Book 4, Chapter 16

CHAPTER XVI.
PÆDOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a view to repress their violence. If any one should think this chapter extended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that purity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church, ought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also study to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further elucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with an argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility, asserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the subject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on the holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its first origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of human presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true observance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be proved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an insult to their Author himself.

II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and acknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration of sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but that it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which the Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be fully informed of the meaning of baptism, and what baptism is, must not fix his attention on the element and the outward spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises of God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and spiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers these things, has attained the solid truth and all the substance of baptism, and thence he will also learn the reason and use of the external sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these things, and confines his attention entirely to the visible ceremony, will understand neither the force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the meaning or use of the water. This sentiment is established by testimonies of Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least necessity for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore, that from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce its nature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the first thing represented in it, is the remission and purgation of sins, which we obtain in the blood of Christ; and the second the mortification of the flesh, which consists in the participation of his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and so into communion with him. This is the sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the Scriptures concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by which we testify our religion before men.

III. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism, had circumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity and difference between these two signs, in order to discover how far we may argue from one to the other. When the Lord gave Abraham the command of circumcision, he prefaced it by saying, “I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;” at the same time declaring himself to be “Almighty,” having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that Abraham might expect to find his hand the source of every blessing.[1165] These words contain the promise of eternal life, according to the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this declaration an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of believers. “For God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the Ephesians from what misery the Lord had delivered them, concludes, from their not having been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, that “at that time” they “were without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God;”[1167] all these things being comprehended in that covenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance into immortal life, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows that this promise corresponds with the promise of baptism respecting our purgation. The Lord afterwards stipulated with Abraham, that he should walk before him in sincerity and purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or regeneration. And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of mortification, Moses more expressly declares it in another place, when he exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because the Lord had chosen them for himself above all the nations of the earth. As God, when he adopts the posterity of Abraham to be his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise the heart, thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal circumcision.[1168] Then, that no one might attempt this in his own strength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All these things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no need to collect here the numerous testimonies which every where present themselves. We have ascertained, therefore, that a spiritual promise, the very same which is given to us in baptism, was given to the fathers in circumcision; which represented to them the remission of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of baptism, the same must be evident of circumcision. For he was promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all nations; and the sign of circumcision was added in confirmation of this grace.

IV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity or what difference there is between these two signs. The promise, in which we have stated the virtue of the signs to consist, is the same in both; including the paternal favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal life. In the next place, the thing signified also is one and the same, namely, regeneration. The foundation, on which the accomplishment of these things rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no difference in the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar nature of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies in the external ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it; whereas the principal part depends on the promise and the thing signified. We may conclude, therefore, that whatever belongs to circumcision, except the difference of the visible ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this inference and comparison we are led by the apostle’s rule, which directs us to examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of faith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to the slightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by which they were assured of their adoption as the people and family of God, and on their parts professed their entire subjection to him, and therefore was their first entrance into the Church, so now we are initiated into the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among his people, and profess to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is evident, beyond all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place of circumcision.

V. Now, if it be inquired, whether baptism may rightly be administered to infants, shall we not pronounce it an excess of folly, and even madness, in any one who resolves to dwell entirely on the element of water and the external observance, and cannot bear to direct his thoughts to the spiritual mystery; a due consideration of which will prove, beyond all doubt, that baptism is justly administered to infants, as that to which they are fully entitled? For the Lord, in former ages, did not favour them with circumcision without making them partakers of all those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise, he must have deluded his people with mere impostures, if he deceived them by fallacious symbols; which it is dreadful even to hear. For he expressly pronounces that the circumcision of a little infant should serve as a seal for the confirmation of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and unmoved, it belongs to the children of Christians now, as much as it did to the infants of the Jews under the Old Testament. But if they are partakers of the thing signified, why shall they be excluded from the sign? If they obtain the truth, why shall they be debarred from the figure? Though the external sign in the sacrament is so connected with the word, as not to be separated from it, yet if it be distinguished, which shall we esteem of the greater importance? Certainly, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall pronounce it to be inferior to it, and assign it the subordinate place. While the word of baptism, then, is directed to infants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix to the word, be prohibited to them? This one reason, if there were no others, would be abundantly sufficient for the refutation of all opposers. The objection that there was a particular day fixed for circumcision, is a mere evasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days, like the Jews; but when the Lord, though he prescribes no particular day, yet declares it to be his pleasure that infants shall be received into his covenant by a solemn rite, what do we want more?

VI. The Scripture, however, still affords a more certain knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham continues as much in force with Christians in the present day, as it did formerly with the Jews; and consequently that that word is no less applicable to Christians than it was to the Jews. Unless we suppose that Christ by his advent diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father; which is execrable blasphemy. Wherefore the children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of that covenant, and distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed; and for the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Now, as the Lord, immediately after having made the covenant with Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an external sacrament, what cause will Christians assign why they should not also at this day testify and seal the same in their children? Nor let it be objected, that the Lord commanded not his covenant to be confirmed by any other symbol than that of circumcision, which has long ago been abolished. For it is easy to reply, that during the time of the Old Testament he appointed circumcision for the confirmation of his covenant; but that since the abrogation of circumcision, there always remains the same reason for confirming it, which we have in common with the Jews. It is necessary, therefore, to be careful in observing what we have in common with them, and what they had different from us. The covenant is common, the reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is different; for to them it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us has been succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed be taken away from us, the effect of the advent of Christ has been to render the grace of God more obscure and less attested to us than it was to the Jews. If this cannot be affirmed without great dishonour to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of God has been diffused over the earth, and manifested to men in a more conspicuous and liberal manner than at any former period, we must be obliged to confess, that at least it ought not to be more concealed or less attested than under the obscure shadows of the law.

VII. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen from which the world might understand that he was come to extend rather than to limit the mercy of the Father, kindly received the infants that were presented to him, and embraced them in his arms, chiding his disciples who endeavoured to forbid their approach to him, because they would keep those, of whom was the kingdom of heaven, at a distance from him who is the only way of entrance into it. But some will object, What resemblance does this embrace of Christ bear to baptism? for he is not said to have baptized them, but to have received them, taken them in his arms, and blessed them; therefore, if we desire to imitate his example, let us assist infants with our prayers, but let us not baptize them. But it is necessary to consider the conduct of Christ with more attention than it receives from persons of this class. For it is not to be passed over as a thing of little importance, that Christ commanded infants to be brought to him, and added, as a reason for this command, “For of such is the kingdom of heaven;” and afterwards gave a practical testimony of his will, when, embracing them in his arms, he commended them to his Father by his prayers and benedictions. If it be reasonable for infants to be brought to Christ, why is it not allowable to admit them to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If of them is the kingdom of heaven, why shall they be denied the sign, which opens, as it were, an entrance into the Church, that, being received into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust shall we be, if we drive away from Christ those whom he invites to him; if we deprive them of the gifts with which he adorns them; if we exclude those whom he freely admits! But if we examine how far what Christ did on that occasion differs from baptism, how much greater importance shall we attach to baptism, by which we testify that infants are included in the covenant of God, than to the reception, the embrace, the imposition of hands, and the prayers by which Jesus Christ himself acknowledged them as his, and declared them to be sanctified by him! The other cavils by which our opponents endeavour to elude the force of this passage, only betray their ignorance. For they argue that as Christ said, “Suffer little children to come,” they must have been grown to such an age and stature as to be capable of walking. But they are called by the evangelists Βρεφη; and παιδια, two words used by the Greeks to signify little infants hanging on the breast. The word “come,” therefore, is merely used to denote “access.” To such evasions are persons obliged to have recourse, who resist the truth. Nor is there any more solidity in the objection, that the kingdom of heaven is not said to belong to infants, but to those who resemble them, because the expression is, not of them, but “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” For if this be admitted, what kind of reason would it be that Christ assigns, with a view to show that infants in age ought not to be prevented from approaching him, when he says, “Suffer little children to come unto me?” Nothing can be plainer than that he intends those who are in a state of real infancy. And to prevent this from being thought unreasonable, he adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And if infants be necessarily comprehended, it is beyond all doubt that the word “such” designates both infants themselves and those who resemble them.[1171]