BV 813 .H67 JOHN HORSCH . -^ OF Pl.<^ BV 813 .H67 Horsch, John, 1867-1941 Infant baptism INFANT BAPTISM '"OBlUklll. INFANT BAPTISM Its Origin Among Protestants and The Arguments Advanced For and Against It JOHN^HORSCH Author of "A Short History of Christianity," "Menno Simons, his Life, Labors and Teachings." etc. It is impossible to destroy the truth; and if for a long time it be apprehended^ scourged^ crowned with thorns, crucified, and layed in the tomb, it will on the third day rise victoriously from the grave and reign and triumph for- ever. — Balthasar Hubmaier. Price : Paper Covers, 40 cents ; Cloth Covers, 75 cents. Published by the Author SCOTTDALE, PENNSYLVANIA 1917 COPYRIGHT, 19ir, BY JOHN HORSCH PREFATORY NOTE The contents of this book were a part of a manuscript on the history of the Anabaptists which is in preparation. Since the origin of infant baptism among Protestants is a neglected subject on which probably no treatise exists, these chapters, having been adapted for the present book, are published separately. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 9 I THE LUTHERAN REFORMERS' EARLIER TEACHING ON BAPTISM AND ITS MEANING 13 II ZWINGLI RECOGNIZES INFANT BAP- TISM AS UNSCRIPTURAL 19 III THE TESTIMONY OF THE ZWINGLIAN REFORMERS AT BASEL, STRASBURG AND OTHER PLACES 23 IV THE LEADING REFORMERS DISCARD THEIR FORMER POSITION RE- GARDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES 29 V LUTHER'S AND MELANCHTHON'S DE- FENCE OF INFANT BAPTISM ... 38 VI WHY ZWINGLI DEFENDED INFANT BAPTISM 49 VII ZWINGLPS PUBLIC DEBATES WITH ANABAPTISTS 52 VIII ZWINGLI'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT 8 INFANT BAPTISM BAPTISM AS SET FORTH IN HIS WRITINGS 60 IX OBALTHASAR HUBMAIER VS. ULRICH ZWINGLI 69 X A DISCUSSION ON BAPTISM BETWEEN HUBMAIER AND ZWINGLI .... 79 XI THE POSITION OF (ECOLAMPAD AND BUCER ON INFANT BAPTISM ... 91 XII A SINGULAR ARGUMENT FOR INFANT BAPTISM 96 XIII A DIALOGUE ON INFANT BAPTISM BE- TWEEN HUBMAIER AND (ECOLAM- PAD 104 XIV MENNO SIMONS ON INFANT BAPTISM 110 XV JOHN CALVIN AND JOHN WESLEY ON INFANT BAPTISM 116 XVI THE GREAT CONTROVERSY ON BAP- TISM AND ITS MEANING 119 NOTES 123 DICTIONARY 147 INDEX 153 INTRODUCTION The Roman Catholic Church, it is well known, does not accept the Scriptures as the final authority in matters of faith and practice; the church (the pope) is held to be a higher authority than the Scrip- tures, hence it is not inconsistent with the funda- mental principles of this church to advocate doctrines that are not based on Scripture. The Protestant churches, on the other hand, are generally supposed to consider the Scriptures the sole rule of faith and practice and to reject that which is not founded on Scripture. Nevertheless it is generally known that Protestant denominations defend infant baptism, though this practice is never mentioned in Scripture and prominent historians of the said denominations agree in the testimony that the baptism of infants was foreign to the thought of the apostolic church and was first introduced more than a century after the founding of the church. How, in the light of these facts, is it to be ac- counted for that Protestant denominations defend and practice infant baptism, or, to state the question in other words, why did the leading reformers of the sixteenth century, viz. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli 10 INFANT BAPTISM and John Calvin, not follow in the footsteps of the apostolic church on this important point? Why did they not discard the practice of baptizing the un- conscious infants? Martin Luther (in Germany) and Ulrich Zwingli (in Switzerland), in the first period of their labors as reformers, maintained opinions which are irrecon- cilable with their later defense of infant baptism. The Lutheran reformers, in their first period, advocated the Voluntary Principle ; they taught emphatically that the Scriptures are the only rightful authority in matters of faith and practice, and held that "the sacraments are signs and seals which do nothing of themselves." After a few years of reformatory endeavors, however, Luther and his friends again accepted the doctrine of regeneration through baptism. They believed the unbaptized in- fants to be lost and hence could not dispense with infant baptism. But in view of the doctrine of justification by faith, for which they stood, they found it not easy to maintain the teaching that infants are saved through the rite of baptism. They resorted to unheard-of arguments for the baptism of infants. At the time when they again accepted the opinion of the saving efficacy of the ordinances, they also modified and changed their position on the Voluntary Principle and the authority of the Scrip- tures. Ulrich Zwingli at first openly questioned the Roman Catholic usage of baptism, but after he came INTRODUCTION 11 to realize that the practice of beHevers' baptism would mean the organization of an independent church and the separation of church and state, in other words, when he recognized that faith-baptism would make an exclusive state-church impossible, he devoted much effort to the defense of infant baptism. Zwingli rejected the Roman Catholic view of the magic effect of the sacraments. He based his main- tenance of the baptism of infants not so much on principle as on expediency. CHAPTER I THE LUTHERAN REFORMERS' EARLIER TEACHING ON BAPTISM AND ITS MEANING In the earlier years of his reformatory labors Luther often expressed himself in a way which can not be harmonized with his later teaching on the sacraments and their supposed magic effects. In his Sermon on Baptism, published in 1519, he gives this scriptural definition : "Baptism is an outward sign or watchword which distinguishes us from all un- baptized men and marks us a people of Christ, our leader, under whose banner we continually strive against sin."^ In this sermon Luther describes bap- tism further as ''a covenant or vow." He says : 'Therefore it is true that there is no higher^ better, greater vow than the vow of baptism, for nothing greater can be vowed than to shun all sin, to die to it" etc. *'The sacrament or sign of baptism is quickly administered, as we see before our eyes ; but the meaning, the spiritual baptism, the drowning of sin, continues while we Hve." "In no other sense is man made pure in baptism, than that a beginning is made toward this end, and of this he has [in bap- 14 INFANT BAPTISM tism] a sign and covenant and he is to become more and more pure."^ The doctrine of regeneration through baptism is expressly denied in this sermon. Unless that which is symbolized in baptism is also carried out in prac- tical life, says Luther, "there remains the old man, as formerly."^ In his famous book On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church (1520) Luther defends the view that faith saves without baptism, and somewhat later he says in a sermon : "Baptism is nothing more than an outward sign, instituted and commanded by Christ in order to bring to our mind the divine promise."* In March, 1521, Luther wrote: "This is also the meaning of the words of Christ, Mark 16:16,^ 'He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.' He maketh faith to precede baptism. For where faith is not in evidence, baptism availeth not, as he himself says afterward : He that beHeveth not shall be condemned, although he may be baptized. For not baptism but faith [which is necessary] for t)aptism saves. Therefore we read Acts 8:37 that Saint Philip would not baptize the Eunuch before he had asked him whether he believed. And we see daily that in all the world, wherever baptism is per- formed, the infant, or the godfathers in his stead, is asked whether he believes, and on the faith and con- fession [of the godfathers] baptism is administered [to the infant]. "Further Saint Paul says, Rom. 10:8, to be saved it is necessary to believe from the heart. He does not say it is required to receive the sacraments, for without actually receiving the sacraments (if they MELANCHTHON'S EARLIER TEACHING 15 are not despised) one may be saved through faith. And without faith no sacrament is of any avail. Without faith the sacraments are indeed condemning and detrimental. For this reason Paul writes, Rom. 4:3, that Abraham believed God or trusted him and this faith was accounted to him for righteousness or salvation, as was previously written in Gen. 15:6. And it was written that we should know that no other means will save and justify than alone faith without which no one may approach God, no one may obtain his grace. "*^ Philip Melanchthon, the most prominent co- worker with Martin Luther, in his Loci Communes or System of Christian Doctrine, of 1521, says: "The assertion that the sacraments of the New Testament have the virtue to justify the people, as they [the Roman Catholic theologians] say, is an obvious error; for faith alone justifies. — What others speak of as sacraments, I name signs, or if you prefer, sacramental signs. — The signs do not justify^ as Saint Paul says : 'Circumcision availeth nothing/ So also baptism availeth nothing and partaking of the holy, most reverend sacrament or participation of the table of the Lord availeth nothing, but they are testimonies and signs or seals and signets of the gracious, kind will of God toward us ; through which signs your conscience is assured, if it have doubts concerning the grace and loving kindness of God."^ — The sacraments are signs of the divine promises which signs do nothing of themselves, but are a sort of mark, surety, or pledge by which we keep con- stantly in mind that the promises are effectual."^ The Lutheran reformers of Nuremberg, Andreas Osiander, Dominicus Sleupner and Thomas Vena- 16 INFANT BAPTISM torius, advocated similar principles. Shortly before the beginning of the Anabaptist movement, namely in 1524, they published a book in which they defined the sacraments as "outward symbols which beautifully set forth the nature and character of evangelical doctrine." On baptism they say: "He who consents to the death of the old man, has already in part mortified his old life. And if he comes to baptism with this conviction, it is as if he were buried. Now where such a mind is associated with baptism, much of the sinful desire has without doubt already ceased."^ The authors of this book do not attempt to harmonize the practice of baptizing the infants with this view of bapism. Perhaps at no other place the Lutherans favored the abolition of infant baptism to greater extent than at Nordlingen in Swabia. Theobald Billican, the Lutheran reformer of this city, wrote in 1525 in a book defending the changes which had been recently introduced in the church : "We baptize infants and we also baptize adults. We comply with the wishes of those who do not desire to have their infants baptized, but we present them to Christ our Mediator and Redeemer by the laying on of hands and the prayer of the church. The Council of Carthage [in the fifth century] has decided that it shall be left to the liberty of every one whether or not he would have infants baptized. This is also our position. "^^ This statement shows that the Lutherans of Nord- lingen at that time did not defend the practice of MELANCHTHON'S WAVERING ATTITUDE 17 infant baptism, but accepted its abandonment as orthodox. A similar position on the point in question was taken by the Lutheran preachers at Liegnitz in Silesia. Very soon the Lutheran reformers encountered men who would not only omit infant baptism, but re- jected it outright as unscriptural. These men drew the practical consequences of the teaching that "baptism is nothing more than an outward sign."^^ If it be correct, they said, that the purpose of the "signs" or ordinances is to strengthen the faith, then infants are not proper subjects for baptism and to baptize them on the faith of the church or of the godfathers is an unscriptural usage. Melanchthon frankly confessed that he was unable to meet the conclusions and argu- ments of these men. It seemed to him that their rejection of infant baptism was not unorthodox. On January 1, 1522, he wrote to Spalatin informing him that the men who had come to Wittenberg from Zwickau held that the baptism of infants is unscrip- tural and that the faith of the church will not suffice to make the infants proper subjects for baptism. Melanchthon continues his letter as follows : "These two opinions [namely that infant bap- tism is unjustifiable and that the faith of the church is no acceptable substitute for the faith of the one who is to be baptized] are verily not to be despised and will probably cause difficulty to people more learned than I, as well as to the masses. Well, I expected that the devil would touch us at a weak place. Augustine and many others of his time have 18 INFANT BAPTISM disputed concerning infant baptism and have accom- plished little; and he bases his argument [for infant baptism] upon original sin [which is to be effaced through baptism] and upon the general usage. Doc- tor Martin [Luther] knows quite well what this question really means. And, in short, this is a matter of anxiety (Sorge) to me, as it also has formerly been. — Not without cause, it seems to me, has this question of baptism moved me."^^ CHAPTER II ZWINGLI RECOGNIZES INFANT BAPTISM AS UNSCRIPTURAL Ulrich Zwingli, in the first period of his refor- matory labors, frankly questioned the practice of infant baptism. He wrote in July, 1523, in his Exposition of the Articles (article eighteen) : ''The rite of Confirmation became customary only after a general beginning had been made to baptize the children in their infancy, or immediately after birth. Confirmation was introduced that the faith which was confessed for them by their fathers and mothers through their godfathers might not be unknown to them [since they were instructed pre- vious to confirmation]. Although I know, as the ancients indicate, that from the earliest times infants were sometimes baptized, it was nevertheless not so common a custom as it is in our time, but the general practice was, as soon as they arrived at the age of reason, to form them into classes for instruction in the word of salvation (hence they were called catechumens, i. e., persons under instruction) and when they steadfastly believed in their hearts and confessed with their mouths, they were baptized. "^^ Balthasar Hubmaier, one of the spokesmen of the Anabaptists, wrote in his reply to Zwingli's Book on Baptism: 20 INFANT BAPTISM "In the year 1523, about the day of Philip and James [May 1], I have conferred with you [Zwingli] on the moat of Zurich upon the Scriptures which treat on baptism. Then and there you agreed with me in the opinion that children should not be bap- tized before they were instructed in the faith ; you said, this was the custom in times of yore, therefore such were called catechumens. You promised to mention this in your forthcoming book, as you also did in article XVIII on Confirmation. Any one can read it and find your opinion clearly expressed. Sebastian Ruckensberger of St. Gall, at that time prior of the cloister Sion at Klingnau, was present."^* To his friend Thomas Wyttenbach Zwingli wrote on June 15, 1523: "It is useless to wash a thousand times in the baptismal water him who does not beheve."^^ In a letter to Fridolin Lindauer in Bremgarten he said, October 20, 1524: "God has commanded to baptize those who have previously believed. "^^ "More and more Zwingli looked upon baptism as an act for believers," says the Zwinglian theologian Usteri, "namely an act of confession and of acceptance of definite duty."^'^ It is worthy of notice that Zwingli, even after he had decided that infant baptism must not be aban- doned, did not hold that this practice is commanded in Scripture. He says in December, 1524: "To come to the subject of infant baptism, observe that those who would not baptize them have no clear scriptural commandment that infants should not be baptized, and again, those who baptize them have no cleai Scripture which commands that they should be bap- ZWINGLI OPPOSES INFANT BAPTISM 21 tized. — ^So we find in the New Testament neither a command nor a prohibition of infant baptism."" Zwingli's defence of the practice of the state-church was based on the supposition that the baptism of infants is not forbidden in Scripture. We have ZwingH's own testimony to the effect that for some time he openly favored the aboHtion of infant baptism. He says in 1525: ''When we^^ readily accepted the opinion that the signs [ordinances] strengthen the faith, we naturally contradicted infant baptism; for baptism can not strengthen the faith in the instance of infants, for they can not believe. For the error misled me also some years ago that I thought it would be much better to baptize children after they have arrived at a good age."^° Hubmaier, commenting on this statement of Zwingli, says : "Yes, this was your opinion ; you have set forth this view in writing and have preached it from the pulpit; many hundreds of people have heard it out of your own mouth."^^ Conrad Grebel, the foremost leader of the Swiss Anabaptists, wrote in December, 1524, to the Council of Zurich : "I am convinced that Zwingli is of the same opinion concerning baptism as we, and I do not understand for what reason he does not confess it. But this I know with certainty, if only God's Word is permitted to prevail, no one may disprove this opinion. "22 "I do not know, what to make of it," says Hans Hottinger concerning Zwingli, "today he preach- es one thing and tomorrow he recants it. And par- 22 INFANT BAPTISM ticularly he has preached years ago that the infants should not be baptized, but now he says, they should be baptized. "^^ A Zwinglian chronicler of Zurich also testifies that Zwingli preached against infant bap- tism.2* '*It is an altogether true and therefore very sincere confession," says August Baur, the author of the most notable work on the Zwinglian theology, "which Zwingli makes in his Book on Baptism, when he says, the error misled him some years ago that he believed, it were far better to abandon infant baptism,"25 and Usteri says: ''Zwingh does not leave us in the dark concerning the position which he first took on the question of infant baptism/'^s ^^ Hadorn also testifies that Zwingli, and other reform- ers had at first similar opinions about infant baptism as those who later became the leaders of the Ana- baptists.^^ Another Zwinglian historian says: "The abolition of the baptism of new-born children was without any doubt an altogether consequential point in the program of the earlier theology of Zwingli."28 This is clear testimony to corroborate the statement of the Moravian Anabaptist chronicler who informs us that Ulrich Zwingli, together with Conrad Grebel recognized infant baptism as uncalled for, but some- what later, when Grebel and Mantz urged the neces- sity of faith-baptism, Zwingli would not consent to it.29 CHAPTER III THE TESTIMONY OF THE ZWINGLIAN REFORMERS AT BASEL, STRASBURG AND OTHER PLACES John CEcolampad, the Zwinglian reformer of Basel, was at one with Zwingli's earUer opinion on infant baptism. In his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans which was published in the early autumn of 1524 he wrote: "But the Lord, when he says in the last chapter of Mark : He who believeth and is baptized, etc., demands of us confession through baptism and requires unconditional faith. For he who would not be baptized, will neither confess Christ."3« In the autumn of the same year, at the time of Thomas Miinzer's visit in Basel, CEcolampad would not defend infant baptism ; he held it an open ques- tion. ^^ On November 21, 1524, he wrote to Zwingli that he was not disinclined to accept Carlstadt's argu- ments against infant baptism, although he had not entirely discarded the doctrine of the church-father Augustine that baptism is the means of cleansing from original sin.^^ CEcolampad, in a letter to Balthasar Hubmaier, 24 INFANT BAPTISM gave expression to his attitude on the question of infant baptism. Hubmaier wrote to him on January 17, 1525 (before he united with the Anabaptists), in- forming him that he no longer taught infant baptism nor administered baptism to infants, except when parents demanded it, in which instance he was wilHng *'to be weak with the weak." He further said that instead of infant baptism he had introduced the pubhc consecration of infants. ^^ To this letter (Ecolampad replied praising openly the position of Hubmaier on the question of baptism. 'The rite which you observe in the church [the consecration of infants, instead of baptism]" he wrote in his reply, ''pleases me very much ; may it be generally ap- approved."^* But upon his request he received in- struction from Zwingli on the point in question and decided in favor of infant baptism. In a letter to William Farel, dated February 6, 1525, CEcolampad complains that many would not accept his arguments for this practice.^^ The Zwinglian reformers of Strasburg, Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, for a considerable period did not insist on the practice of infant bap- tism. Capito wrote in the autumn of 1524: "We do not make it a question at what time or at what age children should be baptized. — Where we have no clear word of Scripture, we do not inquire further."^* To ZwingH he wrote on December 31, 1524: "The question of infant baptism we shall investigate more BAPTISM IN PRIMITIVE CHURCH 25 thoroughly . . . We shall endeavor to go hand in hand with you in this matter."'^ Martin Bucer says in December of the same year: "In the primitive church no one was baptized and received into the church, except those who fully surrendered themselves to Christ's word." "Among the ancient the confession of sin preceded baptism, for as a rule those who had come to an age of under- standing were baptized, and not the infants." He held that baptism should be considered "free," hence the baptism of infants would not be invalid. "But if some one would desire to put off baptism [instead of baptizing the infantsi] and if he could do this without destroying the love and unity of those among whom he lives, we would not for this cause withdraw from him or condemn him."^® To Martin Luther he wrote in December of the year 1524: "Although the baptism of adults alone would probably be far more in accord with the practice of the early church and also with the teachings of Scripture which order that those who know Christ should be baptized, confessing Christ in baptism after they have been taught the doctrine of godUness; and by baptizing adults only would also be destroyed a deceptive trust in baptism .... nevertheless, for the sake of general harmony we should be willing to yield the point to this extent that we would baptize the infants, provided that when those whom we have baptized reach an age enabling them to comprehend the doctrine of Christ, arrangements should be made for instructing them in religion. "^^ These sentences show that Bucer recognized the un- 26 INFANT BAPTISM scripturalness of infant baptism but maintained it for reasons of expediency. Joachim von Watt, called Vadian, the leading Zwinglian of St. Gall, according to the testimony of his biographer, "was in fact [in his earHer years] not disinclined to the doctrine of the Anabaptists; in common with them he held infant baptism to be an abuse. "^° As late as in May, 1525, Conrad Grebel (his brother-in-law) says, Vadian assented to the leading Anabaptist principle.*^ The reasons which led him finally to oppose the Anabaptists, says Staub. are to be found in the ecclesio-political domain rather than the field of doctrine.*^ Sebastian Hofmeister of Schafifhausen, the friend of Zwingli, according to the altogether trustworthy testimony of the Council of Schaf¥hausen, publicly defended believers' baptism; he preached : ''Baptism, if administered to the in- fants, is useless and out of place. "*^ This agrees with Hubmaier's testimony, who says : "Doctor Se- bastian wrote to me in particular that he stood in SchafThausen publicly before the Council and assert- ed that Master Ulrich [Zwingirj erred in point of infant baptism, and the said doctor would not have his own child baptized, and thus he [Hubmaier] also was led to decide against infant baptism."** Berthold Haller of Bern asked Zwingli in November, 1525, to warn Hofmeister of Anabaptism.*^ It has been generally asserted that the opposition to infant baptism in Switzerland and the subsequent OPPOSITION TO INFANT BAPTISM 27 practice of believers' baptism can be traced to the influence of Thomas Miinzer, the Saxon enthusiast.*^ The fact has been overlooked that, if this supposition were correct, Zwingli also must have been influenced by Miinzer, for he agreed with those who considered infant baptism unscriptural. The movement for the abolishment of infant baptism among the Zwinglians in Switzerland ante- dates their acquaintance with Miinzer and his perti- nent writings. As early as the first part of the year 1522 Ulrich Hugwald of Basel, who somewhat later accepted the office of a professor in the university of that city, wrote a number of theses in which he demanded the practice of baptism upon the confes- sion of faith. ^^ On July 21, 1523, Benedict Burgauer, the leading minister of St. Gall, stated in a letter that he had encountered those who "would not baptize infants that have no faith. "^^ Early in 1524 Urban Rhegius learned that there were at Constance "those who do not desire to have their children baptized, asserting that the Scriptures teach baptism on the confession of faith. "*^ Zwingli's opposition to infant baptism, as is evident from the above quotations from his writings (p. 20), dates back to an earlier time. Max Staub, a Zwinglian, says: "The current against infant baptism was general as early as 1523. It begins not with [the Anabaptist^ Roublin, but with ZwingH."^*^ At Zollicon, Basel, Strasburg and other places many followers of Zwingli decided a- gainst the baptism of their own children in infancy. 2S INFANT BAPTISM At Zurich there were instances in which infant bap- tism was omitted in the early spring of the year 1524.®^ The earliest trace of Zwingli's unfavorable opinion on infant baptism dates back to December, 1521, when the canon Conrad Hofmann of Zurich com- plained that he taught: "The unbaptized infants are not condemned."*^* CHAPTER IV THE LEADING REFORMERS DISCARD THEIR FORMER POSITION RE- GARDING THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES Within a few years after the reformers ex- pressed themselves unfavorably on the question of infant baptism, as quoted above, they changed their mind on this point and became staunch defenders of the baptism of infants. It is a noteworthy fact that at the same time they abandoned a principle which in the first period of their reformatory labors they had considered of the most fundamental importance, namely the maxim that the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and practice. They now accepted the view that anything that is not expressly forbidden in Scripture may be practiced although it be without Scripture authority : they asserted that various unscriptural practices of the Roman CathoHc Church are not forbidden in Scripture. They decided that the battle of the church should be largely fought by the state and an exclusive state-church be estab- lished; hence they forsook their former position on 30 INFANT BAPTISM the points of religious liberty and infant baptism. In his earlier books Luther defended the prin- ciple that tradition or the authority of the church is no adequate foundation for Christan teaching and practice; the word of God alone, he pointed out, is the rightful authority and everything that is not founded on the Scriptures must be abandoned. In 1521, at the time of his sojourn on the Wartburg, he wrote a book on the mass in which he says : 'Whatever is ordered without God's Word is not ordered of the [true] church, but of the syna- gogue of Satan under the title and name of the church. — Therefore the mad sophists and Papists must do one of two things: Let them prove their priesthood by Scripture, or they must confess that these things are nothing but dissimulations of Satan and condemned idols. For whatever is not founded on the Scriptures is certainly from the devil himself. — I shall here again state my fundamental principle which shall be accepted of all Christians : That every- thing which is done without Scripture, especially in religious matters, is of the devil. "^^ These sentences, to which could be added many others of similar import from his writings, show that Luther in his earlier period emphatically defended the principle that the teachings of the Roman Cath- olic Church are acceptable only in so far as they are founded on the Scriptures. He wrote these sen- tences in November, 1521. Shortly afterwards he advanced a quite different view on the question of the authority of the Scriptures. On January 13, 1522, he wrote a letter to Melanchthon in which he LUTHER'S STATE-CHURCHISM 31 -defended the opinion that Scripture authority is not required for the teaching and practice of the church and that infant baptism is an orthodox practice. (Compare p. 38). He falls back in this letter to the position held by the Roman Catholic Church and asserts that "what is not contrary to Scripture is for Scripture and Scripture is for it."^* This is but another way of saying that Scripture authority is not necessary for the position which the church may take on a point of teaching or practice, and that it is suffi- cient if the matter in question be not contrary to Scripture. Within a week from the date of this letter, namely on January 19, 1522, Luther finished his tract A Faithful Admonition^^ through which it be- came generally known that in his opinion the prac- tical reformation of the church was principally the business of the civic rulers ; in this book he denied to the people the right to abandon Roman Catholic worship without the consent of the civil government. He had decided in favor of a union of church and state and of going hand in hand with the state in the great work of the reformation of the church. His -encounter with men who questioned the practice of infant baptism convinced him that the realization of the Voluntary Principle (involving the separation of church and state) would make possible the existence of differing creeds. Only if the church was united with the state and all dissent forbidden would all Roman Catholics accept the new creed. In this way 32 INFANT BAPTISM alone the (nominal) unity of the church could be maintained, while the rejection of infant baptism would make an exclusive state-church impossible. Also his controversy with his former friend Carlstadt (whose position was inconsistent with state-church- ism as well as with the Roman Catholic doctrine of the magic virtue of the sacraments) seems to have had the effect on Luther to cause him to again con- cede much to the views which he had been taught from his childhood. In a later period (namely after writing the letter to Melanchthon in which he defended tradition, or the church, as a rightful authority) Luther, it is true, asserted occasionally that he recognized the authority of the Scriptures alone. In January, 1523,^^ he published a little book Of Worldly Government, to what Extent zve Owe Obedience to it, in which he says : *'If anything is without God's word, it is uncer- tain that God desires it; for in a matter which he has not commanded we can not be sure that it is acceptable to him; yea we are sure that it is not pleasing to God. For he would have our faith based solely and exclusively on his word."^^ Other quotations of similar meaning can be giv- en from Luther's writings. Nevertheless it is clear that he retained various practices on no other author- ity than that of tradition (or of the church) asserting that these practices were not contrary to Scripture although he knew them to be without a Scripture basis. *'If anything which has been in use from LUTHER'S OPINION ON AUTHORITY 33 times of yore [in the Roman Catholic Church:] is to be changed or abandoned," he says in his htue book On Anahaptism, "it should be and must be proven to be contrary to God's word/'*^^ The question what is to be considered contrary to Scripture he answered to the effect that only those things should be so con- sidered that are expressly forbidden. The maxim "What is not against Scripture is for Scripture and Scripture is for it" was somewhat later further modified by Luther. He asserted that only that which is forbidden in the New Testament must be aboHshed. In his defense against Carlstadt he asserts that everything that is not expressly pro- hibited in the New Testament Scriptures, although it be forbidden in the Old Testament, may be retained. He says : "We have taught from St. Paul the Christian liberty, that all things should be free which God does not forbid with clear words in. the.. New. Testament . . . . Now tell me, where, has he forbidden to elevate the host, or commanded, it? Show me one little word concerning it and I shall yield. "'^^ "If they can prove from the New Testament that the pictures should be removed [from the churches], we shall willingly follow them."*^ v . . The Scriptures, as a mattier of fact, are silent concerning the elevation of: the host in the mass. Carlstadt condemned it as idolatrous ;. only after his death was this practice abandoned in Wittenberg. He also rejected the use of the pictures in the churches for the good reason that they were idola- 34 INFANT BAPTISM trously adored.*^ Luther asserted further that altars, priestly garments, the use of the word mass etc. are justifiable because they are not forbidden. ^^ Even exorcism, or the conjuration of Satan to depart from the infant just before baptism or "chris- tening" was administered, was retained as a custom that is not forbidden in Scripture — to the great oflfence of the Anabaptists. The form of exorcism used somewhat later among the Lutherans was : "I conjure thee, thou unclean spirit, to come out and depart from this servant of Jesus Christ." The Anabaptists often denounced "the wretched exor- cism" and other unscriptural ceremonies connected with baptism, such as breathing upon the infant, giving him salt, anointing him with oil and his eyes with saliva, etc. Ulrich Zwingli, in the early years of his refor- matory endeavor, emphatically advocated the prin- ciple that the Scriptures are the only authority in matters of faith and practice, and all that can not be proven from Scripture, must be abandoned. This principle was zealously defended by him at the first Zurich disputation, held on January 29, 1523, against Johann Fabri, the Vicar General of the bishop of Constance. Zwingli said in the course of this debate: "Therefore, vicar, I desire that you show us where it is written in divine Scripture concerning the invocation of the saints or the intercession of the mother of God. This we desire to hear. Answer to the point." "Show us only this, where, in the biblical ZWINGLFS CHANGE OF POSITION 35 books mentioned by you, it is written about the inter- cession and invocation of the saints. This I desire to be told of you and I ask you for the sake of Christian love, to do this with clear, pure, plain di- vine Scripture. — Show us the chapter and give an- swer in simple, clear words. Say : there and there it is written, and we shall find the place to see wheth- er it is correct." '*I say, you should prove from Scripture that the mass is a sacrifice." "Answer and defend your opinion with clear Scripture. Say : here it is written."®^ In a book published somewhat later Zwingli writes : ''Yes, indeed, the word of God alone must settle this matter. You say, for example, the mass is a sacrifice. This you must prove by the word of God. See now, you stand like a goat before the butcher. Now you begin to cry out: The [church] fathers hold mass to be such. I am not talking of fathers nor of mothers ; it must be decided from the word of God."«* In his controversy with those who insisted on the Voluntary Principle and the separation of church and state Zwingli, as well as Luther, decided to change his views on the point in question. He asserted now that w^hatever is not forbidden in the Scriptures is not sin and hence may be accepted although there be no Scripture basis for it. The Anabaptists complained bitterly that ZwingH de- manded of them proof that infant baptism is con- trary to Scripture (and would not accept their proof if they presented it), while, if he would defend in- fant baptism, it was in his place to show that there 36 INFANT BAPTISM is Scripture ground for it. "They demand Scrip- ture," says Conrad Grebel, "when they themselves ought to quote Scripture to prove what they assert to be the truth."*^ Zwingli himself testifies to the offence which his rejection of his former position on this point gave to the Anabaptists. He says: "Here they cry murder over me and say: A- gainst the popish theologians you have always assert- ed, whatever has no basis in God's word is unaccept- able; and now you say, there is much [concerning Christian ceremonies, etc.] that is not written in God's word and is nevertheless in accordance with God's will. Where is now the strong reply which you gave to the suffragan bishop Fabri and all men: 'In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,' Matt. 15:9?"^^ It need not be said that the first period of Luth- er's and Zwingli's reformatory labors in which they advocated a reformation based wholly on Scripture was their greatest and most consistent period. In Luther's instance this time has been rightfully termed the period of the great reformatory testimony. His most famous writings, namely the Address to the Nobles, The Babylonish Captivity of the Church, and On the Freedom of a Christian Man, date from this period. Luther's attitude in the question of religious authority may be compared with his position on the principle of liberty of conscience. Being loath to discard the principle of liberty though he had decided for state-churchism, he attempted to uphold this I INFANT BAPTISM BASED ON TRADITION Z7 principle in theory, but it can not be denied that he called upon governments to suppress all teaching which was at variance with the Lutheran creed and that the dissenters were with his consent cruelly per- secuted in Lutheran lands. In his booklet On Ana- hap tism he attempted to point out that the Roman Catholic Church, although it needed a reformation, is nevertheless the true church of Christ and there- fore "it has the true Spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, ministry, prayers, holy Scripture and all that Christendom should have."®^ The Roman Church, he reasons, is the true church and hence it has the true ordinances; therefore the Ana- baptists err in disowning the Roman Catholic bap- tism. He based infant baptism on the authority of the church and on tradition. CHAPTER V LUTHER'S AND MELANCHTHON'S DEFENCE OF INFANT BAPTISM When the question of infant baptism was raised for the first time among the followers of Martin Luther, Melanchthon, as has been shown (p. 18), was ready to admit the unscripturalness of the Roman Catholic practice. It was generally realized, however, that not he but Luther would be called upon to say the final word on this question as far as the church of Saxony was concerned. Luther, who lived at that time on the Wartburg, apparently hesi- tated for a short time, but on January 13, 1522, he wrote a letter to Melanchthon (compare p. 30) asserting that infant baptism must be considered the orthodox practice. The basis on which Luther here defended infant baptism was the common usage, tradition, and the authority of the church, instead of the authority of the Scriptures which he had shortly before so ear- nestly defended. The unbiased student will be im- pressed with the weakness of his position. He as- serts in this letter to Melanchthon that the church LUTHER'S REMARKABLE CONFESSION 39 holds and has always held infant baptism to be per- missible ; to deny this, he says, is to deny the church. That he speaks here of the Catholic Church does not permit of any doubt; the Lutheran Church had not yet been called into existence when he wrote these words. That the Roman Catholic Church approved of infant baptism he considered sufficient ground to accept it as valid. He based his argument here, as also Julius Kostlin, the well known authority on Luther's theology, testifies, on tradition and the gen- eral usage. Luther concludes his argumentation for infant baptism in the said letter to Melanchthon with the remarkable sentence: "I have always expected that Satan would touch [us at] this sore; he did not desire to raise this evil dissension through the Papists, but through those who are of our own num- ber."*8 These words indicate that he believed it probable that the Papists would attack him on the question of infant baptism; to all appearance he expected that they would assert this practice to be inconsistent with other doctrines of his system. But had not Luther emphatically taught that faith is the necessary prerequisite for baptism? Did he recant this teaching or modify his views on this point? No, strange to say, he always insisted that the Scriptures teach the baptism of believers and nevertheless baptized the infants. He based his prin- cipal argument for infant baptism on the curious supposition that infants are believers. He held, if an infant had no faith, God would give him faith just 40 INFANT BAPTISM before he received the sacrament of baptism; in consequence of the prayer of the church and through the power of the holy word, he said, faith was poured into the infant (cingegossen) . Luther made the strange assertion that if an adult can have faith when his mind is occupied with worldly affairs or when he is asleep, an infant also can have faith. But Julius Kostlin, in his work on Luther's The- ology, says rightly that he fails to explain himself satisfactorily concerning the nature of the faith of infants.®^ This opinion of the faith of infants was zealous- ly defended by Luther, Melanchthon and their friends as well as by the Lutheran theologians of later cen- turies.'^" In his Refutation of Some Unchristian Articles which the Anabaptists hold, Melanchthon says : "That the Anabaptists say, The infants have no faith, is a human imagination." But curiously enough, Melanchthon, in order to refute the supposed teaching of the Anabaptists that there may be faith where there is no knowledge of God's word, says in the same book: "The holy Spirit does not work with- out the word of God, and we must know and lay hold on God through his word, as Paul says, Faith Cometh by hearing, that is from preaching or from the outward word. This order God will follow and never set aside. ""^^ Luther says : "This is the most fundamental article of our doctrine, that no sacrament can in itself, without "INFANTS ARE BELIEVERS'' 41 faith, effect grace."'^^ "Baptism should be admin- istered to no one except he himself believe, and no one should be baptized except on his own faith. "^^ "Now if we can not prove that infants believe for themselves and have faith, then my honest judgment and advice is straightway to cease, the sooner the better, and nevermore baptize an infant, that we may not mock and blaspheme the high majesty of God with such foolish and fraudulent work which would be nothing but empty show."'^* In his book On Anahaptism, to Tzvo Pastors,'^* Luther sets forth the strange argument that there is more certainty concerning the faith of infants, than of adults who profess to be believers. He quotes the last part of the sentence : "I said in my haste, All men are liars" (Psa. 116:11) in support of this argu- ment. "Even if Saint Peter baptized some one," he says, "nevertheless no one could know whether Saint Peter at that hour believed or doubted. ""^^ But since the Anabaptists did not accept the view that baptism possesses a miraculous, magic power, the act of bap- tism obviously would not be invalid if the one who administered it were not a Christian at heart. The vital point is that the applicant for baptism beHeves in Christ as his personal redeemer. Here Luther replies that no one can be sure of his own saving faith. "Believe we must, but we shall not and can not know with certainty. "'^^ Hence, says Luther, the applicant for baptism "is not sure of his faith." His opinion of the uncertainty of faith was emphatically rejected by the (Lutheran) Pietists of a later period. 42 INFANT BAPTISM Upon the assertion that infant baptism is accept- able because it is the usage of the Catholic Church, Luther enlarges further in his book On Anabaptism. He defends the view that the Roman Catholic Church, altough it needed a reformation, was the true church of Christ and hence, he argues, it must have the true baptism. ^^ He ignores the fact that on this score there could be maintained many practices which he em- phatically condemned. The baptism of infants, he declares, was generally practiced in the Christian church, and this was to him proof that ''infant bap- tism must be right." He continues: *'You may say, this is no certain evidence that infant baptism is acceptable for there is no passage from the Scriptures. My answer is: It is true, there is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that you might be justified to begin infant baptism [had you lived] at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period. But so much is evident that in our time no one may venture with a good conscience to reject or abandon infant baptism which has so long been practiced."'^® ''For nothing should be discarded or changed which cannot be discarded or changed with clear Scripture."®^ The argument based on circumcision was also advanced by the Lutheran reformers. Melanchthon defended the opinion that circumcision was for the Old Covenant what baptism is for the New, and that both were necessary for the salvation of infants. He says further: "In the first place it was commanded in the Law that the young children should be cir- cumcised on the eighth day."®^ He overlooks the ARGUMENT BASED ON CIRCUMCISION 43 fact that circumcision concerned only the male chil- dren. If baptism corresponds to circumcision and is necessary to save the infant, it would follow, as was pointed out by some of the Anabaptist writers, that the male children alone were included in God's grace in Old Testament times, and further, the baptism of females would be unauthorized. The Anabaptists did not admit that circumcision can be made the basis of an argument for infant baptism. They insisted on a difference in the nature of the Old and New Covenant. In Old Testament times the people of the Covenant were a nation; God made this covenant with all the descendants of Abra- ham by Isaac and Jacob. It was not left to the de- cision of each Israelite whether he would be included in this outward covenant ; hence the males received the rite of circumcision in their infancy. In the Christian church the right of membership is not based on the natural birth. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." A New Testament church is not a national organization ; it is a body of believers. Another reason set forth in the same work of Luther is contained in the following sentence : "If [infant] baptism is right and effective and saves the children, as we believe, and I discarded it, I should be guilty of [the damnation of] all children who [died in infancy and^ would be lost without baptism. This would be terrible and frightful. "^^ "The truth is," says Adolf Schlatter, "that not the belief in the faith of the infants or of the godfathers, but the 44 INFANT BAPTISM fear that the infants would without baptism be con- demned to hell, is responsible for the continued practice of infant baptism. But fear is not a valid foundation in this instance. Infant baptism in this shape is faithless and sinful, an after-effect of the superstitious disfiguration of the sacrament with which the mediaeval church was stained."®^ The argument that infants are in danger of eternal damnation without baptism is based on the Roman Catholic view of the saving efficiency of the sacraments, which was at first discarded but finally re-adopted by Luther.^* In his Smaller Catechism he speaks of baptism as **a gracious water of life."^^ Melanchthon in his Instruction Against the Doctrine of the Anabaptists says on this point: "Since there is forgiveness of sin only where there is the Word and sacrament, it follows that sal- vation pertains only to those infants to whom the sacrament is administered. — Therefore the enthu- siasts, or Anabaptists, can never truthfully say that the infants to whom baptism is not administered are saved or obtain remission of sin. Say, ye Anabap- tists, what passage, what ground or example of Scripture will you here set forth, to prove to us that there is forgiveness of sin without the Christian church? — Here we must also say what kind of sin is remitted for the infants. I notice that the Fathers held that original sin is forgiven for them. Thus writes Augustine in many places This opinion I also will follow, since it is founded on Scripture."^*' At a later date, probably in 1535, Melanchthon rewrote his Instruction, making many changes and MELANCHTHON'S LATER POSITION 45 additions. He says: "God has given the church authority to forgive sins and to dispense such for- giveness through the sacraments. It follows there- fore that we owe it to the infants to impart unto them forgiveness through baptism." In the same book he says further : "In the doctrine of the Ana- baptists you find many abominable errors, falsehoods, and blasphemy against God. — Anabaptism is a ter- rible, wicked error and blasphemy against the divine name."*^ So completely did Melanchthon in later years forget his own former inability to defend infant bap- tism and his wavering attitude on this question, that in this and other instances he declared the Anabaptist deviation from the Lutheran creed to be blasphemy. On the supposition that heresy is blasphemy he opined that the Anabaptists, on account of their teaching on infant baptism and other doctrinal points,, should be executed as blasphemers.** Luther also, in later years, was of the opinion that Anabaptists could be rightfully put to death. And yet he did not deny that on the principal point of controversy they held an orthodox position in so far as they believed faith to be necessary prerequisite for baptism. He built his defence of infant baptism on the sophistical argument that infants have faith. The Anabaptists found themselves unable to concede to him this point and hence were subjected to the most cruel persecu- tion. A notable refutation of the belief that infants 46 INFANT BAPTISM may have faith and are lost without baptism is con- tained in the Reply of the Huterite Brethren to the Calumny of Colman Rorer, the Flacian Teacher, 1593. Colman Rorer, a minister of the Flacians (the most conservative wing of the Lutherans) defended this supposition against the Huterite Anabaptists and accused them that they "wantonly rob the infants of eternal life" by refusing to baptize them. The Brethren wrote in reply to his attack : "You undertake to show that infants have faith in Christ, for the reason that Christ set a child in the midst of his disciples. This will never stand the test, the Gospel writer says : Jesus called a child and set it in their midst. Well now, call a child in the cradle a whole day, and see whether it will come. And your infants whom you baptize can neither stand nor walk. How does this accord? Like black and white. Say, what could you do to an uncon- scious infant that he be offended? — You ask, wheth- er God can not give the infants faith, since it is the gift of God. Answer: He could also cause them to know the difference between good and evil, but he will not do it, and nevertheless he is Almighty God. — Well, well, you say, how do you know that infants do not believe? Now let the holy apostle who was a chosen vessel of God give the answer. He says : 'How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?' Faith, says the apostle, is the confidence of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now, show us what sort of confidence have the infants in the cradle. What things do they hope for? What evidence have they of things not seen? O Egyptian darkness and blindness ! What sort of SALVATION OF INFANTS 47 faith our infants have, the same faith have also the infants of Jews and Turks. And is it any fault of theirs that you do not also baptize them? "You write, we wantonly rob the infants of eternal life. This you say contrary to the truth, as is your fashion. But know that God asks of little infants neither faith nor baptism; he will not damn the blessed dear innocents for they are not able to believe. If God has spared the great city of Nineveh for the children's sake, there being in the city twelve times ten thousand who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand, why should he now, after Christ, our only Saviour and Redeemer, (has died for the human family, not spare our inno- cent youth and exempt them from perdition? Which is greater, baptism or Christ who is the only mercy- seat and mediator? Who has baptized the thief on the cross? Nevertheless Paradise was promised him. Who now may be so impudent and presumptuous to damn the innocent infants because they are not baptized, though indeed Christ says, 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven,' and does not even allude to baptism? But you are the one who does that of which you accuse us, saying that we condemn others;; for you condemn the infants except you give them infant baptism. But concerning us you say the un- truth. This is to cast out Jesus Christ from hi& rightful place, to set human opinion on his stead and to decide on matters which God has reserved for his judgment."®® "The poor innocent children who were not bap- tized with this baptism although they were baptized in the blood of the Lord and have the sure promise of the kingdom of God," says Menno Simons, "are 48 INFANT BAPTISM nevertheless considered lost and are buried without the [consecrated] graveyard. What infamy! What blindness !"«« Besides Luther and Melanchthon the most not- able literary antagonist of the Anabaptists among the Lutherans was Justus Menius, the reformer of Thur- ingia. To his first two books Luther wrote the prefaces. He says in the preface to the second book: "So overwhelmingly has Justus Menius refuted the Anabaptists' heresy that (as I have said) even a cow, if she had reason, must say, it is the truth and can not be otherwise."*^ Menius' arguments proved in- efficient to convince the Anabaptists and their friends — a fact that is readily accounted for by those who have read his books.^^ Professor Paul Tschackert says rightfully that the greatest uncertainty prevailed atriong the Lutherans and Zwinglians in the matter of the proper defence of infant baptism. ^^ CHAPTER VI WHY ZWINGLI DEFENDED INFANT BAPTISM While Zwingli was for a time of the opinion that it were better to abandon the baptism of infants, he became in the course of a few years, as pointed out elsewhere, one of the foremost opponents of the practice of believers' baptism. If we inquire into the causes for the change in his position on this question, his own writings give us the information which we desire. Not through the study of the Scriptures was he led to defend infant baptism, but through the acceptance of the opinion that a union of church and state was necessary for the success of the Reformation. In Zwingli's view the church needed the strong arm of the state to become firmly established and to overcome all opposition.^* He was led to realize that some of the citizens of Zurich (possibly a majority) would follow other religious leaders, if the state did not prescribe the Zwinglian creed. Unless an exclu- sive state-church was established and the acceptance of other creeds made unlawful by the state, the (nominal) unity of the church would be lost. More- 50 INFANT BAPTISM over it was doubtful whether the state-authorities could be persuaded to consent to the toleration of free churches organized on New Testament prin- ciples. Zwingli decided to go hand in hand with the state in the reformation of the church. He accepted the view that a union of church and state, (and hence infant baptism) was necessary for the pros- perity of the church. It is clear from his own testi- mony that his decision in favor of infant baptism was based primarily on expediency and the supposed needs of the church. J. M. Usteri says correctly: **The impulses which led him in this instance were not the results of theological thinking, but had their cause in the [supposed] needs of the church."^ Zwingli says : "It must not be supposed that I care much for infant baptism. — If I should notice that this practice is not conducive to God's honor and to a Christian* life, I should readily change my opinion."®^ "If infant baptism had never been practiced, it could be introduced tomorrow, if we would see that it is con- ducive to peace and to the good [of the church].*'*^ "For I know that infant baptism brings to the Chris- tian people great blessing."^® "If the matter is close- ly looked into, it will be seen that ye contend for vain outward things," he addressed the Swiss Anabaptists who insisted on believers' baptism.®^ "Should not infant baptism, as well as all other outward things be discreetly used or abandoned, whichever would be most conducive to the prosperity of the Christian! church ?"i«« BAPTISM A DIVINE INSTITUTION 51 The Swiss Anabaptists, on the other hand, point- ed out that Zwingli lost sight of the fact that bap- tism is a command of Christ. Conrad Grebel in his Defen<:e, addressed to the Council of Zurich, v/rites : ""They say it is not of importance how baptism is used, but this opinion can not be estabHshed by Scrip- ture, for the Scriptures indicate that it is God's will that his commandments and rites should be kept as he has commanded them."^^^ And frequently Zwingli "himself asserted that error on the point of baptism is a most serious mistake. In his Book on Baptis n he defended the opinion that "those who consent to rebaptism, [i. e. the Anabaptists] crucify Christ CHAPTER VII ZWINGLI^S PUBLIC DEBATES WITH ANABAPTISTS The discussions held between Zwingli and the Anabaptist leaders constitute an important chapter f ^ in the history of baptism. A few modern historians f ^ have asserted that ZwingU in the pubHc debates on the question of baptism was victorious over his op- ponents. It is true that he often made this assertion. His testimony on this point, however, can not be uncritically accepted. The first public debate between the Swiss Ana- baptists and ZwingH w^^s held on January 17, 1525, in the city hall of Zurich. The Zwinglian historian Bullinger, who was present at the discussions, testi- fies that Grebel, Mantz and Roublin presented their arguments for believers' baptism as follows : "Infants can not believe and do not understand what baptism is. Baptism should be administered to beHevers to whom the Gospel has been previously preached, who have understood it and of their own accord desire baptism and who are willing to mortify the old man and lead a new Hfe. Of all this the infants know nothing whatever, therefore baptism is not intended for them. Here they cited the Scrips ZWINGLI ON RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS 53 tures from the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles and showed that the apostles did not baptize infants, but only those who had come to an age of under- standing; therefore the same should now be done. And infant baptism, being not administered in accord with Scripture, was invalid and it was necessary to be baptized anew."^^^ Bullinger does not tell us in particular how Zwingli met these arguments, but says simply, his grounds and arguments were the same as he afterwards set forth in his Book on Baptism. On the day following the debate the Council (the civil authorities) of Zurich pubHshed a decree demanding that all unbaptized infants must be bap- tized within eight days and those who would not comply with this ruling must leave the country. In this decree the debate on baptism is mentioned but, remarkably enough, it is not asserted that Zwingli successfully refuted the arguments of his opponents against infant baptism.^^*. Zwingli, in his Book on Baptism and elsewhere, makes this assertion, how- ever, and also says: ''We have the testimony of the whole honorable Council that the Anabaptists have always been overcome. "^°^ He knew that in Zurich the Council would decide against those who defended believers' baptism. Again, Zwingli informs us that after the debate of January 17 all theologians "were of the opinion that it were not proper but dangerous to have fur- ther debates with them."^^^ It is a remarkable fact that the Council of Zurich showed evident uneasiness 54 INFANT BAPTISM when information reached them that a pubUc discus- sion on the question of infant baptism was to be held in Schaffhausen (in which, doubtless, Hubmaier would take part). The Council, on February 8, 1525, addressed the authorities of Schaffhausen as follows : ''Having heard that you intend to hold a convo- cation or debate concerning infant baptism in your city and have invited for this purpose a number of learned men, to ascertain the teaching of the Scrip- tures, we desire to say that our theologians have recognized the Anabaptist doctrines as erroneous. And we would further inform you that Ulrich Zwingli will forthwith publish a book [on the said question] and we ask you to postpone the debate until you have read Zwingli's book. But if you will not wait, then inform us of the appointed day that we may send our representatives and theologians. "^^^ 'This letter betrays that the Council of Zurich entertained the fear that a religious debate at Schaff- hausen might lead to different results from those of the debate held at Zurich," says C. A. Bachtold. Instead of welcoming a discussion on the burning question of the day and offering, as might have been expected, to send their leading reformer for the de- fence of the opinion for which they stood, the Coun- cil of Zurich feared that a debate would serve to convince the authorities of Schaffhausen of the right- fulness of Anabaptism. Again, at other places, notably at St. Gall, the state-church party found itself in desperate straits in the combat with the dissenters, but we do not hear of Zwingli offering ANABAPTISTS DESIRE PUBLIC DEBATE 55 himself to come to the assistance of his friends. The Council of Schaffhausen complied with the de- sire of the authorities of Zurich and did not arrange for a debate. On March 20, 1525, a discussion was held be- tween leading Anabaptists and the Zwinglian reform- ers in Zurich. The Anabaptist spokesmen were, one after another, brought up from the prison for a hearing and to be instructed by Zwingli and his help- ers, Leo Jud and Oswald Myconius; it was in every instance an unequal combat of three against one. The Anabaptists desired a public debate in which they would have permission to present their argu- ments and speak freely without being interrupted and hindered by their opponents. They complained that they were refused the right to publish books or tracts and in the public discussions Zwingli had all liberty to interrupt them and prevent the full presentation of their argument. BuUinger says : "They asserted that although a debate was held with them, they had found it impossible to get a rightful hearing and Zwingli did not permit any one [of his opponents] to express himself unhindered." "He has a way to make it impossible for his oppo- nents to give voice to the truth. He has maintained his cause not with God's Word but through talking more and louder than any one else, and through the authority of the government."^^® From at least three sides the Council was peti- tioned to arrange for a public debate with the Ana- baptists. The civil authorities of the principality of 56 INFANT BAPTISM Griiningen in the Canton Zurich sent four deputies "to ask Our Lords [the Council] earnestly and urgently to have another debate held with the prison- ers." Further the four men were instructed ''to petition the Council that Zwingli be admonished to let the Anabaptists have their say and not to inter- rupt them when they bring forth their arguments. — But if Our Gracious Lords would deny this right to the poor, honest men and would not permit them a debate (which we do by no means expect) in such case the four deputies will inform us of their de- cision. "^^^ Two written petitions of Anabaptists for a de- bate at this time are preserved in the archives of Zurich. ^^° They are touching appeals, addressed to the Council, "to let the divine Word prevail and decide these matters." They say further: "We desire the divine, clear, unadulterated Word of God without any additional suppositions and opin- ions. For what is not contained in the Scriptures, we do by no means desire. — Gracious Lords, we ask you for God's sake to arrange a public discussion of this question similar to the debate concerning pictures [in the churches] and mass. — If in a discussion it be found from Scripture that we err, we shall willingly yield, be it in the matter of baptism or in other points." The Anabaptists desired a debate although they were aware that the judges who were to decide con- cerning the results would be of their opponent party. Since it was impossible for them to defend them- GREAT ANABAPTIST DEBATE 57 selves through the press, they entertained the hope that a public discussion would serve to stop the mouth of the slanderers and to persuade the Council of the harmlessness of their views. They overlooked the fact that a majority of the Council, under Zwing- li's leadership had espoused the cause of state-church- ism and believed with him that infant baptism was indispensible for the prosperity of the church. It need not be repeated here that to the principle of an exclusive state-church, the Anabaptist tenets were destructive. Urged from various quarters the Council finally decided to have a debate on infant baptism. It has been pointed out above that in Zwingli's opinion further debates with the Anabaptists were "danger- ous," but even he finally consented. Bullinger in- forms us that four judges were appointed to preside, in order that no one would be interrupted or per- mitted "to speak contrary to good rules of order." The judges were leading representatives of Zwingli- anism : Wolfgang Joner of Cappel, Conrad Schmidt of Kiissnach, Sebastian Hofmeister of Schaffhausen and Joachim Vadian of St. Gall. The great debate was held on November 7, 8, and 9, 1525, in the Great Minster Church.^" A glance over the sentences which were made the basis for the discussions shows at once that the Anabap- tists had no voice in their adoption as questions for the debate. The last of the sentences has the asser- tion that to rebaptize on the confession of faith is "to 58 INFANT BAPTISM crucify Christ anew." Bullinger informs us again that Zwingli's arguments in this debate are the same as those found in his reply to Hubmaier's book on Believers' Baptism. At the close of the last session Conrad Grebel, Felix Mantz and George Blaurock were *'layed into the New Tower" while Michael Sattler and others were banished/^^ After a short time the prisoners were released with the announce- ment that '*if they persist in their separation [from the state-church] the most severe punishment would be meted out to them.""^ Immediately after this debate the Anabaptists again complained that "they were not given a proper hearing." Bullinger, speaking of the debates in gen- eral,"* does not deny that they were interrupted but naively enough, asserts there was a reason : "For they would say only what they desired, and not what they ought to say.""*^ One of the judges in this de- bate, Conrad Schmidt, published a sermon delivered at the time of the disputation of Bern, 1528, against the Anabaptists. This sermon is of importance, not for its intrinsic worth and the reliability of its state- ments but because it shows strikingly the attitude of one of the judges toward the Anabaptists. On the basis of the text Phil. 3:18, 19 ("....whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly," etc.) Schmidt has the following to say: "No one has ever portrayed the Anabaptists more faithfully than Paul in these verses. — To ad- vance their Caiaphas-like knavery they preach first THE ANABAPTISTS CONDEMNED 59 of all that one should not say the 'Hail Mary' [the well known prayer to Mary]. Fy upon the devilish, impertinent Anabaptists that they are not ashamed to refuse due honor to the Virgin Mary. Who could rebuke me, if without ceasing^ I said : 'Hail Mary' etc.? And again who would not severely rebuke me if I permitted the unchristian Anabaptists to scare me that I should never again say the 'Hail Mary'? But nothing is too much or too scandalous for the impudent, devilish spirit of Anabaptism.^^^ — Tlic truth does not sound well to their ears ; the water of Anabaptism got into their ears that they let them hang like swine," etc.^^^ CHAPTER VIII ZWINGLI'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM, AS SET FORTH IN HIS WRITINGS Zwingli defended his position on baptism against the Anabaptists principally in three books, namely his Book on Baptism,^^^ his Reply to Hubmaier's first defence of believers' baptism^^^ and a treatise pub- lished in Latin, the Refutation of Anabaptist Tricks.^-'^ Zwingli's Book on Baptism which was expected by the Council of Zurich to be ready for publication soon after the debate of January 17, 1525, was not finished until the end of May of the same year. Apparently Zwingli found the defence of infant bap- tism a perplexing task. "The Scriptures [relating to baptism] must be interpreted otherwise than they have been until now," he wrote on March 31, 1525 to Vadian, announcing at the same time that he was writing a book on the subject.^^^ The publication of this book (or tract) was anxiously awaited by the representatives of the state-church Reformation in Switzerland. The question of infant baptism was the burning issue of the day. The eyes of the friends of ZWINGLrS DEFENSE ASKED 61 Zwingli, especially of the church leaders in various Swiss cantons, were directed to him, expecting him to bring forth sound proof for his position. They were xJearly depending on him for arguments. Martin Bucer of Strasburg wrote to Zwingli on October 31, 1524,^^^ and again, together with Wolf- gang Capito, a few weeks later,^^^ asking Scripture ground for infant baptism. John CEcolampad of Basel petitioned him in a similar way on November 21 of the same year.^^* Berthold Haller, the leading reformer of Bern, wrote repeatedly to Zwingli asking Wm to give the best arguments for the state-church practice of baptism; even after the pubhcation of Zwingli's Book on Baptism he asked for further reasons to the point. "Help us, dear Ulrich," he says in one of these letters, "to frustrate the Anabaptists' cause."^^*^ At St. Gall the state-church leaders found themselves unable to effectually defend infant bap- tism; here eight hundred persons were baptized within a few months. According to the testimony of the Zwinglian chronicler John Kessler, "in the opin- ion of the congregation of St. Lawrence Church [the principal church of the city] the truth was on the side of the Anabaptists."^^® When Zwingli's book appeared, it was publicly read to the congregation of this church. In other cantons of the Swiss con- federacy also the cause of the Anabaptists progressed. The urgent need of defending infant baptism was generally recognized by the advocates of state- churchism. 62 INFANT BAPTISM In his Book on Baptism which was published'- early in June, 1525, Zwingli gives this definition of baptism: ''Baptism is a sign (rite) laying obligations on those who accept it and indicating that they desire to mend their lives and follow Christ."^^^ Again he says : "He who through baptism surrenders himself to God, desires to hear his word, to learn his will and to walk in accordance with it."^-^ "Baptism is a rite indicating a beginning through which we accept the obligation imposed upon us by God to live a new life; in witness thereof we receive baptism/'*^ Needless to say that Zwingli found it a difficult task to defend infant baptism on the basis of such defini- tions of baptism. "Baptism was instituted by God through John: the Baptist," says Zwingli further,^^^ and there is no distinction between the baptism of John and Chris- tian baptism. It follows that the pertinent passages in the last chapter of Matthew and Mark which closely connect faith with baptism, are not so im- portant as has been supposed, "since in this place baptism was not instituted. "^^^ It follows further that those who were baptized by John, were in no instance again baptized when they united with the Christian church ; hence "rebaptism has no example or ground in God's word."^^^ That Paul rebaptized the twelve disciples of John at Ephesus (Acts 19: 1-5) Zwingli denied on the supposition that they had" never before been baptized. They confessed to have- been baptized with John's baptism, but this, he saySy. REBAPTISM IN SCRIPTURE 63 ■meant merely that they had accepted John's doc- This strange opinion was also accepted by Hein- rich Bullinger, the successor of Zwingli in Zurich, .and by John Calvin. Through the latter's influence it has found its way into some of the modern Bible Commentaries. Bullinger testified that he formerly expounded the passage in question differently, but ^now believed Zwingli's opinion to be correct. "There- fore the Anabaptists have no testimony of holy Scripture for the support of their rebaptism," he ^says.^^* Further Zwingli made circumcision the basis for an argument. He says in December 1524: "We do not find in the New Testament that in- fant baptism is commanded or forbidden. For the argument which they advance that the apostles did not baptize infants, therefore they should not be baptized, is worthless ; or else I should also argue : The apostles baptized no one in Calcutta, therefore no one living in Calcutta should be baptized. There- fore it is needful to see whether anything on the point in question may be found in the Old Testa- ment. We find nothing of baptism [in the Old Tes- tament], but we do find that which was used in the place of baptism, namely circumcision.^*' Zwingli based his defence of infant baptism principally on the Old Testament and on circumci- sion. The question why those who were baptized by John, as well as some of the earliest Christian con- verts from Judaism, continued the usage of circum- cision, as they did, if baptism, as practiced by John 64 INFANT BAPTISM and in the early Christian church, was to take the place of this rite, is not touched upon by him. Evidently this supposition was foreign to the thought of the early Christians. (On the Anabaptists' reply to the argument based on circumcision comp. p. 43)^ Unlike Luther, Zwingli believed that the chil- dren of Christian parents are saved, and therefore^ he argued, they should be baptized. This argument is made prominent in our day and is often made the sole ground for infant baptism. Viewing this argu- ment at close range shows that it is an excuse rather than a basis for the baptism of infants. The de- fenders of infant baptism who take this ground do, in reality, not accept the premises on which their conclusion rests. They say : Those who are saved should be baptized; children of Christian parents are saved ; hence they should be baptized. But a little questioning shows that they do not in reality accept the first of their premises. They do not be- lieve that the fact that an infant is saved is sufficient reason why he should be baptized. For they admit that the children of heathen parents also are saved^ but nevertheless would not baptize them. It is worthy of notice that Jesuit missionaries have in many in- stances secretly baptized the infant children of heathens, and from the Roman Catholic view-point this usage is perfectly consistent. If we ask the reason why those who advance the said argument would not baptize the saved infants of heathen parents, we are told, it is because in this MEANING OF BAPTISMAL COMMISSION 65 instance baptism would be meaningless, since in all probability these children will grow up under heath- enish instruction and influence. The real reason, then, why they baptize the infant children of Chris- tian parents is, because it is believed that they will at some future time receive Christian instruction. Plainly this is not a scriptural basis for baptism. The fact is ignored that even the intended instruc- tion as such would not qualify for membership in the church ; the necessary requirement is acceptance of the truth — faith. It is worthy of notice that the thought of administering baptism on the supposition that the one who is baptized should be made a church-member at some distant future time, was foreign to the apostolic age as well as to the period of the Reformation. Zwingli inclined to the view that "the mothers who brought their children to Jesus, also baptized them."^^® Christ, he says further, has commanded to baptize all men and the commission to baptize is to be read as follows : "Go ye and make disciples of all nations (now follows how they should be made disciples), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, (now follows the teaching) teaching them to observe all things, etc."i37 This interpretation of the baptismal commission. Matt. 28:19, has sometimes been read into the Eng- lish translation of this passage. But a reference to the Greek original shows that .the thought is not to 66 INFANT BAPTISM make disciples, or learners, through the act of bap- tism, but to make disciples and baptize them ; bap- tism following the teaching or discipling. In the original the pronoun them does not agree gram- matically with nations. The command is not to bap- tize the nations, but to teach the nations and baptize those who accept the truth. It goes without saying that it is impossible to make infants disciples ; neither can adults be made disciples through the act of baptism. ^^^ The baptism of *1iouseholds" recorded in Scrip- ture was also used as an argument for infant baptism by Zwingli. On this point one of the Anabaptist writers says : We have in the Scriptures record of four house- holds that have been baptized, ^"^ namely that of Cornelius, of the jailor, of Lydia and of Stephanas (Acts 10:48; 16:15,33; I Cor. 1:16) and the Word clearly shows that in three of these households all were believers, namely of Cornelius (Acts 10:2, 44-47), of the jailor (Acts 16:34), and that of Stephanas (I Cor. 16:15). But touching the house- hold of Lydia, the reader should know that though the Scriptures say nothing definite about it, it is not usual in Scripture, nor the custom of the world, to ■call a family by the wife's name as long as the hus- band is living. Since Luke here names the house by a woman and not a man, reason teaches us that Lydia w^as either a widow or a virgin. And how much is to be made of the supposition that there were infants in her household, we will let the God- fearing reader judge. ^** A VALUELESS ARGUMENT 67 In his last book against the Anabaptists, the Refutation of Anabaptist Tricks, written in 1527, Zwingli makes the doctrine of predestination the foremost argument for infant baptism."^ Salvation, he argues, is in its last analysis not of faith but of the foreordination of God. All infants in the Old Covenant, he says, were of the elect, as well as are all children of Christian parents, and hence the for- mer were circumcised and the latter should be bap- tized. Zwingli says: *'In this way, O Anabaptists, all your foundation has fallen away. For not only believers (as you would understand 'believers' in actuality) are the sons of God, but those also who are elect are sons even before they believe. "^*^ But, strange to say, Zwingli asserted that not only are the elect the sons of God before they believe, but those adults whose life shows them to be repro- bate, were elect while they were in their infancy, if they were born of Christian parents; and hence they should be baptized. To the Anabaptists' objection that Esau was born of godly parents, and yet **was not of God's people," Zwingli answered : ''If Esau had died an infant, he would doubtless have been of the elect," for he was "born within the laws of the Covenant" and was circumcised. He continues : "In vain do we say : Would that he had died in his infancy ! He could not die whom divine Providence had created that he should live and live wickedly."^*^ In other words, in order to maintain infant baptism on the basis of predestination, Zwingli asserted that 68 INFANT BAPTISM the Esaus whose life and unbelief indicates that they are of the reprobate, were elect while they were in their infancy and should therefore be baptized. Al- though they were predestinated to be lost, they must nevertheless he considered foreordained for eternal life in their early childhood. Zwingli's attempt to make predestination a basis for infant baptism was a signal failure. CHAPTER IX BALTHASAR HUBMAIER VS. ULRICH ZWINGLI Dr. Balthasar Hubmaier^** was a friend of and coworker with Zwingli in the period in which the latter believed, as he later testified, that it were better to abandon infant baptism. Unwillingly Hubmaier became Zwingli's opponent. It was his honest con- viction, as his writings show, that infant baptism is unscriptural, and at the time of his imprisonment in Zurich he testified that he had obtained this convic- tion through the influence of Zwingli and others.^" He was anxious to keep Zwingli's friendship, but found it impossible to persuade himself that he could, against his own better knowledge, abandon the posi- tion which Zwingli also formerly defended. Hubmaier's conference with Zwingli in 1523 on the subject of infant baptism is mentioned elsewhere. (P. 83). Toward the end of October, 1524, on his way from Schaflfhausen to Waldshut, he seems to have again visited Zwingli at Zurich who apparently promised him to fully set forth his reasons for infant 70 INFANT BAPTISM baptism in a letter.^*^ Somewhat later, probably about the middle of November, when evidently the promised letter failed to come, Hubmaier wrote in a short letter to Zwingli : ''Write me for God's sake concerning baptism."^*' At the occasion of the first great discussion be- tween Zwingli and the Anabaptists of Zurich (Jan- uary 17, 1525) there was a rumor that Hubmaier would be invited, but it proved unfounded. Conrad Grebel wrote on January 14, to Vadian in St. Gall, informing him that a discussion had been appointed at Zurich "for all who are for or against infant bap- tism." He adds : "Some say that the doctor of Waldshut [Hubmaier] will be invited, but I do not believe it, for he is against Zwingli on the question of baptism and will write against him if he [Zwingli] persists."^*^ Hubmaier was not invited to take part in this debate. On February 2, 1525, Hubmaier published a leaflet entitled AxU Open Appeal to All Christian Be- lievers in which he asked any one who believed him- self able to do so, to prove "with plain, clear Scrip- ture" that infants should be baptized, while at the same time he offered to show infant baptism to be "an act without any ground in the divine word."^*^ He was clearly displeased with the results of the recent debate as published by the (Zwinglian) Coun- cil of Zurich. If the insistence on faith-baptism was an error, as Zwingli and the Council asserted, was it not in their place to set forth the Scripture ground HUBMAIER ANXIOUS FOR INSTRUCTION 71 on which this assertion was based? Hubmaier was one of the most prominent men of the ZwingHan party. He knew that his possible identification with the Anabaptists was a matter of grave concern to Zwingli. He knew also, if Zwingli had proved in- fant baptism to be scriptural, he would be quite will- ing to give him his arguments. He evidently hoped, if Zwingli would not decide to come down to Wald- shut for an effort to convince him of the scriptural- ness of his new position, he would suggest to the Council of Zurich to grant him a safe conduct that he could go to Zurich for a discussion. In this ex- pectation Hubmaier was disappointed. In April, 1525, Hubmaier was baptized by William Roublin.^^^ He laid down his office of min- ister in the state-church. He organized a congrega- tion of baptized believers who elected him their pas- tor.^^^ When Zwingli's Book on Baptism appeared, early in June in the same year, he felt it his duty to write a reply to it, although it was doubtful that he would find a printer. Conrad Grebel had found it impossible to publish his defence of the Anabaptist position. Reluctantly Hubmaier took his pen to contest Zwingli's opinion. He still hoped that the scriptural truth on the point in question would prove acceptable to the reformer of Zurich. Before he published his book on Believers' Baptism he made another earnest attempt to come to an understanding with him. On July 10, 1525, he wrote a letter to the Council of 72 INFANT BAPTISM Zurich asking that he be permitted to come to Zurich under a safe conduct to discuss the question of bap- tism with ZwingH. In this letter he says, he had read ZwingH's recent book which is supposed to prove that infants should be baptized, and he had nearly completed a book showing that they should not be baptized. Such dissention, Hubmaier says further, is greatly to be regretted, "but one can not consent to have the truth so seriously maltreated." "For God's and the last judgment's sake and for the sake of the love which you have had and yet have for the divine word," he begs the Council to arrange for a discus- sion, either private or public. He continues : "If then it is found in God's Word that I err, I shall from my heart gladly recant and shall assist Master Ulrich [Zwingli] to defend and preach his opinion. But if it should be made clear that Master Ulrich has missed the mark in the matter of infant baptism, he should not be ashamed to abstain from it, for the truth will certainly prevail in the end. Indeed Peter, even after he had received the Holy Ghost, erred and did not walk after the truth of the gospel, whence he was rebuked of Paul, Gal. 2:11-15. Hence he [Zwingli] should not complain if he fare no better. We are all fallible men. If one err today, the other may stumble tomorrow. It is for our good, that we may humble ourselves before God. Gracieu«^, dear Lords, I admonish, ask, and beg of you again for God's sake that you bring me to Master Ulrich. — I hope to God we shall, if we have a personal discus- sion, soon come to an agreement in this matter, for I am ready to give way to the clear and plain word of God and to give God the honor, and I believe my TESTIMONY TO HUBMAIER'S INFLUENCE 7Z dear brother Ulrich Zwingli will take the same atti- tude. Farewell in the Lord and grant me, for God's sake a gracious answer."^^^ Hubmaier's urgent appeal was in vain. The Council of Zurich, as well as Zwingli, had ere this decided that the practice of infant baptism was in- dispensible for the prosperity of the church. To Zwingli 's dismay Hubmaier found it possible to have his book The Christian Baptism of Believers printed, not in Switzerland, however, but at Stras- burg. This is one of the best written and most lucid books of the Reformation period. Berthold Haller wrote, on November 29, 1525, to Zwingli, complain- ing that "Hubmaier's plain presentation of the Scrip- tures seduces many."^^^ When in the summer of 1527 the report was heard that Hubmaier was burned at the stake, CEcolampad wrote to Zwingli : ''As long as his book continues to live, we must not be silent until this also is burned to ashes by the iirse of the Word."^^* In his Instruction Concerning Anabaptism CEcolampad says, after referring to the report con- cerning Hubmaier's death : "But since among his disciples his books are yet alive, it behooves us not to be silent concerning this matter, for his writings may prove more harmful than his life."^^^ Zwingli's reply to this book bears the date of November 5, 1525. He censures Hubmaier severely for defending Anabaptism in this way. "If you were willing to be instructed with Scripture," says Zwingli, "'why did you accept Anabaptism before you had re- 74 INFANT BAPTISM ceived such instruction P^^^ — I had expected, if others would write against me and I were sick or dead, he would fight for me."'^^ Zwingli ignored Hubmaier's earnest appeals for instruction from Scripture on the point in question. For the great discussion on baptism held in November, 1525, Hubmaier undertook the journey to Zurich, although he knew that Anabaptism was severely persecuted in that domain. He did not reach the city, however, being compelled to return to Waldshut for the reason that the country was infested with Austrian troops from whom he had a narrow escape. The assertion found in a few modern works that Hubmaier was at the time of his imprisonment at Zurich (toward the end of the same year), com- pelled against his will to discuss baptism with Zwing- li, is unfounded. The Zwinglian theologian George Binder testifies that Hubmaier as a prisoner addressed a humble and urgent petition to the Council to ar- range for a discussion with Zwingli, ^^^ and Johannes Kessler also relates that he made such a request.^^^ The petition was now granted, but Hubmaier com- plains bitterly of the treatment which he received at ZwingH's hands in this debate; in fact he held that the one-sided discussion which he had with Zwingli did not deserve the name of a debate.^^^ This com- plaint is substantiated by Zwingli himself who wrote to Peter Gynoraus on August 31, 1526: "When I came to I Cor. 10, 'All our fathers were ''ACTS OF EXEGETICAL VIOLENCE" 75 baptized unto Moses' etc., and would have him ac- knowledge that infants were included [in other words, that the apostle in the said passage records an instance of infant baptism] even though the infants are not expressly mentioned, and when he was un- willing to say whether or not this was the case, I confess that I went for the man too roughly. "^^^ Hence Hubmaier declined to confer further with Zwingli ; he requested to discuss the question with Jud, Myconius and Hofmeister alone. At a later date he writes to Zwingli : "You know how you and your city of Zurich have treated me ; it were no wonder if the stones would cry out concerning it."^^^ A comparison of Zwingli's arguments for infant baptism with Hubmaier's masterly defence of be- lievers' baptism will shed light on the question why the Anabaptist cause progressed on every hand. Usteri (himself a Zwinghan) says: "The endeavor to justify infant baptism as altogether scriptural mis- led ZwingH to various acts of exegetical violence."^^^ "It is now almost unanimously admitted that in this controversy the opponents of infant baptism were only apparently silenced, not refuted," says Friedrich Nippold, Professor of Church History in the Uni- versity of Jena; "Zwingli and Luther saw themselves compelled, in view of the objections of the Anabap- tists, to modify their original opinion whose con- sequences clearly favored the view of the Anabap- tists."^^* Walter Kohler, one of the editors of the new edition of Zwingli's works says : "In the last analysis he could maintain infant baptism only as a 76 INFANT BAPTISM concession to human weakness and historical develop- ment. "^^^ Again Usteri says appropriately: ''Hubmaier's book Of the Christian Baptism of Believers demonstrated clearly that a direct Scrip- ture proof for infant baptism can not be given. In contrast with Zwingli's sophistry it affords a peculiar satisfaction to see how clearly, transcendently and harmoniously Hubmaier arranges the abundant proof- texts (Beweismaterial) around his definition of bap- tism. The true scriptural order, he points out, is none other than this: 1 preaching; 2 hearing; 3 faith; 4 baptism; 5 works. The scientific exegesis of later times has in the main taken Hubmaier's part, while Glider opines that Zwingli saw himself com- pelled to resort to, we should not like to say know- ingly sophistical, but certainly violent exegesis. "'^^ Other historians also say that Zwingli failed to estab- lish infant baptism as scriptural. ^^'^ Zwingli, on the other hand, in his reply to the said book of Hubmaier, says : ''Your almanac in which you set the saints in this order: preaching, hearing, faith, baptism, works, will not avail you. — And therefore I shall make for you another almanac for the present year in which, if God will, your goose-washing shall cease, namely [this is the order of the saints in my almanac] : 1 The rich, almighty God, 2 Will be Abraham's God, 3 Who shall walk uprightly before him ; 4 He is also the God of his seed; 5 He has promised the Saviour in the covenant; 6 In the covenant infants and adults were circumcised. "^^^ Needless to say that Zwingli's "almanac for the present year" was not sufficient to convince the Ana- AN UNEQUAL COMBAT 77 baptists of the validity of infant baptism. (Concern- ing their reply to the argument based on cireumcision compare p. 43). It is a noteworthy fact that a few of Zwingli's friends and coworkers, besides those who identified themselves with the Anabaptists, found it impossible to accept his arguments as convincing. Leo Jud, his most notable associate in Zurich, for considerable time made no secret of the grave doubts which he entertained concerning the validity of infant baptism.^®^ And the Zwinglian reformer Wolfgang Capito of Strasburg for a time openly favored its abolition. It is therefore not surprising that Zwing- li's arguments made no impression on the Anabap- tists, and his assertion that he had overcome them in debate was so much more peculiar, as they were not permitted to present their arguments in print. Hubmaier was the ablest defender of believers' baptism. "In point of scholarship and concentrative- ness he surpassed his opponents, such as Zwingli. by far," says the Protestant historian Loserth,^^^ and Hegler recognizes that *'in Scripture proof and partly also in formal consequence Hubmaier was Zwingli's superior."^^^ "On the basis of his own premises Zwingli was opposed by his former associates," says Loserth, "and only by carrying the conflict over into the political field was he able to hold his own. With fire and the sword he overcame the dissenters or ex- pelled them from the land."^^^ Hubmaier, after de- scribing the cruel measures of persecution enacted, with Zwingli"s consent, against the Anabaptists in 78 INFANT BAPTISM Zurich, says: "These are the weapons by which Zwingli has overcome the Anabaptists, as he falsely calls them, although he persistently boasts that he has done it with Scripture. — I have heard many who could bring forth no other argument to protect their ungodly infant baptism, than to say: Well, Zwingli has maintained it with Scripture; and if they are asked, with what Scripture, they can not point to one.""8 CHAPTER X A DISCUSSION ON BAPTISM BETWEEN HUBMAIER AND ZWINGLI It has been pointed out above that Hubmaier's desire for a pubHc discussion with Zwingli was never granted. Zwingli boasted often that he had refuted and silenced the Anabaptists in every debate. Hub- maier at last decided to write a book quoting Zwing- li's arguments for infant baptism and adding his reply. In this way he, as it were, compelled Zwingli to a public discussion. He published this book under the title : A Dialogue BcHvcen Balthasar Hubmaier and Ulrich Zwingli on Infant Baptism, Based on Zzvingli's Book on Baptism}"^^ Following is a part; of this debate between Zwingli and Hubmaier. Zzvingli. — To baptize as do the Anabaptists is heresy, that is division and separation. (231). Hubmaier. — Consider well your words, friend Zwingli. For if to baptize the instructed and the believers is heresy, it follows that Christ is the first heresiarch. He has ordered that there shruld be preaching, then faith, then baptism. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:14,15). And the apostles also v/ho have followed this order must be heretics. (Acts, chap- 80 INFANT BAPTISM ters 2, 8, 10, 11, 16, 19). May every earnest Chris- tian read these chapters and then judge. Zzmngli. — You reject infant baptism that you may have an excuse to rebaptize. (231). Huhmaier. — You continually accuse us of re- baptism and have never proved with a word that infant baptism is baptism. Here you wince and writhe this way and that, but are not able to bring forth clear Scripture. Remember what you said in your debate with John Fabri [the Vicar General of Constance] ^'5 and afterwards pubHshed in your fif- teenth Thesis,^^^ namely that all pertinent truth is clearly found in God's Word. If now the doctrine of infant baptism is truth, show it in the plain Word of God. Show it to us for God's sake. Do it, do not forget it; or the Vicar will complain that you have used a sword against him which you now lay aside, and that you can not endure the' attack with this sword. Zwingli. — I know that they are refuted with the doctrine and today stand vanquished. (234). Huhmaier. — Now tell me for once, with what doctrine? Or you will have to hear the words which were addressed to Fabri at Zurich: 'The sword which pierced the pastor of Fislibach, now a prisoner at Constance, has got stuck in its scabbard."^" Just so, your spear with which you have overcome ' the Anabaptists does not come forth. ''Answer and argue with clear Scripture; say, here it is written. It is befitting a scholar to defend his opinion by the Scriptures. "^^^ In this manner you addressed Fabri at Zurich. Zwingli. — You say, nothing should be added to God's Word. Now I ask you, where is it written that infants should not be baptized? If you can not DEBATE ON INFANT BAPTISM 81 show it and yet would reject infant baptism, you add to the Word. (236). Hubmaier. — O the cunning tricks by which you would deceive the simple. My Zwingli, I am surprised that you are not ashamed of such pranks. Or, do you suppose they will not be recognized as such? But you have learned this of Fabri who said, the usages and commandments of the church which men have made are not against God, etc. To this you answered: "Sir Vicar, prove that"^'^^ and you quoted the words of Christ, Matt. 15:9, in which he rejects the teachings and commandments of men. ■ — Mark here, friend Zwingli, that you are out of place to ask us where infant baptism is forbidden, for Christ says not in this chapter, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has forbidden shall be rooted up," but he says, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up." Now it is in your place to show clearly from the Scriptures that God has planted infant baptism, or it must be rooted up. If you would maintain infant baptism without proving that it is planted of God, it is you who adds to God's Word, and not we. Zwingli. — He who through baptism surrenders himself to God, desires to hear his word, to learn his will and to walk in accordance with it. (239). Hubmaier. — Has a new-born infant such a desire? You must confess, no. Why, then, do you l)aptize it? You say, the desire will come in about seven years. Well said ; then wait with the admin- istration of baptism till he has the desire. This would be consistent with your own statement. Zzmngli. — There is no distinction between the Ijaptism of John and that of Christ and the apostles. (240). 82 INFANT BAPTISM Huhmaier. — You assert what you can never prove. It is all the same water, but not the same baptism. For through John's baptism those who were baptized acknowledged themselves as sinners and confessed their sins. (Matt. 3:6). Through the baptism of Christ those who are baptized confess forgiveness of their sins, which forgiveness took place through faith before baptism is administered.. (Acts, chapters 2, 8, 16). Zwingli. — Water-baptism without instruction and without the Spirit was administered by the dis- ciples, Joh. 4:2 and I Cor. 1:17. (241). Huhmaier. — This is said too much. You can not point to one person in all Scripture who was baptized without preceding instruction. Or, show us one with clear Scripture and you have won the day. Zwingli. — That baptism was administered to those who did not believe is evident from John 6:66, for of the disciples who "went back and walked no more with him" there was quite probably none un- baptized, and yet Christ rebuked their unbelief. (241). Huhmaier. — O the cunning wiles ! Do you not fear God, or do you think he does not know and we do not understand it? I ask you also one thing: Did Peter, John and Andrew believe at the time of the institution of the Supper? You say, yes, as you must, and yet Christ rebuked their unbelief (Mark 16:14). O Zwingli, Zwingli, I recognize where tlie shoe pinches you. No more of this. Zzmngli. — The thief on the cross believed and was on the same day with Christ in Paradise and was never baptized with any external baptism. (242). Huhmaier. — With this argument you would quite upset the baptism of Christ. But I tell you: DEBATE ON INFANT BAPTISM 83 Whoever has the excuse of the thief on the cross, with him God is well satisfied, if he is not baptized. Zwingli. — This error has also misled me a few years ago, that I Vv'as of the opinion, it were far better to baptize the children only after they had come to a goodly age. (245). Hiibmaier. — Yes, this was your opinion ; you have set forth this view in writing and have preached it from the pulpit ; many hundreds of people have heard it out of your own mouth. But now all must be liars who say this of you ; yes you have the courage to say that you never entertained this opin- ion. But I ask you also one thing: How many years ago did you have this opinion? Remember, when you had the debate with John Fabri, the Vicar Gen- eral of Constance, you said in public that you had preached the gospel, pure and unadulterated, for five .years. This was in 1523, and in the same year, about the day of Philip and James, I personally conferred with you on the moat of Zurich upon the Scriptures relative to baptism. Then and there you agreed with me in the opinion that children should not be bap- tized before they were instructed in the faith ; you said this was the custom in times of yore, therefore such were called catechumens. You promised to mention this in your forthcoming book, as you also did in Article XVIII on Confirmation. ^^^ Any one <:an read it and find your opinion clearly expressed. Sebastian Ruckensperger of St. Gall, at that time Prior of the cloister Sion at Klingnau, was present. Also in your little book Of Those Who Cause Dis- turbance pubHshed in 1525. you confessed openly that those who baptize infants can quote no clear word of Scripture bidding them to baptize them.^^^ From this learn, friend Zwingli, how your words, writing and 84 INFANT BAPTISM preaching agree. But may God enlighten you and us all, that you may cease from your violent measures against many pious people. Zzmngli. — Baptism is a sign or rite laying obli- gations on those who accept it and indicating that they desire to mend their lives and follow Christ. (246) Hubmaier. — God be praised. The truth has at last come to the light. Zwlngli. — With the words Matt. 28:19: "Go ye into all the world and teach all nations" the Ana- baptists deceive themselves and others, insisting that teaching is to precede baptism, but they will not con- sider that after the command to baptize we have again the words, "Teach them" etc. (246). Hubmaier. — Well, Zwingli, let us make an agreement. I shall not object to your teaching after baptism and you permit me to teach before baptism. If you consent to this, the question is settled. Teach- ing before baptism will make your way to baptize impossible. — It is true that the commandment is to teach both before and after baptism. The reason is: It does not suffice to have Pharao drowned in the Red Sea, there remain the Amalekites, Amorites, Jebusites and many other enemies and hence teaching is necessary after baptism. Zwingli. — The word teach is in Greek mat he- teusate which means to make disciples, as well as to teach. (247). Hubmaier. — Making disciples includes teaching. This even the young pupils know. Zwingli. — This is the true meaning of these verses : Go ye and make all nations disciples (now follows the first step, how they should be made dis- ciples) baptizing them into the name of the Father^ DEBATE ON INFANT BAPTISM 85 etc., (finally follows the teaching) teaching them to observe, etc. (247). Huhmaier. — You violate and distort Scripture. For the first step is to make disciples, as you express it. Now disciples are made by teaching. Secondly, those who accept the teaching, and who believe and desire to be henceforth Christ's disciples, are bap- tized and through baptism they accept the duty to better their lives and follow Christ, as you yourself have said above. Thirdly, since imperfection of faith remains and shall remain unto death, it is necessary, never to cease teaching after baptism, that faith may be increased and grow as a grain of mustard seed. This is the real meaning and order of this Scripture, ■no matter how you would force it. Zzvingli. — The Anabaptists quote Matt. 3 :1 and say: "Do you not see that John first preached and then baptized?" Our reply is, that we do the same, for parents do not bring their child for baptism un- less they are first taught. (250). Huhmaier. — In the third chapter of Matthew there is nothing said of bringing infants. It is writ- ten that John preached and those who accepted his word he baptized. Note, he baptized those who ac- cepted his preaching, not their infants. Zzvingli. — We willingly admit that John first taught and then baptized, but no one can deny that those who were instructed by him also brought their uninstructed children for baptism. (250). Huhmaier. — O friend Zwingli, how dare you say John baptized uninstructed children, contrary to the plain and clear text. Matt. 3 :6, which distinctly shows that those who were baptized by John con- fessed their sins. O reader, read the text for your- self and judge. 86 INFANT BAPTISM Zwingli. — Now comes the strongest Scripture which teaches us that baptism is a rite indicating a beginning^*- through which we accept the obligation imposed upon us by God to live a new life ; in wit- ness thereof we receive baptism. This Scripture is found in Rom. 6:3-11. (253). Hubmaier. — The strongest Scripture is clearly against you; this 1 shall establish with your own words and with the words of Paul. You yourself confess that baptism is a rite through which we ac- cept the obligation to a new life. Mark, you say, we, we, we ; not others in our stead. And you say, we receive baptism as a testimony. The crying infant in the cradle knows nothing whatever of obligation, baptism, new life, or testimony. Secondly, Paul sets forth in this chapter the meaning of baptism. Now any infant who knows the meaning of baptism and is willing to accept its obligations and to confess his faith before the church, desiring to be baptized and received into the church — such an infant should be baptized. But so long as this is not the case, do not proceed to baptize him. Read this chapter and see whether Paul writes here to infants in the cradle. Zunngli. — A man may well be conformed to Christ's image though he was never rebaptized. (254) Hubmaier. — You accuse us continually of re- baptizing, but have never shown that the rite per- formed on infants is baptism. Zwingli. — I can not understand the Anabap- tists otherwise than that they make too much of bap- tism. (258). Hubmaier. — We do not ascribe to baptism any- thing except that it is an institution of Christ through which we are received into the organized Christian church and which every one who believes will accept, DEBATE ON INFANT BAPTISM 87 if opportunity presents. Christ has instituted it, the apostles have administered it, and the beUevers re- ceived it as such. Here I appeal to the Scriptures throughout ; let them be the judge. Zzvingli. — Neither I nor any one has clear Scripture ground to assert that infant baptism is another baptism than the one true baptism of Christ. Just so, many other things are not expressly men- tioned in Scripture and nevertheless are not against but for God. (280). Hubmaier. — Silence, silence, friend Zwingli ; Fabri of Constance hears you. This was his opinion at Zurich in the debate, but you would not accept it. You demanded clear Scripture of him, and rightfully. Zwingli. — We let the women take part in the Supper, but do not read that women were present at Christ's Supper. (280). Hubmaier. — You remind me here of a point which I had almost forgotten. I must tell it into your ear. Friend Zwingli, all arguments which you advance for baptizing infants would also compel you to let them partake of the Supper. For they are God's and theirs is the kingdom of heaven, as you say. You assert that there were infants among the three thousand that were baptized on one day; then they must also have been among them in the break- ing of the bread (Acts 2:46). Moreover, it is no- where forbidden by Christ that the Bohemians should bring their infants to the Supper.^^^ Zzinngli. — What I have ever said, I shall say until death and it will never be found otherwise than that I say the same thing. (281). Hubmaier. — I offer to show openly by your own printed books that you again and again have spoken differently. 88 INFANT BAPTISM Zwingli. — Concerning infant baptism we ask you for God's sake to say as follows : Since God has commanded to baptize, do not say : But not the infants. (281). Hiibmaier. — And we ask you, for God's sake to say as follows : God has commanded to baptize those who are instructed in his word and believe. Zwingli. — Why do you make a distinction be- tween people? Are infants people, or not? If they are men, or people, you must have them baptized.^^* (281). Hubmaier. — This argument is not to the point, for it proves as much for Turks as for the infants of Christian parents. Turks also are people. Christ has commanded to baptize believing people. Zzvingli. — We demand of the Anabaptists to show us clear Scripture forbidding the baptism of infants. (281). Hubmaier. — And I demand of you to show me clear Scripture forbidding the doctrine of purgatory, cloisters, cowls, tonsure, mass, etc. Zzmngli. — Paul writes to the Corinthians, I Cor. 7:12-14, that a brother whose wife does not be- lieve, should not leave her; he says, ''Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy." It is known to every one that holy in the language of Paul and the early Christians means believing, for they spoke of those who served God as the saints. (291). Hubmaier. — Here, friend Zwingli, you assert that the infants should be baptized being holy. And you say further that it is generally known that holy is used for believing. It would follow that the in- fants beheve, but this you have until now always denied. Secondly, since you, on the ground that Paul speaks of the children of believers as holy, would DEBATE ON INFANT BAPTISM 89 justify infant baptism, you must, on the same ground also baptize the unbeHeving husband of a beHeving wife, for Paul in this place says expressly that he is holy, as well as the child. If in this passage holy means believing, then the unbelieving husband is a believer. Take notice, reader, how we fare if we accept conclusions of this sort. It is clear that holy in this instance does not stand for believing. Zzvingli. — That infants have faith, I can not accept, though there are those who defend this opin- ion. It is ungrounded. (292). Hiibmaier. — But you have said above : Paul speaks of the Christians' children as holy, holy is believing, hence they must be believing. Take notice of your own words. Read your own book. I do not misquote you. Consider for the last judgment's sake your course, my dear Zwingli. Acknowledge your error. Cease your empty talk. Give God the honor. Con- fess the truth ; you are its captive and shall not escape it. Defend the truth openly and frankly and speak of it as you did two years ago. Save yourself and your city from shame. You know indeed that the truth will finally prevail and triumph. Remem- ber that Peter also stumbled and walked not accord- ing to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:14). Paul and Barnabas disagreed. If you have failed, it was for your own and our good, that you may not be over- bearing and we may not depend upon men, but humble ourselves under the mighty word of God and no longer follow our own opinion. Also make an end to the pitiful imprisonment and exile of the devoted brethren and sisters, to their banishment, incarceration, torture, drowning and the like, all of which you can easily do if again you give place to 90 INFANT BAPTISM God's clear truth. If you had preached and baptized or sanctioned baptism according to the order of Christ, there would have been no need for others to begin it ; but since you and those with you kept silence, at last the stones must cry out for again establishing the true baptism of Christ. My dear Zwingli, do it for God's and for the truth's sake, and the issue will soon be settled. May God grant you his grace and assist you that you may again, as formerly, set forth his clear, plain word and follow its teaching. May he, the all-loving, merciful Father in heaven, grant this to you and us all through Jesus Christ his beloved Son, our only Redeemer. Amen. Dear Zwingli, you see that I have quoted your words as you have written them in public print ; you will admit that I have not misquoted you. And if you desire, write a reply, and with God's help I shall faithfully answer you. For you know how you and your city of Zurich have acted in this matter; it were no wonder if the stones would speak of it. But if you desire an oral, public discussion with me, I would herewith (with the permission of the magis- trates) suggest that we meet in the old, imperial city of Regensburg in Bavaria. ^®^ CHAPTER XI THE POSITION OF CECOLAMPAD AND BUCER ON INFANT BAPTISM It has been shown elsewhere that John CEcolam- pad, before the rise of the Anabaptists, did not de- fend infant baptism. When he reaHzed that an ex- clusive state-church necessitated the baptism of in- fants, he became a zealous advocate of this practice. Nevertheless he was clearly at a loss to find a Scrip- ture basis for his new position. He openly confessed to Zwingli that he had never ventured to assert that infant baptism could be supported by a divine com- mandment, but for the sake of Christian love and for the reason that it was necessary for the prosperity of the church, the pious should not discard it.^*^ In his opinion the welfare of the church demanded that infants should be baptized. That he had difficulty in persuading his own friends of the rightfulness of in- fant baptism is evidenced by his letter to William Farel, of February 6, 1525, in which he complains that many of his own circle were against him on this question.^^^ In his principal book against the Anabaptists (1527) he says: "I have never made a command- 92 INFANT BAPTISM ment in point of the time when such rites should be observed .... and I should be willing to post- pone baptism until the third year, if such a course were not connected with so many dangers at this time."^^* To the reformers of Bern he wrote: "We make no law concerning day and year [of baptism], but we demand that our opponents take a similar attitude."^^^ In this way CEcolampad desired to com- promise the question with the Anabaptists and was wilHng to postpone baptism if they would desist from making believers' baptism a point at issue. Another reason for (Ecolampad's willingness to postpone (infant) baptism for a time is not far to seek. For years after he had become the leading reformer of Basel and after he had discontinued the practice of exorcism in St. Martins church, many priests of the city continued exorcism and other curious ceremonies in connection with baptism. These usages were retained until the Zwinglian Church was made the state church, in 1529. Those who were Zwinglian at heart, but happened to live in parishes whose priests persisted in the old forms, must have been loath to bring their children to them for bap- tism, hence it was natural for CEcolampad to desire that baptism might in certain instances be postponed a few years. But whether such a delay in the matter of baptism was ever officially permitted at Basel is not certain. In 1527 CEcolampad says in the above mentioned book against the Anabaptists: ''However, it is true, the Papists' baptism may well be called an EXORCISM 93 abomination for the sake of the abuses [exorcism, etc.] which go with it; I agree with you [the Ana- baptists] on this point. — A Christian should not liave his children baptized where such errors are con- sidered right in baptism; but of such abominations yovL find none in our way to baptize. "^^° At the time of his first discussions with the Anabaptists, in 1525, however, CEcolampad although "he had for years labored as a Zwinglian reformer, still observed these ''abominations." In his first book against the Anabaptists, written in this year, he says : "I was also reproached by them because we observe strange ceremonies in infant baptism, namely exor- cism of demons, giving of salt, the use of tapers, saliva, breathing upon, etc. These things I would not defend and did by no means commend them."^®^ But since the Council at that time (August, 1525) did not permit the abolition of these customs, he con- sented to observe them. CEcolampad held that baptism should be prac- ticed not for the sake of the one who is baptized but for the neighbor's sake.^^^ Plainly it is not an easy task to defend infant baptism from this point of view. An infant can not have any obligation toward his neighbor. He advanced the argument that "in- fant baptism was never forbidden from the time of the apostles," but was a general practice. ^^^ It is a remarkable fact that the first important confession of the state-church of Basel does not contain an ar- ticle on baptism.^®* 94 INFANT BAPTISM Martin Bucer, the leading Zwinglian minister of Strasburg (besides Luther and Melanchthon the greatest of the German reformers) defended infant baptism for reasons of expediency, though faith- baptism alone answered fully to his definitions of baptism. Hassencamp says correctly that "he enter- tained various doubts regarding infant baptism ; he preferred to dwell primarily on the baptism of those who have come to an age of understanding and spoke of infant baptism only supplementarily, pointing to catechising and to Confirmation. "^^^ And Gustav Anrich, the most recent biographer of Bucer says r ''Though the reformers of Strasburg retained infant baptism and Bucer defended it as not contrary to Scripture, nevertheless there remained among them a certain reluctance in the defence of this practice. "^^* It was Bucer who first introduced the rite of Confirmation in the new state-church ; he is father of this rite among the German Protestants. Recent investigation has elucidated the fact that Confirma- tion was introduced as a concession to those who were favorably inclined toward Anabaptism.^^^ At Strasburg and in Hesse large sections of the popula- tion were influenced by the Anabaptists. That every one was made a member of the ruling church without his knowledge and consent was severely criticized and Anabaptism spread at an alarming rate. Hence Bucer, upon the suggestion of Schwenckfeld, decided' that Confirmation should be practiced. In connection with this rite the young people should confess their BAPTISM AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 95 faith and make the vow which others were supposed to have made for them when baptism was adminis- tered to them in their infancy. Later Confirmation was generally practiced among the Lutherans and Zwinglians. In the seventeenth and eighteenth cen- turies a number of religious denominations arose which retained infant baptism but advanced the new idea that baptism is not the rite of initiation into the Christian church and does not convey the right of membership, a thought that is foreign to Scripture teaching. Bucer's most prominent co-worker in Strasburg, Wolfgang Capito, for years openly favored the abolishment of infant baptism ; it was feared by his colleagues that he would unite with the Anabap- tists/®® CHAPTER XII A SINGULAR ARGUMENT FOR INFANT BAPTISM The principal argument of the Zwinglian re- formers against the Anabaptists' insistence on be- lievers' baptism is that it is contrary to Christian love.. John CEcolampad, after he had read Hubmaier's book on The Christian Baptism of Believers (which, as the Zwinglian J. M. Usteri testifies/®^ establishes the fact that a direct Scripture proof for infant-baptism can not be brought forth), sent this book to Zwingli on October 2, 1525, and at the same time wrote him: a letter in which he says : "It seems to me the Ana- baptists have no regard for Christian love, which shows us what is to be observed of external things. "^°° In August, 1527, he further wrote to Zwingli that he had never dared and did not now venture to base infant baptism on a direct divine command, but for the sake of Christian love it was necessary to maintain it.^^^ In his discussions with the Anabaptists he repeatedly accuses them that they sin, above all, against Christian love by the refusal to identify themselves with the state-church. "We- have taught," he says, "that it [the abolition of in- AN INCONSISTENT ATTITUDE 97 fant baptism] is out of place, because it is contrary to Christian love." "Your doctrine is in direct oppo- sition to true love/'^°^ One of his books against the Anabaptists has a chapter bearing the title: That the Abandoning of Infant Baptism is Contrary to Chris- tian Love}^^ Martin Bucer used the same argument against the Anabaptists.^^* At the time when (Ecolampad wrote these sen- tences the state-church in Basel in which he held a prominent place was still the Roman Catholic Church. CEcolampad was at that time a Zwinglian by confes- sion. For years the Council of the city permitted him and others to preach Zwinglian doctrine but not to introduce Zwinglian worship. Although in his Exposition of the First Epistle of John^ published in 1524, and in other places, he had said that the mass is blasphemy and an abomination,^®" he nevertheless held the office of a priest. He and all the other priests of the city who adhered to Zwinglian doctrine were obliged to say mass personally if they did not find it possible to have a substitute act in their place. They did not desire to lay down their office in the state-church and hence saw themselves com.pelled to engage in that which they denounced as blasphemous. After CEcolampad had labored a few years in Basel as a reformer he accepted on February 24, 1525 the office of the parish priest at the church of St. Martin. He declared his willingness to say mass and to make no changes and introduce no innovations without the consent of the authorities.^"* A few 98 INFANT BAPTISM weeks before Easter of the following year the Coun- cil exempted him from the obligation to say mass.^^^ Not only the Anabaptists but some of his own friends considered it a grave offence that he consented to that which, according to his own teaching, was blas- phemy.^°^ In 1530, after the Zwinglian Church had been made the state-church, he asserted, if it was permissible to go to mass, it was also unobjectionable to sacrifice at the altars of the heathen deities Jupiter and Venus. ^^^ It is interesting to observe that at least one of the ministers of Basel found it apparently impossible to persuade himself that he was under duty, from motives of love to the church, to observe the un- scriptural mass. Jacob Imler, the pastor of St. Ulrich Church, repeatedly disregarded CEcolampad's advice on the point in question. A letter of CEcolam- pad to William Farel, dated February 6, 1525, gives information concerning Imler's difficulty, as follows. ''Imler is having a hard time. On the last Sab- bath again he nearly lost his position. The Council had ordered him to say mass or lay down his office. I, being unwilling that the man should resign his office, advised him to make a public deception^^** from motives of consideration for the church. — And lest he should be tormented in his conscience [doing that which he considers a sinful act], I promised to be present as a companion [when Imler was to offi- ciate again in the mass]. The affair succeeded, as I have written. Again, a second time he will be called before the Council."^" QEcolampad consented to the maintenance of ZWINGLI UPHOLDS STATE-CHURCHISM 99 Roman Catholic worship until the Council of the city would give permission to abandon it. On the one hand he held, as pointed out above, that the prac- tice of believers' baptism was contrary to the best interest of the church, and on the other hand he took the position that Roman CathoHc worship must be continued until the state would consent to make the Zwinglian Church the state-church. Zwingli himself, at Zurich, took the same atti- tude on the question of abolishing Romish worship and advised others to continue the observance of the mass until the state would abolish it. When the reformers of Bern, Berthold Haller and Francis Kolb, asked his advice concerning the introduction of evangelical worship, he replied to them in a letter dated October 11, 1527, to the effect that the evan- gelical Supper should not be held in Bern before the abolishment of the mass by the state; otherwise it was to be feared that the Council of Bern would permit the celebration of the mass after the Zwing- lian Church had been made the state church ; this, says Zwingli, they should prevent.^^^ He did not de- sire that the Council of Bern should tolerate within their territory any other creed after the Zwinglian Church was made the state-church and it was in- consistent with the principles of state-churchism to tolerate dissenting religious forms while the Roman Cathohc Church was the state-church. ^^^ CEcolampad held that the Anabaptists sinned against Christian love since they refused to go hand 100 INFANT BAPTISM in hand with him and to accept that which from his own point of view was glaring compromise. The Zwinglian reformers who urged the necessity to sup- press Anabaptism by the strong arm of the civil power do not seem to have realized that the terrible persecution of the Anabaptists was a flagrant travesty of Qiristiaa love. Also the assertion of the Roman Catholic party that CEcolampad's own course was contrary to Chris- tian love was not for a moment countenanced by him. As early as the year 1522, namely before he came to Basel, he found a refuge on the Ebernburg under the protection of the knight Francis von Sikkingen with whose consent he held the mass in the German language. Upon the protest of the Ro- man Catholics against the abandonment of the cus- tomary forms he said : ^^A^ltogether unfounded is the opinion that love will suffer loss by this innovation ; on the contrary, love shall be the better established through it."^^* And at a later date, namely on May 12, 1528, when an assertion was made that the aboli- tion of Romanism at Constance was contrary to Christian love, CEcolampad wrote to Johann Zwick, the reformer of that place, that this objection was not worthy of consideration. Christian love demand- ed, in his opinion, that scriptural forms of worship should not be introduced so long as the magistrates of any given place did not consent to it, (and hence the Anabaptists' attitude was wrong) but when Zwinglianism was made the creed of the state, then ZWINGLFS LATER OPINION 101 love required that all dissenting worship must cease. Romanism as well as Anabaptism was severely per- secuted in Basel after the Zwinglian Church had been made the state-church. The assertion that Anabaptism is contrary to Christian love is but another version of the opinion stated repeatedly by Zwingli that infant baptism is necessary for the prosperity of the church and should be practiced from motives of love to the church. ^^^ (Compare p. 50). In later years Zwingli recognized the weakness and futility of this argu- ment. He reproved those who asserted that accord- ing to his own teaching infant baptism would be acceptable if love did not forbid it. He says further: "They teach inconsistently who say that for the sake of love we could have patience with the baptism of infants, unless they mean that among Christians all things should be done by love and not by com- mand or by force of law. But if by love they mean compliance and obsequiousness, I think they err seriously who say that for the sake of love infants should be baptized. For clearly they mean that a usage which at this time must be accepted for the sake of public peace, may be omitted at another time and under other circumstances."^^® It will be remembered that Luther, in his con- troversy with Carlstadt, advanced the same argument as did the Zwinglians against the Anabaptists ; he as- serted that the (in his opinion untimely) introduction of practical reforms by Carlstadt in Wittenberg, in 1521, was contrary to Christian love, for it was an 102 INFANT BAPTISM offence to the weak. This was his principal argu- ment for again abandoning the evangehcal forms of worship which Carlstadt had introduced in his ab- sence."^^ Conrad Grebel pointed out that Luther, in taking this step, showed that he himself was one of "the weak."^^^ After the Lutheran Church was made the state church, the principle of "the sparing of the weak" was lost out of sight. Carlstadt's masterly refutation of Luther's opinion on the point in ques- tion has not yet received the attention which it de- serves. ^^^ In the great debate of Zofingen, in 1532, the Zwinglian theologians suggested that love should be recognized as "the final judge in all controverted points." The Anabaptist spokesmen, on the other hand, pointed out that love to God will manifest itself by loyalty to his Word and keeping his com- mandments. ^^^ Hubmaier gave his book on Believers' Baptism the motto: "Love rejoiceth in the truth." His reply to (Ecolampad's assertion that "your doctrine is in direct opposition to true love," will be quoted else- where. (P. 105). On the relation of Christian love to the observ- ance of the commands of the Scriptures, we have an important statement by Michael Sattler, the most prominent leader of the Southern Anabaptists after the death of Grebel and Mantz. When Sattler, in 1527, came to Strasburg, Martin Bucer endeavored to convince him that the Anabaptists erred not so SATTLER'S LETTER TO BUCER 103 much in faith as in love. Sattler wrote to Bucer and his coworkers a letter in which he says : ''Dear brethren, when recently I in brotherly manner and friendliness conferred with you concern- ing certain articles which I and my dear brethren and sisters have accepted from Scripture, you have answered in the same manner and friendliness con- cerning those articles, that love is the end of the law (I Tim. 1:5). — But my understanding and con- science do not permit me to accept as right your usage as concerns baptism, the Supper, etc. — These things hinder me and I ami not able to understand your assertion that the neglect of these things is justified by the said verse of Paul."^^^ Obviously the argument that the abolishment of infant baptism is contrary to Christian love was based principally on the fact that it led to separation from the state-church. Frequently the reformers condemned the dissent and separation of the Anabaptists. But if the separation in itself was wrong, what right had the state-church reformers to enter upon a course which led to separation from the Roman CathoHc Church ? CHAPTER XIII A DIALOGUE ON INFANT BAPTISM BETWEEN HUBMAIER AND CECOLAMPAD In September, 1525, John CEcolampad published A Discussion Between Preachers at Basel and Repre- sentatives of Anahaptism. To this little book Hub- maier replied by his Discussion Concerning Infant Baptism Between the Preachers at Basel and Balt- hasar Hubmaier. He quotes literally from QEcolam- pad's book, adding his reply. A part of Hubmaier's book follows. ^^^ CEcolampad. — Since the Anabaptists openly boast that they have overcome and silenced us in the recent debate, therefore I shall herewith publish what arguments have been advanced on both sides, in order that their praise may spread even farther and that every one may see of what spirit the clever fellows are and where the shoe pinches them. (A2^).^^^ Hubmaier. — This is quite right, friend CEcol- ampad, that you have decided to bring the Anabap- tists to the light. But I ask you to do it with clear and plain Scripture, or you shall indeed be put to shame in this matter, be you ever so learned, for the truth is immortal. CEcolampad. — What I have said, preached and HUBMAIER VS. CECOLAMPAD 105 written, I shall continue to defend and commit to others; for your doctrine is quite new,^^* dating back not more than two years ; therefore it must be looked upon with suspicion. (A2^). Hubmaier. — I ask you, for God's sake, friend (Ecolampad, do not build upon such inapplicable ar- guments, but upon clear Scripture. You know that Christ's doctrine has often been attacked with the assertion that it is a new doctrine. (Mark 1:27; Acts 17:19,20). The pending question is not of our own invention, but Christ has thus commanded and the Apostles have practiced it; therefore we offer to you and all men to bring our differences before the judgment seat of the Holy Scriptures. If we in this or other points are in the right, why do you smite us? If we are wrong, we ask to be pointed to the testi- mony of Scripture. CEcolampad. — If you prove this doctrine, you will find that it is squarely contrary to true love. (A2b). ^ ■ Hubmaier. — If through an inquiry into the Scriptures it is found that baptism was instituted for the instructed and the believers, and not for infants in the cradle, then it is the truth. Now Paul writes, I Cor. 13:6, that love rejoiceth in the truth. What, is truth now contrary to love? But perhaps you speak of the love of the world which can not endure divine truth, for its works are evil, therefore it hates the light. John 3:20. (Ecolampad. — It is a scorn to a Christian church, that we should have erred so long. (A2^).^^'^ Hubmaier. — This is a poor argument. It is advanced also by the ungodly. You must be in dire straits that you have drawn this useless sword with 106 INFANT BAPTISM which, if it were not too dull, the Papists would have pierced you long ago. (Ecolmnpad. — This doctrine causes separation and division which can not be of the Spirit of God. (Aa"). Huhmaier. — Does this surprise you? Was not Christ himself "a sign that was spoken against?" (Luke 2:34). He ''came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matt. 10:34). "There shall be five in one house divided ; the father against the son and the son against the father," etc. (Luke 12:52,53). O, this is a blessed division, says Chrysostom. And Paul says: ''If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10). (Ecolampad. — Tell me who has taught this until now or when was this usage followed? (A2^). Huhmaier. — Christ has taught it to us when he instituted baptism (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16), and the Apostles have practiced and kept it. Read the Scriptures carefully and you shall find that since the beginning of the Reformation movement no article has been more clearly established than this, that Christ instituted his baptism for the believers and not for the unknowing infants. (Ecolampad. — It was the usage of the mother of the church to baptize infants. (A2^). Huhmaier. — Yes, of the Papistic, but not of the Christian mother of the church, nor of the Father who is in heaven. Otherwise he would have institut- ed it through his Son, Jesus Christ, whom he has bidden us to hear. (Matt. 17:5). He, and not the usage, is the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6). (Ecolampad. — The Pelagians, as well as Cy- prian and the Council of Carthage, were thoroughly HUBMAIER VS. CECOLAMPAD 107 learned in Scripture, and yet they did not reject in- fant baptism. (A3^). Hubmaier. — Cyprian, the Councils, and others I follow just so far as they teach the Scriptures, and not farther. This, in fact, is all they ask of me. CEcolampad. — So many hundreds of thousands who were baptized in infancy, you would not hold as Christian brothers ; how strait would you make Christ's kingdom! (A3b). Hubmaier. — So many hundreds of thousands who venerate and worship the bread and cup in the mass as the flesh and blood of Christ, you would not hold as Christian brothers ; how narrow would you make Christ's kingdom ! CEcolampad. — If you introduce a new sect, you incorporate yourself with the devil. (A3^). Hubmaier. — Do not blaspheme. Give testi- mony with the Scriptures that to baptize according to the express order of Christ is to incorporate one's self with the devil. If you were looking upon the one Master in heaven and upon the truth itself with a meek, teachable heart, you would not use such re- proachful language. But you have spoken in wrath and your word is evil. May God forgive you. CEcolampad. — It is one thing to baptize adults and another to baptize infants of believers (Bl*). Hubmaier. — Quite true. The one is founded on Scripture, the second is not; hence they are two. different things. CEcolampad. — I shall show it from the book of Exodus. (Bla). Hubmaier. — Baptism is a ceremony of the New Testament; therefore I demand a plain text with which you support infant baptism from the New Testament. That text [on infant baptism] seems to 108 INFANT BAPTISM be of the night owl species ; it will not come to the light. CEcolampad. — Those who are baptized inward- ly can not be lost. (Bl^). Hubmaier. — Those who are baptized inwardly will not despise the command of Christ, but will be baptized outwardly, if a baptizer and water is within their reach. With this argument, it would seem, you really overthrow and destroy the baptism of Christ. CEcolampad. — Why this division for the sake of the water? (62^). Hubmaier. — This is not a question of mere water, but of the high command and baptism of Christ. Water is not baptism. CEcolampad. — Baptism is a testimony rather than a sign of union between the Christians. We testify in baptism that we are joined to Christ. (B3*) Hubmaier. — I am well satisfied with this defini- tion. But tell me, by all means, one thing. May infants in the cradle give such a testimony and join themselves to Christ? If you say no, why do you baptize them? If you say, others do it in their stead, you make an addition unfounded in Scripture. CEcolampad. — I will refer you to a place in TertuUian showing that baptism is not a sign of union. (B3^). Hubmaier. — You tell me much of TertuUian, Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Councils, histories and old customs. I am compelled to think you are in want of Scriptures. They will not come out of the quiver. Dear CEcolampad, put together your Scrip- ture passages pertaining to infant baptism, as I have done with the Scriptures concerning the baptism of believers in my little book on baptism printed in HUBMAIER VS. (ECOLAMPAD 109 Strasburg, and we will compare them and soon shall be agreed. Do it. Don't forget it. In short, I let you all be highly learned, as you boast, but I have spoken in simplicity and my speech is and shall be and must be thus; for the carpenter's Son who never went to any school, has bidden me so to speak and he himself has hewed my pen with his carpenter's axe. May God have mercy on us all. Amen. CHAPTER XIV MENNO SIMONS ON BAPTISM Menno Simons was one of the great Anabap- tist leaders, the most prominent spokesman of the Northern Anabaptists in the defence of faith- baptism. He says : All the rites ordained of God, both of the Old and New Testament, have been instituted that our faith may be exercised and our obedience proven. Therefore we must not use them at our own pleasure, nor change them to suit our fancies, but we must use them as the Lord himself has ordained and com- manded in his Word (19^; I:34b).22« For the truly regenerated and spiritually minded conform in all things to the word and ordinances of the Lord; not for the reason that they suppose to merit the propitiation of their sins and eternal life; by no means. For this they depend on nothing ex- cept the blood and merits of Christ, relying upon the sure promise of the merciful Father which was graciously given to all believers ; which blood alone, I say again, is and ever will be the only and eternally valid means of our reconciliation, and not works, baptism, or Lord's Supper, as said above. (115^; 1:158^). We are not regenerated because we have been baptized, . . . but we are baptized because we BAPTISM FOLLOWS REGENERATION 111 have been regenerated by faith and the Word of God (I Pet. 1:23). Regeneration is not the result of baptism, but baptism the result of regeneration. This can indeed not be controverted, or disproven by the Scriptures (418^; II :215a). The Scriptures know of only one remedy, which is Christ with his merits, death and blood. Hence, he w^ho seeks the remission of his sins through bap- tism, rejects the blood of the Lord and makes water his idol. Therefore let every one have a care, lest he ascribe the honor and glory due to Christ, to the out- ward ceremonies and visible elements (17^; 1 :32a). Now since all truly believing and baptized Chris- tians have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and to put on Christ is to partake of Christ, his life, mind, nature, spirit and all that is his, and since it is clear that the means to obtain this is faith, and faith must prove itself by its power and fruits if baptism is to be properly received, it follows undeniably that baptism is for penitents and believers only.^^"^ Dear reader, this is to be held as a sure, eternal and unchangeable rule of divine truth to fulfill all righteousness, namely, first the true preaching of the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ; secondly, to hear wath earnestness and to understand; thirdly, to cordially^ believe the Gospel and to carry out its teaching. This being the case, it follows that the unconscious infants have no faith, for they can not understand and learn, — If they die before they come to years of under- standing and before they may hear and believe, they die under the promise of God and are saved, and this by no other means than the precious promise of grace given by Jesus Christ, Luke 18:16. (404^; II :198b). Faith is to precede baptism. For the beginning of all righteousness which avails before God is faith. 112 INFANT BAPTISM from which baptism results as a sign and proof of obedience. If tlie infants, then, had faith, their bap- tism would not be forbidden by the alleged words in Matthew and Mark (402^; 197^). All who bring you another doctrine respecting the signs or ordinances, and place them before or above faith and repentance, deceive you, however much they may adorn their teaching with choice words, such as sealing, sign of grace, etc., for it is in fact nothing but human wisdom, deception of souls and dissimulation. For, if the children under the Old Dispensation were received into the covenant by cir- cumcision and those of the New Dispensation by bap- tism, as he [Gellius] says, it would undeniably follow that the infants who died before the eighth day and those who were not circumcised in the wilderness [Josh. 5:5], as well as all the females had no share in the grace, covenant or promise. The same would also apply to the children who have died before they 'Could have been baptized. O great abomination! <270b; II :47b). It is in my opinion a great error which some "entertain, that the children of Jewish parents were acceptable to Christ on account of circumcision, and that in this dispensation children are acceptable on account of baptism. O great reproach, that in every instance Christ, the only and eternal medium of di- vine grace, must be set aside and grace must be at- tributed to rites and lifeless elements. Here I would ask all infant baptists how they are going to prove that these children [whom Jesus blessed] were all circumcised and that there were not among them female children? If they were acceptable on account of their circumcision, as is asserted, then why were not the adults who were circumcised acceptable? He LUTHER ON FAITH OF INFANTS 113 commanded that adults, although they were circum- cised, should be baptized upon their faith, but con- cerning infants he gave no command to baptize. He took them into his arms, laid his hands upon them and blessed them, promised them the kingdom of heaven and dismissed them, but did not baptize them. {18b; 1:33^). Luther writes that infants should be baptized because of their own faith, and adds, if infants had no faith their baptism would be blaspheming the sacrament. I believe it to be a great error of so learned a man through whom the Lord at the begin- ning of his writing affected not a little good, to hold that infants who are unable to hear and to under- stand, have faith, while the Scriptures so plainly state that they know neither good nor evil, that they can not discern right from wrong (Deut. 1:39; Jonah 4:11); and he says that faith is inactive and con- cealed in infants until they arrive at the years of understanding, even as in a believing person who is asleep. If Luther writes this as his sincere opinion, it shows that he has written much in vain concerning faith and its power; but if he writes this to please men, may God have mercy upon him. We know of a truth that it is only human reasoning and a fable of men, and by God's grace it shall not make void the word and ordinance of the Lord. For we read no- where in Scripture that the apostles baptized a single believer while asleep. They baptized those who were awake and not the sleeping ones. Why then do they baptize infants before they awake from that supposed sleeping faith, and confess it? (15*; 1:29*). Beloved, since the ordinance of Jesus Christ is unchangeable, and it alone is acceptable to the Fath- er; and since he has commanded that the Gospel 114 INFANT BAPTISM should first be preached and, secondly, those who be- lieve baptized, it follows that those who baptize and are baptized without being taught the holy Gospel and without faith, baptize and are baptzied on their own opinion, without the doctrine and command of Jesus Christ; therefore it is an ungodly, useless and vain ceremony. For had Israel circumcised their females because it was not expressly forbidden, they would have circumcised without the ordinance of God, for he had commanded that the males should be circum- cised. It is the same in this instance. To baptize the unconscious infants, although it is not expressly forbidden in Scripture, just as it was not forbidden to circumcise the females, is to baptize without the ordinance of Jesus Christ; for he commanded that those should be baptized who hear and believe his holy gospel. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 7:38; 9:18; 10:48; 16:33. (402^; II :196b). True, it is not expressly forbidden in the Holy Scriptures to bless, as they call it, holy water, candles, palms, goblets, and robes, to say mass and observe other ceremonies of similar nature; yet we say right- fully that these things are wrong, first because people put their trust in them, and secondly because they are done without the commandment of God, for he has commanded us not a word thereof ; and never should any commandment be observed which is not contained or implied in his holy Word, either in. letter or spirit. (418^ II :214b). To baptize before that which is required for baptism, namely faith, is found is as if one would place the cart before the horse, to sow before plow- ing, to build before the lumber is at hand, or to seal the letter before it is written (415^; II :211b). I do not doubt but that you will confess that the: OPINION OF O RIG EN AND AUGUSTINE 115 faith, which avails with God is a gift of God, a gift which brings forth all righteousness, and that such faith comes from hearing the divine word. If, now, it comes by hearing the Word, as Paul teaches, how will it be found in unconscious infants, for it is plain that they can not be taught, admonished or instructed (403^ II :197b). Lastly, they appeal to Origen and Augustine and say that these assert that they have obtained infant baptism from the apostles. To this we reply and inquire whether Origen and Augustine have proved .it from Scripture. If they have done so, we desire to hear it. But if not, we must hear and believe Christ and his apostles, and not Augustine and Origen (21^; 1:37^). Since, then, we do not find in all Scripture a single word by which Christ has ordained the baptism of infants, or that his apostles taught and practiced it, we say and confess rightly that infant baptism is but a human invention, an opinion of men, a perver- sion of the ordinance of Christ (15^; 1 :29b). CHAPTER XV JOHN CALVIN AND JOHN V/ESLEY ON INFANT BAPTISM John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian and some of the Reformed churches, based his prin- cipal argument for infant baptism on God's covenant of grace in which he believed the children of Chris- tian parents to be in a sense included. Nevertheless he did not hold that all children of Christians are in a real sense within God's covenant of grace. He be- lieved that there are non-elect ('"reprobate") infants who are not included in God's grace nor are worthy- members of the Christian church, though they be born of Christian parents. The fact that in his opin- ion not all such infants are of the elect is ignored in his defence of infant baptism. While Calvin baptized the children of church members, he taught that the children of unbelievers. Papists and heathen must not be baptized until they believe and confess their faith.^^^ But he himself and his leading coworkers were the children of Papist parents and were only in their infancy baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. Like Zwingli he made circumcision one of his principal arguments. WILLIAM FAREL ON BAPTISM 117 His teaching on the meaning and import of baptism is not favorable, in fact, to the practice of infant baptism. 2-^ His position on the relation of the church to the state and rejection of the Voluntary Principle made infant baptism necessary. William Farel, Calvin's predecessor in Geneva and one of the principal Calvinist Reformers, in the first period of his labors clearly recognized believers' baptism to be more scriptural than infant baptism. It is not improbable that in that period he rebaptized the converts from Romanism upon the confession of their faith. He says in 1527: ''Many people fail to see what it means to enlist under Christ, what it means to be willing to serve him, to place everything in subordination to the law of God, walking and continuing in newness of life . . . and hence are not^ willing in the presence of Christian people to be baptized in the water, and to proclaim openly that which they believe in their heart, that they may become dearer to the brethren and more closely bound to Christ by this solemn profes- sion — a practice which ought to be observed by older persons who flee to us for refuge from the impious [Papists], if the various ordinances are to be rightly dispensed, as John the Baptist began and Christ taught."'^" Among the prominent reformers in Christian history there is none whose attitude toward infant baptism was more inconsistent than that of John Wes- ley, the founder of the Methodist Church. -^^ His posi- tion regarding this question is explained by his atti- tude toward the Church of England. His aim was to 118 INFANT BAPTISM organize, within the EngHsh state-church, societies consisting of believers only. After toleration was denied them in the mother church, John Wesley nevertheless made that church his model, desiring to conform to it as much as possible in doctrine and practice. Even after their separation from the Church of England his followers never constituted a state church but continued to defend and practice infant baptism. CHAPTER XVI THE GREAT CONTROVERSY ON BAPTISM AND ITS MEANING^^^ The rejection of infant baptism and insistence on the scriptural baptism of believers was a most fundamental point which distinguished the so-called Anabaptists from the state-churches. Luther, Zwing- li, and Calvin did not question the validity of the Romish baptism and ordination ; they undertook to reform the Roman Catholic Church and in this task they went hand in hand with the state. If infant baptism was unscriptural and invalid, as the Ana- baptists believed, the Lutheran and Zwinglian refor- mation of the Roman Church was clearly inadequate. If the sacraments and ordination of the Church of Rome were unacceptable, a mere reformation of that church along lines approved by the civil authorities was insufficient; a regeneration or renewing of the church along New Testament Hues was in order. The restoration of Scriptural baptism was in fact the most fundamental requirement for a true New Testa- ment church. Before the beginning of the Reformation move- ment church and state were united. The leading 120 INFANT BAPTISM reformers gave their consent to the establishment of a similar union between the state and the church. Not only in Roman Catholic, but also in Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Calvinistic lands the membership of the church was supposed to be identical with the population ; every inhabitant (excepting the Jews) was compelled by law to hold membership in the state-church; hence infant baptism was the foremost requirement in the Protestant state churches as wel^ as in the Roman Catholic Church. The people were through infant baptism made members of the church in their earliest infancy. Martin Luther made this remarkable statement: 'T truly believe, if [infant baptism were abandoned and] the adults and those who have come to years of understanding were to be baptized, not one out of ten would apply for bap- tism." Exclusion from the church was virtually un- known in Catholic, Lutheran and Zwinglian lands, except in the instance of heretics which were con- demned to die. Even the criminals who filled the prisons were church members. Of the inner history, the real meaning and the strength of the great Anabaptist movement it may be said that "the half has not been told."^^^ There is abundant evidence to show that in various lands the new state-churches as well as the Roman Church would have lost the fight, had Anabaptism been tolerated by the state. Not through the reformers' arguments for infant baptism, but though the sword of the hangman did sate-churchism triumph over CONTROVERSY ON INFANT BAPTISM 121 Anabaptism. The history of the Anabaptists in the Reformation period (including in certain lands the following centuries) is a story of heroic suffering, of martyrdom without parallel. The principle of faith- baptism was sealed with streams of the blood of the martyrs ; it may be said of it that it triumphed in apparent defeat. The issue of believers' baptism or infant bap- tism was one which primarily concerned the character of the church .and the conditions of membership in it. Shall the birth of Christian parents convey the right of membership in the church? Shall the infants be made church m.embers without their knowledge or consent, or shall only those be made members who accept Christ and surrender themselves to him? Is regeneration the result of baptism, or was the ordi- nance of baptsim instituted for those who are saved through faith in Christ? Shall there be an exclusive state-church comprising, by virtue of the strong arm of the state, the whole population, or shall the pre- cepts of Christ and the example of the apostles be followed? Shall the boundary lines of the church be identical with those of the state? Shall "the sword of the Spirit" rule in the church, or the sword of brutal force? Shall the Bible or the hangman be the final authority? Shall the teachings of the church be based on God's word, or is the word of ecclesiastical and civil authorities an acceptable basis for the faith and practice of the church ?^^* Is it the mission of the church to lead those who are within its fold to 122 INFANT BAPTISM accept Christ, or is the church a body of believers whose mission field is the world? Shall the church and the world be united or separated? Is the church essentially a hierarchy, or is it a body of beHevers? These are the questions which lay at the bottom of the great controversy on infant baptism. NOTES ABBREVIATIONS Actensammlung:='Eg\i, E., Actensammlung zur Geschichte der Ziiricher Reformation, Zurich, 1879. Bdchtold=Die Schaffhauser Wiedertaufer in der Reforma- tionszeit, von C. A. Bachtold, in Beitrage zur vater- landischen Geschichte, Part 7, Schaffhausen, 1900. BoMrr=:Zwinglis Theologie, ihr Werden und ihr System, von August Baur, Halle 1885-1899. 5/aMr^r=:Briefwechsel der Bruder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, ed. by Schiess, Freiburg i. B., 1908- Bullinger, i?.-G.=:Reformationsgeschichte Heinrich Bulling- ers, ed. by Hottinger and Vogeli, Frauenfeld, 1838. Bullinger, M^.=Der Widertaufferen Ursprung, fiirgang^ Sec- ten, etc., by Heinrich BulUnger, Zurich, 1561. Corp. Ref.::^Corpus Reformatorum. The works of Melanch- thon, ed. by Bretschneider, Halle, 1834-1863. De Wette^=.T>v. Martin Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken, Berlin, ed. by W. M. L. de Wette, BerHn, 1825-1828. £p/i=:Zwingli's Works, ed. by Egli, Finsler and Kohler, Berlin, 1905- Enders-=L\xth.tr's Briefwechsel, ed. by Enders, Frankfurt a. M., 1884- Erlangenz=The Erlangen edition of Luther's writings in the German language, Erlangen, 1826-1868. Fussli=zBeytr3.ge zur Erlauterung der Kirchen-Reforma- tionsgeschichte des Schweitzerlandes, by J. C. Fiissli 1741-1753. 124 INFANT BAPTISM Gesprech='Em gesprech Balthasar Hubmors von Fridberg Doctors, auf Mayster Ulrichs Zwinglens Tauffbuch, von dem Kindertauff, Nicolspurg, 1526. Hagenbach= J ohann Qikolampad und Oswald Myconius, die Reformatoren Basels. Elberfeld, 1859. Heberle=D[e Anfange des Anabaptismus in der Schweiz, in Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, 1858. Her2og=:Dd.s Leben Johannes CEkolampads und die Refor- mation der Kirche zu Basel ; Basel, 1843. i/^rmmyar(i=:Correspondance des Reformateurs, ed. by Her- minjard, Geneva, 1866. /af^.yon=:Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli, ed. by S. M. Jackson^ Philadelphia, 1901. Kdsflin=^l.uthers Theologie in ihrer geschichtlichen Ent- wicklung etc., Stuttgart, 1901. Loserth=::DoctoT Balthasar Hubmaier und die Anfange der Wiedertaufe in Mahren, von Johann Loserth^ Briinn, 1893. Melanchthon=zlJnderncht Philip. Melancht. wider die Lere der Widerteuffer auss dem latein verdeutschet, durch Just. Jonas; Wittemberg, 1528. (Ecol., Ioan.=zIn Epistolam loannis Apostoli Catholicam primam, loannis CEcolampadij demegoriae, Basel, 1524. (Ecol, f7«c?£'rr.=Underrichtung von dem Widertauff auflf Carlins N. widertauffers artickel, Basel, 1527. R. £.=Herzog-Hauck, Real-Enzyklopadie fiir Prot. Theolo- gie und Kirche. Sabbata=:Ktss\er, J., Sabbata, ed. by Egli and Schoch, St. Gall, 1902. Schuler=:Zvf{ng\['s Works ed. by Schuler and Schulthess, Zurich, 1828-1842. 5'faA^/m=:Huldreich Zwingli. Sein Leben und Wirken nach den Quellen dargestellt von Dr. Rudolf Stahelin, Basel, 1897. NOTES 125 .Staub=:T)ie Beziehungen des Taufers Conrad Grebel zu sei- nem Schwager Vadian, Zurich 1895. St. u. i^r.=i:Theologische Studien und Kritiken. Zeitschrift fiir das gesamte Gebiet der Theologie. Gotha. C/j/^n=Darstellung der Tauflehre Zwinglis, by J. M. Usteri, St. u. Kr., 1882. yadian=zDie Vadianische Briefsammlung der Stadtbibliothek St. Gallen, ed. by Arbenz, St. Gall, 1890- .Walch=The Walch edition of Luther's Works, Halle, 1740- 1753. Walch, St. L.=The St. Louis reprint of the Walch edition of Luther's Works, St. Louis, Mo., 1880-1904. Wappler=zDie Stellung Kursachsens und des Landgrafen Philipp von Hessen zur Tauferbewegung, Munster, 1910. W eimar =:Th.e Weimar edition of Luther's Works, Weimar, 1883- NOTES ^ The original follows : "Die Tauif ist eyn eusseriich zeychen odder lossung, die unss absondert von alien unge- -taufften menschen, das wir dar bey erkennet werden eyn volck Christi unssers hertzogen, under wilchs panier wir stetiglich streyten widder die sund." Luther's Works, Wei- mar, vol. 2, p. 727. 2 The same, vol, 2 pp. 736, 728, 732. In the same year Luther published a sermon on the Supper in which he de- fines the meaning of this ordinance as follows : "Therefore this sacrament of receiving the bread and wine is nothing else than to receive a sure sign of this intercommunion and incorporation with Christ and all saints." (Weimar, vol. 2, p. 743). He says further: "Where love does not daily increase and change man that he becomes a servant of all, the fruit and meaning of this sacrament is absent." •(The same, p. 748). 126 INFANT BAPTISM 3 Luther's Works, Weimar, vol. 2, p. 731. * Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 12, p. 196. 5 In this instance and others where, in Scripture quota- tions from writers of the Reformation period, the chapter only is given in the original the verse-numbers have been supplied. It will be remembered that the division into vers- es is of comparatively recent date. 6 Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 15, pp. 1484 seq. This passage is taken from the little book Grund und Ur- sach aller Artikel, so verdammt sind. Compare Erlangen, vol. 24, pp. 53-150; Weimar, vol. 7, pp. 308-457. "' In the controversy concerning the Supper the Zwing- lians asserted, not without ground, that Melanchthon had formerly believed "there was in the Supper nothing but bread." Compare Luther's Works, Weimar, vol. 23^ p. 279. Walch St. L., vol. 20, p. 890. Luther from the beginning highly recommended Melanchthon's Loci Communes. ^ Corp. Ref., vol. 21 ; Supplcmcnta Mclanchthonia, Leip- zig, 1910, p. 186. 9 "Unnd so er sich diser mainung taufifen lest, ists gleich als begriib man jn schon. Wo nun ein solch gemiit bey der Tauff ist," etc. Ain gut underricht und getrewer Ratschlag ausz hailiger gotlicher schrift, wess man sich in disen zwitrachten unnsern hailigen glauben unnd Christliche leer betreffend haltcn soil. 1525. (Library of Crozer Theo- logical Seminary). The author of this book is probably Andreas Osiander. ^0 This book was published in the Latin language. The article on baptism containing the quotation given above was reprinted in full by S. Cramer in Doopsgezinde Bijdragen, Leiden, Netherlands^ 1912, p. 11. Compare Fiissli, vol. 2, p. 68; Ottius, Annalcs Anabaptistici, Basel, 1672, p. 35 ; also the pertinent article in R. E. ^1 The "Zwickau Prophets," as these men yere later called, were not Anabaptists, although they questioned the NOTES 127 . scripturalness of infant baptism. Neither they nor their successor, Thomas Miinzer practiced adult baptism. Com- pare, Horsch^ J., Die Stellimg der Schweiscr Bruder zu Thomas Miinzer, in Der Hilfshote, (Kassel, Germany), July, 1911. After the rise of the enthusiastic Anabaptists some of their teachings were erroneously ascribed to the so-called Zwickau Prophets. 12 Corp. Ref., vol. 1, p. 534. 13 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1, p. 239. Quoted by Menno Simons, folio edition of his works, Amsterdam 1681, p. 272; English edition, Elkhart, Indiana, 1871, part 2, p. 49; compare part 1, p. 2>7. 1* Hubmaier Gesprech, fol. D3b. Zwingli, in his reply to this book of Hubmaier, mentions the conference held "on the moat" in Zurich. Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 350. Hubmaier visited Zwingli on his trip from St. Gall where he had preached repeatedly to great audienc- es. Ruckensberger who had invited him to St. Gall (Kessler, . Sabbata, p. 106) accompanied him to Zurich. The above passage is also quoted p. 83 of the present book. 15 "In qua [aqua in baptismo] frustra millies etiam ablues eum, qui non credit." Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 85. 16 "Eum, qui iam credidisset, aqua tingi iussit." Zwing- li's Works, Egli^ vol. 8, p. 236. 17 Usteri, p. 208. 18 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 394. "And you have openly confessed" writes Hubmaier in his Ge- sprech, "that those who baptize infants have no clear Scrip- ture which demands that they should be baptized." (Fol. D3b). 1^ Zwingli, in the first part of this quotation, uses the impersonal pronoun man, but it is clear from the context ^hat he speaks of himself. 20 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2 part 1, p. 245. 128 INFANT BAPTISM 21 Hubmaier, Gesprech, fol. D3a. 22 Staub, p. 75. 28 Egli, Actensatnmlung, No. 655. 2* Keller-Escher, C, Die Familie Grehel, Zurich, 1886.. (Grebel-Chronik) , 25 Baur^ vol. 2, p. 56. 2« t/^f^Tt; p. 263. 27 Hadorn, W., Kirchengeschichte der reformierten Schweiz, Zurich, 1907, p. 68. 28 Stauh, p. 52. Compare Heherle, p. 244. Stahelin, the author of the most thorough and comprehensive biography- of ZwingH, also confirms the fact that the reformer ex- pressed himself unfavorably on the practice of infant bap- tism. (Vol. 1, p. 474). 29 Beck, J. Die Geschichtsbucher der Wiedertdufer in CEsterreich-Ungarn, Wien, 1883, p. 15. **> CEcolampad says : "Dominus autem Marci ultimo dicens: Qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit, baptismi nomine ad confessionem nos urget, et perfectam fidem a nobis exigit. Nam qui baptizari non vult, is etiam Christum con- fiteri non vult." In Epistolam B. Pauli Apost. ad Rhomanos Adnotationes etc., Basel, 1526, p. 48^. The first edition of this book v^as printed in 1524. SI Hagenbach, p. 72; Usteri^ J. M., CEkolampads Stel- lung zur Kindertaufe, in St. u. Kr., 1883, p. 155. 32 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 252. 23 For Hubmaier's letter see Mau, W., Balthasar Hub- maier, Berlin, 1912, p. 83. 8* Zwingli's Works, Schuler^ vol. 2, part 1, p. 340. The complete letter in Epistolae CEcol. et Zwinglii, 1536, fol. 64 seq. *5 Herminjard, vol. 2, p. 335. ** In his tract Was man halt en und antworten soil von der Spaltung zwischen Martin Luther und Andreas Carl- stadt, reprinted in Luther's Works, Walch, St. L. vol. 20., NOTES 129 The quoted sentences are found on pp. 350, 351. Compare also Usteri, J. M., Die Stellung der Strassburger Refor- matoren Bucer und Capita zur Tauffrage, in St. ii. Kr., 1884, pp. 456-525. 37 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 280. 38 In his book Grund und Ursach der Neuerungen etc.,. reprinted in Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 20. The cited sentences are found pp. 405, 407, 422. 39 Enders, vol. 5, p. 59 seq. ^0 "Er hielt die Kindertaufe mit ihnen fiir einen Miss- brauch." Pressel, Joachim Vadian, Elberfeld 1861, p. 48; Cornelius, C. A., Geschichfe des Miinsterischen Anfruhrs, vol. 2, Leipzig, 1860, p. Z7. *i Vadian, vol. 3, p. 116. 42 Staub, p. 55. 43 Bdchtold, p. 92. 44 Loserth, p. 205. 45 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 441. 46 Miinzer was not an Anabaptist; he practiced infant baptism, although he questioned its scripturalness. The earnest efforts of the Swiss Anabaptist leaders (who evi- dently were not fully acquainted with his teachings) to persuade him to abandon infant baptism proved fruitless. Compare Der Hilfsbote. (Kassel, Germany), July 1911. 47 Keller, L., Die Reformation und die dlteren Reform- parteien, Leipzig, 1884, p. 374. 48 l^adian, vol. 3, p. 28. 49 Blaurer, vol. 1, p. 94. 50 Staub, p. 39. It was in May, 1525, that Hubmaier testified, he believed "some years ago" {vor etwas jaren) that infant baptism ought to be abandoned. (Compare p. 21). "As early as the spring of 1523 Hubmaier thought of rejecting infant baptism," says his latest biographer. (Sachsse, C, Doctor Balthasar Hubmaier als Theologe, 130 INFANT BAPTISM Berlin, 1914, p. 158). This is clear from his conference with Zwingli, in May, 1523. (P. 000). 51 Egli, E., Schweizerische Reformationsgeschichte, vol. Ij Zurich, 1910, p. 266. Especially at Strasburg the number of unbaptized children of Zwinglian parents was great, as we know from Bucers letters to the Blaurer brothers. Compare Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 1860, p. 79. In Ulm the Council decided in August, 1528, that the bap- tism of infants need not be administered by a minister or in a church building, but every one should be permitted to baptize his own child as seemed best to him. This decision gave those who disapproved infant baptism the opportunity to omit the rite. (Keim, C. T., Die Reformation der Reichs- stadt Ulm, Stuttgart, 1851, p. 120). Caspar Schwenckfeld wrote on September 24, 1531 : "If all those are Anabaptists who do not favor infant baptism, then there are now Ana- baptists everywhere." (Schwenckfeld^ Epistolar, vol. 2, part 2, p. 296). 52 Egli, Actcnsammlung , No. 213. 53 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 28, pp. 41-53. 54 "Quod ergo non est contra scripturam, pro scriptura est et scriptura pro ea." Rndcrs, vol. 3, p. 276. 55 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 22, pp. 43-59; Wei- mar,^ vol. 8, pp. 676-688. 56 At the time when the few men who were the first to doubt the scripturalness of infant baptism in Saxony and who refused to follow in Luther's footsteps, had disappeared from the scene. The Anabaptist movement began at a later date. ^" This passage is found in the second chapter of the book. Luther's Works, Erlangen^ vol. 22, p. 59 seq. ; IVei- tiiar, vol. 11, p. 229 seq. 5s Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 26, p. 269; Weimar, vol. 26, p. 155. NOTES 131 69 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 188; Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 183. 60 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 150; Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 147. ^1 To what extreme length Luther went in the de- fence of Roman Catholic usages against Carlstadt is shown in the following sentence. He says: "It is clear that even in the Old Testament the unobjectionable idols (Abgotter) did not bring harm, even if men prayed be- fore them, if only with the heart the true God was wor- shipped; and our fanatics would bind and entangle us free Christians to such extent that we may not tolerate idols (Gotzen) without sin." Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 154. «2 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 210. The fact that Luther, after the period of "the great reforma- tory testimony," partly retraced his steps as concerned his position on the question of Scripture authority, has been generally ignored in pertinent works. O. Scheel (Luthers Stellung zur heiligen Schrift^ Tiibingen, 1902, p. ZZ) says rightfully that shortly after the Leipzig dis- putation (July, 1519) he defended the doctrine "that the Scriptures only and solely are the authority," but he adds (without warrant) that the reformer consequently never modified his views on this point. (Compare the following chapter). 63 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1, pp. 127, 130, 145, 146. 6* The same, vol. 1, p. 419. 65 In the Defence, by Grebel, printed in Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 3, pp. 368-372, and Staub, pp. 71-76. 66 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1, p. 281. Compare the testimony of Heberle, that the Anabaptists "rightfully accused Zwingli of apostacy from his former position." Heberle^ p. 280. 132 INFANT BAPTISM 67 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 26, p. 258; Weimar, vol. 26, p. 147. 68 "Semper expectavi Satanam, ut hoc ulcus tangeret, sed noluit per papistas. In nobis ipsis molitur hoc gravissi- mum schisma." The letter is printed in Enders, vol. 3, pp. 272-277; Luther's Works, Walch, vol. 15, appendix, p. 103 seq. 69 Kostlin^ vol. 1, p. 295. ■^0 Luther's later writings show conclusively that he re- tained to the end of his life this opinion concerning the faith of the infants. Compare Kostlin, vol. 2, p. 237. In his Greater Catechism he makes a statement seemingly ap- proving the baptism of infants even if they had no faith. His point is, in this instance, that the administration of bap- tism to infants would be a duty, even if the (supposed) effect were made void through the possible absence of faith. To illustrate his point, he says, a Jew or a heathen who pro- fesses faith in Christ, is validly baptized, even if his con- fession be hypocritical. In the same work he defends the opinion that infants have faith. "Without faith," he says, ^'baptism is but an inefficient sign." 71 Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 20, pp. 1723, 1719. 72 The same, vol. 2, p. 1904; Erlangen, vol. 11, p. 147. 73 Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 11, p. 488; Er- langen, vol. 11, p. 64. 74 Walch, St. L., vol. 11, p. 490; Erlangen, vol. 11, p. 62. 75 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 26, pp. 255-297; Wei- mar, vol. 26, pp. 144-174. The editor of this book of Luther, as published in the Weimar edition of his works, says (p. 140), that in Hubmaier's book On the Christian Baptism of Believers is found the reply to nearly all arguments ad- vanced by Luther in his book On Anabaptistn. 76 Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol'. 26, p. 279; Weimar, vol. 26j p. 163. NOTES 133 7'' Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 26, p. 268; Weimar, vol. 26, p. 155. '^^ Luther's Works, Erlangen, vol. 26, p. 258; Weimar, vol. 26, p. 147. Compare note 193. ■^9 "Sprichstu : Solchs schleust noch nichts, das der kin- der tauffe gewis sey, Denn es ist kein spruch aus der schrifft. Antwort : Das ist war, es schleust nicht starck ge- nug mit spruchen das du kinder tauffe darauf mochtest anfahen bey den ersten nach den Aposteln^ Aber es schleust gleich wol so viel das itzt bei unser zeit niemand mit gutem gewissen thar der kinder tauffe, so lange her bracht, ver- werffen odder fallen lassen." Luther's Works, Weimar, vol. 26, p. 167. 80 Luther's Works, Weimar, vol. 26, p. 166. 81 Melanchthon, fol. B3b. He continues : "Und da er drewet den unbeschnitnen, zeyget er an, das er die unbe- schnitnen nicht wolle annemen, das allso die beschneydung fiir ain warhafftig gewisz zeychen gotlicher hulde und gnade gehalten werde." In the revised edition of the Underricht Melanchthon erroneously quotes the sentence "I will be their God" (Gen, 17:8) as a part of the commandment to circumcise, and then says : "Here God shows that he will be gracious to those whom he commands to circumcise^ and ordaines to circumcise the little children." Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 1737. 82 Luther's Works, Weimar, vol. 26, p. 165. 83 Schlatter, Das christliche Dogma, Stuttgart, 1911, p. 463. Says The Reformed Church Messenger, February 4, 1915, p. 4: "When children take sick and die the father and mother find great comfort and consolation in the fact that they had been baptized into Christ Jesus." 84 After the birth of a daughter in Luther's family^ he wrote to a friend asking her to "stand godmother" for the child : "God has given me a poor young heathen, and I ask you that you will render your service, that she may through 134 INFANT BAPTISM your help be brought from the old birth of Adam to the new birth of Christ through holy baptism." De Wette, vol. 3, p. 448. 85 "If the baptismal water were the water of life," says Caspar Schwenckfeld, "it were well that we often be bap- tized." Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, vol. 4, p. 62. 86 Melanchthon, fol. B4. 87 Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 1734 seq. 88 Compare Wappler, p. 51. 89 The Reply to Colman Rorer was never printed, but was preserved in manuscript. 90 Menno Simons' Complete Works, Elkhart, Indiana, 1871, vol. 1, p. 30. 91 Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 1762. 92 On Menius' arguments compare Wappler, p. 22. 93 Tschackert, P., Die Entstehung der lutherischen und reformierten Kirchenlehre, Gottingen, 1910, p. 171. 94 It was Zwingli's decision upon a union of church and state which caused the great division among the reform friends of Switzerland. His best friends seceded from the state-church party and founded the church of the Swiss Brethren. 95 Usteri, p. 212. 96 Zwingli's own words are as follows: "Ouch nit, dasz mir an der kinder touf so vil gelegen sye .... Und wo ich hierus empfunde schmach gottes erwachsen oder nachteil dhristlichem leben, lage mir niits daran, dass ich min mei- nung andren sollte." ZwingH's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 395. 97 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, page 284. 98 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 301. 99 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 392. 100 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 298. NOTES 135 101 Grebel's Defence is reprinted in Zwingli's Works, Eglij vol. 3, pp. 368-372; Staub, pp. 71-76. 102 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 301, 370. 103 Bulling cr^ R.-G., vol. 1, p. 238. 104 Egli, Actensammlung , No. 622. 105 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 295. Morikofer (Bilder aus dem kirctilichen Lehen der Schweiz, Leipzig, 1864, p. 150) says correctly, that Zwingli, in his first great debate with the Romanists, could be sure of the Council's decision in his favor. The same is true of fiis debates with the Anabaptists. , 106 "Meintend ouch, es ware nit fiiglich sunder gfarHch, wo wir mit jnen wyter solltind gesprach halten." Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 232. 107 Bdchtold, p. 82. 108 Bullinger^ R.-G., vol. 1, p. 295; Bullinger, W., fol. 10. 109 Fiissli, vol. 1, p. 285. 110 The same, vol. 2, p. 358 and vol. 1, p. 280. 111 Bullinger says expressly {Bullinger, R.-G., vol. 1, p. 296) that the reason why the discussions were held in this church was because the city hall proved too small for the occasion. The insinuation that in the city hall the Ana- baptists could not be kept under proper restraint is not worthy of consideration though it has been repeated by a number of modern writers. 112 Egli, Actensammlung, No. 863. 113 "Wenn sy werdent mitt ir trannung fiirfaren, werde man sy uffs hertist straaffen." Bullinger, R.-G., vol. 1. p. 296. It ought to be no longer denied that the Anabaptists were persecuted in Zurich on account of the principles for which they stood, and not on account of their supposed "turbulent and insurrectionary spirit," as is asserted in Life of Ulrich Zwingli, by S. Simpson, New York, 1902, p. 155. In the following year baptism, as practiced by the Anabap- tists, was forbidden on penalty of death. 136 INFANT BAPTISM 11* Egli, Actensammlung, No. 862; Fiissli, vol. 3, p. 203. 115 "Danii sie sind gewohnet zu reden nur was sie wol- len, und nit was sie sollen." Bullinger^ H., Von dem un- verschampten Frdfel, etc., 1531, p. 117a. Not only in the debates but also in their sermons the Anabaptists, according to Zwingli's assertion "said only what they desired, and not what they should say." Zwingli makes the following naive complaint : "Secondly, in their sermons on baptism, ad- dressed to the unlearned, they failed to present the argu- ments for infant baptism which were laid before them at Zurich" (Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 307). And again : "They can not deny that, in their labors in the country, they did not set forth our opinion on baptism" (together with their defence of believers' baptism). Zwing- li's Works, Schuler, vol. 2^ part 1, p. 276. 11*^ Prayer to the saints was abolished by the new state- church a number of years later. See Morikofer, J. C, Ulrich Zwingli, Leipzig, 1869, vol. 2, p. 54. 117 Verwerffen der Articklen und stucken, so die Wider- touffer uff dem gesprdch su Benin fUrgewendt haben etc. Zurich, 1528. 118 The complete title is. Of Baptism, Anabaptism and Infant Baptism. Works^ Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 230-303. 119 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, pp. 337-369. 120 The same, vol. 3, pp. 357-437; Jackson, pp. 123-258. 121 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 314. Zwingli re- peatedly complained that the Anabaptists advanced only their own arguments against infant baptism without pre- senting his arguments to the contrary. (Compare Note 115) But he himself was slow to publish his own arguments. 122 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 243. 123 The same, vol. 8, p. 248. 124 The same, vol. 8, p. 252. 125 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 8, p. 49. Compare Usteri, J. M., Zwingli's Correspondent mit den Berner Re- NOTES 137 formatoren Haller und Kolb iiber die Tauffrage, in St. u. Kr., 1882, pp. 616-618. 126 Kessler, Sahhata, p. 149. 127 "Der touf ist ein pflichtig zeichen, das den, der jn nimmt, anzeigt, dass er sin leben bessren und Christo nach- folgen welle." Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 246. 128 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 239. 129 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 253. It is a remarkable fact that later Protestant defenders of infant baptism as well as Zwingli, have given definitions which from their own point of view seem strikingly unsatisfactory. A writer in The Reformed Church Review (January, 1916) for example, concludes an article on this subject as follows: "Our con- clusion of the whole matter is that Christian baptism is the divinely appointed visible holy sign and seal by which Christ assures us of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit." 130 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 261. 131 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 236. 132 The same, vol. 2, part 1, page 301. 133 The same, vol. 2^ part 1, pp. 274-276, 134 BuUinger, W., p. 203. 135 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 394. 136 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 284. 137 The same, vol. 2^ part 1, p. 247. 138 Concerning the translation of this verse compare Blasz, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1902, p. 202, and Beck, Ethik, vol. 1, p. 330 seq. For passages of similar construction see Acts 18 :23 ; 14 :21 seq. ; 21 :2, 3 ; Eph. 6:17,18. 139 It is to be clearly inferred that Crispus' household, having believed, was also baptized, though it is not expressly stated (Acts 18:8); hence the number of households men- tioned in this way is five. 138 INFANT BAPTISM 140 Complete Works of Menno Simons, vol. 1, p. 36. 141 It is an' interesting fact that Zwingli developed his teaching on predestination in his controversy with the Ana- baptists. Compare Lang, A., Zwingli und Calvin, Leipzig, 1913, p. 61. 142 Jackson, p. 24L 143 The same, p. 245. 144 Compare Vedder, H. C, Balthasar Hiibmaicr, the Leader of the Anabaptists, New York, 1905. 145 Vadian vol. 3, p. 128. Conrad Grebel made a sim- ilar statement regarding Zwingli's influence over himself. Actensammlung , No. 797. 146 Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 254, Note 3. 147 The same, vol. 8, p. 254. On January 16, 1525 Hub- maier says in a letter to GEcolampad that he had repeatedly written to Zwingli. (Mau, W., Balthasar Hubmaier, Berlin, 1912, p. 81). The said letter to CEcolampad gives Hub- maier's ground against infant baptism; it was copied and sent to Zwingli by CEcolampad (Sachsse, C, Balthasar Hub- maier als Theologe, Berlin, 1914, p. 147). 148 Vadian, vol. 3, p. 104. 149 Vedder, B. Hiibmaier, p. 109. 150 Zwingli's insinuation that Hubmaier became his op- ponent from selfish, sinister motives has been accepted by many writers. The impartial student will on the contrary assent to Alfred Hegler's opinion who says: "No unbiased historian today will assert that Hubmaier united with the Anabaptists from morally unjustifiable motives. It is im- possible to deny his earnest striving for the truth." (Article Hubmaier, in R. E.) 151 Zwingli says: "I shall not now speak of the unwise thing that you have laid down your office of a priest, de- siring to be chosen by those alone who had been baptized." ZwingH's Works, Schuler^ vol. 2, part 1, p. 345. 152 The whole letter is printed by Loserth, p. 203. NOTES 139 From a statement made by Hubmaier as a prisoner in Zurich it would appear that he also wrote to Zwingli sug- gesting a discussion. (Loserth, p. 205). 153 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 7, p. 441. 154 The same, vol. 8, p. 85 ; compare Hagenbach, p. 109. 155 CEcoI., Underr., fol. A2b. 156 Zwingli's Works, Schuler^ vol. 2, part 1, p. 345. 15''' The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 344. 158 Vadian, vol. 3, p. 127. 159 Kessler, Sabbata, p. 151. 160 See preface to Gesprech. 161 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 7, p. 534 seq. ; Baur, vol. 2, p. 170 seq. ; Jackson S. M., Huldreich Zwingli, New York, 1903, p. 252 seq. 162 The Anabaptists were severely persecuted in Zurich. On March 5, 1526, the Council (with Zwingli's consent, as is evident from his letter to Vadian, Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 542) decided that the persistent Anabaptists should be cast into a dungeon and there "be left to die and rot." (Actensammlung, No. 934). 163 Usteri, p. 283. 164 Beitrdge sur Geschichte der Schweiscrischen Refor- mations-KircJien, Bern^ 1884, p. 440. 165 "Aber schliesslich kann er sie doch nur retten als Konzession an die menschliche Schwache und geschichtliche Entwicklung." Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 3, p. 364. 166 Usteri, p. 263 ; Glider's article is found in R. E., first edition. 167 E. g. Eissenloffel, L., Frans Kolb, 1893, p. 59. 168 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1^ p. 367. 169 Blaurer, vol. 1, p. 423; Pestalozzi, C, Leo Judd, Elberfeld, 1860, p. 45. 170 Loserth, p. 13. 171 R. E., vol. 8, p. 421. 172 Loserth J., Wiedertdufer in Steiermark, in Mit- 140 INFANT BAPTISM ieilungcn des historischen Vereins fiir Steiermark, 1894, p. 119. 173 Gesprech, fol. A4a and A4b. 17* This little book, containing 72 pages, was printed at Nicolsburg in Moravia, in 1526. The supposition that in this dialogue Hubmaier himself made up the sentences which he ascribed to his opponent and that therefore this book can hardly be taken seriousl}^ is quite unfounded. The sayings of Zwingli, as here given, are taken literally from his Book on Baptism. The number of the page on which the quota- tion ma}^ be found in Zwingli's Works, edited by Schuler and Schulthess (vol. 2^ part 1) has been added in every in- stance in the present book. Zwingli dfd not publish a reply to this book of Hubmaier. 175 In the first debate of Zurich, held on January 29, 1523, John Fabri the vicar-general of the bishop of Con- stance was Zwingli's principal opponent, defending the Roman Catholic doctrines and practices. 176 Zv/ingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1, p. 209. 177 The same, vol. 1, p. 153; Jackson, p. 110. Urban Wyss, the priest of Fislibach, a village of Baden, preached evangelical doctrine and was in consequence arrested and brought to Constance. In the said debate at Zurich John Fabri declared that he had convinced Wyss from the Scriptures of the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic creed. 178 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1 p. 146. In Selected Works of Hnldreich Zwingli the translation of this passage is inaccurate. 179 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 1, p. 145 ; Jackson, p. 96. 180 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 2, part 1, p. 239. 181 The same, vol. 2, part 1, p. 394. 182 "Ein anheblich zeichen." 183 In some of the Oriental churches infant communion^ or a substitute for it, is practiced. NOTES 141 184 It may seem almost unbelievable that Zwingli made use of this argument; but he is quoted correctly. The original is as follows: "Warum underscheidend jr den menschen? Sind kinder lut oder nit? Sind sy menschen oder liit, so miissend jr sy ouch lassen toufen." Zwingli's Works, S chiller, vol. 2, part 1, p. 281. 185 This suggestion for a public debate is evidence that Hubmaier, even then, had not given up hope that Zwingli would change his attitude on the question of baptism. 186 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 8, pp. 84, 86. Com- pare Hagenbach, p. 190; Stdhelin^ vol. 1, p. 491; Baum, J. W., Capito und Butser, Elberfeld, 1860, p. 381. 187 Herminjard, vol. 1, p. 335. 188 CEcol, Underr., fol. B3. Compare for Bb. 189 Usteri, J. M., (Ekolampads Stellung zur Kindertaufe, St. u. Kr., 1883, p. 163. 190 CEcol, Underr., fol. Dl seq. 191 CEcolampad, J., Ain Gesprdch etlicher Predicanten zu Basel mit etUchen Bekennern des Wydertaiiffs, 1525, fol. A4a. In 1526 exorcism was discontinued in some of the churches of Basel. 192 "This annuls all relation to the infant itself," says Herzog (p. 312). 193 The same argument was advanced by Luther against the Zwinglian view of the Lord's supper. Luther wrote in 1532 to Duke Albert of Prussia: "If we had nothing more [no Scripture proof], this testimony of the whole holy Christian church should be sufficient for us, to abide by this article [of the supper] and to hear no dissenter on this point, nor tolerate them." (Luther's Works, Walch, St. L., vol. 20, p. 1684). In Luther's opinion the Zwinglians as well as the Anabaptists were outside of the pale of the Christian church, hence he could say, all Christendom agreed with him. 19* On CEcolampad's position on the question of infant 142 INFANT BAPTISM baptism, compare: Ain Gesprdch etlicher Predicanten zu Basel mit etlichen Bekennern des Wydertauffs, 1525 ; Un- derichtung von dem Widertauff, 1527; Antwort auff Bal- thasar Hubmeier's hiichlein, 1527. 1^5 Hansen, E., Geschichte der Konfirmation in Schles- ivig-Holstein, Kiel, 1911, p. 75. 196 Anrich^ G., Martin Bucer, Strasburg, 1914, p. Z7. '^^'^ Caspari, W., Die evang. Konfirmation, Erlangen, 1890; Diehl, W., Zur Geschichte der Konfirmation, Giessen, 1897; Hansen, E., Geschichte der Konfirmation in Schles- wig-Holstein, Kiel, 1911. Bucer said: "Since at the present time the usage prevails that people are baptized in infancy and can not confess the faith when baptism is administered to them," the oral confession in connection with Confirma- tion is necessary. Hansen p. 89. 198 Newman, A. H., A History of Anti-Pedohaptism, Philadelphia, 1897, pp. 240, 247; Hulshof, A., Geschiedenis van dc Doopsgezinden te Straatshurg, Amsterdam, 1905, p. 61-80. 199 Usteri, p. 263. 200 Zwingli's Works, Egli^ vol. 8, p. 375. •201 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 8, p. 84. ■202 /^{jj Gesprdch etlicher Predicanten su Basel mit etlichen Bekennern des Wydertauffs, fol. A2b and B5t>. Compare Hagenbach, p. 116. 203 Antwort auff Balthasar Hubmeiers buchlein etc., Basel, 1527, fol. K4; compare fol. N5. 20* Lang, A., EvangeUen-Kommentar Martin Butzers und die Grundziige seiner Theologie, Leipzig, 1900 p. 130; Gerbert C, Geschichte der Strassburger Sectenbewegung zur Zeit der Reformation, Strasburg, 1889, p. 100. 205 (EcoL, loan, fol. 66b. 206 Hagenbach, pp. 64, 210. 207 Herzog, vol. 1, p. 353 seq. NOTES 143 208 The same, vol. 1^ p. 291. Even if OEcolampad said mass "in appearance only^" the offence was none the less. 209 The same, vol. 1, p. 242. 210 Luther advised the priests who favored his doctrine to say mass "in appearance," omitting the words which refer to the sacrifice. The people would not notice this since mass was said in the Latin language and the words in question were not uttered audibly. But this would not do away with the offence, since the congregation was left under the im- pression that their minister did that which he believed to be an abomination. Compare Horsch, J., Menno Simons, Scott- dale, Pa., 1916, p. 27. 211 Herminjard, vol. 1, p. 335. It is a noteworthy fact that Imler finally laid down his office as a priest and became a weaver. Zwingli's Works, Egli, vol. 8, p. 315. 212 Zwingli's Works, Schuler, vol. 8, p. 102. 213 Zwingli also held that Roman Catholic worship and practice could be accepted as long as love did not demand its abolishment. Compare Blaurer, vol. 1, p. 158. 21* Herzog, vol. 1, p. 195; compare Hagenhach, p. 192. 215 Compare Zwingli's Works, Schuler^ vol. 2, part 1, p. 238. 216 Jackson, p. 246. 217 Compare Horsch, J., Der Grundsats von der Scho- nung der Schwachen in der staatskirchlichen Reformation, in Deutsch-Amerik. Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche (Berea, Ohio), vol. 32, No. 2. 218 Cornelius, C. A., Geschichte des Miinsterischen Auf- ruhrs, Leipzig, 1855^ vol. 2, p. 247. 219 In his book Ob man gemach faren soil ("Whether one should go slowly," viz. in abandoning the false wor- ship). Reprinted in Fiissli, vol. 1, pp. 57-142. 220 Handlung oder Acta gehaliner Disputation und 144 INFANT BAPTISM Gesprdch zu Zoffingen im Bernner Biet mit den Wider- t duff em, 1532, fol. 6. 221 The letter is printed by Rohrich in Zeitschr. f. hist. Theol., 1860, p. 31 seq. 222 This book was printed at Nicolsburg, in 1527. In the same year CEcolampad wrote a Reply to Balthasar Huh- maier's Little Book Against the Discussions of the Preach- ers of Basel Concerning Infant Baptism. In the Introduc- tion he says that Hubmaier had sent him a written reply to his report of the discussions held at Basel; "but since you did not give it out in print, I did nothing further," CEco- lampad continues. In all probability Hubmaier found no printer for his Reply until he came to Nicolsburg. 223 The letter and number after each quotation from CEcolampad refers to the page on which it may be found in his bookj printed at Augsburg, by Silvan Otmar, probably in 1525. 224 In his homilies on the first Epistle of John which -were held in 1523 and published the following year, CEco- lampad says of the Roman Catholic party : "We teach new things, they say. I ask them to tell us what new things we teach, since we would accept nothing but what can be sub- stantiated by Scripture. How shameful is their attitude ! Could Christians be so degenerated that they abhor the teaching of the Prophets and Apostles as a new thing of recent date ?" And again : "Can it be that the doctrine of Christ is considered so absolete that it is supposed to be a new thing?" (Ecol, loan., fol. 2b and 30b. 225 The last clause of this quotation is not in the original ; the sense is clearly as here given, however. 226 The numbers given after each paragraph in this chapter refer to Menno Simons* Works. In the first in- stance the reference is to page 19, Folio Edition of Menno Simons' Works, printed in 1681 and to part 1, page 34 of NOTES 145 the English Complete Works of Menno Simons, Elkhart, Ind., 1871. 227 This paragraph is taken from Dirk Philips' book On Baptism; Bibliotheca Reformatoria Neerlandica, vol. 10: De Geschriften van Dirk Philipss, The Hague, 1914, p. 76; Philips, D., Handbook of the Christian Doctrine and Reli- gion, Elkhart, Ind., 1910, p. 27. 228 At Utrecht in Holland there occurred in 1830 a di- vision among Calvinists on the question whether infants of unbelieving parents may be baptized. 229 por a statement of Calvin's doctrine of baptism compare McGlothlin, W. J., Infant Baptism Historically Considered, Nashville, Tenn., 1916, pp. 96-99. 230 Herminjard, vol. 2, p. 48: " hujusque gratia coram Christiana plebe intingi aqua velle, ut palam protes- tetur, quod corde credit, ut fratribus carior sit et Christo magis hac solemni adstrictus professione, quod majusculis ad nos ab impiis confugientibus fieret, singula si recte dis- pensarentur, ut magnus ille coepit Joannes ac omnium maximus praecepit Christus." Farel adds : "We should not however, forbid the little ones, as some have wished," show- ing that he hesitated to abandon infant baptism. His atti- tude on this question before the beginning of the Anabaptist movement is an important point for further investigation. 231 John Wesley's surprising position on infant baptism is set forth in McGlothlin, Infant Baptism, pp. 105-106. 232 A part of this chapter was published in Menno Simons, his Life, Labors and Teachings. 233 A competent study of the great movement for faith- baptism in the sixteenth century is not possible so long as much of the most essential source material is permitted to lay buried in the archives of Europe. While the important sources for the history of the state-churches have been brought to light and made available for the student, but 146 INFANT BAPTISM little has been done along this line for Anabaptist history. This is without doubt the principal reason why glaring mis- representation of "Anabaptism" and its history has con- tinued to this day. 234 Compare note 62. DICTIONARY Anabaptists. — The word (German, Wiedertdufer) means rehaptizers. The Anabaptists were a powerful religious party of the Reformation period which stood for the rejection of human authority in miatters of faith, for believers' baptism and the Voluntary Principle. Augustine. (354-430). Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. The greatest of the so-called church-fathers. Basel (Basle). A canton and city of Switzerland. Bern. Next to Zurich the largest canton of the Swiss Confederacy, with city of Bern as capital. Blaurer, Ambrosius. (1492-1564). Reformer of Con- stance. Blaurock, Georg. One of the founders of the first church of the Swiss Brethren in Zurich. He was burned ^t the stake at Clausen in Tirol, in 1529. Bucer, Martin. (1491-1551). The most noteworthy -of the German state-church reformers, besides Luther. BulUnger, Henry. (1504-1575). Zwingli's successor at Zurich and for many years the most prominent Zwinglian leader. Canton. One of the independent states which form the Swiss confederacy. Capito, Wolfgang. (1478-1541). Zwinglian reformer in Strasburg. Cappel. Town in the canton Zurich. Carlstadt, Andreas. ( 1480- 1 541). At first Luther's coworker in Wittenberg, and later his opponent. Luth- er's acceptance of the Roman doctrine of the sacraments as means for regeneration and forgiveness of sin was offensive to him. He died as professor in Basel. Constance. City in South Germany. Council. Each state of the Swiss confederacy was governed by a Council. Diet. The administrative assembly of the old Ger- man Empire, consisting of representatives of the various provinces and free cities. 148 INFANT BAPTISM Farel, William. (1489-1565). A leader in the Cal- vinistic reformation. Calvin's predecessor at Geneva. Flacians. The followers of Matthias Flacius, the most radical Lutheran leader in the sixteenth century. Geneva. A city in French Switzerland; for many years the Scene of John Calvin's labors and the center of the Calvinistic Reformation. Grebel, Conrad. The most distinguished of a group of men who founded the first congregation of the Swiss Brethren at Zurich, in 1525. He died in prison at Maienfeld, in 1526. Griiningen. A principality in the canton of Zurich in Switzerland. Hadorn, William. Professor of Theology at the university of Bern. Author of a few works on church history. Haller, Berthold. (1492-1536). The most prominent of the Zwinglian reformers of Bern. Hegler, Alfred. Professor of Protestant theology at Tubingen, One of the most reliable writers on Anabap- tist history. Hierarchy. A body of ecclesiastical rulers; the Roman priesthood. Hofmeister, Sebastian. The Zwinglian reformer of Schaffhausen. Host. The wafer used instead of the bread in mass as well as in the communion service of the Roman Catholic Church. The host is believed to be Christ himself and hence is worshiped. The elevation of the host is a feature of mass, the host being held up and presented before the congregation which worships it in kneeling posture. Hubmaier, Balthasar. A leader among the Anabap- tists in South Germany and Moravia and the most dis- tinguished defender of believers' baptism and Anabaptist principles in general. He was burned at the stake at or near Vienna in 1528. Huterite Brethren. Anabaptists of Moravia, named after Jacob Huter who was burned at the stake at Inns- bruck in Tyrol, in 1536. Jena. Town in Saxony. Jud, Leo. (1482-1542). A noted coworker with Zwingli at Zurich. DICTIONARY 149 Kessler, John. (i 503-1 574)- Famous Zwinglian chronicler of St. Gall. Kohler, Walter. Successor to Emil Egli as church historian at Zurich. One of the editors of the new edi- tion of Zwingli's works. Kostlin, Julius. (1826-1902). Well known Lutheran historian in Germany. Kiissnach. Town in the canton of Zurich. Loserth, Johann. Distinguished Protestant church historian of Austria. Professor in the university of Graz. Mantz, Felix. One of the founders of the first Swiss Brethren congregation in Zurich. He suffered martyr- dom by drowning in Zurich, in 1527- Mass. One of the chief corner stones of Romanism. In Roman Catholic teaching mass is the daily repetition of the sacrifice of Christ in every sanctuary. The bread, or host, in the Lord's supper is supposed to be Christ himself who is daily offered anew by the priests to atone for sin. It should be observed that if this doctrine were scriptural, there could be no objection against a literal priesthood, altars, sacerdotal vestments, ritualism etc. To say that the one sacrifice of Christ is insufficient to atone for sin and must be repeated by Christian priests, is to dishonor Christ. All the reformers of the sixteenth century denounced mass as blasphemous. Melanchthon, Philip, (1497- 1560). Luther's most dis- tinguished helper in the task of the church reformation. Professor in Wittenberg. Menius, Justus. (1499-1558). The reformer of Thurin- gia. He wrote a number of books against the Ana- baptists. Menno Simons. (1496-1561). Anabaptist leader after whom the Mennonites are named, though he was not the founder of a sect. Moravia. Province of Austria, east of Bohemia. Miinzer, Thomas, (c. 1489-1525). An enthusiast and radical reformer in Saxony; leader of the Saxon rebels in the Peasants' War of 1525. Myconius, Oswald. (1488-1552). Zwinglian reformer at Zurich and Basel. Nordlingen. City in Swabia. Nuremberg. One of the principal cities in South Germany. 150 INFANT BAPTISM CEcolampad, John. (1482-1531). Besides Zwingli the most prominent contemporary state-church reformer of Switzerland. The leading theologian at Basel. Papists. Those who recognize the claims of the Pope. Philips, Dirk. (ca. 1504-1568). An Anabaptist leader and the most prominent colaborer with Menno Simons. Protestants. In 1529, at the Diet of Speier, the Luth- eran and Zwinglian Estates protested against a plan which was designed eventually to suppress the Reforma- tion, hence they were called Protestants and this desig- nation has become the usual name of Christian pro- fessors not belonging to the Roman Catholic or to one of the Eastern churches. Purgatory. — Supposed to be, in the Roman Cath- olic creed, a place in which souls who do not merit damnation are purified after death. Reformed Church. In certain countries the follow- ers of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin are known as the Reformed, while in other countries they are called Presbyterians. In America the Reformed and Presby- terians are distinct denominations. Rhegius, Urban. (1490-1541). Lutheran reformer at Augsburg in Swabia and Luneburg. Sacrament in both kinds. In the Roman Church the cup is witheld from the laity under the pretext that the bread or host is the body of the Lord and that the body is not bloodless, hence the blood is given although the cup is withheld. The expression "both kinds" refers to the cup and bread. Saint Gall. In the earlier Reformation period one of the principal cities of Switzerland, and as such a member of the Swiss Confederacy. Saints. In the language of Scripture the believers are the saints. In Roman Catholic theology the saints are those who have been canonized or declared holy by the pope and to whom prayer is to be offered. Sattler, Michael. One of the great Anabaptist lead- ers. He suffered martyrdom in 1527, at Rottenburg on the Neckar, after terrible torture. Schaffhausen. City belonging to the Swiss Con- federacy, Schlatter, Adolf. A prominent Protestant theologian of Germany. Professor in Tubingen. DICTIONARY 151 Schwenckfeld, Caspar. (1490-1561). He is consid- ered the founder of the Schwenckfelder Church, although he did not desire to found a church. His followers organized themselves after his death. Sikkingen, Francis von. (1481-1523). A knight who offered his castle, the Ebernburg near Worms on the Rhine, as a retreat to Luther. Silesia. A province in North East Germany. Spalatin, George. (1484-1545). Friend of Luther, statesman and reformer in Saxony. Strasburg. A city on the upper Rhine, The capital of Alsace. Swabia. X)istrict in South Germany. Swiss Brethren. The great Anabaptist party of Switzerland and South Germany. Tubingen. The university town of the kingdom of Wurttemberg in South Germany. Waldshut (walds-hoot). Town in South Germany, near the Swiss border. Here Hubmaier labored and embraced "Anabaptism." Wartburg. A castle in Thuringia, where Luther, complying with the desires of the civil authorities of Saxony, kept himself in secret, in 1521. Wittenberg. City in Saxony. The center of the Lutheran Reformation. Both Luther and Melanchthon were professors in the university at this place. Wyttenbach, Thomas. (1472-1526). Friend of Zwing- li and reformer at Biel in Switzerland. Zofingen. Town in the canton Bern in Switzer- land, where in 1532 an important discussion was held between the Zwinglian theologians and the Anabaptists. Zollicon. Village near the city of Zurich, where the Anabaptists were numerous. Zurich. The most powerful canton of Switzerland with capital city of like name. The city of Zurich was the scene of Zwingli's labors and the center of the Zwinglian reformation. Zurich was governed by the Council consisting of over two hundred members. Zwickau. A city in Saxony. Zwingli, Ulrich (Huldreich). (1484-1531). With John Calvin the founder of the Reformed and Presby- terian churches. Calvin differed however, on important doctrinal points from his predecessor Zwingli. INDEX * * Altars, 34 Anrich, 94 Apostolic church, 9 Augustine, 18, 23, 44, 108, 115 Authority, Roman Cath- olic teaching on, 9 Bachtold, 54 Baptismal commission, meaning of, 65, 66 Baptism of households, 66 Basel, 23-27, 61, 92, 93, 97, 98-101, 104 Baur, 22 Bavaria, 90 Bern, 26, 58, 61, 92, 99 Billican, 16 Binder, 74 Blaurer, note 51 Blaurock, 58 Bremgarten, 20 Bucer, 24-26, 61, 94, 95, 97, 102, note 51 Bullinger, 52, 55, 57, 58, 63 Burgauer, 27 Calcutta, 63 Calvin, John, 10, 63, 116, 119 Capito, 24, 61, 77, 95 Carlstadt, 23, 32, 33, 101, 102, note 61 Carthage, council of, 16, 106 Cassel, 57 Catechumens, 19 Christening, 34 Chrysostom, 106 Church and state, rela- tion of, 29, 31, 32, 119- 122, note 94 Church, authority of, 29- 37 154 INDEX Church-fathers, 34 Hadorn, 22 Circumcision, 15, 42, 43, Haller, 26, 61, 7Z, 99 63, 112, 113 Hassenkamp, 94 Cloisters, 88 Heberle, note 66 Confirmation, 19, 20, 94, Hegler, 77, note 150 95 Hesse, 94 Constance, 34, 80, ^7, 100 Hierarchy, 122 Cyprian, 106, 107, 108 Hofmann, 28 \ Hofmeister, 26, 57, 75 Ebernburg, 100 g^^^ ^^f^^' 1^4 Elevation o£ the host, 2>Z 2°^^: ^^ ^. England, Church of, 118 ^ottinger, 21 Exorcism, 34, 92, 93 ^^.^'^^.'^^' i^' ?J.'3 ^^' 54, 58, 60, 69-90, 96, 102, 104-110 Fabri, 34, 2>6, 80, 81, 83, Hubmaier's Dialogue with 87 Zwingli, 79-90 Faith of mfants, 39-41, Hubmaier's Discussion on 46-48, 113, note 70 /n/aw^ Baptism, 104 Farel, 24, 91, 98, 117 Hubmaier's motives, note Fislibach, 80 150 Flacians, 46 Hubmaier's On Believ- ers' Baptism, 58, 60, Gellius, 112 71, 73, 76, 96, 102, Geneva, 117 108, note 75 Germany, 10 Hubmaier's Open Ap- Godfathers, 14 peal, 70 Grebel, 21, 22, 26, 36, 51, Hugwald, 27 52, 58, 70, 71, 102, note Huterites, 46 145 J Grebel's Defence, 51, note Imler, 98 65 Infant communion, 87 Griiningen, 56 Infants, unbaptized, sal- Giider, 75 vation of, 43, 44, 46- Gynoraus, 74 48, 111 INDEX 155 Invocation of the saints, 34 Jesuits, 64 Jews, 120 Joner, 57 Jud, 55, 75, 77 Jupiter, 98 Kessler, 61, 74 Klingnau, 20 Kohler, 75 Kolb, 99 Kostlin, 39, 40 Kiissnach, 57 Leipzig disputation, note 62 Liberty of conscience, 29, 2>7, 47 Liegnitz, 17 Lindauer, 20 Loserth, 77 Luther, 9, 10, 13-15, 18, 25, 30-34, 38-48, 94, 101, 102, 113, 119, 120, note 193 Luther's Babylonish Cap- tivity of the Church, 14 Luther's earher teaching on the Supper, note 2 Luther's Faithful Admo- nition, 31 Luther's Greater Cate- chism, note 70 Luther's, Of Worldly Government, 32 Luther's, On Anabap- tism, 33, 37, 41, 42, note 75 Luther's Sermon on Bap- tism, 13 Luther's Smaller Cate- chism, 44 Mantz, 22, 52, 58, 102 Mass, 30, 97, 98, 99, 107, 114 ]Mass observed "in ap- pearance," note 210 A.Ielanchthon, 15, 17, 30, 2>2, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 94 ^Melanchthon's earlier teaching on the Sup- per, note 7 Melanchthon's Ins^truction Against Anabaptism, 44, 45 Melanchthon's Loci Com- munes, 15 Melanchthon's Refutation of Anabaptist Articles, 40 Menius, 48 Menno Simons, 48, 110 Moravia, note 174 Moravian ^Anabaptists, 22 Miinzer, 23, 27, note 11, 46 Mvconius, 55 156 INDEX Nicolsburg, note 174, 222 Regensburg, 90 Nippold, 75 Nordlingen, 16 Nuremberg, 15 CEcolampad, 23-28, 61, 73, 91-93, 96-102, 104- 110, note 147 CEcolampad's Exposition of the First Epistle of John, 97 CEcolampad's Exposition of Romans, 23 CEcolampad's Instruction Concerning Anabap- tism, 73 Origen, 108, 115 Osiander, 16 ! Pelagians, 106 Persecution, 37, 45, 47, 89, 90, 121, note 113, 162 Philips, note 227 Pictures, adoration of, 33 Pietists, 41 Pope, the, 9 Prayer to the saints, 116 Predestination, 67 Priesthood, 30 Priestly garments, 34 Purgatory, 88 Regeneration, baptismal, 10 Rhegius, 27 Rorer, 46 Roublin, 27, 52, 71 Ruckensberger, 20 Saint Gall, 20, 26, 27, 54, 57, 61, 70 Salt, giving of, 93 Sattler, 58, 102, 103 Saxony, 38 Schaffliausen, 26, 54, 55, 57, 69 Schlatter, 43 Schmidt, 57, 58 Schwenckfeld, 94, note 51, 85 Scripture authority, 29-37 Sikkingen, 100 Silesia, 17 Sleupner, 16 Spalatin, 17 State-churchism, 11, 29, 31, 32, Z7, 49, 50, 97- 102, 119-121 Staub, 26, 27 Strasburg, 24-27, 61, 73, 77, 94, 102, 108, note 51 Supper controversy, note 193 Swabia, 16 Swiss Anabaptists, 50, 51, 52 Swiss Brethren, note 94 INDEX 157 Switzerland, 10, 27, 60, 73 Tapers, 93 Tertullian, 108 Thuringia, 48 Tradition, 30, Z7 , 38, 39 Tschackert, 48 Ulm, note 51 Uncertainty in the de- fence of infant bap- tism, 48 Usteri, 20, 22, 51, 75, 76, 96 Vadian, 26, 57, 60, 70, note 162 Venatorius, 16 Venus, 98 Voluntary Principle, 10, 31, 35, 117 Waldshut, 69, 70, 71, 74 Wartburg, 30, 38 Water, holy, 114 Wesley, 117, 118 Wittenberg, 17, 33, 101 Wyss, note 177 Wyttenbach, 20 Zofingen, 102 ZoUicon, 27 Zurich, 20, 21, 28, 34, 49, 52, 53-58, 60, 69, 70- 78, 80, 83, 87, 90 Zurich, first disputation of, 34 Zwick, 100 Zwickau, 17 "Zwickau Prophets," note 11 ZwingH, 9-11, 19-24, 26, 27, 28, 34-37, 49-91, 96, 99-101, 116, 119 Zwingli's Book on Bap- tism, 19, 22, 51, 53, 54, 60, 61, 71, 79, note, 174 Zwingli's Exposition of the Articles, 19 Zwingli's Refutation of Anabaptist Tricks, 60, 67 Date Due wnijwmwvu^i^'z m^fT^ '^^ m 2 5 '53 MY b-> Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 01021 3736