stance in those innumerable places that require faith before this sacrament, there needs no more but this one saying of our blessed Saviour, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned ":" plainly thus, Faith and baptism in conjunction will bring a man to heaven; but if he have not faith, baptism shall do him no good. So that if baptism be necessary then, so is faith, and much more: for want of faith damns absolutely; it is not said so of the want of baptism. Now if this decretory sentence be to be understood of persons of age, and if children by such an answer (which indeed is reasonable enough) be excused from the necessity of faith, the want of which regularly does damn;-then it is sottish to say, the same incapacity of reason and faith shall not excuse from the actual susception of baptism, which is less necessary, and to which faith and many other acts are necessary predispositions, when it is reasonably and humanly received. The conclusion is, that baptism is also to be deferred till the time of faith; and whether infants have faith or no, is a question to be disputed by persons, that care not how much they say, nor how little they prove.

29. First, Personal and actual faith they have none; for they have no acts of understanding: and besides, how can any man know that they have, since he never saw any sign of it, neither was he told so by any one that could tell? Secondly, Some say they have imputative faith: but then so let the sacrament be too: that is, if they have the parents' faith or the church's, then so let baptism be imputed also by derivation from them; that as in their mothers' womb, and while they hang on their breasts, they live upon their mothers' nourishment, so they may upon the baptism of their parents or their mother, the church. For since faith is necessary to the susception of baptism (and themselves confess it, by striving to find out new kinds of faith to daub the matter up), such as the faith is, such must be the sacrament; for there is no proportion between an actual sacrament and an imputative faith, this being in immediate and necessary order to that. And whatsoever can be said to take off from the necessity of actual faith, all that and much more may be said to excuse from the actual susception of baptism. Thirdly,

9 Mark, xvi. 16.

the first of these devices was that of Luther and his scholars, the second of Calvin and his: and yet there is a third device, which the church of Rome teaches, and that is, that infants have habitual faith. But who told them so? how can they prove it? what revelation or reason teaches any such thing? Are they by this habit so much as disposed to an actual belief without a new master? Can an infant, sent into a Mahometan province, be more confident for Christianity when he comes to be a man, than if he had not been baptized? Are there any acts precedent, concomitant, or consequent, to this pretended habit? This strange invention is absolutely without art, without Scripture, reason, or authority. But the men are to be excused, unless there were a better. But for all these stratagems, the argument now alleged against the baptism of infants is demonstrative and unanswerable.

30. To which also this consideration may be added, that if baptism be necessary to the salvation of infants, upon whom is the imposition laid? to whom is the command given? to the parents or to the children? Not to the children, for they are not capable of a law: not to the parents, for then God hath put the salvation of innocent babes into the power of others, and infants may be damned for their fathers' carelessness or malice. It follows, that it is not necessary at all to be done to them, to whom it cannot be prescribed as a law, and in whose behalf it cannot be reasonably intrusted to others with the appendant necessity: and if it be not necessary, it is certain it is not reasonable, and most certain it is no where in terms prescribed: and therefore it is to be presumed that it ought to be understood and administered according as other precepts are, with reference to the capacity of the subject, and the reasonableness of the thing.

31. For I consider, that the baptizing of infants does rush us upon such inconveniences, which in other questions we avoid like rocks: which will appear if we discourse thus.

Either baptism produces spiritual effects, or it produces them not. If it produces not any, why is such contention about it? what are we the nearer heaven if we are baptized? and if it be neglected, what are we the farther off? But if (as without all peradventure all the pædo-baptists will say) baptism does do a work upon the soul, producing spiritual benefits and advantages, these advantages are produced by

the external work of the sacrament alone, or by that as it is helped by the co-operation and predispositions of the suscipient.

If by the external work of the sacrament alone, how does this differ from the opus operatum' of the papists, save that it is worse? For they say, the sacrament does not produce its effect but in a suscipient disposed by all requisites and due preparatives of piety, faith, and repentance; though in a subject so disposed they say the sacrament by its own virtue does it but this opinion says, it does it of itself, without the help, or so much as the coexistence, of any condition but the mere reception.

But if the sacrament does not do its work alone, but' per modum recipientis,' according to the predispositions of the suscipient, then, because infants can neither hinderit, nor do any thing to further it, it does them no benefit at all. And if any man runs for succour to that exploded konopúyerov, that infants have faith, or any other inspired habit of I know not what or how, we desire no more advantage in the world, than that they are constrained to an answer without revelation, against reason, common sense, and all the experience in the world.

The sum of the argument in short is this, though under another representment.

Either baptism is a mere ceremony, or it implies a duty on our part. If it be a ceremony only, how does it sanctify us, or make the comers thereunto perfect? If it implies a duty on our part, how then can children receive it, who cannot do duty at all?

And indeed this way of ministration makes baptism to be wholly an outward duty, a work of the law, a carnal ordinance; it makes us adhere to the letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be satisfied with shadows, to return to bondage, to relinquish the mysteriousness, the substance, and spirituality of the Gospel. Which argument is of so much the more consideration, because, under the spiritual covenant, or the Gospel of grace, if the mystery goes not before the symbol (which it does when the symbols are seals and consignations of the grace, as it is said the sacraments are), yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of time. And this is clear in the perpetual analogy of Holy Scripture.

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. "Oσo ẞaπτίσθημεν, Tío nuev, "All of us who were baptized" into one, were baptized into the other; not only in the name of Christ, but into 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 into 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, év óuoipari tov JaváTov avrov, “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

q Rom. vi. 3.

r Verse 4.

• Verse 5.

u 1 Pet. iii. 21.

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 pado-baptists, 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

x Vide Erasmum in præfat. ad Annotat. in Malt.