II. To the Initial Arguments

54. To the first argument [n.46] I say that the Master’s view is not adopted, nor does his argument (which is taken from Acts 19.2) prove it. For it is true that those who did not have faith were to be baptized with the baptism of Christ, but the inference ‘therefore those who did have faith were not afterwards to be baptized’ does not follow; for this way of arguing only holds in precise cases [Ord. I d.43 n.10, II d.34-37 n.94], and it does not hold in the matter at issue, for infidelity was not there [Acts 19.2] the precise reason for rebaptism with the baptism of Christ, but rather that they had not previously received the grace of baptism.

55. To the second [n.47 I say that the major is true when something of the sacrament is conferred; but in the baptism of John nothing of the sacrament was conferred; for exterior cleansing, without definite words spoken with a definite intention, is no part at all of the sacrament of baptism, just as neither is any other sort of bathing.

56. And if you ask, ‘When therefore is the maxim true, “where something is omitted, it is to supplied with caution” [n.47]? I say:

Either this has no place in a sacrament truly one, because when two things come together for the same sacrament, one without the other is nothing of the sacrament, because one without the other neither signifies nor effects grace. And then the maxim is to be expounded of ordered diverse sacraments, of which sort are ordination to the diaconate, subdiaconate, and the like; of such things is the discussion there.

Or if it is possible in the case of a sacrament truly one that one part is something of the sacrament without the other (as in the Eucharist when speaking of the species of bread and wine), then the statement ‘what is omitted is to be cautiously supplied’ does have place. But in the matter at issue it does not hold, for the reason that John’s cleansing was nothing of the sacrament.