Project Canterbury
Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology
William Laud, Works, Volume Two
Conference with Fisher the Jesuit
Sections 11-15
Transcribed by John D Lewis
AD 2001
[48] cont’d.
[SECTION XI.]
F. Secondly, I required to know, what points the Bishop would account* fundamental. He said, all the points of [in] the# Creed were such .... [A.C. p. 45, 46.]
*
[The chaplain granteth, that there are quaedam prima credibilia, or some prime principles, in the very bosom whereof all other articles lay wrapped and folded up, so as every point of the Creed is not a prime foundation; and therefore the B. himself did not understand the word "fundamental" so strictly, as if that which in one respect is "a foundation," may not in another respect, to wit, as included in, and depending upon, a more prime principle, be accounted "a superstructure."— A.C. marg. note to p. 4 5.]# [If the B. mean, that only those points are fundamental, which are expressed in the Creed of the Apostles, I marvel how he can afterwards account Scriptures, whereof no express mention is made in the Creed, to be the foundation of their faith. But if he mean, that not only these are fundamental which are expressed, but also all that is enfolded in the articles of the Creed, then, not Scriptures only, but some at least of Church-traditions unwritten may be accounted fundamental—to wit, all those that are inwrapped in these two articles, "I believe in the Holy Ghost," "The Holy Catholic Church;" as all those are, which being first revealed by the Holy Ghost unto the apostles, have been by successive tradition of the Church, assisted by the same Holy Ghost, delivered unto us. One of which is, That the books of Scriptures themselves be Divine, and infallible in every part: which is a foundation so [49] necessary, if it be doubtfully questioned, all the faith built upon Scripture falleth to the ground. And therefore I marvel how the B. can say, as he doth afterwards in the Relation, "That Scriptures only, and not any unwritten Tradition, was the foundation of their faith."—A.C. marg. note. to p. 46.]
B. I.—Against this I hope you except not. For since the fathers1 make the Creed the rule of faith; since "the agreeing sense of Scripture with those articles are the two regular precepts by which a divine is governed about the faith;"2 since your own Council of Trent3 decrees, "That it is that principle of faith, in which all that profess Christ do necessarily agree, et fundamentum firmum et unicum, not the firm alone, but the only, foundation;" since it is excommunication4 ipso jure, for any man to contradict the articles contained in that Creed; since the whole body of the faith is so contained in the Creed, as that the substance5 of it was believed even before the coming of Christ, though not so [50] expressly as since in the number of the articles; since Bellarmine6 confesses, that "all things simply necessary for all men’s salvation are in the Creed and the Decalogue;" what reason can you have to except? And yet for all this, everything fundamental is not of a like nearness to the foundation, nor of equal. primeness in the faith. And my granting the Creed to be fundamental, doth not deny but that there are quaedam prima credibilia,7 "certain prime principles of faith," in the bosom whereof all other articles lay wrapped and folded up. One of which since Christ, is that of S. John: "Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come in the flesh is of God." [I John iv. 2.] And one, both before the coming of Christ and since, is that of S. Paul: "He that comes to God, must believe that God is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek Him." [Heb. xi. 6.]
II.—Here A. C. tells you, "That either I must mean that those points are only fundamental which are expressed in the Creed; or those also which are enfolded. If I say those only which are expressed, then," saith he, "to believe the Scriptures is not fundamental, because it is not expressed. If I say those which are enfolded in the articles, then some unwritten Church traditions may be accounted fundamental." [A.C. p. 46.] The truth is, I said, and say still, that all the points of the Apostles’ Creed, as they are there expressed, are fundamental. And therein I say no more than some of your best learned have said before me. But I never either said or meant, that they only are fundamental: that they are fundamentum unicum,8 "the only foundation," is the Council [51] of Trent’s; it is not mine. Mine is, That the belief of Scripture to be the word of God and infallible, is an equal, or rather a preceding, prime principle of faith, with or to the whole body of the Creed. And this agrees (as before I told the Jesuit), with one of your own great masters, Albertus Magnus,9 who is not far from that proposition in terminis. So here the very foundation of A.C.’s dilemma falls off. For I say not, That only the points of the Creed are fundamental, whether expressed or not expressed. That all of them are, that I say. And yet, though the foundation of his dilemma be fallen away, I will take the boldness to tell A.C. that if I had said, That those articles only which are expressed in the Creed are fundamental, it would have been hard to have excluded the Scripture, upon which the Creed itself in every point is grounded. For nothing is supposed to shut out its own foundation. And if I should now say, That some articles are fundamental which are enfolded in the Creed, it would not follow that therefore some unwritten traditions were fundamental. Some traditions I deny not true and firm, and of great, both authority and use in the Church, as being apostolical, but yet not fundamental in the faith. And it would be a mighty large fold, which should lap up traditions within the Creed. As for that tradition, That the books of Holy Scriptures are divine and infallible in every part, I will handle that when I come to the proper place10 for it.
[SECTION XII.]
F. I asked how then it happened as11 M. Rogers saith, That the English Church is not yet resolved what is the right sense of the article of Christ’s descending into hell. [A.C.p.46.]
§
12 B. I.—The English Church never made doubt, that I know, what was the sense of that article. The words are so plain, they bear their meaning before them. She was content to put that article [Art. iii.] among those to which she requires subscription, not as doubting of the sense, but to prevent the [52] cavils of some, who had been too busy in crucifying that article, and in making it all one with the article of the Cross, or but an exposition of it.II.—And surely, for my part, I think the Church of England is better resolved of the right sense of this article than the Church of Rome, especially if she must be tried by her writers, as you try the Church of England by M. Rogers. For you cannot agree whether this article be a mere tradition, or whether it hath any place of Scripture to warrant it. Scotus12 and Stapleton13 allow it no footing in Scripture; but Bellarmine14 is resolute that this article is everywhere in Scripture, and Thomas15 grants as much for the whole Creed. The Church of England never doubted it, and S. Augustine16 proves it.
III.—And yet, again, you are different for the sense. For you agree not whether the soul of Christ, in triduo mortis, "in [53] the time of His death," did go down into hell really, and was present there, or virtually and by effects only. For Thomas17 holds the first, and Durand18 the latter. Then you agree not whether the soul of Christ did descend really and in essence into the lowest pit of hell, and place of the damned, as Bellarmine19 once held probable and proved it; or really only into that place or region of hell which you call limbum patrum, and hen but virtually from thence into the lower hell; to which Bellarmine20 reduces himself, and gives his reason, because it is the common opinion21 of the school. Now the Church of England takes the words as they are in the Creed and believes them without farther dispute, and in that sense which the ancient primitive fathers of the [54] Church agreed in. And yet if any in the Church of England should not be thoroughly resolved in the sense of this article, is it not as lawful for them to say, "I conceive thus or thus of it; yet if any other way of His descent be found truer than this, I deny it not., but as yet I know no other," as it was for Durand22 to say it, and yet not impeach the foundation of the faith?
[SECTION XIII.]
F. The B. said, that M. Rogers was but a private man. "But," said I, "if M. Rogers,* writing as he did by public authority, be accounted only a private man, ..." [A.C.p.47.]
* [The reason why the Jesuit did specially urge M. Rogers’ book, was for that it was both set out by public authority, and beareth the title, "Of the Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England." Our private authors are not allowed, for aught I know, in such a like sort, to take upon them to express our Catholic doctrine in any matter subject to question.—A.C. marg. note to p. 47.]
§ 13. B. I.—I said truth, when I said M. Rogers was a private man. And, I take it, you will not allow every speech of every man, though allowed by authority to have his books printed, to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. This23 hath been oft complained of on both sides: the imposing particular men’s assertions upon the Church; yet I see you mean not to leave it. And surely, as controversies are now handled by some of your party at this day, I may not say it is the sense of the article in hand, but I have long thought it a kind of descent into hell, to be conversant in them. I would the authors would take heed in time, and not seek to blind the people, or cast a mist before evident truth, lest it cause a final descent to that place of torment. [55] But since you will hold this course, Stapleton was of greater note with you than M. Rogers’s "Exposition of Notes upon the Articles of the Church of England" is with us. And as he, so his Relection. And is it the doctrine of the Church of Rome which Stapleton affirms,24 "The Scripture is silent that Christ descended into hell, and that there is a Catholic and an Apostolic Church?" If it be, then what will become of the Pope’s supremacy over the whole Church? Shall he have his power over the Catholic Church given him expressly in Scripture—in the keys, to enter—and in pasce, to feed when he is in—and when he had fed, to confirm;25 and in all these not to err and fail in his ministration: and is the Catholic Church, in and over which he is to do all these great things, quite left out of the Scripture? Belike the Holy Ghost was careful to give him his power; yes, in any case; but left the assigning of his great cure, the Catholic Church, to tradition. And it were well for him, if he could so prescribe for what he now claims.
II.—But what if, after all this, M. Rogers there says no such thing? As in truth he doth not. His words are: "All Christians acknowledge, He descended; but in the interpretation of the article, there is not that consent that were to be wished."26 What is this to the Church of England, more than others? And again, "Till we know the native and undoubted sense of this article,"27 is M. Rogers’ "we" the Church of England—or rather his and some others’ judgment in the Church of England?
III.—Now here A.C. [A. C. p. 47.] will have somewhat again to say, though, God knows, it is to little purpose. It is, "that the Jesuit urged M. Rogers’ book, because it was set out by public authority, and because the book bears the title of ‘The Catholic [56]
Doctrine of the Church of England.’"28 A. C. may undoubtedly urge M. Rogers, if he please; but he ought not to say that his opinion is the doctrine of the Church of England, for neither of the reasons by him expressed. First, not because "his book was publicly allowed." For many books among them, as well as among us, have been printed by public authority, as containing nothing in them contrary to faith and good manners, and yet containing many things in them of opinion only, or private judgment, which yet is far from the avowed positive doctrine of the Church, the Church having as yet determined neither way by open declaration upon the words or things. controverted. And this is more frequent among their schoolmen than among any of our controversers, as is well known. Nor, secondly, "because his book bears the title of ‘The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England.’" For suppose the worst, and say M. Rogers thought a little too well of his own pains, and gave his book too high a title: is his private judgment therefore to be accounted the Catholic doctrine of the Church of England? Surely no: no more than I should say, every thing said by Thomas,29 or Bonaventure30 is angelical or seraphical doctrine, because one of these is styled in the Church of Rome "seraphical," and the other, "angelical doctor." And yet their works are printed by public authority," and that title given them.
[57]
IV.—"Yea, but our private authors," saith A.C. "are not allowed, for aught I know, in such a like sort to express our Catholic doctrine in any matter subject to question." [A.C. p. 47.] Here are two limitations, which will go far to bring A.C. off, whatsoever I shall say against him. For first, let me instance in any private man, that takes as much upon him as M. Rogers doth; he will say, He knew it not; his assertion here being no other, than "for aught he knows." Secondly, If he be unwilling to acknowledge so much, yet he will answer, It is not just in such a like sort as M. Rogers doth it; that is, perhaps, it is not the very title of his book. But well then: Is there never a private man allowed in the Church of Rome to express your Catholic doctrine in any matter subject to question? What! not in any matter? Were not Vega and Soto two private men? Is it not a matter subject to question—to great question in these days, whether a man may be certain of his salvation, certitudine fidei, "by the certainty of faith?" Doth not Bellarmine31 make it a controversy? And is it not a part of your Catholic faith, if it be determined in the Council of Trent?32 And yet these two great friars of their time, Dominicus Soto and Andreas Vega33 were of contrary opinions; and both of them challenged the decree of the Council—and so [58] consequently your Catholic faith to be as each of them concluded; and both of them wrote books to maintain their opinions, and both of their books were published "by authority." And therefore I think it is allowed in the Church of Rome, to private men, to express your Catholic doctrine, and in a matter subject to question. And therefore also, if another man in the Church of England should be of a contrary opinion to M. Rogers, and declare it under the title of "The Catholic Doctrine of the Church of England," this were no more than Soto and Vega did in the Church of Rome. And for my part, cannot but wonder A.C. should not know it. For he says, that "for aught he knows," private men are not allowed so to express their Catholic doctrine. [A.C. p. 47.] And in the same question, both Catharinus and Bellarmine34 take on them to express your Catholic faith: the one differing from the other almost as much as Soto and Vega, and perhaps in some respects more.
[SECTION XIV.]
F. But if M. Rogers ... be ... only a private man, in what book may we find the Protestants’ public doctrine ?* The B. answered, that to the book of Articles # they were all sworn; . . . [A.C. p 47.]
* [By "Protestants’ public doctrine" in this place, the Jesuit meant, as he understood the B. to mean, only of English Protestants; for the words going before making mention only of the English Church, do limit the general word "Protestants" to this limited sense.—A.C. marg. note to p. 47.]
# [This answer hath reference to that sense which the question had of "only English Protestants," and not of all English Protestants, but of such as the B. and others are, who by office are teachers of Protestant doctrine, who do either swear to the Book of Articles, or by subscribing oblige themselves to teach that and no contrary doctrine. But if the Chaplain, to discredit the Relation, will needs enforce a larger extent of the sense, contrary to the meaning of him that made the answer, and him that asked the question, who understood one another in that sense which I have declared; he must know, that although none do swear or subscribe besides the English clergy to the Book of Articles, yet all who will be accounted members of, or to have communion with, one and the same English Protestant Church, are bound either to hold all those articles, or at least not to hold contrary to any one of them, in regard the English Protestant Church doth exclude every one from their Church by excommunication ipso facto, as appeareth in their Book of Canons. "Can. 5. ... Who shall hold anything contrary to any part of the said articles." So as, in this respect, I do not see why any one who pretendeth to be of one and the same Protestant communion with the Church of England, can be said not to be obliged to hold one and the same doctrine which is in the book of Articles, not only as the Chaplain saith, "in chiefest doctrines," which like a cheverell point may be enlarged to more by those who agree in more, and straitened to fewer by those who agree in fewer points, but absolutely in all points, and not to hold contrary to any one, or any the least part of any one of them. Such a shrew, as it seems, is the Church of England become, no less than the Chaplain saith the Church of Rome to have been, in denying her blessing, and denouncing anathema against all that dissent, although most peaceably, in some particulars, remote enough from the foundation, in the judgment of the poorer sort, both of foreign and home-bred Protestants.—A.C. marg. note to p. 47.]
[In the above note, the word "cheverell," now disused, signifies a soft pliable leather kid skin, which admits of considerable stretching; from the French chevreau.]
§ 14. B. I.—What! was I so ignorant to say, "The Articles of the Church of England were the public doctrine of all the Protestants;" or, "That all Protestants were sworn to the Articles of England," as this speech seems to imply? Sure I was not. Was not the immediate speech before, of the Church of England? And how comes the subject of the speech to be varied in the next lines? Nor yet speak I this, as if other Protestants did not agree with the Church of England in the chiefest doctrines, and in the main exceptions which they jointly take against the Roman Church, as appears by their several Confessions. But if A.C. will say, as he doth, "That because there was speech before of the Church of England, the Jesuit understood me in a limited sense.. and meant only the Protestants of the English Church," [A. C. p. 47.]—be it so; there is no great harm done35 but this that the Jesuit offers to enclose me too much. For I did not say, that the Book of Articles only was the continent of the Church of England’s public doctrine. She is not so narrow, nor hath she purpose to exclude anything which she acknowledges hers, nor doth she wittingly permit any crossing of her public declarations; yet she is not such a shrew to her children as to deny her blessing, or denounce an anathema against them, if some peaceably dissent in some particulars remoter from the foundation, as your own Schoolmen differ. And if the Church of Rome, since she grew to her greatness, had not been so fierce in this course, and too particular in determining too many things, and [60] making them matters of necessary belief, which had gone for many hundreds of years before, only for things of pious opinion, Christendom, I persuade myself, had been in happier peace at this day, than, I doubt, we shall ever live to see it.
II.—Well, but A.C. will prove "the Church of England a shrew, and such a shrew. For in her Book,36 of Canons, she excommunicates every man, who shall hold anything contrary to any part of the said Articles." [A.C. p. 48.] So A.C. But surely these are not the very words of the Canon, nor perhaps the sense. Not the words; for they are Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious, or erroneous," &c. And perhaps not the sense. For it is one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself; and another thing boldly and publicly to affirm it. And again, it is one thing to hold contrary to some part of an article, which perhaps may be but in the manner of expression; and another thing positively to affirm, that the articles in any part of them are superstitious and erroneous. But this is not the main of the business; for though the Church of England denounce excommunication, as is before37 expressed, yet she comes far short of the Church of Rome’s severity, whose anathemas are not only for thirty-nine articles, but for very many more,38 above one hundred in matter39 of doctrine, and that in many points as far remote from the foundation; though, to the far greater rack of men’s consciences, they must be all made fundamental, if that Church have once determined them: [A.C. p. 45.] whereas the Church of England never declared, that every one of her articles are fundamental in the faith. For it is one thing to say, No one of them is superstitious or erroneous; and quite another to say, Every one of them is fundamental, and that in every part of it, to all men’s belief. Besides, the Church of England prescribes only to her own children, and by those articles provides but for her own peaceable consent in those doctrines of truth. But the Church of Rome severely imposes her doctrine upon the whole world, under pain of damnation.
[61]
[SECTION XV.]
F. …. and that40 the Scriptures only,* not any unwritten tradition, was the foundation of their faith. [A.C. p.48.]
* [The Chaplain saith, "The Church of England grounded her positive articles upon Scripture," &c. True: if themselves in their own cause may be admitted for competent judges; in which sort some other novelist will say, that he grounded his positive articles upon Scriptures; and his negative refute not only our Catholic, but also Protestant doctrines. As for example: Baptizing of Infants, upon this negative ground, is not expressly, at least (not) evidently, affirmed in Scriptures, nor directly, at least not demonstratively, concluded out of it. In which case I would gladly know, what the Chaplain would answer to defend this doctrine to be a point of faith, necessary for the salvation of poor infants, necessitate medii, as all Catholic divines hold? I answer with S. Austin:—(S. Aug. 1. i. contra Crese. c. 31.) Scripturarum a nobis tenetur veritas, cum id facimus quod universae pitacet ecclesiae, quam earundem scripturarum commendat auctoritas: "We hold the verity of Scriptures, when we do that which pleaseth the whole Church, which the authority of the same Scriptures doth commend." But what answer the Chaplain can make, I cannot easily guess, unless with us he acknowledge authority of Church-tradition to be necessary in this case.—A.C. marg. note to p. 48.]
§ 15. B. I.—The Church of England grounded her positive articles upon Scripture; and her negative do refute there, where the thing affirmed by you is not affirmed by Scripture, nor directly to be concluded out of it. And here, not the Church of England only, but all Protestants, agree most truly and most strongly in this, "That the Scripture is sufficient to salvation, and contains in it all things necessary to it." The Fathers41 are plain, the Schoolmen42 not [62] strangers in it. And have not we reason then to account it, as it is, the foundation of our faith? And Stapleton43 himself, though an angry opposite, confesses, "that the Scripture is in some sort the foundation of faith, that is, in the nature of testimony, and in the matter or thing to be believed." And if the Scripture be the foundation to which we are to go for witness, if there be doubt about the faith, and in which we are to find the thing that is to be believed as necessary in the faith, we never did, nor never will refute any tradition that is universal and apostolic, for the better exposition of the Scripture; nor any definition of the Church, in which she goes to the Scripture for what she teaches, and thrusts nothing as fundamental in the faith upon the world, but what the Scripture fundamentally makes materiam credendorum, "the substance of that which is so to be believed," whether immediately and expressly in words, or more remotely, till a clear and full deduction draw it out.44
II.—Against the beginning of this paragraph, A. C. excepts. And first he says: "It is true, that the Church of England grounded her positive articles upon Scripture; that is, it is true, if themselves may be competent judges in their own cause." [A. C. p. 48.] But this, by the leave of A. C. is true, without making ourselves judges in our own cause. For "that all the positive articles of the present Church of England are grounded upon Scripture," we are content to be judged by the joint and constant belief of the Fathers, which lived within the first four or five hundred years after Christ, [63] when the Church was at the best; and by the Councils held within those times; and to submit to them in all those points of doctrine. Therefore, we desire not to be judges in our own cause. And if any whom A.C. calls "a novelist" can truly say and maintain this, he will quickly prove himself no novelist. And for the negative articles, they refute, where the thing affirmed by you is either not affirmed in Scripture, or not directly to be concluded out of it. Upon this negative ground, A.C. infers again, "That the baptism of infants is not expressly, at least not evidently, affirmed in Scripture, nor directly, at least not demonstratively, concluded out of it." [A.C. p. 49.] In which case, he "professes, he would gladly know, what can be answered to defend this doctrine to be a point of faith necessary for the salvation of infants." And, in conclusion, "professes he cannot easily guess what answer can be made, unless we will acknowledge authority of Church tradition necessary in this case."
III.—And truly, since A.C. is so desirous of an answer, I will give it freely. And first in the general. I am no way satisfied with A.C.’s addition—"not expressly, at least not evidently." What means he? If he speak of the letter of the Scripture, then, whatsoever is expressly, is evidently, in the Scripture; and so his addition is vain. If he speak of the meaning of the Scripture, then his addition is cunning; for many things are expressly in Scripture, which yet in their meaning are not evidently there. And whatever he mean, my words are, "That our negative articles refute that which is not affirmed in Scripture," without any addition of "expressly" or "evidently;" and he should have taken my words as I used them. I like nor change nor addition; nor am I bound to either of A.C.’s making.—And I am as little satisfied with his next addition—"nor directly, at least not demonstratively, concluded out of it." For are there not many things in good logic concluded directly, which yet are not concluded demonstratively? Surely there are. For to be directly or indirectly concluded, flows from the mood or form of the syllogism; to be demonstratively concluded, flows from the matter or nature of the propositions. If the propositions be prime and necessary truths, the syllogism is demonstrative and scientifical, because the propositions are [64] such. If the propositions be probable only, though the syllogism be made in the clearest mood, yet is the conclusion no more. The inference or consequence, indeed, is clear and necessary; but the consequent is but probable, or topical, as the propositions were. Now, my words were only for a direct conclusion, and no more: though in this case I might give A.C. his caution. For Scripture here is the thing spoken of. And Scripture being a principle, and every text of Scripture confessedly a principle among all Christians, whereof no man desires45 any farther proof, I would fain know, why that which is plainly and apparently, that is, by direct consequence, proved out of Scripture, is not demonstratively or scientifically proved—if at least he think there can be any demonstration in divinity: and if there can be none, why did he add "demonstratively?"
IV.—Next, in particular: I answer to the instance which A.C. makes concerning the baptism of infants, [A.C. p. 49.] That it may be concluded directly (and let A.C. judge, whether not demonstratively) out of Scripture, both that infants ought to be baptized, and, that baptism is necessary to their salvation. And first, That baptism is necessary to the salvation of infants, (in the ordinary way of the Church, without binding God to the use and means of that sacrament, to which He hath bound us,)46 is express in S. John iii. : "Except a man be born [65] again of water, and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." So, no baptism, no entrance. Nor can infants creep in any other ordinary way. And this is the [66] received opinion of all the ancient Church of Christ.47 And secondly, That infants ought to be baptized, is, first, plain by evident and direct consequence out of Scripture. For if there be no salvation for infants in the ordinary way of the [67] Church, but by baptism, and this appear in Scripture, as it doth, then out of all doubt, the consequence is most evident out of that Scripture, That infants are to be baptized, that their salvation may be certain. For they which cannot help themselves,48 must not be left only to extraordinary helps; of which we have no assurance, and for which we have no warrant at all in Scripture; while we, in the mean time, neglect the ordinary way and means commanded by Christ. Secondly, it is very near an expression in Scripture itself. For when S. Peter had ended that great sermon of his, he applies two comforts unto them, "Amend your lives, and be baptized, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." [Acts ii. 38, 39.] And then, he infers, "For the promise is made to you, and to your children." The promise! what promise? What? Why, the promise of sanctification by the Holy Ghost. By what means? Why, by baptism: for it is expressly, "Be baptized, and ye shall receive;" and as expressly, "This promise is made to you, and to your children." And therefore A.C. may find it, if he will, That the baptism of infants may be directly concluded out of Scripture. For some of his own party, Ferus49 and Salmeron,50 could both find it there. And so, if it will do him any pleasure, he hath my answer, which, he saith, "he would be glad to know." [A.C. marg. note to p. 48.]
V.—It is true, Bellarmine51 presses a main place out of [68] S. Augustine, and he urges it hard. S. Augustine’s words are, "The custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants is by no means to be contemned, or thought superfluous; nor yet at all to be believed, unless it were an apostolical tradition."52 The place is truly cited, but seems a great deal stronger than indeed it is. For, first, it is not denied, that this is an apostolical tradition, and therefore to be believed. But, secondly, not therefore only. Nor doth S. Augustine say so, nor doth Bellarmine press it that way. The truth is, it would have been somewhat difficult to find the collection out of Scripture only for the baptism of infants, since they do not actually believe. And therefore S. Augustine is at nec credenda nisi, that this custom of the Church had not been to be believed, had it not been an apostolical tradition. But the tradition being apostolical, led on the Church easily to see the necessary deduction out of Scripture. And this is not the least use of tradition, to lead the Church into the true meaning of those things which are found in Scripture, though not obvious to every eye there. And that this is S. Augustine’s meaning is manifest by himself, who best knew it. For when he had said, as he doth,53 That to baptize children is antiqua fidei regula, "the ancient rule of faith," and "the constant tenet of the Church," yet he doubts not to collect and deduce it out of Scripture also. For when Pelagius urged, that infants needed not to be baptized, because they had no original sin, S. Augustine relies not upon the tenet of the Church only, but argues from the text thus: "What need have infants of Christ if they be not sick? ‘For the sound need not the physician.’"54 [Matt. ix. [12.]] And again, [69] "Is not this said by Pelagius, ut non accedant ad Jesum ? ‘that infants may not come to their Saviour?’ Sed clamat Jesus, ‘but Jesus cries out,’ ‘Suffer little ones to come unto Me.’" [Mark x. 14.] And all this is fully acknowledged by Calvin,55 namely, "That all men acknowledge the baptism of infants to descend from apostolical tradition." And yet that "it doth not depend upon the bare and naked authority of the Church."56 Which he speaks not in regard of tradition, but in relation to such proof as is to be made by necessary consequence out of Scripture over and above tradition.
VI.—As for tradition, I have said enough for that,57 and as much as A.C. [A.C. p. 49.] where it is truly apostolical. And yet if any thing will please him, I will add this concerning this particular, the baptizing of infants, that the Church received this by tradition from the Apostles.58 By tradition. And what then? May it not directly be concluded out of Scripture, because it was delivered to the Church by way of tradition? I hope A.C. will never say so. For certainly in doctrinal things nothing so likely to be a tradition apostolical as that which hath a root and a foundation in Scripture.59 For Apostles [70] cannot write or deliver contrary, but subordinate and subservient things.
ENDNOTES:
Note: Initial number/letter, eg. 31g, indicates page number and letter of original footnote. Other endnotes have been gathered from marginal notes in LACT No. 11.
1. 49c Tertull. Apol. contra Gentes, cap. xlvii. [Expedite autem praescribimus adulteris nostris, illam esse regulam veritatis, quae veniat a Christo, transmissa per comites ipsius, quibus aliquanto posteriores diversi isti commentatores probabuntur.—Op., p. 37. B. ed. Rigalt.] And [Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis, et irreformabilis.—Id.] de virg. vel. cap. i [Op., p. 173. A.] S. Augustin. Serm xv. [xix.] de Temp. cap. 2. [Nam quomodo in regula fidei confiteremure, credere nos in Filium Dei qui natus est ex virgine Maria, si non Filius Dei, sed filius hominis natus est ex virgine Maria? &c.—Serm. clxxxvi. cap. 2. Op., tom. v. col. 885. D.]—ergo in uno positi, et Spiritu Sancto repleti, breve istud futurae sibi praedicationis indicium, conferendo in unum quod sentiebat unusquisque, componunt: atque hanc credentibus dandam esse regulam statuunt. Symbolum autem hoc multis et justissimis ex causis appellari voluerunt.]
2. 49d Alb. Magnus. in I. Sentent. D[istinct.] xi. A[rt.] 7. [Quaeritur etiam quae sit fidei regula quam tangit (sc. Mag. Sentent.) ibi, (Qui autem praetergreditur fidei regulam non incedit in via, &c.) Et dicendum quod regula fidei est concors Scripturarum sensus cum articulis fidel: quia illis duobus regularibus praeceptis regitur theologus.]
3. 49e Concil. Trident. Sess. 3. [Vide infra, p. 50. note k.]
4. 49f Bonavent, ibid. [i.e. in 1. Sentent. Distinct xi. Art. 1.] Dub. 2. et 3. in literam. [Op., tom. iv. p. 93. D. Exponit iste verba (Qui aliud docuerit, vel aliter praedicaverit) id est, contrarium docuerit, vel contrario modo, &c. Non videtur ista expositio probabilis, eo quod ille qui contradicit articulis exconimunicatus est ipso jure: ergo non oportebat pro contrario dare sententiam: ergo videtur quod pro diverso tulerunt sententiam .... Respondeo .... secundum veritatem autem excommunicationis sententia non se extendit nisi ad contradicentes ... ]
5. 49g Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secundae, Q[uaest.] i. Art. 7. C. [RESPONDEO, dicendum, quod ita se habent in doctrina articuli fidei, sicut principia per se nota in doctrina, quae per rationem naturalem habetur, in quibus principiis ordo quidam invenitur, ut quaedam in aliis implicite contineantur ..... Similiter omnes articuli implicite continentur in aliquibus primis credibilibus, scilicet ut credatur Deus esse .... In esse enim divino includuntur omnia quae credimus in Deo aeternaliter existere ..... Sic ergo dicendum est, quod quantum ad substantiam articulorum fidei, non est factum eorum argumentum per temporum successionem, quia quaecunque posteriores crediderunt, continebantur in fide praecedentium patrum. Sed quantum ad explicationem crevit numerus articulorum, quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicitc.]
6. 50h Bellarmin. lib. iv. de verb. Dei non script. cap. xi. Primum est, [quaedam in doctrine Christiana tam fidei, quam morum, esse simpliciter omnibus necessaria ad salutem, qualis est notitia articulorum Symboli Apostolici, item cognitio decem praeceptorum, et nonnullorum Sacramentorum. Caetera non ita necessaria sunt, ut sine eorum explicita notitia, et fide, et professione homo salvari non possit, modo promptam habeat voluntatem ea suscipiendi, et credendi, quando sibi fuerint legitime per Ecclesiam proposita.—Op, tom. i. col. 201. B.]
7. 50i Tho. Secund. Secundae, Quaest. i. Art, 7. C. [ubi sup. p. 49. note g.]
8. 50k Conc. Trident. Sess. 3. [Quare symbolum fidei, quo Sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur, tanquam principium illud, in quo omnes, qui fidem Christi profitentur, necessario conveniunt, ac fundamentum firmum et unicum, contra quod portae inferi, &c. totidem verbis, quibus in omnibus ecclesiis, legitur, exprimendum esse censuit.]
9. 51l In I. Sentent. D[istinct.] xi.A[rt.] 7. Regula fidei est concors Scriptuarum sensus cum articulis fidei: quia illis duobus regularibus praeceptis regitur theologus.—[ubi sup. p. 49. note d.]
10. 51m [Vide infra,] sect. xvi. 1.
11. [that … A.C.]
12. 52n Scotus in I. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xi. Q[uaest.] 1. [Op., tom. v. p. 589. Ad rationem illam de Evangelio, dico quod Christum descendisse ad inferna, non docetur in Evangelio: et tamen tenendum est sicut articulus fidei, quia ponitur in Symbolo Apostolorum.]
13. 52o Stapleton, Relect. Controv. [Controv.] v. [de potestate ecclesiae ex parte objecti,] Q[uaest.] 5. A[rt.] 1. [Op., tom. i. p. 790. Sententia orthodoxa, in respons. ad arg. 5. (sc. apostoli omnem fidei doctrinam praedicarunt, ergo et scripserunt. Alioqui posteritati fidelium consulere aut invidi potuerunt, aut negligentes omiserunt. Utrumque absurdum. Ergo &c.) ... Symbolum fidei de fide tenemus: aliqua tamen in illo sunt quae Scriptura tacet, ut Christum descendisse ad inferos, esse Ecclesiam Catholicam et Apostolicam, esse communionem sanctorum.]
14. 52p Bellarm. [lib.] iv. de Christo, [i. e. de Christi anima,] cap. 6, 12. [Op., tom. i. col. 438. (Cap. vi.) Quaeritur secundo, an et quomodo Christus ad inferos descenderit. Ac primum omnes conveniunt, quod Christus aliquo modo ad inferos descenderit. Nam et Scripturae passim hoc docent, ut Act. ii.: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno. Et Ephes. iv.: Descendit ad inferos terrae. Et praeterea in Symbolo Apostolico legimus: Descendit ad inferos.—(Cap. xii.) Quantum ad tertium probo ex Scripturis Christum vere descendisse ad inferos. se. Ps. cvii. 16. Ecclus. xxiv. 45. (Vulg.) Mat. xii. 40. Act. ii. 31. Rom: x. 7. Ephes. iv. 9.]
15. 52q Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt.] 9. AD PRIMUM [ergo dicendum, quod veritas fidei in sacra Scriptura diffuse continetur, et variis modis, et in quibusdam obscure, ita quod ad eliciendam fidei veritatem ex sacra Scriptura requiritur longum studium et exercitium, ad quod non possunt pervenire omnes illi quibus necessarium est cognoscere fidei veritatem.]
16. 52r S. Aug. Ep. xcix. [ad Evodium, Ep. clxiv. cap. 4. Op., tom. ii. col. 573. Quaestio quam mihi proposuisti ex epistola apostoli Petri, solet nos, ut te latere non arbitror, vehementissime commovere, quomodo illa verba accipienda sunt tanquam de inferis dicta ... (Cap 5.) Quamobrem teneamus firmissime, quod fides habet fundatissima auctoritate firmata, quia Christus mortuus est secundum Scripturas, et quia sepultus est, et quia resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas, et caetera quae de Illo testatissima veritate conscripta sunt. In quibus etiam hoc est, quod apud inferos fuit, solutisque eorum doloribus, quibus Eum erat impossibile teneri, a quibus etiam recte intelligitur solvisse et liberasse quos voluit, corpus quod in cruce reliquerat in sepulchro positum recepisse.]
17. 53s Thom. [Aquin.] pars Tert. Q[uaest.] lii. A[rt.] 2. [RESPON. dicendum, quod dupliciter dicitur ease aliquid alicubi. Uno modo per suum effectum, et hoc modo Christus in quemlibet infernorum descendit, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam in infernum damnatorum habuit hunc effectum, quia descendens ad inferos eos de sua incredulitate et malitia confutavit, illis vero qui detinebantur in purgatorio, spem gloriae consequendae dedit. Sanctis autem patribus qui pro solo peccato originali detinebantur in inferno, lumen aeternae gloriae infudit. Alio modo dicitur aliquid esse] per suam essentiam, [et hoc modo anima Christi descendit solum ad locum inferni in quo justi detinebantur, ut quos Ipse per gratiam interius visitabat secundum divinitatem eos etiam secundum animam visitaret et loco.]
18. 53t Durand. in III. [Sentent.] D[istinct.] xxii. Q[uaest.] 3. [Alio modo potest dici anima separata descendere ad infernum, secundum effectum. Et hoc mode potest dici anima Christi descendisse ad infernum propter duplicem effectum quem habuit in illis qui erant in inferno: unus effectus fuit exhibitio visionis divinae qua carebant ad quem se habuit passio Christi per modum meriti ... Alius effectus fuit secundum quosdam ad quem se habuit anima Christi directe per modum agentis, sc. illuminare animas patrum quae erant in limbo de ministeriis quae cadunt sub revelatione.—fol. cclxxxi.]
19. 53u Bellarm. lib. iv. de Christo [i. e. de Christi anima,] cap. 16. [Op., tom. i. col. 466. Primum dubium: ad quae loca inferni descenderit. B. Thomas (Tert. par. 1. Quaest. lii. art. 2.) docet Christum per realem praesentiam solum descendisse ad limbum patrum, per effectum autem ad omnia loca inferni …. At probabile est profecto, Christi animam ad omnia loca inferni descendisse. Primo probatur per locum illum Ecclus. (sc. xxiv. 45. in Vulg.) Penetrabo omnes, &c. Nam quod B. Thomas respondet, hoc intelligi de penetratione per effectum, non videtur satisfacere. Nam hoc mode possimus cum Durando dicere, ad nullum locum Christum descendisse aliter quam per effectum, cum Scriptura non distinguat loca. Secundo quia Augustin. in Epist. xcix. dicit, Eum descendisse ad loca inferni, ubi erant dolores et tormenta, &c.]
20. 53x Bellarmin. Recog. p. 11. [Praef. ad Op., tom. i. col. 4.—De Christo, lib. iv. cap. 16, § At probabile, &c. Re melius considerata, sequendam esse existimo sententiam S. Thomae, quae est et aliorum Scholasticorum (in III. Sentent. Distinct. xxii.), praesertim cum testimonium Ecclesiastici, et sanctorum patrum, qui videntur affirmare Christum descendisse ad loca omnia inferni, verificari possint, etiamsi dicamus Christi animam non descendisse ultra limbum sanctorum patrum, nam ex eo loco potuit apparere omnibus spiritibus qui in variis inferni locis degehant, et alios terrere, alios consolari, prout expedire Ipsi videbantur.]
21. 53y Sequuntur enim [sc. Scholastici] Tho. [Aquin. in] part. Tert. 1. 3. Q[uaest.] lii. A[rt.] 2. [ubi sup. note s.]
22. 54z [Quamvis autem istud probabiliter sit dictum, et satis videatur salvare articulum et dictum scripturae, tamen quia virtus divina non comprehenditur a ratione humana, ideo] non est pertinaciter asserendum, quin anima Christi per alium modum nobis ignotum potuerit descendere ad infernum: nec nos negamus alium modum esse forsitan veriorem; sed fatemur nos ilium ignorare.—Durand. in III. Sent. Distinct. xxii. Quaest. 3. No. 9. [fol. cclxxxii.]
23. 54a And this was an ancient fault too, for S. Augustine checks at it in his time. Noli [ergo, frater, contra divina tam multa, tam clara, tam indubitata testimonia] colligere [velle] calumnias ex episcoporum scriptis, sive [nostrum , sicut] Hilarii; sive [antequam pars Donati separaretur, ipsius unitatis, sicut] cYpriani et Agrippini: primo, quia hoc genusliterarum ab auctoritate canonis distinguendum est. Non enim sic leguntur tanquam ita ex iis testimonium proferatur, ut contra sentire non liceat, sicubi forte aliter sentirent, quam veritas postulat.—S. Augustin. Ep. xlviii. [ad Vincentium, Ep. xciii. cap. x. Op. tom. ii. col. 245. E. ed. Benedict.] And yet these were far greater men in their generations than M. Rogers was.
24. 55b Stapl. Cont. v. Q[uaest.] 5. A[rt.] 1. [ubi sup. p. 52. note o.]
25. [Matt. xvi. 19.; John xxi. 15, 16.; Luke xxiii. 32.]
26. 55c Rogers in Art Eccles. Angl. art. 3. [Also that Christ went down into hell, all sound Christians both in former days (He descended into hell, Apost. Sym.) and now living (Helvet. Confess. ii. c. 11, &c., Basil. art. 4. Augsburg. art. 3, &c.,) do acknowledge; howbeit in the interpretation of the Article, there is not that consent as were to be wished: some holding that Christ descended into hell, 1. as God only ... 2. as man only... 3. as God and man in one person. ..—A Treatise upon sundry Matters contained in the XXXIX. Articles of Religion which are professed in the Church of England. Long since written and published by Thomas Rogers, pp. 15, 16. ed. London, 1639.]
27. 55d Ibid. [But till we know the native and undoubted sense of this article and mystery of religion, persist we adversaries unto them which say, that Christ descended not into hell at all, &c.—p. 17.]
28. 56e [The first form of Rogers’ work was a tabular analysis, without any exposition of the Articles, published in two parts, under the title: The English Creede, consenting with the true auncient Catholique and Apostolique Church in al the points and articles of Religion which euerie Christian is to knowe and beleeue that would be saued. The first parte, in most loyal maner, to the glorie of God, credit of our Church, displaieng of al haeresies and errors both olde and newe contrarie to the faith, subscribed vnto by Thomas Rogers. Allowed by aucthoritie. Imprinted by Iohn Windet, &c. London, 1585. The second part, ibid. 1587. The preface is dated 6 February 1585; and the occasion of the work is stated to be "the great subscription urged from the pastors and ministers of the word and sacraments, in a great part of this and the last year. The causes of the same being either secret, I cannot, or not convenient to be published, I may not set down." The other and enlarged editions of the work abandon the tabular form, add a commentary and exposition, adopt the title given in the preceding note, and for a running head use the words, "The Catholick Doctrine believed and professed in the Church of England." But it must be remarked, that the imprint, "allowed by aucthoritie," on which A.C. remarks, occurs only in the first edition, and not in those edition which, consisting of what Laud calls "Exposition of Notes," contain the passage commenting on the sense of our Lord’s descent into hell.]
29. 56f Angelici D[octoris] S[ancti] Tho. Summa, [in Tit.]
30. 56g Celebratissimi Patris Dom. Bonaventurae Doctoris Seraphici in III. Sent. Disputata, [in Tit.]
31. 57h Bellarm. Lib. iii. de Justificat. cap. 1, 14. [Op., tom. iv. col. 945, et sqq.—Errores praecipui ex ea forma justificationis, quam Lutherani constituunt, quatuor esse videntur .... Colligunt secundo. Debere homines certo credere, non tantum se esse justos, sed etiam electos, ac praedestinatos. Quem errorem audacter docent Calvinistae, timidius autem Lutherani ..... Status quaestionis hic erib: Utrum debeat aut possit aliquis, sine speciali revelatione certus esse certitudine fidei divinae, cui nullo modo potest subesse falsum, sibi remissa esse peccata.].
32. 57i Sed concilii Tridentini, cui Catholici omnes ingenia sua atque judicia sponte subjiciunt, [decretum audiamus, Sicut nemo pius, &c.]—Bellarmin. Lib. iii. de Justific. cap. 3. [Op., tom. iv. col. 950.]
33. 57k Hist. Concil. Trident. Lib. ii. p. 245. edit. Lat. Leidae, 1622. [At F. Dominicus Soto, omnibus adversus, dicebat ... duas esse solummodo fidei acceptiones; alteram, veritatem et realitatem asseverantis, sive promittentis; alteram, assensum auscultantis. Priorem esse in Deo; alteram solam esse nostram; de que hac intelligenda Scripturae loca, quae de fide nostra loquuntur. Fidem vero pro fiducia et confidentia accipere, non modo improprium esse sed abusivum, neque D. Paulo usitatum. Fiduciam a spe nihil aut parum differre: eoque haud dubium esse Lutheri errorem, imo haeresin, asserentis, Fidem justificantem esse fiduciam et certitudinem in mente fidelis de remissis sibi propter Christum peccatis ... Tertiam opinionem in medium attulit Andreas Vega, non esse temeritatem, multoque minus fidem certam, sed sine peccato haberi posse persuasionem conjecturalem.—(Paul. Sarpi,) Histor. Concil. Trident. lib. ii. p. 153. ed. Aug. Trinobant. 1620.]
34. 58/l [Tertia sententia est Ambrosii Catharini qui solum in primo dicto, (sc. posse fideles eam notitiam habere de sua gratia, ut certa fide statuant sibi remissa esse peccata,) cum haereticis communicat ... Vide assertiones ejus et Apologiam contra Dominicum a Soto. His erroribus contraria est sententia communis fere omnibus theologis, &c.]—Bellarmin. Lib. iii. de Justif. cap. 3. [Op., tom. iv. col. 949.]
35. 59m And therefore A.C. needs not make such a noise about it, as he doth, p. 48.
36. 60n [Canon. v.]
37. 60o Canon. v.
38. 60p Concil. Trident.
39.
[matters …. Editt. 1673 and 1686.]40. [that ... caret A. C.]
41. 61q S. Basil. de vera et pia Fide. Manifesta defectio Fidei est, importare quicquam eorum qnaew scripta non sunt. [phanera ekptôsis pisteôs kai huperêphanias katêgoria, ê athetein ti tôn gegrammenôn, ê epeisagein tôn mê gegrammenôn.—S. Basil. de Fide, cap. i. Op. tom. ii. p. 224. D. ed. Benedict.]—S. Hilar. Lib. ii. [cap. 8.] ad Const. Aug. [in quantum ego tunc beatae religiosaeque voluntatis vere te, domine Constanti Imperator, admiror] fidem tantum secundum ea quae scripta sunt desiderantem, et [merito plane ad illa ipsa unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut imperatoriae sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia plenum sit.] Hoc qui repudiat Antichristus est: et qui simulat, anathema est.—[Op., col. 1229. F. ed. Benedict.]—S. Aug. de Doctrina .Christiana, lib. ii. cap. 9. [Op., tom. iii. col. 24. D. ed. Benedict.] In iis [enim] quaew aperte in Scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi, [spem scilicet atque caritatem, de quibus tractavimus.]—And to this place Bellarmine, lib. iv. de Verbo Dei non scripto, c. 11. [Op., tom. i. col. 206.] saith, that S. Augustine speaks, de illis dogmatibus quae necessaria sunt omnibus simpliciter, [qualia sunt quae habentur in Symbole Apostolico, et in decalogo,] "of those points of faith, which are necessary simply for all men." So far then he grants the question. And that you may know, it fell not from him on the sudden, he had said as much before, in the beginning of the same chapter. [Primum est quaedam in doctrina Christiana tam fidei quam morum, esse simpliciter omnibus necessaria ad salutem, qualis est notitia articulorum Symboli Apostolici, item cognitio decem praeceptorum, et nonnullorum sacramentorum.—Ibid. col. 201.] and here he confirms it again.
42. 61r Scotus Prolog. in Sentent. Q[uaest.] ii. [c. 14. Op., tom. v. p. 63. Habito igitur contra haereticos, quod doctrina canonis est vera, videndum est secundo, an sit necessaria, et sufficiens viatori ad consequendum finem suum .... Ista ergo conferendo ad tres rationes quibus innititur solutio quaestionis praecedentis patet quod sacra] Scriptura sufficienter continet doctrinam necessariam viatori.—Thom. [Aquin.] Secund. Secund. Q[uaest.] i. A[rt.] 10. AD PRIMUM [ergo dicendum quod] in doctrina Christi et Apostolorum, veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata, [sed quia perversi homines apostolicam doctrinam, et caeteras doctrinas et Scripturas pervertunt ad sui ipsorum perditionem dictum 2 Pet. (iii. 16.) ideo necessaria fuit temporibus praecedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores.] And he speaks there of the written word.
43. 62s Scripturam [autem] fundamentum et columnam fidei fatemur in suo genere esse, sc. in genere testimoniorumm, et in materia credendorum; [quo sensu unus primarius articulus est fundamentum multorum, ut de Petri confessione et fide incarnati Filii Dei scripsit Hilarius de Trinit. lib. vi. Sed non est solum fundamentum, Ecclesia enim firmamentum et columna alia est. I Tim. iii.] Relect. Con. iv. Quaest, 1. Art. 3. in fine. [Op., tom. i. p. 774. ubi sup. p. 32. note m.]
44. [remotely, where a clear and full deduction draws it out. ... Editt. 1673 and 1686.]
45. 64t [Illud tandem intelligamus oportet] habitum fidei in ordine ad Theologiae disciplinam se habere, ut habitus intellectus se habet ad humanas scientias [et facultates. Quemadmodum itaque intellectus noster in discursu disciplinarum naturalium, primo cum principiis congreditur, deinde ad reliqua cognoscenda proficiscitur, quae videlicet a principiis positis derivantur, sic in cognitione supernaturalium rerum quaedam sunt principia supernaturalia, ex quorum fide fidelis animus ad caetera investiganda procedit.]—M[elchior] Canus, de loc[is Theololgicis,] lib. ii. cap. 8. [cap. 56. ed. Lovan. 1569.]
46. 64u S. Augustine expressly of the Baptism of infants. [Jam nunc scrutemur diligentius, quantum adjuvat Dominus, etiam ipsum Evangelii capitulum, ubi ait, Nisi quis renatus, &c. Qua isti (sc. Pelagiani) sententia nisi moverentur, omnino parvulos nec baptizandos esse censerentur. Sed quia non ait, inquiunt isti, Nisi quis renatus, &C., non habebit salutem, vel vitam aeternam, tantummodo autem dixit, non intrabit in regnum Dei, ad hoc parvuli baptizandi sunt, ut sint etiam cum Christo in regno Dei, ubi non erunt si baptizati non fuerint: quamvia et sine baptismo si parvuli moriantur, salutem vitamque aeternam habituri sint, quoniam nullo peccati vinculo obstricti sunt. Haec dicentes, primo nunquam explicant isti, qua justitia nullum peccatum habens imago Del separetur a regno Dei. Deinde videamus utrum Dominus Jesus, unus et solus magister bonus, in hac ipsa evangelica lectione non significaverit et ostenderit non nisi per remissionem peccatorum fieri, ut ad regnum Dei perveniant baptizati: quamvis recte intelligentibus sufficere debuerit, quod dictum est, Nisi quis natus fuerit denuo, &c. et, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu, &c.]—De peccatorum meritis et remissione, lib. i. cap. 30. [Op., tom. x. col. 32. D.]—and, [Quisquis vero adhuc movetur, quare baptizentur qui jam de baptizatis nascuntur, hoc breviter accipiat. Sicut generatio carnis peccati per unum Adam ad condemnationem trahit omnes qui eo modo generantur, sic generatio spiritus gratiae per unum Jesum Christum ad justificationem vitae aeternae ducit omnes qui eo modo praedestinati regenerantur. Sacramentum autem baptismi profecto saceramentum regenerationis est. Quocirca sicut homo, qui non vixerit, mori non potest, et qui mortuus non fuerit, resurgere non potest, ita qui natus non fuerit, renasci non potest. Ex quo conficitur, neminem in suo parente renasci potuisse non natum. Oportet autem, ut si natus fuerit, renascatur: quia, Nisi quis natus fuerit denuo, &c. Oportet igitur ut sacramento regenerationis, ne sine illo male de hac vita exeat, etiam parvulus imbuatur: quod non fit nisi in remissionem peccatorum.—ibid.] lib. ii. cap. 27. [ubi sup. col. 63. C.]—and, [Sed ut omittamus et contemnamus ea, quae brevi tempore patiuntur, nec transacta revocantur, numquid similiter contemnere possumus, quod Per unum hominem mors, &c.? Per hanc enim apostolicam, divinam, claramque sententiam, satis evidenter elucet, neminem ire in mortem nisi per Adam; neminem ire in vitam aeternam nisi per Christum ... Item quisquis dixerit, quod in Christo vivificabuntur etiam parvuli, qui sine sacramenti baptismi participatione de vita exeunt, hic profecto et contra apostolicam praedicationem venit, et totam condemnat Ecclesiam, ubi propterea cum haptizandis parvulis festinatur et curritur, quia sine dubio creditur aliter eos in Christo vivificari omnino non posse.]—Lib. i. [ad Hieronym. seu Ep. clxvi. (al. xxviii.)] de origine animae hominis, [cap. vii. 21. Op., tom. ii. par. 2. col. 591. G.]—Nay, they of the Roman party, which urge the baptism of infants as a matter of faith, and yet not to be concluded out of Scripture, when they are not in eager pursuit of this controversy, but look upon truth with a more indifferent eye, confess as much (even the learnedest of them) as we ask: Advertendum autem Salvatorem, dum dicit., Nisi quis renatus, &c. necessitatem imponere omnibus, ac proinde [etiam] parvulos debere renasci ex aqua et Spiritu.—[Corn.] Iansen [ii Comment.] in [Concord.] Evang. cap. xx. [p. 157. ed. Lovan. 1571.] So here is baptism necessary for infants, and that necessity imposed by our Saviour, and not by the Church only.—Haeretici [qui cum duo tantum faciant sacramenta, Baptismum et Eucharistiam, doceantque etiam baptizandos infantes, nec ullo] alio quam hoc Scripturae testimonio probare possint, infantes esse baptizandos, [no concedere cogentur,&c.]—Mald[onat.] in S.Joann. iii. 5. So Maldonatus confesses that the Heretics (we know whom he means) can prove the baptism of infants by no testimony of Scripture but this: which speech implies, That by this testimony of Scripture it is and can be proved, and therefore not by Church tradition only.-And I would fain know, why Bellarmine, de Baptismo, lib. i. cap. 8. sect. 5. [Op., tom. iii. col. 269. D. Porro Catholica Ecclesia semper docuit infantes baptizandos .... Probatur haec veritas tribus argumentorum generibus. Primum, Sumitur a scripturis: habemus autem in scripturis tria argumenta. Primum sumitur a figura Testamenti Veteris ..... Secundum argumentum colligitur ex duobus locis Evangelii simul junctis, Joann. iii. 5. Nisi quis renatus, &c. ..... At quod parvuli non pereant Dominus docet, Mat. xix. 14. Mar. x. 14. et Luc. xviii. 16. Sinite parvulos, &c. ..... Tertium argumentum colligitur ex locis illis, ubi dicuntur baptizatae integrae familiae, ut Auctor. xvi. 15. dicitur Lydia baptizata, et domus ejus :] should bring three arguments out of Scripture to prove the baptism of infants, (Habemus in scripturis tria argumenta, &c.) if baptism cannot be proved at all out of Scripture, but only by the tradition of the Church. And yet, this is not Bellarmine’s way alone, but Suarez’s in Thom. [Aquin. Summ.] Part. Tert. Q[uaest.] lxvill. [Art. 10.] Disput. xxv. Sect. i. § 2. [Comment. ac Disput. in Tert. Part. Div. Thom. tom. iii. p. 255. col. ii. ed. Mogunt. 1619. Dico primo, homines post nativitatem ex utero materno statim sunt capaces baptismi, etiamsi rationis usum non habeant. Conclusio est de fide, quae licet non sit in Sacra Scriptura express,] possunt [tamen] ex illa varia argumenta sumi ad eam confirmandam, [Actor. enim xvi. legimus, &c...... ] Nec dissimile [argumentum sumitur ex ipsa institutione baptismi, et ex illis verbis Joann. iii. &c.]—And Gregorius de Valentia, de Suscipientibus Baptismum, [Comment. Theolog. in Tert. Part. Div. Thom. Quaest. lxviii. Art. 10. Disput. iv. Quaest. iii. Punct. 1. Op., tom. iv. col. 727. C. ed. Paris.1609. Infantes secundum fidem Catholicam baptizari posse ..... probatur primo ex Scriptura, &c.]—And the Pope himself, Innocent III. [Arelatensi Archiepiscopo] Decretal. lib. iii. Tit. 42. cap. Majores. [Asserunt haeretici parvulis inutiliter baptisma conferri .... Ad id autem taliter respondemus quod baptisma circumcisioni successit. .... ita nunc indistincte vox intonat evangelica, Nisi quis renatus, &c.]—And they all jump with S. Ambrose. lib. x. Epist. 84. ad Demetriad. Virg. who expressly affirms it, Paedobaptismum esse constitutionem Salvatoris. And proves it out of S. John iii. 5. [Hinc Adae peccaturn exemplo posteris asserebatur nocuisse non transitum ... hinc evacuatio baptismatis parvulorum, qui sola adoptione donati, nullo autem reatu dicerentur absolvi .... Nec frustra scriptum est: Nemo mundus a sorde, nec infans, cujus unius diei vita est super terram. Et quis poterit facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine, nonne Tu qui solus es? Propter quod sicut nunc in ecclesia manet constitutio Salvatoris, dicentis: Nisi quis renatus, &c.—(Pseudo-) S. Ambrosii, lib. x. Epist. 84. ut sup. Op., tom. iii. p. 265. B. ed. (Erasm.) Basil. 1538. This epistle, ad Demetriadem, is rejected by the Benedictine editors. See Appendix to Op., tom. ii. col. 477, 478. ed. Benedict. It has been variously attributed to S. Leo Magna by his editor Quesnel; and to S. Prosper of Aquitaine by his editor Antelmn. See S. Prosp. Aquit. Op., p. 930. ed . Paris. 1711.]
47. 66x Infantes reos esse originalis peccati, et ideo baptizandos esse, antiquam fidei regulam vocat S. Aug. ser. viii. cap. 8. de verb. Apost, [sc Universam massm generis humani in homine primo venenator ille percussit; nemo ad secundum transit a primo, nisi per baptismatis sacramentum. In parvulis natis et nondum baptizatis agnoscatur Adam .... ex eo quod in te corrumpitur generas parvulum .... quare novis disputationibus antiquam fidei regulam frangere conaris?—Serm. clxxiv. de verbis Apost. I Tim. i. Humanus sermo et omni acceptione, &c. Op., tom. v. col. 834. F.]—Et, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit, semper tenuit, hoc a majorum fide percepit: [hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit . . . . Si quando portantur infantes, dicuntur omnino nullum propaginis habere peccatum, et veniunt ad Christum; quare non eis dicitur in Ecclesia qui eos apportant: Auferte hinc innocentes istos?]—S. Aug. Serm. x. [clxxvi. ed. Benedict.] cap. 2. de verbis Apost. [I Tim. i. Fidelis sermo et omni acceptione, &c. Op., tom. v. col. 840. A.]—And [Pseudo-] S. Ambros. lib. x. epist. 84. [ubi sup. Quae omnia et multo plura documenta non tanta cura sacris paginis Spiritus Sanctus inseruisset, si talis esset natura in filiis Adam, qualis in ipso est principaliter instituta.]—And S. Chrysostom. Homil. de Adam. et Eva. [The following passage may perhaps be that referred to in this vague citation: Hopas pôs meizôn hê euporia tês zêmias? pôs pleiôn ho Ploutos? hoion ti legô, eplasen ho Theos ton anthrôpon apo gês kai hudatos kai etheto auton en to paradeisô; ouk egeneto chrêsimos ho plastheis, alla diestraphê; ouketi loipon apo gês kai hudatos auton anuplattei, all’ ex hudatos kai pneumatos; kai ouk eti paradeison epagg’ lletai pros auton, alla basileian ouranôn. kai hopôs akoue. Nikodêmou gar tou archontos tôn Ioudaiôn k.t.l.—S. Chrysostom. in Genesim, Sermo vii. cap. 5. Op., tom. iv. p. 681. C.]—Hoc praedicat Ecclesia Catholica ubique diffusa—[Concil. Milevit. canon. ii. ubi sup. p. 40. note h.]
48. 67y [Commendaverim caritati vestrae] causam eorum, qui pro se loqui non possunt.—S. Augustin. serm. viii. cap. 8. de verb. Apost. [ubi sup. col. 834. E.]
49. 67z [Tertio signanter addit, Unusquisque vestrum &c.] nullum [quippe] excipiens, [non marem, non foeminam, non servum, non liberum,] non Judaeum. non Gentilem, nec adultum, nec puerum. [et omnibus indicat esse necessarium baptisma.—Reverendi patris D. Joannis] Feri &c. [Enarrationes in Acta Apostolor.] in Act. ii. 39. [p. 28. Coloniae, 1567.]
50. 67a [Vobis enim est repromissio, et filiis vestris, et omnibus qui longe sunt. Hoc est, ad vos Judaeos, vel praesentes, repromissio Joelis de Spiritu Sancto,] et ad filios vestros, [quos multum juvat parentum fides, sicut nocet infidelitas:] quare debent consentire, cum ad usum rationis perveniunt, ad implenda promissa in Baptismo: [et non tantum ad eos, sed ad omnes qui longe sunt a Dei notitia, quos videlicet Dominus ex sua gratia advocavit, spectat hoc tantum beneficium.]—Salmeron. Tractat. xiv. in loc. [sc. Act.ii.39. Comment. tom. xii. pp. 87, 88. ed. Colon. 1614.]
51. 67b [Secunda regula est, quando universa Ecclesia aliquid servat, quod nemo constituere potuit, nisi Deus, quod tamen nusquam invenitur scriptum, necesse est dicere, ab ipso Christo, et Apostolis ejus traditum. Ratio est similis superiori. Nam Ecclesia universa non solum non potest errare in credendo, sed nec in operando, ac praesertim in ritu et cultu divino; recteque Augustin. Epist. 118. docet insolentissimae insaniae esse existimare, non recte fieri, quod ab universa Ecclesia fit. Ergo illa quae Ecclesia non potest recte servare, nisi a Deo sint instituta, et tamen servat, necesse est dicere, a Deo instituta, etiamsi nusquam id legatur. Tale est baptisma parvulorum. Erraret enim gravissime Ecclesia, si sine Dei mandato parvulos, qui actu non credunt, baptizaret. Quocirca Augustinus, lib. x. de Gen. cap. 23, &c. ]—Bellarmin. de Verbo Dei [non scripto,] lib. iv. cap. 9. § 3. [Op., tom. i. col. 193. B.]
52. 68c S. Aug. [de] Gen[esi,] ad Lit. [lib. X.] cap. 23. [Op., tom. iii. par. 1. col, 272. D.] Consuetudo [tamen] Matris Ecclesiae in baptizandis parvulis nequaquam spernenda est, [neque ullo modo superflua deputanda,] nec omnino credenda, nisi Apostolica esset traditio.
53. 68d Quare [novis disputationibus] antiquam fidei regulam frangere conaris?—S. Aug. Ser. viii. [clxxiv.] de verb. Apost. cap. 8. [ubi sup. p. 66 note x.]—Hoc Ecclesia semper [habuit, semper] tenuit.—Id. Ser. x. [clxxvi.] cap.2.[ubi sup. p. 66. note x.]
54. 68e [Quoniam (Matth. ix. 12.) non est opus sanis medicus, sed aegrotantibus,] quid necessarium [ergo] habuit infans Christum, si non aegrotat? [Si sanus est, quare per eos qui eum diligunt, medicum quaerit?—S. Aug. Serm. clxxvi. ubi sup.]—Quid est quod dicis, nisi ut non accedant ad Jesum? sed tibi clamat Jesus, Sine parvulos venire ad Me.—S. Augustin. [Serm. clxxiv. ubi sup. p. 66. note x.]
55. 69f [Quod autem apud simplicem vulgum disseminant, longam annorum seriem post Christi resurrectionem preateriisse, quibus incognitus erat paedobaptismus, in eo foedissime mentiuntur: siquidem] nullus est scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad apostolorum seculum pro certo referat.—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 16. §8. [Op., tom. viii. p. 357. col. 1.]
56. 69g [Aiunt paedobaptismum non tam ex aperto scripturae mandato, quam ex ecclesiae decreto emanasse. At] miserrimum asylum foret, si pro defensione paedobaptismi ad nudam ecclesiae auctoritatem suffugere cogeremur.—Calvin. Instit. lib. iv. cap. 8. § 16. [Op., tom. viii. p. 311. col. 2.]
57. 69h [Vide sup.] sect. xv. 1. [p. 62.]
58. 69i Origen. in Rom. vi. 6. tom. ii. p. 543. Pro hoc [et] ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare. [Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum, quod essent in omnibus genuinae sordes peccati, quae per aquam et Spiritum ablui deberent.—Comment. in Rom. lib. v. cap. 9. Op., tom. iv. p. 565. A. col. 2. ed. Benedict.]—Et S. Aug. Ser. x. [clxxvi.] de verb. Apost. cap. 2. [ubi sup. p. 66. note x.] Hoc ecclesia a majorum fide percepit.—And it is to be observed, that neither of these Fathers (nor I believe any other) says that the Church received it "a traditione sola," or "a majorum fide sola," as if tradition did exclude collection of it out of Scripture.
59. 69k Yea, and Bellarmine himself avers, De verbo Del non scripto, lib. iv. cap. x. § 7: Sic etiam [quia scriptum est 2 Thess. ii. 15. Tenete traditiones, &c.; et Luc. x 16. Qui vos audit, Me audit; et Matt. xviii. 17. Si ecclesiam non audierit, &c., idcirco nos affirmamus, traditiones esse quodammodo explicationes verbi scripti, non quod nudam contineant ejus expositionem, sed quia] omnes traditiones [et ecclesiae decreta] continentur in scriptis in universali; [sed in particulari non continentur, nec debent contineri.—Op., tom. i. col. 196. C.] And S. Basil, Serm. de fide, approves only those Agrapha, quae non sunt aliena a pia secundum Scripturam sententia. [eôs men ouv agônizesthai pros tas epanistamenas kata kairon haireseis echrên, hepomenos tois proselêphosin, akolouthon hêgoumên tê diaphora tês epispeiromenês hupo tou diabolou asebeias, tais antithetois phônais kôluein, ê kai anatrepein tas epagomenas blasphêmias, kai allote allais, hôs an hê chreia tôn nosountôn katênagkase, kai tautais pollakis agraphois men tên graphên eusebous dianoias—S. Basil. Srm. de fide, cap. 1. Op., tom. ii. p. 224. B. ed. Benedict.]