Page:Complete Works of Menno Simons.djvu/350

50 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.

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!

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