Chapter XVI (2)

XXII. It must now, I think, be evident to every person, that all arguments of this kind are mere perversions of Scripture. Those which remain, and are nearly allied to these, we shall run over in a cursory manner. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins: this we admit, and it is completely in favour of our opinion. For being born sinners, we need pardon and remission even from our birth. Now, as the Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but rather assures them of it, why shall we refuse them the sign, which is so far inferior to the thing signified? Wherefore, the argument which they urge against us, we retort upon themselves; infants are favoured with remission of sins,—therefore they ought not to be deprived of the sign. They also adduce that passage where the Lord is said to “cleanse the Church with the washing of water by the word.”[1202] But no text could be quoted more conclusive against their error; it furnishes an obvious confirmation of our sentiment. If it be the will of Christ that the ablution, with which he cleanses his Church, be testified by baptism, it appears unreasonable that its testimony should be wanting in infants, who are justly considered as part of the Church, since they are called heirs of the kingdom of heaven. For Paul speaks of the whole Church, when he describes it as cleansed with the washing of water. And, on the same principle, from that passage where he says that we are all baptized into the body of Christ,[1203] we conclude that infants, whom he numbers among his members, ought to be baptized, that they may not be separated from his body. See with what violence, and with what variety of weapons, they attack the bulwarks of our faith!

XXIII. They proceed, in the next place, to the practice of the apostolic age, in which no one is found to have been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For in answer to those who “were pricked in their heart, and said, What shall we do? Peter said unto them,” first, “repent,” and then “be baptized for the remission of sins.”[1204] In like manner Philip, when the eunuch requested to be baptized, replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”[1205] Hence they think themselves justified in concluding, that baptism ought never to be administered to any person without being preceded by faith and repentance. But if we adopt this reasoning, the first of these passages, which makes no mention of faith, will evince the sufficiency of repentance alone: the second, where repentance is not required, will prove that faith alone is sufficient. I suppose they will reply that one passage is elucidated by the other, and that therefore they ought to be connected together. I also contend that other places ought to be consulted, which may contribute to the solution of this difficulty. For there are many passages of Scripture, the sense of which depends on the circumstances connected with them. This is exemplified in the cases now under consideration. For the persons addressed by Peter and Philip were of an age capable of exercising repentance and faith. We strenuously deny that such persons ought to be baptized, without a knowledge of their repentance and faith, as far, at least, as they are capable of being ascertained by the judgment of men. But that infants ought to be ranked in a different class, is sufficiently evident; for, under the former dispensation, if any person connected himself with the Israelites in religious communion, it was necessary for him to be taught the covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law, before he received circumcision, because he was an alien by birth, not one of the Israelitish people, with whom the covenant, which was confirmed by circumcision, had been made.

XXIV. So the Lord himself, when he adopts Abraham, does not begin with circumcision, concealing for a time what was intended by that sign; but he first announces the covenant which he designs to make with him, and then, after he has received that promise in faith, makes him a partaker of that sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in the case of Abraham, and in Isaac, his son, precede all exercise of understanding? Because it is reasonable that a person, who at an adult age is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant, to which he had hitherto been a stranger, should first learn the conditions of it; but this is not necessary in the case of an infant, who, by hereditary right, according to the form of the promise, is already included in the covenant from its very birth. Or, to express it with greater clearness and brevity, if the children of believers, without the aid of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be excluded from the sign because they are not capable of expressing their consent to the stipulation of the covenant. This is evidently the reason why God sometimes declares the children descended from the Israelites to be born to himself;[1206] for he undoubtedly considers as his children, the children of those to whose seed he has promised to be a Father. But he who is an unbeliever, descended from impious parents, is accounted an alien from the communion of the covenant, till he be united to God by faith. It is no wonder, therefore, if he be not a partaker of the sign, the signification of which in him would be delusive and vain. In this sense Paul tells the Ephesians, that as long as they were immersed in idolatry, they were “strangers from the covenant.”[1207] The whole of the subject, if I mistake not, may be clearly and summarily stated in the following position; that persons of adult age, who embrace the Christian religion, having been hitherto aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without the intervention of faith and repentance, which alone can give them an admission to the fellowship of the covenant; but that the infant children of Christian parents, being admitted by God to the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are born, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this must be referred what is related by the evangelists, that the people “were baptized of John, confessing their sins”[1208]—an example which we think ought to be followed in the present day. For if a Turk or heathen were to offer himself to baptism, we would not hastily admit him to that sacrament, without his having first made a confession to the satisfaction of the Church.

XXV. Moreover, they adduce the language of Christ, which is recorded by John, and which they suppose to represent a present regeneration as requisite to baptism; “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”[1209] See, they say, how baptism is called _regeneration_ by the mouth of the Lord. When it is evident, then, that infants are utterly incapable of regeneration, on what pretence do we admit them to baptism, to which regeneration is indispensably necessary? In the first place, they are deceived in supposing that this passage refers to baptism, because it mentions water. For, after Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of nature, and shown him the necessity of being born again,—because Nicodemus was dreaming of a second corporeal birth, he here indicates the manner in which God regenerates us, namely, by water and by the Spirit; as if he had said, by the Spirit who, in the ablution and purification of the souls of believers, performs the office of water. I therefore understand by “water and the Spirit,” simply, the Spirit who is water. Nor is this a novel mode of expression; for it perfectly corresponds with that declaration of John the Baptist, “He that cometh after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”[1210] As _to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire_, therefore, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so _to be born of water and of the Spirit_ is no other than to receive that influence of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does on the body. I know that others give a different interpretation, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine sense; because the intention of Christ is simply to teach that all must be divested of their own nature, who aspire to the kingdom of heaven. However, if we were desirous of imitating their cavils, it would be easy for us, granting what they require, to retort upon them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, because, in the words of Christ, water is mentioned before the Spirit. It is certain that this phrase denotes spiritual gifts; and, if these follow baptism, I have established what I wish. But, leaving all subterfuges, let us adhere to the simple interpretation which I have proposed—that no one, till he is renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter into the kingdom of God.

XXVI. It is further evident that their notion ought to be exploded, because it adjudges all unbaptized persons to eternal death. Let us suppose their tenet to be admitted, and baptism to be administered to adults alone; what will they say will become of a youth who is rightly instructed in the first principles of piety, if he desires to be baptized, but, contrary to the expectation of all around, happens to be snatched away by sudden death? The Lord’s promise is clear: “Whosoever believeth on the Son, shall not come into condemnation;” but “is passed from death unto life.”[1211] We are nowhere informed of his having condemned one who had yet not been baptized. By this I would not be understood as implying that baptism may be despised with impunity; for, so far from attempting to excuse such contempt, I affirm it to be a violation of the covenant of the Lord; I only mean to evince that it is not so necessary, as that a person, who is deprived of the opportunity of embracing it, must immediately be considered as lost. But if we assent to their notion, we shall condemn all, without exception, whom any circumstance whatever prevents from being baptized, whatever faith they may otherwise have, even that faith by which Christ himself is enjoyed. Moreover, they sentence all infants to eternal death, by denying them baptism, which, according to their own confession, is necessary to salvation. Let them see, now, how well they agree with the language of Christ, which adjudges the kingdom of heaven to little children. But though we should grant them every thing they contend for relative to the sense of this passage, still they will gain no advantage from it, unless they first overturn the doctrine which we have already established respecting the regeneration of infants.

XXVII. But the strongest argument of all in favour of their opinion, they boast, is contained in the original institution of baptism, which they quote from the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending forth his disciples to all nations, gave them a commission, first to teach, and then to baptize. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”[1212] Then, from the last chapter of Mark, they add, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1213] What more do we require, say they, when the language of our Lord clearly expresses that teaching ought to precede baptism, and represents baptism as subsequent to faith? Of this order, an example was furnished even by the Lord Jesus himself who was not baptized till he was “about thirty years of age.”[1214] In what various ways do they embarrass themselves, and betray their ignorance! For it is a mistake, worse than childish, to consider that commission as the original institution of baptism, which Christ had commanded his apostles to administer from the commencement of his preaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law and rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if they contained the first institution of it. Though we should indulge them by admitting this error, yet what force is there in their reasoning? Indeed, if we wanted to evade the force of their arguments, we need not have recourse to any little subterfuge; a most ample field presents itself before us. For while they so violently insist on the order of the words, as to argue, that, when it is said, “Go teach and baptize,” and “he that believeth and is baptized,” the meaning is, that preaching ought to precede baptism, and that faith ought to precede the reception of baptism,—why may not we, on the other hand, reply, that baptizing ought to precede teaching the observance of those things which Christ has commanded, because it is said, “Baptize, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” We have remarked the same thing on the declaration of Christ, which has just been quoted, respecting the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; for if it be understood according to their interpretation, it will appear from that passage that baptism is prior to regeneration, because it is mentioned first: Christ teaches that we must be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

XXVIII. Their invincible bulwark, in which they place such great confidence, seems already somewhat shaken; but as the truth may be sufficiently defended by simplicity, I have no inclination to escape with such sophistical and trivial arguments; they shall therefore have a solid reply. The principal command which Christ here gives to his apostles, is to preach the gospel, to which he subjoins the administration of baptism as an appendage. Besides, he says nothing of baptism, any otherwise than as its administration is subordinate to the office of teaching. For Christ sends his apostles to promulgate the gospel to all the nations of the world, that by the doctrine of salvation they may collect, from every land, men who before were lost, and introduce them into his kingdom. But what men, or men of what description? It is certain that there is no mention of any, but those who are capable of receiving instruction. He afterwards adds, that such persons, when they have been instructed, are to be baptized, and subjoins a promise: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Is there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting infants? What kind of argumentation, then, is that with which they assail us? Persons of _adult_ age are to be instructed, in order that they may believe before they are to be baptized; _therefore_ it is unlawful to administer baptism to _infants_. It will be impossible for them, with all their ingenuity, to prove any thing from this passage, except that the gospel is first to be preached to those who are capable of hearing it, before they are baptized; for it relates to no others. Let them raise an obstacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants from baptism.

XXIX. But to render their fallacies still more palpable, I will show the absurdity of them by a very plain similitude. The apostle says, “that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”[1215] Now, if any man should pretend to infer from this, that infants ought to be deprived of food, would he not deserve universal contempt? Why so? Because it would be a perverse application to all men, indiscriminately, of what was spoken of men of a certain class and a certain age. Nor is there any greater propriety in their reasoning in the present case. For what every one sees to belong exclusively to persons of adult age, they apply to infants, in order to make them subject to a rule, which was only prescribed for persons of riper years. The example of Christ is far from affording any support to their cause. He was not baptized till he was “about thirty years of age.” That is true indeed; but the reason is obvious; because he then intended to lay a solid foundation for baptism by his preaching, or rather to establish that which had a little before been laid by John. Intending, therefore, to institute baptism in his doctrine, in order to conciliate the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own body, and that at the point of time which he knew to be most proper, namely, when he was about to commence his ministry. In short, they can prove nothing else from this circumstance, except that baptism derived its origin and commencement from the preaching of the gospel. If they approve of fixing the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit every one to baptism as soon as he is, in their judgment, sufficiently qualified for it? And even Servetus, one of their leaders, though he pertinaciously insisted on this age, yet began to boast of being a prophet himself when he had only attained his twenty-first year. As though it ought to be tolerated for a man to arrogate the office of a teacher in the Church before he is a member of it.

XXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason why infants should be admitted to baptism than to the Lord’s supper, which, however, is not administered to them. As though the Scriptures did not make a considerable difference between the two cases in every respect. Infant communion was practised, indeed, in the ancient Church, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine; but the custom has very properly been discontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of baptism, we find it to be an entrance or initiation into the Church, by which we are enrolled among the people of God—a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are born again as the children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the supper is appointed for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat. This difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture; in which, as far as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of age, whereas he does not present the supper to the participation of all alike, but only to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord’s death, and considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer than what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation? “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”[1216] It must, therefore, be preceded by examination, which would in vain be expected from infants. Again: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”[1217] If no persons can be worthy partakers of it, except those who can truly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ, why should we give to our tender infants poison instead of salutary food? What is that precept of the Lord, “This do in remembrance of me?”[1218] What is the inference which the apostle deduces from it? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.”[1219] What remembrance, I ask, shall we require from infants of that event, of which they have never attained any knowledge? What preaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their minds are not yet capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is prescribed in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there is a considerable difference; such as we observe, also, between similar signs under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism, was destined for infants. The passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification. If our opponents had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against a thing so clear and obvious?

XXXI. Though I am sorry to burden my readers with such an accumulation of reveries, yet it will be worth while to refute the specious arguments adduced in this controversy by Servetus, one of the most eminent of the Anabaptists, and even the chief glory of that sect. 1. He pretends that the symbols appointed by Christ, as they are perfect, require also those who receive them to be perfect, or persons capable of perfection. But the answer is easy—that the perfection of baptism reaches even unto death, and cannot with propriety be restricted to one instant of time. I observe, also, that it is foolish to expect a man on the first day to attain perfection, towards which baptism invites us to proceed, by continual advances, as long as we live. 2. He objects, that the symbols of Christ were instituted as memorials, that every one may remember that he has been buried with Christ. I answer, that what he has framed from his own head requires no refutation; and that he applies to baptism what the language of Paul shows to be peculiar to the sacred supper, namely, that every one should examine himself; but that nothing like this is any where said of baptism; from which we conclude, that though, by reason of their age, infants are not capable of examination, it is nevertheless right to baptize them. 3. He adduces the declaration of Christ, that “he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him;”[1220] and concludes that infants, who are incapable of believing, remain in their condemnation. I answer, that in this passage Christ is not speaking of the general guilt in which all the descendants of Adam are involved, but only threatening the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and obstinately reject the grace which is offered to them; and this has nothing to do with infants. I likewise oppose a contrary argument; all those whom Christ blesses are exempted from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God; and as it is known that infants were blessed by him, it follows that they are exempted from death. He falsely alleges, as a passage of Scripture, that “whosoever is born of the Spirit heareth the voice of the Spirit;” which, though we were to admit as a genuine text, yet he could infer nothing more from it, than that believers are formed to obedience as the Spirit operates within them. But that which is affirmed of a certain number, it is wrong to apply equally to all. 4. He objects, that because “that is first which is natural,”[1221] we ought to wait the proper time for baptism, which is spiritual. Now, though I grant that all the descendants of Adam, being carnal, bring their condemnation into the world with them, yet I deny that this is any impediment to the communication of a remedy, as soon as ever God is pleased to impart it. For Servetus can show no Divine appointment, that many years shall elapse before the newness of spiritual life can begin; for according to the testimony of Paul, though the infant children of believers are in a ruined condition by nature, yet they are sanctified by supernatural grace.[1222] 5. He next produces an allegory, that when David went up to the fortress of Zion, he took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but hardy soldiers.[1223] And what if I oppose him with a parable, in which God invites the blind and the lame to the celestial feast?[1224] how will he extricate himself from this difficulty? I ask, also, whether the blind and the lame had not previously served as soldiers with David. But it is useless to insist longer on this argument, which the readers will discover from the sacred history to be founded on mere falsehood. 6. Then follows another allegory, that the apostles were “fishers of men,”[1225] not of infants. I ask, what is the meaning of that declaration of Christ, that “the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind?”[1226] But as I am not fond of allegorical trifling, I answer, that when the apostles were appointed to the office of teaching, they were not forbidden to baptize infants. I would further wish to be informed, since the evangelist uses the word ανθρωπους, (a word which comprehends all the human race, without any exception,) why infants should be denied to be ανθρωπους, (human beings.) 7. He pretends, that as spiritual things belong to spiritual persons,[1227] infants who are not spiritual are not fit subjects of baptism. But here it is evident that he is guilty of a gross perversion of that passage of Paul, the subject of which relates to doctrine. When the Corinthians discovered too much complacency in a vain subtlety, the apostle reproved their stupidity, because they still required to be taught the first principles of Christian doctrine. Who can infer from this, that baptism ought to be denied to infants, whom, though they are born of the flesh, yet God consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? 8. He objects, that if they are new men, they ought to be fed with spiritual food. The answer is easy—that they are admitted into the flock of Christ by baptism, and that the symbol of that adoption is sufficient for them, till they grow to an age capable of bearing solid food; and that it is therefore necessary to wait for the time of that examination, which God expressly requires in the sacred supper. 9. He next objects, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred supper. I answer, it is sufficiently clear that he admits none but such as are already prepared to celebrate the remembrance of his death. Whence it follows, that infants, whom he condescended to take into his arms, remain in a distinct and peculiar class, till they grow to riper years, and yet that they are not strangers to the Church. To this he objects, that it is a monstrous thing for a person that is born, not to eat. I reply, that the external participation of the supper is not the only way in which souls are fed; and therefore that Christ is food to infants, notwithstanding they abstain from the sign; but that the case of baptism is different, by which alone they are admitted into the Church. He further objects, that “a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, giveth them meat in due season.”[1228] This I readily grant; but by what authority will he determine the time of baptism for us, so as to prove that it is not administered to infants at a proper time? 10. He likewise adduces the command of Christ to his apostles, to hasten to the harvest, while the fields are whitening.[1229] The sole design of Christ on that occasion was to stimulate the apostles, that, seeing the present fruit of their labours, they might exert themselves in their ministry with the greater cheerfulness. Who can infer from this that the time of harvest is the only time proper for baptism? 11. His next argument is, that in the primitive Church Christians and disciples were the same persons.[1230] But here we see that he injudiciously reasons from a part to the whole. The appellation of disciples was given to persons of adult age, who had been already instructed, and had made a profession of Christianity; just as the Jews under the law were the disciples of Moses; yet no one can justly infer from this, that infants were strangers, God having declared them to be part of his family. 12. Moreover he alleges, that all Christians are brethren, but that we treat infants as not of that number, as long as we exclude them from the Lord’s supper. But I return to that principle, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven, except those who are members of Christ; and that the embrace with which he honoured infants was a true pledge of the adoption, by which they are united with adults, and that their temporary abstinence from the supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief who was converted on the cross was a brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord’s supper at all. 13. He proceeds to assert, that no person becomes our brother but by the spirit of adoption communicated “by the hearing of faith.”[1231] I reply, that he is constantly reverting to the same false reasoning, by a preposterous application to infants of that which is spoken exclusively of adults. Paul is there showing that the ordinary method which God uses in calling his elect, and bringing them to the faith, is to raise them up faithful teachers, by whose labours and instructions he extends his assistance to them. But who will dare to impose a law to prevent his ingrafting infants into Christ by some other secret method? 14. He objects, that Cornelius was baptized after he had received the Holy Ghost.[1232] But the absurdity of attempting to extract a general rule from this one example, is evident from the cases of the eunuch and the Samaritans,[1233] in whom the Lord observed a different order, for their baptism preceded their reception of the gifts of the Spirit. 15. His next argument is worse than absurd; he says, that by regeneration we are made gods;[1234] but that they are gods to whom the word of God comes,[1235] which is not applicable to infants. The ascription of deity to believers is one of his reveries, which it is irrelevant to our present subject to discuss; but to pervert that quotation from the Psalms to a sense so remote from its genuine meaning, betrays the most monstrous impudence. Christ says that the appellation of _gods_ is given by the prophet to kings and magistrates, because they sustain an office of Divine appointment. But that which is directed to certain individuals respecting the particular charge of governors, this dexterous interpreter applies to the doctrine of the gospel, in order to exclude infants from the Church. 16. He objects, again, that infants cannot be accounted new creatures, because they are not begotten by the word. I must again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine of the gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who are capable of understanding it; but that where, by reason of age, there is not yet any capacity of learning, God has his different degrees of regenerating those whom he has adopted. 17. Then he returns to his allegories, and alleges that sheep and goats were not offered in sacrifice immediately after they were brought forth.[1236] If I approved of the application of figures to this subject, I might easily retort, that all the first born immediately on their birth are consecrated to the Lord,[1237] and that a lamb was to be sacrificed in its first year; whence it should follow, that it is not at all necessary to wait for many years, but that our children ought to be dedicated to God in their earliest infancy. 18. He further contends, that none can come to Christ but those who have been prepared by John; as though the office of John had not been a temporary one. But to pass over this; the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed, had certainly no such preparation. Wherefore let him depart with his false principle. 19. At length he calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to show that sacred ablutions are not suitable to any but adults. See what honourable sentiments he entertains respecting the baptism of Christ, which he would conform to the profane rites of the heathen, that its administration might be regulated by the pleasure of Trismegistus. But we have more reverence for the authority of God, who has been pleased to consecrate infants to himself, and to initiate them by a sacred sign, the meaning of which they were too young to be able to understand. Nor do we esteem it lawful to borrow from the ablutions of the heathen any thing that may introduce into our baptism the least change of that eternal and inviolable law which God has established respecting circumcision. 20. In the last place, he argues, that if it be lawful to baptize infants without understanding, baptism may be, in mimicry and jest, administered by boys in play. But he must contest this subject with God, by whose command circumcision was performed upon infants, before they had attained any understanding. Was it a ludicrous ceremony, then, or a fit subject for the sports of children, that they could overturn the sacred institution of God? But it is no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if transported with frenzy, bring forward the most enormous absurdities in defence of their errors; for such delusion is the just judgment of God upon their pride and obstinacy. And I trust I have clearly shown the futility of all the arguments with which Servetus has endeavoured to assist the cause of his Anabaptist brethren.

XXXII. No doubt, I conceive, can now remain in the mind of any sober man, that those who raise controversies and contentions on the subject of infant baptism are presumptuous disturbers of the Church of Christ. But it is worth while to notice the object which Satan aims at promoting by so much subtlety; which is, to deprive us of the peculiar benefit of confidence and spiritual joy, which is to be derived from this source, and in the same degree also to diminish the glory of the Divine goodness. For how delightful is it to pious minds, not only to have verbal assurances, but even ocular proof, of their standing so high in the favour of their heavenly Father, that their posterity are also the objects of his care! For here we see how he sustains the character of a most provident Father to us, since he discontinues not his solicitude for us even after our death, but regards and provides for our children. Ought we not, then, after the example of David, to exult in praise and thanksgiving to God with our whole heart, that his name may be glorified by such an expression of his goodness? This is evidently the reason why Satan makes such great exertions in opposition to infant baptism; that the removal of this testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise which it exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and at length to be forgotten. The consequence of this would be, an impious ingratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence of the instruction of our children in the principles of piety. For it is no small stimulus to our education of them in the serious fear of God, and the observance of his law, to reflect, that they are considered and acknowledged by him as his children as soon as they are born. Wherefore, unless we are obstinately determined to obscure the goodness of God, let us present to him our children, to whom he assigns a place in his family, that is, among the members of his Church.

Footnote 1165:

Gen. xvii. 1-14.

Footnote 1166:

Matt. xxii. 32. Luke xx. 37, 38.

Footnote 1167:

Ephes. ii. 12.

Footnote 1168:

Deut. x. 16.

Footnote 1169:

Deut. xxx. 6.

Footnote 1170:

Rom. xii. 3, 6.

Footnote 1171:

Matt. xix 13-15. Mark x 13-16. Luke xviii. 15-17.

Footnote 1172:

Col. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1173:

Matt. viii. 11. Luke xiii. 29.

Footnote 1174:

Exod. xix. 5. Deut. vii. 6.

Footnote 1175:

Rom. iv. 9-12.

Footnote 1176:

Eph. ii. 14.

Footnote 1177:

Rom. ix. 7, 8.

Footnote 1178:

Rom. xi. 29.

Footnote 1179:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1180:

Rom. xv. 8.

Footnote 1181:

Acts ii. 39.

Footnote 1182:

Acts iii. 25.

Footnote 1183:

Eph. i. 11, 12.

Footnote 1184:

Exod. xx. 6.

Footnote 1185:

Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 1186:

1 Cor. xv. 22.

Footnote 1187:

Eph. ii. 3.

Footnote 1188:

Psalm li. 5.

Footnote 1189:

1 Cor. xv. 50.

Footnote 1190:

John xi. 25; xiv. 6.

Footnote 1191:

Rev. xxi. 27.

Footnote 1192:

John iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 1193:

Luke i. 15.

Footnote 1194:

1 Peter i. 23.

Footnote 1195:

Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 1196:

Deut. i. 39.

Footnote 1197:

Jer. iv. 4. Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1198:

Titus iii. 5.

Footnote 1199:

Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.

Footnote 1200:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1201:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1202:

Ephes. v. 26.

Footnote 1203:

1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1204:

Acts ii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1205:

Acts viii. 37.

Footnote 1206:

Ezek. xvi. 20; xxiii. 37.

Footnote 1207:

Eph. ii. 12.

Footnote 1208:

Matt. iii. 6.

Footnote 1209:

John iii. 5.

Footnote 1210:

Matt. iii. 11.

Footnote 1211:

John iii. 18; v. 24.

Footnote 1212:

Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1213:

Mark xvi. 16.

Footnote 1214:

Luke iii. 23.

Footnote 1215:

2 Thess. iii. 10.

Footnote 1216:

1 Cor. xi. 28.

Footnote 1217:

1 Cor. xi. 29.

Footnote 1218:

1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

Footnote 1219:

1 Cor xi. 26.

Footnote 1220:

John iii. 36.

Footnote 1221:

1 Cor. xv. 46.

Footnote 1222:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1223:

2 Sam. v. 6-8.

Footnote 1224:

Luke xiv. 21.

Footnote 1225:

Matt. iv. 19.

Footnote 1226:

Matt. xiii. 47.

Footnote 1227:

1 Cor. ii. 13.

Footnote 1228:

Matt. xxiv. 45.

Footnote 1229:

John iv. 35-38.

Footnote 1230:

Acts xi. 26.

Footnote 1231:

Gal. iii. 2.

Footnote 1232:

Acts x. 44-48.

Footnote 1233:

Acts viii. 16, 17, 26, &c.

Footnote 1234:

2 Peter i. 4.

Footnote 1235:

John x. 35. Psalm lxxxii. 6.

Footnote 1236:

Exod. xii. 5.

Footnote 1237:

Exod. xiii. 12. Numb. viii. 17.