Page:Complete Works of Menno Simons.djvu/355

Rh 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.

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.

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