For baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoined, as a means of remission of sins or of eternal life, but something of duty, choice, and sanctity, are joined with it in order to production of the end so mentioned. "Know ye not, that as many as are baptized into Christ Jesus, are baptized into his death?" There are the mystery and the symbol together, and declared to be perpetually united. "Oσ CαяTionμer, "All of us who were baptized" into one, were baptized into the other; not only in the name of Christ, but nto his death also. But the meaning of this, as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul, makes much for our purpose: for to be baptized unto his death, signifies "to be buried with him in baptism, that as Christ rose from the dead, we also should walk in newness of life":" that is the full mystery of baptism. For being baptized into his death, or, which is all one, in the next words, v oμowμati Tov DaváTOU AUTO, "into the likeness of his death," cannot go alone; "if we be so planted into Christ, we shall be partakers of his resurrection:" and that is not here instanced in precise reward, but in exact duty; for all this is nothing but "crucifixion of the old man, a destroying the body of sin, that we no longer serve sint." This indeed is truly to be baptized both in the symbol and the mystery. Whatsoever is less than this, is but the symbol only, a mere ceremony, an opus operatum,' a dead letter, an empty shadow, an instrument without an agent to manage or force to actuate it. Plainer yet: "Whosoever are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, have put on the new man:" but to put on this new man, is" to be formed in righteousness, and holiness, and truth." This whole argument are the very words of St. Paul. The major proposition is dogmatically determined Gal. iii. 27., the minor in Ephes. iv. 24. The conclusion then is obvious, that they who are not formed new in righteousness, and holiness, and truth,' they who, remaining in the present incapacities, cannot walk in the newness of life,'— they have not been baptized into Christ: and then they have but one member of the distinction, used by St. Peter ", they have that baptism which is a putting away the filth of 6 q Rom. vi. 3. r Verse 4. t Verse 6. the flesh,' but they have not that baptism which is the answer of a good conscience towards God,' which is the only baptism that saves us.' And this is the case of children. And then the case is thus: As infants by the force of nature cannot put themselves into a supernatural condition (and therefore, say the pædobaptists, they need baptism to put them into it); so if they be baptized before the use of reason, before the works of the Spirit,' before the operations of grace, before they can throw off the works of darkness, and live in righteousness, and newness of life,'—they are never the nearer. From the pains of hell they shall be saved by the mercies of God and their own innocence, though they die in puris naturalibus;' and baptism will carry them no farther. For that baptism that save us' is not the only washing with water,' of which only children are capable, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,' of which they are not capable till the use of reason, till they know to choose the good and refuse the evil. And from thence I consider anew, that all vows made by persons under others' names, stipulations made by minors, are not valid, till they, by a supervening act after they are of sufficient age, do ratify them. Why then may not infants as well make the vow de novo,' as de novo' ratify that, which was made for them ab antiquo,' when they come to years of choice? If the infant-vow be invalid till the manly confirmation, why were it not as good they stayed to make it till that time, before which if they do make it, it is to no purpose *? This would be considered. 32. And in conclusion, our way is the surer way; for not to baptize children till they can give an account of their faith, is the most proportionable to an act of reason and humanity, and it can have no danger in it. For to say, that infants may be damned for want of baptism (a thing which is not in their power to acquire, they being persons not yet capable of a law), is to affirm that of God, which we dare not say of any wise and good man. Certainly it is much derogatory to God's justice, and a plain defiance to the infinite reputation of his goodness. 33. And therefore whoever will pertinaciously persist in * Vide Erasmum in præfat. ad Annotat. in Matt, this opinion of the pædo-baptists, and practice it accordingly, they pollute the blood of the everlasting testament; they dishonour and make a pageantry of the sacrament; they ineffectually represent a sepulture into the death of Christ, and please themselves in a sign without effect, making baptism like the fig-tree in the Gospel, full of leaves but no fruit; and they invocate the Holy Ghost in vain, doing as if one should call upon him to illuminate a stone or a tree. 24. Thus far the anabaptists may argue; and men have disputed against them with so much weakness and confidence, that we may say of them, as St. Gregory Nazianzen observes of the case of the church in his time; Οὐκ ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν δόγα μασι τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχοντες, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν τοῖς ἡμετέρων σαθροῖς ταύτην θηρεύοντες, &c. "They have been encouraged in their error more by the accidental advantages we have given them by our weak arguings, than by any excellency of their wit, and (much less) any advantage of their cause." It concerned not the present design of this book to inquire, whether these men speak true or no: for if they speak probably, or so as may deceive them that are no fools, it is argument sufficient to persuade us to pity the erring man that is deceived without design: and that is all that I intended. But because all men will not understand my purpose, or think my meaning innocent, unless I answer the arguments which I have made or gathered for mine and their adversaries ;-although I say it be nothing to the purpose of my book, which was only to represent, that even in a wrong cause there may be invincible causes of deception to innocent and unfortunate persons, and of this truth the anabaptists in their question of pædobaptism is a very great instance ;-yet I will rather choose to offend the rules of art, than not to fulfil all the requisites of charity: I have chosen therefore to add some animadversions upon the anabaptists' plea, upon all that is material, and which can have any considerable effect in the question. For though I have used this art and stratagem of peace justly, by representing the enemy's strength to bring the other party to thoughts of charity and kind comportments; yet I could not intend to discourage the right side, or to make either a mutiny or defection in the armies of Israel. I do not, as the spies from Canaan, say that these men are Anakims, and the city-walls reach up to heaven, and there are giants in the land: I know they are not insuperable, but they are like the blind and the lame set before a wall, that a weak man can leap over, and a single troop armed with wisdom and truth can beat all their guards. But yet I think that he said well and wisely to Charles the fighting duke of Burgundy, that told him that the Switzers' strength was not so to be despised, but that an honourable peace and a Christian usage of them were better than a cruel and a bloody war. The event of that battle told all the world, that no enemy is to be despised and rendered desperate at the same time; and that there are but few causes in the world but they do sometimes meet with witty advocates, and in themselves put on such semblances of truth, as will if not make the victory uncertain, yet make peace more safe and prudent, and mutual charity to be the best defence. And first, I do not pretend to say, that every argument brought by good men and wise in a right cause, must needs be demonstrative. The divinity of the eternal Son of God is a truth of as great concernment and as great certainty, as any thing that ever was disputed in the Christian church; and yet he that reads the writings of the fathers, and the acts of councils convened about that great question, will find that all the armour is not proof, which is used in a holy war. For that seems to one, which is not so to another; and when a man hath one sufficient reason to secure him and make him confident, every thing seems to him to speak the same sense, though to an adversary it does not for the one observes the similitude, and pleaseth himself; the other watches only the dissonance, and gets advantage; because one line of likeness will please a believing willing man, but one will not do the work; and where many dissimilitudes can be observed, and but one similitude, it were better to let the shadow alone than hazard the substance. And it is to be observed, that heretics and misbelievers do apply themselves rather to disable truth than directly to establish their error; and every argument they wrest from the hand of their adversaries, is to them a double purchase; it takes from the other and makes him less, and makes himself greater; the way to spoil a strong man, is to take from him the armour in which he trusted: and when this adversary hath espied a weak part in any discourse, he presently concludes that the cause is no stronger, and reckons his victories by the colours that he takes, though they signified nothing to the strength of the cause. And this is the main way of proceeding in this question: for they rather endeavour to shew, that we cannot demonstrate our part of the question, than that they can prove theirs. And as it is indeed easier to destroy than to build, so it is more agreeable to the nature and to the design of heresy: and therefore it were well that in this and in other questions where there are watchful adversaries, we should fight as Gi deon did with three hundred hardy brave fellows, that would stand against all violence, rather than to make a noise with rams' horns and broken pitchers, like the men at the siege of Jericho. And though it is not to be expected that all arguments should be demonstrative in a true cause, yet it were well if the generals of the church, which the Scripture affirms are terrible as an army with banners, should not by sending out weak parties which are easily beaten, weaken their own army, and give confidence to the enemy. Secondly: although it is hard to prove a negative, and it is not in many cases to be imposed upon a litigant; yet when the affirmative is received and practised, whoever will disturb the actual persuasion must give his reason, and offer proof for his own doctrine, or let me alone with mine. For the reason why negatives are hard to prove, is because they have no positive cause; but as they have no being, so they have no reason: but then also they are first, and before affirmatives, that is, such which are therefore to prevail, because nothing can be said against them. Darkness is before light, and things are not before they are: and though to prove that things are, something must be said; yet to prove they are not, nothing is to be alleged but that they are not, and no man can prove they are. But when an affirmative hath entered and prevailed, because no effect can be without some positive cause, therefore this which came in upon some cause or other, must not be sent away without cause: and because the negative is in this case later than the affirmative, it must enter as the affirmatives do, when they happen to be later than the negative. Add to this, that for the introduction of a negative against the possession of a prevailing affirmative, it is not enough to invalidate the arguments of the affirmative, by making it appear they are not demonstrative: for |