touched on the practice but the essential nature of an oath you either do

touched on the practice but the essential nature of an oath you either do

that sitteth thereon? Some even dare say: If it is wrong to swear even when the Lord's name is used to support the truth, then Peter and Paul sinned, for they swore. To this we reply, 6, Peter and Paul only testify to this, that by God himself a promise was made to Abraham by an oath, but they themselves make no promises, as the examples clearly reveal. For testifying and swearing are entirely distinct. When an oath is taken something is promised for the future. 7. To Abraham when an old man Christ was promised, whom we received after a long interval. But when one testifies he testifies to something present, whether it is true and good or not. Just as Simeon said to Mary about Christ and testified: Lo, this one is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign to be spoken against. After this manner Christ taught us when he said: Let your speech be yea, yea, and nay, nay, for whatsoever is added to this is of evil. Christ warns us thus: Your speech ought to be yea, yea, that we may not understand him as permitting an oath. Christ is simply yea and nay. And all who seek him simply shall find him the Amen. Reply. So far you have discussed what you decided about the oath. I will then reply to each error in order by its number, to avoid eternal repetition of your remarks. 1. Who, pray, has given you this definition of an oath? You have indeed touched on the practice but the essential nature of an oath you either do not know or maliciously pass by. You tell only what an oath we use, but what it is or how taken you say nothing of. If you should tell this frankly, an oath would cause no great dread in men, but this would not suit your designs, for you wish to destroy the magistracy and the power of which it consists. Take away the oath and you have dissolved all order. The burgomaster summons a senator who does not obey. You say: Let him have the policeman arrest him. How will he obey? The burgomaster sees a Catabaptist inciting the people to rebellion, and, wishing to see that no evil befalls the state, he orders him not to teach in secret (for they who are on the side of the gospel in sincerity easily overcome him when he teaches openly). Or he forbids him to teach publicly or privately, and orders the Catabaptist to be arrested when he despises every order. But the policeman does not obey. Who will arrest [the Catabaptist]—the burgomaster?

But the other is stronger. You see, good reader, all order is overthrown when the oath is done away. Still, if the Scriptures required this, I would not oppose, for he by whose providence all is governed will never fail the house of Israel. But he wills not this confusion. Give up the oath in any state then according to the Catabaptists' desire, and at once the magistracy is removed and all things follow as they would have them. Good gods! What a confusion and upturning of everything! For no one is so destitute of all wisdom in an emergency as this class of men. They would have everything rectified by their shouts, just like that physician, or rather quack, who runs to his single cure-all for every sickness. But, to come to the point, an oath is an appeal to God in deciding or vouching for something. This is not our definition, but his through whom we swear. Ex. 22:10 thus commands: If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep, and it die or be hurt or driven away by robbers, no one seeing it, then shall an oath of the Lord be between them both, that he with whom it was left hath not put his hand to his neighbour's goods, and the owner of the beast shall accept the oath, and he with whom it was left shall not restore aught. Here you see an oath is an appeal to God, for it says: An oath of the Lord (or of God), for the word is Yahweh. But this appeal is nothing but a vowing of himself to the extreme punishment of the divine wrath if he is wrong. For since he calls as witness him, of whom alone he confesses himself to be a worshipper, and [of him] who can by no means be deceived, though man may, he bears witness under penalty of losing him whom alone he worships and who alone knows the hearts of men, that he is not deceiving and will not deceive. This authority of Exodus deals with the deciding [judicial] character of the oath. In Gen. 21:23 we have the words of Abimelech to Abraham, as follows: Therefore swear unto me by God that thou wilt not harm me nor my posterity, etc. And afterward Abraham says: I will swear; and again: There they both sware. Here again we have an attestation by God to do something. For Abraham swore to do no harm, which oath he kept. This, I say, is an oath when you define it. The Catabaptists call it a "decision," and omit the appeal to God, that the simple may not reason thus among themselves. How is it that God is not to be invoked when the safety of a neighbour is in danger? An oath is therefore a divine thing, a sacred anchor to which we flee when human wisdom can go no farther. For who knows what is in man except God

alone? He therefore betrays him who swears falsely by him. For a man is believed for the faith and religious trust which he has in God to have spoken [truly] and to be ready to fulfil. And it is through him that he deceives. For the benefit, then, of one's neighbour an oath is commanded by God. And since the whole law and the prophets hang upon these two commands: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy mind, and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, then the oath itself is an appeal to God, whom you uniquely love and serve, and is for the advantage of the neighbour. Who then will dare against all the authority of Scripture to deprive the people of God of the oath? God cannot be offended by an oath, for he is called as a witness, so that if we are not believed yet we may be believed, since we will on no account betray him. For all will be praised who shall swear by him. And the neighbour also will not be hurt, for the oath is given for his advantage, that he may either know that to be true which he did not know, or may be sure that what he deprecates will not be done by his neighbour or what he asks will be granted. So far from a devout man not being able to take an oath, he will be impious who refuses when a matter worthy this attestation demands. But the whole source of the error arises from their not seeing the opinion of Christ in Matt. 5:33; indeed they do not know the very words. For the German word "schworen," to which they suppose the Latin "jurare" is similar, has another signification than what they suppose. For when we say in German "Der schwort," i.e., he swears, it is uncertain whether a formal oath is referred to or whether one is just swearing off-hand. The signification of this word is twofold. The Latin "jurare" is always used in a good sense, i.e., for asking a sacred obligation. But "dejurare" is used for swearing, either truly or falsely, outside of sacred obligations, which we might translate into German by a new word, "zuschworen," equivalent to the Greek word. So the Latin has three words, "jurare," "dejurare" and "perjurare;" the first means a sacred obligation, the second to swear offhand to anything either falsely or truly, the third to swear falsely. Christ would not forbid us to swear ["jurare"], but to swear lightly or off-hand ["dejurare"]. But as these men do not, or will not, see this (I have often set it forth to them), they willingly and wittingly stumble. But to show this is the sense of Christ's words I will examine the words themselves, as follows: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou shalt not

"dejurare," or swear lightly. Our translation has it, "Thou shalt not commit perjury," which is not wholly bad. For the word "perjurare," though never used in a good sense, does not always indicate the violation or transgression or pretended fulfilment of an oath, but sometimes it means "dejurare," when "dejurare" is used in a bad sense. For "dejurare" is sometimes used in a good sense, as I have sometimes observed. While therefore the words of Christ are: It was said by them of old, Thou shalt not commit perjury, you will nowhere find among the Hebrews this interdict of perjury, nor among the Greeks. But you will find in Ex. 20:7: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God "temere," which our translator translates "in vain." You will find, Lev. 19:12: Ye shall not swear by my name falsely, i.e., Ye shalt not swear by my name to that which is wicked or false. The Latin translates: Non perjurabis in nomine meo. You see how elegantly the divine Jerome has used here the word perjurare for falsely "dejurare," not for violating an oath. It was therefore forbidden by them of old to take the name of God rashly, i.e., as it is expounded in the passage from Leviticus—not to swear to a falsehood. So in them this opinion rose out of this understanding—if the name of God were taken to that which was true no harm was done even though this was in ordinary and daily discourse, but that it was not permitted to apply it either as "adjurare" or "dejurare" to a light, vain, false, fictitious or lying matter. This opinion it was that Christ combated, thinking that they ought not "dejurare" either to the true or false in ordinary discourse; everything was to be said and done so truly that if one said Yea, the neighbour should know that what the other had said was true, or if he said Nay, the neighbour should know that for truth. About the official oath nothing is said here. For the passage runs: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. Where is this said? Why, where the discussion is not about perjury, but of "dejurare." There it was permitted to take the name of God in asseveration of the truth. There follows: Thou shalt pay thy vows. Whither does this point? If the discussion is of official oath, where then does the former passage, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, hold in this sense: Thou shalt not fail thy oath? It is clear therefore that he speaks about those oaths in which people undertook off-hand to do something, just as if he had said: All that thou hast sworn to do must be done correctly and lawfully, in order that by this he might deter from rash

vows and swearing, on the ground that there was danger that the Lord would require it if you undertook anything lightly. Then he follows with: But I say to you, swear not at all. But of what swearing does he speak? Why, of that which was lawful for the ancients when he wished to call upon the name of God for some matter true and important. For we ought not in a matter true and important adjure, dejure or promise anything of our own private authority. Here no mention occurs of the oath required by public authority. What follows establishes this. He says: Neither by heaven, for it is God's throne, nor by earth, for it is his footstool, nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, nor by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black. These examples show that Christ did not refer to the oath [required by magistrates]. For which of the Hebrews ever took [such] an oath by heaven, earth, Jerusalem or his head? On the other hand, who does not swear off-hand by these? One man promises something by the cross of Christ, another asseverates by heaven and earth. This then is what Christ forbade. To this he directs the wind-up of his whole discourse. Let your speech be such that yea means yea, and nay, nay. There you have it. He does not speak about our oath; he does not touch upon the forum or court or magistracy, but upon daily conversation in our familiar intercourse. Perhaps I seem to some to argue for this opinion tamely. But if they weigh as often as I have done the passages from Exodus 20 and Leviticus 19, in the Hebrew, the Greek and the Latin, I know they will think as I do. You see now whether enough can be said against the Catabaptists, since they have not considered the double sense of the word, but have made a misunderstanding the basis of their error. Nor is this a good reason for refusing to make oath, that we cannot change a hair, for if it were legitimate we might not reply with even a yea to our neighbour. I have answered yea to many who asked me whether I were going to lead an army against the Catabaptists, yet at no moment was I secure from him who knocks equally at all doors. Still I was right. Yet I was uncertain that I should live, much more write, but no one will accuse me of falsehood. A brother promises another to be on hand tomorrow. But because, taken down with fever, he does not come, he is not accused of falsehood, nor does any one blame him, for God gives him the excuse of necessity. So also when he is summoned to an enquiry by the magistrate under oath, his reply is not such that the power of

almighty God cannot rightly exempt him. For when Abraham swore to Abimelech himself, did he not swear to do something? Why then did he do it? Especially when the Catabaptists declare that he could not do anything, and assert that Christ meant that? Under the law, they say, it was permitted to make oath. But Abraham made this reply on oath 430 years before, and he was not under the law, but under faith. For the apostle makes him our father by faith. It is clear then that Christ spoke against that insanity under which many swear of their own motion so frivolously and promise something as of their own authority, or swear not to do what they could not avoid. They also call to witness for any sort of thing, not only the names of heaven and earth, but also of the living God, thus bringing contumely upon God to their own evil. When they seek to weaken that example of God swearing to Abraham himself, do they not weaken themselves? How often have they said in the foregoing that we are to do what we see that Christ did? But they add, this is possible to God—to do what he promised—but not to us. Must not the same be said of Christ? So I say: Christ could love his enemies, I cannot. So I must not. You see, good reader, that although they try and move many things, yet in all it is shown that they have laid the foundations of their error in some marked arrogance or malice or at least ignorance, as in this case. For in their persuasive discourse from the words: "For thou art not able to change one hair," they infer that by this Christ would take away the solemn obligation known as an oath. They reason from the less to the greater: If one may not swear by the throne, how much less by God himself who sitteth upon it? Not inaptly do they infer, if they speak of perjury or of swearing lightly. For if God forbids swearing lightly by his throne because it is his, how much less should we swear lightly by him? But if they speak of the obligation [of the oath], they infer wrongly that if we may not assume an obligation by his throne we may not by himself. An oath is not legitimately taken and as it ought to be, "any created thing," but "by God" himself. An oath is a religious matter; he who makes oath binds himself to the sum of religion; in religion the chief thing is adoration. Just as it would be illegitimate to infer: The throne is not to be adored, therefore God is not. So it is no less illegitimate: By the throne oath is not to be taken, therefore not by him who sits upon it. When they speak of the testimonies of Peter and Paul, they do not know

of what they chatter. They have not yet learned that the word "testify" is in most elegant use among the Hebrews for proclaiming a thing boldly and constantly. That one may give testimony is clear from 1 Tim. 5:19: Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses. I ask first whether the apostle speaks here of Christian witnesses or the unbelieving? If of the unbelieving, then every moment bishop and church are in danger. For the more holy and innocent one is, the more do the perfidious assail him; and Paul seems to have ill advised for the church and the bishop when he has given the unbelieving the opportunity to testify. But if he speaks of witnesses within the church, it results that a Christian may give testimony. My second question then is —were they who gave testimony sworn or not? If unsworn, again the bishop is in peril, for there are many false brethren, many who the more vigilantly the bishop watches, the more hostilely aim at his deposition. In short, it is the fact in human affairs that there are few whom you can believe unsworn; indeed they say that among the Romans in reality Cato was the only one whom they could believe without an oath. In fact it is not very likely that within the church witnesses were ever received without oath, for under the spirit and prudence that was powerful with them they easily saw that if men unsworn were accustomed to speak against the bishop, daily empty accusations and movements would be aroused against the bishop. If you had weighed this testimony a little more carefully, ye immersers not only of bodies, but of souls, you would not teach that an oath may not be taken. But what good do I hope from you? For whatever you assert you affirm willingly and wittingly against the Scripture. When an oath is taken, they say, something future is promised. But what is promised for the future when he with whom his neighbour's ass has been left swears that he has not put his hand to his neighbour's goods? See how learned and prudently you dispose your trifles. At first an oath was a decision only between litigants; now it is only a promise. What is this but babbling forth whatever comes into your head? When any one testifies, they say, he testifies regarding the present, whether it is true and good, just as Simeon testified: Lo, this one is placed for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, etc. What if the apostles testified regarding a past event—the crucified Christ—throughout the world? And ye shall be my witnesses, not only in Judea and Samaria, but to the ends of the

earth. The apostles testified therefore to a past event. Also Simeon testified to the future when he said that Christ was to be a sign to be spoken against. I myself now testify to you of the future, and faithful is the word, i.e., it is sure. I testify to you, whether you accept the monitor or not, that the time will come when they who are now led astray by you will recover their sight and will be aroused against you like shepherds against a wolf or a mad dog. Do not I also now testify? Why do you not insert in those laws of yours something of your sweet attestation? That you may not be ignorant of this, reader, listen to this: At Appenzell they use the following tricks: Some Catabaptist throws himself down just as though he were an epileptic; as long as he can he holds his breath and pretends to be in ecstasy. Those who have seen it say he presents a horrible appearance. Finally, like one waking up, he begins to testify about what he has heard and seen while in ecstasy. They have all seen especially that Zwingli is in error about catabaptism, and this opinion one pronounces gently and another violently. They saw that the day of judgment was at hand two years ago, and that catabaptism was a righteous and holy thing, and all that kind of foolishness. You must not suppose that these tricks are concocted by their common people; the leaders are the authors, as you may know from the following example: At S. Gall there was a Catabaptist girl of about 12 years or a little more. She was the daughter of a right thinking man, as they say. He was preparing one day to carry some provisions (he is a provider of grain) when his daughter warned him to remain at home, for he would see something wonderful. A little after she fell down in the way I described above. And when she was waking up she babbled out those empty ravings of theirs. You see how she knew when she was going to fall. Why did she not fall down at once when she saw her father leaving? Why, she had not been taught all she should say when coming to consciousness, nor been told of all that there was need of in accomplishing the affair. Every now and then they use these tricks still at Abtzell. And they call it an attestation, though it applies to things past and future, so that those vain seducers of old women cannot say that when any one testifies, it is of the present. Oh, how sweetly and gently do they arrange everything. Ye gods and goddesses above, below and in between, be propitious to them! They rightly tell us that Christ taught that our speech should be ever yea or nay, yet they do not seem clearly to understand it, or if they

understand they do not act upon it. For though in many places they have said yea, it has never been yea. When those leaders are banished against whom I write especially, and are asked for an oath, they will not take oath, but say that through the faith which they have in God they know they will never return, and yet having been seen returned, they say the Father led me back through his will. I know very well that it is the father of lies that brings them back; they pretend to know it is the heavenly Father. This is worth telling: When that George (whom they all call a second Paul) of the house of Jacob [Blaurock] was cudgelled with rods among us even to the infernal gate, and was asked by the senate's officer to take oath and lift his hands [in affirmation], at first he refused, as he had often done before and had persisted in doing. Indeed, he had always acted as if he would rather die than take an oath. The official of the senate then ordered him to lift his hands and make oath at once when put to the question, "or do you, policeman," said he, "lead him back to prison." But now, persuaded by rods, this George of the house of Jacob raised his hands to heaven and followed the magistrate in the reading of the oath. So here you have the question confronting you, Catabaptists, whether that Paul of yours did or did not transgress the law. The law forbids to swear; he swore, so he transgressed the law. Hence this knot: You would be separated from the world, from lies, from those who walk not according to the resurrection of Christ but in dead works. How then is it that you have not excommunicated that apostate? Your yea is not yea with you, nor your nay, nay, but the contrary. Your yea is nay, and your nay, yea. You follow neither Christ nor your ordinances. Be these things said about oaths which they would abrogate from human affairs only for the sake of sedition and tumult? For in promising to the untaught the liberty of the flesh, which neither Christ nor the apostles preached, they use these arts of rebaptising, separating and refusing an oath. Meanwhile they do not consider what Paul says, Heb. 6:16: An oath is confirmation and the end of all strife. In saying this it is clear that the divine apostle said not of those who are not within the church, "an oath among them confirms or decides everything," but of those who are not without the church. Among these therefore he declares that all is confirmed or decided by an oath. Nor do they consider, as I have warned them, what was said above about witnesses testifying about a bishop, nor this, that neither Christ nor the apostles ever taught that the statement

that every word stands or falls by the utterance of two or three witnesses had been made void, as is easily seen by Matt. 18:16 and Heb. 10:28. From these they might have learned that an oath was never abolished, although they had no word but: Render to Caesar what is Cesar's and to God what is his. So they are told to render to Caesar what is his. But they owe the oath. Therefore Christ orders it to be given. But before we leave this a warning ought to be given the tyrants of this world, who though they falsely boast in the name of Christ yet do all to beat down his gospel, that they must not suppose that by this defence of the oath, which I have furnished, an opportunity is given for finding a defence of their own cruelty, because nothing has been said thus far of the atrocity of abusing an oath. To give in brief the sum of my opinion, I myself do not think an oath ought to be demanded, or can be demanded, without disturbing conscience, except when either all human attestation fails or the safety of a neighbour is gravely imperilled, and then only in case that in no oath that we take is the name of God blasphemed. This opinion of mine you will easily extract from what has been said. I think that those trifles of the Catabaptists have been quite thoroughly refuted. Now I go to other matters.

PART THIRD. In this part I undertake to treat of two things—the covenant or

testament, and election, that it may stand firm. Here I shall show with sure testimony and argument that it was the custom of the apostles to baptise the infants of believers. On the covenant then I speak after the following fashion: Although the Architect of the universe created this great world that it might have man as a cultivator, yet before any colony was sent out to any part, nay, before the future colonists were born, the one hope of the whole race, the father of the human race, rebelled against his Maker. But God was too merciful to visit the betrayer according to the magnitude of his fault, and at the same time too just to pass so daring a deed unpunished. So whom he might have utterly destroyed he made wretched and full of misfortune. When he drove him from Paradise he did not forbid him to become a father, but simply that he should not be the father of so noble a race as would have been if he had not betrayed his trust. So then it came about, that such as the offspring was, it was disseminated, as the cultivator, in all the corners of the earth. But, however, it grew and multiplied, and became divided into the various races of men, yet divine Providence in a peculiar way designated one to be among all peoples as especially sacred, as if it were a venerable priesthood among all. Divine Providence selected this race for this purpose, that when it would clear the world's sin by the death of his Son, this Son should take a body in which he could die from this nation. And this nation he followed in all times with his great blessings, nay, he so cherished and preserved it in every crisis that by observation of this alone one might learn that God was about to accomplish through it something exceedingly wonderful. So that whenever it was reduced to fewness in numbers it suddenly sprang up anew; however it was afflicted, it was ever restored. Adam believed that the son born to him was he of whom God had said not long before that he should bruise the head of the devil; so also his mother said: ["Cain"] I have gotten a man from the Lord, i.e., have obtained or received the man whom God promised. When she had another son, she named him Abel, i.e., superfluous, not out of scornful pride, but of gratulation, because God had abundantly given what he had promised. As if she would say: That munificent God has done more than he promised. But in a short time she who had deemed herself more than happy in her sons was bereaved, for he who as the firstborn was the hope of his parents, arose and killed his brother, who merited and expected no such thing. So all fell out that

everything depended upon one; Abel was slain; Cain, the murderer, showed clearly by the working of his conscience that out of him should not arise the one who was to repair the fall of his parents. But God in his goodness succoured them in this calamity, and he sent them another son, as a branch from whom posterity should flourish. So his name was Seth, i.e., one placed or given, for the Hebrews often used the word to place or give in the sense "given of God." From him then posterity was derived up to Noah, who was the most just and unoffending of all in his times. And when the human race was borne along by its cupidity and violence, and by its boldness left nothing undone, he destroyed all in a flood, since they would not hear Noah, who had been sent by God. But Noah and his family alone were saved in the ark. The covenant was renewed with him, in whom the whole human race was renewed and spreading to all parts of the earth in order to its cultivation. Meanwhile God was not unmindful of his counsel, and so passing by all the rest, even the best of them, he embraced Abraham and selected him out of all for this purpose, that from him might come the posterity that would save not only the Jews, but the whole human race. With him then he renewed the covenant he had compacted with Adam, and made it clearer, for the nearer approached the time of his Son's advent, the more openly did he speak with them. Therefore he promised him first his own goodness, that he would be his God, and he required of him in return that he should excel, i.e., should walk before him in right doing. He then promised that he would give him that blessed seed that was to bruise the head of the old serpent and should raise to an unfailing hope of safety the head of man bowed down by the serpent. He promised also an innumerable posterity to be born to him not only after the flesh, but also according to the spirit. Finally he promised him Palestine. And as the sign of this covenant he ordered circumcision. And the stranger and sojourner so grew that they who had knowledge of the man could easily see that God was with him. And God did all that he had promised. And when his posterity had increased to an enormous multitude in Egypt, he selected not one tribe alone, nor one man, as before, with which or whom to keep the covenant he had made, but although Judah the son of Israel was designated as he from whom the Saviour should be born, yet the rest of the tribes which came of Abraham were not excluded from the covenant or from his friendship that he had given to their father Abraham. Just as he did not

change anything with those who afterwards were of Judah, yet not of the house of David, who was himself peculiarly marked out as the father of the coming Christ, all were regarded as under the covenant who had descended from Abraham. Now to return to the point. This, I say, is the Israelitic or Hebrew people whom the Lord marked out as his own peculiar people from all races and peoples, so that it should tower above all peoples, just as the colleges of priests stood forth prominent among that race and all races, as he testifies in his words in Ex. 19:5: Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenants, ye shall be my excellent people, i.e., my own peculiar and sought-out people of all peoples although the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be a kingdom consisting of priests to me and a holy race. Here then the Catabaptists have a medicine or plaster for their whole error, if they would suffer it to be applied. If ye will hear my voice and keep my covenant, he says. Here is God speaking synecdochically! For when he addresses the whole people: If ye hear my voice and keep my covenant, etc., which can be referred to those alone who hear and can have desire to keep the covenant, yet he no more excludes infants because they do not hear or understand what is to be kept than they who were bound in sleep or mentally. For they who are of one body are considered together. But since infants are of the people of God, they are not excluded because they cannot hear or understand. For that they are members of one and the same body of God's people is clear from this, that circumcision, the sign of the covenant, is given them. For God with his own mouth named both the covenant and the sign of the covenant, because he who was of the covenant was sealed with this sign. Paul in 1 Cor. 12:13 says: In one spirit we are all baptised into one body. But you Catabaptists yourselves argue that if one comes to the Lord's table, he must first through baptism have become of Christ's body. I do not say this because now or hereafter I wish to teach that circumcision or baptism introduces one into Christ, but that I may show that the circumcised or baptised are in the body of God's church, although I take no exception to the change of form: We are baptised into one body, instead of: We who are of one body are baptised in one baptism, for by nature being of the body precedes bearing the mark of the body. So also Paul says: In one spirit we were all baptised into one body. The grace of the spirit by which we are admitted into union with the church precedes

the sign of union. For no one is sealed unless he has first been enrolled in the army or service. I therefore am coming to this: If they who are baptised in one baptism have come into one body, doubtless they who were sealed with one circumcision, the sign of the covenant—they were also gathered into one body. Hebrew infants were sealed with circumcision, the sign of the covenant; they were therefore under the covenant. Since they were under the covenant, and God spoke with that body which was joined with him by the covenant, whether we will or not we are compelled to confess that the words: "If ye hear and keep" are a synecdoche by which infants are not excluded, even though certain things do not apply to them. I will give another example, to try if they can in any way be made to see the truth. Plutarch teaches in his book, "On the delay of the divine justice," that a people, a city or a tribe is one, even as a man is one. It therefore makes no difference if races, cities and peoples are not punished as soon as they transgress, for no one can escape the hand of the deity. So it follows that some people are punished many years afterwards when none are living of those who sinned. But this is just the same as if those who sinned themselves suffer punishment, for a tribe, a city or a people is one body or, as it were, one man. So consider it in this place that the children of Hebrews and of Christians are of the same body as their parents, and when it is said "Hear, O Israel"—and infants cannot hear—does not say that they are not of the people of God. For although to-day they cannot, yet some time they will act, hear and understand. And those are no less regarded by God himself as among the sons of God who are destined to this, if when he speaks to their elders they themselves do not understand. About which in the following, when we come to election. There follows "Ye shall be my own peculiar people, sought out." The Latin interpreter says: In peculium eritis mihi. Peter said an acquired people, or, according to the Hebrew scheme, one of acquisition. This is therefore the singular people of God, which he bore upon his shoulders, which he lifted above all peril, just as an eagle flies above all peril. By which metaphors the divine prophets mean this: This people was ever loved by the Lord above all peoples of the earth, was preserved and fostered, just as a father lifts his children upon his shoulders and bears them, or a hen gathers her chickens under her wings. But this is not to be so received as though the Hebrew infants were not of the people of God,

since they bore the sign of that body not without the order of him who was the author of the covenant. Of all peoples. By these words God secretly implies election. For God has not bound his own choice or the freedom of his will to any external or sign or deed. But in every nation he who fears God and does what is right is accepted and is pleasing to him. Acts 10:35. Whence from his selecting the Israelites out of all peoples it does not follow that no one not of that people was to be saved (for the election of God is ever free), but that for his Son's glory he would make that people wonderful above all and peculiarly loved. For the whole earth is mine, or, even though the whole earth is mine. This also refers to the privilege and glory of this people, and asserts election. For although all peoples of the whole earth are the Lord's, yet he selected Israel to be his part, possession and lot. Is. 19:25. Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel shall be my inheritance. And ye shall be my sacerdotal kingdom, or as I have interpreted it, Ye shall be to me a kingdom consisting of priests. For the Hebrew has kingdom of priests, though to avoid the ambiguity is the sense given rightly in the shape I adopt. Just as the ambassadors of Pyrrhus or some other prince said that the Roman senate was composed of kings because of the solemn dignity and majesty of the senators, so the whole Israelite kingdom is said to be a kingdom of priests or consisting of priests, both because of its system of ceremonies and the excellence of its law and its prophets, and because of the covenant and friendship which the Lord had with and for this state. Therefore the Israelitic people excelled all others on the earth, both in those matters which pertain to God and in those pertaining to nobility of race. For as they were all sprung from one, so from them sprung he who was made the only king and emperor of all nations. What greater nobility or what equal grace is discoverable? Was it not the greatest glory if one were sprung from that race, since God had cherished it above all others, had made it his own and made a covenant with it? And although all these matters are most noted throughout Scripture, and everywhere treated, yet Paul above all treats it in brief but clear words in Rom. 9:3: I could wish, he says, that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, who are my kinsmen after the flesh, who are Israelites, to

whom pertaineth the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service, the promises, whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh; who is above all God blessed for ever. See how he makes out the Israelites to be adopted as sons of God, even though very many of them had displeased the Lord. He says theirs is the glory, for what majesty is equal to theirs, that they are the people of God, sons of God, and that from them was born the Saviour of all? Theirs are the covenants also, for whatever the Lord has covenanted with the human race has been done through this people. Whose is the giving of the law, for the highest and best was not satisfied to enter into covenant or alliance with them without fortifying his people by divine and righteous laws. Theirs, too, was the service, for God showed them how worship could best be done, in righteousness, equity and innocence. But it is not to be believed that the service of animal sacrifice which he had pointed out to them displeased him, though it meant only discipline, circumspection and foreshadowing. He willed the discipline of this service among them that they might have rites by which they might less revolt to the service of idols than if such rites were absent. But he wished to indicate by animal victims that there would come some time a victim that would cleanse their souls. For he wished to accustom them by bodily victims to the idea of a victim for perfection and for their souls, that when they saw beasts commanded for the external purification of the flesh they might learn that a victim would come to purify their souls also. For they could all understand that God's care was first for the souls and then for the body. Theirs was the service, whether it represented the true service or was itself the true service, for from them was born he through whom all true worshippers and adorers should approach to God. The promises also were made to them alone; I say nothing about the sibyl's poems, whether they were produced among them or introduced. Still this people of God stood for this, that whatever good he wished to bestow upon the human race he gave or promised through this quasi priesthood. It was then the special people whose were the promises, even though he spoke also through sibyl prophetesses among the Gentiles, that we might recognize the liberty of his will and the authority of his election. But theirs are the fathers also, men filled with God, some of whom, though almost the whole world was living a bestial life (for where God is not worshipped what difference is there between man and beast?) and was

following its own raging affections, alone honoured God, believed his word and submitted themselves to his will. Others boldly announced the good things which through the in-breathing of the Holy Spirit they saw coming to the obedient and Godfearing, or the evil in store for the rebellious, impious and contumacious. These, I say, were the fathers, whom we call patriarchs and prophets, to whom the promises were made, and they came of the Israelites, the people of God. In short (for why should we use much testimony in so clear a matter?), I mean this: The Israelites were God's people with whom he entered into covenant, whom he made especially his own, to whom also he gave a sign of his covenant from the least to the greatest, because high and low were in covenant with him, were his people and were of his church. And when, in giving command or prohibition, he addresses that whole people, the infants are not excluded because they understand nothing of what is said or commanded, but he speaks synecdochically, so that so far from excluding that part which could receive nothing that came because of the times or its age he even includes it, just as when a person acts with a man he acts also with all the family and his posterity. So that he often addresses the whole people as one man: Hear, O Israel, and: Say to the house of Jacob, etc. Therefore the same covenant which he entered into with Israel he has in these latter days entered into with us, that we may be one people with them, one church, and may have also one covenant. I suppose that some will vainly cry out: See how that fellow would make Jews of us, though we have always been told of two peoples, two churches and two covenants. See Gen. 25:23 and Gal. 4:22. To which my answer is: Whenever there is held in Scripture that there are two distinct and diverse peoples, necessarily one of these is not the people of God. For both when the Jews were God's people and we who are Gentiles were not, and now when we who are Gentiles are God's people and the Jews are cut off, there is only one people of God, not two. In Gen. 25:23 we read: Two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels, it is not to be understood as though both were and would be his people at the same time. But Jacob he loved and Esau he hated before they struggled in her womb. Therefore ever one and the same people is that which cherishes the one true and only God, from whatsoever parents it was born. And again, they are diverse who follow a diverse cultus, though one and the

same birthpang produce them. When therefore he spoke of two peoples formerly, one was Jewish, the other Gentile. The Jew worshipped the high God, but the Gentile was impious. Now when we speak of the church of the Gentiles, it is the same now as that former one of the Jews, and the people of the Gentiles or the impious are [now] the people of Israel. For we are put in their place after they have been cut off, not in some place next them. But two covenants are spoken of, not that they are two diverse covenants, for this would necessitate not only two diverse peoples, but also two gods. Since some ancients did not see this, they taught that two diverse gods existed, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament; the one cruel, the other gentle and kind. So Paul indeed speaks of two testaments, but the one he calls a testament by a misuse of language, when he wishes them to be understood who, although they were under that one eternal covenant and testament, yet on account of the externals which they tenaciously retained betrayed the light and Christ himself. Paul therefore called the way of these a testament, not that it was a true testament, but by a copying or imitation of those who so named it. For this is the testament, that that God Almighty is ours, but we are his people. Now before Christ's coming there were many types, but these were not themselves a testament, but were foreshadowings of the light to come from the testament itself. They therefore who according to the gross nature of man held more tenaciously to foreshadowings than was right, preferred to lose the light rather than the foreshadowings, not unlike that madman who seriously complained that his friends laboured for his healing. After the manner of these then Paul said there were two testaments, one leading to servitude, the other to liberty. For some supposed that they should consider that salvation could be obtained by acts and ceremonies. Yet others saw that by mercy alone was approach to God through him who was to come. But this was the testament, that an appendix to the testament foreshadowing the one to come. So therefore Paul calls the appendix to the testament the testament. For the same testament, i.e., the same mercy of God promised to the world through his Son, saved Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, which saved also Peter, Paul, Ananias, Gamaliel and Stephen. Now let me adduce Scripture testimony, by which all becomes clear. In Matt. 8:11 Christ says: And I say unto you, many shall come from the

east and west and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. In these words it is disclosed to us with whom we shall be united—with those whose are the promises, the testament, the covenant, the fathers, prophets, all things, as all things are ours through Christ. It follows therefore that there is one church of them and us. This way tends that most luminous parable of the master who summoned workmen to cultivate his vineyard, some of whom came early, some seasonably, others after almost the whole day 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, i.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, i.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 8:56 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 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. 11 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. 2:11 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 atheoi, i.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 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, i.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. 12:22: 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, i.e., 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 2:36 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] 3:25 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. Rom. 1:16. Afterwards in Acts 10:34 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 11:18, 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. 2:9: 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. 19:[5, 6]. Also the same royal priesthood which is now of all nations, which also belong to God (for the whole earth is his), and which the Lord holds in honour 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 as parents do—a people sought and obtained by the blood of Christ. Which people was not a people once (for he alludes to Hos. 1:9), 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, i.e., recent, or of an uncertain wisdom that mends in time what 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 today we are saved through him. But so far as human infirmity is concerned, many things came to them in a 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 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 clearly, 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. 3:7: "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 therefore 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 baptised, and on the eighth day only. For these constituents have 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 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. 5:7-8; 10:18, and Col. 2:11, 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, i.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 accursed 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 briefly is the argument and sum of election as treated by Paul. He says therefore, Rom. 8:28: 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 the 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 to be called is here for to 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 9:11 we see when he says: That the purpose of God according to election may stand. His

purpose is therefore above election, i.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 it 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, i.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 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 honoured 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 that is best known to us. For each one questions and examines conscience according to Peter's word. If it rightly replies, i.e., 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. 9:11-13, 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 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 equally 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 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, i.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 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 labour 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 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. E. g., 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, i.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; 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 predestinated, before the world was, to be saved through his Son, as Paul teaches in Eph. 1:4. 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 baptised. 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: Let a 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, baptising 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 baptising infants were being restored and certain weak ones were spared from being compelled to baptise infants after the custom and rite. This, I say, would be done of love. 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 BAPTISED 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 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: I. Every one knows how sharp was the contest among believers about circumcision, which contest is described in Acts 15; 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 baptise 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 baptised, 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 baptised 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 baptised 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 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 baptised, 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. III. 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 unbaptised. 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, i.e., that Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-2 makes us and the Hebrews equal. All, he says, were baptised, all ate the same spiritual bread, and since all their children were baptised in the sea and the cloud they would not be equal if our children were not baptised, 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. 2:11, 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 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. 10:1? 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 baptised as he had formerly seen them circumcised. V. Not only three, as above, but many families were baptised 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 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. 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 baptised infants. So the Catabaptists do nothing at all different from the false apostles in former times, 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 rebaptised, 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 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 [i.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. 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, 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. 7:12 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. 22:31 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 living, though dead. Of whom the Sadducees either denied the resurrection, i.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. 11:35: 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 6:40: 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 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 5:24: He cometh not into judgment, but hath passed from death unto life. In 1 Cor. 15 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 baptised for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptised for the dead? You see the ancients had a custom of baptising 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 baptism—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 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 dikaios, i.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 animals 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. 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 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 1:33: He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever. Is this forever used for some ages? Another witness is Matt. 25:41: 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 eternal 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 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 baptised infants, therefore they should not be baptised. 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 neighbours, 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.

PERORATION. I doubt not, most pious reader, that you have long missed in us that direction of Paul: Bear with one another in love, endeavouring 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 lion.

↑ Back to top