(Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, part 16)
Chapter 15. Of Baptism.
There are two parts of this chapter, I. Dissertation on the two
ends of Baptism, sec. 1-13. II. The second part may be reduced to
four heads. Of the use of Baptism, sec. 14, 15. Of the worthiness or
unworthiness of the minister, sec. 16-18. Of the corruptions by
which this sacrament was polluted, sec. 19. To whom reference is had
in the dispensation, sec. 20-22.
Sections.
1. Baptism defined. Its primary object. This consists of three
things. 1. To attest the forgiveness of sins.
2. Passages of Scripture proving the forgiveness of sins.
3. Forgiveness not only of past but also of future sins. This no
encouragement to license in sin.
4. Refutation of those who share forgiveness between Baptism and
Repentance.
5. Second thing in Baptism, viz., to teach that we are ingrafted
into Christ for mortification and newness of life.
6. Third thing in Baptism, viz., to teach us that we are united to
Christ so as to be partakers of all his blessings. Second and
third things conspicuous in the baptism both of John and the
apostles.
7. Identity of the baptism of John and the apostles.
8. An objection to this refuted.
9. The benefits of baptism typified to the Israelites by the passage
of the Red Sea and the pillar of cloud.
10. Objection of those who imagine that there is some kind of
perfect renovation after baptism. Original depravity remains
after baptism. Its existence in infants. The elect after
baptism are righteous in this life only by imputation.
11. Original corruption trying to the pious during the whole course
of their lives. They do not, on this account, seek a license
for sin. They rather walk more cautiously and safely in the
ways of the Lord.
12. The trouble occasioned by corruption, shown by the example and
testimony of the Apostle Paul.
13. Another end of baptism is to serve as our confession to men.
14. Second part of the chapter. Of baptism as a confirmation of our
faith.
15. This illustrated by the examples of Cornelius and Paul. Of the
use of baptism as a confessions of faith.
16. Baptism not affected by the worthiness or unworthiness of the
minister. Hence no necessity to rebaptise those who were
baptised under the Papacy.
17. Nothing in the argument that those so baptised remained some
years blind and unbelieving. The promise of God remains firm.
God, in inviting the Jews to repentance, does not enjoins them
to be again circumcised.
18. No ground to allege that Paul rebaptised certain of John's
disciples. The baptism of John. What it is to be baptised in
the name of Christ.
19. The corruptions introduced into baptism. The form of pure
Christian baptism. Immersion or sprinkling should be left free.
20. To whom the dispensation of baptism belongs. Not to private
individuals or women, but to the ministers of the Church.
Origin of the baptism of private individuals and women. An
argument in favour of it refuted.
21. Exploded also by Tertullian and Epiphanies.
22. Objection founded on the case of Zipporah. Answer. Children
dying before baptism not excluded from heaven, provided the
want of it was not caused by negligence or contempt.
1. Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to
the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we
may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God
has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is,
first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him, and secondly,
that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The nature
of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism contributes
to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately.
The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord,
is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to
explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he
assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced,
that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never
imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised
for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism
is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our
religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their
profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not
attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is,
that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, "He that
believeth and is baptised shall be saved," (Mark 16: 16.)
2. In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul,
that "Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word," (Eph. 5: 25, 26;) and again, "not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Titus 3:
5.) Peter also says that "baptism also does now save us," (1 Peter
3: 21.) For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and
salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself
the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he
mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge
and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament. This
the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the
word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, by the gospel
the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by
baptism this message is sealed. And Peter immediately subjoins, that
that baptism is " not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith."
Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the
sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the
resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are
cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of
Christ is our true and only laver? So that we cannot have a better
argument to refute the hallucination of those who ascribe the whole
to the virtue of water than we derive from the very meaning of
baptism, which leads us away as well from the visible element which
is presented to our eye, as from all other means, that it may fix
our minds on Christ alone.
3. Nor is it to be supposed that baptism is bestowed only with
reference to the past, so that, in regard to new lapses into which
we fall after baptism, we must seek new remedies of expiation in
other so-called sacraments, just as if the power of baptism had
become obsolete. To this error, in ancient times, it was owing that
some refused to be initiated by baptism until their life was in
extreme danger, and they were drawing their last breath, that they
might thus obtain pardon for all the past. Against this preposterous
precaution ancient bishops frequently inveigh in their writings. We
ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are
washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often
as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus
fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission
of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have
passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of
Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not
destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our
defilements. Nor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the
future, (there is certainly nothing in it to countenance such
audacity;) but this doctrine is intended only for those who, when
they have sinned, groan under their sins burdened and oppressed,
that they may have wherewith to support and console themselves, and
not rush headlong into despair. Thus Paul says that Christ was made
a propitiation for us for the remission of sins that are past, (Rom.
3: 25.) By this he denies not that constant and perpetual
forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death: he only
intimates that it is designed by the Father for those poor sinners
who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To
these the mercy of God is offered. Those who, from hopes of
impunity, seek a license for sin, only provoke the wrath and justice
of God.
4. I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our
first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism
procured by means of penitence and the keys, (see chap. 19 sec. 17.)
But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that
the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism
that it ought not on any account to be separated from it. The sinner
receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words,
not without the preaching of the gospel. And of what nature is this
preaching? That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ.
And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not
baptism? We see, then, that that forgiveness has reference to
baptism. This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of
penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said
at the proper place. There is no wonder if men who, from the
grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external
things, have here also betrayed the defect, - if not contented with
the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised
by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance.
But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power
of baptism ought to have the same extent. Wherefore, there can be no
doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their
lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins,
recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby
assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have
in the blood of Christ.
5. Another benefit of baptism is, that it shows us our
mortification in Christ and new life in him. "Know ye not," says the
apostle, "that as many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ,
were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death," that we "should walk in newness of life," (Rom.
6: 3, 4.) By these words, he not only exhorts us to imitation of
Christ, as if he had said, that we are admonished by baptism, in
like manner as Christ died, to die to our lusts, and as he rose, to
rise to righteousness; but he traces the matter much higher, that
Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, in grafting us
into it. And as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the
root to which it is attached, so those who receive baptism with true
faith truly feel the efficacy of Christ's death in the mortification
of their flesh, and the efficacy of his resurrection in the
quickening of the Spirit. On this he founds his exhortation, that if
we are Christians we should be dead unto sin, and alive unto
righteousness. He elsewhere uses the same argument, viz., that we
are circumcised, and put off the old man, after we are buried in
Christ by baptism, (Col. 2: 12.) And in this sense, in the passage
which we formerly quoted, he calls it " the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost," (Tit. 3: 5.) We are promised,
first, the free pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness; and,
secondly, the grace of the Holy Spirit, to form us again to newness
of life.
6. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is
its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and
life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers
of all his blessings. For he consecrated and sanctified baptism in
his own body, that he might have it in common with us as the firmest
bond of union and fellowship which he deigned to form with us; and
hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the fact that we
put on Christ in baptism, (Gal. 3: 27.) Thus we see the fulfilment
of our baptism in Christ, whom for this reason we call the proper
object of baptism. Hence it is not strange that the apostles are
said to have baptised in the name of Christ, though they were
enjoined to baptise in the name of the Father and Spirit also, (Acts
8: 16; 19: 5; Matth. 28: 19.) For all the divine gifts held forth in
baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet he who baptises into
Christ cannot but at the same time invoke the name of the Father and
the Spirit. For we are cleansed by his blood, just because our
gracious Father, of his incomparable mercy, willing to receive us
into favour, appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation
with himself. Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection
only, when sanctified by his Spirit we are imbued with a new and
spiritual nature. Wherefore we obtain, and in a manner distinctly
perceive, in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the
Spirit the effect of our purification and regeneration. Thus first
John baptised, and thus afterwards the apostles by the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins, understanding by the term
"repentance", regeneration, and by the "remission of sins",
ablution.
7. This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John
was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the
apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered
do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves
it to be the same. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine.
Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in
the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins
proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the
sins of the world, (John 1: 29,) thus describing him as the victim
accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the
author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?
Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labour to
distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in
such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who
would listen to Chrysostom denying that remission of sins was
included in the baptism of John, (Hom. in Matth. 1: 14,) rather than
to Luke asserting, on the contrary, that John preached "the baptism
of repentance for the remission of sins?" (Luke 3: 3.) Nor can we
admit Augustine's subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were
forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in
reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his
baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this
eulogium when no necessity compels it? Should any one ask what
difference the word of God makes, he will find it to be nothing more
than that John baptised in the name of him who was to come, the
apostles in the name of him who was already manifested, (Luke 3: 16;
Acts 19: 4.)
8. This fact, that the gifts of the Spirit were more liberally
poured out after the resurrection of Christ, does not go to
establish a diversity of baptisms. For baptism, administered by the
apostles while he was still on the earth, was called his baptism,
and yet the Spirit was not poured out in larger abundance on it than
on the baptism of John. Nay, not even after the ascension did the
Samaritans receive the Spirit above the ordinary measure of former
believers, till Peter and John where sent to lay hands on them,
(Acts 8: 14-17.) I imagine that the thing which imposed on ancient
writers, and made them say that the one baptism was only a
preparative to the other, was, because they read that those who had
received the baptism of John were again baptised by Paul, (Acts 19:
3-5; Matth. 3: 11.) How greatly they are mistaken in this will be
most clearly explained in its own place. Why, then, did John say
that he baptised with water, but there was one coming who would
baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire? This may be explained in
a few words. He did not mean to distinguish the one baptism from the
other, but he contrasted his own person with the person of Christ,
saying, that while he was a minister of water, Christ was the giver
of the Holy Spirit, and would declare this virtue by a visible
miracle on the day on which he would send the Holy Spirit on the
apostles, under the form of tongues of fire. What greater boast
could the apostles make, and what greater those who baptise in the
present day? For they are only ministers of the external sign,
whereas Christ is the Author of internal grace, as those same
ancient writers uniformly teach, and, in particular, Augustine, who,
in his refutation of the Donatists, founds chiefly on this axiom,
Whoever it is that baptises Christ alone presides.
9. The things which we have said, both of mortification and
ablution, were adumbrated among the people of Israel, who, for that
reason, are described by the apostle as having been baptised in the
cloud and in the sea, (1 Cor. 10: 2.) Mortification was figured when
the Lord, vindicating them from the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel
bondage, paved a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned
Pharaoh himself and their Egyptian foes, who were pressing close
behind, and threatening them with destruction. For in this way also
he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led
by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is,
from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other
words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us. But
as that Egyptian was not plunged into the depth of the sea, but cast
out upon the shore, still alarmed the Israelites by the terror of
his look, though he could not hurt them, so our enemy still
threatens, shows his arms and is felt, but cannot conquer. The cloud
was a symbol of purification, (Num. 9: 18.) For as the Lord then
covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they
might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun; so
in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the
blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, which is truly an
intolerable flame, should lie upon us. Although the mystery was then
obscure, and known to few, yet as there is no other method of
obtaining salvation than in those two graces, God was pleased that
the ancient fathers, whom he had adopted as heirs, should be
furnished with both badges.
10. It is now clear, how false the doctrine is which some long
ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are
exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption
which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are
restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam
would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was
created. This class of teachers never understand what is meant by
original sin, original righteousness, or the grace of baptism. Now,
it has been previously shown (Book 2: chap. 1: sec. 8,) that
original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which
first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us
works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh, (Gal. 5: 19.)
The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed, viz., that
we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then,
on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and
convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity,
innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their
condemnation with them from their mother's womb, for although they
have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they
have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it
were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and
abominable to God. Believers become assured by baptism, that this
condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been
said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire
remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us,
and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend
righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can
obtain in this life, viz., by imputation only, God, in his mercy,
regarding them as righteous and innocent.
11. Another point is, that this corruption never ceases in us,
but constantly produces new fruits, viz., those works of the flesh
which we previously described, just as a burning furnace perpetually
sends forth flame and sparks, or a fountain is ever pouring out
water. For concupiscence never wholly dies or is extinguished in
men, until, freed by death from the body of death, they have
altogether laid aside their own nature, (Book 3: chap. 3: sec.
10-13.) Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and
sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no
trouble, but only so as not to have dominion. For as long as we live
shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us,
but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in
baptism, they will neither rule nor reign. But let no man deceive
himself, let no man look complacently on his disease, when he hears
that sin always dwells in us. When we say so, it is not in order
that those who are otherwise too prone to sin may sleep securely in
their sins, but only that those who are tried and stung by the flesh
may not faint and despond. Let them rather reflect that they are
still on the way, and think that they have made great progress when
they feel that their concupiscence is somewhat diminished from day
to day, until they shall have reached the point at which they aim,
viz., the final death of the flesh; a death which shall be completed
at the termination of this mortal life. Meanwhile, let them cease
not to contend strenuously, and animate themselves to further
progress, and press on to complete victory. Their efforts should be
stimulated by the consideration, that after a lengthened struggle
much still remains to be done. We ought to hold that we are baptised
for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is
prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this
life to go to the Lord.
12. Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds
most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the
Romans. He had discoursed of free justification, but as some wicked
men thence inferred that they were to live as they listed, because
their acceptance with God was not procured by the merit of works, he
adds, that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are
at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and that we have an
earnest of this regeneration in baptism. Hence he exhorts believers
not to allow sin to reign in their members. And because he knew that
there is always some infirmity in believers, lest they should be
cast down on this account, he adds, for their consolation, that they
are not under the law. Again, as there may seem a danger that
Christians might grow presumptuous because they were not under the
yoke of the law, he shows what the nature of the abrogation is, and
at the same time what the use of the law is. This question he had
already postponed a second time. The substance is, that we are freed
from the rigour of the law in order that we may adhere to Christ,
and that the office of the law is to convince us of our depravity,
and make us confess our impotence and wretchedness. Moreover, as
this malignity of nature is not so easily apparent in a profane man
who, without fear of God, indulges his passions, he gives an example
in the regenerate man, in other words, in himself. He therefore says
that he had a constant struggle with the remains of his flesh, and
was kept in miserable bondage, so as to be unable to devote himself
entirely to the obedience of the divine law. Hence he is forced to
groan and exclaim, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me
from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7: 24.) But if the children of
God are kept captive in prison as long as they live, they must
necessarily feel very anxious at the thought of their danger, unless
their fears are allayed. For this single purpose, then, he subjoins
the consolation, that there is "now no condemnation to them which
are in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 8: 1.) Hence he teaches that those whom
the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion
with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by
baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere
in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin, and thus
bear sin about with them. If this is the simple and genuine
interpretation of Paul's meaning, we cannot think that there is any
thing strange in the doctrine which he here delivers.
13. Baptism serves as our confession before men, in as much as
it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked
among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all
Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which,
in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our
hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our
body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God. In this
way, as is meet, every thing we have is made subservient to the
glory of God, which ought everywhere to be displayed, and others are
stimulated by our example to the same course. To this Paul referred
when he asked the Corinthians whether or not they had been baptised
in the name of Christ, (1 Cor. 1: 13;) intimating, that by the very
circumstance of having been baptised in his name, they had devoted
themselves to him, had sworn and bound themselves in allegiance to
him before men, so that they could no longer confess any other than
Christ alone, unless they would abjure the confession which they had
made in baptism.
14. Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the
institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in
what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is
appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to
receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded
that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is
himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of
our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his
death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of
concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed
with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I
say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see
our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this
analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments,
viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if
they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been
pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are
included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its
efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that
he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely
feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and
effectually performs what he figures.
15. We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who,
after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy
Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller
forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an
argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected,
Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism,
(Acts 22: 1-3,) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism?
I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever
according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the
Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives
additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then
that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be
assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord
promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure. I have no
intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would
only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God
works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all
others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If
faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which
we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there
given. In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby
to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure,
through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for
us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one
consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers.
This last was Paul's meaning, when he said that "by one Spirit are
we all baptised into one body," (1 Cor. 12: 13.)
16. Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is
not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered,
but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it
undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither
gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a
letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not
of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought
to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord
in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may. This
confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and
worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the
present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly
baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and
idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these
absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by
baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the
name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and,
therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it
may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were
most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they
did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or
sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name
which they invoked was not their own but God's, nor did they baptise
into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly
included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of
the flesh, quickening of the spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus
it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and
apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it
necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine
origin. The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the
assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole
efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to
be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not
abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it.
Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet
ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and
Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had
revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.
17. Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years
followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism
was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the
promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and
unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was
given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God,
always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should
be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true, (Rom. 3: 3,
4;) though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge,
therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in
us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay
neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we
accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long
ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the
promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism
promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he
has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in
baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us,
indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore,
let us with faith receive it. Wherefore, when the Lord invites the
Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning
another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised
by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same
impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever
the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the
covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord,
firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of
repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once
made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received
at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as
much as in them lay polluted and extinguished.
18. But they seem to think the weapon which they brandish
irresistible, when they allege that Paul rebaptised those who had
been baptised with the baptism of John, (Acts 19: 3, 5.) For if, by
our confession, the baptism of John was the same as ours, then, in
like manner as those who had been improperly trained, when they
learned the true faith were rebaptised into it, ought that baptism
which was without true doctrine to be accounted as nothing, and
hence we ought to be baptised anew into the true religion with which
we are now, for the first time, imbued? It seems to some that it was
a foolish imitator of John, who, by a former baptism, had initiated
them into vain superstition. This, it is thought, may be conjectured
from the fact, that they acknowledge their entire ignorance of the
Holy Spirit, an ignorance in which John never would have left his
disciples. But it is not probable that the Jews, even though they
had not been baptised at all, would have been destitute of all
knowledge of the Spirit, who is celebrated in so many passages of
Scripture. Their answer, therefore, that they know not whether there
was a Spirit, must be understood as if they had said, that they had
not yet heard whether or not the gifts of the Spirit, as to which
Paul questioned them, were given to the disciples of Christ. I grant
that John's was a true baptism, and one and the same with the
baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised, (see Calv.
Instruct. adv. Anabapt.) What then is meant by the words, "They were
baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus?" Some interpret that they
were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather
interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other
words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the
laying on of hands. These are sometimes designated under the name of
baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to
have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the
Spirit and of fire. And Peter relates that the same words occurred
to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his
family and kindred. There is nothing repugnant to this
interpretation in its being afterwards added, "When Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy ghost came on them," (Acts 19: 6.) For
Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of
narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and
then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere
context. For he says, "When they heard this they were baptised in
the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Ghost came on them." In this last sentence is described
what the nature of the baptism was. But if ignorance vitiates a
former, and requires to be corrected by a second baptism, the
apostles should first of all have been rebaptised, since for more
than three full years after their baptism they had scarcely received
any slender portion of purer doctrine. Then so numerous being the
acts of ignorance which by the mercy of God are daily corrected in
us, what rivers would suffice for so many repeated baptisms?
19. The force, dignity, utility and end of the sacrament must
now, if I mistake not, be sufficiently clear. In regard to the
external symbol, I wish the genuine institution of Christ had been
maintained as fit to repress the audacity of men. As if to be
baptised with water, according to the precept of Christ, had been a
contemptible thing, a benediction, or rather incantation, was
devised to pollute the true consecration of water. There was
afterwards added the taper and chrism, while exorcism was thought to
open the door for baptism. Though I am not unaware how ancient the
origin of this adventitious farrago is, still it is lawful for me
and all the godly to reject whatever men have presumed to add to the
institution of Christ. When Satan saw that by the foolish credulity
of the world his impostures were received almost without objection
at the commencement of the gospel, he proceeded to grosser mockery:
hence spittle and other follies, to the open disgrace of baptism,
were introduced with unbridled license. From our experience of them,
let us learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than
to be contented with the authority of Christ alone. How much better,
therefore, is it to lay aside all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the
eyes of the simple, and dulls their minds, and when any one is to be
baptised to bring him forward and present him to God, the whole
Church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him; to recite the
Confession of Faith, in which the catechumen has been instructed,
explain the promises which are given in baptism, then baptise in the
name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and conclude
with prayer and thanksgiving. In this way, nothing which is
appropriate would be omitted, and the one ceremony, which proceeded
from its divine Author, would shine forth most brightly, not being
buried or polluted by extraneous observances. Whether the person
baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice,
or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the
least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either
according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that
the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used
by the primitive Church.
20. It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper
for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration
of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is
part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to
any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had
appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper,
he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do, (he having
done the part of a legitimate dispenser,) he doubtless meant that in
this they should imitate his example. The practice which has been in
use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the
Church, for laics to baptise, in danger of death, when a minister
could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended
on sufficient grounds. Even the early Christians who observed or
tolerated this practice were not clear whether it were rightly done.
This doubt is expressed by Augustine when he says, "Although a laic
have given baptism when compelled by necessity, I know not whether
any one can piously say that it ought to be repeated. For if it is
done without any necessity compelling it, it is usurpation of
another's office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or
a venial one," (August. Cont. Exist. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 13.) With
regard to women, it was decreed, without exception, in the Council
of Carthage, (cap. 100,) that they were not to presume to baptise at
all. But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of
the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means.
Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for
his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our
seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None
will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able
to give effect to his promise. How much evil has been caused by the
dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few
perceive, and, therefore, think caution the less necessary. For when
the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped
in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God's ancient
people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law. In
that case, Christ will be thought to have come not to fulfil, but to
abolish the promises, since the promise, which was then effectual in
itself to confer salvation before the eighth day, would not now be
effectual without the help of a sign.
21. What the custom was before Augustine's day is gathered,
first, from Tertullian, who says, that a woman is not permitted to
speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, or baptise, or offer, that
she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of
the priest, (Tertull. Cont. Haeres. Lib. 1.) Of the same thing we
have a sufficient Witness in Epiphanius, when he upbraids Martian
with giving permission to women to baptise. I am not unaware of the
answer given by those who take an opposite view, viz., that common
use is very different from an extraordinary remedy used under the
pressure of extreme necessity; but since he declares it mockery to
allow women to baptise, and makes no exception, it is sufficiently
plain that the corruption is condemned as inexcusable on any
pretext. In his Third Book, also, when he says that it was not even
permitted to the holy mother of Christ, he makes no reservation.
22. The example of Zipporah (Exod. 4: 25) is irrelevantly
quoted. Because the angel of God was appeased after she took a stone
and circumcised her son, it is erroneously inferred that her act was
approved by God. Were it so, we must say that God was pleased with a
worship which Gentiles brought from Assyria, and set up in Samaria.
But other valid reasons prove, that what a foolish woman did is
ignorantly drawn into a precedent. Were I to say that there was
something special in the case, making it unfit for a precedent - and
especially as we nowhere read that the command to circumcise was
specially given to priests, the cases of baptism and circumcision
are different - I should give a sufficient refutation. For the words
of Christ are plain: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptising them," (Matth. 28: 19.) Since he appointed the same
persons to be preachers of the Gospel, and dispensers of baptism -
and in the Church, "no man taketh this honour unto himself," as the
apostle declares, (Heb. 5: 4,) "but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron" - any one who baptises without a lawful call usurps another's
office. Paul declares, that whatever we attempt with a dubious
conscience, even in the minutes matters, as in meat and drink, is
sin, (Rom. 14: 23.) Therefore, in baptism by women, the sin is the
greater, when it is plain that the rule delivered by Christ is
violated, seeing we know it to be unlawful to put asunder what God
has joined. But all this I pass; only I would have my readers to
observe, that the last thing intended by Zipporah was to perform a
service to God. Seeing her son in danger, she frets and murmurs,
and, not without indignation, throws down the foreskin on the
ground; thus upbraiding her husband, and taking offence at God. In
short, it is plain that her whole procedure is dictated by passion:
she complains both against her husband and against God, because she
is forced to spill the blood of her son. We may add, that however
well she might have conducted herself in all other respects, yet her
presumption is inexcusable in this, in circumcising her son while
her husband is present, and that husband not a mere private
individual, but Moses, the chief prophet of God, than whom no
greater ever arose in Israel. This was no more allowable in her,
than it would be for women in the present day under the eye of a
bishop. But this controversy will at once be disposed of when we
maintain, that children who happen to depart this life before an
opportunity of immersing them in water, are not excluded from the
kingdom of heaven. Now, it has been seen, that unless we admit this
position, great injury is done to the covenant of God, as if in
itself it were weak, whereas its effect depends not either on
baptism, or on any accessaries. The sacrament is afterwards added as
a kind of seal, not to give efficacy to the promise, as if in itself
invalid, but merely to confirm it to us. Hence it follows, that the
children of believers are not baptised, in order that though
formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time,
become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a
formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously
belonged to the body of Christ. Hence if, in omitting the sign,
there is neither sloth, nor contempt, nor negligence, we are safe
from all danger. By far the better course, therefore is to pay such
respect to the ordinance of God as not to seek the sacraments in any
other quarter than where the Lord has deposited them. When we cannot
receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so inseparably
annexed to them that we cannot obtain it by faith, according to his
word.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 4
(continued in part 17...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: cvin4-16.txt
.
