6. § 52. Baptism.

6. § 52. Baptism.

§ 52. Baptism.

. Baptism in the N. Test. was prepared in the days of the O. Covenant by circumcision, which was expressly prescribed by God to Abraham,

Gen. 17:10v. According to Herodotus II 36. 104 circumcision also occurred among the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Syrians. The Reformed, e.g. Witsius,

Aegypt. III 6, 11. 12, Marck, Med. Theol. 29, 8, did indeed attempt to refute this testimony or also to show that these peoples had adopted it from Israel.

But this opinion is untenable. Among the Egyptians it was already in use in very ancient times, at least for [253] the priests. And more recent ethnological investigations have placed beyond all doubt in the light, that circumcision is a ceremony which occurs among numerous peoples in Asia,

America, Africa and even Australia, Delitzsch on Gen. 17. Art.

Beschneidung in Herzog3. Glassberg, Die Beschneidung in ihrer geschichtl. ethnogr. relig. u. medic. Bedeutung, Berlin Boas 1896. Just as God, in the institution of temple and priesthood, of sacrifice and altar, of laws and ordinances among Israel, attaches himself to existing usages among other peoples, so He also does with circumcision. He, as it were, takes it over, but

gives it another, a sacramental meaning. For among the peoples bodily circumcision did indeed occur, but there it by no means bore the character of a sacrament. It was also there often, as among the Egyptians, performed only on certain persons, and usually not in the first days of life but at a later age. But when God institutes circumcision with Abraham, then He commands that all that is male shall be circumcised, both the servant and the son of the house; that that circumcision must take place on the eighth day; and that it serves as a sign of the covenant, so that whoever does not receive it is a covenant-breaker and must be cut off from the midst of his people. Although circumcision may thus also be a sanitary measure, it nevertheless does not find its goal therein under Israel; here it extends to a sign and confirmation of the covenant of grace, whose one, great, allembracing promise is: I will be your God and the God of your seed, Gen.

17:7. Specifically it is a seal of two benefits of that covenant, of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4:11, and of the circumcision of the heart,

Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:28, 29, Col. 2:11, that is, of justification or forgiveness of sins and of regeneration or sanctification. Not that it bestows these benefits instrumentally, for outward circumcision without that of the heart is without value, Hd. 7:51, Rom. 2:28, 29; 3:21, 30, 1 Cor.

7:19, it is a seal of the righteousness of faith and thus presupposes faith.

When the Jews more and more sought to set up their own righteousness from the law, they became, just as much as the Gentiles and in spite of their outward circumcision, condemnable before God, Rom. 3:21. Therefore God already before the public appearance of Jesus instituted through [254] John water baptism. This baptism too was not something new, any more than circumcision was in ancient times. All antiquity ascribed to water in religion a symbolic meaning. The water of Euphrates, Indus, Ganges had an

atoning, sanctifying power. Among Greeks and Romans, on all kinds of occasions, e.g. at initiation into the mysteries, washings were prescribed,

Pfanner, Syst. Theol. gent. 346. Also among Israel, long before the divine institution of baptism, all kinds of washings were in use, Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes3 II 481, and for the proselytes, besides circumcision and sacrifice, a baptism was also necessary, in order to be received into the congregation, ib. III 129. But this baptism nevertheless becomes sacrament, sign and seal of grace only through the institution of God. The N. Test. accordingly also teaches expressly, that there went out a ρημα θεου to John to baptize, Luk. 3:2, 3, that God sent him thereto, Joh. 1:33, that his baptism was not ἐξ ἀνθρωπων but ἐς οὐρανου, Mt. 21:25, and that the publicans, who had themselves baptized, justified God, while the Pharisees and lawyers, refusing the baptism of John, rejected the counsel of God, Luk.

7:29, 30. With that baptism John preached to the Jews of his time, that they, though circumcised and baptizing the proselytes, themselves were guilty and unclean and had need of baptism, in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. The baptism of John was thus an accusation against, a condemnation of the Jews, a preaching of their condemnableness, but —let it not be forgotten— it was also still something more. It was the incontrovertible proof that God had remembered his covenant and fulfilled his promise. Notwithstanding the Jews were guilty and unclean, there was nevertheless forgiveness with God; and this would now begin to reveal itself still more richly than in the days of the O. T. John the Baptist is therefore also not to be regarded as the last of the O. T. prophets, for all the prophets and the law have prophesied up to John, ἑως Ιωαννου, Mt. 11:13, but as the announcer of the coming kingdom of God, Mt. 3:2, as the preacher of the approaching gospel, Luk. 3:18, as the forerunner of Christ,

Mk. 1:2, as the witness of the rising light, Joh. 1:7, 29, 34, 36 cf. Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:7, Luk. 3:16, Hd. 19:4, who presently makes room for the greater one and leads his disciples to him, Joh. 1:35v., 3:27v. With this [255] content of his preaching his baptism corresponds. It was a βαπτισμα μετανοιας εἰς ἀφεοιν ἁμαρτιων, Mk. 1:4, which does not mean that John's baptism only prepared for the forgiveness later to be received through Christ (Meyer), but very definitely, that he bestowed forgiveness in the way of conversion. For it is said in the same way in Hd. 2:38 of Christian baptism, that it took place εἰς ἀφεσιν ἁμαρτιων, because through baptism as sign and seal one obtains forgiveness. Further, Jesus himself was baptized with the baptism of John, makes absolutely no distinction between the baptism administered by his disciples and that of John, Joh. 3:22, 23, 4:1, simply takes over the disciples baptized by John, without rebaptizing them, Joh. 1:37, Hd. 18:25, and in Mt. 28:19 institutes no other or new baptism, but only extends it to all peoples. On these grounds, by Reformed, Calvin, Inst. IV 15, 7. 8.

Mastricht, Theol. VII 4, 17. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX 16, M. Vitringa VII 52 and Lutherans, Gerhard, Loc. XX 15 sq. 43 sq. in spite of a gradual difference, the essential identity of the Johannine and the Christian baptism was maintained. But this was contested by the Roman Catholics, Thomas,

S. Theol. III qu. 66 art. 4. Trid. sess. VII can. 1. Bellarminus, de bapt. I 5, by the Anabaptists, Socinians, Arminians and by many more recent theologians, Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. § 136, 1. Steitz in Herzog1 15, 468.

Höfling, Das Sakr. der Taufe I 26 f. van Oosterzee, Dogm. § 87, 2 etc.

There are also indeed weighty objections to be raised against the identity. In the first place, from Mt. 3:11, Mk. 1:8, Luk. 3:16 the objection is derived, that the baptism of John and Christian baptism stand over against each other as water-baptism and as Spiritand fire-baptism. But Hd. 1:5 clearly

teaches, that John here sets his baptism not over against Christian baptism, but over against the figuratively so called baptism of the H. Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The proper Christian baptism is, after all, also a baptism with water, signifying the washing away of sins, and the baptism of John was likewise a baptism with water, but which at the same time sealed conversion and forgiveness. Both baptisms thus correspond entirely in sign and thing signified. Otherwise there would also follow from it the absurdity, that not only the baptism of John, but also the baptism which Jesus himself before Pentecost had [256] his disciples administer, would have been nothing but a baptism with water. And even the opponents of the identity of the baptism of John and of Christ do not dare to assert that. They usually say, that Christian baptism was instituted either already at Jesus' baptism by John or at the baptizing by Jesus himself through his disciples. But both baptisms, both that of Jesus and that of John, were distinct from that Spiritbaptism which would take place on the day of Pentecost, although they both also signified and sealed the same benefits of conversion and forgiveness of sins. But now again —and that is the second objection against the abovementioned identity— the Spirit-baptism of the day of Pentecost is brought into connection with Christian water-baptism. According to Hd. 19:1-7,

Paul at Ephesus encountered some disciples, who had been baptized εἰς το Ιωαννου βαπτισμα, who were called μαθηται and πιστευσαντες and yet had not received the H. Spirit and did not even know, εἰ πνευμα ἁγιον ἐστιν.

Better instructed by Paul concerning the preaching of John, they had themselves baptized εἰς το ὀνομα του κυριου Ιησον, and had hands laid on them and thus received the H. Spirit and began to speak in tongues and to prophesy. From this latter it appears, that with πνευμα ἁγιον here, as likewise 8:15, 10:44, 11:15, 15:8, one must think of the gift of the Spirit of

glossolalia and prophecy; these the disciples in Ephesus had not received and they had not even heard of it. Baptism did not always give that gift, not only that of John did not but also not that of Jesus. For in Hd. 8:15 we read, that the believers in Samaria had indeed been baptized εἰς το ὀυομα του κυριου Ιησου, but had not yet received the H. Spirit, not one of them, and obtained him only through the laying on of hands of the apostles. And likewise Hd. 19:6 does not let this gift be a consequence of baptism but of the laying on of hands. But the strange thing in Hd. 19 is, that the disciples in Ephesus before this laying on of hands were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul therefore must not have recognized the baptism which they had received as a true, genuine baptism. They had been baptized εἰς το

Ιωαννου βαπτισμα. The baptism of John was indeed good, for he baptized the baptism of conversion to faith in Christ. But among the disciples of John, who had remained with him and had not passed over to Jesus, all kinds of error had crept in, also concerning [257] baptism; and so the disciples in Ephesus had to be baptized not anew but for the first time in Jesus' name, for their baptism to the name of John was no true baptism, not the genuine Christian and also not the genuine, original Johannine baptism.

Cf. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evang. Freiburg Mohr 1898, who thinks that the whole prologue of Joh. 1 was written against these Baptists or followers of John the Baptist.

2. The divine institution of baptism thus already occurs with John, but Jesus, after having undergone it Himself, adopted it, had it administered by His disciples, Joh. 3:22, 4:1, and in Mt. 28:19 made it binding for all believers from all nations. The last passage is regarded by many as spurious, because in the apostolic time baptism still took place in the name of Jesus and the Trinitarian formula is of later date; and there are even those

who assert that Jesus did not at all institute baptism for His church. Against that, however, there are all kinds of objections. It is indeed not open to denial that Jesus Himself had the baptism of John administered to Him and thereby acknowledged it; He derives it, where He speaks expressly about it, from a command of God, Mt. 21:25. Nor is there any ground to deny that Jesus adopted baptism and administered it, if not Himself, then at least through His disciples, Joh. 3:22, 26, 4:1, 2, for Jesus appeared with the same preaching as John, namely of the nearness of the kingdom of heaven and set for entrance into it the same requirements, namely faith and repentance, Mk. 1:15; it therefore lay at hand that He, like John, had the baptism of repentance administered to everyone who wished to belong to the narrower circle of His disciples. In Joh. 3:5 there is indeed no mention of baptism, part III 501, but the passage nevertheless proves that the communication of the Spirit in the church was regarded as having its symbol in the water. In proportion as the opposition of the Jewish people to Him and His disciples became greater, an act of separation on the one hand and of reception into the church of Jesus on the other hand became all the more necessary. Baptism as incorporation into the Christian church must also have been willed and intended by Jesus Himself, because otherwise it would not be explicable [258] that it was introduced and applied at once, without any struggle, in all Christian churches, both in those from the Jews and from the Gentiles, Hd. 2:38, 41, 8:12, 13, 16, 38, 9:18 etc. Rom. 6:3-5,

1 Cor. 1:13-17, Gal. 3:27, Ef. 5:26 etc. In 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul does indeed say that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel. But this by no means proves that Paul esteems baptism lightly or considers it unnecessary; Rom. 6 and other passages teach quite otherwise. Jesus

Himself, however, also did not administer baptism but had it administered.

And thus Paul also occupied himself chiefly with the preaching of the gospel and left the baptizing and other labors in the founding and the building up of the churches to his fellow workers.

Now baptism is indeed called in the earliest period a baptism ἐν τῳ ὀνοματι or εἰς το ὀνομα Ιησου, Rom. 6:3, 1 Cor. 1:13, Gal. 3:27, Hd. 2:38,

8:16, 10:48, 19:5, but by that it is absolutely not said that baptism was administered with that particular formula. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:2, that the Israelites were baptized εἰς τον Μωυσην, in 1 Cor. 1:13, that the believers at Corinth were not baptized εἰς το ὀνομα Παυλου, in 1 Cor.

12:13, that they were baptized εἰς ἑν σωμα, and in Hd. 19:3 the disciples at Ephesus said that they had been baptized εἰς το Ιωαννου βαπτισμα; in all which cases no one thinks of a formula that was pronounced at baptism.

The expression: in the name of Jesus, is not intended as a formula, but is a description of the character of Christian baptism, Zahn, Einl. in das N. T. II 309. The Israelites, departing from Egypt, had themselves baptized in the cloud and in the sea εἰς τον Μωυσην, in relation to Moses, so that they acknowledged him as their savior and deliverer, placed their trust in him and allowed themselves to be led by him. The disciples at Ephesus had been baptized εἰς το Ιωαννου βαπτισμα and had thereby joined themselves to John. And so also Christian baptism is and is called a baptism in or into the name of Jesus, because it places the believers into his fellowship and directs all their trust to Him alone. This same thing is now also meant when Jesus says in Mt. 28:19 that his disciples must be baptized εἰς το ὀνομα του πατρος και του υἱου και του ἁγιου πνευματος. He does not here prescribe to the apostles what they must say in the administration of baptism, but what they must do; the [259] Christian baptism is and must be an incorporation into the fellowship with that God who has revealed himself as Father, Son,

and Spirit. The name designates God in his revelation, and the highest revelation of God consists in this, that He makes himself known and allows himself to be named as Father, Son, and Spirit, deel II 63v. Being baptized in that name therefore does not merely indicate that one is baptized by commission or command of God or as confession of his name; for the expression: in the name, can be interchanged with the person himself, as Paul also speaks of being baptized εἰς Χριστον, Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27. But it indicates that the person being baptized is placed in relation to and in fellowship with that God who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, and is now on that ground also obligated to confess and glorify that name. Cf. Julius Böhmer, Das biblische „im Namen". Eine sprachwiss.

Untersuchung über das hebr. ְּב ֵׁשם and seine griech. Aequivalente, Giessen Ricker 1898. Although Jesus, however, after his resurrection had described baptism as an incorporation into the fellowship with Father, Son, and Spirit, it lay at hand that in the earliest period it was mostly brought into connection with the person of Christ. In entering the church it depended first of all on conversion and on faith in Christ, in order in that way to obtain forgiveness of sins, and of that baptism was the sign and proof.

Therefore baptism in the Acts is still, just as with John, called a βαπτισμα μετανοιας εἰς ἀφεσιν ἁμαρτιων, Hd. 2:38, 22:16. But in the earliest period there was still something else added. John and also Jesus himself had set this baptism of conversion over against the baptism of the Spirit, which would take place on the day of Pentecost. This baptism of the Spirit was absolutely not bound to water baptism, the baptism of conversion unto forgiveness of sins, for in Hd. 2:33 all the disciples receive that Spirit without baptism; in Hd. 9:17, 10:44 the gifts of the Spirit are already bestowed upon Paul, Cornelius and others before baptism, cf. 11:15-17; in

Hd. 8:1, 9:17, 19:6 glossolalia and prophecy are granted not by baptism but by the laying on of hands. But yet for those who stood outside, the baptism of conversion was the ordinary way by which they also could receive the gifts of the Spirit, Hd. 2:38, 19:5, 6. This connection, however, was temporary; glossolalia and prophecy were not the proper benefits [260] of baptism; Christian baptism remained essentially a baptism of conversion and of faith in Christ unto forgiveness of sins. Thus it is also everywhere understood and described in the N. T. Peter says in 1 Petr. 3:21, that, just as Noah and his were saved from death through the water that bore the ark, so believers are rescued from destruction through baptism; but that baptism must then be understood, not as σαρκος ἀποθεσις ρυπου, not as it outwardly causes us to put off the uncleanness of the flesh, but as συνειδησεως ἀγαθης ἐπερωτημα εἰς θεον, δι' ἀναστασεως Ιησου Χριστου, i.e. probably, the petition to God for a good conscience, freed from guilt, which baptism only is and can be through the resurrection of Jesus Christ as proof of our justification, Rom. 4:25. The same conception returns in the epistle to the Hebr.; this indeed counts the διδαχη βαπτισμων, i.e. not the doctrine of Christian baptism but of washings in general, of which a right view was urgently necessary for Jewish Christians, cf. 9:10, among the first principles of Christianity, but distinguishes in Christian baptism two elements: the washing of the body with clean water and the cleansing of the heart from an evil, accusing, conscience, 10:22, 23. From another side baptism is considered by Paul; he connects it not so much with justification as with sanctification. As descending into and coming up out of the water, baptism is an image and pledge of entering into fellowship with Christ, with his death and with his resurrection, Rom. 6:3-6, Col. 2:12. As many then as have been baptized into Christ, into his fellowship, have put on Christ,

appropriated Christ to themselves, so that they are now in Christ, belong to Him, Gal. 3:27-29, walk in newness of life, Rom. 6:4, 6v., Ef. 5:26, live to God, Rom. 6:11, 13, indeed carry the life of Christ himself within them,

Gal. 2:20. And just as through baptism they have entered into fellowship with Christ, so also with his church, which is his body; they have all been baptized by one Spirit into one body, 1 Cor. 12:13, Rom. 12:5. Water baptism is with Paul at the same time Spirit baptism, but not a baptism with the spiritual gifts of glossolalia and prophecy, but with the Spirit as principle of the new life. Baptized people are new, spiritual people, πνευματικοι. But this renewal [261] of the human being by the H. Spirit in baptism does not stand apart alongside and does not come accidentally in addition to justification out of faith. They coincide; the Corinthians are at the same moment washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord

Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6:11, cf. deel III 531. In baptism all these benefits are joined together and bestowed upon the believers, which however does not take away that the Corinthians, in spite of their baptism, are still called by Paul σαρκικοι, νηπιοι ἐν Χριστῳ and are seriously warned against possible falling away, 1 Cor. 3:1, 3, 10:1-12. Cf.

Bossert, Die Bedeutung der Taufe im N. T., Zeits. f. k. Wiss. u. k. Leben 1888 S. 339 f. Ehlers, Das N. T. und die Taufe 1890. Holtzmann, Neut.

Theol. I 378 II 178.

3. A fixed doctrine about and a generally valid rite in baptism is not yet found in the ancient Christian church. But nevertheless Didache 7, 1 already knows the Trinitarian formula, while Hermas, Vis. III 7 still speaks of a baptism in the name of the Lord, or, Sim. IX 16, calls it a seal of the Son of God, which gives life. The effects of baptism are especially forgiveness of past sins and a new, supernatural, eternal life through the H. Spirit, Justinus,

Apol. I 61. Tertullianus, de baptismo 4. 5. Cypr. de grat. 3. 4. Greg. Naz. Or.

40, 3 sq. Although it is clearly said that the water in baptism retains its nature, the connection of sign and thing signified is conceived mystically; εἰ τις ἐστιν ἐν τῳ ὑδατι χαρις, οὐκ ἐκ της φυσεως ἐστι του ἱδατος, ἀλλ' ἐκ της του πνευματος παρουσιας, Basil. de spir. sancto c. 15. Λι' ἐκεινου του ἱδατος ἡ θεια χαρις την αἰωνιον δωρειται ζωην, Theodoretus, qu. 26 in Gen., in Suicerus s. v. βαπτισμα, cf. Tert. de bapt. 4. Baptism is therefore also designated with all kinds of names borrowed from the mysteries, φωτισμος, μυστηριον τελετη, τελειωσις, μυησις, μυσταγωγια, and is regarded as ὀχημα προς οὐρανον, ὀχημα προς θεον, κλεις οὐρανων βασιλειας, Schwane, D. G. II 735. Hatch, Griech. u. Christ. 219. Suicerus s. v. And when since the second century the religious service split into a public and a private part, the administration of baptism and the Lord's

Supper assumed more and more a mysterious character intelligible only to the initiated. Preceded by the catechumenate, the [262] baptism itself was surrounded with all kinds of symbolic actions, such as the presentation of the person to be baptized by sponsors, the laying down of confession, the blowing on the face and the marking with the cross, the placing of consecrated salt in the mouth of the person to be baptized, the exorcism, the three-times repeated immersion or sprinkling, the anointing with the chrism, the giving of a new name, the hanging on with a white garment, the handing over of a burning candle, the reception into the congregation, the brotherly kiss, and sometimes immediately thereafter the celebration of the Lord's

Supper, Suicerus s. v. Moeller-von Schubert, Kirchengesch. I2 339, cf.

Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 45 sq. Bellarminus, de bapt. c. 24-27. While thus in the apostolic time baptism followed immediately upon conversion and was administered in the simplest manner, Hd. 2:38, 41, 8:12, 36, 10:47 etc.,

from the second century onward it was enveloped in an always more expanding ritual and transformed into a magical and mystical means of grace. Even Augustinus promoted the development of the doctrine of baptism in this spirit, even if it is also the case that with adults he required preceding faith and conversion for a salutary working of baptism. For in the first place he says that baptism gives the forgiveness of sins and regeneration only within the church; the sacrament is a sacrament of Christus and given by Him to His church; heretics and schismatics can indeed take it along outside the church, but then it is a stolen and unlawfully possessed good and therefore exercises no salutary effect, but tends ad perniciem, de unit. eccl. 68 de bapt. 3, 13. 5, 7 sq. In the second place he seems with children to teach a salutary working of baptism ex opere operato; children dying unbaptized are lost, de anima I 9. III 12. de pecc. mer. I 20. de nat. et gr. 8., but with those who are baptized, baptism itself or the intercession of the church or the faith of the parents replaces the faith that they themselves cannot yet exercise, de pecc. mer. I 19. 34 sq. And in the third place Augustinus ascribes to baptism in any case the working of a character indelebilis, by which the baptized belong by right to Christus and His church and, if need be, may be brought back under her care with coercion, de bapt. V 21 VI 1. c. epist. Parmen. II 16, cf. Dorner, Augustinus

248 f. Schwane, D. G. II 744 f. Harnack, D. G. III 143 f. Scholasticism at first indeed still remained with Augustinus and acknowledged that [263] baptism with adults presupposed faith and also was not absolutely necessary for salvation. But it nevertheless moved more and more in this direction, that it let the sacrament work ex opere operato, and caused the subjective requirements to lose significance more and more, Lombardus,

Sent. IV dist. 3-6, Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 66-71. Bonaventura, Brevil. VI

7. Schwane, D. G. III 605-622. Harnack, D. G. III 478 f. Thus the doctrine of baptism at Rome was prepared, which in brief comes down to this: baptism is the first sacrament, the door to spiritual life, the entrance into the church; it gives the first supernatural grace, which is presupposed and increased by the other sacraments and is therefore absolutely necessary for salvation, except in a few cases in which it can be replaced by a baptismus sanguinis or flaminis (voti). It must therefore also be administered as soon as possible and in case of necessity by laymen or non-Christians. Through that baptism, namely, are communicated: 1o the character indelebilis, which brings someone under the jurisdiction of the church, 2o the forgiveness of all sins, both original and actual sins, which have been committed before baptism, and remission of all eternal and also of all temporal punishments, insofar as they are opera satisfactionis, but not insofar as they are natural punishments of sins, 3o the spiritual renewal and sanctification of the human being, through the infusion of sanctifying grace and the supernatural virtues of faith, hope, and love, so that the stain of original sin is entirely done away with and only the concupiscentia, by nature proper to the human being as a physical being, remains, which however in itself is no sin but can indeed become an occasion for sinning. 4o The incorporation into the communion of saints and into the visible church of believers. These effects baptism exercises by the fact that, under the pronouncing of the well-known formula, the word of God or the power of the H. Spirit in a mysterious manner connects itself with the water and makes this into an aqua viva et efficax, into a uterus maternus of the new human being. In fact, then, by the sacrament of baptism are regenerated not only all children, but also all adults who have satisfied the seven praeparationes and do not place an obex in the way. Cf. Conc. Flor. in Denzinger n. 591. Trid. VI 4. VII de bapt. XIV

de poenit. 2, Cat. Rom. II 2. Bellarminus, de sacr. bapt. c. 1-27. Oswald, [264] Die dogm. Lehre v. d. h. Sakr. I2 141 f. etc., and for the doctrine of the Greek church, Damasc., de fide orthod. IV 14. Conf. orth. qu. 102. 103.

Conf. Dosith. decr. 16. Kattenbusch, Vergl. Conf. I 400 f.

4. The struggle which the Reformation began against Rome's doctrine of the sacraments did not concentrate on baptism but on the Lord's Supper.

The German Reformers were even of the opinion that baptism in the papacy had been preserved fairly well unscathed and therefore adopted it with slight modification. Many ceremonies which had gradually been added to baptism also remained in use among the Lutherans, such as naming, the sign of the cross, exorcism, sponsorship, laying on of hands, white clothing, blessing, etc. Furthermore, Luther taught in his two Catechisms and in the Smalc. articles that the word of institution made the water of baptism into a divina, coelestis, sancta et salutifera aqua; indeed he rejected the opinion of Thomas and the Dominicans, who failed to acknowledge the word of institution and had God communicate a virtus spiritualis to the water; but he nevertheless assumed an objective, real union of the word and the water; baptism is verbum Dei cum mersione in aquam, aqua divino mandato comprehensa et verbo Dei obsignata; the water in baptism is, as Luther expressed it elsewhere in his Sermon von der Taufe, durch die göttliche

Majestät ganz durchgöttet, as iron is heated by fire. Later dogmaticians elaborated this and taught that through the word of institution the materia coelestis, i.e. tota trinitas or sanguis Christi or Spiritus sanctus, so united itself with the materia terrestris, i.e. the water, that God in, cum and per aquam baptismi, non seorsim et actione peculiari sed conjunctim cum aqua baptismi et per eam, una atque indivisa actione worked regeneration. And finally, Luther in the first period did indeed always let the salutary working

of baptism depend on the faith with which the benefits of baptism were accepted, but later he placed more and more emphasis on the objective character of baptism, and no longer said that children are believers or can be believers, but let infant baptism rest solely on God's command. The Lutherans therefore later taught that the salutary working of baptism in adults does indeed depend on faith, at least [265] on a passiva capacitas, and thus, if faith is present, consists in obsignatio and confirmatio; but in children baptism works regeneration, it is medium ordinarium regenerationis et mundationis a peccatis, yet always in such a way that indeed the guilt and power but not the entire stain of sin is removed; the radix aut fomes peccati remains. Cf. Symb. B. ed. Müller 30. 40. 163. 320.

361. 384. 485. 768. 780. Luther in Köstlin, Luthers Theol. II 507 f., and Harnack, D. G. III 748. Melanchton, Loc. de baptismo. Gerhard, Loc. XX.

Quenstedt, Theol. IV 106-176. Hollaz, Ex. theol. 1077-1103. Schmid, Dogm. d. ev. luth. K. § 54. The Reformed, however, rejected not only most of the ceremonies which had gradually become connected with baptism and returned to the simplicity of Holy Scripture. But they also proceeded from the thought and tried to hold fast to it, that baptism was instituted for believers and thus did not work faith but strengthened it. Thereby, with infant baptism they came to face a double difficulty. First, especially over against the Anabaptists but then further also over against Roman Catholics and Lutherans, they had to show that the children of believers were already to be regarded as believers even before baptism and as such ought to be baptized. And second, they were obliged to give an answer to the question in what the gracious working of baptism in children consisted, since they, not yet having come to their understanding and thus not yet possessing the fides actualis, could also with difficulty be strengthened and confirmed in

this faith. To the latter question, however, usually little attention was devoted; one generally confined oneself to saying that baptism was for the parents a proof that their seed had been taken up into God's covenant, for the children later, as they grew up, a rich comfort and blessing, and also already in their unconscious state gave them a right to the goods of the covenant of grace, Witsius, Misc. Sacra II 648-667. The first question, however, was from the beginning answered very differently. For the right of infant baptism one appealed unanimously to Holy Scripture, specifically to its doctrine concerning the covenant of grace. According to the rule of that covenant the children and also the adults had to be judged; faith and conversion give no right to baptism, but only the covenant. The [266] children, born of believing parents, were not heathen children, did not lie under the wrath of God, did not live under the power of Satan, so that an exorcism first had to take place with them. But they were already before baptism children of the covenant; baptism was therefore also not absolutely necessary to salvation, and there was no need for emergency baptism. As soon, however, as one reflected on what this inclusion of the children in the covenant of grace implied, one diverged. There were those who wished to hold fast to the unity of election and covenant as long and as closely as possible; they therefore asserted that all children, born of believing parents, according to the judgment of love had to be held to be regenerated, until they clearly manifested the contrary in doctrine or life, or that at least the elect little children as a rule had already been regenerated by God's Spirit before baptism or even before birth, a Lasco, Ursinus, Acronius, Voetius,

Witsius e. a. But others, paying attention to the objections of practice, which so often teaches that baptized children grow up without showing any sign of spiritual life, did not dare to make this regeneration before baptism a

rule. They all without exception did indeed acknowledge that God's grace is not bound to the means and can also work regeneration in the heart of young children, but they left it undecided whether that regeneration in the elect little children takes place before or under or also, sometimes even many years, after baptism, Calvijn, Beza, Zanchius, Bucanus, Walaeus,

Amesius, Heidegger, Turretinus e. a. This conception gained the upper hand when the church, through neglect of discipline, came to decline. Election and church, the inner and outer side of the covenant, formerly connected as much as possible but since Gomarus more and more distinguished, fell ever further apart; in the ecclesia an ecclesiola formed itself. Baptism was therefore gradually entirely detached from regeneration, and, because one nevertheless wished to maintain it for the children, conceived and justified as a sacrament of the church and pledge of the seed of believers in general, or as a confirmation of the objective, conditional promise of the gospel, or as proof of communion with the external covenant of grace, or as a guarantee of a losable regeneration, not indissolubly connected with salvation, and later to be confirmed by personal faith, [267] or as a means of education that urges the baptized at a later age to sincere conversion. Cf.

Voetius, Disp. II 408 sq. Witsius, Misc. Sacra II 611-618. G. Kramer, The connection of baptism and regeneration, Breukelen 1897. The struggle thereby flared up again and again on the point of the baptismal form. Some understood the expression: to be sanctified in Christ, of the inner renewal by the Holy Spirit and therefore had an objection to putting this question of the baptismal form to parents who did indeed still present their child for baptism but otherwise cared neither for God nor for his command; under pietistic influence they attached less and less value to the external baptismal act, pressed for personal conversion, and withdrew into the narrow circle of

the conventicles, Lodenstein, Gentman, Koelman, Brakonier, van de Putt, Kelderman, Vos e. a. in Proost, Jod. van Lodenstein 1880 p. 160. 229. Ypey and Dermout, Hist. of the N. H. Church III 261-263. Ypey, Hist. of the Chr.

Church in the eighteenth century VI 164. M. Vitringa VII 108. 115 sq. Moor V 489. Others understood the expression in an objective, covenantal sense, saw in baptism nothing more than a sign of the external covenant, to which a historical faith and an unoffending life gave sufficient right, Ostervald,

Comp. Theol. II 6, 4, 4. Vernet, Christ. Instruction 300. and especially Janssonius and van Eerde against Appelius, cf. M. Vitringa VI 426 sq. 498 sq. VII 125 sq.

Thus in the Reformed churches themselves baptism was almost wholly deprived of its value and in fact that doctrine of baptism was introduced which in the century of the Reformation had already been professed by Socinians and Anabaptists and later by Remonstrants and Rationalists. For these, in spite of all mutual difference, agree in this, that baptism has value not as a seal of grace on God's side but in the first place as an act of confession on man's side. Baptism effects nothing and gives nothing, but is only a symbol of the transition from Judaism and Heathendom to Christianity, a sign of faith and conversion, a promise of obedience and therefore either not at all instituted by Christ as a permanent sacrament or in any case for children at most permitted and useful, but not necessary and commanded; the Quakers even went so far that they wholly rejected waterbaptism and [268] acknowledged only the baptism of the Spirit, and the Rationalists disputed about whether baptism, which after all was no more than a solemn symbol, could not better be abolished, cf. M. Vitringa VII 297-415. Strauss, Dogm. II 549-558. Wegscheider, Instit § 171. 172. Kant,

Religion ed. Rosenkranz 233. Modern Protestantism still stands on this

standpoint and makes baptism optional, Scholten, Initia 247, Ehlers, Das N.

T. und die Taufe, Giessen 1890; and with many others the disparagement of the sacrament continues to have its effect in this, that the centre of gravity is shifted from baptism to the later following, ever more solemnly arranged acceptance and confirmation of members. But over against that, in this century from various sides an attempt was again made to maintain the objective character of baptism. Schleiermacher did indeed see in baptism first of all an act of the church, by which it receives the believer into its fellowship, but then subsequently at the same time therein an admission into the communion of life with Christ, Chr. Gl. § 136-138, cf. Schweizer,

Chr. Gl. § 171. Lipsius, Dogm. § 846. Others again placed the act of grace of God in the sacrament in the foreground and taught that baptism does not presuppose regeneration but nevertheless bestows the power of regeneration or this itself, is a point of attachment of the bond of love on Christ's side and lays the foundation for all later benefits, however then to be obtained only in the way of faith, Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. V 2, 83 f. Kahnis, Luth.

Dogm. II 333. Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 832. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II 266 f.

Althaus, Die Heilsbedeutung der Taufe im N. T. Gütersloh 1898. H. Cremer, Wesen und Wirkung der Taufgnade, ib. 1899. W. Schmidt, Dogm. II 461.

Oosterzee, Dogm. § 138 9v. Many Lutherans even returned to the old doctrine, that the H. Spirit in and through the water of baptism works regeneration and let this consist not only in a spiritual renewal but also in the implantation of a heavenly corporeality, Vilmar, Dogm. II 233.

Martensen, Dogm. 398 f. Höfling, Das Sakrament der Taufe I 17 f.

Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk II 297 f. In England Tractarianism appeared with the doctrine of a baptismal regeneration, consisting therein that the children through baptism were so renewed that they later could

independently accept grace through faith, Newman, Lectures on Justification 1838, Waterland, Works, Oxford 1843 [269] IV 425-458 cf.

Hodge, Syst. Theol. III 591-604 and Cunningham, Historical Theol. II 133142. Ryle, Knots untied, 11th ed. London Hunt 1886 p. 105-196. In this country Dr. Kuyper attempted to maintain the objective character of baptism, by ascribing to it a special grace. This does not consist in regeneration, which is presupposed at baptism and thus no longer needs to be bestowed, but in a special benefit otherwise not to be obtained, viz. in incorporation into the body of Christ, or rather in the implantation in our faith of the habitus or the impulse, not to stand on ourselves, but to feel ourselves one with the whole body of Christ, Heraut 646v.

5. Most churches nowadays know baptism almost in no other form than as infant baptism. Except in the field of missions and in the Baptist associations, the baptism of adults occurs only as an exception. Yet in Scripture the reverse is the case; of infant baptism it nowhere speaks in so many words, it always proceeds from the baptism of the aged; and the Christian confessions and theologians have also always followed it therein, insofar as they took the baptism of adults as their point of departure and only thereafter proceeded to infant baptism. This baptism was now instituted by God's command by John and thereafter by Jesus, because the whole world was condemnable before God. That applied not only to the Gentiles, but also to the Jews, who after all sought to establish their own righteousness out of the works of the law and therefore did not come to the law of righteousness, Rom. 9:31. Already the prophets proclaimed, indeed, that God, who is faithful and remembers his covenant, would in the future give to Israel conversion and life, a new heart and a new spirit, forgive them all sins, pour out his Spirit upon them, sprinkle clean water upon them and

cleanse them from all uncleannesses, Hos. 6:2, Joel 2:28, 29, Mich. 7:1820, Jes. 1:16, 40v., Jer 31:31-34, 33:8, Ezech. 11:17-20, 36:25-28, 37:1-14,

39:29, Zach. 13:1 etc. Regeneration, conversion, faith was necessary, for Israel as well as the Gentiles, in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven and to obtain a share in its goods. John and Jesus appeared with that preaching, and those who accepted it were baptized. [270] The offering and the acceptance of the word of the gospel thus preceded baptism. Scripture leaves not the slightest doubt about it, that baptism is instituted exclusively for believers. No other persons are baptized than those who make confession of their sins and give proof of conversion and faith, Mt. 3:2, 6,

Hd. 2:37, 38, 8:12, 37, 18:8; baptism is therefore called a baptism of conversion, in order that in that way one may obtain the forgiveness of sins,

Mk. 1:4, Hd. 13:24; in Mt. 28:19 the two participles βαπτιζοντες and διδασκοντες do indeed indicate the way in which the μαθητευειν παντα τα ἐθνη must be accomplished, but the baptizing in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the H. Spirit precisely presupposes the preceding preaching of and the faith in that name, as this is also clearly expressed in Mk. 16:15,

16 and in Joh. 4:1 the making of disciples precedes the baptizing; they are children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, who through baptism have put on Christ, Gal. 3:26, 27. As long as there is talk of the baptism of adults, there is on this point no difference among the Christian churches; not a single church baptizes an adult without prior instruction in the truth, without a confession of faith previously made. Even Rome acknowledges that in the adult the seven praeparationes must precede baptism, and makes not the objective validity but yet the subjective operation of an intentio virtualis as conditio sine qua non dependent in the recipient, Trid. VI c. 5. 7.

Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 30. 44. But Rome has more and more weakened these

subjective conditions in the recipient, and shifted the center of gravity from the word and faith into the sacrament; this sacrament, indeed, works ex opere operato, without demanding anything else in the recipient than a negative obicem non ponere; just as the sins, the benefits of grace are by Rome endlessly split, distributed in bits and pieces here and hereafter; it is always the same idea of hierarchy, which here in the doctrine of grace, as everywhere else, makes its influence felt. Therefore Rome also teaches that preaching and faith have only praeparatory significance; the proper, sanctifying, supernatural grace is communicated only by the sacrament of baptism, which therefore, except in a few cases in which it is replaced by the baptismus sanguinis or flaminis, [271] is absolutely necessary for salvation for all people, adults and children. The Reformation, over against that, has set this Scriptural principle, that the sacrament does not communicate and cannot communicate any single benefit which the believer does not already possess through his trust in the word of God. Faith alone, abstracted from every sacrament, places one in the possession and enjoyment of all the benefits of salvation. If now baptism presupposes this faith, there remains not a single benefit any longer that could still be communicated to the believer by baptism. Baptism can do no other than signify and seal the benefits that have been received by faith and thereby strengthen faith, Ned. Gel. art. 33. 34. Heid. Cat. qu. 69. The Lutherans also assent to this for the baptism of adults, who are previously regenerated and made confession of their faith; just as faith and the gift of the H. Spirit through the preaching of the word is increased in the regenerated, ita quoqae idem fit per baptismum, quin et baptismus donum regenerationis in illis efficaciter obsignat, Gerhard, Loc. XX 123. Quenstedt IV 145. Schmid,

Dogm. d. ev. luth. K. 400. 407. A Protestant principle is also at stake here;

whoever ascribes to baptism a communication of grace which cannot be obtained through the word and faith, opens the door for the Roman doctrine of the sacraments.

The form of baptism consists in a connection, established by God, between a visible sign and an invisible spiritual good. As sign, water serves,

Mt. 3:6, Hd. 8:36, which has been chosen not accidentally or arbitrarily but on account of its striking correspondence with the thing signified. What the unclean, polluting, and suffocating substance is for the body, that sin is for the soul; and just as water washes away the uncleanness of the body, so the blood of Christ cleanses from all sins. Therefore, among almost all peoples and in all religions, water has a rich, symbolic significance; serving in all kinds of washings, it foreshadowed the spiritual cleansing which every human being needs, in order to live in communion with God; in the Old

Test. worship water occupied a broad place, Ex. 30:18-20, 40:30, Lev. 6:28, 8:6, 11:32, 15:12, Num. 8:7, 19:7v. etc., and the prophets represented the spiritual cleansing of the people as a sprinkling with water, Ezech. 36:25,

[272] 37:23, Zach. 13:1. Of itself and by nature, i.e. by virtue of the nature which God gave it at creation, water is thus eminently suited, in baptism, to depict and to assure the washing away of sins and spiritual renewal.

Therefore it is also not necessary, as Rome asserts, that the baptismal water be previously consecrated on Easter or Pentecost Saturday and mixed with oil, Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 47. Much less may, with the Paulicians, the use of water be omitted, because Christ is the living water, or, with other sects, baptism be replaced by branding a mark or by scourging unto blood, Moor

V 409-411. It is even superfluous, with Beza and others, to concede that, if water is lacking, another liquid may be used, for such a case is as good as impossible, M. Vitringa VII 14. In the earliest period the act of baptizing

consisted in this, that the person to be baptized was immersed in the water and after a moment was drawn up out of it again. The Greek word βαπτιζω already points to that, for it literally means to dip, to dip into, Joh. 13:26, and also, when it is used in a broader sense for washing, Mt. 15:2, Mk. 7:4,

Luk. 11:38, Hebr. 9:10 or figuratively, Mt. 3:11, 20:22, Hd. 1:5 etc., it indicates such an act, in which the person or thing that is baptized is wholly immersed and cleansed. Further, the cases which Scripture relates clearly show that baptism in the apostolic time took place by way of immersion,

Mt. 3:6, Joh. 3:23, Hd. 8:38. And finally the phraseologia sacramentalis is wholly built upon this manner of administering baptism, Rom. 6:3, 4, Gal.

3:27, Col. 2:12. For centuries, therefore, the immersio also remained in use in the Christian church; the Greek church still adheres to it, sprinkling

(adspersio) or rather pouring (infusio) occurred in ancient times only when there was not enough water, Didache c. 7, or when the sick had to be baptized on their bed (baptismus clinicorum); Cyprianus, Ep. 69, 12, defended in this latter case the adspersio or perfusio with appeal to Ezech.

36:25, but otherwise the church fathers always speak of baptism as of an immersion in the water, Suicerus, s. v. ἀναδυω. Pope Stephanus II in 754 permitted baptism per infusionem in case of necessity for children and the sick, but [273] a council of the year 816 still prescribed to the priests, ut non effundant aquam super capita infantium sed semper mergantur in lavacro.

Thomas said, tutius est baptizare per immersionem, quia hoc habet usus communis, S. Theol. III qu. 66 art. 7. The Council of Ravenna 1311 left the choice between immersio and superfusio free. Up to the 13th century, therefore, in the West immersion still occurs alongside sprinkling; then, however, the latter becomes more and more general. When in Christianized

Europe adult baptism became the exception and infant baptism the rule,

there came, not from dogmatic but from hygienic considerations, also a change in the manner of administering baptism; children were in a certain sense all in infirmitate positi. The Reformers joined this usage; Luther gave preference to immersion, Calvin held the question to be an adiaphoron, but the Anabaptists made a principle of it and therefore returned to the immersio. And this is what alone ought to be opposed. There is no doubt that immersion was formerly generally in use, is still permissible, and also brings out the rich significance of baptism better than sprinkling. But no principle is to be made of it here. For 1o the water is not the blood of Christ itself and does not itself effect the washing away of sins, but is a sign and seal thereof; thus in baptism it cannot depend on the quantity of water that is poured out upon the baptized person or in which he is immersed. 2o The spiritual benefit which is depicted by baptism is called not only a washing away of sins but also a sprinkling with clean water and with the blood of Christ, Ezech. 36:25, Hebr. 12:24, 1 Petr. 1:2, cf. Ex. 24:6, 29:16, 20. 3o

Although immersion remained in use for centuries, yet from the earliest times sprinkling was regarded as permissible in cases of necessity; the Christian church never thought of considering baptism invalid solely because it had been administered by way of sprinkling; and the advocates of immersion usually recoil in practice itself from this consequence. 4o

Although, in spite of the immersio triplex customary from ancient times, Did. c. 7, it is, with Gregorius M., to be maintained: utrum unica an trina ablutio fiat, nihil referre existimandum est, Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 14, nevertheless [274] sprinkling must not take place in so slight a degree that every notion of washing away is lost. Just as the Lord's Supper, however curtailed, must remain a meal, so also in the sprinkling with the baptismal water the symbolism of washing away ought to be preserved. Cf. Calvijn,

Inst. IV 15, 19. Voetius, Pol. Eccl. I 683-694. Moor V 413-421. M. Vitringa VII 16-30. Höfling, Das Sakr. der Taufe I 46-60. De Hoop Scheffer,

Overzicht der gesch. van den doop bij onderdompeling, Amst. 1882.

6. This water becomes a sacrament through the word of institution. In Scripture baptism is now described as a baptism in the name of Christ, Hd.

2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5 cf. Rom. 6:3, 1 Cor. 1:13-15, 6:11, Gal. 3:27 and then again as a baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the H.

Spirit, Mt. 28:19. These expressions do not intend to provide a formula which must be pronounced at baptism, but they describe the essence of Christian baptism; this must be a baptism in the name of Christ and thus in the name of God Triune. That they are not intended as a formula appears from the fact that with circumcision and passover, with the baptism of John and with the Lord's Supper there is no mention of such a formula. But certainly, in administering and receiving baptism, from the beginning onward something or other was already spoken; confession of sins, Mt. 3:6, and of faith in Christ, Hd. 8:37, was made, cf. 1 Tim. 6:12. For that, soon by the nature of the case, a fixed formula came into use, which was derived from the words of institution in Mt. 28:19. The Didache speaks of the Christians as βαπτισθεντες εἰς ὀνομα κυριου, 9:5 but nevertheless already knows the trinitarian formula, 7, 1. 3, cf. Justinus, Apol. I 61. Although now a baptism in the name of Christ or with the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Hd. 8:37 in the first time was completely sufficient, yet later, when all kinds of heresies arose, precisely for the maintenance of the Christian character of baptism the trinitarian formula had to be regarded more and more as necessary, cf. Cypr. Ep. 73, 16-18 and other church fathers in Suicerus s. v. βαπτισμος. But this trinitarian formula too does not sound the same in the different churches. The Greek church makes use of

the words: [275] βαπτιζεται ὁ δουλος του θεου ὁ δεινα εἰς το ὀνομα του πατρος—ἀμην, και του υἱου—ἀμην, και του ἁγιου πνευματος—ἀμην, νυν και εἰς τους αἰωνας των αἰωνων. Although the Latin church recognizes the baptism administered in this way, it itself nevertheless uses the formula: ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Catech. Rom. II 2 qu.

10. 11, and the Protestant churches usually adopted this. The Syrian and Armenian churches again have a formula which differs both from the Greek and from the Latin, Höfling, Das Sakr. der Taufe I 44. Everything proves that the validity of baptism in itself does not depend on the literal words which are spoken there by the administrator. The trinitarian formula has only become necessary in order to ward off heresy, to give a guarantee that the baptism which was administered is the true, Christian baptism, and to bring desired firmness into liturgical usage. In addition, it is still important to note that the trinitarian baptismal formula possesses no magical power to change the water into the blood of Christ. The Reformed not only deny this, but the Greek, Roman and Lutheran church also speak differently at baptism than at the Lord's Supper. In the latter sacrament the emphasis falls on the recitatio of the words of institution, on their consecratory power, and on the transor consubstantiation brought about thereby. But even if one also speaks at baptism of a divina virtus which has been communicated to the water, of aqua vivida, sancta, divina, of a regeneratio per aquam in verbo, yet even the Catech. Rom. says that the words of institution must be pronounced clearly and distinctly, for instruction for the people, II 2, 10, and denies that at baptism a transubstantiation, a change of the water into the blood of Christ takes place, II 4, 9. The unio sacramentalis is therefore here different than at the Lord's Supper. Certainly there still remains difference even then. Romanists and Lutherans conceive the working of the

H. Spirit at baptism as proceeding per aquam. The Reformed reject this local, physical union and assume in its place a connection, like that with the word. Just as the H. Spirit indeed works cum verbo but does not confine His power and working within the word, so it is also with the water of baptism.

In Ef. 5:26 the words ἐν ρηματι are not, as the Lutherans want, a further [276] determination of λοντρῳ or ἱδατος, for then they would have required the article before them: τῳ or του ἐν ρηματι. But they belong with ἁγιαση:

Christ sanctified His church through the word of the gospel, while He cleansed it through the bath of the water. Paul here precisely distinguishes the working of Christ through the word from that through the water, just as that also happens in Hebr. 10:22 and 1 Petr. 3:21. Not the minister and not the water, but Christ sanctifies and gives the thing signified, Mt. 3:11, 1

Cor. 6:11, Hebr. 9:14, 1 Joh. 1:7. If the water of baptism effected regeneration, Paul in 1 Cor. 1:14 could not have said that Christ did not send him to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel. But however much there is difference about the manner in which sign and thing signified are connected in baptism, there is agreement with respect to the reality of that connection.

The Reformed church also confesses that Christ in baptism promises and assures to each and every one who receives it in faith, that he is as certainly washed with His blood and Spirit from the uncleanness of the soul, as he is outwardly washed with the water, which is accustomed to remove the impurity of the body, Heid. Catech. 69.

Also concerning the benefits which are bestowed in baptism upon adult believers, there is in the main agreement. They are all comprised in communion with the triune God, into which the believer is incorporated by baptism, Mt. 28:19. The Father testifies to us in baptism that He establishes with us an eternal covenant of grace, and adopts us as His children and

heirs, Gen. 17:7, 10, Hd. 2:39. The Son seals to us that He washes us in His blood and incorporates us into the communion of His death and of His resurrection, Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27. The H. Spirit seals to us that He dwells in us and sanctifies us as members of Christ, 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13, Tit. 3:5. More closely worked out, these benefits are: 1o justification or the forgiveness of sins, Mk. 1:4, Hd. 2:38, 22:16, 1 Petr. 3:21, Hebr. 10:22. Doedes thinks that this benefit is not considered at baptism but only first at the Lord's Supper, because baptism is called a baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins,

Leer der Zaligheid 326. But this view is clearly contradicted by Hd. 22:16, 1 Petr. 3:21, Hebr. 10:22; repentance is indeed the way through which [277] the forgiveness acquired by Christ comes into our possession and enjoyment, but baptism is precisely proof and pledge of that forgiveness obtained in the way of repentance; for the confession of sins and justifying faith precede baptism. In baptism, therefore, all sins also, with all their guilt and punishment, are forgiven, not only the past but also the present and future, for justification is a juridical act, a change of state and therefore brought about at once, completely and once for all, cf. III 548. 2o regeneration, conversion, mortification of the old and resurrection of the new man through communion in the death and the resurrection of Christ,

Mk. 1:4, Rom. 6:2-10, 1 Cor. 6:11, Ef. 5:26, Col. 2:12. According to Rome, in baptism that same grace is bestowed back which Adam received as donum superadditum but lost through sin. Just as now in Adam as homo naturalis even before the fall the concupiscentia also dwelt, which was restrained by the donum superadditum, so this is the case with the baptized person. The concupiscentia remains in him, but this is in itself no sin and is natural to man as consisting of flesh and spirit. Only it can easily give occasion to sin, if man, instead of allowing himself to be guided by

supernatural grace, listens to it and yields to it. But apart from this danger, which always continues to threaten the baptized person, he is by the grace which he receives in baptism freed not only from all guilt but also from all stain of sin. Over against that, the Ned. Geloofsbel. art. 15 declared: original sin is not even by baptism wholly done away nor entirely eradicated (orig. in the Walloon text of 1561: et n'est pas aboli mesme par le baptesme, augmented by the synod of 1566 with the words: ou desraciné du tout). Although many with Doedes, Ned. Gel. 173 disapprove these words, they are nevertheless completely correct and in agreement with Holy

Scripture. For this teaches in the places cited above very clearly that baptism, namely as sign and seal, regenerates and renews man, breaks the power of original sin in him, makes him walk in newness of life, yet in such a way that sin still always remains dwelling in his flesh and against his will takes him captive under its law. The inherited stain is thus indeed in part and in principle but [278] not wholly done away by baptism as sacrament; although it no longer condemns the believer, it nevertheless still remains in him until death as an unhappy fountain of all kinds of sin. 3o communion, not only with Christ Himself, but also with the church, which is His body.

The baptized person is preserved from the perverse generation, separated from the world, Hd. 2:40, 41, made a disciple of Jesus, Mt. 28:19, Joh. 4:1, incorporated into His church, 1 Cor. 12:13, and thus also obligated to a walk in uprightness, Gen. 17:1, and in newness of life, Rom. 6, to confession of God's name and to the keeping of Jesus' commandments, Mt.

28:19. All these benefits have already been bestowed upon the baptized person before baptism in the word of the gospel; they have on his part been accepted by faith; but now they are to him in baptism also signified and sealed. It must therefore not be presented as though in faith before baptism

only some, or in any case not all, benefits were bestowed, and that the missing ones are then still granted in baptism. For the word contains all promises and faith accepts them all. There is not a single grace which is not distributed by the word and only by the sacrament. Incorporation into the body of Christ also takes place through faith and receives in baptism its sign and seal. Baptismal grace, according to Scripture and Reformed confession, can consist nowhere else than in declaratio and confirmatio, Heid, Catech.

66. 69. Cf. further Calvin, Inst. IV 15. Martyr, Loci Comm. p. 435. Polanus, Synt. p. 495. Bullinger, Huysboek 1612 fol. 254. Ursinus, Explic. Cat. qu.

69 sq. etc.

7. Up to this point there is, between the Christian churches, agreement in the main in the doctrine of baptism. But all manner of difference manifests itself as soon as infant baptism comes under discussion. From the beginning of its introduction down to the present day, this has been rejected by a considerable part of Christendom, especially on these two grounds, that it does not occur in Scripture and, according to its original institution, always presupposes faith and conversion, which do not occur in children or in any case cannot be manifested and recognized, cf. William Wall, The history of Infant Baptism., 4 vol. new ed. Oxford 1836. A. H. Newman, A history of Antipaedobaptism from the rise of [279] Paedobaptism. to A. D. 1609.

Philad. American Baptist Publication Society 1897. Strong, Syst. Theol.

534-538. Indeed, up to the time of Tertullian there is also lacking all direct and definite testimony that baptism was administered to children of believers. But too much must nevertheless not be inferred from this silence.

It speaks for itself that in the first and second century, when the Christian church rapidly expanded in the world, proselyte baptism attracted far more attention than infant baptism. At first adult baptism was the ordinary,

repeatedly occurring baptism; alongside it infant baptism then gradually arose; and finally, when the church was established and one people after another had been Christianized, infant baptism became the rule and proselyte baptism, except in heathen lands, the exception. When Tertullian, then, for the first time makes mention of infant baptism, de bapt. 18, he does indeed combat it, but not on the ground that it is a novelty and not customary in the apostolic time, but because his conviction in general is this, that cunctatio baptismi utilior est. Si qui pondus intelligant baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationem. In this conviction

Tertullian did not stand alone. So long as Christianity could still expand among heathens in the villages, cities, and countries where it was established, and thus transitions still always took place, many were of the opinion that one could do no better than to postpone baptism as long as possible, because otherwise one ran the danger of later falling again into sins and losing the grace received in baptism. But Tertullian was the only one who wished to let this view also apply to the children of believers. The church, however, also in Africa, did not take offense at this combat, and continued with infant baptism; Origen testifies that infant baptism in his days was generally in use and derived from the apostles; and Cyprian defends, in accordance with the council held at Carthage in 256, that infant baptism must be administered not first on the eighth but already on the second or third day after birth. Cf. Höfling, Das Sakr. der Taufe I 104 f. As soon as infant baptism became the rule and adult baptism the exception, its significance naturally had to be set in a clearer light and its legitimacy defended against all manner of opponents. This took place in different ways. 1o When Augustine [280] defended original sin and thus also the necessity of baptism for children over against the Pelagians, he had to give

an account of the right that children had to baptism. Confessing that baptism was instituted only for believers and yet acknowledging that children could not themselves believe, he therefore appealed to the faith of the parents, who presented the child for baptism and answered in its place.

Pie recteque creditur, prodesse parvulo eorum fidem, a quibus consecrandus offertur, de lib. arb. III 23. Children of believers must themselves be reckoned among the believers, for they believe fide parentum. Credit in altero, qui peccavit in altero, de verbis apost. sermo de bapt. parv. c. Pelag. c. 14. And not only the faith of the parents but of the whole church accrues to their benefit: offeruntur quippe parvuli ad percipiendum spiritalem gratiam, non tam ab eis quorum gestantur manibus, quamvis et ab ipsis, si et ipsi boni fideles sunt, quam ab universa societate sanctorum atque fidelium, ad Bonif. ep. 25. On this ground the children of believers according to Augustine have a right to baptism, and in that baptism they themselves become partakers of the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, however with this understanding, quod baptizatur parvulus, si ad rationales annos veniens non crediderit, nec se ab illicitis concupiscentiis abstinuerit, nihil ei proderit quod parvus accepit, de pecc. mer. et rem. I 20, cf. Bibl. studii theol. Chrispin 1565 p. 115-128, and furthermore the same representation with theologians of all kinds of direction, Lombardus e. a. on Sent. IV dist. 4. Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 68 art. 9. Bonav. Brevil. VI 7.

Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 27. 30. Bellarminus, de bapt. I 10. 11. Luther in Köstlin I 236. 352. II 88. Calvin, C. R. VIII 483. 493. Beza, Tract. theol. III 345 and many others, Oecolampadius, Zanchius, Perkins, Bucanus,

Marlorat, Rivetus, Venema, Hartmann, cf. M. Vitringa VII 136. Quenstedt, Theol. IV 148. C. Vitringa, Observ. Sacrae II c. 6. Kalchreuter, Der stellvertretende Glaube und die Kindertaufe, Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1866 S. 523-

544. 2o Such a fides aliena, however, cannot compensate for the lack of personal faith in the child and therefore imperceptibly leads to the doctrine of a regeneration through baptism. The faith of the parents or of the church may give the child a right to be baptized, yet in the child itself nothing is required except at most a naturally present capacitas passiva, a negative obicem non ponere. [281] Therefore the child, which, so to speak, is offered up to God by the whole church with prayers, receives in baptism itself the grace that it needs. But that grace which the child receives is then again described very differently. Some scholastics said that no virtues were infused into the children at baptism neither actu nor habitu nor radice, but that these were communicated to them later, when they grew up, or also, when they died, were bestowed at the separation of the soul from the body; others thought that the children at baptism received the virtues, either secundum radicem, or secundum habitum, Comm. on Sent. IV dist. 4, e.g.

Bonaventura ib. pars 2 art. 2 qu. 2. Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 69 art. 6. Trent determined that the sacraments of the N. Test. contain grace in themselves and communicate it to all who place no hindrance in the way, so that also the children in baptism receive grace and the virtues ex opere operato and are not believers beforehand but through baptism become believers, Trid.

VII can. 6-8, de bapt. c. 13. 14. cf. Bellarminus, de bapt. I 10. 11. The Lutherans contested that the children had faith before baptism and likewise that they were baptized in aliena fide, but taught that they received faith in baptism, and indeed not merely habitu or potentia, but even actu. Per baptismum et in baptismo Spiritus S. fidem veram, salvificam, vivificam et actualem accendit in infantibus, unde et infantes baptizati vere credunt,

Quenstedt IV 147. Also some Reformed theologians Pareus, Baronius, Forbesius à Corse, Davenant, Ward, de Brais in Saumur e. a. taught that to

all children in baptism a certain grace of forgiveness and regeneration was bestowed, which, when they died young, was sufficient unto salvation, but otherwise on their part had to be accepted and confirmed by personal faith, cf. Witsius, de efficacia baptismi in infantibus, Misc. Sacra II 618. Voetius,

II Disp. 409. M. Vitringa VII 72. And with this the doctrine of the High Churchmen of a baptismal regeneration agrees. 3o But this doctrine is burdened by many objections. The fides aliena, which at first with Augustine e. a. was still maintained as a remembrance of the faith required according to Scripture for baptism, becomes wholly superfluous if baptism ex opere operato communicates grace and in the child presupposes nothing other than a capacitas passiva. When [282] children then can already receive the grace of baptism if they place no obex in the way, it deserves recommendation to baptize as many children as possible, also heathen ones, for they are all passive and thus all susceptible to the reception of grace; the Scotistic school therefore also defended this over against the Thomistic and determined the practice of the Roman church, Schwane, D. G. III 621.

Secondly, baptism is deprived of its Scriptural character, because it is detached from faith and the word, ceases to be sign and seal of God's promises, becomes an independent, self-sufficient, ex opere operato working means of grace and even takes the first and most important place among the means of grace. And finally the benefits which baptism communicates are, on the one hand, exaggerated and, on the other hand, weakened. For with a view to the facts which Scripture and experience provide, no one can maintain that all baptized children later prove to be believers and to be saved. Thus one must then assume that the benefits bestowed in baptism are losable and later must be accepted by personal faith. They are sufficient unto salvation for those dying very young, and

insufficient for children growing up, and place the latter in a doubtful condition between believers and unbelievers, Ex. v. h. Ontw. v. Tol. VI 282287. VII 493-495. Moor V 489. Witsius t. a. p. The Reformed therefore returned to Scripture and, in the defense of infant baptism, unanimously took their standpoint in the covenant of grace, which according to God's promise included not only the believers but also their seed. Not regeneration, faith, or conversion, and much less our supposition concerning it, but only the covenant of grace gave, both with adults and with children, a right to baptism, Calvin, Inst. IV 16, 23. 24, cf. Kramer.

The connection of baptism and regeneration 122. This covenant was the firm, Scriptural, objective ground on which all Reformed in common and without distinction made the right of infant baptism rest; another, deeper, firmer ground they did not have. But the Anabaptists still advanced a second proof against infant baptism; they asserted not only that infant baptism did not occur in Scripture, but also that children could not have or show faith and conversion and therefore also might not be baptized. Over against that the [283] Reformed argued that children indeed could not, like the Lutherans, possess the actus fidei, but yet most certainly could possess the habitus fidei. They expressed themselves very differently; one spoke of fides in semine, in radice, in inclinatione, in potentia, in habitu, in principio, in virtute interna Spiritus, of semen regenerationis etc., cf. M. Vitringa VII 134. But in the matter itself there was complete agreement. All Reformed maintained on the ground of Scripture, Jer. 1:5, Luk. 1:5 and, standing in accordance with the catholicity of the Christian religion over against the Anabaptists, that little children just as well as adults could be accepted by God in grace, regenerated by his Spirit, and endowed with the seed of faith.

And with this they had enough over against the Anabaptists. The mutual

differences that presented themselves as soon as they began to work out and apply their principles, above p. 226, receded into the background with this common conviction.

8. The right of infant baptism depends exclusively on how Scripture regards the children of believers and therefore wills that we shall regard them. If Scripture speaks of such children in the same way as of adult believers, then the right and with it also the duty of infant baptism is established; for we may not withhold from children what we bestow on adults. In the baptism of children it is therefore not permitted to demand less, but just as little to demand more, than in the baptism of adults. In the latter case we are and must be satisfied according to Scripture with the fact that someone confesses his faith. We are never completely certain that someone is not a hypocrite and thus receives the sacrament without right; but judgment about that does not belong to us, de intimis non judicat ecclesia. So it is also with infant baptism. Whoever wants absolute certainty can never administer any sacrament. The only question is whether the certainty that we have to do with believers in the children of believers is the same as that which we possess concerning those who confess their faith at adult age. Another, stronger certainty we do not need and may not demand.

If the question is posed thus, Scripture gives a clear answer. 1o First of all, the astonishment must be removed that the N. Test. nowhere speaks of [284] infant baptism in so many words. This fact is to be explained from this, that the baptism of adults in the days of the N. T. was the rule and infant baptism, if it occurred at all, was an exception. It was the time in which the Christian church was founded and expanded by transition from Judaism and Heathendom. And it was precisely that transition which was clearly depicted in baptism. Adult baptism is therefore the original baptism;

infant baptism is derived; the former must not be conformed to the latter, but the latter must be conformed to the former. Thereby the right of infant baptism does not lapse, nor does it, for its maintenance, according to Roman assertion, have need of tradition; for also what is derived from Scripture by lawful inference is just as binding as what is expressly mentioned in it. Thus the church acts at every moment in the ministry of the word, in the practice of life, in the development of doctrine; it never remains standing at the letter but derives from the data of Scripture, under the guidance of the H. Spirit, inferences and applications which make and promote its life and development possible. And thus it also acts when it passes from adult baptism to infant baptism. Scripture gives the general rule when baptism may and must be applied, and the church applies this rule concretely in life. It need nowhere say that children may be baptized; it says enough if it regards children in the same way as adults who have come to confession of faith, and never makes mention of a baptismal administration to such adults who had been born of Christian parents. 2o In the O. Test. circumcision was administered to children of the male sex on the eighth day after their birth. According to Col. 2:11, 12 this circumcision has been replaced by baptism. For the Colossians, although Christians from the Heathen, are circumcised just as much as the Jews. But they are circumcised, not with a fleshly circumcision performed by hands, which consists in the stripping off of the σωμα της σαρκος, of the whole fleshly, sinful nature. And it has taken place in Christ, by means of and by virtue of the circumcision which Christ himself, with respect to sin, underwent in his death, at the moment when they in baptism have been buried and raised with Christ. Through the death of Christ, which was a complete putting off and overcoming of sin and thus fully realized [285] the idea of

circumcision, that circumcision has become obsolete and has come in baptism to its antitypical fulfillment. Baptism is therefore more than circumcision, not in essence but in degree; circumcision pointed forward to the death of Christ, baptism points back to it; the former ends, the latter begins with that death. If now, however, that circumcision already might and had to be administered as sign of the covenant to children, then this applies a fortiori to baptism, which is not poorer but much richer in grace.

This is also expressed in this, that the sacrament of the O. V. was administered only to male, but that of the N. V. also to female persons; and the opponents of infant baptism also acknowledge in this respect the richer grace of baptism. Sin namely bears in human beings the character of σαρξ; it reveals itself especially in the organs of procreation and shows there its power. Circumcision brings that to light, just as also the uncleanness of the woman after giving birth. But Christ by his death, which is the true circumcision, has taken away all sin, also that which clings to procreation;

He has placed the woman in an independent relation to himself; He causes her to share in his grace just as well as the man; in Him there is no man or woman; and therefore both are buried with Christ in baptism and raised to a new life. And finally the richer grace of the sacrament of the N. V. also appears in this, that circumcision might be performed only on the eighth day after birth, for the children shared until then in the uncleanness of the mother; but now, in the days of the N. T. the children from their birth have a right to baptism, because from the first moment of their existence they share in the grace of Christ. 3o Circumcision is by no means the only proof that the O. T. regards the children as partakers of the covenant. The whole covenant-idea brings this view with it. For therein the covenant is distinguished from election, in that it shows how this realizes itself along an

organic and historical way. It is never concluded only with one single person but in that single person at once also with his seed. It never includes the person of the believer alone, in the abstract, but that person concretely, as he historically exists and lives, thus not him alone, but also all that is his; him for his person not alone but him also as father or mother, with his family, with his money and goods, with his influence and power etc., part

III 226. Specifically the children are reckoned in him. There is a community of parents and children in sin and misery, ib. 129v. But over against that there is also by God a community of parents and children in grace and blessing set. Children are a blessing and a heritage of the Lord, Ps. 127:3.

They are always reckoned with the parents and taken together with them; it goes well with them together, Ex. 20:6, Deut. 1:36, 39, 4:40, 5:29; 12:25,

28. They serve the Lord together, Deut. 6:2, 30:2, 31:12, 13, Jos. 24:15, Jer.

32:39, Ezech. 37:25, Zach. 10:9; the deeds and statutes of God must be handed down by the parents to the children, Ex. 10:2, 12:24, 26, Deut. 4:9,

10, 40, 6:7, 11:19, 29:29, Jos. 4:6, 21, 22:24-27; the covenant of God with its benefits and blessings continues from child to child and from generation to generation, Gen. 9:12, 17:7, 9, Ex. 3:15, 12:17, 16:32, Deut. 7:9, Ps.

105:8 etc. Grace is not an inheritance but it is nevertheless as a rule distributed in the line of the generations. Piorum infantibus primus ad salutem aditus est ipsa ex piis parentibus propagatio, Beza, Resp. ad coll.

Mompelg. II 103 bij Gerhard, Loc. XX 211. 4o This view passes over into the N. Testament. Jesus, like John, appears with the preaching: repent and believe the gospel; He takes over the baptism of John and proclaims in it that the Jews in spite of their circumcision have need of repentance and forgiveness; the contrast gradually becomes so strong that Jesus has no expectation at all any more of his people and the people reject Him and

hang Him on the cross. And yet nevertheless He continues to regard the children as children of the covenant, Mt. 18:2v., 19:13v., 21:15v., Mk.

10:13v., Luk. 9:48, 18:15. He calls them to himself, embraces them, lays his hands on them, blesses them, says that of such is the kingdom of heaven, sets them as an example to the adults, warns these not to offend them, says that their angels watch over them, and sees in their Hosanna-cry a fulfillment of the prophecy that God has made the speaking of children into a power by which those who hate Him are brought to silence, and out of their mouth has prepared praise, αἰνον according to the LXX. 5o The apostles proceed from the same thought. The covenant of grace, established with Israel, has indeed been altered as to the dispensation, but in essence has remained the same, part III 216v. The ἐκκλησια has taken the place of the O. Test. Israel, it is the people of God and God is its God and Father,

Mt. 1:21, Luk. 1:17, Hd. 3:25, Rom. 9:25, 26, 11:16-21, 2 Cor. 6:16-18, Gal. 3:14-29, Ef. 2:12, 13, Tit. 2:14, Hebr. 8:8-10, 1 Petr. 2:9, Op. 21:3. Just as in the O. Test., under that people of God the children of believers are also included. For the congregation of the N. Test. is not a group of individuals, but an organism, a body, a temple and as such, as a people, has taken the place of Israel. It is as a wild olive tree, while some branches have been cut off, grafted onto the trunk of the tame olive tree and thus have become partakers of its root and fatness, Rom. 11:16, 17. Therefore sometimes whole households pass over to Christianity. The household itself is an institution of God, an organic whole, which shares in a common blessing or curse. Jesus' disciples bring peace to the house which they enter, Luk. 10:5, and He himself says that, if Zacchaeus believes, salvation has come to his house, Luk. 19:9. The apostles teach not only in the temple but also repeatedly proclaim the gospel of Christ in the houses, Hd. 5:42, 20:20.

With the head of the family the whole household is saved, Hd. 11:14, 16:31, and whole households believe and are baptized, Hd. 16:15, 34, 18:8, 1 Cor.

1:16. From this it is indeed not to be proved that infant baptism was already applied by the apostles, but from the silence the opposite is just as little to be inferred; from the early introduction of infant baptism, from the general recognition which it immediately found, and from the testimony of Origen follows the possibility and even the probability that it already was an apostolic usage. Further, Peter says that the promise of the O. V., that God would be the God of believers and of their seed, passes over into the dispensation of the N. T., Hd. 2:39. Indeed this applies first of all to the Jews, and of the Heathen there is first mention in the words: and all who are far off. But this does not take away that the Jews who turn to Christ receive the promise of the covenant not only for themselves but also for their children; and the Heathen who come to faith share in the same privileges and according to the whole N. T. in no respect stand behind the believers from the Jews. [288] According to Paul, 1 Cor. 7:14, even the children from a household of which one of the two parents has become a believer are holy.

If such a case occurred, the believing spouse namely must not think that he might not continue married life with the other half. On the contrary, by the faith of the one spouse, the whole marriage is sanctified, also the other spouse is sanctified, ἡγιασται. And Paul proves this by the fact that the children from such a marriage are not ἀκαθαρτα but ἁγια. That therefore stood firm, was generally accepted and could therefore serve as an argument. Children in a household of which father or mother is a believer are reckoned according to the believing spouse, even if this is the woman of the house. The Christian confession sets the tone in such a house; it is the standard by which the whole family must be judged; faith is the higher

which dominates over the lower. The holiness of which Paul here speaks is not to be thought of as a subjective, inward, but as an objective, theocratic one, for otherwise the children and the man would be holy not by the believing mother and wife but by themselves. Nor does Paul here think at all of infant baptism, nor of anything that must serve as a ground for it. But it is only his concern to show that the Christian faith does not break but confirms and sanctifies the natural orders of life, cf. vs. 18-24. For infant baptism this passage is however of importance insofar as it teaches that a whole family is reckoned according to the confession of the believing spouse; the believer has the calling to serve the Lord not only for himself but with all that is his and with his whole family. Therefore the children of believers are also admonished by the apostles as Christian children in the Lord, Hd. 26:22, Ef. 6:1, Col. 3:20, 1 Joh. 2:13, 2 Tim. 3:15; also little ones know the Lord, Hebr. 8:11, Openb. 11:18, 19:5, and are set before the throne, Op. 20:5. Of a neutral upbringing, which wants to let the children at a more advanced age choose completely free and independently, the H.

Scripture knows nothing, Trid. de bapt. c. 14. The children of believers are not Heathen, are also not children of the devil, who still, as Romans and Lutherans teach, must be exorcised at baptism; but they are children of the covenant, to whom the promise belongs just as well as to the adults, they are included in the covenant and are holy non natura, Job 14:4, Ps. 51:7,

Joh. 3:6, Ef. 2:3, sed foederis privilegio, Heid. Cat. 74. Can. Dordr. I 17. 6o All this presses the more, because grace, especially in the dispensation of the N. T. is much more abundant than sin, Rom. 5:12-21. If the rejection of infant baptism proceeded solely and only from the fact that it is not commanded with literal words in Scripture, it would be to be judged with indulgence. But usually it is connected with wholly other considerations

and flows from a limitation of grace and from a failure to recognize the catholicity of Christianity. For Anabaptism sets to grace, unless it denies original sin and deems regeneration unnecessary for children, a boundary in the childlike age, in the not yet having come to years of discretion, that is thus, in laws and ordinances which by God himself at creation have been established in nature. Such limits grace does not know. Under the O. Test. it may in a certain sense have been enclosed within the people of Israel; in the midst of that people it was as broad as possible. And in the N. T. every boundary of people and land, of sex and age, has been completely erased. In Christ there is no man or woman, no Jew or Greek, no child or gray-haired man, but only a new creature. The Father has loved the world; Christ is a propitiation for the whole world and has also shed his blood for children; and the H. Spirit, who caused Jesus to be conceived in Mary's womb and was already from the first moment of their existence bestowed on a Jeremiah and John, has access to every heart and is hindered therein by no age or youth. Children can therefore, just as they without their knowing are partakers of condemnation in Adam, in the same way again in Christ be accepted to grace. Even if they cannot believe actu, they can nevertheless be regenerated and therein at the same time receive the capacity of faith. 7o

By all this the right and thus also the duty of infant baptism is abundantly demonstrated. For if children of believers are to be regarded thus, as Scripture teaches us, then according to the divine institution of baptism they have a claim to this sacrament, in the same and even in a stronger measure than the adults who make confession. Absolute certainty is after all [290] in neither case to be obtained. With the adults we can no more judge about the heart than with the children. For us, who are bound to the outward, only a judgment of love is always possible. According to that judgment we hold

those who make confession for believers and administer the sacraments to them; and according to that same judgment we reckon the children of believers among the believers themselves, because they with their parents are included in the covenant of grace. Indeed the probability that the baptized are true believers is greater with the children than with the adults.

For not only does in a baptistic church the weakening of the significance of baptism, the neglect of discipline and the deadening power of habit creep in just as well as in a church which brings infant baptism into practice; but almost half of human beings die away before they have come to years of discretion. For all those there lies in Scripture, insofar as they are included in the covenant of grace, a promise of the Lord, which they cannot reject with consciousness and voluntarily. If they die before the time that they can do that, godly parents may not doubt their election and salvation, Can.

Dordr. I 17, cf. Voetius, Disp. II 408. 417. M. Vitringa II 51. And even with those children who grow up, it may and must so long, according to the judgment of love which must prevail in the church of Christ, be believed in their salvation as the contrary does not clearly appear. From the children of believers the congregation, the assembly of true Christian believers, is after all continually built. 8o Yet in addition it may never be forgotten that this is, both with adults and with children, a judgment of love. It is not an infallible pronouncement which establishes the salvation of every baptized person, but only a rule according to which Scripture commands that we shall act in the practice of ecclesiastical life. Ground for baptism is not the supposition that someone is regenerated and even that regeneration itself is not, but only the covenant of God. On the subjective opinion of the minister of the word about the spiritual state of the one being baptized it does not depend at all; whether he is or is not for himself convinced of the sincerity of faith in the

one being baptized, he has not to reckon with that but to act according to the revealed will of God and the rule of his word. But moreover, [291] it helps nothing to close the eyes to the fact that baptism is many times administered to such as later appear not to walk in the way of the covenant.

Scripture and experience both teach that not everything is Israel that is called Israel, that there is chaff among the wheat, that in the house of God there are not only golden and silver but also earthen vessels. By no means all were therefore regenerated when they received baptism. Indeed it is not to be proved that the elect are always in their youth, before baptism or even before birth, regenerated by the H. Spirit; God is free in the distribution of his grace and can cause the fruit of baptism to be enjoyed at a much later age. Therefore there also remains in the Christian congregation place for the preaching of the gospel, of regeneration, faith and repentance. The prophets,

John the Baptist and Jesus have appeared with that in the midst of their people, which nevertheless was the property of the Lord; and also the apostles have administered the word not only to bring the hidden life to manifestation, but also have preached it as a seed of regeneration and as a means to the working of faith. 9o Yet therefore the essence of baptism may not be made dependent on its effect in life. Just as sincere faith remains what it is according to the description of the Heid. Cat. 21, even if reality shows all kinds of deviations and deformities from it, so also baptism is and may not be other than what Scripture teaches of it. The genuine, essential,

Christian baptism is that which is administered to believers. Although baptism, like the outward calling, also for unbelievers still yields many a blessing, part III 492, yet its genuine fruit and full power are enjoyed only by believers. Objectively baptism, like the word, remains the same.

Whoever receives the word, and thus also whoever receives baptism in

faith, truly receives a share in the promises which God has connected with it. God remains faithful to himself and grants salvation to everyone who believes. But faith is not of all. In the end the fruit of baptism is enjoyed only by those who are elect and therefore in the Lord's time also come to faith. In that outcome all must acquiesce, whether they are Roman or Protestant, Lutheran or Reformed. Sacramenta in solis electis efficiunt quod figurant, said Augustine and scholasticism repeated it after him, cf.

Lombardus, Thomas, [292] Bonaventura on Sent. IV dist. 4, and further also Calvin on Ef. 5:26. Inst. IV 14, 9. 10. C. R. VII 694. Beza, Tract. III 124. Voetius, Disp. II 408. Westm. Conf. 28, 6. M. Vitringa VI 90. VII 378.

The elect have grasped it but the others have been hardened. The children of the promise are reckoned for the seed. 10o The benefits of baptism are with children the same as with adults, namely the forgiveness of sin, regeneration and incorporation into the congregation of Christ. And these are not first bestowed in baptism but are already through faith the portion of him who in accordance with the will of God receives baptism. Baptism bestows no single benefit which was not already promised in the word and accepted by faith, but it bestows the same benefits as the word only in another way and in another form, so that faith, according to the measure which God has bestowed on each, is thereby confirmed and strengthened.

For children too this rule holds. For just as they can unconsciously be regenerated by the H. Spirit and endowed with the capacity of faith, so they can also by that same H. Spirit outside their knowing be strengthened in that capacity of faith. There is here, as on so many a terrain, a mysterious

Wechselwirkung. Just as light and the eye presuppose and support each other, so faith enjoys the sacrament the more in proportion as it is stronger and is at the same time in that same proportion sealed and confirmed by it.

The sacraments therefore for the believer, as he grows up, do not gradually decrease in significance but continually gain in value for him. They display ever more beautifully and gloriously before the eye of faith the riches of God's grace. They are for every believer and for the whole church a proof of received grace, a sign of God's faithfulness, a ground of plea for prayer, a pillar of support for faith, an admonition to new obedience. Cf. on infant baptism: Calvijn, Inst. IV c. 16. Ursinus, Tract. theol. 1584 p. 597-619.

Junius, Theses Theol. 52. G. J. Vossius, Disput. XX de baptismo, disp. 13.

C. Vitringa, Observ. Sacrae lib. II c. 6. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIX qu. 20.

Moor V 476. M. Vitringa VII 99. Martensen, De Kinderdoop 1842.

Wormser, De Kinderdoop 1853. Pieters en Kreulen, De Kinderdoop 1861.

Van Oosterzee, Dogm. § 138. Thym, The significance of the Christ. [293] baptism and the good right of Infant Baptism 1884. Kuyper, Heraut 652v.

Steitz art. Taufe in Herzog2. Bartels, Die bibl. Lehre v. d. Taufe in Gegensatz zur bapt. Entw., Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1874 S. 69 f. Boy. Die

Begründung der Kindertaufe, Neue Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1895 S. 500511. Lobstein, Zur Rechtf. der Kindertaufe, Zeits. f. Theol. u. Kirche 1896

S. 278-298. Dorner, Chr. Dogm. II 818. 835 f., etc.

9. Of this baptism Christ is the administrator. And only if He baptizes and with the sign also bestows the thing signified, is someone truly baptized.

But in the administration of baptism Christ makes use of men, to whom he entrusts the dispensing of the mysteries of God. Under the O. T. circumcision was bound to no office; every Israelite might perform it; usually the father of the household did it, Gen. 17:23, in case of necessity also the mother, Ex. 4:25, 1 Makk. 1:60, later usually the physician and nowadays mostly a mohel specially appointed for that purpose. But in the N. T. baptism is administered only by such as have been appointed to office,

John, Mk. 1:4, Jesus' disciples, Joh. 4:2, the apostles, Hd. 2:38, to whom it had been expressly entrusted by Christ in Mt. 28:19, Philip, who in Jerusalem was a deacon but later acted as evangelist, Hd. 21:8, and as such administered baptism, Hd. 8:38, Ananias, who laid hands on Paul and probably also baptized him, Hd. 9:17, 18, Paul, who sometimes baptized himself but otherwise left the baptizing to his fellow workers, because he as apostle of the Gentiles was in the first place called to the proclamation of the gospel, 1 Cor. 1:14-17, cf. Hd. 10:48. The administration of the sacraments clearly appears from this to be subordinate to the preaching of the word, but nevertheless at all times to have been connected with it. The sacrament follows the word, and therefore the right to administer the sacraments passed of itself from the apostles and evangelists to the teachers, to those presbyters who laboured in the word and the doctrine. When these teachers were later regarded as bishops, who were distinguished in office from the presbyters and elevated above them, the administration of baptism was considered a right of the bishop, Tert. de bapt. c. 17. But the expansion of the congregations and also the view more and more gaining entrance,

[294] that baptism was absolutely necessary unto salvation, led to baptism also being allowed to be administered by presbyters, deacons, parochi, and in case of necessity even by every human being who has his reason. The Roman church recognizes the baptism which has been administered by a heretic, yes even that which has been administered by an unbeliever, by a Jew or Heathen, although the required intentio faciendi quod facit ecclesia is difficult to demonstrate here, and in that retains for itself the right to apply the cogite intrare to all the baptized; only the se ipsum baptizare it does not recognize. To be sure, it has even, if there is any doubt whether baptism has been administered or correctly administered, introduced

conditional baptism, in which the minister says: si non baptizatus es, ego te baptizo etc., cf. Suicerus s. v. βαπτισμος. Comm. op Sent. IV dist. 5.

Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 67. Trid. VII de bapt. 4. Cat. Rom. II qu. 18. 23.

42. Bellarminus, de bapt. c. 7. Other churches also, such as the Greek, the Lutheran etc. teach the necessity of baptism and therefore in case of necessity allowed its administration to laymen. But in the end none of them dares to draw the consequence that someone, solely and only because he died unbaptized wholly without his fault, would be lost; all allow exceptions, in which a baptismus sanguinis or flaminis suffices. Conversio cordis potest inesse non percepto baptismo, sed contempto baptismo non potest, Lombardus, Sent. IV 4, 4. The Conf. Aug. art. 9 says in the lat. text indeed of baptism, quod sit necessarius ad salutem but teaches in the German text only, dass sie nöthig sei. The Lutheran theologians do not deny salvation to children who have died unbaptized outside the fault of the parents, Quenstedt, Theol. IV 164. And all who have a special grace communicated through baptism recognize that this can also be bestowed by God in another way, Heraut 651. Therefore the Reformed also judged differently. For baptism was not a cause but sign and seal of regeneration, which God bestows before and without the sacrament; no single benefit was granted by baptism that had not been bestowed by the word and accepted by faith. Thus baptism could not be absolutely necessary unto salvation; not the privatio baptismi in itself, but the contemptus baptismi makes guilty before God. In Mk. 16:16 therefore in the second member baptism is omitted and in Joh. 3:5, which passage on the other side is generally understood of baptism, Trid. VII de bapt. c. 2. Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 31, according to Calvin etc. there is no mention of baptism, although perhaps baptism is also thought of, for the water occurs here, just as in Mt. 3:11 the

fire, as symbol of the working of the H. Spirit, and is in vs. 6 and 8 not mentioned at all anymore. Therefore there is also no reason to depart from apostolic usage and in cases of necessity to allow the administration of baptism also to persons other than the teachers of the congregation, Calvin,

Inst. IV 15, 20. Bucanus, Inst. 613. Perkins, Works I 461. Voetius, Pol. Eccl.

I. 631. M. Vitringa VII 75. 163. Moor V 435. Therefore the Reformed were also concerned that baptism should always be administered in the midst of the congregation. Although in the N. T. the administration of baptism took place everywhere where there was water, Mt. 3:6, Joh. 3:23, Hd. 8:36, it nevertheless soon became, when the believers got their own meeting places, the custom to have them take place in these. Yet in cases of necessity, in wintertime, in illnesses, for princes and distinguished persons an exception was made and the administration of baptism in private dwellings was permitted. This is certainly in conflict with the general rule that must apply in the church. Even if cases are conceivable in which the administration of baptism may take place in houses; they can and may be nothing other than a high exception, do not stand for judgment with the minister of the word alone but with the whole consistory, and even then require that the administration not take place except in the presence of the consistory. For in the dispensing of the sacrament it does not depend on the building, but on the assembly of the congregation. The sacrament is a constituent part of public worship, is a good that has been bestowed by Christ upon his church and must therefore with the word be administered publicly in the congregation. For the sacrament is always united with the word; Christ himself has connected the administration of baptism with that of the word,

Mt. 28:19. In the planting of the church among a non-Christian population baptism by the nature of the case cannot at once take place in the midst of

the assembly of the believers. But as soon as this exists, administration of word and sacrament must be transferred into it, for they are a constituent part of the [296] public worship and a good of the congregation. Thus in the apostolic time the Lord's Supper was celebrated in the midst of the congregation, 1 Cor. 11:20. And thus no less ought it to happen with baptism, which indeed precisely depicts the incorporation into Christ and his congregation, 1 Cor. 12:13, and therefore is administered most fittingly in the public assembly of the believers, Calvin, Inst. IV 15, 16. Voetius, Pol.

Eccl. I 726-730. Moor V 510-512. M. Vitringa VII 171. Syn. Dordr. sess.

163. 175 K. O. art. 56.

On the time at which baptism had to be administered, there prevailed in the church no small difference. Circumcision was performed on the eighth day; baptism in the N. T. was usually administered immediately, when someone believed and made confession, Mt. 3:6, Hd. 2:41, 8:12, 36, 9:18,

10:47, 16:15, 33, 18:8. But when later on all sorts of persons wished to join the church, who were wholly unfamiliar with her doctrine and life, already in the second century the catechumenate arose, which subsequently was regulated more and more and according to the synod of Elvira ± 300, had to last two years. At the end of that, the catechumens were baptized in a solemn manner, preferably on one of the great feast days, and incorporated into the congregation. Led by the thought that baptism forgave only past sins, many even postponed baptism as long as possible and up to the deathbed. But the infant baptism coming more and more into use and the doctrine of the absolute necessity of baptism nevertheless drove the church in another direction. It became customary, not to postpone baptism as long as possible, but to administer it as soon as possible after birth. At first many still pleaded that baptism should be administered in the third or thirtieth

year of life; but others preferred to have it administered on the eighth or on the fortieth day after birth; the synod of Carthage 252 under the chairmanship of Cyprian already determined that the children had to be baptized as soon as possible, on the second or third day after their birth,

Cypr. Ep. 59; and this soon became general usage and was regarded as an apostolic custom, cf. Suicerus, s. v. βαπτισμος and κλινικος. Schwane, D.

G. I 378. II 755. Moeller-Schubert, Kirchengesch. I 338. The Greek church has no determination about the time, but nevertheless usually postpones baptism [297] no longer than until the eighth day and in case of necessity administers it already earlier, even immediately after birth. The Roman church urges that the child be baptized as soon as possible after birth, Trid.

VII de bapt. c. 12. Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 28. With this general rule the Lutherans, Gerhard, Loc. XX 245 and also the Reformed agree. The prov. synod of Dordrecht 1574 art. 57 even declared that the affection of the parents, who desire to postpone the baptism of their children, until the time when the mothers themselves present their children, or upon the fathers' long waiting, is no lawful cause to postpone baptism. But no other synod adopted this pronouncement. Although all needless postponement is disapproved and there is repeatedly urged a prompt presentation of the child for baptism, it is nevertheless absolutely not the intention of the church orders, when they speak only of the fathers, to exclude the mothers, but to oppose the system of witnesses and not to let these take the place of the fathers, cf. Bucanus, Inst. 634. Bullinger, Huysboek 1612 f. 249 f. Synopsis pur. theol. 44, 52. Voetius, Pol. eccl. I 724. Moor V 512. M. Vitringa VII 176. The system of baptismal witnesses, ἀναδοχοι, sponsores, fidejussores, susceptores, compatres, commatres, patrini, matrinae, patres et matres spirituales, arose when infant baptism became general usage, and is already

mentioned by Tertullian, de bapt. 18. There were now needed persons who in the place of the child made confession and answered the customary questions; who, as it were as sureties, sponsores, acted for the child, and promised to raise it later on the basis of baptism in a Christian manner.

They were the representatives of the church, which indeed itself properly as a whole holds the child for baptism and bears it with her prayer. Now it lay at hand to let the parents act as such sponsores at the baptism of the child.

And in the first time this also happened thus. But gradually fatherhood and godfatherhood were placed alongside one another, just as birth and rebirth, natural and spiritual kinship. Parents were of themselves already obliged to the Christian upbringing of their child and seemed no longer able to take upon themselves a special vow thereto. They were the natural parents of the child, but the godparenthood was a wholly different spiritual [298] kinship, and therefore gradually became an impedimentum matrimonii between the susceptores on the one hand and the baptized person and his parents on the other and also between them themselves. The council of Mainz 813 therefore already forbade: nullus proprium filium vel filiam de fonte baptismatis suscipiat, cf. Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 20-24. But this same

Catechismus already had to complain that this service in the church was so neglected, ut nudum tantum hujus functionis nomen relictum sit. Lutherans and Reformed did not at all consider this system of baptismal witnesses necessary, because it was not prescribed or mentioned in Scripture, but nevertheless usually held it to be an adiaphoron, which sometimes could be of some use, Gerhard, Loc. XX 267. Buddeus, Inst. p. 1071. Dordsche

Kerkenorde 57. Synopsis pur. theol. 44, 54. Bucanus, Inst. theol. 640.

Voetius, Pol. eccl. I 704. Moor V 509. M. Vitringa VII 159. But the Reformed nevertheless laid emphasis especially on the fact that in the first

place the parents would answer the questions at baptism and would act as susceptores and sponsores for their child, and required that if witnesses were taken, these would be of pure confession and conduct. Calvin, Op. ed.

Amst. IX 142. Hooyer, Oude Kerkenordeningen bl. 7. 11. 17. 46. 69. 105.

153. 205. 265. 314. 344. 456. In addition, in the Roman church the godfathers and godmothers must do service to instruct the child in the doctrine of the faith, because the pastors, as the Catech. Rom. II 2 qu. 20 says, have no time for it. But the Reformed church, following Calvin's lead, introduced the catechesis of the baptized youth and entrusted this to the minister. Thus in a well-ordered Reformed church the system of witnesses, which otherwise soon degenerated into a nudum nomen, has, except in a few special cases, become superfluous and unnecessary and has in practice also all but disappeared. Cf. Suicerus, s. v. ἀναδοχοι. Höfling, Das Sakr. der

Taufe II 4-20. Steitz in Herzog2 15, 247.

This entire doctrine of baptism, as it was developed by the Reformed, brings to light how closely they adhered to Holy Scripture. All the more does it deserve attention that they nevertheless, or rather precisely for that reason, in their recognition and administration of baptism knew how to avoid all sectarianism and preserved a truly Christian breadth of heart and breadth of conception. In agreement with the catholic church in its struggle

[299] against the African churches, the Reformed also taught unanimously that heretical baptism, provided it was administered in the name of God triune, had to be recognized; but because they did not conceive the baptismal formula magically and did not detach baptism from church and office, they added the further restriction that it had to have been administered by a minister recognized in a Christian congregation. Cf. Dr.

G. van Goor, The struggle over heretical baptism. Utr. 1872. Herzog2 art.

Ketzertaufe. Calvin in Herzog, Das Leben Joh. Calvins II 486. Voetius, Pol. eccl. I 631-645. Turretinus, Th. El. XIX qu. 15. Moor V 443-453. Syn.

Dordr. 1574 q. 10. Midd. 1578 q. 29. Dordr. 1618 sess. 162. And from baptism they did indeed exclude all things and objects, all dead persons, those who had perished or were still only partly born, all monstra, all children also of heathen parents who had been taken captive, Syn. Dordr.

1618 sess. 18. 19, but they admitted to baptism all children who after the death of their parents or as foundlings had been taken up into Christian families, who had been born from an unlawful marriage or from excommunicati, schismatics, heretics, provided only that there existed some ground for the suspicion that the line of the covenant had not been wholly broken off. Voetius I 645-670. Moor V 500-509. M. Vitringa VII 95. 142159. The Reformed are rather to be accused of too broad than of too narrow a recognition and administration of baptism. But thereby they have nevertheless in an excellent manner maintained the unity and catholicity of the church of Christ on earth. All Christian churches still recognize one another's baptism and thereby in fact declare that in it there is still so much truth present that the possibility of being saved is not excluded. There is one confession on which they are all built, one faith of which they all partake.

In spite of all difference and struggle, all nevertheless acknowledge one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

↑ Back to top