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 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 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 1156: Rom. viii. 1.
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 1164: Rom. xiv. 23.
CHAPTER XVI. PÆDOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.
As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a view to repress their violence. If any one should think this chapter extended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that purity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church, ought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also study to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further elucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with an argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility, asserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the subject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on the holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its first origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of human presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true observance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be proved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an insult to their Author himself.
II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and acknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration of sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but that it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which the Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be fully informed of the meaning of baptism, and what baptism is, must not fix his attention on the element and the outward spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises of God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and spiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers these things, has attained the solid truth and all the substance of baptism, and thence he will also learn the reason and use of the external sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these things, and confines his attention entirely to the visible ceremony, will understand neither the force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the meaning or use of the water. This sentiment is established by testimonies of Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least necessity for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore, that from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce its nature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the first thing represented in it, is the remission and purgation of sins, which we obtain in the blood of Christ; and the second the mortification of the flesh, which consists in the participation of his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and so into communion with him. This is the sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the Scriptures concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by which we testify our religion before men.
III. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism, had circumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity and difference between these two signs, in order to discover how far we may argue from one to the other. When the Lord gave Abraham the command of circumcision, he prefaced it by saying, “I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;” at the same time declaring himself to be “Almighty,” having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that Abraham might expect to find his hand the source of every blessing.[1165] These words contain the promise of eternal life, according to the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this declaration an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of believers. “For God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the Ephesians from what misery the Lord had delivered them, concludes, from their not having been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, that “at that time” they “were without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God;”[1167] all these things being comprehended in that covenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance into immortal life, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows that this promise corresponds with the promise of baptism respecting our purgation. The Lord afterwards stipulated with Abraham, that he should walk before him in sincerity and purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or regeneration. And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of mortification, Moses more expressly declares it in another place, when he exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because the Lord had chosen them for himself above all the nations of the earth. As God, when he adopts the posterity of Abraham to be his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise the heart, thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal circumcision.[1168] Then, that no one might attempt this in his own strength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All these things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no need to collect here the numerous testimonies which every where present themselves. We have ascertained, therefore, that a spiritual promise, the very same which is given to us in baptism, was given to the fathers in circumcision; which represented to them the remission of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of baptism, the same must be evident of circumcision. For he was promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all nations; and the sign of circumcision was added in confirmation of this grace.
IV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity or what difference there is between these two signs. The promise, in which we have stated the virtue of the signs to consist, is the same in both; including the paternal favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal life. In the next place, the thing signified also is one and the same, namely, regeneration. The foundation, on which the accomplishment of these things rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no difference in the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar nature of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies in the external ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it; whereas the principal part depends on the promise and the thing signified. We may conclude, therefore, that whatever belongs to circumcision, except the difference of the visible ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this inference and comparison we are led by the apostle’s rule, which directs us to examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of faith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to the slightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by which they were assured of their adoption as the people and family of God, and on their parts professed their entire subjection to him, and therefore was their first entrance into the Church, so now we are initiated into the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among his people, and profess to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is evident, beyond all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place of circumcision.