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 thing, they abandon their children, from the cradle on, to the wiles of the devil, by educating them in ignorance, blindness, pomp, splendor, vanity, and idolatry, as their fruits plainly show to all of understanding minds. Behold, my reader, from these questions and answers you may conclude whether Gellius and the learned can stand on the strength of the saying, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," with their doctrine and practice of infant baptism, which they practice so indiscriminately, and about which they make so much ado?
Observe, too, that Gellius, by his writing that we do not bring our children to Christ, at all, not only judges and disgraces us, but also Christ Jesus, because he has not commanded us such bringing to him; he also judges the holy apostles who have not testified nor taught us a word in regard to this matter neither by word nor practice in the whole Scriptures.
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, doubtlessly, was caused by a spiritual movement), and as also Jacob, &c., therefore it is 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 these following miracles were also common rules, namely, that Sarah and Elizabeth, two barren women, conceived in their old age, and that Balaam's ass spoke; Num. 22: 28; and, therefore, all aged, barren women should conceive, and all asses speak. O no. That such miracles of God were no common rule things, maybe educed from the floating of iron at Helizeum; from the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, and from the standing still of the sun and moon, 2 Kings 6: 6; Ex. 14: 21; Joshua 10: 13.
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, with him, are of the same calling, office and service) are greatly contemned 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 thou evil spirit, and give room to the Holy Spirit.
Behold, thus it is generally with all who teach and practice this shameful doctrine. And, although they are unanimous in the practice, yet they are so divided in opinion as to the grounds of this doctrine, that we are forced to say that it is nothing but a vain mask and infernal mockery. Notwithstanding he writes that infant baptism is commanded, and that it has the promise; while he well knows that he cannot advance one plain word from all the Holy Scriptures, to show that the wisdom of God has commanded it, or that the apostles have taught or practiced it; or, moreover, that its signification, penitence, regeneration, &c., can apply to children. To say nothing of the author mentioning that the primitive, incorrupt church did not practice it, as has been heard.
Is not this adulterating 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 anti-Christ? 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 before commanded of John and practiced by the disciples of Jesus Christ; so that we are not obliged to follow one rule."
Answer. Let every one 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 obliged to follow one certain rule in regard to baptism; that Christ did not command to baptize the believing persons alone; nor that his heavenly Father did, when he commanded John that he
