I, (said Luther), do not hold that children are without faith when they are baptized; for inasmuch as they are brought to Christ by his command, and that the Church prayeth for them; therefore, without all doubt, faith is given unto them, although with our natural sense and reason we neither see nor understand it.

Nay, but dear honoured Luther! is this fair?  If Christ or Scripture had said in one place, ‘Believe, and thou mayest be baptized’; and in another place, ‘Baptize infants’; then we might perhaps be allowed to reconcile the two seemingly jarring texts, by such words as “faith is given to them, although, &c.”  But when no such text, as the latter, is to be found, nor any one instance as a substitute, then your conclusion seems arbitrary.

Ib. p. 25.

This argument (said Luther), concludeth so much as nothing; for, although they had been angels from heaven, yet that troubleth me nothing at all; we are now dealing about God’s word, and with the truth of the Gospel, that is a matter of far greater weight to have the same kept and preserved pure and clear; therefore we (said Luther), neither care nor trouble ourselves for, and about, the greatness of Saint Peter and the other Apostles, or how many and great miracles they wrought:  the thing which we strive for is, that the truth of the Holy Gospel may stand; for God regardeth not men’s reputations nor persons.

Oh, that the dear man Luther had but told us here what he meant by the term, Gospel!  That St. Paul had seen even St. Luke’s, is but a conjecture, grounded on a conjectural interpretation of a single text, doubly equivocal; namely, that the Luke mentioned was the same with the Evangelist Luke; and that the ‘evangelium’ signified a book; the latter, of itself improbable, derives its probability from the undoubtedly very strong probability of the former.  If then not any book, much less the four books, now called the four Gospels, were meant by Paul, but the contents of those books, as far as they are veracious, and whatever else was known on equal authority at that time, though not contained in those books; if, in short, the whole sum of Christ’s acts and discourses be what Paul meant by the Gospel; then the argument is circuitous, and returns to the first point,—­What ‘is’ the Gospel?  Shall we believe you, and not rather the companions of Christ, the eye and ear witnesses of his doings and sayings?  Now I should require strong inducements to make me believe that St. Paul had been guilty of such palpably false logic; and I therefore feel myself compelled to infer, that by the Gospel Paul intended the eternal truths known ideally from the beginning, and historically realized in the manifestation of the Word in Christ Jesus; and that he used the ideal immutable truth as the canon and criterion of the oral traditions.  For example, a Greek mathematician, standing in the same relation of time and country to Euclid as that in which St. Paul stood to Jesus