Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Sacraments in General · Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of the Sacraments
Chapter 22: The same is shown by reason
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. III, De Sacramentis in Genere, Book II: On the Effect, Number, and Ceremonies of 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 reason is taken from the divine liberality and custom. For God differs from men in this: that when men enjoin some office on men, they do not give them anything internal by which they may become apt for that office; and when they love someone, they do not make him good and beautiful, but love him because he is such; and when they wish to be loved by others, or to be believed, or hoped in, they do not give them any internal force by which to love, hope, or believe. But God, when he loves, by loving makes good and beautiful, by infusing grace; and when he wills to be believed, to be hoped in, to be loved, he infuses the habit of faith, hope, and charity. Therefore in the same manner it is credible that, when God deputes and consecrates someone to the Sacraments, whether to give or to receive them, or to other ministries, he does not do it by a simple deputation, as men are wont to do, but by infusing certain qualities by which they become apt and fit for such offices or ministries; and these qualities we call characters.
The second reason. Baptism, by the common opinion, the Anabaptists excepted, confers something sacramental, even though it be given and received without faith; the Eucharist and Absolution confer nothing; therefore Baptism has some sacramental effect besides grace. And the same argument could be made of Confirmation and Order. The antecedent is proved. For he who is baptized by unbelievers, and communicates with them in unbelief, is said truly and properly to be baptized, if the due rite and form of words with intention be kept; nor do the Lutherans and Calvinists deny this. But he who is absolved without faith is not truly absolved; he who takes the Eucharist without faith does not truly communicate with the body of the Lord, according to Calvin; and according to the Catholics he takes indeed the true body of the Lord with his mouth, but receives nothing in his soul but sin. There remains, then, from Baptism some sacramental effect which is not grace, since grace is not given without faith, nor is it the exterior action itself, because that is found also in the Eucharist and Absolution; it is, then, something else permanent in the soul, and this we call a character. Otherwise let the adversaries render a reason why without faith a man is truly baptized, and not truly absolved, or communicated to the body of the Lord. And this was the ancient question of the Donatists, who thought that Baptism had no other effect than to give grace, and therefore thought it void when it was received without faith.
The third reason. Baptism cannot be repeated, if it has once been duly conferred, as also Confirmation and Order; the others can be repeated, as is well known of the Eucharist and Absolution. But no true cause of this difference can be assigned but the character; therefore it is necessary to confess that a character is imprinted by certain Sacraments. The major proposition is received by all, even the heretics of this time, the Anabaptists excepted. The minor is proved. For, in the first place, if a character be posited, the reason of the difference will be clear. For certain Sacraments cannot be repeated because, once given, they always remain in their effect; others are repeated because they remain neither in themselves nor in their effect; for grace, which is the sole effect of the other Sacraments, can easily be lost, and is often lost. Besides, even if it be sometimes not lost, yet it can be increased, and so the Sacrament can be repeated that grace may be increased. But the character cannot be increased by the iteration of the same Sacrament. Add that grace is not a Sacrament, but only the effect of a Sacrament; but the character is a Sacrament, and the effect of a Sacrament. This reason, then, rightly shows why those Sacraments are not repeated, and others are repeated, as the Councils of Florence and Trent teach. But if this reason be not admitted, no other sufficient one can be rendered; which I show from the refutation of those which are brought forward by Calvin and Kemnitz.
Calvin book 4 of the Institutes chapter 15 section 19 says that Baptism cannot be repeated because it is the entrance into the Church, and a certain initiation of faith; whence, as there is one God in whom we believe, and one Church into which we enter, so there is one Baptism. This reason is not solid. First, because those who are baptized by heretics, and believe them, do not enter into the Church, nor are initiated to faith, as is plain, since among heretics there is neither Church nor faith; therefore these could be baptized again. Second, those who are baptized in the Catholic Church, and afterward depart from it through heresy or apostasy, must again, if they wish to be saved, enter into the Church and be initiated to faith; why, then, can they not be baptized again? Wherefore the reason of Calvin would prove something only if a baptized man could not go out of the Church, nor lose faith; which yet is established to be false. Third, we enter into the Church and are initiated to faith no less through the word than through Baptism; but the word can be repeated, that we may be more confirmed in faith and adhere more strongly to the Church; why, then, can Baptism too not be repeated? Fourth, Ordination is not an initiation of faith, nor an entrance into the Church, and yet cannot be repeated, as Augustine teaches book 1 On Baptism chapter 1.
Now Kemnitz in the second part of the Examen page 133 sets down one reason, not in his own name, but Gabriel's: namely, that the divine institution is the cause why certain Sacraments can be iterated, certain cannot. But this reason avails little; for not without a great reason would God forbid so useful a thing to be repeated. Those, then, who can assign no cause why God forbade it, rashly say that God forbade it. For whence do they know that God forbade it? For the Scriptures do not plainly say it. But if you take refuge in the tradition of the Fathers and Councils, that teaches both at once: namely, that God willed it, because certain Sacraments imprint a character, others do not imprint it. But Kemnitz himself, page 136, remits us to another place, where he promises to render from the divine letters most solid reasons. And this he performs afterward, pages 238, 239, and 240, examining canon 11 On Baptism. There he sets down four reasons which he confesses are not so solid; then four others most solid.
The first, then, of the non-solid, is that Baptism signifies the death of Christ, but Christ died only once. This is not valid; for the Eucharist too signifies the death of Christ, 1 Corinthians 11, and yet can be repeated; and the sacrifices of the Jews all signified the death of Christ, and yet were most frequently repeated. They will say these are not alike; for through Baptism we ourselves die with Christ, for we die to sin, as he died corporeally. On the contrary: for either the force of Kemnitz's reason is taken from this, that the death of Christ, which was one, is represented through Baptism, or because we ourselves die to sin. If they say the first, the reason concludes nothing, because what is done once can be represented often, as is plain in comedies, where things once done are represented; and as to this, it is by accident that we too die in Baptism. If they say the second, then that reason too concludes nothing, because the same man can die with Christ often, if, namely, he sin often and often repent of his sins. Besides, Ordination is not a representation of the death of Christ, and yet cannot be repeated. Not, then, is the true cause forbidding repetition the representation of the death of Christ. The second non-solid reason is that John 13 it is said: He that is washed needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly. This is not valid, because he speaks of him who is really clean. Whence he who after Baptism is again made unclean is not forbidden by this testimony to be baptized again. The third non-solid reason is that to the Hebrews 6 it is said: It is impossible for those who were once illuminated to be renewed again to penance, where by illumination Baptism is understood. This is not valid, because Paul speaks of those who are once illuminated and renewed — that is, justified — as is plain from those words, to be renewed again. Wherefore those at least could be baptized a second time who in the first Baptism were not justified. The fourth non-solid reason is that Ephesians 4 it is said: One baptism. This is not solid, because it is called one baptism because only the Baptism of Christ is salutary, and this is celebrated by one certain rite. For otherwise there too is said one faith; and 1 Corinthians 12 the Eucharist is called one bread; and yet we repeat the confession of faith, and the reception of the Eucharist. And if one lose faith, he can and ought to acquire it again, and yet cannot receive Baptism again.
The first most-solid reason is that the covenant of God entered with us in Baptism is perpetual. For God does not follow that common rule: “To him that breaks faith, let faith be broken with him.” But he always keeps his covenant, even though we be unfaithful. Romans 3: Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid. Wherefore when we sin after Baptism, there is no need of a new covenant, but it is enough to recur to that first one already once entered in Baptism. This reason is less solid than the former. For, first, Hebrews 6 Paul denies that a man sinning after Baptism can return to the covenant of Baptism. For therefore he does not say, It is impossible to be baptized again, but, It is impossible to be renewed again — that is, a man cannot any more return with that ease to the friendship of God, and the remission of all guilt and penalty, as once in Baptism, but now needs a laborious penance, fasts, tears, etc.; and accordingly needs another covenant of God far more severe than that first was. Second, when one is baptized without faith, God makes no covenant with him; for a covenant is between two consenting. Whence Kemnitz too says that through Baptism grace is not only offered, but also exhibited, applied, and given. But certainly it is not applied, nor given, to him who does not believe; therefore at least those could be rebaptized, according to this reason, who received Baptism without faith; which they too concede to be false. Third, as Baptism is a covenant, so also is the word of God, and especially according to the adversaries, who say that the word and the Sacrament are exactly the same way in justification. But the word is daily repeated. Fourth, the Eucharist contains the covenant of God no less than Baptism, and yet can be repeated. Finally it is false that the covenant of God is perpetual to him who breaks faith with God, so that the promise must be kept whatever he show himself to be to whom the promise was made. For the promises of God are conditional; for he promises that he will be our portion and spouse in Baptism, if we persevere in being sons and spouse; otherwise the same God says, Jeremias 18: I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of the evil that I have thought to do to them. And I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and to plant it. If it shall do evil in my sight, I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it. But that which Kemnitz adduces from Romans 3, Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?, is understood of absolute promises, such as was that of the Messiah to be sent; but the promise in Baptism is not such. For, at the least, it depends on the faith of the receiver, as they themselves teach, and accordingly is not absolute.
The second most-solid reason of Kemnitz is that of Baptism it is nowhere written that it be repeated; of the others it is written, as of the Eucharist, 1 Corinthians 11: As often as you shall do this. And of Penance, Matthew 18: I say not to thee seven times, but seventy times seven times. But neither does this reason avail much. For, to omit that the place of Matthew is not understood of the Sacrament of Penance, but of the forgiving of injuries, we can answer Kemnitz what Luther answered Karlstadt, in the book against the Heavenly Prophets concerning the name of Sacrament: that it is indeed not written that Baptism be repeated, but neither is it written that it not be repeated. And as Augustine book 7 On the Trinity chapter 4 says of the name of the three persons: “We say in God three persons, not because Scripture says it, but because it does not contradict it”; so we too could rebaptize, not because Scripture says it, but because it does not contradict it, and Baptism is a good and most useful thing, if there were not the danger of sacrilege on account of the character already imprinted. The third most-solid reason is that we have no example in the Scriptures of rebaptism; and besides, Circumcision, which is a figure of Baptism, was received only once. But this is like the former. For in Scripture we have neither an example of anyone who was forbidden to be baptized; nay, according to the adversaries we have an example of rebaptism. For Acts 19 Paul bade those be baptized who had been baptized by John the Baptist; and according to all the Lutherans, and Kemnitz himself, the force and efficacy of the Baptism of Christ and of John was the same. If, then, we seek only the examples of Scripture, we should have to rebaptize altogether. The adversaries ought, then, to open their eyes and understand that after the Baptism of John one could be rebaptized, because that had not an indelible effect in the soul, as the Baptism of Christ has. If we regard the examples of the Fathers, the Lutherans ought altogether to rebaptize. For Cyprian, and other Africans, and very many in Asia, rebaptized; but the Roman Church resisted them, which would not have them rebaptized, as is plain from Eusebius book 7 of the History. Why, then, do the adversaries not rather follow the African and Asiatic Fathers in this matter than the Roman Church, as they are wont to do in all other things? But what Kemnitz brings forward of Circumcision is for us. For Circumcision was not repeated because it imprinted in the flesh an indelible character. The fourth most-solid reason is that through Baptism we are born spiritually. But there is only one spiritual nativity, as there is one corporeal nativity. Whence Nicodemus, John 3: How, he says, can a man be born when he is old? And he rightly judged of corporeal nativity. This reason Kemnitz stole from the Catholics; for St. Thomas has it, part 3 question 66 article 9. But this is the difference between the Catholics and Kemnitz, that the Catholics use it as a certain congruity, and at the same time note the true cause, which is the impression of the character; which alone, as true and solid, the Councils of Florence and Trent, cited above, set down. But Kemnitz, the true cause exploded, embraces that congruity as a most solid reason. I shall show, then, that this reason too is not solid. For, in the first place, a man is generated spiritually not only through Baptism, but also through faith and the word of God, as the adversaries concede, and is plain from Paul, 1 Corinthians 4: By the Gospel I have begotten you; and yet the act of faith, and sermons, are often repeated. Besides, second, even though corporeal generation is naturally only one, yet supernaturally it can be repeated; nay, in fact it will be repeated in the resurrection, which the Lord calls the regeneration, Matthew 19. Since, then, Baptism is a supernatural generation, what forbids it to be repeated? Third, even though corporeal generation could in no way be repeated, yet the reason of spiritual generation is not the same. For as corporeal death is only one, so corporeal nativity; but spiritual death is manifold, as is plain; why, then, can spiritual generation not also be manifold? Fourth, Ordination is not a generation, and yet cannot be repeated. Finally, those who are baptized without faith are really not regenerated, and yet cannot be rebaptized; and on the contrary, those who are regenerated before Baptism through faith and contrition and the desire of Baptism are nonetheless afterward baptized, as is plain of Cornelius, Acts 10. Not, then, is that the reason.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXII. Idem ostenditur ratione. Prima ratio sumitur ex divina liberalitate et consuetudine. Deus enim in hoc differt ab hominibus quod homines cum hominibus injungunt aliquod officium, non tribuunt eis aliquid internum, quo fiant apti ad illud of¬ ficium ; et cum diligunt aliquem, non faciunt bonum, et pulchrum, sed diligunt, quia talis est; et cum volunt se ab aliis diligi, aut sibi credi, aut in se sperari, non tribuunt eis vim aliquam internam, qua diligant, sperent, aut credant. Deus autem cum diligit, diligendo facit bonum, et pulchrum, infundendo gra¬ tiam : et cum vult sibi credi , in se sperari, se diligi , infundit habitum fidei , spei , et charitatis. Igitur eodem modo credibile est, cum Deus aliquem deputat et consecrat ad Sacramenta, vel danda, vel recipienda, vel alia ministeria , id nori faciat per simplicem deputationem, ut homines facere solent, sed infundendo certas qualitates , quibus illi fiant apti, et idonei ad talia officia , vel mi¬ nisteria ; et eas qualitates vocamus charac¬ teres. Secunda ratio. Baptismus ex communi sententia, exceptis Anabaptistis, aliquid Sa- cramentale confert , etiamsi detur, et per¬ cipiatur sine fide; Eucharistia, et Absolutio nihil conferunt; igitur aliquem effectum Sa- cramentalem habet Baptismus, praater gra¬ tiam. Et idem argumentum fieri posset de Confirmatione, et Ordine. Probatur antece¬ dens; Nam qui baptizatur ab infidelibus, et communicat cum eis in infidelitate, dicitur vere, et proprie baptizatus, si servatus sit debitus ritus, et forma verborum cum inten¬ tione; neque id negant Lutherani et Calvi- nistae : At qui absolvitur sine fide, non vere est absolutus; qui sumit Eucharistiam sine fide, non vere communicat corpori Domini, secun¬ dum Calvinum : et secundum Catholicos sumit quidem ore verum corpus Domini, sed nihil recipit in anima nisi peccatum. Manet igitur ex Baptismo effectus aliquis Sacramentalis, qui non est gratia, cum gratia sine fide non detur, nec est ipsa actio exterior , quia illa reperitur etiam in Eucharistia, et Absolutio¬ ne ; est igitur aliquid aliud permanens in -476 LIBER II. anima, et hoc vocamus characterem. Alio- qui reddant adversarii rationem, cur sine fi¬ de homo vere baptizetur, et non vere absol¬ vatur, aut communicet corpori Domini. Et hsec fuit antiqua quaestio Donatistarum, qui non putabant Baptismum habere alium ef¬ fectum , quam dare gratiam , et ideo ina¬ nem putabant esse, cum sine fide percipie¬ batur. Tertia ratio. Baptismus non potest repeti, si fuerit semel rite collatus, ut etiam Confir¬ matio, et Ordo : cadera possunt repeti , ut notum est de Eucharistia et Absolutione. Sed vera causa non potest assignari hujus discriminis, nisi character; igitur nccesse est fateri imprimi per Sacramenta quaedam characterem. Major propositio est recepta ab omnibus, etiam haereticis hujus temporis, exceptis Anabaptistis. Minor probatur ; Nam in primis si ponatur character, perspicua erit ratio discriminis. Ideo enim quaedam Sacramenta non possunt repeti, quia semel data semper manent in suo effectu : alia re¬ petuntur, quia non manent nec in se, nec in suo effectu; gratia enim, quae est effectus solus aliorum Sacramentorum, facile potest amitti, et saepe amittitur. Praeterea etiamsi aliquando non amittatur, tamen augeri po¬ test , et sic Sacramentum potest repeti , ut gratia augeatur. At character non potest au¬ geri per iterationem Sacramenti ejusdem. Adde , quod gratia non est Sacramentum, sed effectus Sacramenti tantum : character autem Sacramentum est, et Sacramenti ef¬ fectus. Ilsec igitur ratio recte ostendit, cur Sacramenta illa non repetantur, et alia re¬ petantur, ut Concilium Florentinum et Tri- dentinum docent. Si autem haec ratio non admittatur, nulla alia sufficiens reddi potest: quod ostendo ex refutatione carum, quoead- feruntur a Calvino etKemnitio. Calvinus lib. IY Institut. cap. 18 , §. 19. dicit, Baptismum non posse repeti, quia est ingressus in Ecclesiam , et initiatio quaedam fidei : unde sicut unus est Deus , in quem credimus, et una Ecclesia, in quam ingredi¬ mur; ita unus Baptismus. . Haec ratio non est solida. Primo, quia qui baptizantur ab haereticis, eteis credunt, non intrant in Ecclesiam, nec initiantur ad fidem, ut patet, cum apud haereticos, neque sit Ec¬ clesia, neque fides : ergo possent isti iterum baptizari. Secundo, qui in Ecclesia Catholi¬ ca baptizantur , et postea per haeresim, aut apostasiam ab illa discedunt, iterum debent, si salvi esse velint, intrare in Ecclesiam , et initiari ad fidem; cur ergo non possunt ite¬ rum baptizari? Quare ratio Calvini solum aliquid probaret , si homo baptizatus non posset exire extra Ecclesiam , nec perdere fidem; qum tamen falsa esse constat. Ter¬ tio , non minus intramus in Ecclesiam , et initiamur ad fidem per verbum, quam per Baptismum , sed verbum repeti potest , ut magis confirmemur in fide, et Ecclesiae for¬ tius adhaereamus, cur ergo non poterit etiam repeti Baptismus? Quarto, Ordinatio non est initiatio iidei, neque ingressus in Ecclesiam, et tamen repeti non potest, ut Augustinus docet lib. I de Baptismo cap. 1. Jam vero Kemnitius in 2. par. Exam.pag. 133. ponit unam rationem non suo nomine, sed Gabrielis, quod videlicet divina institu¬ tio sit causa, cur quaedam Sacramenta ite¬ rari possint, quaedam non possint. At haec ratio parum valet : non enim sine magna ratione Deus prohiberet rem tam utilem re¬ peti. Qui ergo non possunt ullam causam assignare, cur Deus prohibuerit, temere di¬ cunt Deum prohibuisse. Unde enim ipsi sciunt Deum id prohibuisse? nam Scripturae id non aperte dicunt. Quod si confugias ad Patrum , et Conciliorum traditionem ; illa utrumque simul docet , nimirum Deum id voluisse , quia Sacramenta quaedam impri¬ munt characterem, alia non imprimunt. Ipse autem Kemnitius pag. 136. remittit nos ad alium locum, ubi pollicetur se ex di¬ vinis litteris solidissimas rationes redditu¬ rum. Id vero praestat postea pag. 238, 239 et 240. examinans Ganonem 41. de Baptismo. Ibi autem ponit quatuor rationes, quas fate¬ tur non esse adeo solidas : deinde alias qua¬ tuor solidissimas. Prima igitur ex non solidis est, quia Bap¬ tismus significat Christi mortem : Christus autem semel tantum mortuus est. llaec non valet ; nam Eucharistia etiam significat Chri¬ sti mortem, I. Corinth. XI. et tamen repeti potest; et sacrificia Judaeorum significabant omnia Christi mortem, ct tamen frequentis¬ sime repetebantur. Dicent, non esse lime si¬ milia. Nam per Baptismum nos ipsi commo¬ rimur Christo : morimur enim peccato , ut ille mortuus est corporaliter. Contra ; nam vel vis rationis Kemnitii sumitur ex eo, quod Christi mors, qua3 una fuit, per Baptismum reprajsentatur ; vel quia nos ipsi morimur peccato. Si primum dixerint, ratio nihil con¬ cludit, quia quod semel fit, potest stepius CAPUT XXI i. 477 repraesentari, ut patet in comoediis, ubi re- pra?scnlantur res semel gesta? : et quantum ad boc, per accidens est, quod nos etiam morimur in Baptismo. Si dicant secundum, tunc etiam ratio illa nihil concludit , quia potest idem homo srnpius commori Christo ; si nimirum soepius peccet , et srepius eum pceniteat peccatorum. Praeterea Ordinatio non est repraesentatio mortis Christi, et ta¬ men repeti non potest. Non igitur vera cau¬ sa prohibens repetitionem, est repraesentatio mortis Christi. Secunda ratio ex non solidis est, quia Joan. XIII, dicitur: Qui lotus est , non indiget nisi .ut pedes lavet ; sed est mundus totus (1). Haec non valet , quia loquitur de eo , qui revera est mundus. Unde qui post Baptisma iterum ta¬ ctus est immundus , non prohibetur ex hoc testimonio iterum baptizari. Tertia ratio ex non solidis est, quia ad Heb. VI, dicitur : Impossibile est eos, qui se¬ mel sunt illuminati , renovari iterum ad poeni- tiam (2), ubi per illuminationem intelligitur Baptisma. Haec non valet, quia loquitur Pau¬ lus de illis, qui semel sunt illuminati, et re¬ novati , id est , justificati , ut patet ex illis verbis : Iterum renovari. Quare possent ii saltem secundo baptizari, qui in primo Bap¬ tismo non fuerunt justificati. Quarta ratio non solida est , quia Epb.es. IV, dicitur : Unum Raptisma(3). Ilaec non est solida, quia unum Baptisma dicitur, quia so¬ lum Christi Baptisma salutare est, idque uno certo ritu celebratur. Nam alioqui etiam dici¬ tur una fides ibidem; et I. Cor. XII. unus panis dicitur Eucharistia : et tamen repeti¬ mus fidei confessionem; et Eucharistiae sum¬ ptionem. Et si quis fidem amittat, potest et debet eam iterum acquirere , et tamen non potest Baptismum iterum accipere. Prima ratio solidissima est, quia pactum Dei nobiscum in Baptismo initum, perpe¬ tuum est. Non enim sequitur illam vulgarem regulam Deus : ' « Frangenti fidem , fides frangatur eidem. » Sed semper ipse servat pactum suum etiamsi nos infideles simus. Rom. III : Numquid infidelitas illorum, /i4t>n Dei evacuabit ? absit (A). Quare cum peccamus post Baptismum , non est opus novo pacto, sed satis est recurrere ad illud primum jam initum semel in Baptismo. Haec ratio minus est solida, quam superio- (lj Joan. XIII, 10. - (2) Hebr. VI, 4. 7 et seq. — (G) Itom. III, 3. res. Nam Primo, Heb. VI, Paulus negat pos¬ se hominem peccantem post Baptismum re¬ dire ad pactumBaptismi. Ideo enim'non ait; Impossibile est iterum baptizari , sed : Im¬ possibile est iterum renovari , id est , non po¬ test homo amplius ea facilitate redire ad ami¬ citiam Dei, et remissionem totius culpae, et poena?, ut quondam in Baptismo , sed eget jam laboriosa poenitentia, jejuniis, lachry- mis etc. proinde eget alio pacto Doi multo magis severo, quam esset illud primum. Secundo , cum quis sine fide baptizatur, non facit Deus pactum cum illo ullum : pac¬ tum enim est inter duos consentientes. Unde etiam Kcinnitius dicit, per Baptis¬ mum non solum offerri , sed etiam ex¬ hiberi, applicari , et dari gratiam. At certe non applicatur , nec datur ei, qui non cre¬ dit : igitur saltem possent rebaptizari secun¬ dum istam rationem illi, qui sine fide Bap¬ tismum acceperunt , quod Talsum esse ipsi quoque concedunt. Tertio , sicut Baptismus est pactum , ita etiam verbum Dei, ac priesertim secundum adversarios, qui dicunt eodem prorsus mo¬ do se habere in justificatione verbum et Sa¬ cramentum. At verbum quotidie repeti¬ tur. Quarto, Eucharistia non minus continet pactum Dei, quam Baptismus, et tamen re¬ peti potest. Denique falsum est, pactum Dei esse per¬ petuum illi, qui Deo fidem frangit, ita ut pro¬ missio servanda sit, qualemcumque se prae¬ beat is , cui promissio facta est. Nam pro¬ missiones Dei sunt conditionatte : promittit enim se fore partem, et sponsum in Baptis¬ mo, si nos perseveremus esse filii, et spon¬ sa?, alioqui dicit idem Deus, Hierem. XVIII: Repente loquar adversus gentem et adversus re¬ gnum, ut eradicem , et destruam, et disperdam illud. Si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo , agam et ego poenitentiam , quod cogitavi , ut facerem ei : et subito loquar de gente , et de regno , ut aedificem, et plantem illud. Si fecerit malum in oculis meis, poenitentiam agam super bono, quod locutus sum, ut facerem ei ( 5). Quod aulem Kemnitius adducit ex Itom. III : Num¬ quid infidelitas eorum fidem Dei evacuabit (6) ? intelligitur de promissionibu&absolutis, qua¬ lis erat de Messia mittendo : sed non talis est promissio in Baptismo. Nam, ut minimum. (3) Eph. IV, 5. — (4) Rom. III, 3. — (5) Jerem. XVIII, 478 LIBER II. pendet ex fide recipientis , ut ipsi docent, proinde non est absoluta. Secunda ratio solidissima , Kemnitii est, quia de Baptismo nusquam scriptum est, ut repetatur : de aliis scriptum est, ut de Eu¬ charistia, I. Corinth. XI : Quotiescumque fe¬ ceritis. Et de Poenitentia, Matth. XVIII: Non dico tibi septies, sed septuagies septies (I). At neque hcec ratio multum valet. Nam ut omit¬ tam, qirod locus Matthaei non i ntell igitur de Sacramento Poenitentiae, sed de condonatio¬ ne injuriarum , possumus Kemnitio respon¬ dere, quod respondit Lutherus Carolstadio, in lib. contra coelestes Prophetas, de nomi¬ ne Sacramenti non esse quidem scriptum, ut Baptismus repetatur, sed neque esse scri¬ ptum, ut non repetatur. Et sicut Augustinus lib. Vll Trinit. cap. 4. dicit de nomine trium personarum : « Dicimus in Deo tres perso¬ nas, non quia Scriptura dicit, sed quia non contradicit;» ita et nos possemus rebapti¬ zare, non quia Scriptura dicit, sed quia non contradicit, et res est bona , et utilissima Baptismus , si non esset periculum sacrile¬ gii ob characterem jam impressum. Tertia ratio solidissima est, quia non ha¬ bemus exemplum in Scripturis Anabaptismi; et prteterea Circumcisio, quae est figura Bap¬ tismi, tantum semel recipiebatur. At haec est similis superiori. Nam in Scriptura non ha¬ bemus etiam exemplum alicujus, qui fuerit prohibitus baptizari ; imo secundum adver¬ sarios habemus exemplum Anabaptismi. Nam Actor. XIX, Paulus jussit baptizari eos, qui fuerant a Joanne Baptista baptizati : et se¬ cundum Lutheranos omnes, et ipsum Kem- nitium, eadem erat vis , et efficacia Baptis¬ mi Christi, et Joannis. Si igitur solum exem¬ pla Scripturre quaeramus, oporteret omuino rebaptizare. Deberent itaque adversarii ape¬ rire oculos, et intelligcrepostBaptisma Joan¬ nis potuisse rebaptizari , quia illud non ha¬ buit effectum in anima indelebilem, ut habet , Christi Baptisma. Si respiciamus exempla Patrum, deberent Lutherani omnino rebap¬ tizare. Nam Cyprianus, et alii Africani, nec- nou plurimi in Asia rebaptizabant : resiste¬ bat autem illis Romana Ecclesia, quas nole¬ bat rebaptizari , ut patet ex Eusebio lib. VII liist. Quare adversarii non sequuntur potius Africanos, et Asiaticos Patres in hac re, quam Romanam Ecclesiam; ut in aliis omnibus rebus facere solent? Quod autem de Circumcisione Kcmnitius profert, pro no¬ bis est. Nam ideo Circumcisio non repeteba¬ tur, quia imprimebat in carne indelebilem characterem. Quarto ratio solidissima est, quia per Ba¬ ptismum nascimur spirit ualiter. Una autem tantum est nativitas spiritualis , ut una est nativitas corporalis. Unde Nicodemus, Joan. III : Quomodo potest, inquit, homo nasci, cum sit senex (2). Et recte judicabat de nativitate corporali. Hanc rationem Kemnitius furatus est Catholicis : eam enim habet S. Thomas 3. par. q. LXVI, art. 9. Sed hocinterest in¬ ter Catholicos, etKemnitium,quod Catholici ea utuntur, ut congruentia quadam ; et simul notant veram causam , qutc est impressio characteris. Quam solam, ut veram, et soli¬ dam posuit Concilium Florentinum et Tri- dentinum, supra citatum. At Kemnitius ex¬ plosa vera causa , amplectitur istam con¬ gruentiam, ut solidissimam rationem. Ostendam igitur et hanc rationem non es¬ se solidam. Nam in primis homo non solum per Baptismum, sed etiam perfidem, et ver¬ bum Dei generatur spiritualiter, ut adversa¬ rii concedunt, et patet ex Paulo, I. Corinth. IV : Per Euangelium ego vos genui (3) ; et ta¬ men fidei actus, et conciones stepe repetun¬ tur. Praeterea Secundo , etiamsi generatio corporalis una tantum sit naturaliter, tamen supernaturaliter potest repeti , imo reipsa repetetur in resurrectione , quam Dominus vocat regenerationem, Matth. XIX. Cum er¬ go Baptismus sit generatio supernaturalis, quid prohibet eum repeti ? Tertio, etiamsi generatio corporalis nullo modo posset re¬ peti, tamen non eadem est ratio spiritualis generationis. Nam ut mors corporalis una tantum est, ita nativitas corporalis. At mors spiritualis multiplex est, utpatet: cur igitur non possit etiam multiplex esse spiritualis generatio? Quarto, Ordinatio non est gene¬ ratio, et tamen non potesfr repeti. Denique, qui sine fide baptizantur, revera non rege¬ nerantur, et tamen rebaptizari non possunt: et contra , qui sunt regenerati ante Baptis- m#ra perfidem, et contritionem, et deside¬ rium Baptismi, nihilomiuus postea baptizan¬ tur, ut patet de Cornelio, Actor. X. Non igi¬ tur illa est i’atio. (1) I. Cor. XI, 25 et 26; Matth. XVIII, 22. — (2) Joan. III, 4. — (3) I. Cor. IV, 15.