# Calvin and the "Form" of Baptism



## Phil D. (Apr 2, 2021)

I’ve encountered yet another misconstrual of Calvin’s position on the mode of apostolic baptism, this time by a Rev. William MacKay (1842–1905; Canadian Presbyterian).

Calvin says on the mode of baptism, “Then the minister pours water on the head of the infant, saying 'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,'” and soon after he adds, “It cannot by any means be denied but that we hold the same form and method of baptism which Christ prescribed and the apostles followed.” (_Calvin's Catechism_, pp. 92, 93—Note.)​(_Immersion Proved to be Not a Scriptural Mode of Baptism, but a Romish Invention_; Toronto: 1884, p.95)​
Here MacKay represents Calvin’s use of “form [?and method?]” as being a reference to mode. His claim was evidently derived from some similar remarks made by Elijah Waterman (1788–1864; American Presbyterian; _The Catechism of the Church of Geneva_; Hartford: 1815, p.93).

As MacKay noted, Calvin’s statement was part of his commentary appended to an actual baptismal service described in his catechism (1538). For comparison, here is Beveridge’s standard translation of the passage in question:

...At all events, we have a form [Latin _formam_; French _forme_] of baptism such as Jesus Christ instituted, the Apostles kept and followed, and the ancient Church put in practice; and there is nothing for which we can be blamed, unless it be for not being wiser than God himself.​
Here is the fuller context of Calvin’s statement, established in the sentence which occurs just before the one being cited:

Now it is certain that chrisre [scented oil], tapers [candles], and other pomposities are not of the ordination of God, but have been added by men, and have at length gone so far that people have dwelt more on them, and held them in higher estimation, than the proper institution of Jesus Christ. At all events, [_etc._]...​
In context it is clear that Calvin was talking about the relatively simple, overall _ceremony_ that he advocated in baptism, which excluded using various non-water elements that the Roman Catholic Church makes integral parts of the sacrament—in other words, _form_ had to do with the specific things Calvin had just cited.

If one were to insist Calvin’s remark was somehow meant in the sense that baptismal pouring or sprinkling had been the apostolic practice, it would be made to blatantly contradict the multiple instances where he plainly stated his thinking on the matter to be otherwise.

One also finds kindred expressions from other early reformers, such as in Bullinger’s _Second Helvetic Confession _(1566):

_The Institution of Baptism_: Baptism was instituted and consecrated by God. First John baptized, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan [_qui Christum_ _aqua in Jordano tinxit_]. From him it came to the apostles, who also did baptize with water.​... We believe that the most perfect form [_formam_] of baptism is that by which Christ was baptized, and by which the apostles baptized. Those things, therefore, which by man’s device were added afterwards and used in the Church we do not consider necessary to the perfection of baptism. Of this kind is exorcism, the use of burning lights, oil, salt, spittle, and such other things...​

Reactions: Like 1


----------

