Phil D.
ὁ βαπτιστὴς
In the course of researching the history of the mode of baptism, I have encountered wrong assumptions made by parties on both sides of the issue. Seeing the extent to which this can occur, I think, serves to show how important it is to examine controversial issues rather closely, rather than simply relying on polemical works that tend to summarily make dogmatic declarations. Right now I’m exploring Calvin’s statements on the topic (and he certainly had a lot to say...), and some of the most glaringly presumptuous interpretation in this particular arena that I’ve encountered are in the works of Francis Nigel Lee. Take for example his analysis of this passage from Calvin:
Several things can be said concerning this claim. First, Calvin actually wrote the original edition of his Institutes in Latin (1536), as he indeed would do with each succeeding edition (see, W. de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin). The first known French version to be released, a translation by others of Calvin’s 1539 Latin edition, didn’t appear until 1541. As such the question at hand is best approached by trying to understand what Calvin intended when he used the Latin phrase veteri ecclesise in this context.
Upon review, one thing that does become clear is that Calvin did variously use this phraseology to denote the New Testament (apostolic) church, the early post-apostolic (patristic) church, and even the Old Testament church (Israel). However, for what would seemingly be obvious reasons, when used in the context of favorably comparing or otherwise discussing the right use of the sacraments, Calvin always uses veteri ecclesise in reference to the apostolic church (e.g. Institutes, 4.17.43 {concerning the Lord’s Supper}; Commentary, on 1 Cor. 10:16; et al). It then would be very difficult to explain why Calvin used the term concerning baptism in a different sense than he clearly did regarding the other sacrament in a neighboring and kindred section of the very same work.
Second, and even more importantly, Lee’s interpretive assertion does not take into account a number of very specific statements that Calvin made elsewhere on the matter.
Lee also made another similarly framed assertion regarding the last passage above.
For one thing, this statement bears all the classic marks of semantic sophistry. Factually, the fallacy of the claim is easily shown when we again simply look at the actual Latin terms Calvin employed. For comparison, with regard to Philip’s baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8:38 Calvin used the phrase, “totum enim corpus in aquam mergebant.” In the passage on John 3:23, which supposedly reveals Calvin’s intention to denote something quite different than a submersion, the reformer’s unmistakable wording was, “baptismum fuisse celebration a Johanne et Christo totius corporis submersione.”
[Calvin; Institutes, 4.15.19; Battles’ translation] Whether the person should be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured water—these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word ‘baptize’ means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church.
[Lee; The Sacraments of Baptism and The Lord’s Supper] Some Baptistic persons...delight in quoting Calvin’s Institutes, 4.15.19. There, they tell us, Calvin declared: ‘It is evident that the term “baptize” means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the ancient Church.’
...Here, the word ‘ancient’ is not the same as the word ‘apostolic.’ Baptistic persons omit to add that (in the original French) Calvin here actually wrote ‘that the custom of thus entirely immersing, was anciently observed in the Church.’ Our English word ‘anciently’ here translates the original French word anciennement. That latter word in this context hardly means specifically ‘during apostolic times’—but certainly refers particularly to the mid-patristic period, especially after the rise of the heresy of baptismal regenerationism.
Several things can be said concerning this claim. First, Calvin actually wrote the original edition of his Institutes in Latin (1536), as he indeed would do with each succeeding edition (see, W. de Greef, The Writings of John Calvin). The first known French version to be released, a translation by others of Calvin’s 1539 Latin edition, didn’t appear until 1541. As such the question at hand is best approached by trying to understand what Calvin intended when he used the Latin phrase veteri ecclesise in this context.
Upon review, one thing that does become clear is that Calvin did variously use this phraseology to denote the New Testament (apostolic) church, the early post-apostolic (patristic) church, and even the Old Testament church (Israel). However, for what would seemingly be obvious reasons, when used in the context of favorably comparing or otherwise discussing the right use of the sacraments, Calvin always uses veteri ecclesise in reference to the apostolic church (e.g. Institutes, 4.17.43 {concerning the Lord’s Supper}; Commentary, on 1 Cor. 10:16; et al). It then would be very difficult to explain why Calvin used the term concerning baptism in a different sense than he clearly did regarding the other sacrament in a neighboring and kindred section of the very same work.
Second, and even more importantly, Lee’s interpretive assertion does not take into account a number of very specific statements that Calvin made elsewhere on the matter.
[Calvin; Commentary, on Acts 8:38] ‘They went down into the water.’ Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. We ought rather to fight even an hundred times to death for the ceremony itself of baptism, inasmuch as it was delivered us by Christ that that we should suffer the same to be taken from us.
[Calvin; Commentary, on John 3:23] The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water; though we ought not to give ourselves any great uneasiness about the outward rite, provided that it agree with the spiritual truth, and with the Lord’s appointment and rule.
Lee also made another similarly framed assertion regarding the last passage above.
[Lee; The Anabaptists and their Stepchildren] Certain Baptistic persons delight in quoting from Calvin’s Commentary on John’s Gospel (3:22) that ‘John and Christ administered baptism by total immersion...’ Yet they neglect to add that such ‘im-mersion’ (or ‘putting into’) is not the same as sub-mersion (or ‘putting under’). For all Presbyterian Ministers ‘im-merse’ (but never sub-merse) their fingers in baptismal water, before sprinkling babies therewith.
For one thing, this statement bears all the classic marks of semantic sophistry. Factually, the fallacy of the claim is easily shown when we again simply look at the actual Latin terms Calvin employed. For comparison, with regard to Philip’s baptism of the eunuch in Acts 8:38 Calvin used the phrase, “totum enim corpus in aquam mergebant.” In the passage on John 3:23, which supposedly reveals Calvin’s intention to denote something quite different than a submersion, the reformer’s unmistakable wording was, “baptismum fuisse celebration a Johanne et Christo totius corporis submersione.”