Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Gospel and Baptism, Part 2

THESIS IV:  Baptism is the prior sacrament of the New Testament, whereby those that are in God’s covenant are sprinkled and washed with water by a minister of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, in the name of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for the internal cleansing of the soul from sins, which happens by operation of the Holy Spirit, because of the blood of Christ alone, and also to signify, seal, and confer communion with Christ, and reception into the Church of Christ.

EXPLANATION:  See Exercitation 84.

THESIS V:  Baptism’s causes and adjuncts are to be considered.

THESIS VI:  The efficient of Baptism is either principal or instrumental.

THESIS VII:  The principal efficient is Christ, who instituted Baptism, and confirmed it with a word of promise and of command.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Let the history of the institution of Baptism be views in Matthew 28:19.

The word of command is:  Go ye and baptize.  The word of promise is:  He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.[1]

II.  Now, Christ instituted Baptism, not in His own name alone, but also in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.  Whence He commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:  that is, by the command and authority of the Most Holy Trinity.  Although this expression, to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, also signifies something more, namely, that in the sacrament of Baptism the three persons of the Deity testify, that they receive us into favor, and actually furnish the benefits that are signified and sealed by the external symbols; we also in turn promise faith, worship, and obedience to the Most Holy Trinity.

THESIS VIII:  The instrumental efficient is the person that administers the Baptism instituted by Christ, namely, a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called to preach the Gospel.

EXPLANATION:  I.  The first minister of the Gospel in the New Testament, who administered Baptism, was John, called the Baptist on account of this administration, Mark 1:4.  Now, it was called the Baptism of John, not because John instituted it by his own authority, but because he was the first, who administered this ceremony at the command of God, and in particular, of Christ, John 1:33.  Whence the Baptism of John is said to be from heaven, Mark 11:30.  Neither was the baptism afterwards administered by the Apostles of greater efficacy than that of John:  although the Papists assert the contrary.

We have the following arguments for our opinion:

(1.)  Because it was the washing of water unto repentance and remission of sins, divinely instituted by Christ for the Christian Church; as it is evident from Matthew 3:11; John 1:33; Mark 1:4.

(2.)  Because Christ, who made use of the ordinary sacraments of the Old and New Testaments, was Himself baptized by John, Mark 1:9.

II.  The Papists take exception:

(1.)  The Baptism of John was instituted by John.

Therefore, it was not a sacrament of the new law.

The antecedent is evident:  because it is everywhere called in Scripture the baptism of John.

Response:  Baptism was instituted by someone, either as the ultimate author, or as the minister of the ultimate author.  The antecedent is denied concerning the ultimate author; the consequence, concerning the minister of the ultimate author:  For the Law was also given through Moses,[2] which nevertheless was divine.  The Baptism of John was in such a way that it was from heaven at the same time, Mark 11:30.

(2.)  John baptized with water, but Christ baptized in the Holy Spirit, Matthew 3:11.

Therefore, the baptism of John was far less efficacious than that of Christ, or, which was instituted by Christ.

Response:  The consequence is denied.  The rationale:  because in the passage alleged the baptisms are not distinguished, but rather the baptizers.  The same thing was in the baptism of John that was in the baptism of Christ, even if the whole was not conferred by John.

(3.)  Those that were baptized by John were baptized again with the baptism of Christ, at the command of Paul.

Therefore, the efficacy of both baptisms was not the same.

The antecedent is proven:  Acts 19:3-5.

Response:  The antecedent is false, and is not proven from the passage alleged, the sense of which is:  John, who administered the baptism of repentance, commanded the people to believe upon the Christ to come; those that heard him were baptized in the name of Jesus (understand, by John), upon whom afterwards Paul laid hands.  Yet some of the Evangelicals think, that they were baptized again, because previously baptism had not been lawfully administered to them:  for it had been administered to adults that did not know the principia of the faith:  and had been administered by one that was not competent for this office, and who had not made use of baptism’s form of words.

III.  Christ commanded the administration of baptism to all His disciples, and to the legitimate successors of those in the ministry of the word, Matthew 28:19.

It is asked here:  Whether it is permitted to women and laics also, that is, to those that were not called to the Ministry of the Word, to baptize infants?

We answer in the negative, and that for the following reasons:

(1.)  It is not permitted to women to teach publicly in the Church.  Therefore, neither to administer the sacrament of baptism.

The antecedent comes from Paul, 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11.

The rationale of the consequence:  because public teaching and the administration of the sacraments pertain to the same office.

(2.)  It is not permitted to Women and Laics to administer the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore, neither is it permitted to them to administer baptism.

Our adversaries concede the antecedent, although Heshusen grants the power of the administration of the Supper to laics also, in Decade 3, of Bidenbach,[3] page 117.

The rationale of the consequence:  because, to whom it is permitted to administer one sacrament, to the same it is also permitted to administer the other:  and, contrariwise, to whom it is not permitted to administer one, to the same it is not lawful to administer the other.

(3.)  Woman and laics are not lawfully called to the administration of the sacrament.

Therefore, it is not lawful for them to administer it.

The antecedent is evident, because they were called neither immediately by God, nor mediately through the magistrate at the command of God.

(4.)  There is no necessity compelling women and laics to undertake baptism.

Therefore, that baptism is not to be permitted.

The antecedent is proven:  1.  Because the baptism of woman and laics does not rest upon a divine command.  2.  Because the blessing of regeneration is not tied to external baptism; indeed, it is conferred by the Holy Spirit, before or after baptism.

(5.)  Epiphanius[4] testifies, that γυναικοβάπτισμα, the baptism of women, belongs to Marcionite heretics,[5] not to Orthodox Christians.

IV.  The contrary opinion is defended by Lutherans and Papists, whose arguments for the baptism of women and laics are as follows:

(1.)  Circumcision was also administered by women, as by Zipporah, the wife of Moses, Exodus 4:25.  And by the Maccabean women, 1 Maccabees 1:60, 61,[6] without the disapproval of God.

Therefore, neither is the baptism administered by women in the case of necessity disapproved by God.

Response:  1.  I deny the antecedent.  For it is not able to be proven from Scripture; that the circumcision administered by women was approved by God, or that that deed of women was not disapproved:  seeing that Scripture only relates the deed, but silently passes over the judgement of God concerning the circumstances of the deed.  And it was able to happen, that the deed might not be distinctly disapproved by God; yet the curiosity and untimely solicitude of women casting their sickle into another’s harvest might displease.

2.  I deny the consequence.  The reason for the negation:  because, with respect to administration, the manner of circumcision is one thing, but of baptism another.  For, of old God did not by express law conjoin the administration of circumcision with the public office of teaching, as Christ did the administration of baptism in the New Testament.  Thus there was also far greater liberty in the celebration of Passover, than presently in the administration of the sacred supper:  which are adversaries are not able to deny.

(2.)  Of old women in the Old Testament attended to the public ministry of teaching.

Therefore, they are also able to administer the sacrament of baptism now in the New Testament.

The antecedent is proven from the examples of Prophetesses, Deborah,[7] Huldah,[8] and Hannah.[9]

Response:  I deny the consequence.  (1.)  Because in the New Testament it is not permitted to women to teach in the Church, and so also to administer the sacraments, 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11.  (2.)  Because in the Old Testament women were immediately called by God to the teaching office as Prophetesses:  in the New Testament women do not have a vocation of this sort.

(3.)  It is permitted to women to console the dying with the word of God.

Therefore, it is also permitted to them to administer the sacraments.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale of the negation:  because the consolation of the dying is a private action, which with no discrimination is competent to both sexes:  the administration of the sacraments is a public action, which is competent only to ministers of the word, lawfully called, no less than the administration of the Lord’s Supper, which neither the Lutherans nor the Papists permit to women and laics.

(4.)  If infants, dying without baptism, are not regenerated, it follows, that, in the case of threatening death, with no minister of the word present, it is permitted to women to baptize infants, so that they might be regenerated in this way.

But the former is true:  Therefore also the latter.

The minor is proven:  because baptism is the laver of regeneration.

Response:  I deny the minor:  the proof is inconsequent:  for baptism is called the laver of regeneration, not because regeneration is begun by virtue of external baptism, or is even perfected in infants, but because it is signified and sealed by it, whether regeneration by the Holy Spirit occur before baptism, or in it, or after it.

Note:  In the baptism of women necessity is commonly pretended.  Whence in German it is called Nottaufe, Emergency Baptism.  Now, it is to be understood, that there is no such necessity that ought to impel us to the violation of the divine law.  But that opinion of necessity arises from a false hypothesis, as if regeneration were bound to external baptism, and does not come to infants through the Holy Spirit without it.  Concerning the falsity of this hypothesis, we will see in its place.

(5.)  Ananias baptized Paul, Acts 9:17, 18.

But Ananias was a laic.

Therefore, one laic baptized; and, consequently, there is no absolute prohibition against laics baptizing.

The minor is proven:  Because, as Bellarmine testifies, before the baptism of Paul, besides the Apostles, there were not Bishops or Priests.

Response:  1.  I deny the minor.  The authority of Bellarmine is not at all sufficient to prove it.  Indeed, we rather deny that Ananias was a laic, even by this very argument, that he baptized.  But another argument is at hand:  Whoever has been immediately called by God to perform an Ecclesiastical and sacred function, he ought not to be esteemed as a laic:  But Ananias was immediately called by God to confer baptism upon Paul, Acts 9:11, 15, 17.

2.  If the baptism of Laics rests upon this example of Ananias; it follows, that it is lawful for laics to baptize even without a case of necessity.  The rationale:  because there was at that time no necessity pressing upon Paul to receive baptism:  except by reason of the particular divine command:  see Exercitation 85.

THESIS IX:  Hitherto the efficient.  The matter of baptism is of which and concerning which.

THESIS X:  The matter of which baptism consists is either external, obvious to the eyes, which bears the relation of a sign, and it is, (1.)  Water, (2.)  immersion or sprinkling:  or internal, invisible to the eyes, which is the thing signified, and is, (1.)  the Blood of Christ.  (2.)  Cleansing from sins, or regeneration, which comes to us through and because of the blood of Christ shed for us.  (3.)  The closest possible union of us with Christ.

EXPLANATION:  I.  And so in baptism the water signifies the blood of Christ:  because, as water has the power to wash away the filth of the body; so the blood of Christ has the power to wash away spiritual filth, that is, sin:  For the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin, 1 John 1:7.

Immersion in, or sprinkling with, water signifies the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, that is, or cleansing through the blood of Christ.  The same immersion also signifies our spiritual union with Christ.  For, as water is united with the bodies of the baptized by external contact:  so also the blood of Christ, and so Christ Himself, is united with our souls by the Holy Spirit and faith.

II.  Eckhard, in his fasciculo, chapter 19, question 7, says, that the Calvinists do not speak from the heart, when they thus form the sacramental analogy:  Just as water washes away the filth of the body, so the blood of Christ washes away the filth of the soul, and cleanses from sins.

The argument, whereby this unjust man impugns our consciences, is of this sort:

If the blood of Christ does not possess divine properties and operations, cleansing from sins will not be able to be attributed to it.

But the former is true, according to the doctrine of the Calvinists.

Therefore also the latter.

The Hypothetical is proven:  Because cleansing from sins is one of the divine properties and operations.

Response:  What an audacious man! who dares to assail whole Churches with so weak an argument, and to accuse so many pious and religious men of deceit!

Therefore, we deny the consequence of the hypothetical.  The proof is not true in a simple way.  Cleansing from sin is not either a divine characteristic, or a divine operation so called in particular; but it is an ἀποτέλεσμα/product, or work, of the Mediator, to which both natures that belong to Him contribute, namely, the divine, as far as it belongs to the divine nature, and the human, as far as it belongs to the human nature:  not the divine, as far as it belongs to the human nature, nor the human, as far as it belongs to the divine nature; as we have shown in its place.  Therefore, let Eckhard keep his weak paralogism to himself, and not accuse those of lying, who do not hold his peculiar hypotheses as common principles.

THESIS XI:  The Matter concerning which baptism is conversant, or by whom it is received, according to the institution of Christ, are all and only those men that are credibly reckoned in the covenant of grace:  which sort are:  (1.)  Adults converted to Christianity from Judaism or Gentilism, catechized in Christian doctrine, and having professed in the Church repentance and faith.  (2.)  Infants born of Christian parents.  To either group it is administered only once.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Those that are strangers from the covenant of God,[10] of which sort are Jews and Gentiles, are not to be baptized, as long as they remain in Judaism and Gentilism, as also their infants.  The reason:  Because baptism is a sign and seal of the Gospel covenant, which God made with us in the exhibited Mediator.  Therefore, upon those that are strangers from this covenant is not to be conferred the sign of the covenant.  But Jews and Gentiles that despise the covenant are strangers.  Thus of old neither were those that were strangers to the Jewish religion and to the covenant that God made with Abraham were admitted o circumcision.

Even infants Exposed, illegitimately born, of the Excommunicated, and of Papists, are to be admitted to baptism, but with this caution, that they have suitable sponsors, or others, who would take upon themselves their pious education.

II.  It is a question between us and the Anabaptists:  Whether infants, born of Christian parents, are to be baptized?  We affirm.  The Anabaptists deny.

The arguments for our affirmation are as follows:

(1.)  Infants also pertain to God’s covenant and kingdom.  Genesis 17:7, I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.  Matthew 19:14, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come to me:  for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, the seal of the covenant, baptism, ought not to be denied to them.  But exception is taken at this point:

If then baptism is to be conferred upon infants, because it is the sign of the covenant, and they themselves are covenanted:  it follows, that the flesh of the Lord is also to be extended to them, which is also a sign of the covenant.

But the consequent is false:  Therefore also the antecedent.

Response:  A false hypothesis is assumed:  namely, that according to our opinion whatever sign of the covenant, without any limitation or exclusion, is to be applied to those covenanted.  But this is not our view:  but we speak of a certain and definite sign:  which is peculiarly the sign of reception into covenant, or of initiation, and which is able to be received in passivity, without external or internal action.  Baptism alone is a sign of this sort:  But the Lord’s Supper is not, which requires many actions, both internal and external.

(2.)  Infants are able to receive the Holy Spirit, and the substance signified by baptism, namely, the cleansing from sins through the blood of Christ.

Therefore, they are also able to receive baptism:  which as a sign ought not to be denied to them.

The antecedent is proven by the example of Jeremiah the Prophet, while yet an infant, Jeremiah 1:5.

(3.)  By baptism are distinguished the infants of Christians from the infants of unbelieve Jews and Gentiles.

Therefore, Baptism is not to be denied to them.

(4.)  Under the Old Testament infants were circumcised.

Therefore, under the New they ought also to be baptized.

The rationale of the consequence:  because meaning of baptism in the New Testament is the same as the meaning of circumcision in the Old.[11]

(5.)  Christ commanded that all nations be baptized.[12]

Therefore also infants, who are comprehended under all nations.

At this point are wont to be alleged examples of entire families baptized by the Apostles, in which undoubtedly were infants, Acts 16:15; 1 Corinthians 1:16.  But it did not seem good to us to make use of this argument.

(6.)  The Universal Church, which immediately followed the Apostolic Church, baptized infants.  Therefore, it is not doubtful, that it, moved by the authority of Scripture and Apostolic practice, did this.

III.  The Anabaptists, so called because they baptize again baptized infants after they have grown up, deny that infants are to be baptized by these arguments:

(1.)  Christ commands those that are baptized to be taught, in these words:  Go and teach.

But infants are not able to be taught.

Therefore, they ought not to be baptized.

Response:  The major premise is not universally true.  The commandment to teach (although the verb μαθητεύειν[13] is not to teach, but to make a disciple) pertains only to adults, who were capable of receiving doctrine, and were at length to be converted to Christianity, as yet strangers to the covenant of God.  The account is different with respect to Christian infants, who were born of those covenanted.

Should anyone contend, that the commandment of God is universal, concerning the teaching of all that are to be baptized, without any damage to the cause that is able to be conceded in a sound sense, namely, that all are to be taught and to be baptized; yet not at the same time are both necessary in all.  Therefore, they that are capable of receiving doctrine are to be taught before they are baptized; but those that are not capable of receiving it, like infants, are to be taught after they have been baptized and have grown up:  as those that of old were not able to be taught before circumcision were taught after circumcision.

(2.)  In the time of the Apostles none were baptized, unless they had been first thoroughly instructed concerning the divine mysteries, and had publicly professed faith.

Therefore, neither ought they now to be baptized, except those that have previously been imbued with teaching.

Response:  The antecedent is not able to be proven from the Scripture of the New Testament.  For, even if examples of pædobaptism were not portrayed in the history of the New Testament; nevertheless, from that it would not follow that there were none.  Thereupon the consequence is also denied, because the manner of the times was diverse.  When the Apostles were sent forth into the world and were baptizing, there were not Christian infants, but only Jewish and Gentile:  when adults only embraced or had embraced the new Christianity.  But now a great many infants are born of Christians.

(3.)  Infants are not able to be regenerated, as long as they are infants.

Therefore, baptism, which is the laver of regeneration, is not to be conferred upon infants.

Response:  I deny the antecedent.  For, even if infants be not regenerated in the same manner and with the same means wherewith adults are regenerated; yet their regeneration by the Holy Spirit is not impossible:  even if perhaps the manner is not able to be investigated by us.

(4.)  Infants do not believe.

Therefore, they are not to be baptized.

Response:  The antecedent is not true in a simple way.  For, even if they do not believe in perfection, as adults do, yet they believe by inclination, with the Holy Spirit disposing and preparing their minds and wills:  which is able to be done even without the use of reason.

IV.  It is asked:  Why is Baptism to be conferred on one and the same man only once, while the Eucharist is conferred frequently?

Response:  Baptism is the sacrament of initiation:  the Lord’s Supper, of nourishment and growth.  Therefore, as the beginning of spiritual life through regeneration happens only once, and reception into the covenant only once:  So the sacrament of these things is to be conferred only once.  On the other hand, as we have need throughout all of life to have spiritual nourishment continued:  so it is also needful for us to have its sacrament, as a means, frequently repeated.

[1] Mark 16:16.

[2] John 1:17; 7:19.

[3] Felix Bidenbach (1564-1612) was a German Lutheran theologian and churchman.

[4] The profound erudition of Epiphanius (c. 310-403) led to his installation as Bishop of Salamis.  He was something of a heresy hunter, combating Apollinaris, the disciples of Origen, and even at one point Chrysostom.

[5] Panarion, heresy XLII.

[6] 1 Maccabees 1:60, 61:  “At which time according to the commandment they put to death certain women, that had caused their children to be circumcised (τὰς γυναῖκας τὰς περιτετμηκυίας τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν, that had circumcised their children).  And they hanged the infants about their necks, and rifled their houses, and slew them that had circumcised them.”

[7] Judges 4; 5.

[8] 2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chronicles 34:22-28.

[9] 1 Samuel 1; 2.

[10] Ephesians 2:12.

[11] See Colossians 2:11-14.

[12] Matthew 28:19.

[13] Matthew 28:19:  “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”