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.