BAPTISM.
Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the
society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we
may be numbered among the children of God. Now, it has been given to us
by God for these ends, which I have shown to be common to all
sacraments: first, to promote our faith towards him; secondly, to
testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of
its institution in order. To begin with the first: from baptism our
faith derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly
considered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a
symbol and token of our purification; or, to express my meaning more
fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he
assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so
that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance,
or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized for
the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that
baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our
religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as
a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the
principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with
this promise, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1135]
II. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ
sanctifies and cleanses the Church “with the washing of water by the
word;”[1136] and in another place, that “according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost;”[1137] and by Peter, that “baptism doth save us.”[1138] For it
was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation
are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue
to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the
cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is
received in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from the words
they have used. For Paul connects together the “word of life” and “the
baptism of water;” as if he had said that our ablution and
sanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this
message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that “baptism doth
save us,” immediately adds that it is “not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,” which
proceeds from faith. But, on the contrary, baptism promises us no other
purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; which is
emblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to
washing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by
that water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to be our true
and only ablution? So that, to refute the error of those who refer all
to the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in
the signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from
that visible element which is placed before our eyes, as from all other
means of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.
III. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the
time past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism it would be
necessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what
other sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In
consequence of this error, it happened, in former ages, that some
persons would not be baptized except at the close of their life, and
almost in the moment of their death, that so they might obtain pardon
for their whole life—a preposterous caution, which is frequently
censured in the writings of the ancient bishops. But we ought to
conclude, that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and
purified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, therefore, we
must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the
consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the
remission of our sins. For though, when it has been once administered,
it appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For
the purity of Christ is offered to us in it; and that always retains its
virtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and obliterates
all our defilements. Now, from this doctrine we ought not to take a
license for the commission of future sins; for it is very far from
inculcating such presumption; it is only delivered to those who, when
they have sinned, groan under the fatigue and oppression of their
transgressions; in order to afford them some relief and consolation, and
to preserve them from sinking into confusion and despair. Thus Paul
says, that Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation for the remission
of sins that are past.”[1139] He does not deny that we have a constant
and perpetual remission of sins in Christ, but signifies that he has
been given by the Father only to miserable sinners, who sigh for the
physician to heal the wounds of a guilty conscience. To such the mercy
of God is offered; while those who, from a remission of punishment, seek
to derive an occasion and license for sinning, do nothing but draw down
upon themselves the wrath and vengeance of God.
IV. I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our
first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained
by repentance and the benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this
opinion have fallen into an error, for want of considering that the
power of the keys, of which they speak, is so dependent on baptism that
it cannot by any means be separated from it. It is true, that the sinner
receives remission by the ministry of the Church; but not without the
preaching of the gospel. Now, what is the nature of that preaching? That
we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ. What sign and
testimony of that ablution is there, except baptism? We see, then, how
this absolution is referred to baptism. This error has produced the
imaginary sacrament of penance; on which I have touched a little
already, and shall finish what remains in its proper place. Now, it is
no wonder if men, whose groveling minds were inordinately attached to
external things, have betrayed that corrupt propensity, by a discontent
with the pure institution of God, and an introduction of new expedients
invented by themselves; as if baptism itself were not a sacrament of
repentance; but if repentance be enjoined upon us as long as we live,
the virtue of baptism ought to be extended to the same period. Wherefore
it is evident that the pious, whenever, in any part of their lives, they
are distressed with a consciousness of their sins, may justly have
recourse to the remembrance of baptism, in order to confirm themselves
in the confidence of their interest in that one perpetual ablution which
is enjoyed in the blood of Christ.
V. Baptism is also attended with another advantage: it shows us our
mortification in Christ, and our new life in him. For, as the apostle
says, “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death: therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death,
that we should walk in newness of life.”[1140] In this passage he does
not merely exhort us to an imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that
we are admonished by baptism, that after the example of his death we
should die to sin, and that after the example of his resurrection we
should rise to righteousness; but he goes considerably further, and
teaches us, that by baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death,
in order that we may be ingrafted into it. And as the scion derives
substance and nourishment from the root on which it is ingrafted, so
they, who receive baptism with the faith with which they ought to
receive it, truly experience the efficacy of Christ’s death in the
mortification of the flesh, and also the energy of his resurrection in
the vivification of the spirit. Hence he deduces matter of exhortation,
that, if we are Christians, we ought to be “dead unto sin, but alive
unto God.”[1141] He uses the same argument in another place; that we
“are circumcised, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,” after
we have been “buried with” Christ “in baptism.”[1142] And in this sense,
in the passage already quoted, he calls it “the washing of regeneration
and renewing.”[1143] Thus we are promised, first, the gratuitous
remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly, the
grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to newness of life.
VI. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism, is the
certain testimony it affords us, that we are not only ingrafted into the
life and death of Christ, but are so united as to be partakers of all
his benefits. For this reason he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his
own body, that he might have it in common with us, as a most firm bond
of the union and society which he has condescended to form with us; so
that Paul proves from it, that we are the children of God, because we
have put on Christ in baptism.[1144] Thus we see that the accomplishment
of baptism is in Christ; whom, on this account, we call the proper
object of baptism. Therefore it is no wonder if the apostles baptized in
his name,[1145] though they had also been commanded to baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Spirit.[1146] For all the gifts of God,
which are presented in baptism, are found in Christ alone. Yet it cannot
be but that he who baptizes into Christ, equally invokes the name of the
Father and of the Spirit. For we have purification in his blood, because
our merciful Father, in his incomparable goodness, being pleased to
receive us to his mercy, has appointed this Mediator between us, to
conciliate his favour to us. But we receive regeneration from his death
and resurrection, when we are endued with a new and spiritual nature by
the sanctification of the Spirit. Of our purification and regeneration,
therefore, we obtain, and distinctly perceive, the cause in the Father,
the matter in the Son, and the efficacy in the Spirit. Thus John first,
and the apostles afterwards, baptized “with the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins;”[1147] by _repentance_, intending
regeneration, and by _remission of sins_, ablution.
VII. Hence also it is very certain that the ministry of John was
precisely the same as that which was afterwards committed to the
apostles. For their baptism was not different, though it was
administered by different hands; but the sameness of their doctrine
shows their baptism to have been the same. John and the apostles agreed
in the same doctrine; both baptized to repentance, both to remission of
sins; both baptized in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and
remission of sins proceed. John said of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world;”[1148] thus acknowledging and
declaring him to be the sacrifice acceptable to the Father, the procurer
of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles
add to this confession? Wherefore let no one be disturbed by the
attempts of the ancient writers to distinguish and separate one baptism
from the other; for their authority ought not to have weight enough to
shake our confidence in the Scripture. For who will attend to
Chrysostom, who denies that remission of sins was included in the
baptism of John, rather than to Luke, who, on the contrary, affirms that
“John came preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of
sins?”[1149] Nor must we admit that subtlety of Augustine, “that in the
baptism of John sins were remitted in hope, but in the baptism of Christ
they were remitted in fact.” For as the evangelist clearly testifies
that John, in his baptism, promised the remission of sins, why should we
diminish this commendation, when no necessity constrains us to it? But
if any difference be sought for in the word of God, the only difference
that will be found is, that John baptized in the name of him who was to
come, the apostles in the name of him who had already manifested
himself.
VIII. The more abundant effusion of the graces of the Spirit, after the
resurrection of Christ, contributes nothing to establish a diversity of
baptisms. For the baptism administered by the apostles, during his life
on earth, was called his; yet it was attended with no greater abundance
of the Spirit than the baptism of John. And even after his ascension,
the Samaritans, even though they had been baptized in the name of Jesus,
received no other gifts of the Spirit than those which were common to
all believers, till Peter and John were sent to lay their hands upon
them.[1150] I suppose that the fathers were misled into an opinion, that
the baptism of John was merely a preparation for that of Christ,[1151]
entirely from an apprehension that some persons, who had previously
received the baptism of John, were baptized again by Paul. But that they
were mistaken in this point, shall be very clearly shown in the proper
place. What is the meaning, then, of the declaration of John, that he
“baptized with water,” but that Christ would come to “baptize with the
Holy Ghost and with fire?”[1152] This may be explained in few words; for
he did not mean to distinguish between one baptism and the other, but
was comparing himself with the person of Christ; that he was a minister
of water, but that Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would
display this power by a visible miracle, on that day when he would send
down the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in the form of fiery
tongues.[1153] What could the apostles boast beyond this? What more can
they pretend to, who baptize in the present day? For they are merely
ministers of the outward sign, and Christ is the author of the inward
grace; as the same ancient writers invariably teach, and especially
Augustine, whose principal argument against the Donatists is, that
whatever be the character of the person who administers baptism, yet
Christ alone presides in it.
IX. These things, which we have stated respecting mortification and
ablution, were adumbrated in the people of Israel, whom, on this
account, the apostle declares to have been “baptized in the cloud and in
the sea.”[1154] Mortification was figuratively represented, when the
Lord, delivering them from the power and cruel servitude of Pharaoh,
made a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself,
and the Egyptians, their enemies, who pursued, and almost overtook them.
For in this manner, in baptism, he promises, and gives us a sign to
assure us, that we are extricated and delivered by his power from the
captivity of Egypt, that is, from the servitude of sin; that our
Pharaoh, that is, the devil, is drowned, though still he ceases not to
harass and fatigue us. But as the Egyptians did not remain sunk to the
bottom of the sea, but, being cast upon the shore, still terrified the
Israelites with the dreadful sight, though they were not able to injure
them, so this enemy of ours still threatens, displays his arms, and
makes himself felt, but cannot overcome. In the cloud there was an
emblem of ablution. For as the Lord there covered them with a cloud,
affording them refreshment, that they might not faint and be consumed by
the overpowering heat of the sun, so, in baptism, we acknowledge
ourselves to be covered and protected by the blood of Christ, that the
severity of God, which is indeed an intolerable flame, may not fall upon
us. Though this mystery was then obscured, and known only to few
persons, yet, as there is no other way of obtaining salvation but by
those two blessings of grace, the Lord, having adopted the ancient
fathers as his heirs, was pleased to bestow upon them tokens of both.
X. Now, we may clearly perceive the falsehood of the notion which some
have long ago disseminated, and which others persist in
maintaining,—that by baptism we are delivered and exempted from original
sin, and from the corruption which has descended from Adam to all his
posterity, and are restored to the same righteousness and purity of
nature which Adam would have obtained if he had continued in the
integrity in which he was first created. For teachers of this kind have
never understood the nature of original sin, or original righteousness,
or the grace of baptism. Now, we have already proved that original sin
is the pravity and corruption of our nature, which first renders us
obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us those works which
the Scripture calls “works of the flesh.”[1155] Therefore these two
things are to be distinctly observed: first, that our nature being so
entirely depraved and vitiated, we are, on account of this very
corruption, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the sight of
God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and
purity. And therefore even infants themselves bring their own
condemnation into the world with them, who, though they have not yet
produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet have the seed of it within
them; even their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and
therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. By baptism,
believers are certified that this condemnation is removed from them;
since, as we said, the Lord promises us by this sign, that a full and
entire remission is granted both of the guilt which is to be imputed to
us, and of the punishment to be inflicted on account of that guilt; they
also receive righteousness, such as the people of God may obtain in this
life; that is, only by imputation, because the Lord, in his mercy,
accepts them as righteous and innocent.
XI. The other thing to be remarked is, that this depravity never ceases
in us, but is perpetually producing new fruits—those works of the flesh
which we have already described, like the emission of flame and sparks
from a heated furnace, or like the streams of water from an unfailing
spring. For concupiscence never dies, nor is altogether extinguished in
men, till by death they are delivered from the body of death, and
entirely divested of themselves. Baptism, indeed, promises us the
submersion of our Pharaoh, and the mortification of sin; yet not so that
it no longer exists, or gives us no further trouble; but only that it
may never overcome us. For as long as we live immured in this prison of
the body, the relics of sin will dwell in us; but if we hold fast by
faith the promise which God has given us in baptism, they shall not
domineer or reign over us. But let no one deceive himself, let no one
flatter himself in his guilt, when he hears that sin always dwells in
us. These things are not said in order that those who are already too
prone to do evil may securely sleep in their sins, but only that those
who are tempted by their corrupt propensities may not faint and sink
into despondency; but that they may rather reflect that they are yet in
the way, and may consider themselves as having made some progress, when
they experience their corruptions diminishing from day to day, till they
shall attain the mark at which they are aiming, even the final
destruction of their depravity, which will be accomplished at the close
of this mortal life. In the mean time, let them not cease to fight
manfully, to animate themselves to constant advances, and to press
forward to complete victory. For it ought to give additional impulse to
their exertions, to see that, after they have been striving so long, so
much still remains for them to do. We conclude, therefore, that we are
baptized into the mortification of the flesh, which commences in us at
baptism, which we pursue from day to day, and which will be perfected
when we shall pass out of this life to the Lord.
XII. Here we say nothing different from what is most clearly stated by
Paul in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. For
after he had argued respecting gratuitous righteousness,—because some
impious men concluded from that doctrine that they might live according
to their own corrupt inclinations, as we are not accepted by God for the
merit of our works, he adds, that all who are clothed with the
righteousness of Christ are also regenerated by his Spirit, and that of
this regeneration we have an earnest in baptism. Hence he exhorts
believers not to suffer sin to reign in their members. Because he knew
that there always remains some infirmity in them, that they might not be
dejected on account of it, he adds for their consolation, that they are
not under the law. On the other hand, as it might seem to encourage
licentiousness in Christians, to say that they were not under the yoke
of the law, he discusses the nature of that abrogation, and shows what
is the use of the law—a question which he had already determined. The
sum of all that he says is, that we are delivered from the rigour of the
law to adhere to Christ; and that the office of the law is to convince
us of our depravity, and lead us to a confession of our impotence and
misery. Now, because the depravity of our nature is not so easily
discovered in a profane man who indulges his corrupt passions without
any fear of God, he gives an example in a regenerate man, that is, in
himself. He says, therefore, that he has a perpetual conflict with the
relics of his corruption, and that he is bound with a miserable
servitude, which prevents his entire consecration of himself to an
obedience of the Divine law; so that he is constrained to exclaim, “O
wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?” If the children of God are captives detained in prison as long
as they live, they cannot but feel great anxiety from reflection on
their danger, unless there be something to obviate this fear. For this
purpose, therefore, he has added a consolation, that “there is now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”[1156] by which he
teaches, that those whom the Lord has once received into his favour,
incorporated into the communion of his Christ, and introduced by baptism
into the society of his Church, notwithstanding they are surrounded and
assaulted with sin, and even carry sin about within them, yet while they
persevere in the faith of Christ, are absolved from guilt and
condemnation. If this be the simple and genuine meaning of Paul, there
is no reason why we should be considered as promulgating a new or
strange doctrine.
XIII. Baptism also serves for our confession before men. For it is a
mark by which we openly profess our desire to be numbered among the
people of God, by which we testify our agreement with all Christians in
the worship of one God, and in one religion, and by which we make a
public declaration of our faith; that the praises of God may not only be
breathed in the secret aspirations of our hearts, but may also be loudly
proclaimed by our tongues, and by all the members of our body, in the
different modes in which they are capable of expressing them. For thus
all that we have is devoted, as it ought to be, to the glory of God, to
which every thing ought to be subservient, and by our example others are
incited to the same pursuit. It was with this view that Paul inquired of
the Corinthians, whether they had not been baptized in the name of
Christ; signifying that, in having been baptized in his name, they had
dedicated themselves to him, had avowed him as their Lord and Master,
and had bound themselves by a solemn obligation before men; so that they
could never again confess any other except him, unless they intended to
renounce the confession which they had made at their baptism.
XIV. Now, as we have stated what was the design of our Lord in the
institution of baptism, it is easy to judge in what manner we ought to
use and receive it. For as it is given for the support, consolation, and
confirmation of our faith, it requires to be received as from the hand
of the Author himself: we ought to consider it as beyond all doubt, that
it is he who speaks to us by this sign; that it is he who purifies and
cleanses us, and obliterates the remembrance of our sins; that it is he
who makes us partakers of his death, who demolishes the kingdom of
Satan, who weakens the power of our corrupt propensities, who even makes
us one with himself, that, being clothed with him, we may be reckoned
children of God; and that he as truly and certainly performs these
things internally on our souls, as we see that our bodies are externally
washed, immersed, and enclosed in water. For this analogy or similitude
is a most certain rule of sacraments; that in corporeal things we
contemplate spiritual things, just as if they were placed before our
eyes, as it has pleased God to represent them to us by such figures: not
that such blessings are bound or enclosed in the sacrament, or that it
has the power to impart them to us; but only because it is a sign by
which the Lord testifies his will, that he is determined to give us all
these things: nor does it merely feed our eyes with a bare prospect of
the symbols, but conducts us at the same time to the thing signified,
and efficaciously accomplishes that which it represents.
XV. We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who, after
having received the remission of his sins and the visible graces of the
Holy Spirit, was baptized; not with a view to obtain by baptism a more
ample remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an
increase of confidence from that pledge.[1157] Perhaps it may be
objected, “Why, then, did Ananias say to Paul, ‘Arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins,’[1158] if sins are not washed away by the
efficacy of baptism itself?” I answer, We are said to receive or obtain
that which our faith apprehends, as presented to us by the Lord, whether
at the time that he first declares it to us, or when, by any subsequent
testimony, he affords us a more certain confirmation of it. Ananias,
therefore, only intended to say to Paul, “That thou mayest be assured
that thy sins are forgiven, be baptized. For in baptism the Lord
promises remission of sins; receive this and be secure.” It is not my
design, however, to diminish the efficacy of baptism; but the substance
and truth accompanies the sign, as God works by external means.
Nevertheless, from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain nothing
except what we receive by faith. If faith be wanting, it will be a
testimony of our ingratitude, to render us guilty before God, because we
have not believed the promise given in the sacrament; but as baptism is
a sign of our confession, we ought to testify by it, that our confidence
is in the mercy of God, and our purity in the remission of sins, which
is obtained for us by Jesus Christ; and that we enter into the Church of
God in order to live in the same harmony of faith and charity, of one
mind with all the faithful. This is what Paul meant when he said, that
“by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.”[1159]
XVI. Now, if it be true, as we have stated, that a sacrament is to be
considered as received, not so much from the hand of him by whom it is
administered, as from the hand of God himself, from whom, without doubt,
it proceeded, we may conclude that it is not capable of any addition or
diminution from the dignity of the person by whose hand it is delivered.
And as, among men, if a letter be sent, provided the hand and seal of
the writer be known, it is of very little importance who and what the
carrier of it may be, so it ought to be sufficient for us to know the
hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, by whatever messenger they
may be conveyed. This fully refutes the error of the Donatists, who
measured the virtue and value of the sacrament by the worthiness of the
minister. Such, in the present day, are our Anabaptists, who positively
deny that we are rightly baptized, because we were baptized by impious
and idolatrous ministers in the kingdom of the pope, and therefore
violently urge us to be baptized again; against whose follies we shall
be fortified with an argument of sufficient strength, if we consider
that we are baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and consequently that it
is not the baptism of man, but of God, by whomsoever it is administered.
Though those who baptized us were chargeable with the grossest ignorance
or contempt of God and of all religion, yet they did not baptize us into
the fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith
of Jesus Christ; because they invoked, not their own name, but the name
of God, and baptized in no other name but his. Now, if it was the
baptism of God, it certainly contained the promise of remission of sins,
mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation of
Christ. Thus it was no injury to the Jews to have been circumcised by
impure and apostate priests; nor was the sign on that account useless,
so as to render it necessary to be repeated, but it was sufficient to
recur to the genuine original. They object, that baptism ought to be
celebrated in the congregation of the godly; but this does not prove
that it loses all its value in consequence of being partially wrong. For
when we teach what ought to be done to preserve baptism pure and free
from every blemish, we do not abolish the institution of God, however
idolaters corrupt it. For when circumcision was anciently corrupted with
many superstitions, yet it ceased not to be considered as a sign of
grace; nor, when Hezekiah and Josiah assembled together out of all
Israel those who had revolted from God, did they call any of them to a
second circumcision.
XVII. When they ask us what faith we had for many years after our
baptism, in order to show that our baptism was vain, since baptism is
not sanctified to us except by the word of promise received in faith,—to
this inquiry we answer, that being blind and unbelieving for a long
time, we did not embrace the promise which had been given us in baptism,
yet that the promise itself, as it was from God, always remained steady,
firm, and true. Though all men were false and perfidious, yet God ceases
not to be true; though all men were lost, yet Christ remains a Saviour.
We confess, therefore, that during that time we received no advantage
whatever from baptism, because we totally neglected the promise offered
to us in it, without which baptism is nothing. Now, since, by the grace
of God, we have begun to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of
heart for our long ingratitude to his great goodness; yet we believe
that the promise itself never expired, but, on the contrary, we reason
in the following manner:—By baptism God promises remission of sins, and
will certainly fulfil the promise to all believers: that promise was
offered to us in baptism; let us, therefore, embrace it by faith: it was
long dormant by reason of our unbelief; now, then, let us receive it by
faith. Wherefore, when God exhorts the Jewish people to repentance, he
does not command them, who had been circumcised, as we have remarked, by
impious and sacrilegious hands, and who had lived for some time immersed
in the same impiety, to be circumcised again: he only urges conversion
of heart. For however the covenant had been violated by them, yet the
symbol of the covenant, according to the institution of the Lord, always
remained firm and inviolable. On the sole condition of repentance,
therefore, they were restored to the covenant which God had once made
with them in circumcision; even though they had received it by the hands
of the unfaithful priests, and had themselves done all that was in their
power to corrupt it and render it ineffectual.
XVIII. But they conceive themselves to be armed with an invincible
argument, when they allege that Paul rebaptized some who had previously
been baptized with the baptism of John.[1160] For if, by our own
confession, the baptism of John was in all respects the same as ours is
now,—as these persons who had first been erroneously instructed, after
having been taught the right faith, were rebaptized into it, so that
baptism, which was unaccompanied with the true doctrine, should be
considered as nothing, and we ought to be baptized afresh into the true
religion, which we have now first imbibed. It is supposed by some, that
they had received their first baptism from a pretended and corrupt
imitator of John, who had rather baptized them into a vain superstition
than into the truth. This conjecture they seem to derive from the
confession of those persons that they were entirely ignorant of the Holy
Spirit—an ignorance in which it is concluded John would not have
suffered his disciples to remain. But it is not probable that Jews, even
though they had never been baptized at all, would have been destitute of
all knowledge of the Holy Spirit, who is celebrated in so many
testimonies of Scripture. The answer, therefore, which they gave, “We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost,” is to be
understood as equivalent to a declaration that they had never heard
whether the graces of the Spirit, respecting which Paul inquired, were
given to the disciples of Christ. For myself, I grant that the baptism
they had received was the true baptism of John, and the very same with
the baptism of Christ; but I deny that they were baptized again. What is
the meaning of these words, “They were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus?” Some explain it to be, that they were only instructed by Paul in
the pure doctrine; but I prefer understanding it, in a more simple
manner, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; that is, of the visible
graces of the Spirit given by imposition of hands. It is not uncommon in
the Scripture to designate those graces by the appellation of _baptism_;
as on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the
words of the Lord respecting the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And
Peter declared that he remembered the same, when he saw those graces
poured out on Cornelius and his family and relatives. Nor is this
interpretation inconsistent with what is stated afterwards, that “When
Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” For
Luke does not relate two different things, but follows a mode of
narration familiar to the Hebrews, who first propose a subject
generally, and then unfold it more in detail. This is obvious from the
very connection of the words; for he says, “When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” The latter clause describes
the kind of baptism intended in the former. If ignorance vitiate a first
baptism, so that it requires to be corrected by a second, the first
persons who ought to have been rebaptized were the apostles themselves,
who for three years after their baptism had scarcely any knowledge of
the least particle of pure doctrine. And among us, what rivers would be
sufficient for the repetition of ablutions as numerous as the errors
which are daily corrected in us by the mercy of the Lord!
XIX. The virtue, dignity, utility, and end of this mystery, have now, if
I mistake not, been sufficiently explained. With respect to the external
symbol, I sincerely wish that the genuine institution of Christ had the
influence it ought to have, to repress the audacity of man. For, as
though it were a contemptible thing to be baptized in water, according
to the precept of Christ, men have invented a benediction, or rather
incantation, to pollute the true consecration of the water. They
afterwards added a wax taper with chrism; exorcism seemed to open the
gate to baptism. Now, though I am not ignorant of the ancient origin of
this adventitious medley, yet it is lawful for me and for all believers
to reject every thing that men have presumed to add to the institution
of Christ. Now, Satan, seeing that from the very first introduction of
the gospel, his impostures had been easily received by the foolish
credulity of the world, proceeded to grosser illusions; hence spittle,
salt, and other fooleries, which were publicly introduced with an
unlimited license, to the reproach of baptism. From these experiments we
may learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to
content ourselves with the authority of Christ alone. How much better
was it, therefore, omitting all theatrical pomps which dazzle the eyes
and stupefy the minds of the simple, whenever any one was to be
baptized, that he should be presented to the congregation of believers,
and be offered to God in the presence and with the prayers of the whole
Church; that the confession of faith, in which the catechumen was to be
instructed, should be recited; that the promises which are included in
baptism should be declared; that the catechumen should be baptized in
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lastly,
that he should be dismissed with prayers and thanksgivings! Thus nothing
material would be omitted; and that one ceremony, which was instituted
by God, would shine with the greatest lustre, unencumbered with any
extraneous corruptions. But whether the person who is baptized be wholly
immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or
sprinkled upon him, is of no importance; Churches ought to be left at
liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of
countries. The very word _baptize_, however, signifies to immerse; and
it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.
XX. It is also necessary to state, that it is not right for private
persons to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for this,
as well as the administration of the Lord’s supper, is a part of the
public ministry of the Church. Christ never commanded women, or men in
general, to baptize; he gave this charge to those whom he had appointed
to be apostles. And when he enjoined his disciples, in the celebration
of the supper, to do as they had seen done by him when he executed the
office of a legitimate dispenser, he intended, without doubt, that they
should imitate his example. The custom, which has been received and
practised for many ages past, and almost from the primitive times of the
Church, for baptism to be performed by laymen, in cases where death was
apprehended, and no minister was present in time, it appears to me
impossible to defend by any good reason. Indeed, the ancients
themselves, who either observed or tolerated this custom, were not
certain whether it was right or not. Augustine betrays this uncertainty,
when he says, “And if a layman, compelled by necessity, has given
baptism, I know not whether any one may piously affirm that it ought to
be repeated. For if it be done without the constraint of necessity, it
is a usurpation of an office which belongs to another; but if necessity
obliges, it is either no offence, or a venial one.” Respecting women, it
was decreed without any exception, in the Council of Carthage, that they
should not presume to baptize at all, on pain of excommunication. But it
is alleged, there is danger, lest a child, who is sick and dies without
baptism, should be deprived of the grace of regeneration. This I can by
no means admit. God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his
children, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God
to us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation.
Nor will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the
sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment. The
mischievous consequences of that ill-stated notion, that baptism is
necessary to salvation, are overlooked by persons in general, and
therefore they are less cautious; for the reception of an opinion, that
all who happen to die without baptism are lost, makes our condition
worse than that of the ancient people, as though the grace of God were
more restricted now than it was under the law; it leads to the
conclusion that Christ came not to fulfil the promises, but to abolish
them; since the promise, which at that time was of itself sufficiently
efficacious to insure salvation before the eighth day, would have no
validity now without the assistance of the sign.
XXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine was born, may be
collected from the ancient fathers. In the first place, Tertullian says,
“That it is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church, neither to
teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself
the functions of any office belonging to men, and especially to
priests.” The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he
censures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptize. I am aware
of the answer made to this by persons of opposite sentiments—that there
is a great difference between a common usage, and an extraordinary
remedy employed in cases of urgent necessity; but when Epiphanius
pronounces it to be a mockery, without making any exception, to give
women liberty to baptize, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns
this corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext whatever;
nor does he add any limitation, in his third book, where he observes
that this liberty was not granted even to the holy mother of Christ.
XXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable to the
case. Because the angel of God was appeased after she had taken a stone
and circumcised her son,[1161] it is unreasonable to infer that her
action was approved by God. On the same principle it might be
maintained, that God was pleased with the worship established by the
nations who were transplanted from Assyria to Samaria. But there are
other powerful reasons to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct
of that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should allege,
that this was a single act, which ought not to be considered as a
general example, and especially as we nowhere find any special command
that the rite of circumcision was to be performed by the priests, the
case of circumcision is different from that of baptism; and this would
be sufficient to refute the advocates of its administration by women.
For the words of Christ are plain: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them.”[1162] Since he constitutes the same persons
preachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism, “and no man,”
according to the testimony of the apostle, “taketh this honour upon
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,”[1163] whoever
baptizes without a legitimate call, intrudes into another person’s
office. Even in the minutest things, as in meat and drink, whatever we
do with a doubtful conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin.[1164]
Female baptism, therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered
by Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious to
dissever things which God has united. But all this I pass over; and
would only request my readers to consider that nothing was further from
the design of Zipporah, than to perform a service to God. For seeing her
son to be in danger, she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the
foreskin on the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to
betray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this proceeded
from violence of temper, because she was displeased with God and her
husband that she was constrained to shed the blood of her son. Besides,
if she had conducted herself with propriety in all other respects, yet
it was an act of inexcusable presumption for her to circumcise her son
in the presence of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but
Moses, the principal prophet of God, who was never succeeded by a
greater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to do, than it is
for women now to baptize in the presence of a bishop. But this
controversy will easily be decided by the establishment of this
principle—that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, who
happen to die before they have had the privilege of baptism. But we have
seen that it is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not
rely upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not
on baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is afterwards
added as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise of God, as if it
wanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it to us. Whence it
follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may
thereby be made the children of God, as if they had before been
strangers to the Church; but, on the contrary, they are received into
the Church by a solemn sign, because they already belonged to the body
of Christ by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign,
therefore, be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence,
we are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent with piety to
show this reverence to the institution of God, not to receive the
sacraments from any other hands than those to which the Lord has
committed them. When it is impossible to receive them from the Church,
the grace of God is not so attached to them, but that we may obtain it
by faith from the word of the Lord.
Footnote 1135:
Mark xvi. 16.
Footnote 1136:
Eph. v. 26.
Footnote 1137:
Titus iii. 5.
Footnote 1138:
1 Peter iii. 21.
Footnote 1139:
Rom. iii. 25.
Footnote 1140:
Rom. vi. 3, 4.
Footnote 1141:
Rom. vi. 11.
Footnote 1142:
Col. ii. 11, 12.
Footnote 1143:
Titus iii. 6.
Footnote 1144:
Gal. iii. 26, 27.
Footnote 1145:
Acts viii. 16.
Footnote 1146:
Matt. xxviii. 19.
Footnote 1147:
Matt. iii. 6, 11. Luke iii. 3. John iii. 23; iv. 1. Acts ii. 38, 41.
Footnote 1148:
John i. 29.
Footnote 1149:
Luke iii. 3.
Footnote 1150:
Acts viii. 14-17.
Footnote 1151:
Acts xix. 3-5.
Footnote 1152:
Matt. iii. 11.
Footnote 1153:
Acts ii. 3.
Footnote 1154:
1 Cor. x. 2.
Footnote 1155:
Gal. v. 19.
Footnote 1156:
Rom. viii. 1.
Footnote 1157:
Acts x. 44-48.
Footnote 1158:
Acts xxii. 16.
Footnote 1159:
1 Cor. xii. 13.
Footnote 1160:
Acts xix. 1-6.
Footnote 1161:
Exod. iv. 25.
Footnote 1162:
Matt. xxviii. 19.
Footnote 1163:
Heb. v. 4.
Footnote 1164:
Rom. xiv. 23.