Menno Simons · 9 of 109

CONCERNING BAPTISM. · Part 3

In the eleventh place he writes: Since Luke testifies that John the baptist was sanctified in his mother's womb, and leaped in the presence of Christ (which, he says, doubtlessly, was caused by a spiritual movement), and as also Jacob, &c, therefore it is manifest that God also works in the children of the church according to their measure, through his Holy Spirit, and that infant baptism is a command and has the promise.

Answer. If these particular miracles of God, which were wrought in the case of John and of Jacob, are to be a common rule, then these following miracles were also common rules, namely, that Sarah and Elizabeth, two barren women, conceived in their old age, and that Balaam's ass spoke: Num. 22:28; and, therefore, all aged, bar­ren women should conceive, and all asses speak. O no. That such miracles of God were no common rule things, maybe educed from the floating of iron at Helizeum; from the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, and from the standing still of the sun and moon, 2 Kings 6:6; Es. 14:21; Joshua 10:13.

I would further say, if, according to the doctrine of Gellius, it follows from the case of John, that all the children of the church, or of the believing members, have the Holy Spirit, then the greater part of his fellow-believers of the German nation (whom alone, he esteemed as faithful servants, and who, with him, are of the same calling, office and service) are greatly contemned in their doctrine, faith and usage; for he writes that the children of the holy church have the Holy Spirit, and they believe and teach that they have the evil spirit, for, before they baptize them, they say, Depart thou evil spirit, and give room to the Holy Spirit.

Behold, thus it is generally with all who teach and practice this shameful doctrine. And, although they are unanimous in the practice, yet they are so divided in opinion as to the grounds of this doctrine, that we are forced to say that it is nothing but a vain mask and infernal mockery. Notwith­standing he writes that infant baptism is commanded, and that it has the promise; while he well knows that he cannot advance one plain word from all the Holy Scriptures, to show that the wisdom of God has com­manded it, or that the apostles have taught or practiced it; or, moreover, that its sig­nification, penitence, regeneration, &c., can apply to children. To say nothing of the author mentioning that the primitive, in­corrupt church did not practice it, as has been heard.

Is not this adulterating the word of God, breaking the Scriptures, perverting truth into lies, stealing the honor and praise of God, killing souls and defending the church of anti-christ? I say again, as I did before, I have never read a word in the Scriptures with such misunderstanding.

In the twelfth place he writes: "That, according to Matthew, baptism was not first instituted by Christ. For it was before commanded of John and practiced by the disciples of Jesus Christ; so that we are not ob­liged to follow one rule."

Answer. Let every one take heed, and ob­serve what the word of the Lord teaches. Gellius, alas, is not at all ashamed to deny the plain word of God, and writes: "That we are not obliged to follow one certain rule in regard to baptism; that Christ did not command to baptize the believing persons alone; nor that his heavenly Fa­ther did, when he commanded John that he should baptize; and that it was not Christ's meaning that such and such persons should be baptized." Behold, thus the Lord's holy word is perverted.

Inasmuch as Gellius so degrades his Lord's mouth, and so lamentably adulter­ates his word, therefore I will place the words of Christ, according to Matthew and Mark, before the reader, that he may see what rule and law he has made concerning baptism, and what command he has given. Christ says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (under­stand, whom you make disciples, by your doctrine) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," Matt. 28. Again, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth (namely, the gospel) and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark 16:1, 16. Behold, this is the word and ordinance of the Lord, how and when we are to baptize. I think these words are too plain to admit of perversion by fine words and accuteness - preach the gospel and baptize those that believe.

But that John taught and practiced bap­tism before Christ, is evidence for us and not against us, for he practiced upon those who confessed their sins, Matt. 3:6, and not upon unconscious children, as the diso­bedient, offensive preachers do.

Since John did not baptize any but the penitent, before Christ; since Christ com­manded it at the confession of faith, the apostles taught and practiced it so, and, also the primitive church, as heard, there­fore, the reasonable reader may reflect, in the fear of God, how miserably and lament­ably the poor souls are deceived by these degenerated men who so boldly adulterate the pointed, plain words of Christ concern­ing baptism, and his pleasing, salutary or­dinance, and thus destroy it and found it upon an unstable foundation and wrong meaning.

But his writing, "That the apostles were commanded to gather unto Christ a church, from all nations, and to teach them, not that which Moses, but that which Christ had taught," we admit. Yet through no other command nor ordinance than that they should preach the gospel, make disci­ples through the doctrine, baptize these dis­ciples, and thus to gather unto the Lord a peculiar people, who should walk in Christ Jesus in righteousness, truth and obedience, as the regenerated children of God, and give eternal praises to his great and glorious name. And with such a people, who walk in his fear, love, word, ordinances and com­mands, he will be, always to the end of the world. But of infant baptism not a word is mentioned.

In the thirteenth place, he writes, "That the apostles, some of whom were baptized of John, and those who came to him from the cities and from Jerusalem were indiscriminately baptized of John, and could not have had much knowledge of Christ, or a true, strong, sin­cere faith in him."

Answer. If I understand him aright, he would conclude from this, that, as the bap­tized disciples were not, before baptism, thoroughly fitted in the doctrine, faith and repentance, but had to exercise themselves in continual penitence, and to die unto sin, as baptism represents, that also the chil­dren, although they have no faith before baptism, will, after baptism, when they be­come of understanding minds, study the doctrine, repent, die unto sin, and walk in newness of life.

To which opinion (if this be his opinion) I would reply: The prophets prophesied of John, Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1. His birth was made known by an angel; Christ testified of him, that he was the second Elias, a shining light, not clothed in soft raiment and not like the waving reed; that he was the greatest of all children born of woman, &c. From which it may be safely educed that he was no light‑minded nor reckless preacher, but that he earnestly and valiantly executed his office, according to the pleas­ure of God, and that he rightly practiced the commanded baptism according to the ordinance. And, although his disciples were not so thoroughly instructed in all things, yet he did not baptize any but those who confessed their sins, as said, Matt. 3, Acts 19.

But, as to his explanation of the words: "If thou believest with all thine heart," which Philip spoke to the Ethiopian, that they mean to believe without deceit and hypocrisy which he rightly asked of the Ethi­opian; and of Luke, to leave an example to all servants of the church, how those of ma­ture years should be baptized, he has right­ly pointed out, since he also had arrived to years of maturity. We say, that this is right. We would also state what we desire of all baptizers, is: That they first examine well the faith and foundation of those who wish to be baptized, before they baptize them, that they, in their work and service, may not prove hypocrites.

I think that this is a plain example that the servants of the church should not ask the confession of faith from others, but from those, themselves, who wish to be bap­tized, as also Otto Brunsu says concern­ing this: He says not (he writes), If you do believe or answer for your child, it is then permitted to be baptized.

Since Gellius refers us to the disciples and to those baptized of John, and, as ap­pears, would thereby demonstrate that bap­tism does not require true faith, and that it makes no difference whether faith comes before or after; and, since we, also, are called anabaptists by him, therefore I in my weakness, would ask him, If the com­mand of Christ and the example of the eu­nuch are not sufficient to show that faith should precede baptism, and that baptism requires true faith, and why Paul re‑baptized the disciples of John, who had before been baptized with the baptism of John, while John's baptism was not of men, but from heaven? Matt. 21:25. He cannot, script­urally, answer it otherwise, than that it was done because they had never known that there was a Holy Ghost. Inasmuch, then, as these disciples were once bap­tized in their years of maturity, with divine baptism, and lacked nothing but that they did not have an understanding of the Holy Ghost, and were, on that account, re‑bap­tized of Paul‑therefore Gellius should con­sider whether or not true, christian baptism requires true faith, and whether he does not wrong us by contemptuously calling us anabaptists because we re‑baptize those who were not baptized with a divine bap­tism, as were the disciples of John, but with as anti‑christian baptism, without any knowledge, faith, command or word, as the reckless, ignorant world, in part, can judge and see.

If we, then, are anabaptists because we re‑baptize those who received a baptism instituted of man and which was practiced upon those who had no knowledge whatever, how much, then, was Paul an anabaptist since he re‑baptized those who were of understanding minds and baptized with a baptism which was from heaven and or­dained of God.

In the second place I would ask, since he calls us anabaptists, as has been heard, Why he still adheres to Cyprian, together with both the Concilions‑the African and the Nicene? which unanimously resolved: "That heretics have no baptism, and that therefore those, who have been baptized of heretics, should be baptized with the true baptism." If he says that it is according to the Scriptures and right, then he admits that he was not baptized with the right baptism, and that we are right in re‑bap­tizing those who have been baptized of such who are not alone by Scripture, but also by Luther, Zuingli and the learned, pro­nounced anti‑christian servants and the root of all heresy, before the whole world, as we may on every hand see in their writings.

But if he pronounce it offensive and sec­tarian, then he thereby testifies, in the first place, that the church, or at least a great part of it, was at that time offensive and sectarian.

In the second place, That he couples God's Spirit, word, work, ordinance and command with the anti‑christian and heretical service and works.

In the third place, That he is an anti­christian and heretic himself, since he was baptized with an anti‑christian and hereti­cal baptism, and that he yet defends it as the true baptism.

O, my reader, that Gellius had but half an understanding of the word of God, and could but see a little of the truth, he would, all his life‑time lament to God that he has so lamentably profaned the Lord's express command and ordinance, given through John, Christ and the apostles; that he has so inimically slandered the pious, and that he passes such a thoughtless and ungodly sentence, by his writings that he not only pronounces us, but also Cyprian, all the African bishops, the Nicene Fathers, be­sides also, holy Paul himself open ana­baptists, nay, heretics.

In the fourteenth place he writes, "That it is with baptism as it was with circumcision. As God com­menced circumcision with Abraham, upon preceding instruction,‑and, for the purpose of the sealing of the promise, it was practiced upon Abraham's seed and children‑so John, the baptist and the apostles com­menced baptism with those of mature years, and it was gradually practiced upon the children, since it could not be otherwise on account of circumcision."

Answer. That it is with baptism as it was with circumcision before, namely, in this respect; that it was commenced on previous instruction‑is our ground and doctrine; for Christ Jesus has so ordained it and his holy apostles have so taught and practiced it. But that it should, by the command of Christ and by the teaching and practice of the apostles, gradually have been practiced upon the children, is mere conjecture and not Scripture.

For if it were so, then the apostles did wrongly that they did not, according to the manner of circumcision, commanded of God, baptize both the believing and the children (something which they did not do), as Abra­ham circumcised himself and his house to­gether with the males of eight days old after him, according to the command of God, and did not gradually institute cir­cumcision, as Gellius maintains, and would make us believe, that the apostles should have done with baptism.

But that he writes that this should have been done on account of circumcision is conjecture and not Scripture; for as the apostles and also John served on the be­lieving ones of the Jews the sign of baptism, why not, then, on their children, if God had so ordained and commanded it, as Gellius pretends he did?

No, no, the command of the Lord con­cerning circumcision expressly applied, first to Abraham and his household, and then directly to the males of eight days old, Gen. 17:14; but this is not so with regard to baptism, for it applies only to the be­lieving and not to the unconscious children, Matt. 28; Mark 16. Therefore baptism was not gradually practiced upon the children, as Gellius pretends; but it was afterward in­stituted without the word, ordinance and command of God, by disobedient and self-conceited men, who, alas, have considered a wrought ceremony above the Lord's com­mand and its representation, as is general­ly the case with the learned and worldly-minded.

Again, as to his writing "that the prom­ise is sealed by baptism, and that it is given not only to the aged, but also to the children "‑the reader should observe that the promise of the grace of God, and of the eternal covenant, is not sealed, now any more, by the perishable blood of oxen and rams, nor by visible water and ceremonies, but solely by the precious blood of Christ on the cross. Blessed is he, who believes it, and cordially accepts it. This promise is made to the unbaptized children, no less than to the baptized believing, so long as they are clothed with childish innocence and continue in simplicity. But when they come to maturity and accept the dispensed gospel of grace through faith, then the Scriptures teach us that we should baptize them, Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15. But if they reject grace, and lead an easy, impen­itent life, neither Christ's blood nor death will avail them; much less will word and water avail them. For, "he that believeth not" (the Scripture means those of under­standing minds) "is condemned already," John 3:18.

In the fifteenth place he writes, "They err abomina­bly, because they conclude, from the Scriptures and examples which have reference to those of mature years, to a certainty, that it is an ordinance of God that the chil­dren should not be baptized, notwithstanding that there is not a tittle in the whole New Testament which forbids it. And therefore they are no less wrong than I should be if I would not feed my children that cannot labor, because Paul says, he that does not labor shall not eat, which is incontrovertibly spoken in regard to those of mature years, and not to children.

Answer. In my opinion, Gellius wilfully intends to uphold the things contrary to Christ and truth, that he may execute the office of an anti‑christian preacher, accord­ing to the pleasure of the world. For, when he should write that we act rightly according to the Scriptures, and that there is not a tittle in the New Testament that children should be baptized‑he writes that we err abominably, and that there is not a tittle that forbids infant baptism, &c.

Inasmuch as he so willfully and violent­ly contends against the Lord and his truth, and since he in various ways seeks to give his cause a fine appearance by the use of many borrowed words, lies, conjectures and perversion of the Scriptures, and says that we err abominably, &c., therefore I would briefly state: That if he can at any time prove to us by the unadulterated, divine Scriptures and truth, that John the Baptist practiced infant baptism any where; or that it was commanded of Christ and taught and practiced by the apostles; or, that it was, through the ordinance of the Lord, grad­ually practiced upon children, as he writes it was; or, that bringing to him is called baptism and baptism bringing to him, in the Scriptures; or, that Christ and the apostles have baptized the children that were brought to them; or, that Christ bap­tized them with a spirit that was powerful in works (the Spirit of God is never idle); or, that small children have faith, or that they are penitent, that they bury their sins and are circumcised through faith and there­by arise with Christ in newness of life; or, that circumcision is called baptism, and baptism circumcision; or, that they have the answer of a good conscience; or, that baptism, anywhere in the Scriptures, is called a sign of the covenant of grace, a sealing of the promise, and an incorpora­tion into the church, or that unconscious children speak with tongues as the believ­ing members of the house of Cornelius did, of whom Peter says, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we" Acts 10:47, or, that the true, prim­itive church practiced it by the apostolic doctrine, usage or command; or, that God is powerful through works which he has not ordained, then we will lay aside our pen, repent and confess before the whole world that our cause is mere deceit, and nothing but falsehood, in this respect.

But if he cannot do so, as it is impossible for him to do, then I would faithfully ad­monish and fraternally beseech him to con­sider earnestly and thoroughly how shame­fully he refiects on God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, John the Baptist and the apos­tles, in this matter of infant baptism; how lamentably he adulterates the plain Script­ures and deceives the poor souls; what gross falsehoods he teaches the poor people; how deceitfully he teaches the accursed abomina­tion and passes it for a holy, glorious work; and also, how unjustly he accuses us of abominably erring, we, who clearly have on our side Christ's plain word, the apostolic doctrine and usage, the signification of bap­tism, and the usage of the true, primitive churches; while he cannot show by a single word of all the Scriptures, that his infant baptism has any foundation in the ordi­nance and command of God. My faithful reader, beware; fear Good; act justly; search the Scriptures; shun falsehood and follow the truth.

Again, by undertaking to draw the say­ing of Paul, "That if any would not work, neither should he eat," into his argument, he contradicts himself, and is unworthy of a reply. For, as Paul thereby commands the idlers and busy‑bodies to earn their own bread by honorable labor, lest they become an offense, and troublesome to others, and since such cannot apply to children, there­fore such labor was not thereby commanded them. Neither does Paul say, he who does not work, &c., as Gellius writes; but he says, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." So, too, baptism is not commanded to be practiced on unconscious children, but it is commanded in the Script­ures to be practiced upon those who believe the word of the Lord, lead a penitent life and who have a sound understanding and comprehension of baptism, as has been said several times.

In the sixteenth place he writes, "That in Christ Jesus no respect of persons or time is made. For the glory of the kingdom of Christ is not limited to any cities, times or persons; so, neither to any age nor generation."

Answer. Herewith, if I understand it, he would assert that, although, according to his assertion, baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and the males only were circumcised in Israel, that notwithstanding this, both males and females are to be bap­tised, now, be they believers' children, and born of believing parents or not. If that is his meaning and foundation, then he should know that as the grace, favor, love, cove­nant and promise of God under the New Testament, extended to both men and women, so, also did it extend to all under the Old Testament. For, if God had coupled his covenant of grace and all to signs, whether it be circumcision or baptism, and if those alone were in the church who had received the sign, then the Israelitic women and maids, and also the children of the primitive churches, were in a bad situation; since the first, according to the Scriptures, were not circumcised, and the latter, ac­cording to the ancient authors, were not baptized, as has been already said.

No, reader, no. Abraham and all his seed, I mean both men and women, young and old, were the Lord's people and church. But the males only, were circumcised, and not the females, the male children of eight days old, and not the female children, ac­cording to the ordinance of God; yet, they all, both men and women, were members of the church under the covenant of God, and were children of the promise, although, I repeat it, the males only were circumcised, and not the females.

So it is under the New Testament. The gospel is preached, and all who believe it and are baptized, shall be saved; be they males or females. They are members of the church of Christ under God's covenant and grace; they are joint heirs of the king­dom of God, and children of eternal life; also the children, although they are not baptized, Mark 16:16; Acts 5:14; 1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:14.

For, as God would have his ceremonies under the Old Testament, such as circum­cision, the passover, sin‑offering, burnt‑of­fering, &c., practiced just as he ordained and commanded them through Moses, in the same manner he will have his signs, under the New Testament, such as baptism and Supper, practiced in no other way than he has commanded and ordained through his Son.

For he says, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." If, now, this Son had ordained infant baptism, then we should practice it, if we would be his disciples; but since he has not done so, we pronounce it, according to the Script­ures, accursed, as said, Gal. 1:8.

I further say, If they, now, place the children of both believing and unbelieving parents, on the same foundation; which, ac­cording to my opinion would not be con­trary to the Scriptures, then they must re­call their doctrine whereby they, before, applied the grace and covenant of God, with many words, to the children of believ­ing parents, and admit that their doctrine in regard to Abraham and his seed, where­by they make baptism take the place of circumcision, has no similarity to, nor con­nection with it, at all; for it was not com­manded of Abraham to circumcise all the children round about him, who were not his seed, but only those which were of his seed, as may be learned from Genesis 17.

In the seventeenth place he writes, would to God that they could once rightly understand the 5th chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, wherein he describes the church, saying, Christ loved the church, and gave him­self for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water in the word, or as Erasmus says, through the word. Then he goes on and says, This in­controvertibly includes the children along with their parents, that is, the believers and their seed, nay, the whole church. How should they, then, be excluded from the word, while it reads, He has cleansed the church with the washing of water by the word!

Answer. I trust that we, through the grace and enlightenment of the Lord, in our weakness, do not misunderstand these words of Paul, but that we do rightly un­derstand the meaning. We offer Gellius and all the learned, the use of all the Script­ures, besides all reason and experience, if they can show one tittle in the Holy Script­ures to prove that reason and experience teach, that we can teach little children the word of God, from which originates the true cleansing of the heart, or that the Scriptures of the New Testament any where apply the word and sacraments to them; if they can, then we will admit that they are cleansed by baptism through the word, or in the word. But, if they can not do so, then it is already proven that these words of Paul are not written in regard to little children.

It is true, Christ has so loved his church, that he has given himself for her, and has sanctified her through the power and merits of his innocent blood, and cleansed her by water, which is a sign of a new and peni­tent life, but not otherwise than in the word, or through the word, which, preached in the power of the Spirit, and accepted in true faith, is followed by the ordained baptism as commanded.

Christ said, "Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you," John 15:3; not, my reader, that they were clean on account that it was outwardly spoken unto them, but because they believed that which was spoken unto them. For God does not cleanse the hearts through any literal water, word or ceremony, but through faith in the word; otherwise all who out­wardly hear the word and receive the out­ward sign of the water, would be holy and clean; this is incontrovertible.

In the eighteenth place, He advances an argument and syllogism. Whatever pertains to the church, also pertains to the members of the church. Baptism per­tains to the whole church, both old and young‑there­fore baptism pertains to all the members of the church.

Answer. In my opinion it were better for Gellius, since he boasts himself a preach­er of the holy word, to leave his logic to the wise of the world, who, alas, seek their own praise and honor more than they do God's; and satisfy himself with the true doctrine, foundation and truth of Christ, and with the unpretentious, plain testimony of Mat­thew, the publican, and of Peter and John, the fishermen, &c., that he does not deceive the unlearned by such accute reasoning and lead them off the true way.

As to his major proposition (as he calls it), I would say, that if Gellius had applied it to grace, reconciliation, promise, eternal life, &c., which were bestowed upon the whole church, young as well as old, for Christ's sake, and not upon the ordinance of the church, then he would have been right; but as it is, he will have to admit that it is wrong, and contrary to the word of God. For, as regards the ordinances of which he speaks, in which baptism is in­cluded, I would say, that all the members of the church are not of one and the same calling, service and work, and are not under one and the same ordinance; for the Lord has ordained apostles, prophets, evangel­ists, pastors and servants, in his church, and all are not, on that account, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and servants. Thus it is with the ordinances of baptism and the Holy Supper, in his church; not that we should therefore serve them to the unconscious children, but only to the be­lieving and penitent, according to the Script­ures.

As to his minor proposition, I would say, our doctrine, belief, foundation and confes­sion is, that our unconscious children, so long as they live in their innocence, are, through the merits, death and blood of Christ, in grace, and joint heirs of the prom­ise, as has already been heard. The doc­trine of the New Testament, which is a doctrine of the Spirit, does not include them with those who are ruled and governed by the word and sacraments of God, and who are properly called the church of Christ in Scripture.

That the children should be counted into the church on account of the promise, we consent to, but we controvert that they should be included in the ordinances of the church; for this is contrary to all Scripture and common sense, as we will prove by Christ's own words. He also openly re­proves Christ and the apostles, together with the Holy Spirit. For he writes, "Bap­tism pertains to both young and old;" while they have not left us a single exam­ple, nor one word in all the Scriptures whereby it is taught or commanded, as may be seen.