Chapter 16. That the Baptism of Infants Does Very Well Agree with the Institution of Christ and the Nature of the Sign

But forasmuch as in this age, certain frantic spirits have raised up sore troubles in the Church for the baptism of infants, and do not yet cease to turmoil: I cannot choose but I must join here an addition to restrain their furiousness. If perhaps it shall seem to some man to be very much too long, let him (I beseech him) weigh with himself, that we ought so much to esteem the purity of doctrine in a most great matter, together with the peace of the Church, that nothing ought to be loathsomely received, which may avail to procure them both. Beside that, I so study to frame this discourse, that it shall be of no small importance to the clearer declaration of the mystery of Baptism. They assail the baptism of infants with an argument indeed favorable in show, saying that it is grounded on no institution of Christ, but that it was brought in only by the boldness of men, and perverse curiousness, and then afterward with fond easiness rashly received in use. For a Sacrament, unless it rest on a certain foundation of the word of God, hangs but by a thread. But what if, when the matter is well considered, it shall appear that the Lord's holy ordinance is falsely and unjustly charged with such a slander? Let us therefore search out the first beginning of it. And if it shall appear, that it was devised by the only rashness of men, then bidding it farewell, let us measure the true observation of Baptism by the only will of God. But if it shall be proved that it is not destitute of his certain authority, we must beware, lest in pinching the holy ordinances of God, we be also slanderous against the author himself.

First it is a doctrine well enough known, and confessed among all the godly, that the right consideration of the signs, consists not only in the outward ceremonies: but principally hangs on the promise, and on the spiritual mysteries, for figuring which the Lord ordains the ceremonies themselves. Therefore he that will perfectly learn of what value Baptism is, to what end it tends, finally what it is: let him not stay his thought on the element and bodily sight: but rather let him raise it up to the promises of God, which are therein offered us, and to the inward secrets which are therein represented to us. He that knows these things, has attained the sound truth of Baptism, and the whole substance thereof, as I may so call it: and thereby also he shall be taught, what is the reason, and what is the use of the outward sprinkling. Again he that contemptuously passing over these, shall have his mind wholly fastened and bound to the visible ceremony, shall understand neither the force nor property of Baptism: nor yet so much as this, what the water means, or what use it has. Which sentence is proved with so many and so clear testimonies of Scripture, that we need not at this present to tarry long about it. Therefore it remains now, that we seek out of the promises given in Baptism, what is the force and nature of it. The Scripture shows, that the cleansing of sins, which we obtain of the blood of Christ, is here first showed: then the mortifying of the flesh, which stands on the partaking of his death, by which the faithful are regenerate into newness of life, indeed and into the fellowship of Christ. To this sum may be referred whatever is taught in the Scriptures concerning Baptism: saving that beside this it is a sign to testify religion before men.

But forasmuch as before the institution of Baptism, the people of God had circumcision in place of it: let us see what these two signs differ the one from the other, and with what likeness they agree together. From which may appear what is the relation of the one to the other. Where the Lord gave circumcision to Abraham to be kept, he tells him before, that he would be God to him and to his seed: adding, that with him is the flowing store and sufficiency of all things, that Abraham should account that his hand should be to him a spring of all good things. In which words the promise of eternal life is contained: as Christ expounds it, bringing an argument from hence to prove the immortality of the faithful, and the resurrection. For God (says he) is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Therefore Paul also showing to the Ephesians from what destruction the Lord had delivered them, gathers by this that they had not been admitted into the covenant of circumcision, that they were without Christ, without God, without hope, strangers from the testaments of the promise (Matthew 22:32; Luke 20:38; Ephesians 2:12): all which things the covenant itself contained. But the first access to God, the first entry to immortal life, is the forgiveness of sins. From which is gathered, that this forgiveness answers to the promise of Baptism concerning our cleansing. Afterward the Lord takes covenant with Abraham, that he should walk before him in pureness and innocence of heart: which belongs to mortifying or regeneration. And that no man should doubt, that circumcision is a sign of mortifying, Moses in another place does more plainly declare it, when he exhorts the people of Israel, to circumcise the uncircumcised skin of the heart, because they were severally chosen to be the people of God out of all the nations of the earth (Genesis 17:10; Deuteronomy [illegible]:16). As God, where he adopts the posterity of Abraham to his people, commands them to be circumcised: so Moses pronounces that the hearts ought to be circumcised, declaring truly what is the truth of this circumcision. Then that no man should endeavor toward it by his own strength, he teaches that they need the grace of God. All these things are so often repeated of the Prophets, that I need not to heap into this place many testimonies, which do each where offer themselves. We have proved therefore, that in circumcision a spiritual promise was uttered to the Fathers, such as in Baptism is given: forasmuch as it figured to them the forgiveness of sins, and the mortifying of the flesh (Deuteronomy 30:6). Moreover as we have taught that Christ is the foundation of Baptism, in whom both these things remain: so it is evident that he is also of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all nations. To the sealing of which grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

Now we may easily see, what there is alike in these two signs, or what there is differing. The promises, whereupon we have declared that the power of the signs consists, is all one in both, namely of the fatherly favor of God, of the forgiveness of sins, of life everlasting. Then, the thing figured also is all one and the same, namely regeneration. The foundation whereon the fulfilling of these things stands, is all one in both. Therefore there is no difference in the inward mystery, whereby the whole force and property of the Sacraments is to be weighed. The unlikeness that remains, lies in the outward Ceremony, which is the smallest portion: whereas the chiefest part hangs upon the promise and the thing signified. Therefore we may determine, that whatever agrees with circumcision does also belong to Baptism, except the difference of the visible Ceremony. To this relation and comparison, the Apostle's rule leads us by the hand, whereby we are commanded to examine all exposition of Scripture by the proportion of faith. And truly the truth does in this behalf almost offer itself to be felt. For as circumcision, because it was a certain token to the Jews, whereby they were certified that they were chosen to be the people and household of God, and they again on their behalf professed that they yielded themselves to God, was their first entry into the Church: so now also we by Baptism enter into profession of God, that we may be reckoned among his people, and mutually swear to his name. Whereby it appears out of controversy, that Baptism has come into the place of circumcision, that it may have the same office with us.

Now if we choose to search out, whether Baptism be lawfully communicated to infants: shall we not say that he does too much play the fool, yes dote, who will rest only upon the element of water, and the outward observation, but cannot abide to bend his mind to the spiritual mystery? Of which if there be any consideration had, it shall without doubt certainly appear that Baptism is rightfully given to infants, as the thing that is due to them. For the Lord in old time did not vouchsafe to admit them to circumcision, but that he made them partakers of all those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise he should with mere deceits have mocked his people, if he had fed them with deceitful signs — which is horrible even to be heard of. For he pronounces expressly, that the circumcision of a little infant should be instead of a seal to seal the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains unbroken and steadfast, it does at this day no less belong to the children of Christians, than under the old testament it pertained to the infants of the Jews. But if they be partakers of the thing signified, why shall they be debarred from the sign? If they have the truth, why shall they be put back from the figure? Although the outward sign cleaves fast together with the word in the Sacrament, so that they cannot be plucked asunder: yet if they be severally considered, whether of them, I pray you, shall we esteem of more value? Truly since we see that the sign serves the word, we must say that it is under it, and must set it in the inferior place. Since therefore the word of Baptism is extended to infants: why shall the sign, that is to say the addition hanging to the word, be debarred from them? This one reason, if there were no more, were abundantly enough to confute all them that will speak to the contrary. That which is objected, that there was a day certainly set for circumcision, is altogether but a shift. We grant that we be not now bound to certain days, like the Jews: but when the Lord, however he certainly appoints no day, yet declares that he is pleased that infants should with a solemn formal usage be received into his covenant: what seek we more?

However the Scripture opens to us yet a more certain knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident, that the covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham, is at this day no less in force to Christians, than it was in old time to the Jewish people: indeed and that this word has no less respect to Christians, than it then had respect to the Jews. Unless perhaps we think, that Christ has by his coming diminished, or cut short the grace of his Father. Which saying is not without abominable blasphemy. Therefore as even the children of the Jews were called a holy seed, because being made heirs of the same covenant they were made differing from the children of the ungodly: for the same reason even yet also the children of Christians are accounted holy, indeed although they be the issue but of one parent faithful: and (as the Apostle witnesses) they differ from the unclean seed of idolaters. Now when the Lord immediately after the covenant made with Abraham, commanded the same to be sealed in infants with an outward Sacrament: what cause will Christians allege, why they should not at this day testify and seal the same in their children? Neither let any man object against me, that the Lord commanded his covenant to be confirmed with no other sign than of circumcision, which is long ago taken away. For we have in readiness to answer, that for the time of the old testament he ordained circumcision to confirm his covenant: but circumcision being taken away, yet always remains the same manner of confirming which we have common with the Jews. Therefore we must always diligently consider what is common to both, and what they have several from us. The covenant is common, the cause of confirming it is common. Only the manner of confirming is diverse, because circumcision was that to them, in place whereof Baptism has succeeded among us. Otherwise if the testimony, whereby the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed, be taken away from us, it should be brought to pass by the coming of Christ, that the grace of God should be darker and less approved by testimonies to us, than it was before to the Jews. If that cannot be said without extreme slander of Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has more clearly and liberally than ever heretofore been poured forth upon the earth, and declared to men: we must needs grant, that it is at the least not more sparingly to be suppressed, nor to be set forth with less testimony, than it was under the dark shadows of the law.

Therefore the Lord Jesus, minding to show a token whereby the world might understand that he was come rather to enlarge than to limit the mercy of God, gently embraced children offered to him, rebuking the disciples which went about to forbid them to come to him: forasmuch as they did lead those, to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs, away from him by whom alone the entry is open into heaven. But (will some man say) what like thing has Baptism with this embracing of Christ? For neither is it reported that he baptized them, but that he received them, embraced them, and wished them well. Therefore if we wish to follow his example, let us help infants with prayer, but not baptize them. But let us weigh the doings of Christ somewhat more heedfully than such kind of men do. For neither is this to be lightly passed over, that Christ commands infants to be brought to him, adding a reason why, because of such is the kingdom of heaven. And afterward he witnesses his will with deed, when embracing them he commends them to his Father with his prayer and blessing. If it be fitting that infants be brought to Christ, why is it not also fitting that they be received to Baptism, the sign of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven be theirs, why shall the sign be denied them, whereby there is as it were an entry opened into the Church, that being admitted into it they may be numbered among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust shall we be, if we drive away them whom Christ calls to him? If we spoil them, whom he garnishes with his gifts? If we shut out them whom he willingly receives? But if we will examine how much that which Christ there did, differs from Baptism, yet of how much greater worth shall we have Baptism, (whereby we testify that infants are contained in the covenant of God) than receiving, embracing, laying on of hands, and prayer, whereby Christ himself being present declares that they both are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavillations, whereby they labor to mock out this place, they do nothing but reveal their own ignorance. For they gather an argument of this which Christ says: Let little ones come to me, that they were in age good big ones which were already able to go. But they are called by the Evangelists, brephe, and paidia, by which words the Greeks do signify babes yet hanging on the breasts. Therefore this word (to come) is simply set for (to have access). See what snares they are compelled to make, which are grown hard against the truth. Now where they say, that the kingdom of heaven is not given to them, but to such as be like them, because it is said to be of such, not of them: that is no sounder than the rest. For if that be granted, what manner of reason shall the reason of Christ be, whereby he means to show, that infants in age are not strangers from him? When he commands that infants be suffered to have access to him, nothing is plainer than that very infancy in deed is there spoken of. And that this should not seem an absurdity, he by and by adds: of such is the kingdom of heaven. But if it must needs be that infants be comprehended herein, it must be plain that by this word (Such) are meant very infants themselves, and such as be like them.

Now there is no man that sees not, that Baptism of infants was not framed by man, which is upheld by so great approving of Scripture. Neither do they colorably enough play the fools, which object that it is nowhere found, that any one infant was baptized by the hands of the Apostles. For although it be not expressly by name rehearsed of the Evangelists: yet because again they are not excluded, so often as mention happens to be made of the baptizing of any household: who, unless he be mad, can reason thereupon that they were not baptized? If such arguments were of any force, women should be forbidden to partake of the Lord's supper, whom we read not to have been received to it in the time of the Apostles. But here we be content with the rule of faith. For when we consider, what the institution of the Supper requires, thereby also we may easily judge to whom the use of it ought to be communicated. Which we observe also in Baptism. For when we mark, to what end it was ordained, we evidently see, that it belongs no less to infants, than to older folks. Therefore they can not be deprived of it, but that the will of the author must be manifestly defrauded. But whereas they spread abroad among the simple people, that there passed a long row of years after the resurrection of Christ, in which the Baptism of infants was unknown: therein they most foully do lie. For there is no writer so old, that does not certainly refer the beginning of it to the time of the Apostles.

Now it remains that we briefly show what fruit comes from this observation, both to the faithful who present their children to the Church to be baptized, and also to the infants themselves that are baptized with the holy water: that no man should despise it as unprofitable or idle. But if it come into any man's mind, upon this pretense to mock at the Baptism of infants, he scorns the commandment of Circumcision given by the Lord. For what will they bring forth to impugn the Baptism of infants, which may not also be thrown back against Circumcision? So the Lord takes vengeance of their arrogance, who do by and by condemn that which they comprehend not with the sense of their own flesh. But God furnishes us with other armor, by which their foolishness may be beaten flat. For neither this holy institution of his, by which we feel our faith to be helped with singular comfort, deserves to be called superfluous. For God's sign communicated to a child does as it were by an imprinted seal confirm the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that it is ratified that the Lord will be God not only to him but also to his seed (Genesis 17:14), and will continually show his good will and grace, not to him only, but also to his posterity even to the thousandth generation. When the great kindness of God utters itself there, first it yields most ample matter to advance his glory, and overspreads godly hearts with singular gladness, because they are therewith all the more earnestly moved to love again so godly a Father, whom they see to have care of their posterity for their sakes. Neither do I regard it, if any man take exception, and say that the promise ought to suffice to confirm the salvation of our children: forasmuch as it has pleased God otherwise, who as he knows our weakness, willed in this behalf so much to bear tenderly with it. Therefore let those who embrace the promise of God's mercy to be extended to their children, think that it is their duty to offer them to the Church to be signed with the sign of mercy, and thereby to encourage themselves to a more assured confidence, because they do with present eye behold the covenant of the Lord graven in the bodies of their children. Again, the children receive some benefit from their Baptism, that being engrafted into the body of the Church they are all the more commended to the other members. Then when they are grown to riper age, they are thereby not slightly stirred up to earnest endeavor to worship God, of whom they have been received into his children by a solemn sign of adoption, before they could by age acknowledge him for their Father. Finally that same condemnation ought greatly to make us afraid, that God will take vengeance of it, if any man despise to mark his son with the sign of the covenant, because by such contempt the grace offered is refused and as it were forsworn.

Now let us examine the arguments, by which certain furious beasts do not cease to assail this holy institution of God. First because they see that they are exceedingly hard pressed and strained with the likeness of Baptism and Circumcision, they labor to pull asunder these two signs with great difference, so that the one should not seem to have anything common with the other. For they say that both diverse things are signified, and that the covenant is altogether diverse, and that the naming of the children is not all one. But while they go about to prove that first point, they allege that circumcision was a figure of mortification and not of Baptism. Which indeed we most willingly grant them. For it makes very well for our side. Neither do we use any other proof of our view, than that Baptism and Circumcision are signs of mortification. Therefore we determine that Baptism is set in the place of Circumcision, that it should represent to us the same thing which in old time it signified to the Jews. In affirming the difference of the covenant, with how barbarous boldness do they turmoil and corrupt the Scripture: and that not in one place alone, but so as they leave nothing safe or whole? For they depict to us the Jews as so carnal that they are more like beasts than men: with whom indeed the covenant made proceeds not beyond the temporal life, to whom the promises given rest in present and bodily good things. If this doctrine take place, what remains but that the nation of the Jews were for a time filled with the benefits of God, no differently than as they fatten a herd of swine in a sty, that at length they should perish with eternal damnation? For as soon as we allege Circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer that Circumcision was a literal sign, and the promises thereof were carnal.

Truly if circumcision was a literal sign, there is no otherwise to be thought of Baptism. For the Apostle in the second chapter to the Colossians makes the one no more spiritual than the other. For he says that we are circumcised in Christ, with a circumcision not made with hand, putting away the body of sin that dwelled in our flesh: which he calls the circumcision of Christ. Afterward for declaration of that saying, he adjoins, that we be buried with Christ by Baptism. What means he by these words, but that the fulfilling and truth of Baptism, is also the truth and fulfilling of circumcision, because they figure both one thing? For he travails to show, that Baptism is the same to Christians, which circumcision had been before to the Jews. But forasmuch as we have now evidently declared, that the promises of both the signs, and the mysteries that are represented in them, do agree together, we will for this present tarry no longer upon them. Only I will put the faithful in mind, that though I hold my peace, they should weigh with themselves whether it be taken for an earthly and literal sign, under which nothing is contained but spiritual and heavenly. But, that they should not sell their smokes to the simple, we will by the way confute one objection with which they color this most shameless lie. It is most certain that the principal promises, wherein was contained the covenant which in the Old Testament God established with the Israelites, were spiritual, and tended to eternal life: and then again, that they were received of the fathers spiritually, as it was meet, that they might thereof receive assurance of the life to come, to which they longed with the whole affection of their heart. But in the mean time we deny not, but that he witnessed his good will toward them with earthly and carnal benefits: by which also we say that the same promise of spiritual things was confirmed. As when he promised everlasting blessedness to his servant Abraham, that he might set before his eyes a manifest token of his favor, he adds another promise concerning the possession of the land of Canaan. After this manner we ought to understand all the earthly promises that are given to the Jewish nation, that the spiritual promise, as the head, to which they are directed, should always have the chief place. But since I have more largely treated of these things in the difference of the new and old testament, therefore now I do the more slightly knit it up.

In the naming of the children they find this diversity, that in the old testament they were called the children of Abraham, which issued of his seed: but that now they are called by that name, which follow his faith: And that therefore that carnal infancy, which was by circumcision grafted into the fellowship of the covenant, figured the infants of the new testament, which are regenerate by the word of God to immortal life. In which words we behold indeed a small sparkle of truth: but herein these light spirits grievously offend, that when they catch hold of that which first comes to their hand, when they should go further and compare many things together, they stand slightly upon one word. Whereby it can not otherwise be but that they must sometime be deceived which rest upon the sound knowledge of nothing. We grant indeed that the carnal seed of Abraham did for a time hold the place of the spiritual seed which is by faith grafted into him. For we be called his children however there is no natural kindred between him and us. But if they mean, as they plainly show that they do, that there was never spiritual blessing promised to the carnal seed of Abraham, herein they are much deceived. Therefore we must level to a better mark, to which we are directed by the most certain guiding of the Scripture. The Lord therefore promised to Abraham, that he should have a seed, wherein all nations of the earth shall be blessed: and therewith assures him, that he would be a God to him and his seed. Whoever do by faith receive Christ the author of blessing, are heirs of this promise, and therefore are called the children of Abraham.

But although since the resurrection of Christ the bounds of the kingdom of God have begun to be far and wide enlarged into all nations without difference, that according to the saying of Christ, faithful ones should be gathered from every part to sit down in the heavenly glory with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: yet he had many ages before extended that same so great mercy to the Jews. And because, passing over all other, he had chosen out that only nation, in which he would restrain his grace for a time, called them his peculiar possession, and his purchased people. For testifying of such liberality, Circumcision was given by the sign by which the Jews might be taught that God is to them the author of salvation: by which knowledge their minds were raised into hope of eternal life. For what shall he want, whom God has once received into his charge? Therefore the Apostle meaning to prove that the Gentiles were the children of Abraham as well as the Jews, speaks in this manner: Abraham (says he) was justified by faith in uncircumcision. Afterward he received the sign of circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, that he should be the father of all the faithful, both of uncircumcision and of circumcision, not of them that glory of only circumcision, but of them that follow the [reconstructed: faith] which our father Abraham had in uncircumcision. Do not we see that both sorts are made equal in dignity? For, during the time appointed by the decree of God, he was the father of circumcision. When, the wall being pulled down (as the Apostle writes in another place) by which the Jews were severed from the Gentiles, the entry was made open to them also into the kingdom of God, he was made their father, and that without the sign of circumcision, because they have Baptism in stead of circumcision. But where he expressly by name denies, that Abraham is father to them which are of circumcision only, that same was spoken to abate the pride of certain, which omitting the care of godliness, did boast themselves of only Ceremonies. After which manner at this day also their vanity may be confuted which seek in Baptism nothing but water.

But another place of the Apostle out of the 9th Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans shall be alleged to the contrary, where he teaches that they which are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham: but they only are counted his seed, which are the children of promise. For he seems to signify that the carnal kindred of Abraham is nothing, which yet we do set in some degree. But it is more diligently to be marked, what matter the Apostle there treats of. For, meaning to show to the Jews how much the goodness of God was not bound to the seed of Abraham, indeed how it avails nothing of itself, he brings forth Ishmael and Esau for example to prove it: whom being refused, as if they were strangers, although they were according to the flesh the natural offspring of Abraham, the blessing rested in Isaac and Jacob. From which is gathered that which he afterward affirms, that salvation hangs of the mercy of God, which he extends to whom it pleases him: and that there is no cause why the Jews should stand in their own conceit, or boast upon the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is to say, do obey the word. Again when he has thrown them down from vain confidence of their kindred, yet because on the other side he saw, that the covenant which was once made of God with the posterity of Abraham, could in no wise be made void, in the 11th chapter, he argues that the carnal kindred is not to be spoiled of his due dignity: by the beneficial means whereof he teaches that the Jews are the first and natural heirs of the Gospel, but in respect that by their unthankfulness, they were forsaken as unworthy: yet so that the heavenly blessing is not utterly removed from their nation. For which reason, however much they were stubborn and covenant breakers, nevertheless he calls them holy, (so much honor he gives to the holy generation, with whom God had vouchsafed to make his holy covenant) but calls us, if we be compared with them, as it were afterborn, indeed or the untimely born children of Abraham, and that by adoption, not by nature: as if a twig broken off from his natural tree, should be grafted into a strange stock. Therefore that they should not be defrauded of their prerogative, it behooved that the Gospel should be first preached to them: for they be in the household of God as it were the firstborn children. Therefore this honor was to be given them until they refused it being offered them, and by their own unthankfulness brought to pass that it was carried away to the Gentiles. Neither yet, with however great obstinacy they continue to make war against the Gospel, ought they to be despised by us: if we consider that for the promises' sake, the blessing of God does yet still remain among them: as indeed the Apostle testifies that it shall never utterly depart from there: because the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

Behold of what force is the promise given to the posterity of Abraham, and with what balance it is to be weighed. Therefore although in discerning the heirs of the kingdom from bastards and strangers, we nothing doubt that the only election of God rules with free right of government: yet we also therewith perceive, that it pleased him peculiarly to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and that the same mercy might be the more surely witnessed, to seal it with circumcision. Now altogether like state is there of the Christian Church. For as Paul there reasons that the Jews are sanctified by their parents: so in another place he teaches, that the children of Christians receive the same sanctification by their parents. From which is gathered, that they are worthily separated from the rest, which on the other side are condemned of uncleanness. Now who can doubt, but that it is most false which they do thereupon conclude, that say that the infants which in old time were circumcised, did only figure spiritual infancy, which arises of the regeneration of the word of God. For Paul does not so subtly play the Philosopher, where he writes that Christ is the minister of Circumcision, to fulfill the promises which had been made to the Fathers, as if he said thus: Inasmuch as the covenant made with Abraham has respect to his seed, Christ, to perform and discharge the promise once made by his Father, came to salvation to the nation of the Jews. Do you not see how also after the resurrection of Christ, he judges that the promise of the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only by way of allegory, but as the very words do sound, to the carnal seed of Abraham. To the same end serves that which Peter in (Acts 2), declares to the Jews, that the benefit of the Gospel is due to them and their seed by right of the covenant, and in the chapter next following he calls them the children of the testament, that is to say heirs. From which also not much disagrees the other place of the Apostle above alleged, where he accounts Circumcision imprinted in infants, for a testimony of that communion which they have with Christ. But if we listen to their trifles, what shall be wrought by that promise, whereby the Lord in the second article of his law undertakes to his servants, that he will be favorable to their seed even to the thousandth generation? Shall we here flee to allegories? But that were too trifling a shift. Or shall we say that this is abolished? But so the law should be destroyed, which Christ came rather to establish, so far as it turns us to good to life. Let it therefore be out of controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his, that for their sakes, he will have also their children, whom they shall beget, to be numbered among his people.

Moreover the differences which they go about to put between Baptism and circumcision, are not only worthy to be laughed at, and void of all color of reason, but also disagreeing with themselves. For when they have affirmed that Baptism has relation to the first day of the spiritual battle, but circumcision to the eighth when mortification is already ended, and soon after forgetting the same, they change their tune, and call circumcision a figure of the flesh to be mortified, but Baptism they call burial, into which none are to be put till they be already dead. What dotages of frenzied men, can with so great lightness leap into sundry diversities? For in the first sentence, Baptism must go before circumcision: by the other, it is thrust back into the later place. Yet is it no new example, that the wits of men be so tossed up and down, when instead of the most certain word of God they worship whatever they have dreamed. We therefore say that that former difference is a mere dream. If they wished to expound by way of allegory upon the eighth day, yet it agreed not in that manner. It were much fitter, according to the opinion of the old writers, to refer the number of eighth to the resurrection which was done on the eighth day, on which we know that the newness of life hangs: or to the whole course of this present life, wherein mortification ought always to go forward, till when life is ended, mortification itself may also be ended. However God may seem to have meant to provide for the tenderness of age, in deferring circumcision the eighth day, because the wound should have been more dangerous to the children newborn and yet red from their mother. How much stronger is that, that we being dead before, are buried by Baptism: when the scripture expressly cries to the contrary that we are buried into death to this end, that we should die, and from thenceforth should endeavor to this mortification. Now, a likewise handling, it is, that they cavil that women ought not to be baptized, if Baptism must be framed like to Circumcision. For if it be most certain that the sanctifying of the seed of Israel was testified by the sign of Circumcision: thereby also it is undoubted, that it was given to sanctify both males and females. But the only bodies of male children were marked with it, which might by nature be marked: yet so that the women were by them after a certain manner companions and partners of circumcision. Therefore sending far away such follies of theirs, let us stick fast in the likeness of Baptism and circumcision, which we most largely see to agree in the inward mystery, in the promises, in use, in effectualness.

They think also that they bring forth a most strong reason, why children are to be debarred from Baptism, when they allege that they are not yet for age able to understand the mystery there signified. That is spiritual regeneration, which cannot be in the first infancy. Therefore they gather, that they are to be taken for none other than the children of Adam, till they be grown to age fit for a second birth. But the truth of God elsewhere speaks against all these things. For if they be to be left among the children of Adam, then they are left in death: forasmuch as in Adam we can do nothing but die. But on the contrary, Christ commands them to be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life: therefore that he may give life to them, he makes them partakers of himself: when in the meantime these fellows driving them far away do adjudge them to death. For if they say for a shift, that infants do not therefore perish if they be accounted the children of Adam, their error is abundantly confuted by witness of the Scripture. For whereas it pronounces that all do die in Adam, it follows that there remains no hope of life but in Christ. Therefore that we may be made heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again when it is written in another place, that by nature we are all subject to the wrath of God, and conceived in sin, to which damnation perpetually cleaves: we must depart out of our own nature, before that the entry be open to us into the kingdom of God. And what can be more plainly spoken, than that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God? Therefore let all be done away whatever is ours (which shall not be done without regeneration) then we shall see this possession of the kingdom. Finally if Christ say truly, when he reports that he is life, it is necessary that we be grafted into him, that we may be delivered out of the bondage of death. But (say they) how are infants regenerate, which are not endued with knowledge neither of good nor of evil? But we answer, that the work of God is not yet no work at all, although it be not subject to our capacity. Moreover it is nothing doubtful, that the infants which are to be saved (as verily of that age some are saved) are before regenerate of the Lord. For if they bring with them from their mothers' womb the corruption naturally planted in them: they must be purged thereof, before that they be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which nothing enters that is defiled or spotted. If they be born sinners, as both David and Paul affirm: either they remain out of favor and hateful to God, or they must needs be justified. And what do we seek more, when the judge himself openly affirms that the entry into heavenly life is open to none but to them that be born again? And to put such carpers to silence, he showed an example in John the Baptist, whom he sanctified in his mother's womb, what he was able to do in the rest. Neither do they anything prevail by the shift wherewith they here mock, that that was but once done: upon which it does not immediately follow that the Lord is accustomed commonly to do so with infants. For neither do we reason after that manner: only our purpose is to show, that the power of God is by them unjustly and enviously limited within those narrow bounds within which it suffers not itself to be bound. Their other shift is even of as great weight. They allege that by the usual manner of the Scripture, this word (from the womb,) is as much in effect, as if it were said, from childhood. But we may clearly see, that the Angel when he declared the same to Zacharias, meant another thing: that is, that he which was not yet born, should be filled with the Holy Ghost. Let us not therefore attempt to appoint a law to God, but that he may sanctify whom it pleased him, as he sanctified this child, forasmuch as his power is nothing diminished.

And truly Christ was therefore sanctified from his first infancy, that he might sanctify in himself his elect out of every age without difference. For as, to do away the fault of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, he has put on the same flesh upon himself, that he might in it for us and in our stead perform perfect obedience: so he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, that having the holiness thereof fully poured into him in the flesh which he had taken upon him, he might pour forth the same into us. If we have in Christ a most perfect pattern of all the graces which God continually shows to his children, verily in this behalf also he shall be a proof to us, that the age of infancy is not so far unfit for sanctification. But however it be, yet this we hold out of controversy, that none of the elect is called out of this present life, which is not first made holy and regenerate by the Spirit of God. Whereas they object to the contrary, that in the Scriptures the Spirit acknowledges no other regeneration but of incorruptible seed, that is, of the word of God: they do wrongfully expound that saying of Peter, wherein he comprehends only the faithful which had been taught by preaching of the Gospel. To such indeed we grant that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration: but we deny that it ought thereupon to be gathered, that infants cannot be regenerate by the power of God, which is to him as easy and ready as to us it is incomprehensible and wonderful. Moreover it should not be safe enough for us to take this away from the Lord, that he may not be able to show himself to be known to them by whatever way he will.

But faith, say they, is by hearing, of which they have not yet gotten the use, neither can they be able to know God, whom Moses teaches to be destitute of the knowledge both of good and evil. But they consider not that the Apostle, when he makes hearing the beginning of faith, describes only the ordinary distribution of the Lord and disposition which he uses to keep in calling those that are his: but appoints not to him a perpetual rule, that he may not use any other way. Which way verily he has used in the calling of many, to whom he has given the true knowledge of himself by an inward manner, by the enlightening of the Spirit, without any preaching used as a means thereof. But whereas they think it shall be a great absurdity, if any knowledge of God be given to infants, from whom Moses takes away the understanding of good and evil: I beseech them to answer me, what danger is there if they be said to receive some part of that grace, of which a little after they shall enjoy the full plentifulness. For if the fullness of life stands in the perfect knowledge of God, when many of them, whom in their very first infancy death by and by takes away, do pass into eternal life, truly they are received to behold the most present face of God. Whom therefore the Lord will enlighten with the full brightness of his light, why may he not presently also, if it so please him, send out to shine upon them some small spark thereof: especially if he do not first unclothe them of ignorance, before he takes them out of the prison of the flesh? Not that I mean rashly to affirm that they be endued with the same faith which we feel in ourselves, or that they have altogether like knowledge of faith? (which I had rather leave in suspense) but somewhat to restrain their foolish arrogance, which according as their mouth is puffed up with fullness, do boldly deny or affirm they care not what.

But that they may yet stand more strongly in this point, they add, that Baptism is a Sacrament of repentance and of faith: therefore since neither of these can befall in tender infancy, we ought to beware lest if they be admitted to the communion of Baptism, the signification of it be made void and vain. But these darts are thrown rather against God than against us. For it is most evident by many testimonies of Scripture, that circumcision also was a sign of repentance. Moreover it is called by Paul the seal of the righteousness of faith. Let therefore a reason be required of God himself why he commanded it to be marked in the bodies of infants. For since Baptism and circumcision are both in one case, they can give nothing to the one but that they must also therewith grant the same to the other. If they look back to their accustomed loophole, that then by the age of infancy were figured spiritual infants, the way is already stopped up against them. We say therefore, since God has communicated to infants circumcision, a Sacrament of repentance and faith, it seems no absurdity if they be made partakers of Baptism: unless they choose openly to rage against the ordinance of God. But both in all the doings of God, and in this self same doing also shines wisdom and righteousness enough, to beat down the backbitings of the wicked. For though infants, at the same instant that they were circumcised, did not comprehend in understanding what that sign meant: yet they were truly circumcised into the mortification of their corrupt and defiled nature, in which mortification they should afterward exercise themselves when they were grown to riper age. Finally it is very easy to resolve this objection, with saying that they be baptized into repentance and faith to come: which although they be not formed in them, yet by secret working of the Spirit the seed of both lies hidden in them. With this answer at once is overthrown whatever they wrest against us which they have fetched out of the signification of Baptism. Of which sort is the title by which it is commended by Paul, where he calls it the washing of regeneration and of renewing. From which they gather that it is to be given to none but to such a one as is able to conceive those things. But we on the contrary side may answer, that neither was circumcision, which betokened regeneration, to be given to any other than to them that were regenerate. And so shall we condemn that ordinance of God. Therefore (as we have already touched in diverse places) whatever arguments do tend to the shaking of circumcision, they have no force in the assailing of Baptism. Neither do they so escape away, if they say that we ought to take that for determined and certain, which stands upon the authority of God, although there appear no reason of it: which reverence is not due to the Baptism of infants, nor to such other things which are not commended to us by the express word of God: since they are still fast held with this double argument. For the commandment of God concerning infants to be circumcised, was either lawful and subject to no quibbling, or worthy to be found fault with. If there were no inconvenience nor absurdity in the commandment of circumcision, neither can there any absurdity be noted in observing the Baptism of infants.

As for the absurdity which in this place they go about to lay upon it, we thus wipe it away. Whom the Lord has vouchsafed to elect, if having received the sign of regeneration, they depart out of this present life before that they have come to riper age, he renews them with the power of his Spirit incomprehensible to us, in such manner as he alone foresees to be expedient. If they chance to grow up to age, whereby they may be taught the truth of Baptism, they shall hereby be the more enkindled to that endeavor of renewing, the token whereof they shall learn to have been given them from their first infancy, that they should exercise themselves in it throughout the whole course of their life. To the same end ought that to be applied which Paul teaches in two places, that by Baptism we are buried together with Christ. For he does not mean thereby, that he who is to be baptized must be already first buried together with Christ: but simply declares what doctrine is contained under Baptism, indeed and that to them that are already baptized: so that very mad men would not affirm by this place that it goes before Baptism. After this manner Moses and the Prophets did put the people in mind what circumcision meant, with which yet they had been marked while they were infants. Of the same effect also is that which he writes to the Galatians, that they when they were baptized, did put on Christ. To what end, truly, that they should from then forth live to Christ, because they had not lived before. And although in the older sort the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of the mystery: yet it shall be by and by declared that infants ought to be otherwise esteemed and accounted of. And no otherwise ought we to judge of the place of Peter, in which they think that they have a stronghold: when he says that it is not a washing to wipe away the filthiness of the body, but the witness of a good conscience before God, by the resurrection of Christ. They indeed do gather thereby, that nothing is left to the Baptism of infants, but that it should be a vain smoke, namely from which this truth is far distant. But they often offend in this error, that they will have the thing in order of time to go always before the sign. For the truth of circumcision also consisted of the same witness of good conscience. If it ought of necessity to have gone before, infants should never have been circumcised by the commandment of God. But he showing that the witness of a good conscience was contained under the truth of circumcision, and yet therewithal also commanding infants to be circumcised, does in that point sufficiently declare that circumcision is applied to the time to come. Therefore there is no more present effectualness to be required in Baptism of infants, than that it should confirm and establish the covenant made by the Lord with them. The rest of the signification of the Sacrament shall afterward follow at such time as God himself foresees.

Now I think there is no man, that does not clearly see that all such reasons of theirs are mere misconstruings of Scripture. As for the rest that be of a near kind to these, we will lightly run through them by the way. They object that Baptism is given to the forgiveness of sins, which when it is granted, will largely make for defense of our sentence. For since we are born sinners, we do even from our mothers' womb need forgiveness and pardon. Now seeing the Lord does not cut off, but rather assures to that age the hope of mercy: why should we take from them the sign which is much inferior than the thing itself? Therefore that which they go about to throw against us, we thus throw back against themselves: infants have remission of sins given them, therefore they ought not to have the sign taken from them. They allege also this out of the Epistle to the Ephesians: that the Church is cleansed of the Lord, with the washing of water in the word of life. Than which there could nothing be alleged more fit to overthrow their error: for [reconstructed: thereupon] grows an easy proof of our side. If the Lord will have the washing wherewith he cleanses his Church, to be testified by Baptism: it seems not right that it should want the testimony of it in infants, who are rightly accounted part of the Church, inasmuch as they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul speaks of the whole Church, where he says that it was cleansed with the Baptism of water. Likewise of this that in another place he says that we are by Baptism grafted into the body of Christ, we gather that infants, whom he reckons among his members, ought to be baptized, lest they be plucked away from his body. Behold with what violence with so many engines they assault the fortresses of our faith.

Then they come down to the practice and custom of the time of the Apostles, in which none is found to have been admitted to Baptism, but he who has before professed Faith and repentance. For where Peter was asked of them that were minded to repent, what was needful to be done, he counseled them first to repent, and then to be Baptized, into the forgiveness of sins. Likewise Philip, when the Eunuch required to be Baptized, answered that he might be Baptized if he believed with all his heart. Hereby they think that they may conclude, that it is not lawful that Baptism be granted to any, but where Faith and repentance go before. Truly if we yield to this reason, the first of these two places where is no mention made of Faith, will prove that repentance alone suffices: and the other place, wherein repentance is not required, will prove that Faith only is enough. I think they will answer that the one place is helped with the other, and therefore must be joined together. I say also likewise, that other places must be laid together which make somewhat to the undoing of this knot: for as much as there are many sentences in Scripture, the understanding whereof hangs upon the circumstance of the place. As this presently is an example. For they to whom Peter and Philip spoke these things were of age sufficient to have practice of repentance and to conceive Faith. We earnestly deny that such ought to be Baptized, until after perceiving of their conversion and Faith, at least so far as it may be searched out by the judgment of men. But, that infants ought to be accounted in another number, it is more than evident enough. For in old times if any man did join himself into communion of religion with Israel, it was necessary that he should first be taught the covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law, before that he were marked with circumcision, because in birth he was a stranger from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant had been made which circumcision established.

As also the Lord, when he adopts Abraham to himself, does not begin at circumcision, hiding in the mean time what he means by that sign: but first he declares what covenant he intends to make with him, and then after Faith given to the promise, he makes him partaker of the Sacrament. Why does in Abraham the Sacrament follow Faith, and in Isaac his son it goes before all understanding? Because it is fitting that he, who being in full grown age is received into fellowship of the covenant, from which he had been until now a stranger, should first learn the conditions thereof: but an infant begotten of him needed not so, which by right of inheritance according to the form of the promise is even from his mother's womb contained in the covenant. Or (that the matter may be more clearly and briefly shown) if the children of the faithful, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no cause why they should be debarred from the sign for this that they cannot swear to the form of the covenant. This verily is the reason, why in some places God affirms that the infants which are issued of the Israelites, are begotten and born to him. For without doubt he esteems as his children the children of them to whose seed he promises that he will be a Father. But he who is unfaithful, issued of ungodly parents, till he be by Faith united to God, is judged a stranger from the communion of the covenant. Therefore it is no marvel if he be not partaker of the sign, the signification whereof should be deceitful and void in him. To this effect Paul also writes, that the Gentiles so long as they were drowned in their idolatry, were out of the testament. With this short summary, (as I think) the whole matter may be clearly opened: that they who in grown age embrace the Faith of Christ, since they were until now strangers from the covenant, are not to be marked with Baptism, but whereas Faith and repentance come between, which only can open them the entry into fellowship of the covenant: but the infants that are issued of Christians, as they are received of God into the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are born, so ought to be received to Baptism. To this end must that be applied which the evangelist speaks of, that they were Baptized of John who confessed their sins. Which example at this day also we think fitting to be kept. For if a Turk offer himself to Baptism, he should not be rashly Baptized by us, namely not till after confession whereby he may satisfy the Church.

Moreover they bring forth the words of Christ, which are rehearsed in the third Chapter of John, whereby they think that a present regeneration is required in Baptism. Unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Look (say they) how Baptism is by the Lord's own mouth called regeneration. Those therefore whom it is more than enough known to be unable to receive regeneration, by what color do we admit to Baptism which can not be without regeneration? First they are deceived in this that they think that in this place mention is made of Baptism, because they hear the name of water. For after that Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of nature, and taught him that men must be born anew, because Nicodemus dreamed of a bodily new birth, he there showed the manner how God does regenerate us, namely by water and the Spirit: as though he should say, by the Spirit which in cleansing and watering faithful souls, does the office of water. Therefore I take water and the Spirit simply for the Spirit, which is water. Neither is this a new form of speech, for it altogether agrees with the same which is in the third Chapter of Matthew: He that follows me, it is he that Baptizes in the Holy Ghost and fire. Therefore as to Baptize in the Holy Ghost and fire, is to give the Holy Ghost, which has the office and nature of fire: so to be born again of water and the Spirit, is nothing else but to receive that power of the Holy Spirit which does the same thing in the soul that water does in the body. I know that others do otherwise expound it: but I am out of doubt that this is the natural meaning: because the purpose of Christ is none other, but to teach that all they must put off their own nature who aspire to the heavenly kingdom. However if we wish to cavil unsavorily as they do, it were easy for us (when we have granted as they would have it) to infer upon them that Baptism is before Faith and repentance: forasmuch as in the words of Christ it goes before the Spirit. It is certain that this is understood of spiritual gifts: which if they come after Baptism, I have obtained what I require. But leaving cavilings, we must hold fast the plain exposition, which I have brought, that no man till he has been renewed with living water, that is, with the Spirit, can enter into the kingdom of God.

Now hereby also it is evident that their feigned invention is to be hissed out, which condemn all the unbaptized to eternal death. Therefore let us according to their request imagine Baptism to be ministered to none but to them that are grown in age: what will they say shall become of a child, which is rightly and well instructed with the introductions of godliness, if when the day of Baptizing is at hand, he happen to be taken away with sudden death beside all men's hope? The Lord's promise is clear, that whoever has believed in the Son, shall not see death, nor shall come into judgment, but is already passed from death into life: and it is nowhere found that he ever damned him that was not yet Baptized. Which I would not have so taken of me as though I meant that Baptism might freely be despised (by which despising I affirm that the Lord's covenant is defiled: so much less can I abide to excuse it) only it is enough for me to prove, that it is not so necessary, that he should be immediately thought to be lost, from whom power is taken away to obtain it. But if we agree to their feigned devise, we shall damn all them without exception, whom any chance withholds from Baptism, with however great Faith (by which Christ himself is possessed) otherwise they are endowed. Moreover they make all infants guilty of eternal death, to whom they deny Baptism, which by their own confession is necessary to salvation. Now let them look how well they agree with the words of Christ, by which the kingdom of heaven is adjudged to that age. But, to grant them everything so much as pertains to the understanding of this place, yet they shall gather nothing thereof, unless they overthrow the former doctrine which we have established concerning the regeneration of infants.

But they glory that they have the strongest hold of all in the very institution of Baptism, which they fetch out of the last Chapter of Matthew: where Christ sending forth his Apostles to all nations, gives them the first commandment to teach them, and the second to Baptize them. Then also out of the last of Mark they adjoin this, He that believes and is Baptized, shall be saved. What seek we further (say they) when the Lord's own words do openly sound, that we must first teach before we Baptize, and do assign to Baptism the second place after Faith? Of which order the Lord also showed an example in himself, which would be Baptized not till the thirtieth year. But here, O good God, how many ways do they both entangle themselves, and reveal their own ignorance? For herein they now more than childishly err, that they fetch the first institution of Baptism from there, which Christ had from the beginning of his preaching given in charge to his Apostles to minister. Therefore there is no cause why they should affirm that the law and rule of Baptism is to be fetched out of these places, as though they contained the first institution thereof. But, to bear with them for this fault, yet how strong is this manner of reasoning? Truly if I wished to dally with them, there is not a little lurking hole, but a most wide field offers itself open for us to escape them. For when they stick so fast to the order of words, that they gather that because it is said, Go, preach and Baptize, Again, he that believes and is Baptized, therefore they must preach before that they Baptize, and believe before that they require Baptism: why may not we again answer them with saying that we must Baptize before that we must teach the keeping of those things that Christ has commanded: namely since it is said, Baptize, teaching them to keep whatever things I have commanded you? Which same thing we have noted in that saying of Christ which has been even now alleged concerning the regeneration of water and the Spirit. For if it be so understood as they would have it, verily in that place Baptism must be before spiritual regeneration, because it is named in the first place. For Christ does teach that we must be regenerate, not of the Spirit and water, but of water and the Spirit.

Now this invincible reason whereupon they bear themselves so bold seems to be somewhat shaken: but because truth has defense enough in simplicity, I will not escape away with such light arguments. Therefore let them take with them a full answer. Christ in this place gives the chief commandment concerning preaching of the Gospel, to which he adjoins the ministry of Baptism as an addition hanging upon it. Again he speaks no otherwise of Baptism but so far as the administration of it is under the office of teaching. For Christ sends the Apostles to publish the Gospel to all the nations of the world, that they should from everywhere with the doctrine of salvation gather together into his kingdom men that before were lost. But whom, or what manner of men? It is certain that there is no mention but of them that are able to receive teaching. Afterward he adds that such, when they are instructed, ought to be baptized, adjoining a promise, that they which believe and are baptized shall be saved. Is there in all that saying so much as one syllable of infants? What form therefore of reasoning shall this be with which they assail us: they which are of grown age, must first be instructed, that they may believe, before they be baptized: therefore it is unlawful to make Baptism common to infants? Although they would burst themselves, they shall prove nothing else by this place but that the Gospel must be preached to them that are of capacity able to hear it, before that they be baptized, inasmuch as he there speaks of such only. Let them hereof, if they can, make a stop to debar infants from Baptism.

But, that even blind men also may with groping find out their deceits, I will point them out with a very clear similitude. If any man cavil that infants ought to have food taken from them, upon this pretense that the Apostle suffers none to eat but them that labor (2 Thessalonians 3:10), shall he not be worthy that all men should spit at him? Why so? Because he without difference draws that to all men, which was spoken of one kind and one certain age of men. No whit handsomer is their handling in this present cause. For, that which every man sees to belong to one age alone, they draw to infants, that this age also may be subject to the rule which was made for none but them that were more grown in years. As for the example of Christ, it nothing upholds their side. He was not baptized before that he was thirty years old (Luke 3:23). That is indeed true: but there is a reason thereof ready to be shown: because he then purposed by his preaching to lay a sound foundation of Baptism, or rather to establish the foundation which had been before laid of John. Therefore when he minded with his doctrine to institute Baptism, to procure the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it with his own body, and that in such fitness of time as was most convenient, namely when he began his preaching. Finally they shall gather nothing else hereof, but that Baptism took its original and beginning at the preaching of the Gospel. If they list to appoint the thirtieth year, why do they not keep it, but do receive every one to Baptism as he has in their judgment sufficiently profited? Indeed and Servetus one of their masters, when he stiffly required this time, yet began at the twenty-first year of his age to boast himself to be a Prophet. As though he were to be suffered that takes upon himself the place of a teacher in the Church, before that he is a member of the Church.

At the last they object, that there is no greater cause why Baptism should be given to infants, than the Lord's Supper, which yet is not granted them. As though the Scripture did not every way express a large difference. The same was indeed usually done in the old Church, as it appears by Cyprian and Augustine: but that manner is worthily grown out of use. For if we consider the nature and property of Baptism, it is truly an entry into the Church and as it were a form of admission, whereby we are enrolled into the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration by which we are born again into the children of God: whereas on the other side the Supper is given to them that are more grown in age, which having passed tender infancy, are now able to bear strong food. Which difference is very evidently shown in the Scripture. For there the Lord, so much as pertains to Baptism, makes no choice of ages. But he does not likewise give the Supper to all to take part of it, but only to them which are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to declare the Lord's death, to weigh the power thereof. Would we have anything plainer, than that which the Apostle teaches when he exhorts that every man should prove and examine himself, and then eat of this bread and drink of this cup (1 Corinthians 11:28)? Therefore examination must go before, which should in vain be looked for of infants. Again, he that eats unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. If none can partake worthily but they that can well discern the holiness of the Lord's body, why should we give to our tender children, poison instead of lively food? What is that commandment of the Lord, you shall do it in remembrance of me? What is that other which the Apostle derives from the same, So often as you shall eat of this bread, you shall declare the Lord's death till he come? What remembrance (I beseech you) shall we require at our infants of the thing which they never attained with understanding? What preaching of the cross of Christ — the force and benefit of which they do not yet comprehend in mind? None of these things is prescribed in Baptism. Therefore between these two signs is great difference: which we note also in like signs in the old testament. Circumcision, which is known to answer to our Baptism, was appointed for infants. But the Passover into whose place the Supper has now succeeded, did not receive all manner of guests without difference, but was rightly eaten of them only that might by age inquire of the signification of it. If these men had remaining one crumb of sound brain, would they be blind at a thing so clear and offering itself to sight?

Although it grieves me to load the readers with a heap of trifles: yet it shall be worth the travail briefly to wipe away such gay reasons as Servetus, not the least of the Anabaptists, yea the great glory of that company, thought himself to bring when he prepared himself to conflict. He alleges that Christ's signs, as they are perfect, so do require those that are perfect or able to conceive perfection. But the solution is easy: that the perfection of Baptism, which extends even to death, is wrongfully restrained to one point of time. I say yet further, that perfection is foolishly required in man at the first day, to which Baptism allures us all our life long by continual degrees. He objects that Christ's signs were ordained for remembrance, that every man should remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer that what he has feigned of his own head needs no confutation: yea, that which he draws to Baptism, Paul's words show to be proper to the holy Supper, that every man should examine himself: but of Baptism there is no where any such thing. Whereupon we gather that they are rightly baptized who for their smallness of age are not yet able to receive examination. Whereas he thirdly alleges that all those abide in death who do not believe the Son of God, and that the wrath of God abides upon them: and therefore that infants who cannot believe lie in their damnation: I answer that Christ there speaks not of the general guilt with which all the posterity of Adam are enwrapped, but only threatens the despisers of the Gospel, who do proudly and stubbornly refuse the grace offered them. But this nothing pertains to infants. Also I set a contrary reason against them: that whoever Christ blesses is discharged from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God: since therefore it is known that infants are blessed of him, it follows that they are discharged from death. Then he falsely cites that which is nowhere read, that whoever is born of the Spirit hears the voice of the Spirit. Which although we grant to be written, yet shall prove nothing else but that the faithful are framed to obedience, according as the Spirit works in them. But that which is spoken of a certain number, it is faulty to draw indifferently to all. Fourthly he objects: because that goes before which is natural, we must wait for the time of Baptism which is spiritual. But although I grant that all the posterity of Adam begotten of the flesh do from the very womb bear their own damnation, yet I deny that that withholds but that God may presently bring remedy. For neither shall Servetus prove that there were many years appointed by God that the spiritual newness of life may begin. As Paul testifies, although those who are born of the faithful are by nature damned: yet by supernatural grace they are saved. Then he brings forth an allegory, that David going up into the tower of Zion did lead neither blind men nor lame men with him but strong soldiers. But what if I set a parable against it, in which God calls to the heavenly banquet blind men and lame men: how will Servetus unwind himself out of this knot? I ask also whether lame and maimed men had not first been soldiers with David. But it is superfluous to tarry longer upon this reason, which the readers shall find by the holy history to be made of mere falsehood. There follows another allegory, that the Apostles were fishers of men, not of little children. But I ask, what that saying of Christ means that into the net of the Gospel are gathered all kinds of fishes. But because I do not like to play with allegories, I answer that when the office of teaching was enjoined to the Apostles, yet they were not forbidden from baptizing of infants. However I would yet know, when the Evangelist names them Anthropous men — in which word is comprehended all mankind without exception — why they should deny infants to be men. Seventhly he alleges that since spiritual things agree with spiritual, infants who are not spiritual are also not fit for baptism. But first it is plainly evident how wrongfully they wrest the place of Paul. There is treated of doctrine: when the Corinthians did too much stand in their own conceit for vain sharpness of wit, Paul rebukes their sluggishness, for that they were yet to be instructed in the first introductions of heavenly wisdom. Who can thereof gather that Baptism is to be denied to infants, whom being begotten of the flesh God does by free adoption make holy to himself? Whereas he says that they must be fed with spiritual meat if they are new men, the solution is easy, that by Baptism they are admitted into the flock of Christ, and that the sign of adoption suffices them, till being grown to age they are able to bear strong meat: that therefore the time of examination which God expressly requires in the holy Supper must be waited for. Afterward he objects that Christ calls all his people to the holy Supper. But it is certain enough that he admits none but those that are already prepared to celebrate the remembrance of his death. Whereupon it follows that infants, whom he vouchsafed to embrace, do stay in a several and proper degree by themselves till they grow to age, and yet are not strangers. Whereas he says that it is monstrous that a man after he is born should not eat: I answer that souls are otherwise fed than by the outward eating of the Supper: and that therefore Christ is nevertheless meat to infants, although they abstain from the sign. But of Baptism the case is otherwise, by which only the gate into the Church is opened to them. Again he objects that a good steward distributes meat to the household in due time. Which although I willingly grant: yet by what right will he appoint to us the certain time of Baptism, that he may prove that it is not given to infants out of time. Moreover he brings in that commandment of Christ to the Apostles, that they should make haste into the harvest, while the fields grow white. Verily Christ means this only, that the Apostles seeing the fruit of their labor present, should the more cheerfully prepare themselves to teach. Who shall thereof gather that the only time of harvest is the ripe time for Baptism? His eleventh reason is that in the first Church, Christians and disciples were all one: but we see now that he fondly reasons from the part to the whole. Disciples are called men of full age, who had been already thoroughly taught, and had professed Christ: as it behoved that the Jews under the law should be the disciples of Moses: yet no man shall thereof rightly gather that infants were strangers, whom the Lord has testified to be of his household. Besides these he alleges that all Christians are brethren, in which number infants are not to us, so long as we debar them from the Supper. But I return to that principle, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven, but those that are the members of Christ: then, that the embracing of Christ was a true token of the adoption, whereby infants are joined in common with full grown men, and that the abstaining for a time from the Supper does not withhold but that they pertain to the body of the Church. Neither did the thief that was converted on the cross cease to be brother of the godly, although he never came to the Supper. Afterward he adds that none is made our brother but by the Spirit of adoption, which is given only by the bearing of faith. I answer that he still falls back into the same deceitful argument, because he perversely draws that to infants which was spoken only of grown men. Paul teaches there that this is God's ordinary manner of calling to bring his elect to the faith, when he stirs up to them faithful teachers, by whose ministry and travail he reaches his hand to them. Who dare thereby appoint a law to him, but that he may by some other secret way graft infants into Christ? Where he objects that Cornelius was baptized after he had received the Holy Ghost: how wrongfully he does out of one example gather a general rule appears by the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in whom the Lord kept a contrary order, that Baptism went before the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The fifteenth reason is more than foolish. He says that we are by regeneration made Gods: and that those are Gods to whom the word of God is spoken, which does not accord with children that are infants. Whereas he feigns a Godhead to the faithful, that is one of his dotages, which it pertains not to this present place to examine. But to wrest the place of the Psalm to so contrary a sense is a point of desperate shamelessness. Christ says that kings and magistrates are called of the Prophet gods, because they bear an office appointed them of God. But that which concerning the special commandment of governance is directed to certain men, this handsome expositor draws to the doctrine of the Gospel, that he may banish infants out of the Church. Again he objects that infants cannot be accounted new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But I do now again repeat that which I have often said, that to regenerate us, doctrine is the incorruptible seed, if we are fit to receive it: but when by reason of age there is not yet in us aptness to learn, God keeps his degrees of regenerating. Afterward he comes back to his allegories, that in the law a sheep and a goat were not offered in sacrifice as soon as they came out of the womb. If I were inclined to draw figures to this purpose, I could likewise readily object against him that all firstborn things were consecrated to God as soon as they had opened the womb: then that a lamb must be killed at a year's age. Whereupon it follows that manly strength is not to be waited for, but rather that the new and yet tender issues are chosen of God for sacrifices. Furthermore he affirms that none can come to Christ but those that have been prepared of John. As though John's office were not enduring but for a time. But to omit this, truly that same preparation was not in the children whom Christ embraced and blessed. Therefore let him go with his false principle. At length he calls for patrons Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to prove that holy washings pertain not but to those that are of grown age. Lo, how honorably he thinks of the Baptism of Christ, which he reduces to the ceremonies of the Gentiles, that it may be no otherwise administered than pleases Trismegistus. But we esteem more the authority of God, whom it has pleased to make infants holy to himself, and to admit them with the holy sign, the force of which they did not yet by age understand. Neither do we count it lawful to borrow out of the cleansings of the Gentiles anything that may change in our Baptism the everlasting and inviolable law of God, which he has established concerning circumcision. Last of all, he makes this argument: that if it is lawful to baptize infants without understanding, then Baptism may interlude-like and in sport be administered by boys when they play. But of this matter let him quarrel with God by whose commandment circumcision was common to infants before they had attained understanding. Was it therefore a playing matter, or subject to the follies of children, that they might overthrow the holy ordinance of God? But it is no marvel that these reprobate spirits, as though they were vexed with a frenzy, do thrust in all the grossest absurdities for defence of their errors: because God does with such giddiness justly take vengeance of their pride and stubbornness. Truly I trust I have made plain with how feeble succors Servetus has helped his silly brethren the Anabaptists.

Now I think it will be doubtful to no sober man, how rashly they trouble the Church of Christ, that move brawls and contentions for the Baptism of infants. But it is profitable to consider, what Satan goes about with this so great subtlety: even to take away from us the singular fruit of confidence and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from this, and to diminish as much also of the glory of the goodness of God. For how sweet is it to godly minds, to be certified not only by word, but also by sight to be seen with eyes, that they obtain so much favor with the heavenly Father, that he has also care of their posterity? For here it is to be seen, how he takes upon him the person of a most provident Father of the household toward us, which even after our death does not lay away his carefulness of us, but provides and foresees for our children. Ought we not here after the example of David with all our heart to leap up to thanksgiving, that by such show of his goodness, his name may be sanctified? This, verily Satan intends, in assailing with so great armies the Baptism of infants: namely, that this testifying of the grace of God being taken away, the promise which by it is present before our eyes, may at length by little and little vanish away. Whereupon should grow not only a wicked unthankfulness toward the mercy of God, but also a certain slothfulness in instructing our children to godliness. For by this spur we are not a little pricked forward to bring them up in the earnest fear of God and in the keeping of his law, when we consider that even immediately from their birth, he takes and acknowledges them for his children. Therefore unless we choose enviously to darken the bountifulness of God, let us offer to him our children, to whom he gives a place among them that are of his family and household, that is to say, the members of the Church.

But since in this age certain fanatical spirits have stirred up severe trouble in the church over the baptism of infants and still do not stop causing turmoil, I must add a section here to restrain their recklessness. If this seems too long to some, I ask them to consider that we should value the purity of doctrine in such an important matter, together with the peace of the church, so highly that nothing offered to secure both should be impatiently dismissed. Beyond that, I have worked to shape this discussion so that it will also significantly help to explain the mystery of baptism more clearly. They attack infant baptism with an argument that admittedly looks appealing on the surface, claiming it is not grounded in any institution of Christ but was introduced only through human boldness and misguided curiosity, and was then rashly adopted through careless ease. For a sacrament, unless it rests on a sure foundation of God's word, hangs by a thread. But what if, when the matter is carefully examined, it turns out that the Lord's holy ordinance is being falsely and unjustly charged with such a slander? Let us therefore search out its true origin. And if it turns out that it was invented by mere human rashness, then let us abandon it and measure the true practice of baptism by God's will alone. But if it proves to have His certain authority behind it, we must be careful that in attacking God's holy ordinances we do not also slander the Author Himself.

First, it is a well-known principle, accepted among all the godly, that the proper understanding of the sacraments depends not only on the outward ceremonies but rests primarily on the promise and the spiritual realities that the Lord appointed the ceremonies themselves to represent. Therefore, anyone who wants to fully understand what baptism is, what its purpose is, and what it means should not fix his thoughts on the physical element and visible act. Instead, he should lift his mind to the promises of God offered in it and to the inward realities it represents. Whoever grasps these things has reached the sound truth and whole substance of baptism. From there he will also learn the reason and use of the outward washing. On the other hand, whoever dismisses these things and keeps his mind fixed entirely on the visible ceremony will understand neither the power nor the nature of baptism -- not even what the water means or what purpose it serves. This principle is confirmed by so many clear testimonies of Scripture that we do not need to spend much time on it here. Therefore it remains for us to discover from the promises given in baptism what its true power and nature are. Scripture shows that baptism first represents the cleansing of sins that we receive through the blood of Christ, and then the putting to death of the flesh, which depends on sharing in His death. Through this the faithful are reborn into newness of life and into fellowship with Christ. Everything taught in Scripture about baptism can be summed up under these points, except that baptism also serves as a sign to declare our faith before others.

But since before the institution of baptism, God's people had circumcision in its place, let us consider how these two signs differ from each other and how they are alike. From this comparison, the relationship between the one and the other will become clear. When the Lord gave Abraham circumcision to observe, He first told him that He would be God to him and to his descendants, adding that with Him is the overflowing abundance and sufficiency of all things and that Abraham should consider God's hand as the source of every good thing. These words contain the promise of eternal life, as Christ Himself explains, using this passage to prove the immortality of the faithful and the resurrection. For God, He says, is not the God of the dead but of the living. Therefore Paul, showing the Ephesians from what destruction the Lord had rescued them, argues from the fact that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision that they were without Christ, without God, without hope, and strangers from the covenants of promise (Matthew 22:32; Luke 20:38; Ephesians 2:12). All of these things the covenant itself contained. But the first step toward God, the first entrance into immortal life, is the forgiveness of sins. From this it follows that forgiveness corresponds to the promise of baptism concerning our cleansing. Afterward the Lord made a covenant with Abraham that he should walk before Him in purity and integrity of heart. This relates to mortification, or regeneration. And so that no one would doubt that circumcision is a sign of mortification, Moses declares this more plainly elsewhere when he urges the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts, because they were specially chosen to be God's people out of all the nations of the earth (Genesis 17:10; Deuteronomy 10:16). Just as God, in adopting Abraham's descendants as His people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that the heart must be circumcised, explaining what the true meaning of this circumcision really is. Then, so that no one would try to accomplish this by his own strength, he teaches that the grace of God is needed. All of this is repeated so often by the prophets that I do not need to pile up many testimonies here, since they present themselves everywhere. We have therefore proved that a spiritual promise was declared to the fathers in circumcision, the same kind of promise that is given in baptism: it represented to them the forgiveness of sins and the putting to death of the flesh (Deuteronomy 30:6). Moreover, just as we have taught that Christ is the foundation of baptism, in whom both of these realities are found, so it is clear that He is also the foundation of circumcision. For He is promised to Abraham, and in Him the blessing of all nations. The sign of circumcision was added to seal this grace.

We can now easily see what is the same and what is different between these two signs. The promises on which the power of the signs rests are identical in both — God's fatherly favor, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. The thing signified is also the same in both: regeneration. The foundation on which the fulfillment of these things rests is the same in both. There is therefore no difference in the inward mystery — and it is on the inward mystery that the whole force and meaning of the sacraments depends. The difference that remains lies only in the outward ceremony, which is the least important part. The chief part hangs on the promise and the thing signified. We may therefore conclude that whatever applies to circumcision also applies to baptism — apart from the difference in the visible ceremony. The apostle's rule leads us to this comparison directly, commanding us to examine all interpretation of Scripture according to the analogy of faith. Indeed, the truth here almost presents itself without argument. Just as circumcision was the sign by which the Jews were certified that they were chosen to be God's people and household — and by which they in turn professed their dedication to God — and was therefore their first entry into the church: so now through baptism we enter into our profession of God, are counted among His people, and pledge ourselves to His name. From this it is clear and certain that baptism has taken the place of circumcision and now fulfills the same function among us.

Now, if we want to determine whether baptism may rightly be given to infants, is it not foolish — even senseless — to fix one's attention only on the element of water and the outward act while refusing to think about the spiritual mystery? If any thought is given to the spiritual mystery, it will without question become clear that baptism is rightly given to infants — that it is in fact owed to them. For in ancient times the Lord did not admit infants to circumcision without making them partakers of everything that circumcision then signified. Otherwise He would have been deceiving His people with empty signs — a thought too horrible to entertain. He expressly declared that the circumcision of an infant was to serve as a seal of the covenant promise. If that covenant remains unbroken and firm, it belongs no less today to the children of Christians than it once belonged to the infants of the Jews under the old covenant. But if infants share in the thing signified, why should they be barred from the sign? If they have the reality, why should they be denied the figure? Though the outward sign and the word belong together in a sacrament and cannot be torn apart, if we consider them separately — which do we value more? Since the sign serves the word, it must be ranked under it and given the lesser place. Since the word of baptism extends to infants, why should the sign — which is the addition attached to the word — be withheld from them? This single argument, even if there were no others, is more than enough to silence all who argue the contrary. The objection that circumcision had a specific day assigned to it is nothing more than an evasion. We grant that we are not bound to specific days as the Jews were. But when the Lord — while setting no specific day — clearly shows that He is pleased for infants to be received into His covenant with a solemn rite, what more do we need?

Scripture gives us an even clearer basis for certainty on this point. It is perfectly evident that the covenant the Lord once made with Abraham is in force today among Christians no less than it was among the Jewish people in ancient times — and that this word applies to Christians no less than it applied to the Jews. Unless perhaps we think that Christ's coming has diminished or cut back the grace of His Father — a thought that amounts to abominable blasphemy. Therefore, just as the children of the Jews were called a holy seed — because being made heirs of the same covenant they were set apart from the children of the ungodly — so today the children of Christians are counted holy. This applies even if only one parent is a believer, as the apostle testifies, and such children are distinguished from the unclean offspring of idolaters. Now, after making the covenant with Abraham, the Lord immediately commanded it to be sealed in infants through an outward sacrament. What reason can Christians give for not testifying and sealing the same covenant in their children today? Let no one object that the Lord commanded His covenant to be confirmed through no other sign than circumcision, which was long ago abolished. The answer is ready: for the age of the old covenant, God ordained circumcision to confirm His covenant. But though circumcision has been abolished, the same manner of confirming — which we share with the Jews — remains in place. We must always carefully distinguish what is common to both and what belongs to each separately. The covenant is common to both. The reason for confirming it is common to both. Only the manner of confirming differs — circumcision served that purpose for them, while baptism has taken its place among us. If the testimony by which the Jews were assured of their children's place in salvation were simply removed from us, it would mean that Christ's coming resulted in God's grace being darker and less confirmed by signs than it was before under the law. That cannot be said without extreme slander against Christ, through whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been poured out on the earth more fully and freely than ever before. We must therefore acknowledge that God's grace is at least not more sparingly granted or less clearly testified to us than it was under the shadows of the law.

The Lord Jesus, wishing to show by a sign that He had come to enlarge rather than to restrict God's mercy, gently received the children brought to Him and rebuked the disciples who tried to keep them away — for the disciples were pushing away from Him the very ones to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs, and through whom alone the way into heaven is opened. But someone will ask: what does this have to do with baptism? He is not reported to have baptized them — only to have received them, embraced them, and blessed them. So if we want to follow His example, we should pray for infants, but not baptize them. Let us look more carefully at what Christ did, however. It is not a small thing that Christ commands that infants be brought to Him, and gives the reason: the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. He then confirms His intention through action — embracing them and commending them to the Father with prayer and blessing. If it is right for infants to be brought to Christ, why is it not also right that they be received into baptism — the sign of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, why should the sign be denied to them — through which an entry into the church is opened, so that being admitted they may be numbered among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust we would be to drive away those whom Christ calls to Himself. How unjust to strip those whom He adorns with His gifts. How unjust to shut out those whom He willingly receives. Moreover, if we compare what Christ did there with baptism itself — through baptism we testify that infants are included in God's covenant. How much more significant is that than receiving, embracing, laying on of hands, and prayer — through which Christ, being present in person, declared that they belong to Him and are sanctified by Him? The other objections they use to evade this passage reveal only their own ignorance. They argue from Christ's words 'Let the little ones come to me' that these were older children who could already walk on their own. But the evangelists call them brephe and paidia — Greek words that specifically mean nursing infants. Therefore the word 'come' simply means 'be brought to' or 'have access to.' See what contortions those who have hardened themselves against the truth are forced to make. Their claim that the kingdom of heaven is not given to infants but only to those who are like them — because it says 'of such' and not 'of them' — is no stronger than the rest. If that were granted, what kind of reasoning would Christ be using when He means to show that infants are not strangers to Him? When He commands that infants be permitted to come to Him, it is plain that actual infants are being spoken of. And lest this seem strange, He immediately adds: 'for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' If infants must necessarily be included in this, then it is clear that 'such' refers to infants themselves and those who are like them.

By now it should be clear to everyone that infant baptism was not invented by human beings — it is supported by such strong testimony from Scripture. Those who object that no infant is explicitly recorded as being baptized by the hands of the apostles make a weak and disingenuous argument. Even if the evangelists do not record it by name, they do not exclude it either. Whenever the baptism of a household is mentioned, who but a madman would argue that no infants were included? If such arguments had any force, women should be forbidden from participating in the Lord's Supper — since we do not read that they were explicitly admitted to it in the time of the apostles. But in such matters we are guided by the rule of faith. When we consider what the institution of the Supper requires, we can judge who ought to have access to it. The same applies to baptism. When we consider the purpose for which baptism was ordained, we can plainly see that it belongs no less to infants than to adults. Therefore infants cannot be deprived of it without openly contradicting the will of its Author. As for the claim spread among simple people that many years passed after Christ's resurrection before infant baptism was known — this is a blatant lie. There is no ancient writer who does not trace infant baptism back to the time of the apostles.

It remains to briefly show the fruit that comes from this practice — both for believing parents who bring their children to the church to be baptized, and for the infants themselves who receive baptism — so that no one dismisses it as useless or empty. If anyone is tempted to mock infant baptism on this basis, he is in the same breath scorning the commandment of circumcision given by the Lord. Whatever argument they bring against infant baptism can equally be turned against circumcision. This is how the Lord repays the arrogance of those who quickly condemn what they cannot grasp with their own natural reasoning. But God has provided other weapons by which their foolishness can be thoroughly defeated. This holy institution — by which we find our faith strengthened with singular comfort — does not deserve to be called useless. God's sign given to a child is like a seal stamped on the promise given to the godly parent, declaring that it is confirmed: the Lord will be God not only to the parent but also to his descendants (Genesis 17:14), and will show His goodwill and grace not only to the individual but to his offspring for a thousand generations. When God's great kindness shows itself in this way, it gives ample reason to glorify Him and fills believing hearts with singular joy — for they are moved all the more earnestly to love back so gracious a Father, who they see takes care of their descendants for their sake. I will not be moved if someone objects that the promise alone should be enough to confirm the salvation of our children. God chose to do it differently — knowing our weakness, He was graciously pleased to accommodate it. Therefore, those who embrace God's promise of mercy extended to their children should regard it as their duty to bring them to the church to be marked with the sign of mercy — and through this to strengthen their own confidence, as they see with their own eyes the Lord's covenant inscribed on the bodies of their children. Children also receive benefit from their baptism: being grafted into the body of the church, they are commended to the care of the other members. As they grow to maturity, they are significantly motivated to worship God earnestly — having been received as His children through a solemn sign of adoption before they were old enough to know Him as their Father. Finally, we should be deeply sobered by the judgment God pronounces on those who refuse to mark their child with the sign of the covenant — for such contempt is a rejection and renunciation of the grace offered.

Let us now examine the arguments by which certain violent opponents relentlessly attack this holy institution of God. Finding themselves pressed hard by the parallel between baptism and circumcision, they work to drive a sharp wedge between the two signs — so that one will seem to have nothing in common with the other. They claim that the two signs signify different things, that the covenants are entirely different, and that the naming of the children is not equivalent. In trying to prove the first point, they argue that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we gladly grant them — it helps our case completely. Our entire argument rests on precisely this: that baptism and circumcision are both signs of mortification. We therefore conclude that baptism has taken the place of circumcision and represents to us the very same thing that circumcision signified to the Jews in ancient times. As for their claim of a different covenant — with what barbarous boldness they twist and corrupt Scripture, and not just in one place but everywhere, leaving nothing intact. They portray the Jews as so carnal that they are barely more than animals — people whose covenant extends no further than this present life, whose promises are exhausted in material and earthly blessings. If this teaching were accepted, what would remain but that the Jewish nation was fattened with God's benefits for a time — no differently than a herd of swine fattened in a sty — only to perish at last in eternal damnation? For whenever we point to circumcision and the promises attached to it, they answer that circumcision was a literal sign and its promises were carnal.

If circumcision was a literal sign, then the same must be said of baptism — for the apostle in Colossians 2 makes the one no more spiritual than the other. He says that we are circumcised in Christ with a circumcision not made with hands — the putting off of the body of sin that dwelled in our flesh — which he calls the circumcision of Christ. He then immediately adds by way of explanation that we are buried with Christ through baptism. What does he mean by this except that the fulfillment and truth of baptism is the same as the fulfillment and truth of circumcision, because both signify the same thing? He is laboring to show that baptism is to Christians what circumcision had been to the Jews. Since we have already clearly demonstrated that the promises of both signs and the mysteries they represent agree with each other, we need not linger on this point. I will simply remind the faithful that — without any further argument from me — they should consider for themselves whether baptism should be regarded as an earthly and literal sign with no spiritual or heavenly content. But to prevent these opponents from peddling their deceptions to the simple, I will address one objection by which they try to dress up this shameless falsehood. It is perfectly certain that the principal promises in which God established His covenant with Israel in the old covenant were spiritual in nature and pointed toward eternal life — and that the fathers received them spiritually, as was fitting, so that they could draw from them assurance of the life to come, which they longed for with their whole heart. At the same time, we do not deny that God also testified His goodwill toward them through earthly and material blessings — and we agree that through these, the same promise of spiritual things was confirmed. When God promised everlasting blessedness to His servant Abraham, He added a further promise concerning the possession of the land of Canaan, in order to set before his eyes a clear token of His favor. All earthly promises given to the Jewish nation should be understood in this way: the spiritual promise — as the head to which they are directed — always holds the chief place. Since I have treated these matters more fully in the comparison of the old and new covenants, I pass over them more briefly here.

In the matter of naming the children, our opponents find this difference: in the old covenant, those who descended from Abraham's physical line were called his children, but now those who follow his faith bear that name. Therefore, they argue, the physical infants who through circumcision were grafted into the fellowship of the covenant merely foreshadowed the spiritual infants of the new covenant who are regenerated through God's word to immortal life. There is a small glimmer of truth in this — but these shallow thinkers make a serious error. When they latch onto the first thing that comes to hand, instead of pressing further and weighing many things together, they rest their entire case on a single point. Those who stop at surface knowledge like this will inevitably be misled. We do grant that the physical descendants of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual offspring who are grafted into him through faith. For we are called his children even though there is no natural kinship between him and us. But if they mean — as they plainly do — that no spiritual blessing was ever promised to the physical descendants of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must therefore aim at a better target, directed by the surest guidance of Scripture. The Lord promised Abraham that he would have a seed through whom all nations of the earth would be blessed, and assured him that He would be God to him and to his descendants. All who receive Christ — the author of blessing — through faith are heirs of this promise, and are therefore called the children of Abraham.

It is true that since Christ's resurrection, the boundaries of God's kingdom have expanded broadly into all nations without distinction — so that, as Christ said, the faithful would be gathered from every quarter to sit down in heavenly glory with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But many ages before this, God had already extended that same great mercy to the Jews. Passing over all other nations, He chose that one nation alone, in which He would confine His grace for a time, calling them His special possession and His purchased people. Circumcision was given as the sign to testify this great generosity — through which the Jews were taught that God is the author of their salvation, and by this knowledge their minds were lifted up to hope for eternal life. For what can the person lack whom God has once taken into His care? When the apostle wants to prove that the Gentiles were children of Abraham equally with the Jews, he argues this way: Abraham was justified by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Afterward he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith — so that he would be the father of all the faithful, both uncircumcised and circumcised: not of those who merely boast of circumcision, but of those who follow the faith that our father Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised. Do we not see that both groups are given equal standing? For the time determined by God's decree, Abraham was the father of the circumcised. But when the dividing wall was torn down — as the apostle writes elsewhere — by which the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, the way into God's kingdom was opened to the Gentiles as well. Abraham was made their father too, and without the sign of circumcision, since they have baptism in its place. When the apostle explicitly denies that Abraham is the father of those who are merely of circumcision, this was said to deflate the pride of those who, neglecting godliness, boasted only in ceremonies. In the same way today, the vanity of those who seek nothing in baptism but water can be equally refuted.

But our opponents will cite another passage — from Romans 9 — where the apostle teaches that those who are of the flesh are not Abraham's children, but only those who are counted as his descendants through the promise. He seems to suggest that physical descent from Abraham counts for nothing — which appears to contradict what we have been saying. But we must look more carefully at what the apostle is actually arguing there. His purpose is to show the Jews how God's goodness is not bound to Abraham's physical descendants — that physical descent counts for nothing on its own. To prove this, he brings forward Ishmael and Esau: though they were natural offspring of Abraham according to the flesh, they were rejected as if they were strangers, while the blessing rested in Isaac and Jacob. From this he draws the conclusion he later states: that salvation depends on God's mercy, which He extends to whom He pleases. The Jews therefore have no reason to rely on their own standing or boast in the covenant — unless they keep the terms of the covenant by obeying God's word. But after bringing the Jews down from false confidence in their lineage, Paul also sees the other side: the covenant God once made with Abraham's descendants cannot be made void. So in Romans 11, he argues that physical descent is not to be stripped of its proper dignity. Through this gracious consideration, he teaches that the Jews are the first and natural heirs of the Gospel — but because through their ingratitude they were set aside as unworthy, the heavenly blessing has not been entirely removed from their nation. For this reason, however stubborn and covenant-breaking they were, he still calls them holy — such honor he gives to the holy lineage with whom God chose to make His holy covenant. He describes us Gentiles, by comparison, as latecomers — even untimely born children of Abraham, adopted rather than natural: like a branch cut off from its native tree and grafted into a foreign stock. So that they would not be deprived of their birthright, the Gospel had to be preached to them first — for they are like the firstborn children in God's household. That honor was to be given them until they refused it when offered and through their own ingratitude caused it to be carried away to the Gentiles. Yet however stubbornly they continue to war against the Gospel, we should not despise them — for the blessing of God still remains among them on account of the promises. The apostle himself testifies that it will never completely depart from there, because God's gifts and calling are irrevocable.

Behold the force of the promise given to Abraham's descendants, and how carefully it must be weighed. So when we distinguish the heirs of the kingdom from illegitimate children and strangers, we have no doubt that God's free election alone governs — and yet we also see that it pleased God in a special way to embrace the seed of Abraham with His mercy, and to seal that mercy with circumcision so it might be more surely testified. The situation in the Christian church is entirely parallel. Just as Paul argues there that the Jews are sanctified through their parents, so he teaches elsewhere that the children of Christians receive the same sanctification through their parents. From this it follows that such children are rightly set apart from the rest, who are otherwise condemned as unclean. Who then can doubt that the conclusion our opponents draw — that the infants circumcised in ancient times only prefigured spiritual infancy that arises from regeneration through God's word — is entirely false? For Paul is not playing a subtle philosophical game when he writes that Christ is a servant of circumcision in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers. He means: since the covenant made with Abraham has reference to his descendants, Christ — in order to fulfill and discharge the promise His Father once made — came with salvation to the Jewish nation. Do you not see how even after Christ's resurrection, Paul judges that the covenant promise is to be fulfilled, not merely as allegory, but literally to the physical descendants of Abraham? To the same end Peter declares to the Jews in Acts 2 that the blessing of the Gospel belongs to them and their descendants by right of the covenant. In the next chapter he calls them children of the covenant — that is, heirs. This also agrees with what the apostle says elsewhere, where he counts circumcision impressed on infants as a testimony of their communion with Christ. But if we accept our opponents' arguments, what becomes of the promise by which the Lord in the second commandment pledges to His servants that He will be favorable to their descendants for a thousand generations? Shall we retreat to allegory? That would be too evasive. Or shall we say that promise is abolished? If so, the law would be destroyed — yet Christ came rather to establish it, insofar as it leads us to life. Let it then be settled beyond dispute: God is so good and generous to His own that for their sake He includes the children they beget among His people.

The distinctions our opponents try to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only laughable and groundless, but also self-contradictory. First they claim that baptism corresponds to the first day of the spiritual battle, while circumcision corresponds to the eighth day when mortification is already complete. But then, forgetting this, they change their argument and call circumcision a figure of the flesh still to be mortified, while calling baptism a burial — into which no one should be placed until they are already dead. What kind of frenzied confusion can leap about between such contradictory positions so easily? In the first argument, baptism comes before circumcision. In the second, it is pushed to a later place. It is nothing new for human minds to be tossed around like this when, instead of holding to God's certain word, they worship whatever they have invented. We say that first distinction is pure fantasy. If they wanted to interpret the eighth day allegorically, their approach does not even work on its own terms. It would be far more fitting — as the ancient writers suggest — to relate the number eight to the resurrection, which happened on the eighth day and on which our newness of life depends. Or it could refer to the whole span of this present life, throughout which mortification should always be advancing until, when life ends, mortification itself is complete. God may also have had regard for the tenderness of newborns in delaying circumcision to the eighth day, since the wound would have been more dangerous to infants fresh from the womb. As for their stronger claim — that we must be dead first before being buried in baptism — Scripture clearly says the opposite: we are buried into death precisely so that we may die and then press forward in mortification. Equally baseless is their argument that women should not be baptized if baptism is modeled after circumcision. If it is certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was testified through circumcision, then it is equally certain that this sign was given to sanctify both males and females. Only male bodies could receive the physical mark by their nature — yet women were in a certain way companions and partners in circumcision through the males. Setting aside all these foolish arguments, let us hold firmly to the parallel between baptism and circumcision, which we have seen agree fully in inward mystery, in promises, in purpose, and in power.

They also think they have a strong argument for barring children from baptism when they claim that infants are not yet old enough to understand the mystery the sacrament signifies. That mystery is spiritual regeneration — which, they say, cannot occur in early infancy. They therefore conclude that infants should be regarded simply as children of Adam until they are old enough for a second birth. But God's word speaks against all of this. If infants are to be left among the children of Adam, they are left in death — for in Adam we can only die. But Christ commands that children be brought to Him. Why? Because He is life. He makes them partakers of Himself so that He may give life to them — while these opponents drive them away and consign them to death. If they try to escape by saying that infants do not necessarily perish just because they are counted among Adam's children, Scripture refutes this abundantly. Since Scripture declares that all die in Adam, it follows that there is no hope of life except in Christ. Therefore, to become heirs of life, we must share in Him. Again, Scripture says we are by nature all subject to God's wrath and conceived in sin — to which condemnation permanently clings. We must therefore depart from our own nature before the way into God's kingdom is opened to us. And what could be more plainly stated than that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God? Everything that belongs to us by nature must be done away with — which cannot happen without regeneration — before we can inherit that kingdom. If Christ truly says He is life, we must be grafted into Him to be delivered from the bondage of death. But they ask: how are infants regenerated when they have no knowledge of good or evil? We answer: God's work is not therefore no work at all simply because it exceeds our capacity to comprehend. It is not at all doubtful that infants who are to be saved — and some of that age are certainly saved — are regenerated by the Lord first. For if they bring with them from the womb the corruption naturally planted in them, they must be cleansed of it before being admitted into the kingdom of God, into which nothing defiled or stained may enter. If they are born sinners — as both David and Paul affirm — they either remain under God's wrath, or they must be justified. What more do we need when the Judge himself plainly declares that the entry into heavenly life is open to none except those who are born again? And to silence objectors, He gave the example of John the Baptist, whom He sanctified in his mother's womb — showing what He is able to do with others as well. Our opponents gain nothing by dismissing this as a one-time event, from which it does not necessarily follow that the Lord commonly does the same with all infants. We are not arguing that He always does this. Our point is only to show that His power is unjustly and enviously confined within the narrow limits they would impose on it — limits He refuses to accept. Their other objection carries no more weight. They claim that the phrase 'from the womb' in Scripture's typical usage simply means 'from childhood.' But it is clear that the angel, when he announced this to Zechariah, meant something different — namely, that the one not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Let us not therefore presume to make laws for God. Let Him sanctify whom He pleases, just as He sanctified that child, for His power has not diminished.

Christ was sanctified from His very infancy so that He might sanctify in Himself all His elect, of every age without distinction. For just as He took on our flesh in order to undo the guilt of the disobedience committed in it — performing in it, for us and in our place, perfect obedience — so He was conceived of the Holy Spirit so that, having holiness fully poured into the flesh He had taken on, He might pour that same holiness into us. If we have in Christ the perfect pattern of all the graces God continually shows to His children, then He is also our proof in this matter: the age of infancy is not so unsuited for sanctification as our opponents claim. But whatever one thinks about that, this much is beyond dispute: none of God's elect departs this life without first being made holy and regenerated by God's Spirit. When they object that Scripture recognizes no regeneration except through incorruptible seed — that is, through the word of God — they wrongly interpret Peter's statement, which refers only to those who had been taught through the preaching of the Gospel. We grant that for such people, the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration. But we deny that this means God cannot regenerate infants through His power — which is for Him as easy and natural as it is incomprehensible and wonderful to us. And we should not be so bold as to deny the Lord the freedom to make Himself known to infants in whatever way He chooses.

But faith, they say, comes by hearing — of which infants have no use yet — and they cannot know God, from whom Moses says they lack all knowledge of good and evil. They fail to notice, however, that when the apostle says hearing is the beginning of faith, he is describing only the ordinary way the Lord chooses to use in calling those who are His. He is not appointing a permanent rule that binds God to one method alone. In fact, God has called many people through an inward means — through the illumination of the Spirit, without any preaching as a mediation — and has given them true knowledge of Himself in that way. As for their claim that it would be absurd to grant any knowledge of God to infants, from whom Moses takes away all understanding of good and evil — I ask them simply: what harm is there in saying that infants receive some portion of that grace whose full richness they will enjoy shortly after? For if the fullness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, then when many infants die in their earliest days and pass into eternal life, they are received to behold the most immediate face of God. If the Lord intends to enlighten them with the full brightness of His light, why may He not also — if it so pleases Him — send out some small ray of that light in advance, especially since He need not strip them of ignorance before taking them out of the prison of the flesh? I do not mean to boldly assert that infants possess the same kind of faith we experience in ourselves, or that they have knowledge of faith exactly as we do — these questions I prefer to leave unsettled. My purpose is only to restrain the foolish arrogance of those who, puffed up with their own words, boldly deny or affirm whatever they please without care.

To press their point further, they add that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and faith — and since neither of these can occur in infancy, we should not admit infants to baptism, lest its meaning be emptied of content. But these objections are thrown against God more than against us. It is abundantly clear from many passages of Scripture that circumcision was also a sign of repentance. Paul also calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith. Let them therefore take their objection to God himself and demand why He commanded it to be marked on the bodies of infants. Since baptism and circumcision stand in the same position, whatever is granted to one must be granted to the other. If they retreat to their usual escape — that physical infants in that age merely figured spiritual infants — that way is already blocked. We say, therefore, that since God granted circumcision — a sacrament of repentance and faith — to infants, it is no absurdity for infants to receive baptism as well. The only alternative is to rage openly against God's own ordinance. But God's wisdom and righteousness shine clearly in all His acts — including this one — and are more than sufficient to rebut the slanders of the wicked. Even though infants at the moment of circumcision did not comprehend in understanding what the sign meant, they were truly circumcised into the mortification of their corrupt nature — a mortification they would afterward practice as they grew older. Finally, the objection is easily answered by saying that infants are baptized into repentance and faith that is yet to come. Though that repentance and faith are not yet formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden in them by the secret working of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections they draw from the meaning of baptism. Among these is the title Paul gives it — calling it the washing of regeneration and renewal. From this they conclude that it should be given only to those capable of grasping what these things mean. But we can answer the same way: circumcision, which betokened regeneration, should on their logic have been given only to those already regenerate. And so they would end up condemning God's own ordinance. Therefore, as we have already noted in several places, whatever arguments are aimed at undermining circumcision have no force when used against baptism. Nor do they escape by saying we should simply accept what rests on God's authority even when the reason is not apparent — while denying that same respect to infant baptism on the grounds that it is not expressly commanded in so many words. They are caught by this double argument: the commandment of God concerning the circumcision of infants was either lawful and beyond question, or it was open to legitimate objection. If there was no incongruity or absurdity in the commandment of circumcision, then there is no absurdity to be found in the practice of infant baptism.

The particular absurdity they try to attach to infant baptism is answered this way: those whom the Lord has chosen, if they receive the sign of regeneration and then depart this life before reaching maturity, He renews through the power of His Spirit — in a manner incomprehensible to us, and in the way He alone foresees to be fitting. If they live to an age where they can be taught the truth of baptism, they will be all the more spurred on by that teaching to pursue the renewal whose token they learn was given to them from their earliest infancy — so that they might practice it throughout their whole lives. To the same end applies what Paul teaches in two places: that through baptism we are buried together with Christ. He does not mean that the person being baptized must already have been buried with Christ before baptism takes place. He is simply declaring what doctrine is contained in baptism — and he declares it to those who have already been baptized. Only a madman would take that passage to mean that burial with Christ must precede baptism. This is exactly how Moses and the prophets called the people to remember what circumcision meant — even though they had received that mark as infants. Paul's statement in Galatians has the same force: when they were baptized, they put on Christ — meaning they should from that point forward live to Christ, because they had not lived that way before. While it is true that in the case of older converts the reception of the sign should follow the understanding of the mystery, infants must be evaluated differently — as will be shown shortly. Nor should we judge differently Peter's statement, which they think is a stronghold for their position: that baptism is not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience before God, through the resurrection of Christ. They conclude from this that infant baptism is a mere empty show — since this inner reality cannot be present in infants. But they repeatedly make the same error: insisting that the inner reality must always precede the sign in time. The truth of circumcision also consisted in this pledge of a good conscience. If that were required to come first, God would never have commanded infants to be circumcised. But since He declared that the pledge of a good conscience is contained within the truth of circumcision, and yet simultaneously commanded infants to be circumcised, He thereby made clear that circumcision is applied in reference to future fulfillment. Therefore no more immediate fulfillment needs to be required in infant baptism than this: that it confirm and establish the covenant the Lord has made with them. The rest of what the sacrament signifies will follow in due time, as God himself foresees.

By now I think no one can fail to see that all these arguments of theirs are simply misreadings of Scripture. As for the remaining objections of a similar kind, we will pass through them briefly. They object that baptism is given for the forgiveness of sins — but this actually supports our position. Since we are born sinners, we need forgiveness and pardon from our very birth. Since the Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but rather assures it to them, why should we withhold from them the sign that is far less than the thing itself? So we turn their argument back on them: infants receive forgiveness of sins — therefore the sign should not be taken from them. They also cite Ephesians, where Paul says the Lord cleanses the church through the washing of water in the word of life. Nothing could be cited more suitable for overturning their error, since it naturally leads to a straightforward proof of our position. If the Lord wills that the cleansing by which He purifies His church be testified through baptism, it does not seem right that this testimony should be withheld from infants — who are rightly counted as part of the church, since they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. Paul is speaking of the whole church when he says it was cleansed through the washing of water. Likewise, from what he says elsewhere — that through baptism we are grafted into the body of Christ — we conclude that infants, whom he counts among Christ's members, ought to be baptized, so they are not cut off from His body. Behold with what forceful arguments they assault our position — and how easily those arguments turn against them.

They then appeal to apostolic practice: in the time of the apostles, no one is found to have been admitted to baptism who had not first professed faith and repentance. When those who intended to repent asked Peter what they should do, he told them first to repent and then to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Similarly, when the Ethiopian official asked Philip to baptize him, Philip answered that he could be baptized if he believed with his whole heart. From this they conclude that baptism should not be given to anyone unless faith and repentance come first. But if we grant this reasoning, the first passage — where faith is not mentioned — would prove that repentance alone suffices. And the second — where repentance is not required — would prove that faith alone is enough. I suspect they will answer that the two passages must be read together to supplement each other. I say exactly the same: other passages must be brought alongside these — passages that help resolve the question — since many statements in Scripture can only be properly understood in light of their context. The present case is a perfect example. Peter and Philip were speaking to people of an age sufficient for repentance and faith. We fully agree that such people should not be baptized until a conversion and faith have been recognized — as far as this can be judged by human assessment. But infants belong in an entirely different category — and this is more than clear. In ancient times, if someone joined the fellowship of Israel's religion, he first had to be taught the Lord's covenant and instructed in the law before receiving circumcision — because he was born outside the people of Israel, with whom the covenant that circumcision sealed had been made.

Likewise, when the Lord adopted Abraham as His own, He did not begin with circumcision while concealing what the sign meant. He first declared what covenant He intended to make with him, and only after Abraham had believed the promise did He make him a partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in Abraham's case, but come before understanding in Isaac his son? Because it is fitting that someone received into the fellowship of the covenant in adulthood — having been a stranger to it until then — should first learn its terms. But an infant born to him needed no such instruction, since by right of inheritance, according to the promise, the child is included in the covenant from his mother's womb. Or, to put it more plainly: if the children of believers are partakers of the covenant without the aid of understanding, there is no reason to bar them from the sign merely because they cannot formally swear to the covenant's terms. This is the very reason why God in certain places declares that the children born of the Israelites are born to Him. He counts as His children the children of those to whose descendants He has promised to be a Father. But one born of ungodly, unbelieving parents is considered a stranger to the fellowship of the covenant — until united to God through faith. It is no surprise, therefore, that such a person is not a partaker of the sign, for in him its meaning would be hollow and false. Paul writes to the same effect: that the Gentiles, as long as they were sunk in idolatry, were outside the covenant. With this brief summary, the whole matter is, I think, made clear: those who embrace faith in Christ as adults, having until then been strangers to the covenant, should not be marked with baptism until faith and repentance open the way for them into the fellowship of the covenant. But infants born to Christians, since they are received by God into the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are born, should likewise be received into baptism. To this end applies what the evangelist says — that those who confessed their sins were baptized by John. This we also consider the right practice today. If a Muslim were to present himself for baptism, he should not be rashly baptized — not until after a confession by which he can satisfy the church.

They also cite Christ's words from John 3, thinking that this passage requires present regeneration as a prerequisite for baptism: 'Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.' Look, they say — the Lord himself calls baptism regeneration. How then can we admit to baptism those who are clearly unable to receive regeneration, which baptism requires? Their first mistake is assuming that baptism is even being referenced in this passage simply because water is mentioned. After Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of human nature and told him that men must be born anew, Nicodemus imagined a physical second birth. Christ then explained how God regenerates us — by water and the Spirit — as if to say: by the Spirit, who cleanses and refreshes believing souls the way water does the body. I therefore take 'water and the Spirit' as simply referring to the Spirit — the Spirit as water. This is not an unusual form of expression. It fully agrees with the statement in Matthew 3: 'He who comes after me is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire.' Just as baptizing with the Holy Spirit and fire means giving the Holy Spirit, who functions and acts as fire — so being born again of water and the Spirit means nothing other than receiving the power of the Holy Spirit, who does in the soul what water does in the body. I know others interpret this differently, but I am convinced this is the natural meaning — because Christ's only purpose there is to teach that all who aspire to the heavenly kingdom must put off their own nature. If we wished to argue as cleverly as they do, we could easily turn the passage against them: granting their interpretation, we could infer that baptism comes before faith and repentance — since in Christ's words 'water' comes before 'Spirit.' It is certain that the Spirit here refers to spiritual gifts. If those come after baptism, I have what I need. But setting aside clever arguments, we must hold to the plain meaning I have given: no one can enter the kingdom of God until renewed by the living water — that is, by the Spirit.

From all this it is also clear that their invented doctrine — which condemns all the unbaptized to eternal death — deserves to be rejected outright. Let us take their position and imagine that baptism is administered only to those of age. What will they say becomes of a child who has been properly and well instructed in godliness, but who happens to die suddenly before the appointed day of baptism, when no one expected it? The Lord's promise is clear: whoever believes in the Son will not see death, will not come into judgment, but has already passed from death into life. And nowhere does Scripture record that God ever condemned someone simply because they had not yet been baptized. I would not have this taken to mean that baptism may simply be dismissed — for such contempt, I affirm, defiles the Lord's covenant, and I cannot excuse it. My point only is that baptism is not so absolutely necessary that someone must immediately be counted as lost simply because they were unable to receive it. But if we adopt their invented position, we would be forced to condemn without exception all those kept from baptism by any circumstance — however great the faith by which they possess Christ himself. Furthermore, they condemn all infants to eternal death by denying them baptism, which they themselves claim is necessary for salvation. Let them then explain how this agrees with Christ's own words, by which the kingdom of heaven is declared to belong to that age. But even granting them everything their interpretation of that passage claims, they will gain nothing from it — not unless they first overthrow the doctrine we have already established regarding the regeneration of infants.

But they boast that their strongest argument comes from the very institution of baptism in the final chapter of Matthew — where Christ, sending His apostles to all nations, commands them first to teach and then to baptize. They add to this the statement from the end of Mark: 'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.' 'What more do we need?' they ask. 'The Lord's own words plainly state that teaching must come before baptism, and that faith is assigned the first place and baptism the second.' They also note that the Lord himself set this example by waiting until His thirtieth year to be baptized. But here, good Lord — how many ways do they entangle themselves and expose their own ignorance? They make a childish mistake in treating these passages as the original institution of baptism, when Christ had commissioned His apostles to administer baptism from the very beginning of His preaching ministry. There is therefore no reason to claim that the law and rule of baptism must be derived from these passages as if they contained its first establishment. But even setting that aside and granting their assumption, how strong is their argument? To be honest, if I wanted to play word games, there is not a small loophole but a wide-open field in which to escape their argument. They press so hard on the order of words — arguing that because it says 'go, preach and baptize,' and 'whoever believes and is baptized,' therefore teaching must precede baptism and faith must precede baptism — that we could reply by the same logic: baptism must precede teaching the commandments, since the text says 'baptize, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.' We noted the same problem in the passage just cited about regeneration through water and the Spirit. If that passage is read the way they demand, then in that text baptism must come before spiritual regeneration — since it is named first. For Christ says we must be born again 'of water and the Spirit,' not 'of the Spirit and water.'

Now their seemingly invincible argument has been somewhat shaken. But since truth defends itself best through simplicity, I will not slip away with such lightweight counterarguments — let me give them a full reply. Christ in this passage gives the primary command concerning the preaching of the Gospel, to which He adds the ministry of baptism as an attached consequence. He speaks of baptism only as it falls under the scope of the teaching office. Christ sends the apostles to proclaim the Gospel to all nations — gathering from every place, by the message of salvation, those who were previously lost and drawing them into His kingdom. But who specifically? What kind of people? It is certain that only those capable of receiving instruction are in view. He then adds that such people, once taught, should be baptized — attaching the promise that whoever believes and is baptized will be saved. Is there even one syllable about infants in all of that? What kind of reasoning is it, then, to say: adults must first be taught and believe before being baptized — therefore it is unlawful to baptize infants? However hard they press this passage, they can prove nothing from it except that the Gospel must be preached to those capable of hearing it before they are baptized — since that is who the passage is about. Let them try, if they can, to derive from that a prohibition of infant baptism.

But so that even those who are spiritually blind can feel their way to seeing this deception, I will illustrate it with a clear comparison. If someone argued that food should be withheld from infants on the grounds that the apostle allows none to eat who do not work (2 Thessalonians 3:10), would he not deserve everyone's contempt? Why? Because he takes without distinction what was said about one kind and one certain age of people and applies it to all people. Their handling of this present case is no better. What everyone can see applies only to one age group, they drag into application to infants — so that a rule made only for those of more mature years would govern infants as well. As for Christ's own example — it does nothing to support them. He was not baptized until He was thirty years old — that is true. But the reason is ready to be given: He intended by His preaching to lay a solid foundation for baptism, or rather to establish the foundation already laid by John. When He purposed through His teaching to institute baptism, He sanctified it with His own body to give His institution greater authority — and He did so at precisely the right moment, when He began His public ministry. The only conclusion to be drawn is that baptism took its origin and beginning from the preaching of the Gospel. If they want to make the thirtieth year the rule, why don't they keep it — instead of receiving everyone into baptism as soon as they judge the person sufficiently advanced? Indeed, Servetus — one of their own teachers — who stubbornly insisted on this age requirement, began boasting that he was a prophet when he was barely twenty-one years old. As if someone who claims the role of teacher in the church before being a member of it could be tolerated.

Finally they object that there is no more reason to give baptism to infants than to give them the Lord's Supper — which is not given to them. As if Scripture did not everywhere express a clear difference between the two. Admitting children to the Supper was indeed done in the ancient church, as both Cyprian and Augustine show — but that practice rightly fell out of use. For if we consider the nature and purpose of baptism, it is truly the entry into the church — a form of enrollment by which we are received into God's people — and a sign of our spiritual regeneration by which we are born again as children of God. The Supper, by contrast, is given to those who are more mature, who have passed beyond tender infancy and are now able to take solid food. This difference is clearly shown in Scripture. Regarding baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of ages. Regarding the Supper, however, He does not give it to all indiscriminately — only to those who are able to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to proclaim the Lord's death, and to weigh its significance. Could we want anything plainer than what the apostle teaches when he urges that each person examine and test himself, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup (1 Corinthians 11:28)? Self-examination must come first — something that cannot be expected of infants. Furthermore, whoever eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not discerning the Lord's body. If only those who can rightly discern the holiness of the Lord's body may partake worthily, why would we give our tender children poison instead of nourishing food? What is the Lord's command — 'do this in remembrance of Me'? What is the apostle's corresponding statement — 'as often as you eat this bread, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes'? What remembrance of this can we require from infants who have no understanding of it? What proclaiming of Christ's cross — the power and benefit of which they cannot yet grasp? None of these requirements apply to baptism. Therefore there is a great difference between these two signs — and we see the same distinction in the parallel signs of the old covenant. Circumcision, which corresponds to our baptism, was given to infants. But the Passover — which the Supper has now replaced — did not receive all comers without distinction. It was rightly celebrated only by those old enough to inquire into its meaning. If these men retained even a grain of sound judgment, how could they be blind to something so plain?

I regret burdening readers with so many trivial objections. Yet it is worth the effort to briefly dispose of the arguments that Servetus — no minor Anabaptist, but the great glory of their company — thought were decisive when he prepared himself for debate. He claims that Christ's signs, being perfect, require those who are perfect or capable of grasping perfection. The answer is easy: the perfection of baptism extends throughout life unto death, and it is wrong to confine it to a single moment in time. I add further that it is foolish to demand perfection in a person at the outset — since baptism leads us toward perfection throughout our whole lives by gradual steps. He objects that Christ's signs were ordained for remembrance, so that each person would remember being buried with Christ. I answer that what he invented here needs no refutation. What he applies to baptism, Paul's own words show belongs specifically to the Lord's Supper — where each person is to examine himself. No such requirement appears anywhere in connection with baptism. From this we conclude that those who are too young to be capable of self-examination are rightly baptized. His third objection is that all who do not believe in the Son of God remain in death and under God's wrath — and therefore that infants who cannot believe lie in their condemnation. I answer that Christ there is not speaking of the general guilt in which all of Adam's descendants are wrapped, but is threatening those who proudly and stubbornly despise and reject the Gospel's offered grace. This has nothing to do with infants. I also set a counter-argument against him: whoever Christ blesses is freed from Adam's curse and God's wrath. Since it is known that He blesses infants, it follows that they are freed from death. He then falsely cites a statement found nowhere in Scripture — that whoever is born of the Spirit hears the voice of the Spirit. Even if we granted this were written, it would prove nothing more than that the faithful are formed for obedience as the Spirit works in them. But what is said of a certain group cannot be applied indiscriminately to all. His fourth objection is that since the natural comes first, we must wait for the right time before administering the spiritual baptism. I grant that all of Adam's descendants, born of the flesh, carry their own condemnation from the womb — but I deny that this prevents God from immediately bringing a remedy. Servetus cannot prove that God has appointed a span of years that must pass before spiritual newness of life can begin. As Paul testifies, those born of believers are by nature condemned — yet by supernatural grace they are saved. He then introduces an allegory: David, when he entered the tower of Zion, took strong soldiers with him, not blind or lame men. But what if I set against it the parable in which God calls the blind and lame to the heavenly banquet? How will Servetus get out of that? I also ask whether the lame and maimed were not once soldiers with David in the first place. But it is pointless to linger on an argument that readers will find — upon examining the scriptural history — to be built entirely on falsehood. He follows with another allegory: the apostles were fishers of men, not of little children. But I ask what Christ's own statement means — that the Gospel net gathers all kinds of fish. Since I dislike playing with allegories, I will simply answer: when the teaching office was entrusted to the apostles, they were not forbidden from baptizing infants. And I would like to know why, when the evangelist uses the word anthropous — which means all human beings without exception — our opponents deny that infants are human beings. His seventh argument is that since spiritual things must match spiritual realities, infants who are not spiritual are not fit for baptism. But it is plain how wrongly he handles Paul's text. Paul there is dealing with doctrine: when the Corinthians were too proud of their own cleverness, Paul rebuked their sluggishness — showing they still needed instruction in the first principles of heavenly wisdom. Who can conclude from this that baptism should be denied to infants whom God, from their very birth, makes holy to Himself through free adoption? When Servetus says they must be fed with spiritual food if they are new people, the answer is simple: through baptism they are admitted into Christ's flock, and the sign of adoption is sufficient for them until they grow old enough to take solid food. The time of examination that God expressly requires for the Lord's Supper must then be waited for. He then objects that Christ calls all His people to the holy Supper. But it is clear enough that He admits only those already prepared to commemorate His death. It follows that infants, whom He chose to embrace, occupy a distinct place of their own until they grow older — yet they are not strangers. The thief converted on the cross did not cease to be a brother to the godly even though he never came to the Supper. Servetus then adds that no one becomes our brother except through the Spirit of adoption, given only through the hearing of faith. I answer that he falls again into the same fallacious argument — wrongly applying to infants what was said only of adults. Paul there is describing God's ordinary manner of calling: He stirs up faithful teachers whose ministry He uses to reach His elect. Who dares from this to impose a law on God, forbidding Him from grafting infants into Christ by some other hidden way? His objection that Cornelius was baptized after he received the Holy Spirit shows how wrongly a general rule is drawn from one example — since in the case of the Ethiopian official and the Samaritans, the Lord kept the opposite order, with baptism preceding the gifts of the Spirit. His fifteenth argument is more than foolish. He says we are made gods through regeneration, and that those are gods to whom the word of God is spoken — which does not apply to infant children. His invention of a kind of deity in the faithful is one of his delusions, which does not belong to the present discussion. But to twist the psalm to such a contrary meaning is shamelessly desperate. Christ's point is that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet because they hold an office appointed by God. But Servetus takes what was directed to certain men concerning the specific duty of governance and applies it to the preaching of the Gospel — all in order to banish infants from the church. He then objects that infants cannot be counted as new people because they are not begotten by the word. I repeat once more what I have said many times: doctrine is the incorruptible seed of regeneration for those capable of receiving it. But when a person's age does not yet allow learning, God proceeds in His own degrees of regenerating. He then returns to allegories: under the law, a sheep or goat was not offered in sacrifice the moment it left the womb. If I were inclined to match allegory for allegory, I could just as easily point out that all firstborn things were consecrated to God as soon as they had opened the womb, and that a lamb could be killed at a year's age. From this it would follow that one need not wait for mature strength — that God actually chooses young and tender offspring for sacrifice. He then claims that no one can come to Christ except those prepared by John's ministry. As if John's office was not temporary and for a specific time. But setting that aside: the children whom Christ embraced and blessed had received no such preparation from John. So let Servetus abandon that false premise. Finally, he calls upon Hermes Trismegistus and the Sibyls as authorities to prove that sacred washings belong only to those of mature age. What an honorable view of Christ's baptism — reducing it to the level of Gentile ceremonies so that it can only be administered in ways that Hermes Trismegistus would approve. We hold the authority of God to be far higher — the God who was pleased to make infants holy to Himself and to receive them with the sacred sign, the full meaning of which they did not yet understand by reason of age. We do not consider it lawful to borrow anything from Gentile purification rites that might alter in our baptism the eternal and inviolable law of God established through circumcision. His final argument is this: if it is lawful to baptize infants without understanding, then baptism could be administered playfully by children during their games. Let him take that quarrel to God — by whose command circumcision was given to infants before they attained understanding. Was that therefore a plaything, or subject to children's games, so that God's holy ordinance could be overturned? It is no wonder that such reprobate spirits, as if seized by a frenzy, pile up the grossest absurdities in defense of their errors — for God justly punishes their pride and stubbornness with such dizziness. I trust I have now made clear how feeble the arguments are with which Servetus has tried to help his unfortunate Anabaptist companions.

By now it should be clear to any sober mind how rashly those who stir up conflict over infant baptism disturb the church of Christ. But it is worth considering what Satan is aiming at through this clever strategy: to rob us of the singular fruit of confidence and spiritual joy that baptism is meant to produce, and to diminish as much as possible the glory of God's goodness. How sweet it is for godly hearts to be assured — not only by word, but by something seen with their own eyes — that they enjoy such favor with their heavenly Father that He even cares for their descendants. Here we see God taking upon Himself the role of the most caring Father of a household — who, even after our death, does not set aside His concern for us, but provides and watches over our children. Should we not, following David's example, leap up with our whole hearts in thanksgiving — so that by this display of His goodness, His name may be hallowed? This is precisely what Satan is after in attacking infant baptism with such force: to strip away this testimony of God's grace, so that the promise so clearly set before our eyes may gradually fade away. From this would follow not only wicked ingratitude toward God's mercy, but also a kind of carelessness in raising our children in godliness. We are not slightly spurred on to bring them up in earnest fear of God and in keeping His law when we consider that even from their very birth, He receives and acknowledges them as His own children. Therefore, unless we choose to enviously obscure God's generosity, let us offer our children to Him — to the One who gives them a place among the members of His household, that is, the members of the church.