Reply to Gellius Faber: Concerning Baptism, Part 1

I consider it unnecessary to write much here about the baptism of believers, or about why we teach that it shall be received and practiced upon the confession of faith; for we have explained this matter before, to the intelligent reader, with so many plain Scriptures and reasons that he can plainly see and palpably feel its foundation and truth.

Therefore I will turn to the main articles and arguments with which Gellius undertakes to defend his infant baptism as apostolic and Christian, and will refute them with the Scriptures; and I trust that by the grace of God I will be enabled 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 first, not without cause, tell the kind reader that some years ago I had a discussion with John A’Lasco, Gellius and Herman. We reasoned at length about baptism, and they admitted that all the Scriptures I brought forward on the matter were spoken of adults, or believers; at last we came to the subject of infant baptism, which in their opinion was also right, although not Scriptural. Finally, after a lengthy discussion, and after they had made many unscriptural assertions, I put two questions to them and begged them for God’s sake to answer them Scripturally. The first question was: Does a ceremony that is practiced without the command of God have any promise? They answered that it did not. Then I asked them, in the second place: Is not such a ceremony, practiced without the command of God, idolatry? They answered that it was.

When I heard them answer these questions so unreservedly, I said, Well, dear men, what will become of your infant baptism? All three answered at once: Yes, dear Menno, if you ask us for the command, then first show us where it is commanded that we should baptize believers. When I heard this I was much alarmed, for I perceived that in fact they meant nothing but party and carnal interest. I pointed them to the sixteenth chapter of Mark, where the Lord says, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved,” Mark 16, verses 15 and 16.

But this was no command to them. Then I referred them to Matthew 28, verse 19, where the Lord says, “Go 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 Spirit.”

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

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

When I perceived that they wanted to find an excuse in the use of the participle, I put the following to them: If I command my servant and say, Go and plow the ground, sowing it with wheat, just as the Lord said, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,” and so on, 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, just as baptizing was used? They answered that this was using philosophy and not the Scriptures. See, my reader, this is how boldly they sought to deny the truth.

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

See how dishonestly they deal with God’s precious and eternal truth: then they claimed that there was no command to baptize believers, and now they have an abundance of commands to baptize unconscious children. O God! This is how they make a mockery of the souls of men, and there is no end to how they twist, bend and break the sure foundation of truth, so that they may remain on the broad road without the cross, may please the world, and may lead a careless life according to the lusts of the flesh.

On this matter Gellius first says 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) make up a great part of the church, and are referred to in plain and clear words by the prophet Joel in the preaching of repentance, and so on.

Answer. His beginning is unscriptural and his end will be unscriptural. Observe, the word of God shall be our judge. Tell me, beloved, is it not great blindness in him to undertake to include unconscious children in the preaching of repentance, when a little further on he himself admits that in their feeble understanding they cannot understand the doctrine, which is a doctrine of repentance? If they cannot understand the doctrine, how can they believe? If they do not believe, how can they repent? And if they do not repent, how can they be included in the preaching of repentance? They have neither doctrine, faith nor repentance, which he admits they do not have because of their feeble understanding, and which they do not need to have while they are God’s own and while sin has not yet become alive in them to bring forth fruit. Therefore all of sound judgment must admit that 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 unconscious children cannot repent, believe or obey; for he admits that in the feebleness of their understanding they cannot understand the doctrine from which faith, repentance and obedience originate, as has already been said.

In the second place he writes that there is one church and one faith under both 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 were commanded for 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 this way: all those who from the time of Adam to the present, and also hereafter, had, have and shall have the Spirit, mind and nature of Jesus Christ, and who did, do and shall walk in truth as obedient children by virtue of such a spirit, were, are and shall be the Lord’s church, kingdom and people. But we would reasonably have expected Gellius to add that each in its own time had its particular 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, Deuteronomy 18, verse 15; Acts 7, verse 37, to whom all the Scriptures pointed, that we should obey and follow him. He is the eternal Word and Wisdom of God; all who abide in his doctrine walk in the truth, for his word is truth, and his command is eternal life. What ordinance this wise counselor has commanded us concerning the children under the New Testament, what he has commanded us concerning them and what he has not, all pious, faithful hearts may learn from his holy word.

But what he says about them, that in the New Testament no regard is paid to age, but that we should preach to all and baptize them, is in my opinion so directly contrary to Scripture, to common sense and to 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 us to 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, because of their feeble understanding, cannot understand the doctrine, as has already been heard. Yet in the face of this plain ordinance of the Almighty God, and of his own confession, he writes that in the New Testament teaching and baptizing are commanded without respect to age.

See how grossly all who reject the word of the Lord go astray. Is this not violently rejecting Christ and accepting antichrist, 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 holiness 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 your God and your children’s after you; and that therefore, in the gathering of the churches under the Old and New Testaments, the same command holds, both as regards preaching and the use of the holy sacraments.

Answer. Gellius does just as all the false prophets did who miserably deceived the people and claimed that the Lord of lords said so, although the Lord had not spoken it, as Scripture tells us, Jeremiah 23, verse 17; Ezekiel 13, verse 7.

Tell me, reader, is it not a reckless deed and a condemnable boldness that he dares publish to the whole world that God has commanded it, when eternal Wisdom has commanded it neither by word nor deed? Search 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 anywhere taught or practiced it, then we will, by the grace of God, unanimously admit that he is right.

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

His assertion that the command is not altered is so diametrically opposed to the 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 to circumcise himself, his son Ishmael, and so on, and also all male children at the age of eight days; for it was a covenant in the flesh, Genesis, chapter 17.

And so, with the promise of the multiplication of his seed and the possession of the land of Canaan, Abraham was commanded the blood-sign of the circumcision of the foreskin on the eighth day of their age, for all the male children and not the female children. But to us the blood-sign of circumcision is not commanded, but baptism in water. Now observe the first difference: not on the eighth day, but when we are born of God through the Spirit, in faith, and have become followers of Abraham. Observe the second difference: not the males alone, but both males and females who, through the preaching of the holy word, have died to the old life and have risen 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, Romans, chapter 6; Acts 2, verse 37; Colossians 2, verse 11; Galatians 3, verse 27; First Peter 3, verse 21. Observe the third difference: not to possess a literal kingdom and land and to become a great people on earth, as was promised to Abraham and his seed, but to bear all manner of anxiety, affliction, tribulation and misery on 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 to pomp, splendor, the world and the flesh, and so to walk in our weakness as Christ walked in his perfection, and so on.

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

Again, from his saying that God is no less gracious to our children than to the children of Israel, born in the flesh, I understand him to say that if God will not have our children baptized, he is less gracious to them than he was to the children of the circumcision; by which he openly testifies that he ties the kingdom, grace and promise of God to that sign. [Note 1]

If God is gracious only to such children as have received, or may receive, that outward sign, then it must necessarily follow that God was ungracious to, and displeased with, all the children before the law of circumcision; and also with all the children who died before the eighth day, and during the forty years they spent in the wilderness, together with all the girls 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 by grace alone, through Christ Jesus, Matthew 19, verse 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 believers is called a sealing of the covenant of grace, then I will admit that he is right. But I know for certain that he cannot do so. If the baptism of believers, which is ordained by God himself, is not called that, how then can infant baptism be called that, which is not ordained by God, but is merely a self-chosen fiction invented by men?

If he should point to circumcision, I would say that they are two distinct and different signs, and that the first has no relation whatever to the second, for the following reasons. Firstly, because all the signs given to the patriarchs before and under the law, such as the coats of skins to Adam, the rainbow to Noah, circumcision to Abraham, the yearly offering of the high priests, and so on, Genesis 3, verse 21; Genesis 9, verse 16; Genesis 17, verses 10 and 11; Leviticus, chapter 16, all together 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 whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life; for God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten son,” John 3, verses 14 to 16. Secondly, because we are now not a people according to the letter, as Israel was, but a people according to the spirit; who, before they receive the sign, are turned to God through the preaching of repentance; who die to the old sinful life; who receive the light of grace in their hearts; who accept the true Sign of peace, Christ Jesus, through faith; who rise with him into a new life and so are sealed in their hearts through the promise of the Holy Spirit and the eternal covenant and the grace of God. For if we were not sealed in our hearts before the sign, we could not truly repent before the sign, nor could we take upon ourselves the contempt, disgrace, anxiety, tribulation and misery that go with the cross.

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

See, 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 this: they are given to penitent, sealed and assured Christians to admonish and remind 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 otherwise, and point you to water, bread and wine as a sealing or assurance, as Gellius does, point you away from the true substance to the signs, from Christ back to Moses; they give you a vain hope and a false surety and cause you to remain impenitent and without Christ all your life; for you console yourself so much with the signs that you remain without the truth they signify, as, alas, the whole world may plainly see.

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

See, this is the proper fruit and effect of Gellius’ sealing, which he praises so highly and teaches so artfully. 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, so our children should also 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. Nevertheless, Israel did not circumcise the females but only the males, although the females were included in the promise; and that was because God had so ordained it. From this it may safely be concluded 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 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 beyond dispute.

In the second place I would say that if Israel had followed the doctrine of Gellius and some other preachers in this matter, they would also have circumcised the females, even though they were not commanded to do so; for the females were joint heirs of the covenant of grace, just 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 referred only to the males and not to the females, although the females were joint heirs of the promise, so now the ordinance of baptism refers to the believing and penitent, and not to unconscious children, although they are joint heirs of the promise, as has been 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, just as infant baptism is neither ordained nor prohibited; yet they did not circumcise the females, and that was 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 this. I observe that Gellius includes in baptism only the children of believing parents, and not of unbelieving ones; and he knows well that the proud, greedy, 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 carelessness, that against his own belief and doctrine he still baptizes the children of such parents, whom he must acknowledge to be without God and Christ, and therefore without any promise. If he says that he does not know the faith of others, then I would answer that he thereby acknowledges, in the first place, that his infant baptism has an unstable foundation, if, according to his own words, we are to baptize the children 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 or shining lights.

But what shall we say! If Gellius were to tell all his pompous, drunken, usurious and unrighteous members, without respect of persons, 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 meaning, and is called the circumcision of Christ.

Answer. In this instance Paul himself rebukes him for having 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 dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in him, who is the head of all principality and power; in whom also you 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, in which also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised him from the dead; and you, being dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses,” Colossians 2, verses 8 to 13.

My faithful reader, observe the word of the Lord: the doctrine of the New Testament and its sacraments concern 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, Second Corinthians 3, verse 6.

The preachers always point the poor, simple people to the elemental 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 works through his sacraments, and so on; and yet we find that neither the sealing, the surety nor the power is found in their hearts, as the fruits testify, but that they are led by the preachers, under the appearance of the gospel, to a false profession, a vain hope and an unstable surety. Therefore I would faithfully admonish all my readers and hearers, with these words brought from Paul, not to be deceived in any way by such high-sounding, smooth words of philosophy and the artful fictions of men, nor by the hypocrisy and worldly institutions of the learned, but to follow the perfect Founder, Christ Jesus, in whom is embodied the perfection of the Godhead, truth, light, power, righteousness, and so on, 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 every tongue shall confess to be the Lord, and besides him there is no other, Isaiah 45, verse 23; Philippians 2, verse 10. Therefore his word shall prevail and his command shall stand, and not what the world adds to his kingdom or church. In that church all the 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, so that they may become in spirit a new, regenerated Israel and people of God, by dying to 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 to the old sinful life, and rise in the new life of righteousness and virtue by means of faith, through which God works by the preaching of his powerful word and the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. The faithful God and Father, who raised his Son from the dead, has also bestowed his power on us poor sinners and has graciously raised us, who were dead in so many gross sins and trespasses, into a new life with him; he has called us from darkness to light, and has placed us with him in a heavenly being, in Christ, Ephesians 2, verse 1; First Peter, chapter 3, and so on.

See, 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 refers to unconscious infants. That this saying of Paul refers to the believing and penitent, and not to unconscious children, all reasonable persons, to say nothing of spiritual ones, must acknowledge and admit. Nevertheless he writes that this saying implies that baptism has taken the place of circumcision and is called Christ’s circumcision. He does not, or will not, observe that the circumcision of Jesus Christ to which Paul alludes is done without hands, while every day he administers with his hands the infant baptism which he calls the circumcision of Jesus. See how lamentably he answers Paul, and how violently he breaks the word of God.

If he seeks an evasion to adorn his cause and says that God works invisibly in the heart through his sacraments, as the sign represents, then the deceit will be all the plainer. For how shall God work 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 what it signifies would have to be one and the same, which never was and never will be the case unless the letter becomes spirit. This is beyond dispute. Indeed, 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 fruits of the world, alas, plainly show.

In the fourth place he writes: Just as a command that the Holy Supper shall be given to women is implied in the Scriptures which testify that women share in the merits of Christ and are disciples, so a command that children should be baptized is also implied in the Scriptures which testify that children belong to the church of Christ and the Kingdom of God.

Answer. Gellius’ own words prove clearly that women are participants in the Lord’s Supper, for he acknowledges that they are disciples. If they are disciples, as in fact they are, then it is manifest that they hear the word of God, believe, repent, allow themselves to be baptized, and are gifted by God in power with what the Holy Supper represents, and that they share in his mystery no less than the men. Since they are believing and penitent disciples, as has been heard, it is reasonable and right that they should partake of the sign by which this mystery of faith and of the holy gospel is represented to the believing and urged upon the repenting. Since we cannot deny that believing, repenting women understand and realize what the Holy Supper represents, namely, the remembrance of the offering of the flesh and blood of Christ, the love of God and of one’s neighbors, and so on, for which purpose it was instituted by the Lord, they should therefore have a place at the Lord’s table as believing, penitent disciples and guests. Now Gellius, to make his infant baptism hold, must prove and show 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 peaceful conscience, and so on, for which purpose the sign of baptism was instituted by the Lord, just as believing, penitent women realize the meaning of the Holy Supper. But if he cannot prove this, then it is plain enough that this assertion and argument of his is not according to the Scriptures, but is deceitful, false and contrary to God’s word.

He further says that if such a command to baptize children as the one he has brought from the Scriptures is not sufficient, then he wants us to point him to a prohibition (as he says), or to prove sufficiently that God wills that we shall not baptize children.

In the first place I reply: Gellius here openly betrays that his appeal to a command for infant baptism cannot, in his own opinion, stand according to the Scriptures. For he turns away from the doctrine of commands and wants us to point out a prohibition, never observing that if one wants to take part in anything (that is, a ceremony), one must first bring forward and point out the command by which it was instituted.

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 the way the mouth of the Lord has commanded, for we know that it is written, “Whatever I command you, observe to do it; you shall not add to it nor diminish from it,” Deuteronomy 12, verse 32; Proverbs 30, verse 6. Indeed, 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 changed a word of the commands and ceremonies and practiced them otherwise than God had commanded them, then we will reflect further on the matter. But we know for certain that it cannot be done.

The Lord commanded Israel to 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 day but the eighth. For the ordinance and command of the Lord was for the eighth day and for the male children, and not for the seventh or the ninth, nor for the female children, as has been heard.

If they had circumcised the females, or had circumcised the males before or after the eighth day, although it was not expressly forbidden, they would have committed an abomination, as Nadab and Abihu did with the strange fire, and would have circumcised without God’s word. By the grace of God, no man can convince me otherwise from Scripture.

Israel was also commanded to 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, and so on, Exodus 12, verse 5. Israel did exactly 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 appeal to the testimony of the Almighty and great God, who says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him,” Matthew 17, verse 5. If Gellius can now point to a single word of divine truth and unadulterated testimony of the Holy Scriptures showing that this Son of God, Christ Jesus, the Father’s eternal Truth and Wisdom, taught or commanded one word of infant baptism, or that his holy apostles and missionaries taught or practiced it, then I will recant my doctrine, willingly submit to dungeons and bonds, confess my guilt, repent, and stand before the whole world conquered and ashamed; 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, by which he forsakes the ordinance of Christ and the apostles’ doctrine and usage and consoles the people in their impenitence, then it is manifest that he is a deceiver of the poor souls and a corrupter 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 incorporation into the church of Christ, and so on. And the great Lord has not at all commanded that he should reprove the Holy Spirit, which has not made this doctrine and usage known to us in the Scriptures; nor the apostles, for not disclosing to the pious so important a matter, as he calls it, and for not giving a word in all their writings in testimony of it and so making it known to those who came after them.

In the third place I would refer Gellius and all his preachers to Luther, who writes very clearly that we should renounce not only what is contrary to the word of the Lord, but also what is beside it, and who advises everybody, although, alas, he himself did not follow the advice, to follow certainties and not uncertainties; for the Scriptures allow no addition or diminishing; and by this he caused quite a rupture in popery. If the Scriptures allow no additions, and we nowhere find a word in Scripture commanding infant baptism, as Luther himself admits, then I 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 incorporation into the church should not be administered to children; for the children of the ancient church had no such ears to hear either, and could distinguish between good and evil as little 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 a 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 has 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,” and so on, Ephesians 1, verses 3 to 6.