Of A Certain Manifesto, Emitted By Those Of Zurich, A. D. 1639, In Excuse Of The Persecution Raised; And Of The Answer Which Followed From The Persecuted As A Refutation.

Now when it happened that in consequence of the foregoing evil treatment instituted against the Swiss Anabaptists, those who had commenced this, drew down upon themselves, even from the common world, much opposition, criticism, and reproach, the rulers of the country, and especially of the city of Zurich, as having been the principal ones in said ungodly work of persecution, caused, A. D. 1639, a manifesto, apology, or defense (so called) to be published, in excuse and vindication as it were, of what they had already done and brought about against said Anabaptists.

But as this in many respects, was not according to the truth, but, from partisanship, contrary to the truth, many of the Swiss brethren who were still out of bonds, yet in the same persecution, defended themselves with regard to it, with all proper courtesy in a Christian and discreet manner. We could produce here their answer entire and with all the circumstances, 1057 since we have received it correct; but as this would take up too much room, and unduly increase this work, we shall note only some of the most important portions from it.

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

“Herein, right in the beginning; great wrong and injustice is done us; for we desire in no wise to separate ourselves from the Christian church, but seek to adhere to the same and the pure word of God, yea, to sacrifice our bodies, property and blood therefor; but the reason that we cannot unite with their (namely, the so called Reformed) church, is, that her doctrine in many respects is not like the ancient, pure, apostolical doctrine, nor does it agree with the words and commandments of Christ; and that we, through God’s gracious illumination, have before us a better way, namely, the true apostolical foundation, to which, by the help of God, we will also adhere.

“But that nevertheless not we, but the principal learned men, and some of their own number, are those who, having in the beginning of the change held the right views with us, touching baptism, the Supper, excommunication, and resistance or revenge, afterwards again turned away from it shall clearly appear, when we shall rightly examine their first teachings and writings of a hundred years or more ago.”

Hereupon it is stated in the same answer, what teachers in the beginning of the Reformation taught the aforementioned articles aright, from which they subsequently, and especially their descendants, again departed; which appears from these words:

Firstly, as regards baptism, this is declared by the conference of Zwingli and Balthazar Hubmor, held A. D. 1523, at Zurich, in the Graef; where Zwingli publicly confessed: “That infants are not to be baptized before they grow up and attain to a reasonable age.” He also promised that he should make mention of it in his Book of Articles; as he also did, in the eighteenth article respecting Confirmation, where he says:

“That in former times it was not common to baptize children; but that they were publicly instructed together with the rest; who afterwards, when they had attained to their understanding, were called catechumeni, that is, instructed ones in the word,357 whereupon, when the faith was thus firmly implanted in the heart, and they had confessed it with the mouth, they were “baptized.”

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

Thus also confessed his colleague, Oecolampadius in a letter to the aforementioned Hubmor, saying: “We have up to the present 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, Anignoratis, he writes: “That every Christian shall first confess Christ, and then be baptized with the external baptism (of water).”

So also writes Sebastian Hofmeyster, preacher at Schaffhausen, to said Hubmor: “We have publicly confessed before the council at Schaffhausen: That if our brother Zwingli in any wise insists (contrary to his previous opinion), that children are to be baptized, he herein greatly misses the mark, and does not according to the truth of the holy gospel.”

Continuing, he writes: “Truly, I did not allow myself to be compelled that I should baptize my child, who is named Zacharias, hence you also act in a Christian manner, that you bring 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; hence it is not mere baptism, but also the faith of baptism, which saves us.”

In like manner, Cellarius writes to the aforementioned Hubmor, as follows: “Since you desire that I shall 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 there testify against it also God’s judgments, which manifest 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, fol. 1, write: “That in the beginning of the church no one was baptized nor 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, etc.” Again: “In the congregation of God confession of sins has ever and always been first, which, with the ancients, preceded baptism, for usually adults, and not children, were baptized.”

Fol. 2 and 3, as also further on, they write: “That without the baptism of the Holy Spirit the water and (its) baptism are but a hocus pocus.”

Concerning the article of War or Retaliation. In like manner, some of the foremost Lutherans (who in the beginning were one with the Calvanistic Reformed), and of the Zwinglians, believed with us: That it does not behoove a Christian to war, or offer resistance. Among them we will first adduce Andrew Carlstadt, who, in a little book treating on 1058 whether men should forgive sufferings and offenses, printed at Zurich, A. D. 1524, writes as follows concerning resistance:

“We shall not be misled by the objection made: War is a punishment of God; hence 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 (Matt. 18:7): ‘It must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh!’ Hence some merit the disfavor of God, so that he punishes and torments them with war, but woe to him that 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 proceeds and writes: “They also bring against us this objection: That we must compel by force of arms those that will not allow that which is right.”

Answer: If we are to speak in a right and Christian manner of the matter, war in no wise becomes 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; yea, if they smite us on one cheek, to offer them the other also; then shall we 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 burnt the pope’s books. The twenty-second article thereof 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 5:40): “If any man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”’

In another book, also printed at Wittenberg, in the year 1522, there are found among other articles (which one Sorbona had extracted as heretical from Luther’s books) also these: “That he (namely, Luther) had taught concerning the words of Christ (Matt. 5:39): ‘Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also;’ and again, (Rom. 12:19): Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,’ that these words are not advices” that is, which one may, or may not do “as many theologians erroneously teach, but that they are commandments” that is, things which must be observed.

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

In short: “We find that Luther for a considerable time was with mouth and hand opposed to resistance, till he was finally seduced to another belief, by the Jesuits even as Sleydanus, lib. 8, fol. 561, testifies.” See the oldest edition.

A few pages further on the writer comes to speak of Pomeranus, Brentius, and divers others, who, about the years 1520, 1530, 1540, and subsequently, undertook the work of the Reformation from Popery, and also became effectual instruments in that direction; who nevertheless at that time taught not only against retaliation upon enemies, but also, besides 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 therein, and are still at the present day taught by the Anabaptists; though some of the aforementioned reformers themselves, and especially their descendants, for the most part, again departed therefrom.

These and similar matters were, in said reply of the persecuted Anabaptists in Switzerland, given for examination to the lords of Zurich, and to those who had drawn up the aforementioned manifesto in excuse of the persecution raised; as clearly showing that not the Anabaptists, but they themselves, had departed from the principles of the Reformation; that consequently not the Anabaptists, who had adhered to their principles, but the apostate reformed themselves, were to blame in this matter. Hence, that the authors of said manifesto had done wrong in charging the aforesaid Anabaptists with having separated themselves from the obedience which they owed to the true Christian Church, only because they would not go to church with them, who are called Reformed, nor receive their religion contrary to their souls and consciences.

Besides this point of disobedience toward the church, the Swiss brethren were also charged in the aforesaid manifesto, that they were also disobedient to the political authorities, etc. But hereupon they, in said answer, roundly declared: That this was unjustly said of them, yea, 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 wise to avenge it: but willingly and patiently to bear it for the Lord’s sake.

These were about the principal points that were mentioned in the manifesto, and refuted by the persecuted brethren; the other matters are of small importance, and hence not necessary to be adduced here.

But they nevertheless proceeded with the persecution, and granted no mitigation, as will be seen from the following accounts: