Book 8

Here begins the eighth book, in which is treated the question of the Armenians concerning the form and effect and necessity of the sacrament of baptism; and it contains 40 chapters.

The first chapter objects concerning the manifold form of baptism and resolves it in general, showing that there is one form for baptism.

The second chapter objects against the first chapter on the form of baptism,¹⁶ and in resolving shows that there is a fixed form in the conferring of baptism; where it is also explained what it is for something to be done in someone's name.

The third chapter, of four opinions as to the apostles' form of baptizing, treats the opinion affirming that the apostles in baptizing express no name of Christ according to his humanity, and sets out the way of resolving the contrary.

The fourth chapter treats the opinion holding that the apostles baptized in Christ's name by dispensation alone.

The fifth chapter treats the third opinion, holding that the apostles baptized in the expression of Christ's name without dispensation, and sets out its considerations with the solution.

The sixth chapter objects in many ways that the apostles, baptizing in the name of Christ or in the name of Jesus, did not keep the form handed down by Christ, and resolves the objections, showing that it is not lawful at present to use that apostolic manner of conferring baptism.

The seventh chapter treats the fourth opinion with its considerations, holding that the apostles baptized in the expression of the Trinity and also of some name of Christ according to his humanity, and resolves the arguments against it.

The eighth chapter shows that this is the form: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen"; proving nonetheless that the intention of baptizing, and the expression of the intention, is required for baptizing truly.

The ninth chapter objects that there is one form for conferring the different sacraments, and resolves, showing its position, and resolves the contrary objections.

The tenth chapter treats the twofold effect of baptism, showing that saving grace is conferred in baptism and that the obligation to eternal damnation is taken away.

The eleventh chapter objects and resolves, showing that in infants and in adults baptism has the said effects.

The twelfth chapter shows from Scripture that all who are naturally propagated from Adam have at birth sin and an obligation to perpetual damnation.

The thirteenth chapter objects against [this] as to sins.

The fourteenth chapter shows more fully from Scripture that all who are naturally propagated from Adam have at birth sin and an obligation to perpetual damnation.

The fifteenth chapter shows the same from Scripture.

The sixteenth chapter objects that there cannot be injustice in souls at birth, and resolves, showing by example that the whelps of dogs can be blind at birth.

The seventeenth chapter objects that blindness can be natural in something, and resolves the objections.

The eighteenth chapter shows, by objecting and resolving, that no one can truly be called naturally blind.

The nineteenth chapter distinguishes privations of natural things from privations of accidental things, showing it to be possible that souls are unjust from their origin.

The twentieth chapter shows from holy Scripture that justice ought to be natural to all men.

The twenty-first chapter shows the same from holy Scripture, concluding that all men from birth have injustice or sin.

The twenty-second chapter objects against what precedes and resolves, showing by a general argument that it is just that men should be unjust from their origin and be born with injustice.

The twenty-third chapter shows that not every lack of justice is injustice, and asks by what reason a creature of God can be unjust in its first creation.

The twenty-fourth chapter distinguishes a twofold creation of rational creatures, namely natural and free, and shows how in animals and plants [some] are called true begetters or parents.

The twenty-fifth chapter shows that human souls after the first parents are produced naturally by God, with this, that a human begetter is as truly called parent of the man begotten as in animals of the other species there is a parent.

The twenty-sixth chapter treats whether that of Wisdom 8[:19], "I had received a good soul," etc., is said of Christ, showing that it is not.

The twenty-seventh chapter objects and resolves, showing that God can reasonably be called, in the generation of a man, the instrument of the man generating, concluding that all the children of those who generate must be born with ignorance and injustice.

The twenty-eighth chapter shows the same conclusion by a carnal example.

The twenty-ninth chapter shows the same, although Adam in generating was perhaps just, on account of penitence, and knowing.

The thirtieth chapter objects against the conclusion from a likeness, the smallness of children's bodies at birth, and resolves.

The thirty-first chapter gives the reason why other, near parents do not transfer their vices to their children, nor did the first parents transfer their defects to their posterity.

The thirty-second chapter shows that no one can transfer actual sin to another, although he can bind even his children to penalty and injustice.

The thirty-third chapter resolves the objections of chapter 23, showing that injustice or sin is not from God as author.

The thirty-fourth chapter objects through many [arguments] that baptism in water is not necessary for salvation.

The thirty-fifth chapter shows a twofold mode of necessity.

The thirty-sixth chapter resolves the objections of chapter thirty-four, and objects concerning inability, how it excuses, and resolves several objections.

The thirty-seventh chapter objects against the necessity of baptism and resolves, showing that at every time some sacrament was necessary for salvation, concluding that all who are not baptized must be damned; and in proving this treats of the Innocents slain by Herod.

The thirty-eighth chapter resolves some objections of chapter 34.

The thirty-ninth chapter objects concerning those ignorant of the law of Christ and resolves, showing that they perish and yet are excused by ignorance as to not observing the precept.

The fortieth chapter resolves the last objection, concerning the necessity of the sacrament of the altar.

Chapter 1.

John. Let us, if you please, make another beginning, and now discuss by Scripture whether some fixed form of baptizing is necessarily required for conferring the effect of baptism. For it does not seem to me that a fixed form of words is required for this, since in the time of the apostles the faithful were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to that of the apostle, Acts 2[:38]: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins"; and sometimes in the name of the Lord, according to that of Acts 8[:16–17]: "For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received";¹ and Acts 19[:5]: "Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"; and sometimes in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to that of Acts 10[:48]: "He commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." And the Saviour himself, Mark, last chapter,² says to his disciples: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." Behold a different form handed down by the master of all and exercised by his disciples; and the disciples themselves, as the foregoing shows, used a threefold different form. There is therefore no fixed form of words required for the effect of baptism, namely the remission of sins. And yet the contrary seems [true], since every effect has a fixed cause. Therefore, since words effect the sacrament, it follows that every sacrament has fixed words, or a fixed form of words, by which it is effected. Also, since the Saviour handed down a fixed form when he says, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," that seems necessarily required; and he seems a transgressor who introduces a new one, and an omitter who does not use it. Excuse, therefore, Christ's disciples, who did not keep the form handed down to them and introduced another.

Richard. I think a fixed form is required for perfecting that sacrament and conferring its effect, namely a fixed sense of the words, as will be said more fully in the eighth book³ when treating of the sacrament of the altar; for the beginning of salvation through Christ ought not to hang on something uncertain but on a determinate and fixed cause; otherwise men could rightly waver⁴ concerning its effect, which God forbid. Also it seems to me that the Lord himself gave or handed down the form, as you expressed above, saying: "Going, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."⁵

Chapter 2.

John. It seems reasonably possible to say that, although the Saviour commanded to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, yet he did not in this hand down the form of baptizing, but only wished to command the apostles that they should confer the sacrament of baptism in the faith[?] or power or authority of the Trinity.⁶ So Paul the apostle seems to understand it, Romans 6[:3], when he says: "Know you not, brethren, that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in death?"⁷ where by baptism in Christ Jesus he seems to understand baptism received in his faith or in his power, not in the expression of his name; for he says that all baptized in him are baptized in his death, not meaning that they had been baptized in the expression of this name, "the death of Christ," but that they had been baptized in the faith and power of his death or passion. Hence it seems that in a like sense he says they were [baptized] in Christ Jesus, namely in his faith and power. And so this command can be understood, namely that the apostles should baptize in the faith or power or authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, not in the expression of these names.

Richard. What you say cannot stand; but we are compelled to confess, by the aforesaid words, that Christ not only commanded that the apostles baptize in the faith or power or authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, but commanded and willed that in baptizing they express the three persons, or at least their authority. For otherwise they were not bound in baptizing to express anything at all, but only to have the faith of the Trinity in their mind, since faith alone, or authority, was enjoined on them, not the expression of the persons or of their authority; and if they had kept that precept in that way they would have been thought fools by everyone, indeed madmen. For what could be done more foolish or more mad than that men, like mutes, should plunge others into the water saying nothing? It is evident therefore that, when he commanded "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," he willed them in baptizing to express in words the Trinity or the authority of the Trinity.

Again, this will appear more plainly if we declare or treat the sense of the words. For it seems to me that it makes a great difference whether one says or commands to one's minister simply, "do this," or "do this in my name." For if one commands in the first way, "do this," he does not seem to me to command that the minister, in the work commanded, make any mention of his lord's authority. But if anyone commands in the second way, "do this in my name," I do not see but that he commands the work and, besides this, that an expression of his authority be made; which expression, as is clear to anyone, can in no way be made except with the lord himself named. For he would not include this in such a precept even if he only committed his authority to the minister: since he commits the authority of doing it to the minister simply by commanding him to do it, it would follow that the sense of both was one, namely of "do this" and "do this in my name," which no one doubts to be false.⁸ Therefore, when Christ commanded the apostles thus, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," he commanded not only the work but also the expression of the author.

Again, if some king, as the king of England, commanded his minister to do homage to the king of France in the name of the duke of Aquitaine, there is no doubt that the minister would be a transgressor if he did homage expressly in the name of the king of England, omitting the name of the duke of Aquitaine, although the king of England and the duke of Aquitaine are one and the same. Therefore in that precept, "do homage," or "do it in the name of the duke of Aquitaine," there is commanded not only that work but the expression of the author under the name which he himself expressed, or under an equivalent name, namely one expressing the same authority; nor would the minister fulfil that command unless in the work commanded he expressed the duke of Aquitaine himself under the name of duke. Therefore by a like reasoning it altogether seems that, when Christ commanded baptism to be given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, the apostles would not have fulfilled this command unless they had expressed the authority under these names, or equivalent ones, in baptism, namely in the work he commanded. It follows therefore that Christ in that precept expressed the form of baptizing, either the whole of it or a part. Indeed, either Christ then handed down the form defectively, which no one would say of the highest wisdom; or the evangelist, who alone speaks of this form and only in this place, wrote down defectively the form handed down by Christ, which moreover it is wicked to think or say of so great a sacrament. It manifestly follows that the full and entire form of baptizing is here expressed.

This same thing that I have said is shown more clearly by one text, though a rare one,⁹ which has "Amen," thus: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." This word, namely "amen," cannot fittingly be understood significatively in the person of Christ, since it signifies the same as "so be it"; and so the sense of that saying by Christ, if it were taken significatively in his person, would be: "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, so be it." That would be said as ineptly as if the pope commanded you, concerning certain excommunicated persons, "absolve them in the name of God, so be it," or, concerning persons to be invited to table, "invite them in my name, so be it," or "amen"; either of which would be said ineptly. Hence it follows that, for Christ's sense in that precept to the apostles to be apt, if that word "amen" is in the canon, that word must be taken in the person of Christ materially and not significatively. And consequently, by the same reasoning, those words "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" are, for a like cause,¹⁰ expressed by Christ as a form, so that the sense is: "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," that is, "baptizing them saying or expressing these words, or the sense of the words, 'in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'" From which it manifestly follows that he was then handing down the form which he willed them to use in baptizing, so that the whole "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is understood as handed down by Christ to the apostles as the form of words which he willed, and commanded or enjoined, them to exercise in baptizing; which form the Roman church both holds and enjoins. Christ therefore did not command them to have only the authority or the faith of the Trinity in baptizing when he says to the apostles, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," but in this he handed down the form of baptizing which he willed them to exercise. And that he willed this to be kept by all in his church he seems sufficiently to show when he adds [Matthew 28:20]: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." For if they must teach that all things which he commanded them are to be kept by all, since he commanded them this manner of baptizing, he enjoined them to teach that it is to be kept by all.

But if anyone says that that command concerning baptism ought not to be included in that general one, because he spoke that command to them at that time, and that clause must be understood of those things alone which he had commanded them before, in the past, since the words lie thus, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and he does not say "which I now command you": it would be answered him that, although these words which Matthew sets down did pertain to that view, yet another thing stands against it and confirms the position. For there is no doubt that Christ gave the form of baptism to the disciples long before, since it is written, John 4[:1–2]: "When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples and baptizeth more than John (though he did not baptize, but his disciples)," etc.¹¹ For if Christ's disciples baptized while he was present, of which baptism of Christ John had foretold that it would be in the Holy Ghost, as is read in John 1[:33], it altogether follows that they had received the form of baptizing from Christ. Either, therefore, he had earlier handed them another form than the aforesaid, or this same one. But that he should first hand down one, which they were to use, and which it is likely that John himself used in baptizing Christ, and afterwards at his ascension give another altogether different: what else would doing this have been than to render his teaching suspect and uncertain concerning the first foundation of salvation? Therefore it follows that he earlier handed them the same form of baptizing which John used in baptizing Christ, and the disciples in baptizing others, and which afterwards at his ascension he handed to them, etc. Under that general command given them at the ascension, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," he commanded them to teach this form of baptizing; nor is there any doubt that they themselves ought to use the form which they ought to teach others. For otherwise they would have rendered Christ's teaching suspect and double, and would have made themselves like the Pharisees, teaching others to do, as necessary for salvation, things which they themselves would not do, which is greatly to be detested in the sowing of the faith; indeed, otherwise they would have been despisers and neglecters of the divine command. And therefore it altogether follows that they taught this form and used it, etc.

Chapter 3.

This foundation therefore being established, we are constrained, in my judgment, to choose one of four opinions, which we shall set out in order with their considerations. The first opinion holds that the apostles in baptizing always kept the aforesaid form of words, expressing no name of Christ as to his humanity; in favour of which opinion all that I have said here seems at first sight [to stand]. But against it are the things which you objected above, at the beginning of the question, from the Acts of the Apostles, and also those which will be brought below for the third opinion. But those you brought seem able to be resolved thus, that the sayings be taken not in this way, namely that the apostles baptized, or commanded to baptize, in the name of Christ, that is, in the expression of this name "Christ," or of his name "Jesus," or of another name of his according to his humanity; but in this way, that those converted to Christ whom they commanded to be baptized, or baptized, should expressly profess the faith of Christ before they were baptized; so that the expression of the name is referred, in those sayings, to the baptized and not to the baptizers. This might seem to be hinted in Acts 8[:36–38] concerning the eunuch who was baptized, of whom it is read there thus: "And the eunuch said: See, here is water: who doth hinder me from being baptized? Philip saith to him: If thou believest with all thy heart. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down both into the water, Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him."¹ Here it is sufficiently expressed how the eunuch was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, namely in the expression of faith in him. The same, it seems, could be understood in what you set down above concerning Saint Paul, when he came to Ephesus asking the disciples whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed [Acts 19:2–5]: for after he baptized them he taught them to believe in Christ, through what John said in baptizing, that they should believe in Jesus;² and then there follows: "Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"; which accordingly seems fittingly understood thus, namely confessing expressly that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and God. Again, that of Acts 8 which you set down above, that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: the same seems premised in other words, for those who hold this opinion, thus [Acts 8:12]: "But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Behold how they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, namely believing Philip preaching of his name. Likewise that of Acts 7³ which you objected above seems able to be understood, namely "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ"; for there Peter, who commanded this, had premised, speaking of Christ [Acts 10:43]: "To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, and in his name";⁴ and to receive remission of sins by his name seems to be fulfilled when someone believing in him confesses expressly, according to that of Paul, Acts 13[:39]: "In him every one that believeth is justified." And so that saying brought by you does not constrain us so that it could seem we should say that the expression of the name of Jesus Christ according to his humanity ought to be made by the baptizer. Likewise all the things you set down above, and things like them, seem able to be understood rightly; and you have already said that Paul speaks so to the Romans when he said [Romans 6:3]: "All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death," that is, in the faith of his name. Hence I think there is always required in adults, before they are baptized, faith concerning Christ and his death, and also the expression of this faith by words, or, if the man is mute, by signs. Hence the things you objected above do not move us to say that any of the apostles expressed anything else in baptizing, or taught to express, as regards the form of baptism, than that set down above which Christ hands down to his disciples to be observed.

Chapter 4.

The second opinion is that which many of no mean authority and judgment have stated, namely that, although that form was handed down and expressed by the Lord, yet by dispensation and by revelation it was granted and commanded to the apostles, at the beginning of the publishing of the name of Christ, which was then unknown as it were to all men,⁵ that they should baptize in the name of Christ, so that it might be spread further. Hence the apostles themselves and the disciples in the primitive church, until the enlargement and stability of the Christian name, as they say, but not others after them, baptized, or could baptize, in the sole expression of this name. But how this could stand I do not see. For since nothing appears of this dispensation or revelation in apostolic scripture, it follows that the apostles and evangelists led those after them into errors, giving the form of baptizing simply to their disciples and handing it to them in scripture, a form which afterwards would have no force; unless it be said that the apostles commanded their disciples not to use that form, which is nothing but a dream, since Luke, Paul's disciple and an evangelist, writes that the apostles used that form, as the passages brought above[?]⁶ show according to this way of understanding those sayings, while writing nothing of its removal after their times. Again, if the apostles had commanded this to their disciples, since they expressed nothing of it in scripture, which contains the law of the sacraments, error would not on that account be removed from others later, but all would err, or would have an express occasion of erring from the apostolic acts. Again, how some form was sufficient then which afterwards would not be sufficient, there is no reason at all; and therefore it altogether follows that if this form was sufficient in the time of the apostles, it is also sufficient at present. Again, in Acts 15 and 16 it is said that Paul and Barnabas, going through the cities, delivered unto them the decrees for to keep that were decreed by the apostles and ancients.⁷ Now it is evident, according to those who hold this opinion, that this manner of baptizing was decreed by Peter on behalf of the apostles, since it is written in Acts 2[:37–38] thus: "Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest: What shall we do, men? But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." And since the converts sought counsel from Peter together with the others, it is evident that Peter handed on that whole decree. Therefore, according to Paul's teaching, it ought to have been observed by all to whom he and Barnabas preached. Hence I do not see that it can reasonably be said that it was granted by dispensation to the apostles alone and to the disciples of the primitive church, so that it could not afterwards have force among all.

Chapter 5.

The third opinion holds that the apostles baptized, and taught to baptize, in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Lord Jesus, in this way, namely that the baptizer expressed some name of Christ according to his humanity, the names of the Father and of the Holy Ghost not being expressed at all; which opinion a great many of the holy fathers and doctors seem to hold.⁸ For its assertion many things seem to work. First, that according to the literal sense the words of that discourse of the Acts of the Apostles which Luke wrote, as you set down above, indicate this. Second, that the apostles and all Christ's disciples principally intended to sow and plant faith concerning Christ as the singular Saviour of mankind. Hence Peter, as is read in Acts 3,⁹ says: "There is no salvation in any other. For there is no other name given to men under heaven, whereby we must be saved." And for this reason Peter, in his preachings to the people, as is read in Acts 2 and 10, always laboured to show through the scriptures of the Old Testament that Christ was the Saviour and that through him remission of sins is given; in chapter 2 [:36] concluding thus: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified"; and in chapter 10 [:43], the sermon completed, he concludes thus: "To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him." And Paul did the same, as is read in Acts 9[:22], thus: "But Paul increased much more in strength and confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ." And in Acts 13[:38], after showing in scripture that our Jesus was promised, was slain, and rose again, he concludes thus: "Be it known therefore to you, men, brethren, that through this Jesus forgiveness of sins is preached." And Stephen, as is read in Acts 7[:55], preaching to the Jews, said at the end: "Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of the power of God."¹⁰ So also of Philip it is read, Acts 8[:35]: "Then Philip, opening his mouth and beginning at this scripture, preached unto them Jesus"; and immediately there follows, of the eunuch answering, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," saying which he was baptized. Since therefore the apostles and all the faithful intended precisely to sow faith concerning Christ, their works would not seem [consistent]¹¹ unless they conferred the sacraments in his name, which sacraments were the chief benefits of salvation. Indeed, this argument seems altogether to require that they should confer the medicines of salvation in the name of him whom they publicly and assiduously preached as the singular Saviour.

Again, since the sacraments were the chief benefits which Christ conferred on sinners, they ought to be conferred in his name, just as other benefits also were then given in his name. For of other gifts and benefits of Christ we read thus, Luke 4:¹² "And they returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name." And in Acts 3[:6–7] it is read of Peter that he said: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk. And forthwith his feet and soles received strength." And in Acts 4[:10] it is read that Peter said: "Be it known to you, in all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ this man standeth here before you, whole." Again, as is read in Acts 16[:18]: "Peter being grieved, and turned to the spirit, [said]: I command thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to go from her. And he went out from her the same hour."¹³ Again, Christ himself, as is read in Matthew, last chapter,¹⁴ said to his disciples: "Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature," etc. "And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils. They shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay their hands upon the sick: and they shall recover," etc. Where it plainly appears that he willed those who would believe in him to confer these benefits on men in his name. And if by what he said, "they shall lay their hands upon the sick: and they shall recover," you understand the sacrament of unction, as the words indicate, and by that other phrase, "they shall speak with new tongues," you understand the sacrament of confirmation, as moreover it seems at first sight it ought to be understood, it altogether follows that he willed these two sacraments to be conferred in his name; and by parity of reason that this is to be believed of all the sacraments, that he willed all the sacraments to be given in his name.

In favour of this opinion, moreover, is that of Acts 22[:16], where Ananias is read to have said to Paul: "Rise up and be baptized and wash away, or wash thou away, thy sins, invoking his name." For although at first sight this saying could seem to make for the first opinion, because it could be thought that Paul was told to wash away his sins, namely with the name of Jesus of Nazareth invoked, not by that man, but with that name invoked by Paul himself, so that he, being baptized, should invoke that name and so wash away his sins; yet because the order of the words has "be baptized and wash away thy sins," and he would not need (this is most certain) to wash away his sins after receiving the baptism by which his sins were washed away, [the phrase] is nothing but an exposition and declaration of the effect of baptism,¹⁵ so that the sense is: "Rise up, be baptized, and wash away," etc., that is, "and so wash away thy sins by baptism"; and "invoking his name" is referred rather to the baptizer than to Paul, who was baptized.

Those, therefore, who hold this opinion can excuse the apostles, it seems, by this, that they neither neglected the form handed down by Christ nor introduced a new one. For since the power of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, and their operation inseparable and undivided, it follows that the authority of those three persons is one. Hence, when in the name of one person the authority of all the persons is expressed, it suffices for baptism in that name, since the authority of the three is one. And so the things I said of the form handed down by Christ do not, it seems, conflict with the deed of the apostles according to this opinion.

Chapter 6.

John. Tell me what you think: how can this stand with what you showed above? For if a thing is done in the name of another only when it is so done that in the doing his authority is expressed, then, since in this name "Jesus" the authority of the Father and of the Holy Spirit is not expressed (for many men have been called by this name who had no such authority), nor in this name "Christ" is such authority of the Father and of the Holy Spirit expressed, indeed not even divine authority — since "Christ" imports nothing other than "anointed", and for this reason many have been called christs, according to that psalm, "Touch ye not my anointed"¹; and for this reason moreover King David ordered that man to be killed who had killed King Saul at Saul's own command, because he put forth his hand to kill the anointed of the Lord, as is said in 2 Kings 1² — therefore divine authority is not expressed in these names.

Richard. These names, taken for our Christ [?]³ whom we worship, who is true God and man, were taken by the apostles singularly in baptizing and teaching the people⁴; and for this reason, so taken — though not taken generally, as you reasonably showed — they import and express divine authority, namely that of the three persons. Again, you ought to attend that Scripture, in affirming that men were to be baptized in the name of Christ or in the name of Jesus, says, as you set down (Acts 19 and 8), "in the name of the Lord Jesus"⁵; whence it is given to understand as likely that on other occasions it was done under a like expression, namely by adding "Lord" or something else equivalent, from which divine authority would be manifestly understood and expressed. JOHN. I am still moved against the foregoing opinion: for if Christ at his ascension had commanded the apostles to baptize in the name of Christ, or in the name of Jesus Christ, as he commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, it does not seem that the apostles would have fulfilled such a command if they had expressed only the name of the Father or of the Holy Spirit in baptizing, because neither in the name of the Father nor in the name of the Holy Spirit is any authority of the human suppositum or human person expressed. Therefore by the same token⁶ the command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit would not be fulfilled when only the name of Christ,

or "Christ", is expressed. RICHARD. The one does not follow from the other: because when the name "Christ" is taken, in whatever way⁷, as I said, singularly for his person, which was God and man, and that name is so expressed, his authority both human and divine is expressed, and so the undivided authority of the three persons is made public; but conversely, as you said well, the names of the Father and of the Holy Spirit express no authority of the Son as regards his humanity, and for this reason the command to baptize in the name of Christ is not fulfilled when the name of one of them is expressed, although the converse, as you showed, would be done fittingly. Reasonably therefore it could be said that when the name of one person is expressed, one simple and undivided authority of the three persons is expressed; therefore, when the name of one person is expressed in baptizing, the form handed down by Christ, namely the sense

he handed down, is observed. JOHN. Still, it seems to me that the example of the king of England set down above opposes this opinion: for these names, "king of England" and "duke of Aquitaine", are names of the same person, and yet you affirmed above that, when a task was enjoined to be done in the name of the duke of Aquitaine, if it were done by a minister with only the name of the king of England expressed, the command would not be observed, and yet the name of the same person would be expressed; how much more is such a command not fulfilled in such a form concerning a distinct person, when the name of one of them is expressed.

Richard. You do not conclude rightly: for although here the persons are distinct, yet under these names their authority is one and inseparable; but in the example of the king of England and the duke of Aquitaine it is the converse: although there is in fact a personal unity, yet the authority of that person under those names is separable and not necessarily one.

John. Why has this mode of baptizing been omitted at present as to the words, if it is true that the apostles used it? For the church now uses the form which you affirmed above that Christ handed down. Or why is it not lawful at present to confer baptism in this way, namely with only the name of Christ expressed, since the apostles did so

and show in their writings that they did so? RICHARD. Because the faith concerning Christ which the apostles strove to introduce and establish, as new in their time and difficult of assent — namely that our Christ truly was and is the Son of God, God and man, the redeemer and saviour of our race — is so confirmed among Christians that there is no need to urge it on men either by works or by words, therefore that mode has been omitted among Christians, which was introduced in order that this faith might in consequence be introduced; for deservedly, when the cause ceases, the effect ceases in the Christian people, just as the kinds of tongues, which were then given in the sacrament of confirmation for the confirmation of the same faith, are not given with the sacrament of confirmation now that that faith is confirmed among Christians, as will be treated in the following book. Elsewhere, however, as it seems, where there was hope of making progress among unbelievers, the sacraments could lawfully be conferred in the name of Christ in order to urge the faith concerning Christ more fully, and miracles ought to be done and asked for in the name of Christ, as was done in the first times of the nascent church. Nor is it lawful for the Christian people at present to use this mode, because of the prohibition of the Roman church and because of the reason given, namely that in the beginning it does not seem to have been lawful to do so except for the cause given, namely that the faith concerning Christ might be enlarged; and therefore, that faith having been enlarged among Christians, it is not lawful any longer to use that form of words. Again, since the mode handed down by Christ is more authentic, and apostolic Scripture does not express that we should use this mode of theirs, or ought to use it, as the gospel commands [the other], therefore whoever omitted that one or used this one would deservedly be charged with rashness, as you reasonably set down here at the beginning. Yet it seems, according to this opinion, that if anyone used those words in baptizing he would fully confer the effect of the sacrament, because he would express a sense sufficient for the form handed down by Christ.

Chapter 7.

The fourth opinion holds that the apostles, at the beginning of the publication of the name of Jesus Christ — in order to publish the faith concerning Christ more widely, and in order that the sacrament of baptism and the other sacraments of salvation might have vigour in virtue of his death, and moreover in order to show that he is the author of salvation — expressed his name in the conferring of baptism and of the other sacraments; not, however, omitting the form handed down to them by Christ, but annexing the name of Christ to that form of words as a kind of declaration and useful expression, in this way: "In the name of the Father and of the Son Jesus Christ" (or "who is Jesus Christ") "and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." If anyone held this opinion, he could then understand the other things cited above from the Acts of the Apostles, that the apostles of Christ baptized in the name of Christ, as meaning that they baptized not with the expression of the name of Christ alone, but with its expression in the way described together with the form which Christ handed down; nor would the apostles in so baptizing have departed from the form handed down to them by Christ, since the form is always to be called one so long as the sense is not diverse, as will be treated in the following book and shown more fully concerning the sacrament of the altar; and the sense is one in the words expressed by Christ and in these words with that addition of the name of Christ, since Christ is the Son of God, and to say "the Son of God, Christ" or "the Son of God who is Christ Jesus" [is the same]⁸. What was set down above for the first opinion does not break this one, since those arguments do not prove that the things you objected above must be taken passively, namely of the baptized and not of the baptizers, but only show that they can probably be so taken. What is set down above for the third opinion also works for this one, and besides, whatever was set down at the beginning of this question to prove the form of this sacrament works for it; because, as I have already said, the apostolic deeds seem rather to sound the third opinion among the four given, which I judge the truer; and therefore, supposing it, it appears from the foregoing that it does not run against the form handed down by Christ, which form, as to its sense, is in my judgment always required for conferring the effect of baptism.

Chapter 8.

John. According to what you have said above, it seems that this form, or the sense of this form, is required for conferring the effect of baptism: "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." But you have not yet said whether some other sense is required. I say this because Pope Alexander III confirmed that a child is not baptized, but is to be baptized, if the priest has said the foregoing words and with this has immersed the child in water, unless he adds "I thee baptize" or "I baptize

thee"⁹; and many learned men hold this. RICHARD. I do not see that it could be proved from Holy Scripture that anything else is required besides what I said on the part of the form or the sense of the sacramental words. For if from the fact that the Lord said, "Teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," it could also be inferred that one conferring the sacrament and its effect must necessarily say "I baptize thee" or "I thee baptize" or something else having this sense, I do not see but that from his having said "Do this for a commemoration of me" the priest, in order to effect transubstantiation, would necessarily have to say "I do this in thy commemoration", or something else having this sense. For why, on account of the precept "Teach ye all nations, baptizing", or "baptize", that ought to be done, while on account of the precept "do this" this ought not to be done, I do not see at all; nor do I think it can be proved from these sayings, "Do this for a commemoration of me" and "This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me", that the priest is bound to say "I do this in thy commemoration". Hence I do not see how the necessity of words of such a sense as "I baptize thee" could be proved — I mean as to the form of the words of the sacrament — since Christ, in introducing the form according to what was handed down above, did not express such words, where nevertheless he handed down the whole form of baptizing; since such a precept, "baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen", does not prove this necessity. So that saying of James in his last chapter, "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man"¹⁰, does not prove that to confer the effect of anointing it is necessary to say "I anoint thee"; nor is a bishop bound to say "I lay my hand upon thee" when in laying on the hand he gives the Holy Spirit, as Acts 8 reads that the apostles did — I mean that to say so is not necessary from Scripture, and this as regards the form of the sacramental words. Yet it is to be done so, as the Roman church has decreed, for the reason that will be stated in the following book concerning the addition of water to wine for the consecration of the blood: because it is likely that it took that mode from the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, who had authority over the whole church of Christians, as was clear above in the seventh [book]¹¹; therefore it follows that those who do not keep its reasonable and honest decrees become transgressors and children of disobedience. Now although the aforesaid words "I baptize thee" are not necessarily required on the part of the sacramental words, I think nevertheless that for conferring the effect of baptism those words are required, or others which express the intention of baptizing and the act of the baptizer; and this I think the aforesaid supreme pontiff meant in his decretal. This I think can be shown from this: that in the conferring of this sacrament and of the others the intention of conferring in the one conferring, and also the vocal expression of that intention, is required. This is evident from the fact that Christ himself in the consecration of the bread commanded, "Do this for a commemoration of me", where it is evident that he willed and commanded them to consecrate in memory of him, which they could not do unless they had the intention of conferring. And James said of anointing, as will be clear in the next book, "Let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man", where he seems to ascribe the saving of the sick man to the prayer of faith; nor could they truly pray that the sick man be saved unless they intended his salvation. Indeed of Christ, when he is read to have laid on his hands, it is written: "Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray" (Matthew 19). And in Acts 8 we read of Peter and John, sent to Samaria, that "when they were come, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost". And in Acts 6, of Stephen and his six colleagues chosen to be deacons, it follows: "These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them." And Matthias was ordained an apostle with prayer going before; for so, praying, they said: "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, to take the place of ministry and apostleship."¹² And there are many other things in Holy Scripture which manifestly show that the intention of conferring the sacrament must be in the one who confects or confers it, namely in the minister of the church, or of God, and that they ought to confer or confect the sacrament by praying, that is, that he ought to send prayer before. It is evident therefore that the intention of baptizing must be in the one baptizing, as it is required in one conferring any other sacrament; for otherwise, if such words were said in jest¹³ — "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen" — while throwing a man into water, he who was thrown into the water would be baptized. And so someone would become a priest by another's saying in jest, "Receive the power of binding and loosing, etc., in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen"; and so of the other sacraments. Again, a mad priest saying such words would confer a sacrament. Again, a priest would confer sacraments in his sleep if, as sometimes happens, he said the words in sleep and performed such acts. All of which are not only absurd and false but also, as the foregoing shows, manifestly against Holy Scripture. Not only does the foregoing show that intention is required in the conferring of the sacraments of the church, but moreover it manifestly indicates that the intention must by all means be expressed, as the apostles expressed it, since they prayed that the Samaritans might receive the Holy Spirit, and Matthias the apostolate, and Stephen the diaconate. And for this there is also a manifest reason: for unless the baptizer expressed the intention, the baptized would not have certainty that he received the sacrament, which would greatly detract from the progress and benefit of the universal church; and therefore, so that the faith of the baptizer and his intention may be made plain not only to the baptized but also to others, he ought to express in words his intention of baptizing¹⁴. Again, since the intention is necessary as the form of words is, according to what has been said, it does not seem more necessary to utter those words with the mouth than it seems necessary to express the intention with the mouth; for if a tacit intention can suffice, by like reason that form can be said in the silent heart and not expressed with the mouth; from which it seems to follow that baptism, and the other sacraments too, could be conferred with no word expressed. Whoever wishes to grant this, let him prove it from Scripture, if he can; for I confess that its proof does not occur to me at present, but, as it seems to me, the foregoing about the deeds of Christ and the practice of the apostles runs against it. Hence it seems to follow that with such a form of words it is required that the intention be expressed, as something annexed to the form of baptizing, although that annex is not part of the form of the sacramental words. Or, if a man will by all means say that it is not necessary to express the words, at least there is no doubt that it would be necessary to have their sense in mind; and we say that this is necessary for the intention of baptizing just as for the form of baptism. But the first seems to me more probable, and no doubt it can be said much more safely than the latter.

Chapter 9.

John. If this is the form of baptism, namely "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," then, since these words are to be expressed in the conferring of the other sacraments, it will follow that there is one form for conferring diverse sacraments. For when a bishop confirms anyone, with these words, "Receive the Holy Ghost," and then in anointing the child on the forehead, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen"; likewise when a priest absolves someone from sin he says first, "I absolve thee from these sins," and adds, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen"; likewise the priest does when he anoints the sick; and likewise the bishop says when he ordains anyone bishop or priest or deacon; and so it follows that there is, as I said, one form for conferring all the sacraments. Which does not seem [true], because, since all the sacraments are diverse gifts of God and diverse effects, they must have diverse causes; for in this all the philosophers agree, that from one agent there never comes more than one effect¹. Again, how is the intention and the expression of the intention required, if it is not part of the form? For the whole form seems to be a sufficient cause of the sacrament, or of its effect; and when the sufficient cause of anything is posited, its effect too is posited, even if other things are not posited. RICHARD. Concerning the form of this sacrament, it seems to me as I said: namely that those words, or their sense, set down by Christ, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," contain the form, although other words and another sense are required beforehand; just as in the sacrament of the eucharist these words, "This is my body," contain the whole form of the sacrament, as will be treated in the next book, although other words are said first by the priest when he consecrates, and words of this kind seem to be necessarily required, since Christ is read to have confected that sacrament by first giving thanks; which intention, however, can be expressed in diverse places and in diverse sense, nor does this matter to the effect of the sacrament. Therefore neither the intention nor its expression is part of the form of the sacramental words, although it is in some way a required cause. And so of the conferring of all the sacraments: as far as it seems to me, you conclude truly, namely that they are all conferred under one form of words; but yet, because, as I touched on there, in the conferring of any sacrament, when the sacrament itself is perfected in the conferring (I say this because of the sacrament of the altar, which is confected before it is conferred), something else is required besides the mere form of the sacramental words by which the sacrament itself is conferred and confected — namely the intention of conferring or perfecting in the one who confers, and also the vocal expression of that intention, which, according to what was cited above, is a cause of the sacrament; nor is the form alone the whole, that is the sufficient, cause, as you objected above — and such intention and also expression are no doubt diverse in diverse sacraments, therefore, although the same words, which contain the form of the sacramental words, are expressed in the conferring of diverse sacraments, the sacraments are no less diverse effects from a diverse cause or causes; just as diverse artifacts come from one craftsman by means of one sole extrinsic instrument — as by means of an axe, with strokes, a bench and a door are made — yet through a diverse intrinsic art. Again, that saying of the philosophers is about an essential cause and about a cause of finite power, and is also said according to the foolishness of those who thought that God acts only naturally², not freely; but conversely the Christian faith holds that God immediately at the origin of the world produced the individual creatures. Since therefore the sacraments, that is the effects of the sacraments, are gifts of God and come immediately from him who is of infinite power — the ministrations of the ministers of his church going before, as instrumental and not essential causes, applied only voluntarily by God's ordinance — therefore such sayings of the philosophers have no place concerning such things.

Chapter 10.

John. What you have said on the form of the words of the sacrament of baptism suffices me. Say now what is the effect of this sacrament which you suppose to be conferred by the sacramental words written above. RICHARD. The effect of baptism seems to me threefold. The first is the infusion of spiritual grace, by which the baptized is made acceptable to God, and so by it original sin is taken away. The second is the removal of damnation, the eternal sentence, to the obligation of which all the sons of Adam naturally propagated are bound from their origin. The third effect is the acquisition of beatitude in those who die before they add new sins. The last two effects the sacrament of circumcision did not have, but only the first effect. Of the first effect, namely the infusion of grace, you have John the Baptist (Matthew 3, Luke 3 and Mark 1) bearing testimony of Christ: "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost"³; and John 1: "He who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Holy Ghost descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."⁴ From these it is evident that in the baptism of Christ the Holy Spirit is given by virtue of the sacrament itself. Hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 12⁵: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body," manifestly showing that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism; and Titus 3⁶: "He saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured forth upon us," etc., where he manifestly shows that in his laver, that is in baptism, the Holy Spirit is poured forth. And Galatians 3⁷: "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ"; no one doubts that everyone who puts on Christ also receives spiritual grace. Indeed it is for this, it seems, that the dove descended upon Christ when he was baptized; hence [the Baptist] said, "He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him," where the other evangelists relate that a dove descended. Through this infusion of the Holy Spirit and of spiritual grace sins are remitted, as Paul says in Romans 6, and he proves it in this way: "What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?" And to show expressly how we die to sin, he adds: "Know you not, brethren, that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life"⁸; where he clearly shows that we clearly die to sin, so that we may walk in newness of life, through baptism in Christ; and there he adds, "For he that is dead is justified from sin," speaking of death through baptism, as is read immediately after: "Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ." Hence it is evident that everyone baptized is justified from sin and made acceptable to God. Of this effect and of the second effect together the apostle Peter speaks in his epistle, chapter 3, thus: "In the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water; and he saved us also, being of the like form, by baptism"⁹. Behold salvation on account of baptism in water; and so through baptism damnation is taken away, and every obligation to damnation. Or if we understand salvation as beatitude, the point is strengthened all the more: that no one is baptized but damnation is taken from him, nor is there salvation unless sins are remitted; and so in baptism both take place, namely the remission of sin through the infusion of grace and the removal of the obligation to damnation. Again, for having the beginning of spiritual salvation the Lord commanded the apostles to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew, last chapter). And the apostles, when converts sought the beginnings of salvation, commanded them to be baptized, as is read in Acts 2. Hence it is evident that spiritual salvation is received in baptism; nor is there salvation in the spirit unless sins are forgiven; therefore the spirit is then justified from sin through spiritual grace. Hence of the second effect the Apostle says in Romans 8: "There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh." From this saying it is evident that through the rebirth of baptism in Christ damnation is taken away. Again, the words of Christ to Nicodemus, as is read in John 3, manifestly show that the Holy Spirit is given to all the baptized; for he said: "Wonder not that I said to thee: You must be born again. The Spirit breatheth where he will and thou hearest his voice: but thou knowest not whence he cometh and whither he goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." Therefore in that birth which he called necessary the Holy Spirit is given. Now he had spoken there of the birth from water and the Holy Ghost, not of another: "Unless a man be born again of water," etc. Therefore every baptized little child receives the Holy Spirit, and so is made free and does not remain a slave of sin, according to that of 2 Corinthians 3: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." This saying of the Saviour the Apostle states in Titus 3 thus: "When the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: not by the works of justice which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration and renovation of the Holy Ghost," etc., "that, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs according to hope of life everlasting." For what else does he understand to be effected by the laver of regeneration, when he says "that, being justified by his grace"¹⁰? And he expresses the liberation from damnation when he says "he saved us". Again, the words of Christ show what I say, when he says "You must be born again" and "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost": for to be born again, or reborn, is nothing other than to be born spiritually, or born of the Spirit. Again, Ephesians 5: "Christ loved the church and delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver in the word of life"¹¹; where he manifestly affirms that the church, namely the whole congregation of the faithful who are to be saved, was cleansed by the laver of water; and to show how it was cleansed and from what filth, he adds "that he might sanctify it", which is nothing other than to have the Holy Spirit; and also "in the word of life", to show that in the laver of water spiritual life is given through the words of that sacrament, etc.

Chapter 11.

John. It could be said that all these things were said for those who believe in Christ, not for little children, who cannot have the faith of Christ. For to such, namely adults, Paul writes to the Galatians, to whom he says that which you set down above: "For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ"; and likewise to the Romans he speaks to such, not to little children, in that also which you set down above from that epistle. Moreover Peter seems to speak to such in that saying which you objected, or adduced, from him above, since he immediately adds, "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God," where he seems to hint that for receiving salvation through baptism a good conscience towards God is required, such as little children by no means have. Indeed the Saviour in the last chapter of Mark¹², sending the disciples to preach and to announce and to baptize, said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned," where he seems expressly to hint that baptism does not save little children who do not believe,

but only believers, of which sort only adults seem to me to be. RICHARD. That saying is not reasonable. For since circumcision justified little children from sin in the time of the servitude of the law — as appears from the fact that God gave it to be a sign of the covenant between God and the circumcised, as is said in Genesis 17¹³ — much more does baptism have that effect in the time of the liberty of the law of Christ, in which time circumcision profits nothing, according to that: "Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but a new creature" (Galatians 6). For far be it that anyone should say that God gave a remedy for little children against original sin in the time of servitude under the law, and gave none in the time of liberty in Christ. Indeed this sacrament is held to have been instituted chiefly for little children, since adults could be saved through faith with love even if that sacrament had not been instituted at all; and the same seems to me of circumcision. And therefore these two sacraments were instituted chiefly for the justification of little children from original sin, since without them there could be salvation for the others but not for little children — although in their times they were to be had generally by all, because they had the force of a precept, as will be said below. Again, the Apostle, Ephesians 4: "One Lord," he says, "one faith, one baptism." But if baptism justified only believers by conferring grace, and did not confer grace on little children, baptism would not be one but twofold: one efficacious and the other altogether useless, and not of the same effect or fruit — against what the Apostle says, "one baptism", namely of one form and fruit. Nor is it true, as you affirmed above, that the apostles spoke to adults alone; rather they spoke in general to all, or at least for all who can have the faith of Christ; and little children can receive the faith of Christ in baptism, indeed they then receive faith, as will be shown below. Of the third effect of baptism it will be treated in book [?]¹⁴ near the end, where it will be shown, God helping, that baptized little children dying without delay ought to receive true beatitude from the justice of God.

Chapter 12.

John. Show then here that in infants there is sin and damnation, namely eternal privation, or obligation to the eternal lack of beatitude or eternal happiness; for reason does not seem to permit that God should eternally damn, without its own guilt, a rational creature which he no doubt made in his image so that it might at some time be beatifically joined to him. So show the argument for this assertion,

if you can. RICHARD. In the things that are of the Christian faith you ought first to believe the affirmation of Scripture, and secondly to seek out the reason of that Scripture; for so it is written, "Unless you believe, you will not understand" (Isaiah 7, according to the text of the Seventy Translators)¹. Attend therefore first to what Holy Scripture has on this. Behold, of the damnation of all the sons of Adam you have in general Romans 5²: "For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation"; and immediately after: "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life." There too he says first: "As by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." Now, that you may know that here he calls damnation death, attend to what follows: "For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one," etc., as I set down above. [He] holds as the same, in the antecedent, death reigning, and, in the consequent, all going into condemnation³; for unless he took them so, that consequent, "Therefore, as," etc., would in no way follow from that antecedent which speaks of death, but would even be irrelevant to it. But more expressly in chapter 7 he shows that he calls damnation death, when he says, "But now we are loosed from the law of death"⁴, since no one at all is loosed from the law of bodily death, since it is said in Hebrews 9, "It is appointed unto men once to die." In the same way in chapter 1, at the end, he says, "They who do such things are worthy of death," no doubt calling damnation death. Now it is evident that in Romans, as I said, he affirms that through one man damnation entered into the world and passed upon all men. Hence in 2 Corinthians, chapter 3, the Apostle, wishing to show that his ministry is more glorious than the ministry of the old testament, says thus: "The letter killeth: but the spirit quickeneth. Now if the ministration of death, engraven with letters upon stones, was glorious (so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance), which is made void: how is not the ministration of the spirit rather in glory? For if the ministration of condemnation is in glory, much more the ministry aboundeth in glory"⁵; where he takes as the same the ministration of death and the ministration of condemnation. Nor for any other reason does he call the ministry of Moses in handing down the old testament, and call it the ministration of death and of condemnation, except because, notwithstanding that ministration, all to whom he ministered nevertheless received death, or damnation. Again, from the Old and the New Testament it is most clearly evident that before the coming of the Messiah, or before the coming of Christ and his passion or death, men, however just, descended at death into hell — and this will be proved below in book [?]⁶, where that matter will be treated; nor is it less evident from both Scriptures that there they suffered damnation, or death, and captivity and binding as to their souls, until they were freed by Christ. Hence in Zechariah 9 it is said most clearly of Christ: "Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth the prisoners out of the pit" — that is, out of hell, to be freed — "wherein is no water"⁷; where, "by the blood of the testament", namely of the promise made to the fathers, of which I treated above in the third book, he says "the prisoners out of the pit", that is, out of hell, to be freed. And therefore immediately, for consolation from this hope of future liberation, he adds, "Return to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope." Here you have the binding of the elect in hell, or in the pit. Of their captivity Psalm 67 says to Christ, "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive"; and the Apostle in Ephesians 4 says thus: "Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive"; and the Apostle affirms that this was said of the captivity of the saints in hell, thus: "Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things." Hence in Colossians 2 he says of Christ, "And despoiling the principalities and powers, he hath exposed them confidently in open shew, triumphing over them in himself," describing the liberation of human captivity from damnation in hell, in which they were detained by the devil. And the obligation to this damnation he calls, a little before, the handwriting of the decree, thus: "And you, when you were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he hath quickened together with him, forgiving you all offences: blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against you, which was contrary to you. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross."⁸ And Isaiah 45⁹, having first said of Christ, "Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above," etc.: "I have raised him up to justice, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, not for ransom, nor for presents"; meaning the rebuilding of the heavenly city, broken by the fall of the angels, to be done by Christ, and this by the letting go, or liberation, of the captivity of these elect in hell. Again, the holy man Job said, "Suffer me, therefore, that I may lament my sorrow a little: before I go and return no more, to a land that is dark and covered with the mist of death: a land of misery and darkness, where the shadow of death," etc. (Job 10), manifestly showing that in the dark land he was to undergo death, which he no doubt calls damnation. And just as the just of the old testament incurred this damnation, so no doubt whatever just men there are in the new law would incur it, unless they were, like those, redeemed by Christ from this damnation; about which redemption the whole of Holy Scripture was made. Hence in Hebrews 2 he said of Christ, "that, through the grace of God he might taste death for all," excepting no one. Believe therefore first Holy Scripture as to this damnation of the sons of Adam on account of his offence. But that all naturally propagated from Adam have sin at their birth, the sacred texts of both Testaments attest. For behold, Paul, Romans 3, not only says this but proves it, in this way: "For we have charged both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. As it is written: There is not any man just. There is none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh after God. All have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one." And below: "There is no distinction of Jew and Greek: for all have sinned and do need the grace of God, being justified freely by his grace."¹⁰ Hence in chapter 11 he says, "God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all." And in Galatians 3 he says expressly, "The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe." And how it was to be given he added at once: "For you are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." But if anyone should say that these sayings of the Apostle are to be understood not of infants but of adults, against this it seems: if infants are just and without sin, then, since in consequence, having freedom of choice, they do not of necessity sin mortally, it would not be true that "all have sinned", or "all have turned out of the way, they are become unprofitable together", as I said above; nor would they need the grace of God or justification through that grace; nor would it be true of them, once made adults, that "the scripture hath concluded all under sin" or "God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all"; since, if they were just from their origin, they would never become unjust except by their own free will, and so would not need the grace of God, "being justified by the redemption that is in Christ". Again, in Romans 5 he says expressly that all men sinned in Adam, and that by his disobedience many were made sinners; whence it is evident that all men have sin at their birth.

Chapter 13.

John. Why can it not be said that all these things were said on account of the damnation which all incur from the sin of the first parent, as you showed above, and not on account of sins, that is, other faults; so that the Apostle and the prophet David say that such men are unprofitable and turning aside from the way of justice when they have become adults, because they do not have grace but carry damnation with them; and that they call that penalty of loss¹¹ "sin" because it is a defect, and every defect can fittingly be called sin, and also because it is an effect of the first parent, as the Apostle says in Romans, chapter 8¹², that sin dwells in it, that is in the flesh, meaning the effect of the sin of the first parent, or the cause of sin? For sin cannot properly be said to be where there cannot be a good or meritorious work, but only in a rational will; for sin, or guilt, is the privation of justice, and therefore it cannot be except where justice can be. Why then these things and things like them, especially in the sayings of the Apostle, cannot be taken so, I do not see; and so his sayings do not prove that infants have any sin, except by calling the aforesaid penalty of loss sin. And on account of this damnation all men can be understood to be unclean from birth, according to that of Job 14, "Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? Who but thou, who only art?"¹³, since this damnation, which can fittingly be called uncleanness because it makes a man a companion of demons, no one but God alone can take away; and for taking away this damnation justifying grace is necessary. And this damnation we can fittingly say the Apostle called death in 1 Corinthians 15¹⁴, when he says, "In Adam all die," and in Romans 5, "Death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned," and in like sayings. This exposition too the Apostle himself, as it seems to me, consequently attaches, when he says, "For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation." Again, it seems to me that on account of this damnation all the sons of Adam naturally propagated can be called children of wrath, since it is a penalty inflicted by God, etc.

Chapter 14.

Richard. The things I adduced, and many like them, cannot be understood of damnation alone. For, as you rightly say, the Apostle in Romans 5 calls damnation, or bodily destruction, death when he says, "Death reigned from Adam," etc.; and therefore there he does not call sin death¹⁵, when he says first, "As by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned"; where he manifestly distinguishes sin from death as a cause from its effect — "and by sin," he says, "death". This distinction he consequently explains in the same chapter when he says, "And where sin abounded, grace did more abound: that as sin hath reigned to death, so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting," distinguishing as opposites sin and grace, death and life; and a little before, "As by the offence of one, unto all men, so also by the justice of one, unto men, unto justification of life." From which it is clearly evident that he calls sin the defect or lack of grace or justice, and death the privation or lack of eternal life, or of bodily life; so that we should understand that Adam by sinning lost grace and justice for himself and for his whole progeny, and likewise eternal life; so that those naturally propagated should at birth have both privations together, namely of grace or justice, and also the privation or lack of beatitude — and causally prior the privation of justice or of justifying grace than the privation of beatitude. And just as on account of the privation of justice they are called children of wrath and sinners, so on account of the privation of beatitude they are called damned or dead. In the same way it is read, as you set down, in Ephesians [2], when he says, "We were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest": because, explaining himself, he immediately adds, "But God (who is rich in mercy) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ (by whose grace you are saved)." There he said that sin is the cause of death. In 1 Corinthians 15, where he says what you allege, the Apostle speaks of bodily death when he says, "In Adam all die," etc. As for your objecting that that saying of Job can be taken of the penalty of loss, you do not affirm rightly: [for] the truly just in hell before Christ's passion had that penalty, and yet they had no uncleanness, but were luminous and clean through grace, and needed no cleansing; and therefore such a penalty cannot aptly be called uncleanness; nor did it make a man a companion of demons, as you affirm. Hence between just Abraham and his own, and the demons and the ungodly, there was a chaos fixed, according to that of Luke 16, "Between us and you there is fixed a great chaos." But sin makes a man a companion of demons; and for this reason it is evident that Job hints that he who is conceived of unclean seed has uncleanness and sin. Now he calls the seed unclean in this way: not that there is any uncleanness in the seed, but because in the seed is the cause of the uncleanness to be contracted in him who is generated from the seed. Again, David, Psalm 50: "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me." Now, that you may know that David speaks of his own iniquities and sins, not of our sins or his mother's, contracted in carnal intercourse, he says first here: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity. Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin." Here he does not ask mercy for hidden sins, as in Psalm 18¹⁶ he cries, "From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord: and from those of others spare thy servant," but he asks mercy for his iniquities which he acknowledged, for his own sins; and consequently, wishing to express some of them, he attaches, "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me," manifestly showing that these were his own, not his mother's, sins, for which he asked mercy. Nor can these be understood of damnation alone, or penalty, which is not at all unclean and therefore needs no blotting out, as he begs for these: "Wash me yet more, O Lord, from my injustice, and cleanse me from my offence."¹⁷ Whence it follows that whoever is conceived contracts this sin and iniquity. Unless perhaps you say that the sins, if any, which he contracted in conception were also blotted out in circumcision, and that the faith of the prophet himself held this, so that for this reason we are compelled to say that he spoke either of actual sins only or of the penalties of sins; for he would seem to waver in faith in the sacrament of circumcision if he believed that his original sins had remained up to the time of this composition. But this estimate is understood [to fail] from its title¹⁸. For its title is this: "Unto the end, a psalm of David"; another translation has "words of a song of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, when he went in to Bethsabee." From this title it is evident that in this psalm David begged mercy for the sin of adultery with Bethsabee, wife of the same Urias, according to the history in 2 Kings, chapter 12. Whence it follows that he had horrible mortal sins; and because with any mortal sin original sin returns — since it is nothing but the lack of the grace or justice which one ought to have in one's origin, and which one does not have when one sins mortally — he rightly affirmed that he had the iniquity, or sin, which he had contracted from our conception, yet he had it together with the deed against Urias. Therefore these things are taken of sin, not of penalty alone; and he aptly calls original sin "sins" and "iniquities", because it is the privation of justice with respect to every meritorious action and with respect to the due fulfilment of every divine precept. It is evident therefore that all naturally propagated contract from their origin not only damnation but also sin, or iniquity; which sin, because it is from origin, we call original. But it is not called actual sin, because the will of one who has it does nothing toward it; and for this reason the Apostle says, as you objected above, that death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam: since men in their origin do not sin after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, that is, they do not sin with actual sin, such sin as is called transgression; and yet, on account of the sin which they contract in their origin, death reigns in them — either death of the spirit, namely damnation, or death of the body. For both reigned until Moses, since before the time of Moses, the law not having been given, few had been saved in comparison with those saved under the law. And for this reason it can be understood here that death reigned before the law, or can be said to have reigned, because it was not fought against by being resisted; for through the law comes the knowledge of sin, as in Romans 7, "I do not know sin, but by the law"; and because before the law sin was as it were unknown, it is therefore said to have reigned then, no one striving to resist it. Since therefore bodily death reigned just as much in the time of the law and after as from Adam to Moses, and even more, since it continually shortens the life of men, this saying of the Apostle is better understood of the death of the spirit, namely of damnation, which did not reign so after the law was given through Moses as before, than of the death of the body, which reigned more afterwards. It follows therefore that men have not only damnation but sin.

Chapter 15.

Behold also Isaiah 53: the prophet, speaking of Christ through the whole chapter, says among other things: "But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are all healed. We like sheep have gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way: and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." This sentence of Isaiah Peter repeats in his first epistle, chapter 2, thus: "But he delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly, who bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes we are healed. For you were as sheep going astray: but you are converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls."¹ For if anyone should say that these things are said of adults and not of infants, the contrary can be affirmed: for it cannot be understood of the time of discretion, since Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before their birth, as we read, nor did they afterwards commit any sins out of ignorance that required redemption through the death of Christ; and of our Lady it is to be held that she never committed a sin that required redemption through the passion of her son, since it would not have befitted that the mother of the highest justice should have offended so foully. Again, there is no doubt that many of every age, in the very stages of life, have died before they sinned mortally; it is false, therefore, of adults for the time of discretion, that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. And likewise [it is false] that "we have all gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way." It is evident, therefore, that infants are included with the rest; indeed it seems to me that this was said chiefly because of the sin of infants. Nor does it stand in the way that he says "we have all gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way," which may be thought not to fit infants: for any infants whatever can fitly be said to go astray, since from conception and origin they are ignorant, and likewise they can be said to turn aside into their own way, namely of eternal damnation, because they are born in sin. Therefore from this saying it is evident that infants have iniquity and sin in their conception; unless perhaps one should say that these things are said in the way of that of 1 Corinthians 15, "All shall be made alive in Christ," that is, all who are to be made alive; and that of John 12, "If I be lifted up in the earth, I will draw all things to myself,"² which seems said of those only who are to be saved; and many like things are said in Scripture. So, on this view, "of us all" seems [to mean] "of all of us who have iniquity." But against this sense stands what precedes as the cause: "for we have all gone astray, every one hath turned aside into his own way." And the psalm: "The Lord hath looked upon the children of men, to see if there be any that understand and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, no not one."³ Where it is evident, from his saying "no not one," that either no one or one alone is excepted; therefore all except that one, namely Christ, have gone aside and become unprofitable — which is to be understood from origin, since there is no doubt that many were afterwards profitable. It is evident, therefore, that all have sin from origin, on account of which they are said to go astray and turn aside and be unprofitable. On account of which it is said in Proverbs 20: "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?"⁴ — meaning to hint that no one could truly say it. Yet if no sin were contracted at birth, there is no doubt that many, before they sinned, could say both: that "my heart is clean" and that "I am pure from sin," since this seems said of uncleanness from guilt.⁵ Again Isaiah 64, addressing the Messiah, says: "O that thou wouldst rend the heavens, and wouldst come down," and, adding next the deed of his coming, he says: "From the beginning of the world they have not heard, nor perceived with the ears: the eye hath not seen, O God, besides thee, what things thou hast prepared for them that wait for thee. Thou hast met him that rejoiceth, and doth justice: in thy ways they shall remember thee: behold thou art angry, and we have sinned: in them we have been, and we shall be saved. And we are all become as unclean, and all our justices as the rag of a menstruous woman: and we have all fallen as a leaf."⁶ Where it is evident that Christ had to come for this, to set [us] free, because all were unclean and the justice of all was as the unclean rag of a menstruous woman; hence it is evident that no one was without sin. Again, he who has no sin does not need to be born a second time, namely spiritually, nor to be reborn, nor raised again, nor made alive. But Christ says generally: "You must be born again," and he says this of all; and "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," John 3.⁷ And Paul says generally of Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 3:⁸ "When we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace you are saved, and hath raised [us] up." Therefore it is evident that each one has sin before he is reborn spiritually through grace, for the removal of which sin he can fitly be said to be reborn, and on account of which he altogether needs to be reborn, etc.

Chapter 16.

John. I confess that Scripture already contains this view about the first effect which you say baptism has; but nevertheless things occur to me that seem to impugn this first effect of baptism, and unless they are clearly solved I shall be wavering and uncertain. See the first: it seems to me that in souls at birth there cannot be sin, since sin seems to me to be a privation of justice, as blindness is a privation of sight and deafness of hearing, and evil generally is a privation of good. Now we say, and it is well known, that a privation of anything never exists except where its habit can exist; hence we do not say that in a stone or a plant or in any other non-sentient thing there is blindness or deafness or any privation of sense, since in them there cannot be any sense contrary to this privation. Therefore, since in infants or their souls at birth there cannot be justice, as neither [can there be] faith — for "the just man liveth by faith," Romans 1 and Habakkuk 2;⁹ now an infant does not seem to live spiritually, and so does not seem able to have faith — it follows that at birth there cannot be sin in infants or in their souls. Hence no one calls the whelps of dogs blind which before the ninth day from their birth cannot see, since nature does not allow them to see within those days; so neither can infants be called unjust, since, nature not allowing it, they cannot do anything justly at all.

Richard. Your doubt reaches toward another root; once that is found, perhaps the whole business we have treated will be more readily dispatched. I think you will not deny that a whelp before nine days from its birth has sight; indeed you cannot deny that a whelp has sight, indeed the faculty of sight, as soon as it is born, as it has touch and hearing and the other senses, which are naturally co-engendered with the formed and animated body [or are infused into it],¹⁰ although it cannot use those powers at birth. Now it is evident to you, nor do you doubt, by the argument you yourself expressed above about privative opposites, that whatever has sight could be called blind if it lacked sight; since sight and blindness are privatively opposed about the proper instrument of the power of sight — not seeing and blindness, as you try to affirm; otherwise a man would be blind in sleep, since in sleep he does not see. It is clear therefore that a dog has the faculty of sight from its origin, that is, has the power of sight; and that it is blind from its origin if the instruments of that power had been so corrupted that the power was not in them from the origin of the formed and animated body; and likewise deaf, if the power of hearing, also inborn, had not been in the natural instruments of hearing; and so of the senses and natural powers whatsoever.

John. I confess that I erred, and I cannot deny that a whelp and a man and the other animals can be called blind from their origin in a possible case.

Richard. You rightly confess your error. Tell me: if the parents of the whelps had incurred some infirmity on account of which they lost sight in themselves, and the instruments of the power of sight in the offspring were corrupted in their first forming, so that they lacked the power of sight at birth,

would not the whelps be blind at birth? JOHN. I cannot deny that they would be blind from origin, lacking the power of sight which they ought naturally

to have. RICHARD. You answer rightly. But if the first dogs, created by God in the first creation of the world, had incurred such an infirmity before they begot other whelps, so that they lost that power of sight in themselves, and [their whelps, lacking] the power of sight,

would be blind in their origin?¹¹ JOHN. Indeed they would be blind, no doubt, lacking the power of sight which their parents had received in their creation together with the power

of procreating their like. RICHARD. You assign a prudent reason. But tell me: if that disease passed on to the end of generation, that is, to the end of the world, by this, that the infirmity contracted from the first passed into each and through each, so that each parent, lacking the power of sight at birth, begot like whelps — would not all, on account of the first ones created by God, be blind from origin and even by origin, etc.?

Chapter 17.

John. I do not know how to answer, since I do not see how this should follow; nor do I see how it can be avoided that at present the whelps should be called naturally blind, which seems to me absurd. You tell me what I should answer you. RICHARD. What happens through a disease unnaturally contracted can never pass into the force of nature, since it is against nature and the law of nature first instituted. And therefore, although you can truly affirm that nature is born corrupt in each one, yet you can in no way rightly assert that such corruption is nature, except improperly, namely on this account, that it is from origin. If on this account you call that corruption natural, I do not wish to resist you,¹² provided that you nevertheless truly call it blindness and a defect of sight and a proper privation of the power of sight. Why, too, it should rather be called natural in the second offspring than in the first, or in the third than in the fourth, and so of the rest, I do not see at all, except on account of the multitude of progenitors who had it; but such a multitude, by reason of multitude alone, does not change the name of nature. Either, therefore, the first offspring must be said to have been naturally blind, or none following can be called naturally blind; but the first, as you prudently said, is unnaturally blind at birth, since it lacks the power of sight which its parents received immediately, for themselves, in the institution of natures, together with the power of producing their like. Indeed, if you consider rightly: if in any of this generation of whelps or dogs the blindness were truly natural, it would not be blindness at all, nor ought it to be called so, since blindness, according to what was treated above, is privatively opposed to the power of sight about the same subject. And therefore, if any subject naturally lacked sight, that subject would not be blind at all, as you yourself prudently deduced above. And therefore it is altogether impossible that anything be naturally blind, except improperly, as I have said here. The first thing, therefore, that I said to you before is true, namely that in this case all the whelps or dogs of this generation would be [blind] in their origin, naturally [so called] even,¹³ since all would have had the power of sight at birth had they not received from their parents a nature corrupted beyond the institution of nature itself; and yet none of them could have seen at birth, even if they had been produced without corruption of nature, just as at present they cannot see. You are not right, therefore, in trying to affirm that men at their birth are neither unjust nor just because at birth they cannot exercise justice; since, that notwithstanding, they can no less be called just or unjust — that is, having the virtue of justice or deprived of it — if nothing else stands in the way, as was shown in your example of the dogs, that at birth they either have the faculty of sight, that is, have sight, or are blind; and likewise have the faculty of hearing or are deaf; and likewise have the faculty of touch or are insensible; and so of the other senses or powers which ought naturally to be in them from birth, etc.

Chapter 18.

John. I am surprised that you say no one is naturally blind, since the philosophers assert that a man made blind by drinking wine ought to be blamed, and one who is blind by nature

ought not to be blamed at all.¹ RICHARD. I think that among the philosophers "to be from nature" and "to be from nature, that is, naturally" are not altogether the same;² hence, although they say that someone can be blind from nature, meaning only that he is such from origin, nature erring or failing, yet [the philosopher] does not on this account affirm that such a one is naturally blind, but rather meant to say that he is blind thus unnaturally and by chance. JOHN. At least, if a son is born blind because of the drunken life of his parent, then he does not seem blameworthy according to the philosophers' opinion; and then, according to your argument set out before, blindness seems a vice in him, and consequently, since such a man is vicious, he must be judged blameworthy. RICHARD. The moral philosophers speak so in moral matters, wishing to exclude the blame of disease from those who are vicious in this way from origin; but natural philosophers, or those who treat natural things, affirm such defects to be both sins of nature and vices beyond nature. And therefore it is evident that such a one is blameworthy from the sin of his parent. Did not the apostle express the blame of our body when he said, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" and "I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my body, that which is good: it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me," Romans 7?³ Indeed there is no doubt that the blame of the body was his. However the talkative philosophers may affirm, according to holy Scripture you ought not to doubt that such defects or privations, which we incur from the sin of our first parents, are called sins and vices. But as for your objection that infants cannot have faith at birth because Scripture says that "the just man liveth by faith," you bring no argument: for that saying of the prophet and the apostle is said of just men not only by habit but by just works, which works are not called works of life, that is, of spiritual life, except because they proceed from faith; so such a just man lives, that is, exercises the works of life, by faith, and these works would be dead without faith. But this does not impugn [my position], since faith, that is, the virtue or habit of things to be believed, and likewise justice, that is, the virtue or habit of things to be rightly done, can be in infants from their origin; as holiness, which cannot be in a man without faith and justice, was in Jeremiah and John the Baptist when they could do nothing justly or faithfully; and so [they are] in those asleep, when they cannot exercise them.

Chapter 19.

John. This proof does not yet seem firm enough. For just as a whelp cannot be called blind from origin except because it lacks the power of sight which it ought naturally to have, so it seems to me that infants ought not to be called unjust or sinners from birth unless they lack the justice which they naturally ought [to have]. But since justice can be natural to no one at all, but is given to men from the grace of God alone, according to that of the apostle to Titus 3, "justified by his grace,"⁴ and similar texts, it follows that infants at birth have no justice at all, nor are they called,

nor can they be called, either unjust or just. RICHARD. Not every privation is the privation of a natural power: for poverty is the privation of an abundance of money [and] of riches, negligence of diligence, nakedness of clothing, lack of skill of art, sleep of waking, hunger of satiety, and likewise of many such things, none of which can be in [anyone] by nature; and yet any of these privations can be in a man, but for a time in which its habit could be in him according to the law of nature, or at least in which the habit is not necessarily absent. You cannot, therefore, establish that injustice is not in infants at birth on this head, namely that justice cannot be natural to them; since in many men and other things there exist privations of things that do not inhere naturally. Besides this, justice not only could be natural to them but ought to be so, although in fact it is now truly conferred on them by grace, as you set down from the apostle.

Chapter 20.

John. Show me this, if you can, that justice ought to be natural in infants; for from this it clearly follows that from origin they are

unjust. RICHARD. In Genesis, chapter 2, it is written thus: "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them."⁵ In the first institution of things they were made perfect: man was no more diminished in his nature or species than the other things in their natures or ranks. Truly, therefore, the first man was just in his origin. For otherwise he would have been made less perfect in his species than the other natural things in their species, which, there is no doubt, received gifts sufficient for all the actions due to their species, for the doing of which they had been instituted. Now the work most due to man, who had been instituted rational — the work for whose exercise he had chiefly been made as to his soul — is to live according to reason: to love what is to be loved and to reject what is to be rejected, and consequently to love the creator above all and to praise him perfectly above all; which, however, will nevertheless be shown more fully below. But these things he could not accomplish at all without justice and charity; hence it follows that he was created in justice and charity. Hence Ecclesiastes 7: "Only this I have found, that God made man right."⁶ To be right is nothing other than to be just. It is proved likewise that in his creation he was perfectly wise, lest otherwise his maker be argued to be either less powerful or less wise or less benevolent, and the species of man, which is nobler than the others, more diminished in its rank than the other natural species in the first institution and origin of things. Indeed this is shown from that of Genesis 1: "And God created man to the image and likeness";⁷ for it seems to me that man was made to the image of God in the substance of the rational soul, [and] to the likeness of God in the gifts superadded to the soul, namely wisdom, charity and justice and the other gifts of the kind we call gratuitous gifts in ourselves. Which seems to me [to follow] from these [texts]: according to that psalm, "For man passeth as an image: yea, and he is disquieted in vain,"⁸ even after sin he kept the image; and according to that psalm, "And man when he was in honour did not understand; he is compared to beasts, and is become like to them," by sin he lost the likeness of creation, from which he was made like to the senseless beasts through sin. Indeed from this, that he is said to have incurred folly, it is evident that he had received wisdom before. From this, therefore, that he was made to the likeness of God, it follows that in creation he had justice and charity, or grace, which is the principle of any merit whatever. Again, it is also proved from what is said in the second chapter: "And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and the beasts of the earth." For he had great wisdom who did this, since [he had] perfect knowledge of speaking the language in which he imposed these names on all, and in which he spoke with his wife; and the woman his wife also had such knowledge, since she answered the serpent: "Of the fruit of the trees that are in paradise we do eat: but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of paradise, God hath commanded us that we should not eat; and that we should not touch, lest perhaps we die," Genesis 3. But if anyone should say that God then instructed Adam by what names he ought to call the living things, the text that precedes stands against him, which is this: "The Lord God therefore having formed out of the ground all the beasts, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them." He knew, therefore, how to call them before God brought them to him, since they had been brought to him for this, that he might call them by their proper names. Again, one reads there: "The Lord God took man, and put him into paradise, to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: but of the tree of good and evil thou shalt not eat. In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."⁹ For he would not have been set by the highest wisdom as keeper of the paradise of pleasure unless he had been both wise and just; nor would [God] have given them precepts unless, as he could sin by transgressing them, so he could merit by keeping them with free will. Hence he seems to have been created in justice, wisdom and the grace of meriting eternal life. The prophet Hosea seems to me to hint at this when he said in the person of God: "And I was like a foster father to Ephraim, I carried them in my arms: and they knew not that I healed them: I will draw them with the cords of Adam, with the bond of charity," Hosea 11.¹⁰ For he would not call the bonds of charity the cords of Adam unless pure and true charity had been in him in his creation; since because of the charity which he received by grace after penance done he would not speak so,¹¹ but rather would have said "in the bonds of Jeremiah," or "of John the Baptist," or "of another innocent." Indeed the preceding words show this, since he says that he was foster father of Ephraim, and carried them, and had care of them, and they knew it not: wishing, as it seems to me, to express that he likewise had care of them and was their foster father although they did not notice it, as from the beginning he was foster father of Adam and had care of him and drew him in the bonds of charity, although he himself before sin did not notice it diligently enough. So, therefore, from the perfection of the first institution it altogether follows that our parents were created perfect in their species, as the other species of created natural things, namely with virtues of soul fitting to them for completing the operations for whose completion they had first been instituted. Again, from the same perfection of institution it follows that they had been instituted perfect in their species in the conservation of their species through the production of their like; so that, just as other natural things could produce such things as they themselves were made in the first institution, so they could procreate [offspring] just and perfect in virtues, such as they themselves were made, as has been shown; so that all their posterity would thus be just, wise and accepted by God in their origin, etc.

Chapter 21.

John. You have this view in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 27,¹² where it is written thus: "God created man of the earth, and made him after his image. And he turned him into it again, and clothed him with virtue according to himself.¹³ He gave him the number of his days, and gave him power over the things that are upon the earth. He put the fear of him upon all flesh, and he had dominion over beasts and fowls. He created of him a helpmate like to himself: counsel, and a tongue, and eyes, and ears, and a heart to devise he gave them: and he filled them with the discipline of understanding. He created for them the science of the spirit, he filled their heart with sense, and shewed them both evil and good. He set their eye upon their hearts, to shew them the greatness of his works: that they might praise the name of sanctification, and glory in his wonders, that they might declare his works. He added to them discipline, and gave them the law of life for an inheritance. He made an eternal testament with them, and shewed them his justice and judgment. And their eye saw the majesty of his honour, and their ears heard the honour of his voice."¹⁴ In this saying it is plainly clear that Adam at his birth, or in his creation, was clothed by God with virtue [and] filled with the discipline of understanding; and likewise Eve: that he created for them the science of the spirit, and that he filled their heart with sense, so that they should praise him and declare the wonders of his works; and that he added to them discipline, and that he gave them the law for an inheritance, and made an eternal testament with them, and showed them his justice and judgments. From these words it is shown that from birth they had the power of making their [descendants] heirs in the aforesaid gifts, so that all their posterity should have from origin the law of life, namely by hereditary right, and should also know the judgments of God [and] justice, and should have the eternal testament, namely the pact of eternal happiness. Hence the church in the canon of the mass calls the blood of Christ also the blood of the eternal testament,¹⁵ because by its mediation the testament made to the fathers concerning the promised blessing is fulfilled and eternal beatitude is given to the elect. It is evident, therefore, from this chapter that Adam at his birth was just, accepted by God, having charity and wisdom and virtues by which he could merit eternal life; and that by not sinning he could preserve like gifts for his posterity by hereditary right, so that each one at birth would have such gifts as natural gifts or natural virtues, as each species of natural things had received in its origin powers generative of their like, such as they could pass down to their posterity by natural transmission. Just as, therefore, according to the preceding example of the whelps, if their first progenitors had incurred such an infirmity that they themselves were blinded by it, and so diminished by the infirmity that they could not beget whelps with the power of sight, all the dogs after them to the end of the world would have been blind, according to what was shown before: so our first parents, having through sin lost the virtues of justice, charity and wisdom and the rest, which they had received as natural or primordial gifts for themselves and their posterity, were bound, as the penalty of their sin inflicted on them by a most certain judgment, to beget to the end of the world sons not just, nor accepted by God, nor wise, but unjust, rejected by God and ignorant.

Chapter 22.

John. I now see well enough that Scripture hints that justice could and ought to be in all men; I see also that the privation of justice and of grace can be in infants and their souls from birth. And I see also that such a lack or nakedness of grace and justice can in a reasonable case be called sin. And nevertheless I accept with firm faith from holy Scripture that all the sons of Adam begotten from him by natural law have such sin in their origin. But some difficulties seem to me to stand against this view. For first I am moved [to ask] by what justice men have sin or damnation at their birth. For they do not have it because of their own deeds, no doubt, since before their birth they did nothing; nor do I see by what justice they have at birth the sin you call original, or damnation, for the sins of others: for so sons would bear the sins of their parents, against that of Ezekiel 18: "The soul that sinneth shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Indeed, if it were so, that ancient proverb would seem reasonably to stand: "The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the teeth of the children are set on edge"; whereas yet at the beginning [of the chapter] it is said: "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: What is it that you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land, saying together:¹ The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel." And next he says, as he had set out before, "The soul that sinneth," etc. Jeremiah 33 says the same,² and so it seems that sons ought not at all to be burdened or punished for the sins of their parents, or to have sin. Again, I am strongly moved by this: since all souls are created by God and are not made by the parents, according to the psalm, "He who hath made the hearts of every one of them,"³ where by "hearts" he seems to take souls — if the souls themselves have sins at birth or origin, although in the instant of creation they have nothing except from God their creator, it seems to follow that their sins at birth are from God; and so we shall say, blaspheming, that the supremely good God is the author of sin. Indeed, by the very fact that they are made by God it follows that they are not sins: "And God saw," says Scripture, "all the things that he had made, and they were very good," Genesis 1. And so I do not see how souls come to be or are made

with sins. RICHARD. Since Scripture affirms, as appeared above, that all men produced by the natural course are to be understood to have sin at their birth, it is evident that this proceeds from the will of God, which cannot be unjust; and therefore it is altogether just. But I know that you are trying to understand what sort of justice this is which you accept by faith from Scripture, so that, according to the saying of the apostle Peter, [chapter] two,⁴ you may be ready to give to everyone who asks a reason of that faith

which we hold in common. Chapter 23. Affirming nothing rashly, then, accept what appears to me. The absence of justice or of saving grace you do not doubt

can be called sin? JOHN. Indeed I doubt it greatly in the case put, if we follow reason. For the privation of justice, or its lack, does not seem to me to be called sin everywhere, but only in that in which the justice opposed to it ought to be, at the time when justice ought to be in it. For example, if God created a rational creature — namely its bare substance, without any added virtue — then the lack of grace or justice in that creature would not be injustice or sin, nor could that creature be blameworthy at its birth because it was created so by God, unless we were to say, blaspheming, that God is the author of that blameworthiness. Now all injustice is blameworthy, and likewise all sin; and as in that creature at birth no injustice would be sin to it, because justice then ought not to be in it, since nothing ought to be in the soul at birth except what it has received from God the creator — why, therefore, should human souls at their birth, when they are created by God according to that psalm, "He who hath made the hearts of every one of them," where we take souls by hearts, and according to that of Ecclesiastes, the last [chapter], "and the spirit return to God who gave it,"⁵ be called unjust or sinners, [souls] which ought to have nothing at birth except what they receive from their creator? Or how the lack of either justice or grace in them could or should then be called injustice, I do not see; rather it seems to me, according to reason, that they ought then to be called innocent, as that creature which you posited above, created by God in bare and sole substance, ought to be called immaculate at birth

and innocent. RICHARD. So it is. What you touch on here last is difficult: as far as I remember, I have read [nothing on it] from any of the saints,⁶ although very many have written very much on these matters; yet I shall say something which appears to me according to holy Scripture and natural reason, under the correction of any reader who is not envious.

Chapter 24.

Supposing, as you posited above, that all human souls whatever are created immediately by God — in a sense, however, to be expounded below — I see a twofold mode of creating such souls of men: one mode free or voluntary, distinguishing free or voluntary against natural; [the other] according to the natural way.⁷ When souls are produced in the free mode, what you said fits, namely that each is made innocent, as the angels were made innocent, and our first parents; but when they are made by way of nature, what you affirm is not necessary, as they are made in all men naturally propagated from those first ones. Otherwise these would not be the true parents and natural begetters of their children. But that this may become clearer to you in the genus of plants which come from seed: tell me, is a plant fittingly said to be begotten by a plant, when a plant has produced seed, from which seed, with the action or through the action of the sun,

the second is begotten? JOHN. I cannot deny the natural actions of things which they received in the first institution of things. For it is written in Genesis 1: "Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done." Hence it is evident that plants received the power of generating their like in the first institution of things. And therefore I am compelled to confess

that a plant generates a plant. RICHARD. You answer rightly. And yet the sun seems to be a more principal agent in the second production of a plant from the earlier one, in the aforesaid manner,⁸ than the begetting plant: since the sun often produces like plants without the seed of others, and a plant without the action of the sun never begets another with seed; and nevertheless the preceding plant does not lose the name of true begetter or parent on this account, that another agent concurs with it toward its offspring or its fruit

in producing that same thing. JOHN. I confess

that it is so. RICHARD. In the generation of a lion, a horse or a dog, after the mingling of the seeds of male and female, you do not doubt that some power co-acts with the power of the seeds toward the production of the fetus, and especially toward the production of the soul, whatever that may be; and yet nevertheless we say, and also truly affirm, that the lion is truly the parent and begetter [of the lion], and the horse of the horse, and the dog of the dog, notwithstanding that co-acting power, which the philosophers commonly call the celestial power

and others the divine power. JOHN. Nor can I deny this, etc.

Chapter 25.

Richard. Let us come down to man. See: God formed Adam our first parent from the ground, and breathed into his face the breath of life, making the soul to the image [of God], according to the opening of the book of Genesis.⁹ Hence, creating his rational soul, he joined it to their bodies;¹⁰ and therefore reason required that his soul be made just from its origin, according to that of Ecclesiastes 7: "God made man right." So each thing, wholly as first created, ought to be perfect in its species from its origin, not diminished in its species, according to that of Genesis 1, "God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good"; according to that of the psalm, "The works of God are perfect";¹¹ and that of Genesis 2, "So the heavens were finished, and all the furniture of them"; lest, as I said above, the maker could be argued from the imperfection or diminution of the work to be either less wise or less powerful or less benevolent. Since, therefore, the highest wisdom, the highest power and the highest benevolence concurred in the work in the beginning, no law having been given by God,¹² there could in no way be diminution in the thing made, but natural perfection, as you reasonably deduced above concerning the rational creature created by God in bare substance. Now no one doubts that God so produced Adam and Eve among the other natural species in the origin of the world that from them, by natural transmission, as in the species of the other generable things, the human species should be continued to the end of the world and continually preserved in diverse supposita, according to that of Genesis 1: "Male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth." So they were made such that they could propagate others naturally. Hence from this institution of the human species it appears that God, consequently, in the diverse human supposita, was not and is not an agent creating souls freely — as free is distinguished against natural — but rather is a natural agent according to the first institution of propagation, continuing that propagation itself; so that, just as the body, according to the natural institution, is put together by force of the mingling of the seeds of father and mother, and figured, and at length perfected, so according to the same institution, by force of the divine power, [in] parents everywhere,¹³ the soul is concreated together with the perfecting of the body and, the work being perfected, is naturally united; in which work God, or the divine power, acts as deputy for nature. So I confess that the soul is created immediately by God, since it seems very probable that the natural power in the mingled seeds is powerless to act above its own nature, namely so as to produce any soul, which is, no doubt, above nature; [and it is doubtful] whether there is some natural power left in the seeds of brute animals after coition such that God also acts as deputy [there].¹⁴ Indeed on this account very many of our [people] would hesitate whether the brute soul can remain after the dissolution of the body; about which, it seems to me, Solomon was in doubt, Ecclesiastes 3, when he says: "Who knoweth if the spirit of the children of Adam ascend upward, and the spirit of the beasts likewise descend downward?"¹⁵ As this saying [is put] in doubt, so it seems that he was not certain whether the spirit of beasts would remain after the dissolution of the body. Whether, then, it is so or not, it is evident that the divine power, existing alongside the power of the seeds and co-acting with it toward the production of the human suppositum, in the creation of the human soul — to speak according to you — when the body is figured by the power existing in the matter of the seeds, is a natural agent and carries out the course of nature first instituted. It is evident, therefore, that its action succeeds the action of the carnal parents and follows it naturally. Indeed, if we consider it more inwardly, it will appear from the institution of this propagation that this action [shows] the divine power to perform or supply the part of the bodily parent in that which the parent alone cannot reach by himself; so that the production of the whole human suppositum may fittingly be called one generation and be properly ascribed to one proper agent like to it, namely the carnal father; as the natural generation of a brute is called one and is ascribed to the parent, although one celestial power in the seed co-acts with the nature of the seed, as all the philosophers proclaim. Hence it follows that man is as naturally the father of man as the horse is naturally the father of a horse, and the lion naturally the parent of a lion, and so of the other species naturally begotten; notwithstanding that the soul of man is created or made by God in the aforesaid manner, since the giving of the rational soul by God is by way of a nature acting, indeed co-acting, and on account of the action of the primary parent, so as to supply, consummate and perfect it, not the reverse. For because the parents naturally figure and form the fetus, therefore God naturally creates the rational soul, co-acting with the parents toward the natural production of the human suppositum; as God likewise creates and produces the soul of a horse and a lion — or another celestial power in the seed does so, which the philosophers rightly call a divine power — once the body of the horse or lion has been formed by the power of the parents and naturally figured; and therefore in all of them the begetters claim the name of parents by equal right. And for this reason, through these things set out above, there is verified¹⁶ what is written in Genesis 2: "So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which he had made."¹⁷ For if, after that primordial production of things, God created human souls by free action and not by way of the action of nature, then in the first creation the heavens and the earth and all the furniture of them would not have been finished, but the first institution would have been diminished, at least as regards the natural production of man; and so God would not have completed his work on the seventh day, namely the whole world, nor would he have ceased from all the work of creation required from then on for the continuation of the perfection of the universe beyond the mode earlier or first instituted — [this ceasing being] not a ceasing from the work of conservation, of which work Christ says: "My Father worketh until now; and I work."¹⁸ Indeed it would have been far more fitting, for the perfection of the first work, that all rational souls, like the angels, should have been created freely together in the first creation or production of things than successively in the time following.