But as concerning the newly-instructed Christians, they came in the old time from the Gentiles daily unto the church, whom these did instruct in the principles of faith, being ignorant therein, and afterward baptized them. But the ancient fathers themselves nevertheless baptized also the infants of the faithful; which anon we will declare.
Neither do they lawfully gather, when they conclude in this sort: He which shall believe, and be baptized, shall be saved; infants do not believe; therefore they are not to be baptized. For again, it is certain that it is spoken of them i that be of perfect age, as in Matthew. And because he requireth faith and confession of faith of those that are of 25—2
perfect age, it doth not follow thereupon that he requireth the same of infants. For he accounteth these as his own of his mere grace and free promise, without their confession. So that of the contrary part we do thus reason: They that believe are to be baptized: (which the very adversaries also do confess:) infants do believe; for God reckoneth them in the number of the faithful, which I have afore manifestly proved: therefore infants are to be baptized.
They object, that infants understand not the mystery of baptism; and therefore, that it is not only repugnant to otha peligion, but to common sense and reason, to baptize infants; for to baptize an infant is to baptize a log, since neither of them hath the use of reason. But these filthy knaves let their tongues run at random against the very majesty of God. God commanded to circumcise the infants; and circumeision containeth high mysteries, which infants understand not. But hath God ordained anything against reason and common sense? Go, ye false knaves, go with your blasphemies to the place which you deserve! It is a most filthy deed, yea, and more than barbarous, in that ye compare infants to logs; for what great store God setteth by infants, we taught you already before out of the gospel. But men, which now begin to have the use of sound reason, are diligently and earnestly to be taught and admonished to remember they are baptized, and to endeavour, by calling on the name of the Lord, in all points to be answerable in life and conversation to their promise and profession. For Abraham instructed his son Isaac, and all the holy fathers their children. 4 But letting pass these brainsick, frantic, and foul-mouthed is of railers, who (as we have heard) never want words to wrangle, vap- though we have had never so much, never so often, and never oo earnest conference with them?; let us proceed to declare in a few but yet manifest arguments, that infants are to be baptized, and that the apostles of Christ our Lord have baptized infants. The Lord commanded to baptize all nations,
[1 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, For so. Ita vero, Lat.] [2 Bullinger had many conferences with anabaptists during his]
[pastorate at Bremgarten; and in the years 1525, 1527, 1531, and 1532,]
[public disputations with them were specially held in Zurich, Basle,]
[Berne, and other neighbouring towns.—Bulling. adv. Anabap. Lib. 1.]
[capp. 5—T7.]]
and therefore infants; for they are comprehended under the word of “all nations.” Again, whomsoever God reckoneth among the faithful are faithful: for Peter in a vision heareth: “That which God hath cleansed call not thou common or unclean.” God reckoneth infants among the faithful; therefore they are faithful: except we had rather resist God, and seem to be stronger than he. And now we count it out of all controversy, that the apostles of Christ baptized them, whom Christ commanded to baptize: but he commanded to baptize the faithful; therefore the apostles baptized infants.
The gospel is greater than baptism: for Paul saith, “The Lord sent me to preach the gospel, and not to baptize.” Not that he did absolutely deny that he was not sent to baptize, but because he preferred doctrine; for the Lord commended them both to his apostles. Furthermore, in the gospel children are received of God, and not refused: who then, unless he be willingly obstinate, can debar them from the less? In sacraments the thing signified and the sign are considered. The thing signified is the excellenter; from that infants are not debarred. Who, then, will deny them the sign? Truly, the holy sacraments of God are more esteemed by the word than the sign. By the word we gather, that women are not excluded from the supper of the Lord. Although therefore we read not that they were in the first institution, and set at the first table of the Lord, neither that there is any express law which commandeth us to admit them to the supper; yet nevertheless, without fear or doubt, by a perfect argument? we admit them.
St Peter could not deny them the baptism of water, to whom he saw the Holy Ghost to be given, which is an assured token of God’s people; for he saith in the Acts of the Apostles: “” Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Wherefore the holy apostle Peter denied not baptism to infants. For he knew assuredly, even by the doctrine of his Lord and Master (that I may speak nothing now of the everlasting covenant of God), that the kingdom of heaven is of infants. No man is received into the kingdom of heaven, unless he be the friend of God; and these are not destitute of the Spirit of God: “For he which hath not the Spirit of