to, nor unite with the Munsterites, and other rebellious sects. Fifthly, that we thereby admonish all preachers and their churches, that they are without the ordinance and word of God, in this respect. Sixthly, that thereby the whole world may learn from us that the advice, doctrine, ordinance, and command of God should be maintained and obeyed.
Behold, dear reader, these are the fruits which true separation daily brings forth, by the grace of God. But these, the preachers, alas, do not regard. If it were true that few are reformed thereby, as he imputes, they must still admit that these beforementioned results are obtained thereby.
Reader, take notice that however we may act, it is of no avail with the perverse; for if we had disregarded this means and divine ordinance, as the preachers do, and had left every body to follow his own mind, from which the great Lord ever preserve us, how loudly would they cry that we were rebels and Arians.[1] But while we separate them, according to the Scriptures, from the communion of the church, it is called a destructive means and a hasty ban. Behold, thus they seek, on every hand, to destroy truth and uphold falsehood.
In the seventh place he writes, "It is better not to use the ban, than to abuse it, to the destruction of the church.
Answer. If it were true as he asserts, then, still a good thing should not be abandoned for the sake of some. If the ban is a means of destroying and rupturing the church of Christ, then Christ and the apostles have very much deceived us in this regard, to have taught us this ordinance, openly, both by word and example, as may be read in the Scriptures. But what does it avail? He might briefly state his point thus: We do not separate and ban, for we are, as a general thing, all led by an erroneous spirit, and members of the body of anti-Christ.
In the eighth place he writes, "None have proved a greater obstacle to us in re-establishing the ban, than the anabaptists, who have caused a disturbance in the edification of the church of Christ, and in its right course; who have brought the servants into disrepute, and have, under semblance of truth, drawn many zealous hearts from the church (on whom it was to be practiced) and led them into falsehood."
Answer. If I had not learned to know Gellius from his other writings, this excuse of his, in regard to the ban, would more than clearly teach me what kind of a man he is. O, dear Lord? It is nothing but hypocrisy, falsehood, and deceit, whatever he says! He writes that we obstruct the ban; yet, if he would confess the truth, he would be forced to admit, that we do not obstruct him, but his own unbelief, carnal-mind, and his cross-fleeing flesh, as said before.
He writes that we have disturbed the edification of the church, while it is manifest that we point out to all the churches of the world, by doctrine and life, by the periling of possessions and blood, the right way to a true worship and ordinance, and that they are those who, with all their strength, disturb the course of the edification of the church of Christ, by their light-minded doctrine, false sacraments, and vain life.
He writes that we have brought the servants into disrepute, because we reprove them, in unfeigned love, and point them by doctrine and life to Christ's example, Spirit, and word, while he acknowledges above, that some are more fit to be herders of swine than shepherds of the sheep of Christ.
He writes that we have, in semblance of truth, drawn many zealous hearts from the church, and led them into many errors; while the facts show that we do not separate them from the church but from the world, and that we lead them, by the hand and help of God, into eternal truth.
I would further say, Their doctrine has been preached for over thirty years, in Germany, and there are whole kingdoms, principalities, and cities where not a single anabaptist, as he calls them, is to be found. Who is it that obstructs the pastors there in re-establishing the ban? In all the time that they have preached and taught their doctrine, they have never yet banned an adulterer, drunkard, miser, &c., and excluded such an one from the communion of
- ↑ Arians, followers of Arius, a presbyter of the church of Alexandria, about 315, who maintained that the Son of God was totally and essentially distinct from the Father; that he was the first and noblest of those beings whom God had created—but inferior to the Father in nature and dignity: also, that the Holy Ghost was not God, but created by the power of the Son.—Buck's Theological Dictionary.
