加爾文基督教要義(82)卷四第十六章 論嬰孩洗禮符合基督所設立的洗禮及其記號的性質

第十六章 論嬰孩洗禮符合基督所設立的洗禮及其記號的性質
　　當今既有許多搗亂分子，對嬰孩洗禮提出了兇猛的爭論，繼續騷擾教會，我就不得不對它加以說明，以期抑制他們的凶焰，若有人以為本章過於冗長，我就請他想想，純正教義的主要點和教會的安寧是如此重要，凡足以恢復二者的，我們就不當覺得厭煩。我也將力求使此一討論更能闡明洗禮的本意。他們攻擊嬰孩洗禮，用一個似乎大有道理的論點來說，嬰孩洗禮不是根據基督所設立的洗禮，乃是由人的僭妄和腐敗的好奇心所創立，後來由人的愚妄，不加思索地接受了。因為一個聖禮若不是確實建立在神的道上，就沒有權威作依靠。但在經過徹底研究后，若發現這乃是對主的聖禮虛妄和無稽的毀謗，又將怎樣呢？所以，讓我們來探討嬰孩洗禮最初的原起。倘若我們發現它是由人的僭妄所捏造的，我們就當把它放棄，只依照神的旨意去遵行真正的洗禮。但是倘若我們證實它毫無疑問是為神的權威所准許的，那麼，我們就當慎重，免得我們因反對神所設施的，而侮辱了其設立者。
　　二、第一，信徒大家所充分知道承認的原則就是，對聖禮的表記，不僅要顧到表面的禮儀，更要顧到在這些禮儀中所指定的應許和屬靈的奧秘。所以，凡要完全知道洗禮的本意的，就必須不注意水和外表的施行，反必須抬高思想到神在洗禮中所賜予我們的應許，和洗禮所表明的內在的事。凡發現這些事的人，就獲得了洗禮的真理和本體，由是他也知道外表洒水的理由和用處。反之，凡輕蔑不顧這些事，而只注意有形的禮儀的，他既不能了解洗禮的力量和正當用途，連水的意義和用處也會不知道。這些意見已由聖經上眾多和清楚的證據確立，此刻勿須多說。所以我們只須從洗禮中所給的應許去探索洗禮的性質和意義。聖經指明洗禮所表明的，第一，是靠基督的血獲得罪的洗凈和赦免；第二，是致死肉體，即與基督同死，藉此信徒重生得新生命，而與基督相交。這乃是聖經上關於洗禮所陳述的道理的總和。此外，它又是我們在人面前見證我們的宗教信仰的記號。
　　三至九、從割禮，耶穌祝福小孩，聖經所載全家受洗的事，以及嬰孩洗對父母及嬰孩本人的益處，證明嬰孩洗為必要——從略。
　　十至十六、反駁重洗派以割禮與洗禮不同之說——從略。
　　十七至十八、反駁重洗派因嬰孩不懂洗禮而反對嬰孩洗禮之說——從略。
　　十九、但是我們的對敵說：「通道是從聽道來的」（羅10： 17）。嬰孩既未能聽道，他們就也不能知道上帝；因為摩西說他們「不知善惡」（申1：39）。但是他們未曾想到，當使徒保羅說聽道為通道之源，也只是談到主通常選召他子民的辦法；並不是給主指定永久規律，不許他應用別的方法。其實主用了別的方法，召選許多人，用聖靈的光照使人內心真正認識主，而不是用宣道。但是，他們若根據摩西否認嬰孩能知道善惡，便看嬰孩多少認識上帝的說法為大笑話，我就要請教他們，我們主張嬰孩在他們不久將要享受的充分恩典上已經領受了一部分，這有什麼危險呢？既然圓滿的生命是在乎完全認識上帝，那麼，有些人一出生便死去，進入永生，他們就必被接納得見神的面。所以，既然神在天上要用他面上圓滿的光輝照耀他們，他若樂意，為何不能在現今，即在他們處於身軀的囹圄中尚未解脫愚昧以前，便以稀微的光輝照耀他們呢？我並不是要躁急地堅持嬰孩們具有我們所有的同一信心，或是對信仰有同樣的認識——我寧願以此作為懸案——我只是要制止那些妄自有所主張或有所反對的人愚妄的狂傲。
　　二十至二十九、繼續反駁重洗派反對嬰孩洗所提的論點——從略。
　　三十、最後他們提出抗議說，既不給嬰孩施聖餐，就不應給他們施洗。這好像是說，聖經對聖洗聖餐不加區別。從居普良和奧古斯丁的著作看，古教會固然給嬰孩施聖餐，但這種風俗停止了，是很對的。因為……洗禮……是心靈重生的記號，使我們作神的兒女；而聖餐是為成年人設的……這種區別由聖經很明顯指示了。在聖經中，主對領洗禮的年齡未加限制，但他……只將聖餐給與那些能以分辨主的身體和血，省察自己的良心，表揚主的死，並知道聖餐權能的人……使徒保羅說：「人應當自己省察，然後吃這餅，喝這杯」（林前11：28）。所以在領聖餐前，人必須自省，而這是不能期望於嬰孩的。他又說：「因為人吃喝，若不分辨是主的身體，就是吃喝自己的罪了」（林前11：29）。若除了真能分辨基督聖身體的人以外，沒有人配領聖餐，那麼我們為何要將毒物，而不將有益的食物給柔嫩的嬰孩呢？主說：「你們應當如此行，為的是記念我」（林前11：24-25），這是什麼樣的教訓？使徒從這話推出什麼結論來？「你們每逢吃這餅，喝這杯，是表明主的死，直等到他來」（林前11：26）。試問，嬰孩所不明白的事，他們怎能記念呢？他們的心既尚不能了解基督十字架的能力和功效，他們怎能表明十字架的意義呢？但這些事沒有一件是洗禮所要求的。所以在這兩種記號間，有相當的區別存在，正如我們在舊約兩種類似的記號間所見的區別一樣。割禮相當於我們的洗禮，是指定給嬰孩的。逾越節現在由聖餐所代替，是並非不分皂白地款待客人，而只是由那些及齡的，能以詢問其意義的人吃喝的……
　　三十一、反駁重洗派名士瑟維特（Servetus）反對嬰孩洗所提的論點——從略。
　　三十二、我想凡頭腦清醒的人，現在再不能懷疑這些對嬰孩洗禮激起爭辯的人，乃是基督教會中狂妄的搗亂分子。但是我們要注意撒但施用這些狡計所要達到的目的，就是要將我們從嬰兒洗禮所特別得著的把握和屬靈喜樂剝奪，又要將神的聖善榮耀減少。虔誠人不僅聽到而且也親眼看見，他們在天父的眷顧中，處如此高尚的地位，甚至他們的兒女也是神所眷顧的，這對他們是何等愉快的事。因為在嬰孩的洗禮上面，我們看出他在天父的地位是何等眷顧我們，因為他在我們死後仍不停他對我們的懸念，卻要眷顧我們的兒女。那麼，我們豈不當效法大衛滿心歡喜，讚美感謝神，因著他所施的這種慈愛，歸榮耀於他嗎？撒但如此竭力反對嬰孩洗禮，原來是要將神恩的這個見證撤消，好使神藉洗禮在我們眼前所陳列的應許逐漸消失，至終全歸遺忘。結果不只使我們不知虔誠地感謝神恩，而且疏忽以敬虔來教訓兒女。我們若想到兒女一生下來，就為神承認作他的兒女，這就要大大激勵我們去教導他們敬畏神，並遵守他的律法。所以，除非我們固執地要掩蓋神的善良，我們就該將我們的兒女獻給神，因為主在那作為他家的會眾中，已經給了他們一個地位。
　　（另譯並增補第四卷，第十六章）
　　論嬰兒施洗合乎基督所設立的洗禮及其標記性
　　一、對嬰兒施洗的攻擊。當今時代，在嬰兒施洗的問題上，一些狂熱分子大肆攪擾教會，馬不停蹄，提出種種爭議，所以我不得不在此處附加說明，對他們的囂張氣焰加以限制。如果有人認為本章過於冗長，我就請他仔細思考，嬰兒施洗事關重大，為要保持教義的純潔以及教會的和睦，對任何促成這兩大目的之事，都不要橫加挑剔。另外，我也會竭盡全力，把洗禮的奧秘解釋得更加清楚。他們對嬰兒施洗之事橫加攻擊，所提出的理由似乎頗有道理，他們鼓吹說，嬰兒施洗不是上帝設立的，乃是由於人的僭妄和敗壞的好奇之心而創立的，最後由於人的愚妄，就不假思索地接受奉行了。對於一個聖禮而言，如果不是以上帝的聖言這堅固的根基為基礎，就毫無憑依了。然而，經仔細斟酌，如果嬰兒施洗顯然成立，這種對主的聖禮虛妄無稽的惡意指控，又當如何呢？所以，讓我們還是對嬰兒施洗的本源細細考察。假如確實是僅僅因著人的魯莽而杜撰的，我們就完全放棄，單單依照上帝的旨意去遵行真正的洗禮。但是，如果證明確實是有上帝的權威為明確的依據，我們至少應當明白，廢棄上帝的聖禮，就是對聖禮的設立者上帝傲慢無禮了。
　　二、判別嬰兒施洗的意義。要真正理解聖禮之標記的意義，關鍵不在於外在的儀式，更重要的是其中的應許和屬靈的奧秘，亦即上帝設立儀式，使儀式本身所代表的東西。這一原則是所有敬虔之人都充分知道，並一致承認的。因此，如果要完全理解施洗的價值及施洗的目的，以及施洗的整個屬性，就不要把思想固定在水和物質的形式上，而是要仰望上帝在其中向我們所提供的應許，以及洗禮中所表徵的內在奧秘。那些抓住這些事情的人，就對洗禮的真相有了穩固的認識，也就是說，明白了洗禮整個的精義，由此他也可以逐漸明了外面洒水的理由和用途。反之，如果對這些事情輕蔑不顧，只是把注意力完全集中在可見的儀式上，這樣的人是不會認識洗禮的實質和屬性的，連水的意義和用途也不會明了。聖經中有諸多清楚的見證，證實這一主張，因此，我們就沒有必要在此進一步闡述了。現在我們所應當作的就是從洗禮中的應許出發，探索洗禮的實質和屬性。聖經指明：洗禮首先表明我們的罪得以潔凈，這是我們藉著基督的寶血達成的；其次，洗禮表明我們的肉身被治死，所依靠的是參與基督的受死，並因此而重生，有新生的樣式，與基督相交。這就是聖經上有關洗禮的教導的總和。另外，洗禮也是在世人面前見證我們所信的宗教標記。
　　三、洗禮與割禮。在上帝設立洗禮之前，上帝的子民所使用的是割禮。因此，讓我們來考察這兩大標記有什麼相同的地方，有什麼不同的方面。如此，二者之間的神秘關係就會顯明出來。當初，主吩咐亞伯拉罕遵行割禮，在這之前祂就宣告祂要作亞伯拉罕和他後裔的上帝（創17： 7，10），並說萬有都充充足足地在祂裡面（創17：1，6，8），亞伯拉罕應當信靠祂，祂是一切美善之源。這些話語也包含有永生的應許，正如我們的救主在證明信徒的不朽和復活時引用並解釋的那樣：「上帝不是死人的上帝，乃是活人的上帝」（太22：32）。保羅也曾向以弗所人說明，主把他們從滅亡中救拔出來，他們原來沒有被納入割禮之約，沒有基督，沒有上帝，沒有盼望，這些都是包含在聖約之中的，然而那時他們卻是在應許的諸約之外（弗2：12）。接近上帝，進入永生的第一步，就是罪得赦免。這是與我們在洗禮中得以潔凈的應許相應的。此後，主與亞伯拉罕立約，讓他在他面前作完全人（創17：1）：這是指老我的死去，也就是重生而言的。為了消除人的懷疑，摩西作出了更加清楚的解釋，他勸誡以色列人要為了主的緣故，內心受割禮（申10：16），這一割禮就是治死老我的標記；以色列人也是為了這一緣故，被上帝從萬民之中揀選出來，特作上帝的子民（申10：15），上帝在收納亞伯拉罕的後裔為他子民的時候，吩咐他們受割禮，所以摩西宣告他們應當內心受割禮，解釋說這才是肉身割禮的真義（申30：6）。另外，為了避免人靠自己的力量來行這內心的割禮，摩西教導以色列人說，這是上帝恩典的作為。這些事歷代先知一再重申，因為反覆出現，在此我們就毋需堆砌經文（耶4：4；結16：30）。因此，在割禮中所賜給族長們的屬靈應許，正如在洗禮中所賜給我們的一樣。因為割禮對族長們而言所代表的也是罪得赦免和治死老我。而且，聖經教導我們，不管是洗禮，還是割禮，都是在基督裡面，所以，基督是洗禮之源，也是割禮之源。基督是上帝向亞伯拉罕所應許的，萬民所有的祝福都在他裡面（創12：2－3）。為了給這一恩典打上印記，遂設立了洗禮的標記。
　　四、割禮和洗禮不同之處只是外表而已。現在要明白這兩大標記的類似與不同之處，並不困難。在這兩大標記中，應許是一樣的，就是上帝父般的恩寵、罪得赦免和永遠的生命。我們已經證明，這兩大標記所包含的力量就在這應許之中。而且，這兩大標記所代表的也是一樣，就是重生。在這兩者之中，諸事的成全所依靠的也是一個根基。因此，在內在的奧秘上，割禮與洗禮是沒有什麼不同的，要衡量聖禮的價值和本質就是要看其所包含的內在奧秘。割禮與洗禮的不同之處是在於外表的儀式，其實這方面的不同是非常輕微的，因為聖禮最重要的部分是在乎其中的應許和所預表的各樣恩惠。因此，我們得出結論說，除了外表儀式的不同之外，屬於割禮的一切也同樣屬乎洗禮。在割禮與洗禮的神秘關係和比較中，我們要以使徒的標準為引導，根據信心的程度來省察我們對聖經的一切解釋（羅12：3，6）。事實確實如此，我們對此有深切的感受。對於割禮而言，這是為猶太人設立的標記，表明他們進入了教會，並確證他們被收養為上帝的子民，成為上帝家裡的人，而且他們也在割禮中表明自己要忠心順服上帝。同樣，我們也是藉著洗禮而歸屬上帝，被算為他的子民，並奉他的名起誓。因此，無庸爭辯，洗禮取代了割禮，在我們中間成就同樣的功能。
　　五、嬰兒是聖約的參與者。在嬰兒施洗是否適宜的問題上，那些只是留意洗禮所用的水和外在的形式，而對屬靈的奧秘卻不加思考的人，實在是不知所云，一派胡言。哪怕是稍加思考，也會明確知道為嬰兒施洗是嬰兒理所當受的。在很早的時候，主就垂顧他們，吩咐為他們施行割禮，並使他們與割禮所預表的一切恩惠有份（創17： 12）。否則，他不過是在用毫無意義的形式來看顧他們，那就純粹是欺詐，是藉此嘲笑他的子民了。上帝明確地宣布，為嬰兒所施行的割禮，是證實聖約之應許的印記。假如這聖約仍然穩固不變，今天也同樣適用於基督徒的孩子，正如在舊約時代適用於猶太人的嬰孩一樣。假如他們也與洗禮所預表的恩惠有份，為什麼非要攔阻他們接受這一標記呢？假如他們能得到實體，為什麼把他們排除在預表之外呢？在聖禮中，外表的記號與語詞緊密聯繫，無法分離。如果把記號與語詞分開考慮，那我就要請問諸位，我們到底是更尊崇那一方呢？既然我們認為記號服務於語詞的，我們就應當承認記號是處於語詞之下的，而把記號置於較低的地位。因此，既然「洗禮」一詞適用於嬰兒，為什麼作為語詞的附屬物的記號，卻排除在嬰兒之外呢？如果沒有別的原因，僅僅是這一個原因也足以駁倒那些持反對意見的人了。說割禮有固定的日子，以此來反對為嬰兒施洗，只不過是借口罷了。我們承認我們現在並不像猶太人那樣受固定的日子所限制；但是，雖然主沒有宣告固定的日子，但已經明確宣告以一個莊嚴的儀式來把嬰兒納入他的恩約之內，這是他所喜悅的，我們還要求什麼呢？
　　六、割禮與洗禮所不同的只是確證的形式。然而，聖經為我們所提供的真理的知識更加明確，最為明顯的是，上帝從前與亞伯拉罕所立的約（創17： 14），今天對基督徒仍然適用，正象過去對猶太民族適用一樣，上帝的話與基督徒的相關性並不亞於猶太人。除非我們認為基督藉著他的到來削弱、或減少了父的恩典，但這種說法是當受咒詛的褻瀆！因此，猶太人的孩子，是聖約的後嗣，不同於不敬虔之人的孩子，他們被稱為聖潔的族類（拉9：2；賽6：18）。同樣，基督徒的孩子也被視為是聖潔的，即使只有父母一方信主，根據使徒的教訓，他們仍然與偶像崇拜者不潔凈的後裔不同（林前7：14）。既然上帝在與亞伯拉罕立約之後，立即吩咐用外界的聖禮來為聖約打上印記（創17：12），今天基督徒如果不在自己的孩子身上作出見證和印記，哪還有什麼借口呢？有人反對說，上帝只是吩咐用割禮這一標記來證實他的聖約，並沒有要求其他任何形式，但割禮卻是早已廢掉了。對此我們有現成的答案：在舊約時代設立割禮來證實他的聖約，在割禮廢止之後，證實上帝聖約的原因仍是一樣，在這一點上，基督徒和猶太人並沒有什麼不同，並且這一原因仍然有效。因此，我們必須殷勤考察二者的共同之處，同時思考二者的不同。聖約是共同的，證實聖約的原因也是共同的。只是證實的方式不同，猶太人所用的是割禮，而我們則用洗禮來取而代之。否則，假如把猶太人藉以確信自己的後裔得救的證據從我們手中拿走，那麼，對我們來說，基督的到來就使得上帝的恩典更加暗昧不明了，與從前對猶太人的恩典相比，也更加缺乏證明了。如果這樣說，顯然是對基督的誹謗，因為藉著基督天父無限的慈愛更加清楚、豐沛地傾注到大地上，對人的宣布也比以前任何時候都更加清楚、豐富。假如確是如此，我們必須承認，天父的慈愛至少不會比律法的模糊影子更隱蔽、脆弱。
　　七、耶穌與孩子。因此，主耶穌希望賜下一個例證，由此全世界都可明白他來是要使天父的恩慈更加寬廣，而不是加以限制，所以他溫柔地擁抱遞給他的嬰孩，斥責門徒不要攔阻小孩子接近他，因為他們如此作， 是把這些屬於天國的人從他身邊帶走（太19： 13-15）。但是，有人會問，耶穌擁抱小孩子與洗禮有何相干呢？因為聖經上並沒有記載耶穌為他們施洗，只不過是把他們接過來，擁抱他們，祝福他們。因此，他們斷言，如果我們真的效法耶穌的榜樣，還是用禱告來幫助嬰兒吧，但是不要為他們施洗。然而，比起這些人來說，我們應對基督的行動多加些思考。耶穌吩咐把小孩子帶到他那裡去，並說明理由：「因為在天國的，正是這樣的人」（太19：13-15）。對於這一事實，我們不要隨隨便便地忽略不顧。耶穌擁抱他們，用禱告和祝福把他們交託天父，他用行動顯明了他的旨意。如果可以把嬰兒帶到基督的面前，而洗禮又是我們與基督聯合與交通的記號，為什麼不可以接納嬰兒施洗呢？如果天國是屬於他們的，而洗禮又是被納入教會的途徑，為什麼不讓他們受洗，使他們可以列在天國的後嗣之中呢？如果我們把基督召到他面前的人趕走，這是何等的不義啊！基督用禮物所裝飾的人，我們卻加以剝奪！基督所樂意接納的人，我們卻拒之門外！假如我們非要探討基督的行動和洗禮之間有何不同，那麼，我們接納孩子，擁抱他們，為他們按手、禱告，為他們施洗，由此證實他們也在上帝的恩約之內，這豈不是對洗禮的高度尊崇嗎？若基督也在場的話，他肯定會宣布這些孩子都是屬他的，並且使他們成為聖潔。他們千方百計想推翻這段經文，然而他們的爭辯不過是強詞奪理，所暴露的只是他們自身的無知。基督曾經說：「讓小孩子到我這裡來」。他們辯解說，此處所說的小孩子已經是長大的孩子，他們是已經可以適合來到耶穌面前的。但是，福音書的作者明確地說他們是「嬰孩」（路 18：15；太19：14；可10：13）；在希臘文中這些辭彙所指的就是吃奶的孩子。因此，經文中所說的「來」就是「有途徑」的意思。這些人剛硬自己的心，抵擋真理，所編織的是何等虛妄的網羅啊！他們自吹自擂，說上帝的國度並不是賜給嬰孩的，而是賜給那些像嬰孩一樣的人，因為基督所說的是「這樣的人」，並不是「他們」。如果接受他們這種謬論，基督表明他並沒有因為年齡的關係就把孩子視為局外人，到底原因何在呢？當他吩咐把孩子帶到他面前的時候，所指的是嬰兒階段的孩子，再沒有比這更清楚的事了。為了避免模糊不清，他還補充說：「在天國的，正是這樣的人」（太19：14）。如果嬰兒也包括在內的話，「這樣的人」這一短語的意思就再清晰不過了，是指嬰孩們，也包括那些像他們一樣的人。
　　八、聖經沒有提到嬰兒施洗。到此為止，每個人都可以明白嬰兒施洗絕不是由人杜撰的，而是建立在聖經明確認可的基礎上的。有人反對說，聖經中沒有記載使徒們為任何嬰孩施洗之事，這種愚蠢的意見是沒有任何道理的。雖然福音書的作者沒有明確地記載嬰兒施洗之事，但是，既然是全家受洗，當然沒有排除嬰兒，哪一個有理智的人會推論說嬰兒沒有施洗呢？如果這樣的推論能夠成立，女人也就不能參加聖餐了，因為我們在聖經上並沒有讀到在使徒時代讓他們參加聖餐的記錄（徒16： 15；32）；但在這一方面，我們是以信心之道為滿足。因為當我們思考聖餐設立的意義時，很容易就能夠判斷到底聖餐是賜給何人享用的。在洗禮中也是如此。其實，當我們注意設立洗禮之目的時，就會看得很清楚，洗禮適合嬰兒，正如適合年齡較大的人一樣。因此，如果不給嬰兒施洗，就是公開地冒犯了上帝的旨意，洗禮是由上帝親自設立的。反對嬰兒施洗的人，在那些不動腦筋的人中散布說，基督復活之後很多年，都沒有為嬰兒施洗的說法。這樣說，他們是極其無恥地違背事實的。在考察洗禮的時候，即使是遠古的作者，也都追本溯源，認為早在使徒時代，嬰兒施洗就已經確定無疑地存在了。
　　九、嬰兒施洗的惠益。為了免得有人輕視嬰兒施洗，認為毫無作用，沒有任何益處，此處我們簡單地介紹為嬰兒施洗的惠益，說明那些把自己的嬰兒帶來施洗的信徒，以及用聖水受洗的嬰兒本身到底得到了什麼益處。假如有人心中借口嬰兒施洗沒有益處而加以嘲笑，他就是在輕慢主所吩咐的割禮的誡命。他們所提出的非議嬰兒施洗的理由，同樣也可適用在割禮的事上。因此，上帝懲罰那些傲慢之人，他們因為自己屬血氣的感官不能理解就妄加責備。但是，上帝也為我們提供了其他武器，讓我們可以擊敗他們的愚頑。上帝所設立的這一聖禮，使我們的信心大得安慰，不應稱此聖禮為多餘的。因為上帝設立這一聖禮，通過一個印記傳遞給孩子，證實上帝所賜給敬虔父母的應許，宣告認可主不僅是他的上帝，也是他後裔的上帝，他不僅要向他顯明慈愛和恩典，也要向他的後代顯明，直到千代（出20： 6）。此處所顯明的是上帝的寬宏大量和無限恩慈，他賜給人充分的機會，容納人公開讚美他的榮耀，又把非同尋常的幸福澆灌在人的心中，感動人，使人深愛他們慈悲的天父，他因著他們的緣故，關心愛護他們的後裔。有的人反對說，要確證我們的孩子得救，有上帝的應許就已經足夠了，這種主張我是不屑一顧的。因為上帝的看法是與此相反的，他知道我們的軟弱，就樂於在此事上溫柔地對待我們。因此，如果你真的認為上帝的慈愛延及我們的孩子，認為這確是上帝的應許，就有責任把孩子帶到教會中來，為孩子打上恩典的印記，我們親眼見到上帝的聖約刻在我們孩子的身上，就使我們自身更有確信。另外，孩子也從洗禮中得益：他們被接入教會這一身體，教會的其他成員也會對孩子更加重視。當他們長大成人的時候，也會大得鼓勵，用火熱的激情來敬拜上帝，在他們仍是小孩子，未能認他為父的時候，他們已經藉著莊嚴的儀式，被納入了上帝的眾子之列。最後，我們要對上帝的威脅恐懼戰兢，若有人對加在孩子身上的恩約的印記予以藐視，必受到上帝的報應，因為他們如此的藐視，所拒絕的是上帝所提供的恩典（創17：14）。（以下十至十六，是回答重洗派關於洗禮與割禮沒有聯繫的主張）
　　十、重洗派所主張的洗禮與割禮的不同之處是錯謬的。某些狂妄之徒無休止地攻擊上帝所設立的這一聖禮，現在讓我們一起考察他們的主張。首先，因為他們感到洗禮和割禮之間的類似之處對他們有極大的限制，所以就想方設法地誇大這兩大標記之間的不同之處，使得洗禮與割禮之間彷彿沒有任何共同之處。他們主張，二者所代表的是不同的事物，各自所處的約也截然不同，所以在洗禮與割禮之下，對孩子的呼召是不一樣的。但是，當他們試圖證明第一個要點的時候，卻偽稱割禮是治死老我的象徵，而洗禮則不是。對此我們當然極其樂意贊同，因為這恰恰支持了我們的主張。我們用以證明我們的觀點的唯一證明就是：洗禮和割禮都是治死老我的記號。因此，舊約時代猶太人用割禮所表明的，我們用洗禮來取而代之。然而，他們主張洗禮與割禮所處的約不同，這是何等肆無忌憚地敗壞聖經啊！他們所敗壞的不僅僅是一個段落，而是到處染指！他們描繪說，猶太人相對於我們而言，都是屬血氣的，與其說像人，不如說更像獸類。因此，與他們所立的約是不會超過現世生活的，所賜給他們的應許也不過是眼前物質性的好處。如果這種說法成立，除了說猶太民族一時飽嘗上帝的恩惠，就像人在豬圈中把豬喂肥一樣，而最終的結局則是永遠的毀滅，還有什麼呢？因此，當我們引證割禮以及與之相連的應許時，他們就說割禮不過是個字面上的記號，其應許都是屬血氣的。
　　十一、割禮的應許也是屬靈的。很顯然，如果割禮只是一個字面上的記號，我們必須認定洗禮也是如此。對使徒保羅而言，他在《歌羅西書》第二章中，並沒有說洗禮比割禮更屬靈。因為他說，當我們撇棄住在我們肉身中的罪身時，我們都在基督里受了不是人手所作的割禮。他稱之為「基督的割禮」（西2： 11）。此後他解釋說，在洗禮中我們「與基督一同埋葬」（西2：12）。既然二者所象徵的都是同樣的事，除非洗禮的成全和其中所包含的真理也是割禮的成全和其中所包含的真理，否則，這些話到底有什麼意思呢？保羅在此處所要證明的就是：洗禮對基督徒來說，就如從前割禮對猶太人一樣。我們早已對這兩大記號所象徵的應許，以及所代表的奧秘作了清楚的解釋，此處就不再贅言。雖然我不再說明，但我仍然奉勸信徒應當反覆思考，既然一個記號所代表的是屬靈的和屬天的事物，能把它僅僅視為世俗的和字面上的東西嗎？但是，為了使他們的謬論不至於販賣給頭腦簡單的人，我們仍然要對他們的異議加以駁斥，他們所用的這一異議所包含的是極其無恥的謊言。毫無疑問，在舊約時代，上帝所認可的與以色列人所立的聖約中所包含的主要應許，都是屬靈的，所指向的也是永生；而且，這些應許也是由先祖們藉著屬靈的信心領受的，使他們由此得到來世永生的確信，這也是他們全心渴慕的。同時，我們也不要否認，上帝用世上物質的好處來證實他對他們的美意，由此也見證了他們對屬靈事物之應許的盼望。比如說，上帝向他的僕人亞伯拉罕應許永恆的福分時，為了在亞伯拉罕面前清楚地顯明他的恩寵，他就加上了得著迦南地這一應許（創15：1，18）。我們應當以此來理解上帝賜給猶太民族一切世上的應許：屬靈的應許，是其他各樣應許之首，也始終佔據首要的地位。我在探討新約與舊約的不同之處時，已經說過這些事項，所以此處就一帶而過。
　　十二、肉身與屬靈的嬰兒。在應用「孩子」這一詞的時候，他們所發現的不同之處是：在舊約時代，那些源於亞伯拉罕後裔的人被稱為亞伯拉罕的孩子；現在，那些效法亞伯拉罕信心的人也被稱為亞伯拉罕的孩子。所以，他們就說，藉著割禮而被接到聖約之中的那些肉身的嬰孩，預表新約時代屬靈的嬰孩，他們因著上帝的聖言而重生，得享永生。在這些話語中，我們見到了些許真理的火花。但那些變化無常的人，不管一開始遇到什麼，就死死抓住不放，這樣他們就犯了很嚴重的罪。本來他們應當更上一層樓，對所遇到的詞多方比較。這樣做所導致的結果只能是不斷地上當受騙，因為他們並沒有致力于堅固的知識。事實上，我們承認，有時亞伯拉罕肉身的後裔佔了屬靈後裔的位置，後者是藉著信心連結在他裡面的。我們也被稱為亞伯拉罕的孩子，儘管我們生來和他並沒有血緣上的聯繫（加4： 28；羅4：12）。但是，假如他們所說的是上帝屬靈的福分，絕沒有應許給亞伯拉罕肉身的後裔，那麼他們在這一點上就是犯了極大的錯誤。因此，我們應當更進一步，引導我們的就是聖經這一無謬的指南。主應許亞伯拉罕，世上的萬國都要因他的後裔蒙福（創12：3），同時，又向他保證說，他要作他的上帝，和他後裔的上帝（創17：7）。所有那些藉著信心接受基督為祝福之賜予者的人，都是這一應許的後嗣，因此都被稱為亞伯拉罕的後代。
　　十三、亞伯拉罕是所有信徒之父。在基督復活之後，上帝國度的疆界開始大大地擴展，擴展到萬國列邦之中，這是根據基督所說的，從四面八方，將有許多信徒聚在一起，在天國的榮耀里，與亞伯拉罕、以撒和雅各一同坐席（太8： 11）。但是，在許多世紀之前，他已經用同樣偉大的恩典接納了猶太人。他撇下其他所有的民族不顧，單單揀選了猶太人作為一定時期內他施恩的對象，稱這一民族是屬他的（出19：5），是他所贖的百姓（出15：16）。上帝賜下割禮證實他的恩慈，目的在於用這一記號來教導猶太人，上帝是他們救恩的作者。通過承認這一事實，他們的心思得以提升，盼望永遠的生命。上帝永遠接納並善加保護的人，還會缺乏什麼呢？因此，為了證實外邦人和猶太人一樣，同為亞伯拉罕的後裔，上帝的兒女，使徒保羅是這樣說的：「 亞伯拉罕的信，就算為他的義。是怎麼算的呢？是在他受割禮的時候呢？是在他未受割禮的時候呢？不是在受割禮的時候，乃是在未受割禮的時候。並且他受了割禮的記號，作他未受割禮的時候因信稱義的印證，叫他作一切未受割禮而信之人的父，使他們也算為義；又作受割禮之人的父，就是那些不但受割禮，並且按我們的祖宗亞伯拉罕未受割禮而信之蹤跡去行的人。」（羅4：9-12）難道我們就認識不到上帝使這兩類人得同樣的榮耀嗎？在上帝的預旨所定的時間之內，亞伯拉罕是受割禮之人的父。使徒保羅在其他地方講到，在隔斷外邦人與猶太人的牆（弗2：14）被拆毀之後，外邦人也得到了進入上帝國度的途徑，所以亞伯拉罕也成為他們的父，雖然他們沒有割禮的印記，但卻以洗禮來取代了。一些人專門在儀式上自高自大，對於真正的敬虔卻是漠不關心，為了破除他們的驕傲，保羅明確地否定亞伯拉罕只是那些受割禮之人的父（羅4：12）。同樣，今天那些在洗禮中只是注重水的人，這種虛浮也應予以駁斥。
　　十四、與猶太人所立的約並沒有廢止。但是，為了反對這一主張，他們就拿出使徒保羅的另一段經文來（羅9： 7）。在這段經文中，保羅教導說，那些肉身所生的，並不一定是亞伯拉罕的後裔，只有那些應許之子才被算在亞伯拉罕的後裔之列。這似乎暗示亞伯拉罕肉身的後裔絲毫算不了什麼。但我們是給亞伯拉罕肉身的後裔一定的地位。我們一定要仔細地考察使徒保羅在此處所探討的事。為了向猶太人說明，上帝的恩慈並不局限於亞伯拉罕的後裔，並且僅僅是這樣的出身並不能傳遞什麼，保羅就引證說，以實瑪利和以掃就是很好的證明（羅9：6-13），他們遭到了上帝的遺棄，就如局外人一樣。雖然根據肉身而言，他們確實是亞伯拉罕的後裔，但上帝的祝福落到以撒和雅各身上。保羅由此確證說，救贖所依賴的是上帝的恩典，他樂意賜給誰就賜給誰（羅9：15-16）；猶太人如果不遵守上帝的約法，亦即順服上帝的聖言，卻因著聖約之名就妄自尊大，是沒有任何理由的。保羅所破除的是他們因血緣關係而產生的自負，但是，另一方面，上帝與亞伯拉罕的後裔所定的永約絕不會歸於虛空。因此，在《羅馬書》11章，保羅所辨明的是：不得剝奪亞伯拉罕肉身後裔的地位。因此，他教導說，猶太人是福音首先天生的後嗣，除非他們忘恩負義，到了毫無價值當被遺棄的程度，但是，即使到了這種被遺棄的地步，屬天的祝福也不會完全離開他們這一民族。因此，雖然他們冥頑不化，違背聖約，保羅仍稱他們為聖潔的（羅11：16），他確實這樣尊重上帝視為配受他的聖約的聖潔族類；但保羅稱我們（假如我們與猶太人相比）為被追認的亞伯拉罕的兒女，是通過收養，而不是通過出生，就如樹枝從樹榦上折下來，接到另外一棵樹上（羅11：17）。所以，為了使他們的特權不至落空，福音就得首先傳給他們。可以說，在上帝的家中，他們就像頭生子一樣。因此，這一榮譽先是賜給他們，當他們拒絕上帝所提供的福音時，因著他們不感恩，就使得福音傳遞給外邦人了。儘管他們極其固執，繼續與福音爭戰，我們切切不可藐視他們，我們要記住，因著應許的緣故，使得賜福仍然在他們中間。所以，使徒保羅證實，上帝的祝福絕不會完全拿走的：「因為上帝的恩慈和宣召是沒有後悔的」（羅11：29）。
　　十五、應許的成就是字面式的，而不是寓言式的。我們來看上帝賜給亞伯拉罕後裔的應許有什麼價值，到底應當如何衡量。在把國度的後裔與稗子和外邦人分開的時候，毫無疑問，惟獨上帝的選民才有施行治理的自由權利。然而，我們見到，上帝按他自己的美意，因著他自己的憐憫，接納亞伯拉罕的後裔，並為了更加清楚地見證這一憐憫，就用割禮為之打上印記。基督教會的情況也完全如此。正如保羅在聖經中所宣告的那樣，猶太人因著他們的父母成為聖潔，他在別處也教導說，基督徒的子女也同樣因著他們的父母成為聖潔（林前7： 14）。由此他得出結論說，那些犯了污穢之罪的人（林前7：15），與其餘的人分開是應當的。我們的對手認為舊約時代的嬰兒之受割禮，只不過是預表由上帝的聖言重生而興起的屬靈嬰兒，這種結論完全是錯誤的，到現在還有誰對此有疑問呢？使徒保羅寫道，「基督是為上帝真理作了受割禮之人的執事，要證實所應許列祖的話」（羅15：8）。保羅在這樣說的時候，並沒有在哲學上故作高深，彷彿是說：「由於與亞伯拉罕所立的約也適用於他的後裔，基督為了成全父的應許，就來救贖以色列民。」你有沒有認識到，基督復活之後，保羅認為聖約的應許要成全在亞伯拉罕肉身的後裔上，不僅是寓意的成全，而且是字義上的成全？彼得向猶太人所宣告的也是如此（徒2：39）：因著聖約的權利，福音的恩惠是屬於他們和他們的後裔的；在接下來的一章中，他稱他們為「聖約之子」（徒3：25），也就是聖約的後裔。使徒保羅在另一段經文中，所說明的與上面引證的經文意思相同。在這段經文中，他把割禮理解和解釋為印在嬰兒身上的與基督聯合的標記（弗 2：11-13）。如果我們聽憑那些反對嬰兒施洗的人為瑣事而浪費時間，上帝在摩西十誡第二誡中應許憐憫他僕人的後裔，直到上千代，又當如何理解與解釋呢（出20：6）？難道此處我們借口寓言而逃避嗎？如果說上帝的這一應許不過是寓言，這樣規避上帝的話語就是太隨便了！這樣律法就會受到破壞，而基督來不是要廢除律法，乃是要確立律法（太5：17），因為律法的目的無非是讓我們得益處。所以，勿庸爭議，上帝對他的子民是如此地慈愛、慷慨，他按他自己的美意，為他子民的緣故，把他們的子女也算在他的子民之列。
　　十六、洗禮與割禮之間更明顯的不同。進一步來說，那些反對嬰兒施洗的人，千方百計想在洗禮和割禮之間塞進諸種不同，這些不同之處不僅是可笑的，沒有一點合理的成分，而且也是彼此矛盾的。他們說洗禮適用於屬靈爭戰的第一天，而割禮則是第八天，老我的治死已經完成了，他們就忘記了二者的不同，改變了調子，把割禮稱之為治死肉身的象徵；但是，他們把洗禮稱為喪禮，除非已經死了，否則是不能施行的。還有比這更語無倫次的嗎？因為根據第一種說法，洗禮應當高於割禮；但是，根據第二種說法，洗禮又在割禮之後了。當人用自己的夢幻取代上帝無謬之聖言的時候，思想就會這樣上下起伏，飄忽不定，這已經是司空見慣了。因此，我們認為他們前面所說的洗禮與割禮的不同，只不過是人的想象罷了。假如他們想把第八天寓意化，仍然是講不通。早期基督徒把數字八與復活聯繫起來（基督的復活是在第八天），這還比較合適。我們知道，新生命所憑依的就是基督的復活。甚至今生的整個過程，我們都要倚靠基督的復活。在這一過程之中，老我的治死是循序漸進的，直到我們今生生命終止的時候方告完成。之所以把割禮推遲到第八天才進行，或許是因為上帝顧念嬰兒的軟弱。新生嬰兒剛剛脫離母體，若是因受傷而感染就非常危險。聖經中宣布，我們這些從前已經死去的人，是藉著洗禮埋葬；既然我們是受洗歸入死（羅6：4），因此洗禮的目標就是治死老我，還有什麼比這更合乎道理的呢？他們還吹毛求疵說，假如洗禮與割禮一致，姊妹就不用施洗了。既然以色列人後裔的成聖是由割禮的印記證實的，無疑，這割禮的目標就是使男性與女性同樣聖潔。只有男人的身體打上割禮的印記，女人也藉著他們而與割禮有分。因此，還是把他們那些怪論放在一邊，讓我們抓住割禮與洗禮之間的類似之處罷，我們認為這是與割禮的內在奧秘、應許、用途和果效最接近的了。（以下十七——二十，是回答嬰兒沒有信心，所以不能受洗的主張）
　　十七、孩子也在基督里有生命。他們認為之所以不能給嬰兒施洗，是因為在嬰兒的年齡段，他們無法理解洗禮所代表的奧秘，即屬靈的重生，這重生不會發生在嬰兒的早期階段。他們認為這是反對嬰兒施洗非常有力的理由。因此，我們的對手得出結論說，應當把孩子視為亞當的孩子，直到他們達到合適的年齡，可以重生為止。但是，上帝的真理處處反對此類主張。因為假如承認他們是在亞當的孩子之中，那他們就被留在死亡里，因為在亞當里我們都死了（羅5：12）。相反，基督吩咐把孩子帶到他的面前來。為什麼呢？因為他就是生命。因此，基督使他們與他有分，目的是使他們活過來，而這些反對嬰兒施洗的人卻把他們判了流放和死刑。假如他們偽稱，儘管嬰兒被算為亞當的孩子，他們仍然不會滅亡，這種謬見更是受到了聖經充分的駁斥。聖經中宣布，在亞當里所有的人都死了，在亞當里完全沒有生命的盼望，除非是在基督里（林前15：22）。因此，要承受生命，我們必須與基督聯合。另外，在其他經文中也寫道，我們生來就處於上帝的憤怒之下（弗2：3），是在罪孽里生的（詩51：5），始終是在定罪之中，在上帝的國度向我們開放之前，我們必須離開我們的性情。血肉之體不能承受上帝的國（林前 15：50），聖經上還有比這更清楚的嗎？所以，讓我們自身所具有的一切都歸毀滅吧（沒有重生，這是無法成就的）；然後，我們才能承受上帝的國。總之，基督宣告說，他就是生命（約11：25；14：6），如果基督這一宣告是真實可靠的，要擺脫死的捆綁，我們必須被接在他裡面。然而，他們反問，那不知善惡的嬰兒怎能重生呢？我們的回答是，上帝的工作是不會無效的，雖然我們無法明白。因此，非常清楚的是，那些將來要得重生的嬰兒（當然，一些嬰兒在很小的時候就已經得救了）是由主在此前重生的。他們從母腹中就有敗壞存留，在他們蒙准進入上帝的國度之前，必須潔凈這生來就有的敗壞，因為敗壞之物是不能進入那裡的（啟21：27）。假如他們生來就是罪人，正如大衛和保羅所證實的那樣（弗2：3；詩51：5），那麼他們或是處於上帝的不悅和恨惡之下，或是必須稱義。當法官本身清楚地宣告，若不重生就不能進天國的時候（約3：3），我們還能尋求什麼呢？要使那些反對嬰兒施洗的人閉口，上帝就在施洗約翰的身上提供了一個證據，他在母腹中的時候，就成聖了（路1：15），這事上帝當然也能在其他人身上成就。他們卻故意推諉，說這樣的事情就是一次，無法由此直接推出主通常對待孩子都是這樣。但我們也沒有這樣推理。我們的目的只是指出，他們把上帝的權能關閉在這狹小的範圍內是不公不義的，這一範圍本來不是人所能界定的。他們的其他遁詞也沒有什麼值得辯駁之處。他們聲稱，根據聖經中通常所用的表達方式，「從母腹中」這一短語的意思只不過是「從童年的時候起」。但是，從聖經中我們清楚地看到，當天使向撒迦利亞報信的時候，所說的意思就是，約翰雖然還沒有出生，但已經被聖靈充滿了。讓我們還是不要硬把一條規律加在上帝的身上，不讓他聖化他所喜悅的，他已經使施洗約翰處於嬰孩狀態的時候就聖潔了，他同樣能使其他的嬰孩聖潔，因為他的權能並沒有減弱。
　　十八、從耶穌的嬰兒期而引發的爭論。當然，基督在嬰兒時期就已經聖潔了，如此，那些選民，不管是在什麼時代，都毫無區別地在他裡面聖潔了。為了除掉歸在我們身上的因不順服而導致的罪咎，他取了肉身，為我們的緣故，代替我們達成了完全的順服。因此，他由聖靈感孕，在所取的肉身中，充滿了聖靈的聖潔，使他可以把這聖潔傳遞給我們。上帝恩待他的孩子，這在基督身上有最完美的例證，在這一方面，基督也向我們證實：嬰孩時期並不是不能接受成聖。無論如何。我們認為無可置疑的是，只有在被聖靈聖潔和重生之後，選民才會從現實生活中蒙召。他們反對說，在聖經中的聖靈不承認其他任何形式的重生，除非是由於不能壞的種子，即藉著上帝的道（彼前1： 23）。他們這種對彼得的說法的接受是錯誤的，彼得在此處所指的只是那些得蒙福音教導的信徒。我們確實承認，對於這樣的人來說，上帝的道是靈命重生唯一的種子。但是，如果因此就推論說，嬰兒無法被上帝的大能重生，卻是我們所反對的。對於上帝來說，要使嬰兒重生既是可能的，也是容易的，雖然這對我們來說奇妙莫測。另外，上帝樂意以什麼方式使人認識他，屬於他自己的權能，而這種說法則剝奪了上帝的這種權柄，因此是頗為危險的。
　　十九、異議：嬰孩不能聽懂講道。那些反對嬰孩施洗的人說，通道是從聽道來的（羅10： 17），嬰孩既不能聽道，也不能認識上帝。因為摩西教導說：他們「不知善惡」（申1：39）。但是，這些人並不曉得，當使徒保羅說通道是從聽道而來的時候，他所講述的只是上帝一般的安排和作工方式，他呼召他的子民的時候，通常都是使用這種聽道的方式。但使徒保羅並沒有為上帝指定一個不變的法則，使他不得使用其他的方式。主也確實曾經使用過另外的方式，呼召過許多人，並不藉助講道的方式，而是直接以聖靈光照他們。既然他們借口摩西說嬰兒不知善惡，就貿然認為把任何對上帝的認識歸於嬰兒都是極為荒謬的，我倒要請教他們，如果說嬰兒得到一點上帝的恩典，將來他們可以更豐富地享有，這到底有什麼危險呢？既然豐盛的生命是在於完美地認識上帝，某些嬰兒在很幼小的時候就被死亡取走了，當他們進入永生的時候，他們肯定被接入上帝的同在之中。因此，如果上帝樂意，為什麼上帝不可以對那些將來要得蒙他完全光照的人，特別是對那些愚障未被清除，就被上帝從肉身的監獄中接走的人，在今生就施與小小的亮光呢？當然，我不會輕率地斷言，他們所蒙受的信心和我們所經歷的信心一樣，或者他們對信仰的認識和我們一樣，我想這些都是不能確定的，但我想約束自己，不要像那些人一樣愚頑，自己喜歡什麼，就不遺餘力地說是道非。
　　二十、異議：嬰兒既沒有能力悔改，也沒有能力相信。那些反對嬰兒施洗的人，為了使這一觀點更加有力，就補充說：洗禮是悔改和信心之禮。既然小小嬰孩既不會悔改，也不會相信，我們當然就不能給嬰孩施行了，否則洗禮的意思就流於空泛了。但是，這些魯莽之輩所反對的不是我們，而是上帝。因為聖經中很多地方明確地指出割禮是悔改的標記（耶4： 4；9：25；申10：16；30：6）。保羅也稱之為因信稱義的印證（羅4：11）。因此，還是讓上帝自己回答為什麼他吩咐把割禮行在嬰兒的身上吧。既然洗禮和割禮的含義都是一樣，我們的對手如果把任何東西加於一方，也就不可避免地加於另一方。如果他們老調重彈，主張藉著嬰孩的年齡，所象徵的是屬靈的嬰孩，以此來推諉，我們已經把他們的這條退路封死了。所以，我們說，既然上帝把割禮作為悔改和信心的印記傳遞給嬰孩，他們現在與洗禮有分，就沒有什麼不可思議的，除非有人選擇公開抗議上帝所設立的制度。但是，在上帝一切的作為中，包括在嬰孩施洗一事上，上帝有足夠的智慧和公義顯明，抵擋那些不敬之人的毀損。雖然嬰孩在受割禮的時候，並不明白標記的含義，但他們受割禮也是真正地趨於治死敗壞污損的天性，這種治死是在他們以後成熟的年齡行出來的。總之，這一異議是不難解決的：嬰兒施洗是面向未來的悔改和信心，雖然這悔改和信心還沒有在他們身上形成，但這二者的種子，已經藉著聖靈隱秘的工作，播藏在他們裡面了。根據這一答案，他們對洗禮的含義加以收集並予以扭曲，用於反對我們的所有異議，都一勞永逸地推翻了。比如說，當保羅區分洗禮的時候，曾經稱洗禮為「重生與更新的洗」（多3：5）。他們就由此得出結論說，洗禮只能施行給那些確實能夠感覺到重生和更新之人，其他的人都不得施與。但是，我們就輕輕鬆鬆地瓦解他們的異議，對他們說：既然洗禮所表明的是重生，只有重生的人才能受洗，其他人都不得施與。這樣，我們就是在責備上帝所設立的聖禮了。因此，正如以前我們所表明的那樣，各種試圖動搖割禮的主張在攻擊洗禮的時候，也是沒有任何力量的。他們也承認，根據上帝的權柄所設立的任何事物，即使沒有任何理由，也是絕對成立的，但是這樣的敬畏之心是不當歸給嬰兒施洗或其他類似的上帝沒有明確吩咐我們去行的事情上的。他們即使這樣說，仍然是無法逃避，總是陷於窘境之中。上帝吩咐給嬰兒施行割禮的誡命，或者是合法的，或者是當受譴責的，二者必具其一。假如割禮是合適的，沒有謬誤之處，那麼為嬰兒施洗也就沒有任何的錯謬。（以下二十一——二十二，是論嬰兒施洗中聖靈的運行）
　　二十一、孩子長大后明白他所受的洗禮的含義。那些反對嬰兒施洗的人，千方百計想給嬰兒施洗抹黑，指責給嬰兒施洗沒有道理，現在，我們已經化解了他們的謬論。那些在上帝的計劃中已蒙揀選的人，雖然接受了重生的標記，假如在未成年之前，就離開了這個世界，主就藉著他聖靈的能力，以他自己認為合適的方式，更新他們，這是我們所不能理解的。假如他們長大成人，能夠受教明白洗禮的真義，得知自己在嬰兒時期就受了重生的標記，目的就在於使他們畢生默想，就會極大地激勵他們不斷更新自己。使徒保羅在兩段經文中教導說，我們是藉著洗禮與基督一同埋葬（羅6：4；西2：12），他所說的也是這個意思。因為保羅並不是說，要受洗禮的人必須先與基督一同埋葬，他所宣告的是洗禮背後的教義，而且他是向那些已經受洗的人宣告的。因此，即使瘋子也不會因為這段經文就爭論說：埋葬先於洗禮。摩西（申10：16）和眾先知（耶4：4）也是這樣提醒以色列民注意割禮的含義的，這割禮是他們在嬰兒時期就已經打上的印記。保羅寫信給加拉太的信徒，指出當他們受洗的時候，是披戴基督了（加3：27），保羅在此處的意思也是如此。到底是為了什麼呢？就是他們從此之後應當向基督而活，因為他們以前並沒有向他而活。對於年長的人來說，在接受洗禮標記的時候，應當明白其中的奧秘，但我們很快就會解釋，孩子所遵循的是另外的規則。對於彼得那段關於洗禮的經文，我們應當作出類似的解釋。那些反對嬰兒施洗的人認為這段經文對他們的觀點是很強的支持。彼得說，「這水所表明的洗禮，現在藉著耶穌基督復活也拯救你們。這洗禮本不在乎除掉肉體的污穢，只求在上帝面前有無愧的良心」（彼前3：21）。他們爭辯說，這段經文沒有為嬰兒施洗留任何的餘地，嬰兒施洗不合乎洗禮的含義，沒有任何意義。他們的觀點不過是自欺欺人，重複同樣的錯誤，即在時間的順序上，總是使事情本身先於標記。因為割禮的真義也在於有無愧的良心。但是，如果一定要先有無愧的良心，那麼上帝所吩咐的給嬰兒施行割禮的誡命就永遠不會成就了。然而，在顯明割禮的真義就是見證無愧的良心的同時，上帝仍然吩咐為嬰兒施行割禮，這就清楚地表明，在這種情況下，割禮是為將來而施行的。同樣，在嬰兒施洗之事上，其先在的果效無非就是證實主與他們所立的約。這一聖禮其餘的意義，要在以後的時間裡成就，這時間只能由上帝自己決定。
　　二十二、嬰兒施洗之事對孩子是一個安慰；因此，不要剝奪孩子享有這一標記的權利。現在，我想每個人都能清楚地認識到，凡是此種類型的各樣主張都不過是對聖經的歪曲。我們來大概地考察其餘類似的反對意見。他們反對說，洗禮的賜下是為了罪得赦免。假如承認此點，就非常有力地支持了我們的觀點；因為我們既然生下來就是罪人，就是在我們母親腹中的時候，我們也需要赦免和饒恕。而且，上帝既然並沒有把憐憫的盼望從嬰孩身上切斷，而是保證賜予憐憫，而印記又是遠遠低於實體，為什麼我們非得從嬰兒身上剝奪這憐憫的印記呢？因此，我們就把他們射向我們的利箭，調轉頭來射向他們了：嬰兒所得的是赦罪，所以，一定不要把這赦罪的印記從他們身上奪走。同時，他們引證保羅寫給以弗所教會的書信，說，基督為教會舍己，「要用水藉著道把教會洗凈，成為聖潔」（弗5：16）。引用這節經文來推翻他們自己的謬論是再恰當不過的了！這為我們提供了一個簡易的證明。假如基督真的是要用洗禮來見證他對教會的潔凈，而嬰孩則被稱為天國的後嗣（太19：14），被視為是教會的一份子，卻不讓孩子有基督的印記，顯然是不公正的。保羅講到用水潔凈教會一事，他所指的是普世教會。在另外的地方，保羅講到我們藉著洗禮，被接入基督的身體（林前12： 13），同樣，我們可以得出結論說，既然基督已把嬰兒視為他的肢體，嬰兒就應當受洗，免得從基督的身體分離。他們是用何等兇猛的火力，何等眾多的攻城器械，來攻擊我們信仰的堡壘啊！（初期教會中的嬰兒施洗，二十三——二十四）
　　二十三、聖經上成人受洗的記載，表明成人受洗應當比嬰兒有更多的證據。現在，他們就訴諸使徒時期教會的習慣作法，他們發現，那時沒有認信和悔改的人，就不被允許受洗。那些聽道之後，覺得扎心的人詢問彼得，「我們當怎樣行？」彼得就告訴他們說：「你們個人要悔改，奉耶穌基督的名受洗，叫你們的罪得赦」（徒2： 37－38）。同樣，當那位太監要求腓利為他施洗的時候，腓利回答說：「你若是一心相信，就可以」（徒8：37）。因此，他們就得出結論說，如果人還沒有相信悔改，給他施洗就是非法的。假如我們同意他們這種推理，在第一段經文中，只是提到悔改，那麼只要證明有悔改就足以施洗了；而在第二段經文中，則沒有提到悔改，只要信就夠了。我想，他們就會回答說，這兩段經文是彼此輔助性的，必須把二者聯繫起來。我也照樣回答說，必須把這兩段經文與其他能夠幫助解決這一難題的經文一同對照考察。聖經中有許多經文，其意思要根據它們所處的上文下理來決定。這兩節經文就是例證：彼得和腓利所說的話是針對那些已經到了一定的年齡，可以思考悔改和理解信心的人。我們也是堅定地主張，到達這種年齡的人，如果沒有見到他們歸正相信，至少是從人的角度來判斷，就不應當給他們施洗。但是，同樣非常清楚的是，嬰兒應當放在另外的範疇里。在古代的時候，假如有人要加入以色列人的宗教團契，在他受割禮的印記之前，必須首先領受教育，明白上帝的聖約和律法，因為他來自外族，對於以色列民族來說，是外邦人，而割禮所代表的聖約是上帝與以色列人定立的。
　　二十四、成人和嬰兒不同，亞伯拉罕和以撒就是範例。因此，當主因他自己的緣故揀選亞伯拉罕的時候，並不是以割禮開始的，他那時隱藏了他藉著這一標記所要表達的目的，而是首先宣告他要與亞伯拉罕立約（創15： 1），在亞伯拉罕相信上帝的應許之後（創17：11），就使他與割禮有分。為什麼在亞伯拉罕身上，割禮是在信心之後，而在以撒身上，割禮則是在理解之前呢？因為對於成年人來說，以前他在聖約之外，他在被納入聖約的團契之前，首先應當學習聖約的條件；但對他處於嬰兒階段的兒子來說，就不是這樣了。根據應許的形式，後者藉著繼承權，在母腹中的時候，就已經被納入聖約之中了。或者更簡潔明了地說，假如信徒的孩子不需要藉助理解就與聖約有分，是沒有理由因為他們不能發誓遵行聖約的條款，就把他們攔阻在聖約的標記之外。有時候上帝肯定以色列人所生的孩子是給他所生的（節16：20；23：37），其中的原因肯定就是如此。毫無疑問，他把那些他曾經應許要作他們的父親的人的孩子也視為他的孩子（創17：7）。但是，那由不敬虔的父母而生的不信者，則被視為是局外人，不在聖約的團契之內，除非他們藉助信心歸入上帝。因此，他與聖約的標記無分，因為這標記所表徵的在他裡面是徒然的！有鑒於此，保羅說，外邦人只要還沉浸在偶像崇拜之中，就在聖約之外（弗2：12）。總之，如果我們沒有錯的話，整個事情可以清楚地綜述如下。那些已經成年的人要信基督，既然他們從前是在聖約之外，首先需要相信悔改，然後才能接受洗禮這一標記。這是成人進入聖約之團契的唯一途徑。但是，那些父母是基督徒的嬰兒，一出生就被上帝接納為聖約的後嗣，也是可以受洗的。
　　在這一方面，我們必須參考福音書的記載，約翰是為那些認罪的人施洗（太3：6）。我們認為，今天我們也當遵守這一範例。假如一個土耳其人要求受洗，我們就不能隨隨便便地為他施洗，除非他是按照教會的要求公開認罪。（解釋某些人用以反對嬰兒施洗的經文：那些死時仍然沒有施洗的人並不是都歸於沉淪，二十五——三十）
　　二十五、「從水與聖靈」重生。他們所引證的另一段經文是來自《約翰福音》第三章，他們根據這段經文主張，受洗的人必須是已經重生的人：「人若不是從水和聖靈生的，就不能進天國」（約3： 5）。他們說，既然主耶穌親自把洗禮界定為重生，而嬰兒顯然是不能重生的，有什麼理由為嬰兒施洗呢？首先，他們因為在這段經文中提到「水」，就相當然地以為所說的是洗禮，這是錯誤的。我們的救主向尼哥底母解釋了我們人性的敗壞，指出了重生的必要性，然而尼哥底母所想的仍然是肉體的重生，因此，我們的救主就向他提示了上帝重生我們的模式，是藉助水和聖靈重生；換言之，藉著聖靈，就是聖靈藉著水的形式運行，澆灌並潔凈信徒的靈魂。因此，我對「水和聖靈」的理解是「聖靈，他就是水」。這並不是一個新的表達方式。這與《馬太福音》第三章中的記載完全一致。「那在我以後來的，能力必我更大，我就是給他提鞋也不配，他要用聖靈與火給你們施洗」（太3：11）。用聖靈與火為人施洗是指聖靈，他在人的重生過程中有火的作用和性質，所以，從水和聖靈重生就是接受聖靈的大能，這大能在人的靈魂中所發揮的作用正如水對身體的作用一樣。我知道其他人對此有不同的解釋，但我確信這就是此段經文的真義，因為此處基督的目的就是教導一切真心渴慕天國的人，必須把他們自身的性情撇下。當然，如果我們也像他們那樣吹毛求疵的話，倒也容易，我們就暫且同意他們所希望的，然後以子之矛，攻子之盾，既然在基督的話語中，洗禮先於聖靈，那麼，我們就可以說洗禮是在信心和悔改之前了。這當然是指屬靈的恩賜。假如這些是在洗禮之後，那麼我的觀點也就成立了。但是，還是把這種吹毛求疵的說法撇在一邊，堅持我所提出的簡單的解釋吧：聖靈就是生命的活水，沒有被這活水更新的人，就不能進入上帝的國度。
　　二十六、並不是一切沒有受洗的人都是失喪的。現在，我們必須徹底排除那些人所虛構的東西，他們把一切沒有受洗的人都打入永死之中。正如他們所堅持的那樣，讓我們假定：只有成人才能受洗。一個年輕人受到了敬虔的教育，具備了敬虔的基礎，正在等待受洗的日子來到，出乎所有人的意料，忽然被死亡拿走了，對於這樣的一位年輕人他們該當怎麼說呢？主的應許是清楚的：「那聽我話、又信差我來者的，就有永生，不至於定罪，是已經出死入生了」（約5：24）。在聖經中任何地方，我們都沒有見到主定那些還沒有受洗的人死罪。我不想有人因此認為我主張輕視洗禮是無罪的。對洗禮的輕視不僅沒有任何的理由，而且我認為是違背主的聖約的。這段經文所說明的只是：洗禮不是那麼必不可少的，並不是說沒有機會受洗，就必定永遠滅亡。但是，如果我們同意他們那種虛構的東西，我們就會毫無例外地把那些由於偶然因素沒有受洗的人都定罪了，儘管他們也有信心，基督也藉著信心也是屬他們的。不僅如此，他們還把所有那些他們拒不給予施洗的嬰兒都定了永死之罪，因為按照他們自己的說法，洗禮對於得救來說是必不可少的。讓他們想一想，他們所堅持的主張與基督的話語有何一致之處吧，基督說：「在天國的，正是這樣的人」（太19：14）！即使我們贊同他們對這段經文的所有解釋，他們也沒有因此而得到什麼，除非他們首先推翻我們早已確立的關於嬰兒重生之問題的教義。
　　二十七、基督關於洗禮的話。然而，我們的對手吹噓說，他們有最堅固的堡壘，就是在洗禮的設立上，他們引證《馬太福音》最後一章，基督差派門徒到萬國去，首先吩咐他們教導萬民，然後又吩咐他們為萬民施洗（太28： 19）。他們又加上《馬可福音》最後一章：「信而受洗的必然得救，不信的必被定罪」（可16：16）。在為人施洗之前，我們必須首先教導，這是把洗禮放在信心之後的，他們說，基督的教導既然如此清楚，我們還需要什麼呢？基督本人也已經為我們樹立了榜樣，表明了這一次序，他所選擇的是在三十歲之後受洗，而不是在此之前（太3：13；路3：21－22）。願上帝憐憫！他們在此處千方百計地要把自己套住，非要顯明自己的愚昧不可！他們這樣作所犯的錯誤真是太幼稚了，他們從這段經文中導出洗禮是何時設立的，然而基督在他服事一開始的時候，就吩咐門徒為人施洗。因此，他們從這兩段經文中推導出洗禮的法則，彷彿其中包含了洗禮最初的設立，他們的理論實在是沒有任何道理。他們執迷不悟，這樣辯來辯去是何等的無聊啊！假如我們要迴避的話，就乾脆到曠野中去漫步吧。他們抓住語詞的次序死死不放，說聖經上說的是：「傳福音給萬民聽」（可16：15），然後才是「信而受洗」（可16：16）。所以，他們推論說，在為人施洗之前，必須首先傳福音，人在受洗以前必須先相信。我們也可以以其人之道，治其人之身，照樣回答他們說，在教導人遵行基督的吩咐之前，必須先為人施洗，因為經上記著說：「給他們施洗。凡我吩咐你們的，都教訓他們遵守」（太28：19-20）。在我們上面所引證的基督的話中，談到從水與聖靈重生（約3：5），講的也是同樣的次序。假如照他們所堅持的那樣去理解，在靈命重生之前施洗是完全合適的，因為在這段經文中先提到的是「水」。基督所教導的並不是我們必須「從聖靈和水」重生，而是「從水和聖靈重生」。
　　二十八、在《馬可福音》16章16節中並沒有講到嬰兒。現在看來，他們如此確信的這一顛撲不破的論據，已經是搖搖欲墜了。但是，既然真理在其單純中就有足夠的護衛力量，所以我不想因為瑣碎的東西而忽略其中的要點。還是讓他們提出確有根據的回答吧。在《馬可福音》16 章16節中，基督提出的主要吩咐就是傳福音，而洗禮只是附加性的。然後，基督講到洗禮的施行是在教導之後。因為基督差派他的門徒到列國之中傳講福音，使他們藉著教導救恩的真道，從四面八方招聚那些從前失喪的人，進入他的國度。要傳講的對象到底是誰呢？是什麼種類的人呢？當然，此處所提到的只是那些能夠接受教導的人。此後基督補充說，當他們受教之後，就要受洗，並且加上了應許：「信而受洗的必然得救」（可16：16）。在此處整個的講話中，有沒有一個字講到嬰兒呢？既然絲毫沒有談到嬰兒，他們到底用什麼推理方式來攻擊我們呢？那些已經成年的人，在受洗之前要先受教導，相信之後才給予施洗；因此，讓嬰兒也按這樣的程序來施洗並沒有合法的根據。說到極處，他們從這段經文中所能證明的無非就是：那些能夠聽道的人，在給他們施洗之前，必須先把福音傳給他們。假如他們能夠做到的話，就任憑他們挖空心思，設置障礙反對嬰兒施洗罷！
　　二十九、耶穌是成人受洗的典範。但是，為了使那些即使盲目的人也能曉得他們的謬誤，我就用一個相當清楚的對比來加以說明。使徒曾經吩咐：「若有人不肯作工，就不可吃飯」（帖后3： 10），假如有人以此為借口，就不讓嬰孩吃飯，這樣的人是不是當被眾人唾棄呢？為什麼呢？因為這節經文是對特定類型特定年齡的人說的，而他則是不加分別地適用到了所有人身上。我們的論敵在反對嬰兒施洗之事上，所應用的各樣花招並不比此巧妙到哪裡！因為人人都明白只適用於成人的經文，他們卻聯繫到嬰兒身上，把嬰兒置於為成人所制定的法則之下。至於耶穌受洗的例證，其實一點也不支持他們的觀點。他沒有在三十歲之前施洗（路3：23；太3：13），確實如此，但其中的原因非常顯明。因為主耶穌決定藉著他的教導為洗禮奠定堅固的根基，更準確地說，就是使施洗約翰此前所立的根基更加堅實。因此，當他想通過教導為洗禮確立根基的時候，他就用自己的身體來使洗禮聖化，並且選擇了最合適的時間，也就是在他開始傳道之前。總之，從耶穌受洗之事上，他們所能證明的只是洗禮的來源和開始是源自福音的傳講，除此之外，他們一無所得。假如他們喜歡以三十歲為界限，為什麼他們卻不加遵守，只要人有成熟的判斷力，就為他施洗呢？即使那位瑟維特（Servetus），他們的老師之一，儘管他頑固地主張這一年齡，也是在他二十一歲的時候，就開始自詡為先知了；彷彿可以容忍一個人還不是教會的成員，就可妄自僭取教會中的教師職份！
　　三十、洗禮與聖餐。另外，他們反對說，既然不許嬰兒參與掰聖餐，也沒有更多的理由為嬰兒施洗，彷彿聖經沒有在各個方面清楚地區分二者之間的不同一樣。確實，在早期教會中經常給嬰兒施與聖餐，這在居普良和奧古斯丁的著作中清晰可見，但這種作法早已廢棄不用了。如果我們思考洗禮的特性，就確知洗禮是進入教會的開始，藉著洗禮我們被列入上帝的子民之列。洗禮是靈命重生的記號，由此我們重生為上帝的孩子。反之，聖餐則是為那些成年人預備的，他們已經度過了嬰兒階段，可以承受乾糧了。在聖經中，二者之間的區別是非常清楚的。涉及到洗禮，這並沒有設定特別的年齡，而對於聖餐則沒有讓所有的人都參與，只有那些能分辨主的體與血，省察自己的良知，表明主的受死，曉得聖餐權能的人，才能參與。「人應當自己省察，然後吃這餅，喝這杯」（林前11：28）。難道我們期望還有比使徒的教導更清楚的說法嗎？因此，在參與聖餐之前，首先是要自我省察，而這是不能期望於嬰孩的。經上還說，「人吃喝，若不分辨是主的身體，就是吃喝自己的罪了」（林前11：29）。既然只有那些曉得如何正確地分辨主的身體的聖潔性的人才能按理參與聖餐，為什麼我們非得提供毒藥，而不是將有益的事物給我們柔弱的孩子呢？主的吩咐是什麼呢？「你們應當如此行，為的是記念我」（路22：19；林前11：25）。我們從使徒保羅的教導中得出什麼推論呢？「你們每逢吃這餅，喝這杯，是表明主的死，直到他來」（林前11：26）。既然嬰兒並不理解，我們要求他們記念什麼呢？既然他們的心還不能理解基督釘十字架的能力和功效，我們怎能要求他們「表明主的死」呢？但在洗禮中並不要求這些事。因此，這兩大記號之間有著巨大的不同之處，正如我們所注意到的舊約之下兩種類似的記號之間的區別一樣。割禮是與我們的洗禮相應的，在舊約中指定為嬰兒施行割禮（出12：26）。逾越節現在已經由聖餐取代，在舊約時代並不是不加分別地讓所有的人參與，而是只有那些年齡長到一定程度，能夠詢問逾越節意義的人才能吃逾越節的宴席（出12：26）。假如這些人頭腦還有一點清醒的話，他們還會對如此清楚顯明的事盲然無知嗎？（三十一至三十二，反駁瑟維特的論點，以及結論）
　　三十一、瑟維特的異議。把瑟維特的一系列妄言加諸讀者，我本人也不情願。但是，在重洗派中，瑟維特確實是一個人物，是重洗派中的精英，所以我們還是應當把他反對嬰兒施洗的種種理由加以綜述，一一剖析。
　　（1）他聲稱，既然基督所設立的記號是完全的，就要求由完全的人，或那些有能力臻達完全的人承受。要駁斥他的這一觀點並不困難：洗禮的完全雖然延及人死時，但如果把這完全局限在某個時候，就大錯特錯了。另外，洗禮是邀請我們一生長進，追求完全，如果在第一天就在人身上尋求完全，就未免愚拙了。
　　（2）他反對說，基督所設立的記號是為了記念，目的在於使每個人都記得與基督一同埋葬。我的回答是，瑟維特自己杜撰的這一主張不值得一駁，他是張冠李戴，把用於聖餐的話用在了洗禮上，正如保羅所指明的那樣：「人應當自己省察」（林前11：28）。在聖經上沒有任何一個地方這樣講洗禮。由此我們得出結論說，那些因為年幼無法省察自己的人，受洗仍然是適當的。
　　（3）瑟維特的第三項異議是，一切未信上帝獨生子的人，都仍然處於死亡之中，上帝的憤怒仍然在他們身上（約3：36）。因此，嬰兒既然無法相信，就仍然處於定罪之下。我的答覆是：基督在此處所說的並不是所有亞當的後裔都普遍陷入的罪咎，而是指那些藐視福音、自高自大、拒絕恩典的人。這是與嬰兒沒有任何關係的。同時，我也提出一項反論：凡基督所祝福的人，就從亞當所受的咒詛和上帝的憤怒下釋放出來。因此，既然我們知道嬰孩是蒙受基督祝福的人（太19：15；可 10：16），所推出的結論自然是他們已經脫離死亡了。瑟維特繼而又錯誤地引證聖經上找不到的話，說「凡從聖靈生的，就聽聖靈的聲音」。即使這句話是聖經上的話，所能證明的也不過是：聖靈在信徒的身上作工，塑造他們，使他們能夠順服。但是，說給特定的人的話，如果用在所有的人身上，就不合乎邏輯了。
　　（4）他的第四項異議是，因為屬血氣的在先（林前15：46），所以我們必須等待時候滿足的時候，才能為人進行屬靈的施洗。然而，雖然我也承認亞當所有的後裔一出生就是屬血氣的身體，從母腹中就已被定罪，但我仍然堅持如果上帝立即施行醫治，是沒有任何障礙能夠攔阻的。瑟維特無法證明，上帝為屬靈新生命的開始設定了多少年。正如保羅所證實的那樣，雖然他們是基督徒所生的孩子，從本質而言仍是失喪的，但藉著超自然的恩典，他們仍是聖潔的（林前7：14）。
　　（5）瑟維特又用了一個類比，說，當大衛攻取錫安保障的時候，他既沒有帶瞎子去，也沒有帶瘸子同去（撒下5：8）。但是，試想我提出上帝邀請瞎眼的、瘸腿的參加天國的宴席那個比喻（路14：21），瑟維特怎麼處理這一難題呢？另外，我也要質問瑟維特，難道瘸腿的、殘廢的就沒有服事過大衛嗎？這樣爭辯不休是非常膚淺的，讀者從聖經所記載的歷史中很容易曉得，這樣的爭辯只不過是建立在錯誤應用聖經的基礎上。
　　（6）瑟維特又提出了一個比喻，他說，使徒們得人如得魚（太4：19），並不是得孩子如得魚。我反過來問瑟維特，主耶穌說網裡要聚攏各樣的水族（太13： 47），這又是什麼意思呢？但是，我並不想引用比喻作遊戲，我對瑟維特的回答是：當主把教導的職份託付給使徒們的時候，肯定沒有禁止為嬰孩施洗。但是，我仍想知道，福音書的作者所用的「人」一詞是指整個人類，並沒有例外，為什麼瑟維特否認嬰孩是人呢？
　　（7）瑟維特的第七項異議是，既然惟有屬靈的人才能明白屬靈的事（林前2：13－14），而嬰孩不是屬靈的，所以不適合施洗。首先，瑟維特顯然扭曲了保羅的說法。保羅在此處所講的是教義：當那些哥林多人對自己虛妄的智慧自吹自擂的時候，保羅責備了他們的愚拙， 因為他們仍然需要在天國教義的基礎知識上受教。因為嬰兒雖是從血氣生的，但上帝已經藉著白白的收養使他們在他面前成為聖潔了。有誰會由此得出結論，不應給嬰兒施洗呢？
　　（8）瑟維特反對說，假如嬰兒是新人，就必須用屬靈的事物來餵養。要駁斥他的這一異議並不困難：藉著洗禮，他們被納入基督的羊群，而且對他們來說，那被收養的記號，已經足夠了。他們長大成人之後，就能夠承受乾糧了。因此，上帝既然明確要求在參加聖餐的時候要自我省察，我們就應當等待他們能夠自我省察的時候，再讓他們領聖餐。
　　（9）瑟維特的下一項異議就是，基督呼召他所有的子民都參與聖餐。但是，聖經上很清楚，只有那些已經作好準備，能夠記念基督受死的人才能參與。由此來看，嬰孩雖為基督所看重，仍要等到長大成人，才能領受聖餐，雖然如此，但他們並不是局外人。瑟維特反對說，人出生之後卻不吃飯，這是不合情理的。我的回答是：靈魂所吃的是另外的食物，並不是聖餐中外在的餅與酒；因此，對嬰孩來說，雖然他們沒有參加聖餐，基督仍然是他們的食物。但在洗禮中就不同了，藉著洗禮，教會的大門向他們敞開了。
　　（10）瑟維特又反對說，好管家按時分糧給所有的家人（太24：45）。這是我所樂意承認的；但是，問題在於瑟維特根據什麼法則來為我們界定受洗的時間，由此來證明為嬰兒施洗的時間不當呢？另外，瑟維特引證說，基督吩咐門徒，讓他們快快進入禾場收割，因為莊稼已經成熟了（約4：35）。基督在此處的意思只是說，看到他們現在的勞動果實，他們應當激勵自己，更加火熱地教導真理。誰能由此得出結論說，這莊稼成熟的時間指的只是受洗的時間呢？
　　（11）瑟維特的第十一項理由就是，在初期教會裡，基督徒和門徒是一回事（徒11：26）；但是，我們早已看出，瑟維特的爭論往往是以偏概全。那些被稱為門徒的人都是已經成年的人，他們早已受過教訓，列在了基督的名下，正如在摩西律法之下，猶太人也是摩西的門徒一樣。但是，假如有人從中得出結論說，嬰孩是外人，就大錯特錯了，因為上帝親自宣告嬰孩是屬於他的家庭的。
　　（12）瑟維特還聲稱，所有的基督徒都是弟兄，但是，對我們來說，既然我們不讓嬰孩參加聖餐，他們就不能算在弟兄之列。但是，我重申我的立場，首先，只有那些基督的子民才是天國的後嗣；其次，基督的擁抱就是收養的真標記，嬰兒既然得到基督的擁抱，他們就與成人一起參加了教會，雖然他們一時不能領受聖餐，但這並沒有攔阻他們歸屬教會這一身體。那位在十字架上歸正的盜賊（路23：4－43），雖然從來沒有領受聖餐，但他仍然是敬虔者的弟兄。
　　（13）瑟維特又說，假如不是從聖靈領受兒子的心（羅8：15），就不能成為我們的弟兄，而要領受聖靈就必須聽道（加3：2）。我的回答是：他總是老調重彈，犯同樣的錯誤，因為他還是顛倒次序，把只能用於成人的用在了嬰孩身上。保羅在此處所教導的是，上帝呼召他的選民歸信的通常方式，就是為他們興起忠信的教師，藉著他們的服事和勞作，上帝伸手呼召他的選民（羅10：17；加3：5）。有誰敢如此放肆，以此為根據。把一條規則強加在上帝的身上，令他不得用其他隱秘的方式把嬰兒連結在基督里呢？
　　（14）瑟維特反對說，哥尼流在領受了聖靈之後才受洗（徒10：44－48）。瑟維特的錯誤就是從一個特別事例得出一個普遍性的法則，這是極其荒唐的。很顯然，在那位太監和撒瑪利亞身上，主所使用的是另外的次序，他們是先受洗，后領受聖靈的恩賜（徒8：27－38；8：12）。
　　（15）瑟維特所提出的第十五項理由更是荒唐。他說，我們藉著重生成為神，那些承受上帝之道的人是神（約10：34－35；彼后1：4；詩 82：6），但嬰孩是不可能這樣的。他的虛妄之一就是認為信徒有神性，此處不便對此詳細考察。但是，把詩篇中一節經文（詩82：6）扭曲到這種面目全非的地步，則真是太厚顏無恥了。基督說，先知稱君王和執政官為「神」，是因為他們所履行的是上帝所吩咐的職份。但是，這話本來是指向那些有治理職份之人的，而這位聰明過頭的釋經者，卻把它用在了福音的教義上，其目的無非是要把嬰孩逐出教會罷了。
　　（16）另外，瑟維特還反對說，不能把嬰孩視為新人，因為他們並不是藉著上帝的聖言而生的。我把我已經說過的重申一遍：假如我們能夠明白領受，福音的教義就是使我們重生的不朽壞的種子（彼前1：23）；然而，當我們處於無法受教的未成年階段的時候，上帝就用他自己的方法使人重生。
　　（17）此後，瑟維特又啟用了他的比喻，說，在律法之下，當用山羊或綿羊獻祭的時候，並沒有用剛剛生下來的（出12：5）。假如我也用寓意解經的方法，就可以明確回答說，首先，凡是頭生的，一生下來就要分別為聖，歸給上帝（出13：12）；其次，要用一歲的羊羔獻祭，自然的結論就是：絕不要等到長大，上帝選為祭品的就是出生不久，仍然弱小的羊羔。
　　（18）瑟維特還爭議說，只有那些經過施洗約翰預備的人才能就近耶穌。彷彿施洗約翰的服事並不是暫時性的！對此我們暫且不談，基督所擁抱並祝福的孩子肯定沒受過這樣的預備（太19：13－15；可10：13－16；路18：15－17）。再見吧，瑟維特，還有你那虛妄的理論！
　　（19）瑟維特還不厭其煩地引證特彌古（Trismegistus）和西笆勒（the Sibyls）來證明洗禮只適用於成年人。瑟維特用異教徒褻瀆的儀式來驗證基督徒的洗禮，如果不蒙特彌古喜悅，就不施行，他竟然如此來尊崇基督徒的洗禮！但是，我們更尊崇上帝的權柄，他喜悅的是把嬰兒分別為聖歸給他，並用神聖的記號來啟迪他們，雖然處在他們這弱小的年齡還無法理解洗禮的意義。洗禮中的規矩是上帝在設立割禮時所定的永恆的不可侵犯的律法，借用外邦人的贖罪儀式來加以改變，我們認為是不合法的。
　　（20）最後，瑟維特爭辯說，假如那沒有理解力的嬰兒可以受洗，孩子們在遊戲的時候，就可以從滑稽和嘲笑的角度，為人施洗了。在這件事上。還是讓瑟維特和上帝強嘴吧，因為是上帝吩咐在嬰兒明白是非之前就為他施行割禮的。孩子加以戲弄，就可以推翻上帝所設立的神聖制度嗎？那些被棄絕的靈魂意亂神迷，用種種謬論來為自己的錯誤辯解，這並不令人感到奇怪。他們的虛妄輕浮，正是上帝對他們的驕傲和頑固的報應。我相信我已經證明，瑟維特為支持他那些重洗派朋友所提出的種種謬見是站不住腳的。
　　三十二、上帝眷顧我們的孩子，我們當為此感恩。現在，我想凡頭腦清醒的人都會毫不懷疑，那些反對嬰兒施洗的人，到處與人爭辯，攪擾教會，是何等的魯莽。但非常重要的是要注意撒但藉著這一詭計要達成的目的。撒但所要達成的無非是要奪走我們特有的確信和屬靈的喜樂，這確信和喜樂源自上帝的慈愛，而撒但的詭計也是要減少上帝這聖善的榮耀。對於那些敬虔之人來說，不僅在上帝的話語中得到保證，而且親眼見到他們得到天父如此的恩寵，連他們的後裔也在他的眷顧之內，這是何等愉快的事啊！此處我們可以見到，上帝作為最有遠見的父，對我們是何等地眷顧，甚至在我們死後，仍不停止對我們的關照，繼續眷顧我們的兒女。既然如此，我們豈不當像大衛一樣，滿心喜樂，感謝讚美（詩48：10），因著他如此的慈愛，而將榮耀歸於他的名嗎？毫無疑問，這恰恰就是撒但之所以竭力攻擊嬰兒施洗的原因，他的詭計就是要把嬰兒施洗這一上帝恩典的見證完全消除，藉著嬰兒施洗彰顯在我們眼前上帝的應許，最終也會逐漸消失，歸於遺忘。由此不僅滋生一種對上帝的慈愛不知感恩的邪情，也會使得我們忽視對我們的子女進行敬虔的教育。我們若是想到兒女一生下來，上帝就已經接納他們，並承認他們是他的孩子，就會大大地激勵我們教訓他們敬畏上帝，遵行上帝的律法。因此，除非我們心懷惡意，要遮掩上帝的慈愛，否則就當把我們的嬰孩獻給上帝，因為他已經在他的朋友和家人，即教會的成員中，為他們賜下了位置。

　三至九、從割禮，耶穌祝福小孩，聖經所載全家受洗的事，以及嬰孩洗對父母及嬰孩本人的益處，證明嬰孩洗為必要——從略。

3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen. 17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: 「God,」 says he, 「is not the God of the dead, but of the living」 (Mt. 22:32). Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph. 2:12), all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal 2531circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both—viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same—viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith629629   127 D127 The 「analogy of faith,」 to which we are to 「bring every interpretation of Scripture,」 refers to the ultimate rule or standard of interpretation, the final test of all doctrine; namely, the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Analogy suggests comparison; thus we are to compare a proposed interpretation of a specific portion of Scripture with the interpretation which Scripture as a whole; either explicitly or generally, gives to itself. Analogy suggests proportion or measure; thus we are to ascertain the intention and importance of a single text of Scripture in proportion to its place and distribution in the whole body of revealed truth. Analogy also suggests relationship; thus we are to study the particular doctrines of Scriptures in relation to the system of doctrine revealed therein. (Rom. 12:3, 6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians 2532in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished, or curtailed the grace of the Father—an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected, that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has 2533been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from, coming (Mt. 19:13), because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, 「 of such is the kingdom of heaven.」 And he afterwards testifies his good-will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour』s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him. By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says 「Suffer little children to come,」 they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists βπέφη καὶ παιδιά, terms which denote infants still at their mothers』 breasts. The term 「come」 is used simply for 「approach.」 See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, 「of such,」 not 「of themselves.」 If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to 2534come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, 「Of such is the kingdom of heaven.」 But if infants must necessarily be comprehended, the expression, 「of such,」 clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

8. Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we nowhere read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family (Acts 16:15, 32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord』s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord』s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years, and that, therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ, during which pædobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.

9. It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious 2535breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciation, that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child (Gen. 17:15), such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.

十至十六、反駁重洗派以割禮與洗禮不同之說——從略。

10. Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy Scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation was overloaded for a time with divine kindness (just as swine are gorged in their sty), that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.

253611. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in Christ we 「are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.」 In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are 「buried with him in baptism.」 What do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs, and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings; though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he, in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan. In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the new dispensations, I now only glance at it.

12. Under the appellation of children the difference they observe is this, that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther, and compare many things together, they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now 2537and then deluded, because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12). For we are called his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be a God both to him and his seed. All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham.

13. Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that, according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11), still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy. And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar purchased people (Exod. 19:5). In attestation of this kindness, he appointed circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children of Abraham, speaks in this way: 「Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised」 (Rom. 4:9-12). Do we not see that both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere writes (Eph. 2:14), the wall of partition which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their father, and that without the sign of circumcision, its place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the father of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves 2538on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.

14. But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed (Rom. 9:7). For he seems to insinuate, that carnal relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing. But we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau. These being rejected, just as if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This proves what he afterwards affirms—viz. that salvation depends on the mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases, but that the Jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word. On the other hand, after casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave their nation utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason, though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy (such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with his sacred covenant), while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous, or abortive children of Abraham, and that not by nature, but by adoption, just as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, and, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; and, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that 「the gifts and calling of God are without repentance」 (Rom. 11:29).

15. Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham,—such the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence, though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, 2539we, at the same time, perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents. Hence it is inferred, that those who are chargeable with impurity are justly separated from others. Now, who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averment—viz. that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of God? When the apostle says, that 「Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers」 (Rom. 15:8), he does not philosophise subtilely, as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed, Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: 「The promise is unto you and to your children」 (Acts 2:39); and in the next chapter, he calls them the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with Christ. And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the merest quibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil, inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.

16. The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day, mortification being already accomplished, they immediately forget the distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh, and baptism as a burial, which is given to none but those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander 2540to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of God. We hold, therefore, that their former distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make an allegory of the eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth. How much more rational is the declaration of Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism (Rom. 6:4); since it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die, and thenceforth aim at that mortification? Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the right could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect.

十七至十八、反駁重洗派因嬰孩不懂洗禮而反對嬰孩洗禮之說——從略。

17. They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed—viz. spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture (1 Cor. 15:22). For seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore, that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5), of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression, 「Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God」? (1 Cor. 15:50.) Therefore, let 2541everything that is our own be abolished (this cannot be without regeneration), and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life, we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the bondage of death. But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother』s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that 「except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God」? (John 3:3.) But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother』s womb (Luke 1:15), a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort—viz. that this was only once done, and therefore it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scripture, 「from the womb,」 has the same meaning as 「from childhood.」 But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases, in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing that his power is not impaired.

18. And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed, he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the graces which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification. This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God.630630   128 D128 This strong assertion must be seen in its relationship to the question of the salvation of elect infants dying in infancy. If they are to have remission of sins, a new nature, and the blessing of eternal life, it is clear that they must be regenerated. As to their objection that, in Scripture, the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously 2542interpret Peter』s words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23). We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases.

二十至二十九、繼續反駁重洗派反對嬰孩洗所提的論點——從略。

20. In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God then against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer. 4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already 2543closed this means of escape against them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also, enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature—a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the tact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the 「washing of regeneration and renewing」 (Tit. 3:5). Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. Thus, as we have already hinted, all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing baptism. Nor can they escape by saying, that everything which rests on the authority of God is absolutely fixed, though there should be no reason for it, but that this reverence is not due to pædobaptism, nor other similar things which are not recommended to us by the express word of God. They always remain caught in this dilemma. The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension. If there was nothing incompetent or absurd in it, no absurdity can be shown in the observance of pædobaptism.

21. The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives. To the same effect are the two passages in which Paul teaches, that we are buried with Christ by baptism (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). For by this he means not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried with Christ; he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism, and that to those already baptised: so that the most senseless cannot maintain from this passage that it ought to precede baptism. In this way, Moses 2544and the prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision, which however infants received. To the same effect, Paul says to the Galatians, 「As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ」 (Gal. 3:27). Why so? That they might thereafter live to Christ, to whom previously they had not lived. And though, in adults, the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of its meaning, yet, as will shortly be explained, a different rule must be followed with children. No other conclusion can be drawn from a passage in Peter, on which they strongly found. He says, that baptism is 「not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ」 (1 Pet. 3:21). From this they contend that nothing is left for pædobaptism, which becomes mere empty smoke, as being altogether at variance with the meaning of baptism. But the delusion which misleads them is, that they would always have the thing to precede the sign in the order of time.632632   130 D130 In connection with the sacraments, there are three aspects which must be carefully distinguished: 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (what Calvin calls 「the thing」) 2. the external sacrament itself (what Calvin calls 「the sign」) 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament (as mediated to us by the Word and Spirit). Calvin has called our attention to the very important fact that a particular time order of these aspects is not crucial to the proper use of the sacraments. He asserts that the spiritual reality itself (e.g., regeneration) may either precede or follow the external sacrament (i.e., 1 may precede 2, or 2 may precede 1). The order then, of the three aspects enumerated above could be 1, 2, 3, or 1, 3, 2, or 2, 1, 3. (The reason why the order could not be 2, 3, 1, or 3, 1, 2, or 3, 2, 1, is that, because of that depravity which fills our minds with ignorance and spiritual darkness, our understanding of the sacrament』s spiritual significance [3] must always follow the spiritual reality which is signified [1]). Calvin』s specific interest in this section is, of course, to point out that the third possible order (2, 1, 3) is a live option. That is, the time order (in addition to the other possible orders) could be as follows: 2. the external sacrament itself (e.g., baptism) 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (e.g., regeneration) 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament. And the time lapse between number 2 and numbers 1 and 3 could amount to an indefinite number of years, just as it ordinarily did in the case of circumcised infants in Old Testament times. For the truth of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to be required in pædobaptism, than to confirm and sanction the covenant which the Lord has made with them. The other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which God himself has provided.

22. Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign. They adduce the passage from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, 「that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word」 (Eph. 5:26). Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water. In like 2545manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 7:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body. See the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith.

23. They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, 「What shall we do?」 his advise is, 「Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins」 (Acts 2:37, 38). In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptise him, he answered, 「If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.」 Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behoved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.

24. Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first announced that he intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother』s womb. Or, to 2546state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him (Ezek. 16:20; 23:37). For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenant (Eph. 2:11). The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this we must refer the narrative of the Evangelist, that those who were baptised by John confessed their sins (Mt. 3:6). This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.

25. Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Saviour』s words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, 「Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God」 (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in which God regenerates us—viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By 「water and the Spirit,」 therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third chapter of Matthew, 「He that cometh after me is mightier than I;」 「he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire」 (Mt. 3:11). Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to 2547confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviour』s only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of cavilling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this passage, our Saviour mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, cavilling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is that which I have given—viz. that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.

26. This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptised to eternal death.633633   See Calv. Cont. Articulos Theologorum Paris. Art 4. Item, Ad. Concil. Trident. Item, Vera Eccles. Reformand. Ratio, et in Append. Nævus in August. Lib. 1 ad Bonifac. et Epist. 28. Ambros. de Vocat. Gentium, Lib. 2 cap. 8, de Abraham. Lib. 2 cap. 11. Let us suppose, then, that, as they insist, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they make of a youth who, after being embued duly and properly with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is unexpectedly carried off by sudden death? The promise of our Lord is clear, 「He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life」 (John 5:24). We nowhere read of his having condemned him who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be contemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage only serves to show, that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed. Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says, that 「of such is the kingdom of heaven」 (Mt. 19:14). And though we were to concede everything to them, in regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.

27. But they boast of having their strongest bulwark in the very 2548institution of baptism, which they find in the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending his disciples into all the world, commands them to teach and then baptise. Then, in the last chapter of Mark, it is added, 「He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved」 (Mark 16:16). What more (say they) do we ask, since the words of Christ distinctly declare, that teaching must precede baptism, and assign to baptism the place next to faith? Of this arrangement our Lord himself gave an example, in choosing not to be baptised till his thirtieth year. In how many ways do they here entangle themselves, and betray their ignorance! They err more than childishly in this, that they derive the first institution of baptism from this passage, whereas Christ had, from the commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be administered by the apostles. There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism is to be sought from these two passages. as containing the first institution. But to indulge them in their error, how nerveless is this mode of arguing? Were I disposed to evasion, I have not only a place of escape, but a wide field to expatiate in. For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words, insisting that because it is said, 「Go, preach and baptise,」 and again, 「Whosoever believes and is baptised,」 they must preach before baptising, and believe before being baptised, why may not we in our turn object, that they must baptise before teaching the observance of those things which Christ commanded, because it is said, 「Baptise, teaching whatsoever I have commanded you」? The same thing we observed in the other passage in which Christ speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit. For if we interpret as they insist, then baptism must take precedence of spiritual regeneration, because it is first mentioned. Christ teaches that we are to be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

28. This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them, therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the function of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to publish the gospel to all nations of the world, that by the doctrine of salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost, into his kingdom. But who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught, were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith before being baptised, and therefore it is unlawful to make 2549baptism common to infants. They cannot, at the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are baptised; for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can, throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.

29. But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on the presence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour (2 Thess. 3:10), would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present instance is not greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down only for those of riper years. With regard to the example of our Saviour, it gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth year. This is indeed true, but the reason is obvious; because he then determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore, when he was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency? Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in the Church before he was a member of the Church.

三十一、反駁重洗派名士瑟維特（Servetus）反對嬰孩洗所提的論點——從略。

31. Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them.634634   French, 「Combien qu』il me fasche d』amasser tant de reveries frivoles que pourront ennuyer les lecteurs, toutesfeis pource que Servet, se meslant aussi de mesdire du baptesme des petis enfans, a cuide amener de fort belles raisons, il sera raison de les rabattre brievement.」—Although I am sorry to amass so many frivolous reveries which may annoy the reader, yet as Servetus, taking it upon him to calumniate baptism also, has seemed to adduce very fine arguments, it will be right briefly to dispose of them. He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or at least capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once. He objects, that the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paul』s words, 「Let a man examine 2551himself,」 words similar to which are nowhere used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are incapable of examination are duly baptised. His third point is, That all who believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them (John 3:36); and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from death. He nexts falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike. His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal (1 Cor. 15:46), we must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul』s testimony is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace. He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David, when going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but vigorous soldiers (2 Sam. 5:8). But what if I meet this with the parable in which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover, whether the lame and the maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell longer on this argument, which, as the reader will learn from the sacred history, is founded on mere misquotation. He adds another allegory— viz. that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes? (Mt. 9:19; 13:47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles, they were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know why, when the Evangelist uses the term ἀνθρώπους (which comprehends the whole human race without exception), he denies that infants are included. His seventh argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13), infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians, pluming themselves excessively on a vain 2552acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly, because they still require to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants, whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper. His next objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred Supper. But as it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the commemoration of his death, it follows that infants, whom he honoured with his embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of infants, though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them. He again objects, that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due season (Mt. 24:45). This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He, moreover, adduces Christ』s command to the apostles to make haste, because the fields are already white to the harvest (John 4:35). Our Saviour only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that harvest only is the fit time for baptism? His eleventh argument is, That in the primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behoved to be disciples under the law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers. Moreover, he alleges that all Christians are brethren, and that infants cannot belong to this class, so long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord』s Supper. Servetus afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of adoption, who is only conferred by the hearing of faith. I answer, that he always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies to infants what is said only of adults. 2553Paul there teaches that the ordinary way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method? He objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom the Lord observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent (John 10:35; 2 Pet. 1:4), a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of deity to believers is one of his ravings, which this is not the proper place to discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm (Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to exterminate infants from the Church. Again, he objects, that infants cannot be regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage, we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating. He afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt (Exod. 12:5). Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord (Exod. 13:12); and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice. He contends, moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared by John; as if John』s ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore, let us have done with his false principle. He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sybils, to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the significancy of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God 2554enacted in circumcision. His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport. Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has supported his friends the Anabaptists.

CHAPTER 16.
PÆDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

Divisions of this chapter,—I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of Pædobaptism, sec. 1-9. II. Refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against Pædobaptism, sec. 10-30. III. Special objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32.

Sections.

1. Pædobaptism. The consideration of the question necessary and useful. Pædobaptism of divine origin.

2. This demonstrated from a consideration of the promises. These explain the nature and validity of Pædobaptism.

3. Promises annexed to the symbol of water cannot be better seen than in the institution of circumcision.

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same. The only difference in the external ceremony.

5. Hence the baptism of the children of Christian parents as competent as the circumcision of Jewish children. An objection founded on a stated day for circumcision refuted.

6. An argument for Pædobaptism founded on the covenant which God made with Abraham. An objection disposed of. The grace of God not diminished by the advent of Christ.

7. Argument founded on Christ』s invitation to children. Objection answered.

8. Objection, that no infants were baptised by the apostles. Answer. Objection, that pædobaptism is a novelty. Answer.

9. Twofold use and benefit of pædobaptism. In respect, 1. Of parents. 2. Of children baptised.

10 Second part of the chapter, stating the arguments of Anabaptists. Alleged dissimilitude between baptism and circumcision. First answer.

11. Second answer. The covenant in baptism and circumcision not different.

12. Third answer.

13. Infants, both Jewish and Christian, comprehended in the covenant.

14. Objection considered.

15. The Jews being comprehended in the covenant, no substantial difference between baptism and circumcision.

16. Another argument of the Anabaptists considered.

17. Argument that children are not fit to understand baptism, and therefore should not be baptised.

18. Answer continued.

19. Answer continued.

20. Answer continued.

21. Answer continued.

22. Argument, that baptism being appointed for the remission of sins, infants, not having sinned, ought not to be baptised. Answer.

23. Argument against pædobaptism, founded on the practice of the apostles. Answer.

24. Answer continued.

25. Argument founded on a saying of our Lord to Nicodemus. Answer.

26. Error of those who adjudge all who die unbaptised to eternal destruction.

27. Argument against pædobaptism, founded on the precept and example of our Saviour, in requiring instruction to precede baptism. Answer.

28. Answer continued.

29. Answer continued.

252930. Argument, that there is no stronger reason for giving baptism to children than for giving them the Lord』s Supper. Answer.

31. Last part of the chapter, refuting the arguments of Servetus.

32. Why Satan so violently assails pædobaptism.

1. But since, in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of pædobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is worth, let him reflect that, in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism.628628   The French from the beginning of the chapter is as follows:—「Or d』autant que nous voyons l』observation que nous tenons de baptiser les petits enfans etre impugnée et debatue par aucuns esprits malins, comme si elle n』avoit point eté institutée de Dieu mais inventée nouvellement des hommes, ou pour le moins quelques années apres le tems des Apostres, j』estime qu』il viendra bien à propos, de confermer en cest endroit les consciences imbecilles, et refuter les objections mensonges qui pouroient faire teis seducteurs, pour renverser le verité de Dieu aux cœur des simples, qui ne seraient pas exercités pour repondre a leur cauteles et cavillations.」—Now, inasmuch as we see that the practice which we have of baptising little children is impugned and assailed by some malignant spirits, as if it had not been appointed by God, but newly invented by men, or at least some years after the days of the Apostles, I think it will be very seasonable to confirm weak consciences in this matter, and refute the lying objections which such seducers might make, in order to overthrow the truth of God in the hearts of the simple, who might not be skilled in answering their cavils and objections. The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious—viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.

2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed,—that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies, but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism—its object and true character—must not stop short at the element and corporeal object. 2530but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.

3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen. 17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: 「God,」 says he, 「is not the God of the dead, but of the living」 (Mt. 22:32). Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph. 2:12), all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal 2531circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both—viz. the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same—viz. regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith629629   127 D127 The 「analogy of faith,」 to which we are to 「bring every interpretation of Scripture,」 refers to the ultimate rule or standard of interpretation, the final test of all doctrine; namely, the teaching of Scripture as a whole. Analogy suggests comparison; thus we are to compare a proposed interpretation of a specific portion of Scripture with the interpretation which Scripture as a whole; either explicitly or generally, gives to itself. Analogy suggests proportion or measure; thus we are to ascertain the intention and importance of a single text of Scripture in proportion to its place and distribution in the whole body of revealed truth. Analogy also suggests relationship; thus we are to study the particular doctrines of Scriptures in relation to the system of doctrine revealed therein. (Rom. 12:3, 6). And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. He distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians 2532in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it: but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants, why should we deny them the sign, which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and therefore that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished, or curtailed the grace of the Father—an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed, and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham, ordered it to be sealed in infants by an outward sacrament, how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children? Let it not be objected, that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that, in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different, that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has 2533been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

7. Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from, coming (Mt. 19:13), because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, 「 of such is the kingdom of heaven.」 And he afterwards testifies his good-will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour』s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant), than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him. By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says 「Suffer little children to come,」 they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists βπέφη καὶ παιδιά, terms which denote infants still at their mothers』 breasts. The term 「come」 is used simply for 「approach.」 See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, 「of such,」 not 「of themselves.」 If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to 2534come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, 「Of such is the kingdom of heaven.」 But if infants must necessarily be comprehended, the expression, 「of such,」 clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

8. Every one must now see that pædobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we nowhere read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family (Acts 16:15, 32), what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord』s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord』s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years, and that, therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ, during which pædobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.

9. It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only, but to his seed; not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious 2535breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity. I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciation, that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child (Gen. 17:15), such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.

10. Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy Scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation was overloaded for a time with divine kindness (just as swine are gorged in their sty), that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.

11. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in Christ we 「are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.」 In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are 「buried with him in baptism.」 What do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs, and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings; though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he, in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan. In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the new dispensations, I now only glance at it.

12. Under the appellation of children the difference they observe is this, that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther, and compare many things together, they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now 2537and then deluded, because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith (Gal. 4:28; Rom. 4:12). For we are called his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be a God both to him and his seed. All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham.

13. Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that, according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 8:11), still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy. And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar purchased people (Exod. 19:5). In attestation of this kindness, he appointed circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children of Abraham, speaks in this way: 「Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised: that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised」 (Rom. 4:9-12). Do we not see that both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere writes (Eph. 2:14), the wall of partition which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their father, and that without the sign of circumcision, its place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the father of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves 2538on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.

14. But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed (Rom. 9:7). For he seems to insinuate, that carnal relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing. But we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau. These being rejected, just as if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This proves what he afterwards affirms—viz. that salvation depends on the mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases, but that the Jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word. On the other hand, after casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave their nation utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason, though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy (such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with his sacred covenant), while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous, or abortive children of Abraham, and that not by nature, but by adoption, just as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, and, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; and, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that 「the gifts and calling of God are without repentance」 (Rom. 11:29).

15. Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham,—such the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence, though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, 2539we, at the same time, perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere says that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents. Hence it is inferred, that those who are chargeable with impurity are justly separated from others. Now, who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averment—viz. that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of God? When the apostle says, that 「Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers」 (Rom. 15:8), he does not philosophise subtilely, as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed, Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: 「The promise is unto you and to your children」 (Acts 2:39); and in the next chapter, he calls them the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with Christ. And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the merest quibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil, inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.

16. The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day, mortification being already accomplished, they immediately forget the distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh, and baptism as a burial, which is given to none but those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander 2540to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of God. We hold, therefore, that their former distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make an allegory of the eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth. How much more rational is the declaration of Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism (Rom. 6:4); since it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die, and thenceforth aim at that mortification? Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the right could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect.

17. They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed—viz. spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him. Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture (1 Cor. 15:22). For seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore, that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5), of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression, 「Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God」? (1 Cor. 15:50.) Therefore, let 2541everything that is our own be abolished (this cannot be without regeneration), and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life, we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the bondage of death. But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother』s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter anything that defileth (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that 「except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God」? (John 3:3.) But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother』s womb (Luke 1:15), a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort—viz. that this was only once done, and therefore it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scripture, 「from the womb,」 has the same meaning as 「from childhood.」 But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases, in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing that his power is not impaired.

18. And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed, he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the graces which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification. This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God.630630   128 D128 This strong assertion must be seen in its relationship to the question of the salvation of elect infants dying in infancy. If they are to have remission of sins, a new nature, and the blessing of eternal life, it is clear that they must be regenerated. As to their objection that, in Scripture, the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously 2542interpret Peter』s words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. 1:23). We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases.

19. But faith, they say, cometh by hearing, the use of which infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses declares, without the knowledge of good and evil (Deut. 1:39). But they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself, by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of the knowledge of』 good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of God. Those, therefore, whom the Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance, before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves, or have any knowledge at all resembling faith (this I would rather leave undecided);631631   129 D129 It is instructive to take not of Calvin』s careful restraint and sense of proportion in the previous few sentences. With respect to the question of the manner in which elect infants dying in infancy are saved, Calvin, while presupposing their need and the Spirit』s supply of regeneration (see note on section 18), makes no definite assertion concerning the presence or absence of faith in them. This position of indecision (as Calvin terms it) is commendable, precisely because it does not presume beyond the teaching of Scripture. but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks, affirm or deny whatever suits them.

20. In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy, we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God then against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer. 4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already 2543closed this means of escape against them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also, enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature—a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the tact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the 「washing of regeneration and renewing」 (Tit. 3:5). Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. Thus, as we have already hinted, all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing baptism. Nor can they escape by saying, that everything which rests on the authority of God is absolutely fixed, though there should be no reason for it, but that this reverence is not due to pædobaptism, nor other similar things which are not recommended to us by the express word of God. They always remain caught in this dilemma. The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension. If there was nothing incompetent or absurd in it, no absurdity can be shown in the observance of pædobaptism.

21. The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives. To the same effect are the two passages in which Paul teaches, that we are buried with Christ by baptism (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). For by this he means not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried with Christ; he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism, and that to those already baptised: so that the most senseless cannot maintain from this passage that it ought to precede baptism. In this way, Moses 2544and the prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision, which however infants received. To the same effect, Paul says to the Galatians, 「As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ」 (Gal. 3:27). Why so? That they might thereafter live to Christ, to whom previously they had not lived. And though, in adults, the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of its meaning, yet, as will shortly be explained, a different rule must be followed with children. No other conclusion can be drawn from a passage in Peter, on which they strongly found. He says, that baptism is 「not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ」 (1 Pet. 3:21). From this they contend that nothing is left for pædobaptism, which becomes mere empty smoke, as being altogether at variance with the meaning of baptism. But the delusion which misleads them is, that they would always have the thing to precede the sign in the order of time.632632   130 D130 In connection with the sacraments, there are three aspects which must be carefully distinguished: 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (what Calvin calls 「the thing」) 2. the external sacrament itself (what Calvin calls 「the sign」) 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament (as mediated to us by the Word and Spirit). Calvin has called our attention to the very important fact that a particular time order of these aspects is not crucial to the proper use of the sacraments. He asserts that the spiritual reality itself (e.g., regeneration) may either precede or follow the external sacrament (i.e., 1 may precede 2, or 2 may precede 1). The order then, of the three aspects enumerated above could be 1, 2, 3, or 1, 3, 2, or 2, 1, 3. (The reason why the order could not be 2, 3, 1, or 3, 1, 2, or 3, 2, 1, is that, because of that depravity which fills our minds with ignorance and spiritual darkness, our understanding of the sacrament』s spiritual significance [3] must always follow the spiritual reality which is signified [1]). Calvin』s specific interest in this section is, of course, to point out that the third possible order (2, 1, 3) is a live option. That is, the time order (in addition to the other possible orders) could be as follows: 2. the external sacrament itself (e.g., baptism) 1. the spiritual reality which is signified (e.g., regeneration) 3. our understanding of the spiritual significance of the sacrament. And the time lapse between number 2 and numbers 1 and 3 could amount to an indefinite number of years, just as it ordinarily did in the case of circumcised infants in Old Testament times. For the truth of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to be required in pædobaptism, than to confirm and sanction the covenant which the Lord has made with them. The other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which God himself has provided.

22. Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign. They adduce the passage from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, 「that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word」 (Eph. 5:26). Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water. In like 2545manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 7:13), we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body. See the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith.

23. They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, 「What shall we do?」 his advise is, 「Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins」 (Acts 2:37, 38). In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptise him, he answered, 「If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.」 Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behoved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.

24. Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first announced that he intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother』s womb. Or, to 2546state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him (Ezek. 16:20; 23:37). For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenant (Eph. 2:11). The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this we must refer the narrative of the Evangelist, that those who were baptised by John confessed their sins (Mt. 3:6). This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.

25. Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Saviour』s words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, 「Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God」 (John 3:5). See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration? First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in which God regenerates us—viz. by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the souls of believers, operates in the manner of water. By 「water and the Spirit,」 therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third chapter of Matthew, 「He that cometh after me is mightier than I;」 「he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire」 (Mt. 3:11). Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to 2547confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviour』s only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition. And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of cavilling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this passage, our Saviour mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, cavilling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is that which I have given—viz. that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.

26. This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptised to eternal death.633633   See Calv. Cont. Articulos Theologorum Paris. Art 4. Item, Ad. Concil. Trident. Item, Vera Eccles. Reformand. Ratio, et in Append. Nævus in August. Lib. 1 ad Bonifac. et Epist. 28. Ambros. de Vocat. Gentium, Lib. 2 cap. 8, de Abraham. Lib. 2 cap. 11. Let us suppose, then, that, as they insist, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they make of a youth who, after being embued duly and properly with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is unexpectedly carried off by sudden death? The promise of our Lord is clear, 「He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life」 (John 5:24). We nowhere read of his having condemned him who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be contemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage only serves to show, that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed. Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says, that 「of such is the kingdom of heaven」 (Mt. 19:14). And though we were to concede everything to them, in regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.

27. But they boast of having their strongest bulwark in the very 2548institution of baptism, which they find in the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending his disciples into all the world, commands them to teach and then baptise. Then, in the last chapter of Mark, it is added, 「He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved」 (Mark 16:16). What more (say they) do we ask, since the words of Christ distinctly declare, that teaching must precede baptism, and assign to baptism the place next to faith? Of this arrangement our Lord himself gave an example, in choosing not to be baptised till his thirtieth year. In how many ways do they here entangle themselves, and betray their ignorance! They err more than childishly in this, that they derive the first institution of baptism from this passage, whereas Christ had, from the commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be administered by the apostles. There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism is to be sought from these two passages. as containing the first institution. But to indulge them in their error, how nerveless is this mode of arguing? Were I disposed to evasion, I have not only a place of escape, but a wide field to expatiate in. For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words, insisting that because it is said, 「Go, preach and baptise,」 and again, 「Whosoever believes and is baptised,」 they must preach before baptising, and believe before being baptised, why may not we in our turn object, that they must baptise before teaching the observance of those things which Christ commanded, because it is said, 「Baptise, teaching whatsoever I have commanded you」? The same thing we observed in the other passage in which Christ speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit. For if we interpret as they insist, then baptism must take precedence of spiritual regeneration, because it is first mentioned. Christ teaches that we are to be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

28. This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them, therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the function of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to publish the gospel to all nations of the world, that by the doctrine of salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost, into his kingdom. But who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught, were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth and is baptised, shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith before being baptised, and therefore it is unlawful to make 2549baptism common to infants. They cannot, at the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are baptised; for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can, throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.

29. But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on the presence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour (2 Thess. 3:10), would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present instance is not greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down only for those of riper years. With regard to the example of our Saviour, it gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth year. This is indeed true, but the reason is obvious; because he then determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore, when he was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency? Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in the Church before he was a member of the Church.

30. At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord』s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church indeed, the Lord』s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1); but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food. This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to 2550partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord』s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, 「Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup」? (1 Cor. 11:28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, 「He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord』s body.」 If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord』s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord』s injunction? 「Do this in remembrance of me.」 And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? 「As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord』s death till he come.」 How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them 「to show forth the Lord』s death,」 of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it (Exod. 12:26). Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?

31. Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them.634634   French, 「Combien qu』il me fasche d』amasser tant de reveries frivoles que pourront ennuyer les lecteurs, toutesfeis pource que Servet, se meslant aussi de mesdire du baptesme des petis enfans, a cuide amener de fort belles raisons, il sera raison de les rabattre brievement.」—Although I am sorry to amass so many frivolous reveries which may annoy the reader, yet as Servetus, taking it upon him to calumniate baptism also, has seemed to adduce very fine arguments, it will be right briefly to dispose of them. He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or at least capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once. He objects, that the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paul』s words, 「Let a man examine 2551himself,」 words similar to which are nowhere used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are incapable of examination are duly baptised. His third point is, That all who believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them (John 3:36); and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from death. He nexts falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike. His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal (1 Cor. 15:46), we must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul』s testimony is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace. He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David, when going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but vigorous soldiers (2 Sam. 5:8). But what if I meet this with the parable in which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover, whether the lame and the maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell longer on this argument, which, as the reader will learn from the sacred history, is founded on mere misquotation. He adds another allegory— viz. that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes? (Mt. 9:19; 13:47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles, they were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know why, when the Evangelist uses the term ἀνθρώπους (which comprehends the whole human race without exception), he denies that infants are included. His seventh argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual (1 Cor 2:13), infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians, pluming themselves excessively on a vain 2552acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly, because they still require to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants, whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper. His next objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred Supper. But as it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the commemoration of his death, it follows that infants, whom he honoured with his embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of infants, though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them. He again objects, that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due season (Mt. 24:45). This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He, moreover, adduces Christ』s command to the apostles to make haste, because the fields are already white to the harvest (John 4:35). Our Saviour only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that harvest only is the fit time for baptism? His eleventh argument is, That in the primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behoved to be disciples under the law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers. Moreover, he alleges that all Christians are brethren, and that infants cannot belong to this class, so long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord』s Supper. Servetus afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of adoption, who is only conferred by the hearing of faith. I answer, that he always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies to infants what is said only of adults. 2553Paul there teaches that the ordinary way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method? He objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom the Lord observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent (John 10:35; 2 Pet. 1:4), a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of deity to believers is one of his ravings, which this is not the proper place to discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm (Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to exterminate infants from the Church. Again, he objects, that infants cannot be regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage, we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating. He afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt (Exod. 12:5). Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord (Exod. 13:12); and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice. He contends, moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared by John; as if John』s ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore, let us have done with his false principle. He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sybils, to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the significancy of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God 2554enacted in circumcision. His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport. Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has supported his friends the Anabaptists.

32. No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of pædobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft—viz. to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their prosperity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David』s was (Ps. 48:11), to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless the design of Satan in assaulting pædobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not on]y would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family, that is, the members of the Church.