Wendelin's "Christian Theology": Doctrine of the Gospel and Baptism, Part 3

THESIS XII:  Thus the matter of baptism.  The internal form follows, which is the sacramental relation of the signs and things signified in baptism, consisting in the signification, sealing, and presenting of the thing signified by the signs.  The external form consists in the external rites, instituted by Christ, and used by the Apostles, namely, the pronouncement of certain words, and the sprinkling of the one baptized.

EXPLANATION:  I.  The signification or analogy of the signs and things signified was explained above in the tenth thesis.  The truth of this analogy or similitude is confirmed, and the efficacy of the conjunction of the things signified with the signs, in their legitimate use, is sealed through baptism; to which extent baptism renders us certain, that what is promised in the visible sign and I shown a tangible object is actually applied in a believing soul through baptism.  See Exercitation 87.

II.  We said that the external form of baptism consists in the rites prescribed by Christ, and used by the Apostles.  We have only two rites expressed in Scripture:  Namely, the pronouncement of the words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:  And the immersion in water, which is properly signified by the verb βαπτίζειν, to baptize.  Although in the place of immersion sprinkling was at length employed by the Church, not without apostolic authority, as the opinion of many suggests:  especially since the thing signified is also expressed in the language of sprinkling.  Hebrews 10:22, cleansed by sprinkling on our hearts from an evil conscience.  1 Peter 1:2, elect according to the foreknowledge of God to the sanctification of the Spirit, through the obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

Of old in the baptism of adults, and before it, the Church employed many rites:  of which sort were the declaration of name, the examination, the renunciation, the profession of faith.

Declaration of name was a rite, wherein those that were desiring to be baptized were declaring their names among the other candidates.

The examination was an exam and exploration of progress in Christian doctrine, without which no one was admitted to baptism.

The renunciation was a rite, wherein those to be baptized were declaring, that they renounce the devil and his works.

The profession of faith was the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed:  and the same was demanded of those that were being baptized.

These rites are generally still wont, or are certainly able advantageously, to be applied in the baptism of adults.

But to require of infants in baptism a declaration of name, the renunciation, and profession of faith, and to this end to address them, which is done in the Churches of the Papists, Lutherans, and some Reformed; is plainly preposterous, and appears ridiculous to holy and learned men:  for, in a serious matter no one is wont to address and require a response from those that by age are able neither to understand speech, nor to speak.  Whence it is strange, that this κακοζηλίαν, unhappy affectation, is even now tolerated in Evangelical Churches.

THESIS XIII:  The End of baptism is principal or less principal.

THESIS XIV:  The Principal is to signify, to seal, and sacramentally to present the remission of sins, regeneration, and union with Christ:  which is also followed by the mutual union of the baptized.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Hence we say that we are baptized for the remission of sins, Acts 2:38.  Baptism is also called the washing of regeneration, Titus 3:5.  Finally, our union with Christ is signified and sealed, when those that are baptized into Christ are said to have put on Christ, Galatians 3:27.[1]  This end is attained only by believers:  seeing that, as the Apostles says in that very place, by faith we are in Christ Jesus, and the Children of God, and whoever, being in Christ Jesus, have been baptized, have put on Christ.

II.  Concerning the principal end and effect of baptism, a question is raise between us, the Lutherans, and the Papists:  Whether all infants in the act of external baptism itself are by faith presented to Christ, and are through baptism regenerated?

We defend the negative side of this question.  Not all infants in the act of external baptism itself, and through this external ceremony, are by faith presented to Christ and regenerated.  Indeed, Baptism is not the instrument, whereby faith and regeneration are initiated in infants, in the sense that pleases our adversaries.

The following are the arguments for our opinion:

(1.)  Of old the Apostles only baptized those that were actually believers, or were considered as true believers according to the judgment of charity.

Therefore, their baptism was not the instrument whereby the Holy Spirit began faith and regeneration in the baptized:  and so it is not such an instrument now:  although it is able to happen, that in the very act of Baptism the Holy Spirit begins and effects faith and regeneration.

The antecedent is proven:  (1.)  By the examples of Lydia,[2] Cornelius,[3] the Eunuch,[4] etc., concerning whom the Acts of the Apostles speaks.  (2.)  By the express testimonies of Scripture.  Acts 2:41, those that gladly received his word were baptized; Acts 8:12, when they had believed Philip Evangelizing, there were baptized, both men and women; and in verse 37, Philip says to the Eunuch, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized.

The rationale of the consequence:  because an effect is not prior to its cause.

The Lutherans take exception:

By the Apostles, at the beginning, were baptized only adults that were converted to Christianity.  In those faith was necessarily requisite before baptism.  But different is the case of infants now born of Christians:  In these faith is not required before Baptism, but is begun and effected through Baptism.

Response:  Different indeed is the case of adults and of infants born of Christians, with respect to profession of faith.  For, in the former, a profession of faith is required before baptism:  in the latter, it is not required.  But, with respect to faith itself, the case of adults and of infants is the same.  For, as the former are baptized, because, according to their confession, they were believing, and by faith were in the covenant of God:  so also the latter are to be baptized, who according to the disposition of charity are contemplated as believers and truly covenanted.  Hitherto our first argument.

(2.)  Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.  Therefore, it does not make uncovenanted men covenanted, or unbelievers believers, but rather it declares and confirms them in the grace of the covenant.

The antecedent is proven, by the example of circumcision, which was a sign and seal of the covenant:  But baptism has succeeded circumcision.

The rationale of the consequence is manifest from consideration of circumcision.  For, circumcision did not make them covenanted, but was arguing their covenanted status.  Whence circumcision was administered to Abraham after the initiation of the covenant and the righteousness of faith.[5]

(3.)  Infants are not regenerated by the external word, as an instrumental cause.

Therefore, neither by Baptism.

The rationale of the consequence:  because infants no more understand the ceremony of Baptism than the word of God itself externally pronounced.  But the word and sacrament act in the same manner, namely, by signifying and confirming to the one that believes.

(4.)  Not all adults are regenerated in the external act of Baptism itself.

Therefore, the interior ἐνέργεια/operation of the regenerating Spirit does not always exert itself in the very act of Baptism and in all the baptized, and hence not necessarily in infants.

The antecedent is generally admitted among our adversaries, and it is evident from the example of Simon Magus, who had been baptized, Acts 8:13, which concerning a great many other hypocrites is beyond question.

At this point the Lutherans take exception, that the situation is not the same with respect to adults and infants:  for adults put up a barrier to the Spirit of regeneration, and so they hinder His operation:  infants do not do this.

Response:  If then adults are not regenerated, because the put up a barrier to the operation of the Holy Spirit, it follows, either that absolutely no adults are regenerated, and that the actual depravity of adults is more efficacious that the grace and ἐνέργειαν/operation of the Spirit; or that all that are regenerated are prepared by nature, in such a way that they willingly submit themselves to the Spirit without fighting.  The former is false and absurd, contrary to Scripture and experience:  the latter is plainly Pelagian.

(5.)  If infants by Baptism, as the instrumental cause, are rendered believers, and begin to be regenerated, it follows that before Baptism the infant was not believing and regenerated.

But the consequent is false.  Therefore also the antecedent.

The minor is proven:  because it would follow, that all infants that die before the reception of Baptism are damned:  which our adversaries themselves also admit to be false.

(6.)  Infants are not saved by Baptism, whereby the filth of the flesh is put away.

Therefore, by Baptism neither are they regenerated, namely, in that manner maintained by our adversaries.

The antecedent is proven out of 1 Peter 3:21.

The rationale of the consequence:  Because that which does not have the power to save does not have the power to regenerate.

(7.)  If all infants be regenerated in baptism itself, it would follow that all the baptized are saved.

But the consequent is false:  as the Lutherans themselves admit.

The rationale of the hypothetical:  because those that have been once regenerated, and furnished with true faith, never lose these gifts (as we will prove in the proper place), and hence are not condemned.  See Exercitation 89.

III.  But contrariwise, the Lutherans and Papists believe, that in Baptism all infants, as much reprobates as elect, are gifted with faith in Christ, and are regenerated; and, more particularly, the Papists are indeed of the opinion, that all sin is completely rooted out:  which both parties attempt to prove by the following arguments:

(1.)  Baptism is the laver of regeneration, Titus 3:5.

Therefore, by Baptism all infants are regenerated.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale of the negation:  1.  Because Baptism is the laver of regeneration, by sacramental expression:  not because that external action of the sprinkling of water and pronouncement of words does not begin regeneration, but because it signifies and seals it.  2.  Because it was the laver of regeneration also to the adults converted to Christianity, who were of old baptized by the Apostles, in whom, nevertheless, it did not begin regeneration, but sealed it.  For those already believing and renewed were baptized.

(2.)  From the water of Baptism we are born again.

Therefore, Baptism is the efficacious instrument of rebirth.

The antecedent is proven from John 3:5, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, etc.

Response:  1.  The proof of the antecedent from the passage alleged is not evident:  seeing that by water is not necessarily understood Baptism:  for without external Baptism many enter into the kingdom of God:  but is able to be understood spiritual water, or water, that is, the Spirit.  In which sense the particle καὶ/and, in the words, of water and the Spirit, will not be discretive, but declarative; as is often the case elsewhere.

2.  We readily grant the consequence, if rightly understood.  For we also teach, that baptism is the efficacious instrument of rebirth:  but as an instrument, not through some inherent power, whereby it works after the manner of a physical cause, and without faith exerting itself or being present, it may produce this noble effect:  but after the manner of a cause acting morally:  that is, to that extent that it, after the likeness of the word, by divine ordination exhibits Christ to us with all His benefits, and testifies and confirms that all, receiving in true faith this external and visible symbol, are verily and certainly regenerated, renewed, and cleansed and washed from their sins, because of the blood of Christ, by the power of the Spirit of God; as they verily and certainly see and hear themselves, by this sacramental water, according to the institution of God, to have been, or to be, sprinkled and washed on their bodies.

This confirmation of our faith and sealing of regeneration, begun in us by the Holy Spirit, is not able to happen without an argument of regeneration and sanctification following:  for, in what man faith is more robust, in his case the union with Christ his head is all the closer, and in him the habits of hope and love prove to be all the stronger, and exercise themselves all the more fervently in the study of holiness.  Thus far, therefore, the water of baptism is an efficacious instrument of rebirth, upon which opinion Calvin also writes in his Antidoto:  Baptism is an ordinary instrument of God for washing and renewing us, and for communicating salvation to us.

In this sense the Gospel is also called by Paul, Romans 1:16, the power of God unto salvation, not to every hearer indiscriminately, but to every believer, not indeed that such saving power was introduced by the sound of words, or by figures of letters; for this word did not profit, unless mixed with faith, Hebrews 4:2:  but because the words of the Gospel signify, and efficaciously show, where and how salvation is to be sought; and that, not only as theoretical signs, but also as practical signs, whereby believers obtain the things signified.  From the same direction comes the explanation of the visible word, that is, the sacraments:  only with this difference:  that the word, applied by the Holy Spirit, in adults begins faith and regeneration; but the Sacraments continue and enlarge them.

If baptism were a composite, consisting of elemental water and its external handling, and the blood of Christ and the conjoined ἐνεργείᾳ/operation of the Spirit, as the component parts (which composition, nevertheless, the nature of sacraments does not admit, whence it is not acknowledged by our Theologians; even if between the sacramental water and its natural force, and Christ’s blood and the Spirit’s ἐνέργειαν/operation, a perpetual relation and union, according to Scripture, is acknowledged and declared); we would not contend with our adversaries over the manner of expression, and would also readily allow the inherent power of regeneration to be attributed to baptism.  For, who would deny, that Christ’s blood and Holy Spirit have of themselves the power of regeneration and of cleansing the filth of the soul?  And so by the κοινωνίαν ἰδιωμάτων, communion of idiomata, could be rightly and truly attributed to the whole, what is applicable to it with respect to a part.

At the same time, even if composition, even ἀναλόγως/analogously so called, and in a certain broad manner, be admitted by us; yet it would not follow from this, that to each person baptized are promiscuously applied all the composite parts and the virtue of the parts at the same time:  for, as the parts are altogether divers, so also the organs of receiving them are diverse.  Nor by that union did the Spirit bind Himself to the external element, in such a way that He might will to exercise His salvific ἐνέργειαν/operation with it in every subject, or in no subject without it:  which not even our adversaries dare to affirm, who deny that all adults, in the external act of baptism, are regenerated by the Spirit.

(3.)  All the baptized put on Christ.

Therefore, all are regenerated through baptism.

The antecedent is proven out of Galatians 3:27, as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The rationale of the consequence:  because to put on Christ and to be regenerated are the same thing.

Response to the antecedent:  The Apostle does not say, that all the baptized put on Christ in baptism itself, or through external baptism, as the instrument:  but he speaks only of baptized believers.  For at that time adults, recently converted from Judaism and Gentilism, were being baptized, indeed after they had professed faith in Christ, and had been renewed, according to the judgment of charity.  Whence Philip says to the Eunuch:  If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized, Acts 8:37.  To the Galatians also Paul expressly speaks of those that were the children of God by faith.[6]  Whence it is evident that this rationale has no consequence.  For, what is said of believers, is not able to be applied promiscuously to all.  In the next place, the moment of regeneration is not indicated by the Apostle:  as if in the very act of Baptism it always begins, but Paul speaks indefinitely, that those that have been baptized have put on Christ:  to which pronouncement will correspond its reality, whether before Baptism, or in the very act, or after it, believers put on Christ.  At that time, most were baptized as adults, who all had professed Christ before Baptism:  there were doubtlessly among them may hypocrites, who neither before the act of Baptism, nor in it, nor after it, put on Christ, if to put on Christ is to be engrafted into Christ.

Finally, according to the opinion of others, by an elegant metaphor is Christ able to be said to be put on, through public profession, which of old was made by adults in Baptism:  when in the very act and external rite of Baptism Catechumens were professing, that they had already given up their names to  Christ, and, having put on His innocence as a garment, now dwell in the Church, and go forth in the sight of God.  But then, from this manner of putting on Christ to internal regeneration and its moment, there will be no firm consequence.  As an example let Simon Magus stand, who, although as black as a Raven, displayed the white garment of innocence.[7]

(4.)  Infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

Therefore, sins are remitted through baptism in that sense maintained by the Papists.

Response:  I deny the Consequence.  The rationale:  because to be baptized for the remission of sins is to be confirmed concerning the remission of sins through baptism.  Thus of old were adults baptized by the Apostles for the remission of sins, which they had received by faith before baptism.  So also was John preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins, Mark 1:4.  Yet he was only baptizing those that had previously professed repentance, and had believed the Gospel, verse 15.

Note:  The Infants of Christians believe before Baptism, as the practice of the Lutherans testifies, who do not baptize infants until they confess their faith through their Sponsors.  Whence Luther in his Kirchen Postilla, It is proper that infants believe before Baptism, or the Sponsors pretend.  Likewise:  Baptism is not to be conferred upon anyone, unless he believes for himself.  See our Exercitations.

THESIS XV:  The less principal is:  (1.)  the separation of the Church from all idolatrous assemblies; (2.)  the obligation to yield faith and obedience to God; (3.)  the testimony of the obligation, whereby the baptized are mutually bound together; (4.)  the signifying and confirming of entrance and reception into the Church.

EXPLANATION:  These ends are evident from the Scripture:

(1.)  Separation, from a comparison of baptism with circumcision.  For, as of old the latter was:  so also the former now is the sign of the covenant, and the mark of the covenanted.

(2.)  Obligation to faith and obedience:  because it is called the baptism of repentance, Mark 1:4; and we are said to be buried with Christ by baptism, so that we might walk in newness of life with Him, who was raised from the dead, Romans 6:4.

(3.)  Testimony of the obligation to the mutual duties of charity:  because all are said to be baptized into one body, 1 Corinthians 12:13.

(4.)  Signification of entrance and reception into the Church:  because of old baptism was by the Apostles bestowed upon adults, as soon as they gave up their names to Christ, and professed themselves to be members of the Church:  as it is evident from the examples of the Eunuch, Cornelius, Lydia the seller of purple, Paul, etc., Acts 8; 10; 16.

THESIS XVI:  Hitherto the causes of baptism.  An adjunct of this is the necessity whereby baptism is necessary for adults embracing Christianity, and professing faith; and for the infants of Christians:  not indeed absolutely, but upon supposition of the divine will and ordination, if they are able to be made sharers of it.

EXPLANATION:  I.  Baptism is necessary, not with an absolute necessity, as if without baptism no one could be saved:  but with a hypothetical necessity, or upon supposition of the divine will and ordination.  For, it was pleasing to God that the thing signified, that is, the washing away of sins, be sealed with the external baptism of water to the citizens and members of His Church.  Yet, thus positing the divine will, baptism is necessary, in such a way that, not privation, but the contempt of it, is able to harm:  according to the common rule, Not the privation of the sacrament, but its contempt, condemns.  But this contempt does not fall upon infants, who are not yet able to make use of reason:  neither upon those adults that desire and seek baptism, although they are by no means able to be made the partakers of it.  And so neither the former nor the latter are going to be condemned, if they depart this life without external baptism.

This opinion is proven by the following arguments:

(1.)  That even the Papists themselves affirm that of old many Martyrs were saved with baptism:  neither do the Lutherans condemn, that is, doom to damnation, the infants of Christians dying without baptism:  which, nevertheless, they are altogether able and ought to do, if no one is able to be saved without external baptism.

(2.)  That from the Scripture it is evident, that faith, justification, and regeneration precede baptism in many cases:  all which of old were the Apostles requiring in the baptism of adults.  But who is so insane, that he would dare to damn one justified and regenerated, if perhaps opportunity for external baptism was not available to him, through unexpected death, or other impediments.

(3.)  That the seal of the covenant of itself does not make one covenanted, but declares it to be so.  Whence, with Abraham already covenanted, circumcision was given:  may it never be, therefore, that privation of the seal might be able to exclude one covenanted from the covenant.

(4.)  That the means simply necessary for salvation, which are ministered by men, are able to be applied to all men.  But baptism is not able to be applied to all:  seeing that many die in utero materno.

II.  In favor of a categorical and absolute necessity of baptism, the Papists and others argue in this way:

(1.)  Regeneration and renovation of the Holy Spirit is categorically necessary for salvation.

Therefore, baptism is also.

The Antecedent is beyond controversy.

The rationale of the consequence:  because baptism is the laver and efficacious instrument of regeneration, Titus 3:5.

Response:  I deny the consequence:  the proof is inconsequent.  For, by the same rationale it could be gathered, that the preaching of the Gospel is categorically necessary for salvation:  for it is the power of God unto salvation, Romans 1:16; and also the efficacious instrument of regeneration, 1 Peter 1:21.  But infants do not need the preaching of the Gospel for regeneration.  Therefore, although these are efficacious instruments of regeneration, yet the Spirit of regeneration is not so bound to them, that He never begins and perfects the work of regeneration without them.  The Papists themselves acknowledge, that the baptism of fire all by itself is also sufficient for salvation.

At this point, the words of Christ have to be contemplated properly, Mark 16:16, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:  but he that believeth not shall be damned.  If the necessity of faith and baptism were equal, then Christ would have said, that as much those that are not baptized as those that believe not are going to be damned.  But this is false:  For, as He says in the antecedent member, he that believeth and is baptized, not so in the consequent member, he that believeth not and is not baptized, etc., but only, he that believeth not, shall be damned.

(2.)  Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God, John 3:5.

Therefore, external baptism is categorically and absolutely necessary to all for salvation.

Response:  I deny the consequence.  The rationale:  because in the passage alleged by water is not understood the baptism of water, or the sacrament of baptism, but the thing signified by the baptism of water, namely, spiritual water, which is the Holy Spirit.  The rationale of our interpretation is this:  that the water, of which Christ makes mention is categorically necessary for salvation:  But the elemental water of external baptism, as far as it has the form of a sacrament, is not simply necessary, as we proved by the four arguments above.  Whence, as we previously said, the more prudent Papists themselves admit, that the baptism of flame is sufficient, if the baptism of flumen is not able to be had.  Therefore, by the terms water and Spirit one and the same thing is signified by Christ, but with a certain significance:  for, by water is signified the efficacy of the Spirit in purging the filth of our souls.  In what sense Baptism is wont to be distinguished into external and internal, I have shown against the cavils of the Lutherans in Exercitation 58, § 27, 88, § 10.

Those conceding that by water is understood Baptism, nevertheless deny the consequence:  because, even if the copula conjoins certain things, it does not thereby cause them to be of the same condition and necessity.  And our adversaries themselves acknowledge that Baptism is not so necessary for life as the Holy Spirit, because without the latter none are saved, but without the former many.

* III.  The Arminians deny that pædobaptism is necessary by necessity of precept:  but they hold it as an indifferent ceremony.  Evangelicals and Papists rightly condemn this also opinion with the following arguments:

(1.)  The promise of the covenant was made to the infants of those covenanted.  Therefore, by necessity of divine precept, they are to be baptized, Acts 2:39.  For to the promise is adjoined the precept, Acts 2:38, repent and be baptized every one of you.

(2.)  The infants of Christians and believers are members of the church.  Therefore, baptism is necessary for them by precept.  For they are in covenant, no less than the adults, Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:38.  To them is promised communion in the church triumphant, Mark 10:14:  the proper goods of the church are held in common with them, the remission of sin, regeneration, and eternal life, Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33, 34; Hebrews 8:8, 9.

(3.)  The infants of Christians converted out of Gentilism to Christianity are also part of the nations, which Christ commands to be baptized, Matthew 28:19.  For infants of the covenanted are also part of the covenanted.

(4.)  Of old were the infants of Jews to be circumcised by necessity of precept.  Therefore, by the same necessity the infants of Christians are to be baptized.  Because baptism has succeeded circumcision, and altogether agrees with circumcision in the thing signified and effect.

IV.  Among the adjuncts of baptism the Papists and Lutherans number Exorcism:  which is an adjuration of the devil in baptism, whereby, with the sign of the cross made, the evil spirit is commanded to go out from the infant, and to yield the place to the Holy Spirit, in these words:  Go out, unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Spirit.

That this Exorcism is not at all endured in baptism, the Orthodox contend, and prove with these arguments:

(1.)  That it was not instituted by Christ.  But ceremonies are not to be forged and fixed to the sacraments according to the will of men.

(2.)  That it was not used by the Apostles, as a ceremony of baptism.

(3.)  That ancient Exorcism requires the faith of miracles in the one adjuring, or the gift of working miracles:  which our adversaries are not able to claim for themselves.

(4.)  That it is a vain ceremony, which is without effect.

(5.)  That it is a ludicrous ceremony, in which the Exorcists confer with Satan, whose presence cannot be evident to them.

(6.)  That it is a lying ceremony, in which the Exorcists arrogate to themselves power over the demon; which, nevertheless, they do not have:  and the falsely traduce the infants of Christians, as if they were possessed by the devil; while, nevertheless, the devil often has more of a right in the exorcist than the in infant to be baptized.

(7.)  That it is an impious ceremony, being conjoined with the abuse of the divine name.

V.  The Papists judge exorcism to be altogether necessary in baptism.  The Lutherans hold it as a indifferent ceremony, which it is lawful to employ or to omit.  Whence it is not employed in some Churches of the Lutherans.

Yet the majority fight for the retention of Exorcism with these arguments:

(1.)  Exorcism flourished in the times of the Apostles, and was used by them.

Therefore, it ought also to be used now in baptism.

Response:  1.  To the antecedent:  exorcism flourished in the times of the Apostles, but not as some ceremony of baptism; neither was it employed in the case of infants, but rather of adults, who had been possessed bodily; neither were those bodily possessed admitted to baptism, except after they were delivered.

2.  I deny the consequence.  Because in the times of the Apostles and in the primitive Church the gift of working miracles flourished:  to which was also pertaining the power of casting out evil demons from the possessed.  But this give no longer flourishes in the Church.

(2.)  Infants were possessed spiritually by the Devil, that is, they are detained as captives in the kingdom of darkness, under sin.

Therefore, so that they might be delivered thence, exorcism is to be employed.

Response:  1.  To the antecedent.  That all infants are spiritually possessed, in such a way that they are held captive by the Devil, is false:  because through Christ infants are no less redeemed and sanctified through the Spirit, than adults.  God did not enter upon the covenant of grace only with parents; but also with their children.

2.  I deny the consequence, for three reasons:

              1.  Because for deliverance from spiritual possession exorcism was employed neither by the Apostles, nor by the Doctors of the primitive Church; and so in this respect it is without divine mandate, without promise, without approved examples.

              2.  Because those merely bodily possessed are not able to be delivered through exorcism:  Therefore, much less those spiritually possessed.  The rationale:  because it is more difficult to cast Satan from the soul than from the body.

              3.  Because adults spiritually possessed are not delivered through exorcism:  Therefore, neither should this deliverance be attempted in the case of infants through exorcism.

(3.)  Exorcism furnishes useful reminders of the wickedness of original sin, concerning the dominion of Satan in those unrenewed, concerning deliverance from the kingdom of Satan through Christ.  Therefore, it is to be employed in Baptism.

Response:  1.  To the antecedent.  Exorcism furnishes those reminders, according to an institution of men, not of God:  for God reminds us of all those through His word and sacraments, not through exorcism.  But it is not lawful for men at will to invent bodily signs of spiritual things or promises, nor to fasten them to the sacraments.

2.  I deny the consequence; from the reason just now alleged.  Because no ceremony, forged out of the will of men, or of old used with another end, is to be sewn onto baptism:  but we are to have regard to the institution of Christ and the example of the Apostles:  see Exercitation 90.

VI.  Finally, among the adjuncts of baptism is also to be referred the circumstance of time, wherein baptism is to be applied.  Of old in the Church of the Fathers baptism was sometimes delayed for many years.  Constantine delayed baptism to the last moments of life without the reprehension of the Bishops.  Gregory Nazianzen,[8] son of a Bishop, was not baptized before maturity.  Others judged that infants were to be baptized finally in the third year, among whom were Nazianzen and Tertullian.

But rightly do the Theologians of our times judge; that baptism of infants is not to be long delayed without a grave and compelling reason.

(1.)  Because of old circumcision ought not to have been delayed beyond the eighth day by law:  even because it was the sacrament of initiation, of no less efficacy than baptism.

(2.)  Because a longer delay is hardly able to be cleared from contempt of this sacrament.  Whence Theologians do not at all approve of longer delays, contracted especially because of external arrangements.

(3.)  Because that scrupulous delay is opposed to zeal for the glory of God, and to the consolation of the parents.

[1] Galatians 3:27:  “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ (ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε).”

[2] Acts 16:11-15.

[3] Acts 10.

[4] Acts 8:26-40.

[5] See Romans 4:9-12.

[6] Galatians 3:26.

[7] Acts 8:9-25.

[8] Gregory of Nazianzus (330-389) was Archbishop of Constantinople, and a doctor of the Church, known as the Trinitarian Theologian.