Chapter XII.—Of the Necessity of Baptism to Salvation.

When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”117    John iii. 5, not fully given.), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism,118    See Gal. iii. 27. either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.

And now, as far as I shall be able, I will reply to them who affirm “that the apostles were unbaptized.” For if they had undergone the human baptism of John, and were longing for that of the Lord, then since the Lord Himself had defined baptism to be one;119    See Eph. iv. 5. (saying to Peter, who was desirous120    “Volenti,” which Oehler notes as a suggestion of Fr. Junius, is adopted here in preference to Oehler’s “nolenti.” of being thoroughly bathed, “He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;”121    John xiii. 9, 10. which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized;) even here we have a conspicuous122    Exerta. Comp. c. xviii. sub init.; ad Ux. ii. c. i. sub fin. proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John’s baptism. Can it seem credible that “the way of the Lord,” that is, the baptism of John, had not then been “prepared” in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no “repentance” was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners?  As for the fact, then, that “others were not baptized”—they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying, “Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist.”123    Matt. xi. 11, ἐγήγερται omitted.

Others make the suggestion (forced enough, clearly “that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when in their little ship, were sprinkled and covered with the waves:  that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea.”124    Matt. viii. 24; xiv. 28, 29. [Our author seems to allow that sprinkling is baptism, but not Christian baptism: a very curious passage. Compare the foot-washing, John xiii. 8.] It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted “in the sea,” that is, in the world,125    Sæculo. “by the waves,” that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world,126    Sæculum. and restores tranquillity to His own.

Now, whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed127    Illoti. to the end—so that even that saying of the Lord touching the “one bath”128    Lavacrum. [John xiii. 9, 10, as above.] does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us—still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice,129    i.e. of being the first to be chosen. and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. “Thy faith,” He would say, “hath saved thee;”130    Luke xviii. 42; Mark x. 52. and, “Thy sins shall be remitted thee,”131    “Remittentur” is Oehler’s reading; “remittuntur” others read; but the Greek is in perfect tense. See Mark ii. 5. on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that132    i.e. faith, or perhaps the “compendious grace of baptism.” was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever;133    Matt. ix. 9.another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living;134    Matt. iv. 21, 22.a third, who disdained his father’s obsequies,135    Luke ix. 59, 60; but it is not said there that the man did it. fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, “He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me.”136    Matt. x. 37.

CAPUT 12. Cum vero praescribitur nemini sine baptismo competere salutem, ex illa maxime pronuntiatione domini qui ait, Nisi natus ex aqua quis erit non habebit vitam, suboriuntur scrupulosi immo temerarii retractatus quorundam quomodo ex ista praescriptione [praestructione] apostolis salus competat quos tinctos non inveniamus in domino praeter Paulum: immo cum Paulus solus ex illis baptismum Christi induerit, aut praeiudicatum esse de ceterorum periculo qui careant aqua Christi ut praescriptio salva sit, aut rescindi praescriptionem si etiam et non tinctis salus statuta est. audivi, domino teste, eiusmodi, ne qui me tam perditum existimet ut ultro excogitem libidine stili quae aliis scrupulum incutiant. et nunc illis ut potero respondebo qui negant apostolos tinctos. nam si [humanum] Ioannis baptismum impetrarant, domini cur desiderabant, quatenus unum baptismum definierat ipse dominus dicens Petro perfundi volenti, Qui semel lavit non habet necesse rursum, quod utique non tincto non omnino dixisset? et haec est probatio exerta adversus illos qui adimunt apostolis etiam Ioannis baptismum, ut destruant aquae sacramentum. an credibile videri potest in eis personis viam tunc domino non praeparatam, id est baptismum Ioannis, quae ad viam domini per totum orbem aperiendam destinabantur? ipse dominos nullius paenitentiae debitor tinctus est: peccatoribus non fuit necesse? quod ergo alii tincti non sint, non iam comites Christi sed aemuli fidei, legis doctores et pharisaei. unde et suggeritur, cum adversantes domino tingui noluerint, eos qui dominum sequebantur tinctos fuisse nec cum aemulis [suis] sapuisse, maxime quando dominus cui adhaerebant testimonio Ioannem extulisset, Nemo, dicens, maior inter natos feminarum Ioanne baptizatore. alii plane satis coacte iniciunt tunc apostolos baptismi vicem implesse cum in navicula fluctibus mergerentur: ipsum quoque Petrum [per] mare ingredientem satis mersum. ut opinor autem aliud est aspergi vel intercipi violentia maris, aliud tingui disciplina religionis. ceterum navicula illa figuram ecclesiae praeferebat quod in mari, id est in saeculo, fluctibus id est persecutionibus et temptationibus inquietetur, domino per patientiam velut dormiente donec orationibus sanctorum in ultimis suscitatus compescat saeculum et tranquillitatem suis reddat. nunc sive tincti quoquo modo fuerunt sive illoti perseveraverunt ut et illud dictum domini de uno lavacro sub Petri persona ad nos tantummodo spectet, de salute tamen apostolorum satis temerarium est aestimare: quia illis vel primae adlectionis et exinde individuae familiaritatis praerogativa compendium baptismi conferre posset, cum illum opinor sequebantur [illum] qui credenti cuique salutem pollicebatur: Fides tua te, aiebat, salvum fecit, et, Remittuntur tibi peccata, credenti utique nec tamen tincto. id si apostolis defuit nescio quorum fides tuta sit. uno verbo domini suscitatus teloneum dereliquit, patrem et navem et artem qua vitam sustentabat deseruit, [qui] patris exsequias despexit, summum illud domini praeceptum, Qui patrem aut matrem mihi praeposuerit non est me dignus, ante perfecit quam audivit.