Reply to Gellius Faber: Concerning Baptism, Part 3

Answer. In my opinion Gellius willfully intends to uphold things that are contrary to Christ and the truth, so that he may carry out the office of an antichristian preacher according to the pleasure of the world. For when he should write that we act rightly according to the Scriptures, and that there is not a tittle in the New Testament saying that children should be baptized, he writes that we err abominably, and that there is not a tittle that forbids infant baptism, and so on.

Since he contends so willfully and violently against the Lord and his truth, and seeks in various ways to give his cause a fine appearance by the use of many borrowed words, lies, conjectures and perversions of the Scriptures, and says that we err abominably, and so on, I would therefore state briefly: if he can at any time prove to us by the unadulterated, divine Scriptures and truth that John the Baptist practiced infant baptism anywhere; or that it was commanded by Christ and taught and practiced by the apostles; or that it was gradually practiced upon children through the ordinance of the Lord, as he writes it was; or that in the Scriptures bringing to him is called baptism, and baptism bringing to him; or that Christ and the apostles baptized the children that were brought to them; or that Christ baptized them with a spirit that was powerful in works (the Spirit of God is never idle); or that small children have faith, or that they are penitent, that they bury their sins and are circumcised through faith, and thereby rise with Christ in newness of life; or that circumcision is called baptism, and baptism circumcision; or that they have the answer of a good conscience; or that baptism is anywhere in the Scriptures called a sign of the covenant of grace, a sealing of the promise and an incorporation into the church; or that unconscious children speak with tongues as the believing members of the house of Cornelius did, of whom Peter says, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” Acts 10, verse 47; or that the true, primitive church practiced it by apostolic doctrine, usage or command; or that God is powerful through works which he has not ordained—then we will lay aside our pen, repent, and confess before the whole world that in this respect our cause is mere deceit and nothing but falsehood.

But if he cannot do so, as it is impossible for him to do, then I would faithfully admonish and beseech him as a brother to consider earnestly and thoroughly how shamefully he reflects on God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, on John the Baptist and on the apostles in this matter of infant baptism; how lamentably he adulterates the plain Scriptures and deceives poor souls; what gross falsehoods he teaches the poor people; how deceitfully he teaches the accursed abomination and passes it off as a holy, glorious work; and also how unjustly he accuses us of erring abominably—we who clearly have on our side Christ’s plain word, the apostolic doctrine and usage, the meaning of baptism and the usage of the true, primitive churches—while he cannot show by a single word of all the Scriptures that his infant baptism has any foundation in the ordinance and command of God. My faithful reader, beware; fear God; act justly; search the Scriptures; shun falsehood and follow the truth.

Again, by undertaking to draw the saying of Paul, “That if any would not work, neither should he eat,” into his argument, he contradicts himself and is unworthy of a reply. For since Paul thereby commands the idlers and busybodies to earn their own bread by honorable labor, lest they become an offense and a burden to others, and since this cannot apply to children, such labor was therefore not commanded of them by it. Nor does Paul say, he who does not work, and so on, as Gellius writes; but he says, “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” So too, baptism is not commanded to be practiced on unconscious children, but it is commanded in the Scriptures to be practiced upon those who believe the word of the Lord, lead a penitent life, and have a sound understanding and comprehension of baptism, as has been said several times.

In the sixteenth place he writes, “That in Christ Jesus no respect of persons or time is made. For the glory of the kingdom of Christ is not limited to any cities, times or persons; so neither to any age or generation.”

Answer. By this, if I understand it, he would assert that although, according to his claim, baptism has taken the place of circumcision, and only the males were circumcised in Israel, nevertheless both males and females are now to be baptized, whether they are believers’ children and born of believing parents or not. If that is his meaning and foundation, then he should know that as the grace, favor, love, covenant and promise of God under the New Testament extend to both men and women, so also they extended to all under the Old Testament. For if God had tied his covenant of grace and everything to signs, whether circumcision or baptism, and if only those who had received the sign were in the church, then the Israelite women and maids, and also the children of the primitive churches, were in a bad situation; since the former, according to the Scriptures, were not circumcised, and the latter, according to the ancient authors, were not baptized, as has already been said.

No, reader, no. Abraham and all his seed, I mean both men and women, young and old, were the Lord’s people and church. But only the males were circumcised, and not the females; the male children eight days old, and not the female children, according to the ordinance of God. Yet they all, both men and women, were members of the church under the covenant of God, and were children of the promise, although, I repeat, only the males were circumcised, and not the females.

So it is under the New Testament. The gospel is preached, and all who believe it and are baptized shall be saved, whether they are males or females. They are members of the church of Christ under God’s covenant and grace; they are joint heirs of the kingdom of God and children of eternal life; so also are the children, although they are not baptized, Mark 16, verse 16; Acts 5, verse 14; First Corinthians 12, verse 13; Romans 8, verse 14.

For as God would have his ceremonies under the Old Testament, such as circumcision, the passover, the sin offering, the burnt offering and so on, practiced just as he ordained and commanded them through Moses, in the same way he will have his signs under the New Testament, such as baptism and the Supper, practiced in no other way than as he has commanded and ordained through his Son.

For he says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him.” If, now, this Son had ordained infant baptism, then we should practice it, if we would be his disciples; but since he has not done so, we pronounce it accursed according to the Scriptures, as said, Galatians 1, verse 8.

I further say: if they now place the children of both believing and unbelieving parents on the same foundation, which in my opinion would not be contrary to the Scriptures, then they must take back their doctrine by which they formerly applied the grace and covenant of God, with many words, to the children of believing parents, and admit that their doctrine regarding Abraham and his seed, by which they make baptism take the place of circumcision, has no likeness to it nor connection with it at all. For Abraham was not commanded to circumcise all the children round about him who were not his seed, but only those who were of his seed, as may be learned from Genesis, chapter 17.

In the seventeenth place he writes, Would to God that they could once rightly understand the fifth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, where he describes the church, saying, Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water in the word, or, as Erasmus says, through the word. Then he goes on and says, This undeniably includes the children along with their parents, that is, the believers and their seed, indeed, the whole church. How then should they be excluded from the word, when it reads, He has cleansed the church with the washing of water by the word?

Answer. I trust that we, through the grace and enlightenment of the Lord, in our weakness, do not misunderstand these words of Paul, but rightly understand their meaning. We offer Gellius and all the learned the use of all the Scriptures, besides all reason and experience: if they can show one tittle in the Holy Scriptures to prove that reason and experience teach that we can teach little children the word of God, from which the true cleansing of the heart comes, or that the Scriptures of the New Testament anywhere apply the word and sacraments to them—if they can, then we will admit that they are cleansed by baptism through the word, or in the word. But if they cannot do so, then it is already proven that these words of Paul are not written about little children.

It is true that Christ has so loved his church that he has given himself for her, and has sanctified her through the power and merits of his innocent blood, and cleansed her by water, which is a sign of a new and penitent life; but not otherwise than in the word or through the word, which, preached in the power of the Spirit and accepted in true faith, is followed by the ordained baptism, as commanded.

Christ said, “You are clean through the word which I have spoken to you,” John 15, verse 3; not, my reader, that they were clean because it was outwardly spoken to them, but because they believed what was spoken to them. For God does not cleanse the hearts through any literal water, word or ceremony, but through faith in the word; otherwise all who outwardly hear the word and receive the outward sign of the water would be holy and clean. This cannot be disputed.

In the eighteenth place he advances an argument and syllogism: Whatever pertains to the church also pertains to the members of the church. Baptism pertains to the whole church, both old and young; therefore baptism pertains to all the members of the church.

Answer. In my opinion it would be better for Gellius, since he boasts himself a preacher of the holy word, to leave his logic to the wise of the world, who, alas, seek their own praise and honor more than God’s, and to content himself with the true doctrine, foundation and truth of Christ, and with the unpretentious, plain testimony of Matthew the publican and of Peter and John the fishermen, and so on, so that he does not deceive the unlearned by such acute reasoning and lead them off the true way.

As to his major proposition (as he calls it), I would say that if Gellius had applied it to grace, reconciliation, promise, eternal life and so on, which were bestowed upon the whole church, young as well as old, for Christ’s sake, and not to the ordinances of the church, then he would have been right; but as it is, he will have to admit that it is wrong and contrary to the word of God. For as regards the ordinances of which he speaks, among which baptism is included, I would say that not all the members of the church are of one and the same calling, service and work, nor are they under one and the same ordinance. For the Lord has ordained apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and servants in his church, and yet not all are therefore apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and servants. So it is with the ordinances of baptism and the Holy Supper in his church: not that we should therefore administer them to unconscious children, but only to the believing and penitent, according to the Scriptures.

As to his minor proposition, I would say that our doctrine, belief, foundation and confession is that our unconscious children, so long as they live in their innocence, are in grace through the merits, death and blood of Christ, and are joint heirs of the promise, as has already been heard. The doctrine of the New Testament, which is a doctrine of the Spirit, does not include them with those who are ruled and governed by the word and sacraments of God, and who are properly called the church of Christ in Scripture.

That the children should be counted in the church on account of the promise, we agree; but we dispute that they should be included in the ordinances of the church; for this is contrary to all Scripture and common sense, as we will prove by Christ’s own words. He also openly reproves Christ and the apostles, together with the Holy Spirit. For he writes, “Baptism pertains to both young and old,” while they have not left us a single example, nor one word in all the Scriptures by which it is taught or commanded, as may be seen.

Since neither his major nor his minor proposition is consistent with the word and command of God, as shown, it is sufficiently clear to the kind reader how far his conclusion, that baptism pertains to all the members of the church, can be consistent with the word and ordinance of God.

I would further say that if this syllogism of his is right and true, namely, Whatever pertains to the church must pertain to all the members of the church, and so on (which, however, is not so), then it would also be true that since doctrine, faith, knowledge of Christ, true repentance, a regenerated, new life, the circumcision of the heart, a clear conscience, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the love of one’s neighbor, a living hope, ardent thankfulness and so on pertain to the church, therefore they pertain to all the members, both young and old.

If he denies this first proposition of mine, then he denies his own, for it is like his. If, besides, he denies the second, because children, on account of their weak understanding, as he admits, cannot understand the word, and therefore cannot repent nor be admitted to the Supper, and so on, then he testifies that the children do not belong to the church which is governed by the Lord’s word and sacraments; and that his syllogism, with which he includes all the members of the church, both young and old, in one and the same ordinance, is wrong and false, indeed, contrary to God’s word. This is my answer to the argument of Gellius and his fellows. How they can stand with it according to the Scriptures, you may reflect upon in the fear of your God.

In the nineteenth place he makes a long discourse about the child who, according to Mark and Luke, was called to Christ, and by it he would prove and teach that children believe, or, if they do not believe, that they are counted as believing, whatever their age may be. He further writes that a child two, three or four years old may be corrupted by bad examples; and that we are too timid, because we dare not baptize those whom Christ counts as believing (as he says).

Answer. If Gellius and the learned had received but a little understanding of the nature, power and properties of true faith, they would be ashamed all their lifetime to have such a poor idea of that precious faith which is a power and gift of God. Moses says that the children have no knowledge of good and evil. The wise man says that they have no understanding. Paul says, “Brothers, do not be children in understanding,” First Corinthians 14, verse 20; and yet Gellius dares to write that they believe, as if faith were only a dead thing that has no moving power or work.

O no, true faith, which avails before God, is a living and saving power which God bestows upon the heart through the preaching of the holy word; which moves, changes and regenerates it to newness of mind; which smothers all ungodliness; which destroys all pride, ambition and selfishness; which makes us like children in malice, and so on. See, such is the faith which the Scriptures teach us, and not a vain, dead and unfruitful conjecture, as the world pretends it to be. And that such faith is not to be found in children two, three or four years old, both the Scriptures and common sense teach us.

O dear Lord! What great blindness, that this thoughtless man does not observe that he and preachers like him, some of whom have already grown gray and who read the Scriptures daily after their fashion, are still so unbelieving that for the sake of a piece of bread they dare to adulterate the plain word of God, lead the poor, miserable souls to hell in great numbers, upbraid, slander and hate all the pious, and heap slanderous lies and disgraces upon the innocent, incite the magistracy to tyranny and blood, and delight in pomp, splendor, the lusts of the flesh, avarice and so on; which is such clear proof that they are not only unbelieving, but also quite earthly and carnally minded; and yet they assert that a child two or three years of age has faith. O folly and error!

The reason Christ called the child to himself and placed it in the midst of his disciples was that the disciples were debating which of them would be the greatest. He set the child before them as an example and said, “Truly I say to you, Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven”; and that we must inherit the kingdom of God as a child (in malice, understand), as Mark and Luke write. Paul says, “In malice be children.” Christ says, “Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven; and whoever shall receive one such little child in my name receives me. But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea,” Matthew 18, verses 4 to 6. See, Christ himself explains to what children we should apply this.

As to his writing that children are counted as believing, it is merely a conjecture and opinion which cannot be supported by a single word of the Scriptures. Again, as to his assertion that a child two, three or four years old may be offended, I would say, first: if we were to apply this saying, “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me,” and so on, to young children, as Gellius does (to which I, for my part, do not consent), then the whole world might well be astounded at these words from the inmost of their souls. For how they bring up their young children, and with what ungodly, offensive life they walk before them, their disgraceful ill manners and roguery, alas, teach us, both in city and country. O reader, if only the world would take to heart the salvation of their children, and not lead them from the cradle on in the way to hell by their doctrine and example; what a blessed thing it would be for their souls at the day of judgment!

Second: if the preachers and magistrates rightly understood this saying of Christ, and believed it just and true, then in my opinion the offensive, deceiving doctrine would soon be at an end, and the tyrannical sword be put into the sheath, by which now, alas, hundreds of thousands of souls are offended to everlasting destruction and consigned to the kingdom of the devil. O Lord! “Woe to the world because of offenses,” says Christ, God’s mouth and wisdom.

To his writing that we are too timid because we dare not baptize children, I would say this: that the Scriptures teach us not to do what we see fit, but what is commanded us, Deuteronomy 4, verse 2; Deuteronomy 12, verse 32.

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offered strange fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them; and fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, Leviticus 10, verses 1 and 2.

Jeroboam was chosen king of the ten revolted tribes of Israel; he worshiped in a manner not commanded by God, and therefore he was told by the prophet that God would take away the remnant of his house, as a man takes away dung, until it is all gone, First Kings 14, verse 10.

Uzziah was smitten for life because he burned incense upon the altar of incense, to which the Lord had not called him, Second Chronicles 26, verse 16.

Luther writes in his preface to Isaiah and says, “God will not be told how he is to be served. He will teach and lead us. His word should be our guide; for without his word it is all idolatry and vain falsehood, however fine and pleasing it may appear.” Again, in the third chapter of Daniel: “Worship without God’s word is always idolatry.”

I would further say: all those who seek God and sincerely fear him obey his ordinance and word.

Israel never circumcised a female, nor offered a ewe for the passover; for God ordained that the males should be circumcised on the eighth day, and that rams should be offered, Genesis 17, verse 11; Exodus 12, verse 5, as heard before.

We clearly learn from the Holy Scriptures that Moses and the prophets, and besides them the Father himself, unanimously point to Jesus, who is Wisdom and Truth, that we should obey him; and we surely know, by the grace of God, that he is the true Prophet and perfect Teacher, whose word is truth and whose command is eternal life; and he has not commanded us a single word about infant baptism, nor have his true witnesses, the holy apostles, taught it or left an example of it. We also find that its meaning does not apply to children; and besides, that the Scriptures do not allow strange worship or self-chosen ceremonies, nor adding nor taking away; and that God has several times punished such self-chosen righteousness and worship, as heard; and further, that the primitive church did not practice infant baptism, as has often been heard. Since all this is so, we are therefore so timid that we dare not baptize our little children; for these cases to which we have referred, together with the unfeigned love of saving, divine truth, the sincere fear of our God, and the power of our faith, though in weakness, prevent us.

O reader, would God grant that our opponents could rightly understand what frightful abominations they commit on every hand with their infant baptism, and how they practice it to the dishonor of God and the corruption of their neighbors; then, I trust, this matter would soon be reformed and, by the help of God, be changed to a scriptural usage.

In the first place, they falsify God and the Holy Scriptures by their infant baptism; for they assert that it is God’s ordinance, while there is not a single word or example to be found in all the Scriptures that teaches infant baptism.

In the second place, they thereby destroy the true church of Christ and establish an antichristian one, which bears the name and appearance of the Christian church although it hates and despises its doctrine, spirit, ordinances and usages taught by the Scriptures.

In the third place, they thereby console the world in its unrighteousness; for however ungodly, adulterous, perjured, covetous, pompous, envious, bloodthirsty, greedy, drunken, carnal, idolatrous and hypocritical they may be, yet they boast that they are baptized Christians.

In the fourth place, they hate and persecute all those who out of pure, godly zeal avoid this deceitful abomination, reprove their damnable worship, and point them to Jesus and his word alone. Indeed, these are called by them apostate Anabaptists, apostles of the devil, deceived heretics, offscourings and booty.

In the fifth place, although they and their authors have in the past condemned to hell the institutions and commands of men, and have written one volume after another against them, yet, alas, they hold altogether to this abhorrent abomination, because they want to avoid the cross and gain the favor of the world. They act hypocritically in all things and do the things that please the world; they heap one abominable error upon another; they hang crosses upon the child’s breast and forehead; they conjure, and ask the parents whether they believe, and so on; they drive out devils and commit other disgraceful acts; so that we are forced to say that all the infant baptizers are hypocrites of all hypocrites, and that infant baptism is an open incorporation into the church of antichrist, the beginning of all deceit, and an accursed blasphemy and enchantment, which is not only contrary to the plain word and ordinance of the Lord, but also against all reason, nature and common sense. For who that has read the word of the Lord at all does not know that a cross made with the fingers cannot help or save a child? That the innocent creature, the unconscious child, which is cleansed by the blood of the Lord, is not possessed by the devil? And that one cannot vouch for the faith of others, since it is a gift of God?

Tell me, kind reader, what worse mockery and hypocrisy could be imagined than to ask one person in the name of another, Do you believe? Do you renounce Satan, and so on? and upon an answer of yes, to baptize an unconscious child that knows nothing of yes or no, of God or devil, of truth or falsehood, of life or death? O blasphemy and shame!

O Lord! O dear Lord! How long shall this gross deceit and vile abomination be practiced? I think it is high time that the world should take heed and learn to know such open deceivers and their doctrine, baptism, supper, life and fruits, and that they would pay more attention to the ordinance, will, word, ways and works of the Lord.

In the twentieth place he accuses us of a false security, as he calls it, because we, or our people, say that we are assured in our hearts that they err and that we are right, and so on.

Answer. The Lord speaks through Moses: “Whoever will not listen to my words which he” (that is, Christ) “shall speak in my name, I will require it of him,” Deuteronomy 18, verse 19.

The Father says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him,” Matthew 17, verse 5.

Christ says, “Teach them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you,” Matthew 28, verse 29. [Note 1]

Paul says, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed,” Galatians 1, verse 8.

John says, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son,” Second John 1, verse 9; and other such sayings.

All the Scriptures point us to the Spirit, gospel, command, ordinance, usage and example of Christ; and in our worship we do not follow conjectures, our own desires, false explanations and doctrines of men, as we are accused of doing, but Christ’s plain word and command, and the doctrine and usage of the holy apostles and of the true, primitive church. Our opponents are no more commanded to baptize children than Israel was to circumcise females, or to found churches, altars and places of worship on hills or in valleys, or to offer their children as burnt offerings, or than the papists are to baptize bells, as they are accustomed to do; and they call the baptism ordained by Christ the baptism of heretics and persecute it, and esteem and practice infant baptism, which was instituted through hypocrisy, as Christian baptism; and besides, they boast that they do right in not abandoning this practice. Since all this is so, I would gladly leave it to the judgment of all reasonable and impartial readers which of us are the Sanherib, the Holofernes, the Pharisaical and deceiving sects, mentioned as trusting in false security. [Note 2]

He further writes, What else in the past deceived the Anabaptists, so that they took up the sword, than just such security? They imagined that they, as the people of God, were marked with the sign Tau; that they should subdue the whole world and hang us preachers, who they said knew better, at our own doorposts.

Answer. Reader, observe: what else does he say by this than, Beloved lords, will you still be merciful to such an offensive people and wicked heretics? Persecute, imprison, banish and destroy them; they deserve it. You may consider and judge whether the Holy Spirit in the Revelation does not call this the sting of scorpions, Revelation 9, verse 10. Further on he says that our church originated with me, something which, as will be shown hereafter, I do not admit. He knows very well that I was never found in the company of the rebellious, but that I reproved their doctrines and abominations with the word of the Lord as much as I ever did those of the preachers. Nevertheless he accuses us of these ungodly practices and wicked deeds, so that he may thereby make us, who are innocent, suspected by all the world, and deliver us to the sword of the magistracy. I will leave it to all the pious and God-fearing to consider whether this is not seeking the blood of the innocent.

O, that he would have enough discretion not to mix the innocent with the guilty! For what else does he seek than to change Simon Peter into Simon Magus, and John and James into Judas?

Suppose I were to say, I have known some infant baptists who were open perjurers and thieves; therefore Gellius and all the infant baptists are perjurers and thieves. Would that not be wrong? O faithful reader, how justly holy David has portrayed such slanderers, saying, The wicked murder the innocent in secret places; his eyes are secretly set against the poor. He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his den; he lies in wait to catch the poor, and so on, Psalm 10, verses 8 and 9. For by such murderous outcries it comes about that in different places the pious and faithful hearts—men and women, youths and virgins, the gray-headed, the lame and the halt—are imprisoned and robbed without pity or mercy, and their children sent out into the world homeless and penniless, as though they were the most wicked upon earth. Some are thrown into boiling oil; others are hanged, racked, drowned, strangled, burned, beheaded or tortured by some other heathenish and tyrannical means. See, such, alas, are the consequences of the deceiving and false writings of such bloodthirsty preachers in some countries.

Would to God that he and his preachers, together with all the papists and monks who are guilty of innocent blood, may find mercy and grace before the eyes of the great and Almighty God in the day when the fearful sound of the last trumpet shall sound, and that the innocent blood of which they are guilty may not be counted against them. This is my sincere wish and prayer. But if they continue in their present minds and do not turn from ungodliness, then, says the Spirit of God, the fiery pool will be their reward and part, Revelation 19, verse 21.

Further, I would say: just as we hate and reprove (understand this in the way of the gospel) the bitter and hostile heart and the bloody and fiendish crying and writing of Gellius and all the contentious, so also do we hate and reprove those who take up the sword, steal, rob, or in any way wrong anyone on earth, be he friend or foe.

In this we should show no respect of persons, be it father, brother, emperor, king, neighbor, friend, great or small, baptized or not baptized. All those who shed human blood against the word of God, who act contrary to love, who wrong, offend or afflict their neighbor, cannot be our brothers, for they plainly show that they are not Christians.

We must constantly hear that the rebellious and their helpers at Munster, alas, took up the sword in the past, contrary to God’s word, as if we were one with them in that abomination, although we are quite innocent in the matter. But they do not see that they arm whole countries and corrupt them; that they destroy one principality after another; that they use all manner of violence, and so cause affliction, misery and sorrow everywhere. Indeed, this, alas, is called doing right.

Since it is plain that not only France, Italy, Spain and Burgundy, but also all the German nations and the rest of the world who boast of the word are guilty of the same deeds as regards fighting, warring, robbing and shedding blood, why then do they reprove the crimes of the rebellious, when they are so far from being innocent themselves, indeed, have done the same criminal deeds as those they reprove? Paul says, “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge; for in that in which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things,” Romans 2, verse 1.

In the last place he writes, Our eyes have seen better than the eyes of the Anabaptists in regard to willful sinning, because they have made many doubtful and caused some to fall away, and so on.

Answer. If he aims this at us, then he should know that he has written more than he should have. For I can say with a clear conscience that I was never troubled by the brothers concerning this matter, and that the doctrine has not been raised among us in my time.

I have always taught that all sins which are repented of are pardoned in the blood of the Lord, whatever they may be. David’s adultery and shedding of innocent blood are a sure testimony of it to me. Yet everyone should take heed that he sincerely fears God and acts rightly, and that he does not willfully sin against his God, nor pervert falsehood into truth or truth into falsehood, as the scribes did. For who knows whether he who willfully sins against his God will ever truly repent and receive grace? Christ says, “Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin,” John 8, verse 34.

I fear that if His Imperial Highness were to present me with many costly gifts, and I should ungratefully squander them, or trample on them, or cast them from me, His Imperial Highness would undoubtedly punish me severely for such ingratitude, and would probably not offer me such favors and costly presents again.

Therefore take heed that you do not willfully despise and adulterate your Lord’s word, nor walk according to the pleasure of a carnal mind, lest the grace that has been shown be withheld from you at once, and you be led into perverse ways. Qui timet Deum, recedit a malo: he who fears God shuns evil.

As Gellius exerts himself to adulterate the word of the Lord by his false doctrine, to make his precious blood of no avail, and to harden and console the impenitent, reckless world in its wild and wicked ways under an appearance of the holy word, so he also exerts himself, in my opinion, to root out the saving, pure truth from the earth, and to deliver the pious and godly children into the hands of the executioner by all manner of false defamations and criminal accusations. If I am wrong, rebuke me.

Whether the name “grasping kite” does not fit him better than “gathering hen,” by which name he would like to be called, I will leave to himself and the Lord.

But the Lord, who is the shield and surety of all the oppressed, defends them against the ungodly. He destroys the liars. He abhors the bloody and deceitful. “There is no faithfulness in their mouth; their inward part is very wickedness; their throat is an open sepulcher; they flatter with their tongue,” Psalm 5, verse 9.

Therefore they shall not stand before the storm; their light shall be put out, and their glory shall vanish. For the Lord who shall judge them is strong, and he will require the poor, deceived souls and the innocent blood at their hands, and he will give them their reward.

See, dear reader, from this you may perceive that the doctrine and confession of the preachers regarding infant baptism cannot stand according to the Scriptures; that it is not founded upon the Lord’s command, nor upon the doctrine or practice of the holy apostles, as the baptism of believers is, but merely upon logic, opinion, conjecture, falsehood, borrowed names and custom. If you are of a reasonable mind, then let the infallible and true word of the Lord and your impartial heart judge between us and the learned.

I would hereby, for God’s sake, beseech all readers not to take it hard that I reprove falsehood according to the Scriptures, defend truth with truth, point out the right way, seek the salvation of your souls, oppose the false prophets, expose their deceiving, secret snares and defend the Lord’s praise. Let him who seeks the Lord in sincerity of heart read and judge.