Reply to Gellius Faber: The True Signs of the Church of Anti-christ, Part 2

Answer. I fear that it would weary the reader to reply to all his false accusations minutely. Yet I would say, in regard to this, If I could speak with Gellius before the public, I have no doubt but many, through the grace of God, would begin to see that it is not us who have a wrong understanding, but them; that they prejudge us, indiscreetly; remain outside of the church of Christ, from motives of pride; and not only despise us, according to the manner of the Pharisees, but also often deprive us of possessions and life, as may be witnessed in different localities. But we must suffer, bear, and console ourselves with the saying, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you,” Matt. 5: 11, 12.

In the eleventh place he writes, “They will probably say that if we would be the church of Christ, we must verify the saying of Christ;” “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it;” and ask where our church has existed, inviolated by the devil, anti-christ and heresies. He further writes, “Since the church, which is not limited to certain boundaries, but is scattered over the whole world, has this article of faith,” “I believe in the holy, christian church, the communion of saints,” “and that she will endure unto the end of the world, therefore we are forced to acknowledge, that God, true to his promise, saves his church, and has always saved her, although the old serpent, the devil, deceives her by the lusts of the flesh, the pomp of the world and by many sects; and, although she is combatted, persecuted and disturbed, by the potentates of the world, until she, inattentive to her cause, drowsy in her prayer, indifferent to the will of God, and ungrateful for the word of God, or, until found apostatical of Christ, so enrages God that he takes from her the light of his word, and lets her fall into weighty errors, and adhere to idolatry, adultery, whoredom, and other sins and disgraces and follow after them, so that the church in such case, almost destroyed and ruined, scarcely is worthy of the name.”

Answer. I would beseech the diligent reader earnestly to observe how the words of Gellius sound, which I have here cited at length. He admits that the church, deceived and enchanted by the devil, the lusts of the flesh, the pomp, sects and potentates of the world, has become drowsy, inattentive, ungrateful, and an apostate of Christ, has enraged God, and fallen into all manner of wickedness and sins; yet he claims that she remains the church of Christ, as if the church was inherited by one generation from another, and did not consist in faith, Spirit and power. I would not know what poorer excuse he could find. Therefore observe that which I write, and let it be unto you a certain rule, namely, where the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ are found, that there the Nicene article comes in, “I believe in the holy christian church, the communion of saints, &c. On the other hand, where the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ are not to be found, but where the spirit, doctrine, sacraments and life of anti-christ are followed, there, also, is the church of anti-christ, and not the church of Christ, although we might say a thousand times, “I believe in the holy christian church.” For without, or against the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ, there can never be a christian church, however much we may pervert the truth. The word stands immutable. “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God,” 2 John, 9.

In the twelfth place he writes, “Because God, in his grace, has made an eternal covenant with his church, and has promised her that the gates of hell, although they may rend and weaken her, shall not thoroughly prevail against her, therefore he will, at all times, preserve a shadow of the evangelical doctrine and of his sacraments, upon which the church shall be upheld; and he will also preserve some members upon the true foundation, who will grow up amidst the thistles, thorns, wolves, bears and lions, and deliver them as in a violent hurricane, from the elements, as Noah was saved from the deluge.”

Answer. Where they conform themselves to the Spirit, word, sacraments, ordinances, commands, prohibitions, usage and example of Christ, there the holy christian church is found, as has been heard, and there is also the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. For although she grows as a rose amongst thorns, as he expresses himself, keeps herself amongst wolves, bears and lions, and as a ship cast about by wind and waves, she must suffer much tribulation, yet she cannot be capsized, that is, she cannot be turned from Christ (understand this to be the true christian church); for she is built upon a rock, Matt. 7: 24.

That this is the truth, the Scriptures and their examples teach us on every hand; and we also have found it so by facts, within the last few years. For, however fiercely the lions, bears and wolves have roared, raved and torn, for the last few years, by their frightful mandates, apprehending, torturing and murdering; and, although the waves often roll up to the clouds, yet the manifested truth remains with the humble and pious children; and however sharply the thistles and thorns may sting, yet this noble and beautiful rose daily grows, and, praise be to God, increases in size and strength, whereby it is made manifest unto many reasonable persons, that God’s promise to the church stands firm, and it is the miracle and power of the Most High; for neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord, Rom. 8: 38, 39.

Yet this thoughtless man thinks that they are the true, christian church, and does not observe that the beforementioned thistles, thorns, wolves, bears and lions, by which the true church has been so much troubled, and still continues to be, are members of the very church which he claims were and yet are the true church of Christ. For they, during the last few centuries, have used one sacrament, and, unseparated, were greeted as the children of grace, and were admitted and accepted in the communion of these churches.

He, besides, also consoles the poor people that the Lord has, at all times, preserved a shadow of the evangelical doctrine and of his sacraments upon which to support his church; as if God was well pleased with such a dead shadow of false preaching and of infant baptism; and, as if the church of Christ, the bride of God and of the Lamb, could be supported by adulterated doctrines and unscriptural sacraments. O, dear Lord! How long shall such errors yet endure? Who cannot understand such palpable deceit? He must have an extremely obdurate and perverse heart, or he must be a very ignorant and blunt man, I think.

In the thirteenth place he produces two arguments whereby he means to prove that their church is the general church (as he calls it) wherewith God has so dealt. And in the first place writes, “in which church anti-christ was seated; for, according to the prophecies of Paul, he had placed himself therein and exalted himself above God; and asserts that it is the true church to which God has given the promise, although she was dreadfully stained and miserably torn up. In our church the anti-christ has been seated, and placed himself as a God, and has exalted himself above all that is of God and religion—therefore our church is the true church and temple of God, to which the promise of God is given.” “This argument he proves with these words: “The first proposition is true; for Paul calls the church in which the anti-christ would place himself, the temple of God; the other is also too clear to be denied, from the prophecies of Paul and the teachings of experience. For in the churches which baptize infants, he and all the violent tyrants have exercised their power and violence, and trampled under foot all religion and worship. If both propositions now are true, then it follows, also, that the conclusion is true; and shows the anabaptists, in what a fearful condition they are, since they have left us and our church.”

Answer. By the side of this I will place my syllogism: Where true religion and worship, as required of the Scriptures, are trampled under foot, there is not the church of Christ. Anti-christ has, Gellius testifies, trampled under foot the true religion and worship required by the Scriptures, in the church of which Gellius speaks; therefore, the beforementioned church is not the church of Christ. All Scriptures teach that my first proposition is true; for Moses says, “Whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he” (meaning Christ) “shall speak in my name, I will require it of him,” Deut 18: 19. Christ says, “If ye continue” (mark, “continue”), “in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed,” John 8: 31. Again, Paul says, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed,” Gal. 1: 9. John, also, says, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God,” 2 John 1: 9.

My second proposition, Gellius admits to be true; for he says, that anti-christ has trampled religion and worship under his feet, as heard.

Since, then, that the first proposition can be substantiated by the Scriptures, and the second is acknowledged by Gellius to be right, therefore, my conclusion must also be right, namely, that the church to which he refers, is not the church of Christ. For she does not accept the word of Christ, but a strange gospel; and does not abide in the pure doctrine of his holy apostles; therefore they have not God in power, and are not the disciples of Christ; or else the cited sayings must be wrong and false.

As regards the first proposition of Gellius, Paul testifies in plain words, that it is false, for he says, “That day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,” 2 Thess. 2: 3. Here Paul teaches in tolerably plain words that the falling away of faith would first come as was also the case here, 2 Thess. 2: 3.

Since Paul openly testifies by the Spirit of God, that the falling away would come before the day of the Lord, and also shows through whom it would come, namely, through the man of sin (son of perdition); and since it is clearly visible that this son of perdition has placed himself in the temple of God, that is, in the hearts of man, or rather, in the stead of God in the beforementioned church, and has quite demolished and destroyed it, and through deceit has changed it, under the semblance of the name of Christ, from the doctrine and ordinances of God to his own doctrine and ordinances, therefore, I would leave the attentive reader to judge if this church, which is quite demolished and destroyed by him, can be called God’s temple. If he judge that it cannot be so called, then he judges rightly; otherwise many passages of the Scriptures would be fallible and false; and, as a consequence, God and the devil, Christ and anti-christ must have been seated in one temple, and reigned in one church. But, if they deny this, then I would again say that Luther and the learned have done wrong in bringing about such a disturbance, tribulation and misery in the world by their doctrine and change, since they, according to Gellius, still remained the church of Christ, although the anti-christ had quite destroyed and demolished the true religion. Reader, reflect upon this, and judge whether I write the truth or not.

In his second proposition he judges himself; for he writes, that anti-christ was seated in their church, which baptizes children; has placed himself therein as a God; trampled under foot the true religion and worship; he also acknowledges, above, under the head of the separation, that the papists are no christians; for he says, “that those who leave us would sooner become papists than christians again.” Kind reader, observe closely what I write. Since it is manifest that the Roman anti-christ has, for a number of years, reigned in peace in their church; has given them to drink from his cup of abominations; has destroyed the true religion, and re-instated his abominations; and since he himself admits that the papists are no christians, therefore, it is certain and plain that their church was not, as he claims, the general christian church and temple of God, to which the promise of God was given. For it cannot be that they can be the disciples of anti-christ and then yet remain the christian church and temple.

Now consider, if the pious, whom he calls anabaptists, are so much out of way, by renouncing all the anti-christian abominations, false, condemned sects and churches; and, if they place themselves in such a frightful position, as he sighingly complains, by humbly submitting themselves to the only, eternal Messiah, Christ Jesus, and by placing themselves as an example of all obedience and virtue, in their weakness, before all the world.

His second argument is this: “In and with all churches which teach the doctrine and faith of Christ Jesus; are not altogether fallen away; do not altogether reject and profane Christ and his holy gospel and which do not altogether trample upon the use of the holy sacraments and neglect them, as under the reign of Mahomet, there still remains the name of the holy church. In and with our church, which has the infant baptism as an apostolic ordinance, the doctrine and faith of Jesus Christ, as taught by the apostles, never was altogether fallen away, as it was with the Turks; although abominably adulterated and weakened by anti-christ; therefore, the name of the church remains with our community and has true members in it.”

Answer. If his first proposition was consistent and right, then it would also be consistent and right to say, The doctrine and faith never were entirely fallen away with the Arians, Circumcellians, Munsterians and other sects; the gospel was not altogether rejected and profaned, and the sacraments altogether trampled upon by them, therefore, the name of the church remains with them, and true members of the church are found among them. We are, therefore, also wrongfully called “devilish heretics, conspirers, and apostate anabaptists,” by him, for we so highly prize the gospel and the sacraments of our Lord Jesus Christ, that we daily sacrifice our possessions and blood for their sake, as may be seen.

If he should say that the beforementioned sects did not act and teach in accordance with the Scriptures, and that they therefore were not in the communion of the christian church; then he judges himself still more markedly. For the papistic church to which he refers, did not do this; if they did rightly act and teach, then he very unjustly says that they are not christians, as has been heard that he did.

Again, by his writing, “There still remains the name of the holy church,” he openly testifies that his assertion is without all foundation in the Scriptures; for he does not refer to the unadulterated doctrine, to the salutary use of the holy sacraments, nor to the pious, unblamable life, which should ever be found in the church of Christ; as if the name could keep the church in God and could bind it to the promise, without the Spirit, word, sacraments, faith and obedience of Christ. No, no, reader, no. “I know,” says the First and the Last, “the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,” Rev. 2: 9. If the name alone constituted the true church, then all the raving tyrants, enemies of christian truth, all murderers, perjurers, whoremongers, avaricious, pompous and unrighteous, would be members of the church of Christ, for they call themselves after the name of Christ. This is incontrovertible.

As to his second proposition, I would say in the first place, Since he says that their church has infant baptism, as an apostolic ordinance, that he thereby heaps open falsehood upon the holy apostles, the upright, pious testifiers of eternal truth; for he never can prove by a single word in the Scriptures, that they taught or practiced infant baptism, as has been sufficiently shown, above.

In the second place I would say, That the church to which he refers, was not only adulterated and weakened, as he calls it, but has become so estranged from God, that she has worshipped, honored and served wood, stone, gold, and silver gods, and, besides bread and wine; as has, alas, been seen these many years, in all the temples and houses of worship, throughout Europe; and, as may yet, daily, be seen in many kingdoms, cities and towns. Yet, Gellius asserts that their church ever was the church of Christ. I have never heard more inconsistent reasoning. Therefore, dear reader, beware, and do not listen to the smooth talk of the learned, for they deceive you. But hearken unto him who says, “I am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life,” John 8: 12, and then you will never be deceived.

Reader, understand what I mean; we do not dispute about whether or not there are some of the chosen one’s of God, in the beforementioned churches; for this we, at all times, humbly leave to the just and gracious judgment of God, hoping there may be many thousands who are unknown to us, as they were to holy Elias; but our dispute is, in regard to what kind of Spirit, doctrine, sacraments, ordinances and life, Christ has commanded us to gather unto him an abiding church, and how we should maintain it in his ways.

Behold, reader, these are his most important arguments with which to maintain his assertion, “that their church is the true one,” namely, because they sprang from the papists, and practice infant baptism. Just hear how strangely he writes. In my opinion, he pens all that comes in his mind, if it has but a little semblance, that it may tickle the ears of the thoughtless people, and console them in their impenitent, easy life. If these adduced assertions of his were true, then it could not be otherwise than that hitherto the church of Christ must have been the church of anti-christ, or that of anti-christ must have been the church of Christ; also, Christ and anti-christ must have both reigned in one church; infant baptism must have been called apostolic, without the Scriptures, and the mere name constitutes the church of Christ; this, by the grace of God, no one can successfully rebut; let him garble and twist the matter as adroitly as he pleases.

In the first place Gellius accuses us, saying, “They (he means us), falsely, adorn and deck themselves with the sanctity of the church. For, since the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies the church both by the remission of sin, and dying unto the old man with all his lusts, and also by the nullifying of the sins in the flesh, is given through faith, therefore I cannot see how they can receive the Holy Spirit, together with true sanctification, and be the true, holy church, while they so bitterly contend among themselves about the divinity of the Holy Spirit (which, besides other evidence, sufficiently proves his divinity by the work of sanctification), as well as about many other articles of faith.”

Answer. Zuinglius formerly taught that the will of God actuated a thief to steal, a murderer to kill, and that their punishment was also brought about by the will of God; which, in my opinion, is an abomination of abominations. Now, if I conclude that because Zuinglius taught so, all preachers teach it, it would be a wrong conclusion. Athanasius could not prevent Arius from teaching that the Holy Spirit was a creature of the creature of Christ.

Reader, understand my meaning. I never have thought that God’s Holy and eternal Spirit was not God, with God and in God; yet, he would accuse us, who are not guilty, of denying the sanctification, grace, fruit and power of the Holy Spirit, because some, who have been separated from us, have erred in this respect, and probably still err; although he plainly sees and palpably feels the sanctification and power of the Holy Spirit in us, namely, that it smothers the old man with his lusts, and destroys the sins of the flesh; something which he calls the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, as has been heard. Behold, thus he upbraids and accuses the guiltless. Whether this is not the Parisaic, envious and disgraceful spirit, which explains away the good intentions of Christ and his disciples, and thereby inflamed the thoughtless populace against them, I will leave to his own reflection.

In the second place he accuses us, saying, “They have an obdurate faith; one half of which is founded upon the merits of Christ, and the other upon their own merits. For Obbe Philips, who has a great many followers (as he says) does plainly assert that the justification of man is not brought about by faith alone, but by faith, love and good works.”

Answer. I would humbly ask Gellius this question: Does it follow that because Obbe Philips formerly taught this doctrine, Menno and the others also teach it? If he answer in the affirmative, then I would say that he does us an injustice, as, alas, he often does. For our doctrine and publications abundantly testify that we and the church of God are not thus minded, but that we seek justification alone in the righteous and crucified Christ Jesus.

But if he answer in the negative, then I wish he would have the kindness and virtue in him to make a difference and not mix the innocent with the guilty; and I also wish that he would say no more than the truth; for he writes that the beforementioned “Obbe Philips has a considerable number of followers,” and I make the assertion that he cannot find more than six or ten who believe as he does.

In the third place he accuses us, saying, “How can they be a holy church who disagree among themselves about the head of the church; do not suffer him to be the true God, and thereby resuscitate the old Arian heresy.”

Answer. We may well sincerely thank the Most High, that he so manifests unto us his paternal grace and great mercy, that even our most adroit and acute opponents cannot accuse us but by such puerile, and, for the greater part, false reasoning. If he would consult natural honor, not to mention love and truth, as much as he, alas, consults bitter and envious feeling, how loth would he be to think that which he now is not ashamed to publish in writing, indiscriminately saying that we resuscitate the old Arian heresy, while he and his like, well know that such have no part in the communion of our churches, so long as they do not renounce such errors, as heard.

O dear Lord, how long will such bitter and envious accusations and false backbitings continue? Would to God that the magistrates would have a little fear of the Lord, and consider what they are doing, and that they would hear and compare the different parties, so that they would once learn whom and for what purpose they persecute, and what kind of people and teachers they are whom they daily maintain and encourage in their injustice and abominations, by their violence.

In the fourth place he accuses us, saying, “If they are the true, holy church, the spiritual bride of Christ, pure, holy, and unblamable, then let them prove the unity of the Spirit, especially concerning the twelve articles of faith, which are the foundation of the church; then the one should not be Mennonite, the other Adam Pastorite, the third Obbeite, the fourth Dirkite, &c. For although they may ban one another as much as they please, it still is evidently true that they are all anabaptists and enemies to infant baptism, and thus still continue to conspire and fanaticize against the churches of Christ.”

Answer. I trust that we, by the grace of God, are so wedded to our Lord and Bridegroom, Christ Jesus, that we are prepared to sacrifice our lives for the sake of hearing his holy voice. We do not boast of our holiness and piety, as Gellius accuses us, but of our great weakness. I also trust that we, who are grains of one loaf, agree in not only the twelve articles (as he counts them), but in all the articles of the Scriptures, as regeneration, repentance, baptism, Holy Supper, separation, &c., which we, along with Isaiah, Peter and Paul, Isaiah 28: 16; 1 Peter 2: 6; Eph. 2: 20, accept as the only foundation of the churches, as preached by Christ’s own, blessed mouth, and left and taught us in clear and plain words; and not only the twelve articles as he does.

Neither are we so divided as he says; for Dirk (Dietrich Philip) and we are of the same mind, and I trust, through the grace of God, we will ever remain so. But that Obbe has become a Demas, and that Adam Pastor has separated from us, is not our fault. Such things, also, often happened in the apostolic times. God reclaim them at his will; they have taken their leave, and are, alas, no more counted among us, so long as they do not repent.

His writing “that we still conspire and contend against the church of Christ,” and other like bitter and resenting words, show that he is so actuated by the spirit of envy, that he cannot write or speak a discreet and reasonable word about us; but he must call us fanatics, conspirators, hedge preachers and sneaks; and he never observes how different of opinion, and how divided in doctrine the baptizers of infants are, who claim to be the true church; and into how many different sects they are divided. One party is papistic; the other Lutheran; the third Zuinglian; the fourth Calvinistic, &c.; and, although they violently quarrel among themselves, disgrace, condemn and ruin each other, as much as they please, yet it is still evidently true that they baptize their children, are unfriendly to the baptism of Christ, continue to conspire against the truth, and persecute it and the church of Christ. O, reader, that the world would once learn to know who are the fanatics and conspirators; then we might hope for the better, but as it is, it is hidden from their eyes.

In the fifth place he accuses us, saying, “If they are the holy church, then, let them hearken unto the voice of Christ; which says that the word of the holy gospel and its sacraments should not be preached and dispensed in secret nooks and corners, but in public.”

Answer. If we are not the true church of Christ, but if Gellius and his like are that church, as he pretends, and would yet have us publicly proclaim our doctrine, why has he then twice refused a public discussion with me, under safe conduct, to which I have invited him, while he well knows that I have to endure so much for the sake of my doctrine and faith? It would be reasonable, if we err in some things, from which God preserve us, that he should go with me before the public, vanquish and convince me of our errors, for God knows that I am willing to be vanquished if I can be convinced by stronger Scriptures and more powerful truths; that he might thus receive the applause of his fellows (which he, in my opinion, very much strives after), and, besides save my soul and the souls of many others.

If he is a true preacher, and a member of the true church of Christ, why does he, then, desire us to go before the public, while he well knows that I could not do so without the loss of blood and life? I freely offer myself, if he can show one plain passage in the Scriptures, that the apostles and prophets have publicly taught at such places where they knew that the people had resolved upon their death, as, alas, they have every where resolved upon our death, and, by the grace of God, we will do the same.

I know to a certainty that he can find no such examples nor Scriptures in the Bible. Yea, dear reader, if he would be straightforward in assigning the reason why he ever desires us to go and preach in public, he would confess that he seeks nothing by his hypocritical and artful pretension, other than to make our cause suspicious with the people, that his cause shall make a good appearance, and that he is very desirous and thirsty after the blood of the innocent, while he, I say, against all reason, love, and Scriptures, desires us publicly to proclaim our doctrine, well knowing that in all Germany, not a place can be found where this could be done without imprisonment, violence, or rebellion. If he, now, were in the truth, as he would like to be considered, namely, an upright, unblamable preacher, how loth would he be to think of such gross disgrace, which he now, alas, dares loudly proclaim both by speaking and writing. David says, “The Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man,” Ps. 5: 6.

In the sixth place he accuses us, saying, “As they want to be the true church of Christ, they would do well to look back to the origin of their church and see how it agrees with the origin and age of the true church. That their church is not of the origin and times of Adam, Abraham, or David, is proven by their wrong opinion and abominable error in regard to the incarnation of Christ, whereby they make him neither God nor man, and rob us of our Messiah. Also, above, under the head of the Calling, he writes, It is an abominable fruit that they have resuscitated, and again introduced into the world such a disgraceful error in regard to the incarnation of Christ. For if Christ was not of our flesh (of which he was not, unless he received it from the woman), then the law was not fulfilled in our flesh; then the righteousness of God is not yet acquitted, which without the ransom would not leave us unpunished.

Answer. The learned ever slander us and complain because we, with the angel Gabriel, Luke 1: 32; with John the Baptist, John 1: 15—36; with Peter, Matt. 16: 16; with Martha, John 11: 27; with the apostles, Matt. 14: 33, and with the eternal Father himself, acknowledge Christ, both according to his divinity and humanity, as the true and only begotten Son of God; and we dare not teach and believe more nor otherwise than the word of the Lord teaches us of him. I would therefore beseech all readers and hearers to consider well the following brief answers and references. I trust that, by the grace of God, I will be able to explain the matter so clearly in a few words, that the reader will plainly see that they not only rob us of Christ, the doctrine, sacraments, Spirit, life, ordinances and usage of our Savior, but also rob him of his most holy origin, glory, honor and person; and, that they, by their deceiving comments and reasoning, render Christ a divided, impure and inconsistent Christ, both according to nature and the Scriptures. Whosoever has ears to hear let him hear, and whosoever has a mind to understand let him understand.