Reply to Gellius Faber: Concerning Baptism, Part 1

I deem it unnecessary to write much concerning the baptism of the believing, in this place; why we teach that it shall be received and practiced at the confession of faith; for we have explained this matter before, by so many plain Scriptures and reasons, to the intelligent reader, that he can plainly see and palpably feel the foundation and truth.

Therefore I will refer to the main articles and arguments with which Gellius undertakes to defend his infant baptism as apostolic and christian, and will rebut them with the Scriptures; and I trust to be enabled, by the grace of God, to do this with such clearness and power that all attentive, intelligent readers may fully perceive that he can stand before the holy ordinance, word and truth of the Lord, with his infant baptism, as little as he can with his calling.

Before I enter upon the examination of the matter, I would, not without cause, first relate to the kind reader, that some years ago, I had a discussion with John A’Lasco, Gellius and Herman; and, as we had a lengthy reasoning concerning baptism, and they admitted that all the Scriptures which I adduced, relating to the matter, were spoken by the ancient or believing, we at last got on the subject of infant baptism, which, according to their opinion was also right, although not Scriptural. At last, after having had a lengthy discussion and after they had made many unscriptural assertions, I propounded two questions and prayed them for God’s sake to answer them Scripturally. The first question was, Has a ceremony any promise, which is practiced without the command of God? They answered that it had not. Then I asked them, in the second place, Is not such a ceremony, which is practiced without the command of God, idolatry? They answered that it was.

When I heard them answer these questions thus unreservedly, I said, Well, dear men, what will become of your infant baptism? They all three simultaneously answer: Yea, dear Menno, if you would ask of us for the command, then show us first where it is commanded that we should baptize the believing. When I heard this I was much alarmed, for I perceived that, in fact, they meant nothing but party and carnality. I pointed them to the sixteenth chapter of Mark, where the Lord speaks, “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.

But this was no command to them. Then I referred them to Matthew 28: 19, where the Lord says, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them (or as the Greek text has it: Make all nations disciples, and baptize them), in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

This did not avail with them, for it reads, they said, “baptizing” and not “baptize them;” although, alas, they well knew that the surest translation is the Greek text in the imperative mode, namely, baptize them; something which I had till then never noticed so particularly.

Behold, they contended so wilfully against the plain word and truth of God, that they openly denied it to be a command; while they had many times read (also according to the Lutheran translation) that the Lord had commanded it in an express command, saying, “And baptize them.”* [*]

When I perceived that they wanted to find an excuse by means of the use of the participle, I proposed the following, If I command my servant and say, Go and plow the ground, sowing it with wheat; as the Lord said, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,” &c., have I not, I now ask, commanded my servant to plow the land and to sow it with wheat, although I use the participle sowing, the same as baptizing was used. They answered that this was using philosophy and not the Scriptures. Behold my reader, thus boldly they sought to deny the truth.

Seeing that they, although convinced, obstinately persevered in falsehood and would not receive the powerful and plain truth, as did the Pharisees, I was much grieved and said, Men! men!! Since I find it to be a fact that you, in perversity of heart, reject God’s truth, and delight in falsehood, I will be silent and not speak another word with you concerning this matter; for, alas, it is all in vain! Reader, in the day of the appearance of Jesus Christ, before his impartial and eternal judgment, it will be found true as I here write.

Behold, so dishonestly do they deal with God’s precious and eternal truth, that they then pretended that there was no command to baptize the believing, and now they have an abundance of commands to baptize the unconscious children. O, God! thus they mock with the souls of men, and they know not how much to garble, bend and break the sure foundation of truth, that they may remain on the broad road, without the cross, that they may please the world and that they may lead a careless life according to the lusts of the flesh.

Gellius first says in regard to this matter, That we blasphemously speak against the holy church, because we say that the children cannot believe, cannot repent and cannot obey the word of the Lord, while they (as he says) constitute a great part of the church, and that they are referred to in plain and clear words by the prophet Joel, in the preaching of repentence, &c.

Answer. His commencement is unscriptural and his end will be unscriptural. Observe, the word of God shall be our judge. Say, beloved, is it not a great blindness in him to undertake to include unconscious children in the preaching of repentance? and a little further on admits himself that they cannot, in their feeble understanding, understand the doctrine, which is a doctrine of penitence. If they cannot understand the doctrine how can they then believe; if they do not believe how can they then repent, and if they do not repent how can they be included in the preaching of repentance? If they, then, have neither doctrine, faith nor repentance, which he admits they have not, on account of their feeble understanding, and which is not necessary for them to have, while they are God’s own and while sin has not become alive in them to bring forth fruit, therefore all of sound judgment must admit he reproves himself and acknowledges that he wrongfully accuses us, when he says, that we speak blasphemously against the holy church, because we say that the unconscious children cannot repent, believe nor obey; for he admits that they, in the feebleness of their understanding, cannot understand the doctrine, from which faith, repentence and obedience originate, as has been already said.

In the second place he writes, That there is one church and one faith, both under the Old and New Testaments, from the time of Adam to the end of the world; and that from the time of Abraham, under the Old Testament, preaching and circumcision was commanded for the purpose of the gathering, edification, growth and extension of the church, and under the New Testament, preaching and baptism, without regard to the age of persons.

Answer. I understand it that all those who, from the time of Adam to the present time, and also hereafter, had, have and shall have the Spirit, mind and nature of Jesus Christ, and who did, do and shall walk as obedient children by virtue of such a spirit, in truth, were, are and shall be the Lord’s church, kingdom and people. But we would have reasonably expected that Gellius would have added that each in his times had a peculiar doctrine, ordinance and usage. That from the time of Adam to Abraham no ceremony was practiced on the children because the Lord had not commanded it; and that circumcision was commanded from Abraham to the time of Christ. But now we have Christ, the promised prophet, Deut. 18: 15; Acts 7: 37, to whom all the Scriptures pointed that we should obey and follow him. He is the eternal Word and Wisdom of God; all that abide in his doctrine, walk in the truth, for his word is truth, and his command is eternal life. What ordinance this wise counsellor has commanded us concerning the children, under the New Testament; what he has commanded us and what he has not, concerning them, all pious, faithful hearts may learn from his holy word.

But what he says in regard to them, that in the New Testament no regard is made as to age, but that we should preach to all and baptize them, is in my opinion so directly contrary to Scripture, common sense and his own words, that he should reasonably be ashamed of the assertion. For how can we teach a little, unconscious child repentance according to the word of God? Christ commanded that we should preach the gospel to those who have understanding, and those who believe are to be baptized. Nor has he left in his gospel any other command, ordinance or example concerning this matter.

Besides, he acknowledges that the children, on account of their feeble understanding, cannot understand the doctrine, as already heard. Yet he writes, in the face of this plain ordinance of the Almighty God, and his own confession, that in the New Testament, teaching and baptizing are commanded, without respect to age.

Behold, thus grossly err all who reject the word of the Lord. Is this not violently rejecting Christ and accepting anti-christ, and is it not plainly wrong? I must admit that I have never read a word in the Scriptures with such misunderstanding.

In the third place Gellius writes, That the church should give the seal of the covenant of grace to children according to the command of God because they are participants in the covenant or promise of God, and in the sanctity of the church and in eternal life; for the covenant is not altered and God is no less gracious to our children, who are born under the promise, than to the children of Israel who were born according to the flesh; for it is written, I will be thy God and thy children’s after thee; and that therefore, in the gathering of the churches, under the Old and New Testaments the same command obtains, both as regards the preaching, and the use of the holy sacraments.

Answer. Gellius does even as all the false prophets have done who miserably deceived the people, and pretended that the Lord of lords said so, although the Lord had not spoken it, as Scripture informs us, Jer. 23 : 17; Ezek. 13: 7.

Say, reader, is it not an intrepid deed and a condemnable boldness, that he dares publish to the whole world that God has commanded it; since eternal Wisdom has neither commanded it by word nor deed? Peruse the whole New Testament from beginning to end, and if a word can be found that the mouth of the Lord has commanded it, or that the apostles have anywhere taught or practiced it, then we will, by the grace of God, unanimously admit that he is right.

Inasmuch, as it is clear that nothing has been mentioned concerning it in all the Holy Scriptures, as has been said, and that he, in the face of this, dares write that they do it according to the command of God, then the pious reader may imagine how abominably he sins against his God, especially since truth is manifest, and how lamentably he deceives the poor souls by open falsehood when he writes that God commanded it; since the Holy Spirit, I say, has not expressed it in a single word, nor manifested it unto the church of God by word or practice of the true witnesses of Christ.

His assertion that the command is not altered, is so diametrically opposed to truth, that we may well wonder at it. The Scriptures clearly testify that God promised Abraham the multiplying of his seed, and the land of Canaan as an eternal inheritance, and commanded him that he should circumcise himself, his son Ishmael, &c.; also all male children of the age of eight days; for it was a covenant in the flesh, Gen. 17.

And thus was commanded to Abraham, at the promise of the multiplication of his seed and the possession of the land of Canaan, the blood-sign of the circumcision of the foreskin, on the eighth day of their age, of all the male children and not the female children. But to us the blood-sign of circumcision is not commanded, but baptism in the water. Now, observe the first difference. Not on the eighth day, but when we, through the spirit, in faith, are born of God, and have become followers of Abraham. Observe the second distinction. Not alone the males, but both males and females, who through the preaching of the holy word, have died unto the old life and have arisen with Christ in newness of life; who are pricked in their hearts; who circumcise their hearts and minds; who put on Christ, and who have the testimony of a clear conscience, before God, Rom. 6; Acts 2: 37; Col. 2; 11; Gal. 3: 27; 1 Pet, 3: 21. Observe the third difference. Not to possess a literal kingdom and land, and to become a great people upon earth, as was promised to Abraham and his seed; but to bear all manner of anxiety, affliction, tribulation and misery upon earth, for the sake of the testimony of the word of God; to turn the heart away from all visible and perishable things; to die unto pomp, splendor, the world and flesh, and thus to walk in our weakness as Christ has walked in his perfection, &c.

Behold, reader, how openly he adulterates the Scriptures, and how grossly he perverts the truth when he writes that the command is unchanged, and that the gathering of the churches under the Old and New Testaments are the same, and that no different commands are given, both as regards preaching and the use of the sacraments; for it is all changed and renewed as may be clearly educed from the foregoing references. I will leave to your reflections if such a thing may not be called perverting truth into falsehood.

Again, from his saying that the church is no less gracious to our children than to the children of Israel, born in the flesh, I understand him to say, If God will not have our children baptized, that he is less gracious to them than he was to the children of the circumcision; by which he openly testifies that he couples the kingdom, grace and promise of God with that sign.

If God is only gracious to such children as have received, or may receive that outward sign, then it must necessarily follow that God has been ungracious to, and displeased with all the children before the law of circumcision; besides to all children who died before the eighth day, and during the forty years they passed in the wilderness, together with all the maids and women, because they were not circumcised; then he must also be displeased with all the children under the New Testament, for they are not commanded to be baptized.

O no, to children belongs the kingdom of God. Not by virtue of any sign, but alone by grace through Christ Jesus, Matt. 19: 14. And as to his calling infant-baptism a sealing of the covenant of grace, I would reply, If he can show me a place in all the New Testament where the baptism of the believing is called a sealing of the covenant of grace, then I will admit that he is right. But I know to a certainty, that he cannot do so. If the baptism of the believing, which is ordained of God himself, is not called such, how can infant baptism, then be called such, which is not ordained of God, but is merely self-chosen fiction invented of man?

If he should allude to the circumcision, I would say that they are two distinct and different signs, and that the first has no relation whatever to the second; for these following reasons: Firstly, because all the signs, before and under the law, given to the patriarchs, as the coats of skins to Adam; the rain-bow to Noah; the circumcision to Abraham; the yearly offering of the high priests, &c., Gen. 3: 21; 9: 16; 17: 10, 11; Lev. 16, all, unitedly pointed to Christ who has now appeared, and in whom all the preceding signs are fulfilled; and we now have no sealing or assurance through outward signs and symbols, but through the true Sign of all signs, Christ Jesus, as he himself says, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life; for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son,” John 3: 14—16. Secondly, because we, now, are not a people according to the letter; as was Israel, but are a people according to the spirit; who, before they receive the sign, are turned to God through the preaching of repentance; who die unto the old sinful life; who receive the light of grace in their hearts; who accept the true Sign of peace, Christ Jesus, through faith; arise with him into a new life and are thus sealed in their hearts, through the promise of the Holy Ghost and the eternal covenant and the grace of God. For if we were not sealed in our hearts before the sign, then we could not truly repent before the sign; nor could we burden ourselves with disesteem, disgrace, anxiety, tribulation and misery which are connected with the cross.

But by the sign, which we accept in obedience to the holy word, we testify that we, through Christ, the true Sign, given us by the Father, and made known to us through the word, have peace with God, and that we are assured of the spirit of his grace,

Behold, my reader, here you may now observe that the signs of the New Testament do not seal or assure us, as the learned teach the poor people; but that our only, eternal surety, is Christ Jesus; that the sealing of our hearts is the Holy Spirit; and that the signs or sacraments are nothing more than that they are given to the penitent, sealed and assured christians, for the purpose of admonishing and reminding us that we should walk in continual repentance; that we should practice our faith, and that we should eternally give praise to the Lord for his inexpressibly great kindness and grace, through Jesus Christ.

All who teach differently, and point you to water, bread and wine as a sealing or assurance, as Gellius does, points you away from the true Being, to the signs; from Christ to Moses again; give you a vain hope and a false surety and cause you to remain impenitent and without Christ all your lifetime; for you console yourself so much with the signs, that you remain without the signified truth, as may, alas, be plainly seen by the whole world.

For however drunken, covetous, pompous vain and given to lies they may be, they still boast themselves christians. They are so consoled with this ungodly sealing of the idolatrous water (I say ungodly sealing because it is so directly contrary to the word of God) and with the bread and wine of the preachers, that they all walk upon the broad road, and remain without the word of God.

Behold, this is the proper fruit and effect of the sealing of Gellius, which he so highly praises and so artfully teaches. But, as regards the saying: I will be your God and your seed’s after you, from which they conclude that as the children of Abraham were circumcised with him on account of the promise; that also our children should be baptized on account of the same promise, I would reply, Firstly, God promised Abraham to be his God and his children’s God. In this promise the females were included as well as the males; this must be admitted. Notwithstanding, Israel did not circumcise the females but only the males, although the females were included in the promise; and that because God had so ordained it. From which it may be safely educed that the male children of the seed of Abraham were not circumcised for the sake of the promise but for the sake of the ordinance which was commanded to Abraham and his seed. For if it had been done for the sake of the promise, and not for the sake of the ordinance, then the females should also have been circumcised, as joint participants and joint heirs of the same promise. This is incontrovertible.

In the second place I would say, That if Israel had followed the doctrine of Gellius, and some other preachers, in respect to this matter, then they would also have circumcised the females, notwithstanding they were not commanded to do so; for they were joint heirs of the covenant of grace, as our children whom they want to have baptized, are joint heirs of the promise.

If they should answer, that the ordinance referred to the males and not to the females, although the females were joint heirs of the covenant of grace, then I would reply that their cause is already lost. For as the command of circumcision at that time, had only reference to the males and not to the females, although the females were joint heirs of the promise, so also does now the ordinance of baptism have reference to the believing and penitent, and not to the unconscious children, although they are joint heirs of the promise, as heard.

They further say, If infant baptism is not commanded neither is it prohibited. To this I reply: The circumcision of the females was neither ordained nor prohibited, even as infant baptism is neither ordained nor prohibited, yet they did not circumcise the females, and that because they were not commanded to do so. Therefore, all who blame us because we do not baptize our children, who are joint heirs of the promise and are not prohibited from being baptized, also blame Israel because they did not circumcise their female children, who were joint heirs of the promise and were not prohibited from being circumcised.

Thirdly, I would say, since I observe that Gellius only includes the children of believing, and not of unbelieving parents in the baptism, and since he well knows that the proud, avaricious, pompous, envious, bloodguilty, whoring and idolatrous are not believers, nor, according to Scripture, joint heirs of the promise, therefore I cannot stop wondering at his inattention, that he, against his own belief and doctrine, yet baptizes the children of such parents, whom he must acknowledge, as being without God and Christ, and therefore having no promise. If he says that he does not know the faith of others, then I would say again, that he then acknowledges, in the first place, that his infant baptism has an unstable foundation, if we, according to his own words, are to baptize them on account of the promise to the parents, while he does not know whether the parents believe or not; and, in the second place, that such parents are not fruitful trees nor shining lights.

But what shall we say! If Gellius were to tell all his pompous, drunken, usurious, and unrighteous members, without respect to person, that they are without Christ and have no promise, and would not baptize their children, he would not long remain a preacher at Emden, nor enjoy his easy, careless life in peace.

He further writes, That Paul testifies that baptism has taken the place of circumcision, has the same signification and is called the circumcision of Christ.

Answer. In this instance Paul himself rebukes him, that he has mistaken his word; for he says, “Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the God-head bodily; and ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead; and you, being dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses,” Col. 2: 8—13.

My faithful reader, observe the word of the Lord; the doctrine of the New Testament, and his sacraments treat of none but those who have ears to hear and hearts to understand. For it is a service of the Spirit, and not of the letter, as Paul says, 2 Cor. 3: 6.

Inasmuch as the preachers ever point the poor, simple people to the elementary water, bread and wine, and teach that baptism is our seal which assures us that we are heirs of the covenant of grace; that God operates through his sacraments, &c., and, since we find, however, that neither the sealing, surety nor power are found in their hearts, as the fruits testify, but that they are led by the preachers to a false profession, vain hope and an unstable surety, under the semblance of the gospel; therefore I would faithfully admonish all my readers and hearers with these words adduced from Paul, not to be at all deceived by such high-sounding, smooth words of the philosophy and artful fictions of men, nor by the hypocrisy and worldly institutions of the learned, but to follow after the perfect Institutor, Christ Jesus, in whom is embodied the perfection of the God-head, truth, light, power, righteousness, &c., and who therefore does not point to uncertain, deceitful, dark and unrighteous ways, but in him all true christians are perfect and full of his grace, Spirit, love and power.

He is the head of all principalities before whom every knee shall bow, and whom all tongues shall confess that he is the Lord, and that besides him there is no other, Isaiah 45: 23; Phil. 2: 10. Therefore his word shall avail, and his command shall stand, and not that which the world adds to his kingdom or church, in which all regenerated children, who are of his Spirit, are not now circumcised unto Christ, with hands, as was the case with literal Israel, but the impure foreskins of their hearts are circumcised with the Lord’s word, Spirit and power, that they may become in spirit a new, regenerated Israel and people of God, by dying unto their sinful flesh, and by smothering the old man through the circumcision of Christ, which purifies and changes their hearts through his word and Spirit. For the penitent are buried with him in baptism, die unto the old sinful life, and arise in the new life of righteousness and virtue, by means of faith, through which God operates by the preaching of his powerful word, and the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. The faithful God and Father who has resurrected his Son from the dead, has also bestowed his power upon us, poor sinners, and has graciously resurrected us, who were dead in so many gross sins and tresspasses, into a new life with him; has called us from darkness unto light, and has placed us with him in a celestial being, in Christ, Eph. 2: 1; 1 Pet. 3, &c.

Behold, dear reader, this is the proper ground and meaning of the words of Paul, by which Gellius tries to show, that baptism has taken the place of circumcision and is called the circumcision of Christ.

Judge now, if you fear God, whether you find a word in the writings of Paul, that has reference to unconscious infants. That this saying of Paul has reference to the believing and penitent, and not to unconscious children, all reasonable, to say nothing of spiritual persons, must acknowledge and admit. Notwithstanding, he writes that this saying implies that baptism has taken the place of circumcision and is called Christ’s circumcision. He does, or will not observe that the circumcision of Jesus Christ to which Paul alludes, is done without hands, and that he daily serves with his hands the infant baptism which he calls the circumcision of Jesus. Behold, thus lamentably does he satisfy Paul, and thus violently break the word of God.

If he seeks an evasion to adorn his cause, and say, that God works through his sacraments invisibly in the heart, which the sign represents, then the deceit will be more distinct. For how shall God operate through a sign which is an abomination before Him? I say an abomination, because he has not commanded it, and because neither doctrine, confession, faith nor repentance precede it, which these signs represent, in the New Testament. Then, also, the sign and the signification must be one and the same, which never was nor ever will be the case unless the letter becomes spirit. This is incontrovertible. Yea, my reader, how the baptized children are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ Jesus in the foreskin of their hearts, which is the circumcision of the New Testament, the deeds and the fruits of the world, alas, plainly show.

In the fourth place he writes, As in the Scriptures, which testify that women are participants in the merits of Christ, and are disciples, a command is implied that the Holy Supper shall be dispensed to them, so, also, a command is implied in the Scriptures, which testify that children are of the church of Christ and of the Kingdom of God, that they should be baptized.

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 day, 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.