CHAPTER ELEVEN: The Significance of Baptism (part 2 of 2)
For this reason, the gospel had to be presented to them first, as to the firstborn children in the Lord’s household, to whom this privilege was due until they refused it. Even now we must not despise them, whatever rebellion we see in them, but should hope that the Lord’s goodness still rests upon them because of the promise. For Saint Paul testifies that it will never depart from them, saying that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance or change.
Such is the force of the promise given to Abraham concerning his descendants. Therefore, although the Lord’s election alone rules in this matter, distinguishing the heirs of the heavenly kingdom from those who have no share in it, this gracious God nevertheless chose to place his mercy particularly upon Abraham’s offspring and to testify and seal it by circumcision.
The same principle now applies among Christians. For just as Saint Paul says in that passage that the Jews are sanctified by their root and origin, so elsewhere he affirms that the children of Christians are now sanctified through their parents. They must therefore be separated from others who remain unclean.
From this we may easily judge that their next assertion is false: that the infants who were circumcised merely prefigured the spiritual children regenerated by the Word of God. Saint Paul did not raise the matter to such an allegorical level when he wrote that Jesus Christ became a minister to the Jewish nation in order to confirm the promises made to their fathers. It is as though he had said: Since the promises given to Abraham and the fathers concern their offspring, Jesus Christ came to bring that nation to salvation and thus fulfill the truth of his Father.
Thus, even after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Saint Paul understands the promise as still requiring literal fulfillment. Saint Peter says the same in the second chapter of Acts, declaring to the Jews that the promise belongs to them and to their children. In the third chapter, he calls them children—that is, heirs—of the covenants, still referring to this same promise.
This is also plainly shown by the passage from Saint Paul cited above. For he presents circumcision, which was given to young infants, as a testimony of spiritual communion with Christ. Indeed, what answer could be given to the promise the Lord makes to his believers in his Law, declaring that for their sake he will show mercy to their children for a thousand generations?
Shall we say that this promise has been abolished? That would be to destroy the Law of God, which is instead established by Christ insofar as it works for our good and salvation.
The other differences they attempt to establish between circumcision and baptism are altogether ridiculous, irrelevant, and even mutually contradictory. For after affirming that baptism belongs to the first day of the Christian warfare, while circumcision belongs to the eighth day, after mortification has been fully accomplished, they immediately say that circumcision signifies the mortification of sin, whereas baptism is our burial after we have died to it.
Even a madman would not contradict himself so openly. According to the first assertion, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the second, one might conclude that it ought to follow it. Yet we should not be surprised at such inconsistency. For when the human mind devotes itself to inventing fables and dreamlike imaginations, it is prone to stumble into such absurdities.
We therefore say that the first of these two supposed distinctions is sheer fantasy. The eighth day must not be allegorized in this manner. It would be far better to explain it with the ancients as signifying that renewal of life depends upon the resurrection of Christ, which occurred on the eighth day; or that this circumcision of the heart must continue throughout the whole course of this life.
Yet it appears more likely that in appointing this day our Lord had regard to the frailty of infants. For since he willed his covenant to be imprinted upon their bodies, it is reasonable to suppose that he appointed this interval so that they might first be sufficiently strengthened and their lives not endangered by it.
Their second distinction is no more certain or substantial. To say that by baptism we are buried after mortification is mere mockery. Rather, we are buried in order to be mortified, as Scripture teaches.
Finally, they allege that if we take circumcision as the foundation for baptism, girls ought not to be baptized, since only males were circumcised. But if they properly considered the meaning of circumcision, they would abandon this frivolous argument. For since by this sign the Lord demonstrated the sanctification of Israel’s offspring, it is certain that it applied to females as well as males. It was not physically administered to females only because their nature did not permit it. Therefore, when the Lord commanded the male to be circumcised, he included the female under him. Since she could not receive circumcision in her own body, she nevertheless shared in the circumcision of the male.
Thus, setting aside and rejecting all these foolish fantasies as they deserve, we still retain the correspondence between baptism and circumcision with respect to the inward mystery, the promises, the use, and the efficacy.
They next contend that baptism ought not to be administered to infants because they are not yet capable of the mystery represented in it. For baptism, as is evident, signifies spiritual regeneration, which they claim cannot exist at such an age. They therefore conclude that infants must be left as children of Adam until they have grown sufficiently to attain the second birth.
All this wickedly contradicts the truth of God. For if they must be left as children of Adam, then they are left in death, since it is said that in Adam we can do nothing but die. On the contrary, Jesus Christ commands that they be allowed to approach him. Why? Because he is life. He therefore wills to make them partakers of himself in order to give them life; yet these men contend against his will, declaring that they must remain in death.
If they attempt to evade the matter by saying that they do not mean infants perish merely because they remain children of Adam, their error is sufficiently refuted by Scripture, which says that in Adam we are all dead and have no hope of life except through Christ. We must therefore have a share in him in order to be made heirs of life.
Likewise, it is said elsewhere that by nature we are all under the wrath of God and conceived in sin, which always carries condemnation with it. It follows that we must pass beyond our natural condition in order to partake of the kingdom of God. Could anything be stated more plainly than this?
“Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Therefore, everything that belongs to us by nature must be abolished if we are to be made heirs of God, and this cannot occur without regeneration. In sum, the word of Jesus Christ must remain true when he affirms that he is life. We must therefore be in him if we are to escape the bondage of death.
But they ask: How can infants be regenerated when they have no knowledge of good or evil? We reply that although God’s work is hidden and incomprehensible to us, it does not therefore cease to be accomplished. Now it is plainly evident that the Lord regenerates those infants whom he wills to save, since it is certain that he saves some of them. For if they are born in corruption, they must be cleansed from it before entering the heavenly kingdom, into which nothing defiled can enter. If they are born sinners, as David and Saint Paul testify, they must be justified in order to be acceptable to God.
Why do we question the matter further when our Lord tells us that we must all be born again to enter his kingdom? And to silence those who murmur against this, he demonstrated in Saint John the Baptist what he is able to do in others when he sanctified him from his mother’s womb.
Nor should this objection be admitted: that because this occurred once, it does not follow that it always occurs. We do not argue in that manner. We intend only to show that they unjustly restrict the power of God toward infants—a power he has once openly demonstrated.
Their other evasion is equally foolish when they allege that Scripture uses the expression from the mother’s womb to mean from youth. For it is clear that the angel, in speaking to Zechariah, intended to affirm that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb. The Lord will therefore sanctify whomever he pleases, just as he sanctified Saint John, since his hand has not been shortened.
Indeed, for this reason Jesus Christ was sanctified in his infancy, so that every stage of life might be sanctified in him according to his gracious purpose. For he assumed our own flesh and a body altogether like ours, except for sin, in order to make satisfaction in the very flesh in which the offense had been committed; to fulfill all righteousness and perfect obedience in the nature he intended to save; and also to be more inclined to bear with us in compassionate tenderness. Likewise, he was fully sanctified in his humanity from his conception so that, by participation in him, even infants might be sanctified.
Both truths are sufficiently testified in Scripture. As to the first, he is called the offspring of Abraham and the fruit of David’s body, and also the Son of both, because he descended from their lineage and posterity. Thus Saint Paul says that according to the flesh he came from the Jews. Elsewhere it is said that he did not take upon himself the nature of angels, but Abraham’s offspring. The reason is then given: that he might in every respect be like us, except for sin. There can therefore be no doubt that in our own flesh and true humanity he accomplished everything belonging to our redemption.
As to the second point, we know that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit so that his humanity might be sanctified in all fullness and the fruit of his sanctification poured out upon us. Now, if Jesus is the pattern and model of all the graces the Lord bestows upon his children, he may also be an example to us in this respect: that God’s hand is no less powerful toward infants than toward those of any other age.
However that may be, we must necessarily conclude that the Lord removes none of his elect from this world without first sanctifying and regenerating them by his Spirit.
They object that the truth recognizes no regeneration except that which is accomplished by the incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God. We reply that they misunderstand Saint Peter’s statement. In saying this, he addresses only those who had been instructed in the gospel. For such persons the Word of God is always the seed of spiritual regeneration. But it cannot be inferred from this that infants may not be regenerated by the Lord’s power—a work hidden and secret from us, but easy and effortless for him.
Furthermore, it is altogether uncertain and unwarranted to affirm that the Lord cannot reveal himself to them in some manner. They ask: How could this occur, since faith comes by hearing, as Saint Paul says, and infants possess no discernment of good and evil? But they fail to observe that Saint Paul is speaking only of the ordinary manner in which the Lord works to give faith to his people, not that he is unable to work by another means. Indeed, he has done so in many whom he inwardly touched and drew to the knowledge of his name without ever causing them to hear any spoken word.
And because they imagine that this contradicts the nature of infants, who, according to Moses, do not yet possess discernment between good and evil, I ask them why they seek to restrict God’s power, as though he could not accomplish in infants partly what he will accomplish in them perfectly.
For if the fullness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, then, since the Lord preserves unto salvation some who depart this world as infants, it is certain that they will receive the full revelation of God. Since, therefore, they will possess it perfectly in the life to come, why could they not receive some small taste of it here?
We do not mean to affirm that infants possess faith, since we do not know how God works within them. Our purpose is rather to expose the rashness and presumption of these people, who according to their foolish imagination affirm or deny whatever pleases them, without any regard for all the reasons that may be brought against them.
But they press the matter still further, saying that baptism is the sacrament of repentance and faith, as Scripture teaches us. Since repentance and faith cannot exist in an infant, it is therefore inappropriate to administer the sacrament to infants, because by doing so its meaning is rendered empty.
These arguments contend more against God’s ordinance than against us. For it is evident from many testimonies of Scripture—especially from the fourth chapter of Jeremiah—that circumcision was a sign of repentance. Saint Paul also calls it the sacrament of the righteousness of faith. Let them ask God why he caused it to be administered to infants. For since the same principle applies to both sacraments, if there was nothing unreasonable in administering circumcision to infants, neither is there anything improper in administering baptism to them.
If they seek refuge in their customary evasion—that infants represented the true children who are regenerated—that defense has already been taken from them. We therefore say this: since our Lord willed circumcision, although it was the sacrament of faith and repentance, to be administered to infants, there is no impropriety in administering baptism to them—unless these slanderers wish to accuse God for having made such an ordinance. But the truth, wisdom, and justice of God shine so clearly in all his works as to confound their folly, falsehood, and wickedness.
For although infants did not then comprehend what circumcision signified, they were nevertheless circumcised in the flesh as a sign of the inward mortification of their corrupt nature, which they were to meditate upon and pursue when their age permitted, having been instructed in it from their earliest years.
By this same reasoning we may answer the passages they cite concerning the meaning of baptism. For example, from Saint Paul’s calling it the washing of regeneration and renewal, they contend that it ought to be administered only to those capable of being regenerated and renewed. But we will always reply: circumcision is a sign of regeneration and renewal; therefore, it ought to be administered only to those who are already partakers of them. Thus, according to their argument, God’s ordinance commanding the circumcision of infants would have been foolish and unreasonable.
Therefore, no arguments that apply equally against circumcision should be admitted as objections against baptism. Nor can they evade the matter by alleging that whatever the Lord has instituted must simply be accepted as good and holy without further inquiry, whereas such reverence is not due to things he has not expressly commanded. For we need only answer this question: Did God institute circumcision for infants for good reason, or did he not?
If circumcision was rightly instituted, so that no absurdity can be alleged against it, then the same is true of baptism. We therefore answer their argument in this way.
Infants receive the sign of regeneration and renewal. If they depart this world before reaching the age of understanding, then, if they are among the Lord’s elect, they are regenerated and renewed by his Spirit as he sees fit, according to a power hidden and incomprehensible to us. If they live to an age at which they can be instructed in the doctrine of baptism, they will learn that throughout their whole lives they ought to do nothing but pursue this regeneration, whose mark they have borne from infancy.
In the same way we must understand Saint Paul’s teaching in the sixth chapter of Romans and the second chapter of Colossians, that by baptism we are buried with Christ. In saying these things, he does not mean that they must precede baptism. He merely teaches what the doctrine of baptism is, which may be taught and learned after baptism has been received just as well as before. In the same way, Moses and the Prophets taught the people of Israel that circumcision signified the same reality, although they had been circumcised when young.
Therefore, if they wish to conclude that everything represented in baptism must precede baptism itself, their error is exceedingly gross —especially since these things were written to persons who had already been baptized. The same must be said of Saint Paul’s words to the Galatians, that all of us who have been baptized have put on Jesus Christ. This is true—but to what end? So that henceforth we may live in him, not because we had already lived in him beforehand.
And although adults must not receive the sign until they first possess some understanding of the reality signified, the case of infants is different, as will be explained elsewhere. All such arguments, therefore, when handled in this manner, are nothing but corruptions of Scripture, as anyone may see.
We will deal briefly with their remaining arguments, which may be resolved without great difficulty. They allege that baptism is the forgiveness of our sins, in which they greatly err. For what then would become of the blood of Jesus Christ, in which alone we possess full and complete cleansing?
But let us pardon this error, which is common among them, and give their argument a stronger appearance by framing it according to Scripture: baptism is a testimony of the forgiveness of our sins. This we grant. But we say that for this very reason it belongs to infants. For since they are sinners, they need pardon and the forgiveness of their defilements. Now, since the Lord testifies that he wills to show mercy to those of this age, why should we refuse them the sign, which is less than the reality itself? We therefore turn their argument back against them.
Baptism is the sign of the forgiveness of sins. Infants receive the forgiveness of their sins. Therefore, the sign, which ought to follow the reality, is rightly administered to them.
They bring forward what is written in the fifth chapter of Ephesians: that our Lord cleansed his Church by the washing of water with the Word of life. Yet this passage also works against them. For from it we reason as follows: if our Lord wills the cleansing of his Church to be testified and confirmed by the sign of baptism, and infants belong to the Church—since they are numbered among God’s people and belong to the kingdom of heaven—it follows that they ought to receive the testimony of their cleansing along with the rest of the Church. For when Saint Paul says that our Lord cleansed his Church by baptism, he comprehends the whole Church generally, without exception.
We may draw the same conclusion from their appeal to the twelfth chapter of Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, that through baptism we are incorporated into Christ. For if infants belong to the body of Christ, as is evident from what has been said, it is fitting that they should be baptized and thereby joined to the other members of his body.
See how vigorously they fight against us with so many passages heaped together without sense, relevance, or understanding!
They next attempt to show from the practice recorded in Scripture that only adults are capable of receiving baptism. Saint Peter, they say, when asked by those who wished to turn to our Lord what they ought to do, replied:
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.”
Likewise, when the eunuch asked Saint Philip whether he might be baptized, Philip answered that he might, provided that he believed with all his heart. From this they conclude that baptism is ordained only for those who possess faith and repentance.
But if we are to reason in this manner, the first passage would show that repentance alone is sufficient, since it makes no mention of faith; and the second would show that faith alone is sufficient, since repentance is not required there. They will tell me that the one passage supplements the other and that the two must therefore be joined together in order to understand them properly. Likewise, we say that to reconcile everything properly, the other relevant passages must also be brought together, since the true meaning of Scripture often depends upon the context.
We see, then, that these persons who ask what they must do in order to turn to the Lord are old enough to understand. We do not say that such persons ought to be baptized unless there is first evidence of their faith and repentance, insofar as these can be discerned by men. But infants born to Christians must be placed in a different category.
We do not invent this distinction according to the fancy of our own minds, but possess the certain authority of Scripture for making it. We see that if anyone in former times joined the people of Israel in order to serve the living God, before receiving circumcision he first had to receive the Law and be instructed concerning the covenant our Lord had made with his people. This was because he did not by nature belong to the Jewish nation to which that sacrament belonged.
Indeed, even in dealing with Abraham, the Lord did not begin by commanding him to be circumcised without knowing why. Rather, he instructed him concerning the covenant he intended to confirm by circumcision; and after Abraham believed the promise, the Lord then ordained the sacrament for him.
Why, then, does Abraham receive the sign only after faith, while his son Isaac receives it before understanding anything? Because an adult who does not yet partake of the Lord’s covenant must first know what that covenant is before entering it. But the infant born to him, being heir to the covenant by succession according to the promise made to his father, is rightly capable of receiving the sign without understanding its meaning.
Or, to state it more briefly and clearly: since the child of a believer partakes of God’s covenant without understanding it, he must not be excluded from the sign, but is capable of receiving it without such understanding being required.
For this reason our Lord says that the children born of Israel’s lineage were begotten to him as his own children. He regards himself as the Father of all the children of those to whom he promised that he would be their God and the God of their offspring.
But an unbeliever born of unbelievers remains a stranger to the covenant until he comes to the knowledge of God. It is therefore no wonder that he has no share in the sign, for otherwise he would receive it under false pretenses. Thus Saint Paul says that during the time of their idolatry the Gentiles were without covenant or testament.
The matter now appears sufficiently clear. Adults who wish to turn to our Lord must not be received into baptism without faith and repentance, since this is their only entrance into the covenant that baptism signifies. But the children of Christians, to whom the covenant belongs by inheritance through the power of the promise, are for this reason alone fit to be admitted to baptism.
The same must be said of those who confessed their faults and offenses in order to be baptized by John, since in them we see no other example than the one we ourselves would observe. For if a Jew, Turk, or pagan came to us, we would not administer baptism to him before properly instructing him and receiving such a confession as we considered satisfactory. Yet although Abraham was circumcised only after being instructed, this does not prevent his children after him from being circumcised without instruction until they are capable of receiving it.
But to show further that the nature of baptism is such that it requires a present regeneration, they appeal to the testimony of the third chapter of Saint John:
“Unless a man is born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
See, they say, how our Lord calls baptism regeneration. If, therefore, infants are incapable of being regenerated, how can they be fit to receive baptism, which cannot exist without regeneration?
First, we will not permit them thus to overturn Scripture by their false interpretations. For in this passage the Lord Jesus Christ makes no mention of baptism. Rather, he employs a metaphor and comparison drawn from bodily things in order to represent spiritual and heavenly things under such a figure.
That this is so appears from what he shortly afterward says to Nicodemus, to whom he was speaking: that he had so far spoken to him only of earthly things. For although his subject concerned high and spiritual realities, he nevertheless handled and explained them in a bodily manner, accommodating himself to the other man’s dullness and limited capacity.
Having therefore shown how the natural man, because of what he is, tends toward the earth without aspiring to heaven, Christ means by this regeneration of water and the Spirit that man must lay aside his heaviness and be reformed into a lighter and more refined nature.
Furthermore, it is evident for another reason that their interpretation must not be admitted: it would exclude from the kingdom of God everyone who had not been baptized. Now, suppose their opinion prevailed and infants were not baptized. What would they say about a young child who had been properly instructed in our faith but died before there was an opportunity to baptize him?
Our Lord says:
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life and shall not come into condemnation, but has already passed from death to life.”
Nowhere does he condemn those who have not been baptized. We do not say this in contempt of baptism, as though it might be neglected. We mean only to show that baptism is not so absolutely necessary that a person who was legitimately prevented from receiving it cannot be excused.
According to their interpretation, however, all such persons would be condemned without exception, even though they possessed the faith by which we possess Jesus Christ. Moreover, apart from this, they condemn all infants, since they deny them baptism while declaring baptism necessary to salvation. Let them now reconcile their teaching with Christ’s word, by which the kingdom of heaven is assigned to infants.
And even if we granted everything they demand, their inference would still be false, because it proceeds from the false and foolish assumption that infants cannot be regenerated. The extensive argument already given makes the contrary evident: without regeneration there is no entrance into the kingdom of God, either for infants or adults. Now, since some who die as infants are heirs of the kingdom of God, it necessarily follows that they are first regenerated.
They arm themselves for the same purpose with Saint Peter’s statement:
“Baptism, corresponding to the figure of Noah’s ark, is given for our salvation—not the outward washing away of the defilements of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which comes through faith in the resurrection of Christ.”
If the reality of baptism is a good testimony of the conscience before God, then when this is separated from it, what remains but something empty and worthless? Therefore, if infants cannot possess this good conscience, their baptism is nothing but vanity and smoke.
Here they fall into their constant error of insisting absolutely, without exception, that the reality must precede the sign. We have already refuted this error abundantly. For circumcision, though administered to infants, did not cease to be the sacrament of the righteousness of faith and the sign of repentance and regeneration. If these things had been incompatible, God would not have made such an ordinance. But by teaching us that the substance of circumcision is such, while nevertheless assigning it to infants, he sufficiently shows that, with respect to these things, it was given to them for the future.
Therefore, the present reality we must consider when baptism is given to infants is that it testifies to their salvation by sealing and confirming God’s covenant upon them. The remaining realities signified take effect in them at the time appointed by the Lord for giving them knowledge of these things.
Above all, as their great shield and the principal stronghold of their position, they appeal to what they call the original institution of baptism, which they say was established by the words written at the end of Saint Matthew:
“Go, instruct all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
To this they join the passage from the end of Saint Mark:
“Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
See, they say, how our Lord commands people to be instructed before they are baptized and shows that faith must precede baptism. Indeed, our Lord demonstrated this by his own example, since he was not baptized until he was thirty years old.
At this point they err in many ways. It is an exceedingly evident error to say that baptism was first instituted at that time, since it had been practiced throughout the whole period of Jesus Christ’s preaching. Since baptism must have been instituted before it could be practiced, how can we say that its first institution occurred so long afterward? They therefore strive in vain to take this passage as the original ordinance and thereby restrict the whole doctrine of baptism precisely to it.
But leaving aside this error, let us consider how strong their arguments are. They are not so formidable that we could not easily escape them if we wished to resort to evasions. For they rely so strictly upon the order and arrangement of the words, arguing that instruction must come before baptism and belief before receiving baptism because it is said, “Instruct and baptize,” and, “Whoever believes and is baptized.”
By the same reasoning, we might reply that baptism must come before teaching people to observe what Jesus commanded, since it is said, “Baptizing them, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you.”
And what if their interpretation of the previously cited passage from Saint John were accepted, so that what is said concerning regeneration by water must be understood of baptism? Could we not then prove by the same reasoning that baptism ought to precede spiritual regeneration, since it is named first? For it does not say, “Whoever is regenerated by the Spirit and water,” but “by water and the Spirit.”
Their argument already appears somewhat weakened. Nevertheless, we do not rest our case there, since we have a much more certain and substantial answer with which to defend the truth. The principal command our Lord gives his apostles here is to proclaim the gospel. To this he adds the ministry of baptism as something dependent upon their proper commission and principal charge. Therefore, baptism is discussed here only insofar as it is joined to teaching and preaching, as may be better understood through a fuller explanation.
The Lord, then, sends his apostles to instruct men from every nation upon the earth.
And which men does he mean? It is certain that he means only those capable of receiving instruction. He then says that such persons, after being instructed, ought to be baptized. Continuing his discourse, he says that such persons, believing and being baptized, shall be saved. Is any mention made here of infants, in either passage?
What kind of reasoning, then, is this which they employ? Adults must be instructed and believe before being baptized; therefore, baptism does not belong to infants. Let them strain themselves as much as they please; they can draw nothing more from this passage than that the gospel must be preached to those capable of hearing it before they are baptized, since such persons alone are under discussion. It is therefore a gross perversion of the Lord’s words to use this as a pretext for excluding infants from baptism.
And so that everyone may plainly perceive where their ignorance lies, I will demonstrate it by a comparison. Saint Paul says:
“If anyone will not work, neither let him eat.”
If someone inferred from this that infants should not be fed, would he not deserve the ridicule of the whole world? Why? Because he would be applying universally to everyone what was said only of a particular class of people. Yet these worthy men do nothing less in this matter. For what is said specifically of adults they apply to infants in order to establish a universal rule.
As for the example of our Lord, it cannot support them in any way. He was not baptized until he was thirty years old, but that was because he then intended to begin his preaching and through it to establish baptism, which John had already begun to administer. Wishing, therefore, to institute baptism within his doctrine, he first sanctified it in his own body at the beginning of his ministry in order to give it greater authority.
They likewise attempt to support themselves with the example recorded in the nineteenth chapter of Acts: that Saint Paul rebaptized certain disciples at Ephesus who had already received John’s baptism because they had not been sufficiently instructed concerning the Holy Spirit. From this they attempt to show that if the first baptism of those disciples was invalid because of their ignorance, then much more must the baptism of infants, who lack all understanding, be regarded as void.
But if their interpretation were correct, each of us would require a river in which to be rebaptized. For who among us does not recognize within himself, from day to day, gross and grievous ignorance? At every such discovery we would have to run to receive a new baptism, as though the first were of no importance.
Setting aside these thoroughly ridiculous absurdities, let us seek the true meaning of the passage. Some explain the statement that Saint Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus as signifying nothing more than instruction. Although this interpretation accords with Scriptural usage, I will offer another more fitting one, which I trust may be clearly established to everyone.
It is nothing new in Scripture for the reception of the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, such as were given at that time, to be called baptism. Thus it is said that the Lord baptized his apostles when he sent his Spirit upon them and conferred these graces.
According to the account, Saint Paul asks these disciples whether they have received the graces of the Spirit, and they reply that they do not know what these are. He then baptizes them in the name of Jesus—not with water, but in the manner in which the apostles had been baptized on the day of Pentecost.
This is further confirmed by the course of the narrative. What immediately follows—
“And when he had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them”
—is a clearer explanation of this baptism. Such is the customary manner of Scripture: first to state something briefly and then to explain it through a fuller narration.
Otherwise, Saint Paul would have acted unreasonably in rebaptizing them because of their ignorance, since the apostles themselves remained so ignorant and untaught after their baptism that they knew very little of the power of Jesus Christ. But there is no need to labor over this matter any longer, since this baptism must plainly be understood as the laying on of hands through which the Holy Spirit was imparted.
They object that, by the same reasoning, the Supper ought to be administered to infants, whom we refuse to admit to it—as though the difference were not sufficiently and explicitly marked in Scripture in every possible way.
For if we consider the nature and purpose of baptism, we shall find that it is our first entrance by which we are recognized as members of the Church and given a place among the people of God. It is therefore the sign of our regeneration and spiritual birth, by which we are made children of God. The Supper, by contrast, was ordained for those who, having passed beyond infancy, are capable of receiving solid food.
On this point we possess the very clear Word of the Lord. With respect to baptism, it makes no distinction of age. But it does not permit the Supper to be administered except to those who can discern the Lord’s body, examine and prove themselves, and proclaim the Lord’s death. Could we desire anything clearer than this?
“Let each person examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup.”
Self-examination must therefore precede, and this cannot occur in infants.
Again:
“Whoever eats unworthily receives condemnation upon himself, because he does not discern the Lord’s body.”
If they cannot partake worthily except with self-examination, it would not be right to present infants with their judgment and condemnation by administering the Supper to them.
Again:
“Do this in remembrance of me. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death.”
How could infants, who cannot yet speak, proclaim the Lord’s death?
None of these things is required for baptism. There is therefore a great difference between these two signs—a difference also observed under the Old Testament in the signs corresponding to them. For circumcision, which occupied the place of baptism, was administered to infants. But the Passover lamb, in whose place we now have the Supper, was given among children only to those capable of asking what it signified.
If these poor people possessed even the slightest taste of the Lord’s Word, they would not be so blind as to overlook things which display themselves plainly before their very eyes.
What we have said is plainly sufficient to show how unreasonably and improperly those men trouble the Lord’s Church who stir up questions and disputes in order to condemn the holy practice which believers have diligently observed ever since the apostles. We have clearly proved that it has a firm and certain foundation in Holy Scripture, while abundantly refuting all the objections commonly raised against it.
We therefore do not doubt that all good servants of God, after reading this discussion, will be fully satisfied and will plainly perceive that every assault made to overthrow and abolish this holy ordinance is a deceitful device of the Devil. His purpose is to diminish the consolation the Lord intended to give us through his promise and thereby to obscure the glory of his name—a glory magnified all the more as the riches of his mercy are abundantly poured out upon men.
For when the Lord visibly testifies to us by the sign of baptism that, for our sake, he wills to regard our posterity and to be the God of our children, do we not have good reason to rejoice after the example of David? We may consider that the Lord assumes toward us the role of a gracious head of the household, extending his providence not only over us, but also over those who belong to us after our death. In this rejoicing God is especially glorified.
This is why Satan strives to deprive our children of participation in baptism: so that when the testimony ordained by the Lord to confirm to us the graces he wills to bestow upon them has been removed from our sight, we may gradually forget the promise he has given concerning them. From this would follow not only ingratitude and failure to recognize the Lord’s mercy toward us, but also negligence in instructing our children in the fear and discipline of his Law and in the knowledge of his gospel.
For it is no small incentive to nurture them in true piety and obedience to God when we understand that from their birth the Lord has received them among his people as members of his Church.
Therefore, let us not reject the great kindness of our Lord, but confidently present to him our children, to whom by his promise he has granted entrance into the fellowship of those whom he acknowledges as members of his own household—which is the Christian Church.