Huldreich Zwingli
HULDREICH ZWINGLI TO ALL THE MINISTERS OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST. Grace and peace from the Lord. Τί is an old saying, dear brethren, that success is the mother of evils, and this is profoundly true. For since even a little was conceded to the desires of certain ones through our idleness or blindness, these are now
[Zwingli’s Works, ///., 357-437. Translated from the Latin by Henry]
[Preble and George W. Gilmore.]
[On Monday, October 26, 1523, the Second Disputation was held in Zurich,]
[again between Zwingli and the representatives of the Old Faith and other]
[clergy, and in that Disputation for the first time_the Baptist party in Zurich]
[made their appearance. The subject of the debate was what position the]
[reform party should take in regard to the use of images in the churches and in]
[regard to the sacraments. The Baptist party in Zurich were the radicals. The]
[origin of this party was in a sort of inquiry meeting-—that is, some members of]
[Zwingli’s congregation used to meet in a private house and talk over the ser-]
[mons which they had heard from Zwingli, frequently in his presence. Zwingli]
[may have said in these gatherings a good many things which were not for]
[publication, but he had said enough in his public discourses to show this little]
[group of earnest men that he was on the side of a complete break with the Old]
[Church. Zwingli was a very cautious person, and while he saw plainly that his]
[opinions led logically to very radical reforms, he wished to make haste slowly]
[and come at the changes, which he knew would cause considerable sorrow to]
[many conservative people, by successive steps; but the little group referred to]
[wished to accomplish the same results at once, without tarrying for any, and]
[accordingly they started out without first preparing the people for such action]
[to do the things Zwingli had at heart. Thus they made an attack upon]
[churches and stripped them of their ornaments; they refused to observe the]
[church fasts; and what is of more interest in this connection, they declared]
[that the baptism of infants was unscriptural, and therefore should not be]
[observed. Zwingli was very much distressed at the precipitance of his enthu-]
[siastic friends, because such actions were on the side of disorder, and it was]
[very important to guard the growing Reformation from the charge of disorderly]
[conduct. At the same time he could not say that what they did was in itself]
[wrong, as he had himself advocated the removal of all ornaments from the]
[churches, and it is doubtless true that in his earlier addresses from the pulpit]
[he exposed the unbiblical character of the church doctrine upon the general]
so incapable of limiting those desires that they prefer to perish themselves and to destroy others rather than give up what they have begun. An example of this is furnished during the life of Christ among men, and this is repeated now in our times when he has relit the torch of his word, doubtless though to our good.
[subject of baptism, and probable that he inclined towards ruling out infant]
[baptism, as lacking biblical support.]
[The followers of a great teacher are frequently guilty of bringing their master]
[into compromising situations, because they make prominent what he thinks of]
[very small account, although it may be in the line of his teaching, and so Zwingli]
[found himself criticised severely in Zurich when his remarks upon infant baptism]
[were repeated. To those who were brought up to regard baptism as necessary]
[to salvation it was a great shock to be told that the ceremony had no validity.]
[To those who believed that the rite of baptism was the Christian obligation in]
[lieu of circumcision, and just as binding, to hear that there was grave doubt]
[whether it should be so considered was to knock the underpinning from their]
[faith. When Zwingli found that opposition to the popular belief and practice]
[upon this point meant that he would be exposed not only to clerical and lay]
[adverse criticism, but probably would lose him his influence with the city mag-]
[istrates, who were all friends of the Old faith on this doctrine, he devoted a]
[great deal of attention to it, with the result that he convinced himself that as]
[to the subjects of baptism he had been wrong, and henceforth he took the orth-]
[dox side. As Zwingli was an honest man and morally courageous, his change]
[of view should be accepted as sincere, and not as time-serving and hypocritical.]
[He soon had a chance to attack his former friends and admirers on other than]
[speculative grounds, because they had been influenced by men like Thomas]
[Muenzer and Balthasar Hubmaier, who were in the stream of the Baptist]
[movement in Germany. Balthasar, indeed, developed into the leading theolo-]
[gian of the Baptists of Switzerland. From Germany the idea came to the little]
[company of Baptists in Zurich to practice the rite of baptism upon believing]
[adults who had already, as the Church claimed, been baptized, upon the theory]
[that only those could be baptized truly who were old enough to have at the]
[time an intelligent comprehension of the doctrines to which they were giving]
[assent, and as this could not have been the case with those baptized in]
[infancy, therefore they had never really been baptized. The first of these adult]
[baptisms occurred in a gathering of these Baptists in Zollicon, a little village to]
[the east of Zurich, and was by pouring from a dipper. But these first Baptists]
[in Switzerland cared so little in regard to the mode of baptism that the question]
[does not seem to have been discussed among them, and in the writings of]
Then when he had not only endured the betrayer for so long a time, but also openly dissuaded or terrified him, the latter, so far from giving over the malicious design entered upon, of giving up master and parent, did not cease till he had placed the spirit in bonds. So it is now, when the audacity of the Cata-
[Zwingli is not referred to. This is a curious fact, because the modern Baptist]
[church lays great stress upon a certain mode of baptism.]
[The elaborate attack upon the Baptists here presented derives additional]
[interest from the two documents that it embodies. The first is the attack upon]
[Zwingli written probably by Conrad Grebel, one of the earliest friends of]
[Zwingli, and the second is the Confession of Faith written by the Baptists of]
[Bern. Zwingli replies to both these documents, quoting them verbally and]
[fully, and this enables us to reconstruct them. The Confession of the Bernese]
[Baptists is in very simple language, showing a very honest and God-fearing]
[mind, and is in itself a triumphant refutation of the charges of fanaticism and]
[immorality which Zwingli brings against them. In fact in this paper Zwingli]
[shows himself up in a very bad light.]
[This is no place in which to describe the outrageous treatment which the]
[Baptist party received in Zurich and elsewhere through Switzerland. The]
[writer feels the freer to use such a term because he is not himself a Baptist, but]
[he comes to the subject merely as a historical student. He considers that the]
[part which Zwingli played in this wretched business is a serious blot upon his]
[reputation, and reveals a defect in his character. The Baptists were pursued]
[relentlessly; drowning, beheading, burning at the stake, confiscation of prop-]
[erty, exile, fines and other forms of social obloquy were employed to suppress]
[them and prevent their increase. The fact shows plainly that the persecuting]
[spirit in the times of the Reformation was just as rife among Protestants as]
[among Roman Catholics, and that the devil was abroad in the hearts of those]
[who considered themselves on both sides as the true servants of the Lord Jesus]
[Christ, whose tenderness and love must have been greatly tried by these]
[wicked doings of his friends. Peace came at last to Switzerland—the peace of the grave-yard and of the]
[sea which gives not up its dead. The orthodox party congratulated them-]
[selves upon having got rid of the pestilential heresy of adult baptism, yet]
[the student of history as he looks upon the large, flourishing and world-wide]
[Baptist church of to-day asks himself which side really won the battle for the]
[right of private judgment and liberty of action, the side of the persecutor or]
[the side of the persecuted?]
[/. e., died by the halter; allusion to the death of Judas.]
baptists has been suffered to proceed so far that they have conceived the hope of confounding all things; who are so untaught that by calling themselves by this name they would increase their estimation; so imprudent (while Christ would have the apostles prudent as serpents) that the confusion which alone they are eager for they suppose they will discover by means of their imprudence rather than find by any skill. This inauspicious race of men has so increased within a few years that they now cause anxiety to certain cities.f And this in no other way than through unskilled and impious audacity. For while pious learning and discipline has no need of the ministry of hypocrisy (for it is sufficient unto itself through erudition, and by the very unaffected discipline of piety commends itself to others), yet men of this kind are so thoroughly ignorant of that which they boast they alone know (and), so pretend that from which they are farther distant than the hall of Pluto from the palace of Jove, that it is clear that they begin this web endowed with nothing but impious and untaught audacity. For as often as by the use of clear passages of Scripture they are driven to the point of having to say, I yield, straightway they talk about the spirit” and deny Scripture. As if indeed the heavenly spirit were ignorant of the sense of Scripture which is written under its guidance or were anywhere inconsistent with itself. And if you rightly and modestly call in question their customs and institutions, even if you come as a suppliant and beg them to do nothing rashly, there is no abuse employed by the enemies of the Gospel these do not use, no threats they do not throw at you. What does all this mean, I ask, if it is not the sign of audacity and impious confidence? Since there is so rich a harvest of these—not men (for why must one call those men who have nothing but the Since 1523.
- Waldshut, Zurich, St. Gall, Schaffhausen, Basel, Coire, Constance, Strassburg, Worms, Ulm.
human form?), but monsters of deceit—that now the good seed which the heavenly Father so lately sowed in his field must be on its guard, I beg this, that we watch, act, and not let the enemy overthrow us as we sleep. Let us judge soberly, lest we receive 8 wolf in sheep’s clothing. Let us labor, lest that evil that has arisen be attributed to our neglect. For there are, alas, not a few among us who are stricken and moved by every wind and novelty, just like the untaught rabble which embraces a thing the more quickly the more unknown it is. The Catabaptists speak in round tones of God, truth, the Word, light, spirit, holiness, flesh, falsehood, impiety, desire, demon, hell and all that kind of things, not only beautifully, but even grandly and finely, if only hypocrisy were more surely absent. If also you should investigate their life, at the first contact it seems innocent, divine, democratic, popular, nay, supermundane, for it is thought more noble than human even by those who think not illiberally of themselves But when you have penetrated into the interior you find such a pest as it is shame even to mention. For it is not sufficient for them to abuse the Gospel for gain and to live at the expense of another, and to give themselves up to such base cunning for the sake of their belly, weaving plot out of plot, but they must not only assail, but even destroy, the faith of matrons and girls from whose husbands and parents they obtain hospitality. And not contented with all this, they refuse to pronounce and recognize as wicked the hand made bloody at St. Gall with a cruel parricide, so that you see without difficulty that the same thing is to be expected from their assemblages (which are both nocturnal and solitary), which once at Rome improperly idle matrons when they had gained possession of a certain paltry Greek perpetrated in their subterranean meetings. And although all those deeds are in part so wicked and unworthy of good men, in part so obscene and impure, and in part so monstrous and cruel, that they would hand this age down to posterity as infamous, even though there were no other calamity; nevertheless
great as they are, they are insignificant in that they confined the contumely within human bounds, as compared with these which they are guilty of against the piety that regards both Christ and public morals. They deny that Christ himself perfected forever his saints in his one oifering of himself. But what is this but drawing from heaven God’s Son who sits at the right hand of the Father? And when they have cast him from his kingdom, in whose name, pray, shall they be baptized? Does not the whole New Testament tend to this, that we should learn that Christ is our successful sacrifice and redemption? Out of what books do the Catabaptists draw their doctrine? When therefore they thoroughly deny the sum of the New Testament, do we not see them using catabaptism, not to the glory of God or with the good of their consciences, but as a pretext for seditions, confusion and tumult, which things alone they hatch out? With folly does he boast the baptism of Christ who denies Christ. 1t is to no purpose that they say after the manner of the Jews (some of whom we know do this) that Christ was a great prophet or a man of God, but not the Son of God, for he can be neither a prophet nor a man of God who brings a lie to wretched mortals —in which (lies) they abound to more than a sufficiency. But Christ asserted that he was the Son of God; on account of this he died; he therefore could not have lied when he said he was God’s Son if he was a true prophet or a man of God. How is it that the apostles baptized in Jesus’ name when he had given them the formula, In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit?’ Jesus must be equal, nay, the same as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For John, great as he was, and prophet and man of God, did not baptize in his own name. In brief, then, when they clearly deny that Christ is by nature the Son of God, it is through evil design that they rage about baptism, and not for zeal’s sake. Morals they corrupted in the following manner: No matter what crime they are caught in committing, even in the very act (for in their church so unstained shameful
deeds, adultery, parricide, perjury, theft, evil, guile, and about all ^ crimes there are anywhere, are more common than among those whom they call for contumely the flesh and the devil.” I tell the truth, I lie not; there is none of these that I cannot abundantly prove if the occasion demands)— In whatsoever sin they are taken, I say, they escape in no other way than: I have not sinned, for I am no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit; I am dead to the flesh, and the flesh to me. Do they not betray what they are by this reply? For how can they who are led by the Spirit of God and are sons of God allure to adultery a matron’s chastity? With what face offer insult to a simple little maiden! What an insult to God is this! What a handle this for those who would already have given themselves from the lust of the flesh to all vice if shame alone had not opposed! Will not the homicide share with the rake and adulterer, when accused, the formula, “I am now of the Spirit; the wrong done here is not mine, but is of the flesh.” What shame, pray, will be left us? What regard for modesty? For they do not reply with the same mind as do we ordinarily who trust in Christ. For we frankly confess: I have sinned, I will correct the error, I will flee through Christ to the mercy of God, from this I will never fall. For they do not refer to Christ; they have put off all shame, and what will he correct who denies that he has fallen? O, the crime, the audacity, the impudence! What swine of the school of Epicurus ever thus philosophized? Or what difference is there between right and wrong, O heaven, between holy and crime-laden, man and beast? If you take away shame from humanity, have you not admitted to the theatre all obscenity, have you not eliminated law, corrupted morals? You are not ashamed at slaughter, adultery, harlotry; you are more a beast than the wolf, lion or horse, which have some shame. Against this class of men we must be on constant watch, all our forces and machines must be brought, my brethren, and the more because they rage so in their hypocrisy and perfidy. They excel
in this Empusa, Proteus, the chameleon, or Tarandus, or whatever is inconstant. By this they assert that the papal party will bring them aid—this openly. They assail far more sharply than do the Romanists all who stand by Christ, by which they evince to what purpose they spare those whom they so anxiously flatter. But all our material cannot and must not be sought elsewhere than from the armory of the Old and the New Testament. Do thou, Father of lights, illumine their darkness, that they may see their error, and as thou wilt sometime do, eliminate this error from the Church quickly, we pray! But thou, whosoever thou art, who boastest in the name or ministry of the Most High God or of the gospel of His Son, consider what and whence these matters are which we allege, and laying passion aside furnish the herb of truth. Farewell!
ZURICH, Ful 31, 7527. HULDREICH ZWINGLIS REFUTATION AGAINST THE TRICKS OF THE, CATABAPTISTS.
Thus far our preface. Now hear in what order we shall proceed. First, we shall reply to their calumnies, in which they assert they have confuted our fundamental arguments. Secondly, I shall overthrow the basis of their superstition. Then I shall discuss the covenant and the election of God, which abides firm and is above baptism and circumcision; nay, above faith and preaching. I shall add an appendix, in which, with the help of God, I shall refute certain errors recently wrought out by them. But all with a light hand. In the first two parts I shall always
[Empusa was a spectre of huge size, having one leg of brass and one like]
[that of an ass, sent out by Hecate to frighten travelers. It ate human flesh.]
[It sometimes appeared as a beautiful young woman. Pro£eus was the Old Man]
[of the Sea, who rose at noonday from the flood, came on land and fell asleep]
[among the rocks. If any one could catch him there and hold on to him, not-]
[withstanding his efforts to escape by changing his form, he would be able to learn]
[from him the future with infallible accuracy. 7’arazdus was a horned anima]]
[of Northern lands, perhaps the reindeer.]
REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 1521 put their words first, faithfuly translated from German into ’ Latin; after that the reply. Thus then they begin:
THE CaraBAPTISTS. One of Zwingli’s grounds for advocating the baptism of infants is the family of Stephanas. For he says It is more likely than not that the apostles baptized the children of the faithful, for Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 16, And I baptized also the household of Stephanas;. a second is im Acts xvi. 1 5, when “Lydia was baptized and her house; a third in verse 3, a little after, And he was baptized, he and his house, straightway. In these families it is more likely than not that there were infants. Thus. Before I go to the regular reply, I would warn thee of one thing, O reader. This work is called a Refutation of the Tricks, etc.,” because this class of men so abounds and works in tricks that I have never seen anything equally oily or changeable. Yet this is not wonderful. For add to their asseverations of holiness, which they are skilled in working up, their readiness in making fictions and scattering them, and (you see) how they deceive not only the simple, but even the elect, divine providence thus proving its own. The book containing the refutation of our positions they had for a long time been passing through the hands of their brotherhood, who everywhere boasted that they could so tear up Zwinglis positions that there would be nothing left. I had meanwhile been looking and searching everywhere to see if I
[“As appears from the letter of CEcolampadius to Zwingli, dated July 19,]
[1527 (Zwingli’s Works, viii. 80), it is probable that the writing which called]
[out the answers of (Ecolampadius and Zwingli had the title: Ein Gesprech]
[Balthasar Hubemórs von Fridberg. Doctors. auff Mayster Ulrichs Zwinglens]
[ze Zürich Taufbüechlein. von dem Khindertauff. Die warhayt is untódtlich.]
[Erd. erd. erd. hóre das wort des herrens. Hiere.” Nicholspurg 1526 (quarto).]
[Zwingli’s book on Baptism ( Vom Touf, vom widertouf und vom kindertouf”),]
[appeared May 27 1525. It is in his Works, ii. 1, 230-303. On July 11th in that year Hubmeier issued his Von dem christlichen]
[Tauf der Gláubigen,” to which Zwingli replied by his Uiber doctor Bal-]
[thazars toufbüchlin wahrhafte gründte antwurt (1525) Works, ii. 1, 337-369.]
could get it, but could find it nowhere, until (Ecolampadius, a most upright man, and also most vigilant, found one somewhere and sent it to me. So the first trick was that they sent around their own writings, which through their seared consciences they knew could not endure the light, secretly by the hands of the conspirators, who are as purblind in their ignorance as they are blind in their desire to advance the sect. They did not allow it to come into other hands. But the evil-doer cometh not into the light lest his works be manifest. But how could they submit their works to the church when they have seceded from the church? For you must know, most pious reader, that their sect arose thus. When their leaders, clearly fanatics, had already determined to drag into carnal liberty the liberty we have in the gospel, they addressed us who administer the word at Zurich first, kindly, indeed, but firmly, so that so far as could be seen from their appearance and action it was clear that they had in mind something inauspicious. They addressed us therefore after the following manner: It does not escape us that there will ever be those who will oppose the gospel, even among those who boast in the name of Christ. We therefore can never hope that all minds will so unite as Christians should find it possible to live. For in the Acts of the Apostles those who had believed seceded from the others, and then it happened that they who came to believe went over to those who were now a new church. So then must we do: they beg that we make a deliverance to this effect —they who wish to follow Christ should stand on our side. They promise also that our forces shall be far superior to the army of the unbelieving. Now the church was about to elect from their own devout its own senate. For it was clear that there were many impious ones both in the senate and in this promiscuous church. To this we replied in the following manner: It is indeed true that there would ever be those who would live unrighteously,
[In 1524. Cf. for these matters Zwingli, Works, ii. I, 230 sqq., 370 sqq.]
[II., pp. 370 ff and 230 ff.]
even though they confessed Christ, and would have all innocence ’ and therefore piety in contempt. Yet when they asserted and contended that they were Christians, and were such by their deeds—as even the church could endure—they were on our side. For who is not against us is on our side.
So Christ himself had taught in just such beginnings of things as were then ours. He had also commanded us to let the tares grow with the grain until the day of harvest, but we hoped boldly more would return daily to a sound mind who now had it not. If this should not be, yet the pious might ever live among the impious. I feared that in that condition of affairs a secession would cause some confusion. The example of the apostles was not applicable here, for those from whom they withdrew did not confess Christ, but now ours did.. A great part of those would be unwilling to consent with us to any secession, even though they embraced Christ more ardently than we ourselves. By the continuous action of the word that alone should be promulgated which all ought to know, unless they wished to be wanting to their own salvation. I did not doubt that without disorder the number of the believing would ever grow larger by the unremitting administration of the word, not by the disruption of the body into many parts. That although the senate seemed to them to be of very varying complexion, we were not of that mind. Especially because, while nothing humane seemed alien to them, yet they frankly not only did not oppose the word, but they favored it equally with that Jehoshaphat who strengthened with his cohorts by the law itself the priests and Levites that they might the more freely preach the word through all Judea. Yet one should especially observe that there were ten virgins awaiting the bridegroom, but five of them were wise and prudent and five were slothful and foolish. Replies on this line we made to them as they urged us, and they saw they would not succeed. They brought up other matters. They denounced infant baptism tremendously as the chief abomination, proceeding from an evil
demon and the Roman pontiff. We met this attack at once, promised an amicable conference. It was appointed for Tuesday of each week. At the first meeting the battle was sharp but without abuse, as we especial took in good part their insults. Let God be the witness and those who were present, as well from their side as from ours. ‘The second was sharper. Some of them, since they could do nothing with Scripture, carried on the affair with open abuse. When they saw themselves beaten after a considerable conflict, and when we had exhorted them in friendly ways, we broke up in such a way that many of them promised they would make no disturbance; though they did not promise to give up theiropinions. Within three, or at most four, days it was announced that the leaders of the sect had baptized fifteen brethren. Then we began to perceive why they had determined to collect a new church and had opposed infant baptism so seriously. We warned the church that it could not be maintained, that this proceeded from good counsel, to say nothing of a good spirit, and for these reasons: They had attempted a division and partition of the church, and this was just as hypocritical as the superstition of the monks. Secondly, though the churches had to preserve their liberty of judging concerning doctrine, they had set up catabaptism without any conference, for during the whole battle about infant baptism they had said nothing about catabaptism. Third, this catabaptism seemed like the watchword of seditious men. Then when they learned this in great swarms they came into the city, unbelted and girded with rope or osiers, and prophesied, as they called it, in the market place and squares. They filled the air with their cries about the old dragon, as they called me, and his heads, as they called the other ministers of the word. “They also commended their justice and innocence to all, for they were about to depart. They boasted that already they hold all things in common, and threatened with extremes others unless they do the same. They went through the streets with portentous uproar, crying Woe!
Woe! Woe to Zurich. Some imitated Jonah, and gave a truce of. forty days to the city. What need of more? 1 should be more foolish than they were I even to name all their audacity. But we who by the bounty of God stood firmly by the sound doctrine of Christ, although throughout the city one counseled one way and another the other, we believed we should teach correctly the proof of the Spirit. Something was accomplished in this way, although they changed themselves into all shapes that they might not be caught. When the evil had somewhat subsided, so that the majority seemed likely to judge the matter impassively, joint meetings were appointed. But as often as we met, either publicly or privately, the truth that we had on our side ever came off conqueror. They promised then that they would prove by blood what they could not by Scripture. They did this with so great boldness and boasting that I do not doubt they were a burden to themselves. They practiced catabaptism contrary to the will of the senate and people, the public servants and police were turned back and some of them harshly treated. Finally a meeting was appointed where each side should be heard to completeness, and when they were brought from the prison to the court or were taken back again one would pity the city and another would make dire threats against it. Here hypocrisy tried its full strength, but accomplished nothing. While some womanish breasts bewailed and turned to pity, yet the truth, publicly vindicated, came off best. For all were allowed to be present during the whole three days’ fight. When finally their impudence, though beaten also at that meeting, would not yield, an opportunity was again given them to fight. T In the presence of the church the contest raged for three whole days more, with so great damage to them that there were few who did not see that the wretched people were struggling for the sake of fighting, and not to find the truth. By this battle their forces were so cut up that we ‘The first was held Jan. 17, 1525. + On March 20, 1525.
1360 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. began to have much more tranquility, especially in the city, but they wandered through the country by night and infested all to the best of their opportunity. After that conference (the tenth, with the others public or private,) the senate decreed that he should be drowned who rebaptized another. Perhaps I obtrude these details upon you to your great disgust, good reader; but it is not heat or bias that has influenced me, only a faithful watchfulness and solicitude for the churches. For many of the brethren who had not discovered the character of these men thought that what had been done to them was too monstrous. But now when these people have begun to devastate their own sheepfolds, they are daily assailing us with letters and shouts, confessing that what they had heard was more than true, that they who have not had experience of this evil may now be rendered the more watchful. I think that the world has never seen a similar kind of hypocrisy. For as knowledge without love puffs up, so when conjoined with hypocrisy it is bolder than one of the people would think, and more adroit than even an astute man would apprehend The hypocrisy of the monks was crude, and they discoursed of divine things, if at all, in coldest fashion. But these men further act in such a way that they do not persuade or induce those whom they find thrown in their way; they assail and rush on them. So these wretched fellows just undertake I know not what beyond their powers; they assail the magistrates in terrible fashion; they devote to destruction the ministers of the gospel; on all sides they act like Alexander the false prophet—he would not have Epicureans or Christians at his tricky performances. For as those in the magistracy command great wisdom and kowledge of affairs, so also they who worthily preside over the ministry of the gospel ought to be established in sound doctrine, so as to be able to overcome the contumacy of those who contradict it. Now see the astuteness of these men. They revile especially the ministers, both of the church and the state, so that if ever one in accordance with duty even whispers against
them they straightway are able to say they are hostile to them because they have assailed their vices. Now any one of the people who hears this will suspect the ministers of the church and the magistrates before he does these many-colored deceivers: aroused to fury they charge forward at their command, ignorant whither they are rushing or to what end they will come. Impudence and audacity increase, so that he who to-day is a simple hearer will to-morrow abuse the magistrate to his face. When it is seen whither their increase is tending and resistance is made, straightway he who is the instigator departs from the midst and leaves the miserable people to be mangled by the executioner. And they present a parallel to Ate: whithersoever they turn all is woe; they overturn everything and change things into the worst condition possible. Some city begins to think more soundly about heavenly teaching; thither they proceed and bring confusion; they do not introduce the Lord to those which do not receive the word. Who does not discern from this whose apostles they are? Therefore establish your courage, good brethren. The hypocrisy of the Roman pope has been brought into the light; now we must war with hypocrisy itself. And you must do this with the less delay the more you see those apostles of the devil, although they promise I know not what salvation, seeking nothing but disturbance and the confusion of affairs, both human and divine, and destruction. So much about their division and betrayal of the church. They have gone out from us, for they were not of us. Yet I may add this one item: there is a small church at Zollicont where the catabaptists set up their teaching under inauspicious beginnings. This church, though small (for it is a part of the Zurich church, only five miles out), is admirable in its constancy. For now they have about overcome the catabaptists born among them, having ever embraced The daughter of Zeus, who induced gods and men to do rash and inconsiderate things.
“t On the north shore of the Lake of Zurich, and five miles from the city.
the word with simplicity and placidity. This opportunity these [catabaptists] had eagerly looked for, hoping that on this account the men would the more readily yield to their hypocrisy because they displayed such great simplicity and eagerness.
Now I return to their tricks, and thus I respond: When you say that the family of Stephanas is one of Zwingli’s bases for insisting on infant baptism, you show great disingenuousness. For where, pray, have I ever postulated this, which you assert, as a foundation? Have I not written a special book to the unfaithful Balthasar, the apostate, in which I briefly showed upon Balthasar Hubmaier was born at Friedberg, near Augsburg, about 1480, educated at Freiburg in South Germany, became professor of theology at Ingolstadt, and D. D., 1512. In 1516 he went to Regensburg as cathedral preacher and led the attack on the Jews, whose synagogue was destroyed. On its site a Christian chapel was erected, and he was its first chaplain. In 1521 he removed to Waldshut, near the border of Switzerland, and this brought him in contact with the Swiss Reformers. He embraced their teachings and introduced the Reformation into Waldshut, 1524. In that year Hubmaier came under the influ- ence of Thomas Münzer, who confirmed him in the Baptist views he had previously independently imbibed from his Bible study. His accession to the ranks of the Baptists was a great gain of them. He was quickly recognized as their leading theologian. Driven out of Waldshut in December, 1525, when the city was captured by the Austrian troops and the Reformation suppressed, Hubmaier fled to Zurich. But his Baptist views made him suspected there, as the Baptists, or Anabaptists as they were commonly called, were charged with disturbing the public order and were under the ban of the State. Hubmaier was put in prison, tortured, compelled to recant, and finally driven out of the city. He went to Constance, to Augsburg and finally into Moravia, everywhere proclaiming with eloquence and success by voice and pen his Baptist views. There was in those times, when religious liberty was a term unknown to Protestants and Roman Catholics, and when Baptists especially were hunted to death by all non-Baptists, only one possible end to such a career as his. He came into the hands of King Ferdinand of Austria, was taken to Vienna, 1527, and there burnt at the stake, March 10, 1528. He died like a hero. His wife, who courageously exhorted him to firmness, was herself put to death three days later, only it was through the waves of the blue Danube and not through fire that she entered the presence of the Master who looks with pity and forgiving love upon His followers’ vain attempt to bring in His kingdom by the sword. The life of Hubmaier has been written from the sources by Johann Loserth, Brünn, 1893.
what bases I strive in defending infant baptism? In this book do you not read:
On the Baptism of Infants
I. The children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God, who will forbid their baptism? ’
Circumcision among the ancients (so far as it was sacramental) was the same as baptism with us. As that was given to infants so ought baptism to be administered to infants. -
II. But perhaps you have not read it, for in your superstition this is the first point, that he whom you wish to render doubly worse than he was may not unite with that church that has as bishops those who defend infant baptism. So I do not doubt that they have placed under interdict my books. My mention ’ of the household of Stephanas, Lydia and of the keeper of the prison came about in the following way: I was giving you many warnings not to argue unskillfully thus: We do not read that the apostles baptized the infants of believers, therefore [infants] ought not to be baptized. First) because of the absurdity, because we might just as well argue, the apostles are nowhere said to have been baptized, therefore they were not baptized. And when you replied, it is most likely they were baptized long before they baptized others, then I replied: It was too true what Christ set forth, that some see a mote in a brother’s eye and are deceived as to the beam in their own. But when I had said that it was more likely than not that the apostles baptized believers’ infants, what laughter and mockery did not the faithless apostate Balthasar excite against me? Those are the columns, he says, and they bring no other Scripture but futile conjecture; we demand clear Scripture. See the crafty fellows! In the sam matter they reply by conjectures and laugh at others who adduce conjecture simply as conjecture; nay, they falsely assert among
themselves that we use conjecture as a foundation. After that I very properly adduced as exampes, which showed it was more probable than not that the apostles baptized infants, the families of Stephanas, Lydia and of the warden of the prison. And these examples you will never be able to do away with, as I shall clearly show. You then continue to answer my examples thus:
Catabaptisis. We reply first that Zwingli says in his book that an act of the apostles can prove nothing, which is not true. Second, grant that it is true; the obscure testimony which he alleges concerning the act of Paul, 1 Cor. i. 16, and concerning Lydia, can therefore by his own admission prove nothing.
Reply: 1 myself recognize my own words, and I will not permit them to be twisted by your violent appropriation of them otherwise than as they were said. It was in this sense that I said that the act of the apostles proved nothing. Everywhere we read that they baptized; by that fact we cannot prove that they did not baptize those whom Scripture does not assert to have been baptized by them. For otherwise it would follow that the divine virgin mother was not baptized, for Scripture does not. relate her baptism. I would say: By a fact a not-fact cannot - be proved. We read that Christ was at Jerusalem, Capernaum and Nazareth; it does not follow that he was not at Hebron because Scripture does not say so. We read that Christ taught at Nazareth, therefore he did not teach at Bethlehem, for we do not read that he taught there. Again, who does not see that the acts of the apostles are most pertinent as a defence of our acts, provided we do them in the same way under the same law? Peter thought nothing external should be placed on the necks of the disciples; James allowed that something should be imposed, principally because of the Jews who had believed. It therefore follows rightly, if it can be obtained, that all ceremonies be abrogated entirely; if this can not be done with public peace, those can be tolerated on account of the weak which do not involve impiety. For while the apostles permitted certain small
details, such as abstinence from blood and things strangled, they in no way permitted believers to be circumcised. For he who is circumcised becomes a debtor to the whole law; not so he who eats not blood or things strangled. It does not follow: The. apostles are not said to have eaten pork, therefore they did not eat it. So our reasoning here is: It cannot be proved that believers infants were not baptized by the apostles because this is not written, for there are many things done, both by Christ and by the apostles, which were not committed to writing. The lawyers call this a question of law, not of fact. Something may exist in law that never issues in fact. It was lawful for Paul to draw bodily nourishment from the field where he sowed spiritual seed. For Christ had said that the laborers were worthy of their hire. Now as he did not use this lawful right, the reasoning does not follow: Paul did not receive remuneration for preaching, therefore no one should accept it. Where again, not to pass over this, your audacity ought to be considered. For when you cry out among the simple populace against the ministers of the gospel that they ought not to gain a living from the gospel: Paul with his hands provided support for himself and for others, in this, as in all other matters, you act with malicious unfairness. For he himself (Paul), I say, taught that it was right for those to receive support who in turn nourished by the word. The condition of affairs at that time admonished him, so that he did not do what was permissible, as the impious and the false apostles were assailing him. Read 1 Cor. ix. and you will learn how much Paul discussed on this matter of fact and right. You will see that it is not only foolish, but impious to argue thus: This is done, it is therefore done under warrant; this is not done, therefore it is not right to do it. I would say then by this expression nothing else than this: The acts of the apostles cannot prove anything more than that the apostles did not baptize infantsto grant for the time that they did not— but it does not follow that they are not to be baptized, or that a negative follows from
the affirmative, as the apostles baptized adults and believers, therefore infants are not to be baptized. ‘You may argue neither in divine nor in secular matters from the fact to the right; then only may a fact be adduced for the law when an act has been proved done by the law. For example, at Zurich it was permitted by the goodness of God to abolish all externals without compromising public peace. Since this was done legally it is not lawful to do away with all at Winterthur and Stein if only love as a judge permits it as right. At Jerusalem things strangled and blood were interdicted because of the weak. Now at Bern and Basel certain things which are not most wicked can be borne to a certain extent if love warns that this is right; impious things, such as the mass, idols, false doctrine, are not to be suffered. Therefore the acts of the apostles are to be a law to us so far as they were done under sanction of the law. So it is only things false and wicked that right forbids both them and us to do, apart from whether they themselves have ever done them. For when you have done that which was permissible you have done right, even though no apostle had done it. My words therefore must be understood as dealing with right and with fact. To wit, infants may not be denied baptism because it is nowhere expressly said that the apostles baptized infants. Also there is the consideration that, as we shall show clearly, the fact that they baptized may not have been put down in writing, and the acts of none may prejudice the right, much less acts not committed. So that if it were down in plain words somewhere: The apostles did not baptize infants, it would not (even then) follow that they are not to be baptized. The inquiry would have to be made whether they simply omitted the performance or whether it was not right to baptize. This we prove by John iv., where you read: Although Jesus himself did not baptize. Here you have an example of fact or non-fact. Christ did not baptize; must we therefore, according to you, not baptize? This would follow if you are to argue from a fact to a law. And you can not say:
But it says in the same place that the apostles baptized. For we ‘should at once reply: Oh, if the apostles rightly baptized, even though Christ himself did not, we, too, rightly baptize infants, though the apostles did not. There is no difference in the cases, or rather our case is the stronger; we have Christ’s not baptizing, yet the legitimacy of baptism; you have the apostles only, who did not baptize infants (supposing we grant that they did not), yet none the less, infants are to be baptized. For since baptism is legitimate, though Christ did not baptize, so is baptism of infants, though the apostles did not baptize them, unless it is forbidden by another necessity which prevents the baptism of infants. As to your reply in the second place to the examples and facts which I adduced, as follows: Grant that it is true (7. e., that nothing can be proved by the deeds of the apostles unless it is clear that they acted legitimately), the obscure testimony which he adduces concerning Paul’s act cannot therefore even in his own opinion prove anything. In this you have a fine answer; you turn the tables upon me beautifully. For if by acts one cannot prove legitimacy, but one must examine what is legitimate, then that Paul baptized infants in the families of Stephanas, Lydia and the jailor, cannot prove infant baptism. For I was not here intending by these examples to confirm as upon a foundation the baptism of infants, but showing how rash and false was your argument when you said that the apostles never baptized [infants], for you have no testimony to this; and then to prove that it was more likely than not that they baptized, I laid as the foundation the saying: The children of believers are as much within the church and as much among the sons of God as are their parents.
Catabaptists. Third. Just before this fundamental argument of Zwingli’s Paul says: Some of the family of Chloe tell me that there are strifes and contentions among you, etc. [1 Cor. i. 11.] As here infants announced and could announce nothing (for they could know nothing), so the infants of Stephanas’ family were not
baptized, if indeed there were infants in that family. For Zwingli thrusts them into it, in spite of the testimony of Scripture?
Reply. Who does not see that the church never had such impostors? They dare to reason as follows: No infant of the family of Chloe could make announcements to Paul, therefore no infant of Stephanas’ family was baptized. What is there here but imposture for those who are ignorant of argument? Who was ever so unskillfully malign or so malignly unskillful as to argue thus? It can only be that they rely upon the foolishness of men. As if I should argue: No infant announced to Christ about the tower that fell, or about those whose blood Pilate mingled with the sacrifices, therefore Christ embraced no infant. Or: It is written of a certain family that it announced certain tidings, so who could not announce could not be of that family. As if announcement or any other deed made one of a family. What insanity is this?
Catabaptists. Fourth. All testimony that mentions families - excludes children. This is self-evident.
Reply. Therefore when Christ was a boy he was not of the house and family of David. Then why is the family of his fosterparent Joseph so diligently written down? So when peace was given to the family of Zaccheus, if there were infants in 3t, were they excluded from peace? Ex.i. 21: Moses asserts that the Lord had built a house for the children of Israel, 7. e., given them family and posterity, when the midwives pretended that the Hebrew women had skill in helping on progeny. So those children were not children, or the women bore adults and men; for infants, according to you, are not of the family. Ex. xi. 30. There was not a house in which there was not one dead, therefore no infant was dead. But why do I plead with the aid of testimony, as if there were need to tear away with testimony of truth things said most foolishly? But that is fine which they
[‘That is, Zwingli claims that there were infants in the family although there]
[is no plain scripture proof of it.]
add: This is self-evident. As if any ass ever gaped so at a lyre: as to believe him who asserted that boys did not belong to the house or family.
Catabaptists. Fifth. According to the reason, opinion and sentiment of man no one ought to baptize or do anything else, but aceording to express Scripture or fact, as the mass of testimony of divine Scripture proves. Just as Zwingli himself has often exclaimed against the vicar and other enemies of Godand will not admit anything which depends upon human judgment or the custom of the fathers. But now he hastens to do what the enemies of truth have thus far done.
Reply. 1 am always of the opinion you ascribe to me, and have never held or will hold a different one while life lasts. But when you impute to me what the enemies of truth have done until now, you speak from that spirit which has from the beginning been false and has not been based on truth. For what else have lever done but confirm by testimony of Scripture all that I have given out? Not by authority, though I have some modicum of this; not with clamor or hypocrisy. This will appear to my readers in the progress of the discussion.
Catabaptists. Paul teaches that what is not in the gospel or in the discourses of the apostles is anathema.
Reply. Where, pray, does Paul teach this? I suppose you refer to what he wrote in Gal. i. 8: But though we or an angel from heaven preach to you otherwise than we preached let him be anathema. I will expose your words here a little diligently, for your ignorance and your malice will both be manifest. Your ignorance because you suppose that when Paul wrote this the gospel records and apostolic letters were already in the hands of the apostles and authoritative. As if even then Paul attributed to his own letters (for they are not the least part of the books of the New Testament) that whatever was in them was sacrosanct.
[Faber, vicar general of Constance. See note on p. 46.]
Not that I would not have his productions sacrosanct, but that I would not have monstrous arrogance imputed to the apostles. As often as they, either Christ or the apostles, refer to Scripture they mean not their own letters or the gospel records, which were either not yet written or were then in process of writing, just as the times demanded; they meant the law or the prophets. You cannot escape by saying that you do not refer to the gospels or the discourse of the apostles in writing, for you say: Whatever is not contained [therein]. You use the word contained.” And this must refer to documents [monumenta]. Here is stretched forth the finger of your malice and inconstancy. You have finally come to the point of denying the whole Old Testament, just as also at Worms Denk and Haetzer with Kautz deny in no obscure terms a full satisfaction through Christ, which is nothing else than trampling upon the New Testament; with us at Griiningen they deny the whole Old Testament, as 1 have seen with my own eyes. For they have written to our senate: - The Old Testament is antiquated and the testimony adduced
[These persons were prominent Baptists. Hans Denk, born at Heybach]
[(Habach), Upper Bavaria, about 1495; was educated at Ingolstadt; and in]
[Augsburg received into the circle of the Humanists (1520); in Basel was proof]
[reader for Cratander and Curio, and thence in the autumn of 1523, on (Eco-]
[lampadius’ recommendation, went to Nuremberg as principal of a classical]
[school. But his stay was short, for his advocacy of the views of Miinzer and]
[Carlstadt made him so detested by the local clergy that he was driven out of]
[the city on January 3I, 1524, and ever after was a wanderer. He is found in]
[Muhlhausen, St. Gall and in Augsburg (September, 1525-October, 1526), and]
[there he met Balthasar Hubmaier, and there he was baptized and baptized]
[others. He was now recognized as a leader by the Baptists, which meant that]
[he was a shining mark for persecution. He went to Strassburg and made a]
[stir, quite captivated many people, so the authorities requested him to leave,]
[and he did, on December 26, 1526. On January 20, 1527, he is found in]
[Landau holding a disputation upon Infant Baptism; the next few months he]
[passed at Worms, and there in connection with Haetzer, another Baptist]
[scholar, made a translation of the Prophetical Books, which is still esteemed]
[(published by Peter Schóffer at Worms, April 13, 1527). Again the zeal of]
[the Baptists in defending their views in a public disputation (June 13, 1527,)]
from it is void, and so can prove nothing. Here I look for your + Spirit, I say, if you assert it to be a true one. For it at the same
[led to his expulsion from the city. He visited his brethren in South Germany]
[and Switzerland, everywhere at the peril of his life. At last, wearied in body]
[and mind from incessant wanderings and debatings, he came to Basel in the]
[autumn of 1527, and threw himself upon the gentle and generous protection]
[of CEcolampadius, who cheerfully received him and conscientiously, though]
[vainly, strove to convert him. But soon he was attacked by a power no earthly]
[protector could cope with—he fell sick of the plague and died in Basel,]
[November, 1527. He was a pure, honest and noble man and fine scholar. Ludwig Haetzer (or perhaps oftener written Hetzer, z. e., baiter, as being]
[an objectionable form, and therefore more suitable for a hated Anabaptist’)]
[was born at Bischofszell, near St. Gall, Switzerland, about 1500; educated at]
[Freiburg im Breisgau, and became proficient in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.]
[He lived in the circle of the early Swiss Reformers, and showed himself a bril-]
[lian though excitable youth. When chaplain at Wádenschwyl, on the south]
[shore of the Lake of Zurich, and fifteen and a half miles from the city, he]
[published a widely read pamphlet advocating the destruction of the images in]
[the churches, the consequence of which was that on September 29, 1523, the]
[crucifix in one of the city churches was destroyed. In the Second Zurich]
[Disputation (October 26-28, 1523,) he came into prominence, and drew up]
[the official report. In Zurich he remained for months occupied in literary work,]
[but there he joined the radicals, who eventually became the first Swiss Baptist]
[party. In the end of June, 1524, he went to Augsburg, with a letter of recom-]
[mendation from Zwingli, but returned at the end of the year, and then allying]
[himself with the Baptist party he was ordered from the city, January 21, 1525.]
[He went again to Augsburg, and found employment with the printer Ottmar.]
[But his associations with the dreaded and detested Baptists caused his banish-]
[ment in the autumn. By way of Constance and Basel, where CEcolampadius]
[received him as he had Denk, he came once more to Zurich and won at length]
[the return of Zwingli’s confidence. But he had not altered his opinions,]
[although out of prudence he concealed them, and when he published a book]
[revealing his Baptist views Zwingli did not stay his banishment from Zurich.]
[So in March, 1526, he was back in Basel. Then, at Strassburg (whence he]
[was banished in the end of December, 1526), and later in Worms, he trans-]
[lated the prophetical books of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, and with]
[Denk issued the volume as already mentioned. The two were expelled (June,]
[1527,) and Haetzer went again to Augsburg, whence he had to go, in the]
[spring of 1528. “These repeated and now long-continued experiences of]
[persecution seem to have broken his spirit. He went to his native village,]
time takes away from us the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, for at Griiningen you tread upon the Old Testament
[thence to St. Gall, and finally, in the autumn of 1528, to Constance. There]
[he married Anna, the widow of his Augsburg patron, George Regel. But he]
[was charged with having married also her maid, and so he was arrested for big-]
[amy, and on February 4, 1529, beheaded. But then the Baptists were popu-]
[larly believed to be capable of all the sins and crimes in the calendar, and the]
[probability is that Haetzer really was innocent of the accusation and died for]
[his faith. Anyhow, his death was considered by many as that of a martyr, and]
[was surely faced with religions ecstacy and commemorated by the Baptists.]
[The last person to be mentioned in this connection is Jacob Kautz, called]
[by Zwingli under his Latinized name Cucius. He was born at Bockenheim in]
[Prussia, three miles northwest of Frankfort on the Main, about 1500. He]
[entered the priesthood, but a little later accepted the Reformation and preached]
[it at Worms. He took his coloring rather from Zwingli than from Luther,]
[and so was on bad terms with both the Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy]
[in the city. When Denk and Haetzer visited Worms in 1527 they made his]
[acquaintance, and he joined the Baptist company there, which had become]
[quite numerous, and it was he who on Whitsunday ( June oth), 1527, gave out]
[in German the Seven Articles (printed in Zwingli’s Works, viii., 77, both in]
[German and Latin,) as topics for a public debate on June 13th. These Arti-]
[cles of Kautz were as follows: “Ἴ, The external word is not the true, living or eternally abiding Word of]
[God, but only the testimony or indication of the inner to satisfy the demand]
[for external things. II. Nothing external, whether word, sign, sacrament or promise, has power]
[to assure, console or make certain the inner man. “III. The baptism of infants is contrary to the teaching of God given us]
[through Christ. “IV. In the Lord’s Supper neither the body nor the blood of Christ is cor-]
[poreally present. V. All that was lost in the first Adam is and will be found more richly]
[restored in the second Adam, Christ; yea, in Christ shall all men be quickened]
[and blessed forever. VI. Jesus Christ of Nazareth suffered on the cross and made satisfaction for]
[us in no other way than that we should stand in his footsteps and walk in the]
[way which he has opened, and obey the command of the Father, even as the]
[Son did. They who speak, think or believe otherwise of Christ, each in his]
[own way makes out of Christ an idol. VII. Just as the literal bite of the forbidden fruit would have harmed neither]
just as much as at Worms upon the New. If you admit it not + to be true, what boldness is it to simulate the divine Spirit with
[[Adam] himself nor his descendants if he had not eaten of the same with his]
[mind, so also the bodily suffering of Jesus Christ is not real satisfaction and]
[reconciliation with the Father without internal obedience and the greatest]
[desire to yield to the eternal will. Of these articles thus formulated, no one.must be judge except only He who]
[speaks and testifies in the hearts of all men, as Scripture says. For no man]
[has been commanded by God to call the truth into judgment, but only to testify.” It must be confessed that some of these Articles were repugnant to the pre-]
[vailing orthodoxy, but in a less strenuous time they could have been debated]
[without persecuting those who held them. There were at that time close connections between the Reformed in Worms]
[and in Strassburg, and many of the Baptists in the former place had come from]
[thelatter. Accordingly the Strassburg Reformed pastors issued, on July 2, 1527,]
[a pamphlet entitled: “A faithful warning of the preachers of the gospel in]
[Strassburg against the Articles which Jacob Kautz, preacher at Worms, has]
[lately issued concerning the fruit of the Scripture and the Word of God, Infant]
[Baptism and the redemption of our Lord Jesus Christ, and other doctrines.” There is no evidence that the purposed debate ever came off, but the city]
[banished Kautz, along with Denk and Haetzer, and henceforth he was a wan-]
[derer. He went first to Augsburg, then to Rothenburg and in the beginning]
[of 1528, to Strassburg. There he had a debate with Capito and Butzer, June,]
[1528, and remained at liberty till January, 1529, when he was cast into prison]
[for street preaching. He was released only to be banished. He is heard of]
[only twice again. In 1532, he applied in vain for permission to return to]
[Strassburg; in 1536, he was teaching school in Moravia. The date and place]
[of his death are unknown. The allusion to a Baptist denial of the whole Old Testament at Worms is to]
[that by the company of Baptists already mentioned as gathered in that place.]
[Grüningen, which is also mentioned in that connection, is a village in the Can-]
[ton of Zurich, and twelve miles southeast of that city and some three miles]
[back of the north shore of the lake. It was an early Baptist important center]
[and, therefore, a scene-of ruthless persecution. Capito in his letter to Zwingli of June 9, 1527 (see latter’s Works, viii; 76—]
[78 reveals the attitude of the Strassburg Reformed clergy towards the Baptists,]
[to whom he had for a while inclined. He charges them with fantastic belief]
[and fanatic conduct. [{ 15 very likely there were mystics and fanatics among]
[them, but testimony from violently prejudiced quarters should be received with]
[caution, for from all that appears, the rank and file of the Baptists were good]
[and God-fearing people.]
such persistency and wantonness! But in vain do I offer you this alternative, for you will never admit your spirit to be a lying one. I will arraign it then by the very power of him who silences the kind of spirit in which you abound, so that it does no more dare to assert: Thou art the Son of God. For as falsely and faithlessly as you did they say: Thou art the son of God. For as often as you confess Christ (by you I mean your leaders) you make a confession worse than the demons. For pain constrained them, for they so experienced his power and might that sincerely they confessed that he is the Son of God. But if you ever confess him you do it with pretence, for as soon as you hope for such an increase of your forces that you may speak disdainfully of him without being called to account, suddenly you assail his kingdom and goodness. For does he who denies that Christ has thoroughly made satisfaction for the sins of the world by one offering of himself—does he say aught but: Christ is false, he is not God, he is not our souls’ salvation? Of this enough has been said above, I think. But it is time to prove your spirit. You openly teach that felicity can. come to none but by works of righteousness. So Christ, whom the Father sent into the world to become a victim for the despairing, is made void. Of this victim you have no need, for you trust in your righteousness But do you truly trust? By no means. For not only does divine Scripture teach that all men are liars and that all things are under sin through the law; even the human reason of wise men reaches the same conclusion, so that it sees that man thinks and does nothing except by his favor. I have adduced the testimony of Cicero in my Commentary for this purpose—it would take too long to repeat this here. So the oracle attributed to Apollo, Know thyself,” makes clear to us that man within and at heart is worthless and evil. For man is not told to inspect himself that he may con-
[Allusion to his Commentary on the True and False Religion, see Works,]
[fii., 17T.]
REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. I51 template himself with pleasure, but that he may descend into himself and weigh both himself and his [works]. He will find such corruption that he will not rashly think highly of himself whom he finds so low, or have a low estimate of another than whom he sees himself no better. Since then even human reason perceives, when it is quite frank and thrusts itself into the hidden recesses, that man is altogether evil, with what boldness do you assert trust in human innocence? Or will you perhaps say that we must not trust at all? According to your opinion then we shall all be adjudged to ultimate condemnation. For if felicity must come by our innocence, and this innocence is wholly denied us, then felicity for us has perished. Then why do you simulate innocence? Why do many of you take to themselves these words of Christ and boast: Which of you convicteth me of sin? I therefore judge that this is the result, whether you assert that innocence is man’s and from this innocence (which the apostle calls righteousness) felicity [flows], or whether you deny it, your hypocrisy is made clear. For if you insist that felicity follows from our deeds, reason and common sense oppose. What have you to do with sacred Scripture, which you so hold as a supplement or appendage that you lay it aside whenever you please? If you deny that it [innocence?] can be obtained, why then do you pretend that what you see can pertain to no mortal, that you hold with both hands? Read again and again this refutation, I beg, and you will come to know yourselves, unless you are more obstinate than the demon. What then? At Worms you deny Christ, and lead the way back to trust in works, because the men there who have recently become interested in religion are little trained in the wiles of hypocrisy, and so are susceptible to your tricks. For when they see your squalor and hear also your sounding words about innocence they assert that you have assumed this squalor that you might the more put on God; they therefore receive you as men of God, and supply richly what they possess. For what chest is so firm that it will not yield to such sanctity,
← 7. IV. Ordinance and Notice. How Ma · Contents · 9. V. Refutation of the Tricks of the →