CHAPTER XVI.

PÆDOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE

NATURE OF THE SIGN.

As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce

disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of

infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a

view to repress their violence. If any one should think this chapter

extended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that

purity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church,

ought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any

thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also

study to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further

elucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with

an argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility,

asserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was

first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and

afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a

sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain

foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the

subject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on

the holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its

first origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of

human presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true

observance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be

proved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to

beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an

insult to their Author himself.

II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and

acknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration of

sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but

that it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which

the Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever,

therefore, wishes to be fully informed of the meaning of baptism, and

what baptism is, must not fix his attention on the element and the

outward spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises

of God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and

spiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers these

things, has attained the solid truth and all the substance of baptism,

and thence he will also learn the reason and use of the external

sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these

things, and confines his attention entirely to the visible ceremony,

will understand neither the force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the

meaning or use of the water. This sentiment is established by

testimonies of Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least

necessity for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore,

that from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce its

nature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the first thing

represented in it, is the remission and purgation of sins, which we

obtain in the blood of Christ; and the second the mortification of the

flesh, which consists in the participation of his death, by which

believers are regenerated to newness of life, and so into communion with

him. This is the sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the

Scriptures concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by which we

testify our religion before men.

III. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism, had

circumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity and difference

between these two signs, in order to discover how far we may argue from

one to the other. When the Lord gave Abraham the command of

circumcision, he prefaced it by saying, “I will be a God unto thee, and

to thy seed after thee;” at the same time declaring himself to be

“Almighty,” having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that

Abraham might expect to find his hand the source of every

blessing.[1165] These words contain the promise of eternal life,

according to the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this

declaration an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of

believers. “For God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the

living.”[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the Ephesians from what

misery the Lord had delivered them, concludes, from their not having

been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, that “at that time” they

“were without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no

hope and without God;”[1167] all these things being comprehended in that

covenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance into immortal

life, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows that this promise

corresponds with the promise of baptism respecting our purgation. The

Lord afterwards stipulated with Abraham, that he should walk before him

in sincerity and purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or

regeneration. And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of

mortification, Moses more expressly declares it in another place, when

he exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because the Lord

had chosen them for himself above all the nations of the earth. As God,

when he adopts the posterity of Abraham to be his people, commands them

to be circumcised, so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise

the heart, thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal

circumcision.[1168] Then, that no one might attempt this in his own

strength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All

these things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no

need to collect here the numerous testimonies which every where present

themselves. We have ascertained, therefore, that a spiritual promise,

the very same which is given to us in baptism, was given to the fathers

in circumcision; which represented to them the remission of sins and the

mortification of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ, in

whom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of baptism, the

same must be evident of circumcision. For he was promised to Abraham,

and in him the blessing of all nations; and the sign of circumcision was

added in confirmation of this grace.

IV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity or what

difference there is between these two signs. The promise, in which we

have stated the virtue of the signs to consist, is the same in both;

including the paternal favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal

life. In the next place, the thing signified also is one and the same,

namely, regeneration. The foundation, on which the accomplishment of

these things rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no

difference in the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar

nature of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies in the

external ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it; whereas the

principal part depends on the promise and the thing signified. We may

conclude, therefore, that whatever belongs to circumcision, except the

difference of the visible ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this

inference and comparison we are led by the apostle’s rule, which directs

us to examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of

faith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to the

slightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by

which they were assured of their adoption as the people and family of

God, and on their parts professed their entire subjection to him, and

therefore was their first entrance into the Church, so now we are

initiated into the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among his

people, and profess to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is

evident, beyond all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place

of circumcision.

V. Now, if it be inquired, whether baptism may rightly be administered

to infants, shall we not pronounce it an excess of folly, and even

madness, in any one who resolves to dwell entirely on the element of

water and the external observance, and cannot bear to direct his

thoughts to the spiritual mystery; a due consideration of which will

prove, beyond all doubt, that baptism is justly administered to infants,

as that to which they are fully entitled? For the Lord, in former ages,

did not favour them with circumcision without making them partakers of

all those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise,

he must have deluded his people with mere impostures, if he deceived

them by fallacious symbols; which it is dreadful even to hear. For he

expressly pronounces that the circumcision of a little infant should

serve as a seal for the confirmation of the covenant. But if the

covenant remains firm and unmoved, it belongs to the children of

Christians now, as much as it did to the infants of the Jews under the

Old Testament. But if they are partakers of the thing signified, why

shall they be excluded from the sign? If they obtain the truth, why

shall they be debarred from the figure? Though the external sign in the

sacrament is so connected with the word, as not to be separated from it,

yet if it be distinguished, which shall we esteem of the greater

importance? Certainly, when we see that the sign is subservient to the

word, we shall pronounce it to be inferior to it, and assign it the

subordinate place. While the word of baptism, then, is directed to

infants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix to the word, be

prohibited to them? This one reason, if there were no others, would be

abundantly sufficient for the refutation of all opposers. The objection

that there was a particular day fixed for circumcision, is a mere

evasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days, like the

Jews; but when the Lord, though he prescribes no particular day, yet

declares it to be his pleasure that infants shall be received into his

covenant by a solemn rite, what do we want more?

VI. The Scripture, however, still affords a more certain knowledge of

the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once

made with Abraham continues as much in force with Christians in the

present day, as it did formerly with the Jews; and consequently that

that word is no less applicable to Christians than it was to the Jews.

Unless we suppose that Christ by his advent diminished or curtailed the

grace of the Father; which is execrable blasphemy. Wherefore the

children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of that covenant, and

distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed;

and for the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one

of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the

testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Now,

as the Lord, immediately after having made the covenant with Abraham,

commanded it to be sealed in infants by an external sacrament, what

cause will Christians assign why they should not also at this day

testify and seal the same in their children? Nor let it be objected,

that the Lord commanded not his covenant to be confirmed by any other

symbol than that of circumcision, which has long ago been abolished. For

it is easy to reply, that during the time of the Old Testament he

appointed circumcision for the confirmation of his covenant; but that

since the abrogation of circumcision, there always remains the same

reason for confirming it, which we have in common with the Jews. It is

necessary, therefore, to be careful in observing what we have in common

with them, and what they had different from us. The covenant is common,

the reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is

different; for to them it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us

has been succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the

Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed be taken away from us,

the effect of the advent of Christ has been to render the grace of God

more obscure and less attested to us than it was to the Jews. If this

cannot be affirmed without great dishonour to Christ, by whom the

infinite goodness of God has been diffused over the earth, and

manifested to men in a more conspicuous and liberal manner than at any

former period, we must be obliged to confess, that at least it ought not

to be more concealed or less attested than under the obscure shadows of

the law.

VII. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen from which the

world might understand that he was come to extend rather than to limit

the mercy of the Father, kindly received the infants that were presented

to him, and embraced them in his arms, chiding his disciples who

endeavoured to forbid their approach to him, because they would keep

those, of whom was the kingdom of heaven, at a distance from him who is

the only way of entrance into it. But some will object, What resemblance

does this embrace of Christ bear to baptism? for he is not said to have

baptized them, but to have received them, taken them in his arms, and

blessed them; therefore, if we desire to imitate his example, let us

assist infants with our prayers, but let us not baptize them. But it is

necessary to consider the conduct of Christ with more attention than it

receives from persons of this class. For it is not to be passed over as

a thing of little importance, that Christ commanded infants to be

brought to him, and added, as a reason for this command, “For of such is

the kingdom of heaven;” and afterwards gave a practical testimony of his

will, when, embracing them in his arms, he commended them to his Father

by his prayers and benedictions. If it be reasonable for infants to be

brought to Christ, why is it not allowable to admit them to baptism, the

symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If of them is the

kingdom of heaven, why shall they be denied the sign, which opens, as it

were, an entrance into the Church, that, being received into it, they

may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust

shall we be, if we drive away from Christ those whom he invites to him;

if we deprive them of the gifts with which he adorns them; if we exclude

those whom he freely admits! But if we examine how far what Christ did

on that occasion differs from baptism, how much greater importance shall

we attach to baptism, by which we testify that infants are included in

the covenant of God, than to the reception, the embrace, the imposition

of hands, and the prayers by which Jesus Christ himself acknowledged

them as his, and declared them to be sanctified by him! The other cavils

by which our opponents endeavour to elude the force of this passage,

only betray their ignorance. For they argue that as Christ said, “Suffer

little children to _come_,” they must have been grown to such an age and

stature as to be capable of walking. But they are called by the

evangelists Βρεφη; and παιδια, two words used by the Greeks to signify

little infants hanging on the breast. The word “_come_,” therefore, is

merely used to denote “_access_.” To such evasions are persons obliged

to have recourse, who resist the truth. Nor is there any more solidity

in the objection, that the kingdom of heaven is not said to belong to

infants, but to those who resemble them, because the expression is, not

of _them_, but “of _such_ is the kingdom of heaven.” For if this be

admitted, what kind of reason would it be that Christ assigns, with a

view to show that infants in age ought not to be prevented from

approaching him, when he says, “Suffer little children to come unto me?”

Nothing can be plainer than that he intends those who are in a state of

real infancy. And to prevent this from being thought unreasonable, he

adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And if infants be necessarily

comprehended, it is beyond all doubt that the word “_such_” designates

both infants themselves and those who resemble them.[1171]

VIII. Now, every one must perceive, that the baptism of infants, which

is so strongly supported by the authority of Scripture, is very far from

being an invention of men. Nor is there much plausibility in the

objection, that it is nowhere stated that even a single infant was

baptized by the hands of the apostles. For though no such circumstance

is expressly mentioned by the evangelists, yet, on the other hand, as

they are never excluded when mention happens to be made of the baptism

of any family, who can rationally conclude from this, that they were not

baptized? If there were any force in such arguments, women might as well

be interdicted from the Lord’s supper, because we have no account of

their having been admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But in

this we are content with the rule of faith. For when we consider the

design of the institution of the Lord’s supper, the conclusion is easy

respecting the persons who ought to be admitted to a participation of

it. We observe the same rule also in the case of baptism. For when we

consider the end of its institution, we evidently perceive that it

belongs to infants as well as to adults. Therefore they cannot be

deprived of it without a manifest evasion of the will of the Divine

Author. What they circulate among the uninformed multitude, that after

the resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which

infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth; for there

is no ancient writer who does not refer its origin, as a matter of

certainty, to the age of the apostles.

IX. It remains for us briefly to show what advantage results from this

ceremony, both to believers who present their children to the Church to

be baptized, and to the infants themselves who are washed in the holy

water; to guard it from being despised as useless or unimportant. But if

any man takes it into his head to ridicule infant baptism on this

pretext, he holds the command of circumcision, which was given by the

Lord, in equal contempt. For what will they allege to impugn the baptism

of infants, which may not be retorted against circumcision? Thus the

Lord avenges the arrogance of those, who forthwith condemn what their

carnal sense does not comprehend. But God furnishes us with other

weapons to repel their folly; nor does this sacred ordinance of his

appointment, which we experience to be a source of peculiar support and

consolation to our faith, deserve to be called unnecessary. For this

sign of God, communicated to a child, like the impress of a seal,

ratifies and confirms the promise given to the pious parent, declaring

that the Lord will be a God, not only to him, but also to his seed, and

that he is determined to exercise his goodness and grace, not only

towards him, but towards his posterity even to a thousand generations.

The manifestation here given of the mercy of God, in the first place,

furnishes the most abundant matter for the celebration of his glory; and

in the second place, fills pious breasts with more than common joy, by

which they are excited to a more ardent return of affection to such an

indulgent Father, in whom they discover such care of their posterity on

their account. Nor shall I regard an objection, if it should be urged,

that the mere promise of God ought to be sufficient to assure us of the

salvation of our children; since God, who knows our weakness, and has

been pleased in this instance to indulge it, has decided otherwise. Let

those, therefore, who embrace the promise of God that he will perpetuate

his mercy to their offspring, consider it their duty to present them to

the Church to be signed with the symbol of mercy, and thereby to animate

their minds to stronger confidence, when they actually see the covenant

of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. The children also

receive some advantage from their baptism, their ingrafting into the

body of the Church being a more peculiar recommendation of them to the

other members; and afterwards, when they grow to years of maturity, it

operates upon them as a powerful stimulus to a serious attention to the

worship of God, by whom they were accepted as his children by the solemn

symbol of adoption, before they were capable of knowing him as their

Father. Finally, we ought to be alarmed by the vengeance which God

threatens to inflict, if any one disdains to mark his son with the

symbol of the covenant; for the contempt of that symbol involves the

rejection and abjuration of the grace which it presents.

X. Let us now discuss the arguments with which some violent disputants

continue to impugn this holy institution of God. In the first place,

finding themselves very hardly pressed and exceedingly embarrassed by

the similarity of baptism and circumcision, they labour to establish a

considerable difference between these two signs, that one may appear to

have nothing in common with the other. For they affirm, first, that

different things are signified; secondly, that the covenant is entirely

different; and thirdly, that the children are mentioned in a different

manner. But when they endeavour to prove the first point, they allege

that circumcision was a figure of mortification, and not of baptism;

which we most readily grant, for it is an excellent argument in our

favour. We urge no other proof of our sentiment, than that baptism and

circumcision are equally signs of mortification. Hence we conclude, that

baptism was introduced in the place of circumcision, and represents to

us the very same thing which that formerly did to the Jews. In asserting

a difference of the covenant, with what presumption and absurdity do

they corrupt the Scripture, and that not in a single passage, but

without leaving any part of it secure from their perversions. For they

represent the carnality of the Jews to be such, as to give them a

greater resemblance to brutes than to rational beings; contending that

the covenant made with them was limited to a temporary life, and that

the promises given to them were all confined to present and corporeal

enjoyments. If this notion be admitted, what remains but to consider the

Jewish people as pampered for a season by the Divine bounty, (like a

herd of swine, fattened in a sty,) to perish at length in eternal ruin?

For whenever we adduce circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they

reply, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that the promises

connected with it were all carnal.

XI. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same opinion must

be formed of baptism; for the apostle makes one no more spiritual than

the other. He says to the Colossians, “In Christ ye are circumcised with

the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins

of the flesh;” and this he calls “the circumcision of Christ.” In

explication of this sentiment, he adds, that they were “buried with

Christ in baptism.”[1172] What is the meaning of this language, but that

the accomplishment and truth of baptism is the same with the

accomplishment and truth of circumcision, since they both represent the

same thing? For his design is to show that baptism was to Christians the

same that circumcision had before been to the Jews. But as we have now

clearly evinced that the promises of these two signs, and the mysteries

represented by them, are precisely the same, we shall insist no longer

on this point at present. I will only recommend believers to consider,

whether that sign ought to be accounted earthly and literal, which

contains nothing but what is spiritual and heavenly. But to guard the

simple against their fallacies, we shall briefly reply by the way to one

objection, by which they endeavour to support this shameful

misrepresentation. It is very certain that the principal promises of the

covenant, which God made with the Israelites under the Old Testament,

were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life; and that they were

also understood by the fathers, as they ought to be, in a spiritual

sense, and inspired them with confident hopes of the life to come,

towards which they aspired with all the powers of their souls. At the

same time, we are far from denying that he testified his benevolence to

them by terrestrial and carnal advantages, by which we also maintain

that their hopes of spiritual promises were confirmed. Thus, when he

promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he added, in order

to set a manifest token of his favour before his eyes, another promise

respecting the possession of the land of Canaan. In this manner we ought

to understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the

Jewish nation; so that the spiritual promise may always be considered as

a source and foundation, to which the others may be referred. But having

treated these points more at large in discussing the difference of the

Old and New Testaments, I touch the more slightly upon them here.

XII. In the mention of the children they find this variety; that under

the Old Testament, those were called the children of Abraham, who

derived their natural descent from him; but that now this appellation is

given to those who imitate his faith; and that, therefore, that carnal

infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the Church by

circumcision, prefigured those spiritual infants of the New Testament,

who by the word of God are regenerated to an immortal life. In this

language we discover, indeed, a small spark of truth; but it is a great

error of these persons, that while they lay hold of whatever first comes

to their hands, when they ought to pursue it much further, and to

compare many things together, they pertinaciously insist on a single

word; hence it necessarily happens that they are often deceived, because

they acquire no solid knowledge of any thing. We confess that the

natural seed of Abraham did for a time hold the place of those spiritual

children which are incorporated with him by faith. For we are called his

children, notwithstanding there is no natural relationship between him

and us. But if they understand, as they certainly do, that no spiritual

blessing was ever promised by God to the carnal seed of Abraham, they

are greatly deceived. It behoves us to aim at a more correct sentiment,

to which we are directed by the certain guidance of the Scripture. The

Lord, therefore, promised to Abraham, that he should have a Seed, in

whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and accompanied

this promise with an assurance that he would be a God to him, and to his

seed. All those, who by faith receive Christ, the Author of the

blessing, are heirs of this promise, and are therefore denominated

“children of Abraham.”

XIII. Though, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the

kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations,

without any distinction, that, according to the declaration of Christ,

believers might be collected “from the east, and from the west, and

from the north, and from the south,” to “sit down with Abraham, and

Isaac, and Jacob,”[1173] in the glory of heaven, yet he had embraced

the Jews with this great mercy for many ages before; and because he

had passed by all others, and selected this one nation, to be for a

season the exclusive objects of his grace, he called them his

“peculiar treasure” and “special people.”[1174] In attestation of this

beneficence, the Lord gave them circumcision, which was a sign to

teach the Jews that he would be their defence and salvation; and the

knowledge of this inspired their hearts with the hope of eternal life.

For what can be wanting to them whom God has taken into his charge?

Wherefore the apostle, with a view to prove that the Gentiles are

children of Abraham as well as the Jews, expresses himself in the

following manner: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness in

uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of

the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised;

that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be

not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also;

and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision

only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father

Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”[1175] Do not we see

that equal dignity is attributed to Jews and Gentiles? For during the

time fixed by the decree of God, Abraham was the father of

circumcision. When the “middle wall of partition between” them was

“broken down,”[1176] as the apostle says in another place, to give the

Gentiles an entrance into the kingdom of God, he became also their

father, and that without the sign of circumcision; for instead of

circumcision, they have baptism. The express intimation, that Abraham

was not a father to them who were of the circumcision only, was

introduced by the apostle, to repress the vain confidence of some who

neglected all concern about piety, and prided themselves in mere

ceremonies. In the same manner, we may now refute the vanity of those

who in baptism never carry their thoughts beyond the water.

XIV. But in objection to this, another passage is adduced from the same

apostle, in which he states, “that they which are the children of the

flesh” are not “the children of Abraham,” but that only “the children of

the promise are counted for the seed.”[1177] For this passage seems to

imply, that carnal descent from Abraham is nothing, though we attribute

some importance to it. But it is requisite to pay more particular

attention to the subject which the apostle is here discussing. For in

order to show to the Jews, that the goodness of God was not confined to

the seed of Abraham, and even that carnal descent from him was of no

value in itself, he alleges, in proof of it, the cases of Ishmael and

Esau; who, notwithstanding they were the true offspring of Abraham

according to the flesh, were rejected as if they had been strangers, and

the blessing remained with Isaac and Jacob. Hence follows what he

afterwards affirms—that salvation depends on the mercy of God, which he

imparts to whom he pleases; but that the Jews have no reason for

satisfaction, or glorying in the name of the covenant, unless they

observe the law of the covenant; that is, obey the Divine word. Yet,

after having demolished their vain confidence in their descent, knowing,

on the other hand, that the covenant which God had once made with the

posterity of Abraham could by no means be invalidated, he argues, that

the natural descendants are not to be deprived of their dignity; by

virtue of which he shows that the Jews were the first and natural heirs

of the gospel, only that they had been rejected as unworthy, on account

of their ingratitude, yet that the heavenly benediction had not entirely

departed from their nation. For which reason, though they were rebels

and violators of the covenant, yet he calls them holy; such high honours

does he give to the holy generation, which God honoured with his sacred

covenant; but he considers us, in comparison with them, as the

posthumous, and even abortive children of Abraham, and that not by

nature, but by adoption; as if a branch broken off from its native tree

were ingrafted on another stock. That they might not be defrauded of

their prerogative, therefore, it was necessary for the gospel to be

first announced to them; for they are, as it were, the first-born in the

family of God. Wherefore this honour was to be given to them, till they

rejected the offer of it, and by their ingratitude caused it to be

transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, whatever be the obstinacy with which

they persist in opposing the gospel, ought they, on that account, to be

despised by us, if we consider that, for the sake of the promise, the

blessing of God still remains among them; as the apostle clearly

testifies that it will never entirely depart from them; “for the gifts

and calling of God are without repentance.”[1178]

XV. See, now, the importance and the estimate to be formed of the

promise given to the posterity of Abraham. Therefore, though we have no

doubt that the distinction of the heirs of the kingdom from those who

have no share in it, is the free act of the sovereign election of God,

yet, at the same time, we perceive that he has been pleased to display

his mercy in a peculiar manner on the seed of Abraham, and to testify

and seal it by circumcision. The same reason is applicable to the

Christian Church. For as Paul, in that passage, argues that the children

of the Jews were sanctified by their parents, so, in another

place,[1179] he teaches that the children of Christians derive the same

sanctification from their parents; whence it is inferred, that they who,

on the contrary, are condemned as impure, are deservedly separated from

others. Now, who can doubt the falsehood of the consequence attempted to

be established, that the infants who were circumcised in former ages,

only prefigured those who are infants in a spiritual sense, being

regenerated by the word of God? Paul does not reason in this manner,

when he says, “that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for

the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers;”[1180]

as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham relates to his

seed, Jesus Christ, in order to execute and discharge the promise once

pledged by the Father, came to save the people of the Jews. We see how,

even after the resurrection of Christ, Paul understands that the promise

of the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only in an allegorical sense,

but, according to the literal import of the words, to the natural seed

of Abraham. To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews,

“The promise is unto you and to your children,”[1181] and the

appellation under which he addresses them, “Ye are the children of the

covenant,”[1182] and if children, then heirs. A similar sentiment is

conveyed in another passage of the apostle, which we have already

quoted, where he represents the circumcision performed on infants as a

testimony of the communion which they have with Christ.[1183] And, on

the contrary principle, what will become of that promise, by which the

Lord, in the second precept of his law, declares to his servants, that

he will be merciful to their seed, even to a thousand generations?[1184]

Shall we here have recourse to allegories? That would be a frivolous

evasion. Shall we say that this promise is cancelled? That would be

subversive of the law, which, on the contrary, Christ came to establish,

as a rule, for a holy life. It ought to be admitted, therefore, beyond

all controversy, that God is so kind and liberal to his servants, as,

for their sakes, to appoint even the children who shall descend from

them to be enrolled among his people.

XVI. The other differences which they endeavour to establish between

baptism and circumcision, are not only ridiculous, and destitute of

every appearance of reason, but are even repugnant to each other. For

after they have affirmed that baptism belongs to the first day of the

spiritual conflict, but circumcision to the eighth, when the

mortification is already completed,—immediately forgetting this, they

change their story, and call circumcision a sign of the mortification of

the flesh, and baptism a symbol of a burial, to which none are to be

consigned but those who are already dead. Where can we find another

instance of such levity of self-contradiction? For, according to the

first proposition, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to

the second, it ought to follow it. Yet it is not a new thing for the

minds of men to run into such inconsistencies, when they prefer their

own dreams to the unerring word of God. We say, therefore, that the

first of these differences is a mere dream. If they wished to allegorize

on the eighth day, yet there was no propriety in this manner of doing

it. It would have been much better to follow the ancients, and refer the

number of the day either to the resurrection of Christ, which took place

on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends; or

to the whole course of the present life, which ought to be a course of

progressive mortification, till, at the termination of life, the

mortification also should be completed. It is probable, however, that

God deferred circumcision to the eighth day on account of the tenderness

of young infants, whose lives might be endangered by the performance of

that rite immediately on their birth. Nor is there much more solidity in

the second position, that, after being dead, we are buried by baptism;

since the Scripture expressly teaches, that “we are buried by baptism

into death,”[1185] in order to our entrance on a course of

mortification, and continuance in it from that time forward! Nor is

there any more propriety in the objection, that, if it be necessary to

conform baptism to circumcision, women ought not to be baptized. For if

it be evident, that the sign of circumcision testified the

sanctification of the seed of Israel, there can be no doubt that it was

given equally for the sanctification of males and females. And though

only the males were circumcised, they alone being capable of it, the

females were in a certain sense partakers of their circumcision.

Dismissing such follies, therefore, let us never forget the similarity

of baptism and circumcision, between which we discover a complete

agreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and the

efficacy.

XVII. They consider themselves as advancing a most powerful argument for

excluding infants from baptism, when they allege, that by reason of

their age they are not yet capable of understanding the mystery

signified in it; that is, spiritual regeneration, which cannot take

place in early infancy. Therefore they conclude, they are to be

considered in no other view than as children of Adam, till they have

attained an age which admits of a second birth. But all these things are

uniformly contradicted by the truth of God. For if they must be left

among the children of Adam, they are left in death; for in Adam we can

only die. On the contrary, Christ commands them to be brought to him.

Why? Because he is life. To give them life, therefore, he makes them

partakers of himself; while these men, by driving them away from him,

adjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish,

even though they are considered as children of Adam, their error is

abundantly refuted by the testimony of Scripture. For when it pronounces

that “in Adam all die,”[1186] it follows that there remains no hope of

life but in Christ. In order to become heirs of life, therefore, it is

necessary for us to be partakers of him. So, when it is said, in other

places, that we are “by nature the children of wrath,”[1187] and

“conceived in sin,”[1188] with which condemnation is always connected,

it follows, that we must depart from our own nature, to have any

admission to the kingdom of God. And what can be more explicit than this

declaration, “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of

God?”[1189] Let every thing of our own, therefore, be destroyed, which

will not be effected without regeneration, and then we shall see this

possession of the kingdom. Lastly, if Christ speaks the truth, when he

declares himself to be “life,”[1190] it is necessary for us to be

ingrafted into him, that we may be rescued from the bondage of death.

But how, it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge

either of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is not yet

without existence, because it is not observed or understood by us. Now,

it is certain that some infants are saved; and that they are previously

regenerated by the Lord, is beyond all doubt. For if they are born in a

state of corruption, it is necessary for them to be purified before they

are admitted into the kingdom of God, into which “there shall in no wise

enter any thing that defileth.”[1191] If they are born sinners, as both

David and Paul affirm, either they must remain unacceptable and hateful

to God, or it is necessary for them to be justified. And what do we

require more, when the Judge himself declares that there is no entrance

into the heavenly life, except for those who are born again?[1192] And,

to silence all objectors, by sanctifying John the Baptist in his

mother’s womb, he exhibited an example of what he was able to do for

others. Nor can they gain any advantage by their frivolous evasion, that

this was only a single case, which does not justify the conclusion that

the Lord generally acts in this manner with infants. For we use no such

argument. We only mean to show, that they unjustly confine the power of

God within those narrow limits to which it does not suffer itself to be

restricted. Their other subterfuge is equally weak. They allege that,

according to the usage of the Scripture, the phrase _from the womb_

denotes _from childhood_. But it is easy to see that, in the declaration

of the angel to Zacharias, it was used in a different sense, and that

John was to be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before he was

born.[1193] Let us not attempt, therefore, to impose laws upon God,

whose power has sustained no diminution, but who is able to sanctify

whom he pleases, as he sanctified this child.

XVIII. And for this reason, Christ was sanctified from his earliest

infancy, that he might sanctify in himself all his elect, of every age,

without any difference. For as, in order to obliterate the guilt of the

transgression which had been perpetrated in our flesh, he assumed to

himself that very flesh, that he might perform a perfect obedience in

it, on our account, and in our stead, so he was conceived of the Holy

Spirit, that, having the whole body which he assumed, fully endued with

the sanctity of the Spirit, he might communicate the same to us. If

Christ exhibits a perfect exemplar of all the graces which God bestows

upon his children, he will also furnish us with a proof, that the age of

infancy is not altogether incompatible with sanctification. But, however

this may be, we consider it as clear, beyond all controversy, that not

one of the elect is called out of the present life, without having been

previously regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God. Their

objection, that the Holy Spirit, in the Scriptures, acknowledges no

regeneration, except from “the incorruptible seed,” that is, “the word

of God,”[1194] is a misinterpretation of that passage of Peter, which

merely comprehends believers who had been taught by the preaching of the

gospel. To such persons, indeed, we grant that the word of the Lord is

the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny that it ought to be

concluded from this, that infants cannot be regenerated by the power of

God, which is as easy to him as it is wonderful and mysterious to us.

Besides, it would not be safe to affirm, that the Lord cannot reveal

himself in any way so as to make himself known to them.

XIX. But our opponents say, “Faith cometh by hearing,”[1195] of which

they have not yet acquired the use, and they cannot be capable of

knowing God; for Moses declares them to “have no knowledge between good

and evil.”[1196] But they do not consider, that when the apostle makes

hearing the source of faith, he only describes the ordinary economy and

dispensation of the Lord, which he generally observes in the calling of

his people; but does not prescribe a perpetual rule for him, precluding

his employment of any other method; which he has certainly employed in

the calling of many, to whom he has given the true knowledge of himself

in an internal manner, by the illumination of his Spirit, without the

intervention of any preaching. But as they think it would be such a

great absurdity for any knowledge of God to be given to infants, to whom

Moses denies the knowledge of good and evil, I would beg them to inform

me, what danger can result from our affirming that they already receive

some portion of that grace, of which they will ere long enjoy the full

abundance. For if the plenitude of life consists in the perfect

knowledge of God,—when some of them, whom death removes from the present

state in their earliest infancy, pass into eternal life, they are

certainly admitted to the immediate contemplation of the presence of

God. As the Lord, therefore, will illuminate them with the full

splendour of his countenance in heaven, why may he not also, if such be

his pleasure, irradiate them with some faint rays of it in the present

life; especially if he does not deliver them from all ignorance before

he liberates them from the prison of the body? Not that I would hastily

affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experience in

ourselves, or at all to possess a similar knowledge of faith, which I

would prefer leaving in suspense; my design is only to check their

foolish arrogance, who presumptuously assert or deny whatever they

please.

XX. To strengthen their cause still further, our opponents proceed to

allege, that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and faith; and that,

therefore, as neither of these can be exercised in infancy, infants

ought not to be admitted to a participation of baptism, the

signification of which would thereby be rendered vain. But these

arguments are directed against God, more than against us. For it is very

evident, from many testimonies of Scripture, that circumcision also was

a sign of repentance, and Paul calls it “a seal of the righteousness of

faith.”[1197] Let the reason, then, be demanded of God himself, why he

commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For, as baptism

and circumcision both stand on the same ground, they can attribute

nothing to the latter which they must not also grant to the former. If

they recur to their favourite subterfuge, that the age of infancy then

prefigured spiritual infants, it has been already answered. We say,

therefore, that since God formerly communicated to infants the rite of

circumcision, which was a sacrament of repentance and faith, it appears

to be no absurdity for them now to be admitted to a participation of

baptism; unless these men wish to offer a direct insult to the

institution of God. But in this, as well as in all the proceedings of

God, his wisdom and righteousness are sufficiently conspicuous to

repress the opposition and detraction of the impious. For though

infants, at the time of their circumcision, did not understand the

meaning of that sign, they were nevertheless truly circumcised into the

mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature, which they were to

pursue in mature years. In short, this objection may be answered without

any difficulty, by saying that they are baptized into future repentance

and faith; for though these graces have not yet been formed in them, the

seeds of both are nevertheless implanted in their hearts by the secret

operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overturns every argument

they urge against us, derived from the signification of baptism; as when

they allege the designation given it by Paul, where he calls it “the

washing of regeneration and renewing;”[1198] whence they argue that it

ought to be given only to such as are capable of being regenerated and

renewed. But we may reply, on the other hand, neither was circumcision,

which was a sign of regeneration, to be given to any but such as were

already regenerated; and this, in their apprehension, will be to condemn

the ordinance of God. Therefore, as we have suggested several times

before, whatever arguments tend equally to invalidate circumcision, can

have no force in the controversy against baptism. Nor can they escape

from any difficulty, by saying, that whatever clearly rests on the

authority of God, we ought to consider as fixed and determined, though

we can discover no reason for it; but that this reverence is not due to

infant baptism, or to other similar things, which are not enjoined upon

us by the express word of God; for they will always be held fast by this

dilemma. Either the command of God, respecting the circumcision of

infants, was legitimate and liable to no objections, or it was deserving

of censure. If there was no absurdity in that command, neither can any

absurdity be detected in the practice of infant baptism.

XXI. The charge of absurdity, with which they endeavour to stigmatize

it, we thus refute: If any of those who are the objects of divine

election, after having received the sign of regeneration, depart out of

this life before they have attained years of discretion, the Lord

renovates them by the power of his Spirit, incomprehensible to us, in

such a manner as he alone foresees will be necessary. If they happen to

live to an age at which they are capable of being instructed in the true

signification of baptism, they will hence be the more inflamed to the

pursuit of that renovation, with the token of which they find themselves

to have been favoured in their earliest infancy, that it might be the

object of their constant attention all their lifetime. In the same sense

must be understood what Paul states in two places, that we are “buried

with Christ by baptism.”[1199] For he does not mean that he who is to be

baptized, must previously be buried with Christ, but simply declares the

doctrine which is contained in baptism, and that to persons already

baptized; so that it would be unreasonable to argue from those passages,

that such burial with Christ must precede baptism. In this manner Moses

and the prophets reminded the people what was the meaning of

circumcision, though they had received that rite when they were infants.

To the same effect is what Paul writes to the Galatians, that “as many

as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”[1200] For what

purpose? Why, that they might thenceforward live to Christ, who had

never lived to him before. And though in adults a knowledge of the

mystery ought to precede the reception of the sign, yet a different rule

is to be applied to infants, as we shall presently show. Nor can any

other conclusion be drawn from that passage of Peter, which they

consider as decisive in their favour—that baptism is “not the putting

away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience

toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[1201] They contend

that this passage leaves not the least room for the baptism of infants,

who are not capable of that in which the truth of baptism is here stated

to consist. But they frequently fall into this error, of maintaining

that the thing signified should always precede the sign. For the truth

of circumcision also consisted in the same answer of a good conscience;

but if it ought of necessity to precede it, infants would never have

been circumcised by the command of God. But by showing us that the

answer of a good conscience is comprehended in the truth of

circumcision, and at the same time commanding infants to be circumcised,

he sufficiently indicates that it is administered with a view to

something future. Wherefore, all the present efficacy to be required in

the baptism of infants, is to ratify and confirm the covenant made with

them by the Lord. The remaining signification of this sacrament will

follow afterwards, at the time foreseen and appointed by the Lord.

XXII. It must now, I think, be evident to every person, that all

arguments of this kind are mere perversions of Scripture. Those which

remain, and are nearly allied to these, we shall run over in a cursory

manner. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins:

this we admit, and it is completely in favour of our opinion. For being

born sinners, we need pardon and remission even from our birth. Now, as

the Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but rather

assures them of it, why shall we refuse them the sign, which is so far

inferior to the thing signified? Wherefore, the argument which they urge

against us, we retort upon themselves; infants are favoured with

remission of sins,—therefore they ought not to be deprived of the sign.

They also adduce that passage where the Lord is said to “cleanse the

Church with the washing of water by the word.”[1202] But no text could

be quoted more conclusive against their error; it furnishes an obvious

confirmation of our sentiment. If it be the will of Christ that the

ablution, with which he cleanses his Church, be testified by baptism, it

appears unreasonable that its testimony should be wanting in infants,

who are justly considered as part of the Church, since they are called

heirs of the kingdom of heaven. For Paul speaks of the whole Church,

when he describes it as cleansed with the washing of water. And, on the

same principle, from that passage where he says that we are all baptized

into the body of Christ,[1203] we conclude that infants, whom he numbers

among his members, ought to be baptized, that they may not be separated

from his body. See with what violence, and with what variety of weapons,

they attack the bulwarks of our faith!

XXIII. They proceed, in the next place, to the practice of the apostolic

age, in which no one is found to have been admitted to baptism without a

previous profession of faith and repentance. For in answer to those who

“were pricked in their heart, and said, What shall we do? Peter said

unto them,” first, “repent,” and then “be baptized for the remission of

sins.”[1204] In like manner Philip, when the eunuch requested to be

baptized, replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou

mayest.”[1205] Hence they think themselves justified in concluding, that

baptism ought never to be administered to any person without being

preceded by faith and repentance. But if we adopt this reasoning, the

first of these passages, which makes no mention of faith, will evince

the sufficiency of repentance alone: the second, where repentance is not

required, will prove that faith alone is sufficient. I suppose they will

reply that one passage is elucidated by the other, and that therefore

they ought to be connected together. I also contend that other places

ought to be consulted, which may contribute to the solution of this

difficulty. For there are many passages of Scripture, the sense of which

depends on the circumstances connected with them. This is exemplified in

the cases now under consideration. For the persons addressed by Peter

and Philip were of an age capable of exercising repentance and faith. We

strenuously deny that such persons ought to be baptized, without a

knowledge of their repentance and faith, as far, at least, as they are

capable of being ascertained by the judgment of men. But that infants

ought to be ranked in a different class, is sufficiently evident; for,

under the former dispensation, if any person connected himself with the

Israelites in religious communion, it was necessary for him to be taught

the covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law, before he received

circumcision, because he was an alien by birth, not one of the

Israelitish people, with whom the covenant, which was confirmed by

circumcision, had been made.

XXIV. So the Lord himself, when he adopts Abraham, does not begin with

circumcision, concealing for a time what was intended by that sign; but

he first announces the covenant which he designs to make with him, and

then, after he has received that promise in faith, makes him a partaker

of that sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in the case of

Abraham, and in Isaac, his son, precede all exercise of understanding?

Because it is reasonable that a person, who at an adult age is admitted

to the fellowship of a covenant, to which he had hitherto been a

stranger, should first learn the conditions of it; but this is not

necessary in the case of an infant, who, by hereditary right, according

to the form of the promise, is already included in the covenant from its

very birth. Or, to express it with greater clearness and brevity, if the

children of believers, without the aid of understanding, are partakers

of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be excluded from the

sign because they are not capable of expressing their consent to the

stipulation of the covenant. This is evidently the reason why God

sometimes declares the children descended from the Israelites to be born

to himself;[1206] for he undoubtedly considers as his children, the

children of those to whose seed he has promised to be a Father. But he

who is an unbeliever, descended from impious parents, is accounted an

alien from the communion of the covenant, till he be united to God by

faith. It is no wonder, therefore, if he be not a partaker of the sign,

the signification of which in him would be delusive and vain. In this

sense Paul tells the Ephesians, that as long as they were immersed in

idolatry, they were “strangers from the covenant.”[1207] The whole of

the subject, if I mistake not, may be clearly and summarily stated in

the following position; that persons of adult age, who embrace the

Christian religion, having been hitherto aliens from the covenant, are

not to receive the sign of baptism without the intervention of faith and

repentance, which alone can give them an admission to the fellowship of

the covenant; but that the infant children of Christian parents, being

admitted by God to the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are

born, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this must be referred what

is related by the evangelists, that the people “were baptized of John,

confessing their sins”[1208]—an example which we think ought to be

followed in the present day. For if a Turk or heathen were to offer

himself to baptism, we would not hastily admit him to that sacrament,

without his having first made a confession to the satisfaction of the

Church.

XXV. Moreover, they adduce the language of Christ, which is recorded by

John, and which they suppose to represent a present regeneration as

requisite to baptism; “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he

cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”[1209] See, they say, how baptism

is called _regeneration_ by the mouth of the Lord. When it is evident,

then, that infants are utterly incapable of regeneration, on what

pretence do we admit them to baptism, to which regeneration is

indispensably necessary? In the first place, they are deceived in

supposing that this passage refers to baptism, because it mentions

water. For, after Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of

nature, and shown him the necessity of being born again,—because

Nicodemus was dreaming of a second corporeal birth, he here indicates

the manner in which God regenerates us, namely, by water and by the

Spirit; as if he had said, by the Spirit who, in the ablution and

purification of the souls of believers, performs the office of water. I

therefore understand by “water and the Spirit,” simply, the Spirit who

is water. Nor is this a novel mode of expression; for it perfectly

corresponds with that declaration of John the Baptist, “He that cometh

after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”[1210] As _to

baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire_, therefore, is to confer the

Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so

_to be born of water and of the Spirit_ is no other than to receive that

influence of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does on the

body. I know that others give a different interpretation, but I have no

doubt that this is the genuine sense; because the intention of Christ is

simply to teach that all must be divested of their own nature, who

aspire to the kingdom of heaven. However, if we were desirous of

imitating their cavils, it would be easy for us, granting what they

require, to retort upon them, that baptism is prior to faith and

repentance, because, in the words of Christ, water is mentioned before

the Spirit. It is certain that this phrase denotes spiritual gifts; and,

if these follow baptism, I have established what I wish. But, leaving

all subterfuges, let us adhere to the simple interpretation which I have

proposed—that no one, till he is renewed by living water, that is, by

the Spirit, can enter into the kingdom of God.

XXVI. It is further evident that their notion ought to be exploded,

because it adjudges all unbaptized persons to eternal death. Let us

suppose their tenet to be admitted, and baptism to be administered to

adults alone; what will they say will become of a youth who is rightly

instructed in the first principles of piety, if he desires to be

baptized, but, contrary to the expectation of all around, happens to be

snatched away by sudden death? The Lord’s promise is clear: “Whosoever

believeth on the Son, shall not come into condemnation;” but “is passed

from death unto life.”[1211] We are nowhere informed of his having

condemned one who had yet not been baptized. By this I would not be

understood as implying that baptism may be despised with impunity; for,

so far from attempting to excuse such contempt, I affirm it to be a

violation of the covenant of the Lord; I only mean to evince that it is

not so necessary, as that a person, who is deprived of the opportunity

of embracing it, must immediately be considered as lost. But if we

assent to their notion, we shall condemn all, without exception, whom

any circumstance whatever prevents from being baptized, whatever faith

they may otherwise have, even that faith by which Christ himself is

enjoyed. Moreover, they sentence all infants to eternal death, by

denying them baptism, which, according to their own confession, is

necessary to salvation. Let them see, now, how well they agree with the

language of Christ, which adjudges the kingdom of heaven to little

children. But though we should grant them every thing they contend for

relative to the sense of this passage, still they will gain no advantage

from it, unless they first overturn the doctrine which we have already

established respecting the regeneration of infants.

XXVII. But the strongest argument of all in favour of their opinion,

they boast, is contained in the original institution of baptism, which

they quote from the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending forth

his disciples to all nations, gave them a commission, first to teach,

and then to baptize. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing

them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;

teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded

you.”[1212] Then, from the last chapter of Mark, they add, “He that

believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1213] What more do we

require, say they, when the language of our Lord clearly expresses that

teaching ought to precede baptism, and represents baptism as subsequent

to faith? Of this order, an example was furnished even by the Lord Jesus

himself who was not baptized till he was “about thirty years of

age.”[1214] In what various ways do they embarrass themselves, and

betray their ignorance! For it is a mistake, worse than childish, to

consider that commission as the original institution of baptism, which

Christ had commanded his apostles to administer from the commencement of

his preaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law

and rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if

they contained the first institution of it. Though we should indulge

them by admitting this error, yet what force is there in their

reasoning? Indeed, if we wanted to evade the force of their arguments,

we need not have recourse to any little subterfuge; a most ample field

presents itself before us. For while they so violently insist on the

order of the words, as to argue, that, when it is said, “Go teach and

baptize,” and “he that believeth and is baptized,” the meaning is, that

preaching ought to precede baptism, and that faith ought to precede the

reception of baptism,—why may not we, on the other hand, reply, that

baptizing ought to precede teaching the observance of those things which

Christ has commanded, because it is said, “Baptize, teaching them to

observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” We have remarked

the same thing on the declaration of Christ, which has just been quoted,

respecting the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; for if it be

understood according to their interpretation, it will appear from that

passage that baptism is prior to regeneration, because it is mentioned

first: Christ teaches that we must be born again, not of the Spirit and

of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

XXVIII. Their invincible bulwark, in which they place such great

confidence, seems already somewhat shaken; but as the truth may be

sufficiently defended by simplicity, I have no inclination to escape

with such sophistical and trivial arguments; they shall therefore have a

solid reply. The principal command which Christ here gives to his

apostles, is to preach the gospel, to which he subjoins the

administration of baptism as an appendage. Besides, he says nothing of

baptism, any otherwise than as its administration is subordinate to the

office of teaching. For Christ sends his apostles to promulgate the

gospel to all the nations of the world, that by the doctrine of

salvation they may collect, from every land, men who before were lost,

and introduce them into his kingdom. But what men, or men of what

description? It is certain that there is no mention of any, but those

who are capable of receiving instruction. He afterwards adds, that such

persons, when they have been instructed, are to be baptized, and

subjoins a promise: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

Is there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting

infants? What kind of argumentation, then, is that with which they

assail us? Persons of _adult_ age are to be instructed, in order that

they may believe before they are to be baptized; _therefore_ it is

unlawful to administer baptism to _infants_. It will be impossible for

them, with all their ingenuity, to prove any thing from this passage,

except that the gospel is first to be preached to those who are capable

of hearing it, before they are baptized; for it relates to no others.

Let them raise an obstacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants

from baptism.

XXIX. But to render their fallacies still more palpable, I will show the

absurdity of them by a very plain similitude. The apostle says, “that if

any would not work, neither should he eat.”[1215] Now, if any man should

pretend to infer from this, that infants ought to be deprived of food,

would he not deserve universal contempt? Why so? Because it would be a

perverse application to all men, indiscriminately, of what was spoken of

men of a certain class and a certain age. Nor is there any greater

propriety in their reasoning in the present case. For what every one

sees to belong exclusively to persons of adult age, they apply to

infants, in order to make them subject to a rule, which was only

prescribed for persons of riper years. The example of Christ is far from

affording any support to their cause. He was not baptized till he was

“about thirty years of age.” That is true indeed; but the reason is

obvious; because he then intended to lay a solid foundation for baptism

by his preaching, or rather to establish that which had a little before

been laid by John. Intending, therefore, to institute baptism in his

doctrine, in order to conciliate the greater authority to his

institution, he sanctified it in his own body, and that at the point of

time which he knew to be most proper, namely, when he was about to

commence his ministry. In short, they can prove nothing else from this

circumstance, except that baptism derived its origin and commencement

from the preaching of the gospel. If they approve of fixing the

thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit every one to

baptism as soon as he is, in their judgment, sufficiently qualified for

it? And even Servetus, one of their leaders, though he pertinaciously

insisted on this age, yet began to boast of being a prophet himself when

he had only attained his twenty-first year. As though it ought to be

tolerated for a man to arrogate the office of a teacher in the Church

before he is a member of it.

XXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason why infants

should be admitted to baptism than to the Lord’s supper, which, however,

is not administered to them. As though the Scriptures did not make a

considerable difference between the two cases in every respect. Infant

communion was practised, indeed, in the ancient Church, as appears from

Cyprian and Augustine; but the custom has very properly been

discontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of baptism, we

find it to be an entrance or initiation into the Church, by which we are

enrolled among the people of God—a sign of our spiritual regeneration,

by which we are born again as the children of God; whereas, on the

contrary, the supper is appointed for those of riper years, who, having

passed the tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat.

This difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture; in which, as

far as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of age, whereas

he does not present the supper to the participation of all alike, but

only to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the

Lord, of examining their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord’s

death, and considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer

than what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation? “Let a

man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that

cup.”[1216] It must, therefore, be preceded by examination, which would

in vain be expected from infants. Again: “He that eateth and drinketh

unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the

Lord’s body.”[1217] If no persons can be worthy partakers of it, except

those who can truly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ, why

should we give to our tender infants poison instead of salutary food?

What is that precept of the Lord, “This do in remembrance of me?”[1218]

What is the inference which the apostle deduces from it? “As often as ye

eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he

come.”[1219] What remembrance, I ask, shall we require from infants of

that event, of which they have never attained any knowledge? What

preaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their

minds are not yet capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is

prescribed in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there is a

considerable difference; such as we observe, also, between similar signs

under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to

our baptism, was destined for infants. The passover, which has now been

succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions

promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of

sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification. If our

opponents had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against

a thing so clear and obvious?

XXXI. Though I am sorry to burden my readers with such an accumulation

of reveries, yet it will be worth while to refute the specious arguments

adduced in this controversy by Servetus, one of the most eminent of the

Anabaptists, and even the chief glory of that sect. 1. He pretends that

the symbols appointed by Christ, as they are perfect, require also those

who receive them to be perfect, or persons capable of perfection. But

the answer is easy—that the perfection of baptism reaches even unto

death, and cannot with propriety be restricted to one instant of time. I

observe, also, that it is foolish to expect a man on the first day to

attain perfection, towards which baptism invites us to proceed, by

continual advances, as long as we live. 2. He objects, that the symbols

of Christ were instituted as memorials, that every one may remember that

he has been buried with Christ. I answer, that what he has framed from

his own head requires no refutation; and that he applies to baptism what

the language of Paul shows to be peculiar to the sacred supper, namely,

that every one should examine himself; but that nothing like this is any

where said of baptism; from which we conclude, that though, by reason of

their age, infants are not capable of examination, it is nevertheless

right to baptize them. 3. He adduces the declaration of Christ, that “he

that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God

abideth on him;”[1220] and concludes that infants, who are incapable of

believing, remain in their condemnation. I answer, that in this passage

Christ is not speaking of the general guilt in which all the descendants

of Adam are involved, but only threatening the despisers of the gospel,

who proudly and obstinately reject the grace which is offered to them;

and this has nothing to do with infants. I likewise oppose a contrary

argument; all those whom Christ blesses are exempted from the curse of

Adam and the wrath of God; and as it is known that infants were blessed

by him, it follows that they are exempted from death. He falsely

alleges, as a passage of Scripture, that “whosoever is born of the

Spirit heareth the voice of the Spirit;” which, though we were to admit

as a genuine text, yet he could infer nothing more from it, than that

believers are formed to obedience as the Spirit operates within them.

But that which is affirmed of a certain number, it is wrong to apply

equally to all. 4. He objects, that because “that is first which is

natural,”[1221] we ought to wait the proper time for baptism, which is

spiritual. Now, though I grant that all the descendants of Adam, being

carnal, bring their condemnation into the world with them, yet I deny

that this is any impediment to the communication of a remedy, as soon as

ever God is pleased to impart it. For Servetus can show no Divine

appointment, that many years shall elapse before the newness of

spiritual life can begin; for according to the testimony of Paul, though

the infant children of believers are in a ruined condition by nature,

yet they are sanctified by supernatural grace.[1222] 5. He next produces

an allegory, that when David went up to the fortress of Zion, he took

with him neither the blind nor the lame, but hardy soldiers.[1223] And

what if I oppose him with a parable, in which God invites the blind and

the lame to the celestial feast?[1224] how will he extricate himself

from this difficulty? I ask, also, whether the blind and the lame had

not previously served as soldiers with David. But it is useless to

insist longer on this argument, which the readers will discover from the

sacred history to be founded on mere falsehood. 6. Then follows another

allegory, that the apostles were “fishers of men,”[1225] not of infants.

I ask, what is the meaning of that declaration of Christ, that “the

kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and

gathered of every kind?”[1226] But as I am not fond of allegorical

trifling, I answer, that when the apostles were appointed to the office

of teaching, they were not forbidden to baptize infants. I would further

wish to be informed, since the evangelist uses the word ανθρωπους, (a

word which comprehends all the human race, without any exception,) why

infants should be denied to be ανθρωπους, (human beings.) 7. He

pretends, that as spiritual things belong to spiritual persons,[1227]

infants who are not spiritual are not fit subjects of baptism. But here

it is evident that he is guilty of a gross perversion of that passage of

Paul, the subject of which relates to doctrine. When the Corinthians

discovered too much complacency in a vain subtlety, the apostle reproved

their stupidity, because they still required to be taught the first

principles of Christian doctrine. Who can infer from this, that baptism

ought to be denied to infants, whom, though they are born of the flesh,

yet God consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? 8. He objects,

that if they are new men, they ought to be fed with spiritual food. The

answer is easy—that they are admitted into the flock of Christ by

baptism, and that the symbol of that adoption is sufficient for them,

till they grow to an age capable of bearing solid food; and that it is

therefore necessary to wait for the time of that examination, which God

expressly requires in the sacred supper. 9. He next objects, that Christ

invites all his people to the sacred supper. I answer, it is

sufficiently clear that he admits none but such as are already prepared

to celebrate the remembrance of his death. Whence it follows, that

infants, whom he condescended to take into his arms, remain in a

distinct and peculiar class, till they grow to riper years, and yet that

they are not strangers to the Church. To this he objects, that it is a

monstrous thing for a person that is born, not to eat. I reply, that the

external participation of the supper is not the only way in which souls

are fed; and therefore that Christ is food to infants, notwithstanding

they abstain from the sign; but that the case of baptism is different,

by which alone they are admitted into the Church. He further objects,

that “a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over

his household, giveth them meat in due season.”[1228] This I readily

grant; but by what authority will he determine the time of baptism for

us, so as to prove that it is not administered to infants at a proper

time? 10. He likewise adduces the command of Christ to his apostles, to

hasten to the harvest, while the fields are whitening.[1229] The sole

design of Christ on that occasion was to stimulate the apostles, that,

seeing the present fruit of their labours, they might exert themselves

in their ministry with the greater cheerfulness. Who can infer from this

that the time of harvest is the only time proper for baptism? 11. His

next argument is, that in the primitive Church Christians and disciples

were the same persons.[1230] But here we see that he injudiciously

reasons from a part to the whole. The appellation of disciples was given

to persons of adult age, who had been already instructed, and had made a

profession of Christianity; just as the Jews under the law were the

disciples of Moses; yet no one can justly infer from this, that infants

were strangers, God having declared them to be part of his family. 12.

Moreover he alleges, that all Christians are brethren, but that we treat

infants as not of that number, as long as we exclude them from the

Lord’s supper. But I return to that principle, that none are heirs of

the kingdom of heaven, except those who are members of Christ; and that

the embrace with which he honoured infants was a true pledge of the

adoption, by which they are united with adults, and that their temporary

abstinence from the supper does not prevent them from belonging to the

body of the Church. The thief who was converted on the cross was a

brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord’s supper at

all. 13. He proceeds to assert, that no person becomes our brother but

by the spirit of adoption communicated “by the hearing of faith.”[1231]

I reply, that he is constantly reverting to the same false reasoning, by

a preposterous application to infants of that which is spoken

exclusively of adults. Paul is there showing that the ordinary method

which God uses in calling his elect, and bringing them to the faith, is

to raise them up faithful teachers, by whose labours and instructions he

extends his assistance to them. But who will dare to impose a law to

prevent his ingrafting infants into Christ by some other secret method?

14. He objects, that Cornelius was baptized after he had received the

Holy Ghost.[1232] But the absurdity of attempting to extract a general

rule from this one example, is evident from the cases of the eunuch and

the Samaritans,[1233] in whom the Lord observed a different order, for

their baptism preceded their reception of the gifts of the Spirit. 15.

His next argument is worse than absurd; he says, that by regeneration we

are made gods;[1234] but that they are gods to whom the word of God

comes,[1235] which is not applicable to infants. The ascription of deity

to believers is one of his reveries, which it is irrelevant to our

present subject to discuss; but to pervert that quotation from the

Psalms to a sense so remote from its genuine meaning, betrays the most

monstrous impudence. Christ says that the appellation of _gods_ is given

by the prophet to kings and magistrates, because they sustain an office

of Divine appointment. But that which is directed to certain individuals

respecting the particular charge of governors, this dexterous

interpreter applies to the doctrine of the gospel, in order to exclude

infants from the Church. 16. He objects, again, that infants cannot be

accounted new creatures, because they are not begotten by the word. I

must again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine of

the gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who are

capable of understanding it; but that where, by reason of age, there is

not yet any capacity of learning, God has his different degrees of

regenerating those whom he has adopted. 17. Then he returns to his

allegories, and alleges that sheep and goats were not offered in

sacrifice immediately after they were brought forth.[1236] If I approved

of the application of figures to this subject, I might easily retort,

that all the first born immediately on their birth are consecrated to

the Lord,[1237] and that a lamb was to be sacrificed in its first year;

whence it should follow, that it is not at all necessary to wait for

many years, but that our children ought to be dedicated to God in their

earliest infancy. 18. He further contends, that none can come to Christ

but those who have been prepared by John; as though the office of John

had not been a temporary one. But to pass over this; the children whom

Christ took up in his arms and blessed, had certainly no such

preparation. Wherefore let him depart with his false principle. 19. At

length he calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to

show that sacred ablutions are not suitable to any but adults. See what

honourable sentiments he entertains respecting the baptism of Christ,

which he would conform to the profane rites of the heathen, that its

administration might be regulated by the pleasure of Trismegistus. But

we have more reverence for the authority of God, who has been pleased to

consecrate infants to himself, and to initiate them by a sacred sign,

the meaning of which they were too young to be able to understand. Nor

do we esteem it lawful to borrow from the ablutions of the heathen any

thing that may introduce into our baptism the least change of that

eternal and inviolable law which God has established respecting

circumcision. 20. In the last place, he argues, that if it be lawful to

baptize infants without understanding, baptism may be, in mimicry and

jest, administered by boys in play. But he must contest this subject

with God, by whose command circumcision was performed upon infants,

before they had attained any understanding. Was it a ludicrous ceremony,

then, or a fit subject for the sports of children, that they could

overturn the sacred institution of God? But it is no wonder that these

reprobate spirits, as if transported with frenzy, bring forward the most

enormous absurdities in defence of their errors; for such delusion is

the just judgment of God upon their pride and obstinacy. And I trust I

have clearly shown the futility of all the arguments with which Servetus

has endeavoured to assist the cause of his Anabaptist brethren.

XXXII. No doubt, I conceive, can now remain in the mind of any sober

man, that those who raise controversies and contentions on the subject

of infant baptism are presumptuous disturbers of the Church of Christ.

But it is worth while to notice the object which Satan aims at promoting

by so much subtlety; which is, to deprive us of the peculiar benefit of

confidence and spiritual joy, which is to be derived from this source,

and in the same degree also to diminish the glory of the Divine

goodness. For how delightful is it to pious minds, not only to have

verbal assurances, but even ocular proof, of their standing so high in

the favour of their heavenly Father, that their posterity are also the

objects of his care! For here we see how he sustains the character of a

most provident Father to us, since he discontinues not his solicitude

for us even after our death, but regards and provides for our children.

Ought we not, then, after the example of David, to exult in praise and

thanksgiving to God with our whole heart, that his name may be glorified

by such an expression of his goodness? This is evidently the reason why

Satan makes such great exertions in opposition to infant baptism; that

the removal of this testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise

which it exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and at length

to be forgotten. The consequence of this would be, an impious

ingratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence of the instruction of

our children in the principles of piety. For it is no small stimulus to

our education of them in the serious fear of God, and the observance of

his law, to reflect, that they are considered and acknowledged by him as

his children as soon as they are born. Wherefore, unless we are

obstinately determined to obscure the goodness of God, let us present to

him our children, to whom he assigns a place in his family, that is,

among the members of his Church.

Footnote 1165:

Gen. xvii. 1-14.

Footnote 1166:

Matt. xxii. 32. Luke xx. 37, 38.

Footnote 1167:

Ephes. ii. 12.

Footnote 1168:

Deut. x. 16.

Footnote 1169:

Deut. xxx. 6.

Footnote 1170:

Rom. xii. 3, 6.

Footnote 1171:

Matt. xix 13-15. Mark x 13-16. Luke xviii. 15-17.

Footnote 1172:

Col. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1173:

Matt. viii. 11. Luke xiii. 29.

Footnote 1174:

Exod. xix. 5. Deut. vii. 6.

Footnote 1175:

Rom. iv. 9-12.

Footnote 1176:

Eph. ii. 14.

Footnote 1177:

Rom. ix. 7, 8.

Footnote 1178:

Rom. xi. 29.

Footnote 1179:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1180:

Rom. xv. 8.

Footnote 1181:

Acts ii. 39.

Footnote 1182:

Acts iii. 25.

Footnote 1183:

Eph. i. 11, 12.

Footnote 1184:

Exod. xx. 6.

Footnote 1185:

Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 1186:

1 Cor. xv. 22.

Footnote 1187:

Eph. ii. 3.

Footnote 1188:

Psalm li. 5.

Footnote 1189:

1 Cor. xv. 50.

Footnote 1190:

John xi. 25; xiv. 6.

Footnote 1191:

Rev. xxi. 27.

Footnote 1192:

John iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 1193:

Luke i. 15.

Footnote 1194:

1 Peter i. 23.

Footnote 1195:

Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 1196:

Deut. i. 39.

Footnote 1197:

Jer. iv. 4. Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1198:

Titus iii. 5.

Footnote 1199:

Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.

Footnote 1200:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1201:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1202:

Ephes. v. 26.

Footnote 1203:

1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1204:

Acts ii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1205:

Acts viii. 37.

Footnote 1206:

Ezek. xvi. 20; xxiii. 37.

Footnote 1207:

Eph. ii. 12.

Footnote 1208:

Matt. iii. 6.

Footnote 1209:

John iii. 5.

Footnote 1210:

Matt. iii. 11.

Footnote 1211:

John iii. 18; v. 24.

Footnote 1212:

Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1213:

Mark xvi. 16.

Footnote 1214:

Luke iii. 23.

Footnote 1215:

2 Thess. iii. 10.

Footnote 1216:

1 Cor. xi. 28.

Footnote 1217:

1 Cor. xi. 29.

Footnote 1218:

1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

Footnote 1219:

1 Cor xi. 26.

Footnote 1220:

John iii. 36.

Footnote 1221:

1 Cor. xv. 46.

Footnote 1222:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1223:

2 Sam. v. 6-8.

Footnote 1224:

Luke xiv. 21.

Footnote 1225:

Matt. iv. 19.

Footnote 1226:

Matt. xiii. 47.

Footnote 1227:

1 Cor. ii. 13.

Footnote 1228:

Matt. xxiv. 45.

Footnote 1229:

John iv. 35-38.

Footnote 1230:

Acts xi. 26.

Footnote 1231:

Gal. iii. 2.

Footnote 1232:

Acts x. 44-48.

Footnote 1233:

Acts viii. 16, 17, 26, &c.

Footnote 1234:

2 Peter i. 4.

Footnote 1235:

John x. 35. Psalm lxxxii. 6.

Footnote 1236:

Exod. xii. 5.

Footnote 1237:

Exod. xiii. 12. Numb. viii. 17.