Menno Simons · 8 of 109

CONCERNING BAPTISM. · Part 2

Answer. The words of Gellius prove clearly that women are participants of the Lord's Supper; for he acknowledges that they are disciples. If they are disciples, as they are in fact, then it is manifest that they hear the word of God, believe, repent, suffer themselves to be baptized, and that they are gifted of God in power with the representation of the Holy Supper, and that they are participants of his mystery no less than the men. Since they are believing and penitent disciples, as heard, therefore it is reasonable and right that they should partake of the sign, whereby this mystery of faith and of the holy gospel are represented to the believing, and admonished to the repenting. As we cannot deny but that the believing, repent­ing women understand and realize the rep­resentation of the Holy Supper‑namely, the remembrance of the offering of the flesh and blood of Christ, the love of God and one's neighbors, &c., for which purpose it was instituted by the Lord, therefore they should have a place at the Lord's table, as believing, penitent disciples and guests. Now, Gellius, to make his infant baptism of effect, must prove and show to us by works, Scriptures and truth, that little, un­conscious children realize the effect of holy baptism, namely, faith, repentance, obe­dience to the word, a clear and peaceable conscience, &c., for which purpose the sign of baptism was instituted of the Lord, as the believing, penitent women realize the signification of the Holy Supper. But if he cannot prove this, then it is sufficiently plain that this, his assertion and argument are not according to the Scriptures, but that it is deceitful, false, and contrary to God's word.

He further says, If such a command to baptize children is not sufficient, as the one he has adduced from the Scriptures, then he wants us to point him out a prohibition (as he says), or sufficiently prove that God wills that we shall not baptize children.

In the first place, I reply: Gellius here­with openly betrays that his reference to the command of infant baptism can, in his own opinion not stand, according to the Scriptures. For he turns from the doctrine of commands and wants us to point out a pro­hibition, never observing that if one wants to partake of anything (that is a ceremony), he must first adduce and point out the com­mand of the institution.

If he wants to make good the infant bap­tism which he teaches and practices, then he must prove that it is commanded, and not ask us to point out or show where it is prohibited.

We practice baptism in a manner as the mouth of the Lord has commanded, for we know that it stands written, "What things soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it," Deut. 12:32; Prov. 30:6. Yea, my reader, I would say to Gellius and the learned that if they can find an instance in all the Scriptures where the pious and faith­ful servants of God have changed a word of the commands, and ceremonies, and prac­ticed them differently than God had com­manded them, then we will further reflect upon the matter. But we know it to a cer­tainty that it cannot be done.

The Lord commanded Israel that they should circumcise their male children on the eighth day; there was no command that they should not do it on the fifth, or on any other day. Yet they never circumcised a female; nor did they circumcise on any other day but the eighth. For the ordi­nance and command of the Lord was on the eighth play, to the male children, and not on the seventh or ninth; nor to the female children as has been heard.

If they, now, had circumcised the females, or if they had circumcised the males be­fore, or after the eighth day, although it was not expressly forbidden, they would have committed an abomination, as did Nadab and Abihu with the strange fire, and circumcised without God's word; by the grace of God, no man can Scripturally convince me to the contrary.

It was also commanded Israel that they should eat the Passover in remembrance of their deliverance and departure out of Egypt, on the fourteenth day of the first month, in the evening; it had to be a male lamb, without blemish, of the first year, &c., Ex. 12:5. Israel did just according to the command, and never offered a female lamb, but in every instance a male, although the Lord had not expressly prohibited the of­fering of a female lamb, for if they had offered a female, they would have offered contrary to the command, which stipulated that it should be a male.

In the second place, I would say that I would refer to the testimony of the Almighty and great God, who says, "This is my be­loved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him," Matt. 17:5. If Gellius, now, can point to a single word of divine truth and unadulterated testimony of the Holy Script­ures, that this Son of God, Christ Jesus, the Father's eternal Truth and Wisdom, has taught or commanded one word of infant baptism, or that his holy apostles and mis­sionaries have taught or practiced it, then I will recall my doctrine, willingly sub­mit to dungeons and bonds, confess my guilt, repent and stand before the whole world conquered and abashed; this I prom­ise in sincerity of heart.

But, if he cannot do so, as he never can, and still professes that infant baptism is apostolic and right, whereby he forsakes the ordinance of Christ and the apostles doctrine and usage; consoles the people in their impenitence‑then it is manifest that he is a deceiver of the poor souls and an adulterer of the holy word, who would be wiser than the Son of God himself; for he says that it is a sealing of the covenant of grace, an embodiment into the church of Christ, &c. And the great Lord has not at all commanded that he should reprove the Holy Spirit which has not manifested unto us in the Scriptures this doctrine and usage; nor the apostles that they did not at all disclose unto the pious such an important matter, as he says, and that they have not given a word in all their writings, in testi­mony thereof, and thus manifested it unto their descendants.

In the third place I would refer Gellius, and all his preachers, to Luther, who writes very clearly that we should renounce not only that which is contrary to the word of the Lord, but also that which is beside it, and advises every body, although, alas, he himself did not follow the advice, to follow certainties and not uncertainties; for the Scriptures admit of no addition nor dimin­ishing, by which he has caused quite a rupture in popery. If the Scriptures admit of no additions, and we find nowhere a word in Scripture commanding infant bap­tism, as Luther himself admits, then I would leave it to the impartial judgment of all who have understanding, whether infant baptism is not prohibited.

In the fifth place, Gellius writes, They say that the children have no ears to hear; and cannot distinguish between good and evil. But it does not follow from this, he says, that the sacrament of the embodiment into the church should not be practiced upon children; for the children of the ancient church had no such ears that they could hear, and they could as little distinguish between good and evil, as our children can.

Answer. If Gellius will show us the com­mand, ordinance or usage of the Lord, that we shall take them in by such sign, then we will consider the matter further. But he cannot do so.

We say with holy Paul, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual bless­ings in heavenly places in Christ, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foun­dation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace," &c., Eph. 1:3‑6.

My faithful reader, understand well what these words of Paul mean. This paternal adoption unto membership; this great favor, love and grace through Christ Jesus; this holy, unblamable life in love, of which Paul speaks, is taught by the gospel. All who rightly believe this, and who are, through faith, truly converted, changed, renewed and born of God, and have the Holy Spirit, are children of the covenant, are graciously accepted of God, and are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; even before they have the sign of baptism.

Behold, thus we are, by God's choice through faith in Christ Jesus, and through the inspiring power and renewing of the Holy Spirit, embodied into the body of Christ, which is the true church, and be­come flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and not through any outward sign.

But this rule does not apply to uncon­scious children; for they have no ears to hear nor hearts to understand. They are, however, in grace, children of the kingdom, participants in the promise; not through any outward sign, I say, but in the adop­tion of Grace through the reconciliation, mediation and merits of the death and blood of Christ, as the Scriptures teach. The New Testament treats with those of un­derstanding minds, and its sacraments be­long to the penitent. Let this be to you a sure and eternal reference and doctrine.

All those who give a different meaning to the signs of the New Testament, by their philosophy, and teach you that they should be dispensed before faith, deceive you, how­ever much they may adorn it with choice words, such as, sealing, sign of grace, em­bodiment, &c., for it is in fact, nothing but human wisdom, deceiving of souls and hy­pocrisy. If the children under the old cov­enant were incorporated by circumcision, and the children under the new covenant are incorporated through baptism, as he says they are, then we are forced to conclude that the children which died before the eighth day and those who were left in the wilderness, besides, all the females, were not in the Israelitic church, and consequent­ly had no share in the grace, covenant nor promise.

The same would also apply to our chil­dren which are hindered from baptism, through death. O abomination and blas­phemy! If that is not attaching God's se­lection, grace, favor, love, kingdom, cove­nant and salvation, to the element, water, and to works, I will leave to the judgment of all the godly and pious.

In the sixth place he writes, and says, We have ever received, in return for our assiduity and clear, convin­cing explanation of the Scriptures, yea, for our solicitous care, to again gain them, nothing but anathemas. For what else do we hear from them than that we are wolves, blood‑hounds, deceivers, &c., who run their own course and bring forth no fruit?

Answer. All those who rightly seek our salvation, who rightly teach the word of the Lord, and who walk before us with an unblamable life, understand, according to the doctrine, Spirit, and example of Christ Jesus, are not reproved by us, nor by the Scriptures; but we sincerely thank and love them and will by the grace of God, never despise their fraternal assiduity and pa­ternal solicitude, but will, in sincere love and very thankfully, accept them, and as much as we, in our weakness, are able to do, follow them. But we are not to blame that Gellius and the preachers are called deceivers, false prophets, ravening wolves, men guilty of blood, &c., by the Scriptures, but they themselves, are the cause; because they so lamentably adulterate the Script­ures, reject Christ Jesus and his Spirit, word and walk; because they preach ac­cording to their own pleasure, seek improp­er gain; because they teach and walk to suit the world, destroy the poor sheep by their false doctrine and deceiving practices; and because they upbraid, blaspheme, belie, betray the pious, faithful hearts and thus deliver them to the sword of the magistracy and executioner, as may, alas, be too clear­ly witnessed at many different places.

Yea, reader, if he cannot bear to be called by such hard names, of which he is guilty, according to the Scriptures, then he should reasonably consider how shamefully he ac­cuses, in his writings and conversations, the poor, miserable souls who are quite in­nocent, as being ungodly heretics, apostles of the devil, deceived conspirators, hedge­preachers, sneaks, adulterators, &c., and how he, by his rebellious, fiendish, bloody doctrine, deprives the innocent of their property, welfare, honor, blood and life; and instigates the unmerciful cruel tyrants to robbery, imprisoning, banishing and murder. My faithful reader, reflect, and see if I do not write the truth.

In the seventh place he writes, The example of the apostles shows that it is a command; for the Holy Spirit testifies that the apostles baptized whole fami­lies; no children are excepted, which, surely, would have been excepted if it were wrong to baptize them.

To this I reply, in the first place, that Gellius hereby testifies that there is no command for infant baptism; for he here founds his doctrine and faith upon pre­sumption and not upon imperative words, according to which all things should be judged that are to be a pleasure in the sight of the Lord. In the second place I would say, that the Holy Spirit has testified in plain words, that the three families of which the Scriptures make mention in particular, to have been baptized, were all believing persons as may be plainly understood from reading Acts 10:16.

But as to the house of Lydia, it is plain that she at that time had no husband; for the house is called after her name, which is neither the custom of the world nor of the Scriptures, if the husband is alive. Since the New Testament, then, makes mention of but four households in particular, to have been baptized, and three of them were believing, and the fourth, as appears, had no husband; as has been heard, how much then should we rely on it, that there were little children in these households, both nature and the Scriptures teach us.

He further writes, That it cannot be gainsayed that the children, all through the Scriptures, are always included in the household, for a household or family includes both young and old; therefore also children should be baptized because the Scriptures mention that whole households were baptized, which includes children.

I reply: If Gellius proves to us, by the testimony of God's word, that the uncon­scious children have faith, then we would gladly include them in the believing, bap­tized households and allow them to be bap­tized. But as he cannot possibly do so, we would faithfully admonish him and all the preachers to take heed, how and what they say concerning this matter; for all they philosophize and teach about it, is mere deceit. Besides, I would yet ask, if we can also cause unbelief in small children by false doctrine, or, if we can teach them faith, through God's word? If he answer in the affirmative, then his answer is con­trary to all the Scriptures, common sense, and contrary to his own words; for he ad­mits, that they, through their feeble under­standing, can not comprehend the word. But if he answer in the negative, then he admits, himself, that his including both old and young in one household, is contrary to Paul. For Paul says, that the vain talkers and deceivers subvert whole houses, Tit. 1:10, something which cannot be done to little children, on account of their not hav­ing sufficient understanding, as he himself admits. He also says that we too boldly exclude the children, which the Holy Spirit has not excepted, &c. To this I reply: The Holy Spirit has commanded and ordained that we should teach the understanding, and baptize the believing, and this ordinance we follow. Therefore, it is not boldness, but obedience to do as the mouth of the Lord has commanded us. But whether the preachers are not boldly opposing the Holy Spirit, who reject his doctrine, advice and ordinance as heretical and sectarian, and institute instead a doctrine and ordinance to suit their own taste, of which we find not a single word in the Scriptures, I will leave all the pious to judge according to the word of the Lord.

As to his reference to Tertullius, Cyprian, Origenes and Augustinus, I would reply: If these writers can support their assertions by the word and ordinance of God, then we will admit that they are right. If they can­not do so, then it is a doctrine of men, and condemned by the Scriptures, Gal. 1:8. In the second place I say, Rhenanus annotates on Tertullius that it was customary with the ancients to baptize adults with the bap­of regeneration.

Cyprian left infant baptism optional.

Erasmus writes that the ancients have disputed much concerning infant baptism, and never came to a conclusion.

Zuinglius writes, Although we are aware that the ancients baptized children, yet it was not practiced so commonly as it is, in our times. They were openly instructed in faith; and when they verbally confessed their faith which was imprinted in their hearts, they were allowed to be baptized. This doctrine (he says) I wish to have again resuscitated, Lib. Art. 18.

Bucer writes that the ancients generally baptized adults and not children.

Oecolampadius writes, I, in my weakness, cannot yet find Scriptures which command infant baptism.

Luther admits that they have no express command to baptize children.

What Martin Cellarius and others write, concerning this matter, is too lengthy to be here reproduced.

Since it is plain that few children were baptized of the ancients, as the above men­tioned Rhenanus, Zuingli and Bucer show; that Cyprian left infant baptism optional, and the others acknowledge that there is no express command for it; how can Gellius, then truthfully write that they received in­fant baptism from the apostles; that it is an incorporation into the church, and a sealing of the covenant of grace?

Yea, my reader, if infant baptism has the virtues which Gellius ascribes to it, then our ancestors grossly sinned to have baptized so few children; and also because they left optional that which (he says) the apostles practiced and taught to be an in­corporation into the church, a sign of grace and a sealing of the covenant of grace.

In the third place I answer, If we consider the confession and doctrine of the learned in regard to infant baptism, we find it to be such a Babel that we are forced to acknowl­edge that it is not of God. For some of the ancients (not the apostles) as appears, baptized some children, but not a consider­able number. Some said they had received it from the apostles; others, again, denied it. Some have, and some still baptize them to wash off hereditary sin; others because they are children of the covenant. Some baptize them for the sake of the faith of the church; others, again, for the sake of the faith of their parents. Some on the strength of the faith of the patriarchs; others on the strength of their own faith; and again, others that better care shall be taken of their education. Behold, thus the defenders of infant baptism are divided among them­selves.

Inasmuch, then, as they do not teach one doctrine and are not of one mind in re­gard to infant baptism, therefore it is man­ifestly proven that they baptize them with­out the word of God. For if their cause had a foundation in Scripture; then they would baptize to the same purpose or end, according to the same ordinance, rule and doctrine. This is incontrovertible.

In the eighth place he writes "that it is not prohibit­ed at all, in Scripture, nor testified that infant baptism is wrong. And that the Lord Jesus Christ testifies that it is not his word and will, but the will of his Father who is in heaven."

Answer. Peruse all the Scriptures‑Moses and the prophets, Christ Jesus and the apostles, and diligently meditate upon them, and you will find different instances that God was not only displeased at unbidden ceremonies and worship, but that he has often severely punished such. O, dear Lord, what blind reasoning! If they can, with a clear conscience do so because it is not ex­pressly forbidden that infants shall be bap­tized, then they may as well accept holy water, candles, palms, clocks, confession before a priest, masses, the building of convents, altars, the becoming of monks, pilgrimages and the praying for the departed souls, &c., as just and right; for there is not a word to be found in the Script­ures which expressly prohibits these works; or which says: You shall not do these things.

If he should say that the circumstances of Scripture and its fruits testify that they are contrary to the word of God; then I would again say: Still clearer do the cir­cumstances of the Scriptures and the fruits testify that infant baptism is contrary to God's word. For the mouth of the Lord has not commanded so at all. All those who practice it, misuse the name and ordi­nance of God, and act hypocritically, and those that receive it, console themselves, when they come to years of understanding, that they are baptized children, although their whole walk is manifestly, for the greater part, quite impenitent, ungodly, earthly and carnal.

In the second place I answer: Christ Jesus has testified and said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved," Mark 16:15, 16. Behold this is the express, eternal and unchange­able ordinance of the Lord, which he has commanded and left for his church to follow. Also have the apostles so taught and prac­ticed it.

If now the unconscious children have faith, that is, if they are penitent, Rom. 6; have circumcised the foreskin of their hearts by the circumcision of Christ, Col. 2:11; if they have a clear conscience before the Lord, if they have a new mind, which are all the result of faith, and which are repre­sented by baptism‑then baptism can not be refused them. But while it is plain that they have not one of the beforementioned qualities, therefore we say that infant bap­tism is a self‑chosen superstition, an abuse of the glorious and holy name of God, an adulteration of the ordinance of Christ, a vain, hypocritical consolation to the impen­itent, a sacrament of the church of anti‑christ, nay, an open deceit, blasphemy and idol­atry. Notwithstanding all this, this thought­less man writes that it is the word and will of the Father, and then uses the eternal Father and his beloved Son and Holy Spirit, together with the chosen, holy apostles, as a cover for his deceitful abomination and wicked blasphemy. O Lord!

In the ninth place he writes: "That they have the promise, that God, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a true and living God, is powerful in his command and works; and will, through his power, sanctify the children of the church and bestow on them his Spirit."

Answer. If he could prove that infant baptism was commanded by the word of God, by apostolic doctrine and usage, or by the example of Christ, as he pretends that it was, then we would gladly admit it to be a holy rite, and pleasing to God, and that it would be a blessed, admonishing, useful, fruitful and powerful thing, for God commands nothing in vain. But since it cannot be proven that it was commanded, and since baptism cannot apply to little children, because the signs of the New Test­ament are applied to the penitent, therefore we say again, that it is not a God‑pleasing ceremony, but according to all Scripture, a wicked blasphemy and abomination, as has already been heard. And how powerfully God works through such abominations, may be plainly seen in the cases of Nadab, Abi­hu, Jeroboam, Uzza and others.

The pious reader should also know that the children of the churches are not sancti­fied by means of ceremonies, words and water, but solely through the grace, favor, merits, blood and death of the Lord, and by no other work nor means, at all. But as to his writing that God bestows upon the baptized children his Spirit, we would say that we would have him consider more deeply and learn to know what the work of the Spirit is, before he teaches such doctrine.

Is it not deeply to be regretted that such people dare take upon themselves the care of souls, while they have not yet learned what is the nature, fruit and power of the Holy Spirit? For wherever the Holy Spirit is, there also must be its fruits; this is in­controvertible. And what fruits we find in children when they begin to become of un­derstanding minds, we may, alas, educe from their words, works and life.

I would further say, that if the Spirit is bestowed upon children, through baptism, as he says, and since the Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is given to the believ­ing, then it must follow therefrom, since the children do not believe, that the Holy Spirit is not given them through faith, but that it is given through the merits of the ceremony of baptism, which the preachers practice. And what is worse, such a spirit, which in every respect is without knowledge, intelli­gence, inspiration, power, fruit and work, as may be seen. O, great blindness and error!

In the tenth place he writes: "The Lord Jesus Christ commanded that the children should be brought to him (which the anabaptists do not at all) and that he em­braced them, laid his hands upon them and blessed them, that is, baptized them with the Holy Spirit; and all this, done by Christ, is not powerless."

Answer. Here I would ask Gellius, and all who practice infant baptism, Firstly, If all the believers brought their children to Christ when he was preaching? If they an­swer in the affirmative, then they ought to be ashamed; for they can not prove their assertion by the Scriptures. But if they answer in the negative, then they acknowl­edge that they in the first place, are wrong to teach and practice that children should be brought to him, that is (according to their understanding), to baptize them.

In the second place I ask, whether in any part of Scripture bringing to Christ is called baptism? If they answer in the affirmative, then they can not produce proof. If they answer in the negative then they admit that they, in the second place, adulterate the word of God, by explaining and construing bringing to Christ to mean baptizing.

In the third place I ask, whether Christ baptized the children, brought to him, with water? If they answer in the affirmative, then I would answer with John, that Christ, himself, did not baptize, John 3:5. But if they answer in the negative, then they ac­knowledge, in the third place, that it is a false doctrine to try to defend infant bap­tism on the strength of this bringing to him.

In the fourth place I would ask, because he says that Christ baptized the children with the Holy Spirit. If, then, baptizing with the Spirit is the same thing as bap­tizing with water? If they answer in the affirmative, then Spirit must be letter, or letter, Spirit. But if they answer in the negative, then they, themselves, pronounce sentence against infant baptism; that Christ's action with the children does not teach nor imply it.

In the fifth place I would ask, How we are to understand this bringing to him‑in a carnal, or spiritual way? If they answer in a carnal way, then I would say, that it cannot now be the case, since Christ, in body, is taken from us and removed hence, where we cannot approach in the body, 1 Tim. 6:16. But if they answer, in a spirit­ual way, then I would again ask why Gel­lius so shamefully abuses the pious, whom he calls anabaptists, by writing that they do not at all bring their children to Christ (something which could not have been writ­ten in purity of heart), while many of them are so solicitously caring for the salvation of their children by teaching, admonishing and punishing them, and by having a con­stant solicitude for them, as God's word and the love of their children command and teach all christian parents to do.

O, that God would grant that Gellius and his followers would more deeply consider this spiritual bringing to Christ, as I trust that many of ours do, by the grace of God; and that they would abandon this unscriptural infant baptism, of which they make so much ado. This, in my opinion, would be a very desirable thing. For, as a general thing, they abandon their children, from the cradle on, to the wiles of the devil, by educating them in ignorance, blindness, pomp, splendor, vanity and idolatry, as their fruits plainly show to all of under­standing minds. Behold, my reader, from these questions and answers you may con­clude whether Gellius and the learned can stand on the strength of the saying, "Suffer: the little children to come unto me," with their doctrine and practice of infant baptism, which they practice so indiscriminately, and about which they make so much ado?

Observe, too, that Gellius, by his writing that we do not bring our children to Christ at all, not only judges and disgraces us but also Christ Jesus, because he has not commanded us such bringing to him; he also judges the holy apostles who have not testified nor taught us a word in regard to this matter neither by word nor practice in the whole Scriptures.