Bad Boy A Memoir

Available at alibris.com
( 4.5/5.0 ★ | 265 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
539780060295233&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2F2.zoppoz.workers.dev%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780060295233
Bad Boy A Memoir

ISBN: 9780060295233
Category: Media > Books
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 8.7 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Very Good-in Very Good dust jacket 8.58 X 5.82 X
0.81 inches; 214 pages; Identifier stamp on FFEP only. "Arts Village
of NYC." minor curls on cover edges. Minimal dust / foxing speckles on
the top exterior edge of textblock. Very Good condition otherwise. No
other noteworthy defects. No markings on text pages.; Your
satisfaction is our priority. We offer free returns and respond
promptly to all inquiries. Your item will be carefully cushioned in
bubble wrap and securely boxed. All orders ship on

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26539780060295233&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F9780060295233
 Bad Boy A Memoir

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653978006029523

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 230 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. had passed. Here we see one
vineyard, one Master, and (what caused astonishment in the
workmen) one equal reward to all. What does this signify to us but
one heavenly Father, one vineyard—the church, one reward—Christ,
7. e., salvation through him? But let it not occur to any one that the
ancients had access to God, not by Christ, but by observance of the
law—a thing that some seem to think because there are two
testaments, one that leads to servitude, and the other which is in
freedom of the spirit through Christ. They think then that the old
requires observance of the law for salvation, not Christ, not seeing
that the law even when kept does not save. For if righteousness is
through the law, then Christ died in vain. In my opinion, indeed, the
law would save, 7. e., we should be saved (for the law is spiritual) if
we kept the law entirely and according to the will of God, but this is
possible to no flesh. Through the law then we learn only our
condemnation, for by it we are included in sin and bound unto the
penalty. From this it is easily inferred that they also who were under
the law saw that by one salvation through Christ both they and the
whole world are saved. ‘This Christ himself teaches clearly when in
John viii. 56 he addresses the hypocrites of the law: Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see my day; he saw it and was glad. Then
Abraham desired nothing so much as the coming of him who as
promised he did not doubt would be to his great good. Still he had
not yet come. When then the time was fulfilled and Christ was in the
world Abraham already rejoiced. ‘Therefore as they had one and the
same Saviour with us they were one people with us, and we one
people and one church with them, even though they came before us
a long time into the vineyard. It is also clear what the bosom of
Abraham is, about which many have anxiously inquired. For it can be
nothing else than the sodality of the early believers to be
everywhere preserved for the coming of Christ. For just like
Abraham, since they were justified by faith, they desired to see
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 231 the day of Christ
the Saviour. Which bosom (if one likes that word) is now to us the
heavenly association with the Son of God and with all who are with
him. Paul, wherever there arises a question about the difference
between Jews and Gentiles who had faith, carefully proves that one
people and one church arises from both. In Rom. xi. he makes
election the basis of this ; formerly the Jews were by election the
people of God, now the Gentiles are. Yet not in such a way that from
the Jews none might any longer be within the association of the
elect (since he was an Israelite himself and yet was sent as a
minister for the preaching of the gospel of salvation), but that they
should last until the multitude of the nations came in. And this Christ
meant when he said that the lord of the vineyard would let it to
other husbandmen—but it was the same vineyard. ‘They are not
then diverse or two churches, not two peoples. They are, indeed,
two in name, but unless they were made the same people in one
spirit they are not the people of God. In Eph. il. 11 he thus speaks:
Wherefore remember that ye who were in time past Gentiles
according to the flesh, who were called uncircumcision by the
circumcision which itself was circumcised with hands, that at that
time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of
Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope
and being a¢heot, ?. e., without God, in the world, but now ye are in
Christ Jesus who once were far off, but now are made nigh by the
blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, the
middle wall of partition being broken down, abolishing in his flesh
the enmity by the making void of the law of commandments with
the ordinances, to make in himself of two one new man, and that he
might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, the enmity
being slain in himself. And he came and preached peace to you that
were afar off, and to those also who were nigh. For through him we
both have access to the Father in one spirit. Now therefore ye are no
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow
 232 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. citizens with the saints and of
the household of God, built upon the foundations of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, etc. By
which words Paul means throughout what I do in the present, z. e.,
that one people has been made of both through one Christ Jesus,
who has united into one both those who once were near and us who
were most distant. Weigh carefully, good reader, the words of Paul,
and you will find abundantly what we assert here. For there is no
need of treating at length so holy and evident a proposition. Also
Heb. xil. 22: But ye are come unto Mount Zion and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company
of thousands of angels, and to the church of the first-born that are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, etc. By which words
also Paul teaches that through Christ we are united to the people of
God. And all the apostles believed this, that there is one testament,
one people of God in all, z. ¢., from the least to the greatest they are
considered within the people of God, and that there is one church of
God compacted out of all peoples through one spirit into one. For
Peter in Acts ii. 36 says: That all the house of Israel may know
assuredly that God hath made Lord and Christ this Jesus whom ye
have crucified. As he says here that Jesus was made the Christ, that
is Messiah, the Saviour to the Jews, therefore also the Jews have
salvation. And a little after (he says): The promise is to you and your
children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God
shall call. Here he asserts that the promise was not only to those
who then heard, but to their children also, who were either born or
were to be born. So in [Acts] iii. 25 this same Peter says: Ye are the
children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with
your fathers, saying unto Abraham: And in thy seed shall all the
kindreds of the earth be blessed. Here he makes Christ belong to the
Jews; through him alone they as well as we are saved. For he came
first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 233 Rom. i. 16.
Afterwards in Acts x. 34 he says: Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, etc., as I have hinted above. Here Peter proves
that Christ is also of the Gentiles. We have therefore one and the
same Saviour. Then, too, in Acts xi. 18, where Peter tells how the
whole affair with reference to Cornelius happened, it says: When
they heard these things they held their peace and glorified God,
saying: Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto
life (for the word repentance is here used synecdochically for the
gospel itself, as I have elsewhere shown). We see therefore
attributed here to the Gentiles what formerly he said belonged to the
Jews and their children. Also 1 Pet. ii. 9: But ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that
ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of
darkness into his glorious light, which in time past were not a
people, but are now the people of God, which had not obtained
mercy, but now have obtained mercy. By these words of Peter we
see that Christian people are now that elect race which the Hebrews
once: were, as I have shown above from Ex. xix. [5,6]. Also the
sameroyal priesthood which is now of all nations, which also belong:
to God (for the whole earth is his), and which the Lord holds: in
honor and as of value just as he formerly held the Jewish race: as a
priesthood of all peoples. A holy race, from which infants: are not
excluded—posterity belongs to the race as much ag parents do—a ?
eople sought and obtained by the blood of Christ. Which people was
not a people once (for he alludes to Hos. i. 9), but now is the people
of God. Therefore we are they who formerly Abraham and his like
were. All these things, to shorten sail in this part of the discussion,
make for this, that we may know that it is one and the same
testament which God had with the human race from the foundation
of the world to its dissolution. For God is not prosphatos, z. e.,
recent, or of an uncertain wisdom that mends in time what 16
 "234 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. ‚had at first been unwisely
begun. He knew that man would perish as he did by his own fault,
and he had prepared the healing by Jesus, that is, the Saviour,
before man gave himself the self-inflicted wound. God therefore
made no other covenant with the miserable race of man than that
he had already conceived before man was formed. One and the
same testament has always been in force. ‘There is ever one and the
same unchangeable God, one only Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of
God not by adoption, but by nature, God eternal and blessed for
ever. So there could be no other testament than that which
furnished salvation through Jesus Christ. By him alone is access to
the Father, so Abraham even came to God by no other way than by
him who was promised. One way, one truth, one life, one mediator
between God and man, Christ. Through him alone is access to God.
Therefore there is one only testament, for the covenant with God
tends only that we may have eternal peace and joy. Yet before I
come to conclusion I wish to reply to a question which is perhaps
not so fine spun as it appears. What difference is there between the
Old and the New Testament? Very much and very little, I reply. Very
little if you regard those chief points which concern God and us; very
much if you regard what concerns us alone. The sum is here: God is
our God; we are his people. In these there is the least, in fact, no
difference. The chief thing is the same to-day as it ever was. For just
as Abraham embraced Jesus his blessed seed, and through him was
saved, so also to-day we are saved through him. But so far as
human infirmity is concerned, many things came to them ina figure
to instruct them and be a testimony to us. These are therefore the
things which seem to distinguish the Old Testament from the New,
while in the thing itself or in what pertains to the chief thing they
differ not at all. First, Christ is now given, whom formerly they
awaited with great desire. Simeon is a witness. Second, they who
died then in faith did not ascend
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 235 into heaven, but
[went] to the bosom of Abraham; now he who trusts in Christ comes
not into judgment, but hath passed from death into life. Third, types
were offered, as is shown in Hebrews. Fourth, the light shines more
clearl y, so far as pertains to the illumination of the understanding,
for ceremonies, while they of themselves made nothing more
obscure, yet added much to the priests, and these were not so
strong in inculcating religion and innocence as they would have been
if avarice had not induced the shortening of ceremonies. Fifth, the
testament is now preached and expounded to all nations, while
formerly one nation alone enjoyed it. Sixth, before there was never
set forth for men a model for living as has now been done by Christ.
For the blood of Christ, mingled with the blood and slaughter of the
Innocents, would have been able to atone for our faults, but then
we should have lacked the model. Now I state the conclusion. Since
therefore there is one immutable God and one testament only, we
who trust in Christ are under the same testament, consequently God
is as much our God as he was Abraham’s, and we are as much his
people as was Israel. The Catabaptists object here that Paul wrote in
Gal. iii. 7 “ Know ye therefore that they that are of faith are
Abraham's children,” and like passages from Scripture, all of which it
would be “ pedantic ” or “ overburdensome ” to put down here. But
if they had correctly weighed the discussion that Paul pursues here,
or the force of synecdoche, they would raise no such objections.
Paul’s question is, whether we acquire salvation by the works of the
law or does grace come in? And he decides that grace comes in by
faith, and not from works. All of these things he says
synecdochically, as are all such things throughout Scripture which
pertain to this argument. Abraham was justified by faith. Here is
synecdoche. If this were not so it would follow that Hebrew infants
were not of the people of God, which has been shown to be false,
for they did not believe, and there 
 236 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. fore according to the
Catabaptists’ faith they were not sons of Abraham. Therefore they
believed who were destined for this by God when age allowed it and
they were of the people of God ; those who were circumcised grew
and advanced until they attained intelligence and belief, and
meanwhile they were of the people of God. Not only believers then
are of the church and people of God, but their children. And when
the Catabaptists admit that sons of Abraham according to the flesh
were within the people of God, but suppose that our own sons
according to the flesh are not, they commit a great wrong. For how
is the testament and covenant the same if our children are not
equally with those [of the Jews] of the church and people of God? Is
Christ less kind to us than to the Hebrews? God forbid! The other
objections that they offer are either answered in the following or are
of no moment. As when they say: Then males only must be
baptized, and on the eighth day only. For these constituents haye
been removed, so that we are bound neither to any race nor time
nor circumstance, but under this condition, that in these matters we
do not transgress piety. For among the ancients females no less than
males were under the testament, even if they were not circumcised.
It results then after all this that just as the Hebrews’ children,
because they with their parents were under the covenant, merited
the sign of the covenant, so also Christians’ infants, because they
are counted within the church and people of Christ, ought in no way
to be deprived of baptism, the sign of the covenant, and the
arguments of the Catabaptists, which because of their ignorance of
figures and tropes they think valid, are of no avail against us. And
we shall not on account of our ignorance compel the Holy Spirit to
lay aside its own method of speaking. He has always spoken to the
whole church some things which did not fit a great part, but that
part was not on this account cast out of the church, out of the
people, out of the covenant of God. And the fact that the
sacraments, so far as pertains to externals is
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 237 concerned, were
not the same, does not oppose the truth, for so far as meaning is
concerned they were the same. For as circumcision was the
signature of the covenant, so is baptism; as the Passover was the
commemoration of the passage, so is the eucharist the grateful
memorial * of Christ’s death. Whence the divine Paul, 1 Cor. v. 7-8;
x. 18, and Col. ii. 11, attributes baptism to them, and also the
eucharist or spiritual feasting on Christ, but to us the Passover and
circumcision, and so makes all equal on both sides. So far upon one
and the same testament, church and people of God. On Election. I
am now compelled to treat of election or else forego my promise,
but not so fully as the subject demands. For this is beyond my power
and purpose. But I shall show election to be sure, z. e., free and not
at all bound, and above baptism and circumcision ; nay, above faith
and preaching. But this briefly. When most of us read Paul’s epistle
to the Romans we ponder a little carelessly upon the cause of his
mentioning election and the following predestination. He had shown
that salvation rests on faith, and faith is not a matter of human
power, but of divine spirit; who therefore has faith has at the same
time the divine spirit. They who have this are sons of God, walk not
after the flesh, but whatever they do is a help to them for good.
Now arises the query, why then are they acursed or condemned who
do not believe? Since he has fallen on this subject, willingly or not,
he treats it worthily about in this order and manner: We are saved
by faith, not by works. Faith is not by human power, but God’s. He
therefore gives it to those whom he has called, but he has called
those whom he has destined for salvation, and he has destined this
for those whom he has elected, but he has elected whom he willed,
for this is free to him and open, as it is for a potter to make diverse
vessels from the same lump. This * *‘ Gratianum actio” again—‘‘ the
giving of thanks for.’’
 238 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. briefly is the argument and
sum of election as treated by Paul. He says therefore, Rom. viii. 28:
We know that all things work together for good to them that love
God. Now lest you should say: Who therefore love God, or to whom
are all things for good? he anticipates and replies: To those who
according to purpose are of thie called. Do not understand this of a
human purpose, but of God’s, so that the sense is: Who are
sanctified of God’s purpose, for fo be called is here for fo be truly
sanctified. As when it is said: He shall be called the Son of the Most
High. Here shall be called is Hebrew idiom for shall truly be. I return
to the argument. Purpose is for Paul that freest deliberation by
which God is girded for electing, as in ix. 11 we see when he says:
That the purpose of God according to election may standHis purpose
is therefore above election, 7. e., first by nature. It may happen
among men that something is elected, but there is a reason for its
election, e. g., it is elected because it seems useful or right. This
purpose or deliberation is not free, but depends on that which is
elected. Since Paul wishes to show that God’s election is born of his
free purpose, and not from those whom he is about to elect, he says
that the free purpose is the cause why all things work for good to
those who love God. Nothing is ascribed to man’s merit. For he
adds: For whom he foreknew ( pronunciavit) he also predestinated
to be conformed to the image of his Son, etc. I have translated
mpoéyww by “ pronunciavit,”’ which word has the same force as if
you should say predetermined or foreordained. This is then the
apostle’s meaning: I said that all will result in good for those who
according to God’s purpose are of the called. This I would have
understood thus: God freely with himself settles upon, prejudges
and foreordains (for by this word the word for “ purposing”’ is
expounded) whom he will, even before they are born. Whom he
thus foreordains he marks out beforehand, 7. e., destines them to be
conformed to the image of his Son. As if he should say: No one can
be conformed to Christ unless he has been destined
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 239 for this. Paul
proceeds: Whom he predestined he also called Here before calling
we have predestination or marking out. Whom he called he also
justified. But are we not justified by faith? Yes, but calling precedes
faith. For Christ warns also that no one can come to him unless the
Father have drawn him. To draw and to call are here equivalents. But
whom he justified he also glorified, for they who believe are
eternally honored with him in whom they have believed. Here then is
the knot—How does faith bless or how justify? We see that the first
thing is God’s deliberation or purpose or election, second his
predestination or marking out, third his calling, fourth justification.
Since then all these are of God, and faith hardly holds the fourth
place, how is it that we say that salvation comes of faith, since
wherever faith is there also is justification, or rather, each person’s
salvation has before been so determined and foreordained with God
that it is impossible that one so elected can be condemned? But by a
light blow of synecdoche * what seems insoluble dissolves. For faith
is used for the election of God, the predestination or calling, which
all precede faith, but in the same order. So if you say: God’s election,
predestination or marking out, calling, beatifies, you will ever say
right. Why? Because the harmonious order and connections of these
are such that you may use one of these without the other and yet
not exclude the others ; especially is this the case when you take
faith, which is inferior and posterior to election, predestination or
calling. Since then the justification which is of faith closely follows
calling, we see with no trouble that salvation is attributed to faith
because they who have faith are called, elected and foreordained.
But why is salvation attributed to faith above the others? Why does
Paul use this link out of the chain? I reply, because * This rhetorical
figure wherein the part is put for the whole, or a whole for a part, is
considered by Zwingli an unanswerable argument. Instances of it are
frequent. £. g., the Athenians are often spoken of as if they
comprised all the Greeks, and what they did the Greeks are said to
have done.
 240 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. that is best known to us. For
each one questions and examines conscience according to Peter’s
word. If it rightly replies, 2. ¢., if with full assurance he thinks
correctly of God, he has now the surest seal of eternal salvation. For
who has faith is called, who is called is predestined, who is
predestined is elected, who is elected is foreordained. But God’s
election remains firm. Therefore they who have faith are justified.
For this is justification, piety, religion and service of the Most High
God. So that no condemnation awaits them, for they are not of
those who say: Let us sin that the glory of God may be the brighter,
but of those who as often as they sin through weakness return to
God and pray: Forgive us our sins. They are not of those who, when
they have sinned, are so far from returning to a correct state of
mind that they fall into impiety and assert that there is no God, but
of those who grieve not so much because they have offended every
creature as that they have offended God alone, their own heart and
soul and mind, and then say: Against thee only have I sinned and
done this evil in thy sight. This, I say, is the justification of faith ; to
these all things are for good, but the contrary to the impious.
Adultery and murder were for good to David, for he was righteous
through faith. For he repented his deed and did not fall from hope. It
was evil to him who was not as other men, because he had not
faith, therefore he was not called or predestined or elected. I think
these arguments are brief, as I promised, but clear and sure. But for
what purpose? That I may reply to the Catabaptists. For they argue
against me in the tract in which they suppose they have refuted me:
“How are the Hebrews’ infants of the people, sons, and church of
God? We believe the elect are of the people of God, like Jacob, by no
means those thrust out or repudiated. For, according to Rom. ix. 11-
13, when they were yet in their parents’ womb and had done neither
good nor evil, God said: Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.
How then could Esau be of God’s people? It is then false what
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 241 Zwingli asserts, that
the Hebrews’ infants were of the people and church of God.” To
which I think I may now the more advantageously answer, inasmuch
as I have said these few things about election and predestination, in
about the following manner: It is sure that with God no one is of his
people or of his sons except he whom he has elected, and it is also
sure that every one is his whom he has elected. But in this way, O
Catabaptists, all your foundation has fallen away. For not only
believers (as you would understand “ believers ” in actuality) are the
sons of God, but those who are elect are sons even before they
believe, just as you yourselves prove by the example of Jacob. What
then shall we do with the saying: Who believeth not shall be
condemned? For infants do not believe, they will then be
condemned. Again, the elect were chosen before they were
conceived ; they are at once then sons of God, even if they die
before they believe or are called to faith. You see the chain and
order! Faith is in that order the last thing beyond glorification,
therefore what precedes it is no less certain than faith itself. For as it
is true “he believes, therefore is saved,” so it is not less true that “he
is called, therefore is saved.” (I am not speaking here of that calling
of which Christ said: Many are called but few chosen. For there he
means the external calling, by which many are invited by the
preaching of the word. Now I mean that internal calling which Christ
calls “ drawing.”’) It is eqvally true: He is predestined, therefore
saved, and he is elect, therefore saved. Do you not see that
whatever is in this chain and precedes faith is equally with faith
followed by salvation? For “ Who is elect shall be saved ” is as true
as “ Who hath believed shall be saved.” On the other hand, equal
inferences cannot be drawn by arguing from the prior matters to
faith unless we accept faith otherwise than for that fact and
certitude of mind which regards the invisible things, about which
later. For it does not follow “ He is elect, therefore believes.” For
Jacob was elect when he had not yet believed. Nor does this
 242 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. follow, “ He does not believe,
therefore is not elect.” For the elect are ever elect, even before they
believe. When therefore it is said: “ Who believeth not shall be
condemned,” it must be that faith is used for that chain already
spoken of, so that the meaning is: ‘ Who is not elect shall not be
saved.” Or else for this, that it means “ to be within the faithful
people,” or (as best approves itself to my reason) that it is said
synecdochically of those alone who have reached that point that
they can understand language—Who believeth not shall be
condemned. For faith is not of all the elect, as now is clear of elect
infants, but it is the fruit of election, predestination and calling,
which is given in its fit time. Therefore as that saying: Who believeth
shall be saved, does not exclude those who are elect, and who
before they arrive at maturity of faith join the band of them that are
elect, to damn them the more, so that saying: Who believeth not is
condemned, does not include those who are elect but do not reach
to maturity of faith, to save them the less. By the words, Who hath
believed and Who hath not believed, it may therefore be inferred
they are not included who by reason of age are not able to hear, nor
those to whom the knowledge of the gospel has not come. It may
also be inferred that those sayings, Who hath believed, etc., and
Who hath not believed, have not the sense of precedence, as though
faith necessarily preceded all, t. e., election, predestination and
calling. For if this is true, then that antecedent determination or
purpose or predestination of God would not be free, but election
would follow then finally, when faith had rendered the man suitable
for election. For only those could be elected who already believed,
the contrary of which is clear. But the words have the “ sense of
consequence :” Be assured that he who believes has been elected
by the Father and predestined and called. He believes therefore
because he has been elected and predestined to eternal salvation,
and he who believeth not has been repudiated by the free election
of God. And here is disclosed to us the power of the keys, so far
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 243 as they were given
to the apostles. When one says that he believes, the apostle
promises him: If thou believest from thy heart, be it sure to thee
that thou art called, predestined and elected to eternal salvation.
Therefore this man of ours is absolved and justified, about which we
have spoken above. But when the apostle sees that there is no faith
in those that hear, he is sure that they are rejected. They are then
ordered to shake off the dust from their feet, that is, to go quickly
from such, not as though now first these deserve to be shunned, but
because the apostles are now first made sure of their rejection by
their aversion to faith; on the other hand, when they see the faith
they are sure of their election. So therefore such words were said
as: By their fruits ye shall know them. A good tree cannot bear evil
fruit, nor an evil tree good fruit. Who believeth shall doubtless be
saved, for faith is the fruit of election, so that, ye apostles, ye may
have an indication of success. But who does not believe after
arriving at years of maturity for receiving your teaching is not elect;
he is an evil tree, so you may know among whom your labor is
fruitless. From all this we make two necessary inferences. First, that
we are sure of the salvation of those who show faith when they
reach that maturity that ought to show the fruit of election; if they
do not show this we are contrariwise sure of their rejection. Behold
how we recognize salvation or shipwreck by the faith alone of the
elect or rejected who have reached that maturity when we may
expect faith, the fruit of election. So that infants born to those who
are in the covenant and people of God we may not measure by the
norm and touch-stone of faith. Second, since those alone who have
heard and afterward either believe or remain in their unfaith are
subject to our judgment, we err gravely in judging the infant
children both of the Gentiles and of Christians. Of the Gentiles, for
no law condemns them, they do not fall under that saying: Who
believeth not, etc. Then since the election of God is unrestrained, it
is impious for
 244 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. us to exclude from that those
of whom we cannot judge from the signs of faith and unfaith
whether they are included or not. Of Christians, because we not only
assail rashly the election of God, but we do not even believe his
word, yet he by it has shown us their election. For when he includes
us under Abraham’s covenant this word makes us no less certain of
their election than of the old Hebrews’. For the statement that they
are in the covenant, testament and people of God assures us of their
election until the Lord announces something different of some one.
‘Therefore also that objection is stricken out: How then were we
sure of Esau’s election when the Lord says: Esau have I hated? For
we follow the law throughout. But if the Lord does something out of
the ordinary the law is not thereby abrogated. For privileges do not
make the law common. Though indeed it is my opinion that all
infants who are under the testament are doubtless of the elect by
the laws of the testament. And when it is said: Where then do you
put the infant Esau? Under the testament? But he was rejected. I
respond two ways: (1) All judgment of ours about others is
uncertain so far as we are concerned, but certain as regards God
and his law. Z. ¢., when it is said to an apostle: I believe in Jesus
Christ the Son of God, the apostle thinks him who says this of the
elect because of the certitude of the word. But they sometimes
deceive who thus confess, as did Simon Magus and the false
brethren who came in secretly to betray the liberty of the gospel.
But God himself is not deceived, nor does the law deceive, for God
knows the hearts and reins, z. e., the inmost parts, and the law, if all
is just and right, does also not deceive, but is eternal. Therefore we
ever judge according to the law, as has been said, and the law for
the sake of one or many may not be considered the less universal.
(2) The other reason is such as all may not receive, but to me it is
sure. All of those infants who are within the elect, who die, are elect.
And this is my reason, because when I find no unfaith in any one I
have no reason to condemn him ;
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 245 contrariwise, since I
have the indubitable word of promise: They shall come and sit down
with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I shall be impious if I
eject them from the company of the people of God. What then of
Esau if he had died as an infant? Would your judgment place him
among the elect? Yes. Then does election remain sure? It does. And
rejection remains also. But listen. If Esau had died an infant he
would doubtless have been of the elect. For if he had died then
there would have been the seal of election, for the Lord would not
have rejected him eternally. But since he lived and was of the non-
elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was
rejected by the Lord. All our error arises from this, that while we
hardly learn all even from the sequel we break in also upon
providence. ‘This disposes all, so that not only Esau, but not even a
root in the sea, not a weed in the garden or a gnat in the air, lives or
dies without it. But what kind of a vessel Esau was or why a gnat
has so sharp a sting * we can hardly learn from what is done by
them. Since then we learn from the dead mind of Esau that he was
rejected of God, in vain do we say: Would that he had died an
infant! He could not die whom divine Providence had created that he
might live, and live wickedly. You see then, O man, that almost all
our ignorance of Scripture arises from our ignorance of Providence.
But I return to my subject. Manifest then from all that precedes are
those two inferences. That those two sayings: Who believeth, etc.,
and Who believeth not, etc., are not a touch-stone by which we may
measure the salvation of infants, and that we condemn impiously
not only the true children of Christians, but those of Gentiles. They
alone are subject to our judgment of whom we have the word
according to which we can judge. I think I have also satisfied those
who say: If by election we come to God Christ is in vain. For this is
election, that whom the Lord has destined to eternal salvation before
the world was, he equally *** Tuba” means ‘‘ trumpet;’’ can he
mean the mosquito?
 246 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. predestinated, before the world
was, to be saved through his Son, as Paul teaches in Eph. i. 4. A
second pair of inferences also follows. First, they teach incautiously
who say that the baptism of infants can be tolerated through love,
unless they mean that by love all things are done among Christians,
and not by command and by force of law, just as Paul says: Owe no
one aught, but to love one another. But if they receive love in the
place of complaisance and indulgence, as when Paul through love
sheared his hair and undertook a vow (for he did this by indulgence
in which he spared the weak), now I think they err seriously who say
that through love infants should be baptized. For what do they mean
by this other than that now one may not omit for the sake of public
peace what some time must be omitted when it is permitted? Let
them therefore receive my opinion after considering the distinction
of love which I premise. Few ceremonies have been left us by Christ
—two or three, baptism, the eucharist and the laying on of hands.
The first belongs in general to all who are of Christ’s church. The
second to those only who can interrogate themselves upon their
certitude of faith. For the apostle says: Leta man prove himself. The
third only to a few, those who superintend the ministry of the word.
Now since these ceremonies have clear methods of performance
they are improperly said to be done of love when they are done of
precept, even though whatever God commands is most pleasing to
you because of your piety. So when it is said: Go and teach all
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit, there is here the form of law as much as in “ Let every male
be circumcised.’” What the law orders cannot be ascribed to
indulgence, but that is done of indulgence when at the celebration of
the eucharist certain weak ones are spared, and would be so done if
the habit of baptizing infants were being restored and certain weak
ones were spared from being compelled to baptize infants after the
custom and rite. This, I say, would be done of love.
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 247 The eucharist
therefore is not celebrated from love in this way, but it is stopped
out of love by many. So it would be with baptism. I warn you here,
dearest brethren, to weigh again and again my opinion, for some
seem to wish to cover up with their astuteness of words the mouth
of your simplicity. The second necessary inference of the second
pair. Whether the Catabaptists or others receive or not my opinion
on election, predestination, calling and faith—which assuredly is not
mine, but the apostle Paul’s, nay, that of God himself, if you estimate
carefully the providence of God—still baptism is not at all to be
denied infants on account of God’s election or reprobation, for
neither to Esau or any other who was rejected was circumcision
denied. So I regard the whole Catabaptist argument as now
overturned, and it is demonstrated that election is above baptism,
circumcision, faith and preaching. That the Apostles Baptized
Infants. In the foregoing I said that when Christ and the apostles
referred to Scripture, they referred to none other than that of the
law and the prophets. For not yet were the Gospels written or the
apostolic epistles collected. But in this I would not speak as if I
would take aught away from the canonical New Testament, since the
books of the Old Testament also were not written at one time, and
yet the authority of the later books is not less ; but I would show
that Catabaptist writers are in error in this, that they suppose the
apostles to have directed baptism in accordance with that writing
that was not yet written. Nay, they order to be omitted what is
verbally omitted in what was written afterward in accordance with
the figurative scheme of the Hebrew tongue, but what is affirmed by
the implications of speech. Meanwhile the thing itself warns
otherwise, and the men who wrote the New Testament testify that
they were not able to record all that Christ himself did and taught. I
have undertaken to prove a hard thing then, the Catabaptists think,
but it is easy if we give
 248 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. ear to the truth. I shall first
employ argument and then testimony. But the arguments I draw
from no source but Scripture itself, as follows: Every one knows how
sharp was the contest among believers about circumcision, which
contest is described in Acts xv.; some contended that those must be
circumcised who were not entered into Christ, others opposing. But
when there had arisen a great strife the delegates from Antioch, the
apostles, and the whole church guided by the divine Spirit decreed
that circumcision and all the externals of the law, a few exceptions
being made in concession to the weak, should be abrogated. Here
then I will ask the Catabaptists whether they believe the disciples
were less solicitous about administering the baptismal rite than
about circumcision? If they say that they were not solicitous, then
the piety of the parents which has regard for the children as well as
for themselves leads us to think otherwise. Since then a part were
anxious that circumcision should not be omitted, a part that they
might not confuse baptism, it appears that they were no less
anxious for their children than for themselves, especially since in the
beginning their infants had been circumcised. It cannot be then that
if the apostles were unwilling to baptize the children there would not
have arisen some disturbance. But nothing is said of this, so there
was no disturbance. So because of believers’ opinions children were
baptized, and for this reason there is no distinct mention of it. But if
they admit that parents were anxious about the baptism of their
children, then they conquered and baptized them, for baptism
conquered and remained when circumcision became antiquated. For
if consideration, strife and anxiety did arise, and yet the opinion of
those who thought they ought to be baptized did not conquer, then
circumcision would have been strengthened and baptism weakened.
And this argument pertains to conjectures and indications, yet it is
drawn from Scripture. II. But the second argument is insuperable,
gathered by comparison of Scripture. Circumcision was abrogated by
decree of
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 249 the church
gathered in the spirit. Infants were with their parents within the
church. If then, according to the Catabaptists’ opinion, those infants
or little children were not baptized, yet were circumcised, it follows
that by a decree of the church children of Christians were cast out of
the church and were remanded to the circumcision. For who is
circumcised becomes a debtor to the whole law. And there is no
reason why we should plead here that account must be taken of the
time. For the strife about circumcising believers arose at Antioch, not
at Jerusalem, where it is agreed that either circumcision or baptism
flourished. Ill. The third argument also is from conjecture—that we
should consider the race from which the first believers came. They
were of a race that so clung to externals that the apostles believed
even after the resurrection that Christ would rule corporeally. It is
not therefore likely that they left their children unbaptized. I leave
the rest to you, reader, for much can be educed from these bases.
IV. The fourth I have touched on in the foregoing, 7. e., that Paul in
1 Cor. x. 1-2 makes us and the Hebrews equal. All, he says, were
baptized, all ate the same spiritual bread, and since all their children
were baptized in the sea and the cloud they would not be equal if
our children were not baptized, as has been said. But here the
Catabaptists chatter out: If they ate the same spiritual bread,
therefore our children will also celebrate the eucharist. This has no
weight, for by synecdoche to each part its own property is
attributed. But since we have a precept for the celebration of the
eucharist: Let each man prove himself, and boys are not competent
for this, while they are for baptism and circumcision, it is clear that
with Paul infant baptism was in use, but not infant eucharist. Here
also is answered the objection they draw from Col. ii. 11, that
children cannot be circumcised with the circumcision not made with
hands nor lay aside the body of sin, therefore baptism did not come
in the place of 17
 250 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. ‘circumcision, since
circumcision is external and corporeal, but this is internal and
spiritual. For we learn here that Paul -attributed our externals to the
Hebrews, though they had the internals alone, but the externals not
in the same form but ‘differently. No one denies that they ate
spiritual bread just as ‘we, for they, like we, were saved through him
who was to come. But they did not carry around the bread and wine
in the supper, but used other externals in place of these, manna and
water from the rock. Do you see how by analogy he makes the
externals equivalents? The internals were the same, the externals
different. So he attributes to them that internal baptism, so that they
as well as we were cleansed through Christ ; external baptism he
expresses by the analogy of the sea and the cloud, but to us he
attributes internal circumcision, for we are under the same covenant
with them and are renewed by the same Spirit, and by it are
circumcised. That is, he is speaking by synecdoche in accordance
with the age of each class. But he found no other external than
baptism, for what cause would there be for making a comparison
analogically between baptism and circumcision, when without that
he could have spoken of the spirit being renewed, unless he had
wished in the same way to make equal the internals as well as the
externals, as he did in 1 Cor. x. 1? It must be therefore that Paul
entertained this opinion, that our circumcision is baptism; this he
would never have held unless he had seen at that time the children
of Christians baptized as he had formerly seen them circumcised. V.
Not only three, as above, but many families were baptized by the
apostles, in which it is more likely than not that there were infants.
This, too, pertains to probability, about which enough has been said
above. | Now we come to testimony. You will put together here,
good reader, whatever has been said of one and the same
testament, people and Saviour. And you will at the same time
consider here that in the apostles’ time no one used any Scripture
but the
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 251 Old Testament, nay,
Christ himself used no other, and what controversy arose about
baptism would have to be settled by its authority ; but since this not
even leads us to think anything but that baptism, the sign of the
covenant, must be given to infants equally with circumcision, there
could have been no hesitation with the apostles in approving the
baptism of infants. Origen on Romans, book v., thus testifies : “ The
church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism
even to infants.” * Augustine asserts the same in his book on the
baptism of infants dedicated to Marcellinus.t I do not adduce these
in this place to give them the authority of Scripture, but on account
of faith in history (for Origen flourished about 150 years after the
ascension of Christ), that we may not ignore the antiquity of infant
baptism, and at the same time that we may attain to certainty that
beyond all controversy the apostles baptized infants. So the
Catabaptists do nothing at all different from the false apostles in
former tmes, of whom Paul thus speaks: They order you to be
circumcised for this only, that they may glory in your flesh. So these
men glory in mobs and their seditious, or rather heretical, church.
For I assert truly that in our time no dogma, however unheard of,
can so rightly be called heresy as this sect’s, for they have separated
themselves from the churches of believers, they have rebaptized,
and have their own assemblages. Now I lay my hand to the
appendix. APPENDIX. Though I ever expend most liberally what little
talent the Lord has given me, I am compelled to restrain my hand in
the appendix, not out of niggardliness, but because you are already
wearied, good reader, of so great prolixity, and because I am * Book
v., chap. ix. t A treatise on the merits and forgiveness of sins, and on
the baptism of infants. Migne, x., col. 109 sqq. Eng. trans. Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, v., 15-200.
 252 ; ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. compelled to yield to the
importunity of the Fair that presses.* With the help of God then I
will refute the foolish, impious and absurd arguments advanced by
the Catabaptists, a few passages of Scripture being adduced, but
such as that whole crowd cannot resist. I. The Catabaptists teach
that the dead sleep, both body and soul, until the day of judgment,
because they do not know that “sleeping” is used by the Hebrews
for “ dying.’’ Then they do not consider that the soul is a spirit,
which, so far from being able to sleep or die, is nothing but the
animating principle of all that breathes, whether that gross and
sensation-possessing spirit that quickens and raises up the body, or
that celestial spirit that sojourns in the body. ‘That celestial spirit
then that we call soul the Greeks call entelecheia [z. e., actuality] ;
this is so lively, enduring, strong, tenacious and vigilant a substance
that its nature forbids the absence of action or existence. Its nature
is incessant action or motion. So that it can as little sleep as the light
or the sun can be an obscure body. Wherever you drive the sun it
glows and kindles, as Phaethon experienced.t So the soul, no matter
whither you drive it, animates, moves and impels, so that even when
united firmly to the body, which itself under its own inertia sleeps,
yet the soul sleeps not. For we recall what we have seen in sleep.
Much more when freed from the body is it incapable of sleep, since
it is a substance suited for continuous activity, incapable of
weariness. So the body sleeps, the soul never, but when it is freed
from the body this last sleeps the eternal night Finally the
Catabaptists are ignorant that by the Hebrews the -resurrection of
the dead is not always received of the supreme resurrection of the
flesh, which we shall some time see ; sometimes it means this,
sometimes that, continuance and existence of mind, * Allusion to
the Frankfort (on the Main) Autumnal Fair, which was the great book
mart at that time; the date of this treatise being July 31, 1527. + He
ventured to drive the chariot of the sun across the heavens, and
came so near the earth that he almost set it on fire!
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 253 by which, freed
from the body, it persists and exists in life, oppressed neither by
sleep nor death, for it cannot be so overcome.* In Josh. vii. 12 the
Lord says: The children of Israel could not stand (surgo) before their
enemies, and a little after [verse 13] : Thou canst not stand before
thy enemies. Here in both places to rise is put for to stand fast and
steady. For Jerome also translates “to stand.” In Matt. xxii. 31 Christ
says: Touching the resurrection of the dead have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying: I am the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God
of the dead, but of the living. By which reply he taught nothing else
but that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Jiving, though dead. Of
whom the Sadducees either denied the resurrection, z. e., living, or
at least, after Catabaptist fashion, asserted that they [the dead]
slept. For Christ’s reply referred not to the resurrection of the flesh,
but to the fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived, though dead.
So Paul speaks in Heb. xi. 35: But others were tortured (or
crucified), not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better
resurrection. Notice here how resurrection is used for the life of
souls, which they are to have when released from the body. In this
sense they so embraced the life that follows this that they would not
accept the present life even when it was offered. So firm was their
faith that they were sure the life that followed would be better.
Whence also the saying of Christ in John vi. 40: I will raise him up at
the last day, ought not to be distorted to any sense other than: “I
will preserve him in life when he dies who trusts in me.” So he either
implies * The theory here rejected is known as ‘‘ Psychopannychia,’’
the doctrine of the sleep of the soul. It received very elaborate
refutation from the youthful Calvin: Psychopannychia, qua refellitur
quorundam imperitorum error, qui animas post mortem usque ad
ultimum judicium dormire putant. Libellus ante septem annos
compositus, nunc tamen primum in lucem aeditus. Reprinted in
Calvini Opera, ed. Baum et al., v., col. 165-232; Eng. trans., Ca/vin’s
Tracts, vol. iii., 413-490.
 254 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. that they who trust him will
never die or will ever live most joyously. For that “last day ” here is
not so much that final day of all things of the present world as the
final day of each when he leaves this world. This is easily understood
from John v. 24: He cometh not into judgment, but hath passed
from death unto life. In ı Cor. xv. the apostle, speaking of the
resurrection, makes this which is understood as continuance or
persistence in life, so to speak superior, of which he speaks in
general, until he comes to the passage: How do the dead rise, or
with what body do they come? There finally he reaches the
discussion of that resurrection of the flesh which is to come at
length. Do you, reader, that you may see that I assert nothing
rashly, come to this passage, dismissing the rest. Notice how “From
man came death, and from man the resurrection from the dead, for
as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive,” pertains not only
to the resurrection of the flesh, but to that life which follows this at
once. For through Adam we die, but through Christ we are preserved
in life. For he says: He who believeth in me shall live even though he
die. Then consider what follows: Else what shall they do who are
baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then
baptized for the dead? You see the ancients had a custom of
baptizing themselves in behalf of the dead, not that this is approved
by Paul or us (it was a foolish thing which followed the faithful out of
unbelief even unto belief, for some things cling which perversely
have the appearance of piety, especially toward parents and
relatives). But the apostle acutely employed the foolish abuse of
bapitism—which in my judgment was nothing else than the
sprinkling with lustral water the graves of their dead, as some do to-
day—against those who denied that the soul lived after it left the
body until it was raised for judgment. And he thus catches them: If
then the soul sleeps, why do you, too, moisten with lustral water the
graves of the dead? What benefit do you do those who do not live,
but are either nothing or
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 255 asleep? You may
note here in passing, reader, that this argument is used partly in
behalf of infant baptism. For if they supposed that with baptismal or
lustral water they accomplished something for the dead, much less
would they refuse it to children. For they would do this according to
the Lord’s word, for that they would have no document. ‘Third,
consider this, which he adds: And why stand we in jeopardy every
hour? I die daily, etc. For this, too, tends hither. Paul means: If
either no life follows this, or a sleep more than Epimenidean,* I
should be foolish to undergo every danger daily. But it is very
different. Eternal life follows this immediately, for otherwise I would
not expose myself rashly to dangers of this kind. Fourth, he says:
Let us eat, etc., and even “ Perverse communications corrupt good
manners”’ points this way. For nothing equally corrupts manners
with teaching that the soul dies, or, as the Catabaptists. now
blaspheme, sleeps till the last day, and then they affirm that the
devil and all are saved. What penalty then awaits the faithless and
criminal? This corruption would not spread so widely if they only
denied that the flesh would live again. Fifth, consider this, too:
Eknepsate dikaiös, 7. e., be vigilant. These words reflect Paul’s
keenness. For when they, pressed in the sleep: of ignorance,
suppose (like the wolf which believes that all ant mals eat raw flesh
because it does so itself) that souls sleep, he says therefore wake
up. And when because of their keenness these little scholars seem to
themselves by no means to sleep, he rightly says wake up. For you
think that you are awake and have hit the nail on the head when
you are dreaming so somnolently about sleep. After this weigh
carefully the following, reader, and when you see that the apostle at
first is speaking in general about the life of the soul after this life,
and thence comes to the resurrection of the flesh, return to this and
you will see that the Catabaptists are oppressed not so much by
sleep as by evil, and teach whatever occurs to them. | * According
to the tale Epimenides slept fifty-seven years.
 256 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. II. The Catabaptists teach this,
too, that the devil and all impious will be blessed. Why then do they
threaten us with eternal damnation unless we join them? See how
consistent is their teaching! When we die we shall sleep till the last
day, then we shall be cleared in the judgment. So the lower world is
done away with, and Gehenna, and the inextinguishable fire, and
the flames which devour the tares gathered into bundles. But they
have learned that p9yy%, 7. e., the Hebrew word meaning forever,
does not mean interminable duration. Here they do just as they do
everywhere. When they have learned one thing, what they either
are ignorant of or will not see they turn aside and reject. Let them
therefore take Luke i. 33: He shall reign over the house of Jacob
forever. Is this forever used for some ages? Another witness is Matt.
xxv. 41: Depart from me, ye cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for
the devil and his angels. Tell me here, when will that fire have an
end if ezernal is always a definite time? How many ages, I ask, will
there be when this age shall be finished? So that you are able to say
how long that fire will endure before it is extinguished. But why do I
ask, as if you said anything but what is most vain! And so do you, O
reader, listen: In that last judgment, after which there shall be no
Other, after which there shall be no age but sheer eternity, Christ will
say: Depart hence from me into eternal fire. What end will that have
that can find no end? For if that “ eternal” were temporary, as it
cannot be, for then all time ceases, then the salvation of the blessed
would be temporary. But the foolish talk foolishness. III.
Catabaptists assume to themselves all, the office of preaching, and
of others who are legitimately set apart by Christian churches they
inquire, Who elected you? For they are not sent even by their evil
church. But here they do not regard Scripture. It has no force. We
do not read that any of the true apostles assumed to himself the
ministry of the word. So no one ought to assume it to himself. When
Paul asks: How shall
 REFUTATION OF BAPTIST TRICKS. 257 they preach unless
they are sent? let him hear, Catabaptists. By what authority, pray?
That of the father of lies and strife. IV. Wherever it suits, the
Catabaptists deny Scripture and assert their own spirit. But we know
that Scriptures are to be interpreted by the spirit, but not by that
contentious and rash spirit which the Catabaptists excite, rather by
the true, eternal, peaceful and self-consistent spirit. We know also
that Christ appealed to Scripture, who yet gave by sign and teaching
sufficient proof whether he spoke from God, so that neither a
Catabaptist nor any other should dare to demand credence for
himself when he speaks without Scripture authority. So that very
wonderful is the effrontery with which they dare to demand
Scripture proof for infant baptism, rather from non-Scripture. For
they have nothing by which they may trust in Scripture, but only a
negative basis alone when they say: We do not read that the
apostles baptized infants, therefore they should not be baptized.
They ward off all Scripture by the boss of an asserted spirit. Spurn
not prophecy, they say, and do not extinguish the spirit. Right
enough! But what is added? Prove all things. We shall then prove
the spirit, for the divine John warns not to trust every spirit, but to
prove them whether they are of God. You deny that Christ is by
nature the Son of God, the propitiation for the sins of all the world.
Your spirit is then not of God by John’s test. So we spurn your
prophecy no otherwise than as when Saul put himself into the
company of prophets. You extinguish the spirit by your rebaptism.
Why not, when it is so often submerged? For it is not that spirit
which at the foundation of the world brooded over the waters, but
that which hurled itself into swine with the great damage of the
neighbors, itself doubtless swimming out and leaving those amid the
swamps of Gennesaret who ought to have solaced the winter of the
poor. Attend to the allegory.
 258 ZWINGLI SELECTIONS. PERORATION. I doubt not,
most pious reader, that you have long missed in us that direction of
Paul: Bear with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity
of the spirit in the bond of peace. But for your missing it, we who
are on the side of true baptism are not in fault. For nothing grieves
us so much as their audacity. For though, as the apostle continues,
we are one body and one soul or spirit, in that we are called to one
and the same hope, they are unwilling to hear the apostle’s warning.
For secretly they have taught what is not right, doubtless not
knowing “ One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’’ So it is not strange
that they have left us, since they who do not see those things are
not of us. It is yours meanwhile to advance in the fear of the Lord,
and to guard yourself from the hypocrisy of evil men. Farewell, and
pray for the victory for truth. I turn to the “ Disputation at Baden,”
which everybody says has been distorted intentionally by the
printers, but which I have not yet had time to read, so that if it
requires refutation at my hands I may give it.* Be assured that all
this when it was printing was snatched from the jaws of the pen. *
Baden is a town only 12 miles northwest of Zurich, but such a centre
of the bitterest foes of Zwingli that he did not venture to go thither
to attend the Disputation. It was the Old Church’s reply to the Zurich
Disputation of 1523, and lasted from May 21st to June 18th, 1526.
The Acts were published at Luzern, May 18,1527.
 TRANSLATIONS AND REPRINTS FROM THE ORIGINAL
SOURCES OF EUROPEAN HISTORY. PUBLISHED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA. ORIGINAL SERIES. Vol. I., published in 1894. I Early
Reformation Period in England. Single No., 20 pages. Edited by
EDwARD P. CHEYNEY, A. M. Il. Urban and the Crusaders. Single No.,
24 pages, Edited by Dana CARLETON Munro, A. M. III. The
Restoration and the European Policy of Metternich. Single No., 24
pages. Edited by JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON, Ph. D. IV. Letters of
the Crusaders. Double No., 40 pages. Edited by DANA CARLETON
Munro, A. M. V. The French Revolution, 1789-1791. Double No., 32
pages. Edited by JAMES HARVEY ROBINSON Ph. D. VI. English
Constitutional Documents. Double No., 38 pages. Edited by EDwarD
P. CHEYNEY, A. M. Vol. II., published in 1895. I. English Towns and
Gilds. Double No., 36 pages. Edited by EDWARD P. CHEYNEY, A. M.
II. Napoleon and Europe. Double No., 32 pages. Edited by JAMES
HARVEY ROBINSON, Ph. D. III. Mediaeval Student. Single No., 20
pages. Edited by Dana CARLETON Munro, A. M. IV. Monastic Tales of
the XIII. Century. Single No., 20 pages. Edited by DANA CARLETON
Munro, A. M. V. England inthe Time of Wycliffe. Single No., zopages.
Edited by EDWARD P. CHEYNEY, A. M. VI. Period of the Early
Reformation in Germany. Double No., 32 pages. Edited by JAMES
HARVEY RoBINSON, Ph. D., and MERRICK WHITCOMB, Ph. D. VII.
Life of St. Columban, by the Monk Jonas. Double No., 36 pages.
Edited by DANA CARLETON MUNRO, A. M. Vol. III., published in
1896. I. The Fourth Crusade. Single No., 20 pages. Edited by Dana
CARLETON Munro, A. M. II. Statistical Documents of the Middle
Ages. Single No., 23 pages. Edited by ROLAND P. FALKNER, Ph. D.