Reply to Gellius Faber: The True Signs of the Church of Antichrist, Part 2

Answer. I fear that it would weary the reader if I replied to all his false accusations in detail. Yet I would say this in regard to it: if I could speak with Gellius in public, I have no doubt that many, through the grace of God, would begin to see that it is not we who have a wrong understanding, but they; that they prejudge us without discretion; that they remain outside the church of Christ from motives of pride; and that they not only despise us in the manner of the Pharisees, but also often deprive us of possessions and life, as may be witnessed in different places. But we must suffer, bear it, and console ourselves with the saying, “Blessed are you when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in heaven; for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you,” Matthew 5, verses 11 and 12.

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

Answer. I would earnestly beg the diligent reader to observe how the words of Gellius sound, which I have here quoted at length. He admits that the church, deceived and enchanted by the devil, the lusts of the flesh, and the pomp, sects and potentates of the world, has become drowsy, inattentive, ungrateful and an apostate from Christ, has enraged God, and has fallen into all manner of wickedness and sin; yet he claims that she remains the church of Christ, as if the church were inherited by one generation from another and did not consist in faith, Spirit and power. I would not know what poorer excuse he could find. Therefore observe what I write, and let it be a certain rule to you, namely: where the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ are found, there the Nicene article applies, “I believe in the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, and so on.” On the other hand, where the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ are not to be found, but where the spirit, doctrine, sacraments and life of antichrist are followed, there also is the church of antichrist and not the church of Christ, even though we might say a thousand times, “I believe in the holy Christian church.” For without, or against, the Spirit, word, sacraments and life of Christ there can never be a Christian church, however much we may pervert the truth. The word stands unchangeable: “Whoever transgresses, and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, does not have God,” Second John, verse 9.

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

Answer. Where people conform themselves to the Spirit, word, sacraments, ordinances, commands, prohibitions, usage and example of Christ, there the holy Christian church is found, as has been heard, and there also is the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. For although she grows like a rose among thorns, as he puts it, and keeps herself among wolves, bears and lions, and like a ship tossed about by wind and waves must suffer much tribulation, yet she cannot be capsized; that is, she cannot be turned away from Christ (understand this of the true Christian church); for she is built on a rock, Matthew 7, verse 24.

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

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

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

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

Answer. Beside this I will place my own syllogism: Where the true religion and worship required by the Scriptures are trampled underfoot, there the church of Christ is not. Antichrist, as Gellius testifies, has trampled underfoot the true religion and worship required by the Scriptures in the church of which Gellius speaks; therefore the church mentioned is not the church of Christ. All the Scriptures teach that my first proposition is true; for Moses says, “Whoever will not listen to my words which he” (meaning Christ) “shall speak in my name, I will require it of him,” Deuteronomy 18, verse 19. Christ says, “If you continue” (mark: “continue”) “in my word, then you are my disciples indeed,” John 8, verse 31. Again, Paul says, “If any man preaches any other gospel to you than that which you have received, let him be accursed,” Galatians 1, verse 9. John also says, “Whoever transgresses, and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, does not have God,” Second John 1, verse 9.

Gellius admits that my second proposition is true; for he says that antichrist has trampled religion and worship underfoot, as has been heard.

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

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

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

In his second proposition he judges himself; for he writes that antichrist was seated in their church, which baptizes children, and has placed himself in it as a God and trampled underfoot the true religion and worship. He also acknowledges above, under the heading of separation, that the papists are no Christians; for he says “that those who leave us would sooner become papists than Christians again.” Kind reader, observe closely what I write. It is plain that the Roman antichrist has for a number of years reigned in peace in their church, has given them to drink from his cup of abominations, has destroyed the true religion and reinstated his abominations; and he himself admits that the papists are no Christians. Therefore it is certain and plain that their church was not, as he claims, the general Christian church and temple of God to which the promise of God was given. For it cannot be that they are the disciples of antichrist and yet remain the Christian church and temple.

Now consider whether the pious, whom he calls Anabaptists, are so far out of the way by renouncing all the antichristian abominations and the false, condemned sects and churches; and whether they place themselves in such a frightful position, as he complains with a sigh, by humbly submitting themselves to the only, eternal Messiah, Christ Jesus, and by setting themselves, in their weakness, before all the world as an example of all obedience and virtue.

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

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

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

Again, by writing, “The name of the holy church still remains,” he openly testifies that his assertion is without any foundation in the Scriptures; for he does not refer to the unadulterated doctrine, to the saving use of the holy sacraments, nor to the pious, blameless life which should always be found in the church of Christ; as if the name could keep the church in God and bind it to the promise without the Spirit, word, sacraments, faith and obedience of Christ. No, no, reader, no. “I know,” says the First and the Last, “the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan,” Revelation 2, verse 9. If the name alone made the true church, then all the raving tyrants, the enemies of Christian truth, and all murderers, perjurers, whoremongers, the avaricious, the pompous and the unrighteous, would be members of the church of Christ, for they call themselves by the name of Christ. This cannot be refuted.

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

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

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

See, reader, these are his most important arguments for maintaining his assertion “that their church is the true one,” namely, because they sprang from the papists and practice infant baptism. Just hear how strangely he writes. In my opinion he pens everything that comes into his mind, if it has only a little show of truth, so that it may tickle the ears of the thoughtless people and console them in their impenitent, easy life. If these assertions of his were true, then it could not be otherwise than that until now the church of Christ must have been the church of antichrist, or that of antichrist must have been the church of Christ; also, Christ and antichrist must both have reigned in one church; infant baptism must have been called apostolic without the Scriptures; and the mere name makes the church of Christ. This, by the grace of God, no one can successfully refute, let him garble and twist the matter as cleverly as he pleases.

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

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

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

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

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

But if he answers no, then I wish he had the kindness and virtue to make a distinction and not mix the innocent with the guilty; and I also wish that he would say no more than the truth. For he writes that this “Obbe Philips has a considerable number of followers,” and I assert that he cannot find more than six or ten who believe as he does.

In the third place he accuses us, saying, “How can they be a holy church, when they disagree among themselves about the head of the church, do not allow him to be the true God, and so revive the old Arian heresy?”

Answer. We may well sincerely thank the Most High that he so shows us his fatherly grace and great mercy that even our most skillful and sharpest opponents cannot accuse us except by such childish and, for the most part, false reasoning. If he would consult natural honor, not to mention love and truth, as much as he, alas, consults bitter and envious feeling, how unwilling he would be even to think what he is now not ashamed to publish in writing, saying without distinction that we revive the old Arian heresy, while he and his like know well that such people have no part in the communion of our churches as long as they do not renounce such errors, as has been heard.

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

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

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

Nor are we as divided as he says; for Dirk (Dietrich Philip) and we are of the same mind, and I trust that, through the grace of God, we will always remain so. But that Obbe has become a Demas, and that Adam Pastor has separated from us, is not our fault. Such things also often happened in the apostolic times. May God reclaim them at his will. They have taken their leave and are, alas, no longer counted among us, as long as they do not repent.

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

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

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

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

I know for certain that he can find no such examples or Scriptures in the Bible. Indeed, dear reader, if he were straightforward in giving the reason why he keeps wanting us to go and preach in public, he would confess that by his hypocritical and artful pretense he seeks nothing other than to make our cause suspect with the people, so that his own cause will make a good appearance; and that he is very eager and thirsty for the blood of the innocent, since he, I say, against all reason, love and Scripture, wants us to proclaim our doctrine publicly, knowing well that in all Germany not one place can be found where this could be done without imprisonment, violence or rebellion. If he were now in the truth, as he would like to be considered, namely, an upright, blameless preacher, how unwilling he would be even to think of such gross disgrace, which he now, alas, dares to proclaim loudly in both speech and writing. David says, “The Lord will abhor the bloody and deceitful man,” Psalm 5, verse 6.

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

Answer. The learned constantly slander us and complain because we, with the angel Gabriel, Luke 1, verse 32; with John the Baptist, John 1, verses 15 to 36; with Peter, Matthew 16, verse 16; with Martha, John 11, verse 27; with the apostles, Matthew 14, verse 33; and with the eternal Father himself, acknowledge Christ, both according to his divinity and his humanity, as the true and only begotten Son of God; and we dare not teach and believe more or otherwise about him than the word of the Lord teaches us. I would therefore beg all readers and hearers to consider well the following brief answers and references. I trust that, by the grace of God, I will be able to explain the matter so clearly in a few words that the reader will plainly see that they not only rob us of Christ, and of the doctrine, sacraments, Spirit, life, ordinances and usage of our Savior, but also rob him of his most holy origin, glory, honor and person; and that by their deceiving comments and reasoning they make Christ a divided, impure and inconsistent Christ, both according to nature and according to the Scriptures. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear; and whoever has a mind to understand, let him understand.