CHAPTER ELEVEN: The Significance of Baptism (part 1 of 2)
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Of Baptism
Baptism has been given to us by God, first, to serve our faith toward him, and second, to serve our confession before men. We shall treat these two purposes and reasons for its institution in order.
As to the first, baptism brings three things to our faith, each of which must be considered separately.
First, God sets it before us as a sign and token of our cleansing. To explain it more clearly, he sends it to us as a message by which he declares, confirms, and assures us that all our sins are so forgiven, covered, abolished, and blotted out that he will never regard them, bring them again to remembrance, or impute them to us. For he wills that all who believe should be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.
Therefore, those who have dared to write that baptism is nothing more than a mark and token by which we profess our religion before men, just as a soldier wears his prince’s livery to declare his allegiance, have failed to consider what is principal in baptism: that we must receive it with this promise:
“All who believe and are baptized shall be saved.”
In this sense we must understand Saint Paul’s statement that the Church was sanctified and cleansed by her bridegroom, Jesus Christ, through the washing of water with the Word of life. Likewise, in another place, that according to his mercy we have been saved through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. We must understand in the same way Saint Peter’s statement that baptism saves us.
Saint Paul did not mean that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by means of the water, or that the water contains power to cleanse, regenerate, or renew. Nor did Saint Peter mean that water is the cause of our salvation. They intended only to signify that in this sacrament we receive assurance of such graces.
This is sufficiently clear from their own words. Saint Paul joins together the Word of life, which is the gospel, and the baptism of water. It is as though he said that our cleansing and sanctification are announced to us through the gospel, while through baptism that announcement and message are signed and sealed.
Likewise, immediately after saying that baptism saves us, Saint Peter adds that this baptism is not the cleansing of bodily filth, but a good conscience toward God, which comes from faith.
Baptism promises us no other purification than that which comes through the sprinkling of Christ’s blood. This blood is represented by water because of its likeness to water in washing and cleansing. Who, then, will say that we are purified by the water itself, when it testifies that Christ’s blood is our true and only washing? Thus no better argument can be found to refute the error of those who attribute so much to the power of the water than to explain what baptism signifies.
Nor should we imagine that baptism is given to us only with respect to the past, so that for the sins into which we fall again after baptism we must seek some other new remedy. It was because of this error that some in ancient times refused to be baptized until the end of their lives and the hour of death, imagining that they might thereby obtain complete forgiveness for their entire lives. This foolish notion is frequently rebuked by the bishops in their writings.
We must understand that whenever we are baptized, we are washed and cleansed once for the whole course of our lives. Therefore, whenever we fall again into sin, we must return to the remembrance of our baptism and thereby strengthen ourselves in that faith, so that we may remain certain and assured of the forgiveness of our sins.
For although baptism, having once been administered to us, may appear to belong to the past, it is not erased by subsequent sins. The purity of Jesus Christ is offered to us in it, and that purity always retains its power, always endures, and can never be overcome by any stain. Rather, it abolishes and cleanses all our defilements and impurities.
We must not take from this any occasion or licence to sin more readily in the future, for we are not encouraged to such boldness. This doctrine is given only to those who, after sinning, are desolate and grieve, wearied and burdened beneath the weight of their sins, so that they may have something by which to raise and console themselves and not fall into confusion and despair.
For this reason Saint Paul says that Jesus Christ was made our propitiation for the forgiveness of former sins. He does not mean that in Christ we lack perpetual and continual forgiveness of sins until death. Rather, he signifies that Christ was given by the Father to poor sinners who, wounded by the burning sting of conscience, sigh after the Physician. To such people God’s mercy is offered.
On the contrary, those who presume upon impunity and seek and take from it an occasion and licence to sin do nothing but provoke God’s wrath and judgment against themselves.
The second consolation baptism brings us is that it displays our mortification in Jesus Christ and also our new life in him. For, as Saint Paul says, we are baptized into his death and buried with him in the likeness of his death, so that we may walk in newness of life.
By these words he does not merely exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he were saying that baptism admonishes us to die to our sinful desires after the likeness and example of Christ’s death and to rise to righteousness after the example of his resurrection. He takes the matter much higher: Jesus Christ has made us partakers of his death through baptism so that we may be grafted into it.
Just as a graft draws its substance and nourishment from the root into which it is inserted, so those who receive baptism with the faith they ought truly experience the efficacy of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, and likewise the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of their spirits. From this Saint Paul then takes occasion to exhort us that, if we are Christians, we must be dead to sin and alive to righteousness.
He employs the same argument elsewhere, where he says that we have been circumcised and have put off the old man, since we were buried with Christ through baptism. In this same sense, in the passage cited previously, he called it the washing of regeneration and renewal.
Finally, our faith also receives this consolation from baptism: it not only assures us that we are grafted into the death and life of Jesus Christ, but that we are so united to him that he makes us partakers of all his blessings. For this reason he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body, so that it might be a firm bond of the fellowship and union he willed to have with us.
Thus Saint Paul proves that we are children of God because through baptism we have put on Christ. We therefore see that baptism finds its fulfilment in him. For this reason we call him the proper object and goal toward which baptism is directed.
It is therefore no wonder that the apostles baptized in his name, although they had been commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For everything offered in baptism concerning the gifts of God is found in Christ alone. Nevertheless, whoever baptizes in the name of Christ must likewise invoke the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
We possess cleansing in Christ’s blood because the Father, wishing to pour out his goodness and mercy, reconciled us to himself through Christ. And we obtain regeneration in Christ’s death and life when, through the sanctification of the Spirit, a new spiritual nature is formed within us. Therefore, the cause of both our cleansing and regeneration must be acknowledged in God the Father, the substance in the Son, and the efficacy in the Holy Spirit.
Thus John first, and afterward the apostles, baptized with the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, understanding by repentance regeneration, and by forgiveness of sins cleansing. From this it is also made perfectly certain that John’s administration of baptism was entirely the same as that afterward given to the apostles. For baptism is not made different because it is administered by different hands; the same doctrine makes it the same baptism.
John and the apostles agreed in the same doctrine. They all baptized unto repentance and for the forgiveness of sins. John declared that Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God by whom the sins of the world were taken away and blotted out. By this he confessed, acknowledged, and testified that Christ was the sacrifice acceptable to the Father, the Propitiator, and the Saviour. What more could the apostles have added to this confession? Certainly nothing, for it is full and complete.
Therefore, let no one be troubled that the ancient writers attempt to distinguish the one baptism from the other. Their authority ought not to carry such weight with us that it causes the reasoning of Scripture to waver. Who would sooner agree with Chrysostom, who denies that the forgiveness of sins was comprehended in John’s baptism, than with Saint Luke, who affirms the contrary—that John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins?
If anyone seeks a distinction from the Word of God, he will find no other than this: John baptized in the name of the one who was to come, while the apostles baptized in the name of the one who had already been manifested. The fact that the graces of the Holy Spirit were bestowed more abundantly after the resurrection does nothing to establish a difference between the baptisms.
For the baptism administered by the apostles while Christ was still dwelling on earth was named after him, and yet it had no greater abundance of the Spirit than John’s baptism. Even after the Ascension, although the Samaritans had been baptized in the name of Jesus, they received no greater graces than believers had received before, until Peter and John were sent to lay hands upon them.
The ancients thought that John’s baptism was merely a preparation for Christ’s baptism. I believe they were misled because they read that those who had received John’s baptism were baptized again by Saint Paul. But how mistaken their understanding was will appear below.
What, then, does John mean when he says that he baptizes with water, but that Jesus Christ would come and baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire? This can be explained briefly. He did not intend to distinguish one baptism from the other, but to compare his own person with that of Jesus Christ. He declared himself to be the minister of the water, and Jesus the giver of the Holy Spirit. Christ would reveal this power by a visible miracle on the day when he sent the Holy Spirit upon his apostles in the form of tongues of fire. What more could the apostles claim for themselves? And what more can those who baptize today claim? They are merely ministers of the outward sign, but Jesus Christ is the author of the inward grace.
The things we have already said concerning mortification and then concerning washing or purification were prefigured among the people of Israel. For this reason Saint Paul says that they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea.
Mortification was prefigured when God delivered them from Pharaoh’s power and cruel bondage, made a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh and the Egyptians, their enemies, who pursued them. In the same way, in baptism God promises us, and by a sign demonstrates and assures us, that by his power and might we are delivered from the captivity of Egypt—that is, from the bondage of sin—and that our Pharaoh, the Devil, has been drowned, although he still does not cease to trouble and harass us. But just as that drowned Egyptian did not remain at the bottom of the sea, but was cast upon the shore and frightened the children of Israel, who saw how dreadful he appeared even though he could no longer harm them, so indeed our enemy threatens us, displays his weapons, and makes his presence felt, but he cannot prevail.
Purification was prefigured in the cloud. For just as our Lord then covered them with a cloud, refreshing them so that they should not faint and perish under the excessively fierce and burning heat of the sun, so in baptism it is shown to us that we are covered and preserved by the blood of Jesus Christ, so that the severity of God’s judgment—which is truly an unbearable fire and heat—may not fall upon us.
We can now clearly perceive how false is the teaching of some that through baptism we are released and delivered from original sin and from that corruption which has descended from Adam upon all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same original righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have possessed if he had always remained in the integrity in which he was first created. Teachers of this kind have never understood what original sin is, what original righteousness is, or what the grace of baptism is.
Now it has been shown above that original sin is a perversity and corruption of our nature. This corruption first makes us guilty before God’s wrath and liable to condemnation; and then it also produces in us the works which Scripture calls the works of the flesh.
These two things, therefore, must be considered separately. First, since we are thus corrupted and perverted in every part of our nature, we are already justly condemned and convicted before God on account of that corruption alone, for nothing is acceptable to him except righteousness, innocence, and purity. Even infants, therefore, bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb. Although they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, they nevertheless have its seed enclosed within them—or rather, their whole nature is a seed of sin. For this reason, it cannot but be hateful and abominable to God.
By baptism believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and driven away from them. For, as we have said, through this sign our Lord promises us that we have received a full and complete forgiveness of sins—both of the guilt that would otherwise be imputed to us and of the punishment that we would have had to bear and suffer for that guilt. They also receive righteousness, but such righteousness as God’s people can obtain in this life: namely, by imputation alone, because in his mercy our Lord accounts them righteous and innocent.
The second thing to consider is that this corruption never ceases within us, but continually produces new fruits in us—namely, the works of the flesh described above—just as a burning furnace continually casts out fire and sparks, or as a flowing spring continually sends forth its water. For sinful desire never dies or is entirely extinguished in men until, delivered by death from the body of death, they have entirely put off their old selves.
Baptism indeed promises us that our Pharaoh has been drowned and our flesh mortified, yet not in such a way that it no longer exists or no longer troubles us, but only so that it may not overcome us. For as long as we live confined within the prison of our body, the remnants and relics of sin will dwell within us. But if by faith we hold fast to the promise God has given us in baptism, they will not have dominion or reign over us.
Nevertheless, let no one deceive himself or flatter himself in his wickedness when he hears that sin always dwells within us. This is not said so that sinners may securely fall asleep in their sins, but only so that those who are troubled, assailed, and tormented by their flesh may not despair or lose courage and hope. Rather, they should recognize that they are still upon the way and consider themselves to have made progress when they feel their sinful desires diminishing somewhat from day to day, until they reach the goal toward which they strive: the final abolition of their flesh, which will be completed at the end of this mortal life.
We must therefore know and hold fast that we are baptized into the mortification of our flesh. This mortification begins in us at baptism and is pursued throughout every day of this life, but it will be perfected when we depart from this life to be with our Lord.
Baptism serves our confession before men in this way: it is a mark and sign by which we publicly declare that we wish to be numbered among the people of God; by which we testify that, together with all Christians, we consent and agree to the service of the one God and to one religion; and by which, finally, we publicly declare and affirm what our faith is. Thus God is glorified not only in our hearts, but our tongues and all the members of our bodies, so far as they are able, also sound forth his praises outwardly. For in this way, as is fitting, everything that belongs to us is employed in serving the glory of God, from which nothing ought to be excluded; and others are stirred by our example to devote themselves likewise.
Saint Paul had this in view when he asked the Corinthians whether they had been baptized in the name of Christ. By this he signifies that they had given and dedicated themselves to him, acknowledged him as their Lord and Master, and pledged their faith to him before men, so that they could no longer confess anyone but him alone without denying the confession they had made in baptism.
Now that we have explained the purpose for which our Lord instituted and ordained baptism, it will be easy to show how we ought to use and receive it. Insofar as it is given to strengthen, comfort, and confirm our faith, we must receive it as from the hand of God and hold it as certain and indubitable that it is he who speaks to us through this sign; that it is he who purges and cleanses us and abolishes the memory of our sins; that it is he who makes us partakers of his Son’s death; that it is he who destroys and puts to death the power of the Devil and of our sinful desire; and indeed that it is he who clothes us with his Son.
We must therefore believe and be assured that he performs all these things inwardly in our souls as truly and certainly as we see our bodies outwardly washed, submerged, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or correspondence is the surest rule concerning the sacraments: that in bodily things we should behold and consider spiritual things, since it has pleased the Lord to represent them to us under such figures.
This does not mean that such graces are bound up and enclosed within the sacrament, or that they are conferred upon us by its inherent power, but only that by this sign and mark the Lord testifies his will to us—namely, that he wills to give us all these things. This is evident in the example of the centurion Cornelius, who, after receiving the forgiveness of his sins and the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was nevertheless afterward baptized—not to obtain a fuller forgiveness through baptism, but to give his faith a more certain confirmation.
Someone may perhaps object: If sins are not cleansed by baptism, why did Ananias tell Saint Paul that he should wash away his sins by baptism? I reply that we are said to receive, obtain, or acquire what we believe to be given to us by God, whether we then begin for the first time to know it or, having known it before, come to possess a more certain persuasion of it. Therefore, in these words Ananias meant only this:
“Paul, in order that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven, be baptized.”
For the Lord promises the forgiveness of sins in baptism. Receive it, therefore, and hold it with assurance.
Moreover, we receive nothing from this sacrament except insofar as we receive it by faith. If faith is lacking, baptism will serve as a testimony to accuse us before God that we were unbelieving toward the promise given in it. But insofar as baptism is a sign and token of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that our confidence rests in the mercy of God; that our purity consists in the forgiveness of sins obtained through Jesus Christ; and that we enter the Church of God so that, in unity and agreement of faith and love, we may live with one heart among all believers. Saint Paul meant this when he said:
“We were all baptized by one Spirit into one body.”
Now if what we have established is true—that the sacrament must not be received as from the hand of the one who administers it, but as from the very hand of God, by whom it is undoubtedly sent—we may conclude that nothing is added to or taken from it by the dignity of the one through whose hand it is administered. Among men, when a letter is sent, provided that the hand and seal of the writer are clearly recognized, it makes no difference who or what kind of person the messenger may be. So it ought to be enough for us to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, by whatever messenger they may be brought.
This thoroughly refutes and destroys the error of the Donatists, who measured and valued the power and worth of the sacrament according to the dignity and worth of the minister. Such are our Anabaptists today, who deny that we have been properly baptized because we were baptized by unbelievers and idolaters in the papal kingdom. They therefore furiously demand that we be baptized again.
Against their follies we are armed with a sufficiently strong argument if we remember that we were baptized, not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore baptism is not man’s but God’s, by whomever it may have been administered. Whatever ignorance or contempt of God may have been present in those who baptized us, they did not baptize us into fellowship with their ignorance and impiety, but into the faith of Jesus Christ. For they did not invoke their own name, but God’s, nor did they baptize us in any other name.
Now if the baptism was God’s, it certainly carried the promise of the forgiveness of sins, the mortification of the flesh, spiritual renewal, and participation in Christ. Furthermore, they ask us what faith followed our baptism during the many years afterward, intending thereby to conclude that our baptism was empty, since it is not sanctified to us unless the word of promise is received by faith. We answer that we were indeed blind and unbelieving for a long time and did not receive the promise given to us in baptism.
Nevertheless, because that promise was from God, it remained firm and true from the very beginning, immediately and forever. Even if all men were liars and unfaithful, God nevertheless remains true. Even if all men were lost and condemned, Jesus Christ nevertheless remains salvation.
We therefore confess that baptism profited us nothing at that time, since the promise offered to us in it was despised—and without that promise baptism is nothing. Now, however, since by God’s grace we have begun to amend our lives, we condemn our blindness and hardness of heart, by which we remained ungrateful for so long toward his goodness. Yet we do not therefore believe that the promise has vanished. Rather, we reason in this way: God promises the forgiveness of sins in baptism, and he will undoubtedly keep that promise to all who believe. That promise was offered to us in baptism; therefore, let us now embrace it by faith. It was indeed buried from us for a long time because of our unbelief; let us now recover it by faith.
For this reason, when the Lord exhorts the Jewish people to repentance, he does not command those who had been circumcised by the hands of wicked and sacrilegious men—and who had themselves lived for some time in the same impiety—to be circumcised again. He requires only the conversion of the heart. For however greatly his covenant had been violated by them, its sign, as he had instituted it, always remained firm and inviolable. He therefore received them again on this sole condition: that they should return to repentance. In doing so, he confirmed the covenant he had once made with them through circumcision, although it had been administered to them by wicked priests and falsified by their own iniquity.
But the Anabaptists imagine that they hurl a flaming dart at us when they allege that Saint Paul rebaptized those who had once been baptized with Saint John’s baptism. For if, as we confess, Saint John’s baptism was altogether the same baptism as ours today, then —as those men, having previously been wrongly instructed, were rebaptized into the true faith after receiving sound instruction—so also the baptism we received without true doctrine must be accounted nothing, and we must now be baptized anew into the true religion, which we have only lately begun to taste.
Some believe that those men had previously been baptized by some foolish imitator of Saint John, more into empty superstitions than into the truth. Their reason is the conjecture that these disciples confessed that they did not know about the Holy Spirit, whereas Saint John would not have left them in such ignorance. Yet it is no more credible that even unbaptized Jews would have had no knowledge of the Spirit, since he was so frequently mentioned to them in Scripture. Therefore, when they answer that they did not know whether there was a Holy Spirit, this must be understood to mean that they had heard nothing about whether the graces of the Holy Spirit, concerning which Saint Paul questioned them, were being distributed among Christ’s disciples.
For my part, I grant that the first baptism given to these men was the true baptism of Saint John and was one and the same with the baptism of Jesus Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptized. What, then, do these words mean: “They were baptized in the name of Jesus”? Some interpret them as meaning merely that they were instructed by Saint Paul in pure and sound doctrine. But I prefer to understand them more simply as referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit—that is, that the visible graces of the Holy Spirit were given to them through the laying on of hands.
These graces are frequently called baptism in Scripture. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles remembered the Lord’s words concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. Saint Peter likewise relates that the graces which he saw poured out upon Cornelius and his household brought the same words to his remembrance.
Nor does what follows contradict this:
“When he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them.”
For Saint Luke is not recounting two different things, but follows a form of narration familiar to the Hebrews: they first state the matter summarily and then explain it more fully. Anyone may perceive this from the sequence of the words themselves:
“When they heard these things, they were baptized in the name of Jesus; and when Saint Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them.”
This latter expression describes what that baptism was.
But if the first baptism were invalidated and annulled by the ignorance of those who received it, so that another had to be administered, the apostles themselves should have been the first to be rebaptized. For during the three years following their baptism, they possessed no great knowledge of true doctrine. And among us, what oceans could furnish enough water to repeat all the baptisms corresponding to the ignorance that our Lord corrects in us daily?
Now, since we see that the practice of baptizing infants is attacked and disputed by certain malicious spirits—as though it had not been instituted by God, but recently invented by men, or at least introduced some years after the time of the apostles—we have considered it our duty to strengthen weak consciences on this point and to refute the false objections such deceivers might raise to overthrow the truth of God in the hearts of the simple, who may not be sufficiently practiced to answer their subtleties and cavils.
They commonly employ an argument that appears plausible enough at first. They say that they desire nothing except that the Word of God should be preserved in its purity and maintained in its entirety, without adding anything to it or taking anything from it, as those who first devised infant baptism allegedly added this practice by undertaking it without any command. We would grant that this argument was sufficient if they could prove their contention: that this baptism arose from human invention and not from God’s ordinance. But when, on the contrary, we have clearly shown that they falsely and unjustly slander this institution—calling it a human tradition when it is firmly founded upon the Word of God—what remains except that this pretext, which they vainly put forward, should vanish into smoke?
Here we must remember the rule Saint Paul gives us for rightly understanding Scripture: that in expounding it we must always follow the proportion and conformity of faith. This is as though he commanded us to keep our eyes fixed upon this goal: to relate everything taught in Scripture to the doctrine of faith, and from that doctrine, as from the true source, to derive the exposition of all spiritual teaching.
If we once establish this foundation in the present matter—a foundation that ought to be constant among Christians and applied throughout the whole Word of God—it will be easy for us to recognize that baptism is not administered to infants apart from the will and institution of the Lord. We shall also be able to free ourselves from and resolve all the difficulties in which some have become entangled through their failure to observe this necessary rule.
Now, to address the present subject particularly, this ought to be settled among believers: the right consideration of the signs or sacraments which the Lord has left and entrusted to his Church does not consist merely in their outward form or external ceremony, but depends chiefly upon the promises and spiritual mysteries which our Lord has chosen to represent by such ceremonies.
Therefore, to understand properly what baptism is and what it conveys, we must not fix our attention entirely upon the water and the outward action. Rather, we must raise our thoughts to the promises of God given to us in baptism and to the inward and spiritual realities there displayed. If we grasp these, we possess the substance and truth of baptism. From them we will also come to understand why this sprinkling with water was ordained and what benefit it brings us.
On the other hand, if we despise and neglect these things and fix our minds wholly and exclusively upon the outward observance, we shall never comprehend the power or significance of baptism, nor even understand what the water used in it means or signifies. We need not pursue this at length, since it is so clearly and frequently demonstrated in Scripture that it cannot be doubtful or obscure among Christians.
It remains, then, to seek in the promises given in baptism what its proper substance is. Scripture teaches us that baptism first represents the forgiveness and cleansing of our sins, which we possess through the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ; and then the mortification of our flesh, which we likewise obtain through participation in his death, so that we may rise to newness of life—that is, to innocence, holiness, and purity.
From this we understand, first, that the visible and material sign is nothing but a representation of higher and more excellent realities. To comprehend them, we must have recourse to the Word of God, in which the whole power of the sign consists. From that Word we see that the things signified and represented are the cleansing of our sins and the mortification of our flesh, so that we may be made partakers of the spiritual regeneration which must be present in all the children of God. Finally, we see that all these things are brought about in Jesus Christ, who is their foundation.
This, in sum, is the meaning of baptism, to which everything Scripture says concerning it may be reduced and referred, except for one point not yet mentioned: baptism is also a mark by which we acknowledge the Lord before men as our God and are enrolled among his people.
Since before the institution of baptism the people of God possessed circumcision in its place, which served under the Old Testament, we must now consider what similarity and what difference exist between these two signs. In this way we may likewise understand what can be inferred from one concerning the other.
When our Lord ordained circumcision for Abraham, he first gave him the promise that he would be his God and the God of his offspring, declaring himself to be all-sufficient and to hold all things in his hand, so that he might be to him the fullness and fountain of every good. Within these words is contained the promise of eternal life, as our Lord Jesus Christ explained when, from the fact that his Father had called himself the God of Abraham, he drew an argument to convince the Sadducees of the immortality and resurrection of believers:
“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
For this reason Saint Paul, in the second chapter of Ephesians, when showing them the miserable condition from which our Lord had delivered them, concludes from the fact that they had been without circumcision that they were without Christ, strangers to the promises, without God, and without hope, since circumcision was the testimony of all these things.
Now the first step by which we approach God and enter into eternal life is the forgiveness of our sins. It follows, therefore, that this promise corresponds to the promise of baptism, which concerns our cleansing and washing.
Afterward, our Lord declares to Abraham how he wills him to walk before him in integrity and innocence. This is nothing other than mortification, in order to rise to newness of life. And so that there might be no doubt that circumcision was a sign and figure of mortification, Moses explains it more clearly in the tenth chapter of Deuteronomy, when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise their hearts to the Lord, because they are the people he has chosen from among all the nations of the earth.
Just as our Lord, in receiving Abraham’s descendants as his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they must be circumcised in heart, intending to show what the truth of this fleshly circumcision is. Furthermore, lest the people should attempt to attain this mortification by their own power, he teaches them that it is the work of God’s grace within us. All these things are repeated so frequently in the Prophets that there is no need to discuss them at length.
We have established, therefore, that circumcision conveyed to the fathers the same spiritual promise as baptism, signifying to them the forgiveness of their sins and the mortification of their flesh so that they might live unto righteousness. Moreover, just as we have said that Christ, as the fulfillment of these things, is the foundation of baptism, so he is also the foundation of circumcision. Accordingly, he is promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all the nations of the earth—as though our Lord were saying that the whole earth, being cursed in itself, would receive blessing through him. The sign of circumcision is then added to seal and confirm this promise.
It is now very easy to judge and discern in what respects these two signs—circumcision and baptism—agree and in what respects they differ. The promise, which we have said constitutes the power of the sacraments, is the same in both: namely, the promise of God’s mercy, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. The reality represented is likewise always the same: our cleansing and mortification. The cause and foundation of these things, which is Christ, is present in both for their confirmation and fulfillment.
It follows that there is no difference between them with respect to the inward mystery, in which the whole substance of the sacraments consists, as has been said. The entire difference between them lies only in the outward ceremony, which is the lesser part of the sacraments, since the principal consideration depends upon the Word and upon the reality signified and represented.
We may therefore conclude that everything belonging to circumcision also belongs to baptism, except for the outward and visible difference. We are led to this conclusion by the rule stated earlier: that all Scripture must be interpreted according to the proportion and analogy of faith, which always has regard to the promises. Indeed, the truth on this point is almost tangible.
For just as circumcision was a mark given to the Jews, acknowledging that God received them as his people and that they acknowledged him as their God—and was thus for them the first outward entrance into the Church of God—so by baptism we are first received into the Church of our Lord, to be recognized as belonging to his people, and we publicly declare our intention to acknowledge him as our God. From this it is evident that baptism has succeeded circumcision.
Now, if anyone asks whether baptism ought to be administered to infants as belonging to them according to God’s ordinance, who would be so devoid of sense as to base his answer solely upon the water and the visible observance, rather than considering the spiritual mystery? If we have regard to that mystery, there can be no doubt that baptism rightly belongs to infants.
For when our Lord formerly ordained circumcision for infants, he plainly showed that he made them partakers of everything represented by it. Otherwise, we would have to say that such an institution was nothing but falsehood and pretense—even a deceitful trick—which cannot be heard or tolerated among believers. For the Lord expressly declares that the circumcision given to the infant would confirm to him the covenant already stated.
If, therefore, the covenant always remains the same, it is entirely certain that the children of Christians are no less partakers of it than the children of the Jews were under the Old Testament. And if they are partakers of the reality signified, why should the sacrament, which is merely its figure and representation, not be administered to them?
If the outward sign is to be distinguished from the Word, which of the two should be regarded as greater and more excellent? Surely, since the sign serves the Word, it is plainly inferior and of lesser worth. Now the Word of baptism is addressed to infants. Why, then, should the sign, which is dependent upon that Word, be withheld from them? Even if this were the only argument, it would be more than sufficient to silence every opponent.
The objection drawn from the particular day appointed for circumcision is entirely irrelevant. It is true that the Lord has not bound us to a particular day, as he did the Jews, but while leaving us free in that respect, he has nevertheless declared that infants ought to be solemnly received into his covenant. What more do we require?
Nevertheless, Scripture leads us to an even clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is certain that the covenant the Lord once made with Abraham—when he declared that he would be his God and the God of his offspring—is no less in force today among Christians than it was then among the Jewish people, and that this word is no less addressed to us today than it was to the fathers of the Old Testament. Otherwise, it would follow that the coming of Jesus Christ had diminished and restricted the grace and mercy of God—which is a horrible blasphemy both to speak and to hear.
Indeed, just as the children of the Jews were called a holy offspring because they were heirs of this covenant and were thereby separated from the children of unbelievers and idolaters, so the children of Christians are, for the same reason, called holy, even when only one parent—the father or the mother—is a believer; and by the testimony of Scripture they are distinguished from all others.
Now, after promising this covenant to Abraham, the Lord wills that it should be testified and sealed to infants by the outward sacrament.
What excuse do we have, then, for not testifying and sealing it today as was done then?
It cannot be objected that no other sacrament was ordained to testify this covenant except circumcision, which has now been abolished. The answer is ready: for that time our Lord ordained circumcision; nevertheless, though circumcision has been abrogated, the reason for confirming the covenant always remains, since it belongs as much to us as to the Jews. We must therefore carefully consider what we have in common with them and what differs. The covenant is common to both, and the reason for confirming it is the same. The only difference is that they had circumcision as its confirmation, whereas baptism serves us in that capacity today.
Otherwise, the coming of Christ would have caused God’s mercy to be revealed less fully to us than it was to the Jews, if the testimony they possessed for their children were taken away from us. Since this cannot be said without greatly dishonoring Jesus Christ—through whom the Lord’s infinite goodness has been poured out and manifested upon the earth more fully and richly than ever before—we must grant that God’s grace ought not now to be more concealed or less firmly assured than it was under the shadows of the Law.
For this reason, our Lord Jesus, wishing to show that he had come to increase and multiply his Father’s graces rather than to restrict them, kindly receives and embraces the children brought to him. He rebukes his apostles for attempting to hinder them, because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs from coming to him who is the way and entrance into it:
“For to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
But someone will ask: What similarity is there between Christ’s embracing of the children and baptism? For it is not said that he baptized them, but only that he received and embraced them and prayed for them. Therefore, if we wished to follow our Lord’s example properly, we should pray for infants rather than baptize them, since he did not do so.
Yet we must weigh the teaching of Scripture somewhat more carefully than such people do. It is no small matter that Jesus Christ wills the children to be brought to him, adding the reason that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. He then further declares his will by his actions, in that he embraces them and prays for them.
If it is right to bring children to Jesus Christ, why should it not be lawful to receive them into baptism, which is the outward sign by which Jesus Christ declares to us the communion we have in him? If the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, why should they be denied the sign by which we are granted, as it were, an entrance into the Church and declared to be heirs of God’s kingdom? Would we not be most unjust to drive away those whom our Lord calls to himself, to refuse them what he gives them, to shut the door against them when he opens it?
And if anyone insists upon separating what Jesus Christ did from baptism, which of the two should be regarded as greater: that Jesus Christ receives them, lays his hands upon them as a sign of sanctification, and prays for them, thereby showing that they are his; or that by baptism we testify that they belong to his covenant? The other cavils advanced to evade this passage are altogether frivolous.
For to argue that they were children already grown, merely because Jesus Christ says that they should be allowed to come, too plainly contradicts Scripture, which calls them little infants who had to be carried. Thus the word come must simply be interpreted as approach. This is how those who stubbornly oppose the truth seek in every syllable some pretext for evasion.
The objection of others—that it is not said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to infants, but only to those who are like them—is likewise a mere subterfuge. For if that interpretation were admitted, what force would there be in our Lord’s reason for showing that the children ought to approach him? When he says, “Let the children come to me,” nothing is more certain than that he is speaking of children who are young in age. Then, to show that this is reasonable, he adds, “For to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The children must necessarily be included in these words. The expression to such must therefore be understood in this way: the kingdom of heaven belongs to them and to those who are like them.
There is now no one who cannot see that infant baptism was not rashly invented by men, since it has such clear approval from Scripture. Nor is there any force in the objection made by some, namely, that Scripture cannot show that any infant was ever baptized by the apostles. For although we confess that this is not expressly stated, it does not follow that the apostles did not baptize infants, since infants are never excluded when mention is made of an entire household being baptized.
By the same argument, we might contend that women ought not to be admitted to the Supper of our Lord, since Scripture never expressly says that they partook of it in the time of the apostles. But in this matter we rightly follow the rule of faith, considering only whether the institution of the Supper applies to them and whether, according to our Lord’s intention, it ought to be given to them. We proceed in the same way with baptism. For when we consider those for whom it was ordained, we find that it belongs no less to infants than to adults. Therefore, to exclude them from it would be to frustrate the Lord’s intention.
In any case, what they spread abroad is a sheer falsehood: that infant baptism arose long after the time of the apostles. For we possess no history so ancient, dating from the earliest Church, that does not testify that it was already practiced at that time.
It remains to show what benefit believers receive from this practice of baptizing their children, and what benefit the children themselves receive from being baptized at such an age. For there are some who reject it as useless and of no importance. In this they are greatly mistaken.
Even if there were no other consideration than that in doing so they mock the ordinance of circumcision established by the Lord—which possesses the same worth and significance—this would furnish sufficient reason to restrain their rashness and presumption, since they foolishly and irrationally condemn everything their carnal understanding cannot comprehend.
But our Lord has provided still more fully for the overthrow of their foolish arrogance. For he has not left his will so hidden that he has failed to show the evident benefit of his institution. The sign given to infants is a seal confirming and, as it were, ratifying the promise our Lord has made to his believers: that he will pour out his mercy not only upon them, but also upon their posterity, to a thousand generations.
In this, first, the goodness of God is testified in order that his name may be magnified and exalted. Second, the believer is comforted and given greater courage to devote himself entirely to God when he sees that this gracious Lord cares not only for him, but also for his children and his posterity.
Nor should anyone say that the promise alone would be sufficient to assure us of our children’s salvation. God has judged otherwise, and, knowing the weakness of our faith, has chosen to support it in this matter. Therefore, all who rest with confident assurance upon this promise—that God wills to show mercy to their offspring—are dutybound to present their children to receive the sign of that mercy. In this they may be comforted and strengthened when they behold with their own eyes the Lord’s covenant sealed upon the bodies of their children.
The benefit that comes to the child is that the Christian Church, recognizing him as a member of its body, holds him in particular care. And when he comes of age, he has reason to be more inclined to serve the Lord, who declared himself to be his Father before the child knew him, receiving him among his people from his mother’s womb.
Finally, we must always fear this warning: if we neglect to mark our children with the sign of the covenant, the Lord will take vengeance upon us, because in doing so we renounce the benefit he offers us.
Let us now come to the arguments by which the evil spirit has sought to entangle many in error and deception under the pretense of adhering to the Word of God. Let us consider what force there is in all the devices of Satan by which he has attempted to overthrow this holy ordinance of the Lord, which has always, as was fitting, been reverently observed in his Church.
Those whom the Devil drives to contradict the certain Word of God on this point find themselves severely pressed and powerfully refuted by the comparison we have drawn between circumcision and baptism. They therefore strive to establish some great difference between these two signs, so that nothing belonging to the one may be applied to the other. First, they say that the reality signified is different. Second, that the covenant is altogether different. Third, that the children must be understood in different senses.
In attempting to prove the first point, they allege that circumcision was a figure of mortification, but baptism was not. This we grant them most willingly, for it supports our position. Indeed, to prove our contention, we use no other words than these: circumcision and baptism alike represent mortification. From this we conclude that baptism succeeded circumcision because it signifies to Christians the same reality that circumcision signified to the Jews.
As for their second assertion, they show how utterly beside themselves they are, not merely by overturning one passage through false interpretation, but by overturning the whole of Scripture. For they portray the Jews as a carnal and brutish people who had no covenant with God except concerning temporal life and no promise except concerning present and perishable blessings. In saying this, what remains except that we should regard that nation as a herd of swine whom our Lord chose to feed at the trough, only afterward to leave them to perish eternally? For whenever we appeal to circumcision and the promises attached to it, they immediately reply that it was a literal sign and that its promises were carnal.
But if circumcision was a literal sign, then baptism must be so as well, since Saint Paul, in the second chapter of Colossians, does not make the one more spiritual than the other:
“In Christ we were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, when we put off the body of sin dwelling in our flesh, which is the circumcision of Christ. We were then buried with Christ in baptism.”
What else can this passage mean except that the fulfillment of baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision, since both signify the same reality? For Saint Paul intends to show that baptism is to Christians what circumcision formerly was to the Jews.
Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises belonging to these two signs and the mysteries represented in them do not differ at all, we will not dwell upon this any longer. We will only admonish believers to consider whether a sign ought to be regarded as carnal and literal when everything it contains is spiritual and heavenly.
Nevertheless, because they allege certain passages to give their falsehood an appearance of truth, we will briefly resolve every objection they can raise. It is certain that the chief promises our Lord gave his people under the Old Testament—the promises in which his covenant with them consisted—were spiritual and concerned eternal life. They were likewise spiritually understood by the fathers, so that they might conceive the hope of future glory and be carried toward it with their whole affection. Nevertheless, we do not deny that he also testified his goodwill toward them through other carnal and earthly promises, but these served to confirm the spiritual promises.
The same might be said of baptism in order to refute the error of those who seek nothing in it but water.
What, then, does the apostle mean elsewhere when he teaches that the true children of Abraham are not those of the flesh, but that only the children of the promise are counted as his offspring? These words seem to imply that descent from Abraham’s physical lineage is of no benefit. Here we must carefully observe Saint Paul’s intention.
To show the Jews that God’s grace is not bound to Abraham’s physical offspring, and that such bodily kinship has no value in itself, he sets before them, in the ninth chapter of Romans, Ishmael and Esau. Although descended from Abraham, they were rejected as strangers, while the blessing was established in Isaac and Jacob. From this follows the conclusion he afterward draws: salvation depends upon God’s mercy, which he bestows upon whomever he pleases. The Jews therefore have no ground for glorying that they are the Church of God if they do not obey his Word.
Nevertheless, after thus chastening their vain glory, Saint Paul also recognizes that the covenant made with Abraham for himself and his offspring was not without value, but always retained its force.
Therefore, in the eleventh chapter, he declares that it must not be despised and that the Jews are the rightful and original heirs of the gospel. It is only through their ingratitude that they render themselves unworthy of it. Yet, however unbelieving they may be, he still calls them holy because of the holy ancestry from which they descend. He says that, in comparison with them, we are merely stunted offshoots taken and grafted into their root, while they are the natural branches.