Chapter 63 [XXXIV.]—The Form, or Rite, of Baptism. Exorcism.

What shall I say of the actual form of this sacrament? I only wish some one of those who espouse the contrary side would bring me an infant to be baptized. What does my exorcism work in that babe, if he be not held in the devil’s family? The man who brought the infant would certainly have had to act as sponsor for him, for he could not answer for himself. How would it be possible then for him to declare that he renounced the devil, if there was no devil in him? that he was converted to God, if he had never been averted from Him? that he believed, besides other articles, in the forgiveness of sins, if no sins were attributable to him? For my own part, indeed, if I thought that his opinions were opposed to this faith, I could not permit him to bring the infant to the sacraments. Nor can I imagine with what countenance before men, or what mind before God, he can conduct himself in this. But I do not wish to say anything too severe. That a false or fallacious form of baptism should be administered to infants, in which there might be the sound and semblance of something being done, but yet no remission of sins actually ensue, has been seen by some amongst them to be as abominable and hateful a thing as it was possible to mention or conceive. Then, again, in respect of the necessity of baptism to infants, they admit that even infants stand in need of redemption,—a concession which is made in a short treatise written by one of their party,—but yet there is not found in this work any open admission of the forgiveness of a single sin. According, however, to an intimation dropped in your letter to me, they now acknowledge, as you say, that a remission of sins takes place even in infants through baptism. No wonder; for it is impossible that redemption should be understood in any other way. Their own words are these: “It is, however, not originally, but in their own actual life, after they have been born, that they have begun to have sin.”

CAPUT XXXIV.

63. Baptismi forma, seu ritus. Exorcismus. Duplex de parvulis error. Quid de ipsa forma sacramenti loquar? Vellem aliquis istorum, qui contraria sapiunt, mihi baptizandum parvulum afferret. Quid in illo agit exorcismus meus, si in familia diaboli non tenetur? Ipse certe mihi fuerat responsurus pro eodem parvulo quem gestaret, quia pro se ille respondere non posset. Quomodo ergo dicturus erat eum renuntiare diabolo, cujus in eo nihil esset? Quomodo converti ad Deum, a quo non esset aversus? credere inter caetera remissionem peccatorum, quae illi nulla tribueretur? Ego quidem si contra haec eum sentire existimarem, nec ad Sacramenta cum parvulo intrare permitterem: ipse autem in hoc qua fronte ad homines, qua mente ad Deum se ferret, ignoro; nec volo aliquid gravius dicere. Falsam igitur vel fallacem tradi parvulis Baptismatis formam in qua sonaret atque agi videretur , et tamen nulla fieret remissio peccatorum, viderunt aliqui eorum nihil exsecrabilius ac detestabilius dici posse atque sentiri. Proinde quod attinet ad Baptismum parvulorum, ut eis sit necessarius, redemptione ipsis etiam opus esse concedunt, sicut cujusdam eorum libello brevissimo continetur: qui tamen ibi remissionem alicujus peccati apertius exprimere noluit. Sicut autem mihi ipse litteris intimasti, fatentur jam, ut dicis, etiam in parvulis per Baptismum remissionem fieri peccatorum. Nec mirum: non enim redemptio alio modo posset intelligi. Non tamen originaliter, 0147 inquiunt, sed in vita jam propria, posteaquam nati sunt, peccatum habere coeperunt.