OF BAPTISM
Of Baptism
INTRODUCTION
HE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM HOLDS AN IMPORTANT
position in Zwingli's theology, partly because it helps to an understanding of his sacramental teaching as a whole, but more particularly because of its inter-connection with such basic themes as the covenant and the election. The period of Zwingli's more active concern with the topic may be dated from the outbreak of Anabaptism in Zurich in the yea:
1523. The champions of the new movement were all supporters of the Reformation, and at first Zwingli seems to have been impressed by their appeal to Scripture. Indeed, he went so far as to concede to Balthasar Hubmaier, the pastor of Waldshut, that normally baptism ought to be preceded by instruction.1 It is difficult to say what brought about the decisive change in Zwingli's view of the matter.
Perhaps he was influenced by the sectarianism of the Anabaptists, or their revolutionary tendencies,? or more likely their tendency to depreciate the Old Testament. It may even be that he gained something from Luther's resolute opposition to the Zwickau prophets.3 Above all, he must have seen that the appeal to Scripture meant something far bigger and deeper than simply the citation of one or two proof-texts. Certainly by the year 1524 he had constituted himself the defender of infant baptism, and in the development of his defence he had necessarily to work out the whole subject in relation to the text and teaching of both Old and New Testament Scripture.
1 Cf. Fisslin, Beytrdge, I, p. 252 f.; Zwingli, Opera, I, p. 260.
2' The Swiss Anabaptists were in correspondence with Thomas Mintzer.
Cf. D.C.R. 210.
3 [bid., 52-54.
ZWINGLI During the following year events began to move swiftly in Zurich. Two conferences were held on January 10 and 17, but the Anabaptists, who were represented by Hubmaier,
Grebel and Manz, refused to abandon their position. On January 18 the Council passed a decree ordering the baptism of infants and silencing the opposition.+ In defiance of this decree the first re-baptism took place at Zollikon on February 7,5 and it was followed by others at Schaffhausen and Waldshut. A further disputation was held on March 20, but again without effect. In an attempt to enforce recantation, the authorities committed several of the more prominent Anabaptists to prison, but they made a successful escape on April
5. A final disputation took place in November, and when this failed to achieve its object the Council took the drastic step of decreeing death by drowning as the penalty for all those who persisted in the heresy. During the months which followed the Anabaptist leaders were all imprisoned, executed or banished.
In the meantime, however, Anabaptist teachings had been widely propagated in neighbouring districts, and it was this more widespread challenge which stimulated Zwingli to declare his position in a published writing. Already in the Commentary on True and False Religion he had announced his intention of writing a special treatise on the subject,' and by the spring of 1525 he had worked out his views and was confident that he could put the matter in a completely new light. The first direct reference to the proposed work was in a letter to his friend
Vadian at St. Gall, the date being March 31, 1525.8 The work went ahead with Zwingli's usual speed and it was published on May 27. Originally he had intended to dedicate it to the church at Berne, but during May the Anabaptist menace became particularly acute in St. Gall,® and the issue was still in the balance at the time when the essay on baptism was ready.
On May 19 the Anabaptists had been allowed a fortnight in which to study a long written statement by Vadian, and at the end of that time the issue was to be debated before the Council.
There is no real evidence that Vadian made an appeal to Zwingli,!° but the two were in close touch and in order to help
4Egli A.S., 622-624; D.C.R. art.
5 Egli A.S., 636; D.C.R. are.
6D.C.R. 213.
1 CR. Sp. 774.
8 [bid., VIII, 336.
® For a history of Anabaptism in St. Gall, see E. Egli, Die St. Galler Taufer.
10 This is suggested by Egli, op. cit., p. 33.
OF BAPTISM
his friend at this time of crisis he determined to dedicate his new work to St. Gall, dedicating to Berne his projected Latin work on the Eucharist, Subsidium seu Coronis de Eucharistia.
On May 28 he sent copies of the new treatise to St. Gall. A messenger who was already in Zurich delayed his departure until the edition was ready.!! He also wrote a dedicatory epistle exhorting the people of St. Gall to stand fast against the new error. He gave a special warning against the type of subterfuge practised in the disputations at Zurich!2 and quoted the decision of the Zurich Council as a precedent for St. Gall to follow.
Indirectly as well as directly Zwingli's work played a not inconsiderable part in the events which followed. Grebel had heard of the despatch of the book, and he retaliated at once by sending a letter to Vadian in which he warned him against Zwingli and complained of Zwingli's actions especially in relation to tithes.!3 Vadian showed this letter to the Council and there was much indignation at Grebel's intervention. In the meantime Zwingli's book was being widely circulated.
One of the pastors, a certain Dominico Zili, began a public reading of it in church. He was interrupted by the Anabaptists, who first demanded that Grebel's letter should also be read and then complained that they wanted the Word of God, not the word of Zwingli.14 In the upshot, the arguments of Vadian and resentment against Grebel resulted in a triumph for the orthodox teaching, and there can be no doubt that Zwingli's treatise contributed in part to this triumph.
On the other hand, Zwingli did not succeed in his primary object, the winning over of the Anabaptists to his own position.
Neither in St. Gall nor in Zurich did the work result in any abandonment by the Anabaptists of their basic tenets. In Zurich, indeed, it gave rise to a considerable literary warfare, for Hubmaier replied with his work, The Christian Baptism of Believers, and a series of replies and counter-replies followed which terminated only with Zwingli's Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists in 1531.
For obvious reasons, Zwingli was now forced to consider some of the deeper problems of baptism as well as the surface-questions
11 There is nothing to show that this messenger had originally come with a request for help.
12 Some illuminating anecdotes are included in the main text.
13 See the Vadian Briefsammlung, 430.
14 Kessler, Sabbata, p. 149.
ZWINGLI of exegesis and history which had figured so prominently in the disputations. He divided his work into four main sections: baptism, the institution of baptism, rebaptism and infant baptism. To make his arguments more pointed, he appended a short list of conclusions. He also added the purified service of infant baptism then in use at Zurich.!5 Theologically, the main interest of the work is as a positive statement of the Reformed position. From this standpoint the more essential points are contained in the first two sections, and it is hardly necessary to include the two final sections and the baptismal order!® in the present translation. A short summary will be enough to make plain the scope and teaching of the work as a whole.
In the first section Zwingli began by repudiating the traditional doctrine that external baptism can of itself cleanse from sin. Properly understood, the sacrament of baptism is simply a covenant sign. In the New Testament the term baptism was used in many different ways, and Zwingli distinguished four main uses: Immersion in water, baptism by the Spirit, baptismal instruction and the faith which accompanies baptism. Zwingli did not think it necessary either that all these elements should be present in any given administration or that they should succeed each other in any particular order. Water baptism might well be given without the baptism of the Spirit, and instruction might just as well follow water-baptism as precede it.
After this short analysis, Zwingli turned to consider in more detail the meaning and value of baptism as a covenant sign.
He could not agree that the purpose and effect of such a sign is to confirm faith. The signs which confirm faith are miraculous signs, and even in their case the confirmation is really the work of the Holy Spirit. A covenant sign is a sign which pledges to faith and discipleship. It does not pledge to a life of absolute perfection, as the Anabaptists demanded. Nor is the pledge the culminating point of Christian knowledge, as they seemed to intend. Baptism is an initiatory sign, symbolizing although
15 This was the second reformed order. The first, by Leo Jud, had been little more than a translation of the existing service. Cf. C.R., IV, pp. 707 f.
16 A translation of the order may be found in D.C.R. 192. It may be noted that there are two slight mistranslations in the opening prayer: the words selb acht indicate that Noah was one of eight persons, but se/b is rendered
"Thyself"? and the eight are not mentioned; and the word grundlos is translated ''unmerited" instead of the more likely "unbounded" or *fathomless."'
OF BAPTISM
not itself effecting an inward change in those who receive it.
This understanding is supported by the correct exegesis of Matthew 3 and Romans 6. Zwingli could allow that the Anabaptists had done excellent work by their attacks upon the baptismal ceremonies and their insistence upon the ineffectiveness of the external element to purify the soul. But he claimed that they were quite mistaken when they tried to connect the inward change with the moment of baptismal administration, and their attempt to enforce complete righteousness upon the baptized resulted in a new and oppressive legalism and ultimately in self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
In the second section Zwingli attempted to date the institution of Christian baptism from the baptism of John and not from the commission of Matthew 28. Mediaeval theologians had allowed an institution of the sacrament prior to the passion, but they could not agree that it had the same force, and the identification with the baptism of John was completely new.
In defence of his view Zwingli argued that the preparatory work of John was a beginning of that which Christ continued and completed. In his teaching, for example, John exhorted to repentance and he also gave a first testimony to Christ as Saviour. Thus his preaching contains the two basic elements in all Christian proclamation. Again, Zwingli pointed out that the One whom we follow as our great example was baptized by John and not by himself or the apostles. If it was objected that John did not baptize in the Triune name, Zwingli replied that "'in the name"' means "into the name or power," and it was "into" the Trinity or power of the Trinity that John baptized even if he did not use the prescribed form of words.
The argument from the supposed rebaptism at Ephesus Zwingli dismissed as based upon a misunderstanding of the narrative. The statement that the twelve knew only the baptism of John really meant that they knew only the baptismal teaching of John, and even there their knowledge was partial and defective. Certainly there was no reason to suppose that they had ever received water-baptism.
In the third section Zwingli considered the specific question of rebaptism. His main aim was to prove that his opponents' baptism under the papacy was true and valid. Once this proposition was accepted, the illegality and futility of any subsequent administrations would be plainly demonstrated. First,
Zwingli referred back to the controversies about heretical baptism in the time of Cyprian. He deduced that baptism even
ZWINGLI under the papist heresy is still valid baptism and must not be reiterated. The fact that that baptism was infant baptism did not affect the issue, for, as some of the Anabaptists allowed, the custom of infant baptism could easily be traced back to the period of Augustine. The persistent assertion that it was an invention of Pope Nicholas II Zwingli denounced as an absurd fiction. If the Anabaptists were not satisfied that they had actually been baptized they could easily settle the question by consulting their god-parents or even enquiring where and when they were given their Christian names. It may be noted that the argument is constantly interrupted by forceful but not very helpful denunciations of the arrogance, duplicity and sectarianism of the Anabaptist leaders.
In the fourth and final section Zwingli came to grips with the immediate issue, the baptism of infants. He argued that by nature and institution the covenant sign belongs to the family rather than the individual. This is proved by the clear case of circumcision. But the Anabaptists clamoured for a plain text in the New Testament. In reply to this, Zwingli pointed out that there is no plain text to sanction the admission of women to the Lord's Table. But surely we do not add to Scripture when we settle these details of administration for ourselves. And even if a plain text cannot be adduced, Zwingli felt that many passages favoured at least the probability that the apostles administered baptism to infants. In particular he quoted Christ's blessing of the infants and the household baptisms in Acts. Zwingli refused absolutely to base infant baptism upon the alleged guilt of original sin. He allowed an inherited frailty of our nature which inevitably gives rise to sin, but he did not believe that any guilt attaches to that frailty, at any rate in the case of Christians. When the Anabaptists quoted their stock text in Mark 16, in which faith precedes baptism, Zwingli dismissed it as quite inapplicable where the first preaching of the Gospel has been completed. He then cited
Augustine in proof of the apostolicity of infant baptism, and he pointed to Colossians 2: 10-12 as a conclusive proof that baptism has replaced circumcision. Zwingli did not believe that any importance ought to be attached to the external details of administration, e.g., whether baptism should be on the first day, or in consecrated water, but for the sake of order he thought that normally it ought to be given publicly and by the ordained minister. Both pastor and parents were under an obligation to give instruction to the child, and although spon-
OF BAPTISM
I25 sors were dispensable they answered to the general demand of Scripture for two or three witnesses.
So much then for the general substance of the essay. In the assessment of its value we may note first of all that it is almost the rule to emphasize its defects rather than its merits.!7 This is not altogether surprising, for the defects are obvious and not unimportant. Perhaps the outstanding weakness is the lack of that almost inevitable progression in thought which characterizes all really great writing. The work does follow a conscious and definite plan, but the interconnection of the various themes is not always apparent and there are far too many digressions.
In defence of Zwingli it may be pointed out, first that the subject is a difficult one to arrange, and second, that the diffuse character of the treatise derives in large part from his anxiety to give a comprehensive answer to the rather scattered arguments used in the various disputations. It is still the case, however, that he did not take sufficient pains to work out his argument as a logical whole, and he would certainly have done better to concentrate upon a constructive statement, even if this had meant ignoring the more detailed Anabaptist arguments.
A second and closely related defect is the thinness of much of the exegetical argumentation. Here again, the tiresome details of exposition were to a large extent forced upon Zwingli by the deductions which his opponents drew from the literal wording and order of individual texts. In most of the exchanges
Zwingli showed a better scholarship, a greater acuteness and a much higher sense of proportion than his adversaries. But it must still be granted that his ingenuity is often wasted in attempts to make Scripture mean something other than that which it appears to mean, and in spite of the outward confidence it is evident that Zwingli himself is not always too assured in his interpretations. His argument is surely strained when he claims that infants were baptized by John in the river
Jordan, or that the men who knew only John's baptism had not in fact received water-baptism at the hands of John or his disciples.
A third and final weakness is the failure to show any compelling necessity for infant baptism on theological grounds.
Zwingli provides more or less adequate arguments in favour of the traditional practice, and he exposes clearly some of the weaknesses in the Anabaptist case. But Zwingli himself seems
17 Cf. the Introduction in C.R., IV, p. 202.
ZWINGLI to lack the beliefs or presuppositions which make infant baptism logically necessary.18 He does not accept an original guilt in infants of which baptism is the means or sign of remission. Nor does he admit any possibility of a real faith in infants, which would, of course, carry with it a full qualification for the sacrament. Indeed, the thinness in exegesis is matched by a general thinness in the whole theology of baptism, especially as compared with the full-blooded teaching of Luther and the more developed "'sacramentalism"' of the later
Reformed school. It is true that the devaluation of baptism applies only to the external sign and not to baptism in the full sense, but it is also true that Zwingli seems to separate too rigidly the sign from the thing signified. He grasps clearly the basic duality of the sacrament, but he is in danger of losing the essential and underlying unity.
The defects are there, but the treatise has many qualities as well. For one thing, it does achieve its immediate purpose, showing that the Anabaptist case is by no means so plain and straightforward as its exponents believed.
It may be that Zwingli does not always have the better of the argument, but at least he makes it clear that the matter cannot be settled either by the insistence upon the detailed wording of single texts or by the ignorant propagation of bad history. And the appeal to the covenant exposed the failure of the Anabaptists to base their faith and practice not merely upon the New
Testament but upon the Bible as a whole.
Again, the treatise testifies to Zwingli's sharp awareness of what proved to be a basic point in the whole dispute. He realized that the doctrine of the Church was involved as well as the doctrine of baptism. Acceptance of the Anabaptist view of baptism inevitably carried with it acceptance of the Anabaptist view of the Church. What the Anabaptists were aiming at was a "pure" or "'gathered" Church, a Church in which the invisible company of the elect is co-terminous and indeed identical with the visible company of the baptized. Much of the urgency of Zwingli in the defence of infant baptism was undoubtedly due to an anxiety to preserve the state Church, although not necessarily for purely political or ecclesiastical reasons, as his critics have unfairly alleged. Zwingli saw clearly that Anabaptism meant sectarianism, and he could not believe that either the Bible or church history justifies an attempted
18 This point is well brought out in the Introduction to the C.R. edition, C.R., IV, p. 202.
OF BAPTISM
anticipation in the Church of that final judgment which is the prerogative of God alone. Naturally, Zwingli had neither time nor space to argue this point in detail, but his awareness of the issue is revealed in the repeated charges brought against his opponents and in his appeal to the historical parallel of Donatism.
A further quality of the book is the boldness and consistency with which Zwingli repudiates the mediaeval doctrines of baptismal efficacy. Admittedly, Zwingli goes rather far in his separation of sign and thing signified. On the other hand the mediaeval Church had gone much too far in its identifying of the two. The result was disastrous, for at any rate in popular thinking the effect of the sacrament came to be attributed to the sign itself and not to the Holy Spirit working in and through the sign. Against dangerous and perverted notions of this kind it was right and necessary that a protest should be made. Zwingli knew well enough that he had the testimony of many centuries against him, but he had no hesitation whatever in affirming that which he knew to be the truth. And he had the honesty to admit that the Anabaptists themselves had done good work in drawing attention to the errors and corruptions of mediaeval dogma and practice.
There is one final point. Zwingli failed to work out any fully developed or coherent theology of baptism. But with his definition of baptism as a covenant sign he did indicate the lines along which much profitable work was to be done by the later
Reformed theologians. It is easy enough to detect the weaknesses in Zwingli's understanding. He isolates the various aspects of the sacrament. He has no true doctrine of sacramental efficacy. He has little or nothing to say about baptism as a sign of remission and regeneration. He constantly overemphasizes the fact that baptism is a pledge of what we ought to do rather than of what God has already done for us. Yet as Zwingli brought out clearly in other writings, a covenant is necessarily two-sided. In the long run, the baptismal covenant involves a pledge given by God as well as a pledge made by us. The ultimate basis of baptism 1s not that we are willing to accept God's service. It is rather that God is willing to accept us as his servants. And in the last analysis it is because the divine willingness has precedence over the human that we may rightly administer the sacrament to children within the covenant. The possibilities latent in the concept of baptism as a covenant sign were never fully exploited by Zwingli, certainly
ZWINGLI not in this treatise, but the best Reformed work on the subject derived in large part from this source.
Editions The first three editions of the essay were all published by Hager of Zurich. Between these three there are no differences in substance, but typographical errors are successively eliminated.19 R. Gwalter translated the work into Latin for inclusion in the collected Opera (Tom. II). A version in modern German was made by Raget Christoffel in his <eitgemdssige Auswahl
(Zurich 1843). The original has been reproduced in the Corpus Reformatorum edition (IV), with footnotes to indicate
Hager's misprints. More recently the Zwingli-Verlag has republished the treatise in its popular edition of selected works (XI).
The translation which follows is based directly upon the orginal text as reprinted in the Corpus Reformatorum edition.
19 For details of these editions see C.R., IV, pp. 203 f.
Of Baptism (1)
THE°* TEXT
Brethren most dearly beloved in God, above all things I pray our heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ his only begotten
Son our Lord, that he will not permit me to say or to write anything which is contrary to his own will and truth. And as I propose to write about baptism, I ask all believers to read and ponder my words with Christian good-will and charity, not allowing themselves to be so hardened by contentiousness or obstinacy that they will not accept that which they clearly perceive, but obscure it by controversy. We do not learn the truth by contention, for contention is like a mountain torrent or spate.(2) Everything that it comes across it carries headlong before it and thereby increases its strength. At first only small stones are disturbed, but with their constant rolling they move larger ones, until the fall becomes so great and powerful that it dislodges and carries away everything that stands in its path, leaving behind only unnecessary distress and suffering and the desolation of pleasant fields and pastures. So too it is with obstinacy and contention. It has its source in some small thing which stimulates the carnal nature to envying and strife.
Once these two great boulders fall into the stream, the roaring begins, that is, the clamour and cleverness of controversy.
And just as it is impossible to see anything in the torrent except muddied water, though great rocks are concealed in it, so too contentious and turbid speeches carry with them the boulders of hatred, ambition and the like. But we cannot see them, and it is only by the tumult that we are aware of their presence.
Again, contention carries before it everything that it reaches, turning it to its own advantage. And at the end the only result is that it prevails, like the mountain torrent. Apart from that,
Z.B.—Q
ZWINGLI it simply causes unnecessary strife and unrest amongst Christian people. It destroys charity. And all for the sake of external things on which the honour of God does not depend and by which purity and quietness of conscience are not advanced.(3)
For contention leaves behind it the desolation of fair and flourishing churches. Therefore I warn my readers not to be impressed by the effects of contention but only by the teaching of truth.
In this matter of baptism—if I may be pardoned for saying it—I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles.(4) This is a serious and weighty assertion, and I make it with such reluctance that had I not been compelled to do so by contentious spirits I would have preferred to keep silence and simply to teach the truth. But it will be seen that the assertion is a true one: for all the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach. They have also misunderstood the saying of Christ about water and the Holy Ghost in John 3.
Our present task is to see what baptism really is. At many points we shall have to tread a different path from that taken either by ancient or more modern writers or by our own contemporaries. We shall be guided not by our own caprice but by the Word of God.
When he took upon himself the curse of the Law, Jesus Christ, the very Son of God, deprived us of all external justification. Therefore no external thing can make us pure or righteous.
That means that everything ceremonial, all outward pomp and circumstance, is now abolished, as Paul says in Hebrews g:
"This figure was for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washing, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation" etc. This reformation was accomplished by Christ, as we see in the following passage: but it would take too long to speak of that now. These verses tell us, however, that Christ abolished external things, so that we are not to hope in them or to look to them for justification. Certainly we are not to ascribe cleansing to the external things which are still left. For if in the Old
Testament they were only carnal and outward, not being able to cleanse us or to give us peace or to assure the conscience, how much less are they able to accomplish anything in Christ, in whom it is the Spirit alone that quickeneth.
OF BAPTISM
13] Yet to us, his fellow-members, he has bequeathed two ceremonies, that is, two external things or signs: baptism and the eucharist (or remembrance).(5) And undoubtedly he has done this as a concession to our frailty: '"'for a bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench''.(6) By the first of these signs, baptism, we are initially marked off to God, as we shall see later. In the other, the Lord's Supper or Eucharist, we render thanks to God because he has redeemed us by his Son.
Before treating of baptism we must first indicate the meaning of the word sacrament. In our native tongue the word suggests something that has power to take away sin and to make us holy.(7) But this is a serious perversion. For only Jesus Christ and no external thing can take away the sins of us Christians and make us holy. And as a result of this misunderstanding there are some who cry out: "They are depriving us of the holy sacraments whereby our poor souls are comforted." But we have no desire to take away the sacraments but simply to use them rightly and not to pervert them. And they are perverted by those who ascribe to them a virtue which they do not possess. As used in this context the word sacrament means a covenant sign or pledge. If a man sews on a white cross, he proclaims that he is a Confederate.(8) And if he makes the pilgrimage to Nahenfels and gives God praise and thanksgiving for the victory vouchsafed to our forefathers,(g) he testifies that he is a Confederate indeed. Similarly the man who receives the mark of baptism is the one who is resolved to hear what God says to him, to learn the divine precepts and to live his life in accordance with them. And the man who in the remembrance or Supper gives thanks to God in the congregation testifies to the fact that from the very heart he rejoices in the death of Christ and thanks him for it. Of those who complain I ask only this: that they let the sacraments be real sacraments and do not describe them as signs which actually are the things which they signify. For if they are the things which they signify they are no longer signs: for sign and thing signified cannot be the same thing.(10)
Sacramenta—as even the papists maintain—are simply the signs of holy things. Baptism is a sign which pledges us to the Lord Jesus Christ. The remembrance shows us that Christ suffered death for our sake. Of these holy things they are the signs and pledges. You will find ample proof of this if you consider the pledge of circumcision and the thanksgiving of the paschal lamb.
ZWINGLI
Or BAPTISM
All the sacraments and pledges of the Old Testament were with blood, for purifications which were merely carnal were never without blood. In this respect they pointed to the Lord
Jesus Christ, whose blood purges the conscience as that of beasts could never do. But with the coming of that blood which, once shed, purified the conscience, the shedding of blood ceased. The two main sacraments of the Jews, circumcision and the paschal lamb, were both with blood. But with the shedding of the precious blood of Christ the shedding of physical blood ceased.
Christ transformed the two signs into two more gentle sacraments in which there is no shedding of blood or physical death.(11) On the one hand there was the death and blood of the paschal lamb, with which they thanked him for the passover in Egypt and their deliverance from bondage. This he has now replaced by bread and wine, two most suitable and ordinary things, by which we offer him praise and thanksgiving that he gave up his body for our redemption and his blood for the washing away of our sins. On the other hand there was the blood of circumcision, and this he has now changed to water, another element which is agreeable and common to all men. These most friendly elements and signs, water and wine and bread, have been given to us in order that by the outward signs we may know the grace and loving-kindness of the New Testament, that we are no longer under the lLaw—the shedding of blood has therefore been abrogated by the blood of Christ—but under grace.
Now in Scripture the word baptism is used in four different ways.
First, it is used for the immersion in water whereby we are pledged individually to the Christian life. Second, it is used for the inward enlightenment and calling when we know God and cleave to him—that is the baptism of the Spirit.
Third, it is used for the external teaching of salvation and external immersion in water.
Finally it is used for external baptism and internal faith, that is, for the Christian salvation and dispensation as a whole.
Because they do not see clearly these different uses of the term, there are many who fall into strange errors, judging that which they neither know nor understand. We will cite specific texts from Scripture in favour of our view.
OF BAPTISM
1. In John g it is written: "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were baptized." It is evident that the reference here is simply to water-baptism, for it is pointed out that there was much water there, and the value of this is only for external baptism. And there can be no doubt that those who administer this baptism know very well that they are only baptizing with water.
2. Christ himself speaks of the baptism of the Spirit in Acts 1:
"For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." In this verse
Christ stresses that there are two kinds of baptism. John baptized only with water or external teaching. And it is exactly the same today. What men can give is only outward baptism, either by external teaching or pouring or dipping in water.
In baptism neither the apostles nor John nor anyone else can do more than give external instruction and immersion in water. Hence the dispute about infant baptism is a dispute only about water-baptism and teaching; are we to baptize infants before we teach them or not? For only God can give the baptism of the Spirit.(12) And that is why Christ at once adds:
"But ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." This is the baptism of inward teaching, calling, and cleaving to God.
And when he says this, Christ does not repudiate the baptism of John. For the external baptism of John is the same as that of Christ and the apostles, as we shall show later. What Christ says concerning John's baptism may be said of every baptism administered by man. Peter and Paul and James did not administer any baptism but that of water and external teaching.
They could not baptize with the Spirit, for God alone baptizes with the Spirit, and he himself chooses how and when and to whom that baptism will be administered.
3. Third, the teaching and baptism of the apostles make it plain that the word "baptism" is used for external teaching and baptism, as may be seen in the words of John himself in John 1: "I baptize with water." For John does not baptize with water only: he teaches as well. But the teaching of John, and also that of the apostles, was only external.(13) It had no power to move the heart. And for that reason it was just as much an external thing as pouring or dipping in water.
So then, although John himself says: "I baptize with water," he teaches as well as baptizes, for just before he says: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness." And that baptism
ZWINGLI is used for teaching we see plainly in John 3: ''After these things came Jesus into the land of Judaea: and there he tarried with them and baptized.' But how did he baptize?
Did he do it himself? Immediately following, in John 4, it says: "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples."
But in John 9 it says: "Behold the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." There can be no doubt, then, that in this context the word baptize is expressly used for teach.
For as Christ himself said, teaching was his main office, and it it is the main office of all apostles, evangelists, bishops and pastors,(14) as Paul says in I Corinthians 1. It was the disciples who baptized with water. And Christ himself knew how he used that baptism to move the heart. Again, it is clear from Matthew 21 that the baptism of John also meant his teaching, for there Christ said to the leaders of the Jews: "I also will ask you one thing: the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?" In this context Christ could not mean only the baptism of water, for in that case it would have been quite right to have replied that it was given him by men.(15) But he asked them concerning his teaching, whether they thought that it was from men or from God. For his adversaries reasoned with themselves, saying, "'If we shall say 'From heaven,' he will say,
Why did ye not then believe him?" Note that the Jews knew perfectly well that by his baptism he meant his teaching.
And baptism is also used for teaching in Acts 19.
(4)1 Fourth, baptism is used for the Christian dispensation and salvation, that is, for the inward faith which saves us, as in I Peter 3: ""The like figure whereunto doth now save us... even baptism." For neither as water nor as external teaching does baptism save us, but faith.
This division is not my own invention but according to the teaching of Scripture, and those who are not aware whether they are speaking of water-baptism, of baptism as teaching, or of the baptism of the Spirit will fall into serious error. Yet every time that we have tried to make the distinction in our discussions with the Anabaptists and Catabaptists they have answered that they are all the same. They would even have denied the possibility of salvation without water-baptism had we not forcibly restrained them by quoting the words of Christ in John 6: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life."'(16) Christ himself did not connect salvation with baptism: it is always by faith alone.
1In the first editions this number is omitted.
OF BAPTISM
We will now show that all the three forms of baptism are given separately.
The disciples gave water-baptism without teaching and without the Spirit. We have seen already in John 4 that when Christ taught but did not baptize it was the disciples who baptized.
See too I Corinthians 1: "God (Christ) sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." On some occasions, then, instruction was given by one and baptism by another. And that some were baptized before they believed we see in John 6, for there can be no doubt that none of those disciples which went away was unbaptized. For as we saw in John 4, "he made and baptized more disciples."' But later, in John 6, he upbraided them for their unbelief: '""Ye also have seen me and believe not."
And finally he said: "There are some of you that believe not."
Yet he had permitted them to be baptized. Again, Judas did not believe, as we are told in the same passage: 'Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" But from the verse first quoted it is quite certain that he was baptized, for Christ made many more disciples than John, and he baptized them through his disciples. But those who baptized were not unbaptized themselves. Hence it follows that water-baptism was given even when there was no faith, and it was received even by those who did not believe. The same was true in the case of Simon Magus, concerning whom we are told in Acts 8 that "Simon himself believed also." In this context "believed" must be given the sense of "'listened to his message" or "reckoned himself a believer,'? as Augustine somewhere construes it.(17) For shortly afterwards it became clear that he did not believe. Not that this makes much difference. All that we are trying to prove is that water-baptism is sometimes given even where there is no inward baptism or faith. And unfortunately this is frequently the case at the present time, for many who have no faith allow themselves to be baptized, especially Jews.(18) Yet they are truly baptized with the external baptism of teaching and water. It is evident, then, that the two need not be concurrent: for nothing is more foolish than to say that when a man is baptized he necessarily becomes a believer.
The baptism of teaching was often administered externally when no-one believed or accepted water-baptism. In Acts 18, for example, Paul shook his raiment and excluded the Jews at Corinth because they would not receive Christ.(19) And there are many other cases.
ZWINGLI The baptism of the Spirit was also given without the baptism of water. Nicodemus, Joseph of Ramoth and Gamaliel were all believers, but in secret. They were certainly not baptized: otherwise they could not have kept their secret. For baptism is given and received for the sake of fellow-believers, not for a supposed effect in those who receive it. In Acts 10 Cornelius and all who heard Peter received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Hence the two baptisms are not always concurrent. Indeed, in the Bible as a whole we find more instances of the Spirit given before water-baptism than after. In one case in particular faith was present but not water, and faith was sufficient to save. The thief on the cross believed, and the same day he was with Christ in Paradise, that is, eternal felicity. (20)
Now the thief was certainly not baptized with an external baptism. For it is not true that he was baptized in blood, as Jerome asserts in a passage which once misled me.(21) For the thief did not hang there in the cause of God, like the innocents who suffered on behalf of Christ, but because of his act of murder. And Peter says in I Peter 2: "For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently?"
These passages all serve to show us that in Scripture the word baptism is used in different senses and that there is no salvation in external baptism. We see, then, that water-baptism is a ceremonial sign with which salvation is not indissolubly connected. We have already proved this from the example of the dying thief and others. And we see that the two are not to be connected and used together as the Anabaptists and Catabaptists insist. I hope that no one will complain if for the sake of brevity I call them all Anabaptists.(22)
I do this on the ground that they deny the baptism of infants. Baptism itself, please God, they do not deny. My use of the title is not in any sense controversial.
Now in this connection we must speak first and chiefly of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
This baptism was both outward and inward.
The inward baptism of the Spirit was taught by John in Matthew 3 and Luke 3: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, or amendment: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." In this verse we should first notice that when John says: "I baptize you with water,' he does not mean that his office was merely to baptize with water. For by water alone he could not have taught the
OF BAPTISM
people to know their sin and to repent. It would need a good deal of washing in water for us to know and amend ourselves and to seek Christ as our Saviour and Comforter. What John means is simply this: I am only a weak vessel. The message which I can bear is only outward. I cannot give anything but external baptism in water. I have no power to soften the heart.
But the one who comes after me has greater power than I have.
He is able to penetrate to the heart. He will baptize you inwardly with his Spirit, setting you on fire with his love and endowing you with the gift of tongues, etc. This baptism of the Holy Ghost is exactly the same as what Christ said in John
6: ""No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him." And he goes on to tell us what that '"'drawing' is: "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."' The inward baptism of the Spirit is the work of teaching which God does in our hearts and the calling with which he comforts and assures our hearts in Christ. And this baptism none can give save God alone. Without it, none can be saved—though it is quite possible to be saved without the baptism of external teaching and immersion.(23) The proof of this is that the murderer on the cross was externally neither taught nor baptized, and yet he was saved. It follows that the one necessary thing which saves those of us who hear the Gospel is faith, or trust, and this faith none can implant within us save God alone.
The outward baptism of the Spirit is an external sign, the gift of tongues. This sign is not given for the benefit of those who actually speak with other tongues or languages: for they have already learned the way of salvation in their hearts. It is given for the benefit of unbelievers, as we see in I Corinthians 14:
"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.'? And who are these ? The ones to whom tongues are given? No, for they are already believers.
They are given to believers as a sign and wonder to unbelievers.
Similarly, baptism is not given as a sign to those who receive it, but for the benefit of other believers.(24) And this outward baptism of tongues was appointed by the Lord himself in Acts
1: "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."' Now the disciples were already believers. But the fire of love was increased and tongues were given, as happened on the day of Pentecost. Again, this sign is not necessary to salvation, for it is given infrequently and only to a few. It is a miracle, and like other miracles it takes place only when
ZWINGLI God wills. Nevertheless God himself has described the sign of tongues as a baptism. And as this sign is sometimes given before water-baptism, sometimes after, so too the baptism of teaching may be given either before water-baptism or after. This is not the foundation upon which we build infant baptism, but it is a suasoria,(25) pointing in the right direction.
We must now examine equally carefully the question of signs in order to expose a mistake which once deceived me as found in certain writers. For some have taught that signs are given for the confirmation of an existing faith in that which we have already learned and to which we are pledged.(26) But this is not so. The danger is that often we are so inclined to accept that which is superficially attractive, and is perhaps attractively presented, that we stumble into it blindly, not paying any heed to the Word of God or the inward man, that is, faith. It is true, of course, that some signs are given the better to confirm faith, or in some sort to reassure the flesh, which does not allow faith any rest. But such signs are not pledges, but miraculous signs, like Moses' rod and Gideon's fleece and innumerable others given to the fathers. At the moment, however, we are not speaking of miracles, but of the seals and pledges which are not miraculous, like circumcision under the old covenant.
Circumcision did not confirm the faith of Abraham. It was a covenant sign between God and the seed of Abraham. For circumcision was given to Abraham when by faith he was already accounted righteous by God, as we learn in Genesis
15. And in Genesis 17 God himself makes it quite clear that circumcision is not a sign for the confirmation of faith but a covenant sign: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised." Note that God calls it a contract or covenant. Similarly, the feast of the paschal lamb was a covenant, as we read in Exodus 12: "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."
Note that the paschal lamb was a covenant sign. By means of it they were to remember every year that God had passed over in the night that he slew all the first-born in Egypt, both of man and beast, and that he had then led them out and drowned the Egyptians who pursued after them. Similarly, baptism in the New Testament is a covenant sign. It does not justify the one who is baptized, nor does it confirm his faith, for it is not possible for an external thing to confirm faith. For faith does not proceed from external things. It proceeds only from the God who draws
OF BAPTISM
us. Therefore it cannot be grounded in any external thing. The same applies to the Lord's Supper as well. It is true that miracles were given to confirm faith,(27) but even this does not mean that they add anything to faith or augment it, but that they satisfy the curiosity of the flesh which is constantly itching to see and to know. And that is why when Jesus answered the Jews and said: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him. What sign shewest thou then, that we may see and believe thee?" But what happens is simply this: if there is no faith, and miracles are shown to the flesh, that is, the carnal man, it still does not believe. For that reason Christ severely rebukes the sin of the Jews and indeed of all those who cry out for signs but do not believe even when they see them. Thus Jeroboam did not believe when his arm was dried up, nor did
Ahab (28) when God revealed to him the unheard of miracle of the Virgin Birth. But when the Lord gave signs to Gideon and Hezekiah they were much refreshed and the rebellious flesh was quelled. Against those who unthinkingly accept the idea that signs confirm faith we may oppose the fact of infant baptism, for baptism cannot confirm faith in infants because infants are not able to believe. (29) For some time I myself was deceived by the error and I thought it better not to baptize children until they came to years of discretion.(30) But I was not so dogmatically of this opinion as to take the course of many today, who although they are far too young and inexperienced in the matter argue and rashly assert that infant baptism derives from the papacy or the devil or something equally nonsensical.(31) I am always pleased when I see strength and constancy in a Christian, but a senseless fury in which there is neither the love nor discipline of Christian decorum can give pleasure only to those who are violent and rebellious.
Our next task is to see what kind of a pledge baptism is, that is to say, to what does it pledge us?
At this point the Anabaptists claim that only those who know that they can live without sin ought to receive the sign of baptism.(32) In so doing they make God a liar and bring back the hypocrisy of legal righteousness. My proof of the first point is as follows. In I John 1 it says: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us'. That is what God himself says by the mouth of John. Hence if we claim that we can live without sin, we make God a liar. For us to live without sin—is not that the height of presumption?
ZWINGLI As long as we are in the flesh, we are never without sin. For the flesh and the spirit are contrary the one to the other, so that we do not do the things which in the spirit we would do.
But if we are never without sin, yet boast that we will live without sin, it follows that we are simply bringing back the hypocrisy of the law. For once a man claims that he is without sin, he has to keep up before men a reputation for sinlessness.
The result is that he fulfils a righteousness which is purely external: for internally he has the same carnal nature as all flesh and he is not without sin, for God is not a liar. If he can only conceal it, he does not act any less carnally than other carnal creatures. And if the Anabaptists argue that "to be without sin'? means "'to be in faith," then as we have often shown in previously published writings there is no occasion whatever for strife or controversy: for there is no point at issue.
But the Anabaptists do hold that they live without sin. This is proved by what they and some others write and teach concerning the ferseverantia justorum, or perseverance of saints. In this they are committed absolutely to the view that they can and do live without sin. How far that claim is borne out by their envy, lying, clamour, evil-speaking and blasphemy
I leave on one side. But the following anecdote will show that they do regard themselves as righteous.(33) The Anabaptists had eventually been granted a disputation by the city council.
But after three days of effort, all that one of them could say about baptism was this: I would willingly justify my position from the Word of God but none will understand it except those who are without sin. What answer do you think should be given? That of silence? Not at all, for only the Lord Jesus Christ can say: ""Which of you convinceth me of sin?"' (John 8). Therefore I spoke up and said: Did you not make a mistake when you said that none will understand you except those who are without sin? He answered: That is what I said, and that is the case. I said: But you yourself understand this question of infant baptism? He answered: Yes. Then I said: Therefore you must be without sin. But as long as you are in the flesh that is impossible, for all those who are in the flesh are sinful. He replied: I would to God that all men were as conscious of their sins as I am. But when he said that he did not mean that he too was a sinner. But all good Christians may judge for themselves whether this boasting is anything but empty words, or any less arrogant than that hitherto made by the monks and nuns. (34)
OF BAPTISM
Clearly, then, baptism cannot bind us in such a way that we must not accept it unless we know that we can live without sin: for if that be the case, baptism was instituted in vain, for not one of us can claim to do that before God. Therefore we will turn to the Word of God and learn there both what baptism is and when it was instituted. As regards the first question, baptism is a covenant sign which indicates that all those who receive it are willing to amend their lives and to follow Christ.
In short, it is an initiation to new life. Baptism is therefore an initiatory sign, ceremonii, or in Greek f¢eleta. It is like the cowl which is cut out for initiates into an order. They do not know the rules and statutes when the cowls are made, but they learn them in their cowls.
We will now adduce passages in proof of this point. The first is the text in Matthew 28 which the Anabaptists allege against infant baptism. In this verse Christ says: '"'Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In expounding these words the Anabaptists sadly mislead both themselves and others: for they merely insist upon the order of words and cry: He says, "Teach all nations, baptizing them." They will not see that he goes on to say: ""Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"'; from which words it may easily be seen that baptism is an initiatory sign, and only when it is given do we learn to keep the things which Christ has commanded. But they insist upon the letter: It is written: '""Teach all nations, baptizing them." And although they would rather break off the controversy at that point, for their sake I too will insist upon the letter. They say: ""Teach all nations, baptizing them." And I say: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' Now which of us has the clearer word about teaching, we or they? They have the saying: "Teach all nations, baptizing them''; but there is nothing there about what we are to teach. And we have the clear words: ""Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And that follows baptism. Again, in the Greek the word for '"'commanded" is entilamen, which might equally well be rendered 'entrusted'? and "commanded," just as in older Latin the word mandavi meant strictly "I have entrusted." And the Greek word for 'teach' is matheteusate, which might
ZWINGLI just as well be translated "make disciples" or "bring to me as a master." This, then, is the literal sense: ""Go ye and make disciples of all nations"; then there follows the initiation with which they are to make disciples: ""baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'; and after the initiation the instruction: '"'teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have entrusted to you." But observe that although we too can weigh the individual words, in Christ there is no place for strife about words: therefore I do not place too great importance upon the literal wording.(35) We are to study the literal sense, but with moderation. We must not allow the letter to kill us, for the letter of the Gospel kills no less surely than the letter of the Law. Yet by the faith which I have in God, and the sure understanding—however slight— which I have of his Word, I know that this is the right and true and proper sense: for previously when Christ called his disciples he said that he would make them fishers of men. And what is that but to draw men to him, to make them his disciples?
But I will not strive any more about the wording except to show that infant baptism cannot be overthrown by this saying.
For even if the order did constrain us, the text does not apply to children or prevent their baptism. The saying applies only to those who are instructed. But we do not instruct infants.
Therefore the words do not apply to children or forbid their baptism. They say: If the words do not apply to them, we ought not to baptize them, for this is the place where Christ instituted baptism. Answer: Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. Baptism was not instituted here, and that is how you are misled. We shall soon be treating of the institution of baptism, and the evident truth will then force you to admit that you have deceived both yourselves and others. For if baptism was not instituted on this occasion, you have no right to press the saying against infant baptism even if the literal order of words did constrain us, which it does not. For if we were bound by the literal order, we should have to expound many passages of Scripture quite falsely. In John 1, for example, it tells us that John pointed to Christ and said: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." But shortly after it says: "'And I knew him not." But how could he not know him when he had just said: "Behold the Lamb of God," etc.? Again, in Romans 1o: "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
OF BAPTISM
saved." In this verse precedence is given to the external confession, but this is worthless without the heart. Hence we must not press the letter in the text in Matthew 28. For baptism was not instituted on that occasion as we formerly supposed, building upon the common error of the older theologians (36) that the baptism of John was different from that of Christ.
We will therefore continue our exposition of the verse in Matthew 28.
Already we have made it quite clear that if the words are to be pressed we gain an easy victory. For only after baptism does it say: "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you." Before baptizing it simply says:
"Teach," without saying what they are to teach. And even if the Anabaptists say: The latter phrase is simply an exposition of the former, that is, it tells them what they are to teach, I reply: But you insist upon the order of the words: you must take them as they are. And this is not the only place where baptism precedes teaching, as we shall show later. But if you do not insist upon the order of the words, how are you going to overthrow infant baptism, seeing you lose the text in Matthew 28? Therefore the Anabaptists either have to abandon the literal order or else they are really on our side and not their own. For we shall see that at its first institution baptism precedes instruction.
You have only to say to the wicked, slanderous and contentious devil,(37) I resist you, and you will understand the simple truth. When Christ says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name," etc., in the Greek there is no "'and'"' between "'teach'' and "baptizing." It does not say "teaching and baptizing'' but "teach... baptizing them." The use of this idiom makes it plain that when Christ said this he was not laying any conscious stress upon the order. The words "'baptizing them, etc." are not closely connected with what precedes but are autonomous.
As far as the letter is concerned they might just as well come first. This comes out even more clearly in Mark 16. As we have it the text is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."
But literally the Greek is this: ""He that has believed and is baptized shall be saved.' Note that the words "'is baptized"' are quite independent even though they are connected by the conjunction ''and." I do not mean that John administered water-baptism or immersion before he began to teach, for at the very outset it is necessary to teach the reason for baptism— even today children would not be brought to baptism if their
ZWINGLI parents had not been taught first.(38) But once instruction has been given, infants are also brought to baptism, as may be seen in times past. But we shall come to this later. In Matthew
28, then, the meaning of Christ's words is this: "'Go ye therefore and teach all nations'—for if they believe, I am the Saviour of all. Go, therefore, and bring them to me. "'Baptize them"— and the connection with what precedes is so slight that in the original it is simply "'baptizing them," as we have seen—"'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Properly the Greek is not "'in the name" but "'into the name."
I know that accusativi are sometimes changed into abdlativos, but that does not apply in the present case, as we shall now see.
In Scripture the word ''name'"' is frequently used for "power" or "'majesty."' We have given many instances of this in previous writings, and a single example will now suffice. In Mark 16
Christ says: 'In my name shall they cast out devils." In this \verse "in my name"? must mean "in my power" or "majesty" or "might." Trust in that name and in my power you will cast out devils. Similarly, to baptize in the name of Father,
Son and Holy Ghost is to dedicate, appropriate and bring to the true God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, those who were straying abroad like sheep without a shepherd, that is, without God. I do not mean that when we give baptism we are not to baptize "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost."' But we must speak the truth, and the truth is that when he uttered these words Christ was not instituting the form of baptism, as the theologians maintain.(39) Probatio, or proof: the disciples did not use this form, but baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 10 and 19). This has so confounded the theologians that they do not know where to turn to avoid the force of it.
And all because they interpret Christ's words as the form of baptism, although Christ himself never suggested this, but meant simply that by teaching and by the covenant sign of baptism we are to be brought back and pledged to the one true
God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But accepting the view that the words had been given as a form, they are at a loss to understand why the disciples administered baptism in the name of Jesus, for the disciples did not use the form (as they call it) which according to their view Christ himself had prescribed.
So they invent tortuous excuses in an attempt to show that the apostolic custom was not contrary to Christ's command.(4o)
In those days, they say, the name of Christ was more appro-
OF BAPTISM
priate than that of the Father or the Holy Ghost, concerning whom there was very little understanding. In this they are just about as right as the simpleton (41) who killed a cat and thought it was a hare. For amongst the Jews no name was more abominated than that of Jesus Christ, and to the Gentiles it was foolishness to speak of a crucified God (I Cor.
1).
The Jews would not have been offended at the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, for they had frequently heard of the three in Scripture. And the Gentiles would have listened far more readily to the name of the Father than to that of the crucified
Jesus. But Christ does not say: When you baptize, pronounce these three names. And that was not what he intended. Certainly I commend the form, but what we understand by the words, "I baptize thee in the name'"' is this, I dedicate thee to the name, that is, the power, the majesty, the grace of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. When Christ uttered these words his purpose was to teach them to bring unbelievers to the true God and to dedicate them to him. And does that not mean that water-baptism is an initiatory sign dedicating and pledging us to God? That is how the disciples understood it. The whole of Christian life and salvation consists in this, that in Jesus Christ God has provided us with the remission of sins and everything else, and that we are to show forth and imitate Jesus Christ in our lives. For that reason the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Hence our name Christians, that is, we are initiated into Christ and dedicated to him.
Nowhere do we read that the disciples baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Therefore it is evident that the words in Matthew 28 were not instituted as a form, and the theologians have made the biggest mistake of their lives in their exposition of this text. Not that I forbid baptism according to that form.(42) Not at all. I am simply pointing out that according to their true and natural sense these words of God do not impose a strict baptismal form. If they did, the disciples would not have used a different form when they baptized.
And I am proving what was the real intention of Christ: that in baptism the wandering sheep should be marked for the true God and brought to the true shepherd of our souls, Jesus
Christ, to whom we are pledged in baptism, that we might live as he did—but this will be made clear later.
Hence the meaning of the words "baptizing them"' is this: with this external sign you are to dedicate and pledge them to the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and to Z.B.—10
ZWINGLI teach them to observe all the things that I have committed to you.
Now it is obvious that so long as the Christian lives and continues to believe, he increases in faith and knowledge. Therefore I ask the Anabaptists whether it is lawful to administer baptism before faith is made perfect or not, and the same in the case of knowledge. If they say: Baptism must not be administered before faith is made perfect, my reply is this, that we should all remain unbaptized, for faith is constantly developing.
For in Luke 17 the disciples said: ""Lord, increase our faith."
Therefore they have to recognize that we must administer baptism as soon as instruction commences. Hence they agree that baptism is a sign initiating into the process of development. Indeed, they admitted as much in the disputations.
All that I am now claiming is this : I have proved that baptism is an initiatory sign, and that those who receive it are dedicated and pledged to the Lord God. I am not basing the baptism of infants upon this fact.
I am simply following up my main argument or thesis, which is to prove from the words of Christ himself and of all the disciples that baptism is simply a mark or pledge by which those who receive it are dedicated to God.
And in the dispute concerning Christ's words in Matthew 28 I claim only that we cannot use those words to disallow infant baptism.
In Matthew 3 we read: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea," etc. And here they cry out: Do you not see that John preached before he baptized? We not only see but freely concede it. And we ourselves follow the same practice, for we do not allow children to be brought to baptism unless their parents have first been taught. But when it says that John preached, does that mean that we are not to baptize infants? To me that seems a strange interpretation. However, we are not treating of infant baptism but of baptism in general. We are trying to show what kind of a sign it is and what its effects are. We firmly confess that John taught first and then baptized. But it cannot be denied that once his hearers had been taught they had their untaught children baptized as well, that is, they dedicated them to God in baptism.(43) The main point at issue is whether in so doing they were acting according to the will of God, but we are leaving that question for the moment, as we have already said. A little later in the same chapter of Matthew we are told: '""Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea,
OF BAPTISM
and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." With regard to this verse we may well say that if the whole multitude went out it is evident that children went out as well, for elsewhere where there were similar gatherings, for example at the feeding of the five thousand, we are told that children were present. Our opponents say: It is stated that they confessed their sins, and this cannot apply to children. I might reply that in Scripture there are many examples of synecdoche, that is, inclusive speech, in which that which is done by some is ascribed to all. For example in Matthew 26 we are told that "'when the disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying," etc. But none of them actually spoke like this except Judas. Similarly, in the present case I might well say: Even if children were present and were baptized—and we cannot prove this absolutely (44)—it would still be true that the people confessed the'r sins, for all those who were able and sufficiently enlightened to confess their sins undoubtedly did so. But we will not argue the point: for if the text does not establish infant baptism it does not disprove it.
It can be turned to that purpose only for controversial reasons.
Like the mountain torrent in our earlier illustration, an angry man snatches up whatever he can lay his hands on and uses it as a weapon, whether it be table, or bench, or stool or anything else that is available. And so too it is with those who are obsessed with this matter of infant baptism. They turn all their writings against it, even those which are not specifically aimed at the practice.(45) However, John himself shows us what is the true nature of baptism when he says: "I baptize you with water unto repentance." But how can he bring them to repentance by means of water? The answer is that he preaches amendment of life and then uses water to mark off those who pledge themselves to a life of repentance. The water does not make them better than they were before. They might easily have amended their lives without immersion in water. Immersion in water is simply a ceremony by which they testify that they are of the number of those who repent. Therefore when he says:
"T baptize you with water unto repentance," he makes it quite plain that baptism is an initiatory sign or pledge initiating us to a lifelong mortification of the flesh and engaging or pledging us like the soldier at his enlistment. In Mark 1 it says: "John did baptize in the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.'"" What do the Anabaptists make of this? First, it says: "In the wilderness.' And if we are to
ZWINGLI insist upon the order of words, the victory is on our side, for the "baptizing" precedes the "teaching." But we will not do that: for when the evangelist says: 'John did baptize," he means that he gave water-baptism, and when immediately after he says: 'And preach the baptism of repentance," he is referring to the teaching which accompanied his baptism. Hence we shall be led astray if we press the order of the words.
The text in Luke g also proves that baptism is an initiatory sign, and that many of those who received it—indeed the majority—did not live as the pledge required. But this destroys the contention that none ought to receive baptism except those who know that they can live without sin. Luke writes as follows:
"Then said he (John) to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance." Note that the reason why he reproves them is that they take baptism as a sign that they are willing to amend their lives and yet they do not do so. And if you say:
This proves that they ought to have done so, you are quite right: but it does not prove that John charged them to examine themselves whether they could live without sin. And it is against that kind of hypocrisy that we are specifically contending. John administered baptism without respect to the persons of those who received it. And if he saw later that they were not living as they ought, he publicly rebuked them. But he did not compel, as the Anabaptists do. For the humility and contentiousness or obstinacy of the Anabaptists are deduced from the virtue of water-baptism, which is to bring back the Law. For if they do the work of God only for the sake of the Law, or their own vows, they are restoring a full monkish system.
Indeed, they will even say: I was rebaptized in order that my brethren might compel me to act rightly where I do not do so. Is not that to put ourselves under the very yoke which our fathers were not able to bear? Let your own faith work in you, and not the constraint of the religious men to whom you look.
For if you stand under constraint, whenever you can escape the rebukes of the brethren, you will go back to your own ways, dissembling outwardly.
In short, from the words of Luke we see that baptism is an initiatory sign or pledge with which we bind ourselves to God, testifying the same to our neighbour by means of the external sign, and not withdrawing ourselves in any way: for if we do the result will be a sect and not faith.(46)
OF BAPTISM
In John 1 the Jews asked John: "'Why baptizest thou then?"
And he gave them this answer: "I baptize with water, but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; he it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet
I am not worthy to unloose.'' Now we see here that the baptism of John and of all those who have ever baptized or taught can only baptize outwardly. None but God alone can baptize inwardly. St. John (47) himself refers to this fact when he says in Luke 3: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' Hence it follows that baptism is an initiatory sign which we administer even to those who do not enjoy the inward baptism of the Spirit and without knowing whether they have that inward baptism or not.(48) Why, then, do the Anabaptists say that we must not administer baptism except to those who have the Holy Ghost (Acts 2)? And because infants do not have the Holy Ghost, they are not to be baptized. Of how many do we read that they were baptized by John and Christ and the Apostles and yet had no faith, as we have shown already from Luke? And the false argument that infants do not have the Holy Ghost is vain and foolish, for where are we told the manner of God's indwelling or the time when he implants the gifts which he bestows upon us, whether in the mother's womb, or in early youth or in old age? (49) Jeremiah was sanctified in his mother's womb, and in his mother's womb John the Baptist recognized the Saviour with far more joy than we do as adults. Pharez and Zarah, and Jacob and Esau contended with each other at the very time when they were being born. Yet it was not they who did it, but God. What is the value, then, of the rash assertion which one of them made in the disputation, that infants do not have the Spirit?—he even tried to prove that they cannot have the Spirit. That is the result of contentiousness. I'or my part, I allow God to work how and when he wills.
In Acts 1 our Lord Jesus Christ says: 'For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."
Excellent. For although the Scripture refers us only to the baptism of John, we may ask how the disciples baptized. Certainly they did not baptize with the Holy Ghost, for only God can do that. There can be no doubt, then, that they baptized in exactly the same way as John, that is, they gave instruction and water, that is, external baptism. First, then, the baptism of the disciples is nothing more than an initiatory sign and ceremony, as is always the case with water-baptism. And second,
ZWINGLI the baptism of John is the same as the baptism of the disciples and the external baptism of Christ. But we shall have more to say about that later.
We now come to the text from which we learn most surely that water-baptism is an initiatory sign pledging us to a new life before God, a life to which we and all other Christians testify by receiving the sign of water-baptism. In Romans 6 we find these words: ''Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection," etc.(50)
My first task will be to show the true and natural sense of Paul's words. Then I will reply to Anabaptist objections.
The aim of Paul in this passage was to exhort to purity of life those who were saying: All sins are forgiven us through Christ, therefore let us live in sin.(51) And he teaches them that they are quite mistaken, saying: ""Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ''—note that he says "'into Christ" and not "'in Christ." There is a real distinction here, the same distinction between "into"? and "'in'? which we saw earlier in the words "into the name of the Father"' and not "in the name."
"Into" is used to signify an entry from outside. For example, when we say: He went into the house, it is quite clear that he was outside and then entered. But "'in'"' is used when we are already inside. When we say: He moved about in the house, we know that he was already in the house when he began to move. So when Paul says: "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ,' he must mean that we who were outside
Jesus Christ have entered into him by baptism. Necessarily, therefore, baptism is an initiatory sign: 'Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" It is as though he were saying: Know ye not that when a man is immersed into water (as a visible entry and sealing into Christ), he is immersed into the death of Christ, that is, he is thrust into the death of Christ. This is to be seen clearly from the ceremony of baptism itself. Do you not see that when we are plunged into the water, it is as though we are buried in Christ, that is, in his death, signifying thereby that we are dead to the world. And as Christ was raised from the dead, and dies no more, so we who have been raised up
OF BAPTISM
I51 from the water of baptism must walk in newness of life. For as we are made like unto him in his death when we are plunged into the waters of baptism, so we are made like unto him in his resurrection. (52) What clearer proof could there be than this text from Paul that baptism is an initiatory sign which introduces or pledges us to Christ, that in him we may be new men and live a new life. Immersion in the water signifies death, that as Christ was dead and buried, so we too die to the world. Re-emergence from the water signifies the resurrection of Christ, that as he rose again to die no more, we too have a new life in Christ, and can never die, but have passed from death unto life (John 5).
But at this point the Anabaptists object: We must take into account the preceding verses, and we shall then see that the Apostle is answering those who were saying: If Christ redeems us from all sin, and if the grace of God is manifested most clearly where the sin is greatest, we will continue in sin. Therefore
Paul is not speaking about external baptism, but internal. For immediately after it reads: ""Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin," etc. These words make it quite plain that he is not speaking about external baptism, but internal, that is, true baptism. Answer: I have taken into account both what precedes and what follows, and boasting apart, I knew the meaning of this passage far better than you (verbo absit invidia) long before you had ever seen it.
But I must give you a more forceful answer than that. No one denies that in these verses Paul is speaking about the death of the old man and the new life. But to make his meaning plainer he introduces water-baptism as a figure or illustration.
It is as though he were saying: How can you live any longer in sin, you who formerly were dead in sin? For your outward baptism ought to show you that you cannot continue the old life.
For when you were plunged into the external water, it signified (53) that you were plunged into the death of Christ, that is, as Christ died for you, so you too died to the old man.
And when you re-emerged, it signified the resurrection of Christ, that in him you were raised up again and now walk in newness of life. Indeed, in all his teaching concerning the death of the old man and the new life in Christ Paul nowhere makes his meaning clearer than when he uses the illustration or figure of water-baptism. And water-baptism must have had the character which he ascribes to it or else there was no foundation
ZWINGLI for the lesson which he based upon it. Necessarily, then, water-baptism is an initiatory sign, pledging us to a new life, and engrafting us into Christ.(54) In this connection note first that Paul uses the sign of baptism as a friendly exhortation to the Christian life and not as a constraint, which is what you do when you identify the external baptism with the internal.
I am not thinking now of the constraint of excommunication,(55) by which certain offences are not allowed to go unpunished, but of the constraint imposed by you when you say that you live without sin and force those who are baptized by you to speak and act and dress as you prescribe: (56) which is to form a clique or sect. Baptism must not be used to constrain, as though it were a monastic profession. On the contrary, we must leave every man free to live in the name of God as God himself exhorts, subject only to the ban. Second, I must point out that your words are not substantiated by your actions. If true baptism is the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new, as indeed it is, why did you begin to reiterate the external baptism of water?
Have we not constantly told you: Go and live the best possible Christian life, as the grace of God permits, but leave off rebaptizing: for obviously by rebaptizing you form a sect. The Christian life can be lived just as well and even better without rebaptism; for there is no basis for rebaptization in the Word of God. The only outcome of rebaptism is a constraint which provokes opposition,(57) as was always the case under the monastic system. For "'the kingdom of Christ is righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14). Can you not receive that true and saving baptism, that is to say, can you not inwardly fashion yourself upon God, without an external baptism for which you have no warrant? You vacillate from one extreme to the other. If you are forced to receive baptism, you treat it lightly as a thing which is of small account.
If for the sake of peace others treat it lightly, you make of it something high and significant.(58) If only others will follow your example, as soon as they are baptized you treat them as those who have begun a new life. And if such were indeed the case, we would be only too pleased to bathe in the Limmat. (59)
Let all good Christians note well the arts used by the Evil One in tempting us to division. For he sees that unless we can be divided our cause will prosper. But "'he that is with us is greater
-and stronger" (I John 4). lt may be added further that there is nothing new in St. Paul's use of an illustration to teach essential
OF BAPTISM
truth. In I Corinthians ro he uses the communion of the Lord's Supper to show that we ought not to have fellowship with idols. And he bases his teaching upon the illustration in order that in the illustration he may explain to us the correct use of the Lord's Supper. It is the same in the present case. By means of external baptism he gives instruction in internal baptism and the new life, but in such a way that we are instructed also in the nature and character of external baptism itself. (60)
We have now made it sufficiently clear what kind of a sign or sacrament baptism is. Our next task is to consider what it effects or accomplishes.
In this respect I willingly concede to the Anabaptists that the dispute has had many beneficial results. First, it has convinced us of the worthlessness of such human additions as exorcism, spittle, salt, and such like. Many false hopes and beliefs have attached to these things, for they are like a form of magic. True, they have come down to us from the earliest times, but the Fathers did not honour them for the same reasons as we do. And they were not instituted by God, but are a human addition, which could then be permitted on the ground that newly converted Christians, like the children of Israel, looked back to Egypt, and had been used to such ceremonies in paganism. In order to enable them to give up these ceremonies the more easily, the early Christians adapted them to a different use. But better to have abolished them entirely.(61) In any case, that which is allowed temporarily for the sake of infirmity must not be sanctioned indefinitely, for once the truth is learned, the shadow ought to be cast away. Some would even go so far as to reject the Christian prayers offered in baptism.
They are quite wrong (I say as much as is Christian), for Christ himself blessed the infants when they were brought to him
(Mark 10).(62) Second, the controversy has shown us that it is not the pouring of water which washes away sin. And that was what we once believed, although without any authority in the Word of God. We also believed that the water of baptism cleanses children from a sin which they never had,(63) and that without it they would be damned.(64) All these beliefs were erroneous, as we shall see later. Water-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away of sin. This is shown by St. Peter in I Peter 3: "In the ark few, that is, eight persons were saved.
The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer
ZWINGLI of a good conscience towards God," etc. We may see clearly that in this passage Peter commits us to the view that although baptism may wash the body—and that is all that water-baptism can do—it cannot take away sin. Sin is taken away only when we have a good conscience before God. But no material thing can purge the conscience, as we have proved already from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Some early Fathers went astray on the point because they misinterpreted the words of Christ in John
3, when he said to Nicodemus: "'Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." These doctors thought that by water he meant material water, and consequently they ascribed more to the water than was justified. Thus it came about that they maintained that the water itself can cleanse, not noticing that the same chapter goes on to tell us: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." From these words they might have seen at once that material water cannot give birth to anything but material things. And for that very reason material water cannot contribute in any way to the cleansing of the soul. If they reply:
True, the material water does not do anything, but it is done by the word and the water together, as Augustine says: "The word is made an element, and as such it is a sacrament,"
(65) (I do not criticize Augustine,(66) but those who misunderstood him): it is still the case that a spoken or material word has no greater power than that of the water.(67) For none can remit sin but God alone. So then, even if—as they say—the word and the element together constitute the sacrament, the sacrament can never cleanse the soul, for it is only an external thing.
The word which saves the soul is not the word outwardly spoken, but the word inwardly understood and believed. And it is to that water that Christ is here referring, as we shall now show. In John 7 Jesus says: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
In this verse we see clearly that Christ is speaking of that water which quickens the soul.(68) But that water can be none other than Christ himself. For Christ is the soul's only comfort and nourishment.
Therefore the meaning of the earlier text is this: Except a man be made new by coming to know me and believing in me—and that can only take place by the Holy Spirit, for no man can come to me except my
Father draw him—indeed, except a man be born again, he
OF BAPTISM
cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. This is the true sense and it is nothing other than the Gospel. Christ preached the same message in many different places and he used many different figures of speech. In John 4 he says to the woman of Samaria: "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting life."
His meaning here is simply that those who know and believe in him will come to God. Everywhere he proclaimed the Gospel as his hearers could best understand it. It was the Gospel which he taught in John 6: "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you." In this verse trust in him is called meat. And later, having pointed to the way of salvation, namely, that the bread or meat which he shall give has been so baked or prepared that it is given up to death on our behalf, he continues: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
Here too his only purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Unless we believe that he was given up to death for us and washed us in his blood, unless we trust in that fact (for spiritual eating is trust), we have no life in us. It all amounts to this: "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life' (John 6). And: ""No man cometh unto the Father but by me"' (John 14). And: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me" (John 12).
So, then, in John 3: ""Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," he is simply teaching that evangelical doctrine which alone can quicken the soul as material water refreshes the thirsty heart. And it was no innovation by Christ when he applied water in this way, for we find a similar application in the Old Testament. For in Isaiah 55: ""Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money, yea come, buy without mone and drink," etc., the prophet is exhorting us to come quickly to the free gift, in which all that we have to do is to drink, to come to Christ who is the soul's true comfort. Again, in Zechariah 14 we find the words: "'And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem," etc. And there are many other places as well. Therefore the passage in question is simply a proclamation of the Gospel, first under the figure of water and then openly and plainly. Read the third chapter of John and you will see that Christ taught Nicodemus the Gospel in the clearest possible fashion.
ZWINGLI Nevertheless we will suggest a defence against those who continue to dispute about the text. If you would claim that the "'water" here is material water, then you must allow that the 'fire' of Matthew 3 is material fire. In that text John says: ""He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." But you say: The cases are not the same, for we do baptize with water but not with fire. Answer: There was in fact a baptism with fire, for Christ was not lying in Acts 2 but baptized the disciples with tongues of fire.(69) Hence if the "'fire' of Matthew 3 is not to be understood as material fire, the "'water" of John 3 is not to be understood as material water. Not that we reject water-baptism. It is based upon other passages of Scripture:
John 3,(70) Mark 1, etc. But because they do not understand this point, the Indian Christians err in the administration of external baptism, for first they baptize with water and then they burn a mark upon the head.(71) They do so because they have just as much reason to take the "'fire'' of Matthew 3 for material fire as they have to take the "'water" of John 3 for material water. Indeed, if we take the water for material water, they could easily convince us that their baptism is correct and not ours, for we do not baptize with fire, and yet if the water is understood as material water they have just as clear a text for fire as we have for water. The Fathers were in error in this matter of water-baptism because they thought that the water itself effects cleansing and salvation. In such circumstances error was inevitable, and one result was that they did not find the true foundation for infant baptism, for they grounded it in part upon the external baptism of water.(72)
But it is clear that the external baptism of water cannot effect spiritual cleansing. Hence water-baptism is nothing but an external ceremony, that is, an outward sign that we are incorporated and engrafted into the Lord Jesus Christ and pledged to live to him and to follow him. And as in Jesus Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creature, the living of a new life (Gal. 6), so it is not baptism which saves us, but a new life. Therefore one of the good results of the controversy has been to teach us that baptism cannot save or purify. Yet I cannot but think that in other respects the Anabaptists themselves set too great store by the baptism of water, and for that reason they err just as much on the one side as the papists do on the other. For though the whole world were arrayed against it, it is clear and indisputable that no external element or action can purify the soul. But
OF BAPTISM
in the disputation there were some who maintained openly that they had experienced a great release at the moment of baptism. To this Myconius (73) answered: Did you not come to baptism with considerable apprehension? One of them replied: Yes—for they claim that no one should let himself be baptized unless he knows that he can live without sin. Then said Myconius: The release which you experienced in baptism was simply a cessation of that apprehension which you yourself had created. They affirmed, however, that God had done something quite new towards them—the very experience which at one time we had in penance. For there, too, we were in great fear and distress before we made our confession: but the moment we had made it we said: God be praised, I feel a great joy and refreshing. And all that we really felt was a relaxation of the previous tension. Yet the penitent could easily claim that in penance or papal absolution he experienced within himself a great renewal the moment he made his confession.
And it was simply the removal of his apprehension. This is proved by the fact that our lives did not undergo any great change in consequence. Now those who allow themselves to be rebaptized make much of a similar experience. Its true source is the fact that rebaptization has no foundation in the Word of God. Hence the conscience opposes it, and it is anxious and afraid. But as the deed is done we brace ourselves and accept the risk, and then we want everyone else to do as we have done in order to free ourselves from reproach.(74) Oh, but they say, formerly we were sinners, but now we are sinners no longer. Answer: The monks used to talk like that, and we answered, rightly, that in making a statement of that kind they were committing the greatest possible sin. And now the devil is leading us back to the same evil ways. We disclosed his stratagems and revealed the hypocrisy of the monks. And now he is trying a new trick—he is using the light itself to bring us back to darkness. Again, they say: We allowed ourselves to be rebaptized in order that our brethren in rebaptization might have power and authority to restrain us when we have the impulse to sin. Note well that this is nothing other than monkery, separatism, sectarianism, a new legalism. For we
Christians do not act rightly under the compulsion of law, but by faith.(75) But it is no longer by faith when a man acts rightly because he is compelled to do so by his brethren in baptism.
Naturally there are certain offences which have to be punished, but even there the punishment ought to be administered by
ZWINGLI the Church and not by the Anabaptist sect. But they say: We are the Church, and those who do not belong to our Church are not Christians. The Church was founded by us: before us there was no Church. Answer: Exactly; it is just as I have said from the very first. The root of the trouble is that the Anabaptists will not recognize any Christians except themselves or any Church except their own.(76) And that is always the way with sectarians who separate themselves on their own authority. It is what the papacy itself did, claiming to be the true Church without either the approval or the consent of genuine churches. Study carefully the passage in Acts 20 which speaks of wolves drawing the people after them, and you will find there a picture of yourselves. No, you despoilers.
You should accept as Christians even those who do not rebaptize, and you should rejoice that they too accept you as Christians. For better far not merely to exclude but to banish you than to permit you to despise others.(77) And for this reason: How dare you introduce innovations into the Church simply on your own authority and without consulting the Church? I speak only of those churches in which the Word of God is publicly and faithfully preached. For if every blockhead who had a novel or strange opinion were allowed to gather a sect around him, divisions and sects would become so numerous that the Christian body which we now build up with such difficulty would be broken to pieces in every individual congregation. Therefore no innovations ought to be made except with the common consent of the churches, and not merely of a single church. For the judgment of Scripture is not mine or yours, but the churches' (I Cor. 14); for it is to the churches that the keys are committed (John 21).(78)
What, then, is the true nature of this revolt or schism? It includes within it all those who want to introduce innovations of this type into congregations which hear and believe the Word of God, and as God permits, obey it. Now as I have said, the devil is too clever for us. He knows how best to check the rising tide of the Gospel. Therefore, good Christians, do not try to push ahead too quickly: for to press on regardless of the weak is the mark not of a strong but a restless spirit which cannot wait until the poor sheep can catch up behind.(79) I am speaking only of churches where the Word of God is preached, and of external things. In other matters it is right and proper that each Christian follow Christ in the inner man as the grace of God permits.
OF BAPTISM
But at this point they ask: Is it not right and proper that we live according to the Word of God? By all means, but if you do you will not make innovations in contentious matters, for you will be taught first and foremost not to put a stumbling-block in the way of your brother in things which are external and indifferent (Rom.
14). How much less are we to put a stumbling-block in things which are external and have no warrant in the Word of God, like rebaptism? For in that passage in Romans Paul is speaking about meats, and it may be shown by clear texts of Scripture that meats are indifferent. But that is not so in the case of rebaptism; for unlike meats, baptism is a ceremony or pledge. But they say: Occasions do arise when things ought to be abrogated or initiated and the authorities will not act. But if it is a matter like rebaptism, you ought to deal with it as a thing indifferent, submitting it to the whole
Church for amicable discussion, allowing sufficient time for the study of Scripture and loyally accepting the scriptural teaching.(80) But you are trying to coerce the churches: it is for them to try the words of the novice, not for the novice to coerce them. And the Church of Christ would never have authorized you to rebaptize, for it knows of no warrant for rebaptism. The same procedure must be followed in such matters as the choice of meats. If innovation is desired, the bishop or prophet ought first to instruct the Church and then leave discussion and authorization to the congregation. But at this point it might be said: Does not this raise the question of authorities which refuse to accept instruction? That is quite true. In such cases give instruction faithfully and exercise your liberty as a Christian privately amongst those who will not be offended. God will plant his Word in the hearts of believers, increasing it until the authorities are overpowered—but let
God himself do the work.(81) And in external matters which serve only to disrupt the congregation, unless you have clear texts, avoid like poison any innovation on your own account without the prior decision of the Church. But note how the Anabaptists stand in this respect. They have made innovations in our midst without saying a word to anyone, not to speak of their public preaching in the congregation, to which they have no lawful calling.(82) In this regard it is hardly necessary to adduce proofs from Scripture. They may be found everywhere if there are any who speak of concealment.
To return to the text in John 3. The Anabaptists might interject: If the word water means the Gospel or refreshment through
ZWINGLI Christ, why did you argue in the disputation that according to this text water precedes the Spirit? Answer: We are forced to use this type of argument in order that the world may not be filled with lies by your calumnious speaking. It was the same once with Leo Jud when he was disputing with an Anabaptist (83) who insisted that we must abide by the literal words of Scripture and keep to the order in which those words are written. Therefore Leo answered: Tell me, how do you understand the word "water" in John 3 when Christ says:
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit," etc.? The man hesitated a long time, but he would not accept the view that the water here can be anything but the material water of baptism. He did this out of sheer perversity, for they had often heard us say that the water here is confession and faith in Christ. But they would not depart from the letter of the text.
So Leo said: If you must abide by the letter, then in this verse "'water'' is put before the Holy Spirit: therefore even according to your beliefs we may give water-baptism before giving instruction. And they preferred not to give any answer rather than abandon the letter, for if they once did that the text in Matthew 28 would be dashed out of their hands and without it they would not be able to argue the question of infant baptism. Thus they allowed themselves to be worsted in the one text in order not to be forced away from the other: but most foolishly, for if their views are refuted by one text, no other can ever be of the slightest help to them. If any of them did not even know our interpretation, they have to thank the clever teachers who have led them astray in so many other matters: for these latter heard our exposition of the text in two private discussions held last summer.(84) The text would have been most useful to us in the defence of infant baptism, and the Fathers all took the water to be the water of baptism, which would have been a great help to us. But we refused to do violence to the text, for when did we ever defend ourselves by wresting the true sense of Scripture? We opposed them on the above lines only in order to expose their own obstinacy, but with the majority of them all to no purpose.
OF THE ORIGIN AND INSTITUTION OF Baptism (85) The occasion of the institution of baptism is something which the Anabaptists refuse to perceive. They maintain that baptism was instituted in Matthew 28: "Go ye. Teach all nations, bap-
OF BAPTISM
tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you." But not so, dear friend. Baptism was not instituted at that time, for by means of his disciples
Christ himself had baptized long before, and he himself had already been baptized. Necessarily, therefore, it must have been instituted earlier. Note, then, that God instituted baptism in and through John—hence his name, the Baptist. For God says in Malachi: 'Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me." This messenger or angel was none other than St. John the Baptist (Mark 1). And when
John came he baptized, as we may see quite plainly in all the evangelists. But if he came to initiate and prepare the way of the Lord, and in fulfilling that mission he baptized, then assuredly he initiated the baptism of the Lord. But here the .Anabaptists say: The baptism of John and that of Christ are not the same. And they are not alone when they say that, for all the theologians that I have ever read or can call to mind say exactly the same. Therefore it is not easy for me to assert the contrary, for if the Anabaptists and the papists are in league against me, I am inevitably confronted by more formidable adversaries than any theologian of our age has ever previously encountered.(86) What shall I do then? Shall I suppress the truth? I cannot do that, for already it has been abandoned by almost everyone, and the lack of understanding has resulted in much error and discord. So long as the foundation rests not in my own word but in the strong and invincible Word of God, the task of maintaining the truth will be neither too disagreeable nor too difficult for me. And as I do so, I shall show the derivation, institution and initiation of baptism, so that two birds will be killed with the one stone.(87) For if the baptism of John is the same as that of Christ, we have proved already that baptism was initiated when John began to baptize. And if it was initiated then, it was not instituted subsequent to the resurrection of Christ, in Matthew 28. Again, ifit can be proved that Christ had already baptized his disciples, it necessarily follows that baptism was instituted prior to the resurrection. Otherwise
Christ had two baptisms, which is quite impossible, as we shall sec; Now the text which we have already quoted from the prophet Malachi shows that the external baptism of John is the same as the external baptism of Christ. For if the baptism of John had been different from that of Christ, he would not have
2.38.11
ZWINGLI begun to prepare the way of the Lord, as is prophesied in Isaiah 40, but would have gone his own way. But this would have been quite out of keeping with his role as a prophet, for the prophets did not introduce anything novel or strange, but simply led men to God and did the work of God.
The Anabaptists and papists argue that the baptism of John is a type of the baptism of Christ.(88) But in this they do violence and injustice to both Christ and John. To Christ, because they disregard his own word. For in Luke 16 he says:
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached," etc. But if the law and the prophets were until John, and since that time the kingdom of God is preached, then necessarily the kingdom of God is more than a type or shadow. For we have it clearly from Christ himself that John preached the kingdom of God, that is, the Gospel. But if John preached the kingdom of Christ, then he administered the baptism of Christ. For how could his doctrine be a doctrine of light if his baptism was only the shadow (89) of some future baptism?
And they also do violence and injustice to John, for they make of him a type and reckon him with the Old Testament.
But by divine appointment he initiated the Gospel, preaching and declaring it with no less clarity than the Apostles themselves. Indeed, he was the very first to point to the Lord
Jesus Christ when the time of his manifestation had come, as we read in John 1: "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith: Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me." In this passage we see plainly that John came in order to reveal Christ to the people of Israel. It was not his office to give types and shadows, but to declare the Saviour of the world, as the words themselves show. But here the papists and Anabaptists say: John regards his baptism only as a baptism of water. But the baptism of Christ is more than a baptism of water. Therefore the baptism of John cannot be the same as that of Christ. Answer: Were it not that your ears are stopped, you would have heard the answer already. Did John baptize with water only? No. Therefore it is evident that when he says
"baptize with water" he is referring not merely to the pouring of water but to teaching: for by water-baptism alone he could never have taught the knowledge of Christ. By the baptism of water he means first and foremost his teaching. And he gave
OF BAPTISM
this teaching in order that men might learn to know Christ and to place their hopes on him. But now the papists and Anabaptist rabble say: The two baptisms could not be the same, for Christ baptizes with the Holy Ghost, as John himself says in Matthew 3, but John could not baptize with the Holy Ghost.
Answer: God be praised: for like the fox you have betrayed yourselves. Tell me, when the disciples baptized, and when we baptize today, with what do we baptize? With the Holy
Ghost or with water? You have to admit that the disciples and we too can only give external teaching and the external baptism of water: we cannot baptize internally with the Holy Ghost. (go)
Tell me then, is the baptism of the disciples the same as the baptism of Christ or not? You cannot deny that it is, for you desire your rebaptism to be the same as the baptism of Christ.
But what is it that you give? You merely give water and teaching. I do not allow that when you baptize again you follow
Christ, but from your own practice I am demonstrating the true meaning of the baptism of Christ. But if, as we shall see, the baptism of teaching and water which John gave was the same as that of the disciples, and if the baptism of the disciples was the same as that of Christ, how much more is the baptism of John identical with the baptism of Christ—for John was appointed by God to initiate that teaching and baptism.
But for God's sake remember that when we say that the baptism of Christ was the same as that of John we are thinking only of teaching and the baptism of water.(g1) For otherwise, even the baptism of the disciples would not be the same as that of Christ, for the disciples could not baptize with the Holy
Ghost any more than John.
And now consider whether the two baptisms, the inward and the outward, are necessarily concurrent. For we give outward teaching and the baptism of water. But God moves inwardly according to his own sovereign choice. Hence we may prove that the teaching of John is the same as that of the apostles: that is, he preached the Gospel. And this being the case, it is established that there is only one baptism of water, and no distinction can be drawn between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ. For if Christ himself had administered water-baptism, his external baptism, and in content his teaching, would have been exactly the same as that of the disciples and John. And inasmuch as the disciples baptized in his name, that is, on his behalf, his baptism was identical with
ZWINGLI that of the disciples and John so far as teaching and the baptism of water were concerned. I say, in content, that is, in the sum and matter, for in other respects we all agree that his teaching had a force and dignity and power far surpassing that of any other.(92) Our point is proved by the fact that many of those who heard him did not believe, as he himself sometimes complains. But why did they not believe? Because God did not move them inwardly: for he willed their rejection (Matt.
13, Isa. 6). Therefore in respect of its significance and purpose the baptism of Christ was the same as that of John and the disciples, for he could not accomplish anything inward apart from the internal enlightenment which is given by the Father.
Do not be misled, good Christian. What the Father does, the Son and the Holy Spirit do also (John 5). But according to his human nature (93) the Son has given us a model of teaching, that the disciples might not despair too easily when they see that men do not believe them, for it was exactly the same in his case as well (John 15).
We will now examine the preaching of John and see whether it was the same or not as that of Christ and the apostles. Mark gives us an exact account of the beginning of the preaching of Christ in chapter 1 of his Gospel: "After that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and, the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel."
Note that St. John the Evangelist gives us a similar account in John 3. He means that Jesus taught and baptized, as we have already shown. But the record in Mark is more exact, for he taught in Galilee as well as Judaea.
And now let us compare the teaching of John with that of Christ. It is described in Matthew 3: "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying,
Repent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Notice that there are two parts to the Gospel, the one repentance and amendment of life, and the other trust in God through the Lord Jesus Christ. For in Luke 24 Christ himself taught us that in his name repentance and remission of sins are to be preached to all peoples. And later, the Gospel was at one time widely known as repentance, as we see in Acts 11: '""Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Now only
Christ can give life. We may repent for long enough and yet have no rest in our souls. But when we trust in Christ, our souls rejoice and live. In this passage, then, the Gospel is called
OF BAPTISM
repentance.(94) And sometimes in Scripture it is called remission of sins, as in Acts 10: ""To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." In this verse the Gospel is called remission of sins. Hence we see that at any rate one part of the Gospel was faithfully proclaimed by John. And for that reason the Anabaptists have no right not to count John an evangelist and preacher of the Gospel. For when it says that repentance was preached it means the whole Gospel, as we have seen. For we read in Mark 6: "'And the disciples went out, and preached that men should repent." But quite apart from that we will show plainly that John preached the Gospel as clearly as any apostle. In John 1 he said: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." And that is the whole sum of the Gospel in its aspect as grace, that is, that Christ is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. And immediately after he says: "And I bare record that this is the Son of God." That is the affirmation upon which Christ built his Church. And when we exto] the apostles we must extol
John as well, that is, we must recognize that John is not less than the disciples.(95) But we will examine the matter even
<more closely. In his parables Christ often teaches that he is the very Son of God and that all who believe in him have eternal life (John 4, 6, 7, etc.). Is not that the message of the grace of God? I believe so. And if I can show that John preached exactly the same message, I have proved, I hope, that John preached the Gospel no less than the others. Turn to John 3 and read what he said about Christ to the disciples and Jews who had come to question him. It would take too long to quote the whole passage, but these verses make it plain that the baptism of John is the same as that of Christ as we allege. And at the end he says: '""The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." (96) Excellent.
For where is the apostle who ever described Christ more plainly as the one to whom the Father has committed all things? Where is the apostle who ever summarized the Gospel more clearly or concisely than the Baptist did in this concluding discourse? Consider the saying: "'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Is not this the same as that of John: "He that
ZWINGLI believeth on the Son'"—notice the emphasis and forcefulness of the expression. He does not call him Son of God but Son of the Father.(g7) In this way he makes it all the surer that he is the very Son than if he had merely said the Son of God. For many are called sons of God and yet they are not very Sons.
But Christ is the Son of the Father. Of necessity, then, he is of one nature with the Father—"'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Yes, it is exactly the same. Again in Acts 19 Paul says: '"'John verily baptized, that is, taught with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.' Excellent. For is not that the true Gospel, to teach sinners to amend and repent?
And when the penitent is despairing and without hope, when of ourselves we can find nothing to comfort ourselves to salvation, God sent forth his Son to be our comfort and to be to us a sure pledge of salvation. And John pointed to the Son.
John testified that he is the Son of God (John 1). John said of him that he that believeth in him hath everlasting life, John 3.
John exhorted to faith in him. Is not that the whole Gospel, the true Gospel, the plain Gospel? Away then, you Anabaptists, and learn that when Scripture describes the preaching and baptism of John as the baptism of repentance, the meaning is that John began to preach the way of salvation and by repentance we must understand the Gospel. But if the teaching of John is the Gospel, what grounds have we for saying that the baptism of John is different from the baptism of Christ?
It is beyond question that there is only one baptism. For the Gospel began with the preaching of John. That is what Christ himself said in Luke 16, as we have seen already. It follows, then, that the baptism of Christ began at the same time. It is not my affair if the theologians failed to perceive this. The teaching of John is the same as that of Christ and the apostles and it points to the salvation of men, Jesus Christ. John both proclaims him as the one who is to come and points to him as the one already present. So, too, do the apostles. Read carefully Matthew 10, Mark 6 and Luke ro. The apostles preached the kingdom of God, that is, salvation through Christ, even before the crucifixion; and Christ proclaimed himself even before his death and passion. I say this in order that those who divide baptism may not argue: John preaches the Christ who is yet to come, but the apostles and we preach Christ crucified.
OF BAPTISM
For he preached Christ in exactly the same way as Christ himself and the disciples did.
But even if we had no other evident proofs, Christ's own baptism by John would be sufficient to prove that the baptism of Christ and that of John were one and the same, for Christ was baptized only with John's baptism and not with any other.
Now it is quite certain that Christ was baptized as an example to us. And if there are any who say: Leave off baptizing infants, for they belong to God in any case, let them note in passing that Christ, the very Son of God, took to himself baptism in order that he might give us an example of unity, that we may all enter under the one sign. Therefore we ought not to say that infants do not need baptism, for Christ did not need it. I return to my main point. Was Christ baptized as an example to us? Yes. Then I ask: In what baptism? for you separate between the baptism of Christ and that of John. If by his baptism he wished to give us an example, why was he not baptized in his own baptism? But if he was baptized in the baptism of John, we too must be baptized in the baptism of John. In short, my answer is this: The apostles as well as Christ were baptized in the baptism of John.(98) Of course, it was not his baptism, but Christ's,(99) although then as now ignorant persons regarded it as the baptism of John. But incorrectly, for in I Corinthians 1 Paul will not allow us to speak of the baptism of Cephas, Apollos, etc. If, then, both Christ and the apostles were baptized in the baptism of John, it follows necessarily that there is only one baptism. And if we wish to be baptized according to the example given by Christ, we are baptized in the baptism of John. Hence there is only one baptism. It was initiated by John, and it has continued right up to the present. If the baptism with which John baptized had not continued indefinitely, then Christ and the apostles were not baptized with the same baptism as we are. Away, you blockheads. In Ephesians 4 Paul gives a fine exhortation to unity: they are all one body, they have one spirit, they are all called in one hope, there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all things. Break this passage of Paul, you who would divide baptism. For if John taught the same spirit, and gathered into the same body, and taught the same hope in Christ, the same Lord, the same faith, the same God and Father, why will you not allow that the baptism of John is the same baptism and faith as that of Christ and the apostles. May
God grant you understanding. But those who divide baptism
ZWINGLI allege two objections. The first is that we ought to distinguish between the baptism of Christ and that of John because Christ taught us to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, but this John did not do. Now tell me whether you believe that these words contribute at all to our salvation or not. If they do contribute to the purifying of the soul, then it is possible for man to help forward the purification of the inner man, for any one man can pronounce these words over another. But that is blasphemy: for only God can purify the soul and inner man. And if the words cannot contribute at all, then why try to distinguish between the baptism of John and that of Christ? For take note, as we have already shown, that according to the Greek the words in Matthew 28 mean simply: "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It is not as though
Christ intended that they should actually use the words: "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' as though the words themselves could wash away sin. What he intended was that when they baptized they should baptize into the name, that is, the power and majesty and obedience of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For if he had been appointing a form of words, as the theologians maintain, it would have gone ill with the disciples, for we do not read that they baptized anyone with such a formula, but simply in the name of Jesus, as we have already seen. Although, of course, all Christians rejoice in these words, for there are no words which we speak with greater readiness than the names of those to whose service we are thereby engaged. But if, as we have seen, St. John in his preaching taught the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, if indeed he recognized them—for the Father spoke at the baptism of the Son, and when the Son was baptized by him he saw the Spirit in the form of a dove(100)—it follows that John baptized into God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost no less surely than did the disciples, who simply baptized into Jesus
Christ. We have no proof that John ever pronounced the threefold name with his lips, but essentially he did lead men to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. For he said: ""He will baptize you with the Holy Ghost.' The objection that the words are not used counts for very little if the content is there.
It would be quite wrong, of course, arbitrarily to despise the given form: "'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." For all Christians are at
OF BAPTISM
one in the use of this form, and the Greek churches do not err when they say: "Be thou baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost': a form closer to the original words of Christ than ours is.(101) But the outward form does not greatly matter so long as we have the right meaning.(102) For Peter says in Acts 2: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ''—in the Greek it might equally well be 'fon the name of Jesus Christ.""> The name means the power or capacity or foundation, so that "in the name" means into the power, or on the power, capacity, foundation or grace of Jesus. The man who does that undertakes to live a new life, and it is the whole nature and character of baptism that in it we dedicate ourselves to God, and indeed pledge ourselves to a new life.
The second objection is the passage in Acts 19: ''Paul came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them,
Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost? And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus." Our opponents destroy the unity of baptism and rebaptize themselves simply because they do not understand this passage. We will first convince them that they misunderstand the passage, and then we will show them its true meaning.
And in this way. Did John administer baptism as Paul says?
Yes, for we cannot accuse Paul of untruth. But if so, then John administered the baptism of Christ, for the baptism of Christ requires us to amend our lives, to turn to Christ and to believe in him. But if he did that, then his action was valid, and the words of Paul must have a different sense from that which they would have if he were denying or belittling the baptism of John.(103) Now it cannot be disputed that in Paul's account of the baptism of John we find the true meaning and content of the baptism of Christ. Therefore the text cannot possibly be used to destroy the unity of baptism. It may be noted that sometimes we are so strongly influenced by the opinions of theologians who have led us astray that we simply accept their directions and do not think out a matter for ourselves. It is as though we had learned to play the lute in the wrong way, and
ZWINGLI then we try to learn the right way.(104) It costs us a great amount of time and trouble to unlearn the wrong way and to learn the new, for something of the old will always persist.
That was why Timotheus (105) asked a double fee when he had to teach someone who played already: the first for teaching him how not to play, and the second for teaching him how to play. In the same way we today are still influenced to some degree by the opinions advanced by the theologians concerning the distinction between the baptism of John and that of Christ.
For not only did they not understand this passage, but they corrupted and divided it. They argued that the baptism of John was only a baptism of contrition, meaning that it did not point to salvation in Christ. In proof of this they adduced the first part of Paul's statement: "John baptized with the baptism of repentance," but omitted what follows. Yet there we are pointed to the finest part of the Gospel, for John also taught us to trust in Christ, and in Paul's words we have a short summary of the whole Gospel. The erroneous notion of a distinction between the two baptisms derives from this falsification or ignorance, and it has continued with us right up to the present time, although we ourselves are hardly aware of it. And now
I will show you the true meaning of the passage. When Paul came to Ephesus he was met by twelve men who told him that they were of the new faith (I must put it in that way for as yet they knew nothing concerning Christ). But Paul saw that their instruction was deficient and that they lacked any true faith. Therefore he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost after they believed, that is, whether they had received in their hearts assurance towards God and joy through Christ. He was not asking concerning tongues, although these proceed from the same source. The proof of this is that this sign is not necessary to salvation: it is given only in a few places.
What Paul is asking is this: You profess to be believers, but how is it with your hearts? Are you enlightened by God? Does your consolation rest in God through Christ? He is simply asking whether they are sound in the faith which they profess. But the moment Paul mentions the Holy Ghost they say that they have never even heard whether there is a Holy Ghost. So Paul asks them: "In what then were ye baptized?" We have to note here two small points of style. In Latin we say: "'In what"' then were ye baptized? But in the Greek it is: "Into what" then were ye baptized? Notice that there is quite a big difference between "in what" and "into what," as we have already shown in
OF BAPTISM
our discussion of the words: 'Into the name of the Father" and "in the name of the Father." This has been taken into account in the translation of the New Testament,(106) which does not read: "In what," but, "unto what'? then were ye baptized? And in Matthew 28 it does not read: "'in the name," but "into the name." I did not investigate the matter earlier but I have now taken up the point and examined the translation. And that is how it stands: '""Unto what then were ye baptized?" which is much closer to the natural sense of the Greek, that is: "Into what then were ye baptized?" than is the rendering: "In what then were ye baptized?" For "'unto what" and "into what" both suggest the same thought: Upon what were you grounded in your baptism? or, Into what were you initiated by it? Furthermore, 'into what'' suggests that we are speaking only of water-baptism and the external words which accompany it. The other point of style is this: that in this context the word "baptized" is used for "taught." Already we have advanced strong proofs from Scripture that the word must often be understood in that sense, and we will now try to show that that is how it must be construed in the present context. The theologians argue that Paul asks concerning the Holy Ghost because the baptism of John did not make use of the formula: Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. But it may easily be seen that this is a complete fabrication, for when the men were baptized a few moments later they were not baptized in the name of the Father or of the Holy
Ghost but only of the Lord Jesus. It follows, then, that Paul is not asking them about their external baptism, but about their instruction and faith, as in John 1: for when the priests and Levites said to John: '"Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" we have every reason to believe that they were not asking concerning external baptism, for the Jews had many and varied washings (Heb. g).(107) If it had merely been that John baptized in a different way from those who preceded him, they could hardly have had any objection. But John preached a new Saviour. He pointed to the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world. And that was something which they could not allow, since it abrogated the existing sacrifices. Therefore, when they asked: Why baptizest thou then? the word baptism signified teaching, and they were asking John why he was initiating a new doctrine.
Scripture often uses one word for another in this way, and if we do not consider the proper sense we shall be completely misled.
ZWINGLI So then, when Paul spoke to them concerning the baptism of John, it was not his intention to repudiate that baptism, but to bring out its fundamental meaning and character. He de- . fined for them the true nature of John's baptism, as though to say: You allege that you are baptized into John's baptism, that is, instructed in the teaching which John gave, but I do not see any signs of it. Therefore I will tell you the content of that baptism, and we shall see whether you have been instructed rightly in the teaching of John. John baptized unto repentance; that is, he taught repentance and baptized unto it, saying—notice that the word "baptism" is used for teaching and preaching. The word "saying" is a note or sign by which we may clearly see that when Paul says: ""Unto what then were ye baptized?" he is merely asking them concerning their instruction and faith. He asks them what faith or doctrine they held. And they reply: Unto John's baptism, that is, we are instructed in the doctrine taught by John—saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him. But is not that the whole content of the Gospel?
For what is the Gospel but a new life, and faith in God through Christ Jesus, who is himself very God and very man? If that is what John preached—and the fact that the words "baptized" and "saying'' are used together means that he preached—then necessarily the words of Paul are a declaration, and a promise, and an enquiry whether or not they were rightly instructed according to the teaching of John. And we must not forget that at four different points the Greek is stronger and more definite than the Latin. First, Paul does not say: "In what then were ye baptized?" but, "Into what then were ye baptized?" Second, it does not read: "In John's baptism," but,
"Into John's baptism." Third, it does not say: "'John baptized with the baptism of repentance," but, "John baptized the baptism of repentance."' Note the phrase and ask yourself how else the word baptized can be construed except as taught.
And fourth, it does not say: '""They were baptized in the name of Jesus,"' but, ""They were baptized into the name of Jesus."
Now the context of the whole matter was as follows: Apollos was an excellent scholar, and in Acts 18, just prior to this incident, we are told that "he was not fully instructed in the way of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John'—the word baptism being used for teaching. But someone might say:
From this passage it is plain that the baptism of John is inferior to that of Christ. Answer: It is beyond question that John's
OF BAPTISM
teaching was the teaching of the Gospel. We have seen that already. Therefore when it says: ""Knowing only the baptism of John," we must take it that he knew the baptism, that is, the teaching of John only in the way that he knew the baptism, that is, the teaching of Christ. In other words, he knew only the rudiments: he had received very little instruction even in the baptism or teaching of John. For if he had fully understood the teaching of John he would have known the Gospel. The true meaning is as follows: The little that Apollos did know he had learned from John or the disciples of John and not from Christ or the disciples of Christ.(108) And what Apollos did know he taught faithfully and diligently, for he was mighty in the Scriptures.
But when Aquila and Priscilla came, they expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly. Notice that that which was previously described as baptism is now called teaching.
Now there is every reason to suppose that the twelve men who are mentioned immediately afterwards in Acts 19 had been instructed by Apollos. And if Apollos did not know the way of the Lord either fully or clearly, there can be little doubt that the twelve had even less knowledge: for it is evident that they would not have outstripped their learned master in so short a time. So when Paul came to Ephesus, Apollos had been there before him, and had now sailed to Achaia. According to his usual custom Paul preached the Gospel. There then met him the twelve men who professed to be disciples of Christ. He saw the inadequacy of their knowledge and he asked them whether they had received the Holy Ghost, that is, whether they were in a right relationship with God and believed in their hearts. As we have said, he was not asking concerning the sign of tongues, which is not essential to the completeness of the Gospel. The question revealed their ignorance, for they had never even heard of the Holy Ghost. Then said Paul: "Into what then were ye baptized?"' that is, into what then were ye instructed? as we shall show later. They replied that they had been instructed in the baptism, that is, the teaching of John.
Notice that they do not tell us what they were taught: they simply name the teacher whose doctrine they knew, but imperfectly, just as today there are vagrants who profess to be
Lutherans or Evangelicals, but whose only knowledge of the life and teaching of the Gospel is to live easily off pious Christians without doing a hand's turn.(109) If I compare the twelve with rascals of this kind, it is not in respect of any deception, but in respect of their fear: they were not willing to
ZWINGLI reveal their ignorance, professing to be Christians or disciples.
But when Paul saw their hesitation he exposed the very thing which they would not acknowledge. For he knew the teaching of John far better than they did, and he told them: "John baptized the baptism of repentance." Note that in this context the words "'baptize" and "baptism" cannot have any other meaning than teach and teaching, in other words, John taught the doctrine of repentance, and together with it the certainty of the grace of God—note the two parts of the Gospel—"'saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him'', that is, on Christ. Up to this point there has not been anything to show that the twelve were ever baptized with water: for it cannot be shown that Apollos baptized with water, but only that he taught diligently that which he knew of the baptism of John, baptism in the sense of teaching (Acts
18). And the evangelists usually mentioned the baptism of water when it was given. John both taught and baptized with water. Christ taught and he also administered water-baptism at the hands of his disciples. Hence if Apollos had baptized with water, Luke would certainly have mentioned it. On this point I might say to the Anabaptists: If you insist that Apollos baptized with water, you are turning against yourselves your strongest possible weapon against the baptism of infants. Your argument runs as follows: We do not find that the apostles baptized infants: therefore we ought not to baptize them.
But if that is the case, you should also argue: We do not find that Apollos baptized: therefore he did not baptize. For you must reason with yourselves in the same way as you do with others. Not that I justify your strife and argumentation. The argument is without foundation, as we shall see later. All that we are seeking to establish is that we cannot find any record at all that Apollos baptized with water. But it is quite evident that the twelve were taught by Apollos, for Luke mentions that he had just been in Ephesus and that the instruction which he gave was imperfect. He does this in order to show that it was Paul who first planted the doctrine of Christ in Ephesus.
Apollos had been there before him, but his teaching had so little value that Paul had to begin again from the very foundations. Again, the twelve were not baptized by Aquila and Priscilla, for these two had been taught the Gospel so clearly and fully that they could instruct Apollos more perfectly. Even if we did contend that they were baptized by Aquila and Priscilla we should still have to admit that the disciples of
OF BAPTISM
Christ gave baptism prior to instruction, and that would at once give us an easy victory in the matter of infant baptism.
In respect of the teacher, then, it is evident that the men were not baptized by Apollos. And in respect of the baptized the words make it quite clear that "baptize" is used here in the sense of teach. Clearly Apollos did not baptize with water, and Paul was not referring to the baptism of water. On what grounds, therefore, do ignorant and foolish, not to say presumptuous, rebels and agitators use this passage in Acts as a cloak for rebaptizing, when rebaptism is against Christ and against the whole mystery and content of his passion.(110) Of this we shall treat later. But when the twelve understood that which Paul expounded to them, they were baptized into the name of Jesus. Notice that this makes it even more evident that they had not previously been baptized into the water-baptism of John. For if they had, they would already have been baptized in the name of Jesus; for it was the sole office of John to lead men to Christ Jesus. The fact that the Holy Ghost then came down with tongues all goes to show that the twelve had not previously been instructed or baptized.(111)