But as concerning the newly-instructed Christians, they came in the old time from the Gentiles daily unto the church, whom these did instruct in the principles of faith, being ignorant therein, and afterward baptized them. But the ancient fathers themselves nevertheless baptized also the infants of the faithful; which anon we will declare.
Neither do they lawfully gather, when they conclude in this sort: He which shall believe, and be baptized, shall be saved; infants do not believe; therefore they are not to be baptized. For again, it is certain that it is spoken of them i that be of perfect age, as in Matthew. And because he requireth faith and confession of faith of those that are of 25—2
perfect age, it doth not follow thereupon that he requireth the same of infants. For he accounteth these as his own of his mere grace and free promise, without their confession. So that of the contrary part we do thus reason: They that believe are to be baptized: (which the very adversaries also do confess:) infants do believe; for God reckoneth them in the number of the faithful, which I have afore manifestly proved: therefore infants are to be baptized.
They object, that infants understand not the mystery of baptism; and therefore, that it is not only repugnant to otha peligion, but to common sense and reason, to baptize infants; for to baptize an infant is to baptize a log, since neither of them hath the use of reason. But these filthy knaves let their tongues run at random against the very majesty of God. God commanded to circumcise the infants; and circumeision containeth high mysteries, which infants understand not. But hath God ordained anything against reason and common sense? Go, ye false knaves, go with your blasphemies to the place which you deserve! It is a most filthy deed, yea, and more than barbarous, in that ye compare infants to logs; for what great store God setteth by infants, we taught you already before out of the gospel. But men, which now begin to have the use of sound reason, are diligently and earnestly to be taught and admonished to remember they are baptized, and to endeavour, by calling on the name of the Lord, in all points to be answerable in life and conversation to their promise and profession. For Abraham instructed his son Isaac, and all the holy fathers their children. 4 But letting pass these brainsick, frantic, and foul-mouthed is of railers, who (as we have heard) never want words to wrangle, vap- though we have had never so much, never so often, and never oo earnest conference with them?; let us proceed to declare in a few but yet manifest arguments, that infants are to be baptized, and that the apostles of Christ our Lord have baptized infants. The Lord commanded to baptize all nations,
[1 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, For so. Ita vero, Lat.] [2 Bullinger had many conferences with anabaptists during his]
[pastorate at Bremgarten; and in the years 1525, 1527, 1531, and 1532,]
[public disputations with them were specially held in Zurich, Basle,]
[Berne, and other neighbouring towns.—Bulling. adv. Anabap. Lib. 1.]
[capp. 5—T7.]]
and therefore infants; for they are comprehended under the word of “all nations.” Again, whomsoever God reckoneth among the faithful are faithful: for Peter in a vision heareth: “That which God hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean.” God reckoneth infants among the faithful; therefore they are faithful: except we had rather resist God, and seem to be stronger than he. And now we count it out of all controversy, that the apostles of Christ baptized them, whom Christ commanded to baptize: but he commanded to baptize the faithful; therefore the apostles baptized infants.
The gospel is greater than baptism: for Paul saith, “The Lord sent me to preach the gospel, and not to baptize.” Not that he did absolutely deny that he was not sent to baptize, but because he preferred doctrine; for the Lord commended them both to his apostles. Furthermore, in the gospel children are received of God, and not refused: who then, unless he be willingly obstinate, can debar them from the less? In sacraments the thing signified and the sign are considered. The thing signified is the excellenter; from that infants are not debarred. Who, then, will deny them the sign? Truly, the holy sacraments of God are more esteemed by the word than the sign. By the word we gather, that women are not excluded from the supper of the Lord. Although therefore we read not that they were in the first institution, and set at the first table of the Lord, neither that there is any express law which commandeth us to admit them to the supper; yet nevertheless, without fear or doubt, by a perfect argument? we admit them.
St Peter could not deny them the baptism of water, to whom he saw the Holy Ghost to be given, which is an assured token of God’s people; for he saith in the Acts of the Apostles: “” Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Wherefore the holy apostle Peter denied not baptism to infants. For he knew assuredly, even by the doctrine of his Lord and Master (that I may speak nothing now of the everlasting covenant of God), that the kingdom of heaven is of infants. No man is received into the kingdom of heaven, unless he be the friend of God; and these are not destitute of the Spirit of God: “For he which hath not the Spirit of
[3 syllogismo, Lat
Christ, the same is none of his.” Children are God’s; therefore they have the Spirit of God. Therefore, if they have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we; if they be accounted among the people of God, as well as we that be grown in age; who, I pray you, can forbid these to be baptized with water in the name of the Lord? At the first the apostles murmured, being then not sufficiently instructed, against them that brought infants unto the Lord. But the Lord rebuked them, and said: “Suffer little children to come unto me.” Why then do not the rebellious anabaptists obey the commandment of the Lord? For what other thing do they at this day, which bring children unto baptism, than that which they in times past did, which brought infants unto the Lord? And the Lord received them, laid his hands on them, and blessed them; and, to be short, by words and gestures he notably signified, that children are the people of God, and most acceptable to God. But why then by the same means, say they, did he not baptize them? Because it is written, that Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples.” Now! since of the thing itself it is so plainly determined, why as yet do we contend about the sign? Hitherto good men are satisfied; but contentious persons go on to busy themselves with questions.
Beside this, circumcision among the old people of God was given to infants; therefore baptism ought to be given to infants among the new people; for baptism succeeded in the place of circumcision. For St Paul saith: “ΒΥ Christ ye are circumcised with circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh subject to sin? by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism.” Lo, Paul calleth baptism the circumcision of Christians, “made without hands;” not that water is not ministered by hands, but in that no man henceforth is circumcised with hands, the mystery of circumcision remaining nevertheless in the faithful. Neither shalt thou read any of the old interpreters of the church which have not confessed, that baptism came instead of circumcision. Yea, the likeness and similitude of both of them do shew a manifest succession.
To that which I have said I join this. The servants of God have always been careful to give the signs to them for
[[! Preeterea, Lat.: And besides. ] [2 corpus peccatorum carnis, Lat., and Erasmus.]]
whom they were ordained. For, that I may pass over all other; did not Josua diligently provide, that the people should be circumcised afore they entered into the land of promise? And since the apostles, the preachers to the whole world, have been the faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who hereafter may doubt that they baptized infants, since baptism came into the place of circumcision?
Undoubtedly the apostles of Christ framed all their doings unto the types and figures of the old Testament: therefore it is certain, that they framed baptism also, and therefore that they baptized infants, because they were in the figure of baptism; for the people of Israel went through both the Red sea and the river Jordan with their children. And although they be not always expressed, as neither women are in the holy seriptures; yet they are comprehended and understood by them.
To this appertaineth that which is clearly set down in the scriptures, that the apostles baptized whole houses or families. In houses first of all children are comprehended, as the greatest and most beautiful part of the house. So then the apostles baptized children or little ones, and not only them that are of perfect age. And that a house especially comprehendeth infants or little ones, it may be declared very easily. And first out of the place of Genesis xvii. which even very now I alleged. Next, in that Joseph sent for Jacob his father with his whole house out of the land of Canaan into the land of Egypt, lest his house should have perished with hunger. There are many places of this kind in the law and the prophets, and in the whole scripture. But be it, that there were no infants in those houses (which thing these janglers object) which the apostles baptized; yet nevertheless they do pertain unto the house, and are counted of it; so that if they had been in the house, without doubt they had baptized them. Whereas therefore they contend, that they were not baptized in those families or houses; truly, I say that the fault was neither in the children, as though they had been unworthy of baptism, neither in the apostles, as though they were not wont to baptize infants; but in that, because they were not present: for if they had been present, they had been baptized. For why? the apostles baptized whole houses, unto which children belong.
Now I can shew by the writings of the old doctors, that
baptism of infants hath continued from the apostles’ time even unto us; neither was it ordained by any councils, or by the decrees of any pope, or other men; but instituted and delivered of the apostles out of the scriptures. Origen, Lib. Enarrat. in Epist. Pauli ad Rom. v. expounding the vi. chap. saith: “That the church of Christ received of the apostles themselves baptizing of infants.” St Hierome maketh mention of the baptizing of infants, Lib. iii. Contra Pelagianos?, and in his epistle to Leta. 50 Augustine citeth the place of Chrysostom, nay, being cited of Julian, chap. 1.4 He also unto Hierome, Epist. 28, saith: St Cyprian, making no new decree, but most stedfastly keeping the faith of the church, was of this opinion with certain of his fellowbishops, that the new-born child might rightly be baptized.” The place of Cyprian is to be seen in Epi. ad Fidum; as also I declared before, when I spake of the time of baptism The same Augustine against the Donatists, Lib. iv. cap. 23 and 24, boldly affirmeth, that baptizing of children was not fetched from the authority of men, or of councils, but from the tradition or doctrine of the apostles”.” Cyril, Lib. in Levit. viii. both approveth the baptizing of children, and condemnneth the
[[! Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis bap-]
[tismum dare.— Origen. Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. Lib. v. Opp. Tom. 1v.]
[p. 565. Par. 1759.] (2 Critob. Dic, queso, et me omni libera question, quare infan-]
[tuli baptizentur 7—Hieron. adv. Pelag. Dial. Lib. τι. Opp. Tom. 1v.]
[par. 2. col. 545. Par. 17064.] [3 Nisi forte sestimas Christianorum filios, si baptisma non acce-]
[perint, &c.—Id. Epist. ad Leetam, Lvir. Opp. Tom. 1v. par. 2. col. 593.] [4 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, nay, being cited of Julian he]
[expoundeth it, Lib. 1. contra Julian. cap. 2. Imo a Juliano citatum]
[illustrat 110. contra Julian. 1, cap. 2. Lat.—Aug. Opp. Tom. vir. fol. 195.]
[col. 1. Par. 1531.] [5 Beatus quidem Cyprianus non aliquod decretum condens novum,]
[sed ecclesiz fidem firmissimam servans,.mox natum rite baptizari]
[posse, cum suis quibusdam coepiscopis censuit.—Id. Ep. xxvur. Opp.]
[Tom. 11. fol. 21. col. 3.] [6 See above, page 365.] [ — quod universa tenet ecclesia, nee conciliis institutum, sed]
[semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectis-]
[sime creditur.—Aug. de Bap. contra Donat. Lib. 1v. cap. 24. Opp.]
[Tom. vir. fol. 88. col. 3.] [5 — quid cause sit, cum baptisma ecclesia observatur, etiam]
iterating of baptism. Which thing I do not allege to this end, to build the baptizing of children upon man’s witness; but to teach that man’s testimonies agree with the testimonies of Godand that the truth of antiquities is on our part, lies and new forgeries on the shameless anabaptists’ side, who feign that baptizing of children was commanded by the pope.
Now I think it not labour lost to speak somewhat of anabaptism. In the time that Decius and Gallus Caesar were emperors, there arose a question in the parts of Africa of rebaptizing heretics. And St Cyprian and the rest of the bishops, being assembled together in the council of Carthage, liked well of anabaptism. But Cornelius, bishop of Rome, in very deed an holy and learned man, and a martyr also, together with the other! bishops of Italy, misliked the same. For they would that heretics, after they had renounced their wicked opinions and made their confession touching the right opinion, should be cleansed by the only laying on of hands. Ye may read this in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Lib. vii. There is also extant a treatise of that matter in the Ecclesiastical Decrees, cap. 52.1 But we must understand, that St Cyprian affirmed nothing obstinately in this cause. For in the end of his epistle to Jubaianus he writeth: These things have I briefly sent unto you in writing, after our mean capacity, most dear brother, commanding no man to follow them, neither preventing any man’s opinion; but that every bishop, having liberty of his own judgment, may do what he thinketh best!2.” After that time both the Arians and Donatists did rebaptize. Touching the Arians historiographers write, and especially Sozomenus, Lib. vi.?> Ecclesiastical writers do touch the same thing also elsewhere in their works. Against the
[parvulis baptismum dari &c.—Cpyril. Alexand. Comment. in Levit.]
[Lib. vir. fol. 33. Par. 1514.] [2 Id. de Adorat. in Spirit. et Ver. Lib. vi. Opp. Tom. 1. p. 176.]
[Par. 1638.] [19 multis, Lat.: many.] [1 Qui sint habendi pro baptizatis.—Aug. de Eccles. Dogmat. 52.]
[Opp. Tom. IL fol. 44. col. 1. Par. 1531.] [12 Heec tibi breviter pro nostra mediocritate rescripsimus, frater]
[carissime, nemini preesecribentes aut preejudicantes, quo minus unus-]
[quisque episcoporum quod putat faciat, habens arbitrii sui liberam]
[potestatem.—Cyprian. Jubaiano. Ep. LXXIIIL p. 210. Oxon. ] [13 Sozom. H. E. p. 227. Cantab. 1720.]]
Donatists St Augustine with other learned men disputed. There is also an imperial law made by Honorius and Theodosius, that holy baptism should not be iterated. Justin. Cees. hath published the same In Cod. Lib. i. Tit. 6, in these words: 1 any minister of the catholic church be detected to have rebaptized any, let both him which committed the unappeaseable offence (if at least by age he be punishable), and he also that is won and persuaded thereunto, suffer punishment of death’.” Moreover, Valentin., Valens, and Gratianus, give in charge to Florianus, superintendent of Asia, in these words: “That same minister which by unlawful usage shall iterate holy baptism, we account him unworthy of an ecclesiastical function. For we condemn their error, which tread under foot the precepts of the apostles; and having obtained the sacraments in Christ’s name, they purify not again by a second baptism, but defile and deflower them under the name of cleansing” Thus far they.
And verily they which rebaptize and are rebaptized, they both defile the name of God, which was called on over the baptized in the former baptism, and cast from them the institution of God as vain and vicious. Christ is read to be baptized but once. The apostles were not baptized twice. All the saints of God are baptized only but once. Yea, those which Judas baptized once are not read to be baptized again of a worthier minister; for in my last sermon I shewed, that the pureness of the sacraments dependeth not upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister. Neither can you read that any in the old time were twice circumcised, no, not they which were manifestly known to be circumcised of idolatrous priests before the reign of Ezechias and Josias: but they were not baptized” into
[1 Impp. Honorius et Theodosius A. A. Anthemio P. P. Si quis]
[rebaptizare quempiam de ministris catholicee sectee fuerit detectus,]
[una cum eo qui piaculare crimen commisit, (si tamen criminis per]
[setatem capax sit,) et hic cui persuasum sit, ultimo supplicio percella-]
[tur.—Justinian. Cod. Lib. IL tit. 6. II. p. 88. Lugd. 1551.] [2 Impp. Valentin. Valens, et Gratian. A. A. A. ad Florianum,]
[vicarium Asie. Antistitem, qui sanctitatem baptismatis illicita usur-]
[patione geminaverit, sacerdotio indignum esse censemus. Eorum]
[enim condemnamus errorem, qui apostolorum praecepta calcantes,]
[christiani nominis sacramenta sortitos alio rursus baptismate non]
[purificant, sed incestant lavacri nomine polluentes.—Ibid. p. 87.] [3 Rather, but not into, &c.: they were baptized, not in Lat.]]
idolatry, but into the covenant of the Lord God; whereof I have admonished you elsewhere. Therefore it is an horrible offence to iterate the ceremony of baptism, and it is without example. Neither in this matter is there any necessity: for to what end is it to baptize again, when as baptism once given is sufficient for the whole course of a man’s life? Beside this; since anabaptism is nothing else but a confederacy, conspiracy, and a certain linking together by one mark into a new and seditious, or at the least superstitious, company, into a new and schismatical church, and into a new and strange kind of doctrine, and as contrary as can be to the doctrine of Christ and his apostles; truly it is no marvel, that the obstinate anabaptists are kept under and punished by common laws. For otherwise these things are damnable, and not to be dissembled or suffered of a christian magistrate.
But the anabaptists presently object unto us these two places. The first out of the fifth chapter of Josua, where we read in these words: Make thee sharp knives (of stone), and go to again, and circumcise the children of Israel the second time.” Behold, the second time they could not be circumcised, say they, unless they had been also circumcised before. I answer: To circumcise the second time, or to do a thing once again, doth not signify to do that which was done before. For when the foreskin was once cut off, how could it be cut off again? Therefore that which was left undone for a certain space is now again renewed, and is said to be done the second time. So that the second time is not applied to them that would be circumcised, but unto the very time wherein they that were uncircumcised should be circumcised. For they were first solemnly circumcised in Egypt, before they did eat the passover. Now, entering into the land of Canaan, they are the second time solemnly circumcised, which hitherto by reason of the wilderness and journeying were not circumcised. And so it followeth immediately in the same chapter, that all the males that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness, and that their sons were uncircumcised; so that now it was expedient that they should be circumcised, as their fathers were before them. Therefore the anabaptists in this testimony of the law have no defence at all.
The latter testimony to maintain anabaptism, or rebaptizing, [4 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, should be circumcised. ]
they bring out of the xix. chapter of the Acts; where they say that those twelve men of Ephesus were once baptized by Apollos with the baptism of water, and with that of John’s likewise; but the very same afterward are rebaptized of Paulin the name of Christ. I answer, that those twelve men were not baptized again of Paul with water; they were once baptized with water, which was sufficient for them. But neither could Paul minister another baptism of water than that of John’s. For I taught and evidently proved, anon after the beginning of this sermon, that the baptism of water ministered by John, Christ, and his apostles, is one and the selfsame. There I declared, that the baptism of fire, or of the Spirit, is peculiar and proper to Christ. Those men therefore of Ephesus were baptized with the baptism of water, as the Samaritans were by Philip; but they were not as yet fully instructed of the baptism of fire, neither were they baptized with fire: yea, they confess they know not whether there be any such baptism, that is, whether there be an Holy Ghost which in the visible form of fire should come down upon men. For they could not be altogether ignorant that there was a Holy Ghost, without whom undoubtedly they had not believed, yea, in whom they had believed if they had rightly believed. Therefore they were only ignorant of that baptism of fire. As therefore Peter and John laid their hands on the Samaritans, and they forthwith received the Holy Ghost; so Paul layeth hands on the men of Ephesus, and they receive the Holy Ghost. For Luke saith: “When they heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” And lest any man should understand this of the baptism of water, by and bye he addeth the manner thereof, and a plain exposition, saying: “And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them.” This, I say, he called baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus; for it followeth: And they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” And this always hath been the fruit and effect of the baptism of fire in the primitive church, as I declared anon after the beginning of this sermon. Wherefore the anabaptists have no testimony out of the scriptures for their anabaptism, or rebaptizing. So that all that will gather their wits about them do plainly see, that they are to be forsaken and shunned of all good men. But we have sufficiently disputed against them, as it scemeth. Now we go forward to expound those things that
remain to be opened touching baptism, which are not the last and of least account.
Now that we are come to entreat of the virtue and efficacy of baptism, we will follow that order which we shadowed out in the description of baptism; knitting up at least the particulars!, because in the general consideration of sacraments we have spoken largely of them. Yet nevertheless, it is good first of all to know, what the adversaries of the church have sometime thought touching the force of baptism.
The Manichees baptized none of their sect; for they taught, that baptism did avail the receivers nothing to salvation The Seleucians, who are called also Hermiani, did likewise set baptism at nought. The Messalians, which be called Euchetes, or prayer-makers, (as I have shewed in the end of my former sermon,) and the Enthusiastes, inspired, I say, by some heavenly power, nay rather by some hellish? fury, are persuaded that baptism neither profiteth nor hindereth any man. For so they did attribute all means of salvation to the inward working of the Spirit, yea, to man’s prayers, insomuch that they loathed and abhorred all outward helps, yea, and doctrine also, as unprofitable and without force. Which Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History, Lib, 1v. cap. 11, rehearseth of them?3.
But the holy scripture teacheth, that we are washed clean from our sins by baptism; for baptism is a sign, a testimony and sealing, of our cleansing. For God verily hath promised sanctification to his church, and he for his truth’s sake purifieth his church from all sins by his grace through the blood of his Son, and regenerateth and cleanseth it by his Spirit; which cleansing is sealed in us by baptism, which we receive:
[1 perstringentes saltem singula, Lat.: at least touching lightly on]
[the several parts. ] [2 Baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent (Manichzei) salutis]
[afferre, nec quemquam eorum quos decipiunt baptizandum putant.—]
[Aug. de Heer. Opp. Tom. vr. fol. 5. col. 3. Par. 1531.] [3 Seleuciani vel Hermiani..baptismum in aqua non accipiunt]
[—1Id. ibid. fol. 6. col. 2.] [ hellish, not in Lat.] [5 — μηδεμίαν μὲν ἐκ τοῦ θείου βαπτίσματος ὠφέλειαν τοῖς ἀξιουμένοις]
[γίνεσθαι, &c.—Theodoret. H. E. Lib. 1v. cap. 11. p. 162. Cantab. See]
[also Epiphan. adv. Heres. her. nxvir sive xxx, Tom. 1. pp. 1067,]
[&c. Par. 1622.]]
and thereof is it called in the scriptures cleansing, and remission of sins, purifying, new birth, regeneration, and the laver or fountain of regeneration: as circumcision is called the bap. covenant; and sacrifices, sins and sanctifications. For we read in the gospel according to St Mark: “John baptized in the desert, preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins.” The same also is mentioned in Luke. In the gospel of John, the third chapter, baptism is called puri- ~~ fying. In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter saith to the people which demanded what they should do: Repent ye, and let every one of ycu be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” Ananias also saith to Paul: Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, in calling on the name of the Lord.” And now Paul himself saith: Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, to sanctify it, when he had cleansed it, in the fountain of water in the word.” Wherefore the promise, yea, the truth of sanctification and free remission of sins, is written and engraven in our bodies when we are baptized. For God by his Spirit, through the i blood of his Son, hath newly regenerated and purged again our souls, and even now doth regenerate and purge them. is And baptism is sufficient and effectual for the whole life whol of man; yea, and reacheth and is referred to all the sins of all them that are baptized. For the promise of God is true. The seal of the promise is true, not deceivable. The power of Christ is ever effectual throughly to cleanse and wash away all the sins of them that be his. How often therefore soever we have sinned in our life-time, let us call into our remembrance the mystery of holy baptism; wherewith for the whole course of our life we are washed!, that we might know, and not doubt, that our sins are forgiven us of the same God and our Lord, yea, and by the blood of Christ, into whom by baptism once we are grafted, that he might always work salvation in us, even till we be received out of misery into glory. Neither is there any doubt, that Abraham in his whole life had continually in his mind the mystery of circumcision, and rested in God and the seed promised unto him. Yet I think that that ought diligently to be marked, which St Augustine pithily and plainly hath often cited?:
[1 semel, Lat. omitted: once.] [2 exercuerit, Lat.: practised.] [3 inculcavit, Lat.: insisted on. ]]
“That our sins are forgiven, or purged, in baptism, not that they are no more in us, (for as long as we live concupiscence beareth sway, and always breedeth and bringeth forth in us somewhat like itself;) but that they should not be imputed unto us: neither that we may not sin’, but that it should not be hurtful for us to have or had sinned, that our sins may be remitted when they are committed, and not suffered to be continued.” De Fide et Opertb. cap. 20. And also many more of this kind Gratian reciteth Distinct. iv. de Consecrat.’
Beside that, by baptism we are gathered together into the fellowship of the people of God. Whereupon of some it is called the first sign or entry into Christianity?, by the which an entrance into the church lieth open unto us. Not that before we did not belong to the church: for whosoever is of Christ, partaker of the promises of God and of his eternal covenant, belongeth unto the church. Baptism therefore is a visible sign and testimony of our ingraffing into the body of Christ; and it is rightly called a planting, incorporating, or ingraffing into the body of Christ. For I said in the general discourse of sacraments, that we first by baptism were joined with Christ, and afterward with all the members of Christ, our brethren. For Paul saith: All ye that are baptized have put on Christ.” But to put on Christ is to be made one with him, and as it were to be joined and incorporated in him, that he may live in us and we in him. For he only by his Spirit regenerateth and reneweth us, and most liberally enricheth us with all manner good gifts; which the same apostle in another place expresseth in these words: God saved us by the fountain of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us richly through Jesus Christ
[[ nec ut peccare liceat, Lat.: neither that we may take licence to]
[sin. [> — a mortuis operibus agant peenitentiam (baptizandi), om-]
[niumque se omnino przeteritorum remissionem in baptismo accepturos]
[esse non dubitent: nec ut peccare liceat, sed ut peccasse non noceat,]
[ut sit factis remissio, non permissio faciendi.—Aug. de Fid. et Oper.]
[cap. 20. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 17. col. 2. Par. 1531.] [6 Dist. 1v. col. 1986. Taurin. 1620.] [7 initial vel initiationis signum, Lat.: into Christianity, not in J So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, the regeneration. ]]
[Lat.]
ΟἿ Saviour.” Yea, and therefore Christ our Lord is baptized in our baptism, to declare that he is our brother, and we joint-heirs with him. Very well therefore said St Augustine: “That baptism is thus far forceable, that we, being baptized, are incorporated into Christ and counted his members.” The same Augustine calleth baptism “the sacrament of christian fellowship.” For we are gathered again visibly by baptism to the unity? of one body with all the faithful, as many as have been, are, and shall be. For Paul also saith: “By ser. ON€ Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” And it followour eth hereby, that baptism serveth for our confession, and is rightly called the token of christian religion. For it is a badge or cognisance, whereby we witness and profess that we consent and are linked into christian religion. We confess that we by nature are sinners and unclean, but sanctified by the grace of God through Christ. For if we were clean by nature, what needed we then any cleansing? But now since we are cleansed, who doubteth of the truth of God? Therefore when we receive baptism, we truly and freely confess both our sin wherein we were born, and also free forgiveness of sins.
Lastly, the remembrance and consideration of the mystery of baptism putteth us in mind of the duties of Christianity and godliness; that is to say, all our life long to weigh diligently with ourselves, of whose body we be made members, to deny ourselves and this world, to mortify our flesh with the concupiscences of the same, and to be buried with Christ into his death, that we may rise again in newness of life, and live innocently; to love our brethren as our members, with whom by baptism we are knit together into one body; to remain in the bond of concord and in the unity of the church, not to follow strange religions; being mindful that we are baptized into Christ, to whom alone we are consecrated, and far separated and divided from all other gods, worships, or religions, and, to be short, from all heresies. Let us think also that we
[1 See quotation above, page 377, note 7.] [2 — qui (parvuli) pest gravissimos cruciatus sine sacramento]
[christians societatis expirant, &c.—Aug. de Nat. et Orig. Anima.]
[Epist. xxvi. Hieronym. Opp. Tom. 11. fol. 21. col. 2.] [3 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, into the unity.] [4 christianity and, not in Lat.]]
← 69. Decade 5, Sermon 8, Part 1 · Contents · 71. Decade 5, Sermon 9, Part 1 →