through death. O, abomination and blasphemy! If that is not attaching God's selection, grace, favor, love, kingdom, covenant, and salvation, to the element, water, and to works, I will leave to the judgment of all the godly and pious.
In the sixth place he writes, and says, We have ever received, in return for our assiduity and clear, convincing explanation of the Scriptures, yea, for our solicitous care, to again gain them, nothing but anathemas. For what else do we hear from them than that we are wolves, blood-hounds, deceivers, &c., 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 an unblamable life, understand, according to the doctrine, Spirit, and example of Christ Jesus, are not reproved by us, nor by the Scriptures; but we sincerely thank and love them and will by the grace of God, never despise their fraternal assiduity and paternal solicitude, but will, in sincere love and very thankfully, accept them, and as much as we, in our weakness, are able to do, follow them. But we are not to blame that Gellius and the preachers are called deceivers, false prophets, ravening wolves, men guilty of blood, &c., by the Scriptures, but they themselves, are the cause; because they so lamentably adulterate the Scriptures, reject Christ Jesus and his Spirit, word, and walk; because they preach according to their own pleasure, seek improper gain; because they teach and walk to suit the world, destroy the poor sheep by their false doctrine and deceiving practices; and because they upbraid, blaspheme, belie, betray the pious, faithful hearts and thus deliver them to the sword of the magistracy and executioner, as may, alas, be too clearly witnessed at many different places.
Yea, 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, as being ungodly heretics, apostles of the devil, deceived conspirators, hedge-preachers, sneaks, adulterators, &c., and how he, by his rebellious, fiendish, bloody doctrine, deprives the innocent of their property, welfare, honor, blood, and life; and instigates the unmerciful cruel tyrants to robbery, imprisoning, banishing, and murder. My faithful reader, reflect, and see if 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; 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 hereby testifies that there is no command for infant baptism; for he here founds his doctrine and faith upon presumption and not upon imperative words, according to which all things should be judged that are to be a pleasure in the sight of the Lord. In the second place I would say, that the Holy Spirit has testified in plain words, that the three families of which the Scriptures make mention in particular, to have been baptized, were all believing persons as may be plainly understood from reading Acts 10: 16.
But as to the house of Lydia, it is plain that she at that time had no husband; for the house is called after her name, which is neither the custom of the world nor of the Scriptures, if the husband is alive. Since the New Testament, then, makes mention of but four households in particular, to have been baptized, and three of them were believing, and the fourth, as appears, had no husband, as has been heard, how much then should we rely on it, that there were little children in these households, both nature and the Scriptures teach us.
He further writes, That it cannot be gainsayed that the children, all through the Scriptures, are always included in the household, for a household or family includes both young and old; therefore also children should be baptized because the Scriptures mention that whole households were baptized, which includes children.
I reply: If Gellius proves to us, by the testimony of God's word, that the unconscious children have faith, then we would gladly include them in the believing, baptized households and allow them to be baptized. But as he cannot possibly do so, we would faithfully admonish him and all the preachers to take heed, how and what they say concerning this matter; for all they philosophize and teach about it, is mere deceit. Besides, I would yet ask, if we can also cause unbelief in small children by
