Chapter 15. Of Baptism

Baptism is a sign of the entering by which we are received into the fellowship of the Church, that being grafted into Christ we may be reckoned among the children of God. Now, it was given to us of God to this end (which I have taught to be common to all the mysteries): first, that it should serve our faith with him, and our confession before men. We will orderly declare the manner of both purposes. Baptism brings three things to our faith, which also must be separately treated of. This is the first which the Lord sets out to us, that it should be a token and proof of our cleansing: or (to express my mind better) it is like a certain sealed charter, by which he confirms to us, that all our sins are so defaced, canceled, and blotted out, that they may never come in his sight, nor be rehearsed, nor be imputed. For he wills that all they that believe should be baptized into forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16). Therefore they which thought that Baptism is nothing else but a mark and token, by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the [reconstructed: ensign] of their captain for a mark of their profession, weigh not that which was the chief thing in Baptism. That is this, that we should receive it with this promise, that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.

In this sense is that to be understood which Paul writes, that the Church is sanctified of Christ her spouse, and cleansed with washing of water in the word of life (Ephesians 5:26). And in another place, that we are saved according to his mercy by the washing of regeneration and of the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). And that which Peter writes, that Baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:22). For Paul's will was not to signify, that our washing and salvation is perfectly made by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew. Neither did Peter mean the cause of salvation, but only the knowledge and certainty of such gifts to be received in this Sacrament: which is evidently enough expressed in the words themselves. For Paul knits together the word of life and Baptism of water: as if he had said, that by the Gospel the message of washing and sanctifying is brought to us, that by Baptism such message is sealed. And Peter immediately adjoins, that that Baptism is not the putting away of the filthiness of the flesh, but a good conscience before God, which is of faith. Indeed Baptism promises us no other cleansing, but by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ: which is figured by water, for the likeness of cleansing and washing. Who therefore can say that we be cleansed by this water, which certainly testifies that the blood of Christ is our true and only washing? So that from nowhere else can be fetched a surer reason to confute their blind error who refer all things to the power of the water, than from the signification of Baptism itself: which does withdraw us as well from that visible element which is set before our eyes, as from all other means, that it may bind our minds to Christ alone.

Neither is it to be thought that Baptism is applied only to the time past, that for new failings into which we fall back after Baptism, we must seek new remedies of cleansing in I know not what other sacraments, as though the force of Baptism were worn out of use. By this error it came to pass in old time, that some would not be baptized but in the uttermost peril of life, and at their last gaspings, that so they might obtain pardon of their whole life. Against which wayward subtle provision the old Bishops so often inveigh in their writings. But thus we ought to think, that at whatever time we be baptized, we are at once washed and cleansed for all our life. Therefore so often as we fall we must go back to the remembrance of Baptism, and with it we must arm our mind, that it may be always certain and assured of the forgiveness of sins. For though when it is once administered, it seems to be past, yet by later sins it is not abolished. For the cleanness of Christ is therein offered to us: that always flourishes, is oppressed with no spots, but overwhelms and wipes away all our filthiness: yet ought we not to take thereof a liberty to sin in time to come (as truly we be not hereby armed to such boldness) but this doctrine is given only to them, which when they have sinned, do groan wearied and oppressed under their sins, that they may have with which they may raise up and comfort themselves, lest they should fall into confusion and desperation. So Paul says that Christ was made to us a propitiation, to the forgiveness of faults going before (Romans 3:25). Wherein he denies not that therein is obtained perpetual and continual forgiveness of sins even to death: but he means that it was given of the Father, only to poor sinners, which wounded with the searing iron of conscience, to sigh to the Physician. To these the mercy of God is offered. Those who by escaping punishment do hunt for matter and liberty to sin, do nothing but provoke to themselves the wrath and judgment of God.

I know indeed that it is commonly thought otherwise, that by the benefit of repentance and of the keys we do after Baptism obtain forgiveness, which at our first regeneration is given us by only Baptism. But they which devise this do err herein that they do not remember that the power of the keys, of which they speak, does so hang upon Baptism that it ought in no way to be severed. The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church, namely not without the preaching of the Gospel. But what manner of preaching is that? That we be cleansed from sins by the blood of Christ. But what sign and testimony is there of that washing, but Baptism? We see therefore how that absolution is referred to Baptism. And this error has bred us the feigned sacrament of penance: of which I have touched somewhat before, and the residue I will make an end of in a place fit for it. But it is no marvel if men, which according to the grossness of their wit were immeasurably fast tied to outward things, have in this behalf also betrayed that fault, that not content with the pure institution of God, they did thrust in new helps feigned of themselves. As though Baptism itself were not a sacrament of repentance. But if repentance be commended to us for our whole life, the force also of Baptism ought to be extended to the same bounds. Therefore it is also no doubt but that all the godly throughout all their life long, so often as they be vexed with knowledge in conscience of their own sins, dare call back themselves to the remembrance of Baptism, that thereby they may confirm themselves in the confidence of that only and continual washing which we have in the blood of Christ.

It brings also another fruit, because it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him. For (as the Apostle says) we are baptized into his death, being buried together with him into death, that we may walk in newness of life. By which words he does not only exhort us to the following of him (as though he did say, that we are by Baptism put in mind, that after a certain example of the death of Christ, we should die to our lusts: and after the example of his resurrection, we should be raised up to righteousness) but he fetches the matter much deeper: that is to say, that by Baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death, that we may be grafted into it. And as the graft receives substance and nourishment of the root into which it is grafted: so they that receive Baptism with such faith as they ought, do truly feel the effectiveness of the death of Christ in the mortifying of their flesh: and therewith also they feel the effect of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit. Upon this he gathers matter of exhortation: that if we be Christians, we ought to be dead to sin, and to live to righteousness. This same argument he uses in another place: that we be circumcised, and have put off the old man, since that we be buried in Christ by Baptism. And in this sense, in the same place which we have before alleged, he called it the washing of regeneration and of renewing. Therefore first free forgiveness of sins and imputation of righteousness is promised us, and then the grace of the Holy Ghost, which may reform us into newness of life.

Last of all our Faith receives also this profit of Baptism, that it certainly testifies to us, that we are not only grafted into the death and life of Christ, but that we are so united to Christ himself that we are partakers of all his good things. For therefore he has dedicated and hallowed Baptism in his own body, that he might have it common with us, as a most strong bond of the unity and fellowship which he vouchsafed to enter into with us: so that Paul proves thereby that we be the children of God, because we have put on Christ in Baptism. So we see that the fulfilling of Baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of Baptism. Therefore it is no marvel if it be reported that the Apostles baptized into his name, which yet were commanded to baptize into the name of the Father also and of the Holy Ghost. For whatever gifts of God are set forth in Baptism, are found in Christ alone. And yet it cannot be, but that he which baptizes into Christ, does therewith also call upon the name of the Father and of the Holy Ghost. For we are therefore cleansed with his blood, because the merciful Father, according to his incomparable kindness, willing to receive us into favor, has set him a mediator in the midst, to procure to us favor with him. But regeneration we so only obtain by his death and resurrection, if being sanctified by the Spirit we be endowed with a new and spiritual nature. Therefore both of our cleansing and regeneration: we obtain and after a certain manner distinctly perceive the cause in the Father, the matter in the Son, and the effect in the Holy Ghost. So John first baptized, so afterward the Apostles, with the baptism of repentance into the forgiveness of sins: meaning by this word repentance, such regeneration: and by forgiveness of sins, washing.

Whereby also it is made most certain, that the ministry of John was altogether the same which was afterward committed to the Apostles. For the diverse hands by which it is administered make not the baptism diverse: but the same doctrine shows it to be the same baptism. John and the Apostles agreed in one doctrine: both baptized into repentance, both into the forgiveness of sins, both into the name of Christ, from whom was both repentance and forgiveness of sins. John said that he was the lamb of God, by whom the sins of the world should be taken away: where he made him the sacrifice acceptable to the Father, the propitiator of righteousness, the author of salvation. What could the Apostles add to this confession? Therefore let it trouble no man that the old writers labor to sever the one from the other, whose voice we ought not so much to esteem that it may shake the certainty of the Scripture. For who will rather listen to Chrysostom denying that forgiveness of sins was comprehended in the baptism of John, than to Luke on the contrary affirming that John preached the baptism of repentance into the forgiveness of sins? Neither is that subtlety of Augustine to be received, that in the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but in the baptism of Christ they are forgiven in deed. For whereas the Evangelist plainly testifies that John in his baptism promised the forgiveness of sins: what need we to diminish this title of commendation, when no necessity compels us to it? But if any man seeks for a difference out of the word of God, he shall find none other but this, that John baptized into him that was to come, the Apostles into him that had already presented himself.

As for the fact that more abundant graces of the Spirit were poured out since the resurrection of Christ, it makes nothing to establish a diversity of baptisms. For the baptism which the Apostles administered while he was yet conversant on earth was called his: yet it had no larger fullness of the Spirit than the baptism of John. Indeed even after his ascension, the Spirit was not given to the Samaritans above the common measure of the faithful before the ascension, although they were baptized into the name of Jesus, until Peter and John were sent to them to lay their hands upon them. This only thing, as I think, deceived the old writers, that they said that the baptism of John was but a preparation to the baptism of Christ, because they read that they were baptized again by Paul, who had once received the baptism of John. But how much they were herein deceived shall elsewhere be plainly declared in a place fit for it. What is it therefore that John said, that he baptized indeed with water, but that Christ should come who should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire? This may in few words be resolved. For he meant not to put difference between the one baptism and the other, but he compared his own person with the person of Christ, saying that himself was a minister of water, but that Christ was the giver of the Holy Ghost, and should declare this power by visible miracle the same day that he should send the Holy Ghost to the Apostles under fiery tongues. What could the Apostles boast of more than this? What more could they also that baptize at this day? For they are only ministers of the outward sign, and Christ is the author of the inward grace: as the same old writers themselves do everywhere teach, and specially Augustine, whose principal stay against the Donatists is this, that whoever he be that baptizes, yet only Christ is ruler of it.

These things which we have spoken both of mortification and of washing are shadowed out in the people of Israel, whom for the same cause the Apostle says to have been baptized in the cloud and in the sea. Mortifying was figured when the Lord, delivering them out of the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel bondage, made for them a way through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself and the Egyptians their enemies, that followed them hard at their backs and were even at their necks to overtake them. For after the same manner also he promises to us in baptism, and by a sign given shows us, that we are by his power brought forth and delivered out of the thralldom of Egypt, that is to say, out of the bondage of sin: that our Pharaoh is drowned, that is to say the devil, although even so also he ceases not to exercise and weary us. But as that Egyptian was not thrown down into the bottom of the sea, but being overthrown on the shore, did yet with terrible sight make the Israelites afraid, but could not hurt them: so this our enemy yet in deed threatens, shows his weapons, is felt, but cannot overcome. In the cloud was a sign of cleansing. For as then the Lord covered them with a cloud cast over them, and gave them refreshing cold, lest they should faint and pine away with too cruel burning of the sun: so in baptism we acknowledge ourselves covered and defended with the blood of Christ, lest the severity of God, which is in deed an intolerable flame, should lie upon us. But although this mystery was then dark and known to few: yet because there is no other way to obtain salvation, but in those two graces, God would not take away the sign of them both from the old fathers, whom he had adopted to be heirs.

Now it is clear, how false that is which some have lately taught, and wherein some yet continue, that by Baptism we be loosed and delivered from original sin, and from the corruption which was from Adam spread abroad into his whole posterity, and that we be restored into the same righteousness and pureness of nature, which Adam should have obtained, if he had stood fast in the same uprightness wherein he was first created. For such kind of teachers never understood what was original sin, nor what was original righteousness, nor what was the grace of Baptism. But we have already proved, that original sin is the perverseness and corruption of our nature, which first makes us guilty of the wrath of God, and then also brings forth works in us, which the Scripture calls the works of the flesh. Therefore these two points are severally to be marked, namely that we being in all parts of our nature defiled and corrupted are already for such corruption only, held worthily condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence and cleanness. Indeed even very infants themselves bring their own damnation with them from their mother's womb. Who, although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their iniquity, yet have the seed thereof enclosed within them. Indeed their whole nature is a certain seed of sin, therefore it can not but be hateful and abominable to God. The faithful are certified by Baptism that this damnation is taken away, and driven from them: forasmuch (as we have already said) the Lord does by this sign promise us that full and perfect forgiveness is granted both of the fault which should have been imputed to us, and of the penalty which we should have suffered for the fault: they take hold also of righteousness, but such as the people of God may obtain in this life, that is to say by imputation only: because the Lord of his own mercy takes them for righteous and innocent.

The other point is, that this perverseness never ceases in us, but continually brings forth new fruits, namely those works of the flesh which we have before described: none otherwise than a burning furnace continually blows out flame and sparks, or as a spring infinitely casts out water. For lust never utterly dies and is quenched in men, until being by death delivered out of the body of death, they have utterly put off themselves. Baptism indeed promises us that our Pharaoh is drowned, and the mortification of sin: yet not so that it is no more, or may no more trouble us, but only that it may not overcome us. For so long as we live enclosed within this prison of our body, the remnants of sin shall dwell in us: but if we hold fast by faith the promise given us of God in Baptism, they shall not bear rule nor reign. But let no man deceive himself: Let no man flatter himself in his own evil, when he hears that sin always dwells in us. These things are not spoken to this end, that they should carelessly sleep upon their sins, which are otherwise too much inclined to sin: but only, that they should not faint and be discouraged, which are tickled and pricked of their flesh. Let them rather think that they are yet in the way, and let them believe that they have much profited, when they feel that there is daily somewhat diminished of their lust, till they have attained there where they travel, namely to the last death of their flesh, which shall be ended in the dying of this mortal life. In the mean time let them not cease both to strive valiantly, and to encourage them to go forward, and to stir them up to full victory. For this also ought more to whet on their endeavors, that they see that after that they have long traveled, they have yet no small business remaining. This we ought to hold: we are baptized into the mortifying of our flesh, which is begun by baptism in us, which we daily follow: but it shall be made perfect when we shall remove out of this life to the Lord.

Here we say no other thing, than the Apostle Paul in the seventh chapter to the Romans most clearly sets out. For after that he had disputed of free righteousness, because some wicked men did thereof gather, that we might live after our own lust, because we should not be acceptable to God by the deservings of works: he adds, that all they that are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, are therewith regenerate in Spirit, and that of this regeneration we have an earnest in baptism. Hereupon he exhorts the faithful, that they suffer not sin to have dominion in their members. Now because he knew that there is always some weakness in the faithful: that they should not therefore be discouraged, he adjoins a comfort, that they are not under the law. Because again it might seem, that Christians might grow insolent, because they are not under the yoke of the law, he entreats what manner of abrogating that is, and therewith what is the use of the law: which question he had now the second time deferred. The sum is, that we be delivered from the rigor of the law, that we should cling to Christ: but that the office of the law is, that we being convinced of our perverseness, should confess our own weakness and misery. Now forasmuch as that perverseness of nature does not so easily appear in a profane man, which follows his own lusts without fear of God: he sets an example in a man regenerate, namely in himself. He says therefore that he has a continual wrestling with the remnants of his flesh, and that he is held bound with miserable bondage, that he can not consecrate himself wholly to the obedience of the law of God. Therefore he is compelled with groaning to cry out: Unhappy am I. Who shall deliver me out of this body subject to death? If the children of God be held captive in prison so long as they live, they must need be much carefully grieved with thinking upon their own peril, unless this fear be met withal. Therefore he adjoins to this use a comfort, that there is no more damnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. Where he teaches, that they whom the Lord has once received into favor, engrafted into the communion of his Christ, has by Baptism admitted into the fellowship of his Church, while they continue in the faith of Christ, although they be besieged of sin, indeed and carry sin about within them, yet are acquitted from guiltiness and condemnation. If this be the simple and natural exposition of Paul, there is no cause why we should seem to teach any new unusual thing.

But baptism so serves our confession before men. For it is a mark, whereby we openly profess that we would be accounted among the people of God: whereby we testify that we agree with all Christians in the worshipping of one God and in one religion: finally whereby we openly affirm our faith: that not only our hearts should breathe out the praise of God, but also our tongue, and all the members of our body should sound it out with such utterances as they be able. For so, as we ought, all our things are employed to the service of the glory of God, whereof nothing ought to be void, and others may by our example be stirred up to the same endeavors. To this end Paul had respect, when he asked the Corinthians, whether they had not been baptized into the name of Christ: meaning truly, that even in this that they were baptized into his name, they avowed themselves to him, swore to his name, and bound their faith to him before men, that they could no more confess any other, but Christ alone, unless they would forsake the confession which they had made in Baptism.

Now since it is declared what our Lord had regard to in the institution of Baptism: it is plain to judge what is the way for us to use and receive it. For so far as it is given to the raising, nourishing and confirming of our faith, it is to be taken as from the hand of the author himself: we ought to hold it certain and fully persuaded, that it is he who speaks to us by the sign, that it is he who cleanses us, washes us, and puts away the remembrance of our sins, that it is he who makes us partakers of his death, who takes away from Satan his kingdom, who weakens the forces of our lust, indeed who grows into one with us, that being clothed with him we may be reckoned the children of God: that these things, I say, he does inwardly so truly and certainly perform to our soul, as we certainly see our body outwardly to be washed, dipped, and clothed. For this relation, or similitude, is the most sure rule of sacraments: that in bodily things we should behold spiritual things, as if they were presently set before our eyes, inasmuch as it has pleased the Lord to represent them by such figures: not for that such graces are bound and enclosed in the sacrament, that they should be given us by the force thereof: but only because the Lord does by this token testify his will to us, that is, that he will give us all these things. Neither does he only feed our eyes with a naked sight, but he brings us to the thing present, and together fulfills that which it figures.

Of this let Cornelius the captain be an example, who was baptized having before received forgiveness of sins and visible graces of the Holy Ghost: seeking not by baptism a larger forgiveness, but a more certain exercising of faith, indeed an increase of confidence by a pledge. Perhaps some man will object: why therefore did Ananias say to Paul, that he should wash away his sins by Baptism, if sins be not washed away by the power of Baptism itself? I answer: We are said to receive, to obtain, to get that which so far as concerns the feeling of our faith, is given us of the Lord, whether he do then first testify it, or being testified does more certainly confirm it. This therefore only was the meaning of Ananias: that you may be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven you, be baptized. For the Lord does in Baptism promise forgiveness of sins: receive this, and be out of care. Nevertheless I mean not to diminish the force of baptism, but that the thing and the truth is present with the sign, so far as God works by outward means. But of this sacrament, as of all other, we obtain nothing but so much as we receive by faith. If we lack faith, it shall be for a witness of our unthankfulness, whereby we may be declared guilty before God, because we have not believed the promise there given. But so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought by it to testify that our trust is in the mercy of God, and our cleanness is in the forgiveness of sins, which is gotten us by Jesus Christ: and that by it we enter into the Church of Christ, that we may with one consent of faith and charity live of one mind with all the faithful. This last point did Paul mean, when he says that we are all baptized in one Spirit, that we may be one body.

Now if this be true which we determine, that a Sacrament is not to be weighed according to his hand of whom it is ministered, but as of the very hands of God, from whom without doubt it proceeded: hereupon we may gather, that nothing is added to it nor taken from it by the worthiness of him by whose hand it is delivered. And even as among men, if a letter be sent, so that the hand and the seal be well known, it makes no matter who or what manner of man be the carrier: so it ought to suffice to acknowledge the hand and seal of our Lord in his Sacraments, by whatever carrier they be brought. Hereby the error of the Donatists is very well confuted, which measured the force and value of the Sacrament by the worthiness of the minister. Such at this day are our Catabaptists, which deny that we be rightly baptized, because we were baptized by wicked men and idolaters in the popish kingdom: therefore they furiously call upon us to be baptized again. Against whose follies we shall be armed with a reason strong enough, if we think that we were professed by baptism not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that therefore it is not the Baptism of man, but of God, of whoever it be ministered. Although they were never so much ignorant or despisers of God and all godliness, which baptized us: yet they did not baptize us into the fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ: because they called not upon their own name, but the name of God, nor baptized us into any other name. Now if it were the Baptism of God, it has verily enclosed in it a promise of the forgiveness of sins, the mortifying of the flesh, the spiritual quickening, and the partaking of Christ. So it nothing hindered the Jews, to have been circumcised of unclean priests and apostates: neither was the sign therefore void, that it needed to be done of new: but it was sufficient to return to the natural beginning. Where they object that Baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, that proves not, that that which is faulty in part, should destroy the whole force thereof. For when we teach what ought to be done that Baptism may be pure, and void of all defiling, we do not abolish the ordinance of God, although idolaters corrupt it. For when in old time Circumcision was corrupted with many superstitions, yet it ceased not to be taken for a sign of grace: neither did Josias and Hezekiah, when they gathered out of all Israel them that had departed from God, call them to a second Circumcision (Matthew 28:19).

Now whereas they ask us, what faith of ours has yet followed Baptism in certain years past, that they might thereby prove that the Baptism is void, which is not sanctified to us, but by the word of promise received by faith: to this question we answer, that we indeed being blind and unbelieving, did in a long time not hold fast the promise given us in Baptism: yet the promise itself, forasmuch as it was of God, continued always stayed, steadfast, and true. Although all men be liars and faithbreakers, yet God ceases not to be true: although all men be lost, yet Christ remains salvation. We confess therefore that Baptism, for that time profited us nothing at all: forasmuch as in it the promise offered us, without which Baptism is nothing, lay nothing regarded. Now since by the grace of God, we have begun to grow wiser, we accuse our own blindness and hardness of heart, which have so long been unthankful to his so great goodness. But we believe that the promise itself is not vanished away: but rather thus we consider, God by Baptism promises the forgiveness of sins, and since he has promised it, will undoubtedly perform it to all that believe it. That promise was offered us in Baptism: by faith therefore let us embrace it. It has indeed long been buried from us because of unbelief: now therefore let us receive it by faith. Therefore where the Lord calls the Jewish people to repentance, he gives them no commandment of a second circumcision, which being (as we have said) circumcised with a wicked and ungodly hand, lived a certain time entangled with the same wickedness. But he earnestly calls upon the only turning of the heart. Because, however the covenant was broken of them, yet the sign of the covenant, by the ordinance of the Lord, remained always steadfast and inviolable. Therefore with the only condition of repentance they were restored into the covenant which the Lord had once made with them in Circumcision: which yet being received by the hand of a covenant-breaker priest, so much as in them lay, they had defiled again, and the effect whereof they had quenched (Romans 3:3).

But they think that they shake a fiery dart at us, when they allege that Paul rebaptized them which were once baptized with the Baptism of John. For if by our own confession, the Baptism of John was altogether the same that ours is now: even as they having been before perversely instructed, when they were taught the true faith, they were again baptized into it: so that Baptism, which was without true doctrine, is to be taken for nothing, and we ought to be newly baptized again into the true religion, with which we are now first instructed. Some think, that there was some wrongfully affected man to John, which had entered them with their first Baptism rather to a vain superstition. Of which thing they seem to gather a conjecture hereupon, because they confessed themselves to be utterly ignorant of the Holy Spirit: whereas John verily would never have sent away from himself scholars so untaught. But neither is it likely that the Jews, although they had not been baptized at all, were destitute of all knowledge of the Holy Spirit, which is famously spoken of by so many testimonies of the Scripture. Whereas therefore they answer that they know not whether there be a Holy Spirit, it is to be understood as if they had said that they have not yet heard, whether the graces of the Spirit, of which Paul asked them, were given to the disciples of Christ. But I grant that that was the true Baptism of John, and all one and the self same with the Baptism of Christ: but I deny that they were baptized again. What then mean these words, they were baptized in the name of Jesus? Some do expound it, that they were but instructed of Paul with true doctrine. But I had rather understand it more simply, to be the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, that the visible graces of the Spirit were given them by the laying on of hands: which to be expressed by the name of Baptism, is no new thing. As on the day of Pentecost it is said, that the Apostles remembered the words of the Lord, concerning the Baptism of fire and of the Spirit. And Peter says that the same came to his remembrance, when he saw those graces poured out upon Cornelius, and his household and kindred. Neither is that contrary which is after adjoined, When he had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down upon them. For Luke does not tell of two diverse things: but follows the manner of telling commonly used among the Hebrews, which do first propound the sum of the matter, and then do set it out more at large. Which every man may perceive by the very framing together of the words. For he says, When they had heard these things, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came down upon them. In this later sentence is described, what manner of Baptism that was. If ignorance do so corrupt a former Baptism, that it must be amended with a second Baptism: the Apostles should have been rebaptized first of all, which in whole three years after their Baptism, had scarcely tasted any small portion of purer doctrine. And now among us what rivers might suffice to renew so many washings, as there be ignorances by the mercy of the Lord daily amended in us? (Acts 19:3; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16)

The force, dignity, profit, and end of the mystery, if I be not deceived, ought by this time to be plain enough. So much as concerns the outward sign, I would to God the natural institution of Christ had prevailed so much as was fitting, to restrain the boldness of men. For, as though it were a contemptible thing to be baptized with water according to the precept of Christ, there is invented blessing, or rather enchanting, to defile the true hallowing of the water. Afterward was added a taper with chrism: but the blowing seemed to open the gate to Baptism. But although I am not ignorant, how ancient is the beginning of this added pack: yet it is lawful both for me and all the godly to refuse whatever things men have presumed to add to the ordinance of Christ. When Satan saw that by the foolish light credit of the world at the very beginnings of the Gospel his deceits were easily received, he broke forth into grosser mockeries. Hereupon spittle, and like trifles, were openly brought in with unbridled liberty to the reproach of Baptism. By which experiences let us learn that nothing is either holier, or better, or safer, than to be content with the authority of Christ alone. How much better therefore was it, leaving stage-like pomps, which dazzle the eyes of the simple, and dull their minds, so often as any was to be baptized, that he should be presented to the assembly of the faithful, and be offered to God, the whole Church looking on as a witness: and praying over him: that the confession of faith should be rehearsed, with which he that is to be catechized should be instructed: that the promises should be declared which are contained in Baptism: that the instructed should be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: at length that he be sent away with prayers and thanksgiving. So is nothing omitted that might make to the matter, and that the only ceremony which proceeded from God the author thereof, should most clearly shine, being not overwhelmed with any foreign filthiness. But whether he be wholly dipped which is baptized, and that three times or once, or whether he be but sprinkled with water only poured upon him, it makes very little matter: but that ought to be at liberty to churches according to the diversity of countries. However the very word of baptizing signifies to dip, and it is certain that the manner of dipping was used by the old Church.

This also pertains to the purpose, to know that it is done amiss if private men take upon themselves the administration of Baptism. For as well the distribution of this as of the Supper is a part of the ecclesiastical ministry. For Christ did not command women, nor yet every sort of men, that they should Baptize: but whom he had ordained his Apostles, to them he gave this commandment. And when he commanded his disciples to do that in the ministration of the Supper which they had seen him do, when he executed the office of a right distributor: he would without doubt, that they should therein follow his example. As for this that in many ages past, indeed and in a manner at the very beginning of the Church, it has been received in use, that lay men might Baptize in peril of death, if the minister were not present in time, I see not with how strong a reason it may be defended. The very old fathers themselves, which either held or suffered this manner, were not sure whether it was well done. For Augustine seems to have this doubt, when he says: Although a lay man compelled by necessity does give Baptism, I cannot tell whether a man may godly say that it ought to be repeated. For if it be done when no necessity compels, it is the usurping of another man's office: but if necessity enforces, it is either none or a venial sin. Moreover of women it was decreed without any exception in the Council at Carthage, that they should not presume to Baptize at all. But there is danger, lest if he which is sick should die without Baptism, he should be deprived of the grace of regeneration. Not so. God pronounces that he adopts our infants to be his own, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us and to our seed after us. In this word is contained their salvation. Neither shall any man dare to be so reproachful against God, to deny that his promise is of itself sufficient to work the effect thereof. How much harm that doctrine being evil expounded, that Baptism is of necessity to salvation, has brought in, few do mark: and therefore they take less heed to themselves. For where this opinion has grown in force, that all are lost to whom it has not happened to be washed with water, our state is worse than the state of the old people, as though the grace of God were now more narrowly straitened than it was under the law. For Christ shall be thought to have come, not to fulfill the promises, but to abolish them: inasmuch as the promise which then was of itself effectual enough to give health before the eighth day, now should not be of force without help of the sign.

But how the custom was before that Augustine was born, first is gathered of Tertullian, that it is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, nor to teach, nor to Baptize, nor to offer, that she should not claim to herself the execution of any man's office, much less of the Priests. Of the same thing Epiphanius is a substantial witness, where he reproaches Marcion, that he gave women liberty to Baptize. Neither am I ignorant of their answer which think otherwise, that is, that common use much differs from extraordinary remedy, when extreme necessity enforces: but when he, pronouncing that it is a mockery to give women liberty to Baptize, excepts nothing, it sufficiently appears that he condemns this corruption, so that it is by no color excusable. Also in the third book, where teaching that it was not permitted even to the holy mother of Christ, he adds no restraint.

The example of Sephora is unseasonably alleged. For whereas the angel of God was appeased, after that she taking a stone, circumcised her son, from this it is wrongfully gathered that her doing was allowed of God. Otherwise it ought to be said, that the worship which the nations that were brought out of Assyria raised up, pleased God. But by other strong reasons it is proved, that what a foolish woman did, is wrongfully drawn to an example of imitation. If I should say that it was a certain singular case, which ought not to be made an example, and especially that since it is nowhere read that in old times there was given to the Priests a special commandment to circumcise, the order of Circumcision and Baptism is unlike: this should be strong enough to confute them. For the words of Christ are plain: Go, teach all nations, and Baptize. When he ordained the same men publishers of the Gospel, and ministers of Baptism: and no one (as the Apostle witnesses) does take honor upon himself in the Church, but he that is called as Aaron: whoever without lawful calling baptizes, he rushes into another man's office. Even in the smallest things, as in meat and drink, whatever we undertake with a doubtful conscience, Paul openly cries out to be sin. Therefore in women's baptizing is much more grievously sin, where it is evident that they break the rule appointed by Christ: inasmuch as we know that it is unlawful to pluck asunder those things that God conjoins. But all this I pass over. Only I would have the readers note, that Sephora's purpose was nothing less, than to do any service to God. Seeing her son to be in danger, she grudged, and murmured, and not without resentment threw the foreskin upon the ground, she so taunted her husband, that she was also angry with God. Finally it is plain that all this came of a furiousness of mind, because she murmured against God and her husband, for that she was compelled to shed the blood of her son. Moreover if she had in all other things behaved herself well, yet herein is an inexcusable rash presumption that she circumcised her son, her husband being present, not any private man, but Moses the principal Prophet of God, than whom there never rose any greater in Israel: which was no more lawful for her to do, than at this day it is for women in the sight of the Bishop. But this controversy shall by and by be easily taken away by this principle, that infants are not debarred from the kingdom of heaven, whom it happens to depart out of this present life before that it be granted them to be dipped in water. But it is already proved, that no small wrong is done to the covenant of God, if we do not rest in it, as though it were weak of itself: whereas the effect thereof hangs neither upon Baptism, nor upon any additions. There is afterward added to it a Sacrament like a seal, not that it brings effectiveness to the promise of God as to a thing weak of itself, but only confirms it to us. Whereupon it follows, that the children of the faithful are not therefore baptized, that they may then first be made the children of God, which before were strangers from the Church, but rather that they be therefore received by a solemn sign into the Church, because by the benefit of the promise they did already belong to the body of Christ. Therefore if in omitting the sign there be neither slothfulness, nor contempt, nor negligence, we are free from all danger. It is therefore much more holy, to give this reverence to the ordinance of God, that we seek Sacraments from nowhere else, than where the Lord has left them. When we may not have them of the Church, the grace of God is not so bound to them, but that we may obtain them by faith out of the word of the Lord.

Baptism is the sign of our entry by which we are received into the fellowship of the church, so that being grafted into Christ we may be counted among the children of God. It was given to us by God to serve two purposes — which I have taught are common to all the mysteries: first, to serve our faith before Him; second, to serve as our confession before people. We will address each purpose in order. Baptism brings three things to our faith, which must each be treated separately. The first is what the Lord sets out for us: that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing — or to put it more precisely, it is like a sealed charter by which He confirms to us that all our sins are so effaced, canceled, and blotted out that they can never come before His sight, be called to mind, or be charged against us. For He wills that all who believe should be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 16:16). Therefore those who think baptism is nothing more than a mark and token by which we profess our religion before other people — as soldiers bear their commander's colors as a sign of their allegiance — have missed what is most important in baptism. That most important thing is this: that we receive it with this promise — whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.

In this sense is to be understood what Paul writes: that the church is sanctified by Christ her spouse and cleansed with the washing of water through the word of life (Ephesians 5:26). And in another place: that we are saved according to His mercy through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5). And what Peter writes: that baptism saves us (1 Peter 3:22). For Paul did not mean to indicate that our washing and salvation are perfectly accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew. Neither did Peter point to water as the cause of salvation — only to the knowledge and assurance of such gifts as received in this sacrament, which the words themselves express clearly enough. For Paul joins together the word of life and the washing of water — as if to say, through the Gospel comes the message of washing and sanctifying, and through baptism that message is sealed. And Peter immediately adds that baptism is not the removal of dirt from the flesh but the pledge of a good conscience before God — which is of faith. Indeed, baptism promises us no cleansing except that accomplished by the sprinkling of Christ's blood — which is figured by water because of the similarity of cleansing and washing. Who then can say we are cleansed by this water, when the water itself testifies that Christ's blood is our true and only washing? No stronger argument can be found to refute those who trace all things to the power of the water than the signification of baptism itself — which draws us away from the visible element set before our eyes, and from all other means, in order to bind our minds to Christ alone.

Nor should we think that baptism applies only to past sins — as if for new failures committed after baptism, we must seek fresh remedies for cleansing in some other sacrament, as though baptism's power had expired. This error led in ancient times to the practice of some who refused to be baptized until they were in the most extreme danger of death and gasping their last breath — so that by this means they might obtain pardon for their whole life. The ancient bishops repeatedly denounced this perverse cunning in their writings. But we should understand it this way: at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and cleansed once for all our life. Therefore whenever we fall, we must return to the remembrance of baptism and arm our minds with it, so that it may always hold with certainty the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. For even though baptism, once administered, appears to be a past event, it is not nullified by later sins. For the cleanness of Christ is offered to us in it — a cleanness that always flourishes, is overcome by no stains, but overwhelms and wipes away all our filth. Yet from this we must not draw license to sin in the future — nor in fact does this equip us for such boldness. This teaching is given only to those who, having sinned, groan wearily under the weight of their guilt, so that they may have something with which to lift themselves up and find comfort, lest they fall into confusion and despair. So Paul says that Christ was made for us a propitiation for the forgiveness of past offenses (Romans 3:25). By this he does not deny that perpetual and continual forgiveness of sins is obtained there, even unto death — but he means it was given by the Father only to poor sinners who, their conscience seared, sigh to the Physician. To these, God's mercy is offered. Those who use the prospect of escape from punishment as an occasion and license to sin do nothing but provoke the wrath and judgment of God upon themselves.

I know it is commonly thought otherwise — that after baptism we obtain forgiveness through repentance and the ministry of the keys, while at our first regeneration forgiveness was given through baptism alone. But those who hold this view err by failing to remember that the power of the keys they speak of depends so entirely on baptism that it should in no way be separated from it. The sinner receives forgiveness through the ministry of the church — specifically through the preaching of the Gospel. But what kind of preaching is this? That we are cleansed from sins by the blood of Christ. But what sign and testimony is there of that washing except baptism? We see, therefore, that absolution is referred back to baptism. This error has given birth to the invented sacrament of penance, which I have touched on briefly before and will address more fully in its proper place. But it is no wonder that people who, with their limited understanding, were excessively attached to outward things have in this area also shown the same fault — not content with God's pure institution, they pressed in new aids of their own invention. As if baptism itself were not a sacrament of repentance. But if repentance is commended to us for our entire life, the power of baptism must extend to the same span. It is therefore also certain that all godly people, throughout the whole of their lives, whenever they are troubled by the knowledge of their sins in conscience, may call themselves back to the remembrance of baptism — and thereby strengthen themselves in confidence of that one and continual washing that we have in the blood of Christ.

Baptism also brings another benefit: it shows us our death in Christ and our new life in Him. For as the apostle says, we are baptized into His death, being buried with Him in death, so that we may walk in newness of life. By these words he does not merely exhort us to imitate Him — as though he were saying that baptism reminds us to die to our lusts after the pattern of Christ's death, and to be raised to righteousness after the pattern of His resurrection. He reaches much deeper than that: that through baptism Christ has made us partakers of His death so that we are grafted into it. And just as a graft draws its substance and nourishment from the root into which it is grafted, so those who receive baptism with the faith they should have truly feel the effect of Christ's death in the mortifying of their flesh — and with that they feel the effect of His resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit. From this he draws the exhortation: that if we are Christians, we ought to be dead to sin and alive to righteousness. He uses the same argument elsewhere: that we are circumcised and have put off the old self, since we are buried with Christ through baptism. It is in this sense that, in the passage we cited earlier, he called baptism the washing of regeneration and renewing. Therefore the first promise of baptism is free forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness — and then the grace of the Holy Spirit, who reforms us into newness of life.

Finally, our faith receives yet another benefit from baptism: it testifies to us with certainty that we are not merely grafted into the death and life of Christ, but that we are so united to Christ Himself that we are partakers of all His good things. For this reason He has dedicated and consecrated baptism in His own body — so that it might be shared between Him and us as a most powerful bond of the union and fellowship He chose to enter into with us. So Paul uses baptism to prove that we are children of God — because we have put on Christ in baptism. We see, then, that the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom we therefore rightly call the proper object of baptism. It is therefore no wonder that the apostles are reported to have baptized in His name, even though they were commanded to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. For whatever gifts of God are presented in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet it cannot be that one who baptizes into Christ does not at the same time invoke the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. For we are cleansed by His blood because the merciful Father, in His incomparable kindness — willing to receive us into His favor — set Him as the mediator between us and Himself to secure that favor for us. But regeneration we obtain only through His death and resurrection if, being sanctified by the Spirit, we are endowed with a new and spiritual nature. Therefore in both our cleansing and our regeneration, we perceive the cause in the Father, the matter in the Son, and the effect in the Holy Spirit. This is how John first baptized, and afterward the apostles — with the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins — meaning by 'repentance' such regeneration, and by 'forgiveness of sins' such washing.

From this it is also most certain that John's ministry was altogether the same as what was afterward committed to the apostles. For it is not different hands that make a baptism different — what makes it the same baptism is the same doctrine. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine: both baptized for repentance, both for the forgiveness of sins, both in the name of Christ — from whom both repentance and forgiveness of sins come. John said that He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world — making Him the acceptable sacrifice to the Father, the one who satisfies God's righteousness, the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession? Therefore let no one be troubled by the fact that the ancient writers labor to distinguish the two baptisms — their voice should not weigh so heavily as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would rather listen to Chrysostom denying that forgiveness of sins was included in John's baptism, than to Luke affirming plainly that John preached the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? Nor should Augustine's subtle distinction be accepted — that in John's baptism sins were forgiven in hope, but in Christ's baptism in reality. For since the evangelist plainly testifies that John in his baptism promised the forgiveness of sins, why should we diminish this testimony when no necessity compels us to do so? If anyone seeks a distinction based on God's word, he will find no other than this: John baptized in the name of the one who was to come; the apostles baptized in the name of the one who had already appeared.

The fact that more abundant graces of the Spirit were poured out after Christ's resurrection does not establish any difference in baptisms. For the baptism that the apostles administered while Christ was still present on earth was called His — yet it had no greater fullness of the Spirit than John's baptism. Indeed, even after His ascension, the Spirit was not given to the Samaritans above the common measure of believers before the ascension — though they had been baptized in the name of Jesus — until Peter and John were sent to lay hands on them. What misled the ancient writers, I think, was the statement that John's baptism was only a preparation for Christ's baptism, because they read that those who had received John's baptism were baptized again by Paul. But how wrong they were in this will be plainly shown elsewhere in its proper place. What, then, did John mean when he said that he baptized with water but that Christ would come to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire? This can be answered briefly. He did not mean to distinguish between two kinds of baptism. Rather, he was contrasting his own person with the person of Christ — saying that he himself was a minister of water, while Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would demonstrate this power by the visible miracle of sending the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in tongues of fire. What more could the apostles boast of than this? What more can those who baptize today claim? They are only ministers of the outward sign; Christ is the author of the inward grace — as the ancient writers themselves everywhere teach, and especially Augustine, whose principal argument against the Donatists is this: whoever performs the baptism, Christ alone governs it.

Both of these things we have spoken of — mortification and washing — are prefigured in the people of Israel, whom the apostle for this reason says were baptized in the cloud and in the sea. Mortification was prefigured when the Lord, delivering them from the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel bondage, made a way for them through the Red Sea and drowned Pharaoh and the Egyptians who were chasing hard behind them. In the same way, He promises us in baptism — and confirms by the sign He gives — that through His power we are brought out and delivered from Egyptian slavery, that is, from the bondage of sin; that our Pharaoh — the devil — is drowned, even though he continues to harass and wear us down. But just as that Egyptian was not buried at the bottom of the sea but, overthrown on the shore, still struck terror into the Israelites with his awful sight yet could not harm them — so our enemy still threatens, displays his weapons, makes himself felt, but cannot overcome us. In the cloud was a sign of cleansing. For just as the Lord covered the Israelites with a cloud spread over them, giving them refreshing shade lest they faint and burn under the scorching sun — so in baptism we acknowledge ourselves covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the severity of God, which is truly an unbearable flame, fall upon us. But although this mystery was dark at that time and understood by few, because there is no other way to obtain salvation except through these two graces, God was unwilling to take away the sign of both from the ancient fathers whom He had adopted as heirs.

It is now clear how false the teaching is — which some have recently promoted and others still hold — that through baptism we are freed from original sin and the corruption that Adam spread to all his descendants, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature that Adam would have obtained had he remained in his original state. Teachers who hold this view have never understood what original sin is, what original righteousness is, or what the grace of baptism is. We have already shown that original sin is the perverseness and corruption of our nature — which first makes us guilty before God's wrath, and then produces in us what Scripture calls the works of the flesh. These two points must each be kept in mind: we are defiled and corrupted in every part of our nature, and for that corruption alone we stand rightly condemned before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and cleanness. Even infants bring their own condemnation with them from their mother's womb. Though they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their iniquity, they carry the seed of it within them. Their whole nature is, in a sense, a seed of sin — and so it cannot help but be hateful and abominable to God. The faithful are assured through baptism that this condemnation is taken away and removed from them — because, as we have said, the Lord promises through this sign that full and complete forgiveness is granted: both for the guilt that would have been charged against us and for the penalty we would have suffered. They also receive righteousness — but the kind of righteousness God's people can obtain in this life, which is righteousness by imputation only. The Lord in His mercy counts them as righteous and innocent.

The other point is this: the corruption of our nature never fully stops, but keeps producing new fruit — namely, those works of the flesh described earlier. It is like a furnace that constantly sends out flame and sparks, or a spring that ceaselessly pours out water. Sinful desire never fully dies and is extinguished in us until, through death, we are delivered out of this body of death and have completely put off the old self. Baptism promises us that our Pharaoh is drowned and that sin is being put to death — but not so completely that sin no longer exists or can no longer trouble us. It promises only that sin will not overcome us. For as long as we live within this prison of the body, the remnants of sin will remain in us. But if we hold fast by faith to the promise God gave us in baptism, those remnants will not rule or reign over us. Let no one deceive himself, and let no one use this truth as an excuse for his sins — since people are already far too inclined to sin. These things are said not to make anyone sleep carelessly in their sins, but only to keep those who are pricked and troubled by their flesh from losing heart. Let them think of themselves as still on the journey, and let them believe they have made real progress when they see that their sinful desires diminish a little each day — until they reach the goal toward which they are traveling, the final death of the flesh at the end of this mortal life. In the meantime, let them not stop striving vigorously, encouraging one another to press forward, and stirring each other on to complete victory. Indeed, the fact that even after long struggle there is still significant work remaining should sharpen their efforts all the more. This is what we must hold onto: we are baptized into the mortification of our flesh, which begins in us at baptism, which we pursue daily, and which will be completed when we depart this life to be with the Lord.

We are saying nothing different from what Paul sets out most clearly in Romans 7. After he had argued for free righteousness, and because some ungodly people concluded from this that we could live however we pleased — since we would not be accepted by God on the basis of the merit of works — he adds that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are thereby regenerated in the Spirit, and that we have a pledge of this regeneration in baptism. From this he urges the faithful not to let sin have dominion over their members. But because he knew there is always some weakness in the faithful, he adds a comfort so they would not lose heart: they are not under the law. Because this might seem to give Christians license to be careless — since they are not under the yoke of the law — he explains what it means for the law to be set aside, and what the law's proper use is. This was a question he had now deferred a second time. The conclusion is this: we are delivered from the law's strict demands so that we might cling to Christ. The law's purpose, however, is to convict us of our corruption so that we confess our own weakness and misery. Since this corruption of nature does not show itself as clearly in an unregenerate person who follows his own desires without any fear of God, Paul uses the example of a regenerate person — namely, himself. He says he has a continual struggle with the remnants of his flesh, and that he is held in miserable bondage, unable to consecrate himself entirely to obedience to God's law. He is therefore compelled to cry out with groaning: 'Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?' If the children of God are held captive in this prison as long as they live, they would have to be deeply tormented by the thought of their own danger — unless something addresses that fear. So Paul adds a comfort: there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. He teaches that those whom the Lord has once received into favor, grafted into communion with Christ, and admitted through baptism into the fellowship of His church — as long as they continue in faith in Christ — though they are besieged by sin and indeed carry sin within them, are still acquitted from guilt and condemnation. If this is the plain and natural reading of Paul, there is no reason to treat what we teach as something new or unusual.

Baptism also serves our confession before other people. It is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be counted among God's people. Through it we testify that we agree with all Christians in worshipping one God and following one religion. And through it we openly affirm our faith — so that not only our hearts breathe out praise to God, but our tongues and all the members of our body express it as fully as they are able. In this way, as we ought, all that we are is devoted to the service of God's glory — nothing held back — and others may be stirred to the same by our example. This was Paul's point when he asked the Corinthians whether they had not been baptized into the name of Christ. He meant that by being baptized into His name, they had pledged themselves to Him, sworn allegiance to His name, and bound their faith to Him before others — so that they could no longer confess any other than Christ alone, without abandoning the confession they had made in baptism.

Now that we have seen what the Lord had in mind when He instituted baptism, it is clear how we should receive and use it. As far as baptism is given to raise, nourish, and confirm our faith, we must receive it as from the hand of the Author himself. We must hold with certainty and full confidence that it is He who speaks to us through the sign — He who cleanses and washes us and removes the memory of our sins, He who makes us partakers of His death, who takes from Satan his kingdom, who weakens the power of our sinful desires, and who so joins Himself to us that, clothed in Him, we are counted as children of God. All this He truly and certainly performs inwardly for our souls, just as we plainly see our bodies outwardly washed, immersed, and covered. This correspondence — this likeness between the outward and inward — is the surest principle of the sacraments: that in bodily things we should perceive spiritual realities as if they were set before our eyes, since it has pleased the Lord to represent them through such figures. Not because such graces are bound up in the sacrament and must be given by its power — but because the Lord uses this token to testify His will toward us, that He will give us all these things. Nor does He merely show our eyes an empty picture — He brings us into the very presence of the thing and fulfills what the sign represents.

The example of Cornelius the centurion illustrates this well. He was baptized after he had already received forgiveness of sins and visible gifts of the Holy Spirit. He was not seeking a greater forgiveness through baptism — but a more certain exercise of faith, and an increase of confidence through a pledge. Someone might object: why then did Ananias tell Paul to wash away his sins through baptism, if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism itself? The answer is this: we are said to receive, obtain, and gain what the Lord gives us — as far as our faith's experience is concerned — whether He testifies it for the first time in that moment, or whether He more firmly confirms what He has already testified. So this was all Ananias meant: 'Paul, be baptized so that you may be assured your sins are forgiven.' For in baptism the Lord promises forgiveness of sins. Receive that promise and be at peace. I do not mean to lessen the power of baptism — only to say that the thing itself is truly present with the sign, to the extent that God works through outward means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we receive only what we receive by faith. If we lack faith, baptism becomes a witness to our ingratitude, by which we stand declared guilty before God for not believing the promise given there. But as a sign of our confession, through baptism we testify that our trust is in God's mercy, that our cleansing is in the forgiveness of sins obtained for us by Jesus Christ, and that through it we enter the church of Christ — to live in harmony with all the faithful through one shared faith and love. This last point is what Paul meant when he said we are all baptized in one Spirit, so that we may be one body.

If it is true — as we have argued — that a sacrament should not be judged by the hand that administers it, but as coming from the hand of God himself from whom it undoubtedly proceeds, then we can conclude that nothing is added to or taken from a sacrament by the worthiness of the person who delivers it. It is like a letter sent among people: if the handwriting and seal are recognizable, it does not matter who the carrier is or what kind of person he may be. So it should be enough to recognize the hand and seal of our Lord in His sacraments, no matter by whose hand they are delivered. This thoroughly refutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the value of the sacrament by the worthiness of the minister. Such today are the Anabaptists, who deny that we were rightly baptized because we were baptized by wicked men and idolaters within the papal church — and so they furiously demand that we be baptized again. Against their foolishness we have a sufficient defense in this: in baptism we were dedicated not to the name of any person, but to the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is therefore not a human act but God's act — regardless of who administers it. However ignorant or godless those who baptized us may have been, they did not baptize us into the fellowship of their own ignorance or wickedness. They baptized us into faith in Jesus Christ — because they called not upon their own name, but upon God's name, and baptized us into no other name. Since it was God's baptism, it truly contained within it the promise of forgiveness of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual renewal, and participation in Christ. It did not harm the Israelites that they were circumcised by unclean or apostate priests. The sign was not thereby made void, requiring it to be done again — it was enough to return to its original meaning. The objection that baptism should be celebrated in the assembly of the godly does not prove that a partial fault destroys the entire force of the sacrament. When we teach what ought to be done so that baptism is pure and free from all corruption, we do not abolish God's ordinance simply because idolaters have corrupted it. When circumcision in ancient times was corrupted by many superstitions, it did not cease to be a sign of grace. And when Josiah and Hezekiah gathered back the Israelites who had departed from God, they did not call them to a second circumcision (Matthew 28:19).

When our opponents ask what faith of ours followed our baptism in the years since — in order to prove that baptism is void when it is not sanctified to us through the word of promise received by faith — our answer is this: we were indeed blind and unbelieving for a long time, and we did not hold fast to the promise given us in baptism. But the promise itself, being God's promise, remained steady, firm, and true throughout. Though all people are liars and faithbreakers, God does not cease to be true. Though all people are lost, Christ remains salvation. We admit, therefore, that baptism profited us nothing during that time — because the promise it offered, without which baptism is nothing, was ignored and set aside. But now that by God's grace we have begun to see more clearly, we blame our own blindness and hardness of heart for having been so long ungrateful for His great goodness. Yet we believe that the promise itself has not vanished. Rather, we understand it this way: God promised forgiveness of sins in baptism, and since He promised it, He will without doubt fulfill it to all who believe it. That promise was offered to us in baptism. Therefore let us now embrace it by faith. It has indeed been buried from us for a long time through unbelief — but now let us receive it by faith. So when the Lord calls the Jewish people to repentance, He gives them no command for a second circumcision — even though they had been circumcised by wicked and ungodly hands and had for a time lived entangled in that same wickedness. He simply and urgently calls for a turning of the heart. Even though the covenant had been broken by them, the sign of the covenant, by the Lord's own ordinance, remained steadfast and inviolable. On the single condition of repentance, they were restored to the covenant the Lord had once made with them in circumcision — a covenant they had, in receiving it from the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, defiled as much as was in their power to do, and whose effect they had extinguished (Romans 3:3).

Our opponents think they have struck a decisive blow when they point out that Paul rebaptized those who had previously received John's baptism. Their argument runs like this: if by our own admission John's baptism was entirely the same as ours, then just as those disciples — who had first been wrongly instructed — were baptized again when they received true doctrine, so baptism without true doctrine counts for nothing, and we ought to be baptized again now that we have for the first time received true teaching. Some think there was a man with some ill intent toward John who had led those disciples astray with their first baptism into a vain superstition. They seem to draw this inference from the fact that the disciples confessed complete ignorance of the Holy Spirit — since John would surely never have sent away disciples so untaught. But it is not likely that Jews who had been baptized at all would have been completely ignorant of the Holy Spirit, who is spoken of so prominently in so many passages of Scripture. When they answered that they did not know whether the Holy Spirit had been given, they should be understood as saying they had not yet heard whether the gifts of the Spirit — about which Paul was asking them — had been given to the disciples of Christ. I grant that it was the true baptism of John, identical with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptized. Then what is meant by the words, 'they were baptized in the name of Jesus'? Some interpret this as Paul simply instructing them in true doctrine. But I prefer a simpler reading: that this refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit — that is, the visible gifts of the Spirit were given to them through the laying on of hands. Calling this 'baptism' is nothing new. On the day of Pentecost, the apostles remembered the Lord's words about the baptism of fire and of the Spirit. And Peter recalled those same words when he saw those gifts poured out on Cornelius and his household and relatives. Nor does the next statement contradict this — 'when he had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down upon them.' Luke is not describing two different events. He is following the common Hebrew pattern of first stating the summary and then explaining it more fully. This is evident from the way the words are put together. He says, 'When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of Jesus.' Then: 'When Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came down upon them.' The second sentence explains what kind of baptism the first referred to. If ignorance so completely invalidates a previous baptism that a second is required, then the apostles themselves should have been rebaptized first — since for nearly three years after their baptism they had barely begun to taste any portion of purer doctrine. And among us today — what rivers would be enough to provide as many new washings as there are errors that the Lord mercifully corrects in us day by day? (Acts 19:3; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16)

By now, if I am not mistaken, the power, dignity, value, and purpose of this sacrament should be sufficiently clear. As for the outward sign, I wish that Christ's own simple institution had prevailed as it ought and restrained human boldness. Instead — as if being baptized with water according to Christ's command were too plain — people invented a blessing, or rather an enchantment, to corrupt the true consecration of the water. Then came the addition of a candle and chrism, while blowing on the candidate was treated as opening the gateway to baptism. I am well aware how ancient these additions are. But it is fully legitimate for me and for all godly people to reject whatever human presumption has added to Christ's ordinance. When Satan saw how easily his deceptions were received at the very beginning of the Gospel through the world's foolish credulity, he pressed forward into coarser abuses. From this came the introduction of saliva and other trivial practices — openly and with unchecked license — to the disgrace of baptism. From these experiences let us learn that nothing is holier, better, or safer than to be content with the authority of Christ alone. How much better it would have been — setting aside theatrical ceremonies that dazzle simple eyes and stupefy simple minds — that whenever someone was to be baptized, he should be presented to the assembly of the faithful and offered to God with the whole church looking on as witness, praying over him. The confession of faith in which the candidate is to be instructed should be recited. The promises contained in baptism should be declared. The one instructed should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And finally, he should be sent away with prayers and thanksgiving. This way nothing is left out that matters, and the single ceremony that came from God — its Author — shines through clearly, unobscured by any foreign corruption. As for whether the one being baptized is fully immersed once or three times, or only sprinkled with water poured over him — this matters very little. Churches should be free to follow the custom of their own region. That said, the very word 'baptize' means to dip, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.

It is also relevant to know that it is wrong for private individuals to take it upon themselves to administer baptism. The distribution of baptism, like the Lord's Supper, is a part of the ministry of the church. Christ did not command women, or just anyone, to baptize — He gave this command to those He had appointed as His apostles. And when He commanded His disciples at the Lord's Supper to do what they had seen Him do when He served as the rightful administrator, He plainly meant them to follow His example in this as well. As for the practice — accepted for many centuries, and in a sense from the very beginning of the church — that lay people may baptize in an emergency when no minister is present in time, I do not see how it can be strongly defended. The ancient fathers themselves who either held this view or allowed this practice were uncertain whether it was rightly done. Augustine seems to have had this doubt when he wrote: 'Although a layman compelled by necessity administers baptism, I cannot say whether it is right to repeat it — for if done without necessity, it is usurping another's office; if necessity compels it, it is either no sin or a forgivable one.' Moreover, concerning women, the Council of Carthage decreed without exception that they should not presume to baptize at all. But someone might object that there is danger of a sick person dying without baptism and so being deprived of the grace of regeneration. Not so. God declares that He adopts our infants as His own before they are born, when He promises to be a God to us and to our children after us. Their salvation is contained in that word of promise. No one should dare be so contemptuous toward God as to claim His promise is not sufficient in itself to accomplish its effect. Few people recognize how much damage the poorly interpreted teaching — that baptism is necessary for salvation — has caused, and so they are less careful about it. For where this view has taken hold — that all who have not been washed with water are lost — our situation is worse than that of the people in the Old Testament, as though God's grace were now more narrowly restricted than it was under the law. Under such reasoning, Christ would seem to have come not to fulfill the promises but to abolish them — since the promise that was once sufficient in itself to bring salvation before the eighth day would now be powerless without the help of the sign.

What the custom was before Augustine's time is made clear first from Tertullian, who stated that a woman is not permitted to speak in the church, to teach, to baptize, to offer, or to claim for herself any function belonging to men — let alone to priests. Epiphanius also bears strong witness to this same practice when he rebukes Marcion for giving women the liberty to baptize. I am aware of the objection raised by those who think differently — that common practice differs considerably from an emergency measure when extreme necessity demands it. But when Epiphanius pronounces it a mockery to grant women liberty to baptize and makes no exceptions, it is plain that he condemns this practice as inexcusable under any pretext. In his third book as well, where he teaches that this was not permitted even to the holy mother of Christ, he adds no qualification.

The example of Zipporah is poorly applied here. The angel of God was appeased after she took a stone and circumcised her son — but it is wrongly concluded from this that God approved of what she did. By that same reasoning, one would have to say that the worship set up by the nations brought from Assyria pleased God. There are stronger reasons to show that what a rash woman did should not be made a pattern for others to imitate. It would be enough to point out that it was an exceptional case that should not be made into a general example — and especially that since there is no record anywhere of priests in ancient times receiving a specific command to circumcise, circumcision and baptism are not comparable in this respect. For Christ's words are plain: 'Go, teach all nations, and baptize.' He appointed the same men to be both preachers of the Gospel and ministers of baptism. And as the apostle testifies, no one takes honor upon himself in the church except the one called as Aaron was — so whoever baptizes without a lawful calling is intruding into someone else's office. Even in the smallest matters — such as food and drink — Paul plainly declares that whatever we do with a doubtful conscience is sin. Women baptizing is a far more serious sin, since it clearly breaks the rule Christ established. We know it is unlawful to separate what God has joined together. But I will set all this aside. I simply want readers to notice that Zipporah's intent was anything but to serve God. Seeing her son in danger, she seethed and complained — and not without anger she threw the foreskin on the ground, taunting her husband, even directing her anger at God. It is plain that the whole episode arose from a furious state of mind: she was raging against both God and her husband because she was compelled to shed her son's blood. Furthermore, even if everything else about her conduct had been acceptable, her act of circumcising her son in the presence of her husband is an inexcusable presumption. Her husband was not just any private person — he was Moses, the chief prophet of God, the greatest who ever arose in Israel. What she did was no more lawful for her than it would be today for a woman to perform such an act in the presence of a bishop. In any case, this whole controversy is easily resolved by this principle: infants who die before receiving baptism are not shut out of the kingdom of heaven. It has already been shown that we do serious wrong to God's covenant if we treat it as though it were weak in itself — since its effect depends neither on baptism nor on any other addition. The sacrament is added afterward like a seal — not to supply effectiveness to God's promise as though it were otherwise defective, but only to confirm it to us. From this it follows that the children of the faithful are not baptized in order to become children of God for the first time — as if they were previously strangers to the church. Rather, they are received through a solemn sign into the church because they already belong to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise. Therefore, if the sign is omitted without laziness, contempt, or negligence, we are free from all danger. It is far better — and far holier — to honor God's ordinance by seeking sacraments only where the Lord has placed them. When we cannot receive them from the church, God's grace is not so bound to the sacraments that we cannot obtain it through faith in the word of the Lord.