Page:Complete Works of Menno Simons.djvu/349

Rh 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 baptism of 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