Of a Certain Manifesto, Emitted by Those of Zurich, in the Year 1639

Now when it happened that, because of the evil treatment described above against the Swiss Anabaptists, those who had begun it drew down upon themselves much opposition, criticism and reproach, even from the common world, the rulers of the country, and especially of the city of Zurich, as having been the chief ones in that ungodly work of persecution, had a manifesto, apology, or defense (so called) published in the year 1639, in excuse and vindication, as it were, of what they had already done and brought about against those Anabaptists.

But since this was in many respects not according to the truth, but, out of partisanship, contrary to the truth, many of the Swiss brothers who were still out of bonds, yet under the same persecution, defended themselves concerning it, with all proper courtesy, in a Christian and discreet manner. We could give their answer here entire and with all its circumstances, since we have received it correctly; but as this would take up too much room and unduly enlarge this work, we shall note only some of the most important portions of it.

In regard to the first accusation laid to their charge in the manifesto mentioned above by the lords of Zurich, namely, that they had separated themselves from the obedience they owed to the Christian church, they make this reply

"Here, right at the beginning, great wrong and injustice is done us; for we have no desire whatever to separate ourselves from the Christian church, but seek to hold to it and to the pure Word of God, indeed, to sacrifice our bodies, property and blood for it; but the reason we cannot unite with their church (namely, the so-called Reformed) is that her doctrine is in many respects not like the ancient, pure, apostolic doctrine, nor does it agree with the words and commandments of Christ; and that we, through God's gracious enlightening, have a better way before us, namely, the true apostolic foundation, to which, by the help of God, we will also hold.

"But that nevertheless it is not we, but the chief learned men, and some of their own number, who are the ones that at the beginning of the change held the right views with us concerning baptism, the Supper, excommunication, and resistance or revenge, and afterward turned away from it again, will clearly appear when we rightly examine their first teachings and writings of a hundred years ago and more."

Then it is stated in the same answer what teachers at the beginning of the Reformation taught the articles mentioned above rightly, from which they afterward, and especially their descendants, departed again; which appears from these words:

First, as regards baptism, this is shown by the conference of Zwingli and Balthazar Hubmaier, held in the year 1523, at Zurich, in the Graef; where Zwingli publicly confessed: "That infants are not to be baptized before they grow up and reach a reasonable age. He also promised that he would make mention of it in his Book of Articles; as he also did, in the eighteenth article concerning Confirmation, where he says

"That in former times it was not customary to baptize children; but that they were publicly instructed together with the rest; and afterward, when they had come to their understanding, they were called catechumeni, that is, instructed ones in the word,* and then, when the faith was thus firmly planted in the heart, and they had confessed it with the mouth, they were baptized." [n1245-1]

This practice of the doctrine, he said, he wished to see taken up again in this our time.

His colleague Oecolampadius confessed the same, in a letter to the Hubmaier mentioned above, saying: "We have to this day not met with any passages in the holy Scriptures that cause us to confess the baptism of infants, as far as we in our littleness can see."

In like manner, on the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, treating on the word An ignoratis, he writes: "That every Christian shall first confess Christ, and then be baptized with the outward baptism (of water)."

So also Sebastian Holmeyster, preacher at Schaffhausen, writes to the same Hubmaier: "We have publicly confessed before the council at Schaffhausen that if our brother Zwingli in any way insists (contrary to his previous opinion) that children are to be baptized, he greatly misses the mark in this, and does not act according to the truth of the holy Gospel."

Continuing, he writes: "Truly, I did not allow myself to be compelled to baptize my child, who is named Zacharias; so you also act in a Christian manner in bringing to light again the true baptism of Christ, which has long been neglected or kept down. We will also undertake to do this."

Christopher Hogendorf, on the third chapter of the First Epistle of Peter, writes: "You have heard that faith is put before baptism; so it is not baptism alone, but also the faith of baptism, that saves us."

In like manner, Cellarius writes to the Hubmaier mentioned above, as follows: "Since you desire that I declare to you my judgment concerning baptism and the Lord's Supper, I will heartily and briefly comply with your request

"In the first place it is an abomination in the eyes of God that little children are baptized; which baptism is declared neither in the holy Scriptures nor in the examples of the holy apostles; and God's judgments also testify against it, which show themselves in the division of the created things; for in the beginning the earth was without form and void."

The preachers at Strasburg: Wolfgang Capito, Cestor Hedio, Matthew Zell, Symphonas Polio, Theobald Niger, John Latonius, Anthony Firn, Martin Hatk, and Martin Bucer, in their book entitled Ground and Reasons, folio 1, write: [n1245-2] "That at the beginning of the church no one was baptized or received into the holy Christian church except those who had entirely submitted to the word of Christ."

Their ground and reason for such belief they show from the holy Scriptures, namely, that they confess that the beginning (before) of our Christian life is sin, and that therefore John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles always began by saying: "Repent, and so on." Again: "In the congregation of God confession of sins has ever and always been first, which, among the ancients, came before baptism, for usually adults, and not children, were baptized."

Folio 2 and 3, and also further on, they write: "That without the baptism of the Holy Spirit the water and (its) baptism are nothing but a hocus pocus."

Concerning the article of War or Retaliation. In like manner, some of the foremost Lutherans (who at the beginning were one with the Calvinistic Reformed), and of the Zwinglians, believed with us that it does not befit a Christian to make war, or to offer resistance. Among them we will first bring forward Andrew Carlstadt, who, in a little book treating on whether men should forgive sufferings and offenses, printed at Zurich in the year 1524, writes as follows concerning resistance

"We shall not be misled by the objection made: War is a punishment of God; therefore there must certainly always be one who wages war against another." Again: "They warred in the Old Testament."

In reply to the first he writes: "Hear on the other hand what Christ says (Matthew 18, verse 7): 'Offenses must come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!' So some merit the disfavor of God, so that He punishes and torments them with war, but woe to him who wages war against them; for He (namely, God) punishes the evil with the evil."

Reply to the second: "The children of Israel waged war either against sinful nations that would not allow them to go into the promised land, or against those who, when they were in it, did not leave them in peace; and all this was a figure of the spiritual war which we must now wage in Christ, as regenerated and new men, against all vice and unbelief."

Immediately after that he goes on and writes: "They also bring this objection against us: That we must compel by force of arms those who will not allow what is right."

Answer: "If we are to speak of the matter in a right and Christian manner, war in no way befits us; we ought, according to the teachings of Christ, to pray for those who say all manner of evil against us, and count us fools; indeed, if they strike us on one cheek, to offer them the other also; then we shall be children of the Most High." Thus far, Carlstadt.

From Carlstadt the writer goes on to Luther, saying: "In a little book, printed at Wittenberg in the year 1520, Luther states why he burned the pope's books. The twenty-second article of it reads thus: 'Because he teaches that it is right for a Christian to defend himself with violence against violence, contrary to the words of Christ (Matthew 5, verse 40): " If any man takes away your coat, let him have your cloak also."'

In another book, also printed at Wittenberg in the year 1522, there are found among other articles (which one Sorbona had picked out of Luther's books as heretical) also these: "That he (namely, Luther) had taught concerning the words of Christ (Matthew 5, verse 39): 'Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;' and again (Romans 12, verse 19): 'Dearly beloved, do not avenge yourselves,' that these words are not advices" that is, which one may, or may not do "as many theologians wrongly teach, but that they are commandments" that is, things which must be kept.

Again: "Christians are forbidden to sue for their rights at the law." Again: "Since a Christian may not set his affection upon temporal things, he may also not swear an oath because of them."

In short: "We find that Luther for a considerable time was opposed to resistance with mouth and hand, until he was finally led away to another belief by the Jesuits, even as Sleydanus, book 8, folio 561, testifies." See the oldest edition.

A few pages further on the writer comes to speak of Pomeranus, Brentius, and various others, who, about the years 1520, 1530, 1540, and afterward, undertook the work of the Reformation from Popery, and also became effective instruments in that direction; who nevertheless at that time taught not only against retaliation upon enemies, but also, besides that, against infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, and other articles which are not founded in the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ; and, on the other hand, taught and defended such things as are founded in it, and are still taught at the present day by the Anabaptists; though some of the reformers mentioned above themselves, and especially their descendants, for the most part departed from it again.

These and similar matters were, in that reply of the persecuted Anabaptists in Switzerland, given for examination to the lords of Zurich, and to those who had drawn up the manifesto mentioned above in excuse of the persecution raised; as clearly showing that not the Anabaptists, but they themselves, had departed from the principles of the Reformation; and that therefore not the Anabaptists, who had held to their principles, but the apostate Reformed themselves, were to blame in this matter. And therefore that the authors of that manifesto had done wrong in charging the Anabaptists mentioned above with having separated themselves from the obedience they owed to the true Christian church, only because they would not go to church with them, who are called Reformed, nor accept their religion against their souls and consciences.

Besides this point of disobedience toward the church, the Swiss brothers were also charged in that manifesto with being disobedient to the political authorities, and so on. But on this they roundly declared, in that answer, that this was unjustly said of them; indeed, that they were willing and entirely ready to obey their authorities in all just matters, to pray for them, to pay them due tribute, honor and fear, and, though they should suffer wrong from them, in no way to avenge it, but willingly and patiently to bear it for the Lord's sake.

These were about the chief points that were mentioned in the manifesto and refuted by the persecuted brothers; the other matters are of small importance, and so it is not necessary to bring them forward here.

But they nevertheless went on with the persecution, and granted no easing of it, as will be seen from the accounts that follow