui post Ba[)tisinum hqisi sunt.ul Simonis,
AiMor.H. et Corinlhii iiicesluosi, 1 . Corinlh. G. nus-
(piamtiimen lcgimus eos nMuissos fuissc ;i(l iikmiio-
riaiii B;i[)tismi. Et mirum siine csscl , iiniciim rc-
inediiiin in lota vita esse Ba[tlismi mcmoriain ct
lamcn inScriplura nullamfieri liujusremcdii mcn-
tionem.
Accedat nunc traditio veterum Palrum. qui qui-
dem summo consensu docenl id, quod advcrsarii
in concilio tridentino, sess. 14. cap. 2. rcprehen-
diinl, quod videlicet non sinc magnis ilclibus et
liiboribus ad eam integrilalem reconcilialionis pcr-
venire possint, qiii posl Biiplismum 1'ocnilenliam
agunt, ad quam facili negolio pcr Baptismum antc
pervensrant.
Tcrlullianus in lib. de Poenilentia, vocal Poeni-
tenliam tiihulam posl naufragiiim , et secundam
jiinuam. quac [)ulsantibiis [)alcl)it, obstruclii per
pecCalum janua indulgenliae el seni inlinclionis.
Item appcllat post Baplismum secundam spem ct
secunda subsidia: et ihidom oslcndit , per multos
labores perveniri ad remissionem post B;iplismum,
cum iinte Baptismum fiicillimus sit adiliis ail in-
dulgcntiam.
Clemens alexandrinus apud Eus(>bium lih..3. hi-
slor. cap. 17. alias 24. vocal Poenitenliiim Biiptis-
inum lachrymarum: ;itqu(} ihidem signinciil.mullis
oralionibus el iejuniis opus essii ad rcmissionem,
quac fil post Baplismum.
Cyprianus in scrm. .^>. qui est de lapsis, niliil a-
liud agil, qiiam, post Baplisinum si quis l;ibalur
in peccatum, ei nccesse esse multis liichrymis iH
je.juniis culpamsuam abluere: et lib. 3. epist. 15.
ct 1G. gravilcr reprehendil eos, qui iibsolutionem
poenilenlibus dahant, antequam juslam Pocnilcn-
liam egisscnl. Similia habenl Ambrosius in lib. ad
Virginem lapsam. cap. 8. ubi comparat Pocnilen-
tiam tabnliie naufragii. Ilern firegorius naziiinze-
nus oratione in sanclii liimiiia , ubi distiiigiiil Ba-
plismum aquae, qui facilis esl, a B;iptismo l;ibo-
rioso et lacrymanim. qui esl eoruni proprius, qui
Pocnitcnliiim agunl i)ost B;iptismu(ii. Eadem liii-
bcnl el eadem simililudine niiulViigii utiKilur Pii-
cianus epistol. 1. ad Sympronianum, et llierony-
mns in cap. 3. Tsaiae, cl in episl. ad Den^etriadcm
et in alt(M-a ;id Sabinianum.
Epiphanius hacrcsi .j6. quae cst Calharorum ,
scrihit, eos qui posl Baptismum iii p(!cciilii liibun-
lur, non posse ampliusad Biiplisdiiim couhigcrc ,
sed aliud remedium cssc quaercndum , vidciicet
Poenilentiam.
Aiiguslinus in episl. 23. ad Bonifiiciiim. Si in-
fans. inquit, posl lUiplismum prnpria incipiat
habcre peccala : illa non rcqcncralinnc anfe-
runlar. sed alia curatione sananlur. Ei lih. 2.
de adulterinis conjugiis. cap. 1(). Si ac:iteclinmc-
no faclum esl hnmicidium.Baptismale abliiilKr:
si aba.ptizalo. Poenitcntia ctreconcilialionc sa-
nalur. Elhom. .")(). cx lib. ")(). homiliiirum. dislin-
giiit lies Pocuilenliac iictioii(!s: uiiiini quii(! ;igitur
iintc Ba|)lisrniim: ;iller;im quolidi;iiiain ;il(iue pcv-
pctuiim pro peccatis vcni;ilibus. pro quibus assi-
duc dicimus: Dimillc nobis dcbila: liM-liiim pro 1(>-
tliiilibiis peccatis. (luac posl Biiplismum coitiuiil-
liiiilur;ac do lcrlia ista sic loquilur, Cii|). D. In
hac Pocnilcntia majnrem in sc (juisque scvcrila-
lcm cxcrccrc dcbct, ut a seipso judicalus , 71071
jndicctur a Dco.
Chrysustouius lib. 3. dc saccrdolio, et Cyrillus
t)i2
uii i'ol:milmia
lil). 12. in Jo;innom, cap. .'»(>. nporlc (lisliii^Miiinl
uioiluin poce.il.i rtMnillcMhli piT l),iplisiiiuiu el pcr
oiiu sacramenUi ; quoti corle uon (iiceronl. si iJii-
plisino peccalii oiunia praeleriUi, el lulnra cliiniUe-
lenlur.
Tlioodoreins in epilome ilivinornin decrelornin,
cap. de Poenilenli;i. scril)il,vuiiiera cpuie posl Bii-
plisiiuini ;ici'ipinnlnr, ciiiatuliii (|ui(lcin osse, sed
non. ul (ilim, facili noj^olio po,r l.iv;icruui ro-^^eiie-
rulionis, sed per mullas iaclirymas, cl opora iiibo-
riosa.
Denique Joanncs damascenus . ul roceiiliores
omillam, lib. i. de Fide. cap. 10. repelil INa/.ian-
zcni senlcnliam dc dislinclioiie Biiplismalis, aquac
a Baplismale laborioso el lacbrymarum. Vcre i^m-
lur sacramciiluiu 1'ocnilculiiie Baplismus (juiiJam
cst, sed Baplismus. ul Palres omnes leslaulur ,
laboris el iaclirYiiiarum.
Accedaul poslromo eliam riilioncs. I'rimum, iNul-
la ralio palilur. ul eadom laoililale Deus ignoscal-
iis ; qui iguoranles cl qni scicnlcs pecoaverunl.
Vera csl cniin Doiuini scnlcnliii: lUe servus , qui
cognovil voiunlalem Ihniini sui, et non praepa-
ravil. et nonfccil secunduni volunialem ejus.va-
pulabit muHis: qui aulem non cofjnovit, el fecit
digna plaqis, vapulabil paucis. Lucae 12. cui
senleBliae conijruiU quod dc sc Aposlolusail: Mi-
sericordiam Dei consequutus sum , quia Ujno-
rans fcci, in incredulilalc, 1. Timolh. 1. Al si
vcra essel adversarioruui opiuio, uou eadem; sed,
quod longc absurdius est, majori facilitale ad ve-
niam pervenirenl, qui scienler post lidem cl Ba-
ptismum , quani qui ignoranlcr in incredulilale
pcccassenl: iacilius cnim est Baplismum olim ac-
ceptum ad memoriam revocare, quara rcipsa ite-
rum baplizari. IIoc autem est, quod adversarii vo-
lunt, peccala aiile Baplismum admissa, per Bapli-
smum reipsa susceptum; conlracla aulem post Ba-
plismum, per Baptismum quidem , sed uiemoria
et cogilotiouc rcpclilum deieri. Quod si haec ab-
surda sunt. ul revora esse nemo ranae mentis in-
liciari polest, illud efficitur, diversum esse paclum
Biiplismi a loedere rcconciliationis posl Baptismum;
liroindc divcrsum eliam sacramentum.
Secuudo:Uilus Baplismi el Pocnilenliae diversam
liabent matcriam el formam: diversa igitur sacra-
inenla cxislimanda sunl. Quod atlinct ad materiam
inlra suo loco probanduin erit, materiam sacra-
menti Poenilenliae esse ipsius poenilentis actiones
cum Baplismi materiam, aquae aspersionem esse;
ncmo ncgel; Baptismi formam adrailtuut omnes
illis verbis Dominicis conlineri: Ego te baptizo in
nomine Patris, el Filii el Spintus sancti. Ad eam
roconciliationem, quae Kt posl Baptismum , nemo
dicil: Ego te baptizo, sed, Ego te absolvo, quam
absolutionem etiam privalam , agnoscunt, et ex
verbo Dei recte doccri falenlur, Remnilius et Cal-
vinus. ut supra oslendimus.
tSed ad lioc argumenlum respondet Calvinus lib.
4. Inslit. cap. 1o. § 4. polestalem clavium , quac
exercclur in absoluiione, non posse a Baplismate
scparari: non enim poleslalem clavium exerceri si-
ne praedicalione cvangelii, qua annunciamus ira-
pius mundari Clirisli sanguine. Signum autem ac
tcsliiuouium lavacri illius, non csso aliud, nisi Ba-
plismum: ila signuin ulriiisipie vcrbi , idost, tiiui
illius, te baptizu, qnam iiujus, le absolvo, unum
iilipic idoiu, non iiliud el iiliud cssi;.
Al laoilis cst iiujus rcspousionis conriil;ilio.N;im
quidiiuid sit dc sigiio maleriiili.ccrle verlmin aliud
c^sc lu IJiiplismo, aliud in rccoiiciliatione Pooui-
toulium, Ciilviniis ncgarc non poluit. Cuin ;iulcm
vorljum putissima sacramcnti [lars sil , iiccessiirio
cnicilur, ul sacramenla diversa siiit, Baplismus et
poouilcnlium rcconcilialio ; qiuie verbis diversis
coiisliinl. Quid? (juod vcrb;i divcrs;i, divcrsa ctiain
sigmi malcrialia exigunl.Aam sigiium maloriidc cst
quasi visibile vcrbuin,et iilud idcm scnsibus oirer-
rc dcbcl. ([uod olTcrt verbum: nc(pic id adversarii
ncgaut. Porro verbum , liaptizo , quod lavacrum
sonal, recte adjunclum hal)et rilum Baplismi per
iiquain: idem cnim oculis oITorl aclio lavandi.quod
auribus vcrbum baptizandi:Al verbo A^sotvo, quod
a viuculis solvendis, non a sor(iil)us abluendis du-
citur, non congruit rilus ablulionis.Quare non po-
lesl csse signuin exlcrnum reconciiiationis poeni-
tcntiumBaptisinus,cum eandemsimilitudinem con-
tinere atque exprinicre dcbeant , verbum et c\e-
mentum. Et quamvis a virtule s;mguinis Chrisli
omnis nostra justificatio pcndcat:lamen idem Chri-
sli sanguis et iavacrura, el prclium el poculum
cliam dicitur: et propterea per varia signa effcctus
cjus repraesentari, et virlus applicari potesl, per
Baplismum ut lavacrum, per absolullouem ut pre-
tium, per Eucharistiam ut poculum. El sicut Eu-
charislia nou censelur ab adversariis idem saGr;i-
lucnLum cuin Baplismo, ila nec dobel ritus abso-
lultonis cum Baptismi rilu confundi , licet omnia
isla signa ac lcslimonia sint sanguinis Clirisli
pro nobis effusi, cujus virtule iavaiTTur, solviraur ,
polamur. Ex quo argumentum Calvini plane eva-
cuatur. Fatemur enim Christi sanguine nos justifi-
cari, sive cuiu baplizamur,sive cum reconciliamur,
sive cum polamur, sed pcr divers;i exlerna sigua,
alque adeo sacrainenta,viin sanguinis illius ita no-
bis applicari, ul modo mundari, modo solvi, modo
polari dicamur.
Terlio. Ministri diversitas diversa sacramenla
esse teslatur. Coustal enim Baplismum ralum esse
etiainsi a non saccrdote Iribuatur: nam Aclor. 8.
Philippus diaconus baptizavit. Aclor. 9. Ananias,
qui ne diaconus quidem eral sed mere laicus ,
apostolum Paulum baptizavit.Id enim contigit pri-
mo anno a passionc Domini, quo tempore solum
eranl seplcm diaconi ab aposlolis ordinati, e quo-
rum nuincro Ananias non enit. El BiifQnus lib.lO.
hislor. cap. 14. scribit, Baptismum verum ac ra-
tuiu habitum esse,quefn Alhanasius laicus el pucr,
aliis quibusdam pueris aliquando contulerat.Al re-
conciliationem poenilentium, ila propriam scinper
luisse scimus episcoporum et prcsbylerorum, ut
si laicus id facere quavis necessitale praesnmcret.
irrilam esse reconciliationem nemo ambigcret. De
qua re suo loco disserelur.
Quarto.Si Baplismus sacramentum Poenitentiae
esset, ac per cogitationem et memoriam repetitus
obsignaret, ul advcrsarii ioquuntur, promissionem
reconciliationis, quocuraque tcmpore opus essct ;
LIBEK pniMUS
ri3
illud efTicerelur, non dobere nisi adullos baplizari,
ut ab Anab;ipli6iis, quos Lulherani eliam cl Calvi-
niani reprehendunt. fieri videmus.Aam alioqui in-
cerlissima er-it juslificatio, quippe, quae ab homi-
num teslimonio pendcat: neque enim qui iuriinles
baptizanlur, cum poslea adolevcrint, bupli/.atos se
fuisse recordari possunt.scd coguntur alicnisver-
bis, non suis oculis c^edere. Quo paclo igilur isla
cohaerent, ul sacramenla percipi (licant. quo certi
reddantur homines propriae juslificaliouis , et la-
men incertos eos esse cnganl an sacramenlum per-
cepcrinl, cum infantes baplizenl?
Quinto. Si Baptismus valet ad peccata , non so-
lum praelerila, sed etiam futura delenda; quaero.
quo tempore futura peccala deleal: an lunc, cum
primiun suscipitur, an poslea, cum ad memoriam
revocatur. Si cnimcum primum suscipitur, omnia
peccala etiam fulura usque ad finem vitae dehnil ,
incredibilis consequelur absurditas , ut videlicel
peccala prius deleantur quam fiant, et homini ba-
ptizato nulla peccata eliam post Baplismum admis-
sa, noeere queant, ac demum ut omnes baptiznti .
ac proindc omnes tum catholici lum liaeretici,mo-
do Baptismum susceperint, necessario salvari de-
beant: verum enim esse Baplismum elsalularem,
qnem infanles apud nos suscipiunl , Lulherani el
Oalviniani non neganl.
Quod si forte dixerint, peccata posl Baptismum
commissa non esse, antequam fiant , delela, sed
tunc demum purgari, cum per fidem et Poenilen-
tiam ad signum cl foedus Baplismi animo et cogi-
lalioue reditur: diiplex absurdilas consequelur.
Nam et inccrla eril juslificatio, ul paulo ante dice-
bamus, cum ab hominum tcstimonio pendeat: et
eadcin ralinne lolletur Eucharistiae frequentalio ,
cum ita sufficere possit memoria spiritualis cibi a-
Jiquando guslati. quemadmndum mcmoria sufficit
lavacri aliquando peicepli. Vel si ridiculum csl ila
memoriam cibi ad saluritatem prodessc , ul cibiis
ipse prodest: cur non sit eliam ridiculum, ila me-
moriam lavacri ad maculas eluendas conferre, ul
lolio ipsa conferl?