Reply to Gellius Faber: Concerning Baptism, Part 2

My faithful reader, understand well what these words of Paul mean. This fatherly adoption into membership, this great favor, love and grace through Christ Jesus, this holy, blameless life in love of which Paul speaks, is taught by the gospel. All who rightly believe this, and who through faith are truly converted, changed, renewed and born of God, and have the Holy Spirit, are children of the covenant, are graciously accepted by God, and are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, even before they have the sign of baptism.

See, this is how we are incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the true church, by God’s choice, through faith in Christ Jesus and through the inspiring power and renewing of the Holy Spirit, and become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and not through any outward sign.

But this rule does not apply to unconscious children, for they have no ears to hear nor hearts to understand. They are, however, in grace, children of the kingdom and participants in the promise; not through any outward sign, I say, but in the adoption of grace through the reconciliation, mediation and merits of the death and blood of Christ, as the Scriptures teach. The New Testament deals with those of understanding minds, and its sacraments belong to the penitent. Let this be a sure and eternal guide and doctrine to you.

All those who by their philosophy give a different meaning to the signs of the New Testament, and teach you that they should be dispensed before faith, deceive you, however much they may adorn it with choice words such as sealing, sign of grace, incorporation, and so on; for in fact it is nothing but human wisdom, the deceiving of souls, and hypocrisy. If the children under the old covenant were incorporated by circumcision, and the children under the new covenant are incorporated through baptism, as he says they are, then we are forced to conclude that the children who died before the eighth day, and those who were left in the wilderness, and besides them all the females, were not in the Israelite church, and consequently had no share in the grace, covenant or promise.

The same would also apply to our children who are prevented from being baptized by death. O abomination and blasphemy! Whether that is not tying God’s choosing, grace, favor, love, kingdom, covenant and salvation to the element of water and to works, I will leave to the judgment of all the godly and pious.

In the sixth place he writes and says: In return for our diligence and our clear, convincing explanation of the Scriptures, indeed, for our anxious care to win them back, we have always received nothing but curses. For what else do we hear from them than that we are wolves, bloodhounds, deceivers, and so on, who run their own course and bring forth no fruit?

Answer. All those who rightly seek our salvation, who rightly teach the word of the Lord, and who walk before us with a blameless life, understand, according to the doctrine, Spirit and example of Christ Jesus, are not reproved by us, nor by the Scriptures. We sincerely thank and love them, and by the grace of God we will never despise their brotherly diligence and fatherly care, but will accept them in sincere love and with great thankfulness, and follow them as far as we in our weakness are able. But it is not our fault that Gellius and the preachers are called deceivers, false prophets, ravening wolves, men guilty of blood, and so on, by the Scriptures; they themselves are the cause, because they so lamentably corrupt the Scriptures and reject Christ Jesus and his Spirit, word and walk; because they preach according to their own pleasure and seek improper gain; because they teach and walk to suit the world and destroy the poor sheep by their false doctrine and deceiving practices; and because they upbraid, blaspheme, slander and betray the pious, faithful hearts, and so deliver them to the sword of the magistracy and the executioner, as may, alas, be witnessed all too clearly in many different places.

Indeed, reader, if he cannot bear to be called by such hard names, of which he is guilty according to the Scriptures, then he should reasonably consider how shamefully he accuses, in his writings and conversations, the poor, miserable souls who are quite innocent, of being ungodly heretics, apostles of the devil, deceived conspirators, hedge-preachers, sneaks, corrupters, and so on; and how by his rebellious, fiendish, bloody doctrine he deprives the innocent of their property, welfare, honor, blood and life, and stirs up the unmerciful, cruel tyrants to robbery, imprisonment, banishment and murder. My faithful reader, reflect, and see whether I do not write the truth.

In the seventh place he writes: The example of the apostles shows that it is a command; for the Holy Spirit testifies that the apostles baptized whole families, and no children are excepted, which surely would have been excepted if it were wrong to baptize them.

To this I reply, in the first place, that Gellius here testifies that there is no command for infant baptism; for he here founds his doctrine and faith on presumption and not on words of command, by which everything that is to be pleasing in the sight of the Lord should be judged. In the second place I would say that the Holy Spirit has testified in plain words that the three families which the Scriptures particularly mention as having been baptized were all believing persons, as may be plainly understood by reading Acts 10, verse 16. [Note 1]

But as to the house of Lydia, it is plain that she had no husband at that time, for the house is called by her name, which is the custom neither of the world nor of the Scriptures if the husband is alive. Since, then, the New Testament particularly mentions only four households as having been baptized, and three of them were believing, and the fourth, as it appears, had no husband, as has been heard, both nature and the Scriptures teach us how much we should rely on the idea that there were little children in these households.

He further writes that it cannot be denied that throughout the Scriptures the children are always included in the household, for a household or family includes both young and old; therefore children should also be baptized, because the Scriptures mention that whole households were baptized, and that includes children.

I reply: if Gellius proves to us by the testimony of God’s word that unconscious children have faith, then we would gladly include them in the believing, baptized households and allow them to be baptized. But since he cannot possibly do so, we would faithfully admonish him and all the preachers to take heed how and what they say about this matter; for all they philosophize and teach about it is mere deceit. Besides, I would also ask whether we can bring about unbelief in small children by false doctrine, or whether we can teach them faith through God’s word. If he answers yes, then his answer is contrary to all the Scriptures, to common sense and to his own words; for he admits that through their feeble understanding they cannot comprehend the word. But if he answers no, then he himself admits that his including both old and young in one household is contrary to Paul. For Paul says that the vain talkers and deceivers subvert whole houses, Titus 1, verse 10, something which cannot be done to little children, because they do not have sufficient understanding, as he himself admits. He also says that we too boldly exclude the children, whom the Holy Spirit has not excepted, and so on. To this I reply: the Holy Spirit has commanded and ordained that we should teach those who understand and baptize those who believe, and this ordinance we follow. Therefore it is not boldness but obedience to do as the mouth of the Lord has commanded us. But whether the preachers are not boldly opposing the Holy Spirit, when they reject his doctrine, counsel and ordinance as heretical and sectarian and institute instead a doctrine and ordinance to suit their own taste, of which we find not a single word in the Scriptures, I will leave all the pious to judge according to the word of the Lord.

As to his appeal to Tertullius, Cyprian, Origenes and Augustinus, I would reply: if these writers can support their assertions by the word and ordinance of God, then we will admit that they are right. If they cannot do so, then it is a doctrine of men, and condemned by the Scriptures, Galatians 1, verse 8. In the second place I say that Rhenanus notes on Tertullius that it was customary with the ancients to baptize adults with the baptism of regeneration. [Note 2]

Cyprian left infant baptism optional.

Erasmus writes that the ancients disputed much about infant baptism and never came to a conclusion.

Zuinglius writes: Although we are aware that the ancients baptized children, yet it was not practiced as commonly as it is in our times. They were openly instructed in the faith, and when they confessed with their mouths the faith which was imprinted on their hearts, they were allowed to be baptized. This doctrine (he says) I wish to see revived, book, article 18.

Bucer writes that the ancients generally baptized adults and not children.

Oecolampadius writes: I, in my weakness, cannot yet find Scriptures which command infant baptism.

Luther admits that they have no express command to baptize children.

What Martin Cellarius and others write about this matter is too lengthy to be reproduced here.

It is plain that few children were baptized by the ancients, as the above-mentioned Rhenanus, Zuingli and Bucer show; that Cyprian left infant baptism optional; and that the others acknowledge that there is no express command for it. How, then, can Gellius truthfully write that they received infant baptism from the apostles, that it is an incorporation into the church and a sealing of the covenant of grace?

Indeed, my reader, if infant baptism has the virtues which Gellius ascribes to it, then our forefathers sinned grossly in baptizing so few children, and also in leaving optional what (he says) the apostles practiced and taught as an incorporation into the church, a sign of grace and a sealing of the covenant of grace.

In the third place I answer: if we consider the confession and doctrine of the learned concerning infant baptism, we find it to be such a Babel that we are forced to acknowledge that it is not of God. For some of the ancients (not the apostles), as it appears, baptized some children, but not a considerable number. Some said they had received it from the apostles; others denied it. Some have baptized them, and some still do, to wash off hereditary sin; others because they are children of the covenant. Some baptize them for the sake of the faith of the church; others for the sake of the faith of their parents. Some on the strength of the faith of the patriarchs; others on the strength of their own faith; and still others so that better care may be taken of their upbringing. See how the defenders of infant baptism are divided among themselves.

Since, then, they do not teach one doctrine and are not of one mind about infant baptism, it is manifestly proven that they baptize them without the word of God. For if their cause had a foundation in Scripture, they would baptize to the same purpose or end, according to the same ordinance, rule and doctrine. This is beyond dispute.

In the eighth place he writes “that it is not prohibited at all in Scripture, nor testified that infant baptism is wrong. And that the Lord Jesus Christ testifies that it is not his word and will, but the will of his Father who is in heaven.”

Answer. Search all the Scriptures, Moses and the prophets, Christ Jesus and the apostles, and meditate on them diligently, and you will find various instances showing that God was not only displeased with unbidden ceremonies and worship, but often severely punished them. O dear Lord, what blind reasoning! If they can do so with a clear conscience because it is not expressly forbidden that infants shall be baptized, then they may as well accept holy water, candles, palms, bells, confession before a priest, masses, the building of convents, altars, the becoming of monks, pilgrimages, prayers for departed souls, and so on, as just and right; for there is not a word to be found in the Scriptures which expressly prohibits these works, or which says: You shall not do these things. [Note 3]

If he should say that the circumstances of Scripture and its fruits testify that they are contrary to the word of God, then I would answer: the circumstances of the Scriptures and the fruits testify still more clearly that infant baptism is contrary to God’s word. For the mouth of the Lord has not commanded it at all. All who practice it misuse the name and ordinance of God and act hypocritically; and those who receive it console themselves, when they come to years of understanding, that they are baptized children, although for the most part their whole walk is manifestly quite impenitent, ungodly, earthly and carnal.

In the second place I answer: Christ Jesus testified and said, “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. See, this is the express, eternal and unchangeable ordinance of the Lord, which he has commanded and left for his church to follow. And the apostles also taught and practiced it so.

If now the unconscious children have faith, that is, if they are penitent, Romans, chapter 6; if they have circumcised the foreskin of their hearts by the circumcision of Christ, Colossians 2, verse 11; if they have a clear conscience before the Lord and a new mind, which are all the result of faith and are represented by baptism, then baptism cannot be refused them. But since it is plain that they have not one of the qualities mentioned, we say that infant baptism is a self-chosen superstition, an abuse of the glorious and holy name of God, a corruption of the ordinance of Christ, a vain, hypocritical consolation to the impenitent, a sacrament of the church of antichrist, no, an open deceit, blasphemy and idolatry. Notwithstanding all this, this thoughtless man writes that it is the word and will of the Father, and so uses the eternal Father and his beloved Son and Holy Spirit, together with the chosen, holy apostles, as a cover for his deceitful abomination and wicked blasphemy. O Lord!

In the ninth place he writes: “That they have the promise that God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a true and living God, is powerful in his command and works, and will through his power sanctify the children of the church and bestow his Spirit on them.”

Answer. If he could prove that infant baptism was commanded by the word of God, by apostolic doctrine and usage, or by the example of Christ, as he claims it was, then we would gladly admit that it is a holy rite, pleasing to God, and that it would be a blessed, admonishing, useful, fruitful and powerful thing, for God commands nothing in vain. But since it cannot be proven that it was commanded, and since baptism cannot apply to little children, because the signs of the New Testament are applied to the penitent, we say again that it is not a God-pleasing ceremony but, according to all Scripture, a wicked blasphemy and abomination, as has already been heard. And how powerfully God works through such abominations may be plainly seen in the cases of Nadab, Abihu, Jeroboam, Uzza and others.

The pious reader should also know that the children of the churches are not sanctified by means of ceremonies, words and water, but solely through the grace, favor, merits, blood and death of the Lord, and by no other work or means at all. But as to his writing that God bestows his Spirit on the baptized children, we would say that we would have him consider more deeply and learn what the work of the Spirit is before he teaches such a doctrine.

Is it not deeply to be regretted that such people dare take upon themselves the care of souls when they have not yet learned what the nature, fruit and power of the Holy Spirit are? For wherever the Holy Spirit is, there its fruits must also be; this is beyond dispute. And what fruits we find in children when they begin to come to understanding, we may, alas, gather from their words, works and life.

I would further say that if the Spirit is bestowed on children through baptism, as he says, and since the Scriptures teach that the Holy Spirit is given to the believing, then it must follow, since the children do not believe, that the Holy Spirit is not given to them through faith but through the merits of the ceremony of baptism which the preachers practice. And what is worse, such a spirit is in every respect without knowledge, intelligence, inspiration, power, fruit and work, as may be seen. O great blindness and error!

In the tenth place he writes: “The Lord Jesus Christ commanded that the children should be brought to him (which the Anabaptists do not do at all), and he embraced them, laid his hands on them and blessed them, that is, baptized them with the Holy Spirit; and all this, done by Christ, is not without power.”

Answer. Here I would ask Gellius, and all who practice infant baptism: Firstly, did all the believers bring their children to Christ when he was preaching? If they answer yes, then they ought to be ashamed, for they cannot prove their assertion by the Scriptures. But if they answer no, then they acknowledge, in the first place, that they are wrong to teach and practice that children should be brought to him, that is (according to their understanding), baptized.

In the second place I ask whether bringing to Christ is called baptism in any part of Scripture. If they answer yes, then they cannot produce proof. If they answer no, then they admit, in the second place, that they corrupt the word of God by explaining and construing bringing to Christ to mean baptizing.

In the third place I ask whether Christ baptized with water the children brought to him. If they answer yes, then I would answer with John that Christ himself did not baptize, John 3, verse 5. But if they answer no, then they acknowledge, in the third place, that it is a false doctrine to try to defend infant baptism on the strength of this bringing to him. [Note 4]

In the fourth place I would ask, since he says that Christ baptized the children with the Holy Spirit: is baptizing with the Spirit, then, the same thing as baptizing with water? If they answer yes, then Spirit must be letter, or letter Spirit. But if they answer no, then they themselves pronounce sentence against infant baptism: that Christ’s action with the children neither teaches nor implies it.

In the fifth place I would ask how we are to understand this bringing to him: in a carnal or a spiritual way? If they answer in a carnal way, then I would say that this cannot be the case now, since Christ in his body is taken from us and removed to where we cannot approach in the body, First Timothy 6, verse 16. But if they answer in a spiritual way, then I would ask again why Gellius so shamefully abuses the pious, whom he calls Anabaptists, by writing that they do not bring their children to Christ at all (something which could not have been written in purity of heart), while many of them care so anxiously for the salvation of their children by teaching, admonishing and punishing them, and by constant concern for them, as God’s word and the love of their children command and teach all Christian parents to do.

O that God would grant that Gellius and his followers would consider this spiritual bringing to Christ more deeply, as I trust that many of ours do by the grace of God, and that they would abandon this unscriptural infant baptism of which they make so much ado. This, in my opinion, would be a very desirable thing. For as a general rule they abandon their children from the cradle on to the wiles of the devil, by bringing them up in ignorance, blindness, pomp, splendor, vanity and idolatry, as their fruits plainly show to all of understanding minds. See, my reader, from these questions and answers you may conclude whether Gellius and the learned can stand, with their doctrine and practice of infant baptism, which they practice so indiscriminately and about which they make so much ado, on the strength of the saying, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

Observe too that Gellius, by writing that we do not bring our children to Christ at all, judges and disgraces not only us but also Christ Jesus, because he did not command us such a bringing to him; he also judges the holy apostles, who in the whole of Scripture have neither testified nor taught us a word about this matter, either by word or practice.

In the eleventh place he writes: Since Luke testifies that John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb and leaped in the presence of Christ (which, he says, was doubtless caused by a spiritual movement), and Jacob also, and so on, it is therefore manifest that God also works in the children of the church according to their measure, through his Holy Spirit, and that infant baptism is a command and has the promise.

Answer. If these particular miracles of God, which were wrought in the case of John and of Jacob, are to be a common rule, then the following miracles were also common rules: that Sarah and Elizabeth, two barren women, conceived in their old age, and that Balaam’s donkey spoke, Numbers 22, verse 28; and therefore all aged, barren women should conceive and all donkeys speak. O no. That such miracles of God were no common rule may be gathered from the floating of the iron at Helizeum, from the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, and from the standing still of the sun and moon, Second Kings 6, verse 6; Exodus 14, verse 21; Joshua 10, verse 13. [Note 5]

I would further say: if, according to the doctrine of Gellius, it follows from the case of John that all the children of the church, or of the believing members, have the Holy Spirit, then the greater part of his fellow believers of the German nation (whom alone he esteemed as faithful servants, and who are of the same calling, office and service as he) are greatly despised in their doctrine, faith and usage; for he writes that the children of the holy church have the Holy Spirit, and they believe and teach that they have the evil spirit, for before they baptize them they say, Depart, you evil spirit, and make room for the Holy Spirit.

See, this is generally how it is with all who teach and practice this shameful doctrine. And although they are united in the practice, they are so divided in opinion about the grounds of this doctrine that we are forced to say that it is nothing but a vain mask and an infernal mockery. Nevertheless he writes that infant baptism is commanded and that it has the promise, while he knows well that he cannot bring forward one plain word from all the Holy Scriptures to show that the wisdom of God commanded it, or that the apostles taught or practiced it, or, moreover, that what it signifies, penitence, regeneration, and so on, can apply to children. To say nothing of the authors who mention that the early, uncorrupted church did not practice it, as has been heard.

Is not this corrupting the word of God, breaking the Scriptures, perverting truth into lies, stealing the honor and praise of God, killing souls and defending the church of antichrist? I say again, as I did before, I have never read a word in the Scriptures with such misunderstanding.

In the twelfth place he writes: “That, according to Matthew, baptism was not first instituted by Christ. For it was commanded before to John and practiced by the disciples of Jesus Christ; so that we are not bound to follow one rule.”

Answer. Let everyone take heed and observe what the word of the Lord teaches. Gellius, alas, is not at all ashamed to deny the plain word of God, and writes: “That we are not bound to follow one certain rule in regard to baptism; that Christ did not command to baptize believing persons alone; nor did his heavenly Father, when he commanded John to baptize; and that it was not Christ’s meaning that such and such persons should be baptized.” See how the Lord’s holy word is perverted.

Since Gellius so degrades his Lord’s mouth and so lamentably corrupts his word, I will place the words of Christ according to Matthew and Mark before the reader, so that he may see what rule and law Christ has made concerning baptism, and what command he has given. Christ says, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them (understand: those whom you make disciples by your doctrine) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” Matthew, chapter 28. Again, “Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believes (namely, the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that does not believe shall be damned,” Mark 16, verses 15 and 16. See, this is the word and ordinance of the Lord, how and when we are to baptize. I think these words are too plain to be perverted by fine words and subtlety: preach the gospel and baptize those who believe.

But that John taught and practiced baptism before Christ is evidence for us and not against us, for he administered it to those who confessed their sins, Matthew 3, verse 6, and not to unconscious children, as the disobedient, offensive preachers do.

John baptized none but the penitent, before Christ; Christ commanded it upon the confession of faith; the apostles taught and practiced it so, and also the early church, as has been heard. Therefore the reasonable reader may reflect, in the fear of God, how miserably and lamentably the poor souls are deceived by these degenerate men who so boldly corrupt the pointed, plain words of Christ concerning baptism, and his pleasing, saving ordinance, and so destroy it and found it on an unstable foundation and a wrong meaning.

But his writing “that the apostles were commanded to gather to Christ a church from all nations, and to teach them, not what Moses, but what Christ had taught,” we admit. Yet this was by no other command or ordinance than that they should preach the gospel, make disciples through the doctrine, baptize these disciples, and so gather to the Lord a peculiar people, who should walk in Christ Jesus in righteousness, truth and obedience as the regenerated children of God, and give eternal praise to his great and glorious name. And with such a people, who walk in his fear, love, word, ordinances and commands, he will be always, to the end of the world. But of infant baptism not a word is mentioned.

In the thirteenth place he writes, “That the apostles, some of whom were baptized by John, and those who came to him from the cities and from Jerusalem, were baptized by John without distinction, and could not have had much knowledge of Christ, or a true, strong, sincere faith in him.”

Answer. If I understand him rightly, he would conclude from this that, as the baptized disciples were not thoroughly established in doctrine, faith and repentance before baptism, but had to exercise themselves in continual penitence and to die to sin, as baptism represents, so the children too, although they have no faith before baptism, will after baptism, when they come to understanding, study the doctrine, repent, die to sin, and walk in newness of life.

To this opinion (if this is his opinion) I would reply: the prophets prophesied of John, Isaiah 40, verse 3; Malachi 3, verse 1. His birth was made known by an angel; Christ testified of him that he was the second Elias, a shining light, not clothed in soft raiment and not like the waving reed, and that he was the greatest of all children born of woman, and so on. From this it may safely be concluded that he was no light-minded or reckless preacher, but that he carried out his office earnestly and valiantly, according to the pleasure of God, and rightly practiced the commanded baptism according to the ordinance. And although his disciples were not so thoroughly instructed in all things, he baptized none but those who confessed their sins, as has been said, Matthew, chapter 3; Acts, chapter 19.

But as to his explanation of the words, “If you believe with all your heart,” which Philip spoke to the Ethiopian: that they mean to believe without deceit and hypocrisy, which Philip rightly asked of the Ethiopian; and, as for Luke, that he meant to leave all servants of the church an example of how those of mature years should be baptized, as he has rightly pointed out, since the Ethiopian too had reached years of maturity: we say that this is right. We would also state what we desire of all who baptize: that they first examine well the faith and foundation of those who wish to be baptized before they baptize them, so that they may not prove hypocrites in their work and service.

I think that this is a plain example that the servants of the church should not ask for the confession of faith from others, but from those themselves who wish to be baptized, as Otto Brunsu. also says concerning this: He does not say (he writes), If you believe or answer for your child, then it is permitted to be baptized.

Gellius refers us to the disciples and to those baptized by John, and, as it appears, would thereby show that baptism does not require true faith, and that it makes no difference whether faith comes before or after; and he also calls us Anabaptists. Therefore I, in my weakness, would ask him whether the command of Christ and the example of the eunuch are not sufficient to show that faith should precede baptism and that baptism requires true faith; and why Paul rebaptized the disciples of John, who had before been baptized with the baptism of John, when John’s baptism was not of men but from heaven, Matthew 21, verse 25? He cannot answer this Scripturally in any other way than that it was done because they had never known that there was a Holy Spirit. Since, then, these disciples had once been baptized in their years of maturity with a divine baptism, and lacked nothing except an understanding of the Holy Spirit, and were rebaptized by Paul on that account, Gellius should consider whether or not true Christian baptism requires true faith; and whether he does not wrong us by contemptuously calling us Anabaptists because we rebaptize those who were baptized, not with a divine baptism as the disciples of John were, but with an antichristian baptism, without any knowledge, faith, command or word, as the reckless, ignorant world can in part judge and see.

If, then, we are Anabaptists because we rebaptize those who received a baptism instituted by man, administered to those who had no knowledge whatever, how much more was Paul an Anabaptist, since he rebaptized those who were of understanding minds and had been baptized with a baptism which was from heaven and ordained by God!

In the second place I would ask him, since he calls us Anabaptists, as has been heard, why he still holds to Cyprian, together with both the councils, the African and the Nicene, which unanimously resolved “that heretics have no baptism, and that therefore those who have been baptized by heretics should be baptized with the true baptism.” If he says that this is according to the Scriptures and right, then he admits that he was not baptized with the right baptism, and that we are right in rebaptizing those who have been baptized by such as are pronounced before the whole world, not only by Scripture but also by Luther, Zuingli and the learned, to be antichristian servants and the root of all heresy, as we may see on every hand in their writings.

But if he pronounces it offensive and sectarian, then he thereby testifies, in the first place, that the church, or at least a great part of it, was at that time offensive and sectarian.

In the second place, that he ties God’s Spirit, word, work, ordinance and command to the antichristian and heretical service and works.

In the third place, that he is himself an antichristian and heretic, since he was baptized with an antichristian and heretical baptism and still defends it as the true baptism.

O my reader, if Gellius had but half an understanding of the word of God, and could see but a little of the truth, he would lament to God all his lifetime that he has so lamentably profaned the Lord’s express command and ordinance, given through John, Christ and the apostles; that he has slandered the pious with such hostility; and that he passes such a thoughtless and ungodly sentence in his writings that he pronounces not only us, but also Cyprian, all the African bishops, the Nicene Fathers, and besides them holy Paul himself, open Anabaptists, no, heretics.

In the fourteenth place he writes, “That it is with baptism as it was with circumcision. As God began circumcision with Abraham upon preceding instruction, and, for the sealing of the promise, it was practiced on Abraham’s seed and children, so John the Baptist and the apostles began baptism with those of mature years, and it was gradually practiced on the children, since it could not be otherwise on account of circumcision.”

Answer. That it is with baptism as it was with circumcision before, in this respect, namely, that it was begun upon previous instruction, is our ground and doctrine; for Christ Jesus so ordained it, and his holy apostles so taught and practiced it. But that by the command of Christ and by the teaching and practice of the apostles it should gradually have been practiced on the children is mere conjecture and not Scripture.

For if it were so, then the apostles did wrong in not baptizing both the believers and the children, after the manner of circumcision commanded by God (something which they did not do), just as Abraham, according to the command of God, circumcised himself and his house together with the males of eight days old after him, and did not institute circumcision gradually, as Gellius maintains, and would have us believe, the apostles did with baptism.

But his writing that this was done on account of circumcision is conjecture and not Scripture; for since the apostles, and John as well, administered the sign of baptism to the believing Jews, why not to their children too, if God had so ordained and commanded it, as Gellius claims he did?

No, no, the command of the Lord concerning circumcision expressly applied first to Abraham and his household, and then directly to the males of eight days old, Genesis 17, verse 14; but this is not so with baptism, for it applies only to the believing and not to unconscious children, Matthew, chapter 28; Mark, chapter 16. Therefore baptism was not gradually practiced on the children, as Gellius claims, but was afterward instituted without the word, ordinance and command of God, by disobedient and self-conceited men, who, alas, have set a contrived ceremony above the Lord’s command and what it represents, as is generally the case with the learned and worldly-minded.

Again, as to his writing “that the promise is sealed by baptism, and that it is given not only to the aged but also to the children,” the reader should observe that the promise of the grace of God and of the eternal covenant is no longer sealed by the perishable blood of oxen and rams, nor by visible water and ceremonies, but solely by the precious blood of Christ on the cross. Blessed is he who believes it and heartily accepts it. This promise is made to unbaptized children no less than to baptized believers, as long as they are clothed with childlike innocence and continue in simplicity. But when they come to maturity and accept the offered gospel of grace through faith, then the Scriptures teach us that we should baptize them, Matthew 28, verse 19; Mark 16, verse 15. But if they reject grace and lead an easy, impenitent life, neither Christ’s blood nor his death will avail them; much less will word and water avail them. For “he that does not believe” (the Scripture means those of understanding minds) “is condemned already,” John 3, verse 18.

In the fifteenth place he writes, “They err abominably, because from the Scriptures and examples which refer to those of mature years they conclude with certainty that it is an ordinance of God that the children should not be baptized, although there is not a tittle in the whole New Testament which forbids it. And therefore they are no less wrong than I would be if I would not feed my children who cannot work, because Paul says that he who does not work shall not eat, which is beyond dispute spoken of those of mature years and not of children.”